113 Comments

• Carroll09 | Aug 16, 2010, 05:28 AM EDT

  And may my God go with you too!! :-)

• seanomelbourne | Aug 15, 2010, 08:27 PM EDT

  We probably have Carroll09 (my mother's maiden name) may your God go with you.

• Carroll09 | Aug 15, 2010, 04:18 PM EDT

  Not "disconcerted" in the least, thank you. You clearly do not know the Catechism verbatim, since you claimed only a few days ago that the Church has "dropped" Purgatory (Though if you need to revise, it's available free on the Vatican website ...Anyway, as I said in one of my very earliest posts to you, I will defend to the death your right to hold different beliefs to me, but what I have never accepted is your branding of people with religious belief as closed-minded or having a limited capacity of free-thought...Anyway, I guess that's yesterday's news - or last month's news to be exact...I wonder have we set a record for the longest-running discussion on I.C.?!?!

• seanomelbourne | Aug 14, 2010, 04:49 AM EDT

  correction by "rote". I can assure you I am capable of discussion without emotional attachment.I will let you know when I am upset, you appear to be at least somewhat "disconcerted". I have remained dignified throughout our discourses and although I do not agree with your stance I do respect your right to debate them to the best of your ability.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 14, 2010, 04:39 AM EDT

  I know the catechism verbatim you forget I was once a practicing Catholic,a not so subtle way of brainwashing children. Reading the questions and answer on a daily basis no different than reading the Quran or the Torah by tote.

• Carroll09 | Aug 14, 2010, 04:09 AM EDT

  I have consistently responded to your points; you have merely scoffed at them and moved on to something else. Don't forget to add the Catechism of the Catholic Church to your reading list before you comment on the teachings of the Church again. By the way, don't presume that you've upset me...on the contrary, I believe it is I who have touched a raw nerve with you.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 13, 2010, 06:18 PM EDT

  I am sorry if I upset you but I think you are totally missing my point or you do not wish to comment thereon. I am tired of spelling out the "bleeding obvious " I think I'll re-read Diderot and get some sanity back in my life.

• barneyjo | Aug 13, 2010, 07:27 AM EDT

  Isnt that what it all boils down to; "FAITH" the Christian message in which we can choose to believe in (or not) The Catholic Church, like any other entity has evolved a method of Governance through the ages. And its members can choose to abide by that method. However, they are not bound to do so in all respects. By the power of our own free will we can choose not to abide by this method of Governance. You, choose not to; I know I no longer consider myself exclusively bound by the rules of an earth-bound institution which has in so many respects departed from the Message of the Gospel in terms of how we should treat each other. "Happy are those who have not seen, but yet still believe"!!Nuff said

• Carroll09 | Aug 12, 2010, 07:02 PM EDT

  Seanomelbourne - what claims have I falsely attributed to Jesus?? I wrote earlier in this discussion of your atheistic beliefs and my beliefs, making my opinions quite clear - I have no intention of repeating myself now. You on the other hand have made false claims throughout this discussion about what I have said, which I have answered and corrected you on and you have not had the decency to acknowledge these responses in a dignified or coherent manner.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 12, 2010, 06:47 PM EDT

  Barneyjo, Carroll09 ignores the fact that mere mortals create canon law he also makes claims falsely attributed to Jesus. Any written word we have were written and interpreted by us mere mortals and that is a fact.

• barneyjo | Aug 12, 2010, 07:14 AM EDT

  But there are double standards applied whereby my cousin here in Ireland who was recently ordained as a Priest, had to agree to a vow of celebacy in order to be ordained and the now Catholic Priest in my Sister's Parish does not. My understanding ot the word Catholic is to mean "Universal". I keep coming back to a point I have made many times; " A House divided against itself will not stand" Such inequities in my view are not of God. They are of humanity and created as a means to an end.

• Carroll09 | Aug 12, 2010, 05:13 AM EDT

  What do you mean about the Assumption, Seanomelbourne? It comes to mind for what? The Church has never invented new beliefs which weren't taught by Christ and the Apostles; however, misunderstandings and obscurities concerning this "deposit of faith" have been cleared up - the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 by Pope Pius XII is one example. It wasn't a new belief- his statement was merely clarifying the ancient Catholic teaching. Dogmas are generally only defined when they need to be: transubstantiation is one example where the Church has always held a doctrine, but it is explained more fully at a later stage if there is confusion or questioning of what the Church has taught. So, sorry to dissapoint you, but there are no double standards in terms of dogma.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 11, 2010, 08:37 PM EDT

  What's the double standard you speak of? The roman church has certainly changed dogma (or reinforced) dogma when it suits them. The councils of Whitby,Nicaea and Trent come to mind or papal bulls released by popes. "The Assumption"comes to mind. How will you feel when the church eventually allows priest to marry which (in my opinion) is a fait accompli and in your opinion should not change. The church has no problem "re-modeling" dogma as it sees fit and God has no say in it.

• Carroll09 | Aug 11, 2010, 12:50 PM EDT

  Barneyjo- I don't know what the story is with Anglican ministers who convert and are ordained in the Catholic Church...There are, as you have pointed out, restrictions for married priests in other rites in communion with the Holy See such as the impossibility of them being ordained as bishops; they also are not allowed to remarry if their wife dies. As for it being a case of double standards - I don't think so...it might be if Rome was saying that married priests in the Roman Rite is impossible or that the present rule cannot change. However, the discipline of celibacy for Roman Rite priests could change - I don't necessarily think it should change & it certainly wouldn't be the solution to our problems. There would be double-standards if the Church was claiming that such an issue was a matter of faith & morals - an dogma perhaps - in that case it would be unCatholic (i.e. un-universal) if rites were teaching different things on the nature of the Eucharist or the fundamental form of the sacraments, for example.

• barneyjo | Aug 11, 2010, 11:36 AM EDT

  I am given to understand that there are several East European Coptic Churches that recognise the Bishop of Rome as the Titular Head of their respective Faiths; the Bishop of Rome being the Pope of course. Within these Churches, Priests are free to Marry. Celibacy is only a factor as it rules out any possibility of Priests within these Churches who are married ever being ordained as Bishops. I was present at a concelebrated Mass where a Priest from one of the Churches I have described participated fully in the mass, the Consecration etc. I learned later that this Priest was married with a "large" family. If this is the case, then this is surely a case of Double Standards. Add to that that in my Sisters Parish in England, her new Curate was formerly a Priest of the Church of England who is married with a young family, and I believe his wife is currently pregnant. Or is this too naieve a view?

• Carroll09 | Aug 10, 2010, 05:12 AM EDT

  The Catholic Church has most certainly NOT dropped Purgatory - look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you care to find out what the Church actually teaches: it's freely available on the Vatican website. It is no secret that there were married priests in the early Church. As a matter of fact, there are several Catholic rites today in full communion with Rome which have married priests. However, even in the early Church, priests who were married (such as Saints Peter & Paul) promised to live celibately. The current laws on celibacy were already taking shape by the end of the 3rd century at the Council of Elvira (295-302)- it didn't mean that married men couldn't be ordained, but rather that after ordination they had to be celibate. So you ought to separate the requirement for celibacy and the requirement for priests in the Latin Rite to be unmarried. Also, celibacy is not something that is imposed or forced by the Church; it is required, yes, but the choice is freely taken by the candidate after several years discerning whether or not he can live celibately.

• Carroll09 | Aug 09, 2010, 03:45 PM EDT

  The Catholic Church has most certainly NOT dropped Purgatory - look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you care to find out what the Church actually teaches: it's freely available on the Vatican website, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2N.HTM. It is no secret that there were married priests in the early Church. As a matter of fact, there are several Catholic rites in full communion with Rome which have married priests. However, even in the early Church, priests who were married (such as Saints Peter & Paul) promised to live celibately. The current laws on celibacy were already taking shape by the end of the 3rd century at the Council of Elvira (295-302)- it didn't mean that married men couldn't be ordained, but rather that after ordination they had to be celibate. So you ought to separate the requirement for celibacy and the requirement for priests in the Latin Rite to be unmarried. Also, celibacy is not something that is imposed by the Church; it is required, yes, but the choice is freely taken by the candidate after several years discerning whether or not he can live celibately.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 08, 2010, 08:13 PM EDT

  The catholic church has dropped purgatory and I notice you skipped over the ancient "Christian" church having married priests as they certainly did in Ireland up to the 12th century when the pope sent in a British king to "romanize" the church in Ireland. It's all about power.

• Carroll09 | Aug 08, 2010, 04:33 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne- your ignorance of ecclesial history is staggering. If you were to take the time to examine some peculiarly Catholic doctrines - such as the Eucharist, purgatory, women "priests", Confession to a priest - you will see that they have been taught since the earliest days of the Church. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church is much more in line with the early Church than any Protestant Church, one fundamental reason for this being that Protestants reject any Apostolic teaching outside of the Bible, i.e. the many teachings which were not written down initially. On what authority do you judge what Jesus did and did not say on various topics- the Bible even says itself that Jesus did and said much more than could ever be written down.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 08, 2010, 12:46 AM EDT

  To say that Jesus set down "edicts" on married priests,female priest,the resurrection,the virgin birth is historically hogwash.The ancient "christian church" did have married priests as far as the other tenets mentioned they are the figment of some males imagination. The catholic church has very little in common to the ancient christian church ,or should we name it the ancient paulian church as Jesus had very little (if anything) to do with it.

• Carroll09 | Aug 04, 2010, 04:15 AM EDT

  My point in this argument has never to prove to you that God exists- no argument that I can give will give you faith to believe in God: He can do that Himself in time. However, I have never made any secret of the fact that I am a Catholic, and as such believe that Christ is the Son of God, and that He appointed certain people and their successors to teach His Truth always. In fact, whether you believe in God or not, if you look into history you will find that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church which can claim to come right from Christ Himself. So, in answer to your question, yes, Christ showed His followers 2,000 years ago the model He wanted for the priesthood. Can you post a link to the Church's "edict" please - I haven't read it yet...it's certainly not a get out clause anyway: what the Church, I expect, is saying is that if one chooses to believe in extra-terrestrials, it is not contrary to the faith to do so.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 04, 2010, 12:23 AM EDT

  When one is found guilty under civil law they usually go to jail or punitively punished in some other way. Same laws for all people.Some religious states (Sharia or Jewish) for instance mete out punitive punishments if you break their non-secular laws. R.C. canon law thankfully stopped this practice. The only reason they acquiesced was because of free thinkers like us atheist rebelled against forced religious education,therefore setting up secular states with free thought that you enjoy ,and all they are left with is excommunication. Has your God informed you yet of his position in regards to women priests or are you blindly going to follow the edicts of some men playing God so they can convince you he exists. I just read that the Catholic church has issued an edict(2008)saying it's ok to believe in extra terrestrials. Is this some form of "get out" clause "To be sure" "To be sure" "To be sure" i

• Carroll09 | Aug 02, 2010, 06:10 AM EDT

  Well, you were the one who made the claim about not having used certain words...so I'm not the one in the wrong on that score for having corrected you. It is not in the least disingenuous to say that women who claim to have been ordained priests in the Catholic Church have rejected the Church's teachings- it is a fact, plain to see. Indeed you are the one who is nitpicking when you claim that it is reprehensible to place female "priests" in the same sentence as abusers - I explained in my very first post on this article that the the Vatican document is not equating female "ordination" to sexual abuse. Any act which cuts one off from unity with the Church carries the penalty of excommunication. Both actions go deliberately against the teachings of the Church, and as such, the persons involved are willingly and knowingly cutting themselves off from the Church, which IS EXACTLY WHAT EXCOMMUNICATION IS. It is a penalty which can have a bearing on one's spiritual welfare - however it is only one penalty, and crimes in civil law, such as abuse, must be dealt with in civil law.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 01, 2010, 07:48 PM EDT

  Nitpicking would be a better choice of word.When your God informs me that women cannot be priests I will stand corrected until then there is no logical reason why they cannot other than a patriarchal power base. To say they have rejected the teachings of the church is disingenuous, and denigrating them in the same sentence as male priest pedophiles is reprehensible. Thank "God I'm an atheist"

• Carroll09 | Aug 01, 2010, 04:22 AM EDT

  July 27,2010, 07:16 PM EDT- "when you accept a particular dogma above another". Not that I'm one to be overly pedantic, but you did use the word "dogma"...Anyway, no - I am not saying much ado about nothing, so please don't be putting words in my mouth as if I have relaxed the argument I have been making for the past number of days. What I am saying is that you are obviously not comfortable having the word "dogma" applied to your set of beliefs and therefore there are several other words which one could use in its place. You see, I am not actually stifled by the beliefs of the Catholic Church - I am free to go to another ecclesial community (or none, indeed) if I wish that has different moral standards. In so doing I would no longer be Catholic, just as if you were to abandon a core principle of atheism you are no longer an atheist; females "ordained" as Catholic priests have rejected the teachings of the Church and are no longer Catholic, as are priests who have abused children.

• seanomelbourne | Aug 01, 2010, 02:37 AM EDT

  (actually I didn't)I'm glad you agree that "dogma" is an emotionally charged word. We are all bound by a "core set of beliefs". What you are saying is "much ado about nothing". You are stifled by a set of beliefs that you cannot stray from,they are the strictures of your R.C.church. I however can accept my tenets from a " broader Church" for want of a better phrase.

• Carroll09 | Jul 30, 2010, 04:54 AM EDT

  So you didn't use the words "dogma" or "morally" in your last 2 replies (actually you did) - so what? Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary says the definition of "dogma" is: "A principle, tenet, or system of these, esp. as laid down by the authority of a Church" - especially as laid down by a Church, but not necessarily. A thesaurus will give words such as doctrine, precept, creed, philosophy...The point is, you can use a variety of words - the word "dogma" obviously makes you uncomfortable. However, the point I have been making for several days now remains, namely that you are bound to a core set of beliefs to at least the same extent that you claim that I and those who believe in God are. Besides all of that, I couldn't possibly 'use the words "dogma" and "morally" in a very loose fashion' - surely I am too closed-minded to do such a thing; your summation, not mine, of course. Calling things as they are is not the same as being emotionally charged over a particular item; on the contrary, you have such an aversion to the word "dogma" being applied in any way to your fixed set of beliefs that I would suggest that it is too emotionally charged for YOU.

• seanomelbourne | Jul 29, 2010, 07:52 PM EDT

  You use the words "dogma" and "morally" in a very loose fashion. You may have noticed I have not used either word in the last 2 replies. They are to emotionally charged for you.

• Carroll09 | Jul 29, 2010, 05:41 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne- If free thought "trumps doctrine any day", then (as I asked earlier) why do you allow yourself to be bound so tightly to the most fundamental atheistic dogmas - that there is no God, and not only that, but you cannot even open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that there may be a God. To do so, would be to reject a fundamental and core belief of atheism and hence you would no longer be an atheist - which of course is a concept which can be related to the original story of female "priests" or anyone who rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church: they are no longer Catholic, by their own choosing. You have a belief system just as much as anyone else- only you believe in the ABSENCE of a God, I and others believe in the PRESENCE of a God. You are just as shackled to your beliefs as you claim I am to mine.

• seanomelbourne | Jul 28, 2010, 11:09 PM EDT

  I'm not lecturing anybody on doctrine quite the opposite in fact. Free thought trumps doctrine any day. You can believe what you wish but you must ensure you live up your catholic laws and principals. Your last line is noted my son.

• ritmomente | Jul 28, 2010, 12:55 PM EDT

  Seanmelbourne, Carrol is right. There are many, many imitators, but the Catholic Church is the original. But yet again, we have an athiest lecturing us Christians on doctrine. I pray that you seanmelbourne wake up and realize that there is but one true God and you are not him.

• seanomelbourne | Jul 27, 2010, 07:16 PM EDT

  I am not the "moral police" who are you or to decide what is right or wrong.Maybe you should reintroduce the inquisition or witch trials. although most religions are a little more subtle these days "you will believe or else".Excommunication and other means are used to silence critics."I do not care for any of your religions" is just a turn of phrase "I do not care to wear female clothing" it's a turn of phrase. Do not read into a passage what is convenient to you,stick to the core argument. To say atheism is a form of religion or cult is ridiculous. Your inability to understand that juxtapositions can be correct is narrow mindedness. You are entitled to believe what you wish but you close your mind when you accept a particular dogma above another. I'm done here Carroll09 have a prosperous life.

• Carroll09 | Jul 26, 2010, 10:10 AM EDT

  My point,and well you know it,was not to point out whether or not "civilised society" will tolerate murder.It was about you and your moral code of having personal beliefs which you will bind yourself to- for example,that abortion is wrong- but you feel that a woman still has the right to choose.So how do you decide what actions are objectively good? Well?? On the one hand there is a moral law (against abortion) which you choose to abide by, but others shouldn't be bound to, and a moral law (against murder) that not only you but all of society should be bound to. So if civilised society will not tolerate murder,yet a supposedly civilised society will tolerate another form of murder- abortion- even though Seanomelbourne personally thinks it's wrong, I wonder from where you derive your moral standards,or how you can even label society as "civilised".You don't agree with my referring to an "atheistic church"- well you are part of a group which has a core belief that God doesn't exist: that is an unquestionable dogma of your "faith"; perhaps a "cult" would be a better way to describe atheism, given your extreme stance which doesn't allow you to contemplate the existence of God or respect other belief systems- need I quote again your previous remarks:"I do not care for any of your religions"? Why? Because yours is the only true belief system? Didn't you call me closed-minded before for saying that?

• seanomelbourne | Jul 25, 2010, 07:57 PM EDT

  I must consult the "atheistic church" hierarchy for leadership. Sorry cannot find them. If you cannot understand that juxtapositions can be correct you are obviously bound to a particular set of beliefs. Your attempt to pigeon hole atheism as a form of "religious belief" is a "cop out". Civilised society will not tolerate murder what is there to discuss on this point, Just accept it was a bad analogy and move on.

• Carroll09 | Jul 25, 2010, 11:12 AM EDT

  It is you,yourself,Seanomelbourne,who miss the point:you have accused me and others with religious beliefs as being "shackled" to the laws of that belief systems,yet you are,apparently,blind to the fact that you are also bound to certain beliefs by virtue of your atheism.Using the example of murder is only a bad analogy as it does not suit you to discuss the morality of the situation.As I said,you believe personally that abortion is wrong (that,it seems,was an acceptable example to use)-yet,you cannot possibly believe that abortion is an objectively immoral act if you don't believe that all should be held to the moral law where actions cannot be both positive and negative.The example of murder is no different-how do you decide who should be held to your moral standards and when?Also,after you having branded me as "closed-minded" on several occasions,calling me arrogant for claiming that the Catholic Church is the one true Church,you said to 2BorNot2B: "I do not care for any of your religions".A case of the pot calling the kettle black methinks- you are actually claiming that the only true "Church" is Atheism.

• seanomelbourne | Jul 25, 2010, 12:18 AM EDT

  Carroll09 I believe you miss the point but enough said. Now to your last few words!! To compare a murderer with any of the tenets we have been discussing is a bad analogy bordering on the "facetious" you disappoint me. Because you are a catholic and a "defender of the faith" you my acknowledge other beliefs but you are morally bound. you are not free to enjoy the beliefs of others It's a state of mind you may wish for but deep down your shackled to Catholicism.

• jacersisityourself | Jul 24, 2010, 06:22 PM EDT

  For some odd reason my efforts to post and contribute to this excellent debate have not made it online. Maybe it was the Holy Spirit’s intervention? But I would hope this one does... Jesus Christ made it very, very clear: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Christ spoke these words in reply to Thomas (the Doubter) when Thomas asked Him “... we don’t know where you’re going, so how can we know the way?” It’s interesting that Jesus says “comes”, not “goes”, thereby intimating His unity with God. All who reject the teachings of the Catholic Church do so of their own choice and, sadly, at peril of losing the greatest joy of all. Thomas nearly did. I visited St. Thomas’ relics in the church in Ortona, Italy, last September. I felt I was as equally humbled as Thomas was to be in the presence of Thomas’ remains alone. So, if we are to accept what Jesus preaches and live by His examples, we must desist from assuming we know better. We don’t. Instead, we accept. We surrender to Christ’s love for everyone in this debate - believers and non-believers - and are not one bit sorry to do so. As one wise woman said to me one day “Treat every man you meet as if meeting Jesus Christ; treat every woman you meet as if meeting the Virgin Mary, Mother of God”. It works for me.

• Carroll09 | Jul 24, 2010, 07:14 AM EDT

  And I see,Seanomelbourne,that you feel that you can misquote me and then merely move onto another charge against me.You have had the audacity on several occasions to infer that I and others with religious beliefs are closed-minded,yet you apparently fail to see how you are so strictly governed by your own atheistic beliefs-not only can you not contemplate the POSSIBILITY of the existence of God as an atheist,but you arrogantly declare as fact that there is no God.That,to me,is an extremely closed-minded belief system.Not to mention the moral relativism which obviously comes with your beliefs-you believe that abortion is wrong but you support the woman's right to choose.So there is a moral law,where actions cannot be at the same time right and wrong,yet this moral law cannot be objectively good if you don't believe that all should be held to what is morally right.If you personally believe that murder is wrong,do you still defend the right of a mass-murderer to go on a killing-spree?After all,it's their right to choose,just as it is the right of a pregnant woman to choose, right?

• seanomelbourne | Jul 23, 2010, 07:25 PM EDT

  Carroll09 I see you fail to answer my last three sentences I suppose it's an easy way out for you, "If it's provocative don't confront it".2BorNot2B I am an atheist I do not care for any of your religions.

• 2BorNot2B | Jul 23, 2010, 12:47 PM EDT

  Carroll09-- Congratulations on your extremely well-reasoned, thoughgtful and charitable posts. Keep up the fight against those who would like to continue calling themselves Roman Catholic, while demanding that the Church, which has taught and preached the Gospel with consistency for 2000 years, change to fit their own notion of what it should be. How is it possible that those who would re-make the Church in their own image are unaware there are already other churches that fit their mold?

• Carroll09 | Jul 23, 2010, 06:15 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne - let me quote you EXACTLY what I said in my post about abortion & polygamy: "even from the point of view of morality, there are religions that say that abortion is morally illicit while some say that it is licit; others say that polygamy is morally acceptable while others say it is morally wrong - even where atheists are concerned, all these views cannot all be right". I did not once give my views, or take a moral stance on either.

• seanomelbourne | Jul 22, 2010, 08:06 PM EDT

  Carroll09,previously you claimed that abortion and polygamy were morally wrong,therefore you are taking a moral stance.Personally I am against abortion but a woman's right to choose is paramount,as far as polygamy is concerned who really cares if Joe Blogs has three wives.The question is whether "Morally right/wrong" is used in an evocative manner thus setting dogmatic precedences. Who convinces you what is morally acceptable? Please do not say God, you may speak to him, Are you disappointed he doe's not reply.?

• Carroll09 | Jul 22, 2010, 04:39 AM EDT

  No Seanomelbourne, I am NOT setting down what is or is not morally acceptable - as a matter of fact, out of the examples I gave, I did not say which I believe to be the morally acceptable position. What I was saying, and I think I was very clear, is that two groups holding polar opposite views on morality cannot both be right no matter how sincerely they hold those views or beliefs.

• LiamDavid | Jul 22, 2010, 12:48 AM EDT

  Those boys over at the Vatican have really sipped quite a few too many it seems!! They put a statute of limitation on child abuse, and then rank the ordination of women as priest right up there, next to child abuse as a crime. If it weren’t so damned loony, I’d be more pissed than I am at the moment! The Catholic Church is in such an incalculable mess right now that were it not for the faithful, there would be no church! The ordination of pedophiles is a crime against humanity! However, I’d admit that sorting out who the hell is a pedophile, and who’s not, is near impossible. Then, we consider the church’s hiring track records so far. There seems to be no safe-guards in place, what so ever! These days, the guilty range from Law judges, policemen, politicians, to anyone you can imagine! Then, with their sanity, their calm, and their restorative powers, women bring to the table the most necessary tools to deal with this painful situation. These talents and tools are worth their weight in gold at the moment! The Pope and his whole gang are afraid of these abilities that women have. The Catholic generals have lost this war. Women priest could, with their innate abilities to teach the children and calm the faithful, bring back a sense of peace and unity within the church, a certain cohesion that is greatly needed today. The Pope might feel that he and the rest of his boys could soon be out of a job with women entering the arena! Slan!

• seanomelbourne | Jul 21, 2010, 08:39 PM EDT

  Well Carroll09 you are setting down what is or is not morally acceptable and that what you choose must be correct and everyone else maybe morally corrupt. Are you acting Godlike. Maybe what we believe comes from inside us, you can call it God if you wish.

• Carroll09 | Jul 21, 2010, 10:33 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne- what a good way of putting it: "I never intended for YOU TO THINK YOU are closed-minded..."! It is YOU who implied that I am closed-minded; I know that I am not - if you wish to hold different beliefs than I, then I would defend your right to do so to the death, but what I don't accept is your branding me as closed-minded or having a limited capacity of free thought. You seem to think that the burden of proof rests with me to proove that God exists - yet you have the burden of proof because I have not set out to convince to you that God exists: you have as much of a belief system as I have whether you like it or not - you believe that God doesn't exist; I believe God does exist. Your assertion that to accept that all Gods exist would be theologically more realistic is ridiculous - it couldn't possibly be more realistic: even from the point of view of morality, there are religions that say that abortion is morally illicit while some say that it is licit; others say that polygamy is morally acceptable while others say it is morally wrong - even where atheists are concerned, all these views cannot all be right.

• seanomelbourne | Jul 21, 2010, 07:40 AM EDT

  Carroll09 I never intended for you to think you are closed-minded but in all fairness (from my point of view)You limit your capacity of free thought by accepting narrow interpretations of a particular doctrine. I can prove their is a universe,I would like you to prove their is a God. And if you can prove the existence of your god then it is only fair to think other believers can prove the existence of their entities. Even your acceptance that ALL religions and ALL Gods exist would be a more realistic theological position.

• Carroll09 | Jul 21, 2010, 04:46 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne, your having the temerity to brand me as closed-minded is appalling: I don't fit into your limited view of the world, a godless world, preciesely because I have opened my mind to consider that there is something more than us out there. Besides, as G.K. Chesterton said, "merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as with opening ones mouth, is shut it again firmly on something solid". The point is that I open my mind, and can question things, and I have come to conclusions regarding the existence of God, which are no more irrational than your insistence on the absence of God.

• Watereskhill | Jul 21, 2010, 12:04 AM EDT

  The Catholic Church will endure and remain. It's litany of 'sins' a list it will address as each Pope dons the mitre and ring of Peter. Presently it has a Pontiff whose tenure is nothing short of The Inquisition 'Benedict the Enforcer' of Doctrine and Canon Law. The diminished numbers in St.Peter's Square on any given Sunday at The Angelus speaks volumes. He is not a popular Pope. Hans Kung the Catholic Theologian (silenced by Ratinzer) recently remarked in several world-wide newspapers that if The Church is to survive it needs to convene a Third Vatican Council. A forlorn hope. And not within the domain of this Nazi infused dictator. As the writer Hobbes remarked "the child is father to the man".

• seanomelbourne | Jul 20, 2010, 11:17 PM EDT

  Tell me barneyjo what is the truth and who informed you? Ra,Ahurah Mazdah, Aton,Zeus,Allah or Yhw.Their followers also claim they have "God on their side".

• barneyjo | Jul 20, 2010, 09:01 PM EDT

  And surely, in order to legitimately preach the truth, it is crucial to live by that same truth. And for that matter, how can anyone preach truth, if they have lost sight of what that truth is?

• seanomelbourne | Jul 20, 2010, 08:25 PM EDT

  Carrol09 I was raised a catholic and educated in the Catholic system I am well aware of Christian dogma. To say "religions" were not the cause of specific wars is a gross misrepresentation of history. You are in a state of denial on this fact.Prove that peter was appointed by anybody but mere earthling. Your arrogance in your vague claim that the Catholic church is the only true church is appalling. "Man can only be free when he understand his illogical position in a meaningless universe".The sad truth is you are stuck in religious rut and unable to open your mind to "free thought".

• Carroll09 | Jul 20, 2010, 02:47 PM EDT

  Barneyjo - you have pointed out some things that popes have done wrong, but that really doesn't prove anything, apart from what we already know, that they are sinners just like us. Infallibility is most certainly not the same as impeccability - it doesn't mean that the pope cannot sin, or that he would get all the answers right in an exam on a subject he knew nothing about if he hadn't done his homework. Peter, who thrice denied even knowing Christ, may well have been the weakest link in the chain of the papacy, yet Christ appointed him as the head of His Church on earth. Personal sin does not mean that one cannot know or teach the truth, though the person themselves may not be a model of truth and faithfulness to Christ. It is interesting that you are able to judge what is "absolute" in terms of doctrine, when even the Church has never presumed itself to have the power to alter doctrines or Apostolic teachings (to develop them, yes; but to utterly change them, certainly not). Well, you know what happens when individuals take it upon themselves to find out who Christ is- as in the gospel when Christ asked that very question, he only got conflicting answers until Peter answered rightly (not by his own knowledge but by the Holy Spirit)...the result is what we have today: one Church (the Catholic Church) holding true to what Christ actually thought, and upwards of 30,000 Protestant denominations all claiming that they're right.

• Carroll09 | Jul 20, 2010, 05:57 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne - it is sad that you feel you have to represent and insult my beliefs to try and get a point across. You don't even know it, but you are actually looking for God who is peace and love. History shows that religion is no more the cause of wars than the absence of it creates peace - in one form or another, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (only some recent examples) sought to extirpate religion in one way or another, killing millions in the process. Atheism is hardly a good advertisment for world peace. Don't forget too, that you atheists also have absolutes in doctrine - you are bound, for example, in a world where you can't or won't even open your mind to the possibility that there is something greater than you. Now that is sad.

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 08:26 PM EDT

  With apologies to the Fairies!!

• seanomelbourne | Jul 19, 2010, 08:04 PM EDT

  "absolutes in doctrine" Carroll09! WE have lived with them for thousands of years from "The godlike Pharaohs,Judaism,Christianity,Islam,Roman emperors,dictators and so on. All of your "absolutes" are about control and power whilst us atheist just need a world of peace and love to live in, free of religious dogma and the wars that they initiate. Now tell me Carroll09 who's God is on who,s side and how many fairies are at the bottom of the garden

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 08:03 PM EDT

  And indeed I would also ask if you believe that the Holy Spirit was giving guidance to the Holy Father John Paul II in his support for Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado and the Legionaries of Christ. No, not the Holy Spirit, btu a much darker influence, I believe.

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 07:32 PM EDT

  And Caroll09, you would also find it very difficult to convince me that the Holy Spirit offered guidance in the excommunication of a priest who preached a homily at the ordination of a woman as bishop on the one hand, while at the same time prompting Senior Clergy in Belgium to shield one of their brother bishops, who had systematically abused a young relative for many years. I could never see the presence of the Holy Spirit in those circumstances.

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 07:25 PM EDT

  Carroll09, who are the "few" who have betrayed Christ and his teaching? And as regards the absolutes, no I am sorry, but I do not see them in that way. The Commandments are absolutes without question. When Jesus declared that you must love your neighbour as yourself, that is an absolute. The miracle of the last supper is an article of faith and belief in which I can choose to believe in or not.I choose to believe that for myself and not because it is a given absolute.I am quite sure that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church, but equally I am quite prepared to believe that there are those members of the church who put themselves beyond, or reject that same guidance.I am firmly of the belief that many laity,priests, and many Senior members of the Hirearchy have placed themselves beyond the guidance of the Holy Spirt. From Pope Leo 10th, who sold Indulgences to the Italian Nobility for profit, through to the present age, to the breakdown of societal values and including the wholly inept and malign attitudes and responses of the church to those issues. I dont imagine for one minute that the Holy Sprit would ever have encouraged the Church to travel along a road such as this.

• daithischo | Jul 19, 2010, 05:51 PM EDT

  carroll09 - Please read this book: Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman

• Carroll09 | Jul 19, 2010, 03:31 PM EDT

  Barneyjo - if you don't see absolutes in doctrine, then where do you draw the line? Did Christ mean at the Last Supper that He was giving His Body and Blood to eat and drink, or is that subject to change? Did He really mean that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church always, or was He just saying that to keep the Apostles happy, and actually intending to go back on His word and log-off after a few centuries? I'm talking about things which belong to the Deposit of Faith - these cannot change. Certainly some women have claimed that they've been ordained or homosexuals have been ordained despite the Church's teaching, but it doesn't mean the Church isn't teaching truth. The mission or teaching authority of the Apostles was not diminished or revoked because of Judas' betrayal of Christ - the same holds true today for the few who betray Christ and His teaching.

• Carroll09 | Jul 19, 2010, 03:14 PM EDT

  Monsoonman - we can't both be right: Christ either appointed a male priesthood or He didn't. What I do know is that my Church - the Catholic Church - has an unbroken line of shepherds going back to Peter himself, and that Christ promised that through the Holy Spirit it would be guided in truth ALWAYS. No other Christian denomination can make this claim - and I trust the word of Christ rather than the false doctrines of those who, coming 1500 years after Him, thought that they knew better than the Holy Spirit. Christ most certainly was NOT a reflection of His time - eating with tax collectors, saying that the last shall be first and the first shall be last was certainly not reflective of the society in which He lived. By the way, Cardinal Newman, whom I mentioned earlier, became convinced after several years as an Anglican vicar that "one who steeps himself in history ceases to be a Protestant" - he converted to Catholicism by finding out what the Church ACTUALLY teaches and why: he looked at the writings of the Early Church Fathers and found that Catholic doctrine is most certainly not a man-made invention. You would do well to do the same. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, "there are not one hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, yet there are millions who hate what they WRONGLY BELIEVE TO BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH".

• ritmomente | Jul 19, 2010, 02:15 PM EDT

  Haven't any of you had a good experience with a priest or a nun? Less than 1% of the clergy and religious are satanic scumbag pedofiles. This is a witchhunt of narcissistic people who want to make their own religion.

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 12:08 PM EDT

  For Carroll09; I also wanted to point out that it may be nothing new for former Clergymen from the Reformed Faiths to be ordained as Priests within the Catholic Church;but consider this. I recently attended the ordination in Ireland of a family member as priest, who took the vow of celebacy, which he must do should he with to receive holy orders.Now, my sister who lives in England was able to tell me that the new Curate in her Parish, who is married and has a family was formerly a Vicar in the Church of England. My faith and understanding may be simple, however, I recognise an inconsistency when I see it. And are we not told in Scripture, " A house divided against itself will not stand"?

• irishcara | Jul 19, 2010, 11:28 AM EDT

  Add this to the list of reasons why I will not return to the Catholic Church.

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 09:54 AM EDT

  No, no, no again. I disagree entirely. And I certainly did not mean this in the context of an Equality issue. I am more minded towards the guidance and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I made the point before; The will of God cannot be construed as "Absolute" in the sense that we understand it within the bounds of our own limitations. The history of the Church is littered with too many "Absolutes" having been breached. At one stage, I like you, would never have countenanced the ordination of women, or homosexuals as Religious; in fact I would have railed against it. But that has changed for me. I simply do not see the "Absolutes" of which you speak within any part of the teachings of Jesus.

• Monsoonman | Jul 19, 2010, 09:53 AM EDT

  You pole vault over mouse turds, with the official man made rules on how to "get to heaven". Jesus loves us all equally and NEVER set up a corporation to rule by fear based laws and subjugating women, it is such 12th century thinking. He also owned little more than his robe yet his message spread throughout the world without the use of wealth, palaces and coercion. He was a reflection of the time he strode the earth, he didn't mean for us to stay stuck in those days. Men and women are of equal value. Recognize that fact or wither on the vine, which you are doing.

• Carroll09 | Jul 19, 2010, 07:45 AM EDT

  Barneyjo - the Church's teaching on women priests CANNOT be changed. Canon Law has nothing to do with it (and I did not mention Canon Law) - Canon Law, as you rightly say can be changed; but the Doctrine of the Church - the "Deposit of Faith" which comes to us from the Apostles cannot change. Certain traditions in the Church have nothing to do with Apostolic teaching and they can change (and have changed) - such as the style of priestly vestments or the language of the Holy Mass. The Church has not the authority to alter the teaching of the Apostles which has come from Christ Himself - especially in regard to the sacraments: the teaching of the Apostles and the Church Fathers is clear that women were not, and cannot be, ordained to the priesthood. This is not a matter of equality. Again, I re-assert what I said earlier, that women priests in the Catholic Church are a theological impossibility.

• barneyjo | Jul 19, 2010, 06:55 AM EDT

  You miss my point completely. The changes I describe HAVE taken place; I am sure you will concede that. And to that end, those changes will have been dained to be unacceptable to many people when they took place. It is reasonable to assume that others would have said that these changes would have happened over "their dead body" but changes did happen nonetheless. I disagree profoundly with your assertion that women will never be ordained as Ministers within the Catholic Church. The basis for your assertion within Canon Law may be sound; but Canon law can be changed, as it has in the past. There is an inherent danger in taking an Absolute stand on all matters, as the Church the world over has found with its policy with dealing with Clerical Abuse

• Carroll09 | Jul 19, 2010, 04:30 AM EDT

  Monsoonman- the question of women priests has NOTHING to do with equality, but everything to do with Christ, His example, and the consistent teaching of the Church. As I said in my previous posts,women priests are a theological impossibility,if one chooses to follow Christ. CitizenWhy - the Code of Canon Law says that cardinals DO have to be priests: Can.351.1 "The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration."

• Monsoonman | Jul 18, 2010, 08:45 PM EDT

  2bornot2b: When the church confers on all the same equal treatment, when women can become priests, bishops, cardinals and yes pope, then it would have stopped its double standard by treating women as second class citizens, unworthy to hold high positions of power in the church. Not to say that there are not wonderful loving, Godlike human beings associated with the church, but a glass ceiling is a glass ceiling, stop holding back our fellow human beings who have a calling and the talent to rise to the top of the church hierarchy....Let my people go!

• CitizenWhy | Jul 18, 2010, 07:54 PM EDT

  I could go along with no women priests long as the majority of cardinals are women. Nothing says cardinals have to be priests.

• CitizenWhy | Jul 18, 2010, 07:52 PM EDT

  God made the human in God's image, made and female God made them.

• Carroll09 | Jul 18, 2010, 05:10 PM EDT

  Furthermore, there will never be women priests in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II spoke definitively on this many years ago. Apart from this, all sacraments to be conferred need "valid matter" - a baptism is invalid if wine is used instead of water, the Eucharist would be invalid if coffee were used instead of wine: through the example of Christ, and the teaching of the Apostles & Fathers, a woman is not valid matter for confecting the sacrament of holy orders. Indeed, in the Mass Christ -through the priest,acting in "persona Christi" - offers Himself to His bride, the Church: it is a theological impossibility for a woman to act in persona Christi and offer that same sacrifice. Finally, it would be wrong to equate a Protestant minister with a Catholic priest- women in the Anglican Church, for example are not ordained as priests (or men for that matter) since a priest offers SACRIFICES - the Protestants rejected the notion of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, so therefore cannot have priests in the sense that the Catholic Church does - one is not comparing like with like.

• Carroll09 | Jul 18, 2010, 05:00 PM EDT

  Barneyjo - I would remind you that "former vicars of the English Reformed Churches" being ordained as Catholic priests is nothing new. One of the greatest Churchmen of the 19th century was one of these men: the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (soon to be beatified). There is no indication that married deacons will be conferred with full orders - plus the married deacons is nothing new either; they were very much a part of the early Church. English did not replace the Latin Rite - the "rite" refers to the order of divine worship, not the language. It is true,however, that Vatican II wanted the Latin language to be preserved & nowhere is there an indication that Holy Mass in the vernacular was to be the universal norm. Incidentally,nowhere in the Vatican II documents is the removal of altar rails ordered either. Vatican II was never the problem - the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" is the problem.

• barneyjo | Jul 18, 2010, 03:52 PM EDT

  Pat52Rk, where do you get off calling me (or anyone) you dont know a "Catholic Hater". I'm an Irish, practicing Catholic (admittedly struggling to find much of the good of which you speak within the church of today)I have also brought my five children up in the faith, and they all (so far) continue to practice that faith. But I ask the question again, when you say "over my dead body" what you propose to do to stop the ordination of women within the Catholic faith if(when) it happens? You or I may not live to see it, but it will happen. Just the same as English replaced the Latin Rite, as Altar Rails were removed, as former Vicars of the English Reformed Churches are now ordained as Catholic Priests, as married men are becoming members of the permanant Deaconate (and many of these will be given full holy orders sooner rather than later) Y'see, all those changes have happened over someone's "DEAD BODY" though not necessarily yours ( this time!!) So tell me, just how or what is your "dead body" going to stop exactly, Hmmmm!!!???

• FatherVol | Jul 18, 2010, 03:26 PM EDT

  Congratulations, Carroll09 and 2BorNot2B, for understanding and not just reacting.

• Carroll09 | Jul 18, 2010, 02:56 PM EDT

  Any act which cuts a person off from unity with the Catholic Church has the penalty of excommunication - the new rules ARE NOT EQUATING ordination of women "priests" with sexual abuse. However, both actions go deliberately against the teachings of the Church, and as such, the persons involved are willingly and knowingly cutting themselves off from the Church which IS EXACTLY WHAT EXCOMMUNICATION IS. Excommunication is a penalty which can have a bearing on one's SPIRITUAL welfare - it is not the only penalty which should be incurred by an abuser: there must be accountability and punishment in accordance with civil law as well. The Church itself imposes further penalties - excommunication is only one part of the penal process for those who willingly reject the teachings of the Church.

• 2BorNot2B | Jul 18, 2010, 02:47 PM EDT

  Monsoonman-- Are you putting words in the mouth of the Vatican? I'm sure you, and all the CINO's who visit this website would, unfortunately, all you can come up with is half-truths and innuendo. A lie told several times over eventually is accepted as truth by the easily conned. -- Mind providing a direct quote or a link to whatever place or person within the Church you heard saying "Women are not worthy?" - Better check your eyes, I think all they've said is tha there is no biblical precedent for conferring the priesthood to women.-- Jesus founded the Church... He did not do it, why would CINO's have the authority to second guess Him?

• eileend | Jul 18, 2010, 02:45 PM EDT

  2BorNot2B- It seems you haven't read the New Testament either, or you would have noticed the fact that women were responsible for and witness to the most important moments of Jesus's ministry. When his mother told him to change the water to wine, his first response was 'It is not my time.' He did it anyway. When Jesus went to an ill Lazarus, it is Martha who first avers that Chris is saviour and that through him the dead will all rise at the end. Who stays with Jesus through his execution? The male disciples? No. They hide. Only John has the courage--along with three women. Who sees Jesus first after his resurrection? Mary Magdalen, his most beloved disciple. Not only that, you can't ignore the primary documents that are being unearthed like the Dead Sea Scrolls that place Mary Magdalen on an even, and possibly higher plane than the 12 disciples. Christ never kept women in a secondary role in his ministry. That didn't happen until human men took over. It's one thing to say that by tradition we can't have women priests. It's quite another to call even the idea as evil as pedophilia. THAT, my friend, is evil.

• 2BorNot2B | Jul 18, 2010, 02:30 PM EDT

  To Siobahn39 -- Did Jesus want all priests to be Jews? Lady, you need an intensive course on Bible literacy. Be sure, however, to focus on the New Testament and you might find out what 'reading in context' means.

• 2BorNot2B | Jul 18, 2010, 02:26 PM EDT

  Go ahead nicomax and fire up the schism crowd, let's see how successful your new sect is and how long it lasts. After all there are precedents. Martin Luther did manage to split up the Church and, right off the bat, he complained that while he'd gotten rid of one Pope and bastardized Catholicism now there was a Pope per head. -- But you're right, why invent a new sect when there's already one, episcopalianism' that fulfills your requirements. Good riddance and enjoy the PMS bishops.

• Monsoonman | Jul 18, 2010, 01:58 PM EDT

  If I am not mistaken, the ranks of the RC priesthood/nunneries are being filled by 3rd world recruits. The church seems to flourish in places where ignorance, poverty and superstition reign...Can you imagine how the natives react to the colorful robes, ornate headgear, the shiny statues and ornaments contrived by the church? ...They must be awed, but with the advent of TV and the internet, even the 3rd world is getting connected and those strange rituals being foisted on them involving priests and young boys don't seem to be as Godlike as they were once told they were.

• patrickesq | Jul 18, 2010, 01:39 PM EDT

  As Pete Seeger sang 'Where have all the flowers Gone'''where have all the girls gone'. Most have stopped going to stopped going to nunneries, not all are taking husbands. Maybe the Catholic Church could use a few females to fill the dwindling ranks of its male priesthood. The Church is not fulfilling its mission to serve God and his/her people when it arbitrarily discriminates against all women. To now label the attempts to ordinate women as a crime can only bring ridicule to the Church.

• Godscre | Jul 18, 2010, 01:14 PM EDT

  It should be mandatory to report all child abuse to the civil authorities to carry out justice. The Bible clearly states that authorities are of God. To resist the authorities is to resist God. However, God will be the ultimate judge and we (including the Pope) will be held accountable for every creature (human and animal). Sadly, those who covered-up and allowed the abuse to go on and on, have a pass by the hierarchy to not be reported to the authorities as well. They all should be listed so we know who to trust. Silence of evil allows the evil to continue.

• Searlit | Jul 18, 2010, 12:51 PM EDT

  I agree with David Clohessy, of the Survivors Network. The clergy sex crimes have to be reported to the police, and this must be written into their rules of policy. There's no other satisfactory way for the crimes of these priests to be handled. They should be arrested! Do it for those who have been abused, and for the safety of children, now! Women becoming priests isn't a crime. Don't compare the two!

• Nicomax | Jul 18, 2010, 12:46 PM EDT

  Schism on! Those in the Catholic Church open to married and women priests, should break away from Rome and join those Anglicans who have allowed women as priests, and even bishops. This split and realignment has been coming for some time and now it should be made official. The thirteenth century crowd left in Rome can welcome all those break-away Anglicans now without property since the Catholic Church has loads of room in their cathedrals.

• JamesMurphy | Jul 18, 2010, 12:33 PM EDT

  The old guard and the conservatives in the Vatican need to go. They are medievalists who are totally out of touch with the modern-day needs of the church and its people. Female clergy as well as an end to the ludicrous practice of celibacy will bring long overdue and much-needed breaths of fresh air to a church stuck much too far in the past. As far as abuse is concerned, women are just as capable of this as are men. But that's not the point. The church, being male-dominated, will continue to leave itself open to ridicule and contempt until its so-called leaders wake up to reality.

• Siobhan39 | Jul 18, 2010, 11:50 AM EDT

  My comment is for pat52rk, who said: "over my dead body will we have female priests, Jesus picked 12 men as his apostles." Pat, did you notice that those 12 men were Jews. Don't you think that means Jesus/God wanted all of his priests to be Jews?

• katieherk | Jul 18, 2010, 11:45 AM EDT

  I have never read such trash, save for a few.... meaning these comments!!! Women abuse childrens also but you don't hear about it, especially in some of the Protestant Churches. We will never need women priests and the thought of it sickens me. Gosh, people, hated for the Catholic Church is obviously your form of jealousy... get a life!!!

• ciarrai | Jul 18, 2010, 11:27 AM EDT

  Women ordained as priests is the same as male priests molesting children? That's why the Church is going down the drain. They are self-destructing and can't seem to put the brakes on. Can anyone help this inevitable demise of the one thing that meant so much to so many of us. It is a shame and a huge loss. Come forward, saviour.

• Fugate05 | Jul 18, 2010, 11:25 AM EDT

  Amen to daithischo's comments. I'm a practicing Catholic but this is too much.

• joanmoody | Jul 18, 2010, 11:14 AM EDT

  So what else is new? Half the RC church is condemned because they're women. For heaven's sake I wish those guys would grow up, they are the problem as is the paedophilia issue. A married clergy would be prefable to women priests. At least married clergy would beeter understand the problems of contemporary married life.

• daithischo | Jul 18, 2010, 10:45 AM EDT

  I'm disgusted...the Vatican put the ordination of female priests alongside PEDOPHILIA as a serious crime? How can they compare allowing the service of women in the ministry - to the abuse of children, especially when a number of the MEN who were allowed into that same ministry became abusers and were protected by the same Vatican organization.

• pat52rk | Jul 18, 2010, 10:39 AM EDT

  barneyjo,and to all the catholic haters out there , the church will survive just like it survived the reformation and will be stronger for it.we've done without female priests for 800 years and we will do without them for another 800..

• irisheyesjenn | Jul 18, 2010, 09:48 AM EDT

  As someone who was raised Catholic, but can no longer justify participating in the rituals of this evil institution, I take great comfort in knowing that in the end God will destroy these haters of women and children. Their leader Pope Benedict XVI blindly predicted the demise of his own institution when in 2006 he cited Christ's definitive victory over evil as outlined in the Book of Revelation. This may be small comfort for those who daily deal with pain inflicted on them by priests and other members of this church; I encourage you to abandon the earthly institution while maintaining your belief in God.

• Portia777 | Jul 18, 2010, 09:14 AM EDT

  A sin, ah yes the money making scam where you pay a man in a dress money to absolve you of some sin.No one can judge another being. Mary Magdalene was from the Goddess temple and she taught Jesus about sacred alchemy. The Vatican is keeping men and women from evolving by using the same scams as a dodgy car dealer.The pope is only a man in a dress playing a role like any actor on stage- he is not there to judge but to SERVE. Male ego and a penis prevents him from serving humanity. Why people still worship him is beyond me, except I know it is brainwashing in a cult like manner.The sheeple suffer stockholm sysndrome and are unable to free themselves.

• bronxjames | Jul 18, 2010, 09:05 AM EDT

  give me a f--king break........all these "priests" accused or found guilty of child abuse should be shot...or castrated without any pain killers....let the priest marry and then maybe it will stop...as for female priest..WHY NOT?

• barneyjo | Jul 18, 2010, 04:53 AM EDT

  Sorry, that should of course be "enlighten the world"

• barneyjo | Jul 18, 2010, 04:52 AM EDT

  Pat52rk (ubercatholic that he is) says that women will be ordained over his dead body. What will you do pat52rk;perhaps throw yourself of a tall building? (suicide is a sin) go out in a blaze of glory by shooting female deacons before turning a gun on yourself? (still the sin of suicide plus you add MURDER to your list of sins). Or maybe I am being too uncharitable; mayble you would be satisfied by creating a schism in the church and going your own way along with all the other Neanderthals (sorry I mean traditonalists) whose absolutist views have contributed in my opinion to the very sorry state the church now finds itself in. So, go on Pat52rk; I'm sure I speak for many when I ask that you would enlighten the worls

• hollabackgurl | Jul 18, 2010, 12:58 AM EDT

  Obviously you can't interpret Gods will if you don't have a penis. I mean to say, it's obvious. Where we would be without old conservative men to tell us all what to do eh?

• seanomelbourne | Jul 18, 2010, 12:11 AM EDT

  Muslims may have the Burqa but catholic women have the shroud of male chauvinism blinding their judgment and then "pairing" female priests to pedophilia.

• pat52rk | Jul 17, 2010, 09:44 PM EDT

  over my dead body will we have female priests , jesus picked 12 men as his apostles . mary magdeline was not an apostle unless of course the ' de vinci code ' is your bible ...

• jacersisityourself | Jul 17, 2010, 04:46 PM EDT

  As I understand it, Jesus Christ called Mary Magdelene the Apostle of the Apostles. Where does that leave our Roman Catholic theologians? And us?

• sailmaker | Jul 17, 2010, 11:42 AM EDT

  The Church's own study in 1976 found no scriptural impediment to the ordination of women as priests. Where in scripture is an XY chromosomal set a prerequisite to those whom God has called to serve in His Church? This is the last gasp of the good ol' boy network clinging to power. It will pass. Women will become priests in our Church. It is inevitable, and it is right.

• teddybear | Jul 16, 2010, 06:26 PM EDT

  Women would probably make better priests and that is what they are afraid of.

• GuinnessGrrl | Jul 16, 2010, 04:35 PM EDT

  Another example of the idiocy of the Catholic church...

• AmAncINED | Jul 16, 2010, 02:30 PM EDT

  It was that same male hierarchy of the Church that turned a blind eye and protected pedophile priests, often moving them from parish to parish where they made a career out of preying on innocent children while listening to confessions of others and doling out penance for sins that didn't even come close to the sins they were committing. These pedophile priests destroyed countless lives and banrupted dioceses. Now the Church equates pedophilia with women priests. What??? Jesus was a Jew and followed many of the Jewish customs of the time which we no longer follow as modern day Christians. I wonder what he would think about equating the sin of pedophilia with women priests. He didn't treat women like 2nd class citizens like the Church does today. If this is another example of "this much organization under one voice," I doubt very many Protestants are jealous.

• double11 | Jul 16, 2010, 02:12 PM EDT

  the pope and the church stink

• ritmomente | Jul 16, 2010, 11:22 AM EDT

  History lesson: the Inquisition was started in Spain by the Spanish monarchy and they exploited the Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church. It declares heracies, sainthoods and issues excommunications (Henry VIII and Madonna). Anyone who mocks this group is simply jealous that no other denomination in the world has this much organization under one voice.

• ritmomente | Jul 16, 2010, 11:19 AM EDT

  It is the author's words that the Church equates women priests to paedophilia. This is slander. bcoc, you are insane to compare islam to Catholocism. Do Catholics murder people who mimic or make fun of Christ? Also, women priests are an affront to the Virgin Mary. Monsoonman, if Mary, who was born without sin, Immaculately Conceived, and Assumed into heaven, she would have been able to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ if she had chosen to. Nuns play a vital and irreplacable role in the Church. Where would the world be without Mothers Catherine McAuley, Katherine Drexel and Theresa?!?

• bcoc1124 | Jul 16, 2010, 10:31 AM EDT

  Treatment of women as second class citizens brings scorn on Islam. We talk about how backward they are and how the men must be so insecure in their sexuality to put women down as they do. The Catholic Church is no better. They were criminally negligent by not protecting children from perverts, they put children in harm's way by transferring "sickos". But, let's not be sidetracked. According to the church, of equal horror is the ordination of women!!!!! How shocking!!! These dirty things want to consecrate bread and water! They are unclean - not long ago they had to be "churched" after giving birth (evidence, no doubt, that they had been up to dirty things!). Seriously, the church claims that women cannot be priests because Christ did not have women as apostles. Wow! If that be the deciding factor - that we only do as Christ did, we should all ride on donkeys instead of making them cardinals and popes!

• Monsoonman | Jul 16, 2010, 09:56 AM EDT

  No wonder so many Christian faiths have broken off from "the one true church", they alienate half of the population of the world by saying they are not worthy.