78 Comments

• eiriamach | Mar 10, 2013, 08:45 PM EDT

  In a ground-breaking 1907 book entitled "Christianity and the Social Crisis," Walter Rauschenbusch told a story about the director of an insane asylum. The director had a simple but perfectly reliable test to figure out whether a patient was truly insane or not. He would take the person to a sink and run the faucet, let the sink fill up with water, hand the person a ladle and a large bowl, and then instruct the person to empty out the water from the sink into the bowl. If the person first turned off the running faucet before trying to remove the water, he or she was sane! Joining the UN's campaign to end violence against women would be like turning off the faucet -- altogether too simple, too uncommonly common sense, too instinctively Christian for the Vatican and the bishops.

• eiriamach | Mar 10, 2013, 08:07 PM EDT

  Catholics have a fine conservative web site named "First Things." But they forgot to provide a starting-point site named "First Clues."

• seanomelb | Mar 10, 2013, 06:51 PM EDT

  Whilst studying English many years ago the teacher recommended we read a book "uncommon commonsense". Smyrnian and Gearoid could learn from this little gem.

• eiriamach | Mar 10, 2013, 03:28 PM EDT

  I know that ignorance is almost always a remediable condition, Smyrian. (As a teacher, I continually witness students discarding ignorant opinions as they grow in knowledge and reasoning skills.) Sometimes, even stupidity (willful ignorance) is remediable, likewise close-mindedness, ideological loyalties, intolerance, and other irrational states of mind. And although I've been (falsely) accused of being anti-Catholic, Catholicism is also not an irremediable or "immutable" characteristic (there are millions of no-longer-Catholics these days). Even some cases of insanity are curable. Although, unfortunately, the appeal to reason and facts also sometimes fails in these cases, we must conclude that they are not in their nature "immutable." By contrast, skin color and gender identity and sexual orientation and genetic conditions ARE "immutable characteristics." How, then, do you figure I fit the olovely's profile of "fanatic": "rejecting other people for immutable characteristics"? I'm curious -- which immutable characteristic do you think I reject?

• Smyrnian | Mar 10, 2013, 08:11 AM EDT

  Olovely - I agree with you. I also note that it puts Eireiamach very firmly in the fanatic camp but then again that was always clearly obvious.

• eiriamach | Mar 10, 2013, 06:35 AM EDT

  Fanaticism and paranoia! It must be worrisome for far-right-fanatic Catholics to see a professor of Law at Notre Dame and Georgetown Law School, founder and 15-year director of Human Rights Watch, Juan Mendez, speaking out as a Catholic against genocide, torture, and denial of human rights, even to women. Juan Mendez! Juan Mendez does NOT serve on the UN's Commission on the Status of Women and is NOT the author of the UN initiative against violence that the Commission is sponsoring and that the Vatican is opposing and that is NOT pro-choice and that has nothing to do with abortion! Here we have an example of far-right-wing Catholics cannibalizing a Catholic with humane impulses, one who opposes rape, domestic abuse, torture, and coerced pregnancy! And simply because there is one person, Juan Mendez, who's not fanatically anti-choice working for the UN, Gearoid "reasons" that the Vatican must fight every effort by the UN to end violence against women. Rampant Paranoia!

• olovely | Mar 09, 2013, 06:25 PM EST

  If you find yourself rejecting other people for immutable characteristics like their sexual orientation that's your first clue you've become a fanatic.

• seanomelb | Mar 09, 2013, 05:49 PM EST

  Tell that to "saint Teresa" etc maybe you should tell it to the young woman in Limerick who died because the doctors would not abort the fetus until it had died thus killing the young mother.Gearoid you lack a sense of humanism andf live by a stict doctrine no different to the Taliban and other extreme religious organisations.

• PhlutiePhan | Mar 09, 2013, 04:29 PM EST

  Disconnect can be looked at from two different directions. One view is that the Vatican is way out of touch with the American Church. From the other side of the canyon, it can also be stated that the American Church is decadent and run by pariahs out to destroy the Church. Read Malachi Brendan Martin, a Vatican II advisor, and you will know the "true story".

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 02:11 PM EST

  No. you are wrong, Eiriamch, I have given a quote from one of the radical lobbyists at the UN, namely Juan E. Mendez, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, who stated that it would be "torture" if abortion was refused to women. It seems that some people want to get abortion into the text of the treaty by any means which the Catholic Church is rightly opposed to. You go through the whole spiel about certain "rights" being denied to women and that the Catholic Church was no better than a slave-owner possessing the bodies of women. Well tell that to St Catherine of Sienna, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux or St Teresa of Avila who were all declared Doctors of the Church. Women will certainly not be liberated against so-called paternal constraint by access to abortion in the name of rights. In fact, this will be just a delusory "right" which causes death to the unborn child and terrible psychological consequences for a lot of women concerning unresolved grief and regret etc.

• eiriamach | Mar 09, 2013, 01:13 PM EST

  Just in case a female visitor understands why I seem "over the top" about the Vatican's politics, she may follow up by researching other Churches' work, for example: Grace Mazala Phiri, national director of projects for the Zambia Anglican Council, organized workshops for the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa to honor International Women’s Day. She said, "This is a breakthrough! We [are] ... among the few that have taken such an initiative. The Anglican Church has taken the lead in advocating against gender-based violence.'” And on 3/5, Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury praised the Anglican Communion's work to end violence against females: He "spoke to many issues at the heart of the growing Anglican movement to end violence against women and girls. The Anglican Church of Southern Africa and the Church of North India have already shown how effective partnerships can tackle sex trafficking in the areas of prevention, protection, and the care and rehabilitation of survivors." God's work continues, despite the roadblocks.

• eiriamach | Mar 09, 2013, 12:57 PM EST

  No, Gearoid, you're wrong. There is no "pro-abortion" reference either "implicit" or "explicit" in either document I referenced. The burden of proof is upon the person who thinks it's there, not on anyone else to prove that it's not there! Quote the "explicit" or "implicit" pro-abortion language, or face the fact that the Vatican's and bishops' opposition to human rights for women and girls is based upon nothing more religious than rank bigotry, misogyny, and an unholy lust for power over the females in the pews. There can be no moral justification for opposing the protection of the law for victims of violence! Your Church's sophistic rationale is that human rights derive from "traditional values" -- you know, like thousands of years of slavery and "ownership" of women, tribal wars, ostracizing of the racially and sexually "different" -- all these were "traditional values" for centuries of human history. Do you think the Lord of History is waiting for us to reclaim these traditions?

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 11:23 AM EST

  I should have stated that first crusade was in the 11th century and not 12th. As for your point concerning discrepancies as pointed out by some authors on the personal accounts of the apostles concerning the life of Jesus, one only has to remember how people struggle to recall the minutiae of events when they are called to court to give evidence for crimes that have happened decades before. The core truth of events remain in their head but certain memories can get distorted over time. The same with the gospels which have the consistent recalling of the birth, ministry and resurrection of a man called Jesus. Some gospels differ for example in the birth narrative. The birth of Jesus is narrated at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, but is not mentioned in Mark, and referred to very differently in John. But again it does not really undermine the authenticity of the account. We are all human and can remember the same events but with different emphases on certain aspects of them. It does not mean that they did not happen even if certain discrepancies occur but which are not enough to invalidate them. My logic is certainly not circular as I've used it in a linear and lateral fashion to demonstrate that one can make a reliable case for the reality of the claims of Christianity

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 11:17 AM EST

  The black legend of the Spanish Inquisition was invented by protestant apologists in England in the 19th century to blacken Catholicism. Recent research shows that the death penalty and torture were seldom used and only sparingly. This does not excuse the use of these methods but we must be objective in our appraisal of those times. The Crusades contained some very unsavory events and these happened on both sides of the conflicts. The first Crusade which began in the 12th century was carried out to protect Christian pilgrims and places of worship from Muslim encroachment and it was a reaction to events rather than an initiation.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 11:16 AM EST

  @HorsesInMdstrm, I apologize if I took you up wrong on your very legitimate questions concerning the factual basis for the claims of the bible and Christian religion. It just seemed to me that your mentioning of the occupational status of the original apostles before they were called by Jesus is not really pertinent to the subject at hand. If you want to throw this reasoning i.e. lack of education into the general mix, then on the flip-side, one might query why Einstein one of the true giants in the history of Science recognized a creative impulse behind the celestial bodies and physical laws of the universe. You list the usual list of suspects when it comes to historical events that critics often cite in relation to nastiness that the Catholic Church was involved in. You are right that at times representatives of the Church have not acted in accordance with gospel values and in fact betrayed them. But events like the Inquisition and Crusades have been revisited by historians and the anti-Catholic myths and legends associated with them often dispelled. The Inquisition period lasted roughly from 15th to 19th centuries and often it was the secular juridical authorities who applied the harsh punishments rather than the Church. In fact the Church courts were often more lenient than their secular equivalents and rarely applied the death penalty.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 08:54 AM EST

  Mea culpa..90 B.C.should have read as 90 A.D.

• HorsesInMdstrm | Mar 09, 2013, 08:53 AM EST

  @Gearoid4 - not condescending, but questioning why 2000 years (or less) of understanding the reasoning of why the world works should be ignored in favor of tales that were written (with full good faith) by men who did not have the benefit of this. If we want to talk about privations, let's talk about the victims of the Inquisition and the Crusades, and the religious wars as the Holy See attempted to maintain control of the message. And if the apostolic accounts (what about Mark and Luke and Paul's epistles - not apostles by my reckoning?) were written within the life times of those who experienced the ministry of Jesus at first hand, why are there so many discrepancies in these accounts? With your erudition on this subject, I would expect that you would know the work of Dr. Bart D. Ehrman who has extensively researched these discrepancies. If you are unfamiliar, I suggest you Google him and read his work. My point in all this is that there is plenty in the bible (which I have read cover to cover in the distant past) which does not hold up as factual, and that there are derivations of numerous other creation myths. Your statements show a great faith that to a skeptic such as myself appears to greatly resemble circular logic.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 07:04 AM EST

  @HorsesInMdstrm, Well, you seem to have a condescending attitude to the beliefs of "fishermen and goatherders" of 2000 years ago which you find "baffling". Read the gospel accounts and there you will get first hand accounts of this historical person called Jesus which are remarkably consistent. Some of these men experienced the worst type of privations in unknown lands to spread the Good News of the gospels. Some like St Peter and Paul paid the ultimate price with their lives. Now you should ask yourself why would anyone lay down their lives like that on the basis of a fairy-tale and a person who did not exist? As for the dating of the gospels, the fact that the last one has been dated around 90 B.C. when John was in the latter years of his life, does not take way from their authenticity one iota. It in fact demonstrates what the apostolic accounts were written within the life-times of those who experienced the ministry of Christ at first hand. My point concerning the classical Greek myths e.g Homer's Odyssey in relation to the bible revolves around the fact that the former were based on legends while the latter has a definite factual basis. The reality that the siege of Troy has been verified just shows that some of these legends used historical events to illustrate the heroism of Greek gods. The modern day historical novel does as much. There is no such pretense by the writers of the N.T. gospels who rendered serious accounts of the events as they witnessed them.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 09, 2013, 06:50 AM EST

  The Catholic Church, Eiriamach, would not in conscience withhold support from a UN document which laudably contained within it strong words of condemnation towards violence and the exploitation of women and support for the victims. You screech out words like "demonic" which are really beginning to sound a little desperate and a parody of the truth. It would be against everything that Catholic activists in their thousands have done and to counter these evils and which Church statements have denounced. The "pro-abortion" references are implicit in the contributions of some of the UN delegates rather than explicit. I will acknowledge that there is not an overt attempt to promote abortion in the text at the moment but the agenda is ever present when you read the words of such as Juan E. Mendez, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, stating that refusing a woman an abortion is tantamount to the “torture” of women. Abortion is not a solution to the awful reality of the abuse of women and girls but is rather another evil that would compound the harm already done.

• HorsesInMdstrm | Mar 09, 2013, 12:06 AM EST

  @Gearoid4 - I am saying that to base one's entire life and values based on what fishermen and goat herders from two thousand years ago have said, is totally baffling. They have no more feel of authenticity than reading about Zeus. There is also a lot of controversy about when these gospels were written, and if you are correct, and John's gospel was written by a first hand narrator, he would have been between 80 and 90 years old at a time when 50 would be a long life. Not impossible, but pretty unlikely. There is also much controversy with dating the gospels, unless of course you drink the RC holy water story. You can choose to believe that all this is divinely inspired, and it is none of my business. I know there is zero chance to change your mind, so we all can wonder why I bother to post. But there is such a sanctimonious tone in your posts, just as though you were a kindly pope reminding us how little we know. Except I know better than to believe in myths, and I feel you should be called out on these points. By the way, I mentioned the Odyssey in my earlier post. I think that the Trojan War, the predecessor event to the Odyssey, has been verified by archaeology and contemporaneous historical accounts. That doesn't incline me to worship wooden horses. Or Brad Pitt.

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 10:50 PM EST

  Gearoid, my facts are accurate, and they support no interpretation that leaves your Church looking less than demonic. There's no squirming out of the Vatican's and US Bisbops' opposition to human rights for women and girls. THERE IS NO PRO-ABORTION TEXT in the Violence Against Women Act or the UN Commission on the Status of Women's COMMIT initiative. Read them! They're both on line. No, you'd prefer to speak in ignorance and get it wrong, or perhaps you're simply lying because you know the Vatican's and Bishops' positions are indefensible? ~~~~~~~~ And to Wilson's point, as long as I remain in the US, I continue to oppose, publicly, at least 2-3 times per week, the US war in Afghanistan -- just as I continue to work for the full equality of women as long as I remain in this world. And what do you do to further the cause of justice, Wilson, besides complaining about vocal women?

• Gearoid4 | Mar 08, 2013, 10:38 PM EST

  Eiriamach, your "facts" are incomplete and your interpretation of them are somewhat distorted. The Catholic Church does not oppose this UN document in principle as it has been remarkably consistent in it's opposition to violence or exploitation of both women and girls. The issue at stake is some of the text which is pro-abortion and was put in at the behest of a radical lobby. If these words were removed the Holy See would give whole-hearted support to the proposals.

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 10:36 PM EST

  It does inspire fury, Wilson, to see a religious organization working so hard to oppose basic human equality under the law. That far you're right about my reaction to the news I reported below. But as for the gross (im)morality of the situation, do you actually mean to claim that the bishops or their followers have any "moral high ground" to stand on in their opposition to human rights for the women and children of the world? Or are you just dropping by to complain about something I wrote that you did not want to know about? Are you prepared to take on my argument about the Vatican's moral relativism? Or would you prefer to reply to my point about radical rupture with the Vatican II teachings in Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Hukmane? No, I thought not! You have nothing of substance to respond with, so you complain about my tone. And if I were to adopt a Catholic schoolgirl innocence-and-sweetness tone, would you bother to notice the horror I accurately described below?

• AMWilson | Mar 08, 2013, 10:16 PM EST

  eiriamach, that's like saying that remaining in the United States means that you SUPPORT war in the Middle East. Your hyped-up self righteousness and over-the-top anti-Catholic rantings would be laughable if they weren't so scary. You act as if you own the moral high ground, and yet you continue to spew your venom at anyone who has the gall to disagree with you. There is no polite, civilized discourse when it comes to you. Your tone is such that we should all be hanged, if it was up to you. The intensity of your hatred is staggering.

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 10:02 PM EST

  Smyrian, a frequent causes of miscarriage in pregnant women is a blow to the abdomen by an abusive male partner or spouse. Miscarriage, as you probably know, is, in medical terminology, "spontaneous abortion." The Vatican opposes elective and medically indicated abortion, even to save a pregnant woman's life, while it also opposes enacting laws to hold violent men responsible for causing the abortion of a fetus by assaulting a pregnant woman. Does it really seem to you that there's nothing amiss in holding those two positions together -- 1) the law must not permit women to choose abortion and 2) the law must not forbid men to cause abortion by violence? All Catholics who obey their bishops must surely agree on these two points!

• Gearoid4 | Mar 08, 2013, 10:01 PM EST

  Il semble que ce soit vous avez des problèmes avec le vocabulaire français et en comptant que mes mots sont compréhensibles et mes maths concernant les catholiques pratiquants sont beaucoup plus précis que la vôtre.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 08, 2013, 09:28 PM EST

  @HorsesInMdstrm, Yes, the teachings of Jesus were conveyed in the N.T gospels by His chosen apostles who followed Him through His ministry on Earth. That is why they have the feel of authenticity about them as they were recorded within the recent memory of those momentous events. The last of those gospel accounts were written by John around 90-100 A.D. which was roughly just about 60 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Are you insinuating that because these men did not have the astronomical knowledge to locate the sun at night that they are somehow not qualified to expound on the teachings of Jesus? Why should lack of knowledge of the stars act as a disqualification for that? One might as well say that because one is not familiar with quantum physics that they are not fit to comment on abortion or contraception. This position is fallacious. The moral compass of the early apostles was functioning very well as they gave splendid witness to the teachings of Jesus, even to the point of martyrdom. Aesops fable and other classical stories from ancient Greece were fictional moral tales but the biblical stories have been largely vindicated by such disciplines as archaeology and contemporaneous historical sources. The first hand account of the apostles gave a historical reality to this man called Jesus who had such a dramatic effect on their lives.

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 07:16 PM EST

  Why would I bother to mis-state the facts? Anyone can find the news sources -- although this abomination is not getting much exposure in the press! Just put "Vatican, Iran, Russia resist UN effort to stop violence against women" into any search engine and read all about it. The American bishops' opposition to the US Violence Against Women Act is well known. The National Catholic Reporter, slow to register this news, finally put up an article on it today: "Five key Catholic bishops are opposing the newly authorized Violence Against Women Act for fear it will subvert traditional views of marriage and gender, and compromise the religious freedom of groups that aid victims of human trafficking." They have buried and held funeral services over Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae and the whole Catholic theology of human rights deriving from equal human dignity!

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 06:55 PM EST

  It's not a "calumny" if it's true, Gearoid4, and as I'm sure you know, it's true that the Vatican has an alliance of member nations at the UN that oppose UN initiatives to address violence against women and girls. Yes, it's shameful, so it's difficult to accept, but your Church's position is consistent: the American bishops OPPOSE the Violence Against Women Act signed by President Obama into law last week, and the Vatican OPPOSES the work of the UN Commission of the Status of Women. Most shocking is that the Vatican and bishops have abandoned their opposition to moral relativism and now embrace it as their new "basis" for women's rights: they are seeking to replace "equality" as the UN's basis for women's rights with "traditional values," so that any culture where religion teaches the subordination of women to men is free to deny female victims of violence protections of the law. That's your Vatican, Gearoid!

• HorsesInMdstrm | Mar 08, 2013, 05:36 PM EST

  @Gearoid4 - speaking of ridiculous assertions, you would have us all believe in the teachings of Jesus. But these teachings are communicated via men of the (approximate) time of Jesus. So, in a world teeming with people, you would have us follow, for example, the restrictions against contraception. The restrictions are based on the, allegedly divinely inspired, writings of men who did not know where the sun went at night. The selections which made it into the bible were determined by men of a later time, while they kept out material which might challenge the message they were trying to shape. I am not imputing evil design to these people, but why should be impute divine guidance? Why, in today's world, should this mean any more to us than the Odyssey or Aesop's Fables?

• seanomelb | Mar 08, 2013, 05:23 PM EST

  Since when was any religion a democracy?? what a silly comment from the browbeaten little scot Willy.

• Will Hamilton | Mar 08, 2013, 03:42 PM EST

  Seven out of ten Catholics ought to have figured out that they don't belong to a democracy. As Catholics they are subjects of whatever dictator occupies the palace in the Vatican. He and his fellow sinister female-averse male virgins are the ones who dictate to Catholics what the church does or does not do not the other way around.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 08, 2013, 03:10 PM EST

  You make such ridiculous assertions in your 3 commentaries below, Eiriamac, that I would not know where to start in dismantling them. You state "Remaining in the Catholic Church means that you SUPPORT violence against women and girls. It means that you OPPOSE laws designed to reduce violence against women and girls and to provide recourse to the courts for victims of sexual and physical violence.." How can any rational person say such calumnies in the face of the tireless work performed by Catholic religious and lay people to provide spiritual, physical and material aid for the victims of such evils across the world. One has only to read various pronouncements on such matters by various episcopal conferences and popes down the years to appreciate the firm Catholic moral stand against such social plagues as shown in the l

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 07:56 AM EST

  The coalition that includes the Vatican insists that the UN base its human rights initiatives on "traditional values," and traditional values do not include the equality of women in cultures like Catholicism. Let's not forget that the first papal encyclical that opposed contraception, Casti Connubii, called the equality of women a "crime." The UN eliminated equality of women from its initiative to reduce violence against women and girls, and still the Vatican opposes it! "Traditional values" do not include the human rights of women, children, or LGBTs. It's a word screen for continuing the oppression of these groups. So it comes as no surprise to read that five American Catholic bishops oppose the recently signed Violence Against Women Act because, they claim, protecting women against violence will erode the "traditional" female gender role. Don't you know that in the eyes of the Vatican, women are appointed by natural law to be the "natural" victims of human brutality?

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 07:09 AM EST

  Remaining in the Catholic Church means that you SUPPORT violence against women and girls. It means that you OPPOSE laws designed to reduce violence against women and girls and to provide recourse to the courts for victims of sexual and physical violence. There are many facts available on the "Unite to End Violence Against Women" web site: "In the US, one-third of women murdered each year are killed by intimate partners. In South Africa, a woman is killed every 6 hours by an intimate partner. In India, 22 women were killed each day in dowry-related murders in 2007. In Guatemala, two women are murdered, on average, each day." Gearoid, you lecture others on having a well formed conscience. How can you do such violence to YOUR conscience that you would defend the Vatican in its efforts to deprive women of their most basic human right--the right to life and freedom from violence?

• eiriamach | Mar 08, 2013, 06:51 AM EST

  Gearoid4, There are NO excuses in the case of violence against women. This initiative does not mention contraception, abortion, or same-sex marriage. As the UN director for the initiative says, "Today violence against women is increasingly recognized [as] a threat to democracy, a barrier to lasting peace, a burden on national economies, and an appalling human rights violation." Nations have committed to enact laws aimed at preventing domestic and other forms of violence against women and girls, but the Vatican, with its Muslim allies, firmly OPPOSES the initiative and insists that violence against women is OK in places where religion supports it! From the UN web site: "up to 70 per cent of women experience physical or sexual violence from men in their lifetimes--the majority by husbands, intimate partners or someone they know. Among women aged 15 - 44, acts of violence cause more death and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined." What a "gift" the Vatican has given the women of the world on International Women's Day!

• Smyrnian | Mar 07, 2013, 05:58 PM EST

  I'm all for human rights; especially for the as yet unaborted children.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 05:50 PM EST

  I mean't "bind and loose" in my comments below.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 05:47 PM EST

  Yes, Ephraim we all have free will to do act according to our consciences? But we all must seek to form our consciences well as free will is not unlimited due to it's potential impact on others in society as well as ourselves when we act on it. If certain acts have sinful outcomes then people must re-orientate their though processes towards the good. It would be rather presumptuous of me to judge anyone as there is only one Judge of us all. The Church has been mandated by Her founder to put mankind on the right path by Her teachings and doctrine. Certain attitudes or behaviors which run counter to them are rightly declared sinful by the Church and this is not just a case of judging people. People have the freedom to follow the precepts of the Church or not. If Jesus founded a Church on earth which believing Catholics certainly believe He did, it follows that She is duty bound to teach, clarify and admonish where necessary in relation to the teachings that He left Her. In the words of the bible, the successors of St Peter in collaboration with their bishops have the power to "loose and bind" doctrine which allows them to admit/omit doctrines, traditions and practices according to their relationship to gospel values.

• EphraimKibbey | Mar 07, 2013, 05:28 PM EST

  Gearoid4 - God gave man free will and only God will be the judge of his/her actions. Christ taught judge not, lest you be judged. The RCC support of laws that make "contraception, abortion or condoms" illegal and punishable by the courts of the United States of America (in the face of their obvious benefits for human health) takes away the free will of millions of America's citizens as well as being a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state. If "contraception, abortion or condoms" are evil in the eyes of the Lord, then HE will judge it so and YOU and the Church are arguing AGAINST His teaching by putting yourselves in HIS role!

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 05:01 PM EST

  When you say "human rights", Eiriamach, are you referring to specific types of discrimination, such as access to contraception and abortion in relation to "health care" or same-sex "marriage"? These are certainly not biblical principles and so cannot be upheld by the Catholic Church Your quote concerning the Holy See being in cahoots with such powers as Iran and Russia to block a UN treaty which condemnns violence/rape against women does not ring true as it would be going against all that the Holy See has done to counter these evils across the world. The main reason that the Vatican opposes the language is because of the intention to include abortion as a "human right" for women It seems that the UN treaty monitoring body, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) want to introduce it as part of a radical agenda. This will promote an injustice of it's own against the innocent pre-born child in the womb. The Church cannot in truth consent to that and if the Committee concerned could omit this from the text there would be no problem.

• eiriamach | Mar 07, 2013, 03:36 PM EST

  Somehow my comment got scrunched. It should read "This comes from a Church that claims to oppose moral and cultural relativism, LOL! The Vatican routinely forms alliances with Muslim nations to stop UN human rights initiatives for women, children or LGBTs."

• eiriamach | Mar 07, 2013, 03:32 PM EST

  Gearoid says, "The Church has upheld the teaching of her founder." Let's see! Is it not appalling to read of the Vatican opposing basic human rights for women, children, LGBTs? Now the Vatican has joined with other theocratic states like Iran to thwart UN efforts to adopt global standards for preventing violence against women and children. "The Holy See, Iran and Russia are leading attempts to wipe out language in a final statement that says religion, custom or tradition must not be used as an excuse to avoid a govt's obligation to eliminate violence. They also have opposed references to rape by a woman's husband or partner." (This comes from a Church that claims to oppose moral and cultural relatiagainst UN human rights for women, children or LGBTs. Catholics, does it trouble you to support an institution that considers women and children devoid of rights?

• seamus60 | Mar 07, 2013, 02:02 PM EST

  Molliebawn. What of those instilled with the honor of distributing the faith to the word, yet don`t practice what they preach. Should they be excommunicated ?

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 02:01 PM EST

  So Ephraim, what in the teachings of Christ tallies with contraception, abortion or condoms? There is little comfort for those who would look for any implication in Jesus's words regarding support for these positions. The Church has upheld the teaching of Her founder for nigh on 2000 years and they can be hard morals to follow for those who give into their own subjective desires. Christ always had pity on the sinner but constantly told them to sin no more after they have shown repentance. I know that human failings have only been too evident in the priesthood and the hierarchy recently but when even the first generation of apostles were not immune to weaknesses which caused them to sin. The Church has a human aspect as well as a Divine one but Jesus promised that He would protect Her until the end of time.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 01:59 PM EST

  So Ephraim, what in the teachings of Christ tallies with contraception, abortion or condoms? There is little comfort for those who would look for any implication in Jesus's words regarding support for these positions. The Church has upheld the teachers of Her founder for nigh on 2000 years and they can be hard teachings for those who give into their own subjective desires. Christ always had pity on the sinner but constantly told them to sin no more after they have shown repentance. I know that human failings have only been too evident in the priesthood and the hierarchy recently but when even the first generation of apostles were not immune to weaknesses which caused them to sin. The Church has a human aspect as well as a Divine one but Jesus promised that He would protect Her until the end of time.

• EphraimKibbey | Mar 07, 2013, 01:46 PM EST

  REAL Catholics and Christians of other denominations are not saying that the RCC should "lower the bar" or cave in to popular opinion. We are saying that the heirarchy need to reevaluate what they have been preaching (but often not following) and reconcile their teaching and their actions with the teachings of Christ. The RCC heirarchy (not the laity) have strayed away from Christ and its the thinking, believing REAL Catholics and Christians all over the world who are asking that the RCC heirarchy return to His fold by both teaching His lessons and following His rules. They have seen that it is the priests, bishops and cardinals who have become CINO's (Catholics in name only) by their hypocracy.

• Gearoid4 | Mar 07, 2013, 12:51 PM EST

  Truth is not dependent on opinion polls to be vindicated as it is hierarchical in nature and not amenable to democratic polling or fashionable fads to be what it is. The Church cannot operate in that manner or She would've submerged under the social waves a long time ago. The mainline protestant churches in the US have followed this approach and are currently experiencing catastrophic falls in the number of their adherents. By all means, Catholic leaders should meet people whatever stage they are at in life and propose doctrines and teachers without imposing them. But lowering the bar to court popularity would be a betrayal of the Church's biblical mandate.

• HorsesInMdstrm | Mar 07, 2013, 09:28 AM EST

  First, I no longer am a practicing Catholic, nor am I so good that I no longer need to practice. But I was raised Catholic, and taught by SSJ nuns through 8th grade. While the nut jobs, politicians, hedonists, pedophile protectors, and delusionals who run the institution have managed to alienate me and millions of others, I feel informed by my upbringing in the support of social justice measures. Knowing that the church is not a bowling team, that the rules must be followed completely or else you are not a Catholic, I'd have to agree with the earlier poster who says you can't pick and choose the rules. I didn't try to do the "Catholic if" bit; I learned quite a while ago that it's a different camp than I want to be in.

• McNamara31 | Mar 07, 2013, 09:04 AM EST

  How could any "loving parent" feel "connected" with a group who knowingly enabled the abuse of vulnerable children? Their actions have created a schism between what we feel for our local priest or church, and what we deplore as the abhorrent actions of the hierarchy. From the 1950s to the 1990s, the church spent more than $80 million dollars on more than 2000 pedophile priests in their centers run by the Servants of the Paracletes even though their leader repeatedly told the cardinals and the popes that these pedophiles were "viper" and can not be rehabilitated and should be "put on" an island.How can any parent get past that and ever trust Rome again?

• warlocks | Mar 07, 2013, 01:35 AM EST

  I Think its about time to change the Rules & let Females become Priests and let priests Marry. Birth control ban lifted . But i draw the line on Abortions . unless its a Danger to the Mother . The Church should never Get involved with Government Politics, their Job is Teaching & Preaching Faith.they have enough trouble within their own Corrupt House that needs to be Dealt with.

• molliebawn | Mar 06, 2013, 11:34 PM EST

  I am a Catholic but !!..... No u are not a Catholic if there's a 'but' in it & u don't follow it to the word, u don't make the rules. You can't change a religion to suit yourself..... & real Catholicism will prevail for those who wish to keep the faith.

• molliebawn | Mar 06, 2013, 11:19 PM EST

  I really don't get all these arguments about changing the Catholic religion.This is the Catholic religion, we have our rules & regulations as has every other religion, if you don't want to be a Catholic join another religion that is to your liking. Some people think they can change it to suit themselves.

• EphraimKibbey | Mar 06, 2013, 08:56 PM EST

  This article is very heartening. Contrary to what many posters have said about these Catholics not being "REAL" Catholics (CINO's? like RINO's maybe,) I recognise them as fellow Christians who have read God's Word and Christ's teachings for THEMSELVES and are not afraid to challenge the RCC heirarchy when its deeds and lessons stray from TRUE Christian tenets. I am sure that the RCC heirarchy curses Gutenburg and the vernacular Bible every time someone calls them on the changes they made to Christ's original teachings in order to enrich and enpower themselves. Please, Christians, remember that Christ Himself remonstrated the heirarchy of His own church, the jewish priests, for not following God's teachings. In that way these who question authority are more Christ-like than the "pharisees" who call them names, content and certain in their own righteousness. Pilib04 wisely observed that, as in Jonestown, the "faithful" who do NOT question authority, are the blind and doomed ones amoung us. It is they who drink the RCC Kool Aid without asking what's in it and perish. WWJD? Are YOU a Christian (Christ-like) or a Pharisee? Christ was not afraid to talk back to power, why are you?

• Bocktherobber | Mar 06, 2013, 07:43 PM EST

  Katiemac -- It still comes as a shock to hear the word Liberal used as an insult. On this side of the Atlantic, to be liberal means to be tolerant and accepting of other people's point of view. Is that a bad thing over there in America?

• seamus60 | Mar 06, 2013, 07:20 PM EST

  Katiemac. Don`t forget what they say of those who prey closest to the alter, before you take it on yourself to be judge and jury on how good any individual is at their faith. Going to mass etc so often is your choice and makes you no better than another.

• Smyrnian | Mar 06, 2013, 05:43 PM EST

  Pilib - I stand by my observation that you are at least disdainful of your fellow Catholics. No need to get angry. Nothing personal. Cheers.

• joanxis | Mar 06, 2013, 05:20 PM EST

  Definitely.

• katiemac | Mar 06, 2013, 05:16 PM EST

  Typical liberal polling of persons who don't go to church except for weddings and funerals and then quote results as 'most Catholics'. Most genuine Catholics know we have a free will to sin as we choose. Liberals however want us to not call it sin. The reason there has been a crisis in the Church is not because the bishops have been too unyielding, it is because they yielded too often. They became too 'politically correct'; they let gays into the priesthood and they failed to preach against sin. By NOT consistently preaching against sin; against fornicating priests; against contraception, they allowed a surface appearrance that such behavior was acceptable, and Catholics became accustomed to it.

• graham | Mar 06, 2013, 04:59 PM EST

  I think the author has it right in his eval of the view of most catholics. For me I think marriage should be between a man and a woman BUT there should be another category for those that wish to commit to one another and have the protections afforded married couples leave marriage alone. I question whether gay couples can raise children well. Priests should be permitted to marry, women should be allowed into the clergy. The most disgusting thing is how the church has protected the pedophiles- they should be sent to jail perhaps castrated for the lives they have ruined. Faith and morals that went out the door when the Pope did not do the right thing he lost the respect of so many of the faithful. As for the curia, talk of an old boys network.As in every walk of life there are the truly venerable that honor Jesus in the way he should be then there are those on a career path to success. Today each soul must look for Our Lord forget the bureacracy and the red hats and carry on. Hopefully God will direct us to the proper way

• seanomelb | Mar 06, 2013, 04:31 PM EST

  The laity have been knocking on the bishops doors for years pleading for changes to Church doctrine but nobody listened.Now the church is in crisis.

• Bocktherobber | Mar 06, 2013, 04:31 PM EST

  It's amazing to think that some American Catholics still care what the Vatican thinks about contraception. Nobody in Ireland has wasted a moment's thought on that in years apart from a few Opus Dei lunatics.

• eiriamach | Mar 06, 2013, 03:44 PM EST

  usacelt, Episcopalians are theologically active and progressive, like most Anglicans -- but constantly changing? Not by Roman Catholic standards! When you find yourself stumbling over your new Latinate and sexist-English Nicene Creed, with its "consubstantial" and "for us *men* and for our salvation," visit your local Episcopal Church, where you'll find a historic and poetic liturgy, traditional rituals, and a focus on living the Gospel. You'll also see plenty of ex-Catholics worshiping in Anglican and Episcopalian communities. All are welcome because it's an inclusive Church, you know, like the community envisioned by Jesus Christ? Unlike the Roman Catholic bishops, Episcopalians exclude no one from any sacrament or spiritual journey on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or political beliefs.

• usacelt1 | Mar 06, 2013, 02:18 PM EST

  I guess we could just behave like the Episcopalians and constantly change our belief system due to shifting poll numbers. Yet the Episcopal Church is collapsing, and they support abortion, gay marriage, and all other leftist causes. Strange. I don't want that failure for our Church. The Vatican MUST offer Olive Branches, though, on mere disciplines that can be, and should be, altered. Allow married clergy (they already do that with ex-Anglican and Protestant clergy), allow for women deaconesses (which was an ancient office in the Church- Deaconess St. Phoebe in the Bible), and allow for more lay participation in ths selection of priests and bishops.

• pilib04 | Mar 06, 2013, 02:07 PM EST

  Smyrian, I didn't CONDEMN anyone. It is true I am a Catholic, but like the majority of Catholics I think that the Hierarchy is out of touch with reality when they start condemning our souls to hell for using condoms or the pill. Far from it. I think such a condemnation is laughable and that was why I made my "Kool Aid" remark. I have NEVER "CONDEMNED" anyone for their personal beliefs. "YOU THINK ABOUT THAT!"

• Smyrnian | Mar 06, 2013, 01:27 PM EST

  Pilib - you have a right to believe whatever you want but you have absolutely no right condemning others for their personal beliefs. Think about it.

• pilib04 | Mar 06, 2013, 12:40 PM EST

  I have always wondered about my fellow Catholics who drink the Kool Aid of "artificial birth control is a mortal sin condemning your soul to Hell unless you go to confession and gain absolution!" That has to be the most narrowly defined and laughable Catholic on earth. His name is Rick Santorum.

• pilib04 | Mar 06, 2013, 12:34 PM EST

  James O'Shea, welcome to the REAL WORLD of American Catholicism. You know, the one that is untainted by the Opus Dei cult whackjobs! The Catholic Church in America has always been consistently progressive on social and religious issues. More importantly and germane to this blog is that Irish Catholics have always been consistently more progressive on social and religious issues. Three of the four American martyrs in El Salvador were Irish-Americans, Jean Donovan, Sister Ita Ford MM and Sister Maura Clark MM. Just check any of the surveys done by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) which were coordinated by the late Father Andrew Greeley. American Catholics have long endured right wing bishops, many of whom were part or sympathetic to, the Opus Dei Crazies and most of whom were deeply involved in the coverup of clergy-rapes of small children.

• Eschetic | Mar 06, 2013, 11:58 AM EST

  Jesus the Christ unintentionally founded A church, but not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church. The Founder was a nice Jewish boy who wanted to make much needed reforms in his faith and later presumptions (and questionable quotes attributed to him) by Saint Peter and others writing YEARS after the fact carried his reforms to extremes which resulted in a church which has radically altered over the centuries, changing supposedly "core beliefs" periodically (and never easily) to reflect the culture it existed in. Christ's teachings uniformly focused on raising up the individual to God not unrealistically condemning him for living a good, caring life. Christ never considered "marriage equality" or practical means of contraception in an era when Judaism was a minority sect which needed to increase to survive. EVERYTHING in his teaching indicates that he would support both today. Priestly celibacy, life beginning before "the quickening" are but two of the latter day changes to church doctrine which have damaged the ongoing mission of the Church and too many of the ignorant believe are "Eternal Verities" to be protected at all costs. Objective observers to a Papal Conclave are not "bashing the Catholic faith" when the observe that serious reform is needed for the Church's ongoing health - or when they say that a new John XXIII (needed as he is) is unlikely this time; they are being genuinely SUPPORTIVE of Catholicism, but realistic. Leaders of ANY cause who lose touch with their followers by insisting on distorted messages no longer relevant (if they ever were) wind up serving neither God nor man.

• PhlutiePhan | Mar 06, 2013, 11:31 AM EST

  Since Jesus the Christ founded the Catholic Church, there is only so much reform that can be done within that context. There are issues to consider like the Natural Law. When Moses came down from the Mount with the Ten Commandments, the people had made a golden calf to Ba'al. The golden calf in the Catholic Church is gay marriage and abortion. If you read Malachi Brendan Martin, you will know that the Catholic Church has already been infiltrated with the cancer of world socialism and the closing removal of the "final pope".

• eiriamach | Mar 06, 2013, 11:04 AM EST

  An unnatural and un-Christian obsession with sex and people's sex lives has divided the bishops from other Catholics. And the bishops still insist that they are the "teachers" of the laity! When teachers fail to persuade, they need to re-examine their teachings. The bishops have much to learn before they can effectively teach, and learning will require that they open up their minds, absorb some new (post-medieval) science, and pay attention to the signs of the times.

• Shmrck5S | Mar 06, 2013, 11:00 AM EST

  Here, here Charlie M. If they want to be Methodists, then they should go be Methodists.

• tommurphy | Mar 06, 2013, 10:51 AM EST

  I agree that priests should be able to marry, be it to the same or the opposite sex. I believe women should be ordained and, as well, married to members of either sex. I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, available, and rare. I believe, as apparently more than 90% of US Catholic women do, that birth control is not a sin. And while the Church SHOULD certainly be very careful not to ordain priests who desire a relationship with anyone who is underage (or of age, for that matter, any sexual relationship outside of marriage) it has not done a very good job thus far in preventing the abusive relationships so much in the news which have brought us to this point. Perhaps worse - if that's possible - the Church has done a scandalous job of dealing with these transgressions when they have occurred. To say, in effect, "We're on top of it now" is 1: almost daily revealed to be less than the truth, and 2: of little benefit to those who have been violated in the past and continue to be violated to this day by the hierarchy's attempts to continue the coverups. As a Catholic I believe in extending that forgiveness which is mine to give, but my forgiveness does not exclude punishing those whose actions, either directly by molestation or less directly but maybe even more damningly by covering it up; have ruined the lives of thousands of children; tens of thousands if not more of their families and friends; and damaged and destroyed the faith of millions of Catholics disgusted and disconnected from the church in which we were raised. Still, if every one of these reforms were magically in place tomorrow, the corrupt Curia's absolute control of the Church would continue. If history is any guide, any progress towards real reform would be initially resisted and eventually rolled back unless the governance of the Catholic Church changes such that, as mreinhar2001 notes, it reflects the will of the church as a whole, not just the distant, disdainful few at the top.

• biggles008 | Mar 06, 2013, 10:49 AM EST

  Every priest should be allowed to marry a WOMAN if he so chooses.If every R.C.male was to become a priest we would have no Catholics left in years to come. Pope,waken up.

• CharlieM | Mar 06, 2013, 10:47 AM EST

  What they have is not a "deep disconnect" from their bishops. Instead, what they have is a deep disconnect from the Catholic faith. In reality, they are as Catholic as the mature Martin Luther or John Knox, i.e. they are heretics, pure and simple.

• joan1954 | Mar 06, 2013, 10:45 AM EST

  I do not have a disconnect with my archbishop Gustavo Siller of San Antonio. I have felt that people with the disconnects are ones who are not practicing Catholics and could care less but chant the loudest. The Church is ALL of us not just the clergy. WE are the Body of Christ as that is what the Church teaches.

• mreinhar2001 | Mar 06, 2013, 09:14 AM EST

  Seanmor: One clarification on what you wrote. The Church is not JUST the Hierarcy. The Church is every baptized member. That s easier to understand if you understand alittel German. "Kyrie" form the Greek means "Lord>" For Christians, "the Lord" is Jesus Christ. In German "Kyries" becomes "Kirche." "Kirche" is translated as "Chruch" in English. So the Church is the Body of Christ--that is all the baptized faithful, not just the hierarchy. So when yuo think "the Church" should do something you need to do things about it: 1) pray, 2) write letters to those who have been set up to help run the institutional part of this very large body.

• Seanmor | Mar 06, 2013, 08:58 AM EST

  I agree that every priest shuld be allowed to marry a WOMAN if he so chooses, and women should be ordained. However,the R.C.Church should be very careful NOT to ordain priests who desire relationshis with underage parters of either sex.The Church shoildpermit abortion in cases where the mother's life or health is in danger, but same-sex unions of any kind should never be allowed.