The Queen's visit clears the way for the Pope says report

I haven't read all the comments but from my point of view, he should stay at home and be more concerned about puting his monika to anything that gives us credibility. To see his profile so exravagantly presented all the time, you would think he had not a worry in the world. I'm not sure our Maker would agree, he doesn't have any favorites from where he dwells in the Holy Places and there are certainly no special dispensations in Heaven.

Christ is central to the position of the Catholic priesthood and his maleness is not just simply an additional factor that we can ignore. The whole person of Jesus is pivotal to the sacerdotal office which also happens to include His sex. There is no inherent right to be a priest. Women can no more hope to be a priest than a man can aspire to be pregnant. Men and women have different but complementary roles appropriate to their gender. People may invoke anti-discrimination legislation here but the choice of the Church is not based on sociological factors. Theology and apostolic tradition are very much involved in the Church's decision-making in such areas.

Gearoid4 writes, "Christ has been personified as both high-priest and victim who sacrificed His life for mankind.... as Christ was male, it follows that applicants to the sacerdotal office must also be." What makes Christ's sacrifice of infinite value is the part about His being God, not the part about His being male. While He is "personified" as a priest, He was not a priest. He was an ancient Hebrew, a Semite, the son of a carpenter. Should priests then be Jews since Christ was one, wear desert clothing as Christ did, or learn how to use a T-square as carpenters do? Nothing "follows" from His being male or His being an ancient Hebrew. Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Early church councils mistakenly believed that women lacked the fullness of humanity that men had, so they began to exclude women from priestly offices that they had exercised in the ancient church. Choices about what to consider authoritative and hence what to "follow" are human choices, and human history should teach us to be suspicious about making inessentials authoritative or outward forms unchanging. The priesthood is as much about Christ being male as the Eucharist is about little round white wafers and gold chalices. Interesting that this blog generates another Cath/Prot debate!

Authority was given to the Peter to 'bind and loose' as Matthew tells us. In other words he had the power bestowed on him by Jesus to include or exclude doctrines or beliefs according to their merits. So by definition Peter and his successors was given a mandate to lay down what constituted the truth of Catholic theology. This authority as you say was to be exercised on the basis of 'to serve and not be served'. But it also implies when necessary a right to correct or admonish those who defy or misrepresent the faith in it's fullness. Christ has been personified as both high-priest and victim who sacrifised His life for mankind. The Catholic priesthood is preconfigured on this reality and as Christ was male, it follows that applicants to the sacerdotal office must also be. This has been the apostolic tradition in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches(both wings of the church universal before 1054 schism) for 2 milennia. I abhor discrimination or violence against anyone on account of their sexuality. I respect each person for who they are. In relation to women, Mary the mother of our Saviour Jesus Christ is honored(hyperdulia) above all the saints and angels by the Church. Women figure prominently among the revered doctors of the Church e.g Therese of Lisieux, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Teresa of Avila.

Gearoid4, authority seems so important to you. In an earlier post, you wrote that the apostles had "authority" after receiving the Holy Spirit. I recall their receiving the gift of tongues and a promise of guidance by the Spirit, but nothing about the authority to set up a Magisterium and demand obedience to the teachings of mere men about gender roles, marriage and sex, child bearing, about which Christ left no teachings (except by inference that we should celebrate marriages and refrain from adultery). Sigmund Freud once wrote that the only healthy form of leadership-- the only leadership that it's safe to follow-- is the leadership of an idea ("Group Psych. & the Analysis of the Ego"). There are enough of Christ's own ideas to follow without working through doctrines about gender roles. Nowhere does the Magisterium wander further from Christ; it seems to trod the history of His friendships with women and silence about sexuality underfoot. Surely we all have a hunger for certainty in the awesome choices we confront today, but certainty is not to be found in an all-male, inward-looking tradition that refuses to open out onto the world. We have the gift of grace not to hoard it up and savor it in our souls but to bring it back into the world that God wants us to transform. You should not expect that women will be looking to all-male traditions to figure out how to do that. Haven't you noticed that the Spirit does not patronize sex-segregated groups? She's at work where there is give-and-take, listening and thinking, genuine dialogue, and openness to difference and change. Christ gave the apostles no guarantees, only the Spirit's counsel, requiring a two-way relationship: "Qui locutus est per prophetas."

Professor Daniel C. Maguire, a Catholic Theologian teaching at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: "Homosexuality is not a sin. Heterosexism (prejudice against people who are homosexual) is a sin. It is a serious sin because it violates justice, truth, and love. It also distorts the true meaning of sex and thus also harms everyone, including heterosexuals" (April 20, 2006, "A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage") RCC does not treat gays better than Harold Camping. Seven Catholic sacraments are available to heterosexual men, six to heterosexual women, five to all others except Catholic politicians who embrace political positions disapproved of by the Curia-- they have just three or four, depending on the inclination of their bishops. Anglicans advocate all the sacraments for all the faithful. Does God discriminate?

Gearoid4, Anglicans reformed some traditions, particularly church structure and decisions regarding faith and morals; these reforms restored ancient Christian practices such as we read about in the Acts of the Apostles, like spreading the gospel while maintaining unity. Reform should be an ongoing task for all churches. Also, ordaining women and non-celibate males without regard to sexual orientation in no way changes the priesthood, which descends uninterrupted from the apostles: "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." The records we have mark no occasion on which Christ declared himself a heterosexual or told us that the incarnation or redemption was about God being male. There is no indication in scripture or ancient Christian tradition that He intended to imprint male gender on priests. It's likely that you know the sources as well as anyone else, so you know that the Virgin mother of Jesus was represented as a priest/bishop for centuries in Christian art--part of the "tradition" of the church--and that women conducted Eucharistic services--documented history. And ABC Williams has no need to be concerned about any "authority"! Being Christian is not about "authority": Christ came to serve, not to rule, although some popes seem to replace their role as "servants of the servants of God" with an exercise of centralized power. Yes, Anglican conservatives were briefly crossing the Tiber by the hundreds, and now almost one by one, a normal rate of exchange. The Anglican Ordinariate only increases political polarization of Christians, another outcome not intended by Christ. Rome can keep trying to "poach," however: let's keep everyone happy!

Well, Eiriamach, the anglicans have changed certain apostolic traditions once held by them in unison with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They sought to change the nature of the priesthood in the name of modern sociology and not theology by admitting women. Some of their provinces allow for gay 'marriage'. These ill-advised steps have ruptured the anglican communion across the world and Rowan Williams can only look on from the sidelines as his authority withers. Meanwhile disaffected anglicans are coming in their thousands across the Tiber to partake in the Personal Ordinariate setup by the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, setup by Pope Benedict XV1. This could develop into millions in future years. In regards to the situation of the Catholic church in the Republic, indeed it has lost a lot of influence in recent years caused not least by such debacles as the sex-abuse crisis. This could be a moment of realization for northern protestants who in the past feared a united Ireland as being dangerous to their rights and liberties in the form of 'Rome Rule'. The two parts of Ireland are both undergoing profound economic problems and a duplication of government bodies and services across the Island is both illogical and costly. The pooling of resources in a united and coherent fashion could be a starting point for eventual political unification.

"proddy pope"??? The monarch may still be, figuratively speaking, the "head" of the Church of England, but Anglicans have no pope! Roman Catholics are fond of saying that their church is "not a democracy"; well, the Anglican Communion IS a democracy of shared decisions, in the same spirit as prevailed in the early Christian church. Decision-making is painfully slow, but it can and does include progress. Archbishop Rowan Williams is primate, as Katherine Jefferts Schori is for the US. The queen, prudently, does not mess with church matters. Considering the decline in moral leadership in Rome, I would expect that NI Protestants have little to object to in a papal visit. More important, with the reversal of once-nearly-universal Roman Catholicism in the Republic of Ireland, some of the concerns of Six-County Protestants about re-unification might be disappearing as well. Are they? I'd like to hear from those who know about this.

I can only wish the Holy Father well if he does come north of the Border next year, and indeed those who go to meet and greet him. I wont be one of them because in good conscience I cannot pretend that the church has turned a corner in putting its house in order. I rather fear that there are a good many like me who feel the same.

proddy pope making way for roman version who woudda thunk it.

Where is your prove that he deliberately covered up child-sex abuse, Unconvinced? In fact he took it upon himself in 2001 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to unify the processes to achieve justice for the abused. Last year he issued instructions which extended the statute of limitations from 10 to 20 yrs in which abuse can be reported and sped up the system for the defrocking of predatory priests when found guilty, I take it Unconvinced, you are one of the those so called 'bible-believing', protestant fundamentalists who believe that you are 'saved; and others such as the idolatrous papists destined for hell. You come out with the usual description of the pope as the 'anti-christ' which is par for the course for you and your ilk. He is the head of the church to whom Christ gave the keys of authority, through Peter. The demographics of the North of Ireland have changed appreciably over the last 90yrs whereby Catholics constitute 45% of the population. They are fully entitled to see their spiritual leader pay a pastoral visit to them as part of an apostolic visit to Ireland and do not require anybody's permission for this.

why should Queen E.'s visit bear any relation to this? Please keep the Rottweiler from the Door. We don't want him.

No it does not pave the way for the Pope, there is a lot of difference in the Queen and the pope,and should should not be compared. This is exactly what the Queens visit was all about ,so the pope could come to Northern Ireland . Every land the pope sets his foot on it brings the curse of God with it . How would any RC's even want the pope after the way he covered up child abuse and still is doing so . Even out of respect for your children surely RC's wouldn't want him here or anywhere near them . If they do well that defies belief. He is not fit to come to any land . It is time Christians and I mean saved people start praying that God will thwart every plan to bring the anti christ to the land of Northern Ireland

@hybernia, What an idiotic comment which contributes nothing to the debate. Pope Benedict XV1 has done more than any preceding pope to combat the terrible scourge of sexual abuse.