46 Comments

• Liamkeyes | Oct 21, 2010, 07:52 PM EDT

  I'm only asking but how come Jesus never conferred the Priesthood on his Mother who was and is "The solitary boast of our humanity"?

• dyannesmith | Oct 05, 2010, 11:42 AM EDT

  boycotting mass is not the answer and is not appropriate

• jacersagain | Sep 30, 2010, 05:53 PM EDT

  Carroll09 – I thank you again and heartedly agree with your last post’s sentiments. I’m no longer an avid reader of books as I once was, even of religious books such as by Archbishop Fulton Sheen but one book that I did enjoy immensely was “Christ Is Alive” by Michel Quoist. I recommend it to all interested in or doubting its Subject. I agree too with some of the sentiments expressed by IowaMike but I would not hasten to speak of God's judgement of anybody. Even Ms. Sleeman is a child of God's, as we all are, capable of being misled by the evil one, as we all are too.

• IowaMike | Sep 30, 2010, 12:59 PM EDT

  It is sad that Jennifer Sleeman knows so little about the Catholic faith after joining 54 years ago. Calling people into mortal sin by deliberately encouraging them to stay home from mass is an evil thing to do and makes her complicit in their sin. She will have much to answer for when she meets the Lord at the Particular Judgment. Those groups from around the world supporting her are either misguided or are Catholic dissidents that miss no opportunity to undermine the Church. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith and the Church. It can only be found in the mass, to miss it deliberately shows a profound lack of understanding. God Bless,

• Carroll09 | Sep 30, 2010, 05:04 AM EDT

  You're welcome, Jacersagain...Sorry for posting essentially the same thing twice - I thought it hadn't worked the first time round! :) And, by the way, you are not ignorant in the least - the great Cicero said that he was not ashamed to confess that he was ignorant of what he did not know... You see, what is infinitely more shameful is being ignorant even though one has been presented with the truth- indeed, as we have seen many a time on I.C. (to quote William Hazlitt) prejudice is surely the child of ignorance. One thing is for sure, we won't be able to plead ignorance before the Lord- which is why I have frequently quoted the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen and urged people to find out what the Catholic Church really is rather than what they (perhaps out of willful ignorance) wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.

• Carroll09 | Sep 29, 2010, 07:37 PM EDT

  Jacersagain- the title "Apostle of the Apostles" was assigned to St Mary Magdalene by St Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on the Gospels ("Super Ioannem").He gave her this title because she was the first to bring the news to the Disciples that she had seen the risen Lord-an apostle is one who brings the Good News to people: St Mary Magdalene brought the Good News of the Resurrection to those whom Christ would send to bring the Good News to the rest of the world. St Thomas Aquinas commented on this title he had given to St Mary Magdalene by saying: "Just as a woman had announced the words of death to the first man, so also a woman was the first to announce to the Apostles the words of life". If anything, this title shows us that we are all called to be apostles, but we may be called to bring the Good News to others in various ways. St Thomas Aquinas also said that "humility is seeing your place and taking it"- God has called each of us to something special and unique: St Mary Magdalene's special calling was to follow Christ and to bring the news of His Resurrection to the Apostles. So, in answer to your question: no, St Mary Magdalene was not a priest or a bishop- she was a faithful Apostle though, which is no different from that to which we are all called.

• jacersagain | Sep 29, 2010, 06:38 PM EDT

  Carroll09 - My ignorance knows no bounds! Thank you for more of your enlightenment and, especially, interpretation of apostleship. You must certainly be an apostle of a kind! On a trip to Sth France once, I had the privilege to visit the cave where Mary Magdalene is said to have lived out her life as a hermit in the mountains of Sainte Baume (after spending years converting local people to Christ’s message after she arrived in France) and afterwards I went on to visit the nearby town of Sainte Maxime where her skull is on display in the crypt of the main church there. Of particular jumped-up delight for me was seeing the piece of skin from Mary’s forehead (in a vial below the skull on display), the so-called “Nolle temere” (spelling?), allegedly the part of Mary’s forehead that Jesus reached out to touch when He said to her, just after she discovered him resurrected that morning and wanted to reach out and touch Him to verify what she was seeing - “Don’t touch me” but yet He touched her forehead in some possible rebuke. When Mary’s bones were found by those digging in expectation of finding her remains, the people doing the excavations were not as prepared as today’s archaeologists are careful. As you might know, the story goes that when they lifted Mary’s remains from a stone casket, her skull fell onto the ground and the piece of skin that Jesus touched fell off the forehead. That is how they knew it was Mary’s remains that they had found because of the "Nolle temere" legend. It was still intact and can be seen today if you visit the church of St. Maxime in the town of the same name not far from Sainte Baume. It was mesmerising looking at a piece of living skin touched by Christ, never mind me noticing how big the skull was... Mary Mags musta been some big-headed lady, red haired or not! Peace be with you and all.

• Carroll09 | Sep 29, 2010, 05:11 PM EDT

  Jacersagain- the title "Apostle of the Apostles" was assigned to St Mary Magdalene by St Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on the Gospels ("Super Ioannem"). He gave her this title because she was the first to bring the news to the Disciples that she had seen the risen Lord- an apostle is one who brings the Good News to people: St Mary Magdalene brought the Good News of the Resurrection to those whom Christ would send to bring the Good News to the rest of the world. St Thomas Aquinas commented on this title he had given to St Mary Magdalene by saying: "Just as a woman had announced the words of death to the first man, so also a woman was the first to announce to the Apostles the words of life". If anything, this title shows us that we are all called to be apostles, but we may be called to bring the Good News to others in various ways. St Thomas Aquinas also said that humility is seeing your place and taking it - God has called each of us to something special and unique: St Mary Magdalene's special calling was to follow Christ and to bring the news of His Resurrection to the Apostles. So, in answer to your question: no, St Mary Magdalene was not a priest or a bishop - she was a faithful Apostle though, which is no different from that to which we are all called (and we are not all priests and bishops!).

• jacersagain | Sep 29, 2010, 04:41 PM EDT

  Since this debate has swung from Cathy’s topic above of boycotting Mass to women priests and an allegation of our dear Irish sacred St. Brigid being a priestess or bishop, I throw in my bit and ask a question of any Christian - Catholic and not – (with any Theologians’ comments welcome too): if St. Mary Magdalene was described by Jesus as the Apostle of the Apostles, would that not make her another Apostle of Christ (i.e. a priest, even if female) or possibly a bishop to the Apostles?

• GuinnessGrrl | Sep 29, 2010, 02:07 PM EDT

  I'm curious if people who went to mass still "boycotted" by not putting anything into the collection plate!

• Carroll09 | Sep 29, 2010, 11:37 AM EDT

  ScottMcGowan- I agree with you of course that the bottom-line should be the Holy Mass and the Eucharist. However, I wonder how you can claim that on the one hand the Irish Church was resistant to Rome for centuries and yet faithful to its teachings and to the Pope. It seems like a contradiction to me. St Brigid was not ordained a priest- since holy orders cannot be validly conferred on women. The Church has always held that this was the teaching of the Apostles, even though (no different to today) some women claimed to have been ordained. As to her being "consecrated" a bishop- again, it wouldn't have been a valid ordination; but there is a story that St Mel read the ceremony for ordination of a bishop instead of that for the installation of an abbess (which is what St Brigid was) as he was in an inebriated state! Indeed St Brigid is said to have wielded similar authority to a bishop, but she could never have validly or licitly functioned as one since the "ordination" was itself invalid and illicit in the first place.

• Scottmcgowan | Sep 28, 2010, 08:01 PM EDT

  I agree with this woman's stance in terms of the Church and women. However, I would not boycott mass and the sacraments - that is like bycotting Christ! I think wearing the green at mass is a great idea. I do believe that we would benefit by returning to the ancient Church in terms of having a married clergy. I also believe that we should emulate St. Bridget and the early Irish Church in which St. Bridget was consecrated not just a priest but a bishop! Of course, the Irish Church was resistant to Rome for centuries, while still remaining faithful to its teachings and to the Pope. Would that we could return to and emulate the early Irish Catholic Church when we had married clergy and monasteries that had married nuns and priests and other religious living together. The bottem line for me, however, is the mass and the Euchurist. Scott McGowan

• Carroll09 | Sep 28, 2010, 08:25 AM EDT

  Yes, Marsman- you love quoting that piece & I have answered it on at least 2 other occasions. Firstly, you claimed before that the Church keeps Matthew 6:6 quiet- and I have asked you, if that is true then why is it 1) that that passage is read out at Mass several times each year and 2)the Church didn't leave that part out of the Bible when it was finally setting down the canon of Sacred Scripture in the late 4th century? The reason is that there is no conflict if you actually read it in context: Christ was making the point that we shouldn't pray (or appear to be praying) in public just to be noticed by others, because that is what hypocrites do. Praying in public was not the issue- Christ Himself prayed publicly in the Synagogue. Also, were the Apostles disobeying Christ when they gathered on "the Lord's Day" (Sunday) to celebrate the Eucharist? You might think that the Lord's other command of "Do this in memory of Me" was insignificant, but the Apostles didn't 2,000 years ago, nor does the Church today- the Mass was so central to the faith that it was always celebrated with the community on a Sunday. There is time for private prayer and a time for public worship - that is what the Church has always taught. It is clear from the writings of the Early Church Fathers that those who do not worship publicly on Sunday in a common Eucharist are most certainly NOT "totally okay with the Lord"- so I'm sure you'll forgive me and other Catholics who actually prize the 2,000 year-old constant Apostolic teaching higher than your fanciful and frail interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

• marsman | Sep 28, 2010, 07:52 AM EDT

  Interestingly what Jesus, the Lord, said is not mentioned: “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room, shut the door and pray to your Father, who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not use empty repetitions as the Gentiles do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Matth. 6:5 As far as Jesus is concerned anyone staying at home can do so in good conscience, rest peacefully there on Sunday morning. Something a majority of the people are doing anyhow, and they are totally okay with the Lord. (The Lord is bad, maybe even Satan?)

• warrenpoint00 | Sep 27, 2010, 09:15 PM EDT

  Dont think too many listened to the auld doll.Any way we live in a time where people are allowed to make up their own minds. Its called democracy. It certainly did not exist when our Irish fore family,s were put to the sword for practising their beliefs. THEIR BELIEFS.

• jacersagain | Sep 27, 2010, 05:07 PM EDT

  (Cont’d...) Of particular interest (re Ms Sleeman) in that interview of the Sunday Times (ST) with Fr. Amorth, who says he has carried out over 70,000 exorcisms (not on 70,000 people, many people need more than one exorcism), was what the ST says has been his experience: Exorcism can only be done... usually after medical or psychiatric tests show no rational explanation for the symptoms, which include vomiting, violent headaches and stomach cramps but also superhuman strength, fits and extreme aversion to holy symbols. He (Fr. Amorth) is adept at distinguishing hysterics from the real thing. There are more women than men among the possessed, he said, “but we don’t know why. There are various explanations: Satan taking revenge on the Virgin Mary, or using women as a means of reaching men. None of them is convincing.” And what does jacers think? Well, I wouldn’t put it past Satan to have encouraged a fervent Catholic like Ms. Sleeman to make that boycott call, or use anyone to attack the Catholic or other Christian Churches.

• jacersagain | Sep 27, 2010, 05:02 PM EDT

  BTW - on what Cherishfan wrote: When Christ turned on (Simon) Peter and said "Get behind me Satan!”, He wasn't calling Peter by the name of Satan. He was addressing the spirit of Satan who tried to invade Peter's thinking. So Christ was not only protecting (Simon) Peter, he was remembering what Satan tried to do to Himself during those 40 days in the desert. Just as in the same way that the Vatican’s chief exorcist, Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, has said: “The Devil is at work within the Vatican.” The Sunday Times reported after an interview with Fr. Amorth last March, that Pope Paul VI talked about the ‘smoke of Satan’ infiltrating the Vatican as long ago as 1972. “Satan sets out to damage the leadership of the Church — and of politics, industry and sport, for that matter” he said. (More...)

• jacersagain | Sep 27, 2010, 04:23 PM EDT

  I can sympathise w/ Dearbhla’s latest post. I do believe that the ‘edifice’ needs re-structuring, preferably back to what Christ and His Apostles set out to accomplish. As I’ve often said on early posts on ICentral, particularly under erstwhile Fr. Tim’s columns, our Church needs to get back to that; not that it has lost it, it hasn’t ever – but the structure does need to, IMHO, and with greater humility. I agree with Carrool09 – Christianity does not work in a democratic way, or by one’s conscience – I don’t think it was never intended to do so by God, our Father, Christ’s Father.

• Carroll09 | Sep 27, 2010, 11:06 AM EDT

  ...You are right that an individual can question their beliefs with an open mind. However, as G.K. Chesterton said, "merely having an open mind is nothing- the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid". I, as a Catholic, have done this: maybe I believe what I need to believe to be a "good" Catholic, but I make sure I know WHY believe what I believe. But just remember, since we have been dwelling on Matthew 16, when you leave the question of who Christ is to each individual person - the "democratic" approach- you get nothing but conflicting and contradictory answers: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?", "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets". Only Peter got the right answer. Today there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations all giving their version of who the Son of Man is. It is not Scripture that is contradicting itself- PEOPLE are creating the contradictions.

• Carroll09 | Sep 27, 2010, 11:04 AM EDT

  Dearbhla12- the Bible contradictions argument is really old news. It is easy to create contradictions by taking things out of context - either just taking a few words, or not realising the audience that the writer was addressing. Sure translations can pose difficulties- for example, some Protestants reject Matt.16:18 about Peter being the Rock because the gender of 2 Greek nouns don't agree- forgetting that Christ wasn't speaking in Greek, but Aramaic: when read in its original context, Aramaic, Christ's intention was exceedingly clear. There are many supposed contradictions where in actual fact there really isn't one: John [20:21] says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb; Matthew [28:1] says that Mary Magdalene & the other Mary went to the tomb. The supposed contradiction is that John says one woman went to the tomb while Matthew says that 2 went to the tomb. But there is no contradiction: John's silence in not naming any other person is precisely that, silence. There could be many reasons why John did not mention the other Mary, just like some of the Evangelists thought it was better to recount certain miracles of Christ and not others- it doesn't mean they didn't all occur...[continued]

• Carroll09 | Sep 27, 2010, 05:27 AM EDT

  You've done precisely what you accused me of doing, Dublinjas, only your quotation only proves what we already knew about Peter, that he was a human being, a sinner. As Cherishfan said, Jesus referred to Peter as Satan because he vowed that he would not allow Christ to suffer and die. It also says a lot about the priesthood of Peter - as a priest, he was to imitate Christ: Christ was not just Priest, He was also the Victim. Christ offered something in sacrifice: what He offered was Himself. The "priestly" side of the priesthood was the glorious things came with it; the "victimal" side was the suffering and giving of oneself. Peter, at this stage in Matt.16 was not ready for the victimal side: that's why he says later at the Transfiguration (Matt.17) "Let me build three tents; one for You, one for Moses and one for Elijah". He didn't want that glorious moment to end. Peter, at this point wanted the Priestly side of priesthood; but when the victimal side followed in Matt.17:14 with the possessed boy, the disciples couldn't cure him because they did not yet have faith even the size of a mustard seed. Furthermore, you say that I have taken Matt.16:18 as if it was a license from God to create the Roman Catholic Church. Well, the fact is that the Church existed long, long before a single word of the New Testament was written: it's actually the Church and its authority which validates Sacred Scripture, not the other way around. If you're a Catholic, the canon of Scripture you use was decided at the end of the 4th century; if you're a Protestant, the canon of Scripture you use was compiled in the 16th century. The Church, on the other hand, existed when Christ commissioned the Apostles, not when it was written that Christ commissioned the Apostles.

• Cherishfan | Sep 26, 2010, 10:24 PM EDT

  Ah, that's what you get when you take one sentence and spin it to prove your point. Jesus told Peter to get behind Him when Peter tried to keep Jesus from going into Jeruselem. He was trying to protect Him from His crucifixion. Jesus was accusing Peter of tempting Him to avoid His persecution and death. This has nothing to do with Jesus choosing Peter to be head of His church which He had done earlier. Peter was human as we are and therefore made mistakes and was chastised by Jesus for them.

• Dublinjas | Sep 26, 2010, 09:05 PM EDT

  Carroll09 You have taken the 18th line of Matthew 16 from the Holy Bible and bandy it about like it was a license from God to create the Roman Catholic Church, One Line..So I will say to you to move a little forward and read the 23rd line of Matthew 16 Matt 16:23, He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.".

• HughesDohmann | Sep 26, 2010, 07:09 PM EDT

  Intercessor? Interesting handle. As we say around this neck of the woods, " U better get your butt to church !"

• dearbhla12 | Sep 26, 2010, 06:38 PM EDT

  My apologies Carroll09 at 3:38 pm for my poor wording. What I meant was that there are people who differentiate between 1) the edifice and institution of the church which is run by men who are at the mercy of ego and 2) the religion. There is ample evidence, and even taught in seminary schools, that there are various contradictions and incorrect translations of the bible that has taken away the certainty that the Bible (invaluable educational and historical Book that it is) contains the "One" true word of God. It is up to each individual to question and challenge their own beliefs with a truly open mind. A regligion, secure in itself, will support that process. If it had done so in the past, pedophilia would not have reached the widespread catastrophic levels that it did. In a religion that insists on unquestioning devotion leads to priests telling young boys that sodomy is a right of passage to plant the seed to adult virility (as I heard years ago in an interview with a jailed priest). And that is a danger to the honourable and sacred intentions of the rest. I applaud Mrs. Sleeman for suggesting this action and, by what I've read so far, for her non-judgmental acceptance of those who disagree with her.

• Carroll09 | Sep 26, 2010, 06:04 PM EDT

  Citizenwhy- if the Eucharist wasn't "completed" until the Resurrection, then what did the Apostles receive at the Last Supper. Was it not the Body and Blood of Christ as He Himself said? Also, why did He command the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist "until He comes" if it wasn't a complete union with His Crucifixion and Resurrection? The reason is that the effects of the Crucifixion and consequently the Resurrection transcend time - otherwise the just who had died before the Lord could not have shared in His glory. If the Crucifixtion & Resurrection cannot be applied to all ages (which is precisely what is done through the Mass), i.e. its effects only applied to those present at that moment in time, then as St Paul says, our faith is in vain. Mary Magdalene being the first to see the resurrected Christ does not mean anything about the Eucharist- it means she was the first to see the resurrected Christ. The Apostles, on the other hand, recognised Christ in the "breaking of bread" on the road to Emmaus- when the blessing had been said (as at the Last Supper), they recognised the Lord (who had disappeared from sight) in the breaking of bread. Also, your assertion that tradition is the "weakest leg" is not true- Sacred Tradition, which is what we are talking about, is actually unwritten Divine Revelation (Sacred Scripture is written Sacred Tradition). In actual fact, Sacred Tradition preceeded Sacred Scripture, since the Apostles were sent out to preach the Gospel (several years before any Gospels were written). Sacred Tradition includes those teachings that St John says at the end of his gospel were not written down- if everything that Christ did and said were to be written down, the world could not contain the books which would be written.

• barneyjo | Sep 26, 2010, 05:51 PM EDT

  Like many others, I didnt boycott Mass today. Doing so wont solve anything. However I still totally sympathise with the views expressed by Mrs Sleeman. I or one uphold her right to hold and articulate the views she does. Our parish priest did make a reference to the proposed protest, and while he said he couldnt agree with such an action, he added that he would find it hard to dismiss the views expressed by Mrs Sleeman and many others; and he asked the congregation to pray for her.

• Carroll09 | Sep 26, 2010, 04:44 PM EDT

  ...The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen once commented that there are not one hundred people in the U.S. who hate the Catholic Church, yet there are millions who hate what they think is the Catholic Church- THAT is the problem. If people made the effort to find out what the Catholic Church is REALLY about by looking at the teachings of the Church & finding out Why she teaches what she does, then there will be many who, like the recently beatified John Henry Cardinal Newman, will come to love the Catholic Church and the truths she professes. In reference to those voting with their feet, it is important to remember that many are coming into the Church - it is not a one-way tide. For example, at Easter 2010, over 3,000 Catholics were received into the Church in the Diocese of Dallas, Texas, alone; 1,112 were welcomed into the Church in the Archdiocese of San Antonio; 1,800 in the Archdiocese of Atlanta; 2,400 in the Archdiocese of L.A.. The ironic thing is that the NUMBER ONE REASON why lapsed Catholics return to the Church is the very thing that Ms Sleeman has asked Catholics to boycott: THE EUCHARIST.

• Carroll09 | Sep 26, 2010, 04:44 PM EDT

  Kell7757- I wonder would you be making the same argument if Ms Sinnott was supporting Ms Sleeman's boycott? Anyone who knows of Ms Sinnott will know that she is a devout Catholic & she has never made any secret of this fact. If anything, going by what we hear from the media, speaking out in favour of the Holy Mass or anything to do with the Catholic Church will COST a politician votes, not gain votes. By the way, Ms Sinnott can hardly be counted as a "local" politician - as an M.E.P. for Munster, she represents a large portion of the Irish population at European leve. You believe that people are voting with their feet - pointing out that people are leaving the Church is not quite so important as WHY they are leaving. If anything is to blame, it is religious indifferentism - believing that one religion is as good as another: the reality is that religion is supposed to be about truth, not keeping the people happy at any cost which many Protestant denominations have done. As Pope Benedict said during his trip to the U.K., the Church is indeed called to be inclusive, but it must never be at the expense of Christian truth...[continued]

• jacersagain | Sep 26, 2010, 04:30 PM EDT

  Well said Carroll09 at 03.38pm EDT. The facts of today in Ireland are that not only did the call to boycott fail to get any significant response, most churches, notably in Dublin, the largest diocese in Ireland, reported increases in Mass attendance. A few people did wear green armbands at Masses and those few were recognised as so by Ms. Sleeman herself who thanked everyone for their limited response to her boycott call. The Word of God is much stronger than Ms. Sleeman’s, God Bless her.

• Carroll09 | Sep 26, 2010, 03:38 PM EDT

  Dearbhla12- Christ most certainly WAS the founder of the Church: Matt.16:18, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church". Not only did they, as you say, wish to worship Christ & the ideals He represents, but they were worshipping in THE way that Christ Himself commanded - i.e. the Holy Mass. Christ is the one who commissioned Peter and the other Apostles to preach, cast out demons, celebrate the Holy Mass ("Do this in memory of Me"), and to forgive sins in His name - the Apostles did not deviate from these orders; they did not have the authority to do so because they were obeying He Who sent them. The Church has consistently carried Christ's command through the ages, despite the many Judases which have been numbered among His followers - indeed, the first in the unbroken chain of popes - Peter - was in many ways the weakest of them all having thrice denied Christ, yet Christ made him the Rock - THAT is precisely why the Church IS different from every other political institution: if Peter hadn't been held in the hand of Christ Himself, the Church would have failed long ago.

• leahforce | Sep 26, 2010, 03:28 PM EDT

  Given what the Catholic Church has done in Ireland nobody in their right mind should attend mass again; ever.

• CitizenWhy | Sep 26, 2010, 03:22 PM EDT

  God's image is male and female, not just male. ... The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, stressing that condign with Mary's status as the mother of Christ, she would be born without sin, opens the argument in reason of condignity to apply to the status of women in the priesthood. ... The Sacrament of the Eucharist was not completed until the Resurrection, Mary Magdalen the first to witness. The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was on men and women. ... Give it up, there is nothing in Scripture against women's ordination, reason supports it and tradition, the weakest leg, supposedly opposes it.

• kell7757 | Sep 26, 2010, 02:54 PM EDT

  If you're going to quote someone in support of the Church, it's a low blow to quote a politician. They say whatever will win approval from their constituants. Politicans, especially the more local ones, don't speak their own minds. They say what will get them elected. If you want to present the "other side" at least give us the voice of someone who has the intellectual and politcal freedom to speak freely. The truth is this boycott has been going on for some time. This article points out the fact that I have found to be true, that even the older generation, and people you might not expect to fall away, are falling away. People have already been voting with their feet.

• dearbhla12 | Sep 26, 2010, 01:21 PM EDT

  Note to Carroll09 - Christ was not the founder of the church. It was founded by people who wanted to worship Christ and the ideals that Christ represents. But where you find man, you find people of every nature - some of whom lust for power and greed, and the Church is no different than any other political institution. But that by no means paints all Catholics in the same light. The members of the Church are as diverse as any cross-section of society and we will therefore see a diversity in the creative ways people find to worship God. Some people will stay home and reflect on the personal message that Jesus brought and feel that their absence makes a pious statement about the hypocritical way the church has dealt with mortal sin and the lack of protection of the vulnerable, while others will find the communal power of worshipping with others at Mass strengthens the power of forgiveness and enlightenment that we hope may bring peace certainly to the victims and maybe even the perpetrators. There are others still, I'm sure, who won't analyse why - just because they feel the need to rebel or to conform. Isn't intention what matters? Sincerity rather than opportunism? To those dedicated and sincere people in positions of power within the Church who are so offended by the crimes of pedophilia that have tainted your own good intentions: Please take this opportunity to encourage people to hear the message of the Jennifer Sleemans AND the Kathy Sinnotts of the world and respect their individual rights to do justice to their love of God and His message.

• haikued2 | Sep 26, 2010, 12:53 PM EDT

  Clearly the % of priests doing these things is/has been small, but the others protected them. I think, from the Pope on down to the parish assistants, the issue has to be recognized and fixed. Not ignored for political reasons. The Faithful deserve better. The shepherds must protect the flock, not the deviant shepherds who would prey on their own sheep.

• oldboreen | Sep 26, 2010, 12:44 PM EDT

  I don't doubt Mrs Sleeman's sincerity, but boycotting Mass will achieve nothing.Attend the holy sacrifice of the Mass- something persecuted Catholics in other parts of the world do weekly at their peril-and then I suggest, Mrs Sleeman and her supporters demonstrate peacefully outside the Irish Bishop's residences,assuming they feel that strongly about the Catholic Church's attitude to women and it's decades of coverup over child abuse.But perhaps the faithful of both sexes, are in too much of a hurry to get home to their Sunday lunch or the match on TV-precisely what their graces will expect them to do!

• WeWantJustice | Sep 26, 2010, 12:40 PM EDT

  http://shameofireland.co.uk/ is for Survivors of the Industrial School System their Families and Friends There is also a petition at http://www.petitions.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=238&Itemid=9&latestnews=latest to Give Survivors a mandate to be heard with regard to the Stutory Fund that the Government is going to IMPOSE on Survivors

• Carroll09 | Sep 26, 2010, 12:32 PM EDT

  I would agree with Ms Sinnott. If we truly understood and valued what the Holy Mass is really about - the highest form of worship for Catholics, the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Church's life- no one could keep away from it, not even for one Sunday. If we had the love and understanding of the Holy Mass that Ms Sinnott has displayed, not only would we not miss Mass on a Sunday, but we would want to go every day! The Church is holy because its founder, Christ is holy; its individual members are all sinners, but they make up a perfect Body which is the Body of Christ - the sins of individual members of the Church should not induce us to boycott the great gift of the Holy Mass which Christ left to the Church on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper. GeorgeDillon, I agree with your cousin told you- I was at 2 Masses in two different churches this weekend and not only was there no sign whatsoever of a boycott, but not a single person was sporting a green armband. My feeling is that this will be the general case across the country; the media have blown this into a huge story and have gotten behind Ms Sleeman's calls for a boycott, but I imagine that just like the Pope's recent visit to the U.K., they have underestimated the faithfulness of Catholics despite the difficult times they are going through.

• Intercessor | Sep 26, 2010, 12:11 PM EDT

  To BishopSean: Many Catholics who have left the Church and are celebrating the presence of Jesus in their homes, with other like-minded Christians have discovered the words of Jesus, that many Catholics, who are still sitting in the pews will never understand. Jesus promised, "Where ever two or more are gathered together in my name, I will be in their midst." Yes, this should be of concern to the Catholic Church, because after one has experienced the true presence of Christ, why should they go back to a dry, monotonous Mass and sit next to members of the Laity, who have totally ignored the Priest Pedophilia Scandal, just because it has never touched their families? Many former Catholics are discovering the powerful promises, which Christ gave us. They are the same promises that Protestants discovered over 500 years ago: "The Kingdom of God is WITHIN!" One doesn't need to attend Mass in order to find God's Kingdom.

• Intercessor | Sep 26, 2010, 12:02 PM EDT

  The first words that God said were recorded out of the void: "Let their be LIGHT!" Over the years, the one thing that I have seen, repeatedly, is that the majority of the Catholic Faithful purposely ignore seeing the "LIGHT," of the actual misery created by the indescribably deplorable Priest Pedophilia Scandal. What is it about MORTAL SIN that they don't understand? Just because these sins have been committed by their beloved priests, is no reason to look the other way. Now, hopefully there will be a day when they'll be looking at even more empty seats in the Sunday morning pews. I pray that everyone out there will send the Laity and the Magisterium a really strong message! It's about time that both will finally see the" LIGHT!" Please stay home on Sunday!

• GeorgeDillon | Sep 26, 2010, 11:27 AM EDT

  Just been talking to my cousin in Kells, Meath. She attended Mass as usual today, and saw absolutely no evidence of any diminution in numbers attending. This "boycott" was a farce, Mass was "boycotted" by women who haven't been in a church in decades, egged on by elements in the media with illwill towards the Catholic Church. Is the Catholic Church the only church in the world where people who are not members of that church feel they have a right to give it suggestions? Bit like me telling the AME here in the south what to do--I wouldn't.

• FatherVol | Sep 26, 2010, 10:44 AM EDT

  Brava, Ms. Kathy Sinnott. You actually have an understanding of what Mass is about, and it's not political.

• killowen | Sep 26, 2010, 10:05 AM EDT

  puttin the innocent priests out on the street - where's the christian charity in that.

• LITTLEGOAT | Sep 26, 2010, 09:37 AM EDT

  i value the holy mass and can offer it for anyone being abused today

• BishopSean | Sep 26, 2010, 09:02 AM EDT

  Of greater concern are the Roman Catholics who permanently stopped attending Mass, holding prayer servies in their homes, and relating to Jesus Christ.