68 Comments

• warlocks | Jan 20, 2013, 12:49 AM EST

  It's high time that the Catholic Church keep their nose out of people's Bedrooms they need to clean up their own House and stop throwing stones in their own Glass house, Pedophiles still exist in the Catholic Church & no doubt in the Vatican as well. Time for the Vatican to clean up the Corruption & Sins before looking elseware.

• SCVMalcolm | Jan 19, 2013, 08:48 PM EST

  Cahir, I respect how you reflect! We are NOT called to be Roman Catholics. We are called to be Christian, adjective meaning Christ-like, which the Rome is not!

• aloistmartin | Jan 19, 2013, 02:50 AM EST

  Don`t Get Fooled Again

• Joe Glackin | Jan 18, 2013, 10:52 PM EST

  Seems only certain comnments apply here .

• Smyrnian | Jan 03, 2013, 06:40 PM EST

  This thread is getting mighty deep. Ease up folks.

• Smyrnian | Jan 03, 2013, 03:25 PM EST

  The anti comments by the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy reflect their commitment to maintain the status quo as they see it, much to the detriment of the decent parishioners who are faithful to the church. The holier than thou hierarchy are very selective in what they speak of and pretend that they are without sin even though they condoned and promoted killing of others for financial gain. How they can speak publicly against people that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church is absurd. These charlatan christians need to keep their unwanted opinions to themselves or at least to the confines of their churches. It is time for the state to tax the churches who meddle in others affairs. That will cause problems for their main purpose, making more money so the hierarchy can live in luxury. The sooner these delusional zealots take a vow of silence the sooner we can get back to the basics of our faith and not be judged by their irrational words. Why can't they realize how much harm they are doing to the church?

• Gearoid4 | Jan 03, 2013, 02:11 PM EST

  I know that polygamy was present in some areas of the world since ancient times, as was evidenced in Judaea, and surrounding territories. But this does not really alter the unchanging truth about marriage that it essentially consists of the union of one man and one women(more than one wife as in the case of Polygamy). Marriage is certainly not perfect when a match is made on earth and anyone expecting a rosy scenario all the time will be disappointed. Marriage is always a work in progress which demands time and effort on the part of the couple involved. It is a worthwhile investment in terms of the growth of a couple's love and the development of their kids. Because reputable studies have shown that it is the best arrangement for the life prospects and longevity of both parents and kids as well as the Common Good of society. You are wrong when you state "(also the pope's) of gender and sex roles as essentially complementary does not stand the test of natural science or relationships and belongs to a medieval religious view", as challenged by studies of the benefits of marriage show. I am aware of the damage that results from abused women or kids. But divorce is no panacea for troubles in marriage as it often exacerbates the suffering of the kids and results in an sharp fall in the income and even job prospects of the wives who go that route

• eiriamach | Jan 03, 2013, 01:46 PM EST

  Gearoid, monogamy with partners' mutual choice of each other as spouses has not been the dominant form of marriage for 2000 years. It's wishful thinking to ignore the many cultures in various eras (and some still today) in which parents marry their children to the parents' choices of partners or in which parents have given their girl children in marriage to mature men who are, in effect, pedophiles. Polygamy, with its well studied negative effects on wives and male children, has also existed since ancient times, and the US Supreme Court ruling on polygamy has been in place for not much more than a century. Yes, human rights is a highly relevant moral category for evaluating marriage customs. Marriage is hardly "unique" when it has so often in history been determined by economics, i.e., socio-economic class considerations of families (including incestuous marriages to keep wealth from leaving the family), as well as by political alliances. There are many abuses of individual rights, especially the loss of rights by married women and the abuse of children, that your rosy perspective on marriage ignores, but history does not ignore them. Your view (also the pope's) of gender and sex roles as essentially complementary does not stand the test of natural science or relationships and belongs to a medieval religious view.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 03, 2013, 01:04 PM EST

  @EphraimKibbey, I could not agree with you more the love between a man and woman is much more than their reproductive parts. I was not trying to obscure this reality, but merely pointing out the observable fact that those physical endowments are there to express that love in a very mutual and loving way. Thus they are indicative of a natural order that transcends our understanding and matures our thinking if we let it.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 03, 2013, 01:00 PM EST

  But equality when it comes up against something as fundamentally unique as marriage, Eiriamach, cannot compensate for a "right" than cannot in truth be given to any ooupling outside the union of a man and a woman. This is fundamental to the whole argument, as to use "rights" to do this, will change the essence of marriage so radically that it cannot be called that name anymore. Societies over 2000 years understood very well the concept of marriage and it has only been in the last 10 years or more that radical activists want to overthrow that accepted wisdom which has been tried and successfully tested. The Catholic understanding of Natural Law as God's Revelation through the lens of Faith and Reason is as relevant today as it was in the time of the High Middle Ages when Thomas Aquinas synthesized Greek thought with the Christian. perspective Remember that it was Pope Leo X11 who authored the great Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" in 1891 which beautifully articulated the rights of the worker with respect to his labour, pay and status and this was carried by such iconic Catholic activists as Dorothy Day in mid-twentieth century America. So do not distort the evolution of Catholic thinking with regards to world issues by stating that it is caught in some sort of medieval time-warp. Nothing could be further from the truth.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 03, 2013, 12:58 PM EST

  But equality when it comes up against something as fundamentally unique as marriage, Eiriamach, cannot compensate for a "right" than cannot in truth be given to any ooupling outside the union of a man and a woman. This is fundamental to the whole argument, as to use "rights" to do this, will change the essence of marriage so radically that it cannot be called that name anymore. Societies over 2000 years understood very well the concept of marriage and it has only been in the last 10 years or more that radical activists want to overthrow that accepted wisdom which has been tried and successfully tested. The Catholic understanding of Natural Law as God's Revelation through the lens of Faith and Reason is as relevant today as it was in the time of the High Middle Ages when Thomas Aquinas synthesized Greek thought with the Christian. perspective Remember that it was Pope Leo X11 who authored the great Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" in 1891 which beautifully articulated the rights of the worker in terms of rights with respect to his labour, pay and rights and this was carried by such iconic Catholic activists as Dorothy Day in mid-twentieth century America. So do not distort the evolution of Catholic thinking with regards to world issues by stating that it is caught in some sort of medieval time-warp. Nothing could be further from the truth.

• Smyrnian | Jan 03, 2013, 10:04 AM EST

  Bock - correct. It's the selectivity I am pointing out.

• olovely | Jan 03, 2013, 08:19 AM EST

  In 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged. That was just yesterday in Vatican time. In other words, so-called 'Natural Law' has always meant whatever it is convenient to make it mean.

• Bocktherobber | Jan 03, 2013, 07:30 AM EST

  Smyrnian -- The Catholic church itself relies on things said by popes 1500 years ago. May not the rest of us follow their example?

• eiriamach | Jan 02, 2013, 11:43 PM EST

  Enslavement was once a form of punishment inflicted by the pope on disobedient Christians. Most Catholic theologians have believed some forms of slavery compatible with natural law. Thirteenth century canon law listed lawful categories of slaves. By the 15th century, papal encyclicals forbade slavery, but only of other Christians, not indigenous people in America, Africa, or Muslim areas. After Columbus' 1493 voyage, Pope Alexander VI awarded the king and queen of Spain the "right" to "reduce" the inhabitants of the Americas to "perpetual slavery" and granted the same "right" to Portugal over West Africa. Pope Innocent received 100 slaves in 1488 and re-distributed them as gifts to clergy and wealthy laity. Jesuits owned hundreds of slaves in pre-civil war America. You can search through centuries of papal writings without finding an unequivocal condemnation of slavery before the the end of the 19th century. Considering the fact that the USA did not abolish slavery completely until December 1865 (13th Amendment to Constitution), a Vatican document from 1866 seems rather recent!

• Smyrnian | Jan 02, 2013, 10:06 PM EST

  Bock - let's dig out quotes from Popes 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago maybe? Lets face it, Olovely is really digging here, desperate for some obscure quote she can apply to today's time, place and language use. Must have taken months to find that one! I can sense the desperation for anything that can be interpreted as negative vs. the Catholic Church. How come all the good is never talked about in any meaningful way? We all know the answer.....

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 02, 2013, 09:15 PM EST

  Gearoid4 - your "Marriage in it's well-understood form is only concretizing what we know is at the heart of human mating, reproduction and rearing of children." attitude explains why there are so many divorces! Marriage, whether between a man and woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman must be about MUCH more than the animal basis that you call "Natural Law." God calls us to go beyond our baser instincts and seek higher purpose. Marriage is first a joining of two souls who find themselves unable to live apart once they discover each other. Read Plato to discover that souls meant to be joined are not always of opposite gender. If a marriage is just for sex and kids it is doomed from the start. If it is about two people who really LOVE each other, it can NEVER be torn apart regardless kids or sex. No wonder YOUR KIND doesn't get it. It is high time that YOUR KIND stop holding back the rest of humanity with your archaic notions of religious propriety. The rest of us can think for ourselves thank you very much!

• Bocktherobber | Jan 02, 2013, 08:40 PM EST

  Smyrnian -- The Catholic Church is timeless. Why should Olovely not refer to something the Pope said in 1866? After all, the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed by the Pope in 1854. Is that out of date as well?

• Smyrnian | Jan 02, 2013, 08:10 PM EST

  Olovely - 1866??? Man you really stretch to make your anti-Catholic points.

• Bocktherobber | Jan 02, 2013, 07:11 PM EST

  The comments system on this site is badly broken. Send for the tech guys.

• olovely | Jan 02, 2013, 06:57 PM EST

  In 1866 the Pope said that slavery wasn’t necessarily against 'Natural Law.'Google it. These chancers would say anything to keep them in golden places and ermine.

• olovely | Jan 02, 2013, 06:01 PM EST

  Paddyo -- I asked you before about your obsession with anal sex but you didn't have the decency to reply. Maybe you will this time. Are you aware that heterosexual people also engage in this practice?

• eiriamach | Jan 02, 2013, 05:27 PM EST

  paddyo, I can't do anything about your Jan 02, 04:20 post, but I can tell you what I think of it (and your post on the Hillary Clinton article). It's a sleazy expression of your bigotry. You've abused freedom of speech to assault others verbally. It's garbage that someone forgot to take out to the trash can.

• paddyo | Jan 02, 2013, 04:27 PM EST

  Please leave my post alone

• eiriamach | Jan 02, 2013, 03:54 PM EST

  hollabackgurl, where would LGBT rights be without Martin Luther King's work on Jefferson's concept of natural law? Nowhere. We'd still be fighting for equal civil rights for ethnic minorities. ~~~~~~lokionline, I agree with you about taking nature into account in moral and political decisions. But if we abandon natural law, many people who believe that morality is from God rather than from reason and human society will fall under the sway of RC's medieval version of 'natural law,' with RC claiming the only global alternative to moral relativism. The "natural law" that the pope clings to plays no role in ethics or political philosophy outside his religion. Centuries before Jesus' birth, Sophocles wrote of the tragedies that result when the state interferes with private family relationships. Against this millennia-old natural law tradition, the pope is again trying to persuade politicians to dictate family relationships by civil law. Unlike Europe, the US has no medieval history for the pope to appeal to in support of his arcane notion of "natural." But here we do have a distinctly not-medieval philosophy of natural rights woven into our founding documents. It has supported political movements (workers' rights, civil rights, women's & LGBT rights), it continues to develop alongside knowledge from the natural and social sciences, and it would be a mistake to scrap it now.

• eiriamach | Jan 02, 2013, 03:23 PM EST

  Gearoid, where a nation has medical resources, citizens have an equal right to medical care. Where a state protects or privileges the social institution of marriage, citizens have the right equally to avail of its protections and privileges. And so on, for all other benefits of civil society: Equality is fundamental to the philosophy of natural law and the universal understanding of human rights; with 20th century developments in our idea of natural rights, we can no longer speak meaningfully of "justice" that does not include equal treatment under civil law. To deny this fundamental principle is to reject natural law as it has developed from the ancient world, half a millennium before Jesus was born. By contrast, that peculiar Roman Catholic version that you call "natural law" (but it is really religious doctrine and NOT natural law) ceased to develop toward the end of the Middle Ages. It is oblivious to natural science, and it still decrees relationships of dominance and submission, as it did when popes wrote encyclicals defending slavery. Don't you remember telling me that women owe obedience to their husbands, as Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii, where he condemned women's equality in marriage as a "crime"?

• jamieLM | Jan 02, 2013, 03:16 PM EST

  @Gearoid4, do you live in la-la land? There's nothing magic about the act of marriage between a man and a woman that makes them automatically fit and uniquely qualified to raise children. Some of them shouldn't be allowed to have a cat/dog, let alone a child. Regardless of being married and of the opposite sex, they can be the parents from hell and deserve be sterilized. Lots of physically/emotionally/verbally abused children come from the homes of married heterosexual couples. Heterosexual marriage doesn't guarantee loving and fit parents and a happy and stable home life. Get real. Check out all the shelters for battered women and children and the statistics on women/children who are killed by their male spouses/fathers. Marriage is only as good as the 2 people who are involved in it. The act of marriage doesn't guarantee anything - not stability, longevity, or parental fitness.

• Will Hamilton | Jan 02, 2013, 03:04 PM EST

  Ratzinger is just a malevolent little man intoxicated by power. He's the head of an anti-human religion and all he will ever do is spew out the same hatred and maniac desire for control that has marked all the other sinister male virgins who have sat in the same chair before him. He's either mad or the cleverest undercover atheist in history.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 02, 2013, 02:44 PM EST

  There is no such thing as 'natural law.' In fact, the law has been created to protect us from states of nature. Religion is not a basis for a system of government; religious belief is not a basis for a system of laws.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 02, 2013, 01:58 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, Marriage is not a "right" to be demanded by every coupling that comes along. There are specific criteria that have always been associated with two people who desire to marry, namely that they are of the male and female gender and open to procreation. These conditions have been there since time immemorial and they are indicative of a natural purpose behind the coming together of a husband and wife who are open to starting a family. Marriage in it's well-understood form is only concretizing what we know is at the heart of human mating, reproduction and rearing of children. A man and woman are uniquely qualified in their complementariness to carry out the above realities and no repetitive mantra about "rights" in terms of attempts to radically redefine marriage, can overturn this reality.

• lokionline | Jan 02, 2013, 12:33 PM EST

  I am very aware that "Natural Law" as discussed by theologians and philosopher's is a concept in moral philosophy. I and many others think this is no longer a valid base for making up rules for life. We think it is better to make a closer study of "Nature" itself and let those lessons inform us.

• lokionline | Jan 02, 2013, 12:25 PM EST

  I see eiriamach has beaten me to the obvious and as usual has offered a well reasoned response to PiperMac52 and his "Natural Law" argument. I would like to add that in my many years of studying "nature" it has become blindingly obvious to me and to most folks who study nature that there is no such thing as a "natural law" about marriage. In "Nature" there is every variant you can think of and many you likely cannot, which show that what matters in Nature is WHAT WORKS not some arbitrary set of rules. So this argument that is constantly trotted out about the "natural law" as defined by the RC is contradicted by nature itself. It is simply a nonsense argument.

• eiriamach | Jan 02, 2013, 12:00 PM EST

  PiperMac52, the "law of nature"-- you cite gravity, for example-- has nothing to do with "natural law." Natural law comprises moral principles known and revered since ancient times and used through the ages as guides by those who write human laws. As ethics, it takes an objective, in no way relative, view of morality. But using marriage law to discriminate against any group, whether a racial group, gender group, sexual orientation group, religious group, or whatever group, IS a subversion of natural law because it denies the equal right of all to enjoy the benefits of our social customs and institutions. So, in contradiction to Gearoid, marriage IS a matter of basic human rights. Unless you want to end the institution of marriage altogether, its benefits must be available equally to everyone. And we know that marriage has contributed to social stability. For this reason, your opposition to same-sex marriage not only lacks objective moral foundation, but also works to destroy social unity. It's anti-social in the extreme.

• AndrewSB49 | Jan 02, 2013, 10:38 AM EST

  Could Ratzinger come clean on the actions he took when he received letters from Irish parents [in the Ferns diocese] whose children were being raped by his clergy?

• stanchaz | Jan 02, 2013, 12:45 AM EST

  it’s about time ...it’s WAY past time ...for people to take control of their own destiny, and their own lives. There are so many priests, preachers, and assorted shamans out there --"men of the cloth"- who have the unmitigated gall, the sheer arrogance, of claiming to speak for God, and with God. And we ...we must listen, and follow, and obey. Or so they say. They claim a direct pipeline to the Almighty! God did this, God told me. God loves that. God hates this. God wants this. Oh, and drop another coin in the basket before you leave please ...as God demands. It's gotten so bad that now they think ....thay they ARE God. I say to them all: Go back to whatever burrow you came from, you charlatans, and leave us -and our country- alone. For we're a free and proud people, , and will remain so - without- your shameful meddling in both our private lives, and our public institutions. For Religion is a personal matter - NOT something to be FORCED on others! Don't just accept something because it comes from a religious "voice of authority". For ultimately YOU are responsible for your life, and how you try to live it. That’s why you have freedom of choice and a conscience: to choose, NOT just to blindly follow..... We need to start acting like Men and Women...not sheep.

• PiperMac52 | Jan 01, 2013, 10:43 PM EST

  All laws are an extension of natural/God's law. As usual you article lacks proper context and displays your relativist mind set. The basis of civilization is the family as it has been since the dawn of mankind. That necessarily consists of a man and a woman joined together as one in order to procreate. Every religion in it's orthodox(precorrupted)state recognizes this truth. Scripture corroborates and reinforces it and Christ deemed it a sacred trust(sacrament). To subvert natural law, say gravity for example, will always have dire consequences. By legitimizing homosexual relationships as normal or alternative will create long term consequences far beyond anyone's anticipation.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 01, 2013, 10:27 PM EST

  There is no scientific measurement that's known as 'natural law.' Law has been created to protect us from states of nature. Religion is not a basis for a system of government or law.

• kilgara | Jan 01, 2013, 09:48 PM EST

  "Gay " life has always been against the natural law.We don't need the Pope or anyone else to tell us that.This clown O'dohertys' attempts to legitimize what he knows deep down inside is an abomination and grievously sinful is laughable.The wisdom of countless ages cannot be changed just because a very small minority, with the aid of a biased media, want it to be.

• misneac | Jan 01, 2013, 08:41 PM EST

  The usual pro gay "marriage " crap ! Also distotion of what the Pope actually said . Why dont you for a change challenge Islam about what the Koran teaches on gay "marriage " ? No need to ansmer why ! Your comment about the Catholic Church "floundering " in Ireland is totally inacccurate .I was at Mass last night attended by at least 600 people .As a result of the bigoted media assault by people like you the Catholic ( by the way there are more churches in Ireland other than Catholic ) Church is emerging stronger than ever as a source of proper civic discipline and defender of people in need !!!

• EphraimKibbey | Jan 01, 2013, 05:32 PM EST

  I seem to detect a slight variance between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Pope Ratzinger. Our Lord taught us to love our neighbor and even our enemies and to treat them just as we would wish to be treated. Ratzinger's lesson is one that is even older than the teachings of Christ and arrises out of the tribal mentality of early humans. It comes out of the id in the form of fear of the "other," the unknown. It has manifest itself many times and remains as a weight on humanity. He teaches us to fear gay marriage as a threat to straight marriage when a rational look at the situation proves that such fear is groundless. To the younger generation that has grown up with friends of different races, religions, and sexual orientation, the lesson seems absurd. They have gay friends in committed relationships and know that it has, if any thing, a positive effect on their own relationships. Because blacks, protestant and gay people are not the unknown to them, they do not fear them the way the monolithic RCC heirarchy does. They even fear that most mysterious OTHER, women. Women ARE a powerful force so maybe there Ratzinger should have a rational fear.

• olovely | Jan 01, 2013, 04:44 PM EST

  Gearoid4, have your partners conceived every time you have copulated with them? If not then your a bad Catholic and your marriage is a sinful sham.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 01, 2013, 04:41 PM EST

  Sorry you 'Catholics' like Marint: you can not persuade thinking heterosexual people that gays represent a threat to their marriages or sexuality. Unless and until they invade your home and force you to watch RuPauls Drag Race whilst they make you explore your own gay potential I don't think you have many takers there, lady. I doubt anyone has volunteered to change your reality in a very long time. Sorry if that irks you, but you know I'm right.

• Gearoid4 | Jan 01, 2013, 04:27 PM EST

  Marriage cannot be redefined as a matter of "rights" as there is no discrimination in recognizing that marriage in it's true essence consists of the union between a woman and a man which is open to procreation. It reflects the natural order in terms of mutual compatibility and reproductive capacity and this reality cannot be sidestepped. So the pope was merely reflecting these realities.

• mairint | Jan 01, 2013, 04:09 PM EST

  Sorry you 'gay' guys. You will not succeed in reordering human sexuality to your own liking. We are Men and Women and each of us has what we were designed for and pretending parts of your bodies are for something else etc. etc. does not change reality. The Pope is right even it that irks you. Happy New Year!

• mamaginnty | Jan 01, 2013, 03:42 PM EST

  As a young women in Ireland it was my duty to have children, the more the better. This was the bishop, priest and Rome's thinking. We were looked down on as women and it still goes on. Now that gay's are out in the open, and abortions are in the news to a new generation. I truly believe that Rome is getting worried that less and less little catholic babies will be born. During the 60s/70s women had to listen to a priest thumping the pulpit, very anry and shouting we were sinners and would be excomunicated if found we were agreeing to contraceptives being allowed into the country. We had families who had a gay teenager and loved them, being treated like dirt by the church. Rome had to much control over Ireland and other poorer countries, but I am glad they have been found out for what they really are. Not the church but the actual men running it are the evil ones and powered by greed. Cahir is saying exactly what a lot of people are thinking.

• eileenkny | Jan 01, 2013, 03:03 PM EST

  Unless the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, he is not infallible. As far as I know, his Christmas speech was just that-a speech. I have gay friends and they're not threatening my family at all.

• Eschetic | Jan 01, 2013, 02:56 PM EST

  Fair minded observers really have to feel sorry for this Pontiff - he's of a generation raised with pre-WWII "values" and thoughts which seemed to work for a society in a different age when they didn't know or care about the damage they were doing to quiet minorities in their midst. Forced to confront the holocaust unthinking "self interest" inflicted during WWII, society at large and even within the Catholic Church did the research and found that the world was not as they had supposed it to be - this led to an all too brief "springtime" of hope under John XXIII and "Vatican II" which did it's best to rescue the Church and bring it into the 20th Century, reconciling blind dogma with the real world. Sadly, it also resulted in a terrifying case of culture shock in a powerful minority of older prelates which wasn't helped when their blindness (if not contribution) to the pedophile scandals of the end of the 20th Century (and before) was exposed. The current Pope is doing his best to restore a semblance of what HE was raised to think of as normality to the Church, but he was raised in a different world. Not too long ago an age limit was placed on Cardinals (it is a well supported suspicion that this was to purge the surviving reformers of Vatican II and ensure the conservative minority in the church could control the election of any new Pope). As Benedict XVI's public pronouncements become more and more disengaged from reality and the Church's real mission to relate the teachings of a loving God and Christ to making this world a better place for all, the need to extend that age line to the Pontiff himself becomes more and more apparentif the Church is to survive to bring God and man together in and beyond the 21st Century.

• PhlutiePhan | Jan 01, 2013, 02:28 PM EST

  It is the duty of Benedict to "stand and deliver" for the beliefs of Jesus the Christ. Gays are being used as a wedge to destroy the Catholic Church.

• markday | Jan 01, 2013, 02:25 PM EST

  Hey "Jimo" Which Roman Catholic theology are you talking about? There are lots of them. Re Pope Benedict, I like the quote: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" -- The Wizard of Oz

• hollabackgurl | Jan 01, 2013, 02:17 PM EST

  Conservatives call equal rights 'special rights'; they say gays 'undermine heterosexual marriage' but they don't say how, because they can't. If a gay person marries a foreign national they SHOULD be able to request a green card. That's equality, it's not 'special', it's the American way.

• Woodman | Jan 01, 2013, 02:01 PM EST

  I am against the gays having special rights in immigration to the USA and being forced to celebrate gay, lesbian and transgender pride in military when such behavior was considered the manifestation of mental just a short time ago. Ditto to teach it's a normal and health lifestyle to children as young as 11 in NYC public school sex education. I am against having health insurance having to pay for fertility treatments for lesbian women to have children, to have pay surrogates so 50 yr old gay men can have their own children. What the Pope was saying, if you undermine marriage, you destroy civilization. Time will tell.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 01, 2013, 01:55 PM EST

  It's not simply a matter of disagreeing with 'what Roman Catholic theology says, then leaving the Church.' The pope has a global audience, he promotes and fosters intolerance against gay people. And 100 years from now his legacy will be that he is recalled only for his intolerance.

• olovely | Jan 01, 2013, 12:52 PM EST

  It's hilarious to read that the pope 'has nothing to do with Ireland.' It's not funny to read the sinister threats of obviously unhinged people like JO'Reilly. You can't really see much Christianity at work in people like that. This article exposes the anti-gay contempt beneath the outwardly pious words.

• jimod4343 | Jan 01, 2013, 12:52 PM EST

  If you don't agree with what Roman Catholic theology says, then leave the Church.

• liammurf | Jan 01, 2013, 12:42 PM EST

  O'Doherty has sipped too much "Kool Aid. This has nothing to do with the Irish. If he does not want to be Catholic, thats fine go off and join something else, Maybe a 'mens Choir". Slamming the Pope does nothing, He(the Church) does more in this world then others. Have another Glass of Kool Aid, it might help

• joan1954 | Jan 01, 2013, 12:16 PM EST

  Someone needs to tell me what does this have to do with the Irish? Cahir you really do need to stay away from this topic. To give the nuns their due they have helped the poor and have done so for centuries more than the clergy ever did but this comment doesn't mean that some clergy didn't help just look at the numbers who died of famine fever while helping the poor. Now Butch1 Ratzinger had no choice in NOT joining the Hitler youth and he was in the German Army not the SS and those are two distinct issues. The current pope was not in the Nazi Party unless you define all of Germany at the time as Nazi. Research Sofie Schell and the White Rose for Germans who were anti-Nazi. The current popes father was anti-Nazi and he lost his job because of it.

• Smyrnian | Jan 01, 2013, 12:11 PM EST

  This is absolutely vintage anti-Catholic pro-abortion Irish Central.

• Butch1 | Jan 01, 2013, 11:55 AM EST

  One has to remember this Pope was the same man who was Cardinal Ratzinger, who was in charge of the organization who was formally known for the Inquisition and they haven't changed a bit from those days until his days at the helm running it. He is not a nice man but was John-Paul's man who would take care of the "dirty work" so the Pope could keep his hands clean. This same as a young man was in the Nazi party. This says a lot about him, in my opinion. He has strayed from any teaching that Jesus may have taught his followers. This pompous, over dressed emblem of riches when the world is starving is totally living in a bubble. He knows nothing about love or loving relationships. He should have been preaching about the birth of the Christ Child but what does he preach, hate and that people should hate gays and lesbians. This man should not be a leader. It was a political move and his soulless heart has revealed itself for the person he really is.

• pilib04 | Jan 01, 2013, 11:05 AM EST

  katieherk, back off the Sisters! They work and toil and follow Christ's admonitions, unlike the pedophile priests and their protectors in the Vatican.

• katieherk | Jan 01, 2013, 11:02 AM EST

  What is wrong with you, Cahir? Are you so anti-Catholic that you have to constantly belittle them. Do some research and you'll find why the Pope does what he does. The Nuns? Do you know what some of them have been involved in? Research, my good man. You're way out in "LEFT" field and shamefully so. I'm getting sick of your writings and that of your cohorts.

• joreilly | Jan 01, 2013, 11:00 AM EST

  Cahir, why don't you and your "friends" just go away nice and QUIETLY,live together and screw yourselves to death without trying to impose your misguided values on our society.Live next door by all means ; Nobody will bother you...just keep your mouth shut or..... J.O'R

• katiemac | Jan 01, 2013, 10:55 AM EST

  So much for unbiased reporting. I am often struck by the Left's claims of hate, violence and bullying from the Right, for words and actions basically no different from those of the left. Any disagreement is hate; any demonstration is violence; any verbalization is bullying. Meanwhile the GLBT crowd imposes their agenda on TV and film by forcing gay and lesbian characters into every TV show, every film in the most inane and contrived ways. GKBT account for about 3% of the population, but if you watch TV you would think they were in the 90% range.

• ChrisVogel | Jan 01, 2013, 10:49 AM EST

  The bad news is that the Roman church still considers it is entitled to tell everyone else to do, and demand that the law impose their (idiotic) beliefs on everybody. The good news is that modern secular governments do not permit the church its traditional responses to difference: torture and mass murder.

• CavanAncestor | Jan 01, 2013, 10:15 AM EST

  Once again, O'Doherty weighs in and his editor must agree on a non-Irish, pro-Gay and anti-Catholic issue. Caution:Making marriage to your favorite pet licit is next.

• hollabackgurl | Jan 01, 2013, 09:48 AM EST

  Their sacred writings also call shrimp an "abomination," RedNeck56, you boob. You'd be aware that it's all nonsense if you cracked open a book more often. You'd also be aware of the harm it does.

• Redneck56 | Jan 01, 2013, 09:41 AM EST

  Honestly....I could give a shyt one way or the other if someone is a gay "married" couple. What does amaze me is writers like this boob keeps making out like religious leaders speaking out against gay unions is something new. Hello....their sacred writings call a gay union an "abomination" !!! What do they expect them to be saying??

• CelticQueenUSA | Jan 01, 2013, 09:21 AM EST

  Never known to move with the times. /'but quite capable to sweeping under the carpet. No new news here.

• MaxTiger | Jan 01, 2013, 08:51 AM EST

  Sir,in all of human history there has ever been only one type of family - involving the male/female partnership. The pope is not making this up!