Pope stable

In today's news Vatican cardinal breaks ranks over condoms. A Vatican Cardinal is the latest church official - the most senior so far - to endorse the use of condoms to prevent life-threatening HIV transmission, as the debate on the issue continues to rage around the world. Cardinal Georges Cottier, the theologian of the papal household, told the Italian news agency Apcom last week that the use of condoms was 'legitimate' to save lives in the poorest parts of Africa and Asia where the Aids pandemic has been catastrophic. He argued that condoms should be tolerated as a 'lesser evil' in instances where the ideals of abstinence and fidelity are simply not realistic. Cardinal Cottier reiterated the Church's official line that condoms should not be used as contraceptives; could encourage immoral sexual conduct; and were not the best way to stop the spread of HIV. However, he went on to say the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' should be considered in cases where sexual activity involves a partner who is HIV positive. 'The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as bringing life there is also a risk of transmitting death,' he said. It was the first time the octogenarian cardinal had gone on the record specifically about the struggle against HIV/Aids. Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Archbishop of Brussels, and Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, are among several church leaders who have voiced their support for the use of condoms to limit the spread of Aids. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who chairs the Pontifical Council for Health, recently appeared to recognise the right of a spouse whose husband has HIV/Aids to demand that he use a condom, according to a report by the Italian daily La Repubblica.

If we really have to get into the numbers game, lleg, how about the death toll of organised religion, such as the crusades, the witch hunts, the inquisition, a plethora of pogroms, the Huguenot war (est. 3 million dead), the Thirty Year war (est. 7 million dead), the Taiping Rebellion (est. 20 million dead), the obliteration of great parts of the indigenous population in South and Central America, the Hindu/Muslim massacres in India and Pakistan in the late 40s (est. 1 million dead), and, a bit closer to the present, the civil war in former Yugoslavia and the Muslim/Christian civil war in Sudan since the 1960s (est. 2 million dead), not to mention the sectarianism in Northern Ireland, to name but a few. It is estimated that over the course of the last millenium over a 100 million deaths occurred on the basis of organised religion - and this is generally thought of as a conservative estimate, since the term "statistics" has only practically come into existence over the last century. In addition to that, I don't think your list works, in particular not as far as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (or indeed Mao) are concerned. Those dictators implemented or followed fundamental ideologies (National Socialism, Communism), which have by nature a similar core and similar mechanisms compared with any organised religion, i.e. the suspension of doubt and individual responsibility and personal common sense, which, in its orthodox or fundamental form, leads inevitably to fanaticism, zealotry and intolerance. Hence, I would NOT call any of those mentioned above as purely "secular" but as "quasi religious"! The worst atrocities happened when either fundamental ideology or fundamental organised religion teamed up with patriotism or nationalism. If you look back over the course of history, this lethal cocktail really caused the most heads to roll. It's not just the black and white scenario of the "godless" versus the "god fearing", but the whole array of factors that create the context. I don't think this juxtaposition of "godless" and "god fearing" is in any way helpful or constructive. There will always be people who follow some kind of organised faith and there will always be others who don't, no matter what. And I don't think either group is a priori superior to the other. If anything, we all have to get on with each other and the best survival strategy, in my eyes, would be MUTUAL tolerance and the respect of individual boundaries. At least according to my humble experience, it is the religious who are prone to transgress these boundaries. And I object to it. I find it quite mind boggling, that some people are so prejudiced and glib to assume that humankind is not capable of forming any moral or ethical guidelines without being supervised or imposed on by some kind of organised religion. Why on earth should this be the case? As regards "en vogue", I think religious fundamentalism, if anything, is the bees knees right now. If you look at the US, you will find a so called "secular" society with an increasing nationalism that has teamed up step by step with organised religion and allowed it to creep into secular institutions. Even the constitution is not safe. I can't deny I find it somewhat disconcerting - and rather offensive, actually - that these days the Lord's prayer has found its way even into boardrooms, irrespective of any Atheists, Agnostics or members of other faiths sitting around the table. The same overpowering attitude has by now reached the shores of old blighty and, despite the fact that we're officially living in a secular society, there are now certain plays I can't see at the theatre, certain books that caused the death sentence to its author being renewed, certain operas that just about managed to be broadcast after a massive attempt incl. death treaths et al to kick it off the schedule, and an incoming law against the "Incitement of Religious Hatred", which will no doubt curtail everybody's freedom of speech. I wonder what's coming next... [%sig%]

Are we about to have a new Popeness then? If so, who's up for the job?

I think the Nigerian Cardinal is a favourite although a big gamble...don't want him upsetting the Yank Catholics with their big donations by daring to actually trying to DO something about WW issues rather than just vaguely denounce certain things. Our Cormac is out of the running following the scandals about his dealing with child abuse by clergy when he was in Arundel and Brighton. Of course we can always delay getting in someone radical by choosing a solid and non-contraversial Italian (our current pope was the 1st non Italian in a long time) in his seventies...who isn't going to last more than a decade...

...If the election of a Polish pope came as a big surprise two decades ago, some say the next papal conclave could prompt an even more startling turn: white smoke for a black pope. Cardinal Francis Arinze, a highly placed Vatican official from Nigeria, is one of the most often-named papabili: men who have the qualifications to hold the top office in the church.

I apreciate all points here. If the pope is not your spiritual father, I maintain my claim that he is mine and will continue to quietly practice my faith in accordance with article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Still, it's just beggar's belief how they are dealing with the whole issue. I mean, isn't life complicated enough? I could hit the roof when I think about all those people for whom their faith has become a death sentence, and hundreds of thousands who have dropped like flies. "'Thou shalt not kill' should be considered in cases where sexual activity involves a partner who is HIV positive." This might be a step in the right direction, and yet: the irony, particularly since they conveniently ignored their own commandments for years in this matter whilst expecting everybody else to live by the book. It seems to me utterly ridiculous that they have to even think twice about it. As far as I am concerned, the Roman Catholic Church has lost its last ounce of credibility, and I honestly hope they will be dragged to the Court of Human Rights and tried for Crimes against Humanity! [%sig%]

one tries Emma, glad it helped

Jesus christ! It sounds worse than the election of a godfather by the mafia.

Some kind soul should stick a used condom in the imbecilic pope's ugly mouth while he's sleeping. It could serve well to lubricate his passage.

It is...and there has to be an incredibly high majority. Last time the Cardinals (and there are about 100) were up all night voting last time after 8 ballots!

Interestingly I just wrote an essay addressing the problem of evil and it is most non-Christian! It contains the sentence "There is no evidence outside Judaeo-Christian Scripture to support the claim that either moral evil or naturl evil is attributable to man's abuse of his free will" Better keep that one quiet in my future ministry!

Is it open to both sexes or are women still considered below the salt where the Head abstainer is concerned?

...sorry, just checked my facts, it took 2 days. The 2 main cadidates ...two very powerful Italians were the main runners. As neither camp would vote for the other, the outsider won. This is very common in elections for Abbots as well. The outsider wins! The first few ballots see the 2 main contenders waiting to see if undecideds will join. Then when they realise they're locked in stalemate and the undecideds boost an outsider...they just want it over and to go home

and No ...the new measures by the Nolan report doesn't make the scandal of abuse alright. From the ordinary Catholic on the street right up to the Pope we as a Church have expressed sorrow and shame at our past failings to protect children. At the same time I acknowledge that the vast majority of priests ARE motivated by love. Take my cousin - when her father was redundant back in the eighties, the parish priest would always come round with groceries for them out of his own very limited peronal allowance. I think also of my friend Richard who gave up a succesful career as a software engineer to become a priest and he works tirelessly with the inmates of the Prison in Send. such acts of selflessness have been blighted by abuse. I aim to work to make a better Church. I can't undo the past but I can look at the future.

So should I stand?

"In addition to that, I don't think your list works, in particular not as far as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (or indeed Mao) are concerned. Those dictators implemented or followed fundamental ideologies (National Socialism, Communism), which have by nature a similar core and similar mechanisms compared with any organised religion, i.e. the suspension of doubt and individual responsibility and personal common sense, which, in its orthodox or fundamental form, leads inevitably to fanaticism, zealotry and intolerance. Hence, I would NOT call any of those mentioned above as purely "secular" but as "quasi religious"!" I agree with most of your last post, but particularly with the above.. if you were to call organised religion "quasi fundamental" rather than the other way round. It is the fundamentalist mindset that is the problem... but that is not the premise of religion only. I do not want to defend organised religion, but in my opinion it is wrong firstly to lay all blame at its doors and secondly to then go and presuppose that anything to do with belief and faith is thus equally tainted. wrong. wrong. wrong. The fundamentalist mindset manifest itself in many forms, religion being only one of them. A fundamental Hindu, has far more in common with a fundamental Moslem, or fundamentalist Christian, or godless marxist, or godless nazi than you or I for instance (even if/especially if, they are taking it in turns to beat each on the head with a spiked club) . The word that is common between them is 'fundamental' not 'organised religion'. For God's sake, there are even fundamentalist scientists around! At least they speak very much in the same language. I would be happy to give you my meaning of the term 'fundamental mindset'.

Only Cardinals vote (the chief Bishop - most countries have one only except large countries like America or Italy cos they're in charge)...so no women

Jude, I'm appalled. How CAN you support such a sexist organisation?

good article Here Speculations: Arize Country: Nigeria Age: 70 Assets: Black! Third Worlder. Can go nose-to-nose with Islam. Liabilities: Black? Maybe too conservative. African Catholic Church too young. Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga Country: Honduras Age: 60 Assets: Latin American. Friend of Bono. Liabilities: Compared media to Hitler. Too young. Jean-Marie Lustiger Country: France (Archbishop of Paris) Age: 77 Assets: Jewish ties? Shore up Old Europe Christendom. Liabilities: Mother was Jewish! Too old. Lubomyr Husar Country: Ukraine Age: 70 Assets: Extra holy. Good age. Bridges East and West. Liabilities: He's American! (Ukrainian born but parents emigrated to USA)

It isn't sexist. I can't vote because I am not a Cardinal, I can't become a Cardinal because I am not a Monsignor, I can't become a Monsignor because I am not priest. I can't become a priest because nothing in scripture suggests I should (forget the da Vinci code the 12 apostles were men Jesus was a man...my place is with Mary at the foot of the cross). Most women Catholics (that practice) are against women priests. I find the idea really off. Why can't we just accept that men and women are equal but different and have diferent roles to play out.

Ely's right, the pope is our spiritual father not the CEO of the Catholic Church...talking of retirement etc is trying to interperet a spiritual position in secular terms...it doesn't work. As for letting him die...Catholics and indeed many other Christians are against Euthanasia as it it violates the sanctity of human life. Who are you to say that some-one is better off dead? If someone is in pain can you stand in judgement and say they are better off dead? Maybe they enjoy a real quality of life, maybe they take immense pleasure in seeing the enthusiasm of the young and feel concern for the nasty things in the world. Maybe they derive real happiness from the simple things in life like doing the crossword and talking with friends. But because they are old and sick and you are young and healthy you somehow think that your enjoyment of life is valid and their's isn't. I find that really sad. j

faith-based Religion, spirituality, and sacrilege. Papal Chase Will the next pope be black, Hispanic, American, a Jew? By Steven Waldman Posted Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003, at 8:13 AM PT So, who will the next pope be—a black, a Hispanic, an American, or a Jew? No, it's not a joke. All four are real possibilities. Of course, speculating on the next pope in the midst of his 25th anniversary celebration is disrespectful to the current pope, who is either doing reasonably well physically (in which case we shouldn't talk about him as if he's dead) or else is very ill (in which case we should be offering him our prayers or good wishes). On the other hand, we just can't help ourselves! Continue Article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The biggest differences between the papal selection process now and 25 years ago are demographic. Of the five countries with the biggest Catholic populations, only one (Italy) is European. Forty-six percent of the world's Catholics are in Latin America; there are more Catholics in the Philippines than in Italy. In 1955 there were 16 million Catholics in all of Africa; today there are 120 million. The cardinals who will be electing the next pope are a conservative group. All but five of the 134 voting cardinals (aka "cardinal electors") were appointed by Pope John Paul II, and most share his views. So, we probably won't see a flaming lefty as the next pontiff. Likely factors the cardinals will consider when voting: Do they pick a Third Worlder to reflect demographics or someone to shore up Old Europe Christendom? Do they want a young (well, under 70), telegenic man to explain Catholicism to the world? Or an older fellow who won't stick around for quite so long? John Allen, the Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, cites an old Italian saying, "Always follow a fat pope with a skinny pope." But if there's a backlash, many analysts believe it will likely be against this pope's penchant for centralizing authority, not against his ideology. The most frequently mentioned papabili among the pope-watching cognoscenti are: Francis Arinze Country: Nigeria Age: 70 Assets: Black! Third Worlder. Can go nose-to-nose with Islam. Liabilities: Black? Maybe too conservative. African Catholic Church too young. If chosen, Arinze, besides rocking the world as the first black pope, would also be a good pope to have in charge in a time of religious conflict. The former head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Arinze is Mr. Interfaith and helped arrange Pope John Paul II's first-ever visit to a mosque. "Theologically, all people come from the same God," he has said. Deborah Caldwell, senior religion editor of Beliefnet, says of the electors, "They have to go with a Third World cardinal because of the shift of Christianity's vast numbers to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. They just HAVE to," she says. "And if you add in the global clash between Islam and Christianity, the clear choice is Arinze." Ah, but what an exquisite dilemma for liberals. A black pope who, on social issues, makes Phyllis Schlafly seem like Jane Fonda. In a commencement address this year at Georgetown University, Arinze drew protests by saying the institution of marriage is "mocked by homosexuality." If he did become pope and liberals criticized his antigay, anti-abortion views, could conservatives possibly resist the temptation to charge racism? Might be too much to ask. It's also possible that, deep down, though they wouldn't admit as much publicly, cardinals might fear that the selection of a black pope would alienate some white Catholics. But the biggest strike against him is that the African church, while growing rapidly, is still too young, especially compared to the church in Latin America. Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga Country: Honduras Age: 60 Assets: Latin American. Friend of Bono. Liabilities: Compared media to Hitler. Too young. "There's a feeling that it's Latin America's turn," says Tom Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America. It's not just that there are more Catholics there than any other continent—it's a competitive battleground, with Pentecostals chipping away at Catholic market share. So far, there's no consensus on a Latin American candidate, but the one most often mentioned is Rodriguez, formerly head of the Latin American Bishops group. He's been a strong opponent of Third World debt and an advocate for the church's antipoverty mission. He teamed up with U2's Bono to present a petition at the G-8 meeting in 1999, signed by 17 million people, asking for debt relief. David Gibson, author of The Coming Catholic Church (and also of a forthcoming book on the papal election), describes Rodriguez's assets: "A ployglot, media-savvy Latin American who knows everyone in the College and would represent a powerful statement on behalf of the huge and poverty-stricken Latin American church, as well as the rest of the developing world." John Allen adds that Rodriguez is also a supporter of decentralization, which may be the most important factor of all. One problem may be his comments that press coverage of the pedophile-priest scandal reflects anti-Catholic views of Ted Turner and other media moguls. "Only in this fashion can I explain the ferocity [in the press] that reminds me of the times of Nero and Diocletian, and more recently, of Stalin and Hitler," he said. Jean-Marie Lustiger Country: France (Archbishop of Paris) Age: 77 Assets: Jewish? Shore up Old Europe Christendom. Liabilities: Jewish! Too old. Lustiger's mother, a Jew, was killed at Auschwitz. If the cardinals wanted to generate excitement in Europe, choosing Lustiger sure would be a dramatic way to do it. Do Jews consider him Jewish? Technically, yes. As Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author of Jewish Literacy, said, "According to Jewish law, a person born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, and being Jewish is not something a person can renounce. However … the Jewish community does not normally relate to such a person as a Jew." Lustiger is, Telushkin says, popular with Parisian Jews, but other pundits feel that many Jews would be outraged if he were chosen. "Electing him would be a disaster for Catholic-Jewish relations," says Reese. "Some Jews would see this as the church putting him up as an example of what Jews should do." What probably really rules him out now is his age. Since the mandatory retirement age for cardinals is 75, it might be a bit awkward moral-authority-wise for the pope to bust the cap. So, we probably will never get to find out whether Jewish mothers around the world would have told their children that some day they could grow up to be a doctor, a lawyer, or a pope. Lubomyr Husar Country: Ukraine Age: 70 Assets: Extra holy. Good age. Bridges East and West. Liabilities: He's American! Husar is the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and has American citizenship. His parents emigrated to the United States, where he attended the Catholic University of America, was ordained a priest in Stamford, Conn., and taught at St. Basil's College Seminary from 1958 to 1969. John Allen, who touts him as a dark horse, summarizes the plusses and minuses thusly: There are three objections to Husar's candidacy. First, he represents Eastern Europe, and after John Paul many believe that region of the world will have to wait a few generations to produce another pope. Second, he is an American citizen, and observers believe it would be diplomatically impossible to elect a superpower pontiff. Some would suspect Vatican policy was being crafted by the CIA. Third, the pope is supposed to be the patriarch of the West, and it would be theologically odd for that office to be held by someone from an Eastern rite. But, Allen argues, these objections could become positives. "The first two point to Husar as a bridge between East and West; the third suggests he could be a symbol of the full catholicity of the church, of its unity in diversity." Finally, Allen says, "He is also one of the most genuinely Christian men I've ever met." I may put a bit of money on...or run a convent sweepstake! My bet? Dionigi Tettamanzi Country: Italy Age: 69 Assets: Italian. Liabilities: Italian. Only 5 percent of the world's Catholics live in Italy. So, why is an Italian even on the list? Because 35 percent of the voting cardinals either represent an Italian diocese or work for the Vatican administration. There may also be a sense that the church went through its wacky experimental phase by choosing a Polish pope and needs to get back to normal. Tettamanzi is conservative and well-liked by the very conservative Opus Dei movement; most of the voting cardinals are conservative, too. Most important, the leading Irish gambling Web site, Paddypower.com, rates him as the odds-on favorite.

bugger didn't mean to paste all that...was just saying my cash is on the Italian and I'm running a convent sweepstake

As for the media coverage...should old people be locked away like unsightly wrinkles and fat? Because they are not glamorous and beautiful we hide them away because they are just an embarassment. Never mind that they are full of wisdom and have something useful to say...they are dribbling and shaking and should be incarcerated in a home so we don't have to look at the ugliness of old age. something seems wrong here?

I was unaware that the Pope was into horses.

I KNEW it! when I re-though my title (after I'd posted as usual) who is the first to come in with a horse reference! I kind of pictured a line of stables with a would-be successor to the ailing pontiff tethered in each stall.

Is this a game... having read the above my money's on Lubomyr Husar... The current incumbent is still straggling on though... cannot he be retired? I just love the idea of an American evangelising style Pope.. though clearly he is not that.

Father Guido Sarduchi, that's my pick.

ah..10- 1 ...good on wet ground although not jumping so well last season

See, I like Kentucky horse racing. No jumping allowed, unless of course your horse is winning coming down the stretch.

Saduchi is an impossible winner as he spent the past twenty years living and working in the USA as gossip columnist and rock critic for the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano rather than brown-nosing his way to Cardinal. You have to be a monsignor then Bishop first and the chances of him doing that before the pope dies are minimal. He may have a chance the following season. I like the races anywhere...do you race greyhounds apart from the "c" word people who hang out there I do enjoy that as well!

Ohhh, you googled him did you. See, I speeled his name wrong, but I told you, he's a dark horse any way you size it.

I'm starting to find the constant news coverage showing the old guy dribbling and nodding REALLY distasteful... it makes me feel so sorry that he is being displayed this way when he is in such a dire state. It's like watching a death clock in action. Poor old sod.

I see that the Frenchman is"hampered" by the fact that his mother was Jewish ..... reminds of of someone else related to the church ... you know...whatsisname ...... beard, sandals.... [%sig%]

Why is he dressed like Zorro?

I think it's a habit.

This is almost as exciting as guessing the name of Posh and Beck's new baby.

was that pun intentional? Of course it was...however monks/ priests where cassocks not habits

wear even...

I think it is sexist Jude. I *know* that the apostles and Jesus were blokes, but that means zip to me. 'My place is at the foot of the cross with Mary' - if that is how I'm supposed to see myself then bugger it. I don't need Christianity to tell what is right or what is wrong or what will send me straight to hell. I know already what is right, by my own code (treat everyone like I would like to be treated, try my best, eat cake) and a heavy-handed masculine doctrine is NOT going to make me feel elated to be alive. I don't care who is pope. I have decided that I think that organised relgion -despite the good it can do - is a controlling, guilt mongering, bum-fest and, while I respect everybody's right to believe what they like, I believe in: - the human race, in our ability to put things right on this bloody planet (instead of waiting until some glorious afterlife) - the healing properties of a nice cup o tea - excitement when someone smiles at you - life is hard enough without dogma and guilt - being kind - getting rid of self-criticism and trying to fit some perfect Godly mould. Sorry Jude, I love you to bits and find your posts some of the most enjoyable on here. But to say that because 2000 odd years ago some bloke had a load of bloke mates who helped passed on the stories about his life means that women can NEVER have that role is a load of old bollocks. My grandmother still lives her life by my grandfather. If she's on the phone for too long he taps his watch. They eat at his allocated times, the food he likes. If the phone rings it is 'her' job to answer it, even though she has a dodgy hip. By rights, if my role is set, I should be doing that for my boyfriend for ever and ever amen, as will our kids blah blah bluah just because 'that's what we've always done in our family'. God that got me so riled. I accept that women and men are different in many respects (ability to have babies being a big one), but that somehow men are more spiritually in tune, more suited to being at one with the whole God Jesus thing JUST SUCKS.

I totally see your point and don't think any of my Anglican brothers and sisters are somehow less Christian than me because they have women vicar's. Anglicanism had had enough of Roman tradition as well as doctrine and now we see such a diverse Christ-centered traditions with models that suit all. Isn't it good that we are free to choose. The CofE is already re-visiting attitudes towards sexuality and they accepted women priests years ago because they are free from the constraints of Rome and tend to evolve. I find this a breath of fresh air and excellent for those who have problms with the Roman Catholic tradition, but I don't have a problem with it. I happen to be in the right model for me. If we accepted women priests (which we won't certainly not within 2- 3 generations) the Church would fracture and I would stay with the traditionalists. I just want my Mass to be celebrated by a Man as it helps me in my relationship with Christ in the Eucharist. If another Christian 'aint bothered it's fine!

Yes I actually do think if you prefer male priests that's your thing. I suppose I feel uncomfortable at always feeling that my opinions and beliefs and connections with the world around me must be organised, filtered and instructed through a man. I love men, but I cannot, and will not, see them as superior to me, or somehow more able to connect to whatever God is. Men and women are different parts of the same thing. I like it that way. But I do know what you mean, and can understand it, although I am happy to live in a place that allows me to freely disagree without being torn limb from limb x.

and men are not seen as more "spiritually in tune" Mark's Gospel (the earliest synoptic) is full of odd details, such as Christ's head on a pillow in the boat or His drawing on the ground with his finger, that Luke the Doctor writing in High Greek misses. Another thing about Mark is that again and again He reminds us of the Apostles failures. The woman who annoints Him in expensive oil much to the disapproval of his disciples is a prime example of where Jesus narrated by Mark is showing this woman has so much more insight than the clumsy apostles who as usual blunder!

I see what you mea about "opinions and beliefs and connections with the world around me must be organised, filtered and instructed through a man." but away from the echoing corridor's of the Vatican, most of the day to day admin of my Faith that will really touch me is organised at Parish or Diocese level where women; laity and religious have a big say! and the deepest level is with one another and God.

I suppose I reacted badly because my ex-father in law was one of those people who left the Church of England when they began ordaining women vicars. He was bilious about it, absolutely livid. Came up with loads of reasons why it was wrong wrong wrong. You could see the hate in his eyes. But I had his number. He didn't like the idea of change. He had grown up with male vicars and liked them. They meant God to him. They represented the voice of Jesus and of God as he has always known it. And he couldn't just say that. he had to tell himself and everyone else that it was against the way of God to do that. I wish he could have been honest, instead of trying to tell me women vicars were wrong. Does that make sense?

I have been struggling ALL day not to post about the pope's obstruction in his throat. I am metaphorically sat on my hands here. I hope you appreciate it.

I was actually talking to a priest who is in favour of ordaning women as priests but said to me "but what hope have I got of change when the parisheners mutiny if I dare change the time of the 10.15 Mass!?" People are afraid of change...you see it in churches, work places, families, any group of people. But there are always those of us wh can be radical without being noisy, who can accept tradition and slowly and gently walk forward with it...I have high hopes. Pesky...be quiet!!!!!!