Pope - women priests a crime against sacraments

looksee

I'm not sure this is the right place, but there is more scope for discussion here than on the Christianity forum. And I think it has about as much to do with Christianity as Burquas have to do with Islam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/07/how_to_create_a_pr_disaster.html

The Pope has issued a controvertial statement about women priests, not actually equating the prospect with child abuse, but going a good way in that direction. At the same time he has failed to make the reporting of child abuse mandatory in the interests apparently of the victims 'dignity'.

I'd say the Pope has put the RC church back by about 20 years.

Denerick

He has not compared it to child abuse, thats a product of our ridiculous media and its noble quest to sell papers and shock the public. Just to make that clear.

While I am an agnostic, I can also appreciate the conservative Catholic position. What critics and liberal Catholics seem to say is that the church needs to ordain women, end celibacy, renounce papal infallibility and adopt Liberal positions on contraception, divorce, homosexuality, and sexuality in general.

In other words the critics want the church to cease being Roman Catholic.

What these critics don't seem to understand is that the Church is not a reflection of its times but instead the custodians of morality, as they see it. It is not there to grant license but to uphold its interpretation of morality.

This is why I think many of the criticisms of Catholicism are absurd and basically amount to a criticism of the Catholic religion itself, and a demand that it should change. These people are hardly new. The reformation foresaw many of the critiques and perhaps it would be wiser for such critics to join one of the many Presbyterian or Protestant churches and make their peace with whatever higher power it is they believe in.

But then again, thats clearly not the issue here. Which is why I like to stay away from the atheist/agnostic forum

strobe

Denerick wrote: »

But then again, thats clearly not the issue here. Which is why I like to stay away from the atheist/agnostic forum

There is no need to stay away Den. Come say hello. We are just people. A lot of us would agree completely with your post. I do (for the most part). Honestly, we don't bite.

Byron85

Denerick wrote: »

In other words the critics want the church to cease being Roman Catholic.

What these critics don't seem to understand is that the Church is not a reflection of its times but instead the custodians of morality, as they see it. It is not there to grant license but to uphold its interpretation of morality.

Isn't that somewhat of a paradox? It wishes to be a moral bastion in the 21st century yet it does not want to move with the times in the same way that the moral zeitgeist has changed in even the last 20 years, especially in Ireland. Basically, it wants to enforce their morals on modern people in modern times but they refuse to adapt and change in the same way that the entire species has and continues to do so.

alex73

Nothing new.... Orthodox church takes the exact same view as Catholic church on the subject.

looksee

I don't have figures, but at a guess I would say that women are the predominant gender in RC congregations, and, at the moment, women in the over 50 agegroup. Younger women do not have experience of being considered lesser beings, or unsuitable for some roles, so those that might be inclined to be part of the Church are not going to be impressed by being treated as inferior.

The Anglican church is just deciding whether women can be bishops. I would have thought that once the barrier of women being priests had been broken down, then there would be no justification for preventing women from progressing in their career.

That is a bit of an aside, but it demonstrates the continuing irrational need to keep women in their place in religion (and you can include Islam and Judaism in that).

It is the Church distancing itself from, rejecting and treating with contempt at least half of its (potential) members, to me it seems short sighted and over conservative. Some posts defend the Church's right to maintain it's rules, and that would be fine if it were consistent. Over the centuries it has changed the rules any time it wanted. What have palaces and robes and wealth got to do with the Apostles? Why is the mass not still in Latin (Latin? the Apostles spoke Latin?). Where did the Immaculate Conception come from? Why is it ok to move Mass from Sunday to Saturday?

The argument is that all the Apostles were men, well yes, it would have been culturally impossible for a woman to preach at that time. There were not any European men among the Apostles, or Chinese, or African but there are priests of every nationality now.

The primative fear of women and the need to subjugate them is still very near the surface. Men will fight for racial equality and human rights, but male domination of religion is still a closed shop.

opinion guy

Denerick wrote: »

What these critics don't seem to understand is that the Church is not a reflection of its times but instead the custodians of morality, as they see it. It is not there to grant license but to uphold its interpretation of morality.

Yes and what Church apologists fail to realise is that the Church has singularly and absolutely failed to act as a custodian of morality. In fact it has done, and continues to do the exact opposite. Part of that is the child abuse issue where on an almost daily basis the church FAILS to uphold any sort of moral position. Another part of it is for example the church's stance on condoms, which is likely responsible for many unwanted pregnancies and many extra cases of HIV. This is a case where the church has failed to keep up with science and evolution. When they came up with these anti-contraceptive rules HIV wasn't around....at least it wasn't recognised in any case. Furthermore the church has historically shown and continues to show contempt for women, and here I am thinking more of the contrception issue and less of the women priests issue (why any woman, or man for that matter, would actually want to become a priest in this day and age is beyond me).

Denerick

'Church apologists'.

Sigh. I guess it always does come down to this.

opinion guy

Denerick wrote: »

'Church apologists'.

Sigh. I guess it always does come down to this.

It does if you choose to dismiss my points and focus on my use of one phrase. Well done there. Way to keep your head in the sand.

Denerick

Your entire case is based on a faulty premise. The church is under no obligation to 'move with the times' as it is based from a static unchanging documents - the Bible. Its interpretation of morality is not a reflection of its times but a product of its teachings and moral ethos.

To complain about the church standing in the road is absurd enough, but telling the church that it needs to go onto another road is highly snooty and self reverent.

I don't criticise the church for being what it is - it is what it is, which is why I am not a Catholic - so don't yap on about the need to liberalise the church. The church is not some hip institution that changes with the times and never will be. It doesn't claim to be and thus is not hypocritical in any way. You're welcome to say that they are wrong, but the criticisms of the church do verge on the absurd at times, and its loudest critics tend to be the kind of people you'd turn away at a party.

looksee

Denerick wrote: »

Your entire case is based on a faulty premise. The church is under no obligation to 'move with the times' as it is based from a static unchanging documents - the Bible. Its interpretation of morality is not a reflection of its times but a product of its teachings and moral ethos.

To complain about the church standing in the road is absurd enough, but telling the church that it needs to go onto another road is highly snooty and self reverent.

I don't criticise the church for being what it is - it is what it is, which is why I am not a Catholic - so don't yap on about the need to liberalise the church. The church is not some hip institution that changes with the times and never will be. It doesn't claim to be and thus is not hypocritical in any way. You're welcome to say that they are wrong, but the criticisms of the church do verge on the absurd at times, and its loudest critics tend to be the kind of people you'd turn away at a party.

Of course the bible is a static document, it was written, then what would happen to make it a moving document, would it get updates? Where from?
Is that your only basis for for your statement that the church should be static?

Jesus was one of the early reformers, he taught that common practises and attitudes should change - because his church was the people. His word should be taught, not imposed. The Church has taken on to itself all sorts of rules and regulations that were never there in Jesus' time. He said that where two or three were gathered together in his sight, he was there in the midst of them. (Matt 18.20) Simple. While people might build magnificent buildings to praise God, they are not necessary for the Church to exist.

Likewise the rules and ceremonies built up over the years are not essential to Jesus' teaching. Many things have changed in the Church over the years, why should women priests be any different?

opinion guy

Denerick wrote: »

Your entire case is based on a faulty premise. The church is under no obligation to 'move with the times' as it is based from a static unchanging documents - the Bible. Its interpretation of morality is not a reflection of its times but a product of its teachings and moral ethos.

To complain about the church standing in the road is absurd enough, but telling the church that it needs to go onto another road is highly snooty and self reverent.

I don't criticise the church for being what it is - it is what it is, which is why I am not a Catholic - so don't yap on about the need to liberalise the church. The church is not some hip institution that changes with the times and never will be. It doesn't claim to be and thus is not hypocritical in any way. You're welcome to say that they are wrong, but the criticisms of the church do verge on the absurd at times, and its loudest critics tend to be the kind of people you'd turn away at a party.

So your argument is that the church is and always was a static organisation? Except it isn't and wasn't. There have been numerous upheavals over time where it has changed direction. Point FAIL. Furthermore neither HIV nor condoms existed when this church was invented - therefore if your logic were correct the church should have no moral standing whatsoever on the use of condoms/contraception. Again point FAIL.

Wolfe Tone

So the Church should teach only what people want to hear?

wonderfulname

opinion guy wrote: »

therefore if your logic were correct the church should have no moral standing whatsoever on the use of condoms/contraception. Again point FAIL.

Actually the bible doesn't think much of the birth control methods of the time so it actually does follow that the church be against condoms;

Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."

This is from a statement by John Paul II;

Only a baptized man receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

They are what they are and its not going to change, advice to Roman Catholics, get over it and focus on the important aspects of your religion, love, salvation etc. Everyone else, it ain't our problem. It doesn't call for some class of feminist uprising just leave them be if you disagree, it will only serve to reduce their numbers in the long run, the modern woman isn't used to all this second class citizen stuff and won't put up with it.

opinion guy

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the Church should teach only what people want to hear?

Ok who are you addressing with this ? No-one here is making that argument.

Denerick

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok who are you addressing with this ? No-one here is making that argument.

No, thats precisely what you are saying, but you don't seem to have the humility to recognise that.

Again, the church should not be criticised for refusing to grant license in a permissive world. This has never been and never will be the function of the church in the world. It is the upholder of morality as it sees it, and for the most part that interpretation is static. Thus criticising it for failing to embrace nihilism is absurd.

Again, I'm not a Catholic, and it is mainly because of my objection to dogged fundamentalist 'morality'. But I'm aware of how ridiculous it is to criticise the church because its not agnostic and libertarian.

opinion guy

wonderfulname wrote: »

Actually the bible doesn't think much of the birth control methods of the time so it actually does follow that the church be against condoms;

Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."

Ah yes well - what displeased the Lord ? Wasting his seed on the ground or the fact that he "went in" to his brother's wife" ?

Denerick wrote: »

No, thats precisely what you are saying, but you don't seem to have the humility to recognise that.

Again, the church should not be criticised for refusing to grant license in a permissive world. This has never been and never will be the function of the church in the world. It is the upholder of morality as it sees it, and for the most part that interpretation is static. Thus criticising it for failing to embrace nihilism is absurd.

Again, I'm not a Catholic, and it is mainly because of my objection to dogged fundamentalist 'morality'. But I'm aware of how ridiculous it is to criticise the church because its not agnostic and libertarian.

And why don't you learn some fu*king humility and stop putting words into people's mouths. And whilst your at try to understand your own argument. You said that the churchs moral stance has remained static over time. Its hasn't. Your argument is specious at best.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

I may well be confused, its a confusing subject, but the Telegraph said the following

Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, underscored how the ordination of women is “a crime against sacraments,” while paedophilia should be considered a “crime against morals” and both would fall under the jurisdiction of the CDF.

and

Women attempting to be priests, and those who try to ordain them, already faced automatic excommunication but the new decree goes further and enshrines the action as “a crime against sacraments”.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GarlicBread

The catholic church is an appaulingly sexist and homophobic organisation of disgraceful porportions. The ryan report, the murphy report and we havent yet got a report on the madalane issue. For them to continue owning most of our education system is just disgusting.

Would any other european country leave these savage animals play idealogical chess with their national education system?

I think not, and we shouldnt put up with it either.

Wolfe Tone

GarlicBread wrote: »

The catholic church is an appaulingly sexist and homophobic organisation of disgraceful porportions. The ryan report, the murphy report and we havent yet got a report on the madalane issue. For them to continue owning most of our education system is just disgusting.

Would any other european country leave these savage animals play idealogical chess with their national education system?

I think not, and we shouldnt put up with it either.

Bit strong dont you think? Not all Priests are pedophiles you know, some do really excellent selfless work.

Denerick

opinion guy wrote: »

And why don't you learn some fu*king humility and stop putting words into people's mouths. And whilst your at try to understand your own argument. You said that the churchs moral stance has remained static over time. Its hasn't. Your argument is specious at best.

:rolleyes:

No I didn't say that. I'm saying the moral basis of the churches teachings - ie, the fount of all of its wisdom - stems from a static set of writings. Thus it is sophomoric to think that the church can willingly disobey its foundational text in the interests of pandering to a permissive society.

Your criticisms of the church are misfounded. Don't criticise it for following its own rules, as they see it. Of course interpretations change over time but the fundamentals remain the same.

GarlicBread

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Bit strong dont you think? Not all Priests are pedophiles you know, some do really excellent selfless work.

I didnt say that at all. But since u mentioned it, it was the entire institution of the church in all its forms that acted like one big giant cohesive paedo ring, bishops and all.

What i was pointing out with regard to the education system, roughly 10% of the population are gay/bi/lesbian and another roughly 50% of the population are women. So why in the name of gawd do we have a church in control of the education system when they actively discriminate against 60% of the population!

looksee

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well of course it is - what we are discussing is within the Church. It is totally irrelevant to bring secular courts into this. The point is that describing women priests as 'a crime against sacraments' is indicative of the attitude of the church to women.

And the fact that a child abuser would get a lengthy jail sentence in the secular courts (provided he was not smuggled into another juristiction, though not so easy now that the secular world has got over their grovelling respect for Church matters) is also irrelevant, the Church's attitude to child abusers - hide it, move them on, swear victims to secrecy - is the issue.

None of this really matters in secular terms, except to the extent that the church still has a firm hold over aspects of our lives, whether we recognise its authority or not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opinion guy

Denerick wrote: »

:rolleyes:

No I didn't say that. I'm saying the moral basis of the churches teachings - ie, the fount of all of its wisdom - stems from a static set of writings. Thus it is sophomoric to think that the church can willingly disobey its foundational text in the interests of pandering to a permissive society.

Your criticisms of the church are misfounded. Don't criticise it for following its own rules, as they see it. Of course interpretations change over time but the fundamentals remain the same.

So what are you sayin then ? I'm sorry but this just reads as double speak to me. On the one hand you are saying the churchs rules stem from a static set of writings but on the other interpretations vary over time. So why am I not allowed, in your humble opinion, to criticise them for not taking into account advances in science and human understanding as well as adapting to the needs of society at the time. I'm sorry but you are arguing that they are static, but not static at the same time.

Denerick

opinion guy wrote: »

So what are you sayin then ? I'm sorry but this just reads as double speak to me. On the one hand you are saying the churchs rules stem from a static set of writings but on the other interpretations vary over time. So why am I not allowed, in your humble opinion, to criticise them for not taking into account advances in science and human understanding as well as adapting to the needs of society at the time. I'm sorry but you are arguing that they are static, but not static at the same time.

Interpretations change because the spirit of the law can be disputed. It is different in, say, Islam, as the Koran is the direct word of God passed down to Mohammed. The Bible in inspired by God. There are some literalists about but they tend to end up in mental asylums.

The writings are static in the sense that you can not willingly disobey its central ethos without invalidating the entire enterprise. There are grey areas in the bible but more often than not there are not.

It is downright stupid to say that the church should keep pace with scientific developments - I don't understand how anyone can think that. It has one duty, and that is to the worship of Jesus Christ. It see's itself as the legitimate successor to St. Peter and I doubt that materialist and wordly concerns such as the scientific method have a massive impact on its interpretation on spiritual providence.

P.S- What do you mean by 'adapting to the needs of society'? The church is not some social function, like an appendix to the welfare state. Do you even understand what you are arguing?

looksee

Denerick wrote: »

Interpretations change because the spirit of the law can be disputed. It is different in, say, Islam, as the Koran is the direct word of God passed down to Mohammed. The Bible in inspired by God. There are some literalists about but they tend to end up in mental asylums.

The writings are static in the sense that you can not willingly disobey its central ethos without invalidating the entire enterprise. There are grey areas in the bible but more often than not there are not.

It is downright stupid to say that the church should keep pace with scientific developments - I don't understand how anyone can think that. It has one duty, and that is to the worship of Jesus Christ. It see's itself as the legitimate successor to St. Peter and I doubt that materialist and wordly concerns such as the scientific method have a massive impact on its interpretation on spiritual providence.

P.S- What do you mean by 'adapting to the needs of society'? The church is not some social function, like an appendix to the welfare state. Do you even understand what you are arguing?

So if its purpose is the worship of Jesus Christ, why does it get involved in such things as contraception - Jesus never mentioned contraception. And why did Jesus bother feeding the multitude and water into wine if he had no interest in the welfare of the people (and their enjoyment of a social occasion). And as to materialist and worldy concerns, well, no, Jesus did not have either of these, and preached about the lilies of the field to that effect, so why does the church own so much property and wealth?

Denerick

looksee wrote: »

So if its purpose is the worship of Jesus Christ, why does it get involved in such things as contraception - Jesus never mentioned contraception. And why did Jesus bother feeding the multitude and water into wine if he had no interest in the welfare of the people (and their enjoyment of a social occasion). And as to materialist and worldy concerns, well no Jesus did not have either of these, and preached about the lilies of the field to that effect, so why does the church own so much property and wealth?

Wow, the church is hypocritical. News to me.

This does not address how the church is supposed to forego its foundational text in order to 'meet the needs of society' or 'keep pace with science'. Thats the absurdium I'm arguing against.

dvpower

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps it should be an offence to discriminate against women in their recruitment policies.

looksee

Denerick wrote: »

Wow, the church is hypocritical. News to me.

This does not address how the church is supposed to forego its foundational text in order to 'meet the needs of society' or 'keep pace with science'. Thats the absurdium I'm arguing against.

It may be news to you, evidently you have not been paying attention.The church's hypocracy is that it changes when it suits its convienience, and the bible is interpreted to suit the church's requirements.

You are the one that keeps on about the church's foundational text being unchangeable, and as I have said, the Church has no problem interpreting it to suit its convenience, to the extent that the bible was not available to congregatations for centuries, priests told people what was in it.

What happened about Limbo, for example? And as I said before, where did the concept of the Immaculate Conception come from? And where are either of these mentioned in the bible?

The writings are static in the sense that you can not willingly disobey its central ethos without invalidating the entire enterprise. There are grey areas in the bible but more often than not there are not.

If I could understand it I think I would probably conclude that that does not make any sense.

Edit: sorry some of that comes across as sarcastic, its just a discussion, apologies if I got a bit carried away.

opinion guy

Denerick wrote: »

Interpretations change because the spirit of the law can be disputed. It is different in, say, Islam, as the Koran is the direct word of God passed down to Mohammed. The Bible in inspired by God. There are some literalists about but they tend to end up in mental asylums.

The writings are static in the sense that you can not willingly disobey its central ethos without invalidating the entire enterprise. There are grey areas in the bible but more often than not there are not.

It is downright stupid to say that the church should keep pace with scientific developments - I don't understand how anyone can think that. It has one duty, and that is to the worship of Jesus Christ. It see's itself as the legitimate successor to St. Peter and I doubt that materialist and wordly concerns such as the scientific method have a massive impact on its interpretation on spiritual providence.

P.S- What do you mean by 'adapting to the needs of society'? The church is not some social function, like an appendix to the welfare state. Do you even understand what you are arguing?

Just to clarify something. The Church do and have for years stayed abreast of scientific issues - for example the used strict scientific rigor when investigating supposed miracles and often debunk many of them on scientific principles. Also - the church used to insist the earth was the centre of the universe. They no longer do on account of a guy called gallileo. It was a pretty big deal at the time. You may have heard of it. Anyhow it took them a while but they eventually changed their beliefs around Earth being at the centre of the universe. Which proves two things:
a) the Church does change their beliefs over time
b) the Church does stay abreast of scientific issues....althou slowly.

I'm sorry but you views here are just simply specious.

nozzferrahhtoo

Is ordaining a woman worse than child sex abuse? | Atheist Ireland

Atheist Ireland wrote:

Apologists for the Catholic Church are correct that the Vatican is not equating women’s ordination with clerical paedophilia by referring to them in the same document, Normae de Gravioribus Delictis.

In fact, the penalties in the document suggest that the Vatican actually considers attempting to ordain a woman to be a more grave offence than sexually abusing a child.

A cleric who attempts either offence may be punished by dismissal or deposition, but a person who attempts to ordain a woman is also automatically excommunicated, as is the woman who attempts to be ordained.

These are the moral priorities that one might expect from a church that last year excommunicated a Brazilian mother for helping her raped nine-year-old daughter to have an abortion, without seeking to impose any penalties on the man who raped the child.

Ethical issues should be evaluated on the basis of human rights, compassion, well-being and suffering, not on the basis of theological dictates from people who believe they are getting messages from the creator of the universe.

The Corinthian

If you don't like how the Catholic Church is run then leave it. For bonus points, set up your own church and ordain whom you want. Simple as that.

A bloke named Luther (who ironically had an even lower opinion of women than the present pope) did this and started a movement that forced the Catholic Church into significant reform, when suppression ultimately failed.

The Catholic Church is not a democratic organization. Neither is it a revolutionary one. When it does change, it tends to do gradually and is mindful of schisms that occur whenever dogma or ritual is amended.

Additionally, it does not simply cater to the wishes of wealthy Western Catholics, but also to the prejudices of Catholics in Africa, South America and Asia. The Catholic Church's views on things such as women and homosexuality are far more popular in those parts of the World - as the Anglican Church discovered when it began to welcome homosexuals.

Even from a marketing point of view - who are you going to listen to? The Western Catholics that at best go to mass at Christmas and Easter? Or the one's converting on mass in the developing World?

All of which ignores the most obvious point of all; that people are trying to reason with an organization that claims that some bloke died on a cross, resurrected himself and this somehow spiritually saved us all.

looksee

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you don't like how the Catholic Church is run then leave it. For bonus points, set up your own church and ordain whom you want. Simple as that.

A bloke named Luther (who ironically had an even lower opinion of women than the present pope) did this and started a movement that forced the Catholic Church into significant reform, when suppression ultimately failed.

The Catholic Church is not a democratic organization. Neither is it a revolutionary one. When it does change, it tends to do gradually and is mindful of schisms that occur whenever dogma or ritual is amended.

Perfectly valid points, and a sound argument - if we lived in a secular state. But we do not and the church still has a significant amount of power and influence over our everyday lives. Do we want this influence from an organisation that has such dated, misogynistic and even corrupt policies?

AudreyHepburn

GarlicBread wrote: »

The catholic church is an appaulingly sexist and homophobic organisation of disgraceful porportions. The ryan report, the murphy report and we havent yet got a report on the madalane issue. For them to continue owning most of our education system is just disgusting.

Would any other european country leave these savage animals play idealogical chess with their national education system?

I think not, and we shouldnt put up with it either.

See opinions like these are why I hate these kinds of threads.

I am a Catholic and I have yet to hear a sermon that preaches homosexuality is wrong, paedophilia and abuse of unmarried mothers is right and woman are lesser beings than men.

If you honestly think that is what it is about then you clearly haven't been to a church in a very long time or ever.

The Corinthian

looksee wrote: »

Perfectly valid points, and a sound argument - if we lived in a secular state. But we do not and the church still has a significant amount of power and influence over our everyday lives. Do we want this influence from an organisation that has such dated, misogynistic and even corrupt policies?

I think you overestimate the Catholic Church's influence in post Celtic Tiger Ireland. Certainly it still as an influence, but the days of priests effectively dictating how people should vote in referenda are long gone - if anything, they've been pretty mooted every since they were forced on the defensive over the sexual abuse scandals, an odd fifteen years ago.

But even were they to retain any significant influence (which I would suggest not), my previous post still applies. If you don't like what they are about leave. Set up your own church - you won't change them, but if your church takes off, you'll affect their influence.

You're not going to change the Catholic Church - it's too big and too old to do so. I've seen how some of the Vatican's institutions work first hand and I can assure you that you're not going to change anything.

Neither are you going to convert everyone to secular atheism. If God doesn't exist, it would not dampen our need for him. Or her - let's not forget the New Age kids.

So, just get on with life. Set up your own alternative religion if you want and just stop complaining about something you will never, ever, ever change.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opinion guy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

See opinions like these are why I hate these kinds of threads.

I am a Catholic and I have yet to hear a sermon that preaches homosexuality is wrong, paedophilia and abuse of unmarried mothers is right and woman are lesser beings than men.

If you honestly think that is what it is about then you clearly haven't been to a church in a very long time or ever.

Oh there are still fire and brimstone preachers doing the rounds that rant on this stuff.

AudreyHepburn

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh there are still fire and brimstone preachers doing the rounds that rant on this stuff.

Not in my experience there aren't and I've been going to churchs all of m 24 years!