well said and congratulations to you both. I wonder has the pope ever read the song of solomon…some heavy heavy duty porn in those verses…and of ALL kinds too! It amazes me how the three monotheistic religions preach how differant they are yet the RC Evangelical reformed churches..orthodox jews and Islam are in essence the same when it boils down to persecuting minorities..denial of womens rights. I believe in a God..a higher power but as for man made religions..no thanks..more innocent people have died because of them than any other single cause

Exactly. Jesus said give all your money to the poor. The Vatican has billions and there hanging on to it!

say what…you completely lost me there

Yeah Danyl The Pope should stop concerning himself about peoples sex lives and look after the people who really need looking after. Jesus apparently said love one another as i have loved you, not tell everybody not to have sex.

Haha very good! Yeah I am somewhat surprised by the opposition to reason manifest in comments on this article! Again the Pope believing himself to be someone special…of course he’s entitled to the opinion that he is god’s only messenger on earth, sent to guide silly people in how to live! This type of opinion is understandable within a group characterised by an utter lack of participation by its members in the natural human condition (family or private life). We may as well take technical advice from a dentist when building a rocket to reach the moon!

Benjamin -Or technical advice from people who believe the universe is only 5000 years old and evolution is some evil conspiracy

Nice…you managed to get 27 red thumbs…score! I guess the secret is to list as many facts incriminating religion and the church as possible in one post?

I agree, just the headline incensed me, abortion threatens the future of humanity, when every logical argument would suggest overpopulation is an actually relevant threat to humanity. Ironically religion has killed millions of times more people than abortion. I hope the pope dies soon, I’m sick of him.

So John Daly, your moral code accommodates the expression of a wish for the death of the Pope? How revealing.PS Why don’t you google “gendercide”?

Gendercide is gender-selective mass killing. The term was first used by Mary Anne Warren in her 1985 book, Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection. Warren drew “an analogy between the concept of genocide” and what she called “gendercide.” Citing the Oxford English Dictionary definition of genocide as “the deliberate extermination of a race of people,”
I fail to see the connection between my point and gendercide, I do find it pretty hilarious that you should use gendercide as a counter argument, considering what the conquistadors carried out in the name of religion… and the horribly discriminate sexist views of the church throughout history.

John Daly,We may have a breakthrough. Am I correct in understanding that you acknowledge that the selective abortion of female foetuses is gender-based mass-killing? I also believe that the interference with the natural (ie biological) gender balance in countries where the practice is particularly widespread is damaging to those societies as it inevitably leads to an excess of men who will have greater difficulty finding wives or partners to settle them down. A recipe for societal unrest at the very least. Certainly damaging to humanity. I raise it because abortion is one of the two main issues under discussion in this thread ( insofar as the Pope is being criticised for his remarks on abortion and same-sex marriage). As far as I can see the Pope and Catholic Church are being berated, in some cases in the most hateful terms (and you’re right down there) for expressing concern about the negative effects abortion can have. Pointing to the appalling, widespread and inescapably anti-woman practice of gender-based selection of female foetuses is far more relevant than harking back to the conquistadors. The latter may be a rich source for criticism for the historical Church but the Pope’s comments as I understand them were about contemporary society. If one wants to harangue the Pope for expressing concerns about the effects of abortion on society then if one is fair-minded then one should address the downsides of the practice. I note that in an earlier comment you seemed to suggest that large-scale abortion has positives in controlling over-population.I find that to be an entirely amoral proposition and given that it was coupled with your expressed wish for the death of the Pope I wondered about the core principles in your moral code. Based on what I have seen on this dispiriting thread I would fear for a society under the influence of people so full of hate.

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion” is the mantra of imbeciles and hiding place of bigots. It’s a retort used when someone has extinguished the little fodder they have on a subject. Is a Jihadist “entitled to his/her opinion”? If a person is to state a case, then do so. If you feel you have to resort to an imbecilic catch phrase, then better off going back to the books…

The reason I started my comment with that sentence was to highlight that my point was not about whether or not I agree with the Popes opinions but rather that he has a responsibility to ensure his words are not misinterpreted by people and used as justification for hatred and abuse towards people who don’t share these views. I am fully aware of how that phrase is overused and would understand your annoyance if that is all I wrote, but you can clearly see that I did go on to actually state my case.
I think by calling me an imbecile and bigot for using it is a little dramatic! Realistically you wrote a comment filled with name calling because you disliked my opening line rather than the point I was making. A little harsh Simon!

I did not intend to call you a bigot nor an imbecile, but I can see how you saw that was inferred and for that I apologise. The phrase is just a pet hate and its overused application is often the refuge of those with little substance to their argument. I fully concede that you had a lot more to say and my words were triggered from the above and not a reflection of your overall content.

@ Simon: Everyone is completely entitled to their opinion. You can say “Free speech for all….except you and you”. If you deny people the right to their opinion, you do not allow yourself the opportunity to respond to views you might hold to be bigoted or wrong. A Jihadist is completely entitled to their opinion if they are of the opinion that Jihad is correct. The problem with such things, and with humanity in general, is that for too long, we have been willing to kill one another in defence of our opinions.

The phrase isn’t a particular favorite of mine either so I do understand where you’re coming from. Thanks for apologizing anyway!

I’m no admirer of Jihadists (understatement of the year so far perhaps) but they are entitled to their opinions. It’s how they act on their opinions that matters. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that conservatives are less popular than Jihadists with many around here but it’s not clear that they are not. And if the Pope is expected not to preach Catholic doctrine (“is the Pope a Catholic?”) then something is radically wrong.

Condoms are the only barrier to the HIV virus, what else would you suggest? Promoting abstinence increases HIV incidence.

BP if promoting condom use lead to increase in HIV liberal countries would be rampant with STDs. They have very good infection control. These diseases are endemic in impovsrished countries with rampant superstitious belief. No expert denies that knowing the sexual history of ones partner is best but the denial of information about prevention of disease by contraception is criminal and is fuelling local tribal superstition. The mantra of one partner is best but if not always use a condom is the only approach. Anything else is criminal.

Bpdeasy,
Can you back that up please, I have seen it said before, but never backed up.
if you are thinking of uganda then I suggest you look a little further and broader into that country so battle with aids.

The catholic church is responsible.for LIES, telling people that the aids virus travels through condoms etc.

On the 2 linked issues of aids and family planning, the catholic church is an evil organization, causing suffering and misery for millions of people

I think you are either a member of this cult brain washed as a kid by your parents or else maybe a little slow

Ah that’s pure rubbish Conor

Sorry I meant bdeasy. Where did you get those ‘facts’ from?
Why oh why is the church so concerned about sex anyway. Really, Why?

All religions are obsessed with sex. Just do it! to quote Nike. :-)

I thought the secular policy was “Abstinance – Be faithful – use Condoms”, i.e. “ABC”. And I thought the difference the Catholics had was having it as just “AB”.

All three are important in my view.

The changing of the mass really smacked of Management consultancy.

So they have alienated the people under 40, so lets spring a surprise on the 60 plus who attend solidly enough by changing the wording of the prayers they have said all their life. That’ll make the fuckers feel connected and welcome every sunday, won’t it.

Until the church realizes that a person who believes, and lives a good life but couldn’t bless him self right in 5 lifetimes or couldn’t name any of the disciples is a hell of a lot closer (put not intended) that all the cardinals and theologians and Church lawyers to the message of Christ and Christianity.

There is a middle-ground you know.

I would be interested to know what you mean by ‘middle ground’ in this instance – gay people entitled to some rights but not full equality? A Constitution that is only partly riddled with outdated religious references? An education system that has only slightly less religious indoctrination?

I’m all for compromise and pragmatism on many issues, but when it comes to advancing equality and human rights in the face of bigotry dressed up as religious belief by an organisation that has held the social development of Irish society to ransom for far too long already, half measures will not do. We need to finally transform this country into a real Republic.

With respect if you and the other aggressive secularists around here want to win over hearts and minds and ultimately voters I suggest a more respectful attitude to those who are of different views, whether for religious or other reasons or a combination of factors. And I strongly suggest you keep the Haters, of whom there are many on this thread away from any debates. They’ll drag you down,Using foul language to refer to Jesus Christ isn’t going to get a campaign across the line.I give you this advice because I wish for a more temperate discourse from both sides.I feel I have to say that the bulk of the hatred in this conversation is flowing from the secularist side.

I’m all for respectful debate but that does not rule out strongly held views.

As for “haters” lets look at the comments that sparked off this thread – that rights for gay people and enlightened values more generally are a threat to humanity!
To see a real lack of humanity, look at the work of Mary Raferty who exposed a morally corrupt institution more interested in defending its reputation and power base than justice for its victims.

I would just add that it’s not the fault of liberal minded posters that there’s a lack of balance in the comments. That’s down to those who share Ratzinger’s reactionary views not willing or able to engage in debate but instead hide behind red thumbs, which really is quite pathetic (and revealing)

You move with alacrity from the particular to the general and back again. And you can’t say all the conservative red-thumbers are hiding. You’ve got me, for one, to kick around.Its not good enough to take a view (as some here appear to do) that if the Pope is for it it must be regressive and can be dismissed out of hand. If I may put forward one particular example: California is one of the most-liberal States in the USA but a couple of years ago a majority voted against “same-sex marriage.” While the strong and generally social-conservative Hispanic vote, may have affected the outcome, you can’t possibly blame Pope Benedict or the Catholic Church even substantially for the vote ( the result was soon overturned by activist Judges). Anyway, the pro same-sex marriage campaigners clearly failed to make their case. Maybe they told voters that if they didn’t vote the correct way they would be Neanderthal morons?

So you are now one of the “red thumbed conservatives” – That’s certainly an interesting way to define the middle-ground in this debate and it didn’t take you look to change your position.

Anyway, unlike most supporters of Ratzinger and his far right views, non-religious people are generally able to form opinions on these kinds of issues on their merits and not because they are told to think a certain way by clerics or anyone else. The idea that equality for same-sex couples or a woman’s right to choose represents a threat to humanity would be laughable if not for the fact that the source of this nonsense still unfortunately carries influence in some parts of the World. The catholic church in general and Ratzinger in particular have a history of making inflammatory statements against the gay community and on social issues more generally. That is what the vast majority of posters (or aggressive secularists as you dismissively refer to them) were responding to. And again, your attempt to blame liberals for spreading hatred instead of where it originated from lacks credibility.

As for your random example of the same-sex marriage vote in California, shameful distortions were most certainly peddled by religious organisations, including the catholic church, that had nothing to do with the issue. But in any event, fundamental human rights should not be put to a vote where the majority gets to decide on minority rights. And I notice how you employ the language of the religious right in America by trying to dismiss the subsequent court ruling in that case as being the work of “activist judges” when in fact it is the job of any credible judicial system to uphold the rights of all citizens, irrespective of the prevailing prejudices of the times. Here at home, it’s worth pointing out that the vast majority of Irish people support marriage equality. The last poll put support at 73% and that figure has been rising consistently over a number of polls. It’s important to point this out because people like you seem to think that these kinds of issues are only the concern of a ‘liberal elite’ out of touch with so-called ‘middle Ireland’.

And whether you like it or not, same-sex marriage is an existing reality in a growing number of countries so no need for the quotation marks. Or is that how the debate is to be conducted according to your self defined ‘middle ground’??

I’m at work so I have to keep it short. I am a social conservative but more for philosophical than religious reasons. Being a social conservative doesn’t mean I agree with the Pope on everything.In fact it’s kind of insulting, not to say simplistic, to assume that all social conservatives have fixed views on all relevant matters and/or only have those views because the Pope told them to. Look at my comment above on contraception: I’m all for it as long as people aren’t led to believe it is fool-proof and it doesn’t lure adolescents into early sexual relations. I see that as a sensible and practical point of view. You may disagree, which would be absolutely fine but with respect I don’t think you can accuse me of parrotting religious dogma on the issue of contraception.My reference to California was intended to highlight the inability of one side to convince a majority in that liberal State that same-sex marriage (no inverted commas this time) should be legalised. Of course some religious organisations campaigned on one side. What would you expect them to do? Actually, I would take it from a lot of the comments here that aggressive secularists might want the Catholic Church to be gagged in discussion of social issues.I remain of the view that the hateful tone of many of the comments here show a nasty and peculiarly judgmental streak in people whom I will continue to describe as “aggressive secularists” until a better description comes to mind.And if the sort of attitudes they have shown on this thread are deployed in public campaigns then they won’t get far in advancing their agenda. Telling people that they are ignorant tends to alienate them. Whether you like it or not many social changes require a referendum and 50% plus 1 wins the day.So voters have to be persuaded, and haranguing them just won’t work. Am I right in recalling that for ages proponents of same -sex marriage argued that the European Convention on Human Rights etc sanctioned same sex marriage but the European Court of Human Rights (no bastion of conservatism) rejected that argument? Now, someone passed adverse comment on people pressing the red thumb but not getting into the debate. So I weighed in, I might have anyway. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think I should have stayed out? Finally, please don’t make assumptions about my religious beliefs. That’s insulting too. I will say that my parish has a fantastic Parish Priest who puts in endless time and energy to help people and keep the sense of community alive.He is the antithesis of the image being portrayed by the aggressive secularists here. I’d say he sees me as an a la carte type and thinks my family should not just show up on special occasions.He might be right.

This debate is going around in circles and getting further away from the original topic with the introduction of irrelevant issues. But just to say that at no point did I make assumptions about your personal religious beliefs (That’s a private affair and of no concern to me) or claim that bigotry and prejudice is the sole preserve of religion (although, quite honestly, I cannot think of anything invoked more in an attempt to practice and justify discrimination against others)

The issue here however is about a religious leader making offensive and down right ludicrous claims about western policies that seek to further equality and social progress. And the vast majority of us who do not believe that marriage equality or stem cell research or the like will herald the collapse of humanity as we know it have every right to register our disgust at this latest bigoted outburst from an individual and institution that have clear form in this area. That’s what this thread is about and in the circumstances, I think people posting here are more than justified in employing strong language to rebut such offensive nonsense. I take heart from that and the fact that the era of ‘Rome Rule’ in Ireland is a thing of the past.

And finally, you are choosing to interept well founded attacks against Ratzinger as a slur against all catholic people. That’s incorrect. In fact individual catholics tend to be quite liberal on social issues. 73% of Irish people support extending marriage rights to same-sex couples and such a high figure must include a significant amount of catholics. A growing number of Irish voters also support liberalising our abortion laws. The divorce and contraception battles have already been won. The trend in public opinion on these issues is very clear for anyone who wants to see it.

How many of the points in my last post have you actually addressed? We agree on one thing at least. Goodbye.

For someone so insistent on having his points addressed, it’s a bit strange then that you failed to deal with the central issue here, no matter how many attempts were made to get the debate back on topic. That would have been far more productive (and relevant) than ranting about “aggressive secularists” and how your own Priest is a fine fellow. Yes, goodbye to you too.

I’ll step back in for a moment to pick up on one point. There is no moral issue whatsoever with stem cell research. None. I suspect you meant “embryonic stem cell research” which raises very serious moral issues, which at the very least deserve consideration. But for some reason (an obvious one in my humble opinion) there is a fetishistic desire in some quarters to keep the embryonic version going, regardless of the scientific merits. PS, You accuse me of “ranting”. Where did I rant?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Your, sir are easily disturbed. I am rather fascinated that nearly 50 people disagree with my statement apparently, yet none will state why…. Oh well, they are enlightened etc….

Michael, I think he means http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI8GEidaMMI

Apologies Liam, didn’t realise :P

You have me for the last time, Michael.

I find the ridiculous number of red thumbs disturbing…

Seems what remains of the Catholic population is out in force today!

You have failed me for the last time, Michael. *facepalm

Thinking the exact same myself! 99% of comments are renouncing his views, if people agree with him like Alex does they should speak up! Anti-gay, anti-safesex, confirmed child abuse, cover ups etc etc but people still support them? Joke. by all means follow your religion but don’t follow these eejits, they definitely aren’t your ticket to heaven if the above is their heaven

I red thumbed you because I can barely see up there on your high horse. I think he makes a good point that “Western policies threaten the future of humanity”. Didn’t shops only recently stop selling sexy cloths and padded bras to children? He also wants more emphasis put on families, sure why not? Its only the reason for the continuation of the human race.

Diego, you know the world isn’t suddenly going to stop procreating or anything. So the pope shouldn’t be too worried about it. ;) He wants families that indoctrinate their children btw.

Of course not but I do think that children group up to be better people when brought up in a family environment. I think the families of non-believers are going to give their children same choice as most get when it comes to what they believe in as well.

But Diego, one of the key reasons for them discouraging the use of condoms is because it would prevent the birth of lives that they could indoctrinate. And in nations with low levels of education, high levels of superstition are fairly common. I am of course, referring to the African nations where Catholicism is growing but the aids rates are not dropping. So I really can’t take any point he makes very seriously, they have clear agendas to brainwash.

Well I’d agree with you about their stance on condoms (along with a lot of other things) should be changed. My only problem with the comments here is that the vast majority of them attack the average person that believes in god not just the organisation. I’m not sure if I even believe in god myself but I hope there is something after we die and I never defend the organization itself but I hate when the people that have faith are called idiots, clowns, etc. I’m certainly not one myself. Most of the people that engage in this on this site were supporters of David Norris, who came out and said he was a believer himself. I don’t think they’ll call him an idiot.

kyp154, what is safesex? Does it mean that you can rely on a thin layer of latex to protect you from disease or pregnancy every single time? Does the contraceptive pill protect against sexually-transmitted diseases? Do well-informed people who campaign for promotion of contraception claim that there’s any such thing as “safe sex”? Of course the surest path to safety is monogamy or, gasp! chastity. I have no problem with contraception as long as its not used to lure adolescents into early sexual activity. I’m all for the two consenting adults thing. But selling a lie about “safe-sex” instead of safer or less risky sex is entirely ideological and potentially dangerous.PS, Do Lefties never press the red thumb and run away?

Wont ever happen of their own free-will. The catholic church know full-well that their message is not strong enough to survive without the continued indoctrination of young undeveloped minds. Once they lose their influence in education the game is over for them.

“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man” – Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits.

So because I have a faith I am deluded…….

Great point.something most of the people commenting here I think chose to forget.

Or maybe aren’t deluded with silly make up words like faith, and god, and soul etc… Diego

If it makes people happier what’s your problem and who made you god to go around calling people silly for believing in something? Something I’ve noticed on this site is that its only the atheists that seem to have the urge to constantly belittle the people that believe in a afterlife (Catholic or other). So I’d calm your self righteousness.

Demigod it’s called common sense, not self righteousness. Nobody made me God, but it’s nice to hear you say God can be man made!!!!!!

I’ve just noticed that there are roughly 32 red thumbs for each reasonable comment on here…suspicious?

By which, I presume you mean he needs to toe your line? Tolerance indeed.

Reada, I don’t know about you but I will not tell my children, sons or daughters, to ” just do it”. What I tell them, in age-appropriate manner, is that they should never allow anyone to pressure them into doing anything they don’t want to do and should remember that actions can have long-term consequences.No disrespect but I think that’s a better message than “just do it” and not just for kids.

No it would do the gay person “good” to spend its life in denial. Deny. Deny. Deny. The CC is very good at that! ;)

Actually he makes very valid points.. The Family, Mother+Father+Kids should be promoted as an ideal. This the the best natural enviroment to support society.

Look at Irish society.. The most failed in Society are those who have been failed by their families, Absent fathers, Lone parents, Single mothers. (not always but in general) Good parents are role models that help their kids. A father and a mother have vital roles to play in a childs development. Trying to reply the natural family has failed and will fail. Providing incentives for single mothers to become single mothers is not a solution.

Erm Alex, what you mean is that a person should have two parents. So there’s nothing wrong with same sex couple adopting then right? Studies have indicated that caring parents are what matter, not the sex of the said parents.

I agree Alex, his points on the family are very valid. A loving, stable, responsible family environment is the foundation of society.

I also agree that the Roman Church needs to realize that there are probably many more people that genuinely believe that they (the church) probably haven’t had an iota of faith in at least a hundred years, probably longer. I have come across Priests that are deeply spiritual and good men. Wonderful people that have no interest in materialism. They live a life of service. They’ll not rise up the ranks of the church thinking like that.

A bit of faith and spirituality, less Canon Law and paper work could restore the church to a large degree. You don’t have to be a theologian or a believer to see that Jesus Christ and the Church (all shades of it) have absolute nothing in common.

JC was the first Socialist. A communitarian, a challenger to the status quo, standing up for the little guy.

Maybe a good Vatican sanctioned war would sort this out

Get a life

Thanks gordon, very useful that. I’m genuinely curious as to whether there’s a weight of opinion afraid to express itself or a handful of bored weirdos.

As useful as asking if the journal has the ip addresses of people who red thumb…? Let’s call it a draw. Also perhaps people don’t feel the need to be heard, but as they don’t agree with what they’re reading, they instinctively press the appropriate thumb, which is what they’re for Duncan. Maybe you should ask the journal to delete them!

Patrick you are being anti-gay by what you say. You might object to gay adoption having being raised by straight parents but that is your prejudice. Kids raised by gay parents do not suffer emotionally according to best international evidence. If what you were saying was correct gay adoption would not be allowed. My guess is your parents were probably somewhat religious too as was the society you were raised in which only proves my point further.

the red thumbs are in hiding…waiting on judgement day..oops that bolt of lightening nearly got me! and surely those horsemen should stop at red lights…bloody cheek!

So ye like my comment???

It tickles me no end to think of these red thumbers seething away at the irreverence of these comments. Hey you out there! how about a few bob when your at it? Your church needs you!

Oh for fu&k sake keep the Jesus quotes out of this, it was apparently two thousand years ago, and nobody today knows if he even existed, never mind what he bloody said, which come to think wouldn’t be relevant today. F&ck me I hate religion, can you “believers” not find a more realistic coping mechanism?????