Bloody hell Soops!  

Post the page link now in Lori's topic... I'll testify to the fact it was over-written big time!  

btw.. meant to congratulate you on you linky writing....  

I've had loads of probs recently Xochi and Lori is aware- that's never happened before 'though!

I haven't like that either Soops... but I have an overwriting text issue on the forums menu on the left... Lori knows and has seen it for herself, and other Safari users have commented on it... they're working on it.

Me too, on Google Chrome

Oooo! You should tell her that too!

I just did and got those damned cogs again!

As I am a lifelong member of the Church of England, it is not for me to comment on the specific case regarding the Pope. However in a general sense, I wonder whether there would have been fewer cases of Roman Catholic priests carrying out child abuse if the doctrine that priests are not allowed to marry had not existed. Of course there have been cases of Anglican priests in abuse cases as in all areas of society, but there do seem to be fewer.

Can anyone knowledgable about this doctrine explain the following? If Jesus could accept married men as his disciples, why can't the Roman Catholic Church. In St Luke's gospel Chapter 4 v 38 & 39, we have the following:"And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him (Jesus) for her. And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever;and it left her." Simon was of course Simon Peter who would become the number one disciple.

I am a catholic and I dont understand a lot of what I was taught most of it is contradictions and dont start me on the bible I dont believe half of what is written, I do go to church as I believe every religion has some truth in it but I dont believe or understand most of what I have been taught, I am more spiritual than I am religious to a certain extent they both go hand in hand thats my belief,I will never understand why a priest is not allowed to  marry or a nun, there are good priests  which is a shame as they will all be tarnished with the same brush, the catholic church has a lot to answer for covering up for these evil beasts and I do believe they always will

I'm interested in the politics of belief. None of it makes any more sense than the most basic fairy tales to me, and yet I sometimes wonder if there is a basic need to believe in something. It seems to me that there has been a steady rejection of conventional religion and moral leadership over the past few decades.
However, an increasing ammount of people have replaced it with footballers, faux musicians, and deadwood shite like Dawkins, Jordan, Jade, and Cole/Tweedy.

I'm a tad jealous Lilibet. I never thought that anyone would get away with writing what seems so obvious, let alone needing so many wheelbarrows to cart all of the cash away.

Ah!

I've never actually bought, or read, any of his books.
I just watch him on my tellybox.

As you say, it should be obvious, but I'm glad someone's saying it, at least.

Priests were allowed to marry up to the middle ages or just after. The reason the church put a stop to it is because the wives and children were outliving the priests, and the church couldn't just throw widows and dependants out on to the street, or knock their stipend on the head, so they had to build new houses for the next priests and his wife, and they were losing too  much money in doing this. I was told this by a very good friend of mine who is a priest. I have since finished with the catholic church, well any religion for that matter. I am sickened by all the priests that are crooks, perverts, peadophiles and drunks. These are just some of the priests I have personally known over the years, so it must be rife in the CC because if I knew so many priests that are like this, then what of the ones I don't know about. The catholic church is putrid through and through, and that is from my own experience.

You and your Dawkins again.
I'm thinking of starting a religion - there's loads of money in it.