I don't see the next Pope being the last (short of an untimely 'meteoric/asteroidal' world-ending holocaust), though I wonder if his papacy ('his' under current arrangements, but who knows what the eventual future may hold) could possibly herald in a new era, with a concerted effort to bring the Church into more realistic 21st century expectations.

There are problems with 'celibacy', for example, and I have no idea if Peter, or any other of the Disciples, male or female, were celibate (before or after being 'called'), married, unmarried, or with any intentions to marry. Other Christian churches don't demand celibacy, and many, or most, recommend (if not actually mandate) marriage - if only to maintain a closer and more realistic relationship with and understanding of the lives of their 'flock'. Marriage is also a fairly good mechanism to avert or limit 'temptation', and potential for 'error' - and one would hope could severely limit, or hopefully altogether eliminate, gross misconduct, including pedophilia and adultery amongst the clergy. Wives may also act as monitors of 'good faith' observance - an inbuilt 'check' and 'steerage' monitor. (Gay priests? Could be exempted from marriage, with conditions and appropriate oversight?)

I also have to question whether there is sufficient justification for a ban on female priests, or on contraception. Certainly it would appear that the 'featured' original Disciples were male, but one needs to place this in context of the 'times' - where the Hebrew church of the time (and notably to this very day) had virtually everything under the control of 'men'. With men at the forefront, any new 'faith' movement featuring women in any prominent role(s) would have been given short shrift.

Contraception: Perhaps there is cause to have reservation regarding 'chemical' methods (interfering with the sanctity of the body), but condoms? Surely an untimely or unwanted pregnancy (and due regard for the 'life' of every foetus) is sufficient justification for allowing, if not promoting the judicious use of, condoms? (Abstinence, or 'timing' are such 'frail' alternatives in current world circumstances.)

Time to review some dated 'prescriptions'?

Hi Saltpetre

Peter was indeed married, according to the synoptic gospels – or at least, he had a mother in law! (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38). According to Paul, all the original apostles had wives, though Paul did not (1 Corinthians 9:5)

You’re right that the position of women in the 1st century was very different to what it is today. Despite this, there is evidence that the early church was unusually open to female participation for its time. Many women were included in Jesus’ entourage and are widely accepted as disciples (Luke 8:1-3), while in Romans 16:7 Paul numbers Junias among the apostles, and in 1 Corinthians Phoebe and Prisca are listed as church leaders.

It didn’t take long for a male hierarchy to emerge that restored women to a place of subjugation. But this was not what Jesus taught, or how he or the early church behaved.

Rhian:

...Always standing just that fraction outside the square! But if you wish to proceed down this path, where is the historical evidence which supports the existence of Christ: There is none! His past existence is based on an “assumption of truth” from Biblical records, and is called “faith”.

...Christianity could be classified as “self-invented”. Part of the formulation of the inventive process is its ability to use the inventive “formula” to structure with authority, a hierarchy suitable to guide the process of invention into the future; thus the one Catholic Church and its Pope! (An invention)!

...There are many periods in history where the “invented authority" of the Catholic Church was challenged as the supreme Christian authority, but all have failed, (So far)!

Salpetre and Rhian,

You do know that nuns have always played important roles in the church and they do have autonomous power, especially in education and serving the sick and needy. They are strong women. They are all over the world in small villages and cities and they're not doing the missionary thing, but quietly doing God's work. They also had co-ed monasteries in Ireland once.

Constance is grasping at very thin straws when he (I presume male, given the content) compares the work of nuns with the male dominated heirarchy and control systems of the Catholic Church - or, for that matter, pretty much any church. I am aware that times are slowly changing in the western world, but there is a long way to go to achieve either secular or religious gender fairness.

Relegating women to the caring and sharing professions of health and education and then pointing to this as though it is a sign of emancipation is simplistic, inadequate and just plain wrong. Even within these professions it is not unusual too see many ladies in subordinate roles and few in charge.

In football terms, Constance just scored an own goal.

Were the men on top in Constance's Irish co-ed (nice euphamism, here) monasteries?