How can the Catholic Church really consider itself serious about the issues raised by Bruce Duncan (in particular poverty, hunger and environmental sustainability)when the Church is so evidently against the empowerment of women. Effective birth control puts women in control of their lives, generally improves their health, reduces infant mortality and generally improves the standard of living of their families and communities. Furthermore, the environment benefits when countries both improve living standards and curb population growth and one of the most effective way is through the education and empowerment of women. To quote Patrick Moore, this leaves no place for patriarchy, religious fundamentalism or dictatorships.

Jennifer, I do not think that the last pope was against the 'empowerment' of women. I think he saw that women were 'best' empowered by their role as mothers and wives and that it was 'wrong' for them to seek to deny their biology by choosing not to be mothers and wives as their first priority.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly do not agree with him but rather than denigrate him for being a hypocrite, or rage against his ignorance and problems that his beliefs created, I think it may be more useful to see him in terms of a person who simply did not have the knowledge or experience to effectively use the power that he had - like so many others in positions of power.

Graham is this off topic? It certainly is not about the article but it is a response to the writer. I will not be offended if you delete because it does not contribute postiively to the forum.

Mollydukes, your comments while not directly on topic provided an insight into comments made by Jennifer which did appear to be on topic. A useful insight into the limitations facing someone coming from such a strong ideological basis trying to address issues which are not easily addressed within that ideology. (what a mounthful that became).

It is useful to remember that to some extent we all face a similar quandry, we work from where we are at. Opportunity exists for all of us to move but the stronger our ideological basis the harder to move (in any direction). Best to be judged on what we did with what we had rather than on where we got to.

Seems to me that you are all on topic in the sense that Jennifer is raising an issue as to whether Bruce is reading the situation correctly because of the Pope's position on these of social justice. If he favoured the powerless against the powerful, aren't his views on women a contradiction of this.

I can't see how kiddies getting diddled up by Catholic Priests, or millions of Catholics dying of aids in Africa is consistant with the singular pursuit of social justice.

Perhaps the next Pope will address the fundamental issues of Priests being allowed to marry and the use of condoms to combat aids. Some re-vamping and spring-cleaning of Catholic doctorine needs to happen before the Catholic Church can truly claim to be the champion of the weak.

Graham The way I see it is that the pope did not understand the power differential in the traditional relationship between a man and 'his wife', so he was not actually being hypocritical in perpetuating this situation.

It seems to me that he was so appallingly ignorant about women and their position in the world that he truly believed that women's power resided in their traditional roles.

There are men who actually live in the real world, unlike the pope, who still believe this to be the case - there is at least one who contributes to this forum.

I agree that his words about 'the poor' etc, did not contribute a brass razoo toward any real increase of social justice in the world and as Jennifer said increased the problems.

But maybe it is useful to understand that it is so often ignorance (and ideology, as RObert says) that is the reason people behave so stupidly?