“MJ, clearly you are confused and missed my points. The first being
considering the history of the sex lives of popes, why should I turn to them for divine guidance?"

You seem quite proud that your daughter’s relationships are out of wedlock, are adamant that you would not guide them to do otherwise and seem to sneer at the expression the “safety net of marriage”. You describe Catholic morality negatively labelling it as control of the human sex drive and consider the Church a “retreat for a bunch of power crazed misogynists, perverts and sadists” that God would not condone.

That being so why would you consider that the sexual proclivities of some former Popes would make them evil? If the book was correct they wouldn’t be living up to Catholic standards but you claim to reject those standards considering they control sexual energy and channel it away from natural human activity. Given your view of God and of sex why wouldn’t you turn to them for divine guidance?

Either you understand that Catholic morality is correct and divinely based or you have no grounds to criticise those Popes. Which is it?

“ Secondly where did I suggest that anyone "needs" to have extra marital sex? “

Sorry that was Scout.

”You again miss the point. You want to try to force us, using political means, to live by your moral code, which apparently floated down from the heavens somewhere. We don't try and force you to live by ours. Nobody forces you to have an abortion, swallow an anti baby pill, use a condom, or even bans your religion. Why don't you respect our right to live by our moral code? Why do you want to enforce yours on us through political means?”

I have a right to swing a cricket bat around but not if someone is standing in the way. You are talking about a conflict of interests with killing being the consequence of indulging one side. We have a right to say it is wrong. There is no right to harm others.

"A lady I had a long relationship with who happened to be catholic was told by her priest if she continued to have a relationship with me he would not allow her to participate in mass. She told him to shove ..."

The faith is a Christian faith and even most atheists would know that this falls outside the ethical standards. Catholics know more than atheists it is rejecting the faith. The Catholic faith is not about sitting in a Church to make an appearance and going through the motions. Masses are much more significant to Catholics.

"My point – it is none of the pope or his bishops or priests business what a private individual does within a consensual relationship and denying those individuals participation in their faith is a cruel manipulation and abuse of theological power."

In trying to rationalise your anti-Catholicism you are making yourself obtuse to the obvious. You must know that ethical guidance is a big role of the Church and all priests. It is their duty to guide the flock. In the book much loved by Christians, the Bible, it provides an anecdote where Jesus was talking to the first Pope (John 21:16). It states "Again, a second time, he said to him, Simon, son of John, have you any love for me? Yes, Lord, he said, you are certain of my love for you. Then take care of my sheep, said Jesus." Not all Catholics spend their spare time studying their religion. They rely upon priests to guide them in these types of matters. If priests don't make it clear to these people what God thinks of different types of relationships and other ethical issues where are they to learn about their faith? The priest loves your friend as God loves you and is trying to save a soul not abuse power.

The priest was not denying participation in the faith. He was making the faith more clear. If he let your friend think that the Church condones participation in the Eucharist in the circumstances he would not be caring for the sheep.

"You seem quite proud that your daughter’s relationships are out of wedlock,"

Umm MJ, I think you must be having a bad hairday lol. The comments
about the sex lives of the popes were mine, but I had absolutaly nothing to do with the production of Col's daughters and I am sure
he will agree with me on that :)

My point about the popes was this. I certainly don't claim to be divinely inspired, but the popes do. If even popes cannot practise what they preach, why should I believe their claims of being in touch with the almighy?

"You are talking about a conflict of interests with killing being the consequence of indulging one side. We have a right to say it is wrong. There is no right to harm others."

You also have a duty to explain yourself, if you want to control the
lives of others. Show me that a human organism, which women can produce about 400 of in their lifetime if they wish, is a thinking, feeling person, with a human brain. My continuing claim has been that every woman should have the right to an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Convince me that a group of dividing cells are actually a thinking, feeling person and what evidence you have for this. Emotive rhetoric is exactly that, it doesent stack up in a court of law either. What evidence do you have?

Mjpb “You seem quite proud that your daughter’s relationships are out of wedlock,”

Wrong, I am neither proud nor ashamed. It is their choice to make and mine to accept. It does not effect the manner in which I think of or love them. Although I am happy with the choice of partners each has made and I am proud, as any father would be of the loving and caring daughters which I have brought into the world.

“You describe Catholic morality negatively “

I consider any organisation which dictates unwavering obedience to a set of repressive demands, policed and managed by theological control freaks, as an unhealthy and negative human experience typical of what emanates from any form of “conditional love”.

”ethical guidance is a big role of the Church and all priests.”

Shame that seemed to be overlooked when it came to the systematic cover-up of the activities of paedophile priests.

“Caring for the sheep”
Interesting choice of words.

One would observe, “caring for the sheep” indicates certain presumptions. The first and most obvious, people are not “sheep”. Whilst those that are might well suit the shepherding attitude of priests, the ones that can actually think got themselves are going to be, obviously, up against it.

Such a patriarchal and patronising expressions says more about where and what you use as substitutes for real “values”.

“Either you understand that Catholic morality is correct and divinely based or you have no grounds to criticise those Popes. Which is it?”

I have the common right of any person to criticise what I see as rank hypocrisy particularly in an organisation which protects the vile and its material resources at the expense of the innocent for whom it held a “duty of care”.

I will criticise every and any organisation which deals in duplicity.

Suggesting I have “no grounds” is sanctimonious humbug and something else I will always challenge. Just punch “Roman Catholic Corruption” into google, you will get a 1,790,000 hits

These looked particularly interesting / revealing

http://www.humnet.unipi.it/~pacitti/Archive20036.htm
http://www.rcf.org/
http://www.sepoangol.org/wycliffe-e.htm
http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/church.htm

I can find plenty of grounds to criticise!

Your desire to restrict women's access to safe medical abortions using RU486 is as welcome as the return to proscribing the Roman Catholic Mass.

In the time of Elizabeth 1 english catholics were persecuted for following their religion.

Up until 1971 women were obtaining "backyard" abortions and some died and others were left infertile when the procedure went wrong.

This morning I saw the god botherers outside the Melbourne Fertility Clinic bullying all the women walking along the footpath. Concepts like "invasion of privacy" and "freedom of movement" spring to mind.

Indeed, Billie. And it seems to me that at least some of vitriol surrounding RU486 was that it would clearly be impossible for people to harrass every woman going into a doctor's or pharmacists'- how would the harrassers be able to tell if they were targetting people they thought of as "evil murderers" or if that person was just getting some paracetamol? A lot easier if they have to run a gauntlet to get to a specialist clinic...