I could easily believe that feminism was spawned and is led by women who are lapsed Roman Catholics who have an inheritance twisted sexuality, guilt and life experience from that religion and the father figures it promoted. Post WW2 Roman Catholicism was totalitarian, controlled, and used and abused its faithful. Especially for girls where inordinate time and effort were spent screwing with their minds on sex. Roman Catholicism had more in common with a religious cult such was the extent of the control priests held over believers and the punishments exacted upon any who wavered, especially women. They knew women were the strength of the church and religion was taught in the home. Women and mothers got families to church, not men. Women practised and favoured the rituals too, examples being baptism and weddings. Women were attracted to pledges. They liked the mysticism and the superstitions.

I shouldn't complain though because the Roman Catholic girls banged like the proverbial dunny door, doubtless in reaction to a church that had such an unhealthy obsession with sex. But their guilt later was dreadful. Only cured by another raging sex session with alcoholic drinks of choice, to help forget. Guilt and self-loathing was the big stick wielded by priests and it worked for a time. Roman Catholicism as many RC priests would still have it, has a lot in common with Islam.

Many RC parishioners and sections of the official church were nonetheless very caring. The Mercy nuns for instance did a lot of good in the country. Many of the present day schools, devoid of priests, provide good, cheap education. The elderly find that the real, low or no cost practical assistance to keep them independent in their homes comes from RC affiliated organisations.

What I don't want a bar of in the new Pope is any vestige remaining of the WW2 church. But there will be because that is how that church is structured and there is a brutal efficiency in past, but remembered practices. Already there is concern about condoms. Some things do not change.

Dear Pericles,

<<We are all of us attached to this world by the thinnest of threads, which could break at any time, on any day. In some locations - Somalia, Sudan, Syria - life is uncertain even on an hourly basis.>>

You seem to mix up between one's presence in the world (that which some of us loosely call 'life') and one's attachment to the world.

What attaches us to the world is not our body, but only our own desire to be in it, which is the root of all suffering. The end of the body is not necessarily the end of attachment and the end of attachment is not necessarily the end of the body. One can die and still desire to live (hence be looking for another body) and one can live but no longer worry whether their body lives or dies.

It is not whether one lives or dies which matters, but whether or not one is at peace. With attachment, one cannot live in peace and cannot die in peace - without it, one lives in peace and dies in peace. Peace is a property of siding with God, while conflict is a property of siding with the world.

The hope to one day be able to shed one's attachment to the world and working towards fulfilling this hope, is not a cause for sadness, but one's greatest source of joy.

In God alone my soul can find rest and peace - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glQv3Ra4KrE

Y no way! not buying in to that with you again, my head has just stopped spinning from that other thread.
I think the bloke looks ok, but his Church? far from it.
As a non believer I believe in humanity.
We can all point to failures, maybe more than achievements.
But the little things are the gems in life.
Kookaburra calling just after sun rise or before dark priceless.
Kids smiling and laughing .
A time may come when we have no need of straws, and no need for idols , some, too many, with feet of clay.

That's what worries me about your views, Yuyutsu.

>>What attaches us to the world is not our body, but only our own desire to be in it, which is the root of all suffering<<

How infinitely sad it must be, to desire not to be attached to the world, on the basis that you see it only as the cause of suffering.

>>The end of the body is not necessarily the end of attachment<<

I suspect that, for most of us, dying is somewhat... final, and that it completely breaks off our attachment to the world. Which makes this statement of yours somewhat counter-intuitive:

>>It is not whether one lives or dies which matters<<

It most definitely matters to me.

>>With attachment, one cannot live in peace and cannot die in peace...<<

Oh yes you can, if you try. I am very attached to this world, and consider myself to be infinitely fortunate to live in it, particularly in the time and space that I occupy. It would be extremely churlish of me to become detached from the environment that gives me so much delight, on a daily basis.

>>Peace is a property of siding with God, while conflict is a property of siding with the world.<<

Not necessarily. Gott mit uns, and all that.

And this is almost as sad as your "world doesn't impress me" comment earlier:

>>In God alone my soul can find rest and peace<<

For your sake, I hope that you will recognize your God when you find him/her. In the meantime, do try to find some joy in life, rather than in the contemplation of non-life.

'I cringe at the sight of those who follow their faith without question '

Yep me to Whatsit2y. Those athiest who accept that something come from nothing defying every observation and bit of logic one can contemplate. No wonder they accept the gw religion and are totally blinded to failed secular humanism dogmas which destroy societies. Those with faith in God are often called to clean up rotton fruit of the secularist. The faith deniers also often have seared consciences to the extent that they become morally bereft even justifying the killing of the unborn babies by redefining language in the name of science. Yep the faith of atheist is often breathtaking in the way they have to close their eyes every day to the obvious (creation and design which logic requires a Creator/Designer).

I am no fan of the Catholic church however their history has a lot in common with the leftist ideology often dressed up as science.

Yuyutusu, you're a Cynic in other words, like Diogenes of Sinope, those principles formed the basis of the Christan ascetic and monastic traditions so it's entirely consistent and laudable reactionary position you've adopted.