Pope Francis

Having worked in maternity care and assessed women under the "social clause" of the Termination of Pregnancy Act, I do think celebgran that very few women treat abortion as lightly as you fear - they really are in the minority.

I think that most women do stop to think what abortion really is; and it is my opinion that very few women get away without longterm psychological effects. I met so many with problems many years later, mourning a lost baby.

"As for contraception well very few Catholics don't practice that." I think you are describing catholics in the west. The vast majority of catholics live in under-developed countries where education is poor and they are uder the thumb of their priests.

Mishap sadly the statistics say differently by so many repeat abortions from same girls.

Girls at uni with my daughter had abortions for purely convenience sake.

I am sure most women do find it traumatic also is horrid decision to have to take.

No one wants go back to back street abortions but I feel they should no be so freely available.

Sadly a lot of these people you mention in poverty areas do not use contraception when given it.

It is a huge complex issue.

There are a number of facile, cliched comments here which have all been well rehearsed on many a thread previously. It seems to me that whoever was elected, it would have been immaterial to those who have a profound and visceral detestestation of the RCC.

Those people are not going to change their stance, or be persuaded that the RCC has any good in it, or that it is anything other than a malign influence in the world.

So be it.

But, the church is not the Vatican. It is not the pope. It is not the clergy. It is the the millions of Catholics who try, as best they can, to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many fail to live up to those high standards, but, in our different ways, we all try.

As for Francis, amongst liberal Catholics (and we are just as many and as important in the eyes of God, as any other catholic of whatever position) we are agreed that we are fairly positive. The option for the poor, is the great cry of Liberation Theology, and this seems to be foremost in the mind of the new pope.

We shall wait and see.

Celeb
You seem to now be blaming the poor for not using 'contraception when given it'.
Are you denying that the vatican has led a consistent campaign against condom use despite it being the only defence that many people have against AIDS?
Are you denying that extreme pressure was successfully put on the Bush administration by anti abortion christians not to give aid money to charities that gave contraceptive advice?
Are you perhaps in denial about the fact that these policies probably force millions of women into the position where they have no alternative but to have an abortion?

No "visceral detestation" here MicElf - I think religions should be judged for both the good they do and the bad. Adherents of a particular religion should not expect otherwise.

I think there are some people with a visceral detestation of the RCC - those whose lives as children were made a misery by nuns or other representatives of the RCC. I think the rest of us maybe think that the many good people who are catholics deserve a much, much better deal from the RCC hierarchy.
it will be interesting indeed to see if the new pope puts his new house in order - it certainly is in need of a new broom after the broken one who was eventually prevailed upon to retire. Who by is an interesting question because there were an awful lot of people with a vested interest in the status quo.

Indeed , Mishap. 'By their works ye shall know them', that is a just observation. And I was not referring to you. But there are some on this forum who do detest the RCC in everything it does.

As I said, so be it.

Jess M. You are correct. The Vatican's campaign against contraception is ridiculous and the con - evos in the Bush admin were equally wrong in my view.

But, I repeat, the Vatican is NOT the church.

And, as I'm sure you know, it's not a prohibition of contraception that prevents men from using condoms. They are prohibited from adultery and fornication which are a far, far greater lapse against faithful loving relationships. But does that stop them? No, of course it doesn't. The church advocates an ideal of faithfulness and respect. Sadly, many fall short of that. But compassion and understanding should be paramount. I'm not saying that is always the case, but the ideal is there as something to aim for.

And, if anyone is naive enough to think that that ordinary Catholics are 'under the thumb' of the priest, ( if you can find one closer than a hundred miles away in the bush) they have clearly never lived and worked in the Third World as I have, both in the sub continent and in Africa. Sadly, what happens there is that for the most part, men have the upper hand, and women have little or no power. Educate and empower women, and the world changes.

Jess, I've just read your post which crossed with mine. I agree, a new broom is needed, and that is why I am cautiously optimistic.

As I said, we'll wait and see.

And in the meantime, we bog standard Catholics will continue to pray, study and do our best to live our lives in the footsteps of Jesus.

I know most Catholics ignore the church hierarchy's stance against contraception. I certainly did, back in the days when I was still catholic and still fertile. My local priest told me it was up to the individual woman and her conscience, and if more children would be bad for her family and herself, then she should do what she has to do. He said it was nothing to do with the church or anyone else. I didn't need his OK, I would have continued with the pill anyway, but it was nice to hear.

One day I was at our catholic school Ladies' Auxilliary meeting. I was treasurer, and I told the others, about 20 of them, that I had to give my report and leave, 'cos I'd forgotten to take my pill and had left them at home, and I only had another hour before it was too late. 20 hands went into 20 handbags, and they all asked 'what brand do you take - have one of mine'.

These were all actively catholic women.

(That priest later got promoted to bishop, then chucked out for his liberal views)

It would be really good if he could use the common sense he obviously seems to be blessed with to persuade the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms not just to help prevent unwanted babies but mainly to help prevent women and children in Africa being infected with aids through no fault of their own.

Joan that made me smile!

*celebran" - No offence taken.

I referred to the Catholic church's wealth because it was the Catholic church that was being discussed. My comments apply equally to CofE and any other relatively wealthy religion.

By granting abortions on serious medical grounds, the church is already accepting that the life of the mother takes priority over that of an unborn child. As for a pregnancy resulting from rape, is it that that unborn child is less precious? Or is it that it is accepted that the feelings, and mental/physical health of the mother should take precedence?

I don't condone women having multiple abortions, but neither do I condemn them. I feel women who do this are probably very immature and ill-educated and/or emotionally damaged.

MiceElf You say: "Sadly, what happens there [developing world] is that, for the most part, men have the upper hand and women have little or no power ..."

Surely that's exactly what happens in the RC church (and most other major religions) - men run the show - and religions reinforce the principle that male authority over women is both divine and the "natural" way of things.

It might be worth asking why those on here who detest the RC church feel that way - unlikely to be random.

I do think it's important to differentiate between the powerful organisation, with the Vatican and its overarching policies, the belief in a god, and the people within the church (and all other organised religions). I detest the organised cover-up of ongoing abuse of children within any organisation, feel indifference to the choice of people to believe in a god or not, and take individuals as they come, whether we agree about religion or not. From what I have seen of Pope Francis so far, he looks like a down to earth sort of person, instantly likeable, and I heard a news commentator say he was not opposed to the use of condoms for protection from AIDS and other diseases. I hope he cuts through the politics and alleged corruption in the Vatican, which is an awful lot to ask of a man his age.

Mishap Are you perhaps suggesting that people who criticise catholicism are in some way "bitter and twisted"?

Speaking only for myself, I have absolutely no personal axe to grind. I have a vaguely CoE background, in the sense that my mother would describe herself as "C of E" on a census form. Other than assemblies at school (which I enjoyed) I did not have a religious upbringing.

I think it's understandable, though, that if people have had a particularly bad experience of a certain religion this is likely to affect their view of that religion. I think it's important that their voices are heard.

I just don't like religions - they are by their nature divisive.

I remember nuns who had been raped in ? Uganda having D&Cs to ' investigate any infection'

I feel uncomfortable about the Catholic Church. But I respect all Christianity.

Just saying.

I respect many Christians, Moslems, Jews, etc. I think their religions are just so much storytelling and self-delusion. I profoundly disapprove of the formal religious hierarchies – the men in frocks – because of the severe damage they have wrought and continue to cause in the world.

Alain de Botton was on Radio 4 this morning explaining to the Rev Richard Coles that there were some aspects of religion that he thought were too valuable to be restricted to people who believed in the supernatural. What people need, he said, was a kind of guidebook to living. And he thought ceremonial was probably a good idea as well, to mark important points in people's lives. So he has written a manifesto for non-believers who don't want to deny themselves the non-magic bits of religion. Richard suggested that the experience might be different for a believer but Alain explained that since the belief was based on a fallacy, it didn't really matter. I think the non-religious Sunday assemblies have been mentioned on GN. I don't know whether to rejoice that someone thinks religion isn't just evil middle-aged men in frocks or whether to despair at the trivialisation. Respect to the Rev Richard.

Eloethan you sound very wise ! Glad we can have discussions without offence being taken as that is never my intention.

Of course that unborn child victim of rape no less important it would be the mental strain of mother.

Our priest gave good sermon on abortion few years ago when he said never condemn the person as you do not know whatbtheynfoing through which summed it up well I thought. He is a very kind man they priests are not all like that sadly.

Yes I agree whenim pope Francis looks very kind to me can tell a lot from faces but gosh he has so much to deal with hope he can

Eloethan - on the contrary I am saying that those who hate the RC church often do so with a great depth of feeling and bittnerss. The RC church needs to take this on board and respond accordingly.

I too have no personal axe to grind - but I do feel for these people. One of my friends ackowledges and frequently makes reference to the damage that being brought up as a catholic has done to her life - I can see it in how she leads her life.

But equally there are those who speak positively of their religious upbringing.

Lilygran I do not think de Botton is seeking to "trivialise" religion - he is recognising the value of the community and moral aspect of religions, whilst also recognising that not everyone can subscribe to the supernatural aspects. I think he is looking at the subject very seriously and trying to look at ways of social cohesion being fostered in an essentially non-religious society. I do not agree with all he says, but certainly do not think what he has to say is trivial.

Mishap trying to be good, as A de B suggested, is a human aspiration central to but not exclusive to most religions. Religion is not only about trying to be good, and as the Rev Richard suggested, what else it is about is of supreme importance to believers. Trivialisation is the right word.

Yes I take your point - but I do not think he is trivialising religion. He is leaving those with supernatural beliefs to value those just as they do now.

He is leaving religion aside and just saying that there needs to be something to help kindness and social cohesion within an essentially non-theist society, now that supernatural beliefs have subsided for most people.

I do not think this threatens or trivialises the beliefs of others, or belittles the fact that these are of "supreme importance" to them. No-one could be in any doubt about that.

The fact that non-theists are "trying to be good" (which itself I do not think should be trivialised) and to find systematic ways of reinforcing this for those who require it can only be good for everyone. Far from being trivial it is of fundamental importance.

MiceElf. From one "bog-standard" Catholic to another, thank you for your post. You speak with knowledge, calmness intelligence and perception. For those people who are so convinced that all Catholics are at best stupid and at worst evil, I would like to suggest you visit the website of the Tablet, an international Catholic magazine where you will be able to read articles written by other people of intelligence, knowledge and perception. As a footnote to those people who seem unable to discuss anything on the internet without being vicious, society is suffering from fanatic fundamentalism not only from those within religions but also within the secularist/atheist camp. And also among the grannies of gransnet it would seem! The wisdom of age....??