Ah! but you have to be ever mindful that the man in white, and maybe even the red hats (including Dr dill, perhaps), have a direct line to God and she tells them what is right and what is wrong. It appears that one of the things she insists upon is they do as much meddling in our lives as possible. The more the better. Anyway, who better to hand out "infallible" advice on sex than people who (supposedly) never practice it. That way they can be purely objective, can't they?. WELL!,can't they?

Your views and mine are somewhat in accord. I know of many wonderful catholic women who practically run their church and play second fiddle. I note the a certain president of the United States is off to Rome to give his advice. Is he an applicant for the job?.

When one joins a particular organisation or club which has established rules or conditions of membership, the member is expected to abide by these rules. If the person feels that they can't abide by these rules then they are free to leave and join another establishment. The Pope has upheld the tradition of the churches teachings, teachings on abortion, contraception and the like either are statements "Ex cathedra" or "Definitive". These types of statements cannot be changed by any other Pope in the future. Instead of railing against the church and its' clergy, leave and find another religion to practice and find fulfillment. Pell like conservatives, as you put it, are the majority. Take a look in St.Peters square, we have what we want and we don't want to be dictated to by noisy minorities with axes to grind. Live as you wish, and let us do the same. We have rights as practicing catholics that adhere to church teaching. If you are a member of the police force you can't pick and choose which laws you think should or should not be upheld. Similarly you can't modify the uniform. The answer for you is move on. And CW your reference to Cardinal Pell as a dill is strange. Cardinal Pell is only voicing church teaching as on officer of the church it is his responsibility to do so. If you can't mount an argument without being insulting why bother, the answer is leave, you don't have to stay and you don't intend abiding by church teaching. The Church is not a cake stand where you take only what you like. The railers againt the church only want there personal will to rule, well try that in the liberal party in a preselection contest.

Yes, I quite see the resemblance to a club or the Liberal Party, or the police force. It's much more difficult to see the resemblance to the teachings of Christ.

I think He might have had serious objections to some of the pontifications and the trappings of wealth that surround the Church's so-called leaders.

And he might have been much more willing to listen to the "noisy minorities with axes to grind". He'd be more likely to carry an axe, in my opinion, than to carry a bishop's staff.

If you don't like the catholic rules there are plenty of other religions, cults or sects out there that I am sure can suit your level of morality. If not you can always start your own. You could have waited until after the funeral before starting your condemnation. R E S P E C T!!!

What nonsense! It's possible to have great respect for the man, but to completely disagree with some (OK, many) of his policies.

I noticed, however, that the link to Malachi O'Doherty's story in The Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1451208,00.html) headlined "The Pope they loved but could not obey" - was broken. It's well worth reading. Unlike so much of the narrow-minded bigotry that flourished in these years of doctrinal conservatism, it's intelligent, thought-provoking and well-argued. More on Malachi O'Doherty here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1007784.htm

A telling quote: "A Catholic retreat house outside Belfast has recently facilitated the teachings of Gaia theology and Zen Buddhism. At one event, at which women were asked to stand and suggest a special topic for prayer, one invited them all to pray that young seminarians holding a conference at the same time would wise up and go home."

What a sorry pass, but utterly predictable.

It's a waste of valuable energy trying to reason with religious zealots, Charles. They're right and we're wrong and that's that. Ever attempted a conversation with Margaret Tighe? PHEW!

P.S I think I'll get away with this because Margaret and her fellow zealots will be watching 2, 28, or 9 right now!!!!!

You're right, of course. Perhaps it's the breathtaking intellectual force of their arguments ... "I you don't like the Catholic rules, start your own religion" etc ... that compells me to respond.

Meanwhile, analysis of the late Pope's reign continues, often in less than flattering terms. In today's Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a82fd72c-a79c-11d9-9744-00000e2511c8.html [PAID SUB.], Philip Stephens writes: "It is hard to think of any other occupant of the Holy See who was at once so admired and yet spiritually grew so distant from his flock. Many of those kneeling today before the flickering flames of remembrance have long ignored John Paul's edicts in the practice of their faith."

AND, "John Paul II's pontificate was modelled on a 19th-century monarchy. His revival of the claim to papal infallibility rested not on the gospels but on Vatican I, the council convened by Pius IX in 1869. Pio Nonno's concerns, aside from his visceral anti-Semitism, lay with personal power rather than theological truth. A century later, John Paul demanded the same unquestioning obedience to his own interpretation of God's laws."

AND "No theologian himself, Karol Wojtyla disdained such legitimate doubts. It scarcely mattered that the clergy could once marry or that women served as deacons. Whether on clerical celibacy, women priests or the use of condoms to defend life against the scourge of Aids in Africa, obedience to his encyclicals had to be counted above all historical precedent or reasoned argument. Thus the doctrinal primitivism of organisations such as Opus Dei elbowed aside the spirit of theological inquiry encouraged by the Jesuits and other religious orders.

John Paul's was a pontificate devoted to its own power. It upheld temporal authority at the expense of its spiritual mission. Thus the Vatican's refusal to act decisively in response to the crisis engendered by paedophile priests put protection of the hierarchy and the material well-being of the church above the needs of its flock.

"But there is a paradox here. His very authoritarianism drained the authority of the Church. I am not speaking merely of the empty pews in Ireland, Italy or Spain. Large numbers of practising Catholics ignore the Vatican's rulings. For every one who has lapsed there are two, three or four more who continue to receive the sacraments while looking to their own consciences on matters of personal ethics. Many priests collude - urging parishioners to search their souls carefully but continuing to give Communion to those who decline to repent of sins they are certain they have not committed. Confession is becoming Catholicism's lost sacrament. Someone once remarked of a British prime minister that he was "in office but not in power". Something of the same could be said of the former Pope."