All Comments (118)

It's too bad Chopra doesn't understand the idea of infallibility. The pope is only infallible in cases of faith and morals, and only when he declares that he is speaking "ex cathedra." Which has only happened twice. With that being said, his entire analysis of the Church falls a part...

Perhaps, the fact that Mr Chopra's facts were not checked for errors and falsehoods, (Papal Infallibility)-say's more about The Washington Post than about Mr Chopra. Naturally, there is a good possibility the Mr Chopra has a bias against the Catholic Church, as he must against every other Christian institution. Hundus in India are also killing Christians of any denomination just as the Muslums are likewise doing.

If there is anyone who thinks the Catholic church rightfully rules Christendom through a chain of popes going back to Jesus and Peter, you might want to read about Pope Formosus. Pope Stephen VI had his corpse disinterred, clad in papal vestments, and seated on a throne to face charges. The verdict was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate. All his measures and acts were annulled, and the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body, the three fingers from his right hand that he had used in consecrations were cut off and the corpse was dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber river. Never heard that before? -- check it out for yourself, even in sources published by the Vatican.

Dear Dr Chopra

You wrote: "the Church has become too tainted by scandal to offer answers that might satisfy a new generation of seekers."

Any seeker who chooses to define the Catholic Church strictly based on the scandal of sex abuse by a few priests, then for sure they are going to have to look to other Churches or religions or spiritual path for the right answers. I must admit that I am yet to be convinced about that perfect Church or religion or spiritual path which is not tainted by limitations of human nature in its practice.

The Catholic Church is two thousand years old, has 1.2 billion followers worldwide to date and has literally thousands and thousands of priests who have NOT been involved in the sex scandal.

The Catholic Church is truly universal and has an incredible capacity to adapt to the needs of the society. Much like the Hindu tradition, there are different spiritual paths to suit different personalities and spiritual levels to be found within the Catholic Church, in the Christian context, for anyone who cares to seek seriously.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Dear Dr Chopra

As a Catholic I have not given much thought to the concept of Papal Infallibility. I'm able to practice my Christian faith in full in the context of the Catholic Church, and truly appreciate being a Catholic and the universal nature of the Church, without giving thought to such matters.

I'm fully aware of the mistakes (some being true atrocities) made by the Catholic Church in its two thousand year history without denying the great good it has done and the spiritual wealth it has accumulated in that time as a result of the selfless work of thousands and thousands of Catholics. It is my fervent hope and prayer and conviction that the Catholic Church will renew itself in order to meet the spiritual needs of its followers, as it has done time and again it its long history.

Since some bloggers expressed the view that you should have informed yourself a little more about Papal Infallibility here a bit more information:

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

· what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).

· the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

· infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

o The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

o Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

o Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see D size=-2>EFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

o Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible.

To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching...

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

unable to post, as usual.

I think Dr. Chopra does address the issue of the 'sanctity' of Church doctrines, at least in passing.

Papal Infallibility holds the same dubious distinction as any of the many declared Church doctrines, whether the doctrine in question pertains to the Resurrection, the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption of Mary bodily into heaven - to name a few of the better known articles of Church dogma.

These various declared infallible truths are the foundation of both Catholicism and Protestantism, in spite of the disagreement on what doctrines are literally true, and what may be metaphorically or symbolically true.

For example, all Christians accept the literal truth of the Resurrection as being the essential foundation of Christian beliefs, but other doctrines are not so literally accepted by Protestants. If, in fact, you do not accept the Resurrection as literally true, it is doubtful that you would be considered a Christian, in the nominal sense of the word - even so, these days certain elements within Christianity today disagree - e.g. Dominic Crossan, et al support the symbolic value of doctrinal declarations while doubting of veracity of their literal occurance in the real world.

But perhaps this all misses the point. As with any beaurocracy (see Max Weber) the Church and it's hierarchy become self-sustaining entities that seem to forego essential spirituality in favor of maintaining traditional structures and functions.

Thus, the whole point of religion as a system and methodology of spiritual development for individuals is largely lost through the rigidity of organizational considerations, including the over-stated importance of the clergy and the Pope himself.

The trappings of religion have thus supplanted the true function - and bouyed up by now-questionable doctrines that have little or no basis in fact or that even remotely comport with what we now know about the material world these days - and what we don't know is not likely to be defined by either the Pope or a multitude of Church doctrines based on primitive tendencies toward superstition and the supernatural - and far more suited to the 'mysterious' world of past centuries.

True spirituality promises to reveal a living reality that is not necessarily compatible with that which has been set in stone by the Catholic Church.

Aurora: "I greatly admire people who can see beyond fixed beliefs and dogma, religious or otherwise. People who can question themselves openly and allow themselves to grow instead of attacking as soon as someone questions their beliefs.

But I do understand and love the people who are holding tightly to their known world, no matter how contradicting and painful it becomes. We all do that at times. Some day they will let go and discover a larger, more free perspective."
~~~~~~~~~~

All faiths are "contradicting and painful" regardless what belief it is, otherwise we would be talking about perfection.....which in this world we know does not exist.

I greatly admire people who can see beyond fixed beliefs and dogma, religious or otherwise. People who can question themselves openly and allow themselves to grow instead of attacking as soon as someone questions their beliefs.

But I do understand and love the people who are holding tightly to their known world, no matter how contradicting and painful it becomes. We all do that at times. Some day they will let go and discover a larger, more free perspective.

As much as I appreciate Mr. Chopra's attempt to understand the dichotomy that is the spirit and the flesh, it has nothing to do with Pope Benedict XI. This article was not written with even an elementary understanding of what the Papacy is. The Pope is not infallible. Everything the Pontiff says is not infallible. In fact, there are only a very few infallible statements that have ever been made by the over 400 Successors to St. Peter in the Catholic Church's history. I'm sure that Mr. Chopra is very respected in the field of spirituality, but this entire article had nothing to do with Pope Benedict XI and everything to do with Mr. Chopra's own comments about the pedophilia priest scandal on the Larry King show. Mr Chopra wrote more about himself, and very little about the Pope, and what was written about the Pope was ill-informed. I would think such a high profile writer would be held to a much higher standard.

After reading some of these comments I am curious to know if there is any divine principle or belief like "papal infallibility" in Catholocism?

The Pope is not infallible unless it's a matter of faith. That means that other than theological pronouncements, Catholics are free to disregard the church's strictures. Which they apparently already do to a large extent. Just as well, since the Church has a pretty bad track record.

I am a private language instructor who teaches business leaders and politicians in Copenhagen. On occasion I have had the good fortune to teach scholars involved in psychological research. There stands out in my mind one great researcher here who spent hundreds of hours in post doctoral work studying pedofiles ... independent of the state. What she discovered was that (after looking at the official prison records), the pedofile would be saying how that through therapy they were making good progress and that they had lost their interest in sex with children. What this psychologist found out independently was that these individuals were fantastic liers and that they couldn't wait to get out of prison and repeat acts which were so depraved that she frequently felt nausea. Like many social scientists before her she stated that it was a gross understatement to say that the cure rate is low. Her conclusion. "When the crime is pedofilia, put the offender in jail and throw away the key !" More to the point, the Catholic Church must own up to the fact that about 25% of their priests are homosexuals (and some are indeed pedofiles)! PERMITTING PRIESTS TO BE MARRIED MAY NOT BE THE WHOLE ANSWER TO THE CHURCH's DILEMMA, BUT IT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO CONVINCE THE WORLD THAT PROTECTING CHILDREN IS BECOMING A TOP PRIORITY. Not far behind pedofilia as one of the sickest perversions, the celibate priesthood stands out as something much worse that an innocent anachronism. Is it really too much to ask the Catholic Church to clean up its act (Won't it be cheaper than continually coughing up billions of dollars to victims of pedofilia) ?

America was ready for Hindu metaphysics ...pulled those bill folds out and 'voila'!
It's all about the money. The kingdom of Deepak.
Serpentine...oily. It's everywhere though I agree. I worked on the professional staff of a Catholic treatment centre that 'encouraged' closeted Priests to head downtown on the week-end and give the whole carnival a try. I wasn't Catholic at the time and really had a dificult time figuring out how the executive director of the institute could rationalize what was going on. I later learned that Jesuits are trained specifically to ratonalize anything. I ended up having a 'breakdown'. As far as i know the 'Jesuit' continues to garner acclaim for his forward thinking on matters of faith and buggery.
Imagine whats the church going to to with all thses 'lavender' seminaries? It's a mess, but not one that God's Rottweiller isn't up to.

Mr. Chopra,

You should not be opining on Catholicism as you do not know it.

Example: Your gross mis-representation of "Infallibility" was an elementary error and beyond on the pale.

Mr. Chopra, predicate your opinions on correct facts and not distortions least you (intentionally?) mis-lead your readers especially non- Catholic readers.

Shame, Mr. Chopra.

The Catholic Church has nothing to do with The Creator, Mother Nature, the Great Intelligence, or a spiritual concept of God. It is the oldest and most successful corporate cult in human history. It maintains its power and vast wealth by political intrigue, tax free status, pillaging primitive indigenous peoples, and brainwashing its flock at a very early age with fear and guilt. It is an awful fraud. The Pope needs a new outfit; that 12 century garb doesn’t scare anybody any more.

Just one question: since when is Deepak Chopra's opinion relevant? He's an entrepreneur and a hired talking head, not a spiritual leader. When I need to find a literary agent or a great hotel suite in Manhattan, I'll ask Chopra. When I have questions about how to go on book signing tours, he's the man. Otherwise, let's get the perspective of someone with expertise and wisdom.

It's most unfortunate that you are right for when a civilisation looses its references to moral values and transcendental potential vectors,the end is near . As Valery wrote "we ,civilisation knows that we are mortal".
Nobody's in a hurry , but no one has displayed a credible alternative yet!

Worth repeating:

The Crises (pl) in the contemporary Catholic Church:

1. The inappropriate conduct of many priests, the emotional stress on the victims and the resultant billion dollars in lawsuits.

2. The lack of talent in the priesthood.

3. The lack of Vatican response to the historic Jesus movement.

4. The Church's continuing cling to original sin and the resulting subsets of crazy ideas like limbo.

5. The denial of priesthood to women.

6. The restriction of priesthood to single men (unless you are former Episcopalian priests),

7. And the continued chain of Vatican "leadership" by old European white men.

The Pope is not always infallible. He speaks with infallibility only under a very special set of circumstances, which has only happened three times in the history of the Catholic Church, all regarding the nature of the Virgin Mary.

"Catholicism was instrumental in the abuse of native American peoples and stood by during the era of slavery without protest ..."

The same can be said of protestants or jews - liberal or conservative...exploited the frontier and then all stood by for slavery.

However, it was Christian leadership with in the abolitionists movement that also helped bring down the practice.

What exactly is your point, "Rev.?" That you are a disgruntled former-Catholic

I think that Deepak Chopra's comments regarding the Pope's infallibility, speak not so much to the Church's doctrine of what this means, but also, how the Pope's words are received by the people. The following is an example of how the Pope's words conflict with the teachings of the Church. In this speech he is referring to the promises of America: "To be sure, this promise was not experienced by all the inhabitants of this land; one thinks of the injustices endured by the native American peoples and by those brought here forcibly from Africa as slaves."

Catholicism was instrumental in the abuse of native American peoples and stood by during the era of slavery without protest ... also, one would want to ask, how about the promise to gay and lesbian people? ... people that the Catholic Church and especially this Pope continues to abuse through the doctrine of the Church based on a teaching that is no less gruesome than the Church's teachings centuries past?

I have no idea what faith Deepak is so I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that he knows nothing about mine but to comment on papal infallibility in such a snide way and obviously have absolutely no idea what it means is really lame.

Would it kill you to Google, wikipedia, library...anything before you offend millions of Catholics?

A mystery of the Catholic Faith is that sinful humans (of course) must lead it on earth. That has been the case from Peter to Benedict so I puzzled why Chopra states it has become "...too tainted.." Saying the Church is in decline is frankly not a controversial assertion on 2008 America (secular factor) but it is ignorant of its 200 year history.

For faithful Catholics who receive grace through sacaraments such as baptism, communion, reconciliation, on a spiritual basis, Chopra's assertion is even more non-sensical.

Finally, I would call on an analysis of the Catholic church's growth in China and Africa and perhaps conclude that maybe materialism and secular cultural have more an impact in Church participation in Westernized nations (US and Europe). I think this is fairly obvious.

People seem to get hung up nuance and perception. There's the church and the Church inside us. When one is tainted, so is the other. That is all he was saying, not arguing.

The only argument that can be constructed against Dr. Chopra's article is that he said the Pope is infallable, which he is not. Its the only argument you all have. Why not focus on the other statements he has made. Are you all advocating that priests should not be punished for abusing children? Do you agree with the church paying off people to keep quiet? I'm not sure what the argument is. The Catholic church needs to stop putting its head in the sand and deal with this. How would you like if your child was abused by his/her priest? Since when is someone a bigot for saying that all men should be punished for abusing children, whether they are a priest or not?

The Church is not the government. Any member of the Catholic church who committed a crime should be tried and punished by existing legal system/process. The Catholic Church should not interfere with this process, but at the same time, it should not take the matters in its own hands. The Catholic Church does not cuddle any alleged criminal by counseling them and praying for them. Attending to have fallen their way is just being true to its mission.

BTW, as stated above, the pope is only infallible in matters of faith.

"John The Bostonian:
When the logic fails, some people resort to faith/belief -- Bertrand Russell
The Catholic church/doctrine persecuted Galileo, burnt alive as heretics who questioned its teachings; It invented ‘indulgence’ – sin now, pay now and you will be on the way to heaven -- doctrine. It took Martin Luther to check the Catholic Church (papal) tyranny.
The present kinder/gentler version of the Church does a good job protecting and defending the poor and powerless. But like any tyranny if allowed, it will go back to seeking power for sake of power.
The church is losing its Caucasian members and looking to Hispanics to fill its ranks."

man did all those injustices not the Church. The Catholic Church, from the 12 apostles, is for all the people and filled with all the people.
martin luthor may have been a christian, though I have my doubts about so called Christian churches, but he had no influence on the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church today does not preach hate but others do. we don't even preach hate against gays, we call them sinners and immoral and yet their are catholic gays. crossovers of all denominations becaume catholics, why, because the Catholic church can be traced back to the 12 apostles to Peter, the rock.

Dr. Chopra,

I always assumed that you were a well read and a contemplative writer and was very surprised when you incorrectly opined on infallability. The Pope, much less his comments, is not always infallible as you stated.
The last time that the Pope made an infallible statement was in the 1950s. Please study a subject before you make another uneducated and biased statement.

The church has been able to hold on to power by intimidation of imposing the fire of hell on dissidents. Whether God exists or hell exists has never been proven ,faith is hope that there is a reason for life. The good works the church has done [and does] is great, there are many fine good hearted caring clergy however the church can be irrational and out of touch especially in the area of sex. Contraception in an overpopulated world is a good thing not sinful, abortion is nasty business but a woman's choice takes priority over a fetus and should not be taken lightly. Homosexuality has been with us from the beginning and exists in the animal kingdom so calling unnatural is an oxymoron as it happens in nature including mankind. By making gay life sinful and open to criminal penalties, discrimination, blackmail and violence the church's teaching are archaic and obsolete and inhuman. Men never marrying or engaging in sex is closer to unnatural than gay sex as supresses the natural instinct which has caused widespread preists to act out their repressed sex cravings on those who cannot resist god's representatives. Dogma and infalliabilty lead to dictatorships as all big daddy religions dimish the role of women. The church should keep the good things it does and revise those dogmas that are actually against society as it is now.

Deepak Chopra takes four long paragraphs to address basic topics.These are Papal infallibility,crime or wrong-doing,penalty and decline in religious involvement.One wonders whether his 50 books could have been easily condensed into single figures or less.
As regards the first,the Pope is still fallible except in matters of dogma(one for Deepak to research). The Pope cannot forecast the weather more than anyone else.He may be able to forecast whether Obama will be a better leader than Clinton,but then we all know this is true,without dogma.
As regards wrong,the concept of right or otherwise is implanted in all of us.If someone strays from the right path it does not imply that the path is wrong.Neither do we know whether the stray will return to the right path,but we pray that this will be the result.
Penalty speaks for itself.Eat too much and you get obese or sick.Drink too much and you get drunk and offensive.Wrong too much and you spoil your sense of values or morality.A blow against our "religio" or moral code(another one for further research?)
As to religious decline,it would take someone truly infallible,or a fool, to state that religious observance will continue to decline.
There are no atheists in foxholes,as the man said,and there may be many more foxholes in the world before terrorism and natural calamities have run their course.
Think again,Chopra.

I have learned so much just from reading others' responses (as a Protestant,that is). I used to believe that Catholicism taught papal infallibility just as the writer today. I can't say too much about the writer or his credibility (even though I've heard that he propagates New Age which I do not espouse), however the priests should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Bible teaches that we should subject ourselves to the laws of man as people of God. We should only resist compliance when the laws dictate that we should deny our own faith and our own Creator, and this is not the case here. Those priests should be in jail serving long sentences. They can pray and ask for God's forgiveness there.

Why does Mr. Chopa consider himself qualified to comment on the Church and the pope when he knows so little about them? This is a drive-by.

The pope is not infallible, nor does Church doctorine claim he is. What the Church does claim is that under specific and very rare circumstances, the pope may issue a statement of faith that is regarded as infallible. This is very different. It has also been discussed extensively here in recent days.

Lawsuits are not filed against the "Church", they are filed against specific diocese. Judgements aren't paid by the Church, but again by specific dioceses. They draw on the funds tithed by all parishoners of the diocese, draining it of funds that would have been used for other missions, such as education. In other words, it is not the guilty who pay the victims, but other innocents.

The Church is not the clerical hierarchy; the Church is the entire body of its membership. It is the clerical leadership that has been tainted, not the whole of the Church - except possibly in shallow thoughts.

Deepak- know your facts before you discuss these issues.

As defined by the First Vatican Council of 1870, the Pope is infallible on issues of Faith and Morals, not administrative actions.
The Church is the giver of law and administer of the sacraments. Administrative failure is an unfortunate fact of life through out its history.
The bigger failure in the child abuse scandal, which is world-wide not just America, was the failure to contain the problem and deal with it openly. In virtually every diocese, these predators were not stopped and kept away from children. It is this failure that is the most inexcusable. Further, those who exposed these problems often suffered retaliation, and even banishment. These issues have been barely addressed, let alone solved.
The spiritual dimensions are far greater than the civil aspects. The Pope must lead a comprehensive spiritual renewal of the Church, which in my opinion begins with Fatima.
The Fatima Apparitions address the problems of the "deluge of impurity", the rise of communism and the failure of "bad marriages",as the result of sin and the lack of prayer.
It is these failures that constitute the current and yes, growing crises.

The pope is NOT infallible. The use of infallibility applies only when used in instituting a doctrine of faith - which means itis/becomes a core item of faith for all Catholics believers. Infallibility has been invoked less than a dozen times over the last couple of centuries. Again, the Pope is NOT INFALLIBLE.

My God! Seems as if many believe that the Pope is infallible, but only when he speaks "ex Cathedra", that is from a SPECIFIC, PHYSICAL CHAIR ???
WHERE DOES ALL THIS NONSENSE COME FROM?

The longest running profitable corporation, with trappings of an outdated empire - the Roman Catholic Church, has long enjoyed tax exempt status in USA. It is therefore reasonable that the Church be required to open its financial and personnel records in its entirety allowing the tax-paying public full access to it. With full knowledge, wisdom can prevail among concerned citizens.

The basis of the problem, of course, is that the entire Pope/God concept was created by fallible men. Not very distant from worshiping the Sun or the Moon or forest spirits, etc.

I found it difficult to take this article seriously when Mr. Chopra started out with a misunderstood and incorrect notion of the pope and "infallibility".

John:

Nice distinction without a difference. Get a dictionary!

"the vast majority of the molestation cases were ones of pederasty! In fact there were few cases of pedophilia"?????

What a pathetic attempt to be a stoic philosopher.

Chopra's commentary opens with a statement betraying his overall ignorance of church teaching. The pope is only infallible when he speaks from the chair of St. Peter, and only when he speaks to matters of faith. No pope has spoken "ex-cathedra" ("in the name of the Church") since the 1800s.

Chopra should actually learn about the church before he engages in his bigoted attacks.

These victims are probably(not in every case), but probably being victimized by people who themselves may have been victims.

Once a child or person has been tramautized, there are marks in their thinking and beliefs. If they were sexuallly abused early enough, they may believe that the wrong is the right and that this lifestyle is ok. They may now believe and try to pass off this secret lifestyle( either heterosexual or homosexual activity done in secret) as ok.

The church should instruct that this is against the plans of GOD. Additionally, the 'hardware' of men and women shows that they are male and female. There is no plan for male and male or female and female in nature as there is no reproduction in such cases.

There is still a need to 'borrow' equipment from another sex(eggs, or sperm), meaning that this is only a 'software' solution, not a 'hardware' solution.

Obviously( for those who marriage is for), there is only a design plan made by GOD, for male and female interactions sexually(in marriage).

In relationships, the 'software( the thinking feeling parts)' should follow the hardware, but
too often there are perverse and unnatural feelings and emotions that do not come from GOD, but the perverter of all good things, the devil. Too often people do not use the truths( see what nature shows for the largest part of creation-there is no entire race of asexual humans. Human beings are male and female) of GOD to fight those feelings that are contrary to nature.

GOD DOES NOT have marriage for everyone, but for those whom marriage is for, there is the design plan by GOD for male and female relationships.

The office of the Priest is a special place before GOD and man. It elicits a certain trust from people and places men in the place of being a pure person to connect to GOD and to teach and instruct in His ways.

A true statement is that any sex outside of marriage is against the law of GOD. It makes the priest impure, whether people hide it, or in some other fashion try to make it ok as this church did.

This church, these men(supposedly called by GOD to provide care for the innocent) took advantage and betrayed these innocent children. Even if they are passing on the hurt that was done to them, someone must stop the hurt.

Someone must say that even if this happened to me, someone must say that the buck stops here.

This is not ok, not now, not ever.

Every Priest trying to live single is not meant to be single. That is really a gift from GOD. If that is not natural to the person to be single and then to stay pure sexually, they should not be in this particular office of priest, who this church seems to categorize as single males.

Sir: The statement that the (Holy Father) is "infallible" is just plain incorrect, and is typical of many whose knowledge of the Church and Her teachings is gleaned from the media or some other secular source.

The Church makes no claim that the Holy father is infallible; rather, under a limited and defined set of circumstances, he "speaks infallibly." This is a rare occurrence.

Making misleading remarks like this one undermines the speaker's credibility.

1. God is Love
2. We are all Gods children.
3. These are truly the "Last Days"(within 5 yrs.).
4. Just as in the time of Jesus, the ruling religeous leaders of his day (and presently) could not recognize the messiah even if they tripped over him.
5.The Lord of the Second Advent is alive and on the earth "NOW".
6.If the odds were 1 in a billion that the above statement is true, then we all owe it to ourselves and God to see if this is true.
7.I am testifying to everyone who reads this, before God and Humanity that Sung Mung Moon is the Lord of the Second Advent.
8.As a child of God who has seen that this is true
I pray that all will investigate for themselves.
9.This is truly the time to take responsability for this earth and everyone on it.
10. Heavens "standard" is coming to this world within 5 yrs. It is time to "give" for the sake of others and forget that you have given.

Peace

Anytime I need a good laugh, I'be sure to read another Deepak Chopra piece. A message to you, Mr. Chopra: did you see the faithful gather to see the Holy Father in Washington today? Do you really think their Catholicism stops at papal infallibility? It's really too bad that tetherless, new-age wankers like you don't understand that moral clarity and submission to the will of God are precisely the reasons why the Catholic faith is undergoing a risorgimento. In a world dominated by materialism, lasciviousness, relativism and atheism--foisted on us by charlatans like you and other vacuous baby boomers from the 1960s--my fellow Catholics and I are willing to put our faith and trust in Pope Benedict.

Mr. Choprah needs to find out what 'Papal Infalibility" really means. He is human like the rest of us.

In 1870, the French dictator sponsoring the Pope was overthrown. As a result, the Papal States became part of the newly unified Italy. The Pope responded by retreating into the Vatican and declaring himself infallible. The office was not so distinguished until then.

He didn't come out until a deal was struck with Mussolini. Roughly a decade later, a deal was struck with Hitler.

The Pope's world view has little to recommned it.

I too stopped reading after the first paragraph. Why should I read his thoughts about Catholicism when he clearly didn't do his homework? To all critics of the Catholic church: There are many good reasons to criticize the church. Just make sure you actually know something about the church before you articulate these criticisms.

John Connolly wrote:
"The Church has not become too tainted by scandal. You are an idiot. Get an honest job."

Agree, 2 billion dollars means nothing to the Church. It can take much more hits.

I read only the first few lines of Mr. Chopra's remarks and stopped after "the Church's position is that the Pope is "infallible." This is not correct! I'm shocked that a person as educated and high-profile as Mr. Chopra is ignorant of this fact. The Church doesn't consider the Pope "completely infallible," and the Pope, as a human being, doesn't turn from ordinary or "psychopathic" one moment to "infallible" the next. This is ridiculous. The Church considers some (a very few) of any Pope's pronouncements (and these on limited matters) as "infallible" or unquestioned. Before making such a misstatement on a forum like the Post, would authors please "do some homework?" Maybe truth doesn't matter, however, if the intent is simply to advance one's own views or agenda, regardless of the facts. I don't put this past all authors.

It is apparent that the Washington Post has no Catholic employees whom Dr. Chopra could consult about Catholicism as he shows total ignorance about Catholicism or maybe he is too lazy to do his research homework.

Even though the argument is OK it is a bit narrow.
1) There might be other reasons why attendance comes down, for example new religion.
2) Sheer lack of religious interest

The conclusion is ambiguous.
1) They can go away and be good catholics privately
2) Attendance numbers need not represent the real strength of faith.

God bless all. May compassion overcome divisiveness (life/choice). May all the lord's children live in harmony.

Unfortunately, you misunderstand the notion of Papal infallibility, a common misunderstanding. Infallibility attaches only to certain pronouncements, not to day to day activity and talking. Those certain pronouncements are few in number and come only after wide consultations and under very special procedural circumstances ... in the last 150 years I believe there have only been 3 such pronouncements. As for the balance of your article, you raise very interesting points, including I might suggest by implication the question whether the Pope, towering intellect that he is, is so steeped in the theology of the Church that he cannot step back far enough from the subject to see it all. It may be that God is trying to tell the Church something that the Holy Father is not able to hear.

Yes, the Church addressed the abuse scandal with transfers and counseling. Yet it never hesitates to call in civil authorities when theft of Church funds are at issue. Embezzeling priests are not quietly transferred from parish to parish, they are turned over to the authorities quickly.

So it's an elegant argument that Mr. Chopra makes regarding a balancing act between two worlds, but when the Church sees its financial well-being at risk, it moves clearly and quickly to the world of secular law enforcement.

The Pope is infallible only when declaring an article of Faith. Last time that happened was in 1954 by Pope Pius XII.

John the Bostonian - "The longest running profitable corporation -- the Roman Catholic Church. It does not produce anything." ????

I guess unless you count that the American Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students per year at a cost to the Church of $10 billion, a savings to the American tax payer of $18 billion.

or Perhaps the non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people in the United States today.

Or maybe the institution that feeds and clothes 1 of 5 indigents in the United States at a cost to the Church of $2.3 billion a year.

Or on Health and Human Services, the homeless, adoption, drugs, adult care and so on, where we save the county $170 million a year.

We could go on......and you know what? We don't ask people to be Catholic before we clothe, feed, education, heal and PRAY for them!