home
RSS
Illinois bishop plans gay-marriage exorcism
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Illinois is planning an exorcism for the state after it approved gay marriage.
November 15th, 2013
10:10 AM ET

Illinois bishop plans gay-marriage exorcism

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor

(CNN) - The devil made them do it?

According to a Catholic bishop in Springfield, Illinois, Satan was behind his state's recent legalization of same-sex marriage.

So, next Wednesday, at about the same time Gov. Pat Quinn signs the gay marriage bill into law, Bishop Thomas Paprocki will hold an exorcism ceremony "in reparation for the sin of same-sex marriage."

Paprocki, who's something of an expert on exorcism, says he's just following the Pope's marching orders.

When Pope Francis, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, was an archbishop in Argentina, he called that country's legalization of same-sex marriage "a 'move' of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God."

In a statement released on Thursday, Paprocki said: "The pope's reference to the 'father of lies' comes from the Gospel of John, where Jesus refers to the devil as 'a liar and the father of lies.' So Pope Francis is saying that same-sex 'marriage' comes from the devil and should be condemned as such."

Since his election as Pope in March, Francis seems to have taken a less combative approach to homosexuality. At a news conference in July, for example, he said "Who am I to judge?" a gay person who seeks to be a good person.

Illinois politicians - including Catholics - cited the Pope's words when explaining their support for the state's same-sex marriage bill.

In September, the Pope said the church has no right to "interfere spiritually" in the lives of gays and lesbians and chided Catholics who "obsess" about fighting culture war issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays

But Paprocki calls same-sex marriage "contrary to the plan of God" and says all Catholics who support it - from legislators to county clerks who issue marriage licenses - are "culpable of serious sin."

The bishop has invited priests and lay Catholics to his exorcism ceremony, officially called "“Prayers of Supplication and Exorcism in Reparation for the Sin of Same-Sex Marriage,” which is scheduled for November 20 at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Springfield, Illinois.

Paprocki says the ceremony will follow the Catholic Church's Rite of Exorcism, which explains that Satan not only possesses people, he can also invade places and things, including the church itself.

"We must pray for deliverance from this evil which has penetrated our state and our church," Paprocki said.

Exorcism is experiencing something of a renaissance in the United States, with the Catholic bishops recruiting dozens of priests to perform the ancient rite. Paprocki is among the bishops leading the recruiting drive.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Culture wars • Faith • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Pope Francis

soundoff (3,013 Responses)
  1. Substantial Compensation

    The world would be a better place with no people. Everyone should aspire to live in Heaven for eternity at the hand of God.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room

      Or the Shire with all the Hobbits.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Magic Eight Ball

      Outlook not so good.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Madtown

      That's just your religious guilt talking. I know many people who make this world a better place through their presence.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
  2. Reality

    we can all be thankful that religions and their rules are treated no differently than kids tree house rules.

    Hey in the catholic church,, even no girls allowed.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • Magic Eight Ball

      As I see it, no.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
      • Reality

        it's nice that religions have to abide by our laws..

        November 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
  3. shehar39

    good for him..

    November 15, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      How so?? One valid reason based on evidence from the 21st century please! Do you honestly think what he plans to do will change anything? The man should be locked in an asylum.

      November 15, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
  4. Rick777

    Quran Surah 3:54 Allah refers to himself as "Khayrul-Makereen" When translated means "Allah is the greatest of all deceivers."

    November 15, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
  5. MM

    An expert on exorcism. Isn't that kind of like a unicorn trainer?

    November 15, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
  6. AnaHadWolves

    That's funny. I had always looked at Satan as a fat, bald Catholic priest molesting 6-year-old boys or little girls. Who knew?

    November 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
  7. friendlyphotog

    I wish he would spend some time exorcising the catholic church of the freaking child molesting priests....

    November 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
  8. Kita

    I find it ironic that an organization that takes a stance against gays dresses its figures of authority in bright and flashy robes, complete with hints of sparkles and outlandish hats.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
  9. behonest

    I"m planning on a "Stupidity exorcism" with this idiot. I mean Bishop.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
  10. mikeinmiami

    Look at the getup on this guy! Now that's something that should be exorcised!

    November 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
  11. tednugent'sdiapers

    Well praise jeebus!

    November 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
  12. flashf0x

    Please... This is totally insane, but why am I not surprised? Perhaps he should perform "exorcism" on his Church as Satan must certainly be behind all of the child molestation issues and corruption that has plagued the Vatican. After all his church also tried all they could to hide the molestation issues... even relocating the priests and thus letting them continue what they started.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
  13. eprobono

    Claiming that someone's marriage is against your religion is like saying no one else can have dessert because you're on a diet.

    I guess I just don't understand how people can be so passionately hateful about something that won't affect their lives one bit.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      precisely. well said.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      About a year ago our state was going through this fight, and my step-daughter was getting married in one of the local parks. The minister had the audacity to insert a tirade against gay marriage in the middle of the ceremony. I was thoroughly embarrassed for the bride and groom. I was recording video for the ceremony, planning on giving it to them, but I just don't know what to do with it. I don't want to explain it to my grandkids (when they come along).

      November 15, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
  14. IslandAtheist

    These clown suit wearing nutbags need to be mocked out of a job.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • A traveler

      Sadly they seem to be immune to sarcasm.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • lol??

      Yup, like the gowns you make yer kids wear when they graduate from HS. Men don't wear dresses and neither should SCOTUS., Don't need any wise killer mommies there, either.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
      • Maddy

        You grow more absurd with every single post.

        By your logic, Jesus should have worn what he did.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
        • Maddy

          Should not have worn what he did....

          November 15, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
  15. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Damn that homosexual coitus! The good men of the Church should not be forced to withhold themselves from women. They can't be expected to hold fast against such temptation. Is it any surprise that the Church is in need of exorcism? And they focus on the State of Illinois. For shame!

    "How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

    November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
  16. My Dog is a jealous Dog

    Can anyone give an argument against gay marriage that can stand up to legal scrutiny and is not based on religious doctrine?

    I'll be waiting....

    November 15, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Russ

      @ jealous:
      so you come to the *belief* blog, but you don't expect to talk beliefs?

      November 15, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
      • My Dog is a jealous Dog

        The Establishment Clause forbids the "tyranny" of the religious powers because all religious doctrines must be treated equally, as well as the lack of belief. If for some unseen reason, all religions agree on one subject they are still not allowed to impose it on the non religious based solely on religious views. I am asking for an argument that would even be considered in court.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
        • Russ

          @ jealous: again... why come to the *belief* blog to argue that belief is irrelevant?
          1) isn't your position EQUALLY a belief?
          2) furthermore, isn't your *belief* (that religion should not have a voice here) one that you are pressing at the *exclusion* of other beliefs (namely, that it should have a voice)? how is that not the very tyranny to which you are objecting?

          November 15, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
        • My Dog is a jealous Dog

          1) No, my opinion is an interpretation of the first amendment, not a belief.
          2) No, I am saying that the laws of our land cannot be made strictly on a religious belief, even if it was unanimous. Our laws are based on reason and not emotion.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
        • Russ

          @ jealous: so you don't think that reason itself is based upon belief?

          November 15, 2013 at 11:05 pm |
        • My Dog is a jealous Dog

          By reason, I mean the application of logic, which is a form of mathematics, So if reason is based on belief, I guess math is also. So, if I had to answer this question honestly, I would say that – Yes, I do believe in math since actual proofs exist in math..

          November 16, 2013 at 2:10 am |
    • Maddy

      Both Russ and Vic evaded the question. Surprising.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
      • Russ

        @ Maddy: it is not avoiding the question to point out the premise is flawed.

        if your question requires accepting notions with which not only do i disagree, but if conceded, decide the entire debate – then it is entirely germane to press the assumptions.

        for example, if someone says "did you like it when i slapped you in the face?" #1: you never did. that's the first thing that has to be dealt with. to answer the question is to accept the presupposition which is flawed.

        ironically for you, saying "you dodged the question" when the question is flawed is actually dodging my answer.

        November 15, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        That's a big FAIL, Russ. There was no false premise in the question. It's laughable that you should claim it contains one when any person can read Maddy's question for himself.

        November 15, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Cpt Obvious:
          1) i don't see a question that Maddy asked. I was objecting to the premise/question advanced at the top of this thread (from "my dog is a jealous dog"). are you claiming Maddy & Jealous are one & the same?

          2) seeing as how this is the *belief* blog, it certainly bears noting when someone wants to set the parameters of authoritative discussion by EXCLUDING belief. if the shoe was on the other foot (a religious person claims a secular person's beliefs are not germane to the discussion on this blog), it's hard to imagine you wouldn't cry foul.

          the assumption that faith/religion/etc. has no authority in the discussion is the entire debate at hand. asking a question that assumes the debate is decided is – at best – naive, if not outright purposefully disingenuous.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          My mistake, Russ. I meant to say My Dog.

          My post still stands. Your claim is inaccurate. There is no false premise, there is just a premise that you don't care for which is why you should have kept out of the thread. If you don't want to deal with a question because you don't like the phrasing, then fine, but if you're going to lie and say that the question contains a false premise when it doesn't, then expect somebody with an ounce of logic to notify you of your stupidity.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Cpt Obvious: a premise I don't care for? which of these facts are you claiming is opinion:
          1) this is the *belief* blog (a place where beliefs are discussed – hence the name)
          2) his question assumes beliefs have no part in the discussion

          and that's not even to press the rather obvious & self-refuting irony that he is merely expressing his own *beliefs* in claiming beliefs are irrelevant...

          November 15, 2013 at 11:02 pm |
    • wolf

      The only "arguments" against marriage equality are the ones based on ignoring the entire reason people even came to this land in the first place. Religious freedom!

      November 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
      • doobzz

        Bullshit. Columbus was looking for a trade route. People came to this country for economic reasons, to claim land, and for the natural resources.

        Religious freedom was not the major reason for the settlement of the Americas. And it certainly wasn't extended to the indigenous people, was it?

        November 15, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Depends

      In my state marriage is defined legally as being united to a person of the opposite s9x as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
      • My Dog is a jealous Dog

        Exactly – it is a civil contract, and in the case of your state, it has discriminatory restrictions with no valid legal basis.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
        • Depends

          Gay men can marry lesbians in my state.

          November 15, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          In your state, only some consenting adults get to marry whom they wish to marry. How unfair and illogical.

          November 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
        • Depends

          I didn't write the laws! If it were up to me we could all marry our friends, cousins, uncles, neighbors and soccer teammates.

          November 15, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Do you really think that Jesus is ok with your lying behavior, here? After reading your post, would he say, "Well done, good and faithful servant?"

          November 15, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
        • Depends

          Ugh. Sounds just as bad when atheists say those kind of things when the right winged religies say it. You guys think a lot a like!

          November 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Ugh. Troll harder, loser.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
        • Depends

          Atheists like you and right-wing religies have a lot in common. That is not a trolling statement.... it is a fact. You both spend way too much time talking about religion. How many posts a day do you post? 30? 100? 245?

          November 15, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Sorry, Adult Undergarment, you're going to have to troll a lot better than that.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
        • Depends

          *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* I knew when I picked this name the most immature person would use the most obvious derogatory slur word against me in regards to my name.

          You win.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Still not good enough, AU.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
        • Depends

          According to you and you alone. I can't imagine any reasonable adult would worry about what a grown man named "Captain Obvious" who spends way too much time acting hostile to religious people on Faith and Belief Blogs thinks of them.

          🙂

          November 15, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          *yawn* This can't possibly be the best you've got, can it?

          November 15, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
        • Depends

          Do you think you are doing better or something? What have I said that is not true? Do you not think and talk about religion all the time? Do people not categorize atheists like you the same way they categorize religies as annoying? Should any respectable adult really worry if a troll calls them a troll?

          November 15, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
      • rusty66

        Chief Justice Roberts is no doubt trying to keep Mr. Justices Scalia and Thomas from fouling their Depends ™ by taking a piecemeal approach to marriage equality, but sooner or later a "clean" (clear-cut) marriage equality case is going to come before SCOTUS, all fifty states will have marriage equality, the Deep South will secede AGAIN (and, please God, STAY gone THIS time!), Konservative Kristianist Krazies (KKK) will emigrate to Lithuania, Russia, and Uganda, and we'll all live happily ever after.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
        • My Dog is a jealous Dog

          As soon as a legally married gay couple moves to one of these states and are denied their rights, it will eventually reach the SCOTUS and the restrictions will be struck down across the country on the same legal principle that struck down inter-racial marriage bans. It comes down to the fact that all states must recognize legal contracts made in all other states (and also by the way recognized by the federal government).

          November 15, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
      • Maddy

        And definitions are changed/added all the time.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        16 states down, 34 to go...your state will soon join reality. 🙂

        November 15, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
        • Depends

          Maybe. I think a state should have a right to define marriage how they want.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Not when it involves denying equal rights to people who are not doing anything damaging; to people who pay taxes and raise children.
          Maybe it is your own irrational hatred and bigotry that makes you believe it is okay to deny those rights but it's wrong and rather immoral.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Quite right. States should be allowed to make completely unfair and bigoted laws such as the right to own sl.aves and that some consenting adults can't marry but other consenting adults can marry.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
        • Depends

          I'm not against gay marriage.

          Calm down, your hatred is blinding you. I'm open minded on the subject though... there are limits on marriage. Should we have multiple husbands and wives? Marry family members? Age restrictions?

          November 15, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Considering gay marriage and marrying family members are totally different. There are age restrictions.
          I'm not blinded by hate but you stated that states should be able to decide who has the right to marry. That would include gays...right??

          November 15, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          You should continue lying, Adult Undergarment. Keep up the great work.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Age restrictions? Yes. That's why I used the term "consenting adults."

          November 15, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
        • Depends

          Yes. States should be allowed to define marriage how they want. If, after following a democratic process, the public declare they want to define marriage a certain way, they should be allowed to. If you don't like it, don't live there.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          No they shouldn't. In doing so they exclude certain groups and that is unfair, especially when said group is doing no harm.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          And slavery, too. Don't forget that. We want states to have the right to be completely unfair to adult human beings, after all.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
        • Depends

          Slavery is against the law in my state. It has never been legal.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Nobody's talking about YOUR state, moron. YOU are talking about states having the rights to make their own laws that are unfair and bigoted. YOU are the one who, logically, according to your own statements, have no reasoning against a state that would legalize the slave trade within its borders.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
        • Depends

          Yikes, you sound angry. You are a lot like the religies you profess to be better than.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
        • My Dog is a jealous Dog

          There are valid reasons (non-religious) to disallow:

          Polygamy : inheritance and custody issues
          Close family members : birth defects, inheritance and custody issues
          Young people : legal informed consent issues

          November 15, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
        • Depends

          Thanks Dog. See it isn't that hard to answer that question without getting all holier than thou and resort to name calling.

          November 15, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
        • Sara

          " States should be allowed to define marriage how they want. If, after following a democratic process, the public declare they want to define marriage a certain way, they should be allowed to. If you don't like it, don't live there."

          What if every state defines marriage in a way that disallows your marriage?

          November 16, 2013 at 12:39 am |
      • sftommy

        In my state marriage is a covenant between two people and God

        Bishops and bigots argue with God to stop blessing as He Wills?
        Fear such fates as await them, not the blessing of those who love in God's name.

        November 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      IN 2012 in my state there was a consti.tutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It was roundly defeated by popular vote, and the first thing to come out of the new legislative session was the legalization of gay marriage.

      Keep up the fight, the more you bigots fight the faster you push the middle of this country the other way.

      November 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
      • Russ

        @ jealous: so anyone who disagrees with you is labeled a 'bigot'? pot, meet kettle.

        November 15, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
        • My Dog is a jealous Dog

          If Muslims, Jews, and Rastafarians all wanted to curtail your right to eat bacon just like every other American, I am sure you would be the first to call them anti-christian bigots. How is the denial of rights to one class of people based solely on religious doctrine anything but bigotry?

          November 16, 2013 at 12:31 am |
  17. tb63

    Cue Tubular Bells.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room

      Great album.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
      • tb63

        On Wednesday I'll play the 5.1 version while my head spins a la Linda Blair.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • bostontola

      I smell pea soup.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
  18. L

    So where did atheists get the "right morals" from if it not did come from religion? Fact, most of your "morals" are laws telling you what you can or cannot do and you follow them. That doesn't mean you are more "moral" than your fellow human being. Just because you support gay marriage doesn't make you more "moral". It just means you follow what the media tells you to believe.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • bostontola

      Where did all the religions get their morals from?

      November 15, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
      • Theist Stole Morals

        These Nutbag theists will never do their research.. bible or quran is everything for them..

        Abrahamic moral laws.. most of them were stolen from the Hammurabi Laws.. look up 'Code of Hammurabi' 800years older than Judao Faith.

        btw Hammurabi tablets are still found in museums around the world.. but the Arc of the covenant which "supposedly" holds the 10 Commandments is nowhere to be found.
        I bet religinuts will not even read up on it..

        November 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room

      😉

      November 15, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
      • L

        😀

        November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Lou Grant

      Where has anyone asserted that, O Disingenuous One?

      November 15, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
      • L

        By many many many atheists.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
        • Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room

          😉

          November 15, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
        • Lou Grant

          Atheists state they don't need to believe in gods to be moral. So?
          You have a problem with people acting in a moral manner? How strange. Why?
          Do you even know any atheists?

          November 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Pete

      Religions offer moral pronouncements, which are really just the personal moral opinions of men long dead. They do not provide moral systems that can evaluate new situations. It was people's innate sense of right and wrong that ended such evils as slavery. They only cherry-picked their scriptures to justify this after they knew that it was true.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
      • L

        They didn't end slavery for good. It still exists in many parts of the world. Next lie you want to claim?

        November 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
        • Pete

          L
          Where they did end it, they did it through their own sense of right and wrong. Some places haven't gotten there yet, but the argument still holds.

          November 15, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
        • L

          That was a tradition passed down from town to town. Family to family. People wanted to break the long held tradition and a war arose. It was really keeping what your family did rather than anything else. They were taught to do it. There's a difference.

          November 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Maddy

      The media? Get real.

      There were atheists long before the media as we know it existed.

      Try again, troll. If you blame the media for anything, it shows a distinct lack of critical thinking skills.

      And you're still a troll. You are about as subtle as a bull in a china shop.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
      • Magic Eight Ball

        My sources say no

        November 15, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Atheist

      L, we aren't merely more moral than you. We are also very much smarter than you are.

      Now go be a good little boy and google the "Golden Rule" and do some reading and learning, stupid.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • toodark

      We all get our morals from simple observation and empathy. No smoke...no mirrors...no incantations...no threats of eternal torment. That is, in actually, in spite of the teachings of the bible...or are you one of those who throws out the OT with the bath water?

      November 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
      • L

        Most of your "morals" are laws telling you what you can and cannot do and you have to follow them. If you don't follow them, punishment will be served. Following laws are not following your own personal "moral system". Give me a break.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
      • Helmut Cabeza

        Christians believe Jesus came in fulfillment of the Law, so yes, you can throw out the Old Testament. There is really only one rule in Christianity, stated by Jesus, and that is love. Love God and love your neighbor. Paul simplified it to love your neighbor. That is the essence of Christianity. Everything else is just commentary.

        November 15, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • A traveler

      People get their morals by thinking and interacting with their fellow persons. Religions get their morals from invisible men (never seen) talking with human beings (or so 'they' say). Where did you get the 'L' from.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlhk7KJdil0&w=640&h=360]

      November 15, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Morals are just situational ethics. Arriving at a moral conclusion is dirt simple. Using basic rules like, life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, pleasure is preferable to pain, we can measure the consequences of various actions to determine if it enhances or detracts from well being.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
  19. tony

    Church leaders steppinh in to "speak for god" and still staying alive and unchstened, are the living proof of the non-existent of any god relevant to to the human race.

    November 15, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
  20. bm

    How can he even consider doing this wearing that frock?

    November 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • be quiet

      hahaha, awesome

      November 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • Samuel P

      Good taste is not a prerequisite to committing fraud.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • flashf0x

      Please... This is totally insane, but why am I not surprised? Perhaps he should perform "exorcism" on his Church as Satan must certainly be behind all of the child molestation issues and corruption that has plagued the Vatican. After all his church also tried all they could to hide the molestation issues... even relocating the priests and thus letting them continue what they started.

      November 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.