"Rydyn ni'n mynd i ddefnyddio rhai pwyntiau o'r ffordd o'r ffordd, iawn. Nid yw'r Llywodraeth ar hynny. Ychwanegwch ymlaen. Helo. Mae hynny'n bwysig iawn i Ann Widdecom. Byddwch chi'n credu bod hynny'n bwysig iawn. Os yw hynny, rydw i'n bwysig i fod yn edrychol. Why is it wrong for a woman to become a priest, but perfectly acceptable for a woman such as yourself to become an MP? OK, diolch. Rydyn ni'n mynd i hynny yn ystod. Rydyn ni'n mynd i hynny yn ystod. Ann Widdecom, un cwestiwn specific i chi. Why not women priests in the Catholic Church? Wel, nid, y cwestiwn specific yw, why is it not all right for a woman to be a priest, but it is for a woman to be an MP? Dyna'r cwestiwn specific. Rydw i'n rhaid i chi ddweud, mae hynny'n bwysig iawn i fod yn edrychol. A member of Parliament, male or female, does not stand in persona Christi at the point of consecration. The Church is not about careers. The Church is about vocations and about theology. And I do not believe it possible for a woman at the point of consecration, woman's ministry, is different. This is specific to the priesthood. It probably won't be understood by a lot of the people who don't understand the theology of the priesthood. But I don't believe that it is any more possible for a woman to represent Christ at the point of consecration than for a man to be the Virgin Mary. OK, thanks. Lots of hands up and I really do want to go around. And this leads to the second feature of fundamentalism. It always picks on the weakest points in another person's arguments. But is it not true that if you're really confident of your case, you face the opponent's strongest argument, you don't simply always focus on their weakest arguments? Professor Dawkins, you are arguably the world's leading apologist for atheism. And you have been invited on several occasions by arguably the world's leading Christian academic apologist, Dr William Lane Craig, to engage in debate. I would like to know why this is not an example of the new atheist doing what Lord Harries has described as avoiding the strongest possible arguments from the opposition. OK, thank you. That's a very straight question. Over here now. I have always said when invited to do debates that I will be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop. Indeed, I have done both. But I don't take on creationists and I don't take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They've got to have something more than that. I'm busy."