Irish foreign minister: Pope not invited for 2012 visit

Keaton

Can you believe this? What a nasty, ungrateful shower, as my dad would say! :mad:

A papal visit to Ireland in 2012 now seems unlikely, in light of a public statement by the country’s foreign minister that the government does not plan to extend an invitation to the Pontiff.
Pope Benedict would be in “a very diplomatically difficult situation” if he planned to travel to Ireland without an invitation from the government, remarked Father Kevin Doran, the secretary-general of the International Eucharistic Congress. The organizers of that Congress had hoped that the Pope would travel to Dublin for the event, which is scheduled for June 2012. Earlier this year Vatican officials were in Dublin, reportedly making final arrangements for the papal trip.
However, in October the foreign minister, Eamon Gilmore, answered a question in parliament by saying that an invitation had not been extended to Pope Benedict “nor is one currently under active consideration.”
Relations between the Irish government and the Holy See have been deteriorating since July, when Prime Minister Enda Kenny loosed a blistering attack on the Vatican in a parliamentary address. Last week the Irish government announced the closing of its embassy at the Holy See--although political leaders claimed that the move was a budget-cutting measure.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12307

Newsite

Find it a bit bizarre...Gilmore's an atheist and in favour of abortion though, what more would ya expect!

CMpunked

But if there is no embassy here anymore then surely his visit wouldnt be seen as a "State visit"? So theres no problem?

For the record, im not a catholic, but i do feel that a visit by the head of the cc being stopped is a bit unfair to the faithful catholics of the country.

Keaton

Newsite wrote: »

Find it a bit bizarre...Gilmore's an atheist and in favour of abortion though, what more would ya expect!

It's downright spiteful. Any decent country would be honoured to have the Holy Father visit. Look at the graciousness of the UK for example.

The embassy closure could have neen a budget cutting exercise by a bankrupt little country, a mere 'coincidence' (sure!), but this is a direct snub and a deliberate and grave insult.

I am disgusted and feel pressed to renounce my citizenship and burn my passport.

johnners2981

Keaton wrote: »

It's downright spiteful. Any decent country would be honoured to have the Holy Father visit. Look at the graciousness of the UK for example.

The embassy closure could have neen a budget cutting exercise by a bankrupt little country, a mere 'coincidence' (sure!), but this is a direct snub and a deliberate and grave insult.

I am disgusted and feel pressed to renounce my citizenship and burn my passport.

Hope you do, one less self pitying Irish catholic

Dj Stiggie

Keaton wrote: »

Can you believe this? What a nasty, ungrateful shower, as my dad would say! :mad:

How are they ungrateful?

norrie rugger

The vatican has shown disrespect, for this country, so why should we invite him to come.

"Holy See" making a big deal out of nothing, to garner support IMHO. No one is stopping him visiting like any other person, we are just not extending a diplomatic invite.

Storminateacup

If the Catholic Church want the Pope to come, let them fund it. I fail to see why it's the tax payers money that's expected to pay for it.

And, if he does ever come, I hope it's to apologise to all the victims of sexual abuse, by the clergy.

Storminateacup

Also could someone tell me what the OP means when he says nasty and ungrateful? Can someone please enlighten me as to what the catholic church ever did for us?

Victor

CMpunked wrote: »

But if there is no embassy here anymore then surely his visit wouldnt be seen as a "State visit"? So theres no problem?

We are closing our embassy in the Vatican. There has been no mention of the Papal Nunciature being closed.

No1J

Victor wrote: »

We are closing our embassy in the Vatican. There has been no mention of the Papal Nunciature being closed.

The Papal Nuncio left Ireland during the summer without any notice to the Government or any sign of him being replaced.
In view of this I can't see a visit happening in the near future and to be honest a lot of noses seem to be out of joint.
This Pope will not come to Ireland maybe the next one, but it will be a lot different from 1979, the dog pond would be big enough this time.

ballsymchugh

Storminateacup wrote: »

Also could someone tell me what the OP means when he says nasty and ungrateful? Can someone please enlighten me as to what the catholic church ever did for us?

i would imagine it was the running of the hospitals and education for a few decades. whether or not you agree with how that happened it saved the early irish state a hell of a lot of money.

Storminateacup

Yes, and the Irish people gave the catholic church everything they had. Where did they get the land and the money? If you didn't give the church annual money you'd be made a show of, it would be read from the alter.

Some poor old batchlor farmer wouldn't see the door with nuns callin to visit, and as soon as he died, they would get whatever he had. They wouldn't even bury him.

Then Im sure you could mention the reformatories, where they got 1 pound a week for each child they had to look after. Were they looked after? No. They were pretty much starving. One boy said that feeding the pigs was the best chore as you could eat as much as you want, until the brother caught him one day and told him the pigs wanted it more than he did.
Back in the 40s, the reformatories were begging the government to send more children to the institutions.

Moving on to the magedeline laundries -- selling Irish babies to the rich Americans also made them a tidy nest egg, didn't it? Taking women in and keeping them there, institutionalised, long after their baby was born, taking their child from them, selling it, and treating those women like animals.

My mother, at 7 years old, fell off her bike in the ice on the way to school one morning (1969) onto gravel and stones and cut the hands out of herself. She picked herself up, and made her way onto school, where she arrived late. Her principal - a nun - brought her Down to the office where my mother thought She would be cleaned up.
But instead, the <snip> asked my mother to extend her hands, and proceeded to use a cane to beat the stones further into her hands.
Her teacher - not a nun - brought my mother to casualty to have the stones removed and have her cleaned up.

Who does that to a SEVEN year old? Much less - who'd dare get away with it other than the church.

A girl in her class in 3rd year became pregnant, and when the nuns found out, she was given the whole "whoops a daisy" down the stairs. That girl lost her child but the girls parents took action against the school and surprisingly, were offered compensation. They maintained she slipped, but she was in fact pushed by an elderly nun.

The catholic church makes me sick. They've never done anything that did not benefit themselves.

PDN

Storminateacup wrote: »

Also could someone tell me what the OP means when he says nasty and ungrateful? Can someone please enlighten me as to what the catholic church ever did for us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Baggio1

on a lighter note .. PDN for once we had the same thoughts there hahah the python moment came straight into my head after reading "what has the CC ever done for us"

anyway yehah Gilmore is a two faced piece of garbage so no matter what he does it doesnt surprise me in the slightest, and anyway Benedict wont be in Rome when this congress happens anyway,,,, so its going to be interesting to say the least to see what happens about this congress etc.

even tho am a strong supporter of the church i have to admit,... its really baaaad timing no matter wether yu support the church or not, and to be honest i think if WE wanted a pope to come here,, well maybe we should be the ones to fit the bill,,, that way the begrudgers cant be moaning about expenses etc... although am sure theyd find something else to complain about...

what amuses me is all the non believers who constantly rant on about the church this or the church that would also have you believe their sooo tolerant and open minded and modern in their outlook... now thats a load of garbage if i ever heard it but hey i have a thick skin and good sense of humour about them ahhaha

Orizio

Keaton wrote: »

I am disgusted and feel pressed to renounce my citizenship and burn my passport.

Please do.

yutta

I doubt the Pope would even want to come to Ireland after all that has gone wrong. I don't think he'd want to have to shake the hand of Mr Gilmore, a staunch pro-abortionist, either.

If an invite was made, I'd say there's a 90% chance it would be politely declined.

Tea 1000

norrie rugger wrote: »

The vatican has shown disrespect, for this country, so why should we invite him to come.

"Holy See" making a big deal out of nothing, to garner support IMHO. No one is stopping him visiting like any other person, we are just not extending a diplomatic invite.

The same could be said about the British Monarchy, but I think it was a very good thing to have invited the Queen on a state visit.
Gilmore is too small minded to extend the same broad-minded thinking to the Vatican, because of his own hang-ups.

yutta

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Gilmore is too small minded to extend the same broad-minded thinking to the Vatican, because of his own hang-ups.

Exactly. He's an embittered career-politician atheist who will one day end in failure.

reprazant

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The same could be said about the British Monarchy, but I think it was a very good thing to have invited the Queen on a state visit.
Gilmore is too small minded to extend the same broad-minded thinking to the Vatican, because of his own hang-ups.

Or maybe, as an elected representative of the people, he is simply doing the wishes of the majority of people.

That is his job.

It is also handy for the Vatican so they can blame the government for not coming instead of the fear of large protests and poor turnouts.

dlofnep

yutta wrote: »

I doubt the Pope would even want to come to Ireland after all that has gone wrong. I don't think he'd want to have to shake the hand of Mr Gilmore, a staunch pro-abortionist, either.

If an invite was made, I'd say there's a 90% chance it would be politely declined.

What does his stance on abortion have to do with an invitation (or lack of) to the Pope? That's a complete red herring. One logical fallacy after another. And he's 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'.

The Catholic Church has treated the Irish people with nothing but contempt. Any invite to the pope, would be a slap in the face to the Irish public. So I support Gilmore 100% on this.

prinz

Storm in a teacup, literally. My life has ticked along nicely without a Papal visit and I'm sure it will continue to do so. While a visit would be nice from the point of view of history and occassion, timing is way off. Invite, don't invite.. much ado anout nothing at the end of the day.

dlofnep wrote: »

And he's 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'..

Not wanting to go down the abortion road, but as a matter of interest if one believes that the state should have the power to execute criminals if it so wishes I believe the correct label is 'pro death penalty/pro capital punishment' not 'pro-choice', don't you agree?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Not wanting to go down the abortion road, but as a matter of interest if one believes that the state should have the power to execute criminals if it so wishes I believe the correct label is 'pro death penalty/pro capital punishment' not 'pro-choice', don't you agree?

No, I don't agree. And I don't agree that it's valid comparison either. It is called 'pro-choice' with regards to abortion, because the mother has the choice. When you label someone as 'pro-abortion', especially with the intent that the previous poster used it - it almost casts the person as if they actually want to see abortions, rather than wanting to see mothers being bestowed with the choice to make up their own minds.

One only has to look at that case with the young traveller girl who was raped, and was taken under state care - and not permitted to go overseas for an abortion.

Zulu

Keaton wrote: »

It's downright spiteful. Any decent country would be honoured to have the Holy Father visit. Look at the graciousness of the UK for example...
I am disgusted and feel pressed to renounce my citizenship and burn my passport.

I feel disgusted that the Holy Father has come crawling for forgivness to our state. The RCC have treated us with utter contempt. Frankly it's dispicable. :mad:

As an Irish citizen, I wish our government would take it a step futher and denounce the Vatican state. And I certainly have no appitite for a visit from the leader of a currupted church too interested in it's own pride than the welfare of the children and people it's "esteemed" members raped and abused for generations.

The Pope is not welcome.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I don't agree. And I don't agree that it's valid comparison either. It is called 'pro-choice' with regards to abortion, because the mother has the choice. When you label someone as 'pro-abortion', especially with the intent that the previous poster used it - it almost casts the person as if they actually want to see abortions, rather than wanting to see mothers being bestowed with the choice to make up their own minds..

But someone doesn't necessarily want to see executions to believe that the state should have the choice/ability to execute some criminals. If the judiciary has the choice is it not a choice anymore? Not that important, it's just a bit of semantics that has often occurred to me.

daithimacgroin

one of the few good decisions made by the new government imo

now for Ming to get a referendum to legalise cannabis...

come on Ming

Roscomman didn't vote you in for nothing

Zulu

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I don't agree. And I don't agree that it's valid comparison either. It is called 'pro-choice' with regards to abortion, because the mother has the choice. ...

This chestnut. How can it be "pro-choice" if it dismisses the fathers "choice" and the childs "choice".

Only one "choice" is considered.
That is not a choice; thats an ultimatum.

iMax

I'd welcome the pope with open arms on the following conditions:

• He pays his own way.
• He admits liability & responsibility for and apologises wholeheartedly & without reservation to the children who were systematically raped & abused (tortured even) by clergy.
• He compensates fully the children & the state for damages incurred by his organisation.

If all those things were to happen, as an atheist, I would be more than happy to welcome him & have him speak publicly. Otherwise, not a chance, There is no place for the catholic church & the pope in this country.

Zulu

iMax wrote: »

I'd welcome the pope with open arms on the following conditions:

• He pays his own way.
• He admits liability & responsibility for and apologises wholeheartedly & without reservation to the children who were systematically raped & abused (tortured even) by clergy.
• He compensates fully the children & the state for damages incurred by his organisation.

If all those things were to happen, as an atheist, I would be more than happy to welcome him & have him speak publicly. Otherwise, not a chance, There is no place for the catholic church & the pope in this country.

I wouldn't be too concerned about point one, but certainly I'd agree wholely with point 2 & 3.

norrie rugger

Zulu wrote: »

I wouldn't be too concerned about point one, but certainly I'd agree wholely with point 2 & 3.

We have no diplomatic ties with the vatican, so let him pay

Tea 1000

reprazant wrote: »

Or maybe, as an elected representative of the people, he is simply doing the wishes of the majority of people.

That is his job.

It is also handy for the Vatican so they can blame the government for not coming instead of the fear of large protests and poor turnouts.

The wishes of the majority of the people? How do you know? Because you and your friends and a few others on a forum agree with you? Nonsense.
The only vocal people about the Queens visit were the people who didn't want her here. Were they the majority too? Or just because you weren't part of those, were they the minority?
Such rubbish assumptions.

dlofnep

Zulu wrote: »

This chestnut. How can it be "pro-choice" if it dismisses the fathers "choice" and the childs "choice".

Only one "choice" is considered.
That is not a choice; thats an ultimatum.

At what point do you consider it to be a child, out of curiosity?

homer911

Why does every thread have to come back to abortion, homosexuality or paedophilia??

Get a grip people!

The country is broke and the timing is bad - move on...

reprazant

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The wishes of the majority of the people? How do you know? Because you and your friends and a few others on a forum agree with you? Nonsense.
The only vocal people about the Queens visit were the people who didn't want her here. Were they the majority too? Or just because you weren't part of those, were they the minority?
Such rubbish assumptions.

Your assumption is that I am an atheist.

I base my assumptions on the truly pathetic attendances at mass and the near total revulsion at the 'antics' of some priests and the response to these 'antics' from the Vatican. Polls in the media and on the internet showed that vast majority of people were in favour of the royal visit. I doubt that the same could be even vaguely hoped for a visit from a visit from the pope. Pretty much everyone I know has turned their back on the church, young people and old, both urban and rural. That is what I base my 'rubbish assumptions' on.

Can you say, without doubt, that the majority of people in this country want a visit from the pope?

Zulu

dlofnep wrote: »

At what point do you consider it to be a child, out of curiosity?

Out of curiosity or out of reason to drag the thread off topic?

I consider it to be a child, around the same point in time a mother having difficulties trying to concieve considers herself carrying her baby.

Feel free to start another thread.

Jesus Shaves

who wants him here anyway

gigino

Storminateacup wrote: »

Yes, and the Irish people gave the catholic church everything they had. Where did they get the land and the money? If you didn't give the church annual money you'd be made a show of, it would be read from the alter.

Some poor old batchlor farmer wouldn't see the door with nuns callin to visit, and as soon as he died, they would get whatever he had. They wouldn't even bury him.

Then Im sure you could mention the reformatories, where they got 1 pound a week for each child they had to look after. Were they looked after? No. They were pretty much starving. One boy said that feeding the pigs was the best chore as you could eat as much as you want, until the brother caught him one day and told him the pigs wanted it more than he did.
Back in the 40s, the reformatories were begging the government to send more children to the institutions.

Moving on to the magedeline laundries -- selling Irish babies to the rich Americans also made them a tidy nest egg, didn't it? Taking women in and keeping them there, institutionalised, long after their baby was born, taking their child from them, selling it, and treating those women like animals.

My mother, at 7 years old, fell off her bike in the ice on the way to school one morning (1969) onto gravel and stones and cut the hands out of herself. She picked herself up, and made her way onto school, where she arrived late. Her principal - a nun - brought her Down to the office where my mother thought She would be cleaned up.
But instead, the <snip> asked my mother to extend her hands, and proceeded to use a cane to beat the stones further into her hands.
Her teacher - not a nun - brought my mother to casualty to have the stones removed and have her cleaned up.

Who does that to a SEVEN year old? Much less - who'd dare get away with it other than the church.

A girl in her class in 3rd year became pregnant, and when the nuns found out, she was given the whole "whoops a daisy" down the stairs. That girl lost her child but the girls parents took action against the school and surprisingly, were offered compensation. They maintained she slipped, but she was in fact pushed by an elderly nun.

The catholic church makes me sick. They've never done anything that did not benefit themselves.

+1. The RCC has abused power whenever it had it. It denounced non-catholics from the pulpit in early / mid 20th century ireland if the non-catholic in a mixed marriage dared try to bring one of his children up in his / her own religion. It even called for the boycott of the Protestants business , from the pulpit, in some cases. ( eg the fethard on sea boycott ). All the RCC wanted was money, power, land. Even its anti-contraception policy - which incidentally is rejected by most Roman Catholics - is all about forcing big families on people, whither they can afford it or not. The population of the world has increased from 1 billion to 7 billion in the space of 200 years ....its not as sustainable or environmentally moral principle to have. The RCC has a lot to answer for. Let the Pope stay in his massive Palace , unless we want him here to answer for the crimes his workers committed.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

All the RCC wanted was money, power, land. Even its anti-contraception policy - which incidentally is rejected by most Roman Catholics - is all about forcing big families on people, whither they can afford it or not...

I remember the day well when the RC stork came and dropped 12 kids at my door alright.

yutta

gigino wrote: »

+1. The RCC has abused power whenever it had it. It denounced non-catholics from the pulpit in early / mid 20th century ireland

What's wrong with denouncing heresy?

gigino wrote: »

if the non-catholic in a mixed marriage dared try to bring one of his children up in his / her own religion.

Do you have examples of this or is it just hearsay nonsense?

gigino wrote: »

It even called for the boycott of the Protestants business , from the pulpit, in some cases. ( eg the fethard on sea boycott ).

And what of the Catholic teacher of the local Protestant school who was forced to resign?

gigino wrote: »

All the RCC wanted was money, power, land.

Blah, blah, blah...

gigino wrote: »

Even its anti-contraception policy - which incidentally is rejected by most Roman Catholics - is all about forcing big families on people, whither they can afford it or not. The population of the world has increased from 1 billion to 7 billion in the space of 200 years ....

Ah yes, the Church is responsible for everything. Fact is that people aren't getting married, aren't having children (i.e. "aborting" them) and want to focus on their careers. There's nothing wrong with having large families. There are plenty of resources to go around.

gigino wrote: »

its not as sustainable or environmentally moral principle to have.

Green party voter are we?

gigino wrote: »

The RCC has a lot to answer for. Let the Pope stay in his massive Palace , unless we want him here to answer for the crimes his workers committed.

The pope lives in an apartment, owns no worldly goods and lives a monastic-like lifestyle.

Incidentally, do you think that former Taoisigh, Ministers, doctors, social workers, judges (all on big pensions I might add) should be dragged before the courts? Or is it selective disdain against just the Church that you have? It sure seems that way and therefore it makes you a right old anti-Catholic bigot.

Zulu

yutta wrote: »

The pope lives in an apartment, owns no worldly goods and lives a monastic-like lifestyle.

Yeah, he's a real hermit living in a cave alright! :rolleyes:

Have you been to the Vatican? I've been twice. It's a lovely place to live a "monastic-like lifesytle", I would happly trade with him.

ShooterSF

I'm sorry, have we banned him from the country or are we simply saying that tax payers money will not be spent on the visit of the head of a religion? If he's not banned then what's the problem I don't see any moaning that we haven't invited heads of any other religions.

dlofnep

Zulu wrote: »

Out of curiosity or out of reason to drag the thread off topic?

I didn't take it off-topic. The poster who accused Gilmore of being a 'staunch pro-abortionist' did.

Zulu wrote: »

I consider it to be a child, around the same point in time a mother having difficulties trying to concieve considers herself carrying her baby.

So basically, you don't have a point.

yutta

Zulu wrote: »

I would happly trade with him.

You simply would not be up for the job. I'm sure the Pope has all his clothes ready for him when he wakes up, has a private secretary, has all his meals prepared for him and gets his bed made up. This is so that he can focus his faculties on high-level thought and prayer. Nothing wrong with that.

Zulu

dlofnep wrote: »

So basically, you don't have a point.

Wrong.

Reread my post; it's perfectly clear.

Spelt out: when a person is pregnant they are pregnant with a child; they are carrying a child.

Zulu

yutta wrote: »

You simply would not be up for the job.

You're right: I'd find it woefully difficult to find reasons not to apologise to the Irish people, & to justify the position taken by the administration of the RCC with regards to raping and torturing children & protecting child rapists & torturers.

dlofnep

Zulu wrote: »

Wrong.

Reread my post; it's perfectly clear.

Spelt out: when a person is pregnant they are pregnant with a child; they are carrying a child.

So you would oppose the morning after pill?

Zulu

dlofnep wrote: »

So you would oppose the morning after pill?

Why do you care if I oppose the map in a thread about the pope visiting Ireland? Does it matter? Is it on topic?

As I said previously: Feel free to start another thread.

CMpunked

petethebrick

Brilliant news! Whatever about the benefits of Obama and the Queen visiting here I see no reason at all to accord a state visit to that guy

ItsAWindUp

What a slap in the face a papal visit would be to victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the Church.

Tea 1000

reprazant wrote: »

Your assumption is that I am an atheist.

Incorrect. I didn't assume anything nor does my post indicate that I did.

reprazant wrote: »

I base my assumptions on the truly pathetic attendances at mass and the near total revulsion at the 'antics' of some priests and the response to these 'antics' from the Vatican. Polls in the media and on the internet showed that vast majority of people were in favour of the royal visit. I doubt that the same could be even vaguely hoped for a visit from a visit from the pope. Pretty much everyone I know has turned their back on the church, young people and old, both urban and rural. That is what I base my 'rubbish assumptions' on.

Can you say, without doubt, that the majority of people in this country want a visit from the pope?

I don't take poll's all that seriously to be honest, they are a poor reflection of the thoughts of the people as often as they are a true reflection.
Pathetic attendance at mass? Depends on where you go. The highlighted sentence illustrates my original point.
To answer your question, I don't know if the majority would want a visit, but it certainly wouldn't be just a few hundred people. In any case, they didn't know for sure how many protestors would be out against the Queen's visit either until she actually came. So why must we assume the worst for the Pope?

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm sorry, have we banned him from the country or are we simply saying that tax payers money will not be spent on the visit of the head of a religion? If he's not banned then what's the problem I don't see any moaning that we haven't invited heads of any other religions.

Wasn't the Dalai Lama made welcome here a very short time ago?