Seanad discussing should the pope visit Ireland

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/whats-on-in-leinster-house-today-1321355-Feb2014/

The Seanad will debate a motion that Pope Francis should be invited to address the chamber from 1.30pm.

Poll running for this as well and thankfully most sane people are against such a visit

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-visit-ireland-1322634-Feb2014/

branie

I'm sane and for the visit

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Senator David Norris has said he believed a visit by the Pope would “lift the spirit of Ireland”.

I seriously doubt it.

FouxDaFaFa

If he wants to come, he can pay for it himself.

I know he's being marketed as the cool new pope but he has done feck all to redress victims of clerical abuse, he has messed around with the UN and he has sheltered child abusers in the Vatican itself.

Not to mind all the platitudes about loving your fellow man while Magdalene survivors die off one by one.

If he comes and the state picks up the tab, it is just more money that we are giving an organisation that can well fund itself and that can afford to do the right thing if it were that way inclined.

Zillah

I don't think we should continue to validate or legitimise their insane authority structures by welcoming him anymore than we should invite the Scientology leadership.

That said, I kind of do hope that he visits because the turn out will never compare with what aul Johnny got, and he's likely to get a wall of placards at some point protesting child abuse, as he should.

I also think that's why he'll say no.

iDave

I can already feel the nausea from hearing people say how their faith was rediscovered during his visit.

seamus

I see no reason to invite him over. The Vatican provides nothing of any tangible benefit to this country, so inviting their head of state over would serve no purpose.

Cabaal

Zillah wrote: »

That said, I kind of do hope that he visits because the turn out will never compare with what aul Johnny got, and he's likely to get a wall of placards at some point protesting child abuse, as he should.

I've actually discussed this with my wife,
I'll take time off to protest if he comes to Ireland, my wife likely will too

Cabaal

RSVP: Seanad pass motion to invite Pope Francis to Ireland

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-ireland-visit-seanad-1323258-Feb2014/

Disappointed with Norris on this I have to say, he like many have fallen for the church's new PR guy

shruikan2553

Can we give him the bill for the victims of the church's past while he's here? Or do we all cheer how great it is because he says things?

FouxDaFaFa

Cabaal wrote: »

RSVP: Seanad pass motion to invite Pope Francis to Ireland

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-ireland-visit-seanad-1323258-Feb2014/

You have got to be kidding me.

I hate the whole "argh, my tax money at work" cliché but I cannot believe I am expected to contribute towards this event if the pope accepts. Because you know there's no way in hell the vatican would fund this.

I am supposed to happily part with money to welcome an organisation that unabashedly tells me that I am not good enough to be a real member of their church because I'm a woman, that gay people aren't good enough (divorced people, etc) and that openly treats its own image as more important than victims of rape.

Great.

Cabaal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Can we give him the bill for the victims of the church's past while he's here? Or do we all cheer how great it is because he says things?

I think perhaps we should bring him on a tour of all the laundries and places people were abused, should full up his visit nicely.

At the end we detain him until the compensation bills are paid

eyescreamcone

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Can we give him the bill for the victims of the church's past while he's here? Or do we all cheer how great it is because he says things?

Maybe he'll get off the plane and present one of those giant cheques to Enda on the runway.

The amount should be made out for the amount that they still owe us for clerical sex abuse.

Then he can fcek off back up the steps and back to his pretend country of Fairytaleland!

kylith

seamus wrote: »

I see no reason to invite him over.

I do. We invite him in, put him on telly, and then ask "When, exactly, will the Catholic Church be paying compensation to the Magdalen Laundry survivors and the people who were raped by priests?" The we keep repeating the question and don't take the camera off him until he names a date and signs a contract. Maybe also refuse to let him leave until he orders the handover of pederasts to the relevant authorities and gives full and unfettered access to all the church's records.

catallus

I think a visit form him would be very nice.

recedite

Before anyone gets too upset about this, just remember the Seanad is just a talking shop, and its about as influential as a boards.ie poll wanting to invite the pope to Ireland. If it were actually to happen, the invitation would have to come from the Government, via the Dail. Then the RC hierarchy here would have to advise the Vatican that such a stunt had a good chance of being well received. Then Franky would have to agree and make the time for it.
Quite a few unlikely events still standing in the way then.

TheChizler

The Seanad might be powerless but I must say I was disappointed to see that the vote was unanimous. Especially surprised with Norris, I wonder has he ulterior motives? I normally don't get urges to protest but that small part of me has perked up.

Manach

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland, compared to the weak and self-enriching political classes, I'm sure a visit will be a great idea.

TheChizler

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland, compared to the weak and self-enriching political classes, I'm sure a visit will be a great idea.

I think you'll find the Church's and other people's definitions of 'moral' differ vastly.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/whats-on-in-leinster-house-today-1321355-Feb2014/



Poll running for this as well and thankfully most sane people are against such a visit

http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-visit-ireland-1322634-Feb2014/

I'd be for a visit. But only in the case that the visit was him being put before a judge on charges of aiding and abetting criminals, obstructing the course of justice and unlawful interference in the running of a soverign nation (I don't know what the term is for when a foreign national commits the equivalent to treason).

Brian Shanahan

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland, compared to the weak and self-enriching political classes, I'm sure a visit will be a great idea.

Ha. Manach you have a great tendency of telling lies when it comes to the rcc and Ireland.

You've said the rcc was a force for Irish independence. It never was.
You've said the rcc was a vehicle for education in Ireland. It never was, it just piggybacked of state initiatives and creamed off the wealthy.
You now say the rcc is a moral leadership in this country. Look at its supression of the Mother and Child Scheme, its supression of any left wing tendencies in the countries, its Limerick progrom against the Jewish population of that city, its mass rape of children, its selling of children solely for financial gain, its mass physical and psychological torture of vulnerable and needy young women. This is morality as monstrous as the worst nightmares of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

The_Valeyard

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You've said the rcc was a force for Irish independence. It never was.

Maybe not for independence, (all be they were very much on the pro-treaty side) but there is strong evidence it did play a role in healing the wounds of the civil war.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This is morality as monstrous as the worst nightmares of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Within going into a godwin arguement. You do realise that Stalinist Russia was a forced Atheist State and some of the 3rd Reich leading members were staunch atheists. So in a sense your comparing the RCC to an atheist regime?

shruikan2553

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Within going into a godwin arguement. You do realise that Stalinist Russia was a forced Atheist State and some of the 3rd Reich leading members were staunch atheists. So in a sense your comparing the RCC to an atheist regime?

I think he was comparing it the the nazi and Stalinist regime. Not sure what their religious or lack of affiliation has to do with the crimes that the RCC has committed.

The_Valeyard

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I think he was comparing it the the nazi and Stalinist regime. Not sure what their religious or lack of affiliation has to do with the crimes that the RCC has committed.

He made a comparison about a religious grouping then compared their crimes to that of other notorious and far more murderous regimes in 20th century Europe. Just thought it was interesting, the viewpoint of a religious group equated with a non religious group. Two sides, same coin.

shruikan2553

The_Valeyard wrote: »

He made a comparison about a religious grouping then compared their crimes to that of other notorious and far more murderous regimes in 20th century Europe. Just thought it was interesting, the viewpoint of a religious group equated with a non religious group. Two sides, same coin.

Slight difference with the RCC being a religion and a nation with a religious affiliation. In the case with russia theism was just pushed into private places in an effort to destroy the power of the churches. Nazi germany didnt go as far as it wasnt an atheist group, it was mostly Christian. In both cases the issue wasn't with religion but with how much power the church as an organisation had.

The_Valeyard

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Slight difference with the RCC being a religion and a nation with a religious affiliation. In the case with russia theism was just pushed into private places in an effort to destroy the power of the churches. Nazi germany didnt go as far as it wasnt an atheist group, it was mostly Christian. In both cases the issue wasn't with religion but with how much power the church as an organisation had.

Religion was not simply pushed back into the private place, many priests and followers were exterminated during the purges or sent to the gulags. Some very old cathedrals were knocked down and build on with things like swimming pools.

Nazi Germany bullied Christians into submission. Nazism openly encouraged people to abandon their religion. Hitlers inner circle did have plans to eventually but slowly remove Christianity from Germany and advoate state atheism. Led by men like Martin Bormann.

Sarky

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

PopePalpatine

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Religion was not simply pushed back into the private place, many priests and followers were exterminated during the purges or sent to the gulags. Some very old cathedrals were knocked down and build on with things like swimming pools.

Nazi Germany bullied Christians into submission. Nazism openly encouraged people to abandon their religion. Hitlers inner circle did have plans to eventually but slowly remove Christianity from Germany and advoate state atheism. Led by men like Martin Bormann.

While Bormann was anti-Christian, the Nazis as a whole didn't tolerate atheism, associating it with "godless Communism".

Cienciano

kylith wrote: »

I do. We invite him in, put him on telly, and then ask "When, exactly, will the Catholic Church be paying compensation to the Magdalen Laundry survivors and the people who were raped by priests?" The we keep repeating the question and don't take the camera off him until he names a date and signs a contract. Maybe also refuse to let him leave until he orders the handover of pederasts to the relevant authorities and gives full and unfettered access to all the church's records.

The thing is, if the pope practiced what he preaches, that's exactly what he would do. But this guy just shakes the hand of someone with a disfiguring illness and everyone thinks he's a great lad and it's a new direction for the catholic church. People are idiots

Cabaal

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland, compared to the weak and self-enriching political classes, I'm sure a visit will be a great idea.

Yeah,
I mean as we've seen with the church they've always put number one first.
Of course number one is the catholic church

kylith

Cienciano wrote: »

The thing is, if the pope practiced what he preaches, that's exactly what he would do. But this guy just shakes the hand of someone with a disfiguring illness and everyone thinks he's a great lad and it's a new direction for the catholic church. People are idiots

Oh, definitely. He's not a force for change in the RCC, he's a PR exercise, distracting people from the scandals with the 'revolutionary' idea that people should be nicer to gay people.

Tombo2001

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

If he wants to come, he can pay for it himself.

I know he's being marketed as the cool new pope but he has done feck all to redress victims of clerical abuse, he has messed around with the UN and he has sheltered child abusers in the Vatican itself.

Not to mind all the platitudes about loving your fellow man while Magdalene survivors die off one by one.

If he comes and the state picks up the tab, it is just more money that we are giving an organisation that can well fund itself and that can afford to do the right thing if it were that way inclined.

The more interesting question for me is whether the ordinary people of Ireland would register any sort of protest if he did come here.

Irish people appear to me to be peculiarly lacking in empathy. Clerical abuse is one example; if it doesnt affect someone in your family, then you'd rather not think about that sort of thing......similarly, and a slight disgression.....but half of Limerick could be under a flood and I dont think the rest of the country would give it a second thought....inner city Dublin is a land of walking dead junkies, but it will never be an election issue.

How Cardinal Brady has been able to stay in his position, I really put that down to the indifference overall that the Irish public has shown to the clerical abuse issue.

the_syco

I think he should come over. In the past, we have fined employers for dodgy crap by their employees, and I don't think this is any different. He should be bought into a court of law, and held accountable for his inaction.

Kidchameleon

I couldn't give a toss if some nobody from a bs organization came here.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I couldn't give a toss if some nobody from a bs organization came here.

Does it not get boring not caring about anything?

Does that fact that the Irish people will have to fork out between 10 and 20 million euros for the trip not bother you in the slightest? Can you not think of anything that money might be better spent on?

MrP

Kidchameleon

MrPudding wrote: »

Does it not get boring not caring about anything?

Does that fact that the Irish people will have to fork out between 10 and 20 million euros for the trip not bother you in the slightest? Can you not think of anything that money might be better spent on?

MrP

These are the same arguments that were used for the Queens visit. I'm bored of these arguments. The fact of the matter is, if the pope comes here, far more than 20 million will come into the economy.

Pherekydes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

These are the same arguments that were used for the Queens visit. I'm bored of these arguments. The fact of the matter is, if the pope comes here, far more than 20 million will come into the economy.

The Queen is the head of state of our nearest neighbour and our biggest trading partner.

What trade do we have with the Vatican, except perhaps in stolen babies?

Sarky

Those stolen babies made a hell of a lot of money for the orders, in fairness. He might have a point about the Vatican bringing more than 20 million to Ireland. It'd likely take it back to Rome, or shove it in a trust fund though.

Brian Shanahan

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Within going into a godwin arguement. You do realise that Stalinist Russia was a forced Atheist State and some of the 3rd Reich leading members were staunch atheists. So in a sense your comparing the RCC to an atheist regime?

Wrong on both counts, from 1941 to Stalin's death the USSR worked hand in glove with the Orthodox hierarchy (Stalin himself died a devout believer) and after that the Orthodox church was tolerated. The early paroxysm of violence against Orthodoxy was a typical lashing out against those who opposed the winners in a revolutionary war. That's leaving aside the fact that the cult of Stalin was an attempt to create a new religion, with Uncle Joe as the putative new deity.

And Nazi Germany was a devoutly christian country. Hitler even went so far as to ban secular education during the period of the Third Reich, and was constantly referring to the christian god in his speeches (in fact Hitler died a devout catlick). And atheists were actively persecuted under Nazi rule, with many of their organisations being supressed early in Hitler's rule. And of the main leaders only one, Alfred Rosenberg, wasn't a proclaimed christian and a) he was neo-Nordic pagan, and b) he was too nutty even for the Nazis and was quickly sidelined.

So your point is wrong.

Then we come to the fact that your point has nothing to do with what I meant. The rcc is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It allows the same level of persecution and wrongdoing, it shelters the perpetrators from justice and it punishes the innocent to the same extent. The only difference between the rcc and the other two is that the church has being committing its evil for nigh on 2,000 years while neither of the other lasted a century.

The_Valeyard

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong on both counts, from 1941 to Stalin's death the USSR worked hand in glove with the Orthodox hierarchy (Stalin himself died a devout believer) and after that the Orthodox church was tolerated. The early paroxysm of violence against Orthodoxy was a typical lashing out against those who opposed the winners in a revolutionary war.

Incorrect. His post 1941 'conversion' was simply a way to create patriotic support for the war to repel the Nazi invasion. Once the war was over, the old wars returned. Even during the war the Orthodox churches of Ukraine were suppressed -twice! In 1946 Ukranian Catholic Church was forced to join the Russian Orthodox church. Even after Stalins death with Khrushchevs closure of over 12000 churches in the 1950s. By 1985 there were less than 7000 active churches within the Soviet Union. Many members of church hierachy would continue to be jailed or exiled and have KGB elements take their place. (Never mind the continued attacks to stamp out Judaism right up until the mid 1980s)

Stalins conversion to a religious affliction was merely a death bed conversion that could be seen as a 'hedging your bets'. His daughter Svetlana (before her escape to USA) speaks about it in Allen Bulloks book "Hitler and Stalin"

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And Nazi Germany was a devoutly christian country. Hitler even went so far as to ban secular education during the period of the Third Reich, and was constantly referring to the christian god in his speeches (in fact Hitler died a devout catlick). And atheists were actively persecuted under Nazi rule, with many of their organisations being supressed early in Hitler's rule. And of the main leaders only one, Alfred Rosenberg, wasn't a proclaimed christian and a) he was neo-Nordic pagan, and b) he was too nutty even for the Nazis and was quickly sidelined.

Wrong again. In 1936 religious schools were abolished and absorbed into the State education system. (along with other private schools). In 1934 onwards Priests were instructed to no longer visit school and confine religious instructions to the church. In schools were special permission was given to show a crucifix, it had to be placed below the picture of Adolf Hitler. In Koch book (p172) it goes into detail on how Christians were no longer allowed to celebrate religious festivals or holidays on weekdays. By 1938 all teachers we prohibited from belonging to any demomnistion professional organisations. Religious education was 'discouraged'

The Nazis both supported and suppressed religious groupings. Sort of like telling a dog to 'sit up and lie down' at the same time, impossible and causes confusion. Hitlers use of the word 'God' in speeches was similar to Stalin, simply a war to create support for his war machine, to increase morale and encourage better fighting and create loyalty. Impossible to a country with a premodinalty staunch Catholic population in Southern Germany without referring to some deity to gain support, it is not indicative of actual belief.

Thousands of priests also found their way into concentration camps for protesting the deportation of Jews (Kolbe, Tituss, Von Gelen, etc). Example would be the 2600 priests would be executed in Dachau alone. Not to mention the RCC was completely suppressed in Poland to allow for Nazi domination. (3000 Polish Priests executed) Not to mention groups like Baha'i Faith & Jehovah Witnesses were banned under the 3rd Reich.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So your point is wrong

I do not believe so.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Then we come to the fact that your point has nothing to do with what I meant. The rcc is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It allows the same level of persecution and wrongdoing, it shelters the perpetrators from justice and it punishes the innocent to the same extent. The only difference between the rcc and the other two is that the church has being committing its evil for nigh on 2,000 years while neither of the other lasted a century.

Finally we come to this.

Your comment that the RCC is as evil in nature as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia is ludicrous. I do not recall any organised Roman Catholic Church death camps within 20th century Europe. I do not see how the Catholic Church allows for the same level of persection and wrongdoing as that of Russia? I do not see purges based on faith & I do not see camps created to break people down.

The Catholic Church committed many crimes over 2000 years, Stalinist Russia surpassed them in far quicker time than that.

shruikan2553

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Religion was not simply pushed back into the private place, many priests and followers were exterminated during the purges or sent to the gulags. Some very old cathedrals were knocked down and build on with things like swimming pools.

Nazi Germany bullied Christians into submission. Nazism openly encouraged people to abandon their religion. Hitlers inner circle did have plans to eventually but slowly remove Christianity from Germany and advoate state atheism. Led by men like Martin Bormann.

Anything that was done against the Christian religions was done in an attempt to reduce peoples loyalty. Hitler had mein kampf on alters of his religion, pictures of him in the classroom as people have pictures of Christ. What he wanted was the loyalty the people had towards religion aimed at the state with him at the head. Nothing was done for atheism or to just destroy religion for the fun of it. Unlike the RCC which is the church itself so its actions represent those of the religion. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God so actions of those with that belief or lack of represent nothing but themselves. If you wanted a comparison it would have to be theists and atheists but even then the theists tend to be a part of some group.

robindch

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland [...]

In its broadest sense, the church in Ireland was, is and will remain the most hideously self-interested, self-serving group of organizations in Ireland. I can think of no time when it has provided moral leadership beyond its own private and peculiar interests.

kylith

Manach wrote: »

Given the great moral leadership and support the Church has shown through much of the history of Ireland,

What moral leadership? The enslavement of women, the rape of children, and decrying gay people as abominations are moral?

compared to the weak and self-enriching political classes, I'm sure a visit will be a great idea.

And the church isn't corrupt and self-enriching? How much land does it own? How much gold? Have you seen the frigging golden throne that Pope Ben liked to park his arse on?

PopePalpatine

Something tells me Manach is only interested in drive-by posting.

Cabaal

kylith wrote: »

What moral leadership? The enslavement of women, the rape of children, and decrying gay people as abominations are moral?

My fav is the witch burning,
The Catholic church really knew how to burn a witch,

kylith

Cabaal wrote: »

My fav is the witch burning,
The Catholic church really knew how to burn a witch,

I don't think anyone was burned. Tortured and hanged is a different story though, they were mad for the torture and hanging.

Cabaal

kylith wrote: »

I don't think anyone was burned. Tortured and hanged is a different story though, they were mad for the torture and hanging.

Nah, they did the odd burning now and then

http://chooseireland.com/kilkenny/the-first-ever-witch-trial-the-ghost-of-kilkenny/

The_Valeyard

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Anything that was done against the Christian religions was done in an attempt to reduce peoples loyalty. Hitler had mein kampf on alters of his religion, pictures of him in the classroom as people have pictures of Christ. What he wanted was the loyalty the people had towards religion aimed at the state with him at the head. Nothing was done for atheism or to just destroy religion for the fun of it. Unlike the RCC which is the church itself so its actions represent those of the religion. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God so actions of those with that belief or lack of represent nothing but themselves. If you wanted a comparison it would have to be theists and atheists but even then the theists tend to be a part of some group.

Im not sure that is really the case. While I believe many members on this forum may hold that to be true, with element emerging like Atheism+ , and 'The Sunday Service' is Atheism not simply branching out and becoming a social or almost religious like organisation?

shruikan2553

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Im not sure that is really the case. While I believe many members on this forum may hold that to be true, with element emerging like Atheism+ , and 'The Sunday Service' is Atheism not simply branching out and becoming a social or almost religious like organisation?

They are groups of atheists. To join a religion you join a group of people. The only thing an atheist does is not believe in any god or gods. The groups you mention are a group of people joining together with a common goal who happen to be atheist. To be an atheist you just dont sign up for anything. What do you call someone who doesnt like football? If someone who doesnt like football tries to reduce the popularity of the sport it has nothing to do with anyone else who doesnt like football.

The_Valeyard

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They are groups of atheists. To join a religion you join a group of people. The only thing an atheist does is not believe in any god or gods. The groups you mention are a group of people joining together with a common goal who happen to be atheist. To be an atheist you just dont sign up for anything. What do you call someone who doesnt like football? If someone who doesnt like football tries to reduce the popularity of the sport it has nothing to do with anyone else who doesnt like football.

I get what you are trying to say, but there are now atheists who do sign up for things like atheist charity groups, atheist rights, the Sunday service for example -mass without God more or less. Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack in belief of a deity.

shruikan2553

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I get what you are trying to say, but there are now atheists who do sign up for things like atheist charity groups, atheist rights, the Sunday service for example -mass without God more or less. Atheism appears to be changing into something other than a lack in belief of a deity.

Some atheists are joining groups in response to a theist dominated society but their actions have as much bearing on atheism as a whole as the child abuse in the catholic church has on the monks of a Buddhist religion.