Pope slap

mikhail

Treppen wrote: »

I don't think that's funny. He's an 83 year old man, and she grabbed him and pulled him hard. If someone did that to my dad, I'd be furious.

Mod: Moved from funnies forum to new thread as off topic

Bannasidhe

mikhail wrote: »

I don't think that's funny. He's an 83 year old man, and she grabbed him and pulled him hard. If someone did that to my dad, I'd be furious.

And yet he has apologised....

He is hardly the average 83 year old man. He is an 83 year old absolute 'monarch' and head of an international organisation that claims to be based on love, forgiveness, non-violence and all that doing a walk about among the Faithful.
Yet here he is - retaliating violently.

In rugby that would have seen him sin binned. :P

mikhail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In rugby that would have seen him sin binned. :P

And in the real world, what that woman did is assault, for which he could press charges if it wouldn't be a PR disaster.

ohnonotgmail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet he has apologised....

He is hardly the average 83 year old man. He is an 83 year old absolute 'monarch' and head of an international organisation that claims to be based on love, forgiveness, non-violence and all that doing a walk about among the Faithful.
Yet here he is - retaliating violently.

I think you misspelled "acted in self defence".

GrumpyMe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...Yet here he is - retaliating violently...

He is trying to get her to let go - she continued holding him until he broke her hold!
Try that stunt on "POTUS" and see what "retaliating violently" really means...:D

Bannasidhe

GrumpyMe wrote: »

He is trying to get her to let go - she continued holding him until he broke her hold!
Try that stunt on "POTUS" and see what "retaliating violently" really means...:D

Whilst I am aware there are some who believe the current POTUS was chosen by god, POPUS is billed as Jesus's representative on Earth so perhaps a turning of the other cheek might have been more in keeping with his job description.

I wasn't aware that we should use any POTUS, but especially the current one, as the bar for how high profile figures on a walkabout among the cordoned public should behave...

Bannasidhe

mikhail wrote: »

And in the real world, what that woman did is assault, for which he could press charges if it wouldn't be a PR disaster.

And you think this isn't a PR disaster?
Man of Peace slaps member of the Faithful.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And you think this isn't a PR disaster?
Man of Peace slaps member of the Faithful.

Would anyone have done different?

Hotblack Desiato

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would anyone have done different?

Yeah, John Prescott would probably have smacked her in the gob! :eek:

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

54and56

mikhail wrote: »

He's an 83 year old man, and she grabbed him and pulled him hard. If someone did that to my dad, I'd be furious.

My 85 year old Dad died 4 years ago but if some woman "grabbed him and pulled him hard" when he was 83 I'd be giving them some privacy!!!

Bannasidhe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would anyone have done different?

Provably not but that misses the point which is that the Pope is billed as being 'different'.

He is proclaimed by the organisation he leads to be the successor of Peter who was Jesus' chosen next-in-command. He preaches about peace and shunning violence.

People are acting like he's some doddery old man on his way to the shops who got grabbed by a random stranger and acted out of self-defence when the reality is he isn't someone's Dad out on a stroll - he is the head of a powerful, international, organisation on a pre-organised walkabout shaking hands and generally meeting those who believe he is different. One person wanted a bit more contact in a situation created by the Pope. He slapped her away.

He's a celebrity. A celebrity who according to his publicity has a direct line to God. He chose to go meet and greet en masse people who believe that publicity - he chose to walk close to the barriers and touch some people. That security were allowing this to happen means they were ordered to keep their distance and allow the Pope to press the flesh.

It is no different to what royalty do - or celebs on the red carpet.
Imagine if Prince Phillip slapped away someone who was a bit grabby, or Morgan Freeman. It would be a PR disaster - and neither of those are 'god's chosen'.

GrumpyMe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whilst I am aware there are some who believe the current POTUS was chosen by god, POPUS is billed as Jesus's representative on Earth so perhaps a turning of the other cheek might have been more in keeping with his job description.

I wasn't aware that we should use any POTUS, but especially the current one, as the bar for how high profile figures on a walkabout among the cordoned public should behave...

Current POTUS would possibly react like a hysterical screaming child (no change there then) - however his SS (Secret Service) would definitely have intervened in a more spectacular way.

smacl

I see the pope has apologised for his actions; https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0101/1103846-pope-apologises-for-slapping-womans-hand/

My take on it that as a celeb mixing with a large and fanatical crowd, you're going to get grabbed every now and again and should be able to handle it or avoid this type of interaction. I'd say it was a calculated security risk in allowing this in the first instance done largely for PR purposes.

_Brian

She was wrong and lucky the security guard always caught off foot or he would have been much more forceful.

smacl

_Brian wrote: »

She was wrong and lucky the security guard always caught off foot or he would have been much more forceful.

She was, but given she crossed herself beforehand it seems likely the motive was adulation rather than ill intent. Having the security guard deck one of the faithful during a PR outing would probably not be a great look for the pontificate.

_Brian

smacl wrote: »

She was, but given she crossed herself beforehand it seems likely the motive was adulation rather than ill intent. Having the security guard deck one of the faithful during a PR outing would probably not be a great look for the pontificate.

Still, for abusing an 83yo man it’s what she deserved.

If it were one of my parents she abused like that I’d lay her out.

DrumSteve

I now see where the pope stands on strangers interfering with his bodily autonomy.

I was really surprised he did it, almost weird to see it, but i guess in the end he's only human.

smacl

_Brian wrote: »

Still, for abusing an 83yo man it’s what she deserved.

If it were one of my parents she abused like that I’d lay her out.

If you're parents had millions of fervent followers, many of whom were religious fanatics, you might suggest they avoid mingling with them in this manner.

Then again, if your folks had a security budget that could probably sort the homeless crisis, you might expect them to vet out the nutters so his holiness didn't have to deal with this rather uncouth expression of devotion.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I was really surprised he did it, almost weird to see it, but i guess in the end he's only human.

I think that's Bannasidhe's point. He is only human. His reaction was a perfectly natural human thing to do if someone is gripping your hand and won't let go.

But the entire facade of the office is based on him being the most holy living person, the one closest to God on earth. Evidence that he is just as human as the rest of us is a PR disaster.

That said, I don't think Catholics - certainly not Irish ones anyway - pay him the same Godly reverance that the organisation claims upon him.

The woman herself was clearly just your typical religious obsessive. She was obviously wetting her herself at the thought that she might get to touch the pope, and when he turned away before getting to her, decided to take matters into her own hands.

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

I think that's Bannasidhe's point. He is only human. His reaction was a perfectly natural human thing to do if someone is gripping your hand and won't let go.

But the entire facade of the office is based on him being the most holy living person, the one closest to God on earth. Evidence that he is just as human as the rest of us is a PR disaster.

That said, I don't think Catholics - certainly not Irish ones anyway - pay him the same Godly reverance that the organisation claims upon him.

The woman herself was clearly just your typical religious obsessive. She was obviously wetting her herself at the thought that she might get to touch the pope, and when he turned away before getting to her, decided to take matters into her own hands.

Exactly.

It is known that amongst large crowds gathered to see their idol (whomever that may be) a degree of hysteria develops - or as Vatican PR would call it 'religious fervour'.
In some individuals this fervour/hysteria can completely overwhelm them.

Here we have a contrived situation - people gather in a large area, some of whom would have travelled thousands of miles at great expense. Those at the front by the crash barriers have managed to secure prime pontiff seeing spots.
Having waited for hours Pontiff (and security) approach. People are cheering and screaming and calling and praying. Pontiff (and security) approach the people. Pontiff reaches out and grabs outstretched hands. He is all smiles. The hysteria ramps up a notch fed by his proximity. Those behind the front row push forward for a better look and a chance of a touch. Suddenly Pontiff veers away. For the next person in the line waiting to be touched this is too much, she reaches out and grabs him. Angry Pontiff slaps her hands away.

The Pope decided to do a walkabout.
The Pope decided to press the flesh.
The Pope lost his rag when one (filled with religious fervour) woman went a little bit too far for his liking (remember it was his hand she grabbed. The same hand he had extended to those next to her).

A PR event went pearshaped. Pope seen to be human just as he was supposed to be embodying the living representative of the Saviour (as believed by the people in the crowd).

wexfordman2

mikhail wrote: »

And in the real world, what that woman did is assault, for which he could press charges if it wouldn't be a PR disaster.

Now, why do you think the PR would be a disaster ?

Hoboo

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Now, why do you think the PR would be a disaster ?

More to the point, since when is grabbing someones hand assault?

Donnielighto

She acted out, if it was a common thing wouldn't we have seen it before. Not religious at all but the Pope here was totally in the right.

What's this about a direct line to God btw, is that a stated belief that the office is supposed to confer that ability?

Oasis1974

Has there been an interview with this women yet? Maybe she could add to this seems see was in shock afterwards.

pablo128

He's an octogenarian with arthritis. She hauled him several feet from behind. He gave her a gentle tap on the arm.

Wind your necks back in.

Bannasidhe

Hoboo wrote: »

More to the point, since when is grabbing someones hand assault?

As I understand it, according to our laws, she could be charged with "Assault and Battery".
Assault involves an individual being placed in fear of harmful or offensive contact. There is no requirement of actual contact with the person. Rather, the harm or offense felt by the individual is fear, anxiety or fright, as examples, in addition to any physical injury that might occur.
battery is an intentional and wrongful physical contact with another person without that person’s consent that includes some injury or offensive touching. A battery can occur when the individual is actually touched or when any extension of his body is touched without permission or there is a wrongful contact.

Although who knows what crazy laws they have in Vatican City.

But do we really want to see the Pope in the witness box?? Being asked what he was wearing? If he had been drinking? If he had lead her on? Was the Pope asking to be grabbed?

Bannasidhe

Donnielighto wrote: »

What's this about a direct line to God btw, is that a stated belief that the office is supposed to confer that ability?

Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_supremacy

It's laid out there - the important bit is

The Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy is based on the assertion by the Bishops of Rome that it was instituted by Christ and that papal succession is traced back to Peter the Apostle in the 1st century. The authority for the position is derived from the Confession of Peter documented in Matthew 16:17–19 when, in response to Peter's acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, which many relate to Jesus' divinity, Jesus responded:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood hast not revealed this to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it. I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So, according to the RCC, Jesus left Peter in charge and the Pope is Peter's successor.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Although who knows what crazy laws they have in Vatican City.

Pope accuses you. Pope's infallible. You're guilty. Simple as.

No need to call out the Spanish Inquisition

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Pope accuses you. Pope's infallible. You're guilty. Simple as.

No need to call out the Spanish Inquisition

Only infallible in matters of doctrine though... this would be a civil matter so it depends what laws the Absolute Monarch has in place...aka 'The Victim'.

looksee

Did you see his face? She hurt him. If someone grabbed my hand awkwardly and caught my arthritisy thumb I would do exactly the same thing and I am 10 years younger than the Pope. I have no time for the whole charade, but it was a natural reaction.

NIMAN

..... and ironically his speech later was about violence against women!

randomrb

There was a good line in the new film "The Two Popes" where pope bendict said to the then cardinal Bergoglio " You are gods messenger but you are not God"

The pope is Human and has human reactions, he was walking away from the crowd and was yanked back unexpectedly he simply tried to free himself.

I think the comparison to other celebrities is apt, try and do that to anyone in the public eye and see how long it takes to be dealt with by security.

Bannasidhe

looksee wrote: »

Did you see his face? She hurt him. If someone grabbed my hand awkwardly and caught my arthritisy thumb I would do exactly the same thing and I am 10 years younger than the Pope. I have no time for the whole charade, but it was a natural reaction.

Would you be walking along a crash barrier with people on the other side reaching out to touch you?
Would you, in fact, approach some of those people and take their hands?

My Dad died in Oct, I was (still am) recovering from hand surgery and tbh the recovery has been difficult due to internal build up of scar tissue. I shook people's hands. I would ask them to be gentle but some people reached out and caught my hand in a vice like grip pummeling it up and down as they offered their condolences. The pain was awful.
Should I have slapped them?

tayto lover

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet he has apologised....

He is hardly the average 83 year old man. He is an 83 year old absolute 'monarch' and head of an international organisation that claims to be based on love, forgiveness, non-violence and all that doing a walk about among the Faithful.
Yet here he is - retaliating violently.

In rugby that would have seen him sin binned. :P

Good job Punches Pilot wasn’t around.

reaching a bit here folks

she was out of order, he reacted within reason, bit unfair to hang much more than that on him

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet he has apologised....

He is hardly the average 83 year old man. He is an 83 year old absolute 'monarch' and head of an international organisation that claims to be based on love, forgiveness, non-violence and all that doing a walk about among the Faithful.
Yet here he is - retaliating violently.

In rugby that would have seen him sin binned. :P

I’m puzzled as to why you would be happy to allow your 83 year old loved one to be assaulted in the way he was, albeit by a well meaning stranger. Or is it only the fact that it’s only the Pope that makes it alright?

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m puzzled as to why you would be happy to allow your 83 year old loved one to be assaulted in the way he was, albeit by a well meaning stranger. Or is it only the fact that it’s only the Pope that makes it alright?

That well meaning stranger was there specifically to see that 83 year old man.
In an organised walkabout the 83 year old man approached the barriers and reached out to touch people.
He invited people to reach out for him by approaching the barriers and reaching out.

Hardly a typical event for the average 83 year old now is it?

No-one made the 83 year old approach the crowd.
No one made the 83 year old reach out.
That was his choice - and one you can bet his extensive security was not thrilled about but the 83 year old can over rule them.

Fritzbox

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Should I have slapped them?

If they had tried to yank your arm off like that woman had, why not?

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would you be walking along a crash barrier with people on the other side reaching out to touch you?
Would you, in fact, approach some of those people and take their hands?

My Dad died in Oct, I was (still am) recovering from hand surgery and tbh the recovery has been difficult due to internal build up of scar tissue. I shook people's hands. I would ask them to be gentle but some people reached out and caught my hand in a vice like grip pummeling it up and down as they offered their condolences. The pain was awful.
Should I have slapped them?

I’m sorry you lost your father. I’m sorry you didn’t think of putting your injured hand in a simple sling when greeting mourners at his funeral in order to avoid being hurt further.
In an effort to reach and reach to criticize the Pope you’re comparing you accepting condolences from family and friends at a family funeral, to an 83 year old head of state on a walkabout, suffering from arthritis, being suddenly violently and painfully almost pulled to the ground while his back was turned and reacting in that instant. Really?

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That well meaning stranger was there specifically to see that 83 year old man.
In an organised walkabout the 83 year old man approached the barriers and reached out to touch people.
He invited people to reach out for him by approaching the barriers and reaching out.

Hardly a typical event for the average 83 year old now is it?

No-one made the 83 year old approach the crowd.
No one made the 83 year old reach out.
That was his choice - and one you can bet his extensive security was not thrilled about but the 83 year old can over rule them.

So in your mind the fact that while his back was turned he was almost dragged to the ground is justified because he volunteered himself to reach out to pilgrims? And you would apply that to any similarly aged person in his position, or is it just because it’s the Pope?

splinter65

NIMAN wrote: »

..... and ironically his speech later was about violence against women!

You think he was violent to her? Ok. Do you think she treated him violently and if she did, did he have the right to defend himself?

splinter65

_Brian wrote: »

Still, for abusing an 83yo man it’s what she deserved.

If it were one of my parents she abused like that I’d lay her out.

Me too. My mother is 85.They are not indestructible. As Boy George said on twitter yesterday, the Pope is not Harry Styles.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That well meaning stranger was there specifically to see that 83 year old man.
In an organised walkabout the 83 year old man approached the barriers and reached out to touch people.
He invited people to reach out for him by approaching the barriers and reaching out.

Hardly a typical event for the average 83 year old now is it?

No-one made the 83 year old approach the crowd.
No one made the 83 year old reach out.
That was his choice - and one you can bet his extensive security was not thrilled about but the 83 year old can over rule them.

big fan of your posting throughout the forum fwiw

but i think its a poor atheism that demands that an aul fella subject himself to a painful wrench because we have a bee in our bonnets about the structures of his organisation

tbh id feel a lot more comfortable making my case as an atheist that said - a pope is only an aul fella. if he has demonstrably human reactions to things, all the better. hes not the worst that ever was, in some ways id say hes doing what he can (a lot more than many in his role have done)

yerwan was in the wrong. calling him breaking her hold on him- which was inappropriate, aggressive and clearly painful- an assault or anything close is really just playacting with the event.

i think we can do better tbh

coolbeans

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would you be walking along a crash barrier with people on the other side reaching out to touch you?
Would you, in fact, approach some of those people and take their hands?

My Dad died in Oct, I was (still am) recovering from hand surgery and tbh the recovery has been difficult due to internal build up of scar tissue. I shook people's hands. I would ask them to be gentle but some people reached out and caught my hand in a vice like grip pummeling it up and down as they offered their condolences. The pain was awful.
Should I have slapped them?

A bizarre comparison. Were you dragged over to the well wishers against your will i.e. physically displaced? That woman had dreadful manners and while his papishness overreacted it wasn't unreasonable given the violence of her approach. Leave the old man alone I say. Making a mountain out of this molehill only does a disservice to those who are truly the victims of domestic abuse be they male or female.

As an aside I do wonder what the reaction would have been had the protagonists' genders been reversed.

angel eyes 2012

mikhail wrote: »

I don't think that's funny. He's an 83 year old man, and she grabbed him and pulled him hard. If someone did that to my dad, I'd be furious.

I have to admit I laughed. However, my Dad would not be bothered to queue for anything these days, especially a gathering of people to see a pope.

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m sorry you lost your father. I’m sorry you didn’t think of putting your injured hand in a simple sling when greeting mourners at his funeral in order to avoid being hurt further.
In an effort to reach and reach to criticize the Pope you’re comparing you accepting condolences from family and friends at a family funeral, to an 83 year old head of state on a walkabout, suffering from arthritis, being suddenly violently and painfully almost pulled to the ground while his back was turned and reacting in that instant. Really?

Almost pulled to the ground?
Steady on. He was not almost pulled to the ground.

I am comparing situations where I placed myself in a situation - through my own free will - where contact with people was expected. That contact could, for me, be painful. I accepted that.
The Pope placed himself in a situation, of his own free will, where contact with people would be expected. He did this by walking over to the barriers, He initiated the physical contact with the crowd by reaching out. There was a possibility that contact could be painful.

Bannasidhe

coolbeans wrote: »

A bizarre comparison. Were you dragged over to the well wishers against your will i.e. physically displaced?

As an aside I do wonder what the reaction would have been had the protagonists' genders been reversed.

Are you watching the same video?
The Pope walked over to the barriers of his own free will.
He reached out to the crowds to press the flesh of his own free will.
He then went to walk away and the nest person reached out over a crash barrier and grabbed his hand.

No one dragged him over there in the first place. He walked there.

I doubt the Pope would have slapped a man.

coolbeans

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you watching the same video?
The Pope walked over to the barriers of his own free will.
He reached out to the crowds to press the flesh of his own free will.
He then went to walk away and the nest person reached out over a crash barrier and grabbed his hand.

No one dragged him over there in the first place. He walked there.

I doubt the Pope would have slapped a man.

I would ask you the same question; he was clearly dragged to a place where he did not want to be. I suggest you look again, as I have. Re the second comment, nice avoidance.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

big fan of your posting throughout the forum fwiw

but i think its a poor atheism that demands that an aul fella subject himself to a painful wrench because we have a bee in our bonnets about the structures of his organisation

tbh id feel a lot more comfortable making my case as an atheist that said - a pope is only an aul fella. if he has demonstrably human reactions to things, all the better. hes not the worst that ever was, in some ways id say hes doing what he can (a lot more than many in his role have done)

yerwan was in the wrong. calling him breaking her hold on him- which was inappropriate, aggressive and clearly painful- an assault or anything close is really just playacting with the event.

i think we can do better tbh

It has nothing to do with being an athiest.

This is an annual event organised by the Vatican where the Pope presents himself to be seen by those who believe he is God's representative on Earth.
There is no onus on the Pope to approach the crash barriers.
There is no rule that says he has to press the flesh.
He can wave from a car if he wishes.

The Pope chose to walk to the barriers and grasp people's hands. He may then have realised this caused him pain so went to walk away.
As he did so, the next person in line grabbed his hand. Yes, this was not a good thing to do but no-one seems to be interested in why she did that. She probably saw her only chance to touch her God's representative on Earth slipping from her grasp (as it were) and she reached out. It was stupid. But as an athiest I think being there in the first place was stupid.
The Pope slapped her. That was a stupid thing to do. He must have realised that being grabbed was a possibility when he approached the barriers - he is not a stupid man.

The Pope chose to do a man of the people routine. He got more of the people then he wanted.

I would say it's a 50/50 liability.

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Almost pulled to the ground?
Steady on. He was not almost pulled to the ground.

I am comparing situations where I placed myself in a situation - through my own free will - where contact with people was expected. That contact could, for me, be painful. I accepted that.
The Pope placed himself in a situation, of his own free will, where contact with people would be expected. He did this by walking over to the barriers, He initiated the physical contact with the crowd by reaching out. There was a possibility that contact could be painful.

Yes he nearly fell over when she yanked him. If he were 53 then her determined yank wouldn’t have rendered him so unstable but he’s very elderly, has fallen a number of times recently and is in pain with a common condition amongst the elderly. In order to release her grip on his hand he had to be forceful.
What you are suggesting is that anyone in the public eye of any age in any public scenario of their own free will must not react to inappropriate physical approaches? Or once again, is it only because it’s the Pope?