Pope slaps woman's wrist

ART6

Front page news today! His Holiness slapped the wrist of a woman who grabbed his hand and tried to pull him towards her, in order to make her let go. As a result the Pope had to offer a humble apology for what he said was his over-reaction. But just a minute -- a young woman (or that is what she appeared to be) grabbed the hand of an 83 year-old man and nearly pulled him off balance. All she suffered was a slapped wrist, and there appears to have been no apology from her.


Now, in these days of gender neutrality, I wonder what would have happened if a man had done that? I would hazard a guess that a couple of dozen security personnel and the Swiss Guards would have fallen on him from fifty feet, and he would have been in the back of whatever Italy uses as the paddy wagon in seconds! He might have received more than a slapped wrist.



The woman was guilty of minor assault and being over exited is no excuse, particularly in these more dangerous modern times for political and religious leaders. A slapped wrist might be something that she could boast about in later years ("The Pope slapped my wrist -- just there!) when, if she was a man, he would be under interrogation as a potential assassin! :eek:


Oh well, don't take this post to seriously. I just find the whole issue laughable!

Rose of Lima

ART6 wrote: »

Now, in these days of gender neutrality, I wonder what would have happened if a man had done that? I would hazard a guess that a couple of dozen security personnel and the Swiss Guards would have fallen on him from fifty feet, and he would have been in the back of whatever Italy uses as the paddy wagon in seconds! He might have received more than a slapped wrist.

The woman was guilty of minor assault and being over exited is no excuse, particularly in these more dangerous modern times for political and religious leaders. A slapped wrist might be something that she could boast about in later years ("The Pope slapped my wrist -- just there!) when, if she was a man, he would be under interrogation as a potential assassin! :eek:

Oh well, don't take this post to seriously. I just find the whole issue laughable!

I honestly don't see the gender issue you do in the matter. Pope Francis should never have had to deal with that, security failed him regardless of it being a man or a woman. He looked shocked and as though being pulled at had hurt him. He's an elderly man that suffers with arthritis, and feels pain like anyone else. All of which is ignored when the vultures are looking for their story.

...Ghost...

Rose of Lima wrote: »

I honestly don't see the gender issue you do in the matter. Pope Francis should never have had to deal with that, security failed him regardless of it being a man or a woman. He looked shocked and as though being pulled at had hurt him. He's an elderly man that suffers with arthritis, and feels pain like anyone else. All of which is ignored when the vultures are looking for their story.

It's not hard to miss and certainly not after the OP went into detail about what would have happened if the person who grabbed the pope had been a man. The pope had to apologise because of the perception that he slapped a woman, even though it was to prevent injury to himself. Had it been a man, he would be issuing a written apology from a holding cell at the least.

I agree that security failed here. Either way, a man was the one making the apology.

Darc19

...Ghost... wrote: »

It's not hard to miss and certainly not after the OP went into detail about what would have happened if the person who grabbed the pope had been a man. The pope had to apologise because of the perception that he slapped a woman, even though it was to prevent injury to himself. Had it been a man, he would be issuing a written apology from a holding cell at the least.

I agree that security failed here. Either way, a man was the one making the apology.

The pope was the person in authority and therefore was wrong.

The woman was over zealous, but he lives in that world, so it was nothing unusual, hence the reaction was wrong

Darc19

Darc19 wrote: »

The pope was the person in authority and therefore was wrong.

The woman was over zealous, but he lives in that world, so it was nothing unusual, hence the reaction was wrong

It looked like a reflex reaction to me. People need to take more responsibility for their actions. He isn't "in authority" over her anyway .... he's not a cop and she doesn't work for him?

is_that_so

On social media he's just wrong anyway. Awkward moment and one his security need to avoid in the future. Being the Pontiff he did the right thing, apologised and the world moves on to the next crisis.

Bishop of hope

Imagine if he'd slapped her on the arse🀣

mr_fegelien

To be fair, with all the stuff the Catholic Church has done with kids, I don't think a pope slapping someone on the wrist is that bad.

Irishphotodesk

OP... What happened was wrong on multiple levels, the lady made the error of grabbing the Pope and not letting go, it was obvious he didn't wish to engage with her, but this was possibly her only opportunity to get this close to what can be regarded as a "celebrity" .

The head of the Catholic church is idolised on a similar level to popstars - the person that idolises them will be of a different era/generation but sometimes the response can be the same when faced with the opportunity to get close to them.

As regards the role reversal situation.... You can try twist any incident to try put a slant on it but the facts are that a woman grabbed a man and he slapped her, he later apologised.

To be honest, I don't think it's worth the outrage that people are expressing, but everyone has their own opinion and people are entitled to believe they are outraged.

I feel sorry for her, she obviously just got excited in the moment. And I feel sorry for him, as he, too, was caught in the moment and his reaction was to get away.

I don't see any need for either to apologise, though I can understand why the Pope did (he's the celebrity, has to be seen to be the bigger person). Not worth the attention it's getting.

clemop

I guess the only way to really know what would happen if their genders were reversed would be to have a female Pope.

Bishop of hope

clemop wrote: »

I guess the only way to really know what would happen if their genders were reversed would be to have a female Pope.

Or her slap him on the wrist?

clemop

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Or her slap him on the wrist?

No, she'd have to be Pope first to truly capture the power dynamic.

Effects

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

her only opportunity to get this close to what can be regarded as a "celebrity" .

A celebrity? He's the earth's closest real connection to God, not a fücking celebrity.

homer911

Effects wrote: »

"..closest real connection to God.."

I have no wish to make this sectarian, but the closest connection we have to God is the Holy Spirit, God himself, through the death of Jesus Christ. We don't need someone standing in the way!

...Ghost...

Darc19 wrote: »

The pope was the person in authority and therefore was wrong.

The woman was over zealous, but he lives in that world, so it was nothing unusual, hence the reaction was wrong

He may be an authoritative figure, but he was not in authority and was certainly not wrong. He was clearly physically hurt when the woman pulled on his arm and reacted with reasonable force to release himself from the grasp of that woman. Her elation is no excuse, nor is his celebrity status.

I am defending the actions of one person against another. I have no interest in the pope, or the church.

Lily_Aldrin7

Wow I can’t believe people are defending the pope or turning this into a gender issue. This is not Charlie Sheen, it’s the pope! A man of God who’s supposed to turn the other cheek. What he represents is the Catholic culture as a whole and impulsive actions like slapping somebody’s hand regardless of their gender is unacceptable!

Rose of Lima

Lily_Aldrin7 wrote: »

This is not Charlie Sheen, it’s the pope! A man of God who’s supposed to turn the other cheek.

Turn the other cheek to being assaulted? Yes, he is the Pope. But that doesn't give anyone the right to man handle him. He is still a human, and an elderly one with arthritis.

Rubberchikken

He did what he did in an instant reaction.
She is an idiot who needs to cop on and calm down and maybe do a bit if growing up.

He's an elderly man and the Pope. She obviously hasn't a clue.

Lily_Aldrin7

Rose of Lima wrote: »

Turn the other cheek to being assaulted? Yes, he is the Pope. But that doesn't give anyone the right to man handle him. He is still a human, and an elderly one with arthritis.

Is that what Jesus would have done? I thought the pope being the biggest figure in the Catholic Church needs to follow what religion teaches us to do. I suppose we’re only religious when it suits us.
Slapping the person’s hand wasn’t his only option by the way in case you go on to say it was a life or death matter!

Effects

Rose of Lima wrote: »

Turn the other cheek to being assaulted?

That's exactly what turning the other cheek means.

Jesus of Nazareth wrote:

But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Rose of Lima

Effects wrote: »

That's exactly what turning the other cheek means.

"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

You imply Pope Francis acted in retaliation.

The woman was overwhelmed by Pope Francis presence. She got carried away, and grabbed him. She acted inappropriately but not in an evil way, her intentions were not malicious.

Equally, I don't believe Pope Francis acted maliciously. She startled him, and he batted her hand to be free of her.

How far was he expected to go with that? Let her pull him over the barriers? She might as well have done, because security seemed to have had better things to do at the time. He should not have been put in the position of dealing with a crazed fanatic in the first place. Yet it is the Pope that had to apologise.

Bishop of hope

Rose of Lima wrote: »

"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

You imply Pope Francis acted in retaliation.

The woman was overwhelmed by Pope Francis presence. She got carried away, and grabbed him. She acted inappropriately but not in an evil way, her intentions were not malicious.

Equally, I don't believe Pope Francis acted maliciously. She startled him, and he batted her hand to be free of her.

How far was he expected to go with that? Let her pull him over the barriers? She might as well have done, because security seemed to have had better things to do at the time. He should not have been put in the position of dealing with a crazed fanatic in the first place. Yet it is the Pope that had to apologise.

She is a crazed fanatic now?
I'm on your side, but calling her a crazed fanatic is ott.

Rose of Lima

Bishop of hope wrote: »

She is a crazed fanatic now?
I'm on your side, but calling her a crazed fanatic is ott.

Perhaps it sounds harsh. She is obviously a fanatic. I think her obsession with Pope Francis is so great that in that moment, she really had no consciousness of what she was doing. There is an unpredictability in that that must be frightening to encounter.

If you'd like to replace 'crazed' with 'taken leave of her senses' I am fine with that.

friendlyfun

She was overcome with the holy spirit perhaps,

Bishop of hope

Rose of Lima wrote: »

Perhaps it sounds harsh. She is obviously a fanatic. I think her obsession with Pope Francis is so great that in that moment, she really had no consciousness of what she was doing. There is an unpredictability in that that must be frightening to encounter.

If you'd like to replace 'crazed' with 'taken leave of her senses' I am fine with that.

To me it just looked like a woman who was right in line, everyone else getting handshakes from the pope and just as she was about to get hers he went to turn off, she grabbed his hand not knowing what was about to happen and without intent on anything else other than to shake the popes hand.
The pope then reacted to this unintentional hurt by performing a natural human reaction to release himself from her grip.
And now they are both victims of a situation blown out of all proportion.
A woman beating pontiff and a crazed fanatic or a woman who took leave of her senses!
Neither is probably true imo, just victims of a stupid nothing.

Rose of Lima

Bishop of hope wrote: »

To me it just looked like a woman who was right in line, everyone else getting handshakes from the pope and just as she was about to get hers he went to turn off, she grabbed his hand not knowing what was about to happen and without intent on anything else other than to shake the popes hand.
The pope then reacted to this unintentional hurt by performing a natural human reaction to release himself from her grip.
And now they are both victims of a situation blown out of all proportion.
A woman beating pontiff and a crazed fanatic or a woman who took leave of her senses!
Neither is probably true imo, just victims of a stupid nothing.

Thank you. You have worded what I wanted to say far better than I.

Thinkingaboutit

Apparently nnot the first time the Argentine hit a woman in public.

The great Matteo Salvini made a joke of this incident where Francis calls a woman a bitch and a witch. A woman grabs his hand, and doesn't let go.

Anne Barnadt makes a point that for a little moment that arrogant braggart, Humble Francis, insulter of devout Catholics, puppet of big Open Borders loving corporations, suspected unbeliever (he keeps giving interviews to an editor who says Francis denies the divinity of Christ etc), was powerless. This little woman of no significance had power over him for that moment. All he could was bark insults. His apology afterwards mentioning abuse of women was a bit of hypocrisy only the pathologically shameless can manage.

Hotblack Desiato

ART6 wrote: »

All she suffered was a slapped wrist, and there appears to have been no apology from her.

Well, she was overcome by religious fervour, which seems to absolve one from all responsibility for one's actions...

Now if the church in question didn't positively encourage personal adulation of the bishop of Rome then you might have a point. But she's doing what she's been conditioned to do ever since she was a small child.

The woman was guilty of minor assault and being over exited is no excuse, particularly in these more dangerous modern times for political and religious leaders.

Well then Il Papa's security detail need to have a little talk to him and explain that walkabouts without a burly security guy on each of his shoulders carry the risk of some of the faithful getting too over-enthusiastic.

Oh well, don't take this post to seriously. I just find the whole issue laughable!

I find the idea that a living person can be basically worshipped to be laughable. That's not RCC doctrine, but they don't exactly do much to discourage it. I well remember the hype over the first papal visit here (and their pathetic effort to drum up the same in 2018.)

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

it was obvious he didn't wish to engage with her

Why not though - is she not one of his flock after all? however ill-considered her actions in the midst of her religious fervour may have been?

...Ghost... wrote: »

He was clearly physically hurt when the woman pulled on his arm

Could he not have offered it up, as I was frequently urged to do as a child?

uck51js9zml2yt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Could he not have offered it up, as I was frequently urged to do as a child?

So you won't have a problem with me hurting you ?

Hotblack Desiato

You mean, not turn the other cheek? Yes but then again I'm not a Christian never mind the head of its largest denomination.

uck51js9zml2yt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You mean, not turn the other cheek? Yes but then again I'm not a Christian never mind the head of its largest denomination.

Since when did I say he was a Christian either

smacl

Adrien Dead Farmhouse wrote: »

Since when did I say he was a Christian either

Ah here, I know some people on this forum have a rather narrower definition of what it means to be Christian than that offered up by the dictionary but surely you'd allow that the Pope is a Christian?