WinnyThePoo wrote: » I think you've embarrassed yourself enough. Perhaps an early night. Your hysterics aren't getting you anywhere.
Donald Trump wrote: » L O fucking L :pac:
Leroy42 wrote: » Yeah. loads of people all ready did all of that. It's just a real shame that even after there is clear evidence collected by the Garda that the CC then try to claim that Canon law superceeds Irish law and pull out every trick to avoid the priests getting in trouble. Are they doing this out of a respect for the victim? No, they are protecting the firm, simple as.
Leroy42 wrote: » You are of course correct that others share part of the blame, but the problem with selling your organisation as the very fountain of morality is that you class yourself as something special. Thus you really should look to abide to that.
Leroy42 wrote: » So women can be priests now can they? Must have missed that news. When did that happen?
Leroy42 wrote: » can you give a reason why the CC should be exempt from the laws of the land in terms of equality?
Leroy42 wrote: » In 2008 the Health Service Executive had required a child safety audit which the Bishops felt unable to co-operate with for legal reasons, and in 2009 they asked the NBSC to perform this role. In its report on 2010–11 (to the end of March 2011) the NBSC complained that it had also been denied the same information, also for legal reasons, and that Church funding for its training programmes in child protection had ended in 2009. The 2010–11 report listed 272 new allegations of abuse, mainly "of a historical nature", up from 197 allegations in its 2009–10 report. Hardly 100 years ago!
Leroy42 wrote: » Do you really think Jesus would have stood for any of this? That is the man that your religion is supposedly built around. Its not the organisation you should be trying to protect, its the ideals of Jesus
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Whilst you dismiss the severity of child abuse. A lot people don't. They don't accept people under the coat of authority putting their penises in children. They don't accept their superiors covering it up.
RobAMerc wrote: » Seriously, so you are happy to ignore the fact the Catholic church literally raped and pillaged across this county for 2000 years odd? Ah sure yea, "I am so cool I will let the leader of this gang come tell us what his vision of a family is etc etc ....." "I love freedom of speech so let him come here and spout whatever vile tripe he wants to" - like fook he can. We should all be on the streets protesting his arrival till he tells his gang to stop trying to innfluence our society, pay what he owes and says sorry.
Taytoland wrote: » No one thought the Papacy would be rejected in Ireland like we see today on this forum, a sense of great fulfillment with a tinge of sadness due to the loss of traditions too.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » How about we just live and let live? If you don’t want anything to do with the Popes’ vist OP that fine. But don’t presume to tell the rest of us how to feel.
RobAMerc wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » No one thought the Papacy would be rejected in Ireland like we see today on this forum, a sense of great fulfillment with a tinge of sadness due to the loss of traditions too. I agree to some extent, but don't lament the rejection, despair the actions of the church that brought us here.
Fighting Tao wrote: » I find that a bit weird. Taxpayer money is being spent on his visit. Quite a lot of it! So those of us they don’t want anything to do with it have something to do with it against our will.
Donald Trump wrote: » ah will ya ever give over. You're not that important that your individual permission needs to be granted for any public event. There'll be lots of people there. It'll be a big occasion. No harm done. If they want to give a homecoming for the next time the Irish Soccerball team come last at some tournament, let them fire ahead. I just won't turn up but let whoever wants to do it fire away.
Taytoland wrote: » So what is going to replace it? You won't have many Catholics left in 20 years time.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Not going to engage with you again and you know why.
RobAMerc wrote: » Seriously, so you are happy to ignore the fact the Catholic church literally raped and pillaged across this county for 2000 years odd?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Well aware of what they did, thank you very much, but I tend to separate judgement of a person and judgement of an act. .
martyc5674 wrote: » This is where you’re going wrong, there is a person behind every act. And in the CCs case a lot of victims too. Victims who have been ushered from society, oppressed when they talked, by our unquestionable, above the law, moral leaders.
Donald Trump wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » So what is going to replace it? You won't have many Catholics left in 20 years time. Sure what would the Nordies do then? The prods would have nothing to protest or march against or burn Life would lose all meaning for them They'd need to start attacking the muslims or the jews or something. Maybe we could send them over to the middle east on tours
martyc5674 wrote: » You see, I believe there should be no such thing as Muslim schools, as RC schools etc etc... by doing so you are excluding others. And this is what the CC have quite effectively done. Labelling a school by its religion is sheer exclusiveness..., right at the front gate. There should just be schools, where all are welcome, but that doesn’t suit the CCs agenda so they are slow to let go. They want forced baptism to keep their numbers up... there is so much wrong with this on many levels and too many people subscribe to this nonsense even though they are non believers.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Well aware of what they did, thank you very much, but I tend to separate judgement of a person and judgement of an act. Especially when the person visiting didn't commit these crimes (to the best of current knowledge).
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » You want to demand something that you personally want irresepctive of what other people may or may not want? Not fine. You don't have that right.
Wombatman wrote: » If you can't understand why some people detest, and might want to protest the leader of this malignant cult you are out of touch with reality. Couching it as some sort of irrational prejudice is totally disingenuous. I'd be surprised if people didn't protest, considering the amount of deep misery, hurt and pain this organisation has inflicted on some. - Vile physical, psychological and sexual child abuse - Covering up and knowingly exposing others to dangerous predators - Mother and baby prisons - Pits full of babies - Anti contraception - Anti abortion - Anti gay rights - Basically anti women - Anti any kind of proper sex education - Anti any progressive social change really - Selling babies - Destroying evidence and intimidating witnesses - Shaming and repressing from the pulpit - Dragging feet on reparations - Victim blaming The desire to protest is perfectly in line with human nature in the face of this organisation's track record.
Donald Trump wrote: » Nobody is above the law.
Taytoland wrote: » Less papacy isn't the worst thing in Ulster.
martyc5674 wrote: » The CC have often been above the law, and firmly believe they don’t have to comply with anything other than their own rules.
RobAMerc wrote: » He's the leader of the church that perpetrated the crimes and then covered them up. He holds the power to apologise and agree to pay the money's owed to the victims of his gangs wrong doings. He's not just some Joe who's over for a visit. Are you suggesting the folks going to see him are opposed to him apologising ?
Donald Trump wrote: » How much does he owe and can you give me a reference for the figure?
Donald Trump wrote: » What are you going on about. I can believe I'm above the law. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference what I believe. The law is the law. If it's not enforced,m blame those responsible for not enforcing it
RobAMerc wrote: » Fake news I suppose
It has been the policy of successive governments that all the costs associated with institutional child abuse should be split 50-50 between the Irish State and religious groups. However the religious groups never signed up to this agreement and Bruton said that the Irish State had no legal mechanism to compel them to pay more. He said that far from giving 50%, religious groups were now giving less money than they previously committed.
