Should we protest against the pope's visit?

Donald, you are quite right that company like Apple is not responsible for taking advantage of the laws of the country.

But that is not what happened. The CC did not abide by the laws (unless you happen to think there was a point in time that child rape was not illegal). When the crimes did start to be brought up, they did everything in their power to stop the victims going to the police. What have you got to say in relation to them getting victims to sign a non disclosure statement?

Then when the victim actually found the courage and strength to go the the authorities did the CC organisation hold its hands up and give what evidence they had to the police so that the priest could be charged. We both know that answer, it has been repeated many times both in Ireland and across the world.

But if Apple breaks the law of the land, which is the analogy you should be using, then whom should I blame? Firstly, Apple, then did or covered up the crime. Then the authorities for not preventing or pursuing them correctly. The key difference is the the CC puts itself in the position of being the moral guardians, the source of morality and law and as such they have taken a direct say in the creation of laws in this, and other countries. When your key selling point is that you (the CC) have a direct and real link to God and represent him on earth on all spiritual matters, then its quite a climbdown to say you were only doing what you could get away with.

And in terms of compensation, yes the victims have been given compensation, but through the state. So you are happy with the church not living up to its agreement? Who do you blame for that? I guess we can blame the government but you seem to be always wanted to give the CC a helping hand, the very attitude that you denounce others for doing.

Why do you think the CC should be allowed to not pay their commitments?
Why should they continue to refuse to cooperate with investigations?
Why do you think the CC should exempt from equality legislation?

An_Toirpin wrote: »

First of all, it is not church commitments. The abuse was not carried out by priests so its nothing to do with the church as such but rather orders who act independently of Rome. The compensation is being paid out. As fast as it can be. 96pc has been passed on according to the Indo.

What?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43724871

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/5109488/most-senior-catholic-priest-to-be-convicted-of-sex-crimes-in-the-uk-found-guilty-on-19-charges/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/22/asia/australia-catholic-church-abuse-intl/index.html

You might want to educate yourself further before making a ridiculous statement like that!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

Donald Trump wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think the Irish government are involved in paying out to victims in the UK (2 of your article links) or Australia (the other one)

He claimed the abuse was not carried out by priests, my links show that it was.

Mark Horgan wrote: »

The pope don’t give a shiite about your links.

And I couldn't give a blister on a jockeys bollix about the pope

I love when anybody that doesn't like change brings out the line Liberals.

What are they suggesting, that we shouldn't be liberal? That equality is not a good idea, maybe remove free-speech. Or how about not allowing women to vote? Or same sex couples, should we make that illegal again?

Liberalism is what gave us the freedoms we have today, someone, at some point, stood up against the prevailing system and said they wanted more, they wanted better treatment.

But now, its seen as something dirty. Maybe they think we have enough liberalism. But my bet is the people back then thought exactly the same.

Its got nothing to do with being sneaky. Unlike the CC, the people protesting will do so openly. The CC is the very epitimone of secrecy, even so far as getting scholdren who has been abused to sign confidentiallity agreements.

People are not trying to ruin ot for anybody, they are trying to make the point that we shouldn't,as a society, be so quick to simply welcome and adore people who head organisations that have caused so much pain and heartache.

You might not care, but taxpayers money continues to be given to an organsiation that remains, at its heart, sexist. Does it effect me? No. Is it right? No. Should we try to change things when they are not right? Yes.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If anything is being seen as dirty, it is people of faith. It's practically a crime now to be religious. If you don't support his visit then by all means don't attend, but deliberately trying to spoil the day for those who are interested is childish and pathetic.

Its a crime to be religious! Get over yourself.

Do you mean a crime like homosexuality used to be? Or how about if someone wanted to leave an unhappy marriage? Or what about drinking on a day you happen to have declared as special? Or having a baby out of wedlock?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And I am not sure what you mean when you refer to people who "don't like change" but I will assume you don't know me well enough to be able to qualify that statement.

I wasn't talking out you in particular, obviously, don't be so precious. I was talking about the line about liberalism, as if it is something to be avoided. As I pointed out Liberalism is what has enabled up to break away from the rule of Kings, the control of organisations like the church.

Liberalism as per Wiki

is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Since we are coming from a past wher liberty and equality were far from the norm, liberalism is looking to challenge the thinking and bring about more freedom and equality. Not sure how anybody can see that in a pejorative sense which is what it is being used in on the quote the you included in your post. I took from your smiley face that you agreed with it.

Jerichoholic wrote: »

More people want him to come than don't so the op is redundant.

how does that make the OP redundant? Perhaps more do want him to come but there are plenty who dont so why should they not protest?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ok I think I am done playing name calling with you!

I didn't call you any names!