Leroy42 wrote: » 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? 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 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.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The modern anti Catholic Irish sound like the kind who would have been kicked out of the orange order in 1950. For being too bigoted. For the record, not a believer myself.
martyc5674 wrote: » So I switched on the RTÉ news there... Bishop who concealed child abuse... and still hasn’t resigned, or been dismissed.https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/survivors-say-wilson-case-still-a-landmark/news-story/d1c2cccffdb1fcab20548192869de196 And then this...https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/mother-and-son-sue-catholic-adoption-agency-and-state-1.3552429?mode=amp These are just today’s examples of why people don’t want to pay for the Popes visit. He needs to clean up his shop first. Marty.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Are you against the acts of the bishop or the visit is the pope? I'm guessing the first, in which case whats the point in waiting for the papal visit? You can protest now.
martyc5674 wrote: » Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Are you against the acts of the bishop or the visit is the pope? I'm guessing the first, in which case whats the point in waiting for the papal visit? You can protest now. I’m against the fact that the pope and his predecessors have done SFA about it, and will likely to continue doing SFA about it, only paying lip service here and there. If it were the CEO of a company who hired a plethora of child abusers and did nothing about it I’d think the very same.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Not saying you wouldn't: I'm just arguing why you need to wait to protest.
Taytoland wrote: » Martin Luther warned you about the papists and only now are we seeing these responses.
martyc5674 wrote: » I don’t want to protest... I just don’t want the fuc€er here unless he cleans up his shop. And if he did clean up his shop... I’d have a lot of respect for him.
Leroy42 wrote: » 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.
Leroy42 wrote: » You are simply wrong Donald. The CC agreed a compensation deal but to date have failed to provide the agreed funds back to the state (the state has paid out the money to the victims). Again, and you really do not seem to want to engage with this point, would you accept this behaviour from any other corporate organisation? Or are you willing to give them a break simply because it is the CC? You keep harking back to the Garda, in some poor attempt to avoid dealing with the issue, but you are displaying the exact same attitudes. Sure the CC did stuff wrong, but what about the Gardas, and sure didn't they try to change, and isn't it better than having some other religion in charge etc etc. You made the point that dealing with the garda would somehow help in dealing the church. But we know what the church was up to, we know that from our own experiences and that of other countries. We don't need any steps along the way to understand what happened. Because the CC undertook exactly the same things in the UK, US, Australia, Canada etc etc. In fact the 1 common factor in all of the cases is the CC protecting itself rather than the victims. You know why we don't have state visits for corporations? Because they don't sell themselves as the moral arbitrators of the land. Take a simple thing like the Good Friday pub closures. Based on nothing more than religious ideology. Our religion tells us not to drink so therefore nobody can. Now carry that across almost every aspect of your life. It is easy to dismiss it as being overblown now, now that many of the shackles have been removed but the power the CC had at one point in this country is truly scary looking back. And they totally abused that power.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » martyc5674 wrote: » I don’t want to protest... I just don’t want the fuc€er here unless he cleans up his shop. And if he did clean up his shop... I’d have a lot of respect for him. Well then you have no right to be upset about his visit when he does show up!!
JupiterKid wrote: » I can understand why so many are very angry at the forthcoming visit of the Pope to Ireland. The Catholic Church did immeasurable and lasting damage to this country and society. And I’d say those angriest at the church are not “virtue signaling” millennials, who grew up as small children as the Church was in a state of collapse, but the generations over the age of 45-50 who had incredible amounts of abuse meted out to them.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Sorry but that is garbage. Every indicator will show you it is virtue signalling millennials driving this. Yes there was abuse but there is no reason to think it was more commonly meted out to people in religious institutions. I have yet to see a single case of church-related abuse in this country carried out by a non Irish and there is no evidence the Vatican ever endorsed or turned a blind eye to abuse. It is not surprising either too. The Vatican has very little to do with running the church. Priests are not employees of the Vatican and responsibility lies with their person employer i.e. the local bishop or the Orders superior is it was a brother. In the old days we blamed English for our problems and now we blame another set of 'foreigners' Rome.
Yes there was abuse but there is no reason to think it was more commonly meted out to people in religious institutions.
Leroy42 wrote: » Under which guidelines does the CC operate in Ireland? The Cardinal is appointed by whom and reports to whom? Are you really suggesting that the CC in Ireland is not affiliated in any way with Rome or the Pope? There was a recent change in the way that some parts of the mass was said, was that simply the CC in Ireland making that decision? There is no evidence that the vatican endorsed or turned a blind eye to abuse? Even the pope doesn't try to state this. He has tried to move the CC away from its past, make up for errors. You think that looking to protect children, looking for equality of the sexes, you think that is virtue signaling by millenials? So we know the cases of abuse carried out under the CC, you are suggesting that there are other areas that have done as much, if not more? And, although yours is very much a case of whatabouterey, don't you think that any organisation that carried out abuse should be held to account? Your last line, where you indicate that we are always looking for someone outside to blame. I'm not. It was the CC church here in Ireland. The priests that undertook the rape and abuse of children. That took them out of their beds, their classrooms, their homes, before analy raping them. Before forcing them to undertake sexual acts for their own gratification. I blame the priests that knew about it and did nothing. I blame the Bishops and head of the orders that used the power of the church to cover up these horrible crimes, not out of some concern for the victims but out of a concern for the church itself. But the Pope is coming over here as the earthly leader of the Church, to try to preach to all those that actively support an organisation that allowed, and in many cases facilitated by keeping their crimes a secret, this to happen. Repeatedly.
An_Toirpin wrote: » They are affilated but it is not a employee employer relationship. Don't get me wrong. The Vatican didnt handle the abuse crisis perfectly and there were misakes but it is utterly false to say the Vatican endorsed or covered up abuse. The Vatican has very little role in prevention of clerical child abuse but it does have a role in laicized abusers. There are cases where this was not done properly but I dont except that is tantamonut to cover up. No priest or bishop in Ireland who abused or covered up is still in power. You are living in the past.
Canon 331 states that "The vicar of Christ.. . possesses full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely", and canon 333 states that "...By virtue of his office, the Roman pontiff not only possesses power over the universal church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them."
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Affiliated. FFS. you really dont have a clue. this is what Canon law has to say about the relationship between the Pope and the rest of the church The pope has complete power and control over the rest of the church.
JupiterKid wrote: » No, I think it is you living in the past. 65 years or thereabouts. You are of course entitled to your views but you being an outright apologist for the church is deeply offensive to many, including the victims of widespread sexual and physical abuse by clergy, women incarceratd in magdalene laundries, women generally who were treated with contempt (symphisiostomy for instance) as were LGBT individuals, children beaten senseless in Christian Brothers schools. I could go on ad infinitum... From my exlerience (as a 43 year old man) it is the age cohorts from mid 40s to 70s who are angriest at the Irish church. Many of whom I know personally. Yes there are many religious older people and they make up for the most faithful still attending the emptying churches but there are also many older people who are very bitter at the Church of Rome. The bitterness anong some in that generation is palpable. I've been told of heartbreaking and very unsavoury stories of physical (and privately) of sexual abuse. Abuse that often led to misery, self-loathing, substance abuse (especially alcoholism), emigration, poverty and suicide.
An_Toirpin wrote: » It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasnt anyone sued teh Vatican by now? The role of a bishop to the Vatican is like a independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.
But if you build your church on claims of moral authority And, with threats of hell, impose it on others in society Then you, you motherf**ers, can expect some ****ing wrath When it turn out you've been f***ing us in our motherf***ing asses
An_Toirpin wrote: » It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasn't anyone sued the Vatican by now? The role of bishops to the Vatican is like independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.I dont blame you for not understanding how this works. Mostly church bashers are pretty uninformed in their hysteria. I am a lot younger than you and I have been told heartbreaking and unsavoury stories of sexual abuse but not a single one is clerical. So I don't buy the notion that abuse is specifically Catholic clerical issue. It is tragically common everywhere and occurs where it is allowed to occur. The sex abuse revelations were a scandal. The others you mention no, especially not symphisiostomy. As for the so called offense that I am causing by being critical, well no one has a right to not be offended.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It really isnt. You need to learn about the institution you are defending. If the vatican has no role why are they investigating abuse cases?https://web.archive.org/web/20170516201947/http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Pope-acknowledges-2-000-case-backlog-in-sex-abuse-11144008.php
JupiterKid wrote: » So beatings of schoolchilden, throwing babies into septic tanks, selling stolen babies to rich Americans for profit, the process of symphiostimy causing lifelong pain and suffering to thousands of women, incarcerating women in magadelene laundries...there were all ok because it wasn't sexual abuse? Your chilling defense of the completely indefensibile disgusts me. I suspect you are a troll.
An_Toirpin wrote: » As for Tuam, it is not clear what happened there but it is presumptuous in the extreme to assume it was a septic tank. Fake news.
An_Toirpin wrote: » The Vatican has very little to do with running the church. Priests are not employees of the Vatican and responsibility lies with their person employer i.e. the local bishop or the Orders superior is it was a brother. In the old days we blamed English for our problems and now we blame another set of 'foreigners' Rome.
An_Toirpin wrote: » They are affilated but it is not a employee employer relationship.
An_Toirpin wrote: » It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasn't anyone sued the Vatican by now? The role of bishops to the Vatican is like independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.I dont blame you for not understanding how this works. Mostly church bashers are pretty uninformed in their hysteria.
An_Toirpin wrote: » They have the power to strip priests of their office and they do, but that is pretty secondary in the broader effort to protect children. You need to read more.
Sycamore Tree wrote: » Those Ronan Mullen blinkers fitting you well. There was a septic tank in the area where the mass grave of babies was discovered. What do you think it was?
Leroy42 wrote: » Sorry, but which is it? You started off claiming the Vatican had nothing to do with the CC in Ireland, the Pope is only a pastoral leader. And now you are saying that the vatican did try to does something about it nad have the power to strip priests of their office. It seems to me that everyone is to blame but yet nobody is!
An_Toirpin wrote: » symphysotomy was and still is a valid medical procedure in certain circumstances. Even if it wasn't it not a Catholic thing. We have medical notes from Obs/ gyn docs and their reasoning is based on Catholic teaching. Their reasoning was to save lives and symphysiotomy was safer. Furthermore, there are no medical symptoms of symphysotomy that are unique to symphysotomy. Difficult births cause the same medical side effects problems. Many women who claimed to have it never got it at all. As for Tuam, it is not clear what happened there but it is presumptuous in the extreme to assume it was a septic tank. Fake news.
