So who's going to see the Pope?

If anyone has any doubts or misgivings about this World Meeting of Families, leave it out. Don't go, leave them at it.

They are a small minority of people who will self destruct soon enough anyway. The Abortion Ref was a big signal anyway, whether you agree with it or not. It is the will of the people against the ultras.

My biggest concern is that I have to travel that day, and there is still no firm information about road closures and the like. Tut tut.

Anyway, I hope they all enjoy themselves singing Kumbaya and so on, having walked a few kms to the venue with their fold up seats under their arms.

Sounds delightful.

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Fcuking hell. Coffin dodgers be coughing dodgers.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unique-health-risk-crowds-at-papal-mass-run-risk-of-infectious-diseases-37191262.html

Die in ecstasy, Pope will bless your corpse my dears, RIP.

Back to the OP. I won't be going although I have the offer of a seat in the VIP area from someone working behind the scenes. Nope. I'd rather be on my way to the country, but I don't know if the main road will be closed or not yet! That's fkn bugging me. I'm a planner, and this is driving me a bit wild.

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's kind of strange that when Mary was President she never mentioned any of this. In fact she put herself out there as a staunch Catholic.

It's almost as if , a certain, magical paedophile organisation, exerted some sort of control over her.

realdanbreen wrote: »

That could be the case although what might have happened is she weighed up which stance might suit her best at the time. Why I can recall her in several images going the whole hog in Mantilla and black clothing!

I don't even like mcaleese anyway.

But she's right here, and I suppose the church tried and succeeded to silence her back in the day.

volchitsa wrote: »

She is, afaik. Do you think that having any doubts or issues over any of the Vatican's actions or teachings immediately makes her a non-Catholic?

No, and of course I never said that. It just seems a little cynical that her 'doubts or issues' didn't surface until now.

I think a lot of people need to cop on when it comes to taking at face value what public figures say. Whether is Mcaleese, Higgins, the pope, all politicians. These people wouldn't even fart without first gauging what the implications are for them.

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Fcuking hell. Coffin dodgers be coughing dodgers.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unique-health-risk-crowds-at-papal-mass-run-risk-of-infectious-diseases-37191262.html

Well it makes sense.

Back-of-napkin calculations:

The death rate of 65+ age group is 38/1000/year. So of those 500,000, statistically 19,000 of them will die this year.

Which means that over the two days of the Pope's visit, about 100 of the visitors will die.

Which doesn't sound like a lot, but in general for any large event, 1 death is expected, 2 is unusual, and any more than that is exceptional.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I think a lot of people need to cop on when it comes to taking at face value what public figures say. Whether is Mcaleese, Higgins, the pope, all politicians. These people wouldn't even fart without first gauging what the implications are for them.

If you saying she is lying, and you have some evidence for that, then you have a good point.

If you are simply accusing her of not being brave enough to risk speaking the truth until she had some personal interest in doing so, or at least nothing to lose, then big deal.

We're not discussing her own personal character, but the church's past actions. So what matters is whether what she says is true or not. And it looks as though it is.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So far, it seems it's just another case of shooting the messenger. They loved her until she started criticising the Catholic church.

Hermy wrote: »

It's just that it seems bizarre to me that they kept this to themselves for so long.
Why the hell didn't either of them feel the need to announce it when it happened.

Dunno, but I can think of several possible reasons. So what?
You seem to be trying to suggest that this means it isn't true, but you haven't explained why and I can't see what the logic behind that might be.

Other than a general frantic handwave about how nasty this means she is, and therefore not to be trusted? Which is not evidence you know.

Hermy wrote: »

Definitely not my intention - sorry if it comes across that way.

I'm just baffled by the story...

The Vatican approached our then President and Foreign Minister asking them for protection from litigation at a time when there were two ongoing inquiries into clerical sexual abuse in Ireland the two of them sit on this information for the guts of fifteen years.

Ok fair enough. Personally I wonder why Martin McAleese brought out the Magdalene report the way he did and then clear off to Rome without answering any questions, but if he were now prepared to answer those questions I'd say "better late than never" rather than start complaining about why he didn't do it at the time.

So yes, otoh I do think the McAleeses (both) have been far too cosy with the church for me to have a lot of time for them, but otoh, given that closeness over the years, if either or both of the McAleeses are now prepared to put a bit more distance in that relationship and tell the rest of us more of what was going on behind the scenes, well, they are particularly well placed to have that information aren't they?

So maybe they should have done it years ago, but better late than never - right?