nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should we protest against the pope's visit?

work

I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are:
1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny
2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie.
3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse
4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education.
5) Anyone that doesn't support cults
6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society.
7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies.
8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men.

There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome.
Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Water John

The poster looking for a spare ticket could contact Cardinal O'Malley. He now can't travel having to deal with the abuse scandal in his own Dioesce in the US.

Heard also today about the whistleblower priest who said people gave him the finger and spat at him. Some very strange committed catholics.

Seth Brundle

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Skoda happy to provide vehicles for Frank's visit. Do they think it will improve sales.

It's got people seeing their brand and talking about them.
Marketing 101

Hitman3000

Skoda happy to provide vehicles for Frank's visit. Do they think it will improve sales.

Leroy42

An_Toirpin wrote: »

It is a great anlology. Neither gay sex or adultry is illegal but there is contrasting moralities on both. An even easier example is vegatarianism. Many see meat eaters as murders and yet we can live together peacefully.

Yes but the CC would deem homosexuality as a sin, thus illegal in terms of the morality of the CC.

I'm not sure about your contrasting moralities, but they are very different things. Whilst both are between consenting adults, one is being undertaken whilst under a promise to another person. Therefore, in terms of morality, affair should be seen as 'wrong'. (I say 'wrong' but it all depends on the circumstances of the relationship from which the affair is happening, some couples are perfectly fine with it).

Vegatarians do see the killing of animals as murder, they don't think the chef is! But even if they did, they are not trying to forcefully implement their opinions on the rest of the world. Totally unlike the CC.

You can't eat meat on Friday, you can't be homosexual, you can't remarry, you can't marry if you are a priest, you can't be a priest if you are female. None of these even remotely are like how vegatarians work.

The CC is a controlling, manipulative, criminal and deeply flawed organisation which has throughout the centuries caused pain and death to many of those that do not agree with it or fail to live up to its made up standards (uness you are part of the CC then apparently you nly need to seek forgiveness!)

It is so far removed from the teachings of Christ, it wouldn't accept him if he did return.

Taytoland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

What people say about the Church now is what John Knox said over 400 years ago.

he accused them of facilitating child abuse?

A monstrosity on society. I agree with the reformers.

An_Toirpin

Leroy42 wrote: »

The CC is an organisation. An Organisation lead in large part by the bible, and in particular their interpretation of that. Joining a political party one does not have to have any position on affairs. Joining the CC one is agreeing to abide by the rules and teachings of it.

Are you denying that the CC teaching is that homosexuality is a sin? As such isn't it true that Leo is showing far more compassion and understanding that the CC would have in times past ever shown to him? So was previous CC teaching wrong, and is now right?

Since it has clearly changed, have you asked on what basis has it changed? Certainly the bible hasn't had new parts added, God or Jesus hasn't revisited us. One can only conclude that the CC simply changed its mind to try to make itself look better.

It affairs were illegal, I would expect other politicians to speak out on the other person. But it isn't, it a totally false equivalent.

It is a great anlology. Neither gay sex or adultry is illegal but there is contrasting moralities on both. An even easier example is vegatarianism. Many see meat eaters as murders and yet we can live together peacefully.

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

What people say about the Church now is what John Knox said over 400 years ago.

he accused them of facilitating child abuse?

Taytoland

What people say about the Church now is what John Knox said over 400 years ago.

WinnyThePoo

How is this so widespread. Everywhere.

Leroy42

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Maybe because he is trying to pluralist unlike many of the anti-Catholic authoritarians in Ireland today. If a politician has an affair should all the politicians who disagree with affairs boycott them? It is always the case that people disagree on many matters and it is bizarre to imply it should enter politics.

The CC is an organisation. An Organisation lead in large part by the bible, and in particular their interpretation of that. Joining a political party one does not have to have any position on affairs. Joining the CC one is agreeing to abide by the rules and teachings of it.

Are you denying that the CC teaching is that homosexuality is a sin? As such isn't it true that Leo is showing far more compassion and understanding that the CC would have in times past ever shown to him? So was previous CC teaching wrong, and is now right?

Since it has clearly changed, have you asked on what basis has it changed? Certainly the bible hasn't had new parts added, God or Jesus hasn't revisited us. One can only conclude that the CC simply changed its mind to try to make itself look better.

It affairs were illegal, I would expect other politicians to speak out on the other person. But it isn't, it a totally false equivalent.

An_Toirpin

work wrote: »

It beggars belief our openly gay leader supports this when the organisation see him as a sinner and abhor his lifestyle.

Maybe because he is trying to pluralist unlike many of the anti-Catholic authoritarians in Ireland today. If a politician has an affair should all the politicians who disagree with affairs boycott them? It is always the case that people disagree on many matters and it is bizarre to imply it should enter politics.

Leroy42

work wrote: »

It beggars belief our openly gay leader supports this when the organisation see him as a sinner and abhor his lifestyle.

Not really. He is showing understanding and compassion, he is willing for them to hold the belief's they do. He may not agree with them, but he agree with their right to assemble and pray to whatever deity they have been led to believe in.

Shame the CC does does not operate under the same levels of "christianity", instead calling out people for being sinners, their lifestyle a sin, condemn them for their decision and think only for themselves.

Now that the tide has turned, now they are all in favour of compassion and freedom to have belief's. Now they want to be see as a group of individuals rather than all lumped in together under the one group.

work

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

RobAMerc wrote: »

fook me - have you seen the prep for this gig in the park ? Who is fitting the bill for this ? I heard there was an option to "give a few bob" when booking your tickets, I presume all monies collected during the events are going to pay for it ?

Even IF (and that is a big if) all monies collected go to cover the costs of the event there will still be a short of possibly 20M that the state will cover

Funny the decision makers/politicians in Ireand think supporting this is populist and will be vote gaining. The politicians are generally quiet however on the visit as they probably know deep down it is pretty poisonous and a huge percentage of the event attendees are just going for a look or will have passed on soon. It beggars belief our openly gay leader supports this when the organisation see him as a sinner and abhor his lifestyle.

Sycamore Tree

Water John wrote: »

The police go and raid the RCC Offices in Chile. A very diff approach to Michael Woods rushing to offer them a soft compensation deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/14/chile-catholic-church-sex-abuse-scandal-police-raid-latest

Yes Fianna Fail gave the RCC an unbelievably good redress deal while absolutely screwing the taxpayer. A criminal act in favour of a criminal and vile organisation.

ohnonotgmail

RobAMerc wrote: »

fook me - have you seen the prep for this gig in the park ? Who is fitting the bill for this ? I heard there was an option to "give a few bob" when booking your tickets, I presume all monies collected during the events are going to pay for it ?

Even IF (and that is a big if) all monies collected go to cover the costs of the event there will still be a short of possibly 20M that the state will cover

RobAMerc

fook me - have you seen the prep for this gig in the park ? Who is fitting the bill for this ? I heard there was an option to "give a few bob" when booking your tickets, I presume all monies collected during the events are going to pay for it ?

Leroy42

Massive Grand Jury report out of Pennsylvania today. The usual response (the archbishop actually got his rebuttal in first) that they need to learn and look for forgiveness. Chile, Ireland, UK, Australia etc etc, the only claim that can possible be made is that the CC has changed because all of this points to a very morally bankrupt and failed organisation.

Have the church ever released a report into the reason for the abuse and the massive cover ups? What have they changed to ensure it doesn't happen again? I know they have finally agreed to actually involve the actual police rather than looking to usurp the law with their own, but in terms of actually understanding the key factors.

Are we supposed to believe that it was simply a systems failure That had reporting been in place none of this would have happened?

Seth Brundle

I guess the Chilean police chief isn't a member of Opus Dei!

Water John

The police go and raid the RCC Offices in Chile. A very diff approach to Michael Woods rushing to offer them a soft compensation deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/14/chile-catholic-church-sex-abuse-scandal-police-raid-latest

work

The guilty aussie BISHOP showed "no remorse" the judge said about him being found guilty of covering up for a paedophile.

http://www.thejournal.ie/archbishop-philip-wilson-child-abuse-sentence-4179395-Aug2018/

Please consider coming out and protesting against the leader of this cult visiting our country. He resigned due to political pressure and not papal pressure and is still a bishop, things will never change in the church.

Water John

Yes, his son is more concerned with worldly goods, not cheap package holidays.
Sorry if we're derailing. Not all sure what members of the Protestant faiths have to do with the Pope's visit?

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

He was in Parliament for decades and highly respected within Unionist establishment. He was a true son of Ulster.

He was a pretty horrible man with horrible views who supported the Catholic community being second class citizens. Thankfully the bigotry which he espoused is dying a death.

Taytoland

Edgware wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Ian Paisley was an establishment Unionist.

No he was not. He formed the D.U.P. rather than join the U.U.P. (the establishment Unionist party) He also led Ulster Resistance up the side of a mountain waving gun licences.

He was in Parliament for decades and highly respected within Unionist establishment. He was a true son of Ulster.

TheValeyard

I thought big Ian had chilled out towards the end.

Edgware

Taytoland wrote: »

Ian Paisley was an establishment Unionist.

No he was not. He formed the D.U.P. rather than join the U.U.P. (the establishment Unionist party) He also led Ulster Resistance up the side of a mountain waving gun licences.

Hitman3000

Seth Brundle wrote:

Erm which faith are you referring to as it definitely couldn't be the RCC!

There the parts they don't practise, just like the part in the bible where Jebus told them not to harm a hair on the head of a child.

Seth Brundle

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's quite ironic that the majority of the abusive and downright vile comments are coming from supporters of a faith that proports to teach tolerance, acceptance and understanding.

Erm which faith are you referring to as it definitely couldn't be the RCC!

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

Ian Paisley let the Pope know what he thought of him and his Church all those years ago. Proven right.

Ian Paisley was a pretty hateful bigot in his own right. He opposed the Catholic civil rights campaign in the North which was very real discrimination. He was a homophobe and his dislike of Catholicism etc seemed to be that it wasn't extreme enough. So I wouldn't be using him as a reference point on anything. I also doubt you'll find many on here that will agree with you in this instance.

Taytoland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

He wasn't a Loyalist but do go on.

Is there another Ian Paisley that we are not aware of?

Ian Paisley was an establishment Unionist.

ohnonotgmail

Taytoland wrote: »

He wasn't a Loyalist but do go on.

Is there another Ian Paisley that we are not aware of?