Should we protest against the pope's visit?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I know people will be cynical about the powers behind the church but as an individual I like him, I think he is sincere.

So you've met him then?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So you've met him then?

No one here has met Pol Pot or Myra Hindley but you can judge then by their actions.

Try opening your narrow mind and reading his work and life story.

work wrote: »

Really everything people are angered at? Women can now become priests? He is helping all authorities with investigating paedophile cover ups. Read the OP. Far from everything. Like previous popes he may talk a good game but action is always too late or too little and often because he has no real choice. What did he do to help the recent Australian prosecution of a bishop and was the said bishop demoted or punished by the CC, NO he will be looked after.

"Too late... ?" - how long has he been Pope ?

He's done more for our Church than the last three put together.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/pope-francis-s-record-on-child-protection-has-been-a-dismal-failure-1.3597677

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Too late... ?" - how long has he been Pope ?

He's done more for our Church than the last three put together.

Pity that doesn't include child protection:
Pope Francis’s record on child protection ‘has been a dismal failure’
Worldwide ‘the problem is not managed effectively anywhere’ by the Catholic Church

Pope Francis’s record on child protection “has been a dismal failure” and “he needs to come [to Ireland] with a mindset that it’s not good enough to simply apologise for what has happened”, the former chief executive of the Irish Catholic Church’s National Board for Safeguarding Children has said

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Too late... ?" - how long has he been Pope ?

He's done more for our Church than the last three put together.

that is a really low bar.

An_Toirpin

work wrote: »

Really everything people are angered at? Women can now become priests? He is helping all authorities with investigating paedophile cover ups. Read the OP. Far from everything. Like previous popes he may talk a good game but action is always too late or too little and often because he has no real choice. What did he do to help the recent Australian prosecution of a bishop and was the said bishop demoted or punished by the CC, NO he will be looked after.

In the Australian case they reacted very rapidly. I don't accept this claim that the Pope should react instantly to every issue that appears in the media because you need due process. Not all allegations are equal.

Most Catholics globally don't wnat women priests. It won't happen and I hope it doesnt too.

ohnonotgmail

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In the Australian case they reacted very rapidly. I don't accept this claim that the Pope should react instantly to every issue that appears in the media because you need due process. Not all allegations are equal.

The bishop has had due process. what have the RCC done?

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Most Catholics globally don't wnat women priests. It won't happen and I hope it doesnt too.

you have to keep the women in their place, right?

An_Toirpin

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Too late... ?" - how long has he been Pope ?

He's done more for our Church than the last three put together.

Pope Benedict did a lot to fight abuse before and after he was elected. Obviously, he wasn't able to deal with with what was not know but his achievements are noteworthy.

kanadams123

I am a catholic and i go to church etc.

BUT i have absolutly no mass for the pope ( excuse the pun!)

When i visited the vatican a few years ago and saw the wealth that exists there, it was ridicoulous. You leave the vatican and just around the corner you have poor beggers.
That is not what Christianity is about imo.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The bishop has had due process. what have the RCC done?

you have to keep the women in their place, right?

Wrong. I have no issue with women clergy in other faiths - my best mate was married by a woman vicar in the UK and one day there will be a female Archbishop of Cantebury, good on her when that time comes.

However in Catholicism the modern day priests reflect the Apostles who were all men. It might seem unfair but that's the way it goes.

Hitman3000

An_Toirpin wrote:

In the Australian case they reacted very rapidly. I don't accept this claim that the Pope should react instantly to every issue that appears in the media because you need due process. Not all allegations are equal.

Is the guy who facilitated the cover up of abuse still a bishop? What has Frank done to remove him?

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Pope Benedict did a lot to fight abuse before and after he was elected. Obviously, he wasn't able to deal with with what was not know but his achievements are noteworthy.

True, good point. He definitely started the ball rolling.

Graces7

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.

There is so much inaccuracy in this post. I have highlighted the worst. Referring you to the official handbook; The Catechism of the Catholic Church online which will explain very clearly the true situation,

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Pope Benedict did a lot to fight abuse before and after he was elected. Obviously, he wasn't able to deal with with what was not know but his achievements are noteworthy.

Yeah he did so much...by remaining silent and never speaking out during his role before pope and barely speaking when he was pope.

You know Benedict was prev a prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between 1981–2005, he had plenty of knowledge of abuse and covering up.

Ratzinger's 2001 letter De delictis gravioribus clarified the confidentiality of internal church investigations, as defined in the 1962 document Crimen Sollicitationis, into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse. This became a subject of controversy during the sex abuse cases.[35] For 20 years, Ratzinger had been the man in charge of enforcing the document

While bishops hold the secrecy pertained only internally, and did not preclude investigation by civil law enforcement, the letter was often seen as promoting a coverup.[37] Later, as pope, he was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, but sought and obtained diplomatic immunity from liability

He knew about the abuse previously, like all his ilk he remained silent and never went public.

Please don't try and hold him up as some sort of shining light, Benedict was toxic, this is why he stepped down as pope....he put the Vatican in danger and they had to protect the Vatican at all costs.

Leroy42

Graces7 wrote: »

There is so much inaccuracy in this post. I have highlighted the worst. Referring you to the official handbook; The Catechism of the Catholic Church online which will explain very clearly the true situation,

Well, the 1st line you quoted was a question, so by definition it cannot be wrong, it is asking for a position. A simple yes or no answer would be better.

AS to the CC having changed their mind. are you really trying to suggest the CC beliefs are still the same today as they were back when it started? Come on, not even the most ardent catholic thinks the CC is the same as it was.

It says in the bible that lying with another man is a sin, are you suggesting that the bible is not to be correct?

kanadams123 wrote: »

I am a catholic and i go to church etc.

BUT i have absolutly no mass for the pope ( excuse the pun!)

When i visited the vatican a few years ago and saw the wealth that exists there, it was ridicoulous. You leave the vatican and just around the corner you have poor beggers.
That is not what Christianity is about imo.

You know, you're not the first person to be sickened by the wealth on display in the Vatican.
I know of at least two other people who are very religious (one for years helped with serving communion in mass...can't remember name of the role).

After visiting the Vatican they actually stopped helping out at mass.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Wrong. I have no issue with women clergy in other faiths - my best mate was married by a woman vicar in the UK and one day there will be a female Archbishop of Cantebury, good on her when that time comes.

However in Catholicism the modern day priests reflect the Apostles who were all men. It might seem unfair but that's the way it goes.

I suppose you think celibacy for priests reflects the apostles as well?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

However in Catholicism the modern day priests reflect the Apostles who were all men. It might seem unfair but that's the way it goes.

They were also middle eastern men,
So if you want to reflect the apostles then surely all men of faith should be the same?

Funny how all statues of jesus etc are caucassion....funny how they can change some things but not others

kanadams123

Cabaal wrote: »

You know, you're not the first person to be sickened by the wealth on display in the Vatican.
I know of at least two other people who are very religious (one for years helped with serving communion in mass...can't remember name of the role).

After visiting the Vatican they actually stopped helping out at mass.

Yes i am aware, i was just stating my position.

I think the pharase you are looling for is "minister of the Eucharist"

Leroy42

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In the Australian case they reacted very rapidly. I don't accept this claim that the Pope should react instantly to every issue that appears in the media because you need due process. Not all allegations are equal.

Most Catholics globally don't wnat women priests. It won't happen and I hope it doesnt too.

You are right that the CC can't be expected to react to every story that comes out. But the PA story in the US didn't come out of nowhere. It has been rumbling on for years. Same with Chile, same with Ireland.

We all know, we have seen it so many times, the default actions of the church. Deny, attempt to avoid, try to deal with the problem silently, ignore, try to confuse and obstruct, and only when faced with the finality of the it do they come out with their hands up claiming to be learning and looking for forgiveness.

Why are the CC waiting for these stories to emerge. The sheer amount of these crimes, and the spread of them, would lead to the conclusion that it was an endemic problem. Surely they should be looking to help heal those affected, helping people to recover. But that would open them up to further bad press in terms of more abuse stories. The CC is beyond anything else, about one thing. Power. Morality, human suffering etc comes a distant second to the CC protecting itself.

So why not set up 'peace and reconciliation' style processes in every country. Look to get into every past case, deal with the issues? But no, they prefer to pretend that this latest one is the last, that everything is fine now.

I asked earlier, never got any response, has the CC undertaken a full review of why this happened. What were the reasons for such large scale and such widespread abuse. Was it simply timing, that they happened to get a batch of rapists and peadophiles in one go? Is it something to do with the priesthood, the lack of family, the loneliness, access to children, power, protection? What caused this to happen and what have the CC done to ensure, not just limit, but ensure this never happens again?

And on women priests, do you not think the reason that Jesus choose 12 men was because at that time women were not allowed to be preachers etc. I mean, its a shame that the most powerful force in the entire universe couldn't break with tradition but I suppose he had a lot on his plate.

Its funny, because in most churches I have been too is a statue to Mary. She is revered and prayed to. But according to you, all those fools in Medjugorje listening that a woman. I mean, a woman, what can she possibly know. And why would God, as you rightly pointed out choose only men to be his disciples, send Mary back to give any message? So a woman can give the secrets but not say mass?

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In the Australian case they reacted very rapidly. I don't accept this claim that the Pope should react instantly to every issue that appears in the media because you need due process. Not all allegations are equal.

The US case has been ongoing since 2016,
Its been well known for sometime that the report would be published yesterday...the Vatican knew this, however the Vatican gave no response this shows them as not taking it seriously

Leroy42

Cabaal wrote: »

The US case has been ongoing since 2016,
Its been well known for sometime that the report would be published yesterday...the Vatican knew this, however the Vatican gave no response this shows them as not taking it seriously

and 2016 is just when the entire case was started. The individual cases were known, maybe not all, but a very marge amount of them, way before that.

Surely any new pope coming in should have set up a task force for each country to get to the bottom of all this? Its always reactionary.

Claiming that due process need to be adhered to is fine for individual cases, but has the CC undertaken the full review of what happened. Have the provided that to the relevant authorities?

How many cases have we seen that the CC have volunteered evidence of previously unknown (to the police etc) cases? We know from Ireland and the US that the CC have buried cases for years. Has the Pope declared that all these cases be made public, or at least brought to the relevant authorities?

Skylinehead

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Don't know why anyone would want to protest this pope as he has spoken out against everything people are angered by.

The man literally called victims of Church child abuse slanderers, get out of it.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In the Australian case they reacted very rapidly. I don't accept this claim that the Pope should react instantly to every issue that appears in the media because you need due process. Not all allegations are equal.

They didn't act until they were forced to by the victims along with the authorities.
Just like everywhere else the RCC has been alleged to have covered up child abuse.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Most Catholics globally don't wnat women priests. It won't happen and I hope it doesnt too.

When exactly was this survey done, by whom and what are the sampling details?

Nixonbot wrote: »

The man literally called victims of Church child abuse slanderers, get out of it.

Before anyone ties to claim he didn't
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/19/pope-francis-victims-church-sexual-abuse-slander-chile

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Pope Benedict did a lot to fight abuse before and after he was elected. Obviously, he wasn't able to deal with with what was not know but his achievements are noteworthy.

How many bishops did he (or Frank) proactively sack rather than do it once the "anti-Catholic" media reported it?

I also asked previously but got no answer: how many archbishops have come forward to police regarding a member/members of the clergy who was abusing a victim?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How many bishops did he (or Frank) proactively sack rather than do it once the "anti-Catholic" media reported it?

I also asked previously but got no answer: how many archbishops have come forward to police regarding a member/members of the clergy who was abusing a victim?

I'll answer those questions for you....just pretend you can hear this guy

Water John

The Staute of Limitations is only 2 years in Pennsylvania, so almost all abusers are getting off scot free.
We should all take our cues from those who have been abused. Their views are primary. If they want to protest and call on others to join them, that needs to be respected and listened to.

Hotblack Desiato

Leroy42 wrote: »

the reason for the abuse

Because they knew they could get away with it.

and the massive cover ups?

Because they knew they could get away with it.

What have they changed to ensure it doesn't happen again?

Realising that they're much less likely to get away with it?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

However in Catholicism the modern day priests reflect the Apostles who were all men. It might seem unfair but that's the way it goes.

According to your bible they were all circumcised Jews - and weren't most of them married?

Funny how the rules can be changed to suit whenever they want to.