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

Cabaal

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

Seth Brundle

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?

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.

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?

Cabaal

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

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?

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"

Cabaal

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

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?

Cabaal

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.

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?

Cabaal

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.

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,

PlaneSpeeking

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.

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?

PlaneSpeeking

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Seth Brundle

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

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

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.

PlaneSpeeking

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.

Seth Brundle

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?

work

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.

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

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.

Hitman3000

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.

Maybe read some of what has been reported about the church's actions ,well lack of in Chile and Australia. If that is not enough lots of stuff about Philadelphia.

Outlaw Pete

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

I'm an atheist but I went to see Pope Francis: Man Of His Word in the cinema recently and he pulls no punches when discussing priests who abused children or a whole range of other issues which other popes have pussyfooted around.

When he met Obama he still then went before the American congress and condemned the arms trade and said that the money made from it was drenched in innocent blood. You could see most there squirming in their seats after having applauded everything else he had said with gusto.

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

work

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

They believe he should burn for all eternity, not sure I can agree with you. He only plays for votes.

Hitman3000

Seth Brundle wrote:

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

The vehicle of choice of paedophile enablers, not a great tag line.