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

volchitsa

Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: »

Have a chat with yourself.

Clearly the average parish priest in this country is not a child rapist or a supporter of them

Not a child rapist themselves, and nobody has said so. Still, any who knew all participated in the cover up. Every single one of them. And there is no evidence that this has changed. So we have to assume that their priorities are always with covering up for their colleagues and not with protecting the children.

I call that support, you may have another name for it.

And to suggest that a person of faith's entire moral compass rests on the preaching of the church and that they cannot think independently is inaccurate at best.

Anyone who still supports the Vatican after everything they have done is either a defender of child sex abusers and their supporters, or else just cannot think for themselves and takes the Vatican's completely implausible assurances that they've changed at face value.

It's that simple.

TheIrishGrover

My only point was that I do not see why someone should be made justify their beliefs/support for an organisation. An organisation that has it's flaws, like any organisation.

Personally I have a serious issue with Apple: In this case not due 100% to their tax dealings. That's another conversation. My issue is that their unit sales are slowly dropping - they are not selling as much product as before - yet their profits have never been higher. First trillion-dollar company.
Yet their fans insist that this is awesome: "I love my iPhone. The company is great" yadda yadda yadda. They are exploiting their fanbase by charging more and more for their products. They have a history of exploiting workers via third parties etc.....

Yet I would never presume to force an Apple fan to justify their support/purchase.

Why does somebody believe that a person should be obliged to justify their belief. And this is EXACTLY what is happening here. Someone said "Let's protest". Someone else said "I won't" and they have to spend the rest of the time explaining why.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously?
you just compared the sexual abuse of a child to a referee decision during a match?
ffs. :mad:

Do you believe what you're writing? Do you take 5-10 seconds to think about what you're saying before you reply? Ridiculous stuff

Leroy42

santana75 wrote: »

Thats a bit of a leap you're making there.
Literally every day it seems, I read about some new sexual abuse scandal in Hollywood. Women, children, men........pretty much everyone has been touched by it in that industry. Yet most people wouldnt think twice about boycotting a movie made in Hollywood. It would never even occur to them but some of the things that went on there and still do go on, are shocking.
The catholic church messed up big time. They were given power and abused it. It all came out and they were rightly attacked and condemned for their crimes. But the thing is people will go to that mass to hear the teachings of Jesus, and the word of God. They wont go for the institution that is the church. I dont know if you are aware of this or not, but Jesus was actually put to death by the church of his day. It was religious figures who murdered him because he called them out on their BS. And I have no doubt that if Jesus was to come to us now, as he did back then, he would call out the catholic church and tear the whole thing to the ground. Its the word of God that matters and thats what people will go to the phoenix park to hear.

Weinstein has been kicked out, Kevin Spaceys last movie made $126 in its opening weekend.

So people are taking action. And customers are showing they don't like things that are going on.

But again, Hollywood is made up of many different individuals, and many different companies. And it does not put itself as the moral compass of the world. It does not try to get people shunned if they like a different type of movie.

The church sells itself as the guardian of Gods own morality. Yet when faced with a pretty straightforward decision, look after victims or turn against them, it went against pretty much all the basis for the morals they preach.

Why should anybody pay any attention to anything they say? And thus if you can't believe in the product there are selling, why continue to support them?

volchitsa

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I certainly can see the problem - that’s why I struggle with my faith. But it is what it is. I can’t just turn it off however bad it makes me look.

That's not what you're being queried about, though. It's about your active support for the Vatican this week. You said you don't even go to mass regularly. Perhaps that's not true, but then why did you say it?

Again eviltwin I’m sorry for what happened to you and I honestly and genuinely do not support it regardless of my beliefs.

Nobody thinks you support child abuse. What I'm saying (and I imagine others too) is that by being counted among the audience, you are giving support to the hierarchy's strategy of covering up for the abusers.

work

Cabaal wrote: »

work wrote: »

I
How often do good non paedophile priests report paedophiles to the police. Pretty much never.

Their first port of call would be another priest or bishop,
so the problem is the church failed good priests in the catholic church too, they thought they were doing right by reporting it to the bishop. only for the bishop to cover the whole thing up

OTE]

Their first port of call would be another priest or bishop,
so the problem is the church failed good priests in the catholic church too, they thought they were doing right by reporting it to the bishop. only for the bishop to cover the whole thing up[/quote]

complete junk answer. So the priests are good and the bishops bad? If one of your children was abused and you reported it to the police and nothing happened would you truly believe you did the right thing and are a good person. You would want to be a moron to think that. Change optics to the church and you do not apply any logic. WHY did they, the good clergy, not follow up and WHY did they not tell the police......so many questions and very weak defence.
Stop trying to defend or justify the indefensible.

Pelvis

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You’re conflating the two, that’s the problem.

Look I’ve said all I can say - I’m not going to keep justifying myself to people who don’t want hear.

I am sorry though to anyone upset or hurt by my stance.

You're damn right I am conflating the two, they are one and the same. Children were abused at the hands of the church, systematically, for decades. The church protected the abusers, enabled them. The organization itself is complicit, the same organization you will be cheering for on Sunday.

ittakestwo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So the mass raping of children and subsequent organisational cover ups all the while preaching at the public on morals is the same as some in FIFA taking bribes?
You've a poor moral compass there!

I never said the crime was the same. Nobody would claim that and you know that. But I am making the piont that people who go to the mass next week are not supporting the Vatican corruption in the same way a football fan going to the Qatar world cup in 2022 is not supporting FIFA's corruption.

AudreyHepburn

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not what you're being queried about, though. It's about your active support for the Vatican this week. You said you don't even go to mass regularly. Perhaps that's not true, but then why did you say it?

Nobody thinks you support child abuse. What I'm saying (and I imagine others too) is that by being counted among the audience, you are giving support to the hierarchy's strategy of covering up for the abusers.

It is true. I’ve already explained why I’m going to the park, I’m not going to keep repeating myself.

By repeatedly saying I support the church hierarchy, which bar the Pope himself I don’t, you by extension say I’m supporting what they did. That’s where the problem is.

7aubzxk43m2sni

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not what you're being queried about, though. It's about your active support for the Vatican this week. You said you don't even go to mass regularly. Perhaps that's not true, but then why did you say it?

Nobody thinks you support child abuse. What I'm saying (and I imagine others too) is that by being counted among the audience, you are giving support to the hierarchy's strategy of covering up for the abusers.

The issue between detractors and people who might attend the services is faith.

On the assumption that one is a Catholic of relatively strong faith, this is an opportunity to hear words from the man with the closest connection to God. To want to hear these words is different to declaring active support for the Vatican.

Leroy42

And lets remember that the abuse didn't just start in the 1950's. This must have been going on for centuries. The only reason we are hearing about it now is that the power has been weakened and people are listening.

Can you imagine the abuse that has been carried out over the centuries by this organisation? The beating, the rapes, the torture?

What we see nowadays is a repentant church, and even that is fighting hard against coming clean. It is staggering to think of what they have gotten away with over the years. It really doesn't bear thinking about tbh.

Many would appear to want box all this off. To them this is an issue simply between 195X and 2000. Not before not after. That is simply not the case. Do people really believe that in less developed countries, where the CC is seeing growth, that the same things are not happening?

WinnyThePoo

Well we know they have a 'playbook' to deal with abuse.

" Never say: Rape.
Say: inappropriate contact
Boundary issues"

" If rape is involved :
Keep providing housing and living expenses"

" DO NOT TELL THE POLICE

Handle in house"

Leroy42

Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: »

The issue between detractors and people who might attend the services is faith.

On the assumption that one is a Catholic of relatively strong faith, this is an opportunity to hear words from the man with the closest connection to God. To want to hear these words is different to declaring active support for the Vatican.

Its not really though. One will be a person in the crowd, and if that crowd is big enough the CC will see that as justification of their current operations. That people have issues, but their faith is enough to keep them attached.

And that has always been the case, and the basis of why the church could get away with stuff for so long. They know that peoples faith will simply stop them for breaking away.

If he has the closest connection to God, what is taking him so long to come out in regards to the US report? Surely God has an answer? Surely God has told him about the children in Chile? Or maybe God told him the people were lying?

The only way to God is through Jesus, one does not need a Pope or a priest.

santana75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why should anybody pay any attention to anything they say? And thus if you can't believe in the product there are selling, why continue to support them?

Why should anyone pay any attention to anything they say?
On the basis of all the sh1t thats happened within the confines of the catholic church, nobody should pay them any heed at all.......but the thing is, people do pay them attention. People are still drawn to the word of God. I've known the most militant atheists who have turned to God and become followers of Jesus.
So there must be something of substance there. Beneath all the organised religion and aside from the people who claim to represent God, something draws people in. And people do believe in the "Product". In spite of everything thats happened, people still come to follow Jesus and everything he stood for. Not the organisation, not the men who claimed to be "Guardians of morality", they come to him.

Cabaal

work wrote: »

complete junk answer. So the priests are good and the bishops bad? If one of your children was abused and you reported it to the police and nothing happened would you truly believe you did the right thing and are a good person. You would want to be a moron to think that. Change optics to the church and you do not apply any logic. WHY did they, the good clergy, not follow up and WHY did they not tell the police......so many questions and very weak defence.
Stop trying to defend or justify the indefensible.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm defending the church and its criminal actions,
:rolleyes:

However, you have to consider it was a different time, by going to a bishop any good priest did see themselves as doing the right thing. If the Bishop covered up the priest had no way of handling differntly. (suppose they could go higher then Bishop but that was a waste of time)

In many cases, especially in rural area's if a priest went to the Gardai the Gardai would likely go to the higher up who would likely in turn contact the Bishop again.

It was a messed up time where church and state where so intermixed that Gardai used to bring back unmarried women to laundry's. The women weren't even breaking the law if they escaped!

The church was seen as all powerful for many of the decades in question, the likes of John Charles McQuaid could bring down a TD...and he did!

AS I've said, there are no doubt good men that our priests and they have done good. But they've been betrayed by the church leadership all in the name of protecting the church and Vatican from scandal.

They've proven the church can no longer be trusted without major overhaul internally and independent reviews, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

ALOT has changed in Ireland and its easy forget just how much power the church had in Ireland, but remember what backlash Sinead O'Conner got for ripping up a simple photo in the 1980's....now increase that by a factor of 100x for anyone who said anything against the church in the decades before! If you spoke out about the church back in the 1950's then you could expect the town you lived in to be turned against you, if you had a business it would be ruined.

looksee

Would people stop trying to find equivalence in commercial set ups and sports groups. They are irrelevant.

The Catholic church sets itself up as the guardians of morality, to the extent that they meddle with everyone's morality, not just their adherents'. These same guardians, the people who should be able to be trusted in all circumstances, have proven since the birth of the church that they cannot be trusted to pursue any of the teachings of their founder.

Some individuals within the church are corrupt, there are always going to be bad apples. But it is the reaction of the higher authority in the church that is significant. If they choose to quietly remove a bad apple only to put it in another barrel, or deny its existence, then the whole church is rotten.

The one person who can make a difference is the head of the church, the Pope. If he allows himself to be bogged down by politics, or if there are not enough honest Bishops and Archbishops to out-weight the corrupt ones, then the church is corrupt. A clue to the number of honest hierarchy mmbers is in the lack of protest when inconvenient Popes have ended up dead/ there has not been outrage at the evidence of child - or other - abuse/ the financial scandals and money grubbing overwhelms the needs of the 'bottom layers' of the church. If Jesus came back he would not last five minutes in that set up.

The membership of the church can make a difference by individually walking away from this organisation, this includes not attending their events. This does not mean they have to deny their faith, but they do have to remove their obedience to the edifice, represented by the Pope, that purports to direct that faith. What does tend to happen though is that when someone walks away from the organisation they realise that in fact there was nothing else for them beyond learned obedience to that organisation. And oddly enough it does not mean that they walk in to a life of dissolution and immorality; it is absolutely possible - arguably easier - to live a moral and honest life with no help from any religion.

P_1

Its getting tiresome seeing the extremes on both sides hectoring those who are in the middle and I fear it will get worse as the week goes on.

Wtf happened to live and let live lads? That bastsrd organisation has done enough damage to us. Let's not let the pricks do any more.

Edgware

Cabaal wrote: »

McAleese gets a serious amount of abuse alright, alot of it seems to end with...if you don't like it then leave.

But if she does that and so does everyone else then nothing will change in the church, McAleese is a catholic who wants change. She should be listened to because the church's changes at the speed of a glacier

She was very quiet about all this when in the Aras. Great for doing her schoolmistress role though and inviting Turkey into the European Union.

ELM327

P_1 wrote: »

Its getting tiresome seeing the extremes on both sides hectoring those who are in the middle and I fear it will get worse as the week goes on.

Wtf happened to live and let live lads? That bastsrd organisation has done enough damage to us. Let's not let the pricks do any more.

When priests stop groping and penetrating children under cover of the organisation then we will live and let live.
Not before.

Water John

Ex-President McAleese has evolved as most people do. There was a time when she sat with the heirarchy and made their case at Govn't Commissions. Have no difficulty with that.

eviltwin

P_1 wrote: »

Its getting tiresome seeing the extremes on both sides hectoring those who are in the middle and I fear it will get worse as the week goes on.

Wtf happened to live and let live lads? That bastsrd organisation has done enough damage to us. Let's not let the pricks do any more.

If only it were that simple. The entire trip is damaging to a lot of people. They were silenced long enough, they deserve to speak out now.

P_1

eviltwin wrote: »

If only it were that simple. The entire trip is damaging to a lot of people. They were silenced long enough, they deserve to speak out now.

I know. I fear it will do some long term damage to our society. The people who were silenced 100% deserve to speak out and release their rage. However I fear the rage may be being directed towards the wrong people and collateral damage may ensue.

7aubzxk43m2sni

eviltwin wrote: »

If only it were that simple. The entire trip is damaging to a lot of people. They were silenced long enough, they deserve to speak out now.

Sure, the victims are entitled to speak up and seeks answers/justice.

The average poster here is using the victims and their suffering to bash the church, because hey, fcuk the church, not out of any genuine empathy for victims.

WinnyThePoo

Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: »

Sure, the victims are entitled to speak up and seeks answers/justice.

The average poster here is using the victims and their suffering to bash the church, because hey, fcuk the church, not out of any genuine empathy for victims.

:rolleyes:

woeful

Leroy42

Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: »

Sure, the victims are entitled to speak up and seeks answers/justice.

The average poster here is using the victims and their suffering to bash the church, because hey, fcuk the church, not out of any genuine empathy for victims.

Do you think it is wrong to 'bash' the church for what they have done, and allowed to happen?

It is a strange POV, you seem to think that protesting the CC is not in anyway showing solidarity to the victims.

How would you show it then if not by protesting and holding accountable the very organisation that caused them the pain and heartache and years of suffering for themselves and those around them.

seamus

Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: »

Sure, the victims are entitled to speak up and seeks answers/justice.

The average poster here is using the victims and their suffering to bash the church, because hey, fcuk the church, not out of any genuine empathy for victims.

Yeah, the church is the victim here. Poor, downtrodden church being attacked by those nasty people.

Bradlin

If any other organisation in the world was disgraced in the way the Catholic Church was last week in Pennsylvania it would be wound up by now.

It's remarkable how it has managed to brainwash so many people into fearing to protest about what is clearly a rancid organisation, based on fairy tales.

Lunatics will point to 'all the good the Church does', not realising that all of this 'good' could easily be done without being part of the largest paedo ring in history.

eviltwin

Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: »

Sure, the victims are entitled to speak up and seeks answers/justice.

The average poster here is using the victims and their suffering to bash the church, because hey, fcuk the church, not out of any genuine empathy for victims.

A lot of the victims are gone now or can't be vocal. It's not easy to publically admit those things. Support from the public is crucial. The more people who speak out the harder it is to ignore.

7aubzxk43m2sni

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, the church is the victim here. Poor, downtrodden church being attacked by those nasty people.

Who said that?

Calling those who wish to attend the event paedophile sympathisers or whatever else isn't helpful to victims or anyone else.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Would people stop trying to find equivalence in commercial set ups and sports groups. They are irrelevant.

The Catholic church sets itself up as the guardians of morality, to the extent that they meddle with everyone's morality, not just their adherents'. These same guardians, the people who should be able to be trusted in all circumstances, have proven since the birth of the church that they cannot be trusted to pursue any of the teachings of their founder.

Some individuals within the church are corrupt, there are always going to be bad apples. But it is the reaction of the higher authority in the church that is significant. If they choose to quietly remove a bad apple only to put it in another barrel, or deny its existence, then the whole church is rotten.

The one person who can make a difference is the head of the church, the Pope. If he allows himself to be bogged down by politics, or if there are not enough honest Bishops and Archbishops to out-weight the corrupt ones, then the church is corrupt. A clue to the number of honest hierarchy mmbers is in the lack of protest when inconvenient Popes have ended up dead/ there has not been outrage at the evidence of child - or other - abuse/ the financial scandals and money grubbing overwhelms the needs of the 'bottom layers' of the church. If Jesus came back he would not last five minutes in that set up.

The membership of the church can make a difference by individually walking away from this organisation, this includes not attending their events. This does not mean they have to deny their faith, but they do have to remove their obedience to the edifice, represented by the Pope, that purports to direct that faith. What does tend to happen though is that when someone walks away from the organisation they realise that in fact there was nothing else for them beyond learned obedience to that organisation. And oddly enough it does not mean that they walk in to a life of dissolution and immorality; it is absolutely possible - arguably easier - to live a moral and honest life with no help from any religion.

I actually agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, but that last paragraph. I take a different point of view because I don’t believe that walking away from an organisation which I do support and have always supported, will do anything to reduce opportunities for paedophiles and child molesters to have unfettered, unquestioned access to children or to vulnerable people to abuse them and then cover up that abuse.

There’s a nuance there that I think you’re missing, and in any other context it would be considered unacceptable to accuse people of supporting paedophilia and child abuse on the basis that they are members of an organisation which paedophiles and child abusers gained access to and used the structures of that organisation to carry out their abuse.

Instead I believe it is better for people who don’t tolerate that kind of behaviour within their organisation to root out the minority of people within the organisation who would use the structure of the organisation to their advantage, and to put measures in place to protect children and vulnerable members of the organisation from paedophiles and child molesters.

That way, nobody has to walk away from an organisation that means something to them, they are in a better position to support and protect children and vulnerable people within the organisation, and they are in a better position to ensure that the organisation and it’s structures are a safer place for members of that organisation while at the same time making sure that paedophiles and child molesters know that they won’t have any opportunities to take advantage of children and vulnerable members of the organisation.

Walking away, to me at least, would be like turning a blind eye to the abuse and allowing paedophiles and child abusers and the people who cover for them, to go unchallenged, and allow them to continue to rot the organisation from the inside out.