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

erica74

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

Here is the oath the abused children were forced to sign...

What the actual fuck.

One eyed Jack

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, so you meant what you said then. That people are happy with the CC.

Because we have had plenty of people on here claiming they don't support the CC, but have their religion etc.

I don't need to defend anything the evidence is out in the public domain. The latest being the US report.

You need to be able to defend claims you make against other people. That does indeed require evidence, and even with evidence, it is still an allegation as everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until found guilty. That’s how justice tends to work.

I don’t speak for other people here either btw, I’m only speaking for myself. It would be silly of me to accuse you of some wrongdoing on the basis that you share characteristics with someone else who has committed wrongdoing, and in the same way it’s just as ridiculous to accuse people of wrongdoing on the basis that they share characteristics or membership of an organisation with people who commit wrongdoing.

Think of it like this - it would be like saying everyone who plays rugby supports and enables Paddy Jackson. The fact of the matter is that they don’t, and it would be incredibly stupid on your part to suggest otherwise.

Sycamore Tree

Here is the oath the abused children were forced to sign...

"I will never directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or of a word, by writing, or in any other way, and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and most serious cause (even) for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret, unless a...dispensation has been expressly given to me by the Supreme Pontiff."

Sycamore Tree

B0jangles wrote: »

That's the major, massive problem here; the enablers, the concealers, the careerists who were more concerned with protecting the organisation than protecting children, the ones who wanted, above all else, to rise in the hierarchy.

It is very clear that promotion within the catholic church requires absolute commitment to protecting and promoting The Church as an organisation, above any other consideration.

The ones who are willing to do this are the ones who become archbishops, cardinals and maybe even Pope.

In other words, they are the ones who get to write the rules.

I think Ireland had the ultimate careerist in Cardinal Sean Brady. He was a priest in 1975 when he interviewed the children abused by Fr Brendan Smyth. Brady believed their story but his reaction was to get those poor brave children to sign an oath of secrecy in order to protect the good name of the church. Smyth got moved on and went on to abuse 200 more children for 20 years before he was eventually caught. Brady became the leader of the church in Ireland and was allowed to retire quietly.

Brady should have been in prison for what he allowed to happen. How people darkened the doors of churches in Ireland when Brady was the leader of the Roman church is absolutely beyond me.

erica74

Water John wrote: »

CEO of Bishop Accountability on RTE News said it simply should be canonical law that any priest against whom a complaint is proved is removed permanently from Ministry. This is now the case in the US but should be universal.

Who would even resist that being made canonical law? There shouldn't even be a vote, it should be made law by the pope today, tomorrow, maybe during his trip to Ireland - I believe that would be very well received by any victims in Ireland. It should be retrospective as well, bring it in today and any priest against whom a claim has been proven in the past but remains in their job, should be removed immediately. An official redress system should be set up by the Vatican. They preach about caring for people, let them put that in measurable action, redress for all victims. We're talking here about children, most of whom are now adults, who have been affected throughout their whole lives by this, affecting their education, their health, their career prospects. The Vatican aren't short of a few bob and it would be a way for them to make amends, redress for people to help them rebuild their lives, seek counselling and whatever other medical support they need.

Water John

I think if as I mentioned above the RCC adopted the rule, one strike and your out, people would see that as a major move. But it must be written into Canon Law.

Only this type of seismic change is acceptable.

Leroy42

Some have, some haven't. They have fired some, not others. The church never meant this, it just happened.

Lots has been done, more to do.

Exactly what is the tipping point when this actually becomes something of a crisis for the church, when they actually take it seriously?

And on the evidence, many of the victims have given evidence in the past to the church, which the church covered up. Those are the files I am talking about. The CC moved the priests around, so at least suspected something. Why make the victims go through the agony of giving further testimony when they already have it.

So what did these studies tell the CC, and what have they changed because of them?

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The minority of people I’m referring to are actual paedophiles, child molesters, and the people who cover for them. I don’t believe that all members of the Hierarchy can be included in that number, and I don’t believe that ordinary members of the congregation are excluded from that number, but the fact of the matter is that they still make up a minority of the members of the organisation as a whole. That wouldn’t change if people decided to walk away from the organisation and I don’t see why they should. Rather it would be better IMO to root out the members of the organisation who commit abuse and facilitate abuse and punish them, rather than accusing innocent people of any wrongdoing.

and again i will say that the people who facilitated (and still do) abuse are the people in charge. The 2 US cardinals who had to pull out of speaking next week because they were involved in facilitating abuse. But they wont be punished. there is no will in the church to punish them.

One eyed Jack

Leroy42 wrote: »

Grand. SO we have known about this level and type of abuse for 20+ years. What exactly has been done to erradicate this from the CC.

There’s been plenty done, and there’s plenty more needs to be done, and that won’t get done if people don’t keep challenging the Church. It doesn’t mean they have to walk away from the Church.

Have the CC opened up their files to get to the bottom of the problem and save all the victims from having to relive the nightmare through further testimony?

Some have, some haven’t, and they need to keep being challenged on that. If you’re actually interested in how justice works, then we don’t convict people without a trial, and so it is necessary for people to give evidence at trial in order to ensure that justice is done.

Have those involved been stripped of their office and removed by the CC?

Again, some have, some haven’t, and we need to keep challenging that.

Has a full study been undertaken to examine what were the factors that lead to this being such an issue for the CC, both the presence of the peadophiles themselves and the urge to cover it up?

Many studies have been undertaken, and that’s how procedures have been put in place to try and prevent anyone else from being subjected to abuse.

Does it start now? Is today the day for change? OR will it be later

It has been going on since the founding of the Church. Paedophiles and child molesters and the people who cover for them were never intended to be allowed to corrupt the organisation, and they haven’t, not for the vast majority of people who are still members of the organisation who do not want paedophiles and child molesters in their midst, and contrary to your belief do not support anyone who commits any sort of abuse against another human being.

Water John

Don't conflate two issues, that are not related. Just because a priest isn't supposed to have sex doesn't cause them to get interested in abusing children.

Leroy42

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you know that’s not what I mean, then why bother making the points you made? You’re entitled of course to your perspective, it’s just not one that I share, so I don’t have any difficulty in not admitting to something which I don’t believe is true in the first place. You believe what you’re saying is true, but that’s on you to defend, not me. That’s your responsibility, not mine.

OK, so you meant what you said then. That people are happy with the CC.

Because we have had plenty of people on here claiming they don't support the CC, but have their religion etc.

I don't need to defend anything the evidence is out in the public domain. The latest being the US report.

Taytoland

The fact that a Priest can't have sex is bizarre. It's human instincts to have sex. Get rid of the stupid rule.

4068ac1elhodqr

Bradlin wrote: »

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...

The power is astonishing, only the other week the actual Prime Minister of Australia (i.e. the most powerful person on their continent), had to actually beg the Pope to sack one of their convicted members.

Took over a week for the request to get processed, would have taken much longer (if at all) if it wasn't for the negative publicity in the press. The convicted chap never seen, and never will, get any of the due time behind bars.

Whilst the current Popeman is more likeable and possibly the best so far, he's sailing a sinking ship, riddled from top to bottom, with those 'of the dark side'.

Water John

CEO of Bishop Accountability on RTE News said it simply should be canonical law that any priest against whom a complaint is proved is removed permanently from Ministry. This is now the case in the US but should be universal.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

What other organisation has that ability? If one person walks away, then true,it will not make a difference, but if enough people vote with their presence, or lack of, the people who can make a difference will take note. There is something very sad about supporting an organisation that only improves after nearly 2000 years because it is forced to though. What purpose or quality does that organisation have in that case?

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.

Can you offer any practical way in which those members can root out the miscreants? All the power is at the top, the only way the members can vote is with their feet. And even then the church has it organised that a member cannot leave, anyone baptised is still a number. Why are people still voluntarily opting into a foreign, totalitarian regime?

That way, nobody has to walk away from an organisation that means something to them,

means what? A cosy feeling of belonging to something they were reared to accept?

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.

Can you not see how ridiculous that is? Who do they have to protect children from? Why should they have to protect them? That is mind-bogglingly obtuse.

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.

And yes, challenging is making so much difference to the tight little cabal who have all the power!

Hector Bellend

To what extent have law enforcement been active in all of this.

The mere suspicion of child abuse should be enough to launch a wide ranging investigation.

Forgive my lack of knowledge on this but why havent high level members of the church not been charge\prosecuted to a greater degree

Leroy42

B0jangles wrote: »

In other words, they are the ones who get to write the rules.

And thus can not ever be the people responsible for sorting it out.

They are simply too indoctrinated in the CC. Just as ordinary catholics find it hard to remove themselves from the CC, can you imagine a life long member having to take measures that could harm the one thing he believes in more than anything. The one thing he has given his whole life for, the very basis of his view of his purpose?

Of course not, it won't be this pope or the others. It may, a big may, be later generations, priests than are new now that are being brought up outside of the slavish devoting to the CC. But why should the world have to wait for that.

One eyed Jack

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely what you mean is the organisation that they thought it was?

The organisation as it sounds can't possibly mean anything to them, unless the widescale raping and abuse of children, the systematic covering up of those crimes and the attempt to degrade the victims is what people want in an organisation, and I really don't think that is what you mean.

The organisation they means something to them turns out not to exist, well not in the form of the CC. I understand how difficult that is to admit, something that one has believed in since forever, but that is what the evidence says and only be denying the true extent of that evidence can one claim that the CC is anything other than that.

If you know that’s not what I mean, then why bother making the points you made? You’re entitled of course to your perspective, it’s just not one that I share, so I don’t have any difficulty in not admitting to something which I don’t believe is true in the first place. You believe what you’re saying is true, but that’s on you to defend, not me. That’s your responsibility, not mine.

Leroy42

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The minority of people I’m referring to are actual paedophiles, child molesters, and the people who cover for them. I don’t believe that all members of the Hierarchy can be included in that number, and I don’t believe that ordinary members of the congregation are excluded from that number, but the fact of the matter is that they still make up a minority of the members of the organisation as a whole. That wouldn’t change if people decided to walk away from the organisation and I don’t see why they should. Rather it would be better IMO to root out the members of the organisation who commit abuse and facilitate abuse and punish them, rather than accusing innocent people of any wrongdoing.

Grand. SO we have known about this level and type of abuse for 20+ years. What exactly has been done to erradicate this from the CC.

Have the CC opened up their files to get to the bottom of the problem and save all the victims from having to relive the nightmare through further testimony?

Have those involved been stripped of their office and removed by the CC?

Has a full study been undertaken to examine what were the factors that lead to this being such an issue for the CC, both the presence of the peadophiles themselves and the urge to cover it up?

Does it start now? Is today the day for change? OR will it be later

B0jangles

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

That "minority of people" you refer to are the people running it.

That's the major, massive problem here; the enablers, the concealers, the careerists who were more concerned with protecting the organisation than protecting children, the ones who wanted, above all else, to rise in the hierarchy.

It is very clear that promotion within the catholic church requires absolute commitment to protecting and promoting The Church as an organisation, above any other consideration.

The ones who are willing to do this are the ones who become archbishops, cardinals and maybe even Pope.

In other words, they are the ones who get to write the rules.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

That "minority of people" you refer to are the people running it.

The minority of people I’m referring to are actual paedophiles, child molesters, and the people who cover for them. I don’t believe that all members of the Hierarchy can be included in that number, and I don’t believe that ordinary members of the congregation are excluded from that number, but the fact of the matter is that they still make up a minority of the members of the organisation as a whole. That wouldn’t change if people decided to walk away from the organisation and I don’t see why they should. Rather it would be better IMO to root out the members of the organisation who commit abuse and facilitate abuse and punish them, rather than accusing innocent people of any wrongdoing.

Leroy42

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That way, nobody has to walk away from an organisation that means something to them

Surely what you mean is the organisation that they thought it was?

The organisation as it sounds can't possibly mean anything to them, unless the widescale raping and abuse of children, the systematic covering up of those crimes and the attempt to degrade the victims is what people want in an organisation, and I really don't think that is what you mean.

The organisation they means something to them turns out not to exist, well not in the form of the CC. I understand how difficult that is to admit, something that one has believed in since forever, but that is what the evidence says and only be denying the true extent of that evidence can one claim that the CC is anything other than that.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Could you name the measures that have been taken by the church in Ireland, or indeed the Vatican, to prevent future abuse please?

Are you aware that Ian Elliott, who was in charge of doing exactly that, has recently said that in hindsight he would not take up that position because his attempts were blocked by active resistance from the bishops?

Leroy42

But it isn't that they simply gained access, the organisation colluded in the crimes and the cover up.

If someone I work with turns out to be a criminal then I cannot be held accountable for that. If, however, I know that he is a criminal and allowed him access to customers he was then able to defraud then I am complicit. I could have done something to avoid that knowing what I did.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

That "minority of people" you refer to are the people running it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.