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

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Read a history book. History is my forte.
.

oh man, you made me laugh at that one.

History is certainly not something you excell at on ANY level, you don't even know Irish history for the past 20+ years

One classic example of failure you've posted:

LOL when has a single Catholic since 1994 actually tried to restrict gays rights or contraception. Get with the time.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107872416&postcount=284

Stop showing yourself up, its tragic

ohnonotgmail

Cabaal wrote: »

oh man, you made me laugh at that one.

History is certainly not something you excell at on ANY level, you don't even know Irish history for the past 20+ years

One classic example of failure you've posted:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107872416&postcount=284

Stop showing yourself up, its tragic

Ah, i see you have fallen for his trap. He said "when has a single Catholic" when of course it was not a single catholic but many, many of them. I'm a little bit disappointed in you Cabaal if i'm being honest.

ELM327

Cabaal wrote: »

One classic example of failure you've posted:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107872416&postcount=284

Stop showing yourself up, its tragic

Jesus h christ that is pathetic, levels of unbound denial or ignorance and I'm not sure which it is.

The only religious people I know below the age of 40 is one simple chap that was taken in as a special initiative for employment of those with intellectual disabilities. He's a devout religious catholic and visiting the pope at the weekend. Anyone else is strongly against him and the rcc as a whole.

But the suggestion above that no catholic restricted gay rights or contraception since 1994 is complete and utter bollox. Thank christ the days of the church are numbered tbh

Adamocovic

So are people protesting?

For me when I was younger was when I was religious, going to mass, praying, hell I was even an alter boy which surprises people (probably shouldn't have used hell). But with time I have fallen away from it, religion is like a second thought that only comes into my mind during news stories now.

I imagine a lot of people will go to this just because it is the pope and the occasion of it. I won't be flying home for it, and if I was home I'm not sure that I would be too bothered going, but to those that are fair enough.

I'm no historian, or expert in this subject so people can cut into my opinion if they wish, but for my experience the Catholic Church has done a lot of good and a lot of bad for this country. The good doesn't take away from the despicable things that went on. We are a country where religious belief, at least at an organised church level is lowering at an incredible pace. If some do wish to go and see him I'd rather we let them go and enjoy themselves while we go about enjoying our lives.

We seem to be pushing towards constantly having a side to stand on and enemy to fight against but I don't see the real benefit to a protest during the popes visit, for me it more than likely won't have an effect on the church itself but rather ruin the day and opportunity for the followers of the church. Fair enough if that's what people want to do but would it not lend to more division between the two groups. Someone said it's about showing our stance of moving away from the hold of the catholic church, but surely we've proven that with our recent referendums?

Again it will all depend on what sort of protests people are planning to do, I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste.

Cabaal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ah, i see you have fallen for his trap. He said "when has a single Catholic" when of course it was not a single catholic but many, many of them. I'm a little bit disappointed in you Cabaal if i'm being honest.

I know, I'm sorry,
clearly i am wrong, it was not one single catholic it was thousands upon thousands of Catholics who tried to restrict them

Ohhhh, how wrong I am
:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Hitman3000

Adamocovic wrote:

Again it will all depend on what sort of protests people are planning to do, I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste.

Very easy form of protest tbh and people are free and entitled to protest any way they want without the permission or the need to justify themselves to others .

igCorcaigh

Adamocovic wrote: »

I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste.

Me too. The chance to see the pope could mean so much to some (quite possibly elderly) people.

I don't like the idea of depriving them of that.

Adamocovic

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Adamocovic wrote:

Again it will all depend on what sort of protests people are planning to do, I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste.

Very easy form of protest tbh and people are free and entitled to protest any way they want without the permission or the need to justify themselves to others .

People are definitely entitled too. Didn't say they weren't, just personally wasn't a fan of that method.

Like the person above stated it wasn't or isn't really affecting the church rather the people who actually want to attend and see it as a big moment for them.

Then again I doubt it will have much impact or stop many from being able to go.

tylercheribini

https://youtu.be/pP1rmsCPbQU

Irish Kings

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I hear Leo is asking Frank for the church's cooperation into any investigation into any abuse that happened. Frank's willingness or lack thereof should be telling. The Vatican has an opportunity to open its files and a chance to obtain some form of redemption.
Will they seize that chance? The past suggests not.

The files are much closer to home than the Vatican. They are in every bishops office in Ireland, yet the Irish state refuses to issue a basic search warrent.

The Vatican have actually very little in the way of Irish files, Irish Bishops were only to too keen to pretend they ran a perfect show in Ireland with no problems, the last thing they want their superiors in Vatican to know about is abuse / poor management / incompetence problems in Ireland. The Vatican only made it mandatory around Pope Benedicts time that copies of the files were also sent to the Vatican as well. I'm not saying that managment in the Vatican are innocent, they are not, but this notion that only the Vatican are the blame and not the Irish Bishops, is bull. The Church is a much flatter organisation than people realise.

Irish Bishops offices are the first place to search, it'll turn up far more than searching the Vatican (from an Irish church scandal point of view)

An_Toirpin

batgoat wrote: »

You previously said shaming in relation to sex was uncommon in Ireland... All Irish historians would disagree with that. Must get to work on your forte!

Qualify uncommon?

Fighting Tao

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Qualify uncommon?

http://bfy.tw/JYAR

Wouldn’t the definition qualify it?

An_Toirpin

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

Ah you're back. You disappeared twice when I asked you questions on Smyth, Brady and the oath of secrecy.

mal intent indeed.

I don't expect you to reply. Just adjust the blinkers a bit more.

Thanks for the links about the oath. But I'd appreciate less personal attacks. I have read quite a lot about church tribunals. The question I raised before remains. Although I can think of cases where superiors so recklessly covered up abusers one wonders could it have been their intention for more abuse to occur again but I have yet to see that with the actions of the Vatican.
All of the procedures you mention were performed with the intention of stopping abuse. It may shock us that civil authorities were not involved but a wider look at how society dealt with child abuse in the western world would show it pretty much went to the courts. If one condemns the Vatican for failing to routinely (I stress routine as many cases abuse reported and known to the gardai) contact the civil authorities when abuse everywhere in society was rarely reported to the civil authorities and never saw convictions it is showing a double standard. I find it galling that so many people here can sit on their horse preaching about what should be done with courses of action that are purely a modern day development.

lawred2

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Me too. The chance to see the pope could mean so much to some (quite possibly elderly) people.

I don't like the idea of depriving them of that.

Meh.. being old doesn't mean that you get to disable the moral compass

Fighting Tao

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Thanks for the links about the oath. But I'd appreciate less personal attacks. I have read quite a lot about church tribunals. The question I raised before remains. Although I can think of cases where superiors so recklessly covered up abusers one wonders could it have been their intention for more abuse to occur again but I have yet to see that with the actions of the Vatican.
All of the procedures you mention were performed with the intention of stopping abuse. It may shock us that civil authorities were not involved but a wider look at how society dealt with child abuse in the western world would show it pretty much went to the courts. If one condemns the Vatican for failing to routinely (I stress routine as many cases abuse reported and known to the gardai) contact the civil authorities when abuse everywhere in society was rarely reported to the civil authorities and never saw convictions it is showing a double standard. I find it galling that so many people here can sit on their horse preaching about what should be done with courses of action that are purely a modern day development.

“Recklessly covered up abusers”??? You must be trolling.

Btw, have you gone to the guards yet about Microsoft operating like the RCC and abusing children, covering it up and moving staff members around to abuse a fresh batch of kids?

An_Toirpin

Fighting Tao wrote: »

http://bfy.tw/JYAR

Wouldn’t the definition qualify it?

If one developed their view from contemporary film and other media one might think parishioners were regularly exposed to puritanical priests who would shout and dance about the evils of sex out of marriage, gays and single mothers at mass every Sunday. I don't know what the reality was like but I am very curious. It is my impression that sex was rarely discussed. Although there were certainly puritanical views to marriage, gays and single mothers, all of these always occurred in full view. When I dug into census data I was quite shocked how many single mothers there were throughout the 1930s-1950s. Historians have talked about social 'containment' in the 20th cen but the data would imply a low percent of single mothers entered laundries (well below 10%) and were hidden from public eye.

An_Toirpin

Fighting Tao wrote: »

“Recklessly covered up a users”??? You must be trolling.

Btw, have you gone to the guards yet about Microsoft operating like the RCC and abusing children, covering it up and moving staff members around to abuse a fresh batch of kids?

We shouldn't generalise. Sometimes, abusers were protected and given a position when they could reoffend. Othertimes they were given a slap on the wrist but not really controlled and put out of danger. Many other times abusers were sent for treatment and removed from positions where they could do harm. It is so wrong to ignore the detail and just threat all of these scenarios as the same morally.

RustyNut

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Fighting Tao wrote: »

“Recklessly covered up a users”??? You must be trolling.

Btw, have you gone to the guards yet about Microsoft operating like the RCC and abusing children, covering it up and moving staff members around to abuse a fresh batch of kids?

We shouldn't generalise. Sometimes, abusers were protected and given a position when they could reoffend. Othertimes they were given a slap on the wrist but not really controlled and put out of danger. Many other times abusers were sent for treatment and removed from positions where they could do harm. It is so wrong to ignore the detail and just threat all of these scenarios as the same morally.

But not brought to justice. No justice for the criminal sex offenders and no justice for the child victims of these vile clerics.

Why?

Eggs For Dinner

I'm glad he's coming

As a nation, we seem to let the Catholic Church off the hook over the last few year regarding the dreadful crimes they committed for generations. This visit appears to have revived the anger and repulsion we felt when stories started to emerge. Hopefully this time we will follow through and ensure those that the church, as a collective, is held accountable. I think they've misjudged the impact of this big time. They thought this would restore their previous hold over the people

Irish Kings

RustyNut wrote: »

But not brought to justice. No justice for the criminal sex offenders and no justice for the child victims of these vile clerics.

Why?

Because the state authorities and Irish politicians are failing to do their job.
They love getting praised on RTE by pretending how right on and anti Church they are, but not one of them is interested in the state administering the criminal justice it's supposed to. They are just as complicit if they continue to refuse to enforce the law against these people. It's the states job to do something about these criminals who conspired to cover up crimes and pervert the course of justice. It's the state's job to question, search, issue warrants, arrest, charge, trial and convict these criminals, instead of letting them away scott free to enjoy a nice comfy retirement. It's utterly scandalous that the state refuse to enact the criminal justice system for the victims.

4068ac1elhodqr

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Sometimes....

More often than not (or 'sometimes').

I.e. The majority of the time they were/are simply 're-placed somewhere' else. It's very rare to hear about a Priest being sacked (obvious gross misconduct case), taken through the courts, and locked up as they should have been.

Most revelations only slip out after they pass away, or after 3rd parties probe or investigate cases (e.g. the recent BBC {not RTE} Spotlight program).

Just this month a Dublin Priest is under-going an investigation (pending) which is related to a complaint from another jurisdiction, decades ago.

An_Toirpin

RustyNut wrote: »

But not brought to justice. No justice for the criminal sex offenders and no justice for the child victims of these vile clerics.

Why?

In 1950 there was just 469 men in prison. We have over 10,000 these days. Sadly very victims were getting justice. Different world.

batgoat

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In 1950 there was just 469 men in prison. We have over 10,000 these days. Sadly very victims were getting justice. Different world.

In this instance moral guardians were actively poor preventing justice and it was happening until far more recently than the fifties. You're making your very best effort to act as an apologist for the most influential organisation in the country.

Irish Kings

batgoat wrote: »

In this instance moral guardians were actively poor preventing justice and it was happening until far more recently than the fifties. You're making your very best effort to act as an apologist for the most influential organisation in the country.

The Irish Church management are criminally to blame for trying to cover up the abuse and pervert the course of justice, but the current state authorities and politicians are the one's entirely responsible for administering criminal JUSTICE in the state, and they are now failing as abysmally as any of the Irish Bishops, and are letting them away scott free. No arrests, no searches, no warrants, no questioning, no trials , no convictions, no sentences, nothing. If they failed to prosecute any other group of criminals, who perverted the course of justice, the current state authorities and politicians would not get away with it. This is TODAY's scandal HERE and NOW and the state and its politicians are getting away with it along with the Irish Church management.

Auguste Comte

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In 1950 there was just 469 men in prison. We have over 10,000 these days. Sadly very victims were getting justice. Different world.

Where did you get the 10,000 figure from? I don't believe it's correct.

It still wouldn't explain why the catholic church management hid dangerous criminals and enabled them to continue to commit some of the most heinous crimes against children even when they became aware of their crimes.

batgoat

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Where did you get the 10,000 figure from? I don't believe it's correct.

It still wouldn't explain why the catholic church management hid dangerous criminals and enabled them to continue to commit some of the most heinous crimes against children even when they became aware of their crimes.

You're correct actually, 4000 in prisons at the moment.

Irish Kings

Auguste Comte wrote: »

It still wouldn't explain why the catholic church management hid dangerous criminals and enabled them to continue to commit some of the most heinous crimes against children even when they became aware of their crimes.

Why are the state not arresting, questioning, searching, trialing and convicting the Irish church management responsible for attempting to pervert the course of justice? - That is just as big a scandal going on right here, right now, today.

jobbridge4life

An_Toirpin wrote: »

In 1950 there was just 469 men in prison. We have over 10,000 these days. Sadly very victims were getting justice. Different world.

It should be noted that there were very substantial numbers of individuals held in quasi-prisons.

It should also be noted that the Church's unspeakable crimes were not unique to Ireland so the above statistic is of relatively little relevance.

4068ac1elhodqr

Straight from the horse's mouth in the press today:

ARCHBISHOP Diarmuid Martin has said the number of children abused by priests here is “immense” and called for an easier judicial system for victims giving evidence in court.
Speaking on the second day of the World Meeting of Families, Martin said the number of prosecutions of clerical abuse is “very low”.

Without being a maths wizard, 'immense vs verylow'
- equates to something being 'not quite right' with the church, either now or in the past.
Here, there, and everywhere.

Fighting Tao

interesting Prime Time at the moment.