Pope slap

02-01-2020 3:17pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It has nothing to do with being an athiest.

This is an annual event organised by the Vatican where the Pope presents himself to be seen by those who believe he is God's representative on Earth.
There is no onus on the Pope to approach the crash barriers.
There is no rule that says he has to press the flesh.
He can wave from a car if he wishes.

The Pope chose to walk to the barriers and grasp people's hands. He may then have realised this caused him pain so went to walk away.
As he did so, the next person in line grabbed his hand. Yes, this was not a good thing to do but no-one seems to be interested in why she did that. She probably saw her only chance to touch her God's representative on Earth slipping from her grasp (as it were) and she reached out. It was stupid. But as an athiest I think being there in the first place was stupid.
The Pope slapped her. That was a stupid thing to do. He must have realised that being grabbed was a possibility when he approached the barriers - he is not a stupid man.

The Pope chose to do a man of the people routine. He got more of the people then he wanted.

I would say it's a 50/50 liability.

she grabbed him. he broke the grab.

if it was nothing to do with atheism/religion then bringing anything beyond the above into it is irrelevant imo

no public duty suggests that his personhood is subject to force.

any suggestion of that in any other context would be rightly deemed absurd.

smacl · 02-01-2020 3:24pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes he nearly fell over when she yanked him. If he were 53 then her determined yank wouldn’t have rendered him so unstable but he’s very elderly, has fallen a number of times recently and is in pain with a common condition amongst the elderly. In order to release her grip on his hand he had to be forceful.
What you are suggesting is that anyone in the public eye of any age in any public scenario of their own free will must not react to inappropriate physical approaches? Or once again, is it only because it’s the Pope?

If he's frail to that degree it seems like appalling judgement that the security should let him come into contact with a crowd which clearly included some rather fervent religious fanatics. Of course we don't know if that judgement call was made by the Pope in spite of security advise, the Vatican in spite of security advise or by the security people themselves. Cynic that I am I'd guess the Vatican would have no issue taking risks with the Pope's welfare if they thought the PR warranted it.

Of course she shouldn't have grabbed him, and getting a minor smack is par for the course that kind of action, but then he really shouldn't have been placed in that position in the first place. I'd imagine there's more than just your woman smarting from a smacked wrist at this point.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2020 3:37pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes he nearly fell over when she yanked him. If he were 53 then her determined yank wouldn’t have rendered him so unstable but he’s very elderly, has fallen a number of times recently and is in pain with a common condition amongst the elderly. In order to release her grip on his hand he had to be forceful.
What you are suggesting is that anyone in the public eye of any age in any public scenario of their own free will must not react to inappropriate physical approaches? Or once again, is it only because it’s the Pope?

I am saying the Pope is an intelligent, grown man who made the decision to place himself in a position where the possibility of being grabbed by an over excited member of the public was a distinct possibility.
I fact, as no doubt his security team would have been insisting, the possibility of an assassination attempt could not be ruled out.

Knowing the risks, an intelligent, grown man (his age is immaterial) made the decision to approach the barriers and place himself within reach of physical contact.

Things went a bit out of control. An over excited member of the public grabbed at him as he walked away. She is responsible for her actions.
The Pope reacted by slapping her. He is responsible for his actions.

2 people reacted to a situation they found themselves in. Each is responsible for their own part in what happened.

However, I am not buying the whole trope of this being a random assault on an old man.

This is a man who is supposed to set the moral standards as regards human beheaviour (according to himself and the organisation he rules), who placed himself of his own free will in a potentially dangerous scenario and then reacted with anger and a small degree of violence when the situation went beyond his control.

The Pope has apologised "for setting a bad example" - so it would appear he thinks he overreacted. Which is what I am saying he did. I have never justified what the woman did - in fact I posited she may have been suffering from the hysteria known as "religious fervour".

Ironically, while it appears the Pope and I agree (there's a sentence I rarely write) that for a man in his position he "set a bad example" - I am going to get chastised for holding that view.

How ironic.

ohnonotgmail · 02-01-2020 4:42pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It has nothing to do with being an athiest.

This is an annual event organised by the Vatican where the Pope presents himself to be seen by those who believe he is God's representative on Earth.
There is no onus on the Pope to approach the crash barriers.
There is no rule that says he has to press the flesh.
He can wave from a car if he wishes.

The Pope chose to walk to the barriers and grasp people's hands. He may then have realised this caused him pain so went to walk away.
As he did so, the next person in line grabbed his hand. Yes, this was not a good thing to do but no-one seems to be interested in why she did that. She probably saw her only chance to touch her God's representative on Earth slipping from her grasp (as it were) and she reached out. It was stupid. But as an athiest I think being there in the first place was stupid.
The Pope slapped her. That was a stupid thing to do. He must have realised that being grabbed was a possibility when he approached the barriers - he is not a stupid man.

The Pope chose to do a man of the people routine. He got more of the people then he wanted.

I would say it's a 50/50 liability.

so the pope is 50% liable for the woman not letting go? You're just embarrassing yourself.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2020 5:03pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the pope is 50% liable for the woman not letting go? You're just embarrassing yourself.

Who is embarrassing themselves?

You who are claiming I said things I didn't say?
The Pope for apologising indicating he believes he was, at least partially, at fault?
Me for agreeing with the Pope?

Tis a conundrum.

ohnonotgmail · 02-01-2020 11:55pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is embarrassing themselves?

that would be you.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You who are claiming I said things I didn't say?
The Pope for apologising indicating he believes he was, at least partially, at fault?
Me for agreeing with the Pope?

Tis a conundrum.

I would say it's a 50/50 liability.

unless my maths is very much off you are saying the pope is 50% liable.

smacl · 03-01-2020 12:15am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unless my maths is very much off you are saying the pope is 50% liable.

So why is the Pope apologising if he's done nothing wrong?

ohnonotgmail · 03-01-2020 12:36am

smacl wrote: »

So why is the Pope apologising if he's done nothing wrong?

he didnt do anything wrong. the apology is just PR.

PonchoMcHoncho · 03-01-2020 12:45am

He acted as any cantankerous old fart would act. You can't fault him for that. But he's not just any cantankerous old fart.

The church has spent quite a bit of time trying to brainwash people into thinking he's the greatest moral and spiritual authority that walks the earth spreading God's message of love, peace and forgiveness.

Hard to take that seriously watching him angrily hitting some woman who drank a bit too much of the koolade.

03-01-2020 12:55am

PonchoMcHoncho wrote: »

He acted as any cantankerous old fart would act. You can't fault him for that. But he's not just any cantankerous old fart.

The church has spent quite a bit of time trying to brainwash people into thinking he's the greatest moral and spiritual authority that walks the earth spreading God's message of love, peace and forgiveness.

Hard to take that seriously watching him angrily hitting some woman who drank a bit too much of the koolade.

did you take it seriously before?

and theres nothing cantankerous about reacting to someone grabbing and pulling at you like that

these are bad takes guys.

bad takes.

PonchoMcHoncho · 03-01-2020 1:04am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

did you take it seriously before?

and theres nothing cantankerous about reacting to someone grabbing and pulling at you like that

these are bad takes guys.

bad takes.

I didn't but plenty do. Hence why he's apologising to limit the damage to his all holy image. It's not a good look having your chief of morality angrily hitting someone.

Bad takes.. No you..

Hotblack Desiato · 03-01-2020 5:07am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the pope is 50% liable for the woman not letting go? You're just embarrassing yourself.

Read it again. He is responsible for his reaction. If anyone is embarrassing themselves, it's you tbh.

smacl · 03-01-2020 9:39am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he didnt do anything wrong. the apology is just PR.

The whole thing was just a PR stunt though which unraveled into a PR disaster. Pope Francis (the PR image) is heavily promoted as the kindly, caring, genial kind of pope that can take all sorts in his stride. In my opinion, that image got kicked into touch and the apology was an exercise in PR damage limitation rather than anything to do with honesty (God forbid).

The pope behaved exactly the way you'd expect any cranky 83 year old to behave when mauled by the great unwashed because that is what he is. I dare say if it had been the Dalai Lama he would have head-butted her

smacl · 03-01-2020 9:43am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the pope is 50% liable for the woman not letting go? You're just embarrassing yourself.

Mod: Please avoid any personal attacks, thanks for your attention.

Doctor DooM · 03-01-2020 12:52pm

This thread...

BannaSidhe: Wow, doesn't it display how mortal and normal and not super powered holy the pope is how he reacted to someone grabbing him?

Other Posters: Get over yourself, he's an old man, you'd react the same way!

BS: Yes that is my point, he is just an old man.

OP: You're so mean laughing at an old man, leave him alone

BS: I take no joy from old man being hurt. But his massive organisation claims he isn't just an old man and shouldn't be treated like one so..?

OP: MEANY MEANY PANTS

mikhail · 03-01-2020 1:18pm

Actually, this thread started when my objection to a gif was split off. The gif was of an assault on an elderly man. It was posted without context or comment in the funny ha ha thread for people to laugh at. It remains there for that purpose. BannaSidhe has made some good points worthy of discussion, but they were not present in that post.

I have now unfollowed this forum. Secularism remains an interest and of personal relevance, and the Catholic church needs to be held accountable for its misdeeds, but the moderators in this subforum often tacitly accept behaviour I don't wish to continue associating myself with.

vicwatson · 03-01-2020 1:22pm

Hasn’t he got a bit of form regarding being a bit vicious towards those that want to shake hands/kiss his ring. Other video doing the rounds where is quite aggressive.

smacl · 03-01-2020 3:52pm

mikhail wrote: »

Actually, this thread started when my objection to a gif was split off. The gif was of an assault on an elderly man. It was posted without context or comment in the funny ha ha thread for people to laugh at. It remains there for that purpose. BannaSidhe has made some good points worthy of discussion, but they were not present in that post.

I have now unfollowed this forum. Secularism remains an interest and of personal relevance, and the Catholic church needs to be held accountable for its misdeeds, but the moderators in this subforum often tacitly accept behaviour I don't wish to continue associating myself with.

I split the discussion around the original GIF into a new thread as that is not what the funnies thread is for. If we were to delete every post in the funnies thread that any given poster found offensive we wouldn't have a funnies thread. The tack we take in moderating this forum is to avoid censorship and try instead to encourage discussion.

Sorry to hear your leaving this forum.

ohnonotgmail · 03-01-2020 5:39pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Read it again. He is responsible for his reaction. If anyone is embarrassing themselves, it's you tbh.

his reaction was entirely appropriate

robindch · 06-01-2020 12:53am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whilst I am aware there are some who believe the current POTUS was chosen by god [...]

Quite a few it seems. Anyway, the anointed POTUS showed great restraint in this wonderful video from a few days back in not grabbing so much as a single one of the surrounding women by her genitals:

https://twitter.com/monaeltahawy/status/1213350519412084741

robindch · 06-01-2020 1:06am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Man of Peace slaps member of the Faithful.

You might want to Animal Farm that to "Member of Faithful Corrected with Firmness by Man of Peace While Maintaining Dignity of All Concerned":

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity

Pope Frank wrote:

Francis outlined the traits of a good father: one who forgives but is able to “correct with firmness” while not discouraging the child. “One time, I heard a father in a meeting with married couples say ‘I sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them’,” Francis said. “How beautiful.” he added. “He knows the sense of dignity! He has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.”

Pope slap

Comments