... to Protest the Pope?

[stubbornhubby]

A friend of mine told me at the weekend that this will make me an extremist...anyway we had a long thread about this in July and a few people said they'd be keen, like me, to wave a banner as he parades around the country.

There's a big march in London on Sat 18th, Hyde park Corner @ 1.30pm
details here
www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/

Also, if you live in SW London, a Small demo in Strawberry Hill on Fri 17th @9am. (NB official visti website says you will not be able to see the pope arrriving/departing SMUC - I think he must be using helicopter. Or apparating )

More from Ratzinger:

"He added that priests at risk of sexually abusing the young should be "excluded from all possibility of access to young people because we know that this is an illness and free will does not work when there is this sickness." He said: "We must protect these people against themselves."

As well as protecting these people against themselves, I'd like to see them punished. Apparently Ratzinger doesn't agree.

"sadness also that the church authorities were not sufficiently vigilant and insufficiently speedy and decisive in taking the necessary measures."

Remind us, who was in charge of taking the necessary measures for much of the past twenty years? Ah, yes. You.

I am not so naive to think there would be no disruption from a state visit. I do however believe that there would be less disruption if there were no demonstrations. Tbh I see no point in telling the pope how I feel as a non-catholic and a divorcee at that I sincerely suspect I would be considered persona non grata. So much so I doubt any correspondence would reach the pope.

I think the elderly affected have been slightly more than just inconvenienced. I also believe that the protests will achieve nothing. The pope is highly unlikely to notice them and if he did would take no notice of their argument. Our Government is highly unlikely to listen either.

Strictly tory I read isnt's post as she felt you should apologise for getting a morjorie for moaning about the pope. Sorry if I have misunderstood. If she did mean that should apologise for what happened to marjorie because you are a catholic then I completely disagree. The perpatrators and those who actively covered it up are the guilty parties no matter what religion they may be. (I include the Pope as an individual in that)

If peadophilia is not a sickness then once the abuser has served his prison sentence why are they still under observation upon release?
We do not keep such tabs on murderers etc

"The pope is highly unlikely to notice them and if he did would take no notice of their argument."

That's not really the point of the protest.

Curry: no, I'm not being selective at all. I'm talking about this because the pope is visting and this has focused a lot of attention on this issue. You don't know me at all, but I can tell you that I would oppose as strongly as I could anyone or any institution that behaved this way. And believe me, I have less reason than most to persecute catholics. My beloved parents are practising catholics.

"If peadophilia is not a sickness then once the abuser has served his prison sentence why are they still under observation upon release?
We do not keep such tabs on murderers etc"

Firstly, paedophiles are not kept under supervision to protect them from themselves. They are kept under supervision to protect children. If they harm themselves, no-one gives a toss.

Secondly, I am not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence and released murderers are on permanent license, subject to recall at any time their behaviour causes concern. In that sense they are more under control than paedophiles, as they can be recalled at any time without needing to be convicted or even arrested. The same applies for anything carrying a life sentence. Anyone convicted of a sexual offence will be placed on the sex offenders' register for an extended period, and people on that register are subject to a variety of monitoring and control measures. In both cases, conditions can include exclusion from specified areas, requiring permission to meet with specified people or classes of people, or anything else the authorities deem necessary. Which "etc" was it you feel is not monitored upon release?

The 'paedophilia as illness', the 'you would not protest if jews or muslims were doing these things', the 'this goes on in all institutions not just catholic ones', the 'all this discussion about paedophile priests is just an excuse to unleash the latent anti-Catholicism which exists in this country' and so on are perfect examples of my earlier point about deflecting attention from the really awful truths at the heart of all of this.

Paedophiles are obviously attracted to power jobs like priesthood, but I think the other factor that has made paedophilia rife in the Catholic church is it's secretive and cult-like climate.

Mrs Madwriggle:

"Can I just summarise some of the issues:

• Anti gay
• Anti contraception - how many people have contracted HIV/AIDS because of the Catholic stance on condoms? *Failure to address child abuse *Patriarchal organisation *Anti abortion *Re-admits holocaust denier to Church"

Mrs Maswriggle, I've addressed the Church position on homosexuality in my previous post.
HIV/Aids: The Church can't condone the use of condoms because of its stance against artificial contraception. It focuses on more holistic approaches to the prevention of the epidemic, such as the eradication of poverty and women's empowerment. Anyone interested could dip into this website for an idea of the work going in this field.www.cafod.org.uk/content/search

The Church doesn't allow women priests, but women are fully involved. In my own diocese we have plenty of women in positions of authority.

Child abuse, the "biggy". Yes the Church has faults, shortcomings. Not least, individuals have sinned against children. The problems do need to continue to be exposed so they can carry on being fixed. It's painful mostly for the victims, but also for the 1 billion laity and for the hundreds of thousands of good, faithful, celibate priests.

Anti abortion: The Church defends human life from the moment of conception. People may not agree, but that's church teaching.

Lifting the excommunication of Bishop williamson, notorious holocaust denier, was, I think, an almighty cock up on the part of the Pope. I suspect, but may be wrong, that he and his advisers didn't get on the internet much, because the views of this extremist bishop and of some of those in the SSPX sect were well known long before this blew up. I think the Pope meant to readmit The SSPX bishops because he wants to reunite Christendom.I should say that the Pope has forbidden Williamson to act as a minister of the Church until he recants.

The church is very involved in 'empowering women', especially in its contraception programmes. You've got to be joking

Sorry, my link to Cafod didn't work. will try and fix later as I should be in Tescos now.

strictly tory what are you on about?

I am not saying that you are to blame for what happened to marjoriew

What I am saying, is that when someone catalogues the most appalling abuse at the hands of other, the normal response that compassionate people make is "I am sorry to hear that has happened to you", or similar. To acknowledge what they have just heard, and express that they understand how terrible it is.

What you did, was completely ignore it, and then pick her up because she said something silly about the pope's name.

I was pointing out that I found that strange, and that you should choose to pick her up on a small joke, with no acknoledgement whatsoever about the abuse that she had suffered.

Your response was that "you don't know the whole story". What on earth does that mean? That maybe there is a side we're not hearing, about how marjoriew actually was very bad and deserved extreme punishment? Something like that?

Your reponses to her do not demonstrate an ounce of compassion or feeling. You simply badger away "oh why should I say I'm sorry for what happened? I didn't do it. Why should anyone have to acknowledge what she's said? Why not pick her up on making a minor joke and ignore the details of the suffering?".

Why not eh? That;s the whole problem. People aren't interested, more interested in protecting themselves.

When people meet people who have been bereaved, they say "I'm sorry for you loss". it's not an admission that they killed them. When people meet others who have had bad experiences they say "I am sorry to hear what has happened". This does not mean they are confessing their guilt. I honestly don't get this.

Do you know what though it's not my argument. I found your reaction very peculiar, that's all, and it wasn't just me.

Will bow out now.

Was raised RC BTW and went to a RC school and al of my friends are RC etc so I'm not an outsider looking in on al of this, as people often seem to assume about others on these threads, if they don't agree with them.

" Not least, individuals have sinned against children."

You don't get away that easily. The failures have been systemic, not individual. The church, collectively, turned a blind eye. Priests abused children, but nuns and laity conspired to conceal the evidence and to magnify the crimes by further punishing the children who attempted to complain. It was a monstrous, institutional failure, and you don't get away with blaming it on a few individuals.

"The problems do need to continue to be exposed so they can carry on being fixed."

How are they being fixed? By vacillation, demands that we consider the poor hard done by paedophiles who are ill, and continuing to move guilty priests around and provide aid and succour to them. How many excommunications have there been for child abuse? Zero, I believe.

"Lifting the excommunication of Bishop williamson, notorious holocaust denier, was, I think, an almighty cock up on the part of the Pope."

He's admitted he cocked up over child abuse, too. Is there anything he hasn't cocked up? When they were appointing the successor to the previous one, was he the best game in town? He's said to be the one of the finest Catholic intellectuals of his generation: could you explain how that manifests itself? It doesn't say much for an organisation of a billion people that they can't find anyone who can use Google.

the pope has started his tour by comparing 'extreme atheists' with Nazis...

..and mentions the brave Christians who stood up to the Nazis. (um, hang on a moment)

this is NOT the way that a Head of State should address his hosts.

POPE "Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime?s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a ?reductive vision of the person and his destiny? (Caritas in Veritate, 29)"

I'm actually offended by atheists automatically being called Nazis. I am not even an atheist.

Quite pleased to be compared to a 'third world country' though .

No Rosebud, but being called a Nazi is a lot more offensive. Where in my post did I say I was pleased to be compared to a third world countrty?

"a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society"

Which is why my predecessor, Eugenio Pacelli, later Pius XII, and Hitler's Vice Chancellor Franz Von Papen signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933, in order to confirm the close union between the German government of Chancellor Hitler and the sovereign of Vatican City, Pius XI. This Concord secured the place of Catholicism in Germany in exchange for our agreement that German Catholics priests all swore allegiance to the Nazi government. No, hang on a minute...

Anyway, at least Ratzinger has now claimed some connection with Catholics who, unlike him, resisted the Nazis even at the expense of their own lives. Which means he really does get to explain what he was doing in 1944 and 1945 in a little more detail. Someone should have told him not to mention the war.

AvrilHeytch,
Have a delve, if you'd like to know more, around Cafod's website for info on how the Church in England and Wales, are approaching tackling the problem of HIV/Aids. www.cafod.org.uk/.(sorry haven't worked out yet how to link to the exact page)

"He added that priests at risk of sexually abusing the young should be "excluded from all possibility of access to young people because we know that this is an illness and free will does not work when there is this sickness."

Child abuse is wrong - but don't kid yourself that this attitude is that different from that of many states. In Britain we run sex offender programmes, to try and cure them or stop them acting on their urges! Then we release them after what are very short prison sentences and restrict their access to chidren, at least thats the theory. Then they re-offend because thats what child abusers do whether they are priests or not.

Oh and Eric Taylor who was mentioned was 'retired' from his parish some time before his trial so did not have access to children whilst awating trial. He was a dispicable man but like any other person he was innocent until proved guilty.

Oh and OP YANBU to protest, that is your right and you should do so if you wish.

Even escape to the country is cancelled this afternoon because of the bloody Pope Fgs!

"He was a dispicable man but like any other person he was innocent until proved guilty."

Unfortunately, in the eyes of the Catholic Church in the UK he was also innocent for four years after being proved guilty. Why wasn't he stripped of his position as a priest the day he was convicted?

Everything in the Catholic Church is slow, I am not saying that is OK it took him so long to be defrocked, I was merely pointing out steps were taken to remove him from a position where he could cause harm prior to the trial - a positive move by the church I would suggest.

I'm not interested in getting in an argument with you but could you find me a quote where anyone in the Catholic Church Hierachy in the UK stated that they believed he was innocent after his trial?