... 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 )

"Father" Eric Taylor was convicted of indecent assault in 1975. He was fined £250 by Worcester magistrates after admitting five indecent assaults on boys while a parish priest in the Warndon area.

Eric Taylor worked as a supply priest until 1996 before moving to Austria. So we can put to one side the idea that a conviction for indecent assault on children is a bar to working in Catholic church.

He was convicted of more assaults in 1997. He wasn't defrocked until 2001, and it required the intervention of the Vatican. Why did the church in the UK not defrock him sooner? Why was he not defrocked in 1975: wasn't a conviction for indecent assault on children whilst working as a parish priest something of a danger sign that he might, indeed, be prone to indecently assaulting children while working as a parish priest?

This is all horribly local: I know people who attended churches he preached at, and who in turn know people who were assaulted. Because he was on good terms with several school headmasters (at least one of whom was dismissed in the aftermath of the 1997 conviction) he probably continued to have access to children until he was imprisoned in 1997. Had he been defrocked, even on a temporary basis, when he was charged that would have stopped sooner.

"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."

If the person in question has never acted on these urges I agree with him to a certain extent (never in a million years thought I would say that). Being a paedophile (having an attraction to children) is not the same thing as abusing children. Someone who has an attraction to children but has never acted on it should be helped with therapy or something. Anyone who has acted on it deserves to rot in prison. His issue is that the catholic church was covering up for people who had already abused children, that's a totally different thing to this quote and quite obviously revolting.

Still doesn't mean I want Ratzinger parading around the country preaching about 'morals'. He should have a good look at his own first, because I find some of the bile he (or his advisers) come out with despicable.

You're kidding - the Pope has started the tour by comparing "extreme athiests" with Nazis!! That's a bit desperate isn't it - like operating Godwin's Law to flame an argument.

There seems a strange kind of justice going on - it's taken some years coming - but the Vatican is showing itself to be completely out of touch, and losing it's influence by the second.

He also doesn't seem to realise that the Nazi's weren't atheists.

And you don't have to be some sort of apologist to regard the personality cult that surrounded Stalin as being essentially religious in a para-Christian way.

Just listening to Mario Conti speaking. I don't know how he has the nerve to stand there on that podium.
I don't know how he sleeps at night, knowing what he covered up all those years ago.
His voice is still ringing in my ears and it hasn't changed a bit.

The Pope is also out of touch when he refers to paedophilia as an "illness". It's not a mental illness, it's a severe personality disorder, the majority being psychopathic - characterised by self centredness, self importance, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, lack of conscience, aggressive, ruthless, deceptive and manipulative Character disorders are not treatable - you can't make people change their characters.

Musicmadness I saw a really good documentary on paedophilia in America and the Doctor who was treating them in prison said to try and get a paedophile change from 'prefering' children is like trying to force me for example to only fancy Korean men. Essentially he said it cannot be done. You can force them to see that it's wrong but you'll never be able to make them deep down sexually preferring children as that is their 'sexual' persuasion in the same way some people are gay and some only fancy black men or Asian women etc.

I'm amused to see that a classic debating technique of the hard left has arrived amongst Catholicism. It even has a name: whataboutery. This is the technique which greets any criticism of your favoured regime, leader or idea with a long list of others which have to be condemned before you will accept that there is no bad faith.

So, for example. "Cuba has a poor human rights record". "Ah, but what about racism in the US?" "Yes, that's bad, but what about Cuba?" "Ah, but what about Israel's policies in Gaza?" "It's a complicated issue, but about Cuba..." "What about Iraq?" "Yes, yes, but..." And so on.

It isn't. There is extensive campaigning about it. But you're engaged in both sorts of whataboutery: doubting the good faith of people unless they also condemn a list of claimed comparable issues, and implying that your home team were doing nothing wrong because the others were up to it as well.

Do you seriously believe that people who condemn clerical abuse in the Catholic church are (a) unaware of or (b) relaxed about the appalling practices of parts what is (incorrectly, as the issues are more regional than religious) called the Islamic world? Of course forced marriage, female genital mutilation and "honour" killing are appalling practices, and I'll place bets that people who are involved in the campaigning against one are equally concerned about the others. But they are not relevant to the visit by the pope, other than as juvenile distraction techniques, and their existence does not justify other crimes.

Your position is either that people who condemn clerical abuses are acting in bad faith unless they prove they condemn your chosen list of other issues, or that priests are justified in abusing children because they only need to aspire to the standards of your chosen bad group. Neither position is tenable.

The catholic church does not have a monopoly on child abuse, but it is the only organisation currently parading around Britain seeking applause

So... who is coming to London on Saturday for the protest? Am wondering if I will bump into other Mnetters?

I admit that I have not read all the post on this thread and I apologise for that,(I know how annoying that can be but there's millions of them.) But honestly, the debate about the Vatican being a state is over, the question of the popes right to be here is not worth asking, the notion that we should foot the bill for a profit making exercise buy a man who by rights should be on remand, is laughable, and the fact that he is being felted by the queen and our democratic government (both of whom have been described as heretical by the see) simply embarrass us all.

But one good thing has come from all this. Mr. Ratzinger has personally declared war on secularism, and that is Me. So from now on, no catholic can ever question my right to pick on their right to faith, he has just sold you all out. Indeed any other believer of any persuasion who join his crusade, is now and forever fair game. You can't hide behind the demand that I respect your faith, if your religion has declared war on my beliefs. Your all free targets now and the ONLY defence you had is gone forever.

Welcome to my turf.

the popes a nobber

takes one to know one

how unkind, you must be a proddy

such a ficko comment needs rebuke.someone had to,hun

v. unkind, unwarranted.

indeed "nobber" comment makes you look so smart.fink not

Protest away but who will listen, the people at the rally (or whatever it is) believe in a non existent god represented by a bunch of self declared "eunuchs" with bigoted ideas.

sounds susan boyle then

That was not what i was aiming for. I am unsure as to what has provoked this unkindness.

Custardo, I suspect you are very sure lol