... 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 )

"Why aren't the police investigating the abuse? These people aren't above the law."

They are - now, though there is no question that there was collusion in some places, especially in deeply catholic countries like Ireland.

The Pope has diplomatic immunity on account of his being a 'head of state'. Many of the child abuse files were sent to the Vatican for just this reason: he cannot be prosecuted, his records cannot be demanded. All the internal church trials of these abusers were done under canon law. Canon law can only be 'practised' by clerics, the trials never had expert witnesses called, let alone heard testimony from the victims, just the testimonies of other clerics, mostly supporting the abuser. These 'trials' were conducted entirely in writing and the records are kept in the Vatican. They can't be got at. Bishops who hold local records do not give them up willingly. Much of the information we do have has been leaked or, in the recent case in Belgium, was obtained by police forcibly removing said records after the bishop refused to hand them over. The fundamental problem is that this church believes it is above secular law because it has its own, superior and more binding canon law.

The church has used other means of getting around taking responsibility for these crimes: paying victims hush money, settling out of court, declaring individual parishes bankrupt so that they cannot be forced to pay compensation, effectively protesting abusers until the limit on pressing charges on them had passed and then deciding to cooperate with the police, etc...

Is there any wonder convictions have been hard to get?

protecting

Treats - " and I wholeheartedly agree that the issue of male sexual violence against women is a considerably greater threat to the containment of HIV than people following Catholic teachings about sexual relations."

Unless you are taking prostitution as a form of violence, this is just wrong. More people get HIV from sex as part of prostitution than through rape.

TCNY - personally I would. In that men are using their (financial) power to force women to provide them with sex. And especially if they're forcing them to have sex without a condom.

But my point was that HIV is more likely to be spread through rape than adherence to Catholic teachings. Just because something else (prostitution) spreads HIV more than rape, doesn't mean that my point was invalid.

"...this church believes it is above secular law because it has its own, superior and more binding canon law. "

Ah - could this be another reason why the Pope is somewhat nervous of "aggressive secularism"?

"Small demo in Strawberry Hill on Fri 17th @9am"

Came on mumsnet to find something new to do in SW London this afternoon. Got sucked in.

BUT God made me click on this thread and now I know to either avoid Twickenham, or be prepared to get into the spirit of things and bring a banner.

See he really does work in mysterious ways!

Treat - Hmmm - Can you show your working? (Leaving aside for the moment the prostitution/sexual violence issue for now).

Adherance to Catholic teaching includes not using condoms. This is more widely pratcitced than rape. So how is rape more likely to spread HIV than Catholic teachings?

Mmmm...

Still seeing a lot of people on here asking that we respect their faith, but Mr. Ratzinger sold you all out yesterday so please prepare to defend your right to faith with something more substantial. You can't declare war on one set of beliefs and demand extraordinary respect for your own.

Now we can move in for all the people implicated in the child abuse scandal and ignore all the protest about the privilege accorded to them as a faith organisation, they have just given that up.

Now we can say without counter that Catholics are deluded and sad and most be rooted out and deprogrammed, the insidious lies they tell to children to perpetuate their position can now be roundly exposed without the cry that"we must respect their faith."

They are intellectual pygmies looking for a fight with the people who invented reason and evidence, It's going to be fun.

No - I can't show my workings and I'm happy to be contradicted if someone can.

There's a difference between 'not using a condom' and 'adhering to Catholic teachings'. Most people who don't use a condom couldn't give a shit what the Pope says. Those people that really care about Catholic teaching on sexual relations aren't having sex outside marriage - and it's the number of partners that is the real risk factor in contracting HIV.

Maybe 'not using a condom' is a greater risk than rape, but I still maintain that 'adhering to Catholic teachings' puts you less at risk.

Sadly, there are too many people on the African continent who are either born with the HIV virus or marry someone with it, so the number of sexual partners is irrelevant.

Tinnitus - . How did Mr Ratzinger sell us out? In what way?

Got ya tinnitus, you have just confirmed my suspicions.
Where does all that bile come from?

They really looked pissed off at the pope in scotland yestersay didn't they?

melikalikimaka Fri 17-Sep-10 09:53:26

"There are abused children in all walks of life eg, by policemen, teachers, scoutleaders, childminders,relatives, nursery nurses, everywhere."

But can you actually find examples of headteachers deliberately re-employing convicted paedophiles? Of nurseries trying to cover up the fact that a nursery worker has been indecently assaulting young children for decades? Of the police force refusing to strip a convicted and sentenced paedophile of his rank because he is in ill health and it would be so upsetting for him?

That is the problem people have with the Catholic church. Not that individuals have behaved abusively but that they have been able to behave abusively, and be convicted of doing so, without the Church taking any stance whatsoever against them.

So tinnitus you are advocating rooting out and deprogramming of Catholics? How would you do this?

Yeah, tinnitus please do tell??

Treats/curryfreak

Mr Ratzinger has declared war on atheism. The only defence that Catholics ever had was that we must respect their faith, now we don't have to, you have to defend your faith and we all know that is impossible. He took the one thing you had to hide behind and threw it away, and in so doing he has demanded all Catholics put their heads over the wall and take on secularism. Not one of you can argue the merits of faith without demanding I accord you privilege because of your delusion, now your all fair game and we are coming.

What you are mistaking for bile is excitement. This is the beginning of the end for the church and I get to see it.

Treats - By that argument the a very large percentage (majority?) of European Catholics are not adhering to Catholic teachings.

Catholic Teachings do not just effect catholics either - in countries where the church has a large influence, social pressure and even legislation will come into play.

So are you saying "If you are raped or rape someone, then your risk of HIV is less than if you followed all the teachings of the Catholic Church (and are not raped)" - which depends entirely on the HIV rates amongst people whom catholics marry versus HIV rates amongst those who rape/are raped.

Which is probably true, but not particularly interesting.

Or that "The instances of HIV spread by rape is larger that the instances spread as a result of the Catholic Churches stance on Condoms"

Which is a slightly more interesting question that depends on the quantity people involved in rape versus how many people are having other forms of sexual contact without condoms either due to a belief that using them is a sin, difficulty in obtaining them due to them being banned, societal attitudes that are encouraged by the Church etc. Which is clearly difficult to quantify.

What is clear thoughm is that if the Catholic Church said "Use Condoms" instead of "Don't use Condoms, and anyway they don't stop HIV" (I'm aware that is not the officail line, but is one that is often used in practice), the rate of HIV would go down rather than up.

PaulineCampbellJones

Debate in places like this have always ended with a demand that I "respect someone's faith" I believe, now that is gone, that Catholics will either have to leave, shut up, or accept that their arguments are simply indefensible. In time this will lead to a general shift in perception about the acceptability of being a Catholic.

He didn't declare war on Atheism. That is a hysterical response, but not a surprising one!
Why dont you come right out and just admit that you hate catholics as a people. It would be much more honest of you, and i'm sure you'd feel better for it!
I'm not even a proper proper catholic, but will always defend catholicism against people like you, because you are a bigot and a zealot
I bet Richard Dawkins is your god eh?.

You said you would root out and deprogramme Catholics. That's not the same as telling Catholics to shut up is it?
And does this apply to all religions or just the Catholic faith?

Tinnitus - Woah there, let me see if I get this:

"Mr Ratzinger has declared war on atheism". I'll double-check, but I think he delivered a warning about the dangers of a secular society and of aggressive atheism. He asserted that he believes this to be misguided. He said he wants the Catholic faithful to be a beacon on a hill, attracting others to their faith. You're interpreting that as a call to Catholics to take arms against their atheist neighbours?

"The only defence that Catholics ever had was that we must respect their faith" - Defence against what?

"now we don't have to" - you never had to.

"we all know that is impossible" - very happy to defend my faith. It doesn't seem impossible to me at all.

"HE took the one thing you had to hide behind and threw it away" - that you HAD to respect our faith? We weren't hiding behind that. Lots of us are proud to be Catholic and are willing to stand up for our faith without demanding that you respect us for it.

I am failing utterly to understand your logic. Glad you're excited by the Pope's visit thought

Actually maybe not Dawkins, perhaps you'd like to throw in your lot with ian paisley et al. More options there for you.

He also thinks the Nazi's were atheists - he really needs better fact checking.

Tinnitus - You really aren't helping.

Curryfreak - in fact it seems the pope was asked here by Gordon Brown not the Queen www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5766923.ece