[Closed] Papal visit of Pope on Thursday, anyone going.............to protest

I don't really care, why would I?

But as you've admitted to being a liar, then surely you actually really [i]do[/i] care? 😉

Mind you; You've told us you're a liar. But if you are then that means you're actually [i]not[/i] a liar, but indeed an honest man.

But then if an honest man told someone he was a liar, then he'd be lying.

😕

The title of this thread has changed a day after it was posted, namely the spelling of the word Papal.

How did project do that?

He couldn't have done.

Maybe it was the work of God? 😯

To be honest, I don't really believe it is that high. But isn't it worrying that Ann wasn't able to give a upper bound that was lower?

I thought I read last week that the church itself admits the figure may be as high as 6% 🙁

Although I assume that you would be happy to rob a bank

me too, if I could do it without injuring anyone - given the recent record of banks I'd feel it was poetic justice 🙂 In a kleptocracy, honesty is unrealistic...

Elfinsafety - Member
By your reckoning, the fact that a child is far more likely to be abused by a family member than a Catholic priest, then shouldn't everyone who is the relative of a child be locked up?

1. On average, children have far more opportunity to be abused by a family member than a catholic priest. Most parents are decent enough not to leave their kids alone with a man who will tell them that if they don't love god then that same loving god will let them burn in hell for eternity. All kids in the world are - unavoidably - vunerable to abuse from parents.

2. When in the world did I say or imply that anyone who might in the future abuse a child should be locked up?

me too, if I could do it without injuring anyone

Yeah but you'd probably really frighten people, which could harm them psychologically.

There are six million Catholics in the UK, if some of their tax money is used to finance this visit I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with all government spending but am comfortable recognising this is a cost of living in a free society.

As far as Pope Benedict is concerned and his attempts at sorting out their issues with paedophilia are concerned, there is certainly evidence that he was hampered in trying to sort this out before his elevation to the papacy by other more powerful cardinals. I hope, and by his public apologies, which is a not insignificant step, he is now taking the first steps to overcoming to these vested interests in the Vatican, which is a considerably more than the previously more charismatic John Paul II did.

It is unfortunate that peoples' view of the Catholic Church is consumed by these problems because it ignores the good that it does, which they are more than happy to recognise when it comes to educating their kids.

I am not a Catholic.

Yeah but you'd probably really frighten people, which could harm them psychologically.

anyway I wouldn't know what to do with the money... the things I want are mostly things I have to do myself 🙂

which they are more than happy to recognise when it comes to educating their kids.

I was educated in a Catholic school, but I never would have sent my children to one

I was educated in a Catholic school, but I never would have sent my children to one

Which is a perfectly unhypercritical position to take.

Which is a perfectly unhypercritical position to take.

well, when I chose my school, I just wanted to be with my mates and had no criticism of my religion (being 10). Later I learned different. I don't call that hypocrisy or hypercriticality

mefty - Member

I was educated in a Catholic school, but I never would have sent my children to one

Which is a perfectly unhypercritical position to take.

I agree, perfectly unhypocritical.

Hang on, are you being sarcastic? It is hypocritical to aspire to give your children a better education than you had?

How about, say, if someone was beaten by their alcoholic father as a child - is it hypocritical for that person to not become an alcoholic and not beat their own child?

Hopefully, I have misunderstood your post.

I do believe it is hypocritical to slag off an organisation whilst being more than happy to take the potential benefits it offers in terms of schooling.

SFB - I wasn't commenting on your education, I was commenting on the education of your kids.

It is hypocritical to aspire to give your children a better education than you had?

even if there had been a Catholic school offering perfect results for all its students, I wouldn't have sent my kids to one. It just wouldn't have been fair to expose them to that ludicrous cant. In retrospect I wish my parents had ignored my preference and sent me to Manchester Grammar (it was nearer)

I'm frightened... 🙁

I do believe it is hypercritical to slag off an organisation whilst being more than happy to take the potential benefits it offers in terms of schooling.

1) I think the word you're looking for is 'hypocritical'
2) I would have done just as well at any school, I never took much notice of the teachers
3) I'm not going to be too hard on myself for ignorantly accepting what was offered when I was a child and learning not to take that crap any longer 🙂

I did get the spelling eventually - spell check chucked it up and I didn't look too carefully, but hey, I learnt a new word - captious.

I learnt a new word - captious

I like it!

'Hippocritical'- scrutinising, judging and commenting on large amphibious African mammals.

[img] [/img]

Wunundred...

[img] [/img]

[img] http://www.zooborns.com/.a/6a010535647bf3970b0105367c839d970b-800wi [/img]

www.ratemyhippo.com

they look so cute but they'd have your leg off soon as look at you 🙁

or "I don't fancy yours"...

is that an inflatable mini-hippo ?

they look so cute but they'd have your leg off soon as look at you

They're much maligned. A swan could break your arm...

[img] [/img]

The only way a swan could break your arm is if someone used one of those 'recycle your can' squashers and turned it into a brick, then put your arm between two benches and hit you hard with the swan brick.

That would break your arm. Swans are soft as a baby's first sh1te.

It's the selling of "Pilgrim Packs" at £25 a throw that sticks in my throw. Effectively selling tickets to go and see the Pope tells me all I need to know about that religion.

I visited the Vatican once. The opulence and grandness of the place disgusted me.

Swans are soft as a baby's first sh1te

A "baby's first sh1te" is a horrible black sticky stuff that's considerably harder to clean off than the ones they do when they start drinking milk. You may want to rethink your phrase.

I think you guys need to try looking at this from a different angle.

A man who wears a dress and elaborate costumes, has retinue etc who will also be in drag, and his own special glass car will be parading through our streets. There will be people, flag waving, tacky souvenirs etc.

Dress up as Jesus or Elvis, get out there and join the fun ! Its camp if the highest order. I'm certainly heading down for a look.

And having great fun talking about it jovially in front of a couple of "marching" types at my work, who know they can't object too loudly publicly. Result !

I wonder how many paedophiles use this forum? Statistically there must be some

Didn't this thread get shut last night???

It probably should be

I wonder how many paedophiles use this forum? Statistically there must be some

Think of the children. If we can only save one child from pederasty, then anything can be justified. It's only right that we post up our best guesses, along with names and addresses gleaned from classifieds transactions 😯

Note for the hard of thinking: I'm joking.

Pretty much my point tron

It's the selling of "Pilgrim Packs" at £25 a throw that sticks in my throw. Effectively selling tickets to go and see the Pope tells me all I need to know about that religion.

Well, those other miserable buggers won't pay for it so it needs to be funded somehow.

[i]Didn't this thread get shut last night???[/i]

That's what I thought too.
Maybe higher forces have been at work.

It is unfortunate that peoples' view of the Catholic Church is consumed by these problems because it ignores the good that it does

Like .. let's see ...

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids[/url]

I did ask why it had been re-opened and mods said "I reopened it as after reading through the posts I took the view thatalthough religion can often be a sensitive topic it is not beyonddebate and opinion, especially at the moment in light of the widermedia debate surrounding the popes visit and the Catholic church in awider context. As there were no serious incidences of personal abuseor other breaches of the forum rules on that thread we found we wereunable to give a valid reason as to why it had been closed when wewere asked by a contributor to the thread. And so I took the decisionto reopen the thread."

IMO many sanctimonious "holier than thou" senior level catholic clergy who impose strict and bizarre laws on their followers and make them feel awful if they break them, have been exposed as some of the World's most devious and appalling criminals.

I have no time for them and will actively avoid them. There is also no way I would send my little boy to a school with any catholic connections.

DrJ - Member
[i]It is unfortunate that peoples' view of the Catholic Church is consumed by these problems because it ignores the good that it does[/i]
Like .. let's see ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

This is such tired rhetoric. Most African countries have a small percentage of Catholics. So the papal influence there (real or not) would have little effect on the larger problem. If there were any truth in this often repeated disinformation we would see some relationship between the percentage of Catholics in a country and the incidence of HIV / AIDS. We don't not even if we only consider 3rd world countries.

Ironic that folks who criticise Catholics for 'blindly following' often fail to apply any critical analysis to the 'facts'/'mantra' / 'creed' that they themselves churn out at every opportunity.

or here, with countries
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/catholicism-and-hiv-aids

I'll be able to see him from my desk as he drives past tomorrow.

Please send your rotten eggs to cynic-al, *** Princes St, Edinburgh.

Elfinsafety - Member

The title of this thread has changed a day after it was posted, namely the spelling of the word Papal.

How did project do that?

He couldn't have done.

Maybe it was the work of God?

The pope has his finger on everything around us and now on the singletrack computer, apologies for the error getting paypal mixed up with papal but they both take your money

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

"The Vatican said the cardinal had not intended "any kind of slight", and was referring to the UK's multicultural society"

Oh dear...

who cares about balanced opinion?

If someone asked me what i thought of religion i would tell them i think "its a ****ing joke." Im entitled to my opinion and thats it. I once got asked what i thought jesus was and told the nice lady i thought he was a terrorist along the same lines as Osama Bin Laden.

Something that wont get me flamed like a tit for actually posting that then...Yes* family members may molest more children than religion but you are part of a family and have relatives end of story. You dont have to be a part of the church unless someone else forces you into it. Do you really think children (if given an adults ability to analyse situations) would join up to the catholic faith, get molested and still remain faithful?

*im takign your words on this.

Charlie, that's an eye opening graph and is very interesting. Do you know where the data has come from? I can't find any references or sources on the many eyes website.

i'd love to see a graph showing 'population growth vs catholic population (%)'

by far, the biggest, problem, we face, BY MILES, is over population.

(dodgy punctuation added for theatrical effect...)

Actually, further to Charlie Mungus' post, there are apparently 2.3 million people living with HIV/AIDS in India. India is a predominantly Hindu country, with a very small minority of Catholics.

http://www.avert.org/india-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

Hinduism does not forbid the use of contraception. Neither does Islam, mainly. The problem isn't religious objection to contraception/use of condoms, more the inability to afford it.

i'd love to see a graph showing 'population growth vs catholic population (%)'

Feel free to create one to suit your own theory, try many eyes site.

I'd love to see a graph showing 'population growth vs catholic population (%)'

Here's a map:

[img] [/img]

Read into that what you will.

The question is not really anything to do with Hinduism or the total number of HIV infections in a given population but rather does any kind of catholic element in the population have an effect on the number of infections. If the pope says yes to condom use and THEN the incidences of HIV reduced or increased by any significant number at all then it would be fair to say that Catholicism does have an impact on the number of HIV infections one way or another. It's the change of infections as a result of a change in number of catholics in a population that would give us information of the impact of Catholicism on HIV infections. Simply measuring infections against the number of catholics is rather misleading.

Simply measuring infections against the number of catholics is rather misleading.

Yes, but I think it's being suggested on here by some that somehow Catholicism is responsible for the prevalence of AIDS/HIV, which it's reasonable to suggest is unfounded. Certainly, studies suggest poverty, education and access to condoms are far more important factors to consider.

[img] [/img]

Catholics, condoms and AIDS

The problem is that they use their leverage to prevent charities or NGOs distributing free condoms to reduce AIDS

The catholic church is a force for evil on this and is responsible for millions of preventable deaths.

Their influence goes far beyond the followers of the religion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1465326.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/hiv-aids-catholic-church-condoms

The catholic church is a force for evil on this and is responsible for millions of preventable deaths.

Really? You surprise me on this one Jeremy, as you're normally pretty thoughtful and open minded about stuff.

So you don't think that the lack of availability of condoms, the sharing of needles or lack of education have anything to do with the spread of AIDS/HIV? It's all down to Catholicism? Got any real evidence to back up this claim?

I won't deny that Catholic doctrine has a negative influence on this terrible situation. But to suggest that Catholicism is responsible for 'millions of deaths' is just a bit reactionary, wouldn't you say?

From you second link:

Let's get some facts straight. Condoms prevent HIV.

Wrong. Condoms [i]help[/i] prevent HIV infection. That is irresponsible journalism. Also, condoms are very often re-used in many poorer countries, especially by sex workers. This drastically reduces their effectiveness. Poor quality condoms have a much higher failure rate. Storge conditions have a marked effect on their integrity. The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down.

Elfie - am am so angry about this.

The catholic church uses its influence to prevent non catholic organisations distributing free condoms.

This is responsible for millions of preventable deaths. A significant % of the deaths from aids could have been prevented if condoms had been made available.

American Evangelical churches do the same foul trick.

Condoms are he best method we have along with education for preventing the spread of AIDS. The catholic church uses its influence to prevent condoms being used anywhere by anyone.

This is responsible for millions of deaths - of this there is no doubt in my mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

[img] [/img]

Have you ever seen them together?

[IMG] [/IMG]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62335B20100304

The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down

won't deny that Catholic doctrine has a negative influence on this terrible situation

Wrong. Condoms help prevent HIV infection. That is irresponsible journalism. Also, condoms are very often re-used in many poorer countries, especially by sex workers. This drastically reduces their effectiveness. Poor quality condoms have a much higher failure rate. Storge conditions have a marked effect on their integrity. The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down.

This is wrong on so many levels. Its got to be Fred

TJ; I'm not denying that the Catholic church is guilty of spreading misinformation and in some cases even lies. I'm not defending Catholicism's stance on contraception. I know people who've done aid work in Sub Saharan Africa, and they've told me one of the biggest problems they face is the negative and damaging influence the Church has on the work they are trying to do. Yes, the Vatican needs to look at it's stance here, and change it's tack for the good of Humanity. I totally agree that the Pope should have to face the reality of the damage Catholic Doctrine is causing.

BUT

To blame Catholicism for causing the deaths and the spread of HIV/AIDS is like blaming car manufacturers for road deaths in the UK, sort of. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

My point is that I don't think it's helpful to go round accusing and blaming. What's more productive is to engage Catholics and the Vatican in discussion about how Catholic doctrine might be moderated in certain situations, such as this one. IE, to start seeing condom use not as a way of preventing life, but preventing death, as one of the journos in your links says. To take a different perspective on matters. Many Catholic priests and Bishops worldwide have adopted this view. Hopefully, more and more will see the logic and benefit to Humanity, in doing the same. But I really don't think condemning religion in this way helps make for better relations.

I find it sad that discussions of this kind often descends into people blaming and accusing, and spouting their own prejudices without adequate thought or consideration for others, or even understanding of what it is they're attacking. I'm not religious; I disagree with many aspects of religious doctrine, and religious practices. But I see also there is a lot of good in religion too. I think it's essential to look at things with an open mind and a broader perspective. Which is why I think it's great that this thread was re-opened. Good decision by the mods.

TJ I see where you're coming from, and I think it's admirable that someone can feel passionate about something like this. There's too much apathy in our society, too much complacency. Too much looking the other way.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Oh really? Care to tell me why?

Wrong. Condoms help prevent HIV infection. That is irresponsible journalism. Also, condoms are very often re-used in many poorer countries, especially by sex workers. This drastically reduces their effectiveness. Poor quality condoms have a much higher failure rate. Storge conditions have a marked effect on their integrity. The condom is not the one thing that will stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. It can only help slow it down.

Barrier protection stops infection when used correctly. What you refer to storage, reuse etc they are Red Herrings. Condoms in correct use have an almost 100% success rate. Referring to poor quality condoms is also a smokescreen, the fact that condoms sometimes tear, come off etc doesn't mean their use is infective in controlling the spread of aids.
It is a matter of fact that the church has blood on its hands in this matter and you are dancing on the head of a pin.

Elfin. Without the Catholic churchs input many more people would be alive now that are not. Thus they are responsible for many many deaths.

Surfer; I've worked as an outreach worker in east London, giving advice on drug use and HIV/AIDS to youngsters. Had training from healthcare professionals specialised in HIV/AIDS. Met an HIV sufferer who contracted the virus through 'protected' sex (the condom failed). Learned about the reality of condom use here in the UK and in places like Africa. So, not an expert by any means, but possibly slightly more knowledgeable than some folk.

Saying that condoms are a 100% prevention from HIV infection is extremely irresponsible. Re storage and reuse; not a 'red herring' at all. Talk to HIV workers who've worked in Africa. The heat in some regions is more than enough to degrade the rubber. Re-using a condom is extremely risky.

I'm not saying they're ineffective; where did I say that? Talk about taking things well out of context, to make a point.

Pft.

I think that the Catholic Church and the Vatican are acting an an extremely irresponsible manner. But to suggest that they have 'blood on their hands' is simply sensationalist rhetoric. What is more helpful in this situation is dialogue and understanding. This is not going to be achieved through hate and anger.

If I have unprotected sex with someone in Africa, because my belief tells me that that using condoms is wrong, and I contract HIV, is the Catholic Church responsible for my actions? We are all free to make our own decisions.

Let's not forget, also, that Catholicism advocates monogamy and sex only within 'marriage'. One of the biggest problems in Africa is that people will sleep with multiple partners. Which Catholicism forbids. Going to blame Catholicism for that? That they lack knowledge and are perhaps misguided in their beliefs is the difference between that continent and Europe. So, education is the key here.

Drac - Member

[i] i'd love to see a graph showing 'population growth vs catholic population (%)'[/i]

Feel free to create one to suit your own theory, try many eyes site.

Drac, you follow blindly. Find data which counters that presented.

Data from here, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_cat_as_per-religion-catholics-as-percentage
and before you criticise the source, think about the criticism and whether or not it is plausible

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_ann-people-population-growth-annual

population growth

TandemJeremy - Member

Elfin. Without the Catholic churchs input many more people would be alive now that are not. Thus they are responsible for many many deaths.

What about people who would have died but did not? Perhaps due to their faith or the outreach work of the Church, the work of Cafod?

Wanna take a guess on how many lives Cafod have saved? would it be as much as 'many many'?

Well....

Being a Practising Catholic i'm looking forward to the Popes mass on Sunday, our Church is changing Sunday morning mass so we can watch it on TV.

So to answer the OP's original question I won't be making a protest.

CharlieMungus, don't try and reason with TJ. You may as well try and tell Canute he'll never turn back the tide. His sense of being utterly right is ingrained in his psyche, even when he isn't.

Canute knew he couldn't turn back the tide. It was his followers who thought he was powerful enough to...

Apologies for inaccuracy. Am pished. 😉

So wouldn't it be nice if the church could support condom use and provide help to people at the same time?

You know, a logical reason, not some utter rubbish about 'every sperm is sacred'.

So until they start doing that, then yes, they are causing unneccessary suffering, because there is absolutely no need to deny condom use. Spirituality should take a back seat when the real world is concerned.

I am no fan of the Italian theme park,but even by your standards that was pretty hysterical TJ.May we have some evidence of the millions of deaths caused by the Catholic Churches opposition to contraception.The only estimate I can find of deaths from aids on the avert site states 2 million WORLDWIDE in 2008.Since you refer to millions of deaths,does that mean they were all Catholic,and unwilling to wear a robbers mask?

Thanks for the source Charlie.. I have no reason to doubt the numbers on that website.. However, one problem I have is that I can't cross reference the dots on the many eyes chart with the data from that website. My point is the many eyes graph (and I'm making a wider point about trusting statistics rather than targeting catholic arguments) doesn't back itself up with source data that will allow the chart to be repeated. In other words I still don;t have all the data needed to reproduce that graph and then be able to verify it and therefor be confident in quoting it in discussions and debates.

When stats are brought to bear in debates it's important that we are able to verify them. No?

No I won't protest though I do hope that plenty of people do.

TJ's hysterical style as usual proves ineffective though he does have some valid points buried in there. The Catholic Church's stance on condom use does cause deaths from AIDS though it's also perfectly fair to say that they're not necessarily responsible (or not entirely at the minimum) as like Fred said, people do have a choice. They simply end up being a negative influence in this instance.

Charlie's point about other people who the CC may have helped is reasonable but since one doesn't really exclude the other it's not really valid or relevant to the debate regarding AIDS/Condoms.

As to the graph, proper source data needed, ideally corroborated beyond the Church's own as we're all well aware that people are quite happy to bend/deny/make up the truth in order to further the CC's interests.

Daily Mash bring you the good stuff:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/queen-to-have-lunch-with-insane-criminal-201009163093/

Thanks for the source Charlie.. I have no reason to doubt the numbers on that website.. However, one problem I have is that I can't cross reference the dots on the many eyes chart with the data from that website. My point is the many eyes graph (and I'm making a wider point about trusting statistics rather than targeting catholic arguments) doesn't back itself up with source data that will allow the chart to be repeated. In other words I still don;t have all the data needed to reproduce that graph and then be able to verify it and therefor be confident in quoting it in discussions and debates.

When stats are brought to bear in debates it's important that we are able to verify them. No?

You can get the source data by visiting the nationmaster site www.nationmaster.com and selecting the parameters you want. Is this what you meant? Of course, you could also look at the data which generated the chart on the manyeyes site

As to the graph, proper source data needed, ideally corroborated beyond the Church's own as we're all well aware that people are quite happy to bend/deny/make up the truth in order to further the CC's interests.

I thought the 'Catholic hierarchy' source was a bit dodgy, but then i could see no reason why they would deliberately under[i]report their number, over report, perhaps.

And there is also the issue of scale, even if we doubled the numbers, the catholic precentages would be small. And we have to estimate what percentage of these catholics are practicing, what percentage of those don't use condoms and what percentage of those don't use them because the chucrch says. This ends up being a very small percentage.

The point of this is that if the pope stopped saying 'No!', then the percentage of people who would change their behaviour is heading towards insignificant.

Beyond raw comparisons. We also see that there is no correlation (regrdless of absolute values or percentages) between catholicism and incidence of those living with Aids.

It seems many follow Dawkins as blindly as those who follow the pope

German soldier is pursuing a Pole through Warsaw. Just as he is about to shoot, the voice of God is heard.
"Don't shoot this man, he is destined to be Pope one day"
German soldier: "OK, but what about me?"
God: "Well, you can be the one after"

Coat? ...

Is he flying in on Prayer-Force 1?

The point is the catholic church use their power and influence to stop condoms being distributed. They pressure governments to stop public health programmes using condoms as harm reduction.

Its not just adherents of the catholic faith this affects - its all people in countries where they do this.

This is why I find is so foul. I don't really care if they persuade gullible believers not to use condoms - but pressuring governments to stop harm reduction programmes by what is effectively blackmail is morally abhorrent.

Look at the link I provided above about the Philippines for an example. This is a tactic they have used for years. "If you promote condom use we will close all our orphanages and hospices" what a choice for an impoverished government.

Charlie - this is the point you miss. Its not just adherents of the catholic faith this affects.