You have to laugh at the duplicity of the Democratic Unionist Party declaring that a visit to Northern Ireland by Pope Benedict next Spring, coinciding perhaps with a visit by Her Majesty the Queen to the Republic, might be "difficult" for it's Leader, and likely First Minister of a restored and thoroughy corrupted devolved Assembly by that date - Dr. Ian Paisley.
Clearly there is a plan in place to prop up a potentially restored Assembly by that date - and a visit by the Pope to Northern Ireland would be just the ticket for good news headlines. Except, of course, for Dr Paisley who whilst he may not be required to kiss the Pope's actual ring, will certainly have to be photographed beside the man who he doctrinally believes to be an anti-Christ.
What amuses me is that Paisley may well be content to be photographed standing beside IRA Godfathers, whose organisation has been responsible for thousands of deaths, but bridles at the prospect of being photographed beside Pope Benedict - a man who has done no harm to anyone!
I get very fed up with the sectarian bigotry of Northern Ireland and as far as I am concerned, there is no sin to be found in greeting the Pope should he decide to visit this part of the United Kingdom. However sharing power with terrorist apologists is an immense sin. Surely the leader of the Free Presbyterian Church does not require this sinner to point that out to him????
Some interesting points there DV, though I beg to differ on a couple.
Firstly, the apologists for terrorism, odious though they may be, are present in the assembly for one reason only -- their electoral mandate. By contrast, the Pope presides over an entirely undemocratic institution, one which has blighted more lives (particularly of women and children) than the Provos ever managed.
You state that the Pope has never done any harm to anyone. His edicts on contraception in relation to the giant AIDS problem in Africa have directly led to the deaths of literally millions. His high-ranking role in an organisation guilty of the most vile, widespread and long-standing child abuse is little short of appalling.
I'm not apologising for Paisley -- his conflict with the pope is doctrinal rather than human rights driven, but your argument that the pope is apparently some harmless little man is spurious.
Posted by: Thinking Man's Fool | October 29, 2006 at 01:34 PM
TMF,
I have my own doctrinal issues with the Pope but I really don't see Pope Benedict has a man who is harmful. Nor do I see Paisley as a harmful man - I am on record saying I like him, but I fear his Party is being hypocritical! I guess THAT is the point of my post.
Posted by: David Vance | October 29, 2006 at 01:48 PM
David
this doesn't appear to be an official DUP statement.
"DUP source" could mean almost anything.
Paisley as leader of the DUP and Paisley as leader of his church need to be different animals. the "difficulty" may be in making that clear.
Posted by: aileen | October 29, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Aileen,
True enough - and this is a problem with all SUNDAY press stories, they are even more speculative than the rest of the week!! That said, what if "the source" is right???
Posted by: David Vance | October 29, 2006 at 02:40 PM
David
Can I ask what denomination of Protestantism you are.
It's just that while you are a very strict Protestant you have always been fair towards the Holy Father.
Posted by: Chris Gaskin | October 29, 2006 at 02:55 PM
David
As regards his electorate, the Pope and MMcG are in different leagues.
Edicts about use or noon use of contraception can't really be compared to orders to murder.
Posted by: aileen | October 29, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Chris,
You wouldn't believe me if I said Free P - but I am! However, I am not your typical Free P, just as I am not a typical Unionist! I'm from the maverick wing - and in truth I take all my guidance from the Bible - not any local branch derivative!!
Posted by: David Vance | October 29, 2006 at 03:00 PM
p.s I'll probably be ex-communicated sooner or later for pointing out the flaws in the glorious leader! (Paisley, that is...!!)
Posted by: David Vance | October 29, 2006 at 03:01 PM
David
I had no idea you were a Free P. Maverick wing of the Free P's!! That's a scary thought! ;o)
Excuse the ignorance of a very unothadox anglican, but what is the key doctrinal differece of the Free P's compared to the other Prod churches. What do you do/beleive that is different?
Posted by: aileen | October 29, 2006 at 03:06 PM
I think I can remember you saying that you were Free P once before but I wasn't sure.
As you said yourself you are not a typical Free P, perhaps because you are a convert (No slight is intended here but I think you did mention that your family were COI)
What exactly does being a member of the maverick wing of the Free P's entail? ;)
Posted by: Chris Gaskin | October 29, 2006 at 04:44 PM
The pope commands no respect whatsoever from me, nor does the archbishop of Cantebury, a rabbi, an imam or any other persons whose job it is to shill religion to the ignorant and afraid.
Pope Benny has done no harm? He was in charge of the section of the Vatican that moved kiddy fiddlers around rather than deal with them properly. He has done plenty of harm.
Posted by: SBK | October 29, 2006 at 05:02 PM
SBK
What vile lies you spew!
Pope Benny has done no harm? He was in charge of the section of the Vatican that moved kiddy fiddlers around rather than deal with them properly.
Which section was this?
Before becoming Pope the Holy Father was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was Dean of the College of Cardinals.
Posted by: Chris Gaskin | October 29, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Aileen: 'Edicts about use or noon use of contraception can't really be compared to orders to murder.'
Actually they can and indeed are even more insidious. At least the average Provo / Loyalist terrorist makes a consious decision to join and follow orders no matter how heinous or self-defeating. The average RC (or sincere member of any dictatorial religion) did not conciously decide to join -- in virtually every case, that choice was made for them, through the state-legitimised system of faith schooling and farcical respect for the illogical, handed down through the generations and indoctrinated through the most trusted of sources -- parents.
The non-use of a condom through papal edict, particularly in a country where AIDS is endemic, is foolish in the extreme, but the issuing of that edict, without thought for the dire social consequences, is in my view, tantamount to murder through ignorance and superstition.
Posted by: Thinking Man's Fool | October 29, 2006 at 05:34 PM
It really pisses me off when people spew this bullshit about the Catholic Church and AIDS.
The Catholic Church opposes artifical contraception but they also oppose sex before marriage.
If you follow both rules you won't get AIDS from unprotected sex because you won't be having any!!
Posted by: Chris Gaskin | October 29, 2006 at 05:43 PM
"At least the average Provo / Loyalist terrorist makes a consious decision to join and follow orders no matter how heinous or self-defeating."
The victims make no such decison.
The average RC, like the average Prod, has the choice to follow or reject any or all of the teaching of the faith they were brought up in.
The RC church is entitled to its views on condoms. If people cherrypick its advice, that is down to them.
Ordering murder is pure evil. If we succomb to ignorance and superstition, that is our fault. Bombs and bullets are another matter.
Posted by: aileen | October 29, 2006 at 05:54 PM
I agree with Aileen. The two things are incomparable. Giving orders to murder innocent people cannot ever be the same as the RC Church's views on artificial contraception.
As an RC myself I can take issue with many of the church's rules - but like an earlier poster says - anyone who follows all the rules will never be at risk of infection - however they may be at rish of a life of dire poverty for them and their 16+ children.
The church needs to modernise and probably needs another Vatican Council to do this - this will not take place while Benedict is in charge - so there will be a lot more people like myself and most people in both Ni and the ROI - a la carte Catholics.
My friend, when asked his religion always says that he is a recovering Catholic - just like being an alcoholic he says - you will always be one, but you don't necassarily have to be a practising one !
Posted by: Armaghlite | October 29, 2006 at 06:12 PM
David you said -
and in truth I take all my guidance from the Bible -
Can you show me where in the new testament you get the guidance for torture?
Posted by: observer | October 29, 2006 at 07:45 PM
Can you show me where in the new testament you get the guidance for torture?
It won't be found in The Bible: suicide-bombing and the creed of its perpetrators post-date the Bible. But the stance to be taken is a simple one: whilst the cost of torture is the corruption of the torturer, the cost of not applying torture could be the death of others. Instinctively, we know that, as do those to whom ut has to be explained.
Posted by: | October 29, 2006 at 09:45 PM
October - the bible does not advocate torture , its make clear we should not be entangled with the affairs of the world
torture is a man made instrument used against the innocent as well as the guilty
a TRUE christian cannot advocate torture instead they should advocate faith in God, no wonder NI wallows in ungodliness when the "christians" promote torture
Posted by: observer | October 29, 2006 at 09:58 PM
'It really pisses me off when people spew this bullshit about the Catholic Church and AIDS.'
Nice try Chris, but I recall similar comments from others concerning alleged clerical abuse -- shortly before the trickle of revelations became a torrent.
'The Catholic Church opposes artifical contraception but they also oppose sex before marriage.'
The bulk of AIDS deaths occur in Africa, in male -dominated societies. Give virtually any man the choice of abstaining from wearing a condom and he'll happily oblige -- forbid him from sex outside marriage and he'll make up his own mind.
There can be few sights of greater hubris than the public burning of condoms in Africa.
As a matter of interest, can someone explain exactly why the RC church so vehemently opposes artificial contraception, other than the propogation of the flock?
Posted by: Thinking Man's Fool | October 29, 2006 at 11:18 PM
'Giving orders to murder innocent people cannot ever be the same as the RC Church's views on artificial contraception.'
It is a proven medical fact that condoms help to protect against AIDS. The RC church, for better or worse, has a direct influence over millions of African people. It has a responsibility, out of simple humanity as opposed to outdated dogma, to preserve lives by advocating condom use. By preaching the entirely opposite view, the pope and his minions are effectively passing a death sentence.
Whilst those of us in the 'enlightened west' can generally take a pick and mix attitude to RC edicts, the African experience is somewhat less liberal.
A recurring theme with modern Irish Roman Catholics is the somewhat puzzling stance of insisting on a robust defence of the RC church whilst taking an a la carte attitude to it's rules and teachings. What exactly is the point of being a member of an organisation such as the RC church if your views are actually more akin to Protestantism? Perhaps the current pope has the right idea when wishing to preside over a smaller church of the faithful rather than a large church of the lapsed.
Posted by: Thinking Man's Fool | October 29, 2006 at 11:34 PM
'in truth I take all my guidance from the Bible'
A fairly obvious question DV -- if you are happy to interpret the bible in your own way, why belong to any church at all?
The 3000+ and counting denominations/sects/cults of Christianity all interpret the bible in their own unique manner -- sometimes on minute matters of minor doctrine, other times on huge issues such as blood tranfusion or the Endtimes. Surely an intelligent man such as yourself can formulate your own understanding of the bible without a Free P minister or any other doing it for you?
Posted by: Thinking Man's Fool | October 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM
TMF
People can chose whether ot not to obey the teachings of any church. Choice is not an issue if you are at the receiving end of a bullet.
Posted by: aileen | October 29, 2006 at 11:55 PM
Dr Paisley who whilst he may not be required to kiss the Pope's actual ring...
My my such a change from the Save Ulster From Sodomy campaign.
Posted by: Davy McFaul | October 30, 2006 at 12:33 PM
If African men are as you say, TMF, why should they take any notice of a Church which says that wearing a condom is okay?
In Western countries at least, the widespread use of contraception seems to have no impact on the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Like others here, I think it's unreasonable to attribute causative power to one part of the Catholic Church's teaching on sex outside marriage, but not the other.
Posted by: Sean Fear | October 30, 2006 at 01:03 PM