Looks like the Catholic Church has chosen another ratbag to lead them

Criticism is mounting about the new pope Francis I. It is looking like they really have selected another ratbag. A mate joked the other day when I mentioned they’d selected an Argentinean…oh yet another nazi at the head of the Catholic Church.

The Pope has been accused of failing to stand up to the brutal military junta that slaughtered tens of thousands of Argentines in its so-called Dirty War.

Critics say Jorge Mario Bergoglio did little to help those who disappeared when the country was under right-wing military rule – and too much to criticise the left-wing opponents of the generals.

He has even been accused of turning a blind eye to the rounding up and torturing of his own Jesuit priests, something he strongly denies. 

The baggage of Argentine history also means potential diplomatic difficulties for Britain over the Falkland Islands.

At a mass in Buenos Aires last year, on the 30th anniversary of the invasion of the Falklands, the Pope referred to the British as ‘usurpers’ and called for the Argentine dead to be thanked.

He said: ‘We come to pray for all who have fallen, sons of the Homeland who went out to defend their mother, the Homeland, and to reclaim what is theirs, that is of the Homeland, and it was usurped.’

‘The Homeland cannot exclude from its memory, anyone who was called; it has to take charge of so many hearts with scars, and say thank you to them, to those who stayed on the island or those submerged in the water, to all of them.’

He can get stuffed if he thinks he can claim back the Falkland Islands.
.

  • Captain Crab

    To be fair to you Cam, you dont discriminate in that you criticize everyone worth criticizing. But I cant help but notice the preponderous of commentators from the left who seem to continually stick it to the Catholics. It is to their advantage to break Conservative institutions like that down.

    • Lion_ess

      Religion is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and bigotry. Look at the comments posted on this site that use “God/Jesus/Religion” to justify points of view, where the posters clearly have no opinions of their own. Brainwash – divide and rule – there’s religion for you.

      • Andrei

        Brainwash – divide and rule – there’s religion for you.

        That’s actually more applicable to BIG GOVERNMENT than religion which tends to unite people.

        The uniting aspect of religion is why Antonio Gramsci wrote that religion had to be undermined to advance Marxism

        • Lion_ess

          Interesting that you would deflect to big government, which I’m not in favour of either – but we were discussing religion.

          “Religion tends to unite people”. Really Andrei? Religion unites one brain-washed flock of sheep, against another brain-washed flock of sheep – hence the religious wars.

          Get yourself and telescope and a shovel, and when you find heaven and hell, give me a whistle.

    • unsol

      That may be so, but if the Catholics should be more concerned about not giving those who disagree with their faith, ammunition.

      I personally find that strain of Christianity abhorrent & completely out of keel with God’s Word. So reading articles about how they enabled & covered up child sexual & physical abuse or that yet another man with questionable values & personal history is appointed as God’s so-called right hand man makes me even more firm in my views, especially when I see little acknowledge from Catholics about this. And this is all without even going down the idolatry/Mary/rosary /Biblical incorrect path.

      To me the Catholics fail the first test of being in a position to judge – they constantly ignore that big plank obscuring their own vision; assuming righteous judgment precludes hypocrisy.

      • cows4me

        Good on you unsol, so nice to be in the presence of someone worthy to throw the first rock.

        • unsol

          I know you are being a smart ass, but I will accept it on face value as a compliment! Some may clearly feel differently, but believe I only judge the those who pass judgment. I never judge according to my own values. Like I said yesterday, unconditional acceptance – as per the standard God demands – not what anyone says He demands, doesn’t require full understanding or an adherence to what you believe to be right.

      • Captain Crab

        Gentleman, I have no love for the Catholic church or indeed any church. They fully deserve the criticism they get. But my point stands. There are many on the Left whose agenda suits them to destroy conservative organisations of which the Catholic church is one.

        • unsol

          It may stand if it was relevant to this post. We are talking about the failings of the Catholic Church not left wing ambitions.

          Further, churches always undermine conservative values because they seek to put a misplaced moral compass on a society that is increasingly secular; the best way to push people to leftist views is to bring God into politics & legal debates.

          As for calling me a gentleman – best not to assume someone is either gender as you have a 50% chance of being wrong which never bodes well in a debating forum :)

          • Captain Crab

            Bitter much? Dont patronise me arsehole

          • unsol

            Technically you should call me a bitch – but then I could be justified in calling you Private Cunt.

            Your indignation would have had some credibility had you not started your reply with “gentleman” – you implied a condescending attitude.

          • Captain Crab

            Meow. A lady you aint. Arsehole.

          • unsol

            Says the guy who gives himself a grandiose title & whose birth certificate is probably an apology from the condom factory……if only gave a toss eh.

            And lady is a fairly antiquated & slightly derogatory term too so no, don’t consider myself to be a “lady” either.

          • Captain Crab

            Oh poor sensitive petal. Seeing insult everywhere.”implied”,” slightly derogatory” bwahhahaha. It must be hard to be so pathetic like you. You really are bitter. Dumped by a man were you? Btw, CC is a nickname given to me- long story. But I wont bore you. Now fuck off and shave your hairy legs.

          • unsol

            Actually I do have hairy legs, thanks for reminding me – it’s Sat, gotta make sure I spruce up. Never been dumped & I’m a wife of many years….so that little stint at getting all keyboard warrior on me didn’t work either :)

            Thanks for elaborating on why you’re a cunt…I mean crab…not that I cared.

            Now are we done with this – care to actually respond to my original rebuttal on the issue?

          • Captain Crab

            No we are not done. You attack me and start a flame war because I use the word “gentleman”. What.a.fucking.pedant.
            As for your points. They are shit.

            “on a society that is increasingly secular;” Bullshit. Egypt under Morsi is imposing Sharia Law in a society which was once secular. In the UK and France there are now areas which are adminstered under Sharia Law.

            “assume someone is either gender as you have a 50% chance of being wrong ” On this Blog? Doubt it, but since you made the assertion prove me wrong.

            ” I never judge according to my own values” And yet on here you do.

            “unconditional acceptance – as per the standard God demands” – you know what God demands? wow. Did you meet God and discuss this?

            “that strain of Christianity abhorrent & completely out of keel with God’s Word. ” -oh you are an expert on Gods word and its interesting you completely ignore the good work of charity the Catholic Church has performed over many centuries. Yes, the sexual abuse is appalling but many Government Institutions have had the same occurr.

            .

          • unsol

            Thank you for finally starting to comment on the actual issues – even if only in part.

            Flame war – you used the word gentleman which always has negative connotations in the context of replies such as the one you wrote. Attempting to insult further didn’t do much to disprove my point…

            Society = NZ not Egypt. We live in NZ and it is NZ that is currently debating the ME Bill. Apologies if this was not quite clear enough for you.

            50% chance of being wrong – yes it still stands. Most people dont comment & unless you have had regular interactions with most commentators – which you dont appear to have had – you have no way of knowing so assumptions generally always result in you looking like an ass.

            God’s demands – go back, re-read very carefully then see if you can digest the context. Unconditional acceptance was the theme of the original post…..which you seemed to have missed.

            God’s word – broken down into 2 universal rules that everyone who associates themselves with Christian thought agrees on: Love God & only God & Love thy neighbour. Yet the Catholics believe it is acceptable to worship the Pope & pray to Mary.

            I also said “I personally” – which is a standard way of introducing a personal view that does not require others acceptance or adherence to. Basic dissertation stuff.

            I stated my views but don’t necessarily judge others who believe differently. I don’t judge the Catholics for being Catholics, I don’t even judge them when they are outright wankers. But I do judge them when they turn out to be hypocritical wankers.

            “many Government Institutions”

            Please name all those who have done as much as they could to enable & cover up the child sexual abuse as much as what the Catholic Church did?

          • BJ

            Two days ago I was in the same position you find yourself in. Out of all the commenters on here including some disgusting posts at times, this unsol is the most frustrating ongoing unpleasant one of all. I called ‘it’ out on ‘its’ very twisted, backtracking, assumptive, zero integrity, personal slights and found myself in the lions den – from which point it was fight or be eaten.

            There is not a more reactive, over sensitive, cynical, unpleasant, all knowing person than this one posting on here. ALWAYS without fail has the last say. ALWAYS has a most unpleasant discourse with at least one commenter and when’ its’ ‘spent’ goes to disperse the acid by turning it’s comments into sugar for someone else.

            I said to another commenter – by the longwinded, flared-up, indignant responses it would be a woman not a man and suggested I could pick the female hormones up in her responses, then I called them bitchy responses and that I pitied her husband because – she always gets to be right and always has the last say. It wouldn’t leave it alone – and called me the troll.

            I have one question to ‘her’ and I’d like the truth. Is unsol a woman or is ‘she’ Cam Slater? A qualification from the moderators would be good – because this commenter is making it a very unpleasant experience to visit this blog and if ‘she’ is someone else, I will stop coming. If it is WO I will be very disappointed. Go on unsol – your turn now – do your best and tell the truth.

          • Random66

            I know unsol is more than capable of answering for herself but because you are requiring some form of independant response I can confirm unsol is female. She has previously gone under a longer version of unsol, I can’t recall what it is now but it did link to her own blog. I can relate to much of what you have said and due to our differing opinions on same sex marriage she actually wrote to WO requesting I and others be banned. WO of course who supports free speech chose to post her letter to him so that we all could see and he was good enough to allow us all the opportunity to comment and perhaps defend ourselves. If you have an opinion different to unsol it is viewed as hate speech and by her own admission she would prefer we say nothing at all. I have long decided that unsol and I will more than likely not see eye to eye on most things but to borrow an expression from Buns, I am more than happy on which side of the divide I stand on.

          • BJ

            Thankyou

          • BJ

            My apologies – I did edit out a request for clarification but I must have been doing so at the very same time Random66 posted I believe. Lesson learnt – in future I will say on my post if I edit it . Sorry about that.

  • Blair Mulholland

    I’m not going to defend Francis for his Falklands views, save to say that he is Argentinian and he is hardly going to tell a memorial service in Buenos Aires that it was a stupid war, that the dead died in vain, and that the invasion was wrong, as true as all those things are.
    But your bigotry is showing on his actions during the Dirty War. Firstly, his detractors are criticising him, essentially, for not siding with the communists, which is what who most of the “victims” of the regime were. Many of the Jesuits involved were liberation theologians, with whom Francis was in conflict with at the time within the church. So boo freaking hoo for all the poor commies. I don’t care.
    Everythign I have seen and read regarding this man, save for his Falklands comments, has been exceedingly positive. You have made no case for what he did, or should have done, during the Dirty War – you are just repeating allegations. From what I have read, he saved lives. You’re just doing what you accuse mainstream journalists of doing all the time – being a Repeater. Please do some research before publishing more innunendo.

    • unsol

      “Save for his Falklands comments”

      Re the dirty war – silence is consent. Unless he actively spoke against it & did everything he could to help those being persecuted then he is as guilty as those who maimed, tortured & executed.

      Carrying your bags, catching the bus & paying for your own accommodation doesn’t define a mans character, but mans action or inaction in times of war most certainly does.

      • Blair Mulholland

        I believe he did do everything he could, from what I have read, short of suffering the fate of other dissidents. But why would he speak against it? The communists were waging an active terror campaign in Argentina. Sure, the Peronists were no better, and their justice was rough, but why would the Head of the Jesuits in Argentina, a man who was already fighting against liberation theology within his organisation, have a public bitch about arresting communists? He was only a priest, and had no inside knowledge of the scope of what the regime was actually doing until much later.

        What you are doing is taking the carpings of the socialist Left at face value and blindly repeating them without doing any thinking or research of your own. These are the same people who think Chavez and Castro and Che are heroes, and that will turn a blind eye to the thousands that Guevara executed in cold blood to bitch about Pinochet or Galtieri plugging a few of the comrades. A lot of those folk were simply activists who held up a few placards and marched down the street, but there was a ton of them who were actually guerilla insurgents, saboteurs and terrorists too. Argentina in the 1970s was a dangerous place – these weren’t hippies singing kumbaya around a campfire – they were blowing shit up and assasinating people. And you are telling me that that some minor local head of a religious order, as Francis was at the time, should have spoken up on these people’s behalf? If he hadn’t been disappeared by the regime, he would have been defrocked by the church, and rightly so too.

        But I guess he’s the Pope, so thus fair game for slander and innuendo. Gawd, imagine if Oskar Schindler was a Catholic priest instead of an industrialist, they’d be calling him a collaborator. In fact, they did that with Piux XII, despite the fact that the Vatican saved a significant number of Jews from the holocaust. I guess you can’t win.

        • unsol

          No I’m not taking on board the crazy rants from the left. I’m coming in from a different angle altogether – assuming anti Catholic teachings is synonymous with left wing ideology is naive & awfully convenient.

          I’m just not surprised that a man chosen by a bunch of religious hypocrites is most probably not good enough to assume the role of God on earth. No man has the right to step in between God and His people. The concept is preposterous & morally repugnant.

          Your lengthy rant at me therefore is misguided & irrelevant.

          • Blair Mulholland

            WTF?! You said (and I quote): “Re the dirty war – silence is consent. Unless he actively spoke against
            it & did everything he could to help those being persecuted then he
            is as guilty as those who maimed, tortured & executed.”

            I called bullshit on that and refuted it. I also pointed out that this argument against him is coming from the Left, because they believe that the Dirty War was a socialist insurgency and the commies could do no wrong. Why do you seem to agree with that? Why do you think the Catholic Church should side with the communists against the fascists? The charge is that they sat on the fence. Well guilty as charged! I would sit on the fence too! A plague on both their houses.

            Now you seem to be claiming you weren’t saying that at all and that you just don’t like the fact that the Pope isn’t Protestant. That’s not an argument against Francis or his actions during the Dirty War.

          • unsol

            Not really much of a retort since more information is coming out all the time & your guess is as good as mine.

            And of course the argument would come from the left – it was the left that the junta persecuted. Unless of course you think that such measures are OK if not directed towards the right wing?

            The Vatican is claiming he had no choice – which appears to have been what you regurgitated: “Bergoglio was aware of the atrocities that were being carried out and worked quietly to save victims, according to people who knew him then. But Bergoglio, like many other clerics at the time, remained publicly silent about the abuse and did not openly confront the military leaders”

            On the other hand, the victims are claiming “Bergoglio, as head of the Jesuits, may have turned a blind eye to some atrocities, then later denied knowing about those atrocities despite his own testimony to the contrary and that ultimately as head of the catholic church in Argentina, he did little to open the church’s archives to reveal the truth about its complicity”

            So who to believe? Personally I would always take the word over the common man than someone in a white dress protected by the land-locked sovereignty of his manmade little city-state.

            As they say, past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour & nothing about the Catholic past encourages my faith in their cult being an honest institution.

          • Rodger T
          • unsol

            Yes I read that this morning too. I think the fact that it has been 30 years & he still hasnt spoken out against what went on is essentially prove that this man is not of good character. If it were me, even if I had been able to keep my mouth shut at the time so that I didn’t get killed, or so that my family didn’t get killed, I would most certainly have spoken out against it by now.

  • Sponge

    Fuck the motherfucker

    • ZenTiger

      Can you please keep such fantasies to yourself? Children read this blog. Many of them who also comment here. You for instance. Go wash your mouth out with soap, then smack yourself, then turn yourself over to Sue Bradford for re-education.

      • Sponge

        And if you don’t like this swearing that this motherfucker forced from me
        And reckon it shows moral or intellectual paucity
        Then fuck you motherfucker, this is language one employs
        When one is fucking cross about fuckers fucking boys

        • Jack The Ladd

          You should fuck off and play with your lego you immature wanker.

          • Sponge

            I don’t give a fuck if calling the pope a motherfucker
            Means you unthinkingly brand me an unthinking apostate, and
            This has naught to do with other fucking godly motherfuckers
            I’m not interested right now in fucking scriptural debate
            There are other fucking songs and there are other fucking ways
            I’ll be a religious apologist on other fucking days
            And the fact remains that if you protect a single kiddie fucker
            Then pope or prince or plumber you’re a fucking motherfucker

          • ZenTiger

            Mighty nice of you to give the new Pope 5 minutes to right the wrongs of the world before accusing him of kiddy fiddling and protecting kiddy fiddlers. You a rational humanist by any chance?

        • ZenTiger

          So you know the new Pope and have already seen his entire life history in order to judge him? What an amazing coincidence, because I happen to know everything about you, and you seriously need some help. Especially for that little incident back on 2005. And take a pill for the Tourettes.

      • unsol

        “Children read this blog”

        As in minors? Under the age of 18? Well there goes good parenting for you.

        A blog that includes words such as cunt in the title are not suitable for children; further given the host loves his expletives then it is only fair to assume so will many of his readers.

  • Stephen

    Why do we need a Pope anyway? No other mainstream religions have a Pope. Wouldnt it be great if Francis was the final Pope.

    • peterwn

      The RC Church successfully persuaded the Italian Government to grant separate sovereignty in 1929 to the Vatican/ Holy See land, and this has been generally recognised internationally. Possibly the only way to ‘undo’ this would be for individual nations to ‘de-recognise’ the Vatican. While this sovereingty remains there will be a Head of State being the Pope.

      • ZenTiger

        It was compensation for the considerable amount of land and valuable property taken from the Church back in the 1800’s. But that is beside the point – there has been a Pope as the head of the RC Church for nearly 2000 years, and getting rid of the Vatican State will not end the role of the Pope.

    • ZenTiger

      Who is the “we”? Are you Catholic?

    • parorchestia

      Well some religions do seek the equivalent of a Pope. Radical Muslims work for a worldwide caliphate under the Caliph of Bagdad. Give me a Pope any day.

  • http://twitter.com/BevinUser Bruce Bevin

    Give Pope Francis a break! He’s only just been made Pope! When he ‘s been one for a while and done something and said something, then go for it!

    • peterwn

      The Pope seemed to be between a rock and a hard place at that time. Possibly the best he could do was to pronounce and act in such a way as to minimise the loss of life, the alternative would have been to martyr himself and the whole of his priesthood as well as risking others. To survive he obviously also had to pay lip service to Argentina’s claim on the Falklands. For Falklands reaction see:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/15/falkland-catholics-want-pope-to-visit
      At this stage Pope Francis should be given the benefit of doubt. There would be concern if he chose to move the Falkland Islands parish from the British arm of the RC Church to the Argentinian arm.

  • PlanetOrphan

    I wonder how it will benefit Argentina with him being in Rome ?
    There must be some serious systemic problems in their organisation, they all need to go back to university and learn about failure in delegation.
    It always starts at the top …

  • parorchestia

    He may well be successful in cleaning up the Catholic Church, and especially their Curia, but his conservative stance will do untold harm to humankind and the environment. I hope his reign is a very short one and that he is succeeded by a Pope with a bit more knowledge of ecological realities. He is sinning against man and the earth in his teachings and beliefs.

32%