The Vatican had one of its increasingly hysterical rants last week saying that criticism of the Pope amounts to terrorism.The accusations came after an Italian rock concert hosted by comedian Andrea Rivera. Mr Rivera spoke out strongly against a decision by the Italian Catholic Church to deny a religious funeral to Piergiorgio Welby, a muscular dystrophy sufferer who ended his life in December by having a doctor remove him from his artificial respirator.Rivera told a throng of about 400 000 people at Tuesday?s concert (broadcast live on TV): ?The pope said that he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution. I agree, the Church has not evolved. I cannot accept that the Vatican refused a funeral for Welby when they had no problems with the dictators Franco and Pinochet,? he said.The Vatican?s propaganda rag, L?Osservatore Romano then went into complete overdrive, and in a ludicrous editorial wrote: ?Attacking the Church is terrorism. Fuelling blind and irrational fury against he who always speaks in the name of love is terrorism. It is vile and terrorist to throw stones at the pope, this time directly, while feeling protected by shouts of approval from an easily excitable crowd,? the daily said.Labour unions that organised the concert regrettably distanced themselves from Rivera’s comments and right-wing groups offered outright condemntation. Some on the left, though, have dismissed L’Osservatore Romano?s comments as exaggerated.
From our colleagues across the pond at the National Secular Society of UK.
Peter Nuhn
Why would Piergiorgio Welby desire a funeral by a Church who’s teaching he rejects and why would Mr Rivera by concerned that he get one? I for example would not seek a Hindi funeral, nor could I expect one even if I did since I don’t embrace the Hindu religion.
Interesting this hyper vigilance as to the Church’s position.
If the christian god idea had wanted Piergiorgio Welby to remain alive after the respirator was removed, he wouldn’t have died, so what is the cath-a-licks problem? Anne Marie…
Perhaps because he was your typical Catholic? Do you blindly follow every edict that flows from the mouth of your Pope? If the answer is yes, then I feel sorry for you.
Perhaps he was simply expressing his disgust at a hypocritical, cultish, overbearing, tyrannical, manipulative, misplaced and undeserving authority? “he who always speaks in the name of love” – now that’s a hoot.
Tell me, Anne Marie, do you believe that criticizing the Catholic Church is an act of terrorism? Be sure to choose you answer carefully. If ‘yes,’ then you’re a lunatic. If ‘no,’ then you’re a heretic.
Anne Marie
Welby was roman catholic.
His family desired a religious funeral.
See this article:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-12/2006-12-23-voa23.cfm?CFID=73428849&CFTOKEN=27628083
I agree with rna2dna. There were no respirators when god “wrote” the bible. If the catholic god idea wanted Piergiorgio to live, he’d do it sans respirator, on prayer alone.
Oh for cryin’ out loud. The Pope is just a guy, not “he who always speaks in the name of love”.
What would the RC church do if its pope fell into a vegetative coma for years and years-one like Terry Schiavo’s? Who would do all the popey things?
I posted on this earlier here.
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2007/05/04/day_of_prayer_is_a_bust_in_washington#comments
Unfortunately, The Globe Article is now a pay-for-view.
rdmiller3;
According to catlickers, the poop is the “personal representative of gawd” dontcha know. Not “just a guy” as we would say.
This labeling of catholic criticism as terrorism is exactly why hate crime legislation is wrong. Under the proposed legislation that was defeated last week (HR 1592) here in the USA ?offenses involving actual or perceived? threats based on a persons religious beliefs, among other protected categories, could indeeed be persecuted as criminal.
Sure the catholic church is being hysterical but haven’t we all come to expect that? Most reasonable people whose judgement isn’t clouded by pro catholic indoctrination will just laugh this off as one more instance of the pope getting his knickers in a twist over nothing.
A mildly trained dog could, or even a small child.
You mean the official position that may or may not have been changed a number of times. Consistency is not an adjective of the RCC.
Or maybe you could show me the passage where artificial life support is mentioned in the babble?
Or perhaps you could tell me what the RCC position on organ donation is, b/c once an individual has been declared brain dead (like Schiavo), it is legally acceptable in the US to pull the plug & harvest organs.
Or would jay-sus rather have two dead people, one from the already dead person, and the other on a waiting list?
Like I said, consistency is too polysyllabic for morons.
We are all terrorists now. As though we couldn’t see that one coming.
Two weeks ago there was a working bomb found at a family planning clininc in the US (I don’t recall where). The builders of that bomb were of course terrorists. Strangely (sarcasm) there was hardly a peep about this story in the MSM. Did the Poop decry this terrorist act?
Sure, in our estimation.
But wouldn’t the RCC be in a bit of a pickle if the pope were comatose indefinitely? Afterall, he’s pope till he dies, and they don’t recognise that coma-state as death. So what’s the hierarchy?
Is there a pope-in-waiting, so to speak, a cardinal with power of papal attorney?
karen,
In that case the cardinals would convene in a similar setting to that of a conclave and decide what should happen. They do have that authority. Canon law has never addressed this issue in full, partly because it is incredibly difficult issue if you think about it long enough and partly because it has never happened.
From my perspective, it was not that Welby was taken off his unique forms of life support that the Church was so upset about but rather that he was a huge activist for Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide. I think in his case they may have seen all his life support as an extreme circumstance. Such a funeral would be giving tacit assent to his ideology. Pinochet and Franco may have received Catholic funerals approved by clergy with authority in the Church but that does not necessarily mean they should have received one. Rather, just like many people in the world today, they could have made a mistake. Inexcusable yes, but realistically who’s perfect?
Q:
A:
Hmm, maybe I don’t understand your point. I don’t understand how that statement “he who always speaks in the name of love” makes a case for his claiming perfection. The Pope can make mistakes. This statement argues he always speaks in love which could be true. That still isn’t a claim to perfection which I assume includes more than just his words. The Pope does not claim perfection but through the authority of the Church who receives it from Christ, he can in speaking on faith and morals declare a teaching without fault. Mind clarifying what you mean?
Jacob23,
How can you ask me for clarification immediately after spewing such circular drivel? If the Pope speaks for God, if his authority is divinely ordained, then everything he declares must be divine itself, therefor ‘perfect’. If it’s okay for Pinochet and Franco to receive a catholic funeral while such a privilege is denied to Welby then it must be God’s will, otherwise why would you ever listen to the Vatican at all????!!!
You ask me for my point? You must be blind. Obviously, my point is that you can’t have it both ways.
Isn’t the pope infallible ergo perfect?
Oh brother. I just looked up ‘Infallibility’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Talk about a mind numbing experience.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB
I hate theology.
“he always speaks in love which could be true.”
Could be, but it’s not. There’s a lot of hate spewing from his pie-hole when he pronounces judgement on gays, pro-choicers, athiests, etc.
666,
“According to catlickers”
Hey! What’s wrong with licking cats??
karen,
There have been instances where there were two popes. Maybe that would happen again. But then which one would be infallible??? You know, the succession of a Dalai Lama is sooo much easier to follow. Besides, at least he ACTUALLY talks about love and compassion.
evil
Hairballs, silly.
I did not know that there have been two popes at once. Must be very confusing. Who gets the pointy hat? Is there more than one of those?
Ya do learn sumpin’ new every day.
I read r4d’s contribution on papal infallibility. I must say, I’m as clear on it as I ever was. But of one thing, I’m certain: the guy’s not infallible, whatever that stuff said.
My Two Cents:
This is exactly the same as the terrorism inflicted on the world by Islam. People fear criticising Islam because they fear reprisals.
Now the Vatican is trying the same idea — making people fear criticising them the same way they fear Islam.
So… which is worse?
Zionists also use this tactic. The predictable overuse of the term “antisemite” is hurled at anyone who dares criticise israeli policy and like a good little conditioned flock of sheep the American public complies. In our modern secular world accusations of being politically incorrect carry the same weight that heresey used to and is capable of ruining careers and lives.
It’s an old trick but at least the catholic church no longer tortures and executes those who dare question it’s insane policies.
Dave
The Vatican’s attempt to make people fearful of criticizing the church may be along the same lines as the Islamic tactic, but in the end, it is bootless. What is the Church going to do, frown seriously at its critics? Excommunicate them? Deny them funerals?
Until they really start retaliating with violence like the Muslims do, the Islamic version is much, much worse.
Now, if they have any success, at legislating this criticism as terrorism into law, that would be the ultimate war cry, IMO.
alex:
How odd: Israel’s never done any of that.
Come to think of it, Israel’s never employed any of the RCC’s tactics that I know of.
Fancy that.
Lame analogy.
…a slight deviation here but I can’t resist correlating Newsweek’s conclusion regarding the three republican candidates who don’t believe in evolution with the very existence of a “Pope”… that being: “further proof we came from monkeys”.
Hi What,
“Two weeks ago there was a working bomb found at a family planning clininc in the US (I don’t recall where). The builders of that bomb were of course terrorists”.
Kinda blows a hole in the theory that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will come here.
the vactian is getting more desperate.i would not put anything past them remember they have the blood of millions on their hands.they are ruthless pedophiles.look at hitler and his catholic henchman they slaughtered jews and orthodox christians without mercy. we can expect no compassion from these evil doers.
Anne Maria before you get all bent out of shape. i know their millions of good people who are catholic but you are being lead by wolves in sheeps clothing.
The pope now wants to excommunicate the Mexico City politicians who recently decriminalised abortion.
No.
Terrorism: “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
Sounds like most religious groups to me: Threatened use of violence=threat of burning in hell.
Here is an article referring to the bombing attempt at a womens clinic. But who heard about? What you here about instead is the constant mantra about the islamobogeyman. Over and over the brining of toothless cases against hapless islamic “terrorists”.
What:
Here are three “toothless” attacks by “hapless Islamic ‘terrorists’”.
New York, Washington, PA 9/11: about 2973 dead.
Madrid, 3/11/2004: 191 dead, about 2000 injured.
London, 7/7/2005: 52 dead, 700 injured.
This is why people are more concerned about Islamic terrorism than abortion clinic bombers. Islamic terrorists are clearly the more dangerous of the two. Even if some of the exposed plans that you read about in the paper aren’t nearly as organized as the three I listed above, people’s fear is still reasonable.
Apple_Xmas,
It is interesting to note that your statistics lack any mention of the christian motivated invasion of Iraq.
Do you not think the people in Iraq feel terror?
rna,
“Do you not think the people in Iraq feel terror?”
Oh, but they’re the “enemy” so we have to dehumanize them. Fear is only an emotion found in humans afterall, right? I mean, every other creature in the world NEVER feels emotion. Only us good white christian americans do.
Apple
Could you possibly be more morally corrupt? You made not a single mention of the death and destruction due to your support of our first war criminal president. You may not get it yet but the rest of non-evangelical america does and it will destroy your maniacal religion. Good ridance.
Actually no it is not. Not unless you mean expected, given how unreasonable people are about perceived risk.
Adding up those three numbers you give and rounding up to include other smaller ones, we get maybe 4000 deaths in, say 10 years.
In the US alone, there are about 40,000 fatalities per year due to motor vehicle accidents. That’s 400,000 per decade. Yet few are willing to accept the inconvenience of not using a personal vehicle. Many still do not use seat belts.
The terrorists are aided and abetted in their efforts to affect the lives of people by the very bureaucracy that supposedly is shielding them from the threat.
Apparently enough people refused to fly in the days following 9/11 that an equivalent number of people were estimated to have died on the roads.
Pity we don’t have leaders that will tell people that facing our fears is better for us and that they refuse to implement a police state which infringes on our freedoms.
rna2dna & What:
I knew that someone would bring up dead civilian Iraqis. I was about to write something about it in my last post, anticipating your remarks, but I refrained since it’s not specifically pertinent to the discussion.
The comparison I was making was between Islamic terrorism vs. anti-abortion terrorism. That’s all I was referring to. And DD, the motor vehicle stats are likewise not relevant. I’m not saying they’re not significant, or deplorable… they’re just not germane to the discussion here.
What:
Blockquote disaster. Apologies…
Repost:
rna2dna & What:
I knew that someone would bring up dead civilian Iraqis. I was about to write something about it in my last post, anticipating your remarks, but I refrained since it’s not specifically pertinent to the discussion.
The comparison I was making was between Islamic terrorism vs. anti-abortion terrorism. That’s all I was referring to. And DD, the motor vehicle stats are likewise not relevant. I’m not saying they’re not significant, or deplorable… they’re just not germane to the discussion here.
What:
I’ve noticed that you tend to make sweeping statements like this. Do you really feel justified making such a statement based on such little evidence? If you met me, I bet you’d like me. Try not to read too much into the limited discourse here on this blog. I’ll try to do the same too, so I won’t hold this comment against you.
First of all, are you sure he’s our first war criminal? A case could be made for several presidents. And why do you think I support George W. Bush? I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 (and not because I was crazy about Kerry… I just didn’t want Bush to win!) I think getting involved in Iraq was a spectacularly bad idea, and that the Bush administration has been a disaster for this country.
FYI, I’m an atheist. Maybe I’m misreading your comments, but did you think I was a Christian?
Apple,
I’ll definitely second the thing about Bush not being our first war criminal president. Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Reagan and the Iran/Contra scandal? I think those classify as war crimes. Plus there’s still the debate over Pearl Harbor and the Lutsitania. Bush is pretty damn bad, but he wasn’t the first.
dishonest abe was the first war criminal but booth corrected that.
Small potatoes compared to what BushCo has done. Get real.