UKC

The Catholic Church has in the past come out with some very controversial statements.

But the fact the Pope, the head of the catholic church has now taken political sides with Argentina (yes he is Argentinian) and used some very strong political language in doing so, is shocking considering he is meant to be unifying catholic people, he feels it necessary to tell the people of the Falklands that they are not able to determine their own future.

I wonder how this will play out internationally, whether he'll try and rally Argentina's hell bent cause of annexing the Falklands simply because it's near them, and when I say near I mean about 500 miles off their coast, about the same distance is England to the far side of Poland. Using Argentina logic, the UK therefore owns Poland? regardless of what people in Poland think.

If there was any part of me that was Catholic (that's how I was raised), there isn't anymore!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21785929

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/14/pope-francis-argentina-falkland...

In reply to chocolatefingers:
he feels it necessary to tell the people of the Falklands that they are not able to determine their own future.

The Catholic church is hardly well known for being pro-choice on any issues. The Catholic Church headed by a bigot with some rather murky allegations in his past is harldy going to be a great step forward.

In reply to chocolatefingers:

To be fair. His comments on the Falklands were made when he was a Cardinal, there is nothing in the articles to suggest that as Pope he is going to take sides. In fact the emphasis in them is that he will remain neutral, which is what he should be in his new position.

In reply to chocolatefingers: He said this a long time ago.. not now..

In reply to Trangia:

I didn't know he made them a long time ago, just shows that media is span here too. I guess it will be interesting to see if he remains 'neutral'...

In reply to chocolatefingers:

He's Catholic, anything he did or said in the past will get swept under the table

In reply to chocolatefingers: Well why didn't you read the articles you linked to - they make it obvious that he has said stuff in the past

In reply to chocolatefingers: Doesn't really matter what people say about the Falklands and who should own them, we have them, Argentina wants them....Obviously nothing to do with the copious amounts of oil found just of the islands!

In reply to chocolatefingers:

The way he has been presented in France is as a humble, "man of the people". They say he lived in a small council flat and travelled by bus when a cardinal. He is also said to be conservative which seems contradictory a bit. Watching his first speech to the crowd in Rome he made a good impression on me, which for a fervent anti-papist atheist baffled me a little... I even found him somewhat moving which is even more disturbing! He used the first person, not the royal "we" and asked the crowd to pray for him - altogether a big change for the Catholic church... and the first from a developing country, which must be positive.

The last reforming pope died of a mysterious illness after about a month so if he really is going to be a progressive pope, which would make a change after the last two reactionary old whatnots, I hope he keeps his back watched!

In reply to robric:

Yes absolutely obvious, that's why they invaded the place 30 years ago when nobody had a clue what was near them. Phuqmegently.

Chocolatefingers, I note this is your first ever post on UKC. Do you actually climb or are you trolling round the interweb looking for places to stir up anti Catholic or anti Argentinian feelings? Just seems like a remarkable coincidence to me.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
They say he lived in a small council flat and travelled by bus when a cardinal. He is also said to be conservative which seems contradictory a bit.

He is supposedly very conservative; likes traditional Catholic values, doesn't like homosexuals and abortion. He annoyed the Argentine President by spearheading a campaign against pro-choice reform in the country. He is meant to have been keen to help the poor and lived a 'humble life' but that doesn't mean he isn't a traditional Catholic.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

He will just have a bit of catholic blindness when it comes to one of the major reasons why the poor stay poor.

In reply to chocolatefingers: I don't have a map handy but I think the distance from England to 'the far side of Poland' is a nadge more than 500 miles.

T.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I've just been reading a bit more and as you say his reputation is of being conservative on doctrine but progressive on social issues. He once washed the feet of some people ill with AIDS and criticised priests who refuse to baptise children with unmarried mothers and is not against the use of condoms which contradicts other views that some will see as being backward.

On the other hand to become pope maybe he has been hiding his hand a bit? The choice of the name Francis, his own choice, is said by Vatican watchers to be highly significant as St Francis was a friend of the poor, as was JC himself according to the bible, for what that's worth.

I do hope I'm not going to get converted on the road to Damascus, that wouldn't do at all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What's his take on the inhabitants of Argentina, and their fate? See Darwin's wee trip on the Beagle for details.

In reply to Removed User:


No it isn't. Registered since 8th April 2012. Not many posts, but it's not the first.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?id=151221

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Or alternatively he might have chosen it in honour of Francis Xavier (founder of the Jesuits). Who had some interesting ideas around coexisting with other religions among other things.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

I read that a while ago after buying the book at a visit to Darwin's house. Quite a character when you consider how young he was on the Beagle trip. Amongst the correspondence in Down House there was an interesting one from Karl Marx. Darwin wasn't just a pretty face, he was a revolutionary too in his way.

In reply to captain paranoia:

What's climbing? I'm just here to talk politics, I only use UKC because it's more toxic than 4chan.




On a serious note, president Kirchner will use what the pope saided previously to further justify her desire deluded view that the Falklands should be Argentinian regardless of his supposed 'neutral' stance now.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

they didnt really go out on much of a limb though did they in terms of going away from European and, specifically, Italian popes.

In reply to dissonance:

No, it's St. Francis of Assisi according to the Catholic experts - we've had them all the time on radio and telly in France since the election.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Argentina is hardly a developing country.

D

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


yes the ones in the UK keep saying that too. However since they dont seem to have provided the quotes from him I am not sure why the founder of his order is ignored. Unless they are deliberately trying to make him look nice and fluffy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


its ok, he comes with the usual baggage that recent candidates for the role all seem to have...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/14/pope-francis-argentina-military...

"In February, a court noted during the sentencing of three former military men to life imprisonment for the killings of two priests that the church hierarchy had "closed its eyes" to the killing of progressive priests.

As head of the Jesuit order from 1973 to 1979, Jorge Bergoglio – as the new pope was known until yesterday – was a member of the hierarachy during the period when the wider Catholic church backed the military government and called for their followers to be patriotic.

Bergoglio twice refused to testify in court about his role as head of the Jesuit order. When he eventually appeared in front of a judge in 2010, he was accused by lawyers of being evasive.

The main charge against Bergoglio involves the kidnapping of two Jesuit priests, Orland Yorio and Francisco Jalics, who were taken by Navy officers in May 1976 and held under inhumane conditions for the missionary work they conducted in the country's slums, a politically risky activity at the time.

His chief accuser is journalist Horacio Verbitsky, the author of a book on the church called "El Silencio" ("The Silence"), which claims that Bergoglio withdrew his order's protection from the two priests, effectively giving the military a green light for their abduction."


so there should be no need for you to worry about that trip to damascus any time soon...



gregor

In reply to dissonance:

His father was an Italian railway worker who emigrated to Argentina, like many others. He himself was born there and is Argentinian. I don't know what point you are trying to make but it is still a very important change for the Catholic church, and a lot better than an ex-nazi German or a Polish fascist.

It also shows to all that doubted it that Argentinians are human beings, as civilized as any others, an important point.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


and his mother was from a Italian family as well, so the point is it really isnt a major deviation.


Lets see what comes out of those claims about his cooperation with the fascist regime. At least his predecessor had the defence of being a kid.


actually it shows nothing of that kind. It simply shows the cardinals chose him but lets not let that get in the way of your rants. Time for some more colonel blimp rambling isnt it?

In reply to dissonance: Bruce is one of a kind. Thankfully.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


To be fair, judging by the scale bar on google maps (!) it's about right. Not that it has any relevance to the OP of course.

In reply to Aly: Note to self, don't use the scale bar on google maps, it's nearer 1000 miles!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

As an atheist I'm no fanboy of the last Pope, but the Hitler Youth thing is a tad unfair. He had no option, and served in the Wermacht, not SS or similar hard line outfit.

He was until the 60's a liberal and reformer and a keen supporter of Vatican II.

In reply to John Rushby:

Fro, what I have read and heard he became more hard line as he moved into more academic circles and away from 'popular Catholicism'

Mind you, he still makes Odone look like a ranting attack dog for Opus Dei

Apparently, given the residency of Emeritus Pope Benedict and Pope Francis, the Vatican is to be renamed Frankie & Benny's.

Ithangyou.

In reply to chocolatefingers:

im confused with him invoking the name of st francis - the one catholic who showed the most disdain for the pope of his era, was manipulate by him and renounced his adherance to the popes indulgent life.
no figure has the papacy fought more to smooth into the doctrine than that of francis.

but why let history get in the way...?

In reply to ice.solo: Where's that like button when you need it!

In reply to chocolatefingers:


Fair enough and I apologise for doubting your credentials.

My view on the whole thing? I don't expect to get a rational view on very much at all from somebody who believes they can talk to an imaginary friend.

As far as what the Argentinians or any other followers of whathisface are concerned think of his ponderings on the Falklands, who cares?

In reply to chocolatefingers:


Don't you mean the far side of Germany or near side of Poland? :-P

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=202478372350393973...

In reply to Alkis:

Depends on which latitude you take it from. The normal flat map of the world is an illusion for the real thing, either way, my point is that the Falklands are no where near as close as what the Argentina's would have them say they are. I've heard the term 'a stones throw away' used.

In reply to chocolatefingers:

Actually the nearest the Malvinas are to the rest of Argentina, not counting a few small islands which are nearer, is 250 miles. 320 if you don't count Tierra del Fuego, but I don't think many would say that this was not accepted as part of Argentina. All of this is part of Patagonia geographically.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think Chile might have something to say about all of Patagonia being Argentina, even forgetting the fact that Argentina is as much a colonialist country as we are.

In reply to chocolatefingers:
How did we come to " own" the Falklands? Was it part of the British empire?

In reply to Last Thursday:

Yes. People from Britain have been living there since the start of the 1800's and they wish to remain there, and British. Although there were other European settlers. However Argentina have said that the population living on the Falkland Islands are a British implanted population...you could argue that Argentina is an implanted Spanish population.

Spain has as much right to claim the Falklands as Argentina does IMO.

In reply to The New NickB:


Who is saying this, Argentina, me... the pope?

In reply to chocolatefingers:

Sorry to all those that have followed the previous Falklands threads where I've repeated it ad nauseam, and for the benefit of those who haven't seen these, or gave up after the first couple of hundred posts....

The first colony was French. The Argentinian claim is based on inheriting the Spanish claim, as Argentina didn't exist when the first wave of rival settlements were established and territorial claims made.

The Spanish claim is based on their invoking of a treaty brokered by a 15th century pope, which divided the world, including all the bits not yet known about by Europeans, between Spain and Portugal. The Falklands were in the 'Spanish' bit, so when they were discovered Spain claimed them, and France accepted the validity of the treaty and withdrew their colony. Britain didn't, and much sabre rattling followed, and continues to the present day.

And given that background, the appeal to the UN decolonisation committee, when the Argentinian claim ultimately rests on the most brazen colonial act in all of history, is patently absurd....

Google treaty of torsedillas for more info if interested.

In reply to Last Thursday:

It still is! It was taken by the British navy in 1833, previously it was Argentinian, Spanish and French. This took place after a couple of failed attacks on the Argentinian mainland, in which the British were chased out. The objective, at the time, was to set up a safe staging point for shipping heading to and from the Pacific as the Panama canal hadn't yet been built.

Most of the world disagrees with Britain on this, like the pope apparently, but the empire lives on in the antiquated minds of a majority of those who post on the subject on this forum.... Rumour has it they all have Union Jack underpants so the sun never sets on the British Empire

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Factual as ever.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Moths to a flame, aren't we Bruce..?



Gregor

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You are certainly suggesting it!

In reply to Last Thursday:

No, please don't ask that question

It's like typing

10 print "Here comes Bruce Hooker"
20 goto 10

In reply to Last Thursday:

'Britain's dispute with Argentina over the islands – which began 180 years ago when one of Lord Palmerston's gunboats seized them and expelled the Argentine administration.'

FROM

This isn't self-determination. It's a Ruritanian colonial relic
The vote for British rule in the Falklands referendum dodges the point. It's time for a negotiated settlement with Argentina

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/falklands-vote-ruritani...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: Seumas Milne is known for his poorly researched articles and that's another fine example.

Luis Vernet, from Hamburg, was the administrator when the British ships arrived. He was there was the permission of both the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata and the British, who both had claims at the time. The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata went on to become Argentina, which went onto invade indegenous lands to the south, killing the indeginous peoples.

All European powers at the time were going around the globe claiming chunks of land. The more relevant question is why are they still British? In my opinion that is because Argentina invaded in 1982.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:


the problem is you might as well quote Bruce for all the accuracy it shows.
Just to take one claim Britain of course does not reject any discussion it however states the islanders must be involved.
For Britain do anything other would be the government acting as a colonial power, which is sort of ironic considering the shite sprouted by those against self determination.

In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH:

did you see Greenslade's piece on the Falklands - turned the Guardian CiF into something out of the Telegraph.

only with facts and stuff.

In reply to John Rushby:

They've been a couple of threads where you lot have been saying come on Bruce so being an obliging sort of person I thought I ought to not to be churlish... especially where a pope is concerned.

I realise that patriots need their fix regularly or some may become confused, resort to lamp post sniffing and other such unsavoury activities.

I'm glad to see you all back on cue.