Protest the Pope’s claim not to be anti-Catholic proved to be hollow lies

The Richmond and Twickenham Times carries a report on the meeting of Protest the Pope, at which Terry Sanderson, among others, claimed that Catholic blogs, like Protect the Pope, were wrong to claim that they are anti-Catholic, like the Orange Lodge.  Sanderson tries to makes the unsupportable distinction that Protest the Pope is anti-Pope, not anti-Catholic.

However, a comment made by Jeremy Rodell, chairman of the South West London Humanist Group affiliated with the Protest the Pope coalition, proves the dishonesty of their claims not to be anti-Catholic.  He spoke at the meeting ‘against the idea of a new Roman Catholic secondary school being built in the borough, as reported in the Richmond and Twickenham Times last month.’

‘When the Pope visits us it will be forgotten in one or two years but if there’s brick and mortar up there, that will be there for decades to come.”

Protect the Pope comment:  Protest the Pope is not just against the state-visit of Pope Benedict but also Catholic schools, the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, etc, etc. Terry Sanderson, and Protest the Pope,  just saying your not anti-Catholic doesn’t prove that your not anti-Catholic. Take it from a Catholic, you’re dyed in the wool, 100 % card carrying anti-Catholics.

7 comments to Protest the Pope’s claim not to be anti-Catholic proved to be hollow lies

  • Karla

    Protest the Pope is an anti catholic hate group. This stupid little group isn’t going to stop any Catholic schools being built, or the Pope visiting the school there.

  • ninoinoz

    One of the speakers at the meeting, David Pollock, makes no secret of his hostility to faith schools in his comments to his own article on the Guardian website. You may see one or two familiar names there, especially at the end of the comments.

    Frankly, it is bad enough their insulting the Holy Father, but do they have to insult our intelligence as well?

  • sam

    faith schools shouldn’t be built using public funds whatsoever, and the teachings of sexual morality are questionable

    • ninoinoz

      OK. But, why have any public money spent on schools whatsoever? Or do you just mean schools where your ‘unquestionable’ morals are taught?

      And by whose moral authority were you appointed our spiritual leader, fit to question our church’s teaching?

  • Peter Santos

    Paul M’s post is dead on…I couldn’t stop laughing. Terry Sanderson frets over the Pope’s entourage of 11 being “funded” by taxpayers when the Church is paying part of that expense but had nothing to say about President Obama visiting Britain with an entourage of 500. The hypocrisy is sickening.

    • Karla

      I agree. And to those still moaning about the policing costs of the Pope’s visit, look what I just read on the Church Mouse blog:

      ”And what is all this for? The key focus for the Protest the Pope group is firstly that the taxpayer should not pay for the visit. Whilst the government has stated the cost of the visit to the taxpayer will only be around £12m, the National Secular Society insist that the actual cost to the taxpayer will be a laughable £100m. The difference, they claim, comes in policing costs which are not included in the £12m. Yet the government has already stated very clearly that policing costs will be met from existing budgets, meaning there will not be a single penny increase in cost for the taxpayer.

      The protest against taxpayer funding now seems to focus on the cost of policing the events. Mouse thinks this is pretty weak territory. Firstly, are they seriously suggesting that the police should not attend? Not only is the Pope entitled to the same protection as any other public figure whilst in the UK, there is the wider issue of public safety. The government have stated that the cost of policing the Papal visit will come from existing budgets, which means that no taxes will have to rise to pay for this, so there is very little to protest about.

      But it is also rather ironic that those who are complaining about the cost of policing the Papal visit, are also now threatening an illegal roadblock and a ‘mass rally’ amongst many other protest activities aimed to harass the Pope everywhere he goes. If you want to cut the cost of policing the visit, this is not the way to go about it.

      Protestors also want to make the point that they disagree with Catholic beliefs around contraception, equalities, abortion and education. Great pains were made at the public meeting last week to say that the protestors were not anti-Catholic, just anti-Pope Benedict XVI. However, its pretty clear that on all these issues, Pope Benedict has not changed Catholic dogma one jot. To describe these views as ‘inhumane’, ‘cruel’ or ‘misogynistic’, as they were at the Protest the Pope meeting last week, is to condemn millions of Catholics worldwide, as well as people of other faiths who share these views.

      Mouse has been struck that he has heard more from secularists about the Papal visit than he has from Catholics. It is clear that they see this as their chance to grab a few headlines, and the increasingly inflammatory and confrontational approach will not only incur more cost to the taxpayer, but risks an increase in the kind of threats that Catholics with Attitude have received.”

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>