MovieChat Forums > Sinéad O'Connor Discussion > Silly Outrage Over Pope Picture Showed H...

Silly Outrage Over Pope Picture Showed How Big Catholic Lobby Is In USA

posted 10 months ago by wayfarer (69)
25 replies | jump to latest

As an Atheist, I personally couldn't care less about a picture of the Pope being ripped up, in fact, I appluad anyone for doing that. Given the Catholic Church covering up all of their child-molesting priests.

And I doubt any Protestants or Evangelacists would care about anyone criticizing Catholicisim.

So who really cared? Only the catholics. And USA being a secular nation, partly born out of a hatred of the Catholic church itself. Why was this even an issue?

It showed how big the Catholic lobby really is in North America even in the 1990s. They shouldn't even get public funding for their schools.

Catholic schools end up being breeding grounds for all forms of xenophobia, pitting themselves against every minority you can think of. So then we have Catholic schools taking a stand against Pride flags. So they can teach the next generation of kids to hate.

I don't know if Catholic schools get public funding in the USA, but in Canada they do. And honestly, that is BULLSHIT.

As for Joe Pesci? He can go fuck himself all the way back to ITALY. It was the ROMANS who killed Jesus anyway, so he really should shut his mouth.

[–] pjpurple@verizon.net (5530) 10 months ago

Catholic schools getting PUBLIC funding? Are you nuts? You really should stop and find out the truth before you spew your anger and ignorance.

All I know is that my parents and all the other Catholics In our town (and every town across the nation) were assessed school tax for the local public schools while they paid hefty tuition to send us to Catholic school.

I don't belong to any "Catholic lobby" but I found Ms. O'Connor's ripping up the Pope's picture reprehensible, rude and just plain disrespectful.

[–] wayfarer (69) 10 months ago

The Catholic education system in Ontario is publicly funded.

So yes, they DO get public funding. Maybe not in the USA, but I specifically said Canada in my post, and once again I am saying now, in Ontario, the Catholic school system is publicly funded.

So maybe you should read about what you're talking about before you start 'spewing' whatever comes to mind.

[–] moviechatterer (13743) 10 months ago

I totally agree

Those outraged should have considered that Sineaed's upbringing in Ireland gives a far far better position to comment on Catholicism from than theirs.

[–] Darren (1160) 10 months ago

Why would her experience as a Catholic be any more valid than theirs? Or do you think that the "Catholic lobby" is made up of Protestants, Jews, and Muslims? Most of the people who were outraged by her performance were Catholic themselves, and their experiences in that faith were different from hers.

[–] moviechatterer (13743) 10 months ago

yes , obviously the outraged were catholics

Sinead had a far more intimate acquaintance with various facets of the catholic church than they did.

[–] Darren (1160) 10 months ago

So? Not to minimize, but again, her experience was not typical of most Catholics. They're not even typical of large minority of Catholics. She might have the most justifiable grievances in the world against those she dealt with in the Catholic Church; that does not necessarily justify a blanket condemnation of the Catholic Church, nor invalidate the dislike with which millions of devout Catholics viewed her actions.

[–] moviechatterer (13743) 10 months ago

ive just seen this link , which details her experience.

"Sinead O'Connor's 2013 interview was published just 24 hours after the release of a damning report on the Catholic Churches' "Magdelene Laundries", which highlighted state collusion with the Nuns who ran them."

Like you say , not typical , and most Catholics are good people , but it would have been nice if they'd taken the criticism / opportunity to look into the working s of the organization and clean it up .
especially given the subsequent abuse scandals that have surfaced

[–] wayfarer (69) 10 months ago

Joe Pesci was upset because he's Italian American, and 75% of Italians identify as catholic. But I'm not fucking catholic, I never have been. I'm Aetheist, and my ancestor's are Scottish and English (protestant) SO I have absolutely no reason to care about the catholic church being criticized.

I also find it annoying that Pesci would come on SNL after Sinead as if HE speaks for America.

Joe fucking Pesci doesn't speak for America, he's just a guy good at playing movie villains.

[–] Mustang (5258) 10 months ago

I don’t think it was an effective protest on her behalf. She ripped up the picture called him an enemy and at the time everyone was like WTF? Back then as well people weren’t as accustomed to having politics shoved in their face all the time so doing so on a comedy show was also a poor decision.

[–] strntz (11060) 10 months ago

As an Atheist, I personally couldn't care less about a picture of the Pope being ripped up, in fact, I appluad anyone for doing that.

I'm also an atheist, and I found it reprehensible.

Personally, I can't stand the Catholic church but there's a time and place for everything, and as a foreigner guesting on an American TV show, that wasn't the time or place for O'Connor to do that if anywhere.

It would be analogous to Madonna going to England and ripping up a picture of the Queen on British TV.

[–] Ziggy (1569) 10 months ago

It would be analogous to Madonna going to England and ripping up a picture of the Queen on British TV.

Not really, because citizens of the United States have no official connection to the Queen of England, while the Pope is the Pope for every Catholic on the planet. So it would be more like someone from Chicago singing at a Yankees game and the tearing up a picture of the President.

[–] wayfarer (69) 10 months ago

Ripping up a picture of the queen of England is not a fair comparison.

I've been to England, I have family who are English, and let me tell you, no one would care about a picture of the Queen being torn up, in fact, a picture of Prince Charles being torn up, they might actually applaud it.

[–] strntz (11060) 10 months ago

Okay, then Madonna going to England and ripping up a picture of the National Football Team.

[–] wayfarer (69) 10 months ago

Madonna already embarassed her self to all England when she tried to put on that fake British accent after living there for 2 months.

[–] strntz (11060) 10 months ago

touche

[–] Leonlancs (3) 10 months ago

Still incorrect. Madonna is the biggest selling female artist of all time, while Sinéad is a one hit wonder nobody. You should have said Tiffany going on English TV and tearing up a photo of the football team

[–] strntz (11060) 10 months ago

LOL. Tiffany it is then.

[–] Ziggy (1569) 10 months ago

I was in college when this happened. A group of us were in the dorm watching this live, and we were speechless. I was the only Catholic in the room, so all eyes were on me, and I was just really stunned. I wasn't upset but I was really confused.

I was very involved in the Church in college, and I have worked for the Church for many years. It is so heartbreaking that anyone has suffered any type of abuse at the hands of people they have put their trust in. There is no way to make up for the atrocities that have occurred. The only thing I can really say is that the vast majority of people in the Church - clergy, leaders, parishioners, etc - are not engaging in any type of abuse. There are many policies that have been put into place - many checks and balances - do do what can be done to prevent future abuse. It doesn't make up for anything, but it is the best that can be done.

In the 1990s, the vast majority of Catholics in the US had no idea that this was happening. So when Sinéad O'Connor tore the picture of the Pope, we didn't know why. I don't remember learning why until about 10 years ago. We were just left stunned, having no idea why she was angry or what statement she was trying to make.

I was never mad at her or anything. I was just wondering why.

[–] wayfarer (69) 10 months ago

I think a lot of people could understand why, in a secular society with alot of aetheists and alot of skeptics like the USA, I think people would fully understand criticizing the catholic church.

England under Henry the 8th decimated their connection to the catholic church, and replaced it with an ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH OF ENGLAND, and that was 600 years ago. Alot of Native-Born White Americans in the 1800s hated the Catholic church. In fact, the predominant religion in the USA is Protestant, which is directly opposed to catholicism.

I am willing to bet there were a lot LESS people offended than some of you think. The people who weren't offended, however, wouldn't have said anything. So we only hear in the media all the people who were upset, because the vast majority who didn't care would have no reason to speak out.

[–] Ziggy (1569) 10 months ago

I think a lot of people could understand why, in a secular society with alot of aetheists and alot of skeptics like the USA, I think people would fully understand criticizing the catholic church.

That wasn't really my point. It wasn't clear why Sinéad was angry. There are any number or reasons why someone else may be upset, but, at the time, I don't remember any articles or press specifically about why Sinéad was angry or what her specific message was.

England under Henry the 8th decimated their connection to the catholic church, and replaced it with an ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH OF ENGLAND, and that was 600 years ago.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with 20th century issues. Henry VIII's reasons for separating from the Catholic Church may or may not have been mostly about the Pope denying him an annulment. There were many, many political motivations behind the choices that both of them made. But, I am not a historian, and I don't want to claim to know all the details.

Also, I wouldn't say the Church of England was "an entirely new" church. It was really more that Henry VIII declared himself the leader of this new church (where the Pope had no authority). It's not as if he or any priests or bishops disagreed theologically. If you look at the Anglican Church today, how different from the Catholic Church is it, really? (in terms of liturgy and theology).

In fact, the predominant religion in the USA is Protestant, which is directly opposed to catholicism.

There is no such thing as the Protestant Religion. There are over 30,000 different Protestant groups in the world. It is not one unified group. Catholics and Protestants differ in some of their beliefs and practices in the same way the Protestant churches differ with each other. They are all Christian churches centering on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[–] EleazarHisSon (631) 10 months ago

There are many Catholics in the USA, yes. Irish, Italian, Slavic and Hispanic Americans would probably be largely so. The most commonly reported ancestry on the US census is German, and a lot of Germans are Catholic.

[–] Kendricks (2125) 10 months ago

"As an Atheist, I personally couldn't care less about a picture of the Pope being ripped up, in fact, I appluad anyone for doing that."

Out of curiosity, what about burning the Quran, or the Tora?

[–] strntz (11060) 10 months ago

As a person who hates the Catholic church for their despicable handling of the molestation of children, I was nonetheless offended by what Skinhead O'Connor did. Time and place, time and place..

And I have zero use for Islamists (probably less than the Catholic church), but I would also be offended if O'Connor tore up the Quaran (or the Tora).

[–] BeaSouth (2856) 10 months ago

Speaking of hate….