Pope Francis thinks Falklands belong to Argentina

Scroll to see replies

The Pope shouldn't interfere in politics, although historically the Pope has. Argentina really have no legs to stand on; the people of the Falklands voted to be British so they have a right to be. Due to the American revolutionary war, Britain had to withdraw from the Falklands in 1774, Argentina then claimed the Islands until (I think) 1833, when the British essentially evicted them. So really Argentina do not have historical ownership of the Island, despite the fact they they are geographically close. Argentina and Begoglio can piss off.

Reply 61

ThatPerson

Original post by Fullofsurprises

The Pope hasn't commented on it. Some Cardinal or other in Argentina did.

Bergoglio, while a Cardinal did express his pro-argentinian stance on the Falklands. As a Cardinal he said the following:

Francis 1st

We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend their mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped.

Which makes his views quite clear imo. So maybe that Cardinal was actually him?

Reply 62

Rascacielos

Original post by Xotol

Honestly, I haven't seen anything from Pope Francis that suggests he is more liberal, if at all, about those issues (his quotes about same sex marriage and abortion are awful). Regardless, everything I've read suggests that he will keep to the Catholic current view even if he was more liberal.

And even if we assume that the Pope is more liberal and really willing to take Catholicism into the 21st century, they would only end up taking baby steps. Under extreme pressure, they may make some progress, but they'll still be pedalling behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future.

I agree. I think my hopes were just general ones that they might choose a slightly more progressive pope, and partly based on the fact that I respect Pope Francis' upbringing/modesty. But yes, if I ever thought that he might take Catholicism forward, it was unfounded.

Reply 63

L i b

Original post by SpiggyTopes

This is one of the less stupid things a pope has said. They are usually saying, no, don't use condoms because it would be a great idea to spread HIV throughout the world ....amongst many other stupid things...

I'm no friend of the Roman Catholic Church, but it's ****ing daft not to accept that if people actually listened to them on matters sexual then there'd be no HIV at all in the world.

Original post by ConanAndrews

"Of the 1,517 votes cast in a 92% turnout"...the united Kingdom doesn't care about the British citizens living in England, Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland. People are gullible to believe that C*** David Cameron cares about the British residents of the Falklands. It's all about that Oil.

Groan...

David Cameron is a Tory. You'd be hard pressed to find a Tory that doesn't care about the British residents of the Falklands. Your lazy cynicism is depressing.

Original post by paddyman4

The pope has ignorant and ridiculous opinions - it is not exactly a new phenomenon.

The Roman Pontiff standing in opposition to British interests... once again, nothing new! :tongue:

Reply 64

Historicity

Ahhh another undemocratically elected person preaching hypocrisy against the masses who blatantly don't bow to the church's control nor Argentina's.

Remind me why these people are listened to when they sit on thrones of gold whilst saying we need to help the poor?

Reply 65

Fullofsurprises

Original post by ThatPerson

Bergoglio, while a Cardinal did express his pro-argentinian stance on the Falklands. As a Cardinal he said the following:

Which makes his views quite clear imo. So maybe that Cardinal was actually him?

Yes, and maybe I was joking when I said "some Cardinal"??

Reply 66

Fullofsurprises

Original post by L i b

The Roman Pontiff standing in opposition to British interests... once again, nothing new! :tongue:

Lol at the /reformation tag, nice idea! :smile:

Yes, the Pontificate has never been hot on "breakaway Britain", but I think Cammie was ill-advised (as he so often is - inexperience, inexperience, inexperience - the three cornerstones of the Cameron administration) to sound off about it so quickly - if he'd checked in with the Diplomatic corps, they would have speedily acclimatised him to the wierd ins and outs of the Vatican mentality and the need for local Cardinals to support the local team. I assume he did this soundbite for the UK tabloids, but keeping them sweet all the time is a fools errand in the long run.

Reply 67

username931319

Why the hell would we listen to the Roman pontiff hahahaha. Got to love journalism.

Reply 68

SpiggyTopes

Original post by L i b

I'm no friend of the Roman Catholic Church, but it's ****ing daft not to accept that if people actually listened to them on matters sexual then there'd be no HIV at all in the world.

Then why is HIV the most rife in the most Catholic countries? :rolleyes:

The contrary is true. If nobody followed the sexual teachings from the Church, there would be no HIV. Nobody would have any fear of going to hell if they protect themselves from it with contraception.

I can't understand why the Pope, a man who has supposedly never had an orgasm in his entire life, should be the main man who teaches us sex ed. :confused:

Reply 69

Swanbow

Original post by barnetlad

He's not infallable on this as this view was expressed when a mere Archbishop.

If he carries on his view during his papacy and verbalises it then he will be wrong. I think the whole idea that someone can be infallable to absurd anyway.

Reply 70

FrogInABog

Original post by Fullofsurprises

More than once - and whilst they take the position that only those Encyclicals that specifically mention it are Infallible, they also reserve a background assumption that all Papal actions and sayings are broadly infallible, so it's not as clear-cut as you are saying.

I was referring to occasions on which a Pope has spoken Ex Cathedra. Infallibility can only be enforced if the Pope is speaking on a matter of faith, which this issue clearly is not. Granted, the majority of Roman Catholics will automatically agree with and defend most things that the Pope says and does, but that is quite different from saying that he is infallible on the matter. If he was to give his views, they could not be regarded as infallible, so Roman Catholics would be perfectly entitled to disagree with him, entirely within the parameters of their religion. Nonetheless, he is very unlikely to say any more about the Falklands for two reasons: firstly, he has much larger problems to be thinking about at the moment, and secondly, the last thing he needs at the moment is to create more controversy in the RC Church.

Reply 71

ConanAndrews

Groan...

David Cameron is a Tory. You'd be hard pressed to find a Tory that doesn't care about the British residents of the Falklands. Your lazy cynicism is depressing.

You'd find it hard to find a Tory who cares about any British resident. You just have to look at the one's in government for a good example.

The Roman Pontiff standing in opposition to British interests... once again, nothing new! :tongue:

Much like most people around the globe then...they don't care about British interests.

Reply 72

ConanAndrews

Original post by L i b

I'm no friend of the Roman Catholic Church, but it's ****ing daft not to accept that if people actually listened to them on matters sexual then there'd be no HIV at all in the world.

HIV can be contracted through things other than sexual matters. For example, drug use and it can also be passed through a persons blood.

Reply 73

QuentinMids

Original post by Historicity

Aim your criticisms at the billionaire Saudi princes, who travel the world having sex with high class prostitutes while the majority of people within that country are destitute.

Reply 74

QuentinMids

Original post by SpiggyTopes

Then why is HIV the most rife in the most Catholic countries? :rolleyes:

If people followed the church's teaching to the letter, there would be no AIDS as the church believes sex should only take place between married couples in monogamous relationships.

Reply 75

Genocidal

Who cares?

We are not a Catholic country so his opinion has very little power here.

Reply 76

Historicity

Original post by QuentinMids

Aim your criticisms at the billionaire Saudi princes, who travel the world having sex with high class prostitutes while the majority of people within that country are destitute.

Whilst unjust, they have little to do with the subject and aren't pretending to be God on earth.

Reply 77

QuentinMids

Original post by Historicity

Whilst unjust, they have little to do with the subject and aren't pretending to be God on earth.

Not God, God's representative.

Reply 78

MatureStudent36

Original post by nikkoch

The falkland islands are argentinian. Why do we have a need, why do we want a small cliff of rocks which has no political, financial or geographical gain? If the Argentineans want to have it, then they should get it. Geographically and historically it is theirs. Just because we took it and put some farmers on the island to inhabit it, it doesn't mean it just becomes ours. We need to let the Industrial era, and the era where we were the biggest power in the world go. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
Amen to that :biggrin:

The small cliff of rock is the size of Wales. So not so small

Reply 79

nikkoch

Original post by Drewski

1 - it was ours first.
2 - nothing else matters because it was ours first and the people who live there want it remain that way.

I think you'll actually find that between 1774 and 1840 the islands where actually argentinian :wink:

In addition if you go by the first come first served basis, then you'll find that the islands are french. In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.