‘Francis would have prayed for those who mock him,' says Belfast priest who helped organise pope's Ireland visit
He helped organise Pope Francis's visit to the Republic of Ireland seven years ago, during which His Holiness travelled to the Knock shrine on the west of the island and addressed tens of thousands of people at an open-air mass in Dublin's Phoenix Park.
On Easter Monday, Pope Francis's death was mocked by some participants in an Apprentice Boys of Derry parade in Lisburn.
Footage from the annual event, which is widely considered as the opener of the unionist marching season, captured the Pride of Knockmore Flute Band playing 'No Pope of Rome', lyrics to which include: 'No, no Pope of Rome, no chapels to sadden my eyes, no nuns and no priests, no rosary beads, every day is the 12th of July.'
The incident came just hours after the 88-year-old leader of the Catholic Church died.
"No Pope of Rome" played during Apprentice Boys of Derry parade in Lisburn on day of Pope's death
Speaking about the event, which has been condemned by many political figures, Fr Bartlett said: 'For me, the overwhelming response from our politicians, from civic society [and] from our society has been one of sensitivity, sympathy, support and concern. Look, that's our only future. That's all I will say.
'Pope Francis wouldn't be bothered too much about it and would pray for those who maybe mocked him or joked about him. He wouldn't give him a lot of attention. Nor will I. Nor should we.
'That's their business. We have to build a better future in a different way for all of us. And the only way, Pope Francis would say, is together with mutual respect, love and care for each other.'
Fr Bartlett, alongside Lord Mayor Micky Murray, opened the book of condolences for Pope Francis at Belfast City Hall this afternoon.
Francis was only the second pope to ever visit the island of Ireland, after Pope John Paul II visited in 1979.
Though neither ventured north, Fr Bartlett said Francis 'followed the [political] situation here in Ireland, and in the north, very, very carefully'.
'He actually had been in Ireland as a Jesuit priest in 1980 for a while to learn English,' he explained.
'He blames us for his poor English — although I don't know if he maybe just had too much fun and didn't bother about the learning of English. We just don't know!
'But he also knew a lot of Irish missionaries in South America, and that was one of the reasons he chose to come to Ireland as pope, because his theme was 'let's go out, let's be missionaries, let's go out to the peripheries, the poor, the marginalised'.
'He saw the church in Ireland as a church that had done that over the centuries, and he wanted to honour that and to come and be part of it.
'But he also followed the political situation here very carefully, was well advised about it, and the only reason in the end that he didn't come north was [because] the original programme was too tight.
'And the more he looked into it, and others looked into it, there was so much that could be done and needed to be done.
'They realised [that a visit north] couldn't fit into the event, [with] the work meeting of families that was happening in Dublin.
'So, it was an open, alive invitation, right up to the moment of his death, that he might have come and visited this part of our island as part of a wider visit.'
The Belfast-born priest also witnessed Pope Francis compose his personal apology to victims of abuse in the Catholic Church, which the pontiff then read at his mass in Phoenix Park.
Some members of SAVIA (Survivors and Victims of Institutional Abuse) in NI said that although Francis was 'hands-on, with a big heart', they hope that the new pope will have 'a proactive approach to dealing with victims'.
Fr Bartlett said: 'Pope Francis, I think, would have been the first to say there's just no response you can give, no apology that's adequate [for] the whole scale of abuse within churches and other institutions in society, and no apology is sufficient for any individual and what they experienced in terms of abuse.
'But it was important — and I think history will record this — that not only did he issue an apology, but it was from his heart. It was written by his own hand, in his own words, after meeting survivors of abuse.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Divide, distract, dominate is the oldest political trick in the book
The symbolism is chilling. These aren't just bonfires; they're public performances of dehumanisation. That such displays are treated as cultural tradition by some only deepens the irony. When protesters are accused of stirring division, yet coordinated burnings of ethnic and political identities are dismissed or even celebrated, the moral compass has not only spun but snapped. READ MORE: Calls for removal of migrant effigies in boat on loyalist bonfire There's a pattern here. Infringements of human rights provoke resistance from those with lived memory or historical understanding of injustice. When that resistance is ignored – or worse, criminalised – it becomes troubling to those invested in the status quo. At that point, bigotry is no longer covert, it erupts into entitled performance. We're closer to square one than should ever have been allowed. This isn't just a Northern Irish issue, nor is it confined to sectarianism. It is mirrored in how Westminster handles Scottish democratic expression. Repeated refusals to permit a second independence referendum have stalled not just political process but political imagination. Yet instead of scrutinising Westminster's intransigence, much of the media, and therefore the population, blames the SNP government for not having 'delivered' independence – as if permission wasn't withheld in the first place. This is precisely the kind of misreading and misattribution the UK Government depends on to suppress dissent. Ironically, the Scottish Government has achieved a great deal despite these constitutional constraints. Standards in public services have been maintained above what should have been possible without mitigation under Westminster's fiscal tightening. Meanwhile, many English councils – Labour-led ones among them – are buckling under austerity. English voters and commentators routinely spout the lie that they're subsidising Scotland, instead of recognising their own shared victimhood under the same system of centralised indifference. READ MORE: Scottish depot trying to bring back Tesco pallets from loyalist bonfire Just as the bonfires burn symbols of international solidarity, so too Westminster pits nation against nation, and citizen against migrant. Divide, distract, and dominate: it's the oldest political trick in the book. Whether it's asylum seekers turned into effigies, or Holyrood turned into a scapegoat, the effects are the same: dehumanisation, delegitimisation, deflection, and denial. And this is not unique to the UK. Globally, we see the same game playing out. Refusal to address historical or structural injustice leads to protest reframed as provocation, then those in power manipulate grievance to embolden reactionary forces. The rise of religious nationalism in India, Israel's settler-state exceptionalism fuelling genocide in Palestine, and racial retrenchment in parts of the US all follow this well-worn pattern. We are not trapped in this cycle because it is inevitable. We are trapped because those with the power to break it choose instead to preserve it. They conflate silence with peace, and protest with peril. That's why symbolic violence like these bonfires is tolerated, and even encouraged in some circles. It's why legitimate calls for democratic self-determination in Scotland are rebranded as political failure. Until this cycle is broken by those in the middle ground recognising that complacency is complicity, we will keep returning to these same flames of hatred, denial, and distraction. The real danger is not just that we forget history or fail to celebrate sociocultural traditions, but that we keep choosing to relive history's worst moments and immolate the progress those traditions should represent. Ron Lumiere via email
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
European Commission tells Italy that imposing conditions on UniCredit/BPM bid could breach EU law
BRUSSELS, July 14 (Reuters) - The European Commission has told Italy that imposing certain conditions on UniCredit's ( opens new tab planned bid for Banco BPM ( opens new tab could breach EU law, it said in a statement on Monday. In a letter sent to Rome setting out its preliminary view, the European Commission said that a decree issued by the Italian Prime Minister's Office on April 18 imposing certain obligations on the merged entity may constitute a breach of EU merger regulations and other provisions of EU law.
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Banning disposable vapes was a waste of time
When we're debating the introduction of a new law – ban this, ban that, crack down on the other – most of the energy in the public conversation goes into the question of whether this, that, or the other is something that deserves to be cracked down on. It seems to be after the event, usually, and with the sound and fury at last subsided, that we discover whether the law in question will achieve its stated purpose. A corker of a recent example, I think, was the Blair government's foxhunting ban. It sucked in hundreds of hours of parliamentary time. It generated thousands of headlines. It brought hundreds of thousands of people out on the streets. And finally, this totemic piece of legislation passed – which according to your way of looking at things either sought to bring a barbaric and trivial era of our national history to a close, or sought to destroy part of the English way of life out of class-based spite. The main result was a giant uptick in the number of people in fancy dress taking their dogs for a walk on horseback. Another, I suspect, may turn out to be Sir Keir Starmer's one-in-one-out 'crackdown' on small boat migrants. It seems very odd that – by insisting that every new migrant we kick out will be replaced by another we consider more deserving – we essentially tether our migration statistics fastidiously and by law to the success of the smuggling gangs who run the small boats. There may be a shuffle of personnel, but in bums-on-seats terms, we're accepting exactly as many people as make landfall in a dinghy in any given year. But the one I zero in on here seems to me a wonderful little parable of the time and energy wasted when a law hasn't been properly thought through. Disposable vapes. Remember them? There was a moment when we could talk of little else. We all agreed, apparently, that they were a Bad Thing, on the grounds that a) it wasn't exactly environmentally friendly to have zillions of these plastic things chucked into landfill every year, along with all the nasty chemicals in their batteries and b) they were considered to be a big contributor to the rise in vaping among young people. The most prominent of all these vapes were probably Elf Bars, a marketing success story like no other. Their manufacturers indignantly deny the suggestion that they deliberately marketed their products to kiddies, but we can say with some confidence that kiddies liked them. Could it be the cheerful, CBeebies style colour schemes? Or is it the Haribo-adjacent flavours – things like Blueberry Sour Raspberry, Kiwi Passionfruit Guava and Blue Razz Lemonade? Either way, they became a rising star of the random-bag-search confiscation scene in secondary schools up and down the country. And so, duly, Rishi Sunak set in motion a ban that came into force a month or two ago. How's it working out? I only ask because though Elf Bars and their like may be popular with the kids, decrepit late-middle-agers like me have also been known to pick them up when they are caught short by the battery on their reusables giving up the ghost. (The cost of this is indignity: I have not seldom – being too short-sighted to read the flavours on the display behind the newsagent's counter – plumped for a pretty yellow one, imagining it would be lemony and refreshing, only to find myself choffing away on a vile synthetic banana confection.) Had reusable vapes doubled or tripled in price, consumer behaviour might have changed Your basic disposable vape, in case any readers are unfamiliar with them, is an all-in-one plastic doohickey with an integral one-use battery, and a tank of some fruity-flavoured and wickedly nicotinous juice inside which the battery vapourises for your pretend-smoking pleasure. They cost five or six quid a pop – or anything up to a tenner if you buy one from the robdogs in those central London kiosks. Now, though, they are 100 per cent illegal. So the other day, caught vapeless as described above, I tried to buy one in the offy. Elf Bar, despite the mighty smiting of Sunak and the combined will of both Houses, has very much not gone out of business. Instead, they are now selling reusable vapes. These new, absolutely-definitely-not-disposable vapes are exactly the same flavour, colour, shape and size of the wicked, needing-to-be-banned old sort. They are sold in the same packaging. They cost the same. The difference is that they've bunged in a USB port so you can now, at least in theory, recharge their crappy little batteries. And if you tug at the mouthpiece, you can lift the tank of fluid out and, at least in theory, replace it with spares that are available separately. Their many competitors – Lost Mary, Blu and all the rest – have done exactly the same thing. A tiny tweak to the production line (insert charging port; solder a couple of contacts onto the juice tank so it's removable) has made no significant difference to the product. No doubt the manufacturers will have pretty good statistics on how many of their customers now reuse their products rather than, say, tossing them in the bin when they're done just like they did with their predecessors. I can't claim to know, but I have a hunch. Had these reusable vapes, with their new specs, doubled or tripled in price, we might have been more confident in their effect on consumer behaviour – but, oddly, they didn't. And, for what it's worth, if the main desideratum was to reduce youth vaping, the current status quo probably does the opposite. It makes it just a bit cheaper for the thrifty teenage vape-fiend. If you can be bothered to recharge the battery with a USB cable (not included) you get two replacement juice-tanks for the same price as the original vape; which may be marginally better for the environment but it's also marginally easier on the old pocket money. And for this – at very best a no-score-draw in overall terms – we spent parliamentary time, political will, and acres of anguished, well-meaning news stories. Not to mention creating a logistical pain in the behind for newsagents and supermarkets up and down the country and inconveniencing to no especially obvious end the businesses that manufacture these things. Was this in any way foreseeable? As long ago as January 2024, the then health secretary Victoria Atkins promised: 'we will listen very carefully to suggestions that big tobacco and other vaping companies will somehow find a way around this'. To the suggestion that vaping companies might simply bung a USB port into an essentially disposable product, she said: 'That's incredibly cynical and it shows, if you like, the battle that the government is prepared to take on.' And yet, astoundingly, here we are. Mine's a Banana Ice.
