François Hollande sur France 2

Le président François Hollande était l'invité de David Pujadas sur France 2.

De nombreux sujets ont été abordés : la Syrie, le retrait des soldats français en Afghanistan, le SMIC et son coup de pouce, et j'en passe...

C'est bien la première fois depuis longtemps que j'apprécie ce genre d'intervention !
J'ai adoré sa réponse à David Pujadas, qui lui demandait s'il n'était pas allé en train à Bruxelles pour faire gadget.
C'est avec calme et classe qu'il a répondu qu'il voulait faire simple mais que ça ne voulait pas dire médiocre ! (et ping dans le groin !)
C'est dingue de voir comment le changement de style de Président semble défriser bon nombre de personnes !
Simplicité ne rime pas avec bling bling, donc inutile de chercher des similitudes !
Tandis que la droite se lâche et pas forcément dans le bon sens, notament avec la déclaration de F. Fillon : "Les syndicats vont être les premiers cocus de la gauche", il est rassurant d'entendre un chef de l'Etat simple et posé. Ca nous change !

 (photo : THOMAS SAMSON / AFP POOL)

Comments

[Rédigé par : Rosa L.]

Bonjour,
Ben il en connait un rayon parce que pendant 5 ans, on sait quel rôle il a tenu...si ce n'est pas du cocufiage, ça y ressemble...oups...
Par contre, faudrait pas qu'il voit sa situation partout, le brave Fillon.
UMP: on se dit de droite pendant qu'on courtise les électeurs FN...
Madre Dios...
Amitiés

[Rédigé par : MarieEngagee]

@Rosa : merci de ton passage !

[Rédigé par : Summer]

Un article tre8s iomrptant sur le site de Damian Thompson :The Pope, the judge, the paedophile priest and The New York TimesFr Thomas Brundage, the former Archdiocese of Milwaukee Judicial Vicar who presided over the canonical criminal case of the Wisconsin child abuser Fr Lawrence Murphy, has broken his silence to give a devastating account of the scandal – and of the behaviour of The New York Times, which resurrected the story.( )In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.( )In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home( )Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues.Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more.Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.

[Rédigé par : Abank]

Pornography is an all-too-common obsession and adciitdon. What about the child pornography? Why no reference to the crime for which Bishop Lahey entered a guilty plea? Yes, there was a whop of porn, but it was the whop of child porn which initially got Lahey into hot water with secular authorities, and which then repulsed us all when we heard a little of the sordid and perverted nature of that porn, and which eventually led to his guilty plea and ever-so-brief time behind bars.But, according to Abp. Currie, Lahey's sins and crimes are no more than an obsession and adciitdon ? Where do the sex toys fit into this adciitdon ?Where do the one-night-stands and long-term-ten-year relationship with another male fit into this particular bishop's obsession and adciitdon?If indeed this is child porn affliction' is all too common, how many other Bishops are similarly obsessed and addicted?What of clergy? How many clergy are in the same boat as our criminal bishop? obsessed and addicted?No matter, poor Bishop Lahey: it's just not his fault. For all these years poor Bishop Lahey has somehow been deprived of his free will. Despite all the graces available to him as a priest, he has absolutely no self control. My dear goodness, I wonder if every naked, scared, hog-tied, shamed, tortured, sodomized and/or brutalized little boy in those porn pictures and flicks knows that it is really the bishop and his ilk who are the victims and who properly demands our sympathy? I am so darn tired of episcopal excuses and rationalization for behaviour which is both sinful and criminal.And then this: Raymond Lahey has requested to be removed from the clerical state. The Church will impose this or other penalties. Note or other penalties !! Note how the notion of other penalties just sort of slides out. Bishop Lahey has presumably asked to be laicized. But,as I read it, Archbishop Currie tells that maybe that won't be the case at all.I know. I know that sometimes priests ask to be defrocked and their request is declined. But surely a denial of such a request is not even a consideration in this case? Or, is it?I suppose we'll cross that bridge if and when when it comes. In the interim, my question is: What are Archbishop Currie and his fellow bishops doing to ensure that someone in the Vatican pays heed, does the right thing for the good of all, and defrocks Raymond Lahey? Are our bishops, for example, writing letters or making phone calls to the Vatican to say enough is enough: get him out? Is Archbishop Currie?If not, why not?Finally, a reminder of the Father Michael J Walsh scandal. It was Archbishop Currie who saw no harm in allowing convicted child molester Father Walsh to function as a priest at St. Brendan's in Newfoundland. And, it was Monsignor Martin Currie who was Vicar General and Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Halifax when Walsh was quietly and, I would say, deceptively, recycled out of Newfoundland and into that Nova Scotia.If Archbishop Currie wants to draw some good from this mess let him begin by sparing us another shock to the system and telling us what other bishops in Canada are, as he tells us Lahey is, smitten by an obsession and adciitdon to child porn.

[Rédigé par : Ibrahima]

, Once a priest alawys a priest. Think about it. Our fellow Anglican priests raise a host and say it is symbolically the body of Christ. During a Catholic Mass, a priest raises a host and says This is the body of Christ. trans-Substantiation etc ..the rules and theology run deep. The wine is now truly the blood of Christ. Catholics are indoctrinated to believe this. Same with women not being allowed to join the priesthood. & Priests are not allowed to marry. It is STILL accepted by Catholics, even though many complain. My point? Don't expect a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope to see Lahey anything other than a priest even though he may be defrocked. Perhaps a priest gone wounded/addicted/mental whatever. These 50+ age Bishops today believe Lahey can be cured and rehabilitated. Thus send him to a monastery!!Penance for the rest of his days on earth. Ok, I doubt if this will happen or if Lahey would accept this. But this might still be the thinking of the Church today. It's rooted in this deep theology which like many other religions, has its roots in thoughts and rituals and Books (Bible for example) of many EONS ago. Hard to change. Hey, there are still some Catholics who don't eat meat on Fridays and want the Mass in Latin. Imagine that! News from Philadelphia, by the way, ..40 Catholic schools to close!!! Yes FORTY!! Have you heard this? No money. Money spent on abuse cases/legal issues/declining enrollment.It's just beginning!!

[Rédigé par : Nataclluadauntukmu]

Bishop Currie's statement has the vague aaibvmlence and cliche moral tone of a Soviet press release. Rather than admit that another member of his country's hierarchy had gone way off the rails morally, he tells us the man suffered from an all too common obsession. Really?! First of all, only 5% of the population has any strong homosexual desire. Second, only a small percentage of that group are interested in kids. What then is so common ? Bishop Lahey isn't just one of the guys with respect to his preferences. As well, Lahey is a leaders of the Church that claims to be Christ's voice on Earth. Can we not expect him to follow a higher standard than the all too common obsessions and addictions?But everything is fine and everyone is happy in the Soviet Union, nyet?