Activists from the NoToPope alliance, some mockingly dressed as nuns, priests, and devils, marched alongside Catholic youths who were on their way to listen to Pope Benedict XVI’s address in Sydney, Australia. The protesters, tightly policed by legal enforcements, were expressing their disagreement with papal policies regarding homosexuality, abortion and contraception.

"We want to make it clear that we are not anti-religious, and we welcome the Catholic youth to our country. Our gripe is with Pope Benedict and the hierarchy of the church," said Rachel Evans, one of NoToPope’s leaders.

As more than 500 activists shouted "The pope is wrong, put a condom on!" the Catholic youths responded with their own chant of "Benedicto! We love you!" Some activists threw packaged condoms at the passing group; others handed out coat hangers as a reference to backstreet abortions.

"Jesus loves us all the same. I totally understand why they are here and I'm not going to take it personally. But they don't understand that we love everyone, homosexual or whatever. Arguing is not the way," said Mark Choi, a pilgrim.

During the rally, which was a loud and colorful event attended by drag queens and others draped in the rainbow flag, the activists gave speeches on safe sex and even held a contest to decide which t-shirt slogan would annoy Roman Catholics the most, the winner of which was a reference to Christ’s mother, Mary. The runner up was "So many right-wing Christians, so few lions." Some even held up signs such as "Would Jesus discriminate?" and "Bless me Father, for I am a homo."

"It's their right to say these things, and in most of them they are right. I also do not agree with the pope on the question of condoms and sex before marriage," said Lukas Nebel, another pilgrim.

Earlier this month, state officials from New South Wales had passed regulations to prevent protestors from causing "annoyance or inconvenience" to the pilgrims, with perpetrators being fined up to 5,500 Australian dollars (US $5,300).

NoToPope activists took the matter to court and argued that such a directive violated their right of free speech. They won the case.