´óÏó´«Ã½

Despite RJB lecturing me yesterday for trying to be helpful and informative, it should perhaps be noted that the three things normally paid for by the host country are accommodation, security and internal travel (as well as official/State lunches/dinners). The host does not normally pay for events arranged within the country that aren't official - for example, if the Pope celebrates Mass at Wembley stadium, the cost of that would not normally be met by the UK Government (with the exception of security). Same would be true if the President of France came. If he wanted to have a big event for the French community in London, the French would normally pay for it. These things are matters for some negotiation of course and the UK Government may decide to help the Catholic Church in Great Britain with the costs.

I understand the UK will not be providing accommodation nor a State dinner.

Whatever your opinion of the Pope, he's a head of State, and that ends the matter. There really isn't any room for debate, unless someone can show that the amount of money being spent is disproportionate.

There's no harm in the NSS petition, I suppose. (Perhaps they can get support from the Protestant Truth Society. Perhaps a cleric could throw a Bible at Benedict.)

But we should welcome the opportunity to discuss clerical abuse, and Church/State relationships. I just hope that more light than heat will be generated by the visit.

GV

I think if you look back to the relevant posts yesterday i.e. on this specific subject, I think you'll find that I brought the subject up and it was you who delivered a lecture, after which I responded that I already knew the protocol involved.

My point was not about who should foot the bill but about the fact that this man who is up to his neck in cover up - and now has the gall to lecture Bishops who were following his instructions - should be setting foot on these shores at all.

However, I'm delighted to see that you are now trying to be "helpful and informative." This will make a welcome change to your posts which generally tend to be arrogant, insensitive, triumphalistic and anti-Protestant.

I am wounded. Anti-Protestant? That's hardly correct. I may disagree with people's theological positions but that hardly makes me "anti-protestant. Perhaps you've confused me with somebody else, Jellybrain. You do tend to personalise these things a little. I hope it's not to insensitive to point out this little fault. Speaking of arrogance, while you may have known the protocol there are other readers you know and it's not always about you.

I think you two should settle your differences with a food fight.

It's the only sane and mature way to resolve a dispute.

GV

I think we complement each other very well; I'm always right and he's always wrong.

The Pope? The Pope? You mean the Pontifex Maximus?
He is no more a Head of State than the CEO of Lehman Brothers.
He runs a business, a global dispenser of promises and artifacts that has little changed since the Great Reformer Luther's time.
For the public to pay for his swanning around the UK?
It is a shame and a sham.
Rather let the UK's Protestant Proclaimers visit Italy and...that pretend state...Vatican is it?...and let the Italian Government pay for the privilege of being...enlightened?

Or we could all just throw buns at the Pope!
Are there any serious political objections beyond "he's a nasty guy"?

GV

Graham - Bibles? Buns?

I thought the Presbyterian projectile of choice for prelates was a stool??

The Pope, a 'Head of State', seated on a throne, amidst ostentatious grandeur, and his Bishops in their palaces. Poor Jesus, bet he never imagined that.

Geddes MaGregor is alive and well.

And careful as to which "stool" she throws,,,

rochcarlie

#10

I get the impression that most folks round here quite like Jesus. Am I wrong?

Peter

'Liking Jesus' as a thinking thing is very different from 'liking Jesus' as a doing thing. As you know.

Spot on rochcarlie. Is it okay to refer to you as RC from now on? Didnt think so.

#12
Although I think the life of Jesus, as per the Gospels, is probably mostly fiction, I am intrigued how the sentiments contained therein have been so often incompatible with the behaviour of churches.

Well, let's say there are 20 million Catholics in the UK (an over-estimate, I know), but that'll work out as a quid per Catholic. There are probably at least 6 million atheists in the UK, but I don't think the government shelled out 6 million quid for the recent visit to Norn Iron (and Ireland in general) of the atheist Pope, PZ "It's just a cracker" Myers. It's bigotry - that's what it is!

Instead of buns, how about custard pies?

It cost 6 million to bring P. Z. to Ireland? Gonny, or should I say P. Gee?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

William:

Sounds like a brilliant idea in reality but in "theory" it will not happen since; the United Kingdom Central Government and the Vatican will probably vetoed the idea...Since, the Pope is a head of State.

(Dennis Junior)

The whole of the Catholic Church is morally and ethically bankrupt, as far as I am concerned.

It is exceptionally easy to point out its far to numerous short cummings,aids and condoms, the child abuse as if child abuse is enough, how about the massive cover up of this child abuse, one of their US Bishops is being protected from prosecution at the Vatican, incidentally this hiding/hidden discredited bishop will be one of those that will vote for a new pope if anything happens to this one.

It's a very long list, of wrong thinking and doing, this dreadful, discredited religion and this discredited Pope are, as far as I am concerned not even welcome here in this country paying for his visit ads insult to injury.

I bet he doesn't go to Ireland.

1534 may be nearly five hundred years ago, but any catholic reading this blog would think it was only about halfpast three this afternoon. There is a seething hatred beneath the thin veneer of tollerance claimed by british society for themselves. The reality is that they tollerate what they must and what does not threaten their position of preference. Amongst the many the most discriminated aganst minority in this country are Roman Catholics.

eyesopen

Actually I had a similar thought about the comments being anti Catholic.

But, some of the anti Catholic comments are made by Catholics.

The atheists are anti religion, Protestant religion, Catholic religion, whatever, they're not 'Protestant' Atheists!!

The Christians, whether Protestant, Catholic or neither sometimes disagree with each other, and that acutely at times, but from what I can see it's not the 16th Century!

It's an odd blog at times!!

Peter - what about those Christians who consider themselves both Protestant and Catholic? ;-)

Agree that it's an odd blog - but odd in a very good way!

William Crawley is missing several main points...

1. The Vatican is an artificial state, an ecclesiastical monarchy, with just a couple of hundred citizens (mainly priests). The Secular Society is not against genuine state visits by the heads of real countries.

2. The British government should not invite, welcome or associate itself with someone who;

(a) actively covered up child abuse and protected its perpetrators within the church,
(b) hindered the prosecution of Catholic priests and nuns for crimes against humanity in Rwanda,
(c) promotes sexism, homophobia and other bigotry,
(d) actively campaigns AGAINST human rights and equality laws.

What kind of a signal does it send to the victims, when our government welcomes this kind of leader?

3. The blatant 'minority vote catching' by all three main political parties is causing unjust politics and further segregation of our communities.

Our government should be promoting human rights and equality, not promoting someone who speaks against them!

Yet, in International Law, the Vatican is a state. Historically it did govern territory, and gave this up to the Italian state. As part of that deal, it was to remain a sovereign state.

Now maybe it's artificial or whatever you like to call it in your opinion (and in mine as well, as it happens). But it's not under the law, and that's what counts.It's ludicrous to suggest that the UK government should just ignore this.

As for your comments: The British government should not invite, welcome or associate itself with someone who;

(a) actively covered up child abuse and protected its perpetrators within the church,
(b) hindered the prosecution of Catholic priests and nuns for crimes against humanity in Rwanda,
(c) promotes sexism, homophobia and other bigotry,
(d) actively campaigns AGAINST human rights and equality laws.

On (a) and (b) good luck in proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a case to be answered, IMO. Maybe the Pope's visit will be a chance to debate that.
But of course no other government in the Western World has ever engaged in illegal activity. Like bombing Greenpeace boats, or bugging democratic parties. Invading sovereign states after misleading their own electorate.That's a ludicrous thought.Because if they did, on your criteria, we'd need to ban state visits worldwide. And I'm sure you'vethought your arguments th
As for (c) and (d)- we should not recognise Islamic states? Yeah, that'll ease tensions in the Middle East.

Look, this is a great PR opportunity for secularists. Enjoy it.

GV

Given that the moderator is likely to forget that my posts were referred, can anyone remember what I said?

Mossad removed my posts!!!

Why do we need the pope here? He does nothing for the advancement of humanity (pro-paedophiles, pro-AIDS, anti-equalities etc etc etc). He doesn't even control oil, gas or minerals. I'm at a loss (and I will be protesting against his visit in September).
Peace.

I'm an Irishman, a former monk, a former Catholic, I'm gay and against the notion of any deity being responsible for life and the universe, especially none of those faith communities currently stating a position on the issue.
It always amazes me why some British people, who are so happy to decry the faults in other people(s), so brazenly overlook their own shameful past history.

Is the pope a homophobic probable former Nazi? I believe he is. Is he a Head of State? Under current legal systems, yes, he is. Are his views execrable? I believe so. But take a long hard look into your own history and you will come up against similar (if not worse) execrable views and practice.

English subjugation of its Celtic fringe, by extreme violence, persecution,death and legislation. Forcing a religion onto people. Mass murder in the name of religion. Discrimination against people of minority religions. Racism. The slave trade. Occupation of many,many countries. Attempted linguistic 'ethnic cleansing'. A shameful history in Ireland, India and all the other occupied nations, interfering in the Middle East,Africa, sowing the seeds of today's problems in those areas and denying all culpability therein.

I wish I had a curtain I could hang over my memories that would make me THAT BLIND to some of the worst ones, I can tell you. That must be of such comfort to these people. Britain is hardly the paragon of virtue portrayed herein. Indeed it's a long way from it. Just look at what Britain has done on the world over the last millennium for proof of the pudding. The same is true of the modern American Empire which you so apishly try to emulate. Funny how people who've had empires and like to base their societies on principles of so-called fairness,equity,respect for human rights etc, etc,are always the ones who inflict the most murder,killing,denial of human rights and oppression? Strange that.

And the Catholic/Protestant split... well just wise up people. Protestantism is just Catholicism-lite and both are totally fictitious,utterly unbelievable nonsense, used to control those who wish to abdicate their responsibility to figure life out for themselves and do it with respect for others. And as for Anglican bishops, have they all been moved into one-bedroom apartments or small family houses, if married? All religion is business and those at the top rake it in. Did you honestly believe anything else might be true?

This is hardly a visit to get your knickers in a twist about. He'll come and he'll go and you'll rant and rave and praise and damn in equal measure then it will all be subjugated to the financial needs of 'the Man'. Such has always been the way of 'the powerful'.

"Amongst the many the most discriminated aganst minority in this country are Roman Catholics"

-- As everyone on this blog knows the most discriminated minority in this country are 19 year old reformed Presbyterians who are in the orange order...

Roman Catholics account for 48% of the country and are the second largest and joint head of the government so to say that they are a persecuted minority is nonsense...