成人论坛

The Church will be expected to rally round and laugh it off as a joke, which I presume it was, though hardly funny or original. And then move on.

The problem is, if it was a racist joke, or anti-semitic, or anti-women, or anti-gay there would be much more of an issue made. The "it was just a joke" line wouldn't go very far then.

I agree. I can understand why the Vatican is upset by this, it seems to be more socially acceptable to poke fun at someone's religious/moral beliefs than it is to make jokes about race, gender or sexuality. I don't personally agree with the Catholic church's stance on a lot of things but I don't think emailing tasteless jokes to government officials is a good way to express that opinion.

It's true that the joke was not terribly funny, but you cannot say that Ratzinger has not brought a lot of this on himself. His position on a range of issues is simply not acceptable, and his behaviour of late has been thoroughly disreputable. People need to make up their minds - if he is visiting as a head of state, he can be accorded the same honours as Mugabe or Pinochet or Ahmadinejad. If he is visiting as the coat-trailing alleged mouthpiece of a non-existent space pixie, and trying to enforce an anti-scientific and anti-humanitarian agenda (as he has done up to now), he should be worried about a much more robust response than a few jokes that point out the very real absurdity of his pronouncements. He is very welcome to visit, but he is not entitled to restrict the free speech of those who would refute his nonsense.

Another smoke screen from "Babylon the great" to divert from all the child sexual abuses.

Let me get this straight, a leaked memo containing schoolboy humour results in senior Papal aides suggesting that,
"The Foreign Office had not taken strong enough disciplinary action against those responsible for the document, No-one has lost their job over the memo... and the civil servant who authorised it has simply been moved to other duties."
Whereas the disciplinary action taken by the Church against paedophile priests resulted in .........?
Who says the Vatican doesn't do irony

William:

I think what the 23-yr-old staffer in the Foreign Office did was very much unacceptable, But, I don't think it will have an extreme effects on the forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom of the Pope....

And, I am just informing the team~The link to the article from Daily Telegraph is not working....

(D)

[Personal details removed by Moderator]
The Principle/ The Ethics/ The Proverb says that
Time is a great healer. As u saw, so u reaps. Everybody should respect their teachers 1st. Where there is a will, there is a way. Money is the root of all evils. TRUTHFULNESS & only Truthfulness is the medicine/doctrine of all types of physical & mental problems no doubt. That鈥檚 why a child always speaks the TRUTH by default. And it fulfills all his/her desires from the birthday till the day of death. That is every person will die in future when Time will come. So b Truthful 1st and see what is happening. I will never blame any person of this universe if I die. This is my confirmed declaration. I am waiting for my Creator鈥檚 order. I constantly believe that I can die anytime and anywhere. So I promised to myself that I will always speak the Truth and I will never tell a lie. Oh my Creator, help me.
That鈥檚 why I become patience 1st because the creator loves the patience people always. This gives me the sense that the proverb 鈥淧atience is bitter but its fruits are sweet.鈥� This proverb I attended in the last 29th BCS written examination.
And never ever believe the proverb which says Exception cannot b an example. Also try 2 know the person who has said this false proverb.

A truthful Personality

Time is a great healer. As u saw, so u reaps. Everybody should respect their teachers 1st. Where there is a will, there is a way. Money is the root of all evils. TRUTHFULNESS & only Truthfulness is the medicine/doctrine of all types of physical & mental problems no doubt. That鈥檚 why a child always speaks the TRUTH by default. And it fulfills all his/her desires from the birthday till the day of death.

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

I am very unimpressed by the Admin of the Catholic Church. Papal authority lies at the heart of that church, but belief and faith is what makes millions follow that religion. I think it is a lot of rot, but if that is what people want who am I to ridicule them?

I am quite convinced that the Pope has not done enough to clean up his church, but I also believe that this 'joke' went too far as it attacks the religious beliefs of millions of people. However the fact that it was made indicates perhaps that the standing of the Pope (Head of Admin) has sunk. A few decades ago a Pope would have had strong moral influence over many who did not follow Roman Catholicism, this is on the wane. I disagree with much that he says, but it used to be that a statement from him made me reexamine my views (never a bad thing, even if my views didn't change). Now I don't bother. I think that the Papacy has lost a lot recently and this pathetic email is just an indicator.

Should the 23 year old get the sack? No. His career is blighted anyway. Sacking him would only create another anti-catholic. Any way what about forgiveness?

So what is it about the "beliefs of millions of people" that makes their truth claims and ethical stance immune from criticism or even ridicule? Whether it is papal condoms or cartoons of Mohammed, these are legitimate areas of free speech. By all means tackle the substance, but the right to make the comments or jibes is NOT up for negotiation.

Shame on the person who released the memo to the press, or to whoever. To me, this seemed to be a harmless piece of fun to brighten up the day momentarily for a group of people in the Foreign Office, and never intended to cause any form of grief, upset or outrage. Incidentally, I am a Catholic and look forward to the Popoe's visit.

I wouldn't sack someone for this. People do all sorts of stupid things in their jobs. I would be more concerned about the more senior official who seems to have sanctioned the transmission of this document. That's where questions of good judgement come in.

It's ridiculous to call it a freedom of speech issue. Civil servants writing within and for their departments of speech aren't exercising free speech.

And when people do exercise free speech you get nonsense comparing the Pope to Mugabi and saying he is anti-scientific.

And when people do exercise free speech you get nonsense comparing the Pope to Mugabi and saying he is anti-scientific

For crying out loud, what do you think freedom of speech is? The freedom to say things nobody takes offence at? The freedom to speak as long as it's not to question, probe, satirise, offend, lampoon, argue the toss and spout nonsense?

That might be the policy on these boards (apart from the spouting nonsense bit, we all do that) or one to follow if you want a quiet life. But it's not freedom of speech.

Chris, I presume you support my right to say that the pope IS autocratic, and he IS anti-scientific, and that his handling of this issue (during his entire career, it would now seem) has been appalling.

By all means place the counter-arguments (if any), but merely pointing out that people ARE saying these things, and are highly critical of this particular pontiff, is not a counter-argument, nor is "shame shame" an adequate response. If you want to defend him, defend him.

I think the memo LIST suggestions are spot on and am thankful that someone had the courage to say those things. The person who hit SEND deserves a promotion.

The Vatican's moral worldview:

British Civil Servant insulting the pope - sackable offence.

Catholic clergy sexually abusing children - cover up and quiet transfer to another parish.

Priceless.

H

"It's true that the joke was not terribly funny"

I thought that the apology for the Spanish Armada was funny.

"To me, this seemed to be a harmless piece of fun to brighten up the day momentarily for a group of people in the Foreign Office, and never intended to cause any form of grief, upset or outrage."

That's my worry. It's the sort of practical joke that lightens the day, and it probably wasn't intended to cause offence. Some of it wasn't that funny - the abortion clinic was a bit heavy handed - but this wasn't aiming for high comedy.

I'd worry some poor 23 year old has been posted to Basra for making a bad joke, an ok joke, and one pretty good joke.

GV

Agree with most posts here, purile bit of fun, but the real story is the difference betweeen the FCO's reaction to a mild insult and the lack of reaction by the church in relation to the gross abuse of power and human rights of thousands.

To me no political party in GB is worth voting for if they are unwilling to raise with the pope the church's behaviour and failures in relation to the abuse of hundreds of church in the care of the catholic church.

If it were China, Chile, Romania, Russia etc etc any state visit would be used to welcome the "world leader" while tellng them some home truths and these normally relating to the visiting leaders own citizen.

In this case, UK citizens have been abused by members of the cathoic clergy, the church has covered up the abuse and in some cases taken actions that allowed the abuse to continue. This should be raise with the pope during his visit.

Guys, I didn't say I was opposed to free speech - I just pointed out at that it leads to a lot of nonsense being spouted. And please apply some consistency. I've listened to endless lectures on the Pope's so called rehabilitation of Bishop Williamson, the holocaust denier. No one seems unduly concerned with his free speech. Or when the Pope spoke about faith and reason in Regensburg and was attacked for a quote about islam. What about his free speech? Or when the Pope spoke about Aids and the scientifically attested fact that condoms haven't worked at the population level. What about his free speech? Almost no one on this site was prepared to debate the issue rationally. It was Hawkingesque venom about the Pope being a mass murderer.

People say just argue your case. You can't reason with someone who thinks Pope Benedict is similar to Mugabe. There is an abandonment of reason and respect for the truth which makes proper discussion impossible. If you describe someone's position as "unacceptable" rather than "untrue" where do we go?

As for #17 - just look what you did there. On the one hand you have "British civil servant" - a single individual, named and identified - you don't say "the British Government" or "the FCO". On the other you say "The Vatican" based on third party reporting of the comments of one unnamed source.

As for #20 - just look what you did there. Specific contributors to this site criticise Ratzinger in a way you don;t like and it becomes "No one seems unduly concerned with his free speech" and "Almost no one on this site was prepared to debate the issue rationally."

Please apply some consistency. (I'd put a smiley in here if I could).

On a serious note, the issue with Williamson wasn't free speech - he's free to spout all the mindless drivel he wants - but the actions of the pope that appeared to reflect a view that Williamson's nonsense wasn't all that serious. The same is true of your other examples - the Pope was criticised for speaking what some of his critics believed to be nonsense, even dangerous nonsense, but for the most part he wasn't being criticised for speaking.

I do not regard this as an issue of free-speech: it is an example simply of the most appalling bad manners imaginable. To invite a guest to one's home and then grossly insult him is inexcusably crass behaviour. The failure to dismiss the civil servant who authorised the dissemination of the memo is a clear statement that the government does not believe he did anything seriously wrong and is by far the greater insult to the pontiff.

Manners, courtesy and civility are the outward and visible signs of honesty, integrity, and honour; that those at the very heart of the state account them valueless is as clear an indication as one could wish of the moral blindness which blights the whole British political class and which has led to their being held in such widespread and deserved public contempt.

The Tories should be ashamed of themselves. They have spent millions on taking out billboard adverts, printing off campaign leaflets, on-line advertising, air time, and so on.

What a complete waste of money.

Gordon Brown is enough to win them the election on his own.

@Paul James 5

The only reason I want Ratzinger in the UK is to expose him to protest and hopefully win a few converts over to reason. This man and his cult do so much harm to the planet.

I'm bored off my trolley now. Time to perk up the fun factor and tackle some creationism.

Grokesx- I bow to their superior wit .

Could I add something to the F.O. Memo? Perhaps we could have an x factor phone in poll to see how many want to spend 拢20 mil on Ratzingers visit. (Or at the very least he should be in the dance off in Strictly)