³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

This seems like a serious attack on the democratic process to me. A lot of important issues are raised in the petition which the Government should deal with. What is the point of the Government allowing only petitions with which it agrees to run their proper course?

This attempt by the Government to silence the voice of Papal critics could swell the numbers of those who will protest against the Pope's visit.

Civil servants- what a load of winners- for example, would someone point me in the direction of a peer-reviewed paper which concludes "The Catholic church is to blame for HIV in Africa" or does "it is mentioned in The God Delusion" count

In a democracy, why can't someone doubt the holocaust/ revisionism?

I do however think it is a mistake to visit anti-Catholic Britain

Since the visit has the status of a State Visit, and some parts of the programme are being organised by the British Government, a proportion of the costs of the Visit will fall to the Government.

So the government's justification for expecting me, as a taxpayer, to cough up for the Pope's visit is that it is a 'State Visit'.

Right, let's unpack that idea.

The official State, in which the Holy See is located is called 'State of the City of the Vatican' or 'Vatican City' for short. This is a state with a population of some 800 people and a territory of 110 acres.

So therefore millions of pounds are to be expended on the visit of a man who rules over a mere 800 people! This is the smallest independent state in the world, and only Pitcairn, as an autonomous entity, is smaller in terms of population (which is not an independent state anyway). Therefore, the Pope is, strictly speaking, one of the least important 'heads of state' in the world (and of no greater status than a minor councillor in the ward of a small town). Why, therefore, is he not at the end of the queue - behind the leaders of Palau, Tuvalu and Nauru (populations 20k, 10k and 10k respectively) - for undertaking a state visit to Britain?

Well, of course, we all know the answer to that question. The Pope is not visiting as a 'head of state' at all, but as a global religious leader! His importance is as the 'spiritual' (or perhaps 'psychological') ruler of about one billion people. But all but 800 of those billion people are citizens of other countries, of which he is not the head of state. Those billion-less-800 people should be represented on a 'State Visit' to Britain by their own political leaders, if a 'State Visit' is what is being organised.

I am not 'anti-Catholic' and I have some sympathy with certain aspects of Catholic theology. I also strongly disagree with other aspects. I have no time for those who are protesting the Pope's visit as a pretext to promote their own 'anti-religious' agenda. I do not want to associate myself with those who oppose the Pope because of his opposition to abortion. Concerning holocaust denial: as has been noted already, I think people have the right to research the historical evidence of the events of the Second World War and draw their own possibly controversial and deeply offensive conclusions (it's called 'freedom of speech'). None of this is a problem to me.

However, I do object to being lied to.

This is not a legitimate 'State Visit'. It is only a 'State Visit' on the basis of the most obscene, crass and inconsistently applied technicality, as I have argued. And therefore I should not have to pay for it.

First of all lets deal with the new way to denigrate Catholics and thats to make out as if all of our Priests are peadophiles.Yes the Church has had its problems with peadophiles attaching themselves to the priesthood in order to gain access to children and that is to bw condemned outright,but will those using this terrible subject as a tool to attack Catholics now turn their attention to the peadophile deluge in the Protestant church in the USA?Will they also turn their attention to the peadophile scandal in the US public school system where a report by Prof.Carol Shakeshaft says thatthere is a "peadophile scandal 100 times that of the amount in the CC".

Or will that all be swept under the carpet to concentrate on the bigoted campaign against Catholics.

Oh and before I go Tatchels ignorant diatribe about Pope Pious is nothing but unadulterated lies and heres the proof.

On the day of Pius XII's death in 1958, Golda Meir, Israel's Foreign Minister, cabled the following message of condolence to the Vatican: "We share in the grief of humanity…When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace." Before beginning a concert of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, conductor Leonard Bernstein called for a minute of silence "for the passing of a very great man, Pope Pius XII."

i think the reason why the protest the pope campaign got such a tiny number of signatures is that while many people in Britain disagree with some of the Pope's views, we are a fairly tolerant bunch.

We prefer to put alternatives arguments rather than censure and ban things like the zealots behind this campaign do

logica_sine_vanitate (#3)

Since when was the importance of a head of state determined by the area covered or its population? Surely a better guage would be the amount of political power it holds?

If it were based on geographical parameters alone, the UK would be a very minor player on the world stage indeed. If based on land area, then Canada should be up there with the big boys, if based on population, then India too would be in the G8.

In terms of political clout, the Vatican hits way above its weight. All those billion Catholics are prepared to alter the way their own state is run, just because of what he says. Many, many countries are Catholic in beliefs and their heads of state are just as subservant to the Pope as any other Catholic (or they should be)

Your argument rings false. Whilst I hold the Pope to be nothing other than a glorified priest who's found a job without heavy lifting and certainly not some kind of avatar and I certainly disagree with paying out for his visit, he has every right to do so. The influence he wields on the world stage is not to be ignored.

Natman (@6)

There is only bit of your argument that I agree with and that is the comment about land area, which I agree was irrelevant in my post. But 800 people does not constitute an important and powerful state on the world stage. The billion Catholics (less 800) are not members of the Pope's State, and so are not relevant to the argument about the political status of the Vatican.

The Vatican only hits way above its weight for the reason I gave: because of the Pope's position as a religious leader and not as a head of state.

My argument may ring false to you, but that is irrelevant. I am looking at the facts of the case, and you know as well as I do (as I judge from your comments), that it is the religious and not political status of the Pope, which is the reason for his privileged status.

His billion followers are, as I explained, citizens of other states. Now if, to use your examples, the heads of Canada or India, were to visit the UK on a State Visit, would they be coming to represent the citizens of, let's say, Mexico and Equatorial Guinea? Of course not! That would be absurd and highly presumptuous.

You mention that some heads of state of Catholic countries are subservient to the Pope. That may be true. But it is also deeply disturbing that we should be inviting the head of state of one country, on the tacit justification that he is the de facto head of state of other countries, over which he has no legal right of jurisdiction. There is a smell of illegality about that, in the context of international law. By inviting the Pope to Britain on that basis, the UK government is, by implication, undermining the sovereignty and integrity of those other nations.

Now I agree that the influence that the Pope wields on the world stage is not to be ignored. But that is not my argument at all. Of course we should not ignore him. But his influence is wielded as a religious leader, not as a head of state. Therefore he should not be accorded the status of a head of state (i.e. an important head of state who deserves a State Visit), thus justifying significant expenditure of taxpayers' money.

If there is some protocol whereby taxpayers' money should be used to finance the visit to the UK of religious leaders, then fine (although many would disagree with it). But then it should be applied fairly to the visit of all religious leaders. And where then do we draw the line? The top bloke in the JW's? Muslim Ayatollahs? An Orthodox Patriarch from Russia? I could go on...

Could we bring over PZ? :-)

PZ?

What, like on a state visit?

:-)

Let's bring over Francis Collins- he's been involved in some worthwhile scientific research and is arguably the "highest ranked" biology based scientist in the world- zoology etc is really wasting everyone's time

I fully agree with Natman. The taxpayer does not have to pay for a religious visit. That is the whole point of being a secular nation.

Francis is a good suggestion, fluffy as he is on certain issues. But sequencing the human genome was certainly VERY worthwhile, and underlines our place among the other species with which we share this tiny planet.

By fluffy do you mean he doesn't pretend to be an expert on everything unlike Dawkins, Hitchens and you lot?
Has he ever heard of you?
As for your last sentence, don't mention that to McClinton as he thinks we are "special"- he probably is

A priest friend of mine in Scotland put up two notices on the board at the back of the Church two weeks ago.

The first was asking for parishioners to sign up for the Pope's Mass at Bellahouston Park in Glasgow, the second for the parish outing to Portobello beach.

Result - 6 signatures for the Papal Mass and... 120 for the parish picnic/BBQ.

It would appear that chicken drumsticks and burgers are more popular than the Pope, amongst Scottish Catholics.

Maybe the Church should embark on a slick publicity campaign. I'd suggest 'P in the Park.'

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

Truly, truly frightening:

"Our relationship with the Holy See enables us to address jointly a range of foreign policy and development issues. These include...addressing the impacts of climate change..."

I suppose the Catholic Church is an obvious consultant to choose on the subject of Climate Change, considering it acts as agent for the entity responsible for the greatest Flood in history.

"...and finding ways to encourage disarmament."

Hmmm. I'd be interested to know quite how the UK government can be interested in disarmament on one hand, whilst on the other it is openly bent on promoting as many arms sales at it can to sustain the country's position as the world's 2nd largest exporter of arms.

The petition should have stood even if only to allow people to respond to some of the nasty half-truths and lies that were contained in it.

The vile and dishonest historical revisionism of the life and work of Pope Pius XII that has been perpetrated in recent years by people who are simply anti-Catholic and will use any means whatever to push their
anti-Catholic agenda, needs to be answered.

When the rest of the world was running scared of the Nazi's and were bending over backwards in their attempts to placate Hitler (and thus turning a blind eye to the fate of the Jews and other people's) Pope Pius XII valiantly defended the Jews and other persecuted peoples in both word and deed.

This has been acknowledged and attested to by many Jewish authorities
both during Pope Pius XII's life and after his death.

To reference just a few:

In 1955, the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra, which was composed of Jewish refugees from many nations, toured Italy. The Orchestra performed a concert at the Vatican on May 26, 1955. According to the Jerusalem Post (May 29, 1955), "Conductor Paul Klecki had requested that the Orchestra on its first visit to Italy play for the Pope as a gesture of gratitude for the help his Church had given to all those persecuted by Nazi Fascism."

In 1957, the Pope received a delegation from the American Jewish Committee. The New York Times on June 29, 1957 reported that the Committee's representatives described the Pope as a "great friend" in the battle against racism and anti-Semitism in the United States. The Pope also praised the Committee's work, and issued a strong statement condemning anti-Semitism.

In the Canadian Jewish Chronicle (October 17 1958), Rabbi J. Stern recalled that Pius XII "made it possible for thousands of Jewish victims of Nazism and Fascism to be hidden away..." In the November 6 edition of the Jewish Post in Winnipeg, William Zukerman, the former American Hebrew columnist, wrote that no other leader "did more to help the Jews in their hour of greatest tragedy, during the Nazi occupation of Europe, than the late Pope."

"Adherents of all creeds and parties will recall how Pius XII faced the responsibilities of his exalted office with courage and devotion," declared the Jewish Chronicle in London on October 10 1958. "Before, during, and after the Second World War, he constantly preached the message of peace. Confronted by the monstrous cruelties of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, he repeatedly proclaimed the virtues of humanity and compassion."

In an article for Commentary (November 1950), French scholar and Holocaust survivor Leon Poliakov discussed the Vatican's conduct during the war. Poliakov suggested that the Vatican during the Holocaust retreated to its "medieval tradition" of protecting Jews from state persecution. "There is no doubt that secret instructions went out from the Vatican urging the national churches to intervene in favor of the Jews by every possible means," Poliakov wrote. In fact, according to Volumes VI, VIII, IX, and X of the Actes, these instructions were sent to the Vatican's many diplomatic representatives.

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

I consider myself pretty left on all matters politic so the foregoing opinion might come as a surprise in light of that fact but I find the opposition to the Pope's visit both oddly selective and decidedly sectarian. I have seen no such petitions surface regarding state visits by dignitaries from countries like Saudi Arabia and China (both with human rights records so appalling that even the Catholic Church looks "not that bad" by comparison).
And yes, Vatican City is small in size but whether you like it or not, its influence far eclipses many more populous territories--and the reach it extends to one wee corner of your own country, specifically Northern Ireland, is great indeed. I dare say in this context, the Pope is far more than simply a "spiritual leader." For this reason, the UK is right to view this as a "State" visit.

Doyler, yes, Francis Collins has had the honour of meeting Helio.

What I reckon is that the Catholic Church is onto a 'good thing' here and other religions need to wise up.

Here's what, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church ought to do. Why doesn't Russia mark out a small area comprising one of the main churches in Moscow - let's say the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour - and a few blocks around that, and declare it an independent state! (Or perhaps St Daniel Monastery, the HQ of the Orthodox Church). Then Patriarch Kirill can be installed as the 'head of state' of this newly formed 'country', so that he will then be allowed to make state visits to other (gullible and fawning) countries, and expect them to pay for his security and expenses by fleecing their populations through the tax system (and never mind the fact that those countries may be trying to save money by cutting public services to reduce the budget deficit. A religious leader's visit is surely far more important than the repair of a few grotty school buildings, don't ya think?)

This is a great idea. I'm positive other religions could work something out. What about a new 'state' in Salt Lake City for the Mormons - again only a few acres are needed? And even though England is a small country, I'm sure we could also let go of a few acres in Canterbury which could be set aside for the new Anglican addition to the CIA World Factbook. And then Rowan can visit 'England proper' and charge it to muggins' account!

Shall I go on? Or have I made my point?

The Pope's worldwide influence is not because he is a 'head of state', but as a 'head of a religion' (comprising a huge number of people from states over which he has no official, legal jurisdiction). Anyone can see that the Vatican does not even remotely resemble anything that we associate with a properly functioning independent state (despite the 'recognition' of other 'proper' states). It's nothing more than the excessively lavish headquarters of a religion - under the name of 'the Holy See'.

If taxpayers are required to pay for the visit of a religious leader, then that rule should be extended to all religious leaders (and then how do we define what constitutes a 'religion'?) Otherwise we are talking about gross discrimination.

Or is it a case of "all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others"?

(And no, I am not anti-Catholic. Just asking for 'fair play'. Not a lot to ask is it?)

logica_sine_vanitate,

I absolutely agree with your logic...and you are certainly right, that in a perfect world, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

However it's unfortunate, indeed, that logic seldom plays out very effectively on the stage of global politics. In fact, I daresay the two--politics and logic--have anything at all to do with each other.

If it's any consolation, this "courtesy" isn't reserved strictly for the Pope--Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King and other religious leaders throughout history have received the similar diplomatic concessions.

Of course there is a difference between the Vatican and the Holy See. The UK has diplomatic relations with the Holy See, not the Vatican.

Mea_Culpa_1962

You may wish to read the following essay which challenges the 'glowing' report you bestow upon Pius XII.



- Yes he helped some Jews (mostly Catholic ones.) When these Jews went back to practising their own faith, he withdrew his support.

- On many occasions he didnt even respond to pleas for help from his own Bishops when they informed him of attrocities against the Jews.

- He claimed neutrality as an excuse for often saying and doing nothing in the face of known attrocities against the Jews, but was anything but neutral when it came to other attrocities e.g. the slaughter of Germans by Russians in Russia.

The recent joint Jewish/Catholic Holocaust Commission also put to bed the excuse that he was illinformed. He was amongst the most informed individuals on the planet. When this commission asked for access to ALL Vatican documentation, they were denied. One has to ask why?

When the Vatican recently came under criticism for attempting to fast track Pius' canonization, Cardinal Lombardi was forced to publicly make a distinction between his 'personal piety' and his political role as Pope. Again, one has to ask why?

It is simply not good enough to claim that anyone and everyone who criticized Pius is anti-Catholic. (One group who were amongst his most fierce critics were... Polish Catholics.) If anyone is guilty of historical revisionism, it is the Vatican itself.

According to historical documentation this man was certainly no saint.

Can I invent McCamley's Law, in which you lose the argument if you bring "the silence of Venerable Pope Pius XII" into a discussion which has nothing to do with Venerable Pope Pius XII?

MCC

Eh, no you cant. Most of us on here gave up getting chalk flung at us when we left primary school.

I'll take that as a yes from everyone else then. Henceforth McCamley's Law shall apply. I must make sure wikepedia knows where it started.

Actually I think it might be McCamley's Third Law because readers of my blog might remember the others.