In our first dual-author post, Jeff argues that the Pope should be welcomed with open arms while Malc… well, let’s just say he doesn’t agree.
Jeff: Has our Godless society sunk so low that we no longer wish to welcome the Pope to our shores?
It seems to be so with a palpable distaste for next week’s papal event throughout the media and the blogosphere.
With his state visit (which he was invited on we should remember) Pope Benedict has attracted more disdain and outrage than recent guests including Jacob Zuma, that thrice-married imbecile from South Africa, and King Abdullah II, overseer of human rights abuses in Saudia Arabia. ‘Not in my name’ they cry, ‘not with my tax money’ they jeer, as if the Devil himself will be touching down in Edinburgh this Thursday. He may wear Prada, but surely we can count the Pope as one of the good guys?
Do we not need a little perspective here? The Dalai Lama looked like he was having a hoot when he came to the UK a year ago and he is nothing more than a thoroughly likeable hereditary deity so perhaps we should be making more of a song and a dance for the Pope rather than nailing him to the proverbial cross.
The Catholic church has, of course, many crosses to bear, not least of which is the child abuse scandal that has rocked not just Ireland but many a European country in the past few years. The tremors even reached as far as the Pope himself, one aspect of the affair highlighting an alarming lack of judgement from the man.
While this issue of course deserves as close a scrutiny as possible, it should not be fixated upon. It certainly should not dominate the much wider question of faith’s place in society, particularly when that lack of grounding in a person’s life, for better or worse, is causing the greatest inter-generational change to society since, well, possibly ever. Many a family’s lineage will have seen a dramatic shift in attitudes, not to mention geography, since the middle of the last century.
To go forwards, perhaps we have to look backwards and, for several hundreds of thousands of Scots, that involves reconsidering a Catholic heritage that to a significant extent has helped shape who we are as a people and, consequently, as a nation.
Many people are complaining that not being Catholic is some sort of reason for not inviting the Pope here. One has to only note that being neither French nor American would keep neither Sarkozy nor Obama at bay.
The Pope may be a flawed leader of a flawed religion and there is of course no convincing reason for anyone to necessarily take his word as Bible but, amid the hustle and bustle of our post-recession lives, amid the attention-shortening gogglebox garbage that we all guiltily tune in to week after week and amid the community-loosening dispersal of increasingly individual lives, there is value in reflecting on what a man steeped in faith and well versed in Scripture has to say to us.
All I am saying is, give Pope a chance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Malc: From the off, I’ll point out I have no Catholic family connection other than being a Celtic fan, and unlike most, I don’t conflate the concepts of football and religion. Â Nor does my religious background (Church of Scotland, since you ask, although not slavish about it) inform my political views to any real degree. Â This is by means of pointing out that I have no religious motive for the views I am about to espouse.
I think the Pope’s visit is an outrage.
First up, I recognise that the Pope is the key figure for the world’s Catholics. Â And that his coming to visit is a big deal – for them. Â But for me the importance of the position he holds is secondary to the views he holds – and in those views he can be viewed as bigoted at best, dangerous at worst. Â He’s treated as a religious figure – and that’s right, to an extent. Â But the position he holds is as political as it is religious. Â And when someone who arrives on our shores with a political view that people strongly disagree with, they protest vociferously about it (witness – George W. Bush). Â And its right that they do – it is a free society after all. Â But the idea that we should all welcome the Pope with open arms is as naive as it is ridiculous.
Jeff raised the visit of King Abdullah II, citing his record as an ‘overseer of human rights abuses’ as evidence that we should be complicit in the visit of the Pope. Â Now, Jeff pretty much covered the issue of child abuse – which I think comes under the purview of ‘human rights abuses’ – but in my view, just because we’re letting one man in whom we have identified as overlooking Western ideals of human rights doesn’t mean we should let in another.
And while I’m on it, let’s have a look at the Pope’s views shall we?  He preached a sermon that told the world he thought Islam was dangerous (which is basically the same thing Geert Wilders did, and we decided to ban him from coming).  He preaches against homosexuality and gay marriage which, while in line with Catholic dogma, hardly sits well with our anti-discrimination laws.  And he tells a continent ravaged with AIDS not to use condoms which, in my mind, is tantamount to encouraging the genocide of an entire continent.  Now that is an overstatement of my case, but think about it for a second.  Preaching against the use of contraceptives is a sure fire way of encouraging unsafe sex – and thus the spread of the disease.  Now obviously people are responsible for their own actions (the Nuremberg trials taught us that) but when a figure as powerful as the Pope is advocating unsafe sex, he is at the very least complicit in the suffering of an entire continent.
I haven’t mentioned the cost of his visit, but I have two problems with that too – the amount this trip is costing us (and for a country with a deficit of £158BN that is not insignificant) and the fact that WE are paying for it.  I disagree with the guy’s politics but surely if he’s coming to visit, he can pay for the bloody trip himself (maybe sell off some of that gold in the Vatican – something that I can honestly say turned my stomach when I visited).
So there we go – I’m on the same side of this debate as Ian Paisley and most of the left (and on how many occasions can you say they are on the same page?!) and disagreeing with my colleague and probably incurring the wrath of Catholics everywhere. Â Jeff asks us to ‘Give Pope a chance’. Â I’d ask the Pope to give anti-discrimination a chance. Â Not as catchy, I’ll give you – but, in my view, apt. Â Controversial? Â Absolutely.
#1 by Phil Ruse on September 15, 2010 - 8:32 am
I think outrage may be over stating it? I’m not religious in the slightest but to object to giving Catholics in this country an opportunity to see the leader of their church – that’s way over the top.
Not entirely sure how the left can object to the pope but (some) welcome Gerry Adams?
#2 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:38 am
Phil. Maybe outrage IS overstating it. But its that old religion/ politics debate isn’t it? Why do we have to accept someone whose faith is discriminatory simply because we have other people here who agree with him?
Put it this way – if he was the leader of Islam, set on Sharia law, would you be keen that Muslims in this country should be given an opportunity to see him? Now, obviously the comparison is crude (and I’ll likely get slapped down for it) but the point I’m making is this: the reason we’d be less supportive in my theoretical situation is because Sharia law is not really consistent with Western values… and I’d argue that some of the Pope’s teachings (as I outlined above) are similarly not compliant with our values.
#3 by Phil Ruse on September 15, 2010 - 8:34 pm
I think if we are a democratic country/countries we have to accept visits from people whose views we may not necessarily agree with. However, I take your point regards Sharia law, there probably is a line – I’m just not sure where it is!
#4 by Richard T on September 15, 2010 - 9:32 am
I share Malc’s views. I am against the state visit since it seems to me he is coming here largely to undertake some sort of ritual over a 19th century convert in Birmingham as well as holding a couple of masses which by all accounts are not going to be particularly well attended. He is also, I understand, going to criticise the UK Government (s) for the secular legislation we largely support.
As far as I am concerned he is perfectly welcome as a guest of the Roman Catholics in the UK but they should be picking up the whole bill for his visit, including security. By all accounts however, the Catholic faithful seem pretty reluctant to stump up even the limited share the government has agreed should be theirs.
#5 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 9:58 am
Thanks Richard,
I don’t really understand the view that Roman Catholics should pick up the bill though. Again I cite Sarkozy coming to the UK, should we send the bill to the French residents in the UK? Should any future Climate Conferences in the UK be billed to non-Climate-sceptics? Who pays for the policing of Orange Walks? Not that I want to go down that particular road (in more ways than one)
I can’t say I’m overly excited about the Olympics coming to the UK but even though the £9bn price tag dwarfs whatever the Pope’s visit will cost, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
There just seems to be a strength of feeling on this one that is out of all proportions to the money and man involved.
#6 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:41 am
But Jeff – Sarkozy’s visit was political, International Relations, call it what you will. The Pope’s is religious. THAT is the difference. He’s here basically to do PR for Catholicism, and he’s being state-funded to do it. Any way you look at that (think of the benefit cuts currently ongoing for a practical side, the politics-religion debate for a theoretical one) that’s just wrong.
#7 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 11:03 am
Why is it different?
Will the benefits deriving from Sarkozy’s visit really outweigh the benefits from the Pope’s visit? I’m not convinced of that. Indeed, I can’t point to a single thing that came from the French President’s trip to the UK (and no doubt stay in a 5-star London hotel etc). Of course decisions are taken behind closed doors but I wouldn’t be too quick to defend the benefits of leaders coming to the UK just because they are political rather than ecumenical. Indeed, given Brits are fed up for the former and seemingly devoid of the latter, I’d sooner take a leading Jew/Catholic/Muslim over for tea and cakes than just another leader who will make no real impact on our collective minds.
Yes, you have to weigh up the cost/benefit of any such trip but that applies just as much to a religious leader as it does to a political leader. I see little difference there and the Catholic Church is paying some of the costs, as per an earlier comment.
#8 by Indy on September 15, 2010 - 9:41 am
Outrage is certainly overstating it. Most people do not have an opinion one way or the other. All the anti-Pope stuff is being whipped up by the media. He’ll come, he’ll go. It will make no difference to anything. Who cares?
#9 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 10:04 am
Fully agree Indy. It will prove to be not such a big deal once it’s all over.
Those who are getting themselves personally whipped up about it are either excited due to their religion (a faith and belief system they are of course welcome to) or need to examine where such an over-the-top ‘outrage’ comes from.
Again, state visits happen all the time so why this one should be markedly different is beyond me.
Personally, I think people (largely the Daily Mail contingent) just like having something to moan about.
#10 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:44 am
PS Jeff – I’ve dealt with the “state visit” thing previously, but I do think the Pope visiting and a state leader visiting are two entirely different things.
#11 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:43 am
Indy – outrage may well be overstating it (and I concede that). Maybe most people don’t have an opinion. I do – and I’m using this space to give that opinion. You don’t care – that’s fine.
#12 by Am Firinn on September 15, 2010 - 10:01 am
The Pope doesn’t preach unsafe sex. He preaches no sex at all, unless you are married; this would certainly sort the HIV problem far more effectively than condoms would. And he doesn’t preach against homosexuality. Being homosexual isn’t a sin: it’s extra-marital sex acts that are. The trouble with so many arguments against the Pope’s visit is they are either spectacularly ill-informed, or straw men. This does no service to those who are opposed for genuine reasons.
#13 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:51 am
Okay. But I think in both of those cases you are missing the outcome of his teachings. On the first, he preaches no sex unless you are married. But even when you are married, contraceptives cannot be used. Thus marriage is no barrier to the transfer of HIV or AIDS.
Secondly, he may not preach against homosexuality (though I think the link would suggest otherwise) he DOES preach against gay marriage. Since he doesn’t like sex outside marriage and he doesn’t like gay marriage, his conclusion is homosexuality is wrong.
You mention “genuine reasons” for being opposed to the Pope’s visit. I believe my reasons are genuine, but humour me: what would a genuine reason look like?
#14 by Douglas McLellan on September 15, 2010 - 10:04 am
Outrage?! That’s an interesting way of putting it. And wrong. It is a State visit, like it or not, and States often do deals/meet with groups and governments that we as mere citizens may not like. It is also disappointing that we are having to pay for lots of elements of his trip but since he was invited that is only fair. Outrage? No.
That said I think that Jeff is also wrong though. There is nothing that a man whose organisation (and in all probability the man himself) did as much as possible to hide the abuse of Children can tell us. There is nothing about homosexuality/HIV/abortion or the use of condoms that a celibate old man should be able to instruct other human beings about. As Jeff points out, society has and is changing. The current Pope and the last one sought to reverse even the basic changes in Vatican II.
What role can the Pope possibly have in a changing world other hiding in corner moaning that change is happening too fast. Not exactly useful or relevant.
#15 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 10:14 am
I understand what you’re saying about a changing world Douglas but I respectfully disagree.
The church is the church, it has been for centuries and should be under neither obgligation nor pressure to adapt to society if it chooses not to.
The Church, Catholic or what have you, is welcome to try to lead people with its own set of values and its own set of rules that it claims to be God’s Word. We, in turn, are free to ignore them which we are doing in our droves in the UK of course but it doesn’t make us right or wrong. Church leaders are not political leaders, they do not need to win popular votes to validate their existence.
Compromising the Catholic church’s whole belief system just to boost the numbers would be a bad turn indeed. Furthermore, you’ve taken a very UK-centric view as I believe that many countries, not least China, are turning to Catholicism in their millions.
I believe, despite what you say, that there is plenty that the Pope can tell us. I agree that his alleged involvement in the cover up of child abuse is deeply worrying but he remains a scholarly, serious man who takes his faith very seriously. I believe his position commands respect and I, for one, look forward to what he has to say.
#16 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:55 am
Jeff,
Church leaders are not political leaders, they do not need to win popular votes to validate their existence.
Here is my fundamental difference with you, I think. Although I’ve made the case that this is a religious trip, it fundamentally has political overtones. He’s basically here CAMPAIGNING for Catholicism. Winning popular votes no, but winning popularity… absolutely.
#17 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 11:11 am
“He’s basically here CAMPAIGNING for Catholicism.”
He is the leader of the Catholic Church. He wouldn’t be here in any other capacity so of course, on some level, he is flying the flag for Catholicism.
If you don’t want to listen, let alone convert, then you don’t have to, this isn’t the Crusades. So if this is our “fundamental” difference, I’m feeling pretty content with my views.
#18 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 11:17 am
And I with mine. Because the point made is that (obviously) Catholicism is a religion. Its nothing to do with whether you want to listen or convert. Its the fact that we shouldn’t be paying for a state visit for a religious leader to promote a faith that is inconsistent with our values – and our laws.
As I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with his coming to visit his flock – as long as he pays for it and it isn’t a state visit. That’s my issue.
#19 by Douglas McLellan on September 15, 2010 - 2:16 pm
Its ok to disagree! Even disrespectfully.
Church leaders are political leaders. If they weren’t why would they tell people how to vote (goo.gl/pT7w). Politics and Religion have been forever linked (give unto Creaser etc.). To believe otherwise is a bit naive.
What is a belief system other than a set of opinions? The first Popes (and many after them) were married until on opinion that Catholics Priests should not be married. The Bible makes no pronouncement on condoms or HIV but it is a Popes opinion on how to deal with those issues (Head in Sand I think the approach is called). How is the Holy Trinity and the teachings of Christ compromised (as you put it) by a condom? In the same way that not having the Earth at the centre of the Universe as found by Galileo?
When a Church is free from Sin and those it allows to perform religious in its names are able to offer a positive outlook on all of humanity then, and maybe not even then, will it command respect.
#20 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 2:31 pm
Simon Cowell told us how to vote. Are you suggesting the media mogul is a political leader Douglas? If your answer to that is “yes” and you are sticking to your logic, would you then say that bloggers are political leaders because they also tell people who to vote for? I would hope that it is safe to say that political leaders are those who are democratically voted into place.
I will therefore label you crass in jovial retaliation to your accusation of my naivety.
I don’t really know how this conversation ended up focussing so regularly and so squarely on condoms and my knowledge of The Bible does not extend to knowing what is or isn’t said on the matter within its pages so I’m afraid I can’t answer your question. Hope that answer isn’t too flaccid for you…
For your last paragraph, you are basically saying that you wish the Church to fully remove the plank from its eye before you remove the skelf from your own? Fair enough, though I disagree that that is generally a constructive approach. Indeed, isn’t this reminiscent of a parable on that somewhere?…
#21 by Douglas McLellan on September 15, 2010 - 2:58 pm
But at least Simon Cowell doesn’t threaten me with a less than pleasant afterlife if I don’t do what he (or even bloggers) do what they ask (actually he made do – I dont watch reality TV). Cowell and Bloggers don’t couch their opinion (which is basically what religious edicts are) in terms of them being Holy or as a special instruction from a deity. Telling Catholics not to vote Labour over gay adoption is a recent example. The condom thing might be coming (!) from here: http://www.goo.gl/fOaS.
If I want a skelf or even a plank removed I will do it myself and I dont seek to perform eye surgery on other people. Yet, to stretch this anology to its fullest, the Catholic Church (and most other religions) should really rename themselves the Holy Order of the Blind Ophthalmologists so desperate are then to correct the sight of others as opposed to themselves.
This might be why the Bishop of Carlisle proclaimed the floods in 2007 as a punishment from God for us living in a permissive society!
#22 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:52 am
Douglas – I’ve argued back previously on my use of “outrage” and the State visit element, so see above for that.
But on the rest of your point – I agree.
#23 by Douglas McLellan on September 15, 2010 - 1:52 pm
‘Why do we have to accept someone whose faith is discriminatory simply because we have other people here who agree with him?’
That we agree on. The deference given to religions because they are religious seems bizarre and insulting.
#24 by Cara on September 15, 2010 - 10:09 am
I’m with Malc.
Also, does the Pope not just look really creepy? Its been like a horror movie clip is being shown on the news all week. He makes Boris Karloff look cuddly.
Just thought I’d raise the tone of the debate!
#25 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 10:58 am
Cara – thanks. It was verging on being serious for a while!
#26 by Colin on September 15, 2010 - 10:28 am
I’m also not sure where Jeff is seeing all this outrage. Wasn’t there a poll a month or so back in which only something like 4% objected to the visit?
I certainly don’t think it’s true that there’s more opposition to it than to Abdullah’s visit, which attracted a fair bit of protest, especially after Kim Howells’ remark about how Britain shares its “values” with Saudi Arabia (which I kind of agree with – for example, I’d quite like to see Kim Howells get his head cut off).
So yeah, we have the scum of the world visit us all the time, so I don’t see the big deal. Covering up the odd bit of child rape hardly makes him the biggest monster we’ve entertained.
#27 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 10:47 am
Colin,
Almost all major news outlets have a news piece and/or a commentary piece saying why people are against the visit, The Guardian’s excellent Comment is Free has had several pieces on the subject and, as if that wasn’t enough, 66.66667% of Better Nation editors are strongly against.
(I would just like to say that I would very, very much like Kim Howells’ head to biologically stay precisely where it is)
I think you do have a point though Colin, the opposition to the Pope’s vote may be less fierce but just louder/more of it. I may have confused the two.
#28 by James on September 15, 2010 - 11:35 am
Jeff, thanks for trying to drag me into this too!
#29 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 11:44 am
James, I get the sense that you’re only a few well chosen words away from unleashing a truly frightening but hugely entertaining volley of rhetoric on this subject.
You can’t blame a guy for trying to jimmy that along a little bit.
#30 by Griff on September 15, 2010 - 11:02 am
Malc seems to conflate protesting against someone with objecting to them being here? I found George W. Bush; and American foreign policy objectionable; but I would never have suggested that he shouldn’t visit the UK when he was President. Ditto I understand why people might want to protest against the Pope’s policy, but the suggestion that he is so objectionable he shouldn’t even be engaged with is baffling. It is precisely becuase he conflates both political and religious roles that a joint state-pastoral visit is appropriate. With the Catholic church locally paying for large chunks of the visit, the state facilitating financially the state portions, and the police doing their job.
#31 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 11:10 am
Griff – I guess that’s a fair point. But I’ve also said subsequently in the comments that the difference between a President visiting and a Pope visiting is the distinction between a political, international relations visit and a religious, PR visit.
The UK didn’t think twice about stopping Geert Wilders coming into the country because of a film he made branding Islam dangerous. The Pope has made a speech saying the same thing – and he has 1 BILLION followers. Surely, of the two, he’d be the more influential – and the more likely to have an effect?
I’M not saying he’s so objectionable he shouldn’t be engaged with – if they hadn’t been so hypocritical about it, the UK GOVERNMENT would be the ones saying so.
#32 by Indy on September 15, 2010 - 11:18 am
“Why do we have to accept someone whose faith is discriminatory simply because we have other people here who agree with him? ”
Because he doesn’t have any actual power over people. He doesn’t make laws. Catholics do not have to abide by whatever he believes and most of them (in this country anyway) don’t.
The same goes for the argument that if he was “the leader of Islam, set on Sharia law, would you be keen that Muslims in this country should be given an opportunity to see him/”
In fact, that is an even worse argument. It suggests that Muslims are like children and we should be able to decide what they are allowed to hear, lest they become over-excited and somehow introduce Sharia law without anyone noticing!
It’s really not a very sound position. Sharia law is not consistent with Western values and neither is a lot of Catholic doctrine. However freedom of speech and freedom of belief is consistent with Western values so let’s practice what we preach eh?
#33 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 11:25 am
Indy,
That’s not what my argument does. That’s just arrant nonsense. And conflating having ‘actual power’ with laws is wrong too – I suspect if you ask devout Catholics who has more influence for them, the Pope or the PM, they’d likely say the former.
And as I said before, I’m not against freedom of speech nor freedom of belief. I am against my government giving a guy a platform to bash gays. If he wants to come on his own dime and say what he likes, fine. But I think if he was an ordinary person gay bashing – certainly in Scotland – he’d find himself in a cell for the night.
#34 by Richard T on September 15, 2010 - 11:29 am
Jeff, I don’t accept that the Vatican is a state in any sense and as far as I can see he is coming to minister to the Roman Catholic population so it is a pastoral visit anyway; hence my view that the Roman Catholic church should pick up the bill. I can see no benefit accruing to the British people as a whole but, as he has been invited here by the previous government, we are required by the laws of decency to receive him civilly although it doesn’t mean with any enthusiasm for the reasons that Malc and others have posted.
#35 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 11:41 am
Fair points Richard. I guess I called it a ‘state visit’ because the UK is a state which may well be an error on my part. Agree ‘pastoral visit’ sounds more appropriate.
And given he has now been invited we do have to stump up which is of course true but it’s still valid to debate whether he should have been invited in the first place, as we are.
I guess Labour trying to shore up its Catholic vote before the election is where your blame should lay. Cancelling a Papal visit is a cut too far, even for this coalition. Indeed, I vividly remember Jim Murphy being very pleased with himself for helping to deliver a Papal visit to the people of Scotland.
Not that I’m too disappointed it’s happening of course. Infact I’m a little sad to be missing it all as I’ll be, somewhat ironically, at a humanist wedding for most of the weekend.
#36 by Indy on September 15, 2010 - 11:39 am
Malc – the Pope has no power at all over anybody in this country or indeed any other country.
If you are arguing that he does perhaps you could provide the legislation that he is responsible for?
Clearly you can’t. The laws we all live under are decided by the various parliaments that we vote for. not the Pope.
You say that you do not object to what he may say as a religous leader during that part of his trip which is pastoral. OK. So clearly you are objecting to the fact that he has been invited on an official State Visit and are suggesting that because his views on matters such as equality are inconsistent with our laws he should not have been invited here.
You are being a tad selective though, aren’t you? In the past few years we have seen State Visits from The President of the People’s Republic of China, The President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, The President of the Republic of Ghana,The King of Saudi Arabia, The President of the French Republic, The President of the Republic of India and The President of the Republic of South Africa.
Are you fully confident that all of those people share our commitment to equality based on our western values? Because I can think of a couple of them straight off who don’t.
Did you protest their visits?
#37 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 12:13 pm
Indy – look at my phrasing. I said influence, not power. But the point stands – you are equating power with law, whereas I’d equate power with influence. Two distinctly different concepts. And again, where politics and religion diverge.
But we are getting to the crux of my objection with the second part of your point (which I will grant you, is well made). I did indeed say that I would have no truck with what the Pope would say during what is the pastoral bit of his tour (though if anyone can distinguish between that and the other part, I’d be interested to know the difference).
My problem with his visit is that he has been invited on an official State visit as a religious leader. I don’t disagree that leaders of some nations come here, and we disagree with them – and indeed, some people do protest them. But the difference for me, in this case, is that this is a religious visit, PR for the Catholic Church’s views which are inconsistent with our laws, which the state is funding. As I’ve said, if it was entirely church funded, I’d still not be for it, but I wouldn’t object so vociferously. With regards the other state leaders, while they may not share our conceptions of Western values – and their trip provides them with legitimacy – they are not here actively promoting their beliefs. That’s why, in my view, they are different.
#38 by Kirsty on September 15, 2010 - 11:44 am
Malc, i’ve been following this debate and feel i need to chime in. Thank you for raising the HIV and AIDS topic. Of course the pope does not want unsafe sex, but by not condoning the use of condoms whether in marriage or out with, he is contributing to the spread of HIV. While this may not be so problematic in the UK it is a very serious problem in developing countries worldwide. And I agree that by doing this he is essentially promoting a genocide. Mandela referred to AIDS as an African-wide genocide and as the pope is not encouraging condom use should he not be subject to the same kind of criticism that UN member countries were subject to in the aftermath of Rwanda? And i personally just object to the amount of money being spent and the incredible disruption to many services because of his visit. Even the queen is less problematic.
#39 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 12:18 pm
Kirsty,
I guess the distinction – as has been pointed out to me – is that the Pope condemns the use of condoms AND sex outside marriage, which to me is a get out clause to avoid responsibility. But for me (and though I do grant Jeff’s point that religions are not necessarily there to be tweaked by modernity and circumstances) his position lacks realism, and through that, he is effectively condemning Africa as a continent.
As for the disruption, its why I left Edinburgh for the week and came to stay at my parents!
#40 by cynicalHighlander on September 15, 2010 - 12:28 pm
I’m behind Malc all the way on this and if this is a state vist then surely the President of the Vatican rather than the head of a religion, or am I missing something?
http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/Structure_Governorate/Presidency/President/index.htm
#41 by Shuna on September 15, 2010 - 12:31 pm
As a Church of Scotland Minister in the spirit of ecumenical realtions I welcome the visit of the Pope to Scotland.
The Pope holds the apostolic succession of the world wide church in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church – this all started when Jesus gave the Keys of the church to Peter. Until the reformation the head of the ‘Catholic’ Church was the Pope – elected by the leaders of that church. Since then the Roman Catholic Church has continued the same tradition.
The reformation(s) happened because Luther/Calvin among others were unhappy, among other things, about the abuses of the church – and so the church split and continues to split when disagreements over what people see as fundimental doctrines happen. (BTW the abuses of the pre-reformation church included some of the same abuses that cause the church to be under scrutiny now – sexual abuse, hypocracy etc) Whether we like it or not the Pope as a figurehead has been a controversial figure for a long time.
What interests me is that whilst Pope John Paul II was seen as a warm, almost cuddly figure, Benedict XV strikes a very different image and yet they talked the same talk. Why is this? I suggest for a variety of reasons – the recents scandals, his own reputed Hitler Youth membership, his intellectual background – this is a man whose writings are studied by current theology and divinity students.
So is it this less favourable personal image of Ratzinger (funny how we all remember his pre-Pope name but are stumped if asked for JPII’s) that is the root of the stoochie his visit is causing?
As the leader of a world wide church – the biggest in the Christian ‘church’ – I think we should welcome his visit and the opportunity to debate the visit as this blog is doing. As my dad said to me at the weekend – for all denominations his visit will have a possitive effect – it gives christians of all colours an opportunity to discuss their faith and be seen as relevant.
Just MHO.
#42 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 12:38 pm
Shuna,
Where have you been? We could have used that kind of rational thinking earlier! And when I say we, I of course mean I…
I think my outrage is more that people are simply accepting his visit without questioning it and allowing their own beliefs, faith, religion or ideology to be tested by it.
I also think there is something to be said for your distinction between Pope BXVI and Pope JPII, and that, in all probability, is part of the reason why his visit is more controversial than it might have been had it been his predecessor.
#43 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 12:41 pm
Thanks Shuna, a very welcome comment. Of particular resonance was your point about JP2 and ‘Papa Ratzi’ saying the same things but experiencing still diverging levels of general popularity.
What is the old adage, it’s 20% what you say and 80% how you say it that rules how you are treated? I suspect that may apply here. Just a shame that a man’s apparent sternness rather than his message of peace, love and forgiveness is what gets through to people.
#44 by rgweir on September 15, 2010 - 1:26 pm
Faith is a pesonal thing that should be kept in the home.
If the pope has to come to the uk all the costs of the visit should be paid by the catholic church.
i have no faith,my choice,so why should i and other taxpayers pay for this circus?
#45 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 1:46 pm
Because your Government (at the time) decided it was in Britain’s best interests for the man to come for a visit.
Like many (more important) spending decisions, the upshot is that if you don’t like it then vote for someone else. Mind you, Cameron is in favour and has said of the visit: “”It’s a unique opportunity to celebrate the enormous contribution that all our faith communities make to our society and to celebrate their role in helping to build a bigger and stronger society.”
I agree that faith is a personal thing but it shouldn’t be “kept in the home” like some sort of dirty secret. If we can celebrate something as arbitrary as football on a global scale for one month then surely we can celebrate a faith-based religion for a few days on a national scale?
#46 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 2:01 pm
Not really related to the comments, there’s a letter in the Guardian signed by 20 or so public figures who make a similar point to me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/harsh-judgments-on-pope-religion
For the sake of clarity, I’m not arguing that I’m right because they agree with me (this is no tyranny of the majority) merely pointing out that there is some convergence of opinion that the visit is wrong, and some strength of feeling on the issue.
#47 by HolyroodPatter on September 15, 2010 - 2:11 pm
Malc,
I think you need to distinguish whether you mean “this pope” or “the pope”. this particular pope isnt the best, and i think most disagreeing with Benedicts visit would have welcomed JP2 in the same spirit that the dalai lama was welcomed. As for the cost, it could in fact have been a lot higher had the catholic church not been on a visible fundraising drive and the fact attendees have to pay 25 quid a pop.
I think Malc you are conflating your issues with his views on wider issues about diplomacy and policing. The need for his protection is not entirely his fault. Iain Paisley who you mentioned most likely plans to heckle him, not because of his views on Africa, but because Iain Paisley is a small minded bigot. Are you suggesting the holy see should pay for the police because its his own fault he is under threat? By the same token rangers fc should have paid for what was probably a massive overtime bill in Manchester last night.
As for the pope being a head of state, it is frankly a diplomatic headache that Britain could do without. Denouncing the Holy See is frankly more trouble than its worth, and what lead to wider issues about princapilities, Kingdoms and other overseas territories.
#48 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 2:37 pm
I think there’s a distinction to be made between inviting the guy round for dinner and ‘denouncing the Holy See’, which is not quite what I’m advocating (though probably what Ian Paisley is!).
I fully agree that Rangers should have picked up the tab for policing in Manchester (though I’m not aware if there was any trouble) just as I think the Catholic Church should pay for their guy’s security. If Obama came here, he’d bring his own security.
As for the Pope, or this Pope, that kind of has been covered above. If the current Pope had less… conservative views, perhaps we wouldn’t be having this debate.
#49 by Indy on September 15, 2010 - 2:12 pm
Malc influence is SO not the same thing as power. Power IS the law. It is the power to say what shall and shall not be allowed. For example Catholics adoption agencies shall not be allowed to discriminate against gay couples. That is the law and has the full power of the law i.e. it is enforceable. The Catholic Church has no power to challenge that. In any case if we are talking about the power to influence people, Simon Cowell probably has more of that than the Pope. If people choose to be influenced by either Simon Cowell or the Pope then that is a choice – although of course I recognise that a lot of factors contribute to the choices people make.
I agree that the status of the Pope’s State Visit is the crux of the issue. It is obviously a strange anomaly that the Bishop of Rome is both Head of the Catholic Church and Head of the Vatican. But I object to his visit less than I would to other Heads of State precisely because the Pope does not have the power that other Heads of State have. I think there was a much better case for objecting to the visit of the King of Saudi Arabia or the President of China then there is to the visit of the Pope. Basically I don’t see why he should be singled out more than others when he is less culpable and most people don’t give a hoot what he thinks anyway. It doesn’t make sense.
#50 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 2:29 pm
Aye, ok. But power and influence are more linked than you care to admit. For example, I’d suggest Bernie Ecclestone’s influence with regards money and Formula 1, and the fact it pours X millions into the British economy led to F1 being exempt from tobacco legislation (which, by your definition of power IS law, leads to my thinking he has both power and influence). But that I think is a side issue, and not really consequential to the crux of our debate.
Though, it kind of it, I guess. Because, if you look at power and influence in the same way I am then there’s more power to the Pope than you might think.
Put it this way. The Pope is the head of a religion with over 1 Billion followers. That’s 1/6 of the world. Of them, some of them will be in fairly prominent positions – see, for example, JFK or, not quite on the same level, Ruth Kelly, Ann Widdecombe or Tony Blair. Their religious faith influences the decisions they take – and being that they have the power to make legislation, the Pope does have influence AND power, albeit the power is through proxies. Perhaps (probably!) I’m not explaining that well. But when you have 1 billion people ready to follow your teachings, I think you do have some power and influence.
#51 by Stephen Glenn on September 15, 2010 - 2:24 pm
I’m going to maybe going to throw a cat among the pigeons and say that both Jeff and Malc have made valid points, indeed it was something I blogged about yesterday.
The Popes visits has two parts the secular/state occasion and the religious/pastoral. As a gay man I’m of course upset about some of the proclamations made by the Pope and his Bishops over a range of issues, gay rights, birth control, child abuse being most prevelant. However, I do have a number of gay Catholic friends some of whom are attending some of the masses.
Just as I a gay Presbyterian (by upbringing) have had to make points for my own case from within the church so to those gay men from within the Catholic Church. Heck if took me one individual a decade to come to terms with just me, I’m expecting the churches to take some time about it.
Bizarrely the Pope is head of State and Head of a Religion, of course he is not alone, our own Queen being another. Therefore there is the Dichotomy was head of State for his prounouncements quite rightly we should be protesting him, and our civic leaders who will have audiences with him should be emphasising issues that they feel he needs to retract or U-turn on.
However, such protest should not infringe on those who want to attend the religious elements of his visit.
#52 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 2:41 pm
That’s a very cool-headed, forensic and intelligent way of looking at it Stephen. Indeed I am letting myself down by struggling to catch up with your thought process.
If you are saying that Malc is right because Britain (generally speaking) disagrees with much of the Church’s views and I am right because we should be inviting the Pope here to tell him so and shape his thinking then I’m definitely onboard with that. I would say that you’d do well to influence a millenniums old religion but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try.
And, over and above that, I think you’re also saying that we shouldn’t get in the way of tens of thousands of people having the Mass of their lives.
Yep, sounds good to me.
Also, now I think about it, the ‘peace be with you’ shaking hands bit is going to be epic. The permutations of 55,000 people all shaking hands with each other is, well, I think I need to lie down for a bit.
#53 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 2:44 pm
Stephen, if you’d written this piece, we probably wouldn’t have ended up arguing quite so much!
I’m kind of with Jeff though – engagement with the church on arguments where they’ve been, for want of a better word, backwards, hasn’t exactly led to much change.
On an aside, I do like how the media have the “estimated figure” for the mass at 85,000 and Jeff has it at 55,000. If only 30,000 people show up, would it be viewed as a success?
#54 by Jeff on September 15, 2010 - 2:54 pm
I was talking about the Birmingham mass (remember I’m a Londoner now!). Original estimate of 80,000 has now been revised down to 55,000.
Glasgow is holding firm at 85,000. Dress code I am sure will be largely green, white and gold.
#55 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 3:02 pm
Fair enough. In related news, Bellahouston is a stone’s throw away from Ibrox, a theory that will probably be tested to its full. BBC reports (http://tinyurl.com/32lsdvs) that pilgrims are being told to park their cars at a car park near Ibrox. If the dress code is in fact green and white, I’d suggest there may be some smashed windows and slashed tyres…
#56 by Bill (Scotland) on September 15, 2010 - 5:19 pm
I have no objection to the Holy Father coming here – the last Pope (John Paul II) visited in the 1980s, but we didn’t have to pay for it as it was not a State Visit. I do however object to my taxes going toward paying for Benedict XVI to visit. In fairness I can’t say I particularly agreed with the State Visits of some other unsavoury Heads of State, but in most of those cases they represent countries that are of importance to this country in terms of trade. It may seem crass to point this out, but the Vatican is of no economic importance to this country.
So far as I am concerned people here should be pernmitted to practice whatever religion they wish, or none, provided our laws are complied with. The leader of a Church which permitted until very recently (and perhaps still does) criminal activities by its paid agents, however, does not deserve a State Visit – he should visit, if he wishes to, at the expense of his Church. I’ve written my views on thisw matter at [probably to some] tedious length in my own blog today and over the past 8+ years.
#57 by cynicalHighlander on September 15, 2010 - 6:10 pm
This sums them up no respect for others just like moving priests out of the firing line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441
#58 by Allan on September 15, 2010 - 8:02 pm
Hmmm… religious person with extremist views visits and stirs up debate… but enough about Louis Farriakhan.
This shouldn’t be a state visit, why is it a state visit? Is Vatican City a soverigen country all of a sudden.
I don’t object to him coming here, i object to him coming on the pretence of a “state visit”, and i object to the fawning coverage which this will generate (Channel 4 and the Independent excepted). Bit annoyed his aide (the one who said the UK was like a third world country because of the rise of Aethism – hilareous) isn’t coming.
#59 by Malc on September 15, 2010 - 11:08 pm
Vatican City IS a sovereign state. Though I’m with you – the pretence of it being a state visit is one of the things I’m objecting to.
#60 by Caron on September 15, 2010 - 9:19 pm
I tend to agree with Stephen. As a woman I find many of the Pope’s views on things like contraception and abortion utterly objectionable. That he holds as equally bad the ordination of a woman and the covering up of child abuse in the Church is appalling. As a liberal, I find his attitude to gay rights dangerous. His teachings cost lives. End of story. Again as a liberal, I’m prepared to let him have his say, however much I disagree with it, but as an atheist I reserve the right to respectfully tell him that I think he’s wrong when he gets his mates to tell me that my view of the world is somehow deficient.
Having said that, many of my friends will derive a great deal of pleasure and spiritual inspiration from the Pope’s visit, from seeing the leader of their Church in person. Most of them don’t agree with what he says, but he symbolises their faith. I don’t get it, but they do and that’s all that matters to them.
I think it’s important to respect the feelings of those who want to attend the masses tomorrow regardless of the Pope’s dismissal of who I am. It’s all part of that be the change you want to see ethos that is very dear to me.
I don’t think the Pope should be insulated from the very real concerns and outrage his views cause, though – let him see the LGBT groups peacefully protesting against his teachings. We all need to learn to live together.
On the question of the State visit, of course there are things that I’d rather see my taxes go on. We’re where we are, though. It’s done and dusted. And although I endorse the views expressed by Stephen Fry et al in their letter, that it’s wrong to grant him a State visit, there’s not a lot I can do about it now.
I think we also need to consider some other factors – it’s not just that we’ve played host to people like the Chinese leader and the King of Saudi Arabia. The British state has committed some real atrocities in its time. Sending children to Australia to lives of abuse and misery and taking decades to even try to make amends is one of them. In the case of the Catholic Church, the way it dealt with the child abuse carried out by its own clergy is something that we must never see again. I’m far from convinced that they truly understand how they added to the trauma suffered by the victims.
In the spirit of live and let live, I think of the children who can’t get to sleep tonight because they are so excited at taking part in the Papal parade or one of the Masses, of those who have travelled from the ends of the country for a once in a generation opportunity.
The other thing we should remember is that our beautiful country is on show tomorrow. The pictures of the Pope touching down and travelling through the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow will be broadcast all over the world. I want that world to see our respectful, tolerant, liberal, diverse Scotland.
I might fundamentally disagree with the man on practically everything but, thankfully, in this country, his views are not law, nor will they ever be.
I guess what I’m saying in rambling fashion is that I can see where both Jeff and Malc are coming from, but I think we just have to accept it. When he does say something illiberal, as he’s bound to, you can bet your life I’ll be on his case, as is my right.
Pingback: The Vicar of Rome came to visit and can you tell an election is coming? – Scottish Roundup
#61 by Griff on September 20, 2010 - 7:05 pm
Has the reality of the papal visit changed any minds? Not been totally plugged in over the weekend, but I get the impression the messages coming from the visit have been fairly impressive. Crucially contrition on child abuse, going further than many would have expected. Also positive messages about interfaith working, and intra-faith co-operation.
Within its own terms, as a hybrid state-visit-by-a-religious-leader it semed as successful as you might imagine. From Scotland’s point of view it was an excellent advertisement – and may well be the cause of revenues and good feeling down the line. From the UKs point of view it probably raised the status of the UK amongst the billion or so Catholics around the world.