Should the Pope be given the honour of a UK state visit?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.c...k-state-visit-protest

So /// Stephen Fry, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman and Richard Dawkins are among more than 50 public figures who have signed a letter to the Guardian arguing that the pope should not be given the "honour" of a UK state visit.///

Roman Catholic, Religious or not,

Why should the Pope not be given the honour of a UK state visit, just because of the Vatican's record on 'gay rights', 'abortion' and 'birth control'?

Would they also criticise other religions on their various records of their faith?

[R1Geezer]

No, in fact we should not even let the head of the paedo church in at all. Frankly the whole Catholic church is a disgrace. Still I guess that's in keeping with religion generally.

[B00]

Tell me AOG, if you knew and brushed aside any involvement you might have had in any child abuse instances- do you think the authorities would turn a blind eye to you too?

[tinkie]

I have read many books on the subject of child abuse within the catholic church and it sickens me that we are treating this visit as if he is special

[mike11111]

I await with bated breath the response of these venerable representatives of public opinion should the Grand Ayatollah ever be invited to our shores.

[jno]

I don't think they claim to be leaders of public opinion, mike, they're just voicing their own. But it raises the question, doesn't it: will any grand ayatollahs ever be invited here?

[mike11111]

Call me a cynic, but I wouldn't be surprised, given time.

[jno]

I don't think 'spiritual leaders' qualify for the head-of-state treatment, and the justification for paying for the pope's visit is that he's a head of state as well as God's right-hand man. Presumably if Ahmadinejad's presence here was thought useful they'd invite him, though.

[mike11111]

A liitle history lesson might be in order here. Until the Unification of Italy in 1870 the pope was de facto temporal ruler of a number of Italian states. From that date the pope voluntarily retreated to the Vatican until 1929 when the Lateran Treaty was signed, recognising the Vatican as a sovereign state. See the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

[sp1814]

mike11111 is correct. The Pope is a head of state and therefore, his visit here is a state visit.

"Why should the Pope not be given the honour of a UK state visit, just because of the Vatican's record on 'gay rights', 'abortion' and 'birth control'?"

I think the paedophilia thing is a much bigger issue - especially as the Pope is on record as stating that he wanted the investigations to remain within the Church and NOT be handled by the police.

I'm sure that those of a 'different political persuasion' would be equally vocal in their condemnation of a state visit by (say) Robert Mugabe!

[mike11111]

Well said sp1814.

I don't believe for one moment that the catholic hierachy has ever condoned paedophilia, merely that it preferred to deal with it internally in order to avoid a loss of confidence in the institution. Unfortunately this failed. I am sure there are thousands of cases where employees have been caught in petty theft, yet have been quietly dismissed without recourse to the judicial system in order to preserve corporate trust and escape the odium of damaging publicity.

[jake-the-peg]

So what's the protocol when he meets the Queen or the PM

Who's bowing to who

who's ring gets kissed by who?

[anotheoldgit]

Well if this is a section of public opinion, his visit is going to say the least 'interesting'

[mike11111]

As she is the host the Pope must bow to the Queen in gratitude for her hospitality. The PM in the scheme of things is a bit of a nonentity in the world of protocol, so must defer to the Pope, although not having to go as far as bowing. When it comes to kissing each others' rings, I prefer not to go down that road.

[zita-green]

Britain was not a signatory to the Lateran Treaty so he's not a head of state in my eyes. His visit is an insult to survivors of abuse,
The money could be better spent.

[andy-hughes]

mike 11111 - surely you must see that your analogy doesn't hold water even for an instant?

The comparison of a cleaner taking home a spare bottle of bleach and being let off, with a parish priest in a position of trust using that position to sexually abuse children is really not one that stands up to even basic scrutiny, is it?

The fact is, the Catholic church's cornerstone is the secrecy and machiavelian practices which conspire to continue to allow some (by now means all) of its employees to behave with impunity, intouched with the inconvenience of the criminal justice system that protects us from each other, but they think must not be allowed to protect us from them.

It is this 'other worldliness' atmosphere in which the church exists - from the Pope down to the newest parish priest, that allows them to see themselves as somehow above, and certainly exempt, from the punishments that are lined up for secular abusers.

Given the church's acknowledged prediliction for pretending that this abuse is simply not happening, by the tacit afreement of moving priests to other parishes, where their vile lifstyle continues - it does not inspire anyone with confidence that the church wants to investigate itself, and no doubt find itself weak and in need of prayer and contemplation.

It's not right, it's not on, and it;s very very wrong.

Sorry AOG - to return to your Question - the Pope should be accorded a State Visit because he is a Soverign Head of State.

A duplicitous, cunning, lying, power-hungry out-of-touch bigot who presides over an empire of billions of pounds and spends none of it on the people it pretends to car for, but a Head of State none the less.

[mike11111]

Absolute tripe, zita-green. Signing a treaty has meaning only for the signatories. The Pope is Head of State of the Vatican City, just as Kim Jong IL is of North Korea and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, whether you like it or not.

[andy-hughes]

Steady on mike 11111 - zita-green is entitled to express an opinion.

The observation was '...so he's not a head of state in my eyes ...' which is a personal view, and does not change the fact of the Pope's status.

Abuse is not nice - even verbal abuse to strangers - it's against the spirit of the AB.

[mike11111]

"A duplicitous, cunning, lying, power-hungry out-of-touch bigot who presides over an empire of billions of pounds"

Slightly off-message here, mate. We were discussing the Pope, not Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.

[Gromit]

The Pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church, but he cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals within the church any more than a General or a President can be responsible for a errant soldier raping and murdering innocent Iraqi girl and her family.

http://en.wikipedia.o...i/Mahmudiyah_killings

If George W. wished to come to these shores, would the same people be accusing him of being a rapist, because some people he was in charge of were rapists?

Let the old Kraut come if it makes a few million bog-trotters happy.