The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged] - Page 3

Kymmy · 04-09-2010, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm no fan of the Church of Rome, but calling the College of Cardinals a 'puppet group' placed by the previous pope is a bit unfair (as well as quite inaccurate). There are a lot of Cardinals, and many of them have been in-post for a great many years. They come from all over the world and represent all the cultures where the Roman church exists. As a system of representative democracy it's far, far from the worst the world has produced.

Getting a bit too off-topic now but no matter how long they've been in place the cardinals are created by the popes and the popes are elected by the cardinals..

If we did the same then the PM would elect the MP's and the MP's would elect the PM.. (who would stay in place till he died)
It was a choice between calling the cardinals puppets or the pope, just didn't fancy a papal target on my back by some extremist catholics

**Chris** · 04-09-2010, 12:57

I'm not saying it's perfect - it isn't. But then no flavour of democracy is. Besides, just because the electors are chosen, it does not logically follow that they are therefore 'puppets'. Their length of service, diverse backgrounds and the fact that they may have been selected by the last pope, or the one before that, would mitigate against them acting as a 'puppet' in a future papal election.

Mr Angry · 04-09-2010, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

If we did the same.....

Bad analogy.

If "we" are discussing heads of sovereign states and their religious machinations, which we are, then the Queen and the Church of England would be the appropriate point of reference and not Parliament.

On that point, and specifically in relation to the Church of England, no clergy can be instituted and inducted into a parish without swearing the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen (the current monarch and religious and constitutonal head of the Church of England).

Swings and roundabouts. Just as the catholic church cannot function effectively without a pope so the Church of England would face the same dilemma without a monarch.

Demanding loyalty from the practitioners of a specific denomination or faith in exchange for leadersghip is not something which is unique to catholicism.

Kymmy · 04-09-2010, 13:14

Church of England though doesn't have their own state and would never dream of for example having a state visit to lets say America or Australia, hence I used the PM/MP analogy..

04-09-2010, 13:41

If during his time here he has meetings with representatives of our government and the queen then it is a state visit regardless of whatever else he might do while here and we have a duty of care for him during his time on UK soil. Also we are not wholly funding the trip or the protection we are as i understand it contributing to the cost and providing some of the resources. All that said i would expect the UK government to raise the issue of abuse within the church and how they are dealing with it or as seems to be the case not dealing with it and there should be no special dispensation on the subject just because he is the pope. Like it or not at this point in time the vatican is recognised as a sovereign state and must be accorded the same diplomatic consideration as any other state.

nomadking · 04-09-2010, 14:08

The cost of things like security and Government/State meetings should be taxpayer funded, but events such as the proposed Mass are like a political event and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

He received more votes to become Pope than Gordon Brown did in order to become PM.

**Chris** · 04-09-2010, 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

The cost of things like security and Government/State meetings should be taxpayer funded, but events such as the proposed Mass are like a political event and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

He received more votes to become Pope than Gordon Brown did in order to become PM.

Should the taxpayer have footed the bill for security when Michelle Obama visited a secondary school in Islington? After all, that was a blatant piece of PR. She isn't even a member of the US government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7980012.stm

Sirius · 04-09-2010, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Should the taxpayer have footed the bill for security when Michelle Obama visited a secondary school in Islington? After all, that was a blatant piece of PR. She isn't even a member of the US government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7980012.stm

Thats the nail on the head, Why is the visit of the Pope any different

Russ · 04-09-2010, 18:00

The difference being UK does whatever the US says regardless of the cost but that's another story...

Taf · 04-09-2010, 18:46

As the head of a group involved in paedophilia I think he should not be allowed into the country.

**Hugh** · 04-09-2010, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

As the head of a group involved in paedophilia I think he should not be allowed into the country.

What - he's a teacher?

Sirius · 04-09-2010, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

What - he's a teacher?

Well spotted sir

georgepomone · 04-09-2010, 22:17

Hi All- I read today that many Catholics are angry at the price of the tickets to the events. I can see the need for tickets to control the events but who gets this income from ticket sales. If it's costing the Tax-Payer then the tickets should be the cost of the postage. I can see life long Catholics who would like to go being prevented by the high prices. I wouldn't be one of them but think it's wrong.

Gary L · 04-09-2010, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

As the head of a group involved in paedophilia I think he should not be allowed into the country.

I have to agree with the thinking of this. it can't be just ignored because they are hiding behind the holy barrier.

pabloo · 04-09-2010, 23:31

wonder whos paying for tony blairs book signing in dublin...there must have been 1000 cops on duty