The Pope's Visit

[BruceyBonus]

The letter to the Guardian is spot on. Of course, under the guise of religious freedom, the Pope should be welcome to come here and address his fans. But the Vatican City is a poor excuse for a nation 'state'. It's just an excuse for the Pope to receive special privileges. And of course, if you do insist on calling him a head of state - I think given our scant relations with the Vatican, there's little reason to give him so much attentions.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/harsh-judgments-on-pope-religion

 

Also in the news. A aide of the Pope isn't coming because he described Britain as "Third World" (harsh and unfair) and of "a new and aggressive marked" (something we can all be proud of!).

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

[mj.scuba]

Summed up very well here.

 

Let's all stand with baited breath to see what the comedien/occasional actor/occassional author/manic depressive/gay man thinks.

[Bloomdido]

I dont know about that, but it shows how good the teaching of Catholicism is.

I also am a part Irish lapsed Catholic.

In fact I have not been inside a church, for worship, for over 45 years.

But whenever fools, who know nothing about it, rail against the church for reasons only they know, I find myself rising to defend it.

Even though I know many parts of it, if not all, are indefensible.

 

I will say this though, given the choice of the worlds two major religions to live under:

Catholicism would be my choice by light years.

 

They get you young and mess up your head. Catholocism and islam are particularly good at this.

[flamingjimmy]

From that letter to the guardian:

 

"In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican"

 

Nail on the head, exactly what I was saying earlier.

[Grahame]

They get you young and mess up your head. Catholocism and islam are particularly good at this.

 

Do you condemn gay priests as well Bloomdido?

 

 

[mj.scuba]

From that letter to the guardian:

 

"In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican"

 

Nail on the head, exactly what I was saying earlier.

 

The people signing the Guardian letter are a bunch of dopes too then.

[LibertyBell]

Keep this fundamentalist paedophile protecting scum out of my country. This muppet has nothing to say to the vast majority of people here. He is irrelevant.

[harvey19]

I am sure the Popes visit will bring happiness to a lot of people.

[mj.scuba]

The letter to the Guardian is spot on. Of course, under the guise of religious freedom, the Pope should be welcome to come here and address his fans. But the Vatican City is a poor excuse for a nation 'state'. It's just an excuse for the Pope to receive special privileges. And of course, if you do insist on calling him a head of state - I think given our scant relations with the Vatican, there's little reason to give him so much attentions.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/harsh-judgments-on-pope-religion

 

Also in the news. A aide of the Pope isn't coming because he described Britain as "Third World" (harsh and unfair) and of "a new and aggressive marked" (something we can all be proud of!).

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

 

I always thought the Guardian was the paper that traditionally was meant to stand tall in the face of hysteria, not be the one pandering to it.

 

I thought they were meant to champion minority religious groups too. God knows they have clamoured to condemn the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque in the name of religious freedom etc etc, and rightly condemned the Qur'an burning because it would cause offence to one religion, so I'm highly suprised at their attitude to the Pope's visit, seems their liberal attitudes and speaking up for minority groups doesn't extend to Catholicism

 

 

---

[donkey]

I always thought the Guardian was the paper that traditionally was meant to stand tall in the face of hysteria, not be the one pandering to it.

 

I thought they were meant to champion minority religious groups too. God knows they have clamoured to condemn the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque in the name of religious freedom etc etc, and rightly condemned the Qur'an burning because it would cause offence to one religion, so I'm highly suprised at their attitude to the Pope's visit, seems their liberal attitudes and speaking up for minority groups doesn't extend to Catholicism

 

---

 

 

Maybe it is the pontiff's - at best - lax attitude towards the widespread paedohilia in his organisation which has really got a lot of people's backs up? Besides, I don't believe the government is funding a multi million pound visit by any representative of the Islamic faith at the moment.