Papal Visit.

[greenlex]

I was listening to the radio going to work this week and I am hearing the Pope is coming back to Scotland briefly whilst visiting Britain.
Now I am not in the slightest bit religious but the commentators were saying this is a great thing for not only the Catholics amongst us. Not only people with any religious preferences would benefit but people, like myself, with no religion this will apparently be a great thing. I cannot for the life of me think what benefit this will have or me.
Worst still the bill for the Pontif's visit is estimated to be some £15 Million and that is without the Police bill!!!!!!!!!!! This raises two questions for me.
1. How on Earth is the bill at £15 Million if it is a fleeting visit over a day or so without taking into account the police bill?
2.Why should I as a tax payer be paying for this visit? Should the Catholic church not be paying for this? Should they also foot the police bill?
If Hibs stage a football match they are billed for the police presence.

With the countries finance in the state its in I think the catholic church should be paying both bills. Just to make it clear I have no objection to the visit but as a tax payer I object to funding it.
Thoughts?

[lapsedhibee]

How on Earth is the bill at £15 Million if it is a fleeting visit over a day or so without taking into account the police bill?


Edinburgh will want to pretend to His Popeship that it is not currently an unsightly mess, so will take about a month before he comes to fill in all the tramholes and remove all the traffic diversions, and then take about a month after he leaves to redig all the holes and reinstate all the traffic diversions. That should come to about £15m.

[I'm_cabbaged]

I was listening to the radio going to work this week and I am hearing the Pope is coming back to Scotland briefly whilst visiting Britain.
Now I am not in the slightest bit religious but the commentators were saying this is a great thing for not only the Catholics amongst us. Not only people with any religious preferences would benefit but people, like myself, with no religion this will apparently be a great thing. I cannot for the life of me think what benefit this will have or me.
Worst still the bill for the Pontif's visit is estimated to be some £15 Million and that is without the Police bill!!!!!!!!!!! This raises two questions for me.
1. How on Earth is the bill at £15 Million if it is a fleeting visit over a day or so without taking into account the police bill?
2.Why should I as a tax payer be paying for this visit? Should the Catholic church not be paying for this? Should they also foot the police bill?
If Hibs stage a football match they are billed for the police presence.

With the countries finance in the state its in I think the catholic church should be paying both bills. Just to make it clear I have no objection to the visit but as a tax payer I object to funding it.
Thoughts?

I'm not a monarchist and I object to paying for the monarchy.
Thoughts?

[Pretty Boy]

I'm not a monarchist and I object to paying for the monarchy.
Thoughts?

:agree:

[greenlex]

I'm not a monarchist and I object to paying for the monarchy.
Thoughts?
Good point but at least they are now paying taxes and ambassadors for our country like it or not. The Pope?

[EH6 Hibby]

I'm not a monarchist and I object to paying for the monarchy.
Thoughts?

:agree:

What about Yon mad African Man that was here a few weeks ago, who paid for all that?

I don't know for certain but I would imagine that the Church of England/Scotland will get some sort of goverment funding as well do they not?

If people are going to start objecting about paying for the Pope's visit then it's going to have to set a precedent.

Having said that, I can't understand why it's going to cost so much money! :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I was listening to the radio going to work this week and I am hearing the Pope is coming back to Scotland briefly whilst visiting Britain.
Now I am not in the slightest bit religious but the commentators were saying this is a great thing for not only the Catholics amongst us. Not only people with any religious preferences would benefit but people, like myself, with no religion this will apparently be a great thing. I cannot for the life of me think what benefit this will have or me.
Worst still the bill for the Pontif's visit is estimated to be some £15 Million and that is without the Police bill!!!!!!!!!!! This raises two questions for me.
1. How on Earth is the bill at £15 Million if it is a fleeting visit over a day or so without taking into account the police bill?
2.Why should I as a tax payer be paying for this visit? Should the Catholic church not be paying for this? Should they also foot the police bill?
If Hibs stage a football match they are billed for the police presence.

With the countries finance in the state its in I think the catholic church should be paying both bills. Just to make it clear I have no objection to the visit but as a tax payer I object to funding it.
Thoughts?

It'll wind up the Huns. :dunno:

[steakbake]

I was listening to the radio going to work this week and I am hearing the Pope is coming back to Scotland briefly whilst visiting Britain.
Now I am not in the slightest bit religious but the commentators were saying this is a great thing for not only the Catholics amongst us. Not only people with any religious preferences would benefit but people, like myself, with no religion this will apparently be a great thing. I cannot for the life of me think what benefit this will have or me.
Worst still the bill for the Pontif's visit is estimated to be some £15 Million and that is without the Police bill!!!!!!!!!!! This raises two questions for me.
1. How on Earth is the bill at £15 Million if it is a fleeting visit over a day or so without taking into account the police bill?
2.Why should I as a tax payer be paying for this visit? Should the Catholic church not be paying for this? Should they also foot the police bill?
If Hibs stage a football match they are billed for the police presence.

With the countries finance in the state its in I think the catholic church should be paying both bills. Just to make it clear I have no objection to the visit but as a tax payer I object to funding it.
Thoughts?

I posted a thread about this maybe 2 days ago, then thought better of it for fear it might descend. But yes - some of these points are also my concern.

Fine by me that people believe in their various beliefs etc, but I resent the fact that tax money - as someone who thinks that religion should have no place in public life and none in political affairs - is going to be spent on a visit like this, or for any religious leader, for that matter.

It's not as if churches, mosques, temples and synagogues pay much contribution in taxes in the first place, given the refuge they can seek in charity status, like independent schools... but that's another fight for another day.

One of the biggest landowners in England is the CoE. The Vatican, allegedly the world's biggest charity - has assets and wealth to a degree that eclipses the needs of their charitable functions to an embarrassing degree. Yet do they pay tax or will they pay for their publicity stunts like this? Probably not...

Fine if a religious leader wants to come, but their organisation should be shelling out for it.

I'm also more than a bit p'd off in the way a papal visit has been pursued by the Scottish Office. Very well timed, all these announcements are, given that Jim Murphy's also been making a big play to capture the religious vote in the general election.

Cynical.. me?...probably. But a lot less cynical that the politicians and the religious organisations they court.

[Dashing Bob S]

I'd like to get the Pope, the bishops in the Vatican, the Queen, the royal family and the House of Lords, line them up against the wall, and shoot all the exploitative barstewards stone dead.


And sleep easy, etc etc.




I'd worship Gary MacKay before any of them.

[steakbake]

I'd like to get the Pope, the bishops in the Vatican, the Queen, the royal family and the House of Lords, line them up against the wall, and shoot all the exploitative barstewards stone dead.


And sleep easy, etc etc.

I'd worship Gary MacKay before any of them.

You wouldn't be needing nytol that night. No need to set an alarm.. etc etc?

[I'm_cabbaged]

I'd like to get the Pope, the bishops in the Vatican, the Queen, the royal family and the House of Lords, line them up against the wall, and shoot all the exploitative barstewards stone dead.


And sleep easy, etc etc.




I'd worship Gary MacKay before any of them.


Too far Robert, too far.

[Bookkeeper]

I posted a thread about this maybe 2 days ago, then thought better of it for fear it might descend. But yes - some of these points are also my concern.

I'm staunchly secularist. Fine by me that people believe in their various beliefs etc, but I resent the fact that tax money - as someone who thinks that religion should have no place in public life and none in political affairs - is going to be spent on a visit like this, or for any religious leader, for that matter.

It's not as if churches, mosques, temples and synagogues pay much contribution in taxes in the first place, given the refuge they can seek in charity status, like independent schools... but that's another fight for another day.

One of the biggest landowners in England is the CoE. The Vatican, allegedly the world's biggest charity - has assets and wealth to a degree that eclipses the needs of their charitable functions to an embarrassing degree. Yet do they pay tax or will they pay for their publicity stunts like this? Probably not...

Fine if a religious leader wants to come, but their organisation should be shelling out for it.

I'm also more than a bit p'd off in the way a papal visit has been pursued by the Scottish Office. Very well timed, all these announcements are, given that Jim Murphy's also been making a big play to capture the religious vote in the general election.

Cynical.. me?...probably. But a lot less cynical that the politicians and the religious organisations they court.



:agree: Got to agree with this. I think though, Murphy is specifically playing up to the traditional Catholic labour vote, by trying to be associated with this visit, and not the religious vote in general.

[Hainan Hibs]

Murphy is a slime ball who is doing it all for votes.

£15 million? Shove that. Tell them to save their giro's and get a flight to the Vatican:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wonder if his Papaship's apology for the paedo priests has been prompted by the hard time he'll get over here if they don't clean up their act? How anyone can subscribe to an organisation that has allowed children to be abused is beyond me.

[Bishop Hibee]

I wonder if his Papaship's apology for the paedo priests has been prompted by the hard time he'll get over here if they don't clean up their act? How anyone can subscribe to an organisation that has allowed children to be abused is beyond me.

You paid taxes to fund state run children's homes where child abuse took place. Similarly, the BB and Scout movements have all had individuals who have used there position of power to abuse children. Should people send there children to these organisations?

Back to the OP, I disagree with funding a replacement for the Trident weapons system and abortion but my still pay my taxes. The Pope is coming as a head of state, we fund this for all heads of state, end of argument unless you want to discriminate in this case?

I believe policing outside ER is paid for by the taxpayer but inside is paid for by Hibs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[steakbake]

You paid taxes to fund state run children's homes where child abuse took place. Similarly, the BB and Scout movements have all had individuals who have used there position of power to abuse children. Should people send there children to these organisations?

Back to the OP, I disagree with funding a replacement for the Trident weapons system and abortion but my still pay my taxes. The Pope is coming as a head of state, we fund this for all heads of state, end of argument unless you want to discriminate in this case?

I believe policing outside ER is paid for by the taxpayer but inside is paid for by Hibs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What state is he the head of? The Vatican State? Or as the Head of the Catholic Church?

Sorry, but it irritates me that the government would throw money away on promoting religion in this way. They will get something out of it I daresay (votes perhaps) otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Belief in scriptures, deities and miracles are a matter for private or collective consciences and should not be indulged at the public expense.

If the Pope (or any other religious leader) wants to visit his people then his very well resourced organisation can arrange and pay for it themselves.

[Stanton]

some very thinly veiled bigotry here which would be more suited to a Hun or Yam board .....:agree:

[steakbake]

some very thinly veiled bigotry here which would be more suited to a Hun or Yam board .....:agree:

Not a bar of it.

I just think organised religion is given far too much attention by politicians in general. Belief should be a private matter. Would you like a government which is run according to religious beliefs? Or social policy which is directed by a belief not in line with the best interests of people at heart necessarily, but because of a religious teaching which might exclude scientific evidence or rational context? I'm not just talking about Christianity or in this particular debate, Catholicism, but Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - any belief really and I think I have made that clear in each of my posts.

There are plenty of people who would protest against aspects of Shariah law coming into effect in the UK, but who would not see a contradiction in respecting a politician who is guided by their religious beliefs or pursues the religious vote. I just think in the 21st century, there should be some recognition that religion should be a decision of private conscience and pursued by a collective if they wish but it shouldn't have a role in the public sphere.

What about people who are atheist, agnostic or do not have a particular belief? Can they expect to be listened to, courted or protected in the same way as those who subscribe to a religion seem to be? I just find it absurd.

... and it's not just me: http://www.secularism.org.uk/

[Stanton]

Not a bar of it.

I just think organised religion is given far too much attention by politicians in general. Belief should be a private matter. Would you like a government which is run according to religious beliefs? Or social policy which is directed by a belief not in line with the best interests of people at heart necessarily, but because of a religious teaching which might exclude scientific evidence or rational context? I'm not just talking about Christianity or in this particular debate, Catholicism, but Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - any belief really and I think I have made that clear in each of my posts.

There are plenty of people who would protest against aspects of Shariah law coming into effect in the UK, but who would not see a contradiction in respecting a politician who is guided by their religious beliefs or pursues the religious vote. I just think in the 21st century, there should be some recognition that religion should be a decision of private conscience and pursued by a collective if they wish but it shouldn't have a role in the public sphere.

What about people who are atheist, agnostic or do not have a particular belief? Can they expect to be listened to, courted or protected in the same way as those who subscribe to a religion seem to be? I just find it absurd.

... and it's not just me: http://www.secularism.org.uk/ (http://www.secularism.org.uk/)

Listen mate ...I am NOT religious in any way shape or form.....but the moans in this thread refer to the cost of policing the visit by a head of state ...who happens to the head of the RC church......jeez ....would these comments be getting made if it was the German , French , American head of state ....I dont think so ......

Lots of head of state visit this country every year ( London primarily ) ...but the taxpayer foots the bill for the security ...foreign tax payers foot the bill when OUR head of state visits their country .....this is more about WHO the head of state is ....IMO

[Mon1875]

Listen mate ...I am NOT religious in any way shape or form.....but the moans in this thread refer to the cost of policing the visit by a head of state ...who happens to the head of the RC church......jeez ....would these comments be getting made if it was the German , French , American head of state ....I dont think so ......

Lots of head of state visit this country every year ( London primarily ) ...but the taxpayer foots the bill for the security ...foreign tax payers foot the bill when OUR head of state visits their country .....this is more about WHO the head of state is ....IMO

Well said Stanton.

Going back to the original question about what benefits a papal visit can bring then I'll quote this about the Pope's visit to Coventry.

"Business leaders in Coventry say the Papal visit to the city will bring huge economic benefits.

It has been confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI will visit Coventry in September as part of a four day trip to the UK at the invitation of the Queen.

The last time a Pope came to the city in 1982 it attracted more than 300,000 people and a similar number could head for Coventry again.

Louise Bennett, chief executive of the Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce, said businesses should be prepared for an influx of people and potential customers.

She said: “This could have a huge knock-on effect economically for the city and the region.

“With hundreds of thousands of people descending on Coventry from across the country and Europe, we will have to be prepared.

“It’s very good news for Coventry and the wider region and hotels, restaurants, shops and tourist attractions as well as a range of other businesses could benefit from this visit.

“Not only will the visit itself bring an economic boost, it will also put Coventry’s name on an international stage and that is something we can also benefit from.

“It’s important that we all gear up for this well in advance.”"

[s.a.m]

You paid taxes to fund state run children's homes where child abuse took place. Similarly, the BB and Scout movements have all had individuals who have used there position of power to abuse children. Should people send there children to these organisations?

Back to the OP, I disagree with funding a replacement for the Trident weapons system and abortion but my still pay my taxes. The Pope is coming as a head of state, we fund this for all heads of state, end of argument unless you want to discriminate in this case?

I believe policing outside ER is paid for by the taxpayer but inside is paid for by Hibs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't choose to subscribe to the Inland Revenue - they take the money off your wages. The BB / Scouts / care sector have had to produce rigorous policies, introduce staff training and insist upon criminal record checks for their volunteers and staff. Practise has changed dramatically as a result of these revelations, and the subsequent prosecutions and inquiries. While no organisation can guarantee the safety of people in its care, the organisatons you mention have made it much more difficult for abuse to take place, and for it to be hidden. Nor can other organisations hide behind the veil of confidentiality any longer.

[steakbake]

Listen mate ...I am NOT religious in any way shape or form.....but the moans in this thread refer to the cost of policing the visit by a head of state ...who happens to the head of the RC church......jeez ....would these comments be getting made if it was the German , French , American head of state ....I dont think so ......

Lots of head of state visit this country every year ( London primarily ) ...but the taxpayer foots the bill for the security ...foreign tax payers foot the bill when OUR head of state visits their country .....this is more about WHO the head of state is ....IMO

We agree on this point but for different reasons.

I have no problem with any visitor as an official head of state coming to the UK. But the Pope is coming as the head of the Catholic Church and he's not the head of a state. He is the head of a church. It is a religious organisation, not a country or a state and is therefore an entirely different matter.

I wouldn't have any problem with the PM sitting down and discussing issues in common or difference with any world leader - and I mean any. We need to talk to people, even if they are heads of the kinds of regimes that are considered dangerous or questionable: Ahmedinejad, for example.

However, I don't see how being against the taxpayer forking out for the official visit of a head of a belief system and saying as such is something akin to the bigotry you might find on follow-follow or whatever.

It's a bit of a facile accusation to make. Is it because it is the pope we're talking about and therefore to be against that (in amongst everything else) makes you somehow an orange bigot? If this was the Aga Khan or the Dalai Lama we are talking about, would that make me some kind of anti-muslim or anti-buddhist bigot? Why should religion be exempt from criticism and those who criticise it be accused of bigotry? I'm trying to be constructive in my arguments. I'm not resorting to name calling or denigrating people's beliefs. But I would maintain that they are private beliefs and should remain outside of the public arena, whether that is in terms of cost, influence or paying for them.

[Mon1875]

We agree on this point but for different reasons.

I have no problem with any visitor as an official head of state coming to the UK. But the Pope is coming as the head of the Catholic Church and he's not the head of a state. He is the head of a church. It is a religious organisation, not a country or a state and is therefore an entirely different matter.

I wouldn't have any problem with the PM sitting down and discussing issues in common or difference with any world leader - and I mean any. We need to talk to people, even if they are heads of the kinds of regimes that are considered dangerous or questionable: Ahmedinejad, for example.

However, I don't see how being against the taxpayer forking out for the official visit of a head of a belief system and saying as such is something akin to the bigotry you find on follow-follow or whatever.

It's a bit of a facile accusation to make. Is it because it is the pope we're talking about and therefore to be against that (in amongst everything else) makes you somehow an orange bigot? If this was the Aga Khan or the Dalai Lama we are talking about, would that make me some kind of anti-muslim or anti-buddhist bigot?



Sorry but I don't think the Queen would agree with you. She invited him as a Head of State.

[steakbake]

Sorry but I don't think the Queen would agree with you. She invited him as a Head of State.

I would probably disagree with the Queen on a number of issues, more often than not.

[Stanton]

We agree on this point but for different reasons.

I have no problem with any visitor as an official head of state coming to the UK. But the Pope is coming as the head of the Catholic Church and he's not the head of a state. He is the head of a church. It is a religious organisation, not a country or a state and is therefore an entirely different matter.

I wouldn't have any problem with the PM sitting down and discussing issues in common or difference with any world leader - and I mean any. We need to talk to people, even if they are heads of the kinds of regimes that are considered dangerous or questionable: Ahmedinejad, for example.

However, I don't see how being against the taxpayer forking out for the official visit of a head of a belief system and saying as such is something akin to the bigotry you find on follow-follow or whatever.

It's a bit of a facile accusation to make. Is it because it is the pope we're talking about and therefore to be against that (in amongst everything else) makes you somehow an orange bigot? If this was the Aga Khan or the Dalai Lama we are talking about, would that make me some kind of anti-muslim or anti-buddhist bigot?

Actually he is head of the Vatican state I believe.
There are MANY visitors every year that head up countries that espouse " Belief Systems " I find questionable to say the least.

But I would NEVER think that we should not invite them and talk to them ....debate them ...and yes ....pay the security bill to protect them.

The fact that it is the Pope ...and lets be honest here .....with Scotlands long and not very illustrious past of being hostile to all things RC ....DOES LEND CREEDENCE to this being another example of a latent anti Catholicism which is always lurking just beneath the surface in Scotland. IMO

[steakbake]

Actually he is head of the Vatican state I believe.
There are MANY visitors every year that head up countries that espouse " Belief Systems " I find questionable to say the least.

But I would NEVER think that we should not invite them and talk to them ....debate them ...and yes ....pay the security bill to protect them.

The fact that it is the Pope ...and lets be honest here .....with Scotlands long and not very illustrious past of being hostile to all things RC ....DOES LEND CREEDENCE to this being another example of a latent anti Catholicism which is always lurking just beneath the surface in Scotland. IMO

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your accusations of it being based in some kind of bigotry or instilled anti-catholicism are well out of order and I resent them very much, considering that you know nothing about my beliefs, background or where I am from.

[Mon1875]

I would probably disagree with the Queen on a number of issues, more often than not.



Regardless of what we think of the Queen she's the boss and she invites whoever she likes. Royal protocol wouldn't allow her to bend the rules and pretend the Pope is a Head of State. He is.

The royal family costs each taxpayer 69p a year BTW. Not a lot of money.

The original question was how does a papal visit benefit everyone and the answer is above.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'd like to get the Pope, the bishops in the Vatican, the Queen, the royal family and the House of Lords, line them up against the wall, and shoot all the exploitative barstewards stone dead.


And sleep easy, etc etc.




I'd worship Gary MacKay before any of them.

Shoorly you'd rip their testicles off and feed them to the dogs first?
Supposing it was one of your family......etc.

[steakbake]

Regardless of what we think of the Queen she's the boss and she invites whoever she likes. Royal protocol wouldn't allow her to bend the rules and pretend the Pope is a Head of State. He is.

The royal family costs each taxpayer 69p a year BTW. Not a lot of money.

The original question was how does a papal visit benefit everyone and the answer is above.

It might benefit people of faith who will no doubt be pleased to see him here. It might also benefit the areas he is visiting given the press and media attention he will bring as well as the financial benefits of those who will invariably travel to see him.

To me, personally, I might take time to go to the Royal Mile to see him pass by but other than that...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Actually he is head of the Vatican state I believe.
There are MANY visitors every year that head up countries that espouse " Belief Systems " I find questionable to say the least.

But I would NEVER think that we should not invite them and talk to them ....debate them ...and yes ....pay the security bill to protect them.

The fact that it is the Pope ...and lets be honest here .....with Scotlands long and not very illustrious past of being hostile to all things RC ....DOES LEND CREEDENCE to this being another example of a latent anti Catholicism which is always lurking just beneath the surface in Scotland. IMO

He is also head of an organisation that has systematically abused children for decades. Until they start handing people over to the police, the church and its followers are all guilty.

I wonder where other people's anti Catholicsim stems from.

[Stanton]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your accusations of it being based in some kind of bigotry or instilled anti-catholicism are well out of order and I resent them very much, considering that you know nothing about my beliefs, background or where I am from.

Sorry mate I am not accusing you personally of holding bigoted views ...just that geo politic means that we speak with MANY peoples and representatives of people with whom we disagree thats just a FACT ....however in Scotland ...the Papacy holds a particular DISDAIN for many ..more so than elsewhere ...and while that point of view is well received in many circles ...I believe we Hibby's tend to be far more open minded about these things generally

[Stanton]

He is also head of an organisation that has systematically abused children for decades. Until they start handing people over to the police, the church and its followers are all guilty.

I wonder where other people's anti Catholicsim stems from.

I agree with your sentiments ...but if you are being honest ...Anti Catholicism in Scotland certainly pre-dates the revelations of abuse

[Mon1875]

I am a Catholic and proud of it. I've had to live with hatred towards me and my faith all my years. So sad. You are all entitled to your own opinion. It's a free country. None of you will change how I feel.

[steakbake]

Sorry mate I am not accusing you personally of holding bigoted views ...just that geo politic means that we speak with MANY peoples and representatives of people with whom we disagree thats just a FACT ....however in Scotland ...the Papacy holds a particular DISDAIN for many ..more so than elsewhere ...and while that point of view is well received in many circles ...I believe we Hibby's tend to be far more open minded about these things generally

Fair play.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree with your sentiments ...but if you are being honest ...Anti Catholicism in Scotland certainly pre-dates the revelations of abuse

Yes, fair comment. There has been unacceptable bigotry in the last 100 years (not that it is ever acceptable). That has been mixed with and understandable reluctance to integrate by Irish Catholics - the Italians for example seem to have made a much better fist of it.

There is definitely a political slant to this visit, and it saddens me that religion seems to be an integral part of the democratic process in some parts of this country.

The bottom line is that people don't like paying to police any big event. Its possible that with the volatility of sectarian relations at the moment that this might not be a good thing for anybody/

[Phil D. Rolls]

I am a Catholic and proud of it. I've had to live with hatred towards me and my faith all my years. So sad. You are all entitled to your own opinion. It's a free country. None of you will change how I feel.

So you are happy with the church's stance on paedophile priests?

[Mon1875]

So you are happy with the church's stance on paedophile priests?



I abhor the very thought of a priest being a paedophile and abusing his position of trust. Any cover up is truly appalling. I'm still a Catholic though and have my faith. Why would I let that change my faith?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I abhor the very thought of a priest being a paedophile and abusing his position of trust. Any cover up is truly appalling. I'm still a Catholic though and have my faith. Why would I let that change my faith?

I don't know, I don't have faith. What I can't understand is how you can continue to support the Church when they are so reluctant to act upon what has been going on.

If I was in a club, and found out that it had been operating a sectarian, or racist policy, or had turned a blind eye to its officials abusing children, I think I'd have to consider my support for the club carefully.

[Mon1875]

I don't know, I don't have faith. What I can't understand is how you can continue to support the Church when they are so reluctant to act upon what has been going on.

If I was in a club, and found out that it had been operating a sectarian, or racist policy, or had turned a blind eye to its officials abusing children, I think I'd have to consider my support for the club carefully.



Religious faith isn't something you turn on or off at will. Just like my love for Hibs. Hibs I support through the bad times and the good times. It's not something you switch off. It's part of my being.

[Beefster]

What state is he the head of? The Vatican State? Or as the Head of the Catholic Church?

Sorry, but it irritates me that the government would throw money away on promoting religion in this way. They will get something out of it I daresay (votes perhaps) otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Belief in scriptures, deities and miracles are a matter for private or collective consciences and should not be indulged at the public expense.

If the Pope (or any other religious leader) wants to visit his people then his very well resourced organisation can arrange and pay for it themselves.

That's right. The Vatican is a sovereign state.

Just like the Queen, the Church of England and GB.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Religious faith isn't something you turn on or off at will. Just like my love for Hibs. Hibs I support through the bad times and the good times. It's not something you switch off. It's part of my being.

Fair enough, I understand and respect that. Would you accept that your faith is the cause of suffering for children?

(Thanks for your patience, I am not stirring here, I am trying to work out what is going on.)

[GlesgaeHibby]

Religious faith isn't something you turn on or off at will. Just like my love for Hibs. Hibs I support through the bad times and the good times. It's not something you switch off. It's part of my being.

There is a massive difference between supporting through the good and bad times and continuing to support an organisation when they have carried out serious wrongdoing, and then to add insult to injury tried to cover it up.

I absolutely do not support the taxpayer funding the Pope's visit. To spend tax payers money to bring a man with backdated and bigotted views that are massively harming the fight against AIDS in Africa, to name but one example, is nothing short of scandalous.

[greenlex]

Actually he is head of the Vatican state I believe.
There are MANY visitors every year that head up countries that espouse " Belief Systems " I find questionable to say the least.

But I would NEVER think that we should not invite them and talk to them ....debate them ...and yes ....pay the security bill to protect them.

The fact that it is the Pope ...and lets be honest here .....with Scotlands long and not very illustrious past of being hostile to all things RC ....DOES LEND CREEDENCE to this being another example of a latent anti Catholicism which is always lurking just beneath the surface in Scotland. IMO
As the OP is this aimed at me?
Fair enough if it is holy (pun intended) state visit but he will be giving blessings or services all over when he is here. I object to paying for that. Nothing to do with Bigitory.

If another head of state was visiting and using it for their religious ends I would again object to that.

If our dear old queen was visiting abroad and promoting the CofE as part of her visit I wouldnt expect the country being visited to pay for that visit.Should the Cof E not pay for that?

If the leader of Zimbabwe was here as head of his state but holding rallies for his cause then I would object to funding that also as I am sure you would too.
Hope that doesnt disappoint you.

15Million for a 4 day visit without the security bill is a disgrace whoever is paying it. I doubt very much the commercial benefits will be anywhere near that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

15Million for a 4 day visit without the security bill is a disgrace whoever is paying it. I doubt very much the commercial benefits will be anywhere near that.

I'm sure it will benefit Labour, and from their point of view it will be money well spent.

[Stanton]

As the OP is this aimed at me?
Fair enough if it is holy (pun intended) state visit but he will be giving blessings or services all over when he is here. I object to paying for that. Nothing to do with Bigitory.

If another head of state was visiting and using it for their religious ends I would again object to that.

If our dear old queen was visiting abroad and promoting the CofE as part of her visit I wouldnt expect the country being visited to pay for that visit.Should the Cof E not pay for that?

If the leader of Zimbabwe was here as head of his state but holding rallies for his cause then I would object to funding that also as I am sure you would too.
Hope that doesnt disappoint you.

15Million for a 4 day visit without the security bill is a disgrace whoever is paying it. I doubt very much the commercial benefits will be anywhere near that.

If we have 5 million fellow UK citizens who are RC ( like population of ALL of Scotland ) and a fair portion of them wish to see the head of their church visit our country ....fair enough as far as I am concerned.

Also I am sure he will meet with other faith groups while in UK and any dialogue and understanding between them is a good thing IMO.


Regarding GH's point ....The Aids pandemic in Africa and linkage with the RC church is just inaccurate.
I find many things within the RC church objectionable ....Abortion , Contraception , Celibacy , Papal infallability, there stance on Gay issues ....not to mention the abuse of recent years.

If you look at those areas of Africa where the aids pandemic is rife you will find that South Africa ( RC church is very small there and Protestant churches are far more dominant ) ....means that RC church has very little influence over the wider population there as vast majority are NOT RC.

So quite how they are helping to perpetuate a problem where they are so marginal in number is baffling.

[Brizo]

Yes, fair comment. There has been unacceptable bigotry in the last 100 years (not that it is ever acceptable). That has been mixed with and understandable reluctance to integrate by Irish Catholics - the Italians for example seem to have made a much better fist of it. There is definitely a political slant to this visit, and it saddens me that religion seems to be an integral part of the democratic process in some parts of this country.

The bottom line is that people don't like paying to police any big event. Its possible that with the volatility of sectarian relations at the moment that this might not be a good thing for anybody/

That is quite frankly stereotyped nonsense. If by integrate you mean live side by side with , intermarry with , work side by side with then Catholics of all backgrounds have been fully integrated for many many decades. And how are "sectarian relations" any more volatile than previously. Most people would agree that the situation is improving decade by decade , theyve certainly moved on hugely since the last Popes visit in 1982.

The Pope wont be the first and he wont be the last head of state to visit Britain at the taxpayers expense whose policies offend a section of our population and whose representatives have committed terrible crimes against innocent children. Guaranteed however that he will attract a lot more anger on Scottish fitba mbs than any secular world leaders will :wink:.

I would add Im no fan of the current Pope and the child abuse scandals and cover ups are one of many issues which have led to countless Catholics giving up their faith. If the Pope did a gig across the street from me I probably wouldnt open the curtains such is my disdain for the current incumbent.

[EH6 Hibby]

Fair enough, I understand and respect that. Would you accept that your faith is the cause of suffering for children?

(Thanks for your patience, I am not stirring here, I am trying to work out what is going on.)


The Roman Catholic church did not abuse children, individuals within it did. I agree that the abuse that took place was horrific, but it's in the past now, and lessons have been learned from it, I would be very surprised if it was to happen again.

[Mon1875]

The Roman Catholic church did not abuse children, individuals within it did. I agree that the abuse that took place was horrific, but it's in the past now, and lessons have been learned from it, I would be very surprised if it was to happen again.


Just home and catching up. Oohzemmama I agree with you.

I was reading that the Catholic church paid for the last visit of Pope Jean Paul in full. This is different because the Queen has invited the new Pope for a state visit. It's up to the Queen and government if this is paid for by the tax payer. The Catholic church is paying part of the bill BTW. The Pope has opted out of the full state visit stuff. Who knows what the huge bill is for. The Pope himself didn't state the cost.

No one here knows the full facts about what has happened in the past. Maybe the Pope will discuss the latest problems with the Archbishop & Co when he is here. Archbishop Keith O'Brien (lovely man) has said he doesn't know if the Pope will discuss this yet because the agenda isn't set yet. What happened in Ireland - I don't really know and I don't feel comfortable discussing something which I don't know the full facts of. I only know that my priests of my parish in the past have been wonderful folk. If there has been a few bad pennies in the past then it should be dealt with and from what I can see from reading the papers I hope it is being dealt with.

I'm not a big practicing Catholic by any means and I understand Filled Rolls you aren't trying to cause trouble (man I love your posts!) but we all have to live with each other. It's a sad state of affairs that evil lives amongst us but is does. It's a good thing that it is rooted out. I don't think these things should be covered up and I see the Irish Catholic church apologised for trying to cover it up in the past.

In the end the Queen and the government has passed this visit which will be part paid by the church. His visit will bring economic benefits to Scotland but I understand that due to Health and Safety issues they won't allow the masses to gather and the numbers have to be limited.

If you don't agree with him being here then turn the other cheek and ignore. Just like I do when the Orange parade marches through Musselburgh.

The ethos of Catholism is sound and all encompassing and good in nature. If some weirdo Priest has broken this then damn them but don't try to use it to break the backs of the rest of us. I respect everyone's religion. Might be a better world if we all do the same.

Love you all x

PS I'm not some weird bloke. I'm a woman. When I met North Sea Hibby he was surprised to find out I was a woman.

Bit drunk as well - just as well I'm not working tomorrow! Night.

[Steve-O]

The Roman Catholic church did not abuse children, individuals within it did. I agree that the abuse that took place was horrific, but it's in the past now, and lessons have been learned from it, I would be very surprised if it was to happen again.

But it was covered up by the Catholic Church?

How many individuals does it take before you start to question the whole organisation?

[J-C]

The Roman Catholic church did not abuse children, individuals within it did. I agree that the abuse that took place was horrific, but it's in the past now, and lessons have been learned from it, I would be very surprised if it was to happen again.


Is this the same Roman Catholic church who had the Spanisn Inquisition torture people into confessions and herecy if they ever stood up against them.

Wrongs were done by priests and others within their church and by having a massive cover up , makes the whole church equally to blame for the wrongdoings.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Fair enough, I understand and respect that. Would you accept that your faith is the cause of suffering for children?

(Thanks for your patience, I am not stirring here, I am trying to work out what is going on.)

That's just silly and unpleasant.

The Catholic Church fully deserves the criticism it is receiving but the tendency of a number of liberal commentary pieces over the weekend to present this abuse as somehow peculiar to Catholicism is very notable. I don't recall the British state ever being on the end of similar criticism for its involvement in not just covering up but allowing the continuation of child abuse in the Kincora Boys Home (or indeed the evangelical Protestant group that ran the home).

Awful abuse will always be far more likely to occur in institutions that exist without proper accountability, regulation and observation - and Catholic institutions were allowed to operate without this (again, with the full support of various national governments - out of sight, out of mind, not our problem etc. etc.) for far too long.

[EH6 Hibby]

But it was covered up by the Catholic Church?

How many individuals does it take before you start to question the whole organisation?

I understand what you are saying, but again we are talking about individuals that commited the abuse then other individuals that covered it up. I do not go to church because of any particular individual, I go because I personally think that the Roman Catholic faith is a beautiful thing, what these people did is nothing to do with that.

I would like to point out here that I think what happened is as disgusting as anyone else does and I am no way defending it, I do think there were a lot of niave people who allowed these things to continue because they preferred to believe the best in people. That may be completely wrong of course as I don't know the people involved, I just have a hard time believing that good people would stand by and allow this to happen.


Is this the same Roman Catholic church who had the Spanisn Inquisition torture people into confessions and herecy if they ever stood up against them.

Wrongs were done by priests and others within their church and by having a massive cover up , makes the whole church equally to blame for the wrongdoings.

Come on, you are talking about things that happened hundreds of years ago now, the world and the Roman Catholic church have both changed beyond recognition since then. I don't agree with what the Roman Catholic church did then either, but I also don't agree with the British invading just about every country in the world at one point. These things happened in the past and would never happen in this day and age.

Yes wrongs were done by priests and again I am not defending that, but I think lessons have been learned and I would hope that they are never allowed to happen again.

[PeeJay]

The Roman Catholic church did not abuse children, individuals within it did. I agree that the abuse that took place was horrific, but it's in the past now, and lessons have been learned from it, I would be very surprised if it was to happen again.

What an absurd post - in the past? How can you claim to possibly know it's in the past? How is it in the past for the victims? What lessons have they learned from it? The RC Church provided the framework to practise such crimes, surely? And what do you mean you'd be surprised - do you know anything at all about the history of the Roman Catholic Church? You'd best be wary of what is yet to come if you ask me.

Germany is at this very moment discovering just how much the RC church was actively involved in covering up abuse (sexual and physical) on children. Pope Benedikt XVI and his brother in Freising appear also to have simply decided to turn a blind eye to events. For whose benefit one has to ask, surely not the 'innocent children'?

What particularly galls me are people with opinions like yours, saying "Oh, lessons have been learned". Have they? If what has been going on for decades in the RC Church had occurred in a youth club or suchlike it would have been closed down and the culprits put into jail. Unthinking followers of the RC Church and our "respectful of religion" society however, enable these bxxxxxs / monsters to do what they do and just move on to do it elsewhere. Where is the outcry amongst your faithful - why aren't you all out on the streets protesting? How can the UK welcome a Pope in charge of such criminals? Will anyone officially admonish him in public - no chance!

I've a sneaking suspicion the Pope and all his little helpers are convinced that peoples' memories are short (as you amply demonstrate) and "time will heal" - try telling that to the victims. Perhaps the RC Church never properly grasped the meaning behind "Suffer the little children to come unto Me"?

[EH6 Hibby]

What an absurd post - in the past? How can you claim to possibly know it's in the past? How is it in the past for the victims? What lessons have they learned from it? The RC Church provided the framework to practise such crimes, surely? And what do you mean you'd be surprised - do you know anything at all about the history of the Roman Catholic Church? You'd best be wary of what is yet to come if you ask me.

Germany is at this very moment discovering just how much the RC church was actively involved in covering up abuse (sexual and physical) on children. Pope Benedikt XVI and his brother in Freising appear also to have simply decided to turn a blind eye to events. For whose benefit one has to ask, surely not the 'innocent children'?

What particularly galls me are people with opinions like yours, saying "Oh, lessons have been learned". Have they? If what has been going on for decades in the RC Church had occurred in a youth club or suchlike it would have been closed down and the culprits put into jail. Unthinking followers of the RC Church and our "respectful of religion" society however, enable these bxxxxxs / monsters to do what they do and just move on to do it elsewhere. Where is the outcry amongst your faithful - why aren't you all out on the streets protesting? How can the UK welcome a Pope in charge of such criminals? Will anyone officially admonish him in public - no chance!

I've a sneaking suspicion the Pope and all his little helpers are convinced that peoples' memories are short (as you amply demonstrate) and "time will heal" - try telling that to the victims. Perhaps the RC Church never properly grasped the meaning behind "Suffer the little children to come unto Me"?

I think you are being a tad harsh on me to be honest, I didn't abuse these children or help cover it up, maybe you were offended by my use of the phrase "in the past" and I apologise if that's the case, and in no way did I intend to sound like I was trivialising the suffering that this caused, I only meant that it is no longer happening on the scale that it was, obviously there is a chance that there could still be individual cases of abuse happening but I am confident that the people responsible will not be protected when caught.

As has been said already, sexual and physical abuse of children and the covering up of such crimes is not just a problem in the Catholic church, or any other church for that matter, these things were happening in lots of government run homes as well. And by "lessons have been learned" I meant that there are a lot more rigid checks done on people that are working with children now by the police and there are rules in place within the RC Church to avoid these things happening again, there will never be a foolproof way of stopping peadophiles getting into contact with children, but that is the same in every aspect of life not just the Roman Catholic Church.

[J-C]

I understand what you are saying, but again we are talking about individuals that commited the abuse then other individuals that covered it up. I do not go to church because of any particular individual, I go because I personally think that the Roman Catholic faith is a beautiful thing, what these people did is nothing to do with that.

I would like to point out here that I think what happened is as disgusting as anyone else does and I am no way defending it, I do think there were a lot of niave people who allowed these things to continue because they preferred to believe the best in people. That may be completely wrong of course as I don't know the people involved, I just have a hard time believing that good people would stand by and allow this to happen.



Come on, you are talking about things that happened hundreds of years ago now, the world and the Roman Catholic church have both changed beyond recognition since then. I don't agree with what the Roman Catholic church did then either, but I also don't agree with the British invading just about every country in the world at one point. These things happened in the past and would never happen in this day and age.

Yes wrongs were done by priests and again I am not defending that, but I think lessons have been learned and I would hope that they are never allowed to happen again.


I was making a point showing their cruelty years ago and how cruelty still figures in their church in these modern days.

Yes there will always be child cruelty in various surcumstances and institutions, difference being is that most of these instituions knew nothing of what was going on and therefore didn't try to sweep it under the carpet hoping everyone would just think it would go away.

[greenlex]

Is he really coming here as a head of state? Is he really representing the Vatican City or is he coming over as head of a religious organisation? Does anyone know for sure?

[Mon1875]

Is he really coming here as a head of state? Is he really representing the Vatican City or is he coming over as head of a religious organisation? Does anyone know for sure?



He was invited by the Queen for a state visit. That's definite.

[Woody1985]

Serious question, how did the Vatican become a state?

Was it just granted it's own state because of religion?

[Peevemor]

Serious question, how did the Vatican become a state?

Probably the tourists dropping litter and that. :agree:

[marinello59]

Serious question, how did the Vatican become a state?

Was it just granted it's own state because of religion?

Do a Google search on the Vatican city and/or the Holy See.

[Stanton]

What an absurd post - in the past? How can you claim to possibly know it's in the past? How is it in the past for the victims? What lessons have they learned from it? The RC Church provided the framework to practise such crimes, surely? And what do you mean you'd be surprised - do you know anything at all about the history of the Roman Catholic Church? You'd best be wary of what is yet to come if you ask me.

Germany is at this very moment discovering just how much the RC church was actively involved in covering up abuse (sexual and physical) on children. Pope Benedikt XVI and his brother in Freising appear also to have simply decided to turn a blind eye to events. For whose benefit one has to ask, surely not the 'innocent children'?

What particularly galls me are people with opinions like yours, saying "Oh, lessons have been learned". Have they? If what has been going on for decades in the RC Church had occurred in a youth club or suchlike it would have been closed down and the culprits put into jail. Unthinking followers of the RC Church and our "respectful of religion" society however, enable these bxxxxxs / monsters to do what they do and just move on to do it elsewhere. Where is the outcry amongst your faithful - why aren't you all out on the streets protesting? How can the UK welcome a Pope in charge of such criminals? Will anyone officially admonish him in public - no chance!

I've a sneaking suspicion the Pope and all his little helpers are convinced that peoples' memories are short (as you amply demonstrate) and "time will heal" - try telling that to the victims. Perhaps the RC Church never properly grasped the meaning behind "Suffer the little children to come unto Me"?

See I find this post absurd …..I know I appear to be defending the RC church here ( with whom I disagree on multiple things ) …but in the interest of being balanced and fair ……

The RC Church has done more to alleviate suffering throughout the world than any other organization through the provision of charitable hospitals . schools etc etc
Ofthe ¾ million priests and the over 1 million nuns on earth dedicated to this institution …what % have committed these crimes.

Did certain powers within certain countries stick their heads in the sand …hoping it would go away …YES ….OUTRAGEOUS behaviour ….but put into perspective with all the wonderful work being done all over the developing world to alleviate pain and suffering …..then you have to say that on the whole this HUGE organisation has been generally a force for good.

Of course within such a VAST organization you are going to get your share of these weirdos who have used peoples respect for the church to cover up their crimes …they should be and are being exposed …..but overall they do damned good work with society’s outcasts , the poor , the weak , the defenceless …..so while I am fully supportive of a warts and all expose of these “ bad things “ …I don’t thing we should let it blind us into seeing THE ENTIRE church as being rotten to the core.

They do more good than bad however …that fact unfortunately is not as “ newsworthy “.

Having said the above …their stance on Abortion , Gay Rights , Divorce , Contraception ……are just wrong IMO

[AndyM_1875]

and in no way did I intend to sound like I was trivialising the suffering that this caused, I only meant that it is no longer happening on the scale that it was, obviously there is a chance that there could still be individual cases of abuse happening but I am confident that the people responsible will not be protected when caught.

I hope you are right on that part. This unfortunately is what a lot of people both of faith and no faith really object to is that the Pope appears to want to keep this "in-house" when he has absolutely no right to.

These paedophile Priests are beasts and have disgraced themselves and their faith to the anger of the public and I hope the anger of their flock and should face up to their crimes in a Court of Law of the country where their crimes took place and thereafter face the sanctions that the court chooses to impose on them. If that means they are thrown in jail with other common nonces then so be it.

Justice for the victims should not be at the dispense of the Vatican and I would hope that where a priest admits the abuse of a minor whether in Confession or in another manner that he is not thereafter protected either by the Confession Box or by his Status as a man of the cloth.

[Mon1875]

See I find this post absurd …..I know I appear to be defending the RC church here ( with whom I disagree on multiple things ) …but in the interest of being balanced and fair ……

The RC Church has done more to alleviate suffering throughout the world than any other organization through the provision of charitable hospitals . schools etc etc
Ofthe ¾ million priests and the over 1 million nuns on earth dedicated to this institution …what % have committed these crimes.

Did certain powers within certain countries stick their heads in the sand …hoping it would go away …YES ….OUTRAGEOUS behaviour ….but put into perspective with all the wonderful work being done all over the developing world to alleviate pain and suffering …..then you have to say that on the whole this HUGE organisation has been generally a force for good.

Of course within such a VAST organization you are going to get your share of these weirdos who have used peoples respect for the church to cover up their crimes …they should be and are being exposed …..but overall they do damned good work with society’s outcasts , the poor , the weak , the defenceless …..so while I am fully supportive of a warts and all expose of these “ bad things “ …I don’t thing we should let it blind us into seeing THE ENTIRE church as being rotten to the core.

They do more good than bad however …that fact unfortunately is not as “ newsworthy “.

Having said the above …their stance on Abortion , Gay Rights , Divorce , Contraception ……are just wrong IMO



Well put. I agree with your post.

I'm a Catholic and I'm divorced and use contraception. I believe in gay rights and believe in abortion in part. I'm still a Catholic though. You don't have to totally swallow everything that is said.

On the whole the church does so much good around the world.

Sir Tom Farmer would wholly agree I'm sure.

[Allant1981]

Why do priests have to take a vow of celibacy? I know its nothing to do with the original post but its something ive always wondered

[PeeJay]

I think you are being a tad harsh on me to be honest, I didn't abuse these children or help cover it up, maybe you were offended by my use of the phrase "in the past" and I apologise if that's the case, and in no way did I intend to sound like I was trivialising the suffering that this caused, I only meant that it is no longer happening on the scale that it was, obviously there is a chance that there could still be individual cases of abuse happening but I am confident that the people responsible will not be protected when caught.

As has been said already, sexual and physical abuse of children and the covering up of such crimes is not just a problem in the Catholic church, or any other church for that matter, these things were happening in lots of government run homes as well. And by "lessons have been learned" I meant that there are a lot more rigid checks done on people that are working with children now by the police and there are rules in place within the RC Church to avoid these things happening again, there will never be a foolproof way of stopping peadophiles getting into contact with children, but that is the same in every aspect of life not just the Roman Catholic Church.

It's an extremely emotive issue - I was not getting at you personally - I don't know you, I apologise if you felt that I was blaming you. I would however put it to you that your church and its membership must do more to ensure that the criminals are punished and the victims recompensed. Pointing to other instances of abuse does not help. The organised church has too much power still, as has been evidenced all around the globe by its unwillingness to tackle this issue with any measured action. The truth is, the RC Church is only acting (sic) now because it has been found out, a truly sad indictment of its overall stance. IMO there are too many apologists and not enough heartfelt outrage at the criminals and the decisions that were made by church officials to cover up - and by this I mean amongs the church lay members. The RC Church covers up everything it can - this is only the tip of the iceberg, to pretend it is otherwise is delusory.

[Stanton]

Why do priests have to take a vow of celibacy? I know its nothing to do with the original post but its something ive always wondered

Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine: in other words, a church regulation, but not an integral part of Church teaching. It is based upon the life of Christ and his celibate way of life.

Church belives ( wrongly imo ) that a man dedicated to family life cannot be TOTALLY dedicated to God and preaching his ways..I think :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

The Roman Catholic church did not abuse children, individuals within it did. I agree that the abuse that took place was horrific, but it's in the past now, and lessons have been learned from it, I would be very surprised if it was to happen again.

The church knew what was happening, and chose to do nothing. People who stand back and allow evil to happen are just as guilty.

I'd be more inclined to share your confidence that things will change, if the church were doing more than simply apologising. They should be working out why it is a problem for them, and looking at how they can change.

It seems to me that those at the top have too much power.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine: in other words, a church regulation, but not an integral part of Church teaching. It is based upon the life of Christ and his celibate way of life.

Church belives ( wrongly imo ) that a man dedicated to family life cannot be TOTALLY dedicated to God and preaching his ways..I think :greengrin

I heard that up until the midde ages, priests could marry, and it was only the expense of keeping their wives that brought in the celibacy thing.

There is a more sinister theory that the organisation is inherently anti women, as well.

[PeeJay]

Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine: in other words, a church regulation, but not an integral part of Church teaching. It is based upon the life of Christ and his celibate way of life.

Church belives ( wrongly imo ) that a man dedicated to family life cannot be TOTALLY dedicated to God and preaching his ways..I think :greengrin


I think you'll find that it is more of a secular issue - an unwillingness on the part of the RC Church to part with its wealth. Unmarried priests do not have spouses with claims to wealth/property - introduced about 1100 years ago to get round the problem. One of the first popes was married - eternal truth, I ask you.

[Brizo]

I think you'll find that it is more of a secular issue - an unwillingness on the part of the RC Church to part with its wealth. Unmarried priests do not have spouses with claims to wealth/property - introduced about 1100 years ago to get round the problem. One of the first popes was married - eternal truth, I ask you.

Thats correct. Deceased priests wives and children were inheriting land and money that the church wanted to stay in church hands. Council of Trent iirc changed the rules to introduce celibacy which it presented as a theological decision when in reality it was a financial decision.

[Mon1875]

It's amazing how many experts there are on here about celebacy and priests. They know in the first century that priests were married due to a reference to a mother in law in an ancient book. Looks like 11th and 12th centuries new laws came in forbidding marriage and sex. Back in 4th century sex was banned.

It's amazing how many of you are privy to such detailed knowledge on the reasons why.

This thread has just turned into Catholic bashing something I never thought I would see on a Hibs board. And reading some of the comments here you've already made up your minds.

Get a life :yawn:

Allow folk to believe in what they want. Bet you all read the Daily Mail as well!

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's amazing how many experts there are on here about celebacy and priests. They know in the first century that priests were married due to a reference to a mother in law in an ancient book. Looks like 11th and 12th centuries new laws came in forbidding marriage and sex. Back in 4th century sex was banned.

It's amazing how many of you are privy to such detailed knowledge on the reasons why.

This thread has just turned into Catholic bashing something I never thought I would see on a Hibs board. And reading some of the comments here you've already made up your minds.

Get a life :yawn:

Allow folk to believe in what they want. Bet you all read the Daily Mail as well!

How is it Catholic bashing? All people are doing is asking questions.

Your not doing your argument any good by being so defensive.

[PeeJay]

It's amazing how many experts there are on here about celebacy and priests. They know in the first century that priests were married due to a reference to a mother in law in an ancient book. Looks like 11th and 12th centuries new laws came in forbidding marriage and sex. Back in 4th century sex was banned.

It's amazing how many of you are privy to such detailed knowledge on the reasons why.

This thread has just turned into Catholic bashing something I never thought I would see on a Hibs board. And reading some of the comments here you've already made up your minds.

Get a life :yawn:

Allow folk to believe in what they want. Bet you all read the Daily Mail as well!

If it's bashing it's Roman Catholic bashing, please, do get it right. Surely the fact that we bring up issues associated with the Roman Catholic Church "misdemeanours" is not in itself a problem? These are after all real issues - we can't just pretend they don't exist and not talk about them / discuss them just because it upsets Roman Catholic sensitivities, can we? In light of what is still an on-going scandal I fail to see why people shouldn't be asking probing questions. Many different things are discussed on this board - this one just happens to be about the RCC and its boss.

As to 'experts' - what is wrong with being informed - if more people were informed perhaps we wouldn't have to have such discussions - too many have simply swept things under the carpet, with regard to this and other matters.

I don't read the Daily Mail. Out of interest what do Roman Catholics read, then? Not the history of your church obviously. I can understand that of course.

Finally, surely you're not trying to infer that we're ALL really Roman Catholics at heart just because we follow Hibs - I find that a bit insulting to be honest. I am fully aware of the club's origins, but for me it has only ever been my football team - not an indication of my religious allegiance (I'm an atheist :agree: ).

[Brizo]

It's amazing how many experts there are on here about celebacy and priests. They know in the first century that priests were married due to a reference to a mother in law in an ancient book. Looks like 11th and 12th centuries new laws came in forbidding marriage and sex. Back in 4th century sex was banned.
It's amazing how many of you are privy to such detailed knowledge on the reasons why.

This thread has just turned into Catholic bashing something I never thought I would see on a Hibs board. And reading some of the comments here you've already made up your minds.

Get a life :yawn:

Allow folk to believe in what they want. Bet you all read the Daily Mail as well!

If your referring to my post 70 im a fully paid up Catholic , St Pats primary , altar boy at St Pats , still attend mass on an occasional basis. So I can assure you that anti Catholic bashings the last thing id do :greengrin.

Whether you like it or not the celibacy rules were introduced for the reasons I and a previous poster stated. Our religion has a lot to be proud of but you only have to read up on the history of the early church to understand that many of the early Popes were politicians first and religious preachers second.

I guess im a more critical Catholic than you but its the first time ive been labelled anti Catholic :wink: I now only need to be branded a hibbyhun :greengrin.

[ancienthibby]

It's amazing how many experts there are on here about celebacy and priests. They know in the first century that priests were married due to a reference to a mother in law in an ancient book. Looks like 11th and 12th centuries new laws came in forbidding marriage and sex. Back in 4th century sex was banned.

It's amazing how many of you are privy to such detailed knowledge on the reasons why.

This thread has just turned into Catholic bashing something I never thought I would see on a Hibs board. And reading some of the comments here you've already made up your minds.

Get a life :yawn:



Allow folk to believe in what they want. Bet you all read the Daily Mail as well!

So, by that logic, this Hibs board should be pro-Catholic??

Just asking, mind!:devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

So, by that logic, this Hibs board should be pro-Catholic??

Just asking, mind!:devil:

Logic has nothing to do with it. This is religion.

[Steve-O]

Probably the tourists dropping litter and that. :agree:

:greengrin

[ArabHibee]

Well put. I agree with your post.

I'm a Catholic and I'm divorced and use contraception. I believe in gay rights and believe in abortion in part. I'm still a Catholic though. You don't have to totally swallow everything that is said.

On the whole the church does so much good around the world.

Sir Tom Farmer would wholly agree I'm sure.

And the relevance of the bit in bold is what, Mon1875?

[steakbake]

Logic has nothing to do with it. This is religion.

A two footed challenge...!

But a very fair one. :agree:

[Betty Boop]

And the relevance of the bit in bold is what, Mon1875?

Sir Tom Farmer is a devout Roman Catholic and has devoted much of his time to the work of the church. He is a Knight Commander of the Star of the Order of St Gregory, which is the highest honour the Catholic church awards to laymen.

[--------]

:agree: Got to agree with this. I think though, Murphy is specifically playing up to the traditional Catholic labour vote, by trying to be associated with this visit, and not the religious vote in general.


Well, if he's trying to get my vote by encouraging this circus, he needs to think of a better plan. :devil:

[ArabHibee]

Sir Tom Farmer is a devout Roman Catholic and has devoted much of his time to the work of the church. He is a Knight Commander of the Star of the Order of St Gregory, which is the highest honour the Catholic church awards to laymen.

Again, I'll ask the relevance of the Sir Tom Farmer name-dropping. Maybe better for Mon1875 to answer?