In not wanting The Pope to visit uk at the taxpayers expense?

[Alouiseg]

Apparently The visit wil cost 12m pounds. That's 12 million pounds to be pinched from other budgets. For a man who has been responsible for covering up crimes against children.

My MP will receive an email today and I will make my abhorrence very clear.

Presumably he is directly answerable, rather than responsible for such things (not all the spread of HIV- I don't think he approves of gay sex and some of HIV is spread between consenting atheists in countries where condoms freely available- but he is answerable for some certainly) - as the representative of God he is asnwerable but there is always a free willa spect to these things (in countries whre RC Governments ahve banned condoms they would be the responsible ones)

But on the whole I don't care who he is

We cannot afford it, and nesxt time I am telling soemone they can't have any help for tehir SN kid as the budget has run dry I will think of this

Oh so it's up to 20m now?

Since when did the pope want to ban gays, and from what, same with single mothers?

And as far as I know, African men are as capable as any other men of not being promiscuous and infecting their partners with HIV. And African women just as resentful of their partners sleeping around as women of any other continent. The Pope can urge people not to use condoms, and can urge people not to be promiscuous (which he and the church both teach), and it's up to people to do as they please after that. What's the pope going to do if they decide to ignore him after all? The assertion that the pope is in any way responsible for the spread of HIV in Africa or anywhere else is laughable.

Math, if a country with a RC Government (or indeed any Government) decides not to allow the sale of items such as condoms, espeically when a country has a high HIV rate and doubly espeically when there is some ppromiscuity existent in that culture, then the RC faith is directly contributing to the problem.

If tehy were on sale at teh garage but the Pope was saying please don't use them and people were follwing him that would be different. Free will.

What country exactly are you thinking of here?

Afaik, South Africa has a major HIV problem and the government has in the recent past actively promoted garlic and lemon juice, or vitamin A or some such codswallop, as a cure or preventative measure, can't remember which, and where popular ideas about preventing the spread of HIV include(d) raping babies (virgins) -- none of this had anything at all to do with Catholicism, or the Pope. It was pure ignorance on the part of the government, not their Catholicism (afaik the minister for health was not a Catholic), or the influence of the Catholic Church.

And BTW, the Catholic Church is not the only one that preaches against artificial contraception. They are joined by the Russian Orthodox Church, the Mormons (who are engaged in missionary work worldwide, including Africa) as well as some fundamentalists/ Amish, and conservative Muslim clerics, who have pronounced upon it, and whose influence is widely felt in Africa. Are they all equally (allegedly) responsible for the spread of HIV? All have made public pronouncements on the subject.

Sorry that I've not read the 22 pages of discussion but I'm assuming from the last few that nobody has mentioned that we actually asked the Pope to come and visit us. In his position as head of state the government (not the RC church) has asked him to visit us. As such, the government, as it would with any state visit, as agreed to pay the costs - it's just common courtesy. If he does anything while he's here that is not directly related to his visit as a head of state, the RC church will pay.

Put it another way, if you invite someone to dinner, you don't baulk at cost of the food and wine that you serve. But you might not be pleased if they used your phone to call some other friends, so you'd ask that they wait until the end of their visit with you before they made that call on their own mobile phone.

"he Pope can urge people not to use condoms, and can urge people not to be promiscuous (which he and the church both teach), and it's up to people to do as they please after that. What's the pope going to do if they decide to ignore him after all? The assertion that the pope is in any way responsible for the spread of HIV in Africa or anywhere else is laughable."

So, the pope tells a devout Catholic in an Ex Cathedra statement that Catholics should not use condoms, and that using condoms offers no protection against AIDS. Thus contradicting the advice of the WHO and other health education organizations. Said catholic has sex without using a condom and contracts AIDS. How is the Pope not responsible for this?

If said Catholic was listening carefully to the Pope, he or she would not be having sex outside marriage, but with his or her spouse only. Most devout Catholics are aware of the Church's strictures about sex outside marriage.

The WHO advises that condoms can prevent the spread of sti's including HIV/AIDS. WHO also advises that monogamy or abstinence can also prevent the spread of AIDS. There's plenty of information available. Anyone who chooses to ignore it -- not the fault of the provider of the information. It's not the fault of the World Health Organisation if someone chooses to ignore their message either and contracts HIV. Or the Mormons, or Islam, or any church preaching or advising against condoms and sex outside marriage in Africa. Why the patronising attitude towards Africans? Are they incapable of weighing up the risks and deciding for themselves? Do they have to do what some white man in Rome says?

What the Pope says about condoms goes for the whole world, not just for Africa. Plenty of people in the US (where infection rates among black heterosexual women are rising sharply) very probably without any consideration of what the Pope has said on the subject, not to use condoms. Is the Pope responsible for the spread of HIV among black urban women in the US because (a) he has preached against condoms or (b) he has suggested that condoms do not offer protection against HIV/AIDS? I think not, and if not in the US, then not in Africa either. Unless all the Africans contracting AIDS are devout Catholics who hang on every word out of the Pope's mouth, which I very much doubt.

And the Pope's comments on condom use and HIV/AIDS were not 'ex cathedra', fyi.

I do think this is odd. Are you saying that the Pope says, like kids in the playground do "Well, I may have said see if you can climb that tree but you didn't actually have to do it, did you, so it's your fault you've fallen off? I may have said as the Head of your Church ex cathedra that it's a sin to use condoms, but it's still up to you whether you do or not, and if you don't you'll have to live with the consequences?"

We are not AFAIK proposing spending this cash on a visit from a Mormon leader or any other; this is about the Pope. I woudl object to anty leader having that cash spent: it's financial not bigotry.

But then we've just had one of our 2 asd boy's summer hols scheme places cancelled due to lack of funds (as have a few other I know, or placed on reduced access), so I would be annoyed: clearly a visit from any head of state that causes bills running into millions could cover that and IMO it is far, far more important to provide fairly basic services before we add in the gloss.

The papal visit is gloss.

And you know- there are 30,000 people on the waiting list for a home in my city; many more due to join soon. So frankly I think this is deeply offensive gloss given how many could be helped by that cash.

Not the visit but the costs, just to emphasise. Should the Pope decide to fund himself I don't have a single issue.

Mind, I didn;t know the practice details of the Mormons as we didn;t really cover them and my studies took me elsewhere )Christianity and slavery / Buddhism) so have just requested a book of Mormoon online ) know the commentaries but not the actuals) so thanks fotr that anyway, good to learn. I do though have a degree in world faiths and philosophy with ethics so probably know as much as most people about this subject.

PP;

How much would I pay to see the pope?

£50.....if you want me to put a price on it.....but I can afford to pay, what about poor catholics?..or catholics who don't want to see him? this was my point the other day but someone reported my post for calling you bonkers..(it wasn't intended as a personal attack...but apologies if you were offended...)

And no, I wouldn't have a problem with 6 million being spent on a Muslim leaders visit....would you?

@sanctimoanyarse
I was just making a point about taxes and this being seen as a waste of money

If we dont want taxes spent on certain things where will it end?
How much money could we save a year by cutting overseas aid?
The money saved would go a long way to building schools and helping the needy in our country

Taxes are raised to benefit the country not the individual,If you sit down and see what taxes are spent on you would see a lot of money in your opinion is wasted

Yes, Jason thunderpants it is. I nkow that and do a lot of campaigning against it.

It's not just this I object to I can assure you: but equally I won't give special dispensation for religious expenses etc because there are more important things out there right now. There just are. Life or death, home or not, coping or not, can I eat today things. Kids without wheelchairs, or schoolbooks. carers giving up work becuase their day centre they relied on closed. Children in school with no support.

There's lots asted and where debates crop up about that I join in too; this was about the Papal visit.

"Humanae Vitae" is ex cathedra, isn't it, mrsanxiety?

update on costs from Protest-the-Pope:

• the police forces involved are struggling becasue it seems that the govt will not provide any extra money to finance the large open jamborees events.

• total cost could be 10x the £12m quoted

• large protest march to be in London on Sat 18th to coincide with the hyde park mass

stubbornhubby is intending to male a smaller protest in Strawberry Hill on the friday.

here's link

www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/2010/07/pattens-smokescreen-seeks-to-hide-real-costs-of-popes-visit/

Why wqould the police force pay for themselves?

I'm involved with a smaller yet rather large carnival type event that gets up to 100,000k visitorsd each year and the management committee has to fund it.

One rule for one.....

Seeker, if a partner of yours exposed you to HIV because he refused to use a condom and you went along with it for whatever reason, would the Pope be responsible?

Humanae Vitae was infallible but not ex cathedra. Humanae Vitae was a restatement of the 'ordinary magisterium' of the Church (magisterium = teaching authority of the Church; ordinary magisterium is teachings that have always been accepted as moral truth that the Church has always subscribed to), and not ex cathedra or an instance of 'extraordinary magisterium'. Humanae Vitae is infallible because it has always been the teaching of the Church, the ordinary magisterium, and in fact, until about 100 years ago, Humanae Vitae could have been written by almost any Christian Church.

The extraordinary magisterium (emanating from councils, or ex cathedra statements) is rarely used so as not to undermine the legitimacy of the ordinary magisterium. It exists to allow the Pope to address disputed questions not previously ruled upon and to clarify the Church's position on widespread ideas that it finds heretical. It is never used in an off the cuff way (cf the Pope's remarks on a plane in Cameroon airspace) but after years of studying and debate.

There is considerable debate in the Church on the issue of condom use to halt the spread of HIV.

Thank you for your clarification. So the ban on the use of condoms is an infallible statement.

"There is considerable debate in the Church on the issue of condom use to halt the spread of HIV. "

I know there is. There isn't in the WHO or any other organization that actually know what it is talking about on the subject.

Surely you can see that saying using a condom is a sin is outrageous in a world where sexually transmitted diseases are on the increase?

I've been thinking a lot about this and I strongly believe that church and state should be completely separate.

It really hacks me off that taxpayers money is being used for this type of thing. I also disagree with state funded faith schools and the fact that our local "non-denominational" school focuses on Christianity in religious education.

I was brought up in the west coast of Scotland and have seen the problems that religious division can bring. I believe that faith is a private matter and should not be part of the fabric of society.

I am seriously thinking (much to my mother's horror) about joining the National Secular Society.

Infallible due to always being assumed immoral, and the debate centers around the immorality aspect, not the effectiveness, which is outside the Church's remit. Essentially for the Church, the question is whether one desired effect trumps another, and which good effect takes priority in the long run. The question has not been decided, just accepted all this time, and clarified in Humanae Vitae (which was issued long before AIDS made its appearance).

The Church says a lot of things are sins. Nobody has to listen. Jails are full. You don't have to, and people in Africa don't have to. Do you really think that someone leading a fairly promiscuous lifestyle is paying any heed to anything the Pope says, in Africa or elsewhere?

I'm a catholic and I don't want him here If people/catholics are that desperate to see him, they can go to him!

I didn't think that the Pope was supposed to take Pontius Pilate as his role model!

If the Pope, or any previous pope, ever washed his hands of anything, you'd never hear a peep out of him or any of his predecessors about anything. And then nobody would be up in arms about his visit. He's a controversial figure precisely because of weighing in on matters and reaching conclusions that apparently a lot of people do not agree with (with the exception of his negative view of the Iraq war, one of his more popular pronouncements, but not among the more hawkish).

Hardly a hand-washer or shoulder-shrugger; however, all popes do acknowledge that every human being has free will (this is a basic belief of the Church) so to that extent all of them know and have always known, that people are going to do exactly as they please. But that is not handwashing or letting people get on with it. But they all continue to preach, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury does, against sin and in favour of following the law of God.