Some Pope Related Stuff.

I was in two minds as to whether to comment on the Popes visit to the UK. I mean what more can really be said? Obviously Richard Dawkins is going to have something to say on the matter. Obviously a lot of the right wing press are going to get in a lather about a bloke who openly espouses the evils of secularism, permissiveness and gay rights. I imagine there was a run of collective pant wetting going on when "Papa Ratzi" attacked multiculturalism and the fact that you can't call Christmas Christmas in case it offends other faiths. All the stuff they say that the liberal elite ban anyone from discussing, by discussing it at every opportunity; every fucking day in their columns(hmmm). In short the whole debate had more straw men being tossed about the room, than a boozy row at the Gummidge household. Oh and the Pope compared atheists to the Nazis. In short the whole thing has been pretty depressing reading. I won't repeat verbatim any of the specific charges levelled at the "militant atheists" and "anti Christian bigots", but let us look at some of the general charges condensed down here:

THE COST OF THE VISIT.
The total cost of the papal visit is estimated in the range of £12 million. There have been concerns about the Pope being treated as a head of state for his trip, and that the Vatican doesn't behave like one. It is immune from UN human rights charters for one instance. That was the point in the letter signed by 50 people, including Richard Dawkins; Stephen Fry; Johann Hari etc. They agreed that they didn't want the pope banned,(undemocratic) but could the Vatican have stumped up some of the cash. (they're hardly having to patch their boots up are they?) It's a legitimate question and was not asked in a particularly rude manner. In fact it is hard to see why the Mail accused Stephen Fry of being "shrill" (though I can see the context for that connotation.) I couldn't see him mouthing off incoherently in anything I saw him mentioning the visit. It's a free country. People have a right to ask whether their taxes are being spent [as they see it] fairly. Catholics do make up only 9% of the UK's population**

MILITANT ATHEISTS.
The militant atheist charge is as old as the hills. It would be much easier for the Church of Rome (and all the other faiths) if atheists were good atheists. That is they were of the "I don't believe, but do respect belief variety. Even now religious criticism is still considered a bit "bad mannered". Of course this leads to the secondary charge of militant atheists "picking on" Christians. In a way I feel that some Christians do see what is legitimate criticism about the veracity of their faith, and leeway their religion receives -as being picked on or persecution. No idea should be considered off limits for sceptical analysis in a free country. Indeed secular humanism and atheism itself are subject to some of the most unpleasant abuse from critics of these. The pope himself said that an atheistic world view leads to the fricking Nazis, who tried to erase God, which they didn't. That secular values will lead to anarchy as religion and morality are intertwined. He has a right to say that of course. I mean what else is he going to say about secularism and atheism, which are the two single most threats to a faith based system. It is no wonder they rattle the devout so much. As I said free speech means that they should be allowed to voice their concerns. It is a stretch to say that the "militant atheists" had that much of an affect on the whole thing. Dawkins gave a speech. No citizens arrest was made. The red tops barely mentioned the protests at all. The BBC of course covered all sides (and got flack off the conservatives in the press for doing so.) and certainly did not privilege the "Catholic haters" over the Pope. In fact the "New Atheist" movement as a whole isn't as widely known as the religious would imply, how much influence they have outside the dining rooms of the Guardianistas is unknown. The atheist bus thing smacked of trying a bit too hard. And has anyone ever seen someone wearing those atheist T-shirts on the Richard Dawkins site, cause I never have!

I also got a bit fed up hearing right wing pundits banging on about how liberals /the left / cultural Marxists or whatever were out of line or "sneery" at the Pope. I mean how else where they going to think about him. He's called gay marriage a "great evil", all the stuff about contraceptives and AIDS in Africa. His unfettered conservatism, to name a few. They are going to be a bit pissed off with him. There would be something wrong if they weren't. It is no good moaning about people moaning about someone with controversial views. Yeah they are going to want to counter them. It is .... free speech remember. (I'm not supporting spouting a load of straw men and crude abuse passed of as "debate." If you want to fully embrace the spirit of free speech be prepared to stick some really good points in there.)

THE POPES ROLE IN THE CHILD ABUSE.
This is really the smoking gun. The ecclesiastical elephant in the room. Probably the main point of contention for both the secular humanists and the greater public at large, vis a vis the popes visit. The child abuse scandals of the Church of Rome are disgraceful., and the response from the Vatican is as well. I think it is hard to exonerate Ratzinger of any wrong doing in the whole affair. He held the head position of the title of the dodgy sounding "Congregation of the Doctrine Faith." which meant he was the head honcho for implementing Catholic law throughout the church, and was thus put into the orbit of the crisis. We have heard that he was warned of pedarest priests and resorted to censuring them, or subjecting them to ecclesiastical (not criminal) hearings (see post here.), and in 2001, writing letters to every bishop saying that on no accounts should they go outside the church to deal with this (he called this communications blackout "the goods of the church" in 1985.). It is not hard to conclude that because of who he is, he has evaded any criminal scrutiny for the role in abetting the cover up of child abuse, and putting the doctrines and pomp of the church before the welfare of living; feeling children. I really cannot say that I know of anyone else in a Western democracy who could have evaded any form of criminal investigation as easily as the Pope. I don't consider it impertinent of the likes of say - Johann Hari of the Indy, to question the legality of the Popes actions. As it happens another (now former) high ranking member of an organisation that has been heavily involved in the case around the abuse and death of a youngster; Peter Connely or baby P, has been reported in the papers, running concurrent with the Popes visit. Sharon Shoesmith the former director of Harringey children's services has been testifying before an education select committee, defending her role in the whole tragic affair. It is interesting to highlight the very hostile press she receives from the Sun newspaper in comparison to the generally favourable coverage the same paper gave to the Pope.

As for myself. I don't think the protests against his visit were out of line, and even if I did, as I said before it is a country with free speech so it would be tough if i did think so. The Pope should really hand over all the documents the church has on the abuse over to the police, should tell the practitioners of Catholicism in Sub Saharan Africa that God came to him in a dream and told him that condoms were OK with him. But I'm guessing neither will actually happen. Nor did I think that David Cameron would have stopped the visit, or that a citizens arrest would occur. I don't believe that; apart from practicing Catholics of course -most people were that interested. I think a load of kids and nuns were bussed around to bolster numbers though. His embrace of the Archbish of Canterbury was quite nice though. Showing that even religious divides can be bridged with time. I actually don't think Ratzinger is all that popular anyway in the UK. Certainly less so than his predecessor The reader comments in the papers are much less positive than the editorials. There is quite a lot of contempt for the way the church has carried on, and some of Ratzingers views on contraception and homosexuality. He is largely seen as an archaic figure in an archaic institution. A bit like Christianity in general in this country.

**And another thing. The Tax Payers Alliance who get about five bajillian huffy soundbites in the press every time something a bit left wing gets even a few quid of tax payers money, were mysteriously silent about the 12 million of tax their "allies" forked out for a minority faith. I'm sure they just forgot or something. But I bet they would have somehow remembered if another religion had received that much for a visit to the UK.