Debate: Will the papal visit change Britain?

There is a hardcore of New Atheists, a tiny minority of embittered Marxist agitators, who will try to make the trip a disaster, but I predict it will go well in the end. Most British people are not really anti-Catholic, just ignorant of Catholicism.

I like what Archbishop Nichols said in another interview, that seeing the Holy Father on TV will help convey his gentleness to people. I looked up the quote, and he said: “Here is a man who is most impressive when you sit down and talk to him face to face. One of the great advantages of television is that it brings the face close to us and I think that will help. People will see the utter integrity of this man who is at peace..”

I think it will change Britain. People will warm to Pope Benedict even if they are not Catholic or even Christian.

I can see a lot of people thinking that the earth will move and then being surprised when on Monday September 20th everyone turns up for work as normal again for another week…

I think it has the potential to change the Church in this country certainly. If, that is, we can stop bickering and figure out how!!

For me the issue is not being a second class citizen – the working class Catholic ghetto has vanished (at least in Liverpool where I live) – the issue for me, is whether Catholics agree with the Pope's conservatism. We may need to make the move beyond ethnic identity towards doctrine – and tell people to make a decision, either choose to accept doctrine or leave. (I left)

Britain may change, it is always changing, but the Bits will never change. They have left the Anglican Church many decades ago but are still deeply anti-Catholic.

Rohan – The Catholic Church does an enormous amount for HIV/Aids victims. Globally, about a quarter of the care administered to victims is provided by the Church.

The Pope did not say that using a condom increased the risk of Aids. He said that attempting to tackle the Aids crisis by distributing condoms had not actually helped, and in some cases made the situation worse. He was supported in his argument days later by one of the leading academics in the field. Dr Edward Green, a medical anthropologist at Harvard, said widespread availability of condoms led to higher rather than lower rates of Aids infection.

He said: “This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction technology such as condoms, one often loses the benefit by compensating or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Pope Benedict XVI is the one person at the Vatican who has done the most to toughen the Church's procedures on dealing with priestly child abuse.

The evidence that he has covered up sexual abuse is incredibly flimsy and doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Here is a Catholic Herald article about it: http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0….

I find it heartbreaking that these kinds of misconceptions lead people wanting to protest against the pope.

Firstly, the idea that a newspaper that explicitly states its Catholic affiliation in its name can be expected to report objectively on any controversy related to the Catholic church can't be taken seriously. I won't be reading the article because I try to look to objective reporting for my news. I have, however, read hundreds of articles about this topic from a variety of news sources in at least 15 countries. I wouldn't look to Catholic newspapers to get a factual picture of the extent of the abuse crisis, just as I wouldn't look to BP to get my information about the true impacts of the oil spill. I would look to media organisations that are in no way affiliated with BP because they have less reason to show bias. Shame on any Catholic who solely looks to Catholic news sites for their information about this scandal.

Countless studies in many countries have proven that condoms reduce the infection rate of HIV substantially. People's propensity to take more risks when using risk-reducing technology is something that can be addressed through proper sex education – you know, involving scientifically proven facts about sex, rather than religious dogma. Provided the people are being given factual information about how to use them and the real risks involved, condoms are effective.

And I have heard ad nauseum this sickening argument that the pope has done more than any previous pope to combat child abuse. Let me make one thing clear: that is not the point. Doing more than nothing doesn't mean you are doing enough. If you are doing something to combat it but there are people still in the church who you know were involved in covering up abuse and you don't defrock them or force their resignation/retirement, you are not doing enough. How effectively child rape is dealt with should not be looked at in relative terms, and the assertion that an improvement on the complete lack of action taken historically must mean he is doing the right thing is an argument from the moral cesspit. I mean, it would have been pretty hard for him to do less than previous popes!

Furthermore, the Catholic church's band-aid solution of treating those already infected is doing nothing to reduce the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa and is far outweighed by the harm the church causes by spreading lies about condoms. Condoms are effective when they are used – they don't protect you when you choose not to wear them. This is basic common sense and, if the church put its time and resources into providing legitimate sexual education where it has such influence in Africa, it could make a real difference to this problem.

The fact remains that, in a confidential letter sent to all Catholic bishops in 2001, available to read online, Ratzinger instructs that all claims of child abuse by priests be dealt with subject to pontifical secret. It specifically forbids information being passed outside the church for 10 years after the 18th birthday of the victim, backed up by the threat of excommunication for anyone who breaks the pontifical secret. This means that, by the time clergy are allowed to go to secular authorities with the information (in the unlikely event that they do), the statute of limitations has passed and the priest is protected from prosecution. This is reprehensible and serves no purpose other than to protect the reputation of the church. Interestingly, there was the threat of excommunication for clergy who go to the police to report child abuse within the church, yet no abusive priests have ever been excommunicated from the church for their insidious crimes.

No, I'm afraid I'm not admitting anything of the sort. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you if you think you are making a valid comparison. I suggest you re-read my post. I have read plenty of articles that argue against my position but I wouldn't bother to read ones that are being published by an organisation that explicitly states its bias from the outset.

The field of science advocates constant re-evaluation of evidence and the updating of conclusions based on new evidence discovered, not blind and dogmatic obedience to previously held beliefs. The whole point of science is that it changes as we learn more about the universe, something the Catholic Church only does occasionally and reluctantly, like when it finally admitted the Earth revolves around the Sun or that evolution is scientific fact. Scientists are allowed to disagree and argue in favour of or against a hypothesis and these scientific discussions are publicly available for people to observe. There is no head scientist trying to silence voices of descent all the way down a complicated hierarchy, insisting that no one is allowed to speak out against certain beliefs held by the scientific community.

Definition taken from the internet:
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective. …

The idea that the New Scientist would have a “bias” toward science is an assertion I don't even understand. How can you be biased toward a field that requires impartial, methodological, evidence-based research? Essentially this would be bias toward objectivity or bias against non-evidence based assertions. This is a bias with which I am completely comfortable. You could even say I'm partial to impartiality After all, without demonstrable evidence, what other tangible way is there to draw conclusions about the world?

I may read the New Scientist to gain knowledge about scientific discoveries where there is no obvious bias toward a specific conclusion. The title New Scientist only indicates the content of the publication, not it's political or religious biases.

I would not, on the other hand, rely on the New Scientist to give me objective information about a scandal involving people linked to the publication or where the publication would have a vested interest in protecting the parties involved. This is called applying a healthy level of scepticism (something I'm sure the writers at the New Scientist would advocate!).

An organisation that starts with the assumption that a) Jesus Christ was the son of God, b) The Bible is the word of the Lord, c) the Pope is the infallable Vicar of Christ on Earth, is not going to be objective when reporting about the pope's complicity in child abuse cover-ups. How could it be? I would argue that objective news reporting about anything related to the pope is impossible if you hold such beliefs.

James, you forget, since they are ignorant now, they might become anti-Catholic when they learn more about it on the visit…

I'm sure the media will be running plenty of anti-Catholic stories – and so they should, since we are a nation that loves freedom and especially freedom of speech, we should not expect that the nation should be silenced because of the visit of a foreign head of state. Normally such times highlight criticisms of that head (such as when Jacob Zuma visited and a lot was said about his many wives).