Debate: Are the Pope protesters anti-Catholic?

geoffreysmith1

Yes, the Pope was invited. The question is why and is this a good idea? I say that it is not.

“Government would expect to benefit in some way by a meeting” – geoffreysmith

In what way? That is the question. The Vatican is 110 Acres with approximately 800 permanent residents. Are we going to sign mutualy beneficial trade agreements ? work on technological R&D? Sign a military treaty? No, there are no financial, trade or defense purpose to the UK's rapprochement with the Vatican.

“this benefit would be derived from the Vatican's undoubted expertise in diplomacy, based as it is on a foundation of strict neutrality and impartiality in the conduct of affairs between nations” – geoffreysmith1

“Expertise in Diplomacy”? Well yes it did manage to convince fascist Benito Mussolini to sign the Lateran Treaty in 1929 that allowed it to claim to be a “State”. What other examples do you have?

“Foundation of Strict Neutrality”? Are you kidding? the Vatican is a self-serving entity continously sticking its nose into other country's affairs and making backroom deals see, http://www.concordatwatch.eu/ .

What “harvest”? What “yield”? What does the UK get from this visit other than a larger economic deficit?

” The Pope should be welcome to come to the UK anytime, like any other religious leader, at his own expense. “

Just not feasible. If he came at his own expense, without the protection of the Special Branch, he would be a sitting target for any nutjob who fancied his chances of making history and earning 15 minutes of prime-time television for himself. If the Pope comes at all, he must have the full protection of our country's resources, no matter what the cost.

In the one example you give, the Beagle conflict over theownership of islands between Argentina and Chile, Chile's ownership was decided by the Internationall Court of Justice in the Hague in 1977. The Vatican did get involved after the decision because Argentina would not comply with decision against it but Argentina rejected the Pope's diplomacy as well. So no great diplomatic success there. Got anything else?

You claimed the Papal visit would bring “harvests and yields” to teh UK. Let me introduce you to the burden of proof: it rests with the person making the claim. I'm interested to know how a religious centre of 100 acres and 800 full time residents will bring any benefit to the UK. Particularly when that alleged “City State's” foreign policy is diametrically opposed to the UK governments's on: civil rights for LGBT people, discrimination against gays, stem cell research, reproductive rights, sex education, and the use of condoms for the preventions of sexually transmitted infections and the fight against AIDS in the developping world.

You make a good point that the Pope cannot visit without huge taxpayer expenditure on his protection. Another excellent reason for the visit to be cancelled or rescheduled until the UK is out of its economic crisis.

Quoderat, Pope Benedict's view on homosexuality, which you define as bigotry, is Jesus' view on homosexuality, which means you are not only anti-Catholic, but anti-Christian in general, or should I say, anti-Christ.

At least now we know where you stand.

Condoms: they obviously have not solved and will never solve the AIDS problem. The UK distributes condoms at every corner and has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in the Western World. The number of people with HIV and AIDS has been steadily rising (a few minor fluctuations aside). See the link: http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm

Abuse: repeating the lie 'the Pope did not stop the abusers' will not make it true. I have read your link and the accusations against Pope Benedict sound like smears based on hearsay: 'apparently he told a cardinal…'. The FACTS show that Pope Benedict is part of the solution. He has been ruthless with the guilty priests, but you do not wish to read the evidence, as apparently you don't like to read factual books, you prefer to regurgitate the lies that Protest the Pope tell you. Well maybe you will have the willingness and the time to read little comments on the book: http://www.romereports.com/palio/A-book-investi…

Quoderat, you are obviously part of the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Christ bandwagon, and we will never reach an agreement.

However, I have prayed for you and for your friends yesterday in front of the blessed Sacrament, I have entrusted you to Jesus' mother, and Jesus would like you (and your friends) to know that he loves you deeply, and that Pope Benedict loves you like a father.

God bless you.

“Quoderat, Pope Benedict's view on homosexuality, which you define as bigotry, is Jesus' view on homosexuality” – Annalisa

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. I defy you to provide evidence that Jesus ever even used the word “homosexual.” Bigotry is wrong, I don't care what any religious leader says. If the Pope told you black people were “disordered” and “tending towards a moral evil” (as he said about gays) would you accept that?

“He has been ruthless with the guilty priests” – Annalisa

How? Give me some Evidence (preferably not from a biased, self-serving, Catholic apologetics source – it would be more convincing). If Ratzinger was so ruthless, explain to me why Marciel Maciel was allowed to abuse seminarians for decades and was only dissavowed by the Vatican in May of this year. Explain to me how Parishes were allowed to move known paedophile priests from parish to parish while the Pope was Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Explain to me why the Vatican and churches around the world have failed to cooperate with investigations or turn over their files to the police. See Ireland's Murphy Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Report .

In fact, can you name me one single paedophile priest that the Pope has ordered defrocked and turned in to the police?

condoms and AIDS:

There are multiple causes to rates of sexually transmitted infections and AIDS. I have already pointed you twice to the World Health Organization, a scientific, evidence-based medical authority that states that condoms *when used* are 90+% effective against the transmission of AIDS.

Just because idiot teenagers in Britain don't use them and contract sexually transmitted diseases doesn't mean that they are innefective nor does it mean people in the developping world should not have access to them.

” Jesus would like you (and your friends) to know that he loves you deeply” – Annalisa

Thanks for the good wishes but I am curious, does Jesus talk to you directly? Can other people hear it or is it a voice in your head?

Quoderat, Jesus clearly defined sexuality as a gift to be received in marriage between a man and a woman. He did not mention homosexuality per se but he excluded any form of sexuality outside of the man-woman marriage when he said
'”Haven't you read,”
“that at the beginning the Creator
'made them male and female,' and said,
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one.
Therefore what God has joined together,
let man not separate.”
He did not say, 'a man will leave his mother and father, and be united to his husband'.

Jesus condemned sexual immorality several times. As you want the long answer, here it is (by P G Nelson):

http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/smoral…

You don't like to read much, so here is a short extract of the above link:

Jesus’ starting point (Matthew 5:17−20)
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told his disciples:
17‘Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to
destroy but to fulfil. 18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one
small letter, not one little stroke, will by any means pass from the Law until all has taken
place. 19Whoever therefore relaxes one of the least of these commandments, and teaches
others [to do] so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does [them]
and teaches [them] shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you that,
unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly
not enter the kingdom of heaven.’
Here Jesus affirms the OT (17), and says that the Law will stand until all the prophecies in the
OT have been fulfilled, including the promise of a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ (18).3 He
concludes that disciples should practice and teach all the commandments, even the least (19).
Disciples are to be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees (20), both in this respect,
and as in the teaching that follows (21−48).
The starting point for Jesus’ teaching is therefore the Law. Here I give a brief summary what
the Law says on sexual issues.4
Man, woman, and marriage (Genesis 1−3)
Genesis begins with a general account of creation (1:1−2:3), which is then elaborated in
certain particulars (2:4−25). In the general account, the creation of human beings is described
as follows:
26Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ….’ 27So God created
the man in his image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created
them.’
The transition from singular (‘God created the man … he created him’) to plural (‘male and
female he created them’) is explained in Genesis 2:
18Then YHWH God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper for
him, corresponding to him.’ … 21So YHWH God made a deep sleep fall on the man, and
he slept. Then he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22And YHWH
God fashioned the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to
the man. 23And the man said, ‘This at last [is] bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called “woman”, because she was taken out of man.’ 24Therefore a man shall
leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one
flesh.
Here the narrator describes the creation of a woman out of part of the man. This gives them an
inherent unity that transcends their ability to unite physically. It is because of this inherent
unity (‘Therefore …’) that a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and the
two become one flesh (24).
At this stage, the relationship between the man and the woman is harmonious. Genesis 3,
however, describes how the woman is tempted to acquire knowledge of good and evil, and
leads the man into disobedience (1−6). God’s response is to make their lives more difficult,
including the relationship between them (16).
Prohibitions
The law God gave to Israel through Moses explicitly prohibits the following sexual activities:
• Adultery (Exod. 20:14, Lev. 18:20, Deut. 5:18).
• Bestiality (Lev. 18:23, Deut. 27:21).
• Homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22).
• Incest (Lev. 18:6−18; Deut. 22:30; 27:20, 22−23).
• Prostitution (Heb. zānāh; Lev. 19:29, Deut. 23:18).
• Rape (Deut. 22:25−29).
• Sex before marriage (Exod. 22:16−17).
• Shrine-prostitution (Heb. qādēš, qedēšāh; Deut. 23:17).
• Transvestism (Deut. 22:5).
• Unclean acts (Lev. 18:19).
• Violation of betrothal (Deut. 22:23−27).
These prohibitions have the effect of confining sexual activity to marriage, and protecting
married life. Although they are negative, their purpose is positive. Moses told the people,
‘YHWH commanded us to observe all these statutes … for our good always’ (Deut. 6:24).
The law against adultery constitutes one of the ten commandments (Exod. 20:1−17, Deut.
5:6−21). These were written on tablets of stone, and kept in the holy of holies, at the centre of
the nation’s life (Exod. 40:17−21, Deut. 10:1−5).
3
The punishments in the Law for breaking these prohibitions are very severe. They include the
death penalty for adultery (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22), bestiality (Exod. 22:19, Lev. 20:15−16),
the worst forms of incest (Lev. 20:11, 12, 14), homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13), and violation of
betrothal (Deut. 22:23−27). That these offences carried the death penalty shows how seriously
God regarded them. The book of Genesis records how he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah
because gross sexual immorality had become endemic in these cities (Gen. 18:16−19:29).
Jesus’ affirmation
Jesus said, as we have seen, ‘Whoever therefore relaxes one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches others to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven’
(Matt. 5:19). He thereby affirmed all the above prohibitions.
He affirmed them again when he specified the things that defile a man (Mark 7:20−23). These
include adultery (moicheia), fornication (porneia), and wantonness (aselgeia). The basic
meaning of porneia is ‘prostitution’ (from pornē, ‘prostitute’, from pernēmi, ‘sell’). From
this, it acquired the broader meaning ‘sexual immorality’, and came to be applied to various
kinds of sexual misconduct.5 His listeners would have understood the word here to refer to
sexual activities prohibited by the Law.
The apostles also spoke against sexual activities prohibited by the Law. These include
homosexual acts (Rom. 1:26−27, 1 Cor. 6:9−11,6 1 Tim. 1:8−11,7 Jude 7?8), incest (1 Cor.
5:1−5), and prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15−16).
On the positive side, Jesus affirmed marriage by his attendance at the wedding in Cana in
Galilee (John 2:1−11), and Peter and Paul affirmed it in their letters (Eph. 5:22−33, 1 Pet.
3:1−7). Jesus and Paul themselves were celibate, the value of which Paul also affirmed (1
Cor. 7:32−35).

Condoms: read stats here: http://www.humanaevitaepriests.org/faithful_con…
These prove that using condoms is not a long term solution. It may seem to avert the problem (ex: by using a condom, you may avert (MAY, not will) catching sexual diseases, but in the long run, they exacerbate the problem, because they make gullible people believe that they can severe the link between sex and child bearing, so sex becomes a past time, people become promiscuous, and HIV numbers soar, as they have done here.

Adultery: both Jesus and the Church teach that adultery is wrong.

And, last but not least, Pope Benedict has been part of the solution regarding abuse cases. See link: http://protectthepope.com/?page_id=16

And yes, Jesus loves you. He is present in the Blessed Sacrament and I suggest you go and talk to Him. I mean it. He will give you all the answers.

“Herr Ratzinger”? clearly a rascist way to addressthe Pope!

I notice that there has been some debate about Jesuits and their behaviour at universities. I want to inform readers here of the facts about policy at both Heythrop College and Campion Hall.At Heythrop when it was at Cavendish Square, there was a “open door” policy during tutorials. All tutors had to leave their door wide open during personal tutorials.The busy corridors the doors opened on to, ensured that no allegations were made and were not possible to make. This excellent policy ensured the saftey of the Jesuits and all students, and was a thoughtful, intelligent and practical approach.

Any suggestion that the Jesuits in our universities have questionable morals, is completely untrue. I found them to be living examples of the highest standards of ethics and integrity, and it was this personal example which helped persuade me to think again about my faith and return to the church.
I know from personal experience that the Jesuits in our universities can be completely trusted.Every parent here can feel confident of sending their child to Heythrop, where they will receive a great education and the highest standards of care.

That's so funny considering the fact that the doctrines of the catholic church really are created. You can't find them in the Bible.

No, its not anti catholic, its anti the pope visit. It would suit many catholics to be seen as the victim here, when in fact that is not true. It is quite nice to be the “poor me, brave catholic struggling on in the face of all this hate” when in fact all people are saying, in the majoirty of cases is–if you want this man to be here, you pay for it

This Pope has too many unanswered questions in his past,such as his Hitler youth membership and his alleged knowledge of child abuse by Catholic priests. Ratzinger does not inspire non-catholics the way his predecessor did. This Pope is too much to the right of the Roman Catholic church.

as a liberal catholic I think some of the protesters have genuinely plausible points but the truth is that these kind of protests will attract the unwelcome support of purely bigotted minds.

The first thing to say about this particular visit of Pope Benedict is that is becoming a site and occasion for

scapegoating, the Pope has become a scapegoat and this has not simply happened overnight.

From my reading of material on displacements and dislocations of the religious (or for that matter secular) sacred, they are always eventually accompanied by the selection of a scapegoat on whom to externalise

the collective hatreds of a society. These hatreds coalesce around a very strong desire for vengeance leading to a slaying or killing either by an appointed executioner or by the mob.

Scapegoats are usually selected from marginal groups and individuals, those who society considers are not sufficiently integrated into the collectivity, they range from the poor, disabled, mentally ill, or kings and popes.

There is a rationale behind this predatory phenomenon, such marginals are not capable of resisting the violence of the mob or collectivity, they are chosen as they are the line of least resistance.

That violence has 'reasons' makes little or no difference to the course of the violence, 'reasons' are simply a cloak to hide the deception from the mob themselves and from others, this is called 'misrecognition'.

The Pope is so obviously a scapegoat in this case (his visit to a deeply polarized and divided society) with Catholics facing minority status in the context of a totalitarian secularism that now constitutes the British State and society, he, the Pope, and the Catholic Church stand in the way of this virulent secularism achieving its final end of total social and global domination.

In thiis respect the Protest-the-Pope movement assembled from a coalition of humanists, secularists, gays, feminists and rabid rationalists is decidedly anti-Catholic, anti-clerical and anti-religious. One of their ploys

played out by the BBC (British Bullshitting Corporation) is to divide Catholics from their Pope by carrying out rigged surveys on restricted and targetted questions like celibacy and 'the status of women in the church',

also a typically British divide and rule tactic they are still using all over the world.

Yes, as a Catholic I now find myself as a reluctant witness of an event of classical scapegoating and it is happening in a country of which I am a citizen, and a country that calls itself 'democratic'. Catholics should resist all attempts, subtle and crude to scapegoat the Pope and to entertain any ideas of admitting women to the priesthood. They should also resist any further destruction of the father-figure by the liberal secular priesthoods

of neo-liberal States.

They're not anti-catholic, they're just a bunch of nutters, loonies and baskett-cases.

One of them – it was in the Times two weeks ago – said that they were pleased that they had to do a second print run (off 200) of their Nope Pope T-shirts. He also said that – on a phone-in on Radio Scotland – he was heartened that “every single caller” was against the visit – failing to account for the Knox-Calvin element or the fact that only nutters call in to a Radio Phone-in.

Yesterday we had Dr. Evan (I'm not anti-catholic) Harris on our screens moving from side-to-side with at least fifteen non-arguments against the State Visit. Dr. Harris was/is an Executive Member of the National Secular Society and was – barely four months ago – given a good hiding by the voters of Oxford West.

If they are so certain of the righteousness of their logic, stand for election and we'll soon see who's in charge here.

Pope protestors are attention hungry idiots, they simply want to steal the limelight. They are inciting religious hatred,why are they allowed to do this? They should practice what they preech and live and let. I'm glad to say that we're were drowning out the idiots this morning at Twickenham, and what a pathetic turn out the protestors had too!

I am a Catholic. But I love to attack the Catholic doctrines because their their’s are considered as unchristian and antichristian.