Page 1 of 3
Should WE be funding the Pope's visit to the UK?
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 07:34
by Aurora
BBC News - 05/07/10
The cost to taxpayers of the Pope's visit to Britain could rise to £12m - up to £4m higher than previous figures, the government has said.
That bill for the September trip does not include policing costs for the government, Lord Patten said.
The main event, a mass to beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, has been moved from Coventry airport to a smaller venue outside Birmingham.
The Pope will visit Edinburgh, London and Glasgow during the four-day trip.
The trip will also cost the Catholic church £7m - a figure which could also rise.
Article continues ...
We live in austere times where every spare pound should be spent on the nation's infrastructure.
Should the British taxpayer be picking up the £12m+ tab for Benedict's visit? I think not.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 09:47
by DominicJ
The pope is a visiting head of state.
You pay the costs when any head of state visits.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 09:48
by PS_RalphW
A drop in the ocean relative to the pork feast that is the olympics.
UK Plc will be called bankrupt 5 minutes after the closing ceremony, if we last that long.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 12:07
by featherstick
The Vatican's "statehood" is heavily disputed. The Vatican itself switches between "state" i.e. when protecting the "Head" of the "State" from prosecution for complicity in war crimes, or child abuse cases, and "religious institution" for instance when refusing to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.
It's probably more productive to think of the Vatican as an organised crime syndicate.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 12:15
by Mean Mr Mustard
RalphW wrote:A drop in the ocean relative to the pork feast that is the olympics.
UK Plc will be called bankrupt 5 minutes after the closing ceremony, if we last that long.
Indeed, Ralph. Yet, incredibly, there is now a nationwide petition underway to host the World Cup in Engerland in 2018 innit.
Is there an alternative petition to keep it away? Or will even footballers be unable to afford the long haul air fares by then?
Should?
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 12:25
by DaveB
Personally, I'd prefer not to pay for him to visit. But, I guess that's part of the price for living in a democracy?
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 12:28
by Aurora
featherstick wrote:The Vatican's "statehood" is heavily disputed. The Vatican itself switches between "state" i.e. when protecting the "Head" of the "State" from prosecution for complicity in war crimes, or child abuse cases, and "religious institution" for instance when refusing to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.
It's probably more productive to think of the Vatican as an organised crime syndicate.
My thoughts exactly. If catholics want Benedict to visit, let them pay for it. As a non-catholic, I object to the UK funding this unnecessary extravaganza.
Mean Mr Mustard wrote: there is now a nationwide petition underway to host the World Cup in Engerland in 2018
Let the players pay for it. After all, they earn enough.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 14:22
by DominicJ
My thoughts exactly. If catholics want Benedict to visit, let them pay for it.
The trip will also cost the Catholic church £7m - a figure which could also rise.
Catholics are paying for the catholic bits, the state is paying for the state bits.
The Holy See is considered a state by HMG and The Pope is the head of that state.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 14:34
by RenewableCandy
It's at times like this that I'm glad I don't pay any tax. However, if hosting the pope helps stop prods and catholics from falling out as the hard times start to bite, it'll have been worth it.
Of course it could all be an elaborate plot to get him down the cells at New Scotland Yard, or better still West Midlands, who could probably get him to fess up that he's satan himself
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 14:59
by the_lyniezian
Well I must admit that even without my obviously Protestant biases, it is certainly a very controversial visit, and one which might not go down too well with many members of the voting, tax-paying public.
With such biases, I think there is a moral reason to suppose that the church as an institution should not be holding any temporal power, or operating out of its own state, so there are grounds, I think, for not recognising the Vatican as a legitimate state. Also since this country is officially Protestant, it might be better not to be seen to be right to be de facto endorsing the Catholic Church by means of permitting and bankrolling a state visit of its earthly head. Such seems to be the opinion of some conservative Protestant groups, if nowt else- regardless of whether we are pretty much a de facto secular state anyway.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 15:39
by Blue Peter
[Pedant corner]
Strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the Catholic Church (see the creed). It is not part of the Roman Catholic Church, though,
[/Pedant Corner]
Peter.
Edit for bold.
To clarify...
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 15:46
by the_lyniezian
Blue Peter wrote:[Pedant corner]
Strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the Catholic Church (see the creed). It is not part of the Roman[/] Catholic Church, though,
[/Pedant Corner]
Peter.
'Catholic' meaning 'universal'. 'Church' meaning the community of all Christian believers. Nothing to do with those groups and institutions that recognise the supreme authority (under God, presumably) of the Pope of Rome.
Re: To clarify...
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 15:48
by Blue Peter
the_lyniezian wrote:Blue Peter wrote:[Pedant corner]
Strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the Catholic Church (see the creed). It is not part of the Roman[/] Catholic Church, though,
[/Pedant Corner]
Peter.
'Catholic' meaning 'universal'. 'Church' meaning the community of all Christian believers. Nothing to do with those groups and institutions that recognise the supreme authority (under God, presumably) of the Pope of Rome.
Indeed,
Peter.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 16:29
by DominicJ
the_lyniezian wrote:Well I must admit that even without my obviously Protestant biases, it is certainly a very controversial visit, and one which might not go down too well with many members of the voting, tax-paying public.
Any more than hosting Amein, Mugabe, Arafat, Pinochet or Bush?
With such biases, I think there is a moral reason to suppose that the church as an institution should not be holding any temporal power, or operating out of its own state, so there are grounds, I think, for not recognising the Vatican as a legitimate state.
Long live Westphalianism.
What do you suggest we do to prevent the Holy See existing as a state?
Close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and shout lalalalala, or perhaps some force?
Seriously people, bigger problems exist.
Posted: 06 Jul 2010, 17:38
by JohnB
DominicJ wrote:Seriously people, bigger problems exist.
Any many have them have been caused by organised religion
