Already, it has been filled with controversy - such as one of the Popes senior advisers referring to the UK as a 'third-world country' that is full of 'aggressive atheism'.
Further controversy has surrounded the cost to the country itself for the Popes visit.
Even more controversy is piled up because of the sexual abuse of minors at the hands of a number of Catholic Priests - covered up at the time - and the refusal of a real apology for the horrible suffering of these children.
To sum up: Do you think the Popes visit is a good idea? Is the timing right or wrong? Should he issue an apology to the UK victims of abuse at the hands of Catholic Priests? Should the UK foot the bill for the Popes visit?
Well I imagine that in the proccess of talking to them he will also apologize. I am not saying he is only going to talk to them. It would be stupid for him to talk to them but not apologize.
such as one of the Popes senior advisers referring to the UK as a 'third-world country' that is full of 'aggressive atheism'.
The Pope's senior advisor is a complete idiot. I'd presume that the Pope is visiting to promote Christianity not to encourage tension between the irreligious and the Church.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom is far from a third world country, we have a decent economy right now, in comparison to other countries hit hard by the recession and are technologically advanced. Not only that we have a prestigious history. If you really wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of semantics you could also say the UK is a collection of multiple countries . . .
Of course atheism is aggressive. Just like Hundus, Muslims, Christianity etc. all try to get their beliefs understood and accepted by others, atheists are equally aggressive in their attempts at conversion. It's a slightly hypocritical statement, personally.
Further controversy has surrounded the cost to the country itself for the Popes visit.
I found a comment by Stephen Fry which escapes me, but he was basically saying that regardless of the size of Vatican City, the UK should not fit the bill. I think it was at least a few hundred thousand that was shovelled into his visit, and whilst that's courtesy and respect we're in financial difficulties at the moment, and tax payers want their money going to development of the country etc., not the most elaborate place mats and cushions you can find.
Do you think the Popes visit is a good idea? Is the timing right or wrong? Should he issue an apology to the UK victims of abuse at the hands of Catholic Priests? Should the UK foot the bill for the Popes visit?
Of course the Pope's visit is nice. It's respectful that a religious figure of high authority has visited us, dismissing his intentions. His advisor's needless and provoking comments have horribly damaged the Pope's reputation and his disrespect to the UK and our ideologies is creating a bad image, not something he should go out looking for.
I don't think the Pope should have to apologise on account for priests and other inferior member of the Church's wrongdoings. It was a horrible act but the apologies should come directly from the suspects, not the Pope who had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Finally, no, the UK should not foot the bill, for aforementioned reasons.
It was a horrible act but the apologies should come directly from the suspects, not the Pope who had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The pope is head of an organisation and as such should take responsibility for the actions of his employees. If his employees failed to tell him then he must understand that puts a blemish on him as well as his whole organisation.
I think I should provide some background on the bit about the Pope and his role in the paedophilia/abuse:
In March 2010, Benedict XVI was accused of protecting a paedophile priest who is alleged to have molested around 200 deaf children in his care at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin. Benedict was working at the time for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is the Vatican body for investigating, among other matters, child abuse by priests. An archbishop wrote to Benedict's office complaining of the actions of Fr Lawrence Murphy, and yet no action was initially taken. When a canonical trial was finally scheduled, Lawrence Murphy wrote to Benedict demanding the trial be cancelled, a request which was granted despite strong objections from another archbishop.
In 2001, Benedict XVI, then the Prefect (boss) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had a letter sent to bishops worldwide, advising them to keep allegations of child sex abuse within the church. At the time Benedict's group had assumed responsibility for the investigation of allegations of sexual abuse, to which their approach appeared to be very much about dealing with such problems without the need to involve the legal authorities. The letter stated that the church had jurisdiction over such matters, and that information relating to abuse must be kept confidential until 10 years after the victims reach adulthood. Critics commented the directives were designed to obstruct justice. Benedict appeared to have forgotten this letter when he blamed the Irish Catholic Church for its abuse issues, and it certainly slipped his mind when he blamed church sex abuse scandals on increasing secularism within society. In his defence, he is in his late seventies and morally bankrupt.
In March 2010, Benedict XVI was accused of protecting a paedophile priest who is alleged to have molested around 200 deaf children in his care at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin.
Ah, I obviously was not following the story closely enough. With that revealed, I believe he definitely should make apologies based on the previous actions of clergymen. Sorry about the misunderstand guys.
This thread is like a pope slaughter house. The Christian inside me says " We should be nicer to the pope" While the prodastant inside me says "keep bashing him."
