Quite why we should listen to a word said by that unpleasant man in a silly hat I've no idea, but apparently the Pope is coming over here to explain to our Gvt that our ideas about women and gays being real proper people with human rights, infringes his human rights.
Apparently we have to fight this bizarre liberalism creeping in with 'missionary zeal'
BBC News
His cronies have tried to depict a "secret WWII resistance" twist to Joseph Ratzinger's Nazi past, or a "he was too young to know better" one. Or both simultaneously, which is a really interesting exercise in logic.
The Nazis seized Ratzinger's young innocent cousin and killed him, just because he had Down's Syndrome. I mean to say, think of how hideous an experience, to have that happen to a member of the family. How could the Pope bear to lift the excommunication order on 'Bishop' Williamson, who overtly practices and preaches Holocaust Denial? When the Pope said "tsk and tut, renounce that silly Holocaust Denial line, it doesn't work and makes you look an idjit", Williamson stamped his feet and said "I won't" and that was that, right? Or did I miss some exciting news?
The US government failed to seize the opportunity to arrest Ratzinger for Hate Crimes, when he travelled here and disrupted traffic thoroughly.
Maybe the UK can seize the opportunity to make a better job of it.
The man is actively promoting religious intolerance which is against UK law. The visit will undoubtedly be very disruptive, therefore he should be banned as an undesirable. If he were Muslim he probably would be.
As it is, rather too many of his own clergy appear to be in the habit of practicing sexual deviances far more alarming than gays involved in personal consensial relationships.
Much as I dislike the whole idea of him on this topic I do agree with him.
The church should be allowed to employ whoever they like to work in their own church. Anyone who disagrees with the church's core values and still wants to work for the church is obviously a troublemaker.
People need to take responsibility for who they are.
Going off the original topic a bit, he does disrupt traffic.
When the old pope came to Manchester in 82, they closed all the roads and railway stations for miles around and people had to stop miles away and walk in. Security was unbelievable. Although he had been recently shot so I suppose that was taken into account.
It all costs an arm and a leg and we should be able to send the bill to the catholic church they can easily afford it.
I agree that if you were for example running a chess club that you could insist on chess players. However you wouldn't be able to bar cleaners because they didn't like chess. Nor would you be allowed to say that non-chess players were 'unnatural'.
I would say that if his organisation can't function within our laws that it be simply banned. I certainly wouldn't have him on a state visit, though the idea of arresting him for hate crimes appeals to me. Also possibly on 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice' in his previous job.
I've heard a lot of Catholics saying that "of course WE don't feel that way. You shouldn't 'tar us with the same brush'".
I'm sure that is true, but anyone calling themselves catholic is supporting the pope and his church and therefore supporting homophobia. Particularly so when true Catholics claim the pope to be infallible. I can only suggest they declare themselves "Christian but not Catholic".
.... but everyone knows that Dog created us to play chess in order to magnify his glory, and that non-chess-players - especially those who dare allow it to be publicly known that they don't really care much for chess - are an abomination ....
next thing you know they'll be encouraging children to play backgammon or something equally deviant.
And we have to pay - actually pay, out of our little taxpayer pockets - for this bile-spouting maniac and shelterer of child-abusers to spread his small-minded prejudices and denounce UK law.
Ach, you guys have said it already. He shouldn't be invited, and he certainly shouldn't be invited at the UK's expense (as Furby pointed out, they can afford to pay for this themselves - out of their nice tax-exempt-status lucre, perhaps).
Creature says Herr Ratzinger should stay away because he is a hypocrite.
The expense part (which I hate too) is because he is a 'Head of State' so even apart from the protection (isn't he protected by angels?) we must keep him in the style to which he is accustomed. (for a priest shouldn't that be a bare cell, a cot and some bread?)
This annoys me with all official visitors. Our lot provide accommodation/food/entertainment 'fit for kings' and in return expect much the same when they travel anywhere. I don't see why the pope (and presidents) can't book into a motel like anyone else.
I don't think we even need to go to the trouble and expense of motels.
The Catholic Church already has some very nice places where Bishops live, and churches have priests houses attached, couldn't they find room for the Pope with them for a few nights.
I am sure they must have a spare sofa somewhere.
I love it! and that's what WE would do wouldn't we if we had visitors
Next Page...