The Pope is currently visiting the UK - the first such visit since the 1980s. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is anyone planning to see the Pope? Is it still relevant for the Pope to visit the United Kingdom?

And what about Britiain's historical relationship with the Papacy - should it be mentioned as much as it has in the media?

I live in the UK, his visit is being payed for by us basically. They are using tax money. My parents were saying they use tax money to pay for NHS, emergency services and schooling, not the pope to come here and spend £12 million plus OF OUR money.

I read there were priest/nun rape victims holding up signs with pictures of themselves saying what age they were abused.

...being as I don't live in the UK, I really don't have any opinions on his visit; just him and the Vatican itself.

I think Henry VIII would be amused. And perhaps put you all to death.

Uh. She said the 1980s. Which, encompasses the whole decade. Like the 60s encompasses the whole decade of 1960-1969

The pope should pay for his own visit. It must be like a slap in the face to the British taxpayers who were abused by the clergy to have to pay for this.

*John Paul.

There's been 2 attempted assasinations already. The current pope is somewhat unpopular due to this child abuse scandal that currently shades the catholic church.

In my household we generally dislike the pope, not because of religion, my mothers best friend is catholic, but because he is wasting tax payers money, insisting on us paying for his visit.

Personally I myself am considoring becoming a Catholic. Purely because that branch of Christianity has always fascinated me and I'm currently active on catholic forums trying to find out more about it.

What I gather so far about the opinions of people on the forums regarding the child abuse scandal is that of utter dismay. The Catholic people aren't taking the Pope's side very much in this. I do disagree with us having to pay for his visit though - sure we shouldn't charge him for certain things such as food (that's just basic hospitality) but considoring how much wealth the Vatican has, I thought they'd at least contribute...

The Pope contributed, I believe £10 million, as did we. So we went halvsies.

Oh we did? My bad! In that case I don't have much of a problem with it, it's hard to expect the Pope to pay for our Police to protect him - afterall, it is our people who are trying to attack him. Sometimes.

Child abuse was kinda relatively unknown around that time. Well actually it was always known, just kinda brushed under the carpet. It was the Victorians who were the first people to discuss it openly however, but it was unlikely to be in newspapers of the period. Therefore, not going to be on the average person's mind.

The issue people have with the pope is that he's impeding the investigation. He may not have actually molested anyone... but if he's preventing the authorities from finding out who did, that's pretty bad, too.

He is coming to Spain too. With money which comes from the contributors... and that is what I personally hate. Why do I have to pay with my taxes the visit of a man I don't even care about?

As for paying for the visit... Don't host nations usually pay for the visits of foreign dignitaries? I know he's a religious leader, but he's also the leader of Vatican City. That's especially true with security issues - while every foreign dignitary that graces someone with their presence brings their own security, it's not exactly a blank check or else you'd be inviting armies in to ensure the safety of some people. In fact, I imagine it's only not the case when the host nation is so freaking poor or security poor that they can't afford or provide the security. And Vatican City might have more gold in the toilets than Glenn Beck's avarice could imagine, but I'm not totally clear that they've got the expanded resources outside of VC required in the UK (where, as everyone's kind of implies, there's a lot of bad blood right now.). Plus, it's really embarrassing when one of your citizens shoots a visiting head of state or leader in a world religion while they're visiting your country. That's the sort of stuff that really gives fuel to the tinfoil hat crowd.

I like Pope Benedict. And I always Liked John Pawel too.

1892 Wojtek??

We Dutch told John Paul what we thought of him when he visited the Netherlands in 1985. There used to be this picture of my gay uncle throwing paint-bombs at him from the protesting crowd showcased on my gran's toilet. (Where all newspaper clippings of family were showcased.)

I do agree with Mistermook that it's a visit from not only a religious leader, but also a country leader. People also have the right to protest when a King or President of a country of which they don't like the political stance visits. I guess it comes with the job.

No no, Spain is NOT a Catholic country, as the Constitution states. And personally, I would prefer not to give any support to an Institution that contributed during 36 years with the dictatorship.
I understand that he is also the leader of Vatican city, but I think I have the right of not wanting to pay with my taxes his visit, as well as I don't like to pay for the visit of other leaders.

I've been living here in the UK for three weeks now for a study abroad program. In my journalism class we've talked about the protests against his visit and how this is a primarily atheist nation who really does not want him to be visiting. There have been loads of protests.

I really don't know what affect the pope's visit is having on the citizens of the UK, as obviously I'm just here on a visa. I went to see him today over at Hyde Park corner. I thought it would be cool to see the pope. I'm Jewish, so it wasn't a religious thing, I just think the Vatican/Pope is really interesting, so I wanted to see him in the popemobile. But yeah, I don't see how his visit is affecting the people beyond the traffic and closed roads and packed tube stations today, but I might be missing something as an American citizen.

Edit//

Re: the child abuse scandal.. it's not just a British thing. There have been countless scandals back where I'm from, too (Boston). A lot of my friends have lost faith in the church because of it. I don't think it's the pope's fault that certain priests have done that, but it is his (and John Pauls) for not doing more about it and trying to prevent it. The Vatican seems to like to forget about things and sweep them under the rug.

Why 1892, Wojtek, because you typo-ed that after nagging someone for saying 80s, that's why.


I think we have every right to protest, and I am proud of my uncle standing up for his rights. I know how you stand on homosexuality and I choose to see that stance as discriminative and bigotrous.

If the Pope comes here, I will be the one standing there with paint bombs and many with me. Because the Catholic church did try to cover up the child abuse to save their own faces, because they are against abortion and free choice. Because they forbid the use of condoms in countries where millions die of AIDS. Because they still oppress women and gays. Those are acts that are shameful and hideous.

This is not an organisation I want my country to waste money on, or organise a jolly welcome for a visit from their leader and neither should the UK.

Last edited by appelsapgodin : 18th Sep 2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason: changed word for clearer meaning

I think you meant something like "forbid", not "condone". But I agree with everything you said.

Forbid might have been a better word, but it's late and English is also not my first language (and I had the word condom in my head which sounds a bit alike)... but I will edit for clearer understanding. Thanks for pointing it out.

Excuse me? I gave a lot more other arguments than just the child abuse. I don't think oppression is only done by the church, but they are great contributors. And I didn't say anything about Poland. You are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't use.

You don't come up with counterarguments when people have a solid reason to disagree with you. Your only answer seems to be rudeness.

I am sorry, but with this you just proved to me that you cannot directly answer a question, or grasp simple concepts and have an intelligent debate about these subjects, so I won't bother trying to have one with you anymore.

Last edited by appelsapgodin : 19th Sep 2010 at 03:48 AM. Reason: typo and I could word it better

I don't understand why you always mix your anti-communism in every debate, no matter what the topic is.


The fact that some people don't respect/appreciate the visit of some countries' queens or kings does not make them stupid or ignorant. I don't like monarchy as an institution, and I don't really feel any love for the king of my own country, and I would not consider myself stupid or ignorant.

Yes, as a foreign dignitary, the Pope's visit would be covered at least partly by the host nation. He was invited, and it would be very bad form and also very embarassing for the UK government if they invited the Pope over, then turned around and told him to pay for it himself. All foreign dignitaries are given this treatment as a show of curtesy, and a country would look very insular if they never invited foreign leaders over. My government invited George W. Bush over when he was president, and we as a people certainly weren't happy about it; his decisions and ignorance contributed to the deaths of countless innocent people. As far as many people were concerned, he was nothing better than a war criminal. Because our government invited him, we had to foot the bill for his security, which as you can imagine was huge. There were demonstrations and protests when he got here, but they were peaceful. Even though I did not agree with him being here, I do see this from my government's point of view; as the representatives of our country, it would look extremely bad if they invited some leaders over while excluding others. George Bush had to be treated as not just a man, but as the representative of his people, and because our country enjoys good relations with America, our government gritted their teeth and bore it. Tony Blair came over a little while ago, but because he is no longer a dignitary of importance, the state did not invite him, or help in any way to pay for his security. As it turned out, he would have been better off if they had. But violent protest always and only reflects badly on the host nation and the people, not on the person protested against. I am no fan of Tony Blair, but I was mortified at what happened.

No one has or should dispute the right of people to protest; they have good reasons for doing so. But many Catholics in the UK do want to see him, and that fact should also be respected.

*1982, and I wasn't even born then so how could I of possibly protested when I wasn't even born, but I'm pretty sure I'd be protesting.

And in case you haven't noticed, Britain is in about £120 billion debt.