Are you Catholic? Do you give a damn that the Pope is coming?

[Dandyman]

As much as it must be way too tempting to mention the word fascism for some of you, I am sure thats not true. Without looking it up (so I could be wrong and am open to correction), was the Vatican State not preserved as part of the terms of Italian invasion of Rome in 1870??

And it IS a state - quite simply it possesses sovereignty to conduct its own international affairs (yes I was an international law student) - and at least the Pope is ELECTED (albeit by a select commity), as opposed to appointed by God through birth.

Check the Vatican's own website:

Vatican City State - Homepage

"Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929"

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I have no perception of superior intelligence whatsoever. Whilst I believe in my faith, I 100% recognise that there is no proof, and that every person is entitled to argue their own beliefs (or lack of) to the same extent. And I have no right to suggest I know better.

You, however, have decided to pidgeonhole me because I have a faith, despite me only offering a completely political and human argument.

And for the record, I personally believe fully (as does contemporary Catholic taeching) that there is no such thing as a "wrong" religion, as followed properly they are all paths to the same destination.

But the Gays can go to hell whilst the Paedo priests and Holocaust deniers can come right in?

The whole Catholic faith is a massive massive hypocrisy wrapped in a ludicrous rhetoric.

 

[ExmouthExile]

If people don't care, why are people getting in a huff about it? (Rhetorical question)

Because it's costing the taxpayer £1m?

 

[Stoo82]

If a monarch wasn't given authority by God, then they were given the position of ruling over you by PURE CHANCE OF BIRTH. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Now you have changed the argument.

It dosen't make sence, but its what we've got. I'd rather have it than a President. Used be suprised how democratic our heads of states are. If we don't like em, we chopped thier heads of or got a forgein prince to take over.

Are you jealous of their wealth or do you genualy beleive we would be better off under a president?

Do we as a nation even have the will to vote for a president. At worst we bearly have 30% at the polls. The European (where most laws are now made) is they same.

We are not that naturally democratic beacuse we don't need to be, we have had laws in this country making us free naturally for 1000's of years, it always in the system (im not saying its perfect or does not need cheaking)

 

[Stoo82]

Because it's costing the taxpayer £1m?

Thats what taxes are for. If they was no threat aginst him there would be no need to spend money protecting him.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Check the Vatican's own website:

Vatican City State - Homepage

"Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929"

Half the story...

Thats like saying that any post USSR-republic was invented in 1991. It only ceased to become a state in 1870, and even then was basically left alone by the Kingdom of Italy, which was formalised in 1929 (admittedly as Mussolini was in charge, this is TECHNICALLY dealing with fascists).

But it only wasn't an independent state for 59 years out of well over 1000...

 

[Stoo82]

meow

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Now you have changed the argument.

It dosen't make sence, but its what we've got. I'd rather have it than a President. Used be suprised how democratic our heads of states are. If we don't like em, we chopped thier heads of or got a forgein prince to take over.

Are you jealous of their wealth or do you genualy beleive we would be better off under a president?

Do we as a nation even have the will to vote for a president. At worst we bearly have 30% at the polls. The European (where most laws are now made) is they same.

We are not that naturally democratic beacuse we don't need to be, we have had laws in this country making us free naturally for 1000's of years, it always in the system (im not saying its perfect or does not need cheaking)

I see that Greek is coming on well...or is it double dutch?

 

[Screaming J]

After all the paedophile stuff, not to mention the attitude towards women priests, abortion and contraception this latest blethering from that lace surpliced idiot about Britain being a 3rd world country is the last straw for me.

Think I might have to join the congregation at the Jireh Chapel in Lewes this Sunday; or at least buy a Rangers shirt........

 

[Dandyman]

Half the story...

Thats like saying that any post USSR-republic was invented in 1991. It only ceased to become a state in 1870, and even then was basically left alone by the Kingdom of Italy, which was formalised in 1929 (admittedly as Mussolini was in charge, this is TECHNICALLY dealing with fascists).

But it only wasn't an independent state for 59 years out of well over 1000...

Let's elaborate then.

The Lateran Treaty in 1929, which brought the city-state into existence, spoke of it as a new creation (Preamble and Article III), not as a vestige of the much larger Papal States (756-1870) that had previously encompassed much of central Italy. Most of this territory was absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy in 1860, and the final portion, namely the city of Rome with Lazio, ten years later, in 1870.

The Lateran Palace rather than the Vatican was also the Papal seat for much of the "1000" including a time when the Pope resided in Avignon.

1870 is also significant as this was the date of the liberation and unification of Italy which was opposed by the Roman Church.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Now you have changed the argument.

It dosen't make sence, but its what we've got. I'd rather have it than a President. Used be suprised how democratic our heads of states are. If we don't like em, we chopped thier heads of or got a forgein prince to take over.

Are you jealous of their wealth or do you genualy beleive we would be better off under a president?

Do we as a nation even have the will to vote for a president. At worst we bearly have 30% at the polls. The European (where most laws are now made) is they same.

We are not that naturally democratic beacuse we don't need to be, we have had laws in this country making us free naturally for 1000's of years, it always in the system (im not saying its perfect or does not need cheaking)

Personally I probably am jealous of their wealth (given the amount of work I put in to barely be able to pay the rent), but then I am a bit of a socialist.

However, my point isn't really to do with whether I think Britain should have an elected president or not. (Although I feel I must add that I strongly disagree with the comment about democracy in the monarchy - you chopped one's head off then changed your mind after seeing the alternative, and the other was replaced due to an argument amongst the nobility over religion and secession. The unpopularity of the 18th century kings/regents that survived is staggering).

My point was that I find it slightly bewildering that people who won't complain about funding a monarchy and allowing them (and others) state visits, are so up in arms about this because a) the Queen is apparently appointed by God and that is the only reason she holds her position (which as a religious person I do not believe) and b) even supporters of the monarchy accept that the Queen does not hold the power, and so does not need to make state visits to other countries - whereas, whether you agree or not, the Pope holds a lot of influence in international society.

I'm not getting into religious stuff here as that is purely for the individual and is neither right or wrong - just talking politics!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Let's elaborate then.

The Lateran Treaty in 1929, which brought the city-state into existence, spoke of it as a new creation (Preamble and Article III), not as a vestige of the much larger Papal States (756-1870) that had previously encompassed much of central Italy. Most of this territory was absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy in 1860, and the final portion, namely the city of Rome with Lazio, ten years later, in 1870.
.

So basically the Vatican's side of the treaty was that they gave up the right to claim half of Italy, which is what the Papal States was. Hardly affects the existance of a Papal sovereign state.

Thats like saying because Britain no longer claims ownership of the Empire, that Britain itself didn't exist beforehand...

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

.
I'm not getting into religious stuff here as that is purely for the individual and is neither right or wrong - just talking politics!

I dont think you have grasped the argument.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I dont think you have grasped the argument.

I believe I have - please elaborate...

 

[Stoo82]

Personally I probably am jealous of their wealth (given the amount of work I put in to barely be able to pay the rent), but then I am a bit of a socialist.

However, my point isn't really to do with whether I think Britain should have an elected president or not. (Although I feel I must add that I strongly disagree with the comment about democracy in the monarchy - you chopped one's head off then changed your mind after seeing the alternative, and the other was replaced due to an argument amongst the nobility over religion and secession. The unpopularity of the 18th century kings/regents that survived is staggering).

My point was that I find it slightly bewildering that people who won't complain about funding a monarchy and allowing them (and others) state visits, are so up in arms about this because a) the Queen is apparently appointed by God and that is the only reason she holds her position (which as a religious person I do not believe) and b) even supporters of the monarchy accept that the Queen does not hold the power, and so does not need to make state visits to other countries - whereas, whether you agree or not, the Pope holds a lot of influence in international society.

I'm not getting into religious stuff here as that is purely for the individual and is neither right or wrong - just talking politics!

I respect with all and agree with most of what you say.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

To go back to the Original Question.

I will not be welcoming him to my Country.

He must stop his Anti Stem cell research objections - research that could save the lives of many people.

In one fell swoop the Pope could save millions of lives in Africa by endorsing the use of contraception.

He must instigate a detailed INDEPENDENT investigation concerning ALL child abuse cases carried out by Catholic priests. (not a whitewash by the Church themselves.)

He must change his stance on homosexuality and women priests.

Until he does these, then he is not welcome in my Country.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

In one fell swoop the Pope could save millions of lives in Africa by endorsing the use of contraception.

He must instigate a detailed INDEPENDENT investigation concerning ALL child abuse cases carried out by Catholic priests. (not a whitewash by the Church themselves.)

He must change his stance on homosexuality and women priests.

As a strong practicing Catholic, I agree with all 3 of these points. (Just to show that we really aren't brainwashed nutters!).

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

As a strong practicing Catholic, I agree with all 3 of these points. (Just to show that we really aren't brainwashed nutters!).

But not with stem cell research that could save so many lives?

 

[Dandyman]

So basically the Vatican's side of the treaty was that they gave up the right to claim half of Italy, which is what the Papal States was. Hardly affects the existance of a Papal sovereign state.

Thats like saying because Britain no longer claims ownership of the Empire, that Britain itself didn't exist beforehand...

Great Britain did not exist as a nation. before the 18th century. FACT.


More to the point why does a socialist welcome the visit of an absolutist ruler who is on the far right of just about any issue I can think of?

 

[ATFC Seagull]

But not with stem cell research that could save so many lives?

With certain restrictions, possibly, but in general it is in opposition to my personal beliefs on the sanctity of life. Which is an argument for another time...