Well, he's been ... and now he's gone ....

...and it now seems patently clear judging from all viewpoints, including critical cynics and diehard sceptics alike, that Pope Benedict's visit to GB was a resounding success.This in total contrast to all the expectations of the anti-Pope/Catholic hate brigade - ie., the raunchy secularists like Geoffrey Robinson, the bum-raping pseudo scientists like Richard Dawkins and, of course, the loudest of all the protestors, the fat-gay-boy and bit-part actor Stephen Fry - all of whom seem to have disappeared down their respective bolt-holes in the wake of the positive feedback and rigid bollocking ol' Papa Benny gave this country !!

Their rabid foaming and personal attacks on the old boy, long before he even landed here, have all dissipated into fearful whimpers of acknowledgement of the Pontiff's humble demeanour, finally accepting the fact that the frail 85 year old white robed German was no Hitler! In fact quite the contrary, he actually was rather a nice chap - openly remorseful and accepting full responsibility for the henious crimes of priests' abusing young children and taking stringent action to stop it happening in the future ; condemning the purile Labour legislation and "guidelines" forcing Christians in their own country to act against their consciences (ie.,the wearing of crucifixes in public, etc); warning Britions not to lose sight of their Christian heritage in the face of aggressive and enforced multi-cultural secularism and the final warning which rang loud and true - that politicians should steer clear of trying to silence religion by discouraging the celebration of Christian festivals - notably Christmas!

Was him saying all that, amid the other decent stuff he spoke about - really all that wrong or bad ?

I'm no religious freak nor do I practice any given religion - I just try to keep an open mind on all matters relating to living a decent enough life, so I did take the time to read some of the stuff the old boy spoke about direct from his speech transcripts - and he certainly convinced me that it was okay to be proud of being a Christian in a Christian country and that, whilst secularism, atheism and multi-culturalism had their places amongst all free thinkers in a democracy, they should never be allowed to transgress aggressively across the divide so as to dictate policy.
Religion (the majority) doesn't, so why the hell are the others (the minority) given so much tolerance and slack, whilst bending the populace into accepting their ways just because their voices are the loudest? Think about it ............

For the record - Well done Papa Benny! This is one sceptic you've won over.

Did he give away some of the Catholic Church's wealth to those who might benefit from it?

Did he acknowledge that condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases? And given that man was granted freedom to choose, and many will succumb to the 'sins of the flesh' that condom use makes sense?

Did he acknowledge that the Catholic Church oppresses women, reducing them to a minority role (at best) in the church?

Did he go anywhere close to admitting that the policy of celibacy among priests, brothers, etc, may have contributed to some of the sexual acts committed by so-called 'holy men'?

Nope - but he did speak about doing good amongst society.

- wealth - no he didn't, but his congretaion seemed and always seem more than happy to contribute, without any coercion whatsoever - so why should the wealth aspect concern you?

Condoms - no withdrawal (ooops, pun unintended) on that issue - but aren't sexually transmitted diseases allegedly (according to the experts) confined in the main to the so-called third world countries and across the sub continent where ignorance of the fact is deep seated in cultural surroundings rather than solely religious doctrine? And what of the sexually transmitted diseases among the free thinking modern societies of the more priviledged countries?
Are they Catholic/religiously influenced ....I somehow very much doubt that ...

If you argue about a woman's minority role - I'd suggest you checkout the Muslim religion and all aspects of Hinduism first! That's a couple of billion for starters ...

This is no defence of the Catholic religion - but IMHO picking on and blowing out of all proportion, 3 or 4 specific issues amid the entire spectrum of their (the RC's) capital beliefs of practicing goodness through their faith, dosn't exactly cut it, I'm afraid.

The Catholic Church is one of (if not at the top of the list of) the richest organisations in the world. It could solve world hunger, set up sustainable agriculture schemes, and dramatically reduce the number of people who live in poverty and have no chance of breaking the cycle, but instead it keeps gazillions in the bank. The Pope lives in an opulent palace in Rome, along with a bunch of other people at the top of the Chruch structire.

I don't have a problem with the congregation giving of their own voilition, but the Church itself could do a hell of a lot more than it does.

Condoms - the hopelessly underfunded Catholic relief/aid agencies generallly refuse to hand out condoms (indeed aren't allowed to hand them out) in the places where they would do the most good. Across Africa, especially in places ravaged by AIDS/HIV, it would be a cheap and effective method of stopping the scourge that is sweeping that continent, but because of the Church's opposition to birth control of any sort (other than whipping the todger out before climax...) condoms are verboten. And millions die because of it.

I wasn't suggesting that the Catholic Church is the only religion that oppresses women, but it sure as sh!t doesn't promote them. Or treat them as equals.

The Catholic Church, as indeed do most religions, is basically an excuse for belief an imaginary friend as a cover up for hypocrisy on a grand scale.

I was subjected to a Catholic upbringing by two still devout Catholic parents. I admit that the church does some good, but it could do a lot more.

I was subjected to a Catholic upbringing by two still devout Catholic parents. I admit that the church does some good, but it could do a lot more.

Likewise - (though both parents are now deceased) - Jesuit College indoctrination process - the lot! But all that changed from a very early age when I left "education" behind and opened up the mind!

The RC's may well be the richest religious outfit around, but whilst they do provide handsomely for their own (and a fair few others) in poverty stricken areas, surely the overall responsibility for providing for the poor is the incumbent government's - isn't that the way things are expected to work?

Queen Betty (who also livesin a palace) here in the UK is seriously individually wealthy as is Bill Gates (lives in a £14 million house) in the US, King Fahd (a billion $ palace) in Saudi/the Moslem world and the Murdoch's (a 3 acre ranch in Alice Springs) in Oz - but you don't see them dipping into their personal fortunes to help out the poverty stricken in their respective countries! Doesn't the saying go "Charity begins at home" ....

The argument about the use of condoms and women's roles will go on ad infinitum, however, despite all religious fervour, how do you combat ignorants like Mugabe and Mbeki who insisted that Aids was never a problem in their countries and refused to accept the scientific explanations believing it to be "God created" ...!!

Anyway - the debate on all issues will go on.
All I'm saying is that, as a cynical sceptic, the old fella's visit here did much to lift spirits and kick arse where it needed kicking - religion aside, he spoke about the Christian values and faith .... something unheard of in speeches from the Anglican hierarchy here, who run scared everytime the words secularism and multi-culturalism raise their heads.

Fair enough merls. As has been discussed here at great length previously, I think religions (as a group) could do a whole lot more. The Catholic Church does a lot more than many others, but that doesn't excuse its excesses and hypocrisy any more than it forgives the same failings in other religions.

Merlin wrote:but aren't sexually transmitted diseases allegedly (according to the experts) confined in the main to the so-called third world countries and across the sub continent

you mean where the use of condoms is not as widespread due to economic and educational factors? whoda thunk it?

christ wont save you from STDs. whether you are in london or luanda. a piece of rubber might

Aye indeed - and perhaps, amen to that Zoggie.

They (the RC church) do have their faults, some of them undoubtedly grave, but personally, I'd rather adopt their/the old boy's stance on standing firm - Christians in a Christian country, remember - against the aggressive advance and ramming-down-yer-throat rantings of the secularists, athiests and multi-culturalists whose tolerance levels are non existant and who expect the total dismantling of the Christian faith to be imminent.

After listening to Benny and watching his flock blanket out the TV screen and in so doing, losing the head count, I think the "alternative pseudos" like Dawkins and Fry have a long fight ahead of them!

You think Professor Richard Dawkins a pseudo scientist? PMSL .

We've disagreed on some things merls but I didn't realise you were completely retarded. I guess the Earth is only 6000 years old too?

No - I later said an "alternative pseudo" in my last post - viz., a so called intellgent individual who unilaterally claims that the Pope and religion is "Evil" ....

I do, however, withdraw my initial grammatical error in the first post when I did refer to Dawkins as a pseudo scientist .... perhaps that should have read, a scientist with pseudo self-beliefs on matters other than science.

"Retard" however, is a matter of opinion.
Mine is that Dawkins and Fry fit snugly (and smugly) into that category.

Hope that clarifies.

I think you should edit the second line to be honest, I know Dawkins can be overly harsh on religion (though some of the things he says I agree with) but calling him a pseudo scientist really makes you lose all credibility. I'm glad that isn't what you actually think.

Merlo can be a ****** retard on occasions . . . and calling Dawkins a pseudo scientist is one such occasion . . .

tac wrote:Merlo can be a ****** retard on occasions . . . and calling Dawkins a pseudo scientist is one such occasion . . .

Oh dear .... tac in attempting to exhibit his total lack of intelligence (after the initial grammatical error had been clarified).

(PS - for tac only) - read the two posts immediately above your last 'contribution' !

Ever the entertainer, merls.

taccy's attention span only extends to looking over his Professor pince-nez glasses up the skirts of his female students during his Greek philosophy classes.

You are so close to reality, skull, I'm checking my office for hidden cameras tomorrow . . .

Merlin wrote:

tac wrote:Merlo can be a ****** retard on occasions . . . and calling Dawkins a pseudo scientist is one such occasion . . .

Oh dear .... tac in attempting to exhibit his total lack of intelligence (after the initial grammatical error had been clarified).

(PS - for tac only) - read the two posts immediately above your last 'contribution' !

bum-raping pseudo scientists like richard dawkins? was that NSR?

tac wrote:You are so close to reality, skull, I'm checking my office for hidden cameras tomorrow . . .

tac wrote:You are so close to reality, skull, I'm checking my office for hidden cameras tomorrow . . .

Have you started giving private tuition?

oral instruction . . .

I bet you excel at that...

What do you charge? Out of interest.

I accept payment in livestock . . .

Ah, cloven hooved ones would that be?

could be . . . as Marlowe said (almost) My stock like satyrs grazing on the lawn/ Shall with their goat-feet dance the Antic hay . . .

What's Merlin up to this time?


He could have just said he doesn't agree with the Pope...