Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

I think the whole media portrayal backfired for me. There was no sense of balance-It was more a question of the media believing they have the power to flower arrange the whole visit into a pretty bouquet without addressing the fact his views are insulting and divisive to alot of people. I guess you could say the media had to take over, the Pope and his entourage were incabable of doing PR properly themselves, as demonstrated by the first words that guy said landing at Heathrow

I am not sure that the word "highlights" is the best word to describe aspects of the Pope's largely taxpayer funded visit to Britain. Certainly the pictures of all the police officers lining the roads to protect him stand out in my mind.

My attitude remains the same: the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money spent on his visit could have been better spent elsewhere: helping the flood victims in Pakistan, for example.

The sigh of relief might just have been replaced by a sharp pain in the chest. Officials at the Vatican Bank are being investigated on money-laundering charges:

/news/world-europe-11380628

The liberal media press and science/Darwin driven atheists, have been mounting a vicious campaign with TV programmes and books all seeking to undermine, if not eliminate, God and religion in public life. We even had the spectacle of a government minister issuing a statement that they would no longer apply pressure on the churches, thus justifying many fears by the churches that government ministers were also on the band wagon. The Pope’s visit has done much to redress the balance and to give confidence to all the churches, especially the Church of England to reassert its position and to articulate it beliefs. Religion and belief does matter in society; even with all the, very just and right, criticism of the Catholic Church and the Vatican’s alleged cover up of systematic abuse of children (cf: Ryan report request for information). We need to see that human beings, with human failings, are at the centre of all these scandals. William is quite right to point out the positive aspects of the visit whilst acknowledging the failings of the Catholic Church. The lessons for that Church however need to be teased out, especially the theological grounds of belief within the church where, as representatives of Christ, they felt that they were only answerable to God. Thus they decided to do their own thing. That was a ‘group think’ mentality, where denial was rife and critical voices from the outside were filtered out, and which led to inappropriate actions being taken. In this respect the Moderator was right to express his concerns and what went on in the Church and the Pope’s role in these and other affairs. He has asked for a private meeting. I hope he gets one. However the responsibility in each country, where abuse occurred, cannot only be the Popes’. Cardinals and Bishops must bear the bulk of the blame. It is no use referring up the chain of command to the Pope, when many issues occurred at parish level. In this respect many people of the Catholic tradition are looking for change within the church. The visit had open up again the discussion on married clergy and other issues such as education, Catholic adoption agencies and the right to life of the unborn. The vocal secularists and chattering classes, prior to the Pope’s visit have had a field day. Thankfully it seems that while Catholics have lost their trust in the hierarchy, they have not lost their faith. The visit will be judged a success because of that and probably only because of that. The Pope’s visit has done all of us, who have faith, a great service.

I'd say my attitude towards the Pope has changed as a result of this visit. Until the past week, I'd always viewed the Pope as somewhat distant, ruling the Catholic church with a mixed level of benevolence and authoratarianism and largely irrelevant to the world at large, save for when he (as the church) makes some controversial announcement. I perhaps envisaged a few thousand people, turning up to wave a flag, perhaps clap as the popemobile drove past, before marching into a ritualistic, braindead ceremony to intone the same phrases they intone every week.

How wrong I was.

The level of fanatism for him, the cult of personality that surrounds the position (as I'm fairly sure devout Catholics would venerate anyone who was the official pope) and the acquiesence of people who, under ordinary circumstances, are probably fairly rational, is alarming for someone who viewed this country as largely secular and devoid of such religous hysteria (the less said about secular hysteria the better, it's just as bad).

Now I know that the people who went to see him are hardly a representative proportion of society and that the media (for various reasons) gave crowd shots and personal interviews more prominence than the rest of the country, but the fawning adoration over an old man who's played the politics game to get to where he is seemed, to me, irrational, out-dated and reminisent of the crowds you see slavishly following the latest Disney child pop-star or X-factor reject. I'm proud to belong to a section of society that bestows nothing like this personality cult upon anyone, regardless of their merits or worth (and that includes, before people comment, the likes of Darwin, Dawkins or Einstein), and there's people out there who've done far more to progress humanity as a whole.

As an individual, he's achieved very little that could be truely considered 'great' on a historic or global scale and I would far rather see such heartfelt devotion turned onto something more worthwhile that might actually make a difference.

The hundreds of thousands who came out to welcome the Holy Father despite a vicious and vitriolic campaign by much of the media.

The press's attempt to insert child abuse into ever aspect of every event with each person interviewed on the street grilled as if they were suspects.

The quiet respectfulness of the congretations at the Masses, responding to the Holy Father's desire for silence.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú confusing Archbishop of Canterbury and Moderator of Church of Scotland.

The Queen asking about the Pope's tiny car.

The events in Westminster - Hall, Cathedral and Abbey.

The babies. The Pope's funny little finger wave.

Was the Pope's visit the great success it has been painted?
Well let the figures speak. 50,000 attended Mass with the Pope on Sunday while 75,000 watched Manchester United at Old Trafford. Those watching Man U had, no doubt, to pay a lot more for their ticket than those cheering on the Pope.
So was the Pope's visit a massive success in real terms, or just a totally biased assessment from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú? Well let the figures decide.

Berbatov's overhead kick at Old Trafford.

Looking forward to MCC's comments each day. (Why does the Pope wear all the shiny clobber? - Coz Catholics would have liked to dress Jesus in it, but they cant so they dress the Pope in it instead.) Lol, lol, lol.

The Pope's 'personal' assistant, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, fussing all over him every two seconds, tucking him in here, sprucing him up there, patting him down, buffing him up, like a mother hen. Suits you, Sir! (If the Pope cant even manage to put on a pair of Gregory Pecks without an assistant, surely he shouldnt be in the job.)

Probably the best bit was at Bellahouston. The Pope insists that anyone who receives communion from him must be a. on their knees and b. must receive the host on their tongue. As the chosen thirty approached and the first one knelt, a priest passing by fell off the step and the hosts he was carrying scattered in the blustery wind. There then followed a rugby scrum as dozens of priests tried to catch each host and put them back in the ciborium.

Another act of God was the Deacon who was going to "sing" the Gospel. Singing it was deliberately chosen to add solemnity to it. Again the wind kicked in, the pages of the book rattled over and the poor guy couldnt find the right page. What seemed like an eternity elapsed with red faced officials running forward to help him by which time any semblance of solemnity had shot the craw.

As Jesus said, "The wind blows where it will...." showing exactly what he thought of the whole circus which had absolutely hee haw to do with the gospel.

(Oh and that bit where Sky asked the young man what he thought about all the scandals surrounding the Pope - "Oh we're just ignoring all that and are here to have a good time." (Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?)

Apart from that, I thought it was a great success.

Personally I don't think Tim Minchin's lovely Pope Song was played enough.

Oh great - another Pope thread - wouldn't want to lose my bet!! haha (just teasing :-) .....)

I didn't see/hear it all but have reviewed a few speeches. What strikes me is the discordance between words and action. Words are cheap - it's easy to say the right thing but following through in action/deeds is not always so easy. So he talks about 'living in respect and mutual love" - great - but how does that square up with his views on homosexuals and women? Mutual love and respect means recognising all are equal - (not the same) but he does not live in that way from what I can see/have heard.

Again he says religion is in fact a guarantee of authentic liberty and respect, leading us to look upon every person as a brother or sister.
This is true to my understanding but I don't see him treating or speaking about everyone as a brother or sister - eg homosexuals again.
Likewise unique dignity of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God,
Again true - I just don't see it lived.

There were other things about the church not looking to look after the church but to look after the other - again all fine words and correct principles - but is it lived?? Is that actually how the church operates??? It's not how I see it operating - it is very much concerned about itself!!

Given what I have heard of his views prior to this there is for me a discordance in word and deed and a lack of integrity as the life lived is not commensurate with the words spoken on this trip as far as I can see. It's one thing to talk the talk - but is he walking the talk??????

Re bringing spirituality into public life. Well that depends what that looks like and what exactly he means by it.( i may have missed what he said about it so apologies if I misrepresent)
I suspect how I would interpret it and how he means it are quite different. Fact is we all bring our spirituality into our lives everyday - even if we don't call it that or recognise it as such. How we treat and respond to others comes out of our spirituality - using that term in a broad sense where it applies to all people of all faiths and none.

However, if he means taking a stand and discriminating against people (gays) or preventing women having abortions, or stopping people use contraception etc etc then no - that sort of 'religious' discriminating spirituality is not welcome. However, if he means - treating others with love and respect (which starts with self) and living a life where love informs ones thoughts, words and deeds then yes I would support that.

Of course there are other understandings that I disagree on re Christ/love/ sin/forgiveness etc but I'll save those for another rainy day! ;-)

Jellybean - liked all your points (for once). Berbatov's goal was brilliant, and of course followed Rooney jumping and missing - says it all. Berbatov of course was trained by Spurs.

I told several people about the old priest falling down the step and no one else saw it - was beginning to think I'd imagined it.

William

You may have noticed that on Sunday after Cardinal O'Brien and Archbishop Vincent Nicholls had made their farewell speeches, Benedict reciprocated and threw in a couple of sentences, almost under his breath, thanking the Bishops for their cooperation in the implementing of the new translation of the Mass which will be imposed upon the English speaking world next year.

The following is a link to an article which shows clearly how the then Ratzinger, with absolutely no authority, very deviously and arrogantly managed to overthrow the Bishops (ICEL) who had been mandated to produce
a new translation and to throw out any semblance of collegiality amongst the Catholic Hierachy as well as forty years of hard work by some of the Church's most brilliant academics and linguists.

All the work which had also been done by the various churches of different denominations with ICEL (over forty years)to find a common format for some prayers that we could say together - a massive step for ecumenism - were simply booted into touch by him and Cardinal Medina, without so much as a single meeting with anyone who was involved.

It is, in effect, the documented history of the rise of quite a vicious dictator, (not the cheery, harmless granpa some of the media would have had us believe over the last few days.) It actually makes shocking reading, not just for Roman Catholics, but for every Christian who ever entertained the idea that the Churches might draw closer together one day. Not under this man!



Just in case the url is removed, the article is entitled - Lost in translation: the Bishops, the Vatican and the English liturgy.

you must be easily shocked Jellybean. Old news, old argument, liberals lost and we'll have a new translation by Advent 2011.

I suspect the Anglican decisions to ordain women, support divorce, contraception and homosexuality have done more to damage ecumenism than any change to the translation of the creed.

mccamleyc,

I have to know what your meaning of the word 'liberal' is. You make it sound out to be some form of heinous belief.

Are you in fact saying you're illiberal? I'm sure you're okay in giving up your voting, free speech and all those other rights you won't miss.

If you in fact mean 'progressive' or 'radical' then that's fine, but I think sometimes people (Americans especially) throw the use of the word liberal around without actually thinking what it means, and what it means not to be liberal.

By liberal I mean people like the ACLU.

I don't know any liberals who believe in freedom or democracy. They generally want to raise our taxes to pay for things we don't want. They pretend they believe in free speech but then want laws on hate speech, which is anything they disagree with. They support flag burning but abhor Koran burning. They oppose laws passed by public referendum and want laws created by liberal judges. They think killing a child already half-born is a matter of privacy.

In the context of the Church by liberals I mean people who hate the Pope, hate Latin in the liturgy, support abortion, contraception, homosexuality, like so called liturgical dance, favour priestesses.

mccamleyc,

Strange, I read your post and it came out like this:

I don't know any liberals who believe in my form of freedom or democracy. They generally want to raise my taxes to pay for things I don't want. They pretend they believe in free speech but then want laws to stop me saying what I want, which is a lot of stuff that's offensive and bigoted. They support an expression of opinion about national perceptions but abhor actions that incite violence against innocent people. They oppose the laws I like that were passed by flawed democratic processes voted on by misinformed and uneducated voters and want laws created by people who actually know what they're doing and talking about. They think saving the life of a mother at the expense of an unborn child is no business of mine.

In the context of the church by liberals I mean people who disapprove of autocratic dictatorships, support freedom of choice, disease prevention techniques and population control, freedom of sexuality, freedom of expression and equal opportunities.

No doubt you'd disagree with that (I kind of expect you to), but it's all semantical in nature.

Plus, I don't think you know many liberals, the Collins English Dictionary defines liberal as:

1. having social and political views that favour progress and reform,
2. generous in temperament or behaviour,
3. tolerant of other people,
4. using or existing in large quantities, lavish, the world’s finest gadgetry, in liberal quantities,
5. not rigid, free, a more liberal interpretation,
6. (of an education) designed to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

Care to redefine your opinions?

mccamleyc,

Do you believe women should not be allowed to vote, interracial marriage should be banned, non whites should be returned to the servile/slave grades in society, homosexuality should be recriminalised, welfare should be removed, people should be forced to believe in god under pain of death, we should rebuild blasphemy and heresy laws, women should be the property of their husbands (and not allowed bank accounts etc), women should be stay at home baby factories, bible trumps science in all things, minorities should do as the majority wants?.

These are all things which have been addressed because of these liberals in spite of the best efforts of the church to block them.

Posts like yours make me glad that we live in more liberal times and reminds me of the need to question theology and theocracies. You are the best advert yet for the need for aggressive secularists.

Well written Natman

Natman, thank you for confirming the liberal view of the public:

"flawed democratic processes voted on by misinformed and uneducated voters".

before you know it the people have become the proletariat and then the politburo and you've got yourself a full fledged People's Democratic Republic

MCC

Looks as if there are at least three hundred parishes in Ireland which certainly wont have a new translation in Advent 2011. What are the Irish Bishops gonna do? Lecture them on morality?!!

Medina and Ratzinger's disgraceful behaviour in the past may be old news to you and me, but to the vast majority of Catholics in the English speaking world it certainly will be news. I hope the article informs them and further causes them to question "Grandpa" Ratz.

Investigations into the Vatican Bank and the fact that when the present head of the Italian government goes Italy will tear up its agreement granting Granpa his stay out of jail status, the future looks pretty bleak for the black frock department.

The good thing is, when these so called "liberals" do assume control of the Church, they will be a lot kinder to you than you have been to them. That's Christianity.

Dave, that was then and this is now. Liberals lost the right to any meaningful use of the term when they started supporting baby killing.

The media gave him a makeover, it's a shame that in these sensationalist times of 24hr news coverage- we couldn't use some of that effort to focus on people who really are humane,have done good works, have really somehow helped to unite others.He's not a role model and his life and his outlook shouldn't be promoted as an ideal. Otherwise, what are you saying- Go join a far right racist organisation- do a bit of fighting- then a join an orthodox right wing religious cult where only men are in charge- with a track record for rape and abuse and cover ups. To me, he sounds like all the worst aspects of the 20th century rolled into one person.It's laughable that people bow down to him and he commands respect. We may live in unsettling times, but we should still have standards.

Highlights : Hmm not sure it was anything about the trip, more about the media coverage, debates and more specifically the documentaries about Ratzinger himself.

Even the ones from the pro side left me with the feeling that events in his past (mainly around the violence in his lectures) have left him deeply psychologically scarred and the result is a warped sense of right and wrong and a fear and hatred of anything which seems to dilute the control of the authority of the pope in all things.

He seems to cling to control like evangelical protestants cling to biblical literacy.

So has it changed my view of this pope - no, I still think he is bigoted and dangerous, I may understand a bit better why he is like this but I still fundamentally disagree with him on many issues.

Has it changed my view of the catholic church - yes, up until this trip I had (possibly mistakenly) thought that the catholic church in general was less vitriolic, less judgemental than protestant friends from the far right, I have seen a different side of them and now realise one is simply a reflection of the other and the pope wants to evangelise that. Not sure we have room for another lot of those.

I also can't believe the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú used more people (400) to cover this than they did the world cup.

"Nothing says faith in God like four inches of bullet proof glass!"

Great theatre, but I'm sorry it failed to silence the debate.
No sighing ........just a sharp intake of breath.

"Nothing says faith in God like four inches of bullet proof glass!"
After this visit I have as much faith in him, as he has in God.

One of the most frightening memories for me was the collection of 250 students for the priesthood at Oscott College, 3 of whom were 'selected' to be interviewed Live on tv.

Not one of them was actually a priest yet, but you wouldnt have guessed by the garb they were wearing.

The most senior of the students giggled his way through describing how he had always wanted to be a priest since he used to pretend saying Mass using white chocolate buttons as hosts.

They struct me as a collection of brain-washed, immature, naive boys - God only knows what is going on inside of them sexually, emotionally and psychologically - that have been safely locked away from the society they are supposed to be going to serve.

Just the type Ratzinger wants. I couldnt help but feel that they are victims too.

My impressions of the papal visit?

By and large a failure of the protest element. But this shouldn't be any surprise, since minority groups tend to shout loudly and therefore misrepresent their relative importance in the wider community.

As a Christian who can best be described as theologically half-way between Protestant and Catholic (in fact probably slightly more inclined to the latter than the former), I was mildly pleased with the seeming success of the Pope's visit. What amused me was the way the halting words of a quietly spoken man with a very thick German accent (still not having mastered the English digraph 'th') were scrutinised and treated with the utmost seriousness, whereas the ebullient outpourings (and rantings) of celebrated preachers and speakers within Protestant denominations barely cause a ripple in the life of our nation. This tells me that, love it or hate it, the size and scope of the Catholic Church makes a significant difference. Whether one agrees with an ecclesiology based on institutional unity or not, the empirical evidence tells us that 'size matters', and this is a terrible indictment of the fragmentation of Protestantism.

Another theme that emerged was the enthusiasm for the Catholic Church among many thousands of young people. They certainly didn't have the appearance of the downtrodden masses brainwashed with the 'opium of the people', that's for sure! Now if the secularists could only convince these young people that a philosophy of existential nihilism can set them free from the oppressive burden of faith, hope, love and purpose, then this supposedly 'nasty' "belief in God" business would die a death. Fat chance, if I may say so!!

Whatever one thinks about Benedict XVI, there is something to be said for strong uncompromising leadership. Those who protest against him give the impression that they would prefer a more conciliatory type of religious authority. But we already have that! It's called the Anglican Church, and I don't see many of these protestors darkening the doors of the good ol' CofE. Which tells me that they are not protesting against Benedict at all, but against all religion. It makes not a scrap of difference whether the Pope is uncompromising or highly conciliatory. They will still protest, because of that apparently deeply offensive reality called 'God'. Perhaps, therefore, the Pope is not as daft as some people make out, since he recognises this motive, and thus knows he has nothing to lose by taking a strong stand.

Has my attitude towards the Pope changed as a result of his visit? Well, I have a couple of books relating to Benedict XVI, , and . Both are impressive, and far more worthy of a read than much of the stuff churned out by the evangelical establishment. So I was already something of an admirer, and his visit has only served to confirm that.

(Oh dear, oh dear. How naughty of me to refuse to be swept along with the fashionable wind of protest against the Pope. What a rebel I am to think for myself, don't you think?)

Oh and Benny's ability to attract disaffected Anglicans was impressive too!

I was wondering about the victims of clergy sex abuse who were presented to the Pope for a private audience in London during his visit. Who were they?

Just found out. There were five of them who, we were assured, were chosen at random.

Although 80% of victims of clergy sexual abuse happen to me male, 4 out of the 5 who met the Pope were , eh, female. I'm told that the chances of that happening randomly, are 1000/1.

Is this a miracle? Glad to see the Church giving a proper place to women, albeit when it suits their purposes.