The Pope is heading to England, and the British don't like it. Imagine that.
Yet despite the fact that religious ties between the Holy See and Great Britain have been rather strained for, oh, better than 450 years, it isn't the religious aspect of the Papal visit which is throwing the most sparks. The trouble is the $30 million dollars the trip will cost British taxpayers. You see, unlike John Paul the Great's tour in 1982, this is an official state visit. That means the state pays for it.
To be sure, there will be protests against the Church's views on issues religious and philosophic. Her unwavering stands on the various moral issues sure seem to inflame a European population hell bent on doing whatever it damn well pleases while conveniently and inconsistently demanding that society adapt to them as they are (how is it that one presumed form of dictatorship is worse than a more real, more threatening secular tyranny?) shall always incite protest. Yet the cost of the trip has become the most highlighted question within the issue.
Human rights activist Peter Tatchell laments that figures such as the Rabbi of Jerusalem wouldn't merit such treatment. But he is not a head of state. Benedict XIV, like it or lump it, is. A poll shows that around 80% of Britons 'have no personal interest' in the visit. It would be fascinating to see how many of them would have a personal interest in a state visit from the leader of Panama or Fiji or Luxembourg. Yet they would receive the treatment of foreign dignitaries.
There is not much doubt that the cost of entertaining them wouldn't be near to the costs of protecting the Pope, but so what? How many British citizens have not cared for the visits of US Presidents? Yet the reality is clear: visiting heads of state merit consideration based on their needs. The President and the Pontiff face greater threats than many (if not most) others. They merit the protection.
It is interesting to note that human rights have apparently become so well protected in Great Britain today that the aforementioned Mr. Tatchell has the time to protest the Papal visit as a human rights issue. Aren't there any real tyrants out in the world, or indeed even petty little despots in government offices throughout England, doing far worse to the people than simply engaging in state visits to other sovereign nations?
The upcoming trip certainly does illustrate that these times they are-a changin'. But surely not for the good. Most definitely not for the people of England.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
how do you not know the trip turned out well or not? and who are you too judge.. or any British person in that matter. they should be thankful for the fact that the pope can take the time to come to England as the mayor of Vatican City.. not as the leader of the Catholic Church even though that is another one of his major roles as a person. there is so much drama the pope is going through right now with the priest abuse scandal and other things that are constantly bothering the Vatican. British people should learn to think outside the box and see what they are grateful for instead of complaining about a visit that most likely had a major impact on some area of the Queens' life.. whether for good or bad.
I intended to speak in favor of the Pope's visit. I think it a good and necessary way of reaching out to the increasingly secular British. If this item didn't come out that way, I apologize to my readers.
Post a Comment