The Pope: You Can Rubber Up After All

And are we supposed to be impressed by this?

Pope Benedict XVI has said the use of condoms is acceptable "in certain cases", according to a new book.

That's big of him. Nice to see that he is slowly taking into account the well-being of those who follow his persistent little cult.

He said condoms could reduce the risk of infection with HIV, such as for a prostitute, in a series of interviews he gave to a German journalist.

No shit Sherlock! I'm amazed - I am absolutely staggered - that his Popiness has only just worked out that there is a link between HIV and unprotected sex. He's stating what almost everyone with half a brain cell has known for decades.

I think we're supposed to see this as a real step forward for the Catholic Church, but the reality is that they are only slowly catching up with the rest of the modern world. And it is pretty repugnant to think of how many lives have been blighted by the Papal stance on contraceptives (and on child rape by priests, of course) over the years - any current half-hearted endorsement of condoms does not make up for the damage inflicted by the previous Papal position on this. This sort of thing only highlights how unrealistic and cruel the Catholic Church often is with its worship of dogmatism and a leadership detached from the rest of the world in a collection of palaces in Vatican City.

Against Certainty

With the Panzer Pope heading home soon, it is perhaps good to reflect on what an extraordinary visit this has been for the religious leader. Sure, his pronouncements have been exactly what you might expect from a Pope - namely, that those who do not share his beliefs are wrong and evil (possibly even Nazis). The protests that arose as the result of his visit reassure me to some extent - they show that this is no longer a religious nation as such, or at least is a nation where religious beliefs are no longer privileged and have to fight for respect alongside other belief systems. This can only be a good thing for a modern democratic nation.

Yet what was striking to me was the sheer level of conviction of many of those who protested the Pope's visit. Don't get me wrong, I can't stomach the man and I think his views, and his actions over the paedophile scandal, are reprehensible and clearly not suitable for a man running a religious organisation of billions. Yet there's a distinction between protesting what the Pope says and arguing against his right to visit this country. I believe anyone with any sort of moral sense should protest what the Pope says; yet to demand that he should not even be allowed to visit his country is just as illiberal (given he is a key figure for Catholics in this country) as many of Ratzinger's pronouncements.

Which has been the striking thing about many of the secular protestors - their certainty that they are right has now reached a point where they seem to be demanding that the religious do not express their views. To me, this is clearly wrong. I believe religion is a lot of stuff and nonsense, and I have no compunction about sharing those views with both believers and non-believers. I believe I have a right to express my beliefs - however, I do not believe that I have a right to tell others what they should believe. The sort of aggressive secularism of some now seems to be reaching a point where it is telling people what they can and cannot believe in and say. And I see this as extremely dangerous.

As far as I can see, the demise of religion as the dominant force in this country has meant that religion has simply been substituted with other views that cannot be argued with. This is a true irony - many people have freed themselves from religious domination only to find other "truths" to dominate their thinking. This isn't just the case with militant atheists - we can see this certainty affecting many other beliefs throughout this country. The climate change campaigners are now so certain that they have discovered an indisputable truth that they are happy to deny the rights of sceptics to debate and question their conclusions. The same with socialists and other statists - their certainty in the benevolence of the state means they cannot contemplate the views of those who seek to reduce the size of the state. Likewise, flawed organisations and bodies created by flawed humans are now revered to such an extent that to talk of reforming or even abolishing them has become a form of sacrilege. Don't believe me? Try saying that you want to abolish the NHS and see what sort of a reaction you get.

Let me be clear here - I'm not calling for people to abandon their beliefs. I'm not putting forward a case for nihilism; positive or otherwise. What I am saying is that while people should have their belief systems, they should also take into account that other people may differ in their beliefs, and in this inherently uncertain world in which we all exist there must be the possibility that a belief, no matter how apparently logical, adamantly held and cherished, may be proved to be wrong in the future.

Certainty and rigidity in belief can be a comforting thing in an ever-changing world, but it can also be used to dominate others and strangle debate. It should go without saying that we must be very careful to prevent this from happening; but given the readiness of some to deny others their right to express their beliefs, it clearly does need to be said anyway.

So if you're like me, and you think the Pope is an appalling person and Catholicism is nothing more than archaic myth and superstition, by all means make your case and make your protests. But don't seek to deny others their right to hold their own beliefs, no matter how ignorant, ludicrous and downright stupid they may seem to you.

The Pope and The Mail

You know, the more I think about his Popiness and the objections of him and other Vatican types to the modern UK, the more I realise the basic problem they seem to have. Just look at their claims - Britain is like a Third World country, people are trying to ban Christmas etc. The problem is that they've clearly got their vision of modern Britain through reading The Daily Mail! No wonder their view is so warped.

Mind you, if the Panzer Pope was going to read any British newspaper, and think we can all be pretty sure that it would be The Daily Hate.

The Idiotic and Offensive Pope

Oh my word, take a look at this for an example of Papal crassness and stupidity taken to an extreme:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny"

Yes, Britain did indeed fight the Nazis and quite rightly too. The totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany was a nightmare, and it needed to be fought by any nation or movement that claimed in anyway to me moral. Britain fought the Nazis. What did the Vatican do? At best - at very fucking best - it sat on the fence in World War Two.

Furthermore, many people opposed the Nazis and some did so for reasons other than religion. The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis. And as an FYI, Ratzinger, the Soviet Union was atheist.

But that's just background noise to the truly ignorant and offensive rubbish that the Panzer Pope is spouting. The idea that Nazism represents "atheist extremism" is palpable, insulting nonsense. In fact, if anything, the structure of Nazism resembles that of religious orders, and in particular the Catholic Church. The Führerprinzip closely resembles Papal Infallibility. Both belief systems were big on ceremony, of performing in stupid costumes, and to a large extent are based on meaningless, fabricated myths. But the biggest similarity lies in the fact that both belief systems are based on blind obedience. You have to believe absolutely in the teachings of the Church, just as absolute belief in Nazi propaganda was demanded by that regime. There is no allowance for freedom of thought under Nazism or the sort of religion espoused by the Vatican. Unlike in atheism, which is predicated on questioning what was the greatest authority in human life for centuries - that of God.

Sure, you could argue that Catholicism believes in God, while the Nazi regime believed in nothing. But this isn't true; Nazism adopted much of the structure of religion, but just changed the position of their God. Christianity sites God in heaven; Nazism had God in earth in the shape of the Führer.

Furthermore, the exclusion of God, religion and whatever corrupted concept of virtue the Church has from public life does not lead to a truncated vision of the person and of their destiny. On the contrary, the removal of the need to adhere to outmoded, out-of-date archaic teachings from millennia ago actually frees humanity up to achieve more. Stem cell research - banned by the Catholics - helps alleviate suffering and extend lives. Contraception - banned by the Church - helps slow the spread of the HIV epidemic. And so on. The removal of God from public life is a healthy thing. Furthermore, such a move does not bring about the removal of morals from society; "thou shalt not kill" does not need to be backed up by the threat of hell; it becomes intuitively plausible for an atheist through the use of empathy with fellow humans.

And where does this idea that Catholicism is synonymous with morality and virtue come from? The Church has, at best, a dubious record when it comes to morality. It isn't just the recent scandal over paedophilia that shows the Vatican's dubious approach to basic, moral concepts like you shouldn't let people rape children and then cover it up. Going right back to the Spanish Inquisition it should be plain to see that religion can be linked to immoral behaviour and, in far too many cases, horrific cruelty. So forgive me, Ratzinger, if I don't buy into your concept of virtue. It really isn't working for me on any level.

This is meant to be the Pope extending the hand of friendship to people in the UK. Likening those who have legitimate concerns about religion or who just plain and simple don't believe in religion to Nazis does not strike me as a good way to go about that.

Proud to be British...

...for perhaps the first time ever:

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after reportedly saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

If we are pissing off people closely connected to this reprehensible arse of a pontiff, then we must be doing something right.

Apparently the Pope's not a sell-out:

Thousands of tickets remain unsold for events during the visit of the Pope, who arrives in Scotland on Thursday.

Now this gives me some faith - in people if nothing else. I can't help but feel that it is a positive thing that people aren't flocking to see a privileged man in a dress who was once a member of the Hitler Youth and has done much to hide child rapists from justice. Not that I'm biased against the Panzer Pope or anything...

The Panzer Pope and Paedophilia

This article is well worth reading, partly because it shows that the Panzer Pope is actually doing something about paedophilia in his church - albeit it in a quiet way that doesn't seem that committed to what the rest of the world would recognise as justice - and partly because it shows just how depraved senior members of the Catholic church have been. Go read the whole thing: I certainly think it is worth it.

But as an aside I would just like to point to this statement from the Vatican, talking about the call for blind obedience from the followers of Father Maciel Maciel:

"By pushing away and casting doubt upon all those who questioned his behaviour... he created around him a defence mechanism that made him unassailable for a long period, making it difficult to know his true life."

That sort of behaviour reminds me of something... something in the Catholic church... what is it? What is it? Oh, wait, papal infallibility.

Pot and kettle time for the Vatican...

The Pope's Visit and the Real World

Liberal Conspiracy are asking a strident question:

Why is the government protecting the Pope from arrest?

The phrase "Awwwww, bless" springs to mind. But there's more:

The Pope’s proposed visit to the UK in September is costing the UK taxpayers as much as £12m for the four-day tour (not including the policing and security costs). How a man who claims to be the right-hand man of God could possibly need security is beyond me.

I'm not surprised it is beyond Adam Wilcox, the author of this remarkably naive article, since he seems to have no basic idea about the real world. I can think of at least one good reason why the Popey Pope needs security.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC were planning to bring a private prosecution in relation to the Pope’s alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

However, it seems the UK Government didn’t want the embarrassment of having the Pope arrested on our shores, so the new Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has moved to prevent the possibility of an arrest warrant being issued against the Pope during his state visit in September.

Yeah, um, it would be kind of embarrassing to have the fucking Pope arrested on his arrival in the UK. Particularly since he is the head of Church with a global reach and millions, if not billions, of worshippers following him (including people in this country). It would be the sort of awkward moment that most governments would wish to avoid. For diplomatic reasons, if nothing else.

Wilcox goes on to say:

The arrest of the Pope is morally the right thing to do, as this man is responsible for the systemic covering up of a worldwide network of child rape. But in summary, UK law is being changed so that a delusional, homophobic man who shelters rapists and sadists is not held to account when he visits the UK.

Well, I'm pretty sure that when this Pope's legacy is considered, it is going to focus on the whole child rape cover-ups and he's not going to go down as the best Pope we've ever had. But I also think that there is, at best, limited direct evidence to suggest that he should be arrested on arrival in the UK. And given said arrest would provoke a major diplomatic incident, I can kind of see why the government is reluctant to let any proposed arrest actually take place.

I want to make my own position quite clear here - I'd love to see that cunt Ratzinger wrestled to the ground Vic Mackey style and carted off to the local police station to be charged. I would whoop and holler as I watched it live on my TV. I'd love to see him imprisoned, and would hope that such an event would help to stigmatise and partially dismantle the utterly repugnant cult of which he remains the head. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately I live in the real world. Where the government is always going to put political and diplomatic goals ahead of what could be construed as moral ones. Sure, I would love there to be an actual ethical foreign policy. But as soon as any politician opens their big fat gobs and promises one, I know they're lying.

I'd like to see the Pope arrested. And Tony Blair. And George W Bush. Maybe Bill Clinton as well. Putin for sure. And let's throw Berlusconi into the mix for good measure. But given Duch - one of the genuine monsters of the last century - has only just been found guilty despite the fact that most of his crimes were committed before I was born, I'm not going to hold my breath over the conviction - or even the arrest - of any of the arseholes mentioned here.

His Popiness the Pope has being selling the case for priestly celibacy again:

Pope Benedict XVI has strongly defended the Catholic Church's rule of celibacy for priests, speaking to 10,000 priests in St Peter's Square in Rome.

He called it a sign of faith in an increasingly secular world.

Personally, I don't think that celibacy is that natural or nice - which is one of the many reasons why I would make a terrible Catholic priest. But if Catholic priests want to be celibate in order to show their devotion to God, then I think they should be allowed to get on with it.

Just so long as they actually are celibate, mind. Rather than professing celibacy publicly and then abusing children in private...

The Pope On Paedophilia

You know, for most institutions this would be a given, but clearly for the Catholic Church it needs to be spelt out:

Pope Benedict XVI has... condemned abuse of children by priests as a "heinous crime", and said Irish bishops must act to restore the Church's "moral credibility".

Well done to the Panzer Pope! To most people, he has stated the bleedin' obvious. But such is the insanity of the organisation he heads up that this could almost be described as a great step forward. Whatever next? Could we see the Pope taken further leaps forward? Perhaps by saying that contraception is actually quite good at preventing AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. Is that too much to hope for?

Yes, yes it is. I'm probably being optimistic there. But jolly well done, Pope Benedict XVI, for clarifying that your priests shouldn't rape children...

Stuff I don't care about Number 1,286

Pope Benedict XVI is to visit Britain in 2010, the BBC has learned.

Oh. And this is one of the big stories on the BBC News website for precisely what reason? Yes, I know there are several million Catholics in the UK. But does that really warrant the attention being given to an old man who has a penchant for wearing dresses and who used to be in the Hitler Youth coming to the UK? For some - probably a minority - of those Catholics, this is a BIG DEAL. For everyone else in the country, this is the sort of non-story that simply distracts attention away from just about everything that it newsworthy. Even fucking reality TV.

You might just get away with this being a headline in 2010, when the Panzer Pope actually hits these shores. Until then, it is a storm in a teacup. No, wait, that's too impressive. It is a fart in a teacup.