Dear "woman with an Italian male name" (??): diverging views are acceptable to me, obvious ignorance is not. About "raw nerve": sorry, but pot-kettle,kettle-pot etc. I really find sanctimonious atheists rather sickly. Ok, so you don't believe in God. That's fine, but please stop banging on about it. You do not have a monopoly on wisdom. Can't you see what caricatures you and others are when you go around telling people what to think or not to think? Oh, the irony! A few centuries ago and you lot would have been first in line in burning miscreants at the stake... Final point (re-stated to finally get through. Hello? Anybody there?): Pope = head of state according to UK, ergo UK state visit. Deal with it.

Dr. Paul,I am really curious to know the department you were a civil servant in. The Ministry for the welfare of the Keystone Cops? A memo sent to Downing Street "obviously a joke"? Really?

"Atheists have never burnt anybody at the stake for a start!"

Most probably not, but they have killed priests by the tens of thousand in the Soviet Union, simply because they were priests.
They have imprisoned parents for teaching their children about God, and have taken children into orphanages where they were sexually abused simply because their families were believers.
It happened to my mother in Albania,
What world have you been living in frankyg?

I'm fair sick of the media assaulting people for voicing their opinions concerning the opinions of others. It is not an assault on "freedom of thought" to express an opinion that just maybe it would be nice if the Pope were to denounce the bigotry of his religion.

For Christ's sake. How is this even supposed to be an assault on freedom of thought?

"Freedom of thought" doesn't mean "freedom from disagreement".

Every one of the suggestions is reasonable - the conflict comes from the knowledge that the pope is an closed-minded, unreasonable man from a closed-minded, unreasonable organisation.

"I have some sympathy with the view that the Pope should show leadership, take overall responsibility and "resign" over the issue."

No, he should be arrested and tried. He's an enabler of child rape. There are no two ways about this.

So what if this memo was written in all seriousness? Even a deadly earnest suggestion that this man should open an abortion clinic or give his name to a brand of prophylactics pales into insignificance when placed beside - it has to be said again - the large-scale concealment and tacit acceptance of child rape.

This man has lost any right to ever, ever say anything concerning other people's sexual morality.

I'm an old civil servant, and I am 99 per cent sure that this was written as a joke amongst FCO officials, but somehow was leaked to the press by someone who didn't like it.

I occasionally wrote joke memos and circulated them amongst friends. Other people I know did the same. The very idea that a British department of state would ever seriously consider promoting a papal johnny or abortion clinic is absurd, and can only be the product of someone with a persecution complex about his favoured institution.

Brainstorming is supposed to be putting down on paper the first thing that comes into your head. One may legitimately ask why those particular items were the ones that emerged. However ill-judged the memo may have been, leaking it was a despicable act against the kind of creative thinking that is essential in a modern government.

I don't know who she is, but I think i'm in love with Daniele!

Popes, rabbis, ayatollahs - why are thay all so interested with what other people do with their private parts? Sickos.

"So called 'public servants' use tax payer's money to write bad jokes?"

Yes, I agree, in fact we can solve the deficit through making efficiency savings in the area of "public servants must pay for the ink from pens when used for personal reasons." Sorted.

Thanks for that, Bored of Birmingham! Nice to be appreciated.
The Vatican is not recognised as a State by the UN, so why the "State visit"??

frankyg:
So much hate! I obviously touch a raw nerve.Calm down and don't tell anybody to shut up on this site.
Actually I am a woman, not an Italian man, just for information.
Obviously we have different sources of information as to the Vatican's status as a state. So what was it? The UN wasn't good enough for his "holy see"? And why does the UK recognise the Vatican as a state when it clearly isn't? Nostalgia for the good old days before Henry the VIII?
The whole thing is an anachronistic nonsense and your contempt for other people's views on this matter is very revealing, frankyg.

I think alloycowboy is Nadine Dorries.

This article has to be one of the most ill-conceived, intellectually bankrupt, nonsensical pieces of religious propaganda I have seen in a publication I normally rate as one of the finest I read.
To even seriously suggest that the memo was anything other than a joke, circulated by a disgruntled professional offence taker in the Foreign Office is beyond absurd.
The phrase “aggressive secular fundamentalism” is effectively meaningless. What is “secular fundamentalism” supposed to be? If it means guarding against the invasion of un-falsifiable dogma into governmental policy, then it is not only admirable but vital.
As for the risible assertion that “secularists” are somehow denying people freedom of thought, you seem to disingenuously conflate discrimination and offence. Religiously minded individuals are perfectly free to believe whatever fairy stories they wish, as I am free to believe the moon is made of cheese or that a chocolate teapot orbits the planet. I am also free to mock these beliefs as religious people are free to threaten atheists or those who believe in the wrong sky daddy with the fires of their imagined damnation. The only freedom denied to the faithful is the freedom to impose their dogma on the lives of others. Freedom of thought does not mean freedom from offence.
Finally, faith has very little if anything to do with thought; that is the point.

Right on David!!
I agree with EVERY word you wrote. Thank God ( to use a silly expression) there are SOME sane people on this site. I was beginning to despair!
Ambrose:
Not Gucci! ah well that makes a big difference!!Now I think he is a good guy!Still red shoes hey! Fancy!