Thank you, A Londoner. I note that you're not a Catholic, but unlike some of the intellectually cruder postings (Lox, Elizabeth...), allow for the fact that, like other groups, Catholics should play their part in society. A basic understanding of political philosophy tells us that Liberalism includes tolerance even the groups we have little time for. If we can act upon this, we should be proud to be Liberals; it shouldn't be a pejorative term.

I was referring to Sholto Byrnes' original article rather than Morag Hannah's posting. Morag is dead right that we shouldn't pigeonhole the protesters as homogenous lemmings, but quid pro quo. Religion takes a hell of a lot of understanding. It's a vast academic area and it's complex, more so than just thinking we know because we practised Christianity or another faith tradition as a kid.

My 'rant' (fair enough, it was a bit of a rushed knee jerk job) also extrapoltated on the original article, especially the bit about ordinary people and their achievements, although there are a fair old number of Catholic toffs around too. I'm proud of the Catholic contribution to our society. Obviously, this is personal and optional (I haven't seen it rammed down anyone's throats) but I put the bit about Catholic education in because it seems that it's an area where intelligent people, and all the posters here seem like a bright bunch, sometimes seem to think they can have time off from cleverness and I don't think they can. You may have no affinity with religion or Catholicism: nobody has an issue with that (nor should they, of course). But please don't dismiss it out of hand; look at the original documents online as well as cheeky journalists looking for a narrative and apply your intelligence to it.

Rob has made an excellent point.People in this country, under the pretence of tolerance, are in fact completely apathetic about religion. Very few, I believe, have any faith in any god, christian or otherwise. Still they are queuing up to have their own children indoctrinated in Catholic or Evangelist schools.It is pathetic.
Going back to the Pope's visit, I have been absolutely amazed to see the amount of coverage the Pope has had in the last 2 days on ALL the channels.
As if this country had suddenly become a catholic country and the TV media become its PR agent. In fact today, Sunday, there was in effect a News blackout. On all the main and news channels, all you could see was this medieval circus, with all these reporters who seem to have been converted for the day, making sickening biased commentary, eulogising the Pope and his deluded entourage.
I had to watch CNN and European News channels to get to know that there was an election in Afghanistan and that there had been more violence in Baghdad. WORSE,I had to learn about the anti-pope protests in London from the "European News" channel. I saw the people protesting and their placards for the first time on TV. The commentary was also very interesting. They were saying that it was the BIGGEST protest the Pope has had to face to this day in all the countries he had visited!!
Where was that information on British channels??There was NO coverage of the protests whatsoever!
The reporting of the Pope's visit was an utter disgrace.
Maybe somebody up there in government has decided that a return to religion, any religion, even catholicism, could be good for the people especially in times of economic crisis. A bit of opium or Soma for the people could make them accept what is to come a bit better. And also while the BBC is busy with the Pope, it does not have to talk about embarrassing economic issues, such as the public sector cuts and things of that nature.
If only people were more religious, they could spend their time praying to their sky god for a good after-life in heaven,instead of protesting in the streets.
OK I am getting paranoid here. So what was such over the top coverage for?

@Bohemond:
I never said I regard myself anything, I am just stating a fact.
Do you expect the readers of the "Daily Mail" to change the world ?
What's your problem anyway??Honestly, who is the self important wanker here?
Why do you have to insult other commenters instead of gracing us with your enlightened opinions?

Pure class, Morag. You're right, I'm sure. You're clearly driven, intelligent, educated and not a bit smug. Everyone who's not like you-conservatives, the lumpenproles, the uninformed-should be grateful that we have the likes of Morag Hannah to point the way forward for us. Incidentally, I wonder if you have the curiosity to look at the links in Mel's post? Or the intelligence and openmindedness to reconsider what you believe to be true about the RC church? But perhaps the "elite" that you belong to doesn't really see much value in looking at anything that's clearly at odds with what you've decided is truth. How dogmatic!
Have you ever thought of starting a religion?

Morag Hannah - Ratzinger didn't personally say that ordaining a female priest was on a par with sexually a child, it was written in the same document, which some have interpreted to be suggesting that.

The bishop wasn't excommunicated for holocaust denial, he denied the holocaust a few days before his ultra-conservative sect were brought back into the church, but the pope hadn't seen the interview as it was on Swedish television and has admitted that it looked very bad, although the sect hasn't been kicked out.

I don't really like to defend the pope or conservative catholicism but people get bored of people who whine about the pope but won't have a bad word said about Castro or Chavez. Not saying that includes you, but most people will assume that the people behind the protest the pope campaign are the same people who support the socialist doctrines that have commited many millions of human rights abuses, thus that is possibly why few people are jumping on your bandwagon.

Considering the amount spent on the pope charade and including all the press coverage the visitation got. The amount of people that actually turned up for the event in London was pitiful. Compare this to the amount spent on organising and advertising the protest march in London and the turnout of some 20,000 on the day. A real triumph for humanity.

@Terry

I think all your comment proves is that the strident protest minority is indeed being given an airing.

Thanks to the BBC and Channel 4 I am now sadly familiar with every ghastly shirt and tie combo in Peter Tatchell's wardrobe.

Indeed, not content with just speaking on live radio, you are now commenting here. So it's not exactly "difficult if not impossible" to be heard, is it?

Exactly how much coverage would sate your small and shrill minority?

That's interesting, Mr. Sanderson, but you neglect to mention that if the positive response to the Pope has been less than resounding, the protests have been distinctly damp so far; between 60 and 80 people (estimates differ) turned out to protest in the morning in Edinburgh, and 20 in the evening. 100-125,000 turned out to welcome the Pope in Edinburgh. It would be foolish to deny the reduced numbers may in part be due to dislike for this Pope, but equally to leave out the comparative difficulty and cost of going to Papal events this time seems to me to be an equal distortion. I don't have the ability to talk to BBC people, sadly, so I'm curious what kind of response that refers to? Polls? Online comments? As to getting dissenting voices into the press, over the last few weeks I've seen a of articles against the Pope in the press in recent weeks, in papers like the Evening Standard, the Times, the Metro and the Guardian, alongside some more positive coverage, too.

Adding up all the people that the Catholic church hectors or lets down, I think it's a bit proportion. Maybe about the same as the four out of five people who do not think taxpayers should subsidise Mr Ratzinger and his opinions.

@Hans Castorp: if you can influence religeous broadcasting, some kind of right of rejoinder would be welcome. And if you have anything to do with equality and diversity training, an end to the fiction of "communities" with "community leaders" such as the pope would be welcome.

Hope this helps.

Perhaps it would have been better for Terry 'Titus Oates' Sanderson not to have allied himself with game show hosts like Stephen Fry - or individuals like Peter Tatchell who in a notorious letter to the Guardian wrote,

'The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.'

I wonder how many children those adults abused who didn't have such 'joyful' memories?

Finally, what unites the pope-protesters is not just their membership of the metropolitan media elite, it is their insufferable snobbery.

All I can say is that most of the time it has been minorities, metropolitan liberals or otherwise, who have catalysed changes in history.

@ Martin

Unsurprisingly I disagree with you there Martin, and I'm sure many others would agree those points I made do in fact have merit. I specifically mentioned the inquisitions as an example of what can never be justified or accepted as it involves direct violence even if it is a 'tradition'.

Other non-violent 'traditions' should be allowed to continue because that is what I and many others enjoy about living in the UK, a free liberal society.

You may feel it is acceptable to pretend to be liberal whilst denying others their way of life because you decide along with a few comrades around the dinner table that is 'unacceptable'.

That is simply not an argument.

@ Avitus

I agree, subject to the diagnoses in Hobsbawm's writing and Zinn's in relation to America.

@ Jeff

I think a numbers game of this sort is a crude measure, because it assumes all Catholics, and all those attnding the papal visit, agree with Vatican dogma on homosexuality.

There are vehement debates within the church about these issues, and the hope is that doctrine will eventually catch up with what Catholics actually believe. Gay Catholics act as the vanguard of this movement: this is a cause for celebration.

Benedict did not make the 'third world' comment and I think we can infer his verdict on it by the fact that its speaker didn't make the trip.

I'm proud to have welcomed the Pope to my home city and see the huge number of families originating from all over the world do so as well. It was refreshing to see so many people feeling positive about spending a day in the company of their spiritual leader.
Possibly the protesters felt the same about being with Mr Tatchell, Dawkins and Fry. I believe Laurie Penny anticipated 'a little smug'(ness) for the day due to the consensus of raw modernity swamping forth, although I couldn't possibly tell whether the day panned out as uplifting to the protesters as the gathering of Catholics was for them.
The modern liberal elite certainly appeared to lift their moods when I passed them parading by Green Park along with several groups of asian catholics walking opposite with their children towards Hyde Park at which point the protesters struck up with a chorus of boos and jeers at the sight of their yellow 'pilgrim packs'. This triumph of humanity did indeed
carry a huge array of messages, most of which have been dealt with at length in various posts above, dismissing and countering etc. I'm not sure how detailed the explanations will be of those Catholic parents to their children reading the placards but I hope for their sakes they are a bit selective and allow them to follow up the finer details when they're older. Quite how anyone could explain the sight of the Pope with a 'demonic' face holding animal leashes around three small children whilst holding a staff with a burning swastika atop is beyond me.
The protester crowd did seem achingly white and urban chic along with some grey haired gents and ladies of maturer years, and perhaps I shouldn't question their means as it does sometimes justify the ends.
But it did make me feel sick. For a moment. Then I realised they were talking about themselves.
"Nazi scum off our streets" I heard, along with the large banner, and I looked around at the families wondering up Piccadilly on my side of the street and determined they couldn't possibly be talking about us.
And then I noticed the cabriolet parked up with the fancy dress Bishop and Nuns holding court to the amusement of the protesters. Ridiculing the catholics because they are worthy of such disdain. It seemed the protesters felt the moral right was on their side to do so. For theirs is a raw modern thrusitng politically correct viewpoint befitting of the ubermenschen they are and it was their duty, as upright citizens for the good of the future of their country to show those families along Piccadilly the errors of their ways.
They are the vanguard and the future. They instinctively know the way and and it's not held back by any absolutist nonsense as are religions.
But then again they did look an awful lot like the wikipedia entry for "useless shower of losers".
Still, they had a nice day out.

The problem with this country is apathy. Most of us have it so comfortably that the issues never really affect us beyond a heated dinner party debate. The vast majority of this country are liberal in view and if presented with intolerant religious views are often appalled. Yet we do nothing or 'respect them to do as they wish". We sleepwalk whilst more active members of churches weald power and influence. We now have 2,300 catholic faith schools funded by the tax payer, being allowed to influence the young with their warped bible led views, diminishing science teaching and preventing our progress toward a fairer society. Yet we fear simply going along to voice our opposition of the Popes visit will label us as 'militant' - and in fact will sneer at those who do as just that. We get what we deserve.

Priscillalane, you're absolutely right. The vatican is shit scared of a bunch of whining, self-righteous middle class bores with a neurotic hatred of their own European cultural heritage. They say ignorance is bliss, so you and the metropolotant liberal elite who, as several of the posters above have commented, are the catalyst to all human progress must be beaming.
Smug, complacent, bourgeois bullshit.

@sanityinspector

Er, let's look at this:

I said he wrote: "gay people tend toward an intrinsic moral evil."
You quote: "it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

Longer way of saying the same thing. I never said what the 'moral evil' was and I don't care. I'm not sure how quoting a paraphrase of exactly what I said disproves your point here.

I said: 'Ratzinger personally said that condoms _increase_ the risk of HIV infection.'
You quote: No he didn't. He said promoting the use of condoms promotes promiscuity, which does increase the risk of HIV infection.

Actually, the quote is: "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."
In other words, yes he did. And while he may not (as far as I know) personally have quoted the Catholic lie that's been running for years now that condoms are porous and let infection through he's certainly never publically refuted it. You've chosen to interpret his words as meaning one thing, but unless you have a longer segment of what he said (I can't find one) it seems to me to be just that: an interpretation. Also, promiscuity may increase infection risk but in no way does it off-set the enormous reduction of that risk that condoms provide.

You say: Child abuse was included in "grave offenses" against the moral order and the ordination of women in "grave offenses" against the faith. Quite a difference.

Well, if we're getting into semantics it's 'morals' and 'the sacrament'. But I really think that this is one for personal interpretation. Is there a RC dictionary definition for these two things? They're still both delicta graviora and they carry the same penalties. From the POV of the non-Catholic, then, they amount to the same severity of crime, because since non-Catholics don't really care whether something is a cime under morals or sacrament they can logically only look to the punishment meted out for comparison.

I said: 'Ratzinger personally pardoned a bishop who was excommunicated for holocaust denial.'
You said: No, to quote wikipedia...

I'll take the bullet on that one, fair enough, mea culpa. The fact is that the un-excommunication still 'took', didn't it?

"Either you are too lazy to even use Google to check your accusations, or you are being deliberately dishonest."

The former, as you see, in the last case, but while we're calling out one another's lack of completeness, I note that you haven't refuted what I said about his systematic and deliberate cover-up of thousands of instances of child abuse in his church all over the world, which is easily the worst of his crimes and indeed the one for which I describe him as a 'criminal' (since the rest of these are just lies and hatred, which as long as they're not inciteful I would 'defend to the death his right to etc etc'). That fact alone would have been enough to see me take to the streets. The rest is just extra negative points.

@Sam

I exempt no one from criticism, and I think that the type of Socialist you're talking about is the relic of a bygone era - I'm sure they're still about but I doubt anyone my age would have much to say about either Castro or Chavez. I'm a pretty hardcore Socialist in ideal but in the absence of a whole world of people who think the same way I do (ie: the only world in which Socialism would work), my day-to-day campaign is for liberalism and moderation, so historical/present-day real world Socialist leaders are of no use or relevance whatsoever to me - and most of the liberal-minded folk I personally know operate in much the same way.

@Lox

Mel's comment seemed to me to be a sarcastic, patronising, semi-coherent rant implying that those who protested against the Pope's visit are racist, intolerant, anti-Catholic knee-jerk reactionaries, which isn't exactly my experience or understanding, so I'm sure you'll understand that I was pretty much scanning by the time the links popped up.

However, at a glance they seem to me to be regarding the value of Catholic schools, yes? I come from the west coast of Scotland, Lox, you don't have to tell _me_ that Catholic schools are often among the best in their area in terms of performance, funding, quality of education. I also don't remember ever registering any objection to Catholic schools - certainly not on their own merit.

Don't assume that every 'liberal' automatically has all the same bugbears. I'm actually about the most pro-religion atheist you'll ever run into. I value my religious upbringing (which, brought up by my grandparents, was pretty staunch - for a while we went to two different churches every Sunday) as a vital part of my cultural, historical and moral education, and even taught in Sunday School long after I'd established that belief in God wasn't personally happening for me. I frequently get into conversations with my fellow 'liberal elitists' where we discuss the relative merits of organised religion as a force for cross-generational community support, as a focus for charitable work and general Good Deeds, and as a focal point for bringing the people of a society together and making them feel included, supported and valued. We bemoan the difficulty we have trying (and we do try) to foster the same ideals, the same sense of connection and togetherness _without_ the God bit. We despair at people like Richard Dawkins with his off-putting levels of derision and intellectual superiority complex, particularly given that it gets us all tossed in the same boat.

The Catholic church - as a whole, pour a lot of money into education. They pour a lot of money into charity work. They pour a lot of money into aid. And I don't think you will find anyone who claims otherwise - it's a provable fact.

However, the Vatican also, in my opinion, promotes prejudice and intolerance - sometimes to the detriment of said aid.

My evidence for this? Well, we're sort of tripping over it these days, but here's a choice couple of links:

Here's the Vatican urging Catholics to stop donating to one of the biggest human rights organisations in the world (one whose roots are predominantly Christian, at that):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6750887.stm
Why? Because they are supporting a woman's right to choose, and saving lives by providing safe, clean abortions for women who have been raped or whose lives are endangered by giving birth.

Here is Catholic Care group are saying they shouldn't have to comply to European law on equality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11019895
They don't think they should have to put children with gay couples. They want the right to discriminate based on their religion.

Now, here's the part where subjectivity comes in. You may think that it's okay to withhold funding from a charity because they value women's lives over that of embryos. You may think that it's okay to value religious dogma over international law.

You may also think it's okay to keep it secret that multiple members of your staff have abused the children in their care, and deliberately keep the truth from the local law enforcement. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this was acceptable - strangely, no detractors seem to find it worthy of a mention.

So, there's some opinion vs facts going on here:
- It's a fact that the Catholic Church wants a free pass to break the law to discriminate against gays. It's my _opinion_ that that is a disgusting thing to do.
- It's a _fact_ that the Catholic Church would rather see women die of infection or dangerous childbirth or have children conceived in violence rather than fund an organisation providing clean, safe abortions. It's my _opinion_ that that is inhumane.
- It's a _fact_ that the Catholic Church discourages the use of condoms to prevent infection and pregnancy. It's my _opinion_ that abstinence-only education is outdated, harmful and frankly a bit stupid.
- It's a _fact_ that the Catholic Church considers the ordination of women priests to be a grave offence against the sacriment. It's my _opinion_ that any organisation receiving government funding or support should comply to employment equality laws, and if that's against your religion, well, maybe it's the religion that needs to change, not the law.
- It's a _fact_ that the Catholic Church covered up child abuse for decades. It's my _opinion_ that this is a heinous crime which no amount of 'penitence and prayer' will excuse - for the abuser or the men who concealed the abuse.

You may be cool with all that stuff. Or you may think that some good schooling and some charity work gives these misdemeanors a free pass. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't.

Finally? I never denied being smug.

Woops, forgot to add: Between us, just my friend and I found ourselves being interviewed by the BBC (twice), ITV, Channel 4, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record, NBC and some French news channel - and those are just the ones we got the names of. Not that any of them actually used any of said footage in the subsequent burying of said dissent by the media as far as I can tell, but they were most definitely there.

Morag Hannah,

You would be amazed at the number anti this anti that marches and protests that aren't given ounce of publicity. I was on one in London in 2007 and although the BBC and Channel Four were there they didn't mention it at all.

Big Brother took over with Blair/Brown and will carry on with Call me Dave!

Why go and protest the Pope, what would it accomplish? You'll either end up in a designated "protest area" or just end up getting kettled by the police. A protest is a pointless waist of time, just like the Pope.

@Stuart
Yes, I'm beginning to realise this. I haven't really done any serious protesting until this last year and in that time I've begun to realise where all the frustration and anger (and cynicism with authority) that regualr protesters display comes from - not just from their opposition to (or promotion of) their cause but also at being consistently overlooked, diminished and ignored by broadcasters and newspapers. I personally feel sorry for the enthusiastic, committed and sincere journos we spoke to yesterday who haven't had a single scrap of their work published/screened.

I guess maybe when it comes to the relationship between protesters and the press nowadays, Kay Burnley is just saying what everyone else is thinking: "Why don't you just go home?"

Just returned from Protest the Pope in London. BBC reports at least 12,000 people. Damp squib Mr Byrnes? Go on, have yourself a nice sneer at that. Well done to those who turned up, and showed our shameful state leaders that not all of us are going to kiss this pathetic Pope's ring.

@John Robertson

I don't think the 4/5ths thing says much. Ask people whether they want to pay for something through taxes, and they'll say no. In a way, it's encouraging. About 10 percent of the population are catholic, so twice that are happy to pay for him to come here.

I think your point on coverage is tenuous.

Consider whether you could actually do the live coverage with Richard Dawkins, Peter Tatchell, or an abuse victim spokesperson - they are not going to offer anything on ceremonies or similar.

Opponents/protestors have instead had lots of exposure, through all major media outlets, by which to explain why they oppose catholic teaching, the pope's visit, the inaction over child molestation and so on.

Given that 79 percent of Britain does not really care, the vast majority of the remainder are in favour of the pope, and are willing to pay for him to come here. Wanting more airtime than your proportional due seems demogogic to me.

I think there is something pathetic about every protestor wanting to get on telly in the name of balanced coverage. It doesn't stack up on the numbers, and it wouldn't be viable to broadcast any live event in that way.

I had a nice day protesting the pope - all very good humoured and not at all snobbish or middle/chattering class. No kettling but some good speeches and publicity. A successful day from our point of view. The statistic of 1 billion Catholics is very misleading as that is a head count of those who have been baptized and included the godless, the lapsed, the apostates and others. We need to challenge the RCs over this.