What does Ann think of William Byrds music, when Henry the Eighth was going ono Lizzie the First?

Incredible Catholic things were going on then in England, priest holes and all that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKT0omZ6fiU

"Everybody infallible except the Pope" is a mad idea, says Widdicombe.

But surely it is better than the other way round as Catholics would have it.

Can't understand what the lady is complaining about.

@Jackhayes -

In which case I would have expected you to present the infallibility doctrine with a little more qualification than you did. Perhaps your understanding is indeed more nuanced, and for ease of the messageboard you reverted to shorthand - though if that's the case, then you can hardly be complain if someone later picks up on it.

But the bigger issue is surely this: if the Pope, by your reckoning, has no democratic mandate, as the head of a foreign sovereign state, to 'intervene' (he didn't; he commented) in the British legislative programme of our democratically elected Parliament, then does that also mean that you would absolutely refute the right of the British Head of State to pass comment on the legislative programme of other democratically elected and sovereign Parliaments? I mean, to give but one brief example, when certain African countries are passing their barbarous anti-gay laws, must the head of the British state stay quiet in respect for the sovereignty of that country, an acknowledgment that 'that is their country's way of doing things' and all comment can and should only be passed by the people within those borders?

@ upbeatskeptic

It would be naive to ignore that there are different levels of intervention or comment and how it these are aimed when made by states one to another. I am not against the pope making comment and there are instances internationally where his speaking out could indeed be helpful or damaging, as controversially in respect of South Africa and the issue surrounding HIV, or positively as he has done with regard to the situation in the Middle East. But of course popes have influence, that's undeniable, so it should be used wisely; the silence of Pius XII during World War Two remains a matter of controversy. This pope appears to have actively intervened to have quashed the Equalities Bill, which was my main objection. According to the BBC in reporting the pope's intervention: 'The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".' Well if that's just a comment then it is a pretty strong comment. Ann Widdicombe is quoted at the time as saying that: "This ....is a debate about religious freedom." Well I would argue what about parliamentary freedom, which she as an MP is meant to uphold? I would observe that the Catholic and Anglican churches also enjoy privileges in this country which other organisations do not, that the main purpose of the bill was aimed to provide greater or more inclusive equality within a liberal society; it was not aimed to discriminate against the religious, other than to bring what privileges they have into line with other sections of society. He should not intervene in our law making process, however, which is open and democratic, if that is what he indeed did. I'm told that the bishops put him up to it, so perhaps I am misinformed. But as they were vociferously against it, why they couldn't do it on their own steam I don't know, while I am sceptical about the level at which his intervention was made! The pope is widely seen as well intentioned but diplomatically inept, this may be just another instance.

My answer to your question I think is no - that is to say that the Queen should not intervene to quash the laws of another country. However should the Queen have a comment then that is another matter, but, while not wishing to ignore your point about unelected heads of state, in our system it would be more likely that the prime minister would comment, which I would not object to, but not to actively intervene to quash legislation. My view is that a country's sovereignty is sacrosanct, there are other means (debate, representation, etc) to influence decisions made by another state. The whole controversy about the Iraq War and invasion is as much about respecting the sovereignty of other countries, however odious may be their regimes. The principle of intervention on this issue is important as such interventions can have serious and bloody consequences. However, generally speaking, intervention by states is often selective, such as why intervene to prevent legislation in a democracy going through, while not condemning dreadful abuses against citizens in states with totalitarian regimes? There are states which are totalitarian and terrible abuses are carried out, where the temptation to intervene is highly desirable, which poses a dilemma, as intervention, that is armed force, can bring even greater chaos, neglect and risk to life. I am not suggesting at any point, of course, that Britain should have anticipated invasion by the Swiss Guard...

@jackhayes - you decorate your argument with so many dotty biases (including that staple of all anti-Catholic narratives, crude caricature and junk history) that it is hard to see what your point actually is. It seems that you're offering an updated version of the kind of post-Reformation propaganda that painted the Papacy a hostile foreign power injurious to national sovereignty (a logic you then have to contort in order to justify similar British 'interference', by your definition, in other countries). Which is fine, if that's your bag, but to sustain it you have to rely on distortion, exaggeration and sometimes blatant falsehood. The argument you present seems to focus on the word 'intervene', with the rather conspiratorial suggestion that the Pope 'actively intervened to quash legislation'. I can assure you, Mr Hayes, that you're seeing reds under the bed - if the Pope had that kind of power, in a country openly and often viciously hostile to him with but a small minority of Catholics, then he would have used it long ago, on a whole string of occasions. Truth is, he's largely impotent on the political process, and can only call his faithful to represent the truths of faith; which some do and some don't, as the briefest glimpse at the voting records of many Catholics in Parliament amply demonstrates.

The Pope does speak out on a whole range of terrors, across the globe, and vociferously too. Google would provide you with more than enough evidence of that. And whilst you may disagree that freedom of religion was under threat with the Equalities Bill, nonetheless I'm sure you will agree that the issue of freedom of religion per se is an issue that any civilised society would think worthy of comment. In which case, the Pope had every right to speak as he did; and I, for one, am glad that he did, not least because he was correct in his assessment.

Anyway, thank you for the joust,

Best,

upbeatskeptic