Another Rat-Zinger From The Pope

Pope Benedict. Cardinal Ratzinger. Il Papa. God’s representative on Earth. Call him what you like, one thing remains clear: He’s an idiot. That much is indisputable. The only real question is what kind of an idiot is he? Is he an insane, people-hating idiot (see Mother Theresa)? Or is he perhaps a power-mad moron (I hear he’s amending the Ten Commandments to add an eleventh one – “Thou shalt stand on one leg when Ratzy says so”)? Or is he just a common-or-garden out-of-touch, ancienct, backward-thinking lunatic? The debate rages on. Here’s some fuel for the fire:

Pop Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK’s Equality Bill with “missionary zeal”. – Source: BBC Online

Yep, the Holy One believes that a bill aimed at protecting people from discrimination based on sexuality and gender is an evil law that must be fought with the kind of zeal missionaries have. I’m not 100% sure what missionary zeal is – I think it’s where the zealot is on top and the infidel is underneath, thus allowing the zealot to look the infidel in the eyes while he fucks them (metaphorically speaking). I do think it worth pointing out that had a leading figure in the Muslim faith uttered the phrase ‘fight with missionary zeal’ we’d be talking terrorism – but because the only people the Pope is condemning to death are countless Africans (more of that later) we see him as something of a weird but harmless old man. Go figure.

What’s more, the Pope has said the legislation “violates natural law” – a pretty clear reference to the fact that it would allow homosexuals more freedom from discrimination from, say, religious organisations. The very use of the phrase ‘violates natural law’ is immensely telling, if you ask me – it’s so homophobic I’m surprised Jan Moir hasn’t had it tattooed across her forehead.

In a speech he made in Rome, Bene/Ratzy told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales:

“Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

“In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

The statements have rightly caused an uproar, as has the planned official 4-day visit the Holy Father intends to make to our unGodly and equality-seeking land. At a cost of £20million of tax-payers money. That’s £20million that could be better spent… on homeopathy, bankers’ bonuses or MPs expenses, for example. It’s certainly £20million too much – a view shared by over 12,000 protesters, who’ve signed a petition to appeal to the Prime Minister to have the Pope’s club (worldwide Catholicism) to foot the bill, rather than the UK Government. The petition states:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ask the Catholic Church to pay for the proposed visit of the Pope to the UK and relieve the taxpayer of the estimated £20 million cost. We accept the right of the Pope to visit his followers in Britain, but public money would be better spent on hard-pressed schools, hospitals and social services which are facing cuts.

If you agree with the cause, feel free to sign the petition online.

This isn’t the first outrageous statement God’s representative on Earth has made of late. On March 17, 2009, Pope Benedict flew to Africa to visit Cameroon and Angola. During the flight, he was asked about the Catholic Church’s stance on AIDS in Africa.

Pope Benedict gave a lengthy response, detailing many of the Church’s humanitarian efforts to help people with AIDS in Africa.

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.”

That’s right – condoms help spread AIDS, says the leader of the Catholic Church.

Obviously, this stance from the head of the Catholic Church has been met with unprecedented levels of condemnation – most recently by Harry Knox, who serves on President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. On Tuesday of last week Knox reiterated his stance that Pope Benedict XVI is “hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

“The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus.

On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods. The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”

Condemning the third world to an AIDS epidemic isn’t the only blotch on the past record of il Papa. In May 2001, Ratzinger issued an order ensuring church investigations into child abuse by members of the clergy would be conducted in private. The letter from the then-Cardinal stated that the church has jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’, and stressed a policy of ‘strictest’ secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse, threatening those who speak out with excommunication.

The order also calls for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials.

The victim.

Just to be completely clear, the current Pope specified that an abused child must take an oath of secrecy, lasting until 10 years after the child turns 18. Breach of that secrecy is met with excommunication.

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Tom Williamson on February 8, 2010 - 10:35

    Great article. Is the Pope coming to Liverpool?

  2. #2 by Stu on February 8, 2010 - 11:10

    The ex Nazi isn’t the only one with African blood on his hands – the polish goalkeeper was just as bad!

    Strictly speaking the document threatening excommunication was written by the vatican in 1962 with the seal of john XXII (
    – Ratzinger was reminding the bishops that it was still valid when he wrote his letter in 2001.

    It would be nice if the catholics had to pay for the visit themselves. If enough people sign the petition maybe the government will refuse to pay and the vatican will call it off in a huff.

  3. #3 by Jack Whitehead on February 8, 2010 - 11:43

    The pope is right (I never thought I would say that). This legislation violates individuals’ freedom of association.

  4. #4 by Chris on February 8, 2010 - 12:03

    It would be great to see the government not pay for Razzy’s visit but I’ve got a feeling that just won’t happen especially in an election year.

    I’m glad you mentioned Mother Teresa aswell she doesn’t get half the condemnation she should for everything she did.

    A woman who once said after her involvement in a hard fought battle trying to keep divorce ILLEGAL thats right ILLEGAL in Ireland, “I’m so glad my friend Diana finally got out of that loveless marriage”

    Christopher Hitchen’s did a great critique of her in his book The Missionary Position. Look up Hells Angel on youtube aswell which is the T.V documentary.

  5. #5 by Stu on February 8, 2010 - 14:38

    I’ve just read the link supplied by Jack. I must say I found the tone of the article a bit absolutist – I’ll assume that anyone reading this has seen the article.

    Anti discrimination legislation has never been designed to force employers to recruit the second or third (etc) best canditate for a job based on them being a member of a ‘minority’ group. Any person who cries discrimination on the grounds of their gender/race/sexual orientation would have to prove it. Theuklibertarian would like people to believe this isn’t the case and that the new laws would open the floodgates of court cases.

    If a ‘minority’ person is the best candidate for the job then they should be given it. Any reasonable person must see this.

  6. #6 by Gittins on February 8, 2010 - 15:35

    Libertarianism is great if you’re a wealthy business owner. Otherwise, not so much.

  7. #7 by Jack Whitehead on February 8, 2010 - 16:15

    I happen to think freedom is great for everybody.

  8. #8 by Davy on February 8, 2010 - 22:26


    Most times the best person for the job will be given it, because most business owners are decent people who want good workers. the question is, should it be the job of government to decide who you can and cannot hire?

    It cuts both ways, if you started up your own business and you had several applicants, one of which was a skinhead and known racist but was actually the best qualified to perform the job you were hiring for, wouldn’t you want to be able to not hire him?

    Freedom of association should not be legislated against. Even though I *personally* abhor racism, and would not give business to any company that was discriminating against people for such a thing, I would never support the government *forcing* that company to do what it wants, like my article said, that kind of behaviour can be punished in the marketplace far more effectively, and market regulation eliminates all the unforeseen side effects of one size fits all government regulation and it’s also the most ethically consistent position if you believe in private property.

  9. #9 by OJB on February 9, 2010 - 03:33

    You’re right freedom is great for everyone, but libertarianism certainly isn’t (at least the libertarianism as it is practices in the real world).

  10. #10 by Davy on February 9, 2010 - 11:52

    Libertarianism just means non-aggression of force. It is currently not practised anywhere in the world.

  11. #11 by Andy Wilson on February 10, 2010 - 10:23

    The major problem here, as far as I see it, is that he has any voice whatsoever, and that it is reported so widely. I was recently at a christening where baby had been through it with hole in heart.

    An operation later, some excellent care from Alder hey and she’s right as rain.

    They are my very good friends, and so don’t get the wrong idea, I respect them fully for the journey they have been through and the apparent miracle that has transpired, and their beliefs surrounding it.

    But I felt that the thanks offered during speeches could have at least made mention of the outstanding medical care she received. The years of training the doctors and consultants had undertaken, the adherance to best practice that all the medical professionals delivered and the incredible and always surprising bravery of those who take a knife to such a delicate little creature.

    All of the above not mentioned at all. Just the usual “if there’s someone up there looking after us then we’re grateful…..” and so on.

    Credit where credit is due. Rat burger gets credit for trying to kill people. Doctors for keeping them alive. Hmmmmm

(will not be published)