±«Óãtv

Nice one, Will - I thought I saw where you were going with this at the top of the thread, but I still had a chuckle with the punchline.

The dubious politics of having a religion occuping the same status as a nation state aside, send Richard Dawkins. Why does it have to be a Catholic? We don't send a Frenchperson to be ambassador to France. Surely the job of an ambassador is to represent our interests abroad? If the person sent is going to be fawning over a so-called 'representative of God' then they can hardly fight our corner, can they?

I think that Chris Patton would jump at the chance. I'm tempted to say more, but I'll lrave at that (enough said).

Of course Ambassador Campbell isn't the first Catholic to represent the UK to the Holy See since the Reformation.

He's the first Catholic ever to do so, since there was no UK before the Reformation.

As for Natman, clearly it doesn't have to be a Catholic since it's never been a Catholic before now. The person has to have knowledge and a feel for the country to which they are accredited - it doesn't mean they turn native and neglect their own country's interests, but it's not a good idea to send someone to France if they hate the French. It's useful if they can speak French, know the people, the politicians, the system becasue part of the job is to explain the country to their own government - they have to understand it, the nuances. And we know from the secular press that very few "get" the Vatican. One has only to recall the recent fiasco with the planners in the FCO around the State Visit and their hilarious ideas. Or the gasping reactions every time the Pope reveals he's a Catholic. That said, my inclination would be to appoint a good non-Catholic this time to avoid creating the impression that the person ought to be a Catholic. For years it couldn't be a Catholic - don't want the reverse situation.

Of course worst of all would be a dodgy liberal Catholic who would embarrass the UK, the Pope and themselves.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Naughty Jelly, can you give us a hint of what you tried to say?

There is no way Cherie would allow Tony to take up this poorly paid office (by her standards). She can earn that sort of money at a coffee morning.

Lol I was just commenting that it should be a rich conservative who should be appointed, someone who would know how to....

(I then quoted the famous line King Henry used to describe Rome.) I assume it was Henry's words which the moderator objected to, not mine.

This post seems like a great waste of taxpayers' money to me. Other
ambassadors bust a gut to see that the UK gets all the advantages it can, but what does the country gain by having this ambassador? The Pope comes here and it costs us millions, our PM goes to the Vatican and it costs a cup of tea and a packet of biscuits!

Richard Dawkings as Ambassador would be my first choice however I doubt he'd take it, so Fr. Dougal would have to do.

Could someone please explain what a papal knight is? How does one become a papal knight, and does that mean a papal knight represents the papacy in a country or could such a person objectively represent another nation state? Secondly a similar question, could a member of opus dei objectively represent the best interests of another state or would they already have an agenda to fulfil on behalf of the papacy?

A papal knight is much like any other State's honours. It doesn't turn you into an ambassador or a representative of the country, just means you've been honoured for something.

Opus Dei members don't operate to a secret Vatican agenda - it's a society for Catholics who want to follow a particular path to holiness, but they're still Catholics. We do have religious freedom in this country and guaranteed by UN Covenants, European Conventions etc, and that applies to being a member of Opus Dei.

MCC

Never thought I'd find myself apologising to you but I just dont know what is going on with my posts. Moderator, you are killing this site.

I really think this so called church should get it's house in order before anyone from the British Government should meet with this man.

With the behaviour of it's so called priest's, lets not foreget the abuse cover up's and the abuse of our little kids.

It makes me sick.

SHAME ON YOU BRITAIN FOR INVITING THIS MAN INTO OUR COUNTRY.

Jelly, you must be on some black list - or have they forgotten you? You have post awaiting moderation all over the place.

I think Will is the moderator and he's on the mitch.

They should ask Ian Paisley to be the Ambassador, seeing he has GREAT EXPERIENCE in compromises as time has clearly shown.

Whoever is making the appointment should bear in mind The Race Relations Act 1976 which protects individuals from being discriminated against in employment on the grounds of religious beliefs and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 which forbids discrimination in employment due to religion or belief.
So, it could be a British muslim - and why not?

And of course the other State, in this case the Holy See, has to accept the person.

And they have accepted people like Holocaust denier Bishop Richard Williamson, Marcel Maciel, Cardinal Bernard Law etc..

So get those application forms filled in, folks. It could be you.

Mine's in. Diplomacy is my middle name.

Helio

Just keep it quiet that you believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That wont go down at all well in Rome.

Jelly - just let it go.

MCC

If you are going to continue to make comments about "dodgy liberals" and pour scorn on the millions of very decent Catholics who are presently being hung out to dry by Benny, then you should expect that they might respond. Cappa Magnas and birettas might turn you all on, but there really is no basis in scripture for all that nonsense.

Jelly, you really shouldn't worry so much about externals like cappa or birettas - it's what inside that counts.

When did I pour scorn, and who exactly are these millions of Catholics hung out to dry? If you mean Catholics who have to put up with dodgy liberal bishops and pastors and so called Catholic teachers, I quite agree. What would Jesus do? Spew them forth for being neither hot nor cold.

MCC

Who are they? Here's some of them for starters...

How are those people being "hung out to dry by Benny"? They don't chose to go to a papal Mass - how is that the Pope imposing on them?

From the Herald:

“Pilgrims are being asked to be in the park by 3pm at the latest for the Mass, which is due to start at 5.15pm and end at 7.30pm, when it will be almost dark. But during all this time the Pilgrims are expected to stand without any cover from the elements or seating facilities.
“Most people will agree there is more chance of it being a wet windy night in September rather than a balmy autumn evening.
“Booking such a venue is being looked on as being an irresponsible decision made by people dreaming of having a repeat of Bellahouston in June 1982.�

Post 25... RJB, I really think the pope is worse than a word of faith tv preacher, always looking for money.

MCC

Ratzinger did say on more than one occasion that the Church had to grow smaller in order to "purify" itself. He was and is quite happy to do everything in his power to bring that situation about.

He was always going to get big crowds in Malta and Fatima. This is going to be the first real test of what ordinary catholics think of him.

Less than 50 000 bothering to turn up to see him in Glasgow is a disaster.

It would appear that John XXIII's reformation is in the hearts of many and they are not going to support Benny. He will be talking to an empty field and he has no one to blame but himself. It is the Church he has created.