Friday, February 20, 2009

Government must ban the Pope from visiting Britain

There appears to be some confusion about the invitation extended by Presbyterian Prime Minister Gordon Brown to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to visit the United Kingdom. The son-of-the-manse says the Pope greeted the invitation warmly. The Prime Minister suggested to the Pope that he could consider making the visit coincide with the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman - the second most prominent English convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism - which is expected later this year or early next (how does the Prime Minister know this?). However, the Vatican quite vehemently repudiated this account, insisting that there are no plans for the Pontiff to visit the UK. And those in the know assert that an impromptu Papal visit to Britain before a 2010 election is not remotely possible, however many ‘Hail Gordons’ the Prime Minister might recite.

Cranmer thanks Jesus, Mary and Joseph that the Pope has more sense than to help prop up the most anti-Christian government of modern times.

Or has the Pope declined for another reason?

His Holiness must be aware of recent decisions to ban the Dutch politician Geert Wilders from entering the UK for his manifestly moderate views on Islam; and the much beloved Baptists of Westboro for their utterly reasonable views on homosexuality. Perhaps the Pope has reflected on the proximity of their beliefs to his own.

Consider his clear condemnation of homosexuality. He says that it ‘shall always be condemned, because it is against the nature of man; and it is a violation of all human morality, and shall not be tolerated by the Eternal Father in the Trinity’. It is a ‘moral evil’ and even the inclination is an ‘objective disorder’. Those who indulge in the perversion without repentance are guilty of mortal sin and will go to hell.

This is homophobic and hateful, and likely to incite Peter Tatchell and his (few) friends to spout their usual demands for 'gay marriage', or accuse His Holiness of 'crucifying queers' with his bigotry and prejudice. The Pope's views on this matter have been widely reported, and even equated with the 'extremism' of the BNP.

But His Holiness also has ‘extreme’ views on abortion, for he wishes it to be banned outright, which is a tad extreme. He asserts that is a ‘grave sin’ for it is also mortal, and those who participate in it, facilitate it, or legislate in favour of it are in danger of eternal separation from God in Hell. This is not very sympathetic to the suffering endured by women and young girls (or politicians), and might even constitute undue pressure upon them to reconsider their enlightened decisions. Moreover, the Pope tends to excommunicate those who participate in, facilitate or legislate for abortion, which is a hateful and discriminatory act, and seeks to undermine the law of the land.

He seeks to ban contraception, for it is also a mortal sin. This attitude is more than a little naïve in an era of STIs and over-population. It is also irresponsible as the Government attempts to spread the ‘safe sex’ message to British teenagers and Alfie Patten.

He also opposes sex equality, insisting that women are excluded from some jobs and positions in society merely by virtue of their gender. This is manifestly misogynistic, and contrary to the law of the land. Further, he insists on a weird cult of celibacy, which has been known to lead to acts of adultery, homosexuality and paedophilia. This is, at best, unnatural; at worst, morally depraved.

He has offended Jews by restoring a holocaust denier to the Catholic fold and by re-affirming the Good Friday prayer which calls for their conversion. This is religious intolerance and hatred.

He has offended Muslims with his speech in Regensburg in which he said that Mohammed spread his religion by the sword. This is the plainest articulation of religious hatred, and risks inciting 10,000 Muslims to protest wherever His Holiness might speak.

He is equally clear in his repudiation of the Anglican Church, to which he derisorily refers as a mere ‘ecclesial community’, preaching hate with his reiteration of the assertion that its holy orders are ‘absolutely null and utterly void’. This must mean that he is of the opinion that Her Majesty is deluded if she believes herself to be Supreme Governor of any kind of church. This is plainly offensive to all Anglicans, monarchists and British patriots.

It is the official view of the Home Office that it will ban individuals who have 'engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities'. They will 'stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country'. These people do not have to have been found guilty of preaching violence, nor do they have to have overtly expressed 'hatred' to any group or community. They simply have to be perceived as having done so or likely to do so.

Cranmer is therefore persuaded that the real reason Pope Benedict did not accept Gordon Brown’s invitation to visit the UK is because His Holiness knew that the Home Secretary would ban him from entering the country anyway.

Which is what she now routinely does to anyone professing ‘extreme’ views of any kind, especially those which might offend the Muslim or homosexual communities.


Anonymous Lizard worshiper said...

I think what happened here is a classic example of The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, which is a classic paradox formulated as follows:

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Common responses to this paradox resort to logic and semantics.

Logic: if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe.

I think it is Gordon, who sees himself as both sometimes, that is sadly deluded and he is about to realise the consequences of his delusion.

20 February 2009 at 10:23  
Anonymous sir dando tweakshafte said...

Mildly amusing papist-baiting.

However the Pontiff is a Sovereign and the writ of the Home Secretary may not run far enough - in much the same way that the US loathing of Iran is not sufficient to prevent the Iranian Head of State passing through US territory to address the UN General Assembly.

20 February 2009 at 10:33  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

And, Sir Dando, unlike Her Majesty the Queen, the Pope is not a subject of the European Union.

20 February 2009 at 11:16  
Blogger Jules said...

Actually, I assumed it was (mostly) more irony than papist-baiting. As a papist I certainly don't feel particularly baited.

20 February 2009 at 11:50  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace is very perceptive. I have increasingly felt that in the eyes of this Government, the Holy father is guilty of encouraging homophobia, islamophobia and probably chlorophobia.

So Gordo's invitation is nothing but a cunning trap. As soon as His Holiness stepped onto British soil, P Tatchell or G Moonbat would try to invoke a citizen's arrest (a la Pinochet), that is if they could get to him before some islamofanatic attacked him.

Ad multos annos Papa! Sed cave britannia

20 February 2009 at 11:52  
Anonymous not a machine said...

unable to top this post your grace

touches all the hypocracy buttons nicely .

i am still reeling over the prime ministers berlusconi speech , which as far as i could tell , was akin to putting the uk up as security for trade .

but we shall see clearly the pope hasnt got him round to senseable presentations on the uk economy.

20 February 2009 at 11:54  
Blogger Jules said...

For me, it was yet another example of Brown's contempt for the electorate. Labour has spent ten years undermining Christianity in this country - both in terms of our culture and also in terms of its laws. He then thinks he might win a few Roman Catholic votes by getting a Papal visit.

Is he so contemptuous as to believe that we won't spot the contradiction here?

It is very very hard (perhaps impossible) for a Roman Catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote Labour at the next election.

20 February 2009 at 11:55  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Again this post outclasses all the Brown-Pope drivel being reported everywhere else. How do I persuade Your Grace to go professional and full time? Won't The Spectator or Telegraph take you on? You could write alongside Melanie without any problems. Do I have to start a Facebook group?

20 February 2009 at 12:02  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

An excellent post, Your Grace. The words of the moment seems to be "extreme" and "extremist".

But the word "extremist" surely means "one whose views differ radically from mine, and who actually dares express them."

To speak of "opposing extremism in all its forms", as the UK Border Agency does, is worrying.

To advocate the banning of all extremists is, in itself, a kind of extremism, and a very dangerous kind at that.

20 February 2009 at 12:47  
Blogger Damo Mackerel said...

Your Grace, thank you very much for reminding me why it is so great to be a Roman Catholic. As a papist I found your article to be uplighting. I now have a tear in my eye.

20 February 2009 at 12:49  
Blogger Catholic Observer said...

As a monarch, wouldn't the Pope have legal immunity, in much the same way as diplomatic staff do?

20 February 2009 at 13:02  
Blogger Dave said...

You've summed up what's wrong with Gordo the Mad and The Church of Rome very well.
God save us from them both

20 February 2009 at 13:12  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Oiznop,

Your comments are kind, but please do not start a Facebook group. His Grace has had problems with them of late, which he shall disclose over the weekend.

Mr Catholic Observer,

Sovereign monarch or not, HM Government has the legal and sovereign right to bar whom it so pleases, if necessary by Act of Parliament. This may, of course, be challenged at a European level, but one might be wise to await the ruling on the appeal of Geert Wilders and the Dutch government before seeking to apply it to non-EU citizens.

As an EU citizen, one could argue that Geert Wilders has greater right to enter the UK than the Pope has, for he is not a citizen of the EU. Why should being a 'world leader' grant one immunity from the restrictions imposed on others?

20 February 2009 at 13:20  
Anonymous The Meeting was a Little more complex than that your Grace said...

It;s reported in this highly acclaimed paper that :-

Pope Tells Gordon to 'F' off

20 February 2009 at 13:47  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Your Grace forgot to include that Pope Benedict XVI is that most egregious of offenders a “Climate Change Denier”, [pause for effect]. Yes in the most offensive of language this habitual recidivist insists that proponents of the impending disaster resulting from global warming must be based on [and get this], ‘firm evidence and not on dubious ideology’. Ohh is there no end to this mans nefarious ways, how very dare he suggest that the environmentalist movement should be base its policies on science rather than dogma.

If that is not enough he has the audacity to say that the welfare of animals and plants should not be given a greater priority than that of mankind. Has the man not heard of Huntingdon Life Sciences, oh Wow, wow and thrice wow. I need to find a tree to Hug.

Mmm, unless of course You Grace deliberately left out reference to Climate, and it was not a mistake after all, methinks you may also be a CCD, I must report this to the CCCP (Climate Change Committee Perseverant) at 2 Marsham Street.

“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.” — Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man. — Alan Gregg, former longtime official of the Rockerfeller Foundation

Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape. — John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. — Dave Forman, Earth First! and Sierra Club director (1995-1997)

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.” — Jonathan Overpeck, a Professor at U of Arizona and IPCC Lead Author in an email to David Deming, a professor at U of Oklahoma.

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998.

20 February 2009 at 14:03  
OpenID BL@KBIRD said...

I believe the question of the Pope visiting Britain is not practical. The Pope visited Turkey awhile back so I don't think there is a likely hood that he will visit another Muslim dominated nation that fast.

20 February 2009 at 15:47  
Anonymous Jesus Lizard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

20 February 2009 at 15:58  
Anonymous Jesus Lizard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

20 February 2009 at 17:12  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Jesus Lizard,

Unless you desist from using His Grace's august blog of intelligent and erudite comment upon matters religio-political as your personal platform for linking to your cultic beliefs, he shall block your IP address permanently.

Bless you.

20 February 2009 at 17:23  
Anonymous len said...

A friend of the World is no friend of God.
And conversely,
A friend of God is no friend of the World!
Men loved the darkness so they hated the light.
The Kingdom of
Heaven and this world are opposites .
The god of this world (satan) has polluted this world with death, disease, corruption, and unrighteousness.

20 February 2009 at 18:45  
Anonymous HaHaHa said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

20 February 2009 at 20:01  
Anonymous indigo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

20 February 2009 at 20:17  
Anonymous misofunky said...

The pope and The Mouse

The evolutionary theory of religion developed by Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran and others differs from previous attempts to explain why religion exists in that it does not assign certain "essential" characteristics to religion, but instead uses an evolutionary landscape of ideas. These authors ask under what conditions an idea or a complex of ideas has the propensity to impress people and to spread within a human population.

One answer offered by evolutionary psychology is as follows: People have certain intuitive beliefs about the physical world, about plants and animals and about other people; these intuitive beliefs are called "folk physics", "folk biology", "folk psychology". These folk beliefs act as inference mechanisms and are used to make predictions about what physical objects, plants, animals and people will do.

According to Atran and Boyer, a certain supernatural belief has the propensity of impressing people and spreading only if it alters the format of the folk belief just slightly. If a certain story departs too far away from the format of folk belief, other people find it difficult to believe it, or even to remember it. Boyer and Atran have reported in their books that all religious stories from all cultures can be understood as based on slight departures from the folk beliefs.

Within this conceptual framework the Mickey Mouse problem arises. Non-religious fantastic stories and characters, such as Mickey Mouse, are also successful in impressing people's minds and being remembered via the same psychological mechanism as religious beliefs. For example, the original Mickey Mouse (a talking mouse) is more successful than Mighty Mouse (a talking flying mouse super hero) because the original fictional character departs from folk biology only slightly.

But if the psychological mechanism responsible for their spreading is the same, what is the difference between religious stories and fantastic non-religious stories and why are religious beliefs so often associated with very strong commitments? Nobody would give his life for Mickey Mouse, but thousands would for Jesus.

The solution to this problem probably involves the fact that the content of religious stories often deals with significant events such as death, while the subject of non-religious stories is usually much more trivial.

The Pope once said put your mouse on the 'roof?

20 February 2009 at 21:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


20 February 2009 at 22:02  
Anonymous cockney rebel said...

Your Grace.
It seems to me that you are certainly hitting a target somewhere, we've had more weirdos & nutters on here lately than one can shake a stick at. Keep up the good work, if they keep reading your reports they might eventually gain some sanity & communicate something worth reading.

20 February 2009 at 23:45  
Blogger crusader88 said...

Well, I thought it was a good post. Bless the Roman Pontiff, down with Labour.

21 February 2009 at 03:57  
Blogger it's either banned or compulsory said...

He says that it ‘shall always be condemned, because it is against the nature of man; and it is a violation of all human morality, and shall not be tolerated "
Arrest that Pope ! Stealing Laborite phraseology.

btw Your Grace, we are no longer allowed to talk about Li'l Al**i P*tt*n, he is now a secret.

21 February 2009 at 05:00  
OpenID BL@KBIRD said...

Off topic your Grace. I see the word conservative vaguely attached to links from this site. Pardon the ignorance of a distant, once colonially connected shire member, but is your Graces site considered to be center , center right, center left, right, left? I know it must be semantics but for a north American it is damned hard to see what direction you sail in. You and what seems to be your opposition all seem the same. I imagine the Islamic factor has some affect on the clarity of any ones stance vis a vis politics.

21 February 2009 at 05:16  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Mr. Oiznop:
"Won't The Spectator or Telegraph take you on? You could write alongside Melanie without any problems."
I'm awfully glad His Grace doesn't write for the above! He's way above their present level, and anyway they're black and white and RED all over!
As for the 'femail' you mention - I don't know what all the fuss is about, and I certainly can't warm to it.... Cranmer outclasses her completely -and he actually cares about this country.

21 February 2009 at 08:19  
Anonymous Point of Order your Grace said...

NuLab have now introduced laws against weirdism and Nuttism and shaking sticks at them,

21 February 2009 at 09:57  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

In my view your Grace, this document would be On Topic whatever you posted and is a must read.

Liberalism, Subversion, Fabianism and Keynesian Economics

21 February 2009 at 10:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

As much as your previous posts have been admired by this commentator, your recently shrill Guardian-like diatribes have caused me to wonder whether the original +Cranmer is taking some time off and a stand-in Archbishop currently filling in for your usually most erudite postings?

Please illuminate.

John Fisher

21 February 2009 at 14:56  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Brother John,

If you are able to read this stuff in The Guardian, please would you direct His Grace to the precise edition and page number.

Bless you.

21 February 2009 at 15:23  
Anonymous Actually said...

I was wondering the same Anonymous, is the Real Cranmer tied up and gagged to a chair while Some Commie Subversive Impersonates him online.

21 February 2009 at 15:29  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Actually,

Perhaps you never understood His Grace in the first place, or possessed a certain caricature of what you believe he ought to believe. You would not be the first.

He awaits an indication of what he has written which would find a comfortable home in The Guardian.

21 February 2009 at 15:56  
Anonymous he laughs last said...

I think the original would have placed his mouse on the roof by now. To you Mr HA HA!

21 February 2009 at 18:58  
Blogger ZZMike said...

"Consider his clear condemnation of homosexuality....
But His Holiness also has ‘extreme’ views on abortion....
He seeks to ban contraception,...'
He also opposes sex equality...[1]
He has offended Jews ...
He has offended Muslims ...[2]
He is equally clear in his repudiation of the Anglican Church,...[3]

That reverend gentleman is in severe need of counseling. Perhaps the good Doctor Rowan Williams can help straighten him out.

[1] True, but only in ecclesiastical circles.
[2] Anyone who has not done that is not even trying
[3] Mercy - what must he think of Protestants?

Didn't His Other Holiness, the Dalai Lama, visit Formerly Great Britain last year? Was there not an outcry? (Yes, I suppose the Chinese were quite bent out of shape, but that's only to be expected).

22 February 2009 at 06:12  
Blogger Tommy 3 Lions said...

Really good article

22 February 2009 at 15:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pope comes to Britain to deify(sorry beatify) another mortal.

26 February 2009 at 19:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think the time has come for us to assert our identity as a secular country, and not let religious leaders get any more public airtime than others whose views we see as repugnant

15 September 2010 at 21:07  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older