TBF, London won the bid for the Olympics when things were at their peak financially in this country. Had it been known that a year later markets would start changing (starting with the housing market) which then led to a horrible recession, I think it would have been a different story.

There's another one, all these state visits should be curtailed. They say they want us to make cuts.Start wth stuff like this

Well yes, but nobody ever has, whereas the Pope gets it in the neck just for being Catholic.

Agree with both Karma and onetoo - both the Olympics and this papal visit were organised in financially sunnier climes ... perhaps the cost of both would be considered now.

However, we are committed to both now

The fact that we don't complain, is because we can't. We're 'sat on' and called allsorts for trying to stick up for ourselves while others seem to ride rough shod over us.  Rexi mentioned a democracy. I sometimes wonder........

I daresay he's a bit used to it cologne

We all pay for the Queen, not everyone wants her or her family here.

Exactly, everyone has different values

(I have great admiration for the Queen btw ... but don't get me started on the heir)

Good point, but she was actually 'here' in the first place. It's her husband that wasn't

OMG - I love her husband

Phil the Greek rocks

PMSL Rexi

 I'm not defending him Rexi. It's just the inbred catholic in me that reacts when really, I despise the whole ideology.

I find some of the comments in here a bit disrespectful, I know there has been a lot of controversy within the Catholic Church, but the CC has gotten me and my family through some difficult times.  To be fair I'm not in the slightest bit worried about the pope coming to visit, much like the Monarchy I think the Popes position is unnecessary and is costing people a lot of money for an out of date concept.  The cost Vatican alone could pay for world hunger, In my community the Parish is at the heart and everyone faith and beliefs revolve around that, obviously in all hierarchy's there is someone at the top, but must like both the Queen and the Pope they are getting million of pounds to sit on their arses and wave everyone in a while, when the money can be put towards worthwhile projects.

Yes I know, but I think the idea of the Monarchy is a dated concept I believe being born into that status is unfair.

I don't think anybody has been disrespectful and really, you are voicing a much stronger point, i.e., why don't they use they're wealth to help the world economy.

Which is great.  The Catholic Church has also been responsible for a whole heap of misery and collusion in abuse and death throughout the ages and continues to do so.


Disrespectful?  You bet.

As I said, everyone to their own. You have your views, others have theirs

I agree ... I also can't discuss this on any deeper level that which affect me personally so, to quote the Dragons ... I am out

I'm actually totally knackered and am going to bed, which I would have done anyway, even if you hadn't got very deep River Rock

Sean Lock on 8 Out Of 10 Cats tonight:

'They should let George Michael drive the Popemobile.'

And that is the side of I completely don't agree with, sex before marriage, no contraception, homosexuality etc are things which I am completely against, so I feel as the Catholic generation of the 21st century we should work towards dragging our faith into the 21st century, have all these things accepted in the church, let priests get married.  

 I think not allowing priest to get married was what crippled the CC, I believe that on the whole  Gays men and Paedophiles went into the CC because it was a place they could a)get easy access to children without question, and B) not marry without being questioned by their family.  

Regards the CC helping the less fortunate, locally the Churches do as much as they can to help those less fortunate such as SVP and Church collections etc, ironically its those with the most money ie in the Vatican who have the most ability to help out which fail to. Like I say this is common place in most faults/religions, those at the bottom who have nothing give all they have but those at the top hardly give at all.

So RR, regards your post. Is the CC not outdated too as you say about the Monarchy

It's not often I am speechless but did you really mean to post that?

I mean the pope and the Vatican part is out dated and i think that the church should be dragged into the 21st century.

I have just reread it and I don't see anything wring with it, but you must be misinterpreting what I am trying say. Reiterate what you think I mean??

Flippin eck Issy! My post above yours referred to RRs first paragraph.  I should've posted something in reply to this too

Gay men are not drawn towards paedophilia any more than straight men.   That is what your post implies.  And what the Catholic Church has explicitly said, funnily enough.

Gays men and Paedophiles went into the CC because it was a place they could a)get easy access to children without question, and B) not marry without being questioned by their family.


You have put gay men and paedophiles in the same sentence saying that they could get easy access to children in the catholic church. I read that as you saying that gay men wanted access to children. If that is not what you meant then can I respectfully ask that you rewrite it as it is coming across as VERY offensive as it stands.

Again Onetoo? 

I am not saying all priest are paedophiles, but its obvious paedophiles will go to a place where than can access children easily like a school, a hospital however, there are far more restrictions on these professions than in the Church- Thats why there is such a kick up with the Pope not implementing Security checks etc on potential priests.

For a staunch Catholic family who live by the teachings of the CC, and their turn happens to be gay, can you imagine how hard it would be for a man to come out to his family who do not believe in his sexuality? Say he gets to 29 or 30 and still has never had a girlfriend? The parents will begin to question, some may marry just to conform, and some will join the priesthood as there will be no question asked about them not having a girlfriend or getting married.

I don't who what you think I meant but the above is what I meant and I can't understand why you are so shocked.

It's just badly badly written.

Oh god I was not insinuating gay men were paedophiles nor insinuating what I have anything against gay men, a complete cliché I know but my best male friend is gay. That is completely not what I meant. I didn't mean to put them in the same sentence or correlate them in anyway. I completely apologise for any offence I may have cause but what I really meant is above

I know you didn't mean it to sound like that, RiverRock.

Thanks Crunchy, I think you just know I have terrible foot in mouth syndrome. Anyways, I might take another sabbatical from the forum, always seem to cause trouble on here Must head on to bed here, nighty night

Don't get upset RR. That's why i questioned you cos it seemed such an extreme thing to say. But you have explained what you meant. No offense taken. 
Believe me I suffer from the same syndrome at times.

No need to take a sabbatical over it. You only worded a sentence wrong, it's not crime of the century. You've explained that you didn't mean it like that so there shouldn't be any full scale riots starting over it (though with this forum you never know, any excuse for a full scale war )

Yes, but RR has put two separate statements ie a) and b) which correlate individually to "gay men" and "paedophiles"  I didn't read at all that she was describing both as the same.

no comment.

Yeh but just had a couple of unpleasant encounters on here today is all.

Still, no need to leave cos of it.

Just one question, do you believe in sex before marriage?

We all get them. Don't let it worry you.