British government removes online petition protesting pope's visit
LONDON (CNS) -- The British government has removed from its website a petition protesting Pope Benedict XVI's Sept. 16-19 visit to England and Scotland.
The petition had urged the British prime minister to dissociate the government from the pope's "intolerant views" and not to support the state visit financially. The secularist coalition Protest the Pope sponsored the petition, which had attracted more than 12,300 signatures.
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who drafted the petition, said July 16 that the government had removed the petition three months before it was due to close, and that it had not allowed signatures since April.
"This looks like an attempt to prevent the petition from embarrassing the government by gaining a large number of signatures in the run-up to Pope Benedict's visit," Tatchell said in a statement.
"The prime minister's office originally agreed that the petition would remain open until the pope arrived in the U.K.," he said.
Petitions have been part of the tradition of British democracy since at least the 19th century and until recently were usually delivered in person by the petitioners to either the prime minister's residence on Downing Street or to Parliament.
Under the country's last government, however, petitioners were encouraged to launch online petitions using the government's own website. These have the benefit of allowing signatories to add their names electronically with the guarantee that the government will issue a formal response within a set time frame.
The Protest the Pope petition had criticized Pope Benedict for his alleged "intolerant opposition to women's rights, gay equality, embryonic stem-cell research and condom use to prevent the spread of HIV."
It urged the prime minister to rebuke the pope for allegedly covering up the clerical sex abuse of children and, according to the petition, his "rehabilitation of the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson, and his plan to make a saint of Hitler's pope, Pius XII, who refused to publicly condemn the Holocaust."
In its response, posted on the prime minister's website, the government explained it would fund only the state aspects of the visit, with the Catholic Church meeting the costs of pastoral events.
"There are issues on which we disagree" with the Catholic Church, the statement said. "However, we believe that Pope Benedict's visit will provide an opportunity to strengthen and build on our relationship with the Holy See in areas where we share interests and goals and to discuss those issues on which our positions differ."
The Protest the Pope coalition is planning a march and rally in London to coincide with the pope's Sept. 18 prayer vigil in London's Hyde Park.
Copyright © 2010 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Comments (25)
Henry VIII would be turning
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, July 21, 2010Henry VIII would be turning in his grave!
urban myth? Part 2
By Michael Bates (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010The news reports that the Pope had reinstated a holocaust were flying around internationally by the 25 January, 2009.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39269
So the reinstatement as Bishop must have occurred before then and obviously was complete or close to complete by the evening of the 21st. Presumably it finalised between the 22nd to 24th but even if it was before the 21st I'm sure that wouldn't have got in the way of a good story.
I wasn’t aware of that Williamson was a holocaust denier prior to 25 January, 2009 and I am not buried in the Vatican at the head of an organization of 1.1 billion people. At best the Pope might have become aware of the problem just before the reinstatement and prevented it but it is obviously unlikely that he would have been aware.
urban myth? Part 1
By Michael Bates (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010I note the claim in the petition that the Pope should be rebuked for:
"rehabilitation of the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson”
This implies the Pope reinstated a known holocaust denier.
In reality the Pope allowed a request by an organisation (SSPX) to reinstate 3 Bishops. The organisation involved has beautiful Church services and the members are extremely enthusiastic. I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. It later became known that Williamson is a holocaust denier. Even the head of SSPX was shocked to discover his views on the topic. Given the Pope’s condemnation of holocaust denial it is completely unfair to hold the Pope’s earlier actions against him.
For the record to make the chronology crystal clear I note the following:
An eccentric (being the bad Bishop) from an organization that previously almost noone had heard of previously publically expressed the offending views for the first time on Swedish TV on the evening of 21 January, 2009. Noone has claimed that the Pope was in Sweden on the 21 January, 2009.
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=9a0f5291-1c76-48...
Unfair to Pope
By Michael Bates (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010I refer to the argument by some readers in here that a cost to British taxpayers estimated to be between £14mil and £100mil is not justifiable because only a small percentage of Brits are Catholics. The argument ignores the fact that the Pope is an international religious leader and a visit will guarantee a huge boost to tourism which will at a minimum significantly offset any cost and at best result in a gain.
As regards the topic of the article, whilst it is a little tough on the Pope to condemn him for preaching Christian orthodoxy it is in the interests of a gay activist to do so. The Christian religion considers homosexual behaviour a sin.
Nevertheless the petition itself though seems a little disingenous and had defamatory elements that would have necessitated its removal. For example:
“urged the prime minister to rebuke the pope for allegedly covering up the clerical sex abuse of children”
This is unfair and defamatory. It is unfair because the Pope is the mover and shaker who both during his papacy and well before has demonstrated with action his expressed commitment to “sweep the filth (paedophile priests)” from the Church.
The real question is why the
By Jason (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010The real question is why the Holy Father would waste his time slumming with the boring, heathen brits. I guess out of kindness to the "queen."
Come to think of it, that pesky british monarchy is responsible for quite a few atrocities in history. Enough to make the inquisition look like a clam bake. Where's all the bogus righteous indignation aimed at "her majesty?" How much does that family of elitist, priveleged snobs cost the british taxpayer?
In a generation or two when the brits have been overtaken by muslims, the only thing about britain that will not change is hatred of the Pope.
Her Majesty
By Anonymous (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010I serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland.
And America.
The Church should get rid of that royal stuff too.
26 + 6 = 1
her majesty only gets the
By Ian Stimson (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010her majesty only gets the same amount of money as anyone on job seekers allowance, the government owns all the palaces they are just allowed to live there, and she brings money into this country by encouraging tourism (we are one of the few countries in the world with a monarch) usually from americans who want to explore their countries origins. we don't go after her majesty because she has no control of anything any more, so she isn't responsible for anything. the pope however does have control, of a world wide organisation which has shown in the past to consider itself above the law. so the real question is, why is the pope even being allowed in.
Dear Jason, my opinion of
By Joan Krebs (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010Dear Jason, my opinion of what you phrase as "the real question" is that this is yet another Vatican PR attempt. While the "official" line is the institutional church is not concerned about quantity of Catholics it's becoming more and more apparent this is NOT the case! Public worry about Europe's "secularism", making it easier for Anglican clergy (and congregations) to make the switch to Roman catholicism obviously appear to oppose that line. The visit to the UK is yet one other attempt to swell the ranks or at least "grease the skids" (as we in Cook County understand well). If I remember correctly there was a recent Vatican announcement regarding a "New Evangelization" effort aimed at countries in the West (what else can that mean except Europe, Canada, the USA, Mexico as part of the North American continent?). Another attempt here in the USA was the well-publicized campaign: "Catholics, Come Home." There's a strategy afoot and the visit to the UK is part of the pattern. Watch for more....
Playing with the numbers and facts a bit don't you think?
By Chris Glover (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010The £100mil estimate inculdes the Security costs. The £14mil figure does not.
If you do the sums that still works out as a bill of £86mil on the tax payer of which it is estimated that only between 4-12% of the British tax payer is an actual Roman Catholic.
That's a lot of money for a small proportion of the people, to be paid by 100% of the people. It is nice of them to put up 14% of it themselves though.
As for the church welcoming everyone? Well you shoot yourself in the foot in the same post. Do they welcome homosexuals? Do they welcome someone who has had an abortion (for any reasons)? Do they welcome divorcees?
Nope, but why let the facts get in the way.
Unwelcoming?
By Michael (not verified) on Tuesday, July 20, 2010Funny, Chris, in all my years of going to Mass, I can't recall even once being stopped at the door and questioned as to whether I was a homosexual or divorcee, or whether I'd ever had an abortion. Could it be perhaps you are the one being a little less than tolerant?
