Skip to main content

£12 Million For The Pope Is A Bargain

The British media have been reporting with alarm that The Pope's visit to Britain in the autumn will cost twelve million pounds, up from a supposed eight million that had been proposed at some stage.  The tone of these reports is secular and critical, and a thinly veiled anti-religious attitude underpins them.  Firstly, let us consider this - Catholicism is a major religion, and The Pope - despite the real and imagined faults of his Faith - is its leader.  He is also a political head, of The Vatican.  As such, his visit should be accorded the full seriousness and security that any world leader would expect.  Security needs to be tight because Britain is now the leading world exporter of dogmatic atheism, and here is a genuine hatred of this man in ever-widening circles.  Now, I can understand why some people feel hatred for what he stands for - he is conservative, holds difficult theological views, and he has been linked to terrible accusations.  But mob rule cannot be allowed to gain a foothold in rational discourse.  Either Britain is a tolerant, welcoming, and diplomatic place, where invited guests can expect reasonable treatment, or not. Catholics number 4.2 million souls in England and Wales, by one count, and as many go to Mass as Anglicans attend Sunday service.  While this might seem a small percentage of the overall population, this minority forms a valuable social backbone for communities, particularly in London.  Before the British media sneers or groans too loudly, they should try to grasp the full body horror and convert it from loathing to acceptance: Catholicism is not some external disease seeking to gain admission to the UK with the Pope's visit - but a flourishing organ of this nation already.  The Pope's visit is sadly timed - it is a time of great controversy for him personally, and for his role - but the visit should go ahead, and all legitimate costs embraced.  If the secular state is properly robust, it should welcome such tests, not repel them.

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…