Skip to main content

If the Vatican's a state, I'm a banana

Unlike many in the science community, I'm not an atheist, nor am I anti-Catholic. But I find it ludicrous in times of financial belt-tightening, that UK taxpayers should be expected to foot a bill of £8 million - or even £12 million (plus policing costs)- for a papal visit.

Set aside any concerns about Pope Benedict's weak handling of the child abuse scandals in his church. He may well have got it very wrong, but that isn't influencing my attitude. What lies at the heart of the problem is the ridiculous medieval concept (bizarrely only brought into being in 1929, though the 'Holy See' has much longer recognition) that the Vatican is a 'state' and, as such, makes the pope a head of state who therefore gets major elements of his visit paid for by us, rather than by his organization.

Why do we keep up this pathetic pretence? The Vatican isn't a state, anymore than Lambeth Palace is a state. It's the headquarters of a church. And similarly, why can the 'Holy See' issue diplomatic passports? It's a joke.

What's more, if we got rid of this concept, and any diplomatic powers given to the 'Holy See', not only would we do away with the costs of the pope's visit, we wouldn't have to pay for an ambassador to the Holy See - again, surely a useless concept if there ever was one. And I say this despite the deep sadness I would feel at wiping the smile off Anne Widdecombe's face*.

I'm not quite sure what is involved in un-recognizing a state... but it's time we did it.

* I'm very impressed that in the picture in the Telegraph article linked to here, Ms Widdecombe somehow manages to be smiling with her mouth turned down. I didn't think that possible.

Picture from Wikipedia


  1. I think you're mistaken: not recognizing Vatican as a state wouldn't make papal visits much cheaper.

    Compare it to a potential visit by ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or Hassan Nasrallah, or whoever. They are not heads of state, but if they were to travel abroad to discuss matters of faith or something, they would need extensive protection, there would be crowds and demonstrations which need to be controlled, and there would be a considerable security bill. Things like overtime hours for the police, cost of blocking roads and arranging traffic guidance, etc.

    Same applies also to non-religious people and things like Pride festivals etc. These things come with a cost. Because people care, positively or negatively.

  2. The difference is that for state visits, we pay. For non-state visits the visitor pays for security. Also the £12M is excluding the police part of the costs.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope