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
Labels:

Comments

  1. pjt6 July 2010 at 10:24

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg7 July 2010 at 08:18

    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.

    ReplyDelete

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 2010 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 exp
117 comments
Read more

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
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more