Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Who should pay for the Pope's visit?

1) The Pope.
2) The Catholic Church

Who SHOULD NOT PAY - The UK taxpayer.

Normally I'm pretty easy going about these things, but...it seems wrong for the state to fund this. I'm not a Catholic, I have nothing against the visit but surely there should be a Catholic worshippers' fund of some sort, where they all contribute and it is funded out of that? I don't want to pay for it, especially when I'm 'looking forward' to higher taxes, cuts in services, pay freezes....

I'm not a Catholic and am opposed to their views on celibacy of the clergy, abortion, homosexuals, contraception etc...
But he is a religious leader and I choose to have none, but I respect the fact he was invited here by the Government as there are Catholics in the UK, so he should be made welcome ...
But as we live in a democracy, those who oppose his views also have a right to peaceful protest.
I'm happy the tax payer picks up some of the tabs as long as others are contributing.

Ditto to # 1..........

If they want to spread their version of the word of GOD, then they should be prepared to pay for it! and I'm equally cynically to all forms of religous fiction!

I guess those of the Catholic faith should subsidise the visit. Leave us without this silly belief in invisible omnipotent silliness alone.

Im sorry but I can't see why the visit should be allowed. If I tried to set up an organisation that is inherently homophobic and openly protects and hides paedophiles it wouldn't be allowed. I think the Catholic church should pay for the capture and subsequent internment of senior figures in the Vatican. Taxpayers money should not be used to fund religious events, Organised religions shuold be supported by subscription and their activities should be funded by the relevant organisations.

Who pays the cost when other foreign religious leaders and/or politicians visit the country?

Is the Pope visiting in his capacity as Head of the Roman Catholic Church or as Head of State of the Vatican?

If he's here on a state visit, then of course we should be paying for him, just as with any other Head of State.

If he's here making a pastoral visit to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church should be responsible for meeting the costs of his visit.

If he's doing a bit of both, we should share the expense with the Church.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Simple (as the Meercat says!):-

The Roman Catholic Church, whether directly from the Vatican koffers, or from the not inconsiderable wealth of the catholic church in UK.

The UK State should have no financial liability.

This is not being ant-Catholic, I would say the same which ever religion was involved including C of E).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The people who want him to visit. Cant see that being many.

Who paid for G20?

who pays if Obama comes?

who pays if the Dali Lama comes?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind......

We as the taxpayer should not be funding his visit - full stop.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Easy: Jesus should pay for it: after all, the Pope is supposed to be doing His work. . .
(not many comments on here yet, but I'm suspecting that there isn't going to be a lot of support for the State (us) paying).

Since it's only the Catholic Church that really wants him here then the Catholic Church should foot the bill.

For whose benefit is the Pope's visit? Members of the Catholic church. So of course the Catholic church should foot the bill. It's got billions of pounds' worth of assets, it will have no problem finding the cash.

As a British taxpayer I've got no interest whatsoever in an old German geezer chanting prayers and waving around a smoking handbag.

Monsignor Andrew Summersgill, who is co-ordinating the visit, said that taxes were often spent on things that not everyone agreed with, but that this was "part of being a society".

Funny he's not so open minded when it comes to taxes being spent on promoting condoms, gay rights or abortion services isn't it? Mind you what else do you expect from a Church that preaches 'its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven' from a pulpit in a gold church while wearing more gold chains than Mr T!

Paying for an old bible basher to parade through the streets who's organisation are responsible for millions of deaths in Africa and despicable accounts of child abuse.

The question is not who should pay but should he even be allowed to visit.

That's potentially Β£15 million pounds worth of NHS treatment that people may not get then. As one of the richest organisations on earth, why do they not pay for this themselves.

Many towns in the UK have had to STOP local yearly carnivals because they are now forced to pay for policing costs.

By the same reasoning, if Catholics want a visit by the Pope, they should first save up and pay for policing and other costs.

I personally abhore all religions, they are left over remnants from a time long long ago when humans were frightened of their own shadows and that of beasts and nature and had no explainations for most of lifes experiences. Their foremost present promise is still that of what we still little understand, what happens after we die, and these religions promise another better afterlife world, which many people would actually prefer to a short and brief life and an eternity of nothingness.

I personally prefer dodgy double glazing salesmen to those who sell theology, at least with dodgy double glazing salesmen you can generally see if you have been conned/fooled, with theology, its basically oops, too late.

I don't personally want to pay for it as I am in strong disagreement with some of the views and behavior that this church has. Taxation however is used for many things that I do not agree with so I accept that this is just one other thing that I have to put up with at the moment. It should be the case that civil society should be putting some money into this as well as the Government and I would back any politician who said this.

The catholic church wants the pope to visit, therefore the catholic church should foot the bill for the whole thing. I don't care whether some doddery old bloke visits or not, but why should I have to foot the bill for it? I'd like my taxes to go towards better care for the elderly and better policing of our streets - that is far more important to me than some old foreigner in a frock and pointy hat.

No-one. The Pope does not exist. It is a myth. If someone looking like a pope shows up, ignore him. Unless he gets violent - then you must offer to buy him a drink and ask him to tell you his life story. He will, doubtless, accept your offer and you will laugh and cry as the strange tale unfolds of a poor German boy who wanted to one day live in a big house in Italy . . .

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As a mainly secular society we should not have invited him and I would vermently oppose paying any costs of his visit apart from police protection.

It should be treated the same as any other State Visit

What was the point of the visit?

If it was as the leader of the 'Vatican City' nation to come and speak to the leaders of our nation at the request of our leaders, then it should be funded by the taxpayer (just as I expect a visit of the leader of any other nation would be funded)

But, if it's as the leader of the Catholic church, come to visit Catholic communities in the UK following a decision by the Catholic church, then it should be the Catholic church (either in the UK, or worldwide) to pay. If a Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/whatever leader came to the UK to speak to members of their religion, I'd expect them to pay for it as well.

If Steve Ballmer comes to the UK to speak to employees of Microsoft(UK), I wouldn't expect the tax payer to pay. Or, if a film star comes to the UK to speak to his/her fans, I wouldn't expect the tax payer to pay. So, why should we pay for the Pope to visit his people when he wants to?

18. At 12:23pm on 21 May 2010, Lime Candy wrote:

As a British taxpayer I've got no interest whatsoever in an old German geezer chanting prayers and waving around a smoking handbag.
---------------------------------------------------------------


You forgot to mention the purple frock

In all honesty, I'm not interested in the Pope visiting. But I also realise that Β£15M in real terms is actually a small amount of money. Simply look at how much cash councils & governments squander & waste on a weekly basis, the Pope's visit is quite cheap by comparison. Or are the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ just trying to stir up some anti-Pope protests ?

Did any of the countries that PM Brown visited send the PM's office an invoice for the expenses? The Pope is the head of the state of Vatican and deserves to be treated as one.

I am no catholic but I would much rather financially support an organisation that runs orphanages, hospitals, schools, universities and shelters throughout the world (in a very small proportion of them, abuses do take place and that must be dealt with!), than give a single penny to people like NSS who do nothing whatsoever to relieve the suffering of people.

10. At 12:15pm on 21 May 2010, ATNotts wrote:
Simple (as the Meercat says!):-

The Roman Catholic Church, whether directly from the Vatican koffers, or from the not inconsiderable wealth of the catholic church in UK.

The UK State should have no financial liability.

This is not being ant-Catholic, I would say the same which ever religion was involved including C of E).

So you're saying that the Church of England should pay for the Head of the Church, namely the Queen, to visit the UK?!!!

I'm not quite sure that would work...

#8 "At 12:12pm on 21 May 2010, Megan wrote:
Is the Pope visiting in his capacity as Head of the Roman Catholic Church or as Head of State of the Vatican?

If he's here on a state visit, then of course we should be paying for him, just as with any other Head of State."

That rather depends on whether you think he IS a head of state. The Vatican merely has observer status at the UN and its independence from Italy was negotiated by Mussolini who's own legitimacy is pretty iffy. Considering the UK and UN don't recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state the Vatican's claim to be an proper independent nation seems weak.

Who should pay for the Pope's visit?

Why always the Anti-Pope/Anti-Catholic church stuff from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ ?

The visit , as with all other state visits will be paid for in the same way , the visit itself will no doubt be financed by the church , whilst security etc for the visit will , as normal be provided by the state being visited , this will no doubt be much less than the state pays for the Royal Family , not just during one visit but YEARLY , EVERY YEAR.

No doubt security etc could possibly be much cheaper , were it not for articles such as this that pander to the bigots and apparently try to whip up public hysteria against the visiting Pope and one should remember that the last visit of a Pope to this country was a resounding success and landmark event , not only for Catholics , but all non-bigots.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Taxpayers fund many visits, some of which by politicians and religious leaders who are leaders of groups with whom most taxpayers have no sympathy. Why should the Pope be any different. No doubt if our representatives went to another country they would have their trip funded by that country.
What should be questioned is the ridiculous amount of Β£15m involved. Just how far has this and most other religions diverted from the original faith and beliefs of their founder. Christ believed in lack of wealth and show and thought that money should be given to the poor and needy, in other words socialism. The Christian Church as with other faiths has been taken over by the powerful in society and the original teachings lost. The thought of sharing wealth was a far too dangerous idea. What Christ would say about the vast wealth and ostentation of Church since medieval times is far more debatable than the question of just one visit. The powerful want religion to keep the majority in their place and not be a vehicle to question society

Someone is over pricing. It should not cost that much. Can we have a quango to check these estimates please.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The state should be curteous and pay for the visit and those of you who are against it should consider that a lot of tax paying catholics in the UK are looking forward to the visit. On a cost per capita basis, its about 25p per head. Get over it as its a good showcase for the UK and will enrich the lives of many.

Would I get a tax refund if the church offered to pay for all of it? I wouldn't think so. In which case I don't really care, because it's not going to effect me whatever happens

Arrgh. What a luverly provocative way to get the faith bashers excited.
If Barak Obama visits he pays for his MIB to do their bit, we pay for ours - which is substantially more as we are hosting. The Pope is also a head of state and gets treated the same.
Except his MIB have ear pieces connected to an even higher office than Obamas.
Come on guys. Kill this stream - it's only going to give someone who reads the Daily Mail a heart attack.
I'm not a catholic, BTW. I just think you should all calm down, dears.

~ typical Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ; I've never heard of them 'WINGE' over costs when Bush, Clinton, the G8 or 1000 others arriving ~ what's so different about the Pope then ?? erm ????

If the Pope had chosen to come here of his own accord then the Catholic Church should pay. He was invited by the British Government, therefore they should pay.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm astonished and horrified that this question has to be asked.

The Catholic Church should pay, of course. For this to be subsidised by the taxpayer is outrageous.

Perhaps no-one's noticed, but the taxpayer is a bit short of a bob or two right now. Hardly the time to be spending money on pointless jollies.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Taxpayers should not pay.

There is an anomaly because the heads of the Churches of England and Scotland have a favoured position.

Since we would not wish to offer the same facilities to the leaders of all of the religions represented in the UK as well as secular alternatives such as humanism, the sensible way to resolve the anomaly is by disestablishment and the withdrawal of special recognition from all religions.

I find this absolutely disgraceful, and the pope himself should be ashamed. People go to their Religion for help and guidance, it is seen as a way of assisting those in need. Surely the Β£15m would surely be better spent actually HELPING those in need.

Except we have housing for the homeless being forced to shut down due to lack of funding, or they can go on that loathsome programme "secret millionaire" and try and conjour up some tears from the millionaire, who arguably doesnt really care.

These is a keen sense of priorities being mistaken here, what will the popes visit actually do? Instead of helping our country out of debt, surely we're just getting into a worse situation.

My local vicar would gladly go round and assist people for FREE, pope or not. The whole concept of religion, quite frankly means nothing now, this country has boiled down to hegemonism, and greed.

But it's ok, we'll just churn out another Β£15m for some ridiculous cause, but we'll give the bare minimum job seekers allowance, for those who have supported the country, asked for nothing, contributed with taxes. It's a joke.

I would move elsewhere, but I cant because the airlines are striking OVER PAY. Pattern emerging here?

Let's sort out our own country, before we get into any more debt.

33. At 12:42pm on 21 May 2010, SussexRokx wrote:
10. At 12:15pm on 21 May 2010, ATNotts wrote:
Simple (as the Meercat says!):-

The Roman Catholic Church, whether directly from the Vatican koffers, or from the not inconsiderable wealth of the catholic church in UK.

The UK State should have no financial liability.

This is not being ant-Catholic, I would say the same which ever religion was involved including C of E).

So you're saying that the Church of England should pay for the Head of the Church, namely the Queen, to visit the UK?!!!

I'm not quite sure that would work...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd have no problem if you could make work sound's like a good idea.

perhaps the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ should pay out of the pockets of its over-paid Execs,
Or perhaps they should stop pushing their own versions of Publicly-Biased anti-Christian hysteria !

Can we have a HYS (a publically acceptable response) on the licence-fee again please ? ~ thought not !

The Vatican should pay.

This isn't a Catholic country anyway. Why is he coming here? His views and record on human rights should have him outlawed not welcomed. If he were a black rapper who had sung his views on homosexuality he'd be turned back at the airport!

"The total taxpayer's bill for the Pope's UK visit - without police and security costs - is estimated to be Β£15m. The Catholic Church will also contribute."

I don't know about contribute towards this visit, but the Catholic Church and the Pope himself should wholly fund this UK visit. There is no way that the British taxpayer should pay for any part of this visit.

I'm not a Catholic myself, but this smacks a little of Catholic-bashing again.

The Pope is a world statesman who arguably transcends religion. Who pays when we have visits from other world leaders? Who pays when our Prime Minister or Royal Family goes abroad?

Do we really want to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world?

If the leader of a religion (i.e. a cult founded on irrational superstition) wishes to visit this country, the entire expenses should be met by the members of that cult, and not by anyone else.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The Catholic Church is one of the richest organisations on the planet, their gold reserves in the US Federal Bank alone are reported to top several billion dollars. Why should a predominately secular, and most definately non Catholic society, pay for a visit from this homophobic, narrow minded, paedophile hiding, pantomime leader ?

Not on my watch please or with my money !

The Catholic Church should pay, i am an atheist and feel that no religion should be paid for by the taxpayer.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

35. At 12:44pm on 21 May 2010, tomfer wrote:
Who should pay for the Pope's visit?

Why always the Anti-Pope/Anti-Catholic church stuff from the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ ?

The visit , as with all other state visits will be paid for in the same way , the visit itself will no doubt be financed by the church , whilst security etc for the visit will , as normal be provided by the state being visited , this will no doubt be much less than the state pays for the Royal Family , not just during one visit but YEARLY , EVERY YEAR.

No doubt security etc could possibly be much cheaper , were it not for articles such as this that pander to the bigots and apparently try to whip up public hysteria against the visiting Pope and one should remember that the last visit of a Pope to this country was a resounding success and landmark event , not only for Catholics , but all non-bigots.
-------------------------------------------
Bigots??????

Surely the Catholic church and the Vatican is the epitome of bigotry. I don't think there's much here that is aimed towards Catholics, just the catholic Church, the Vatican and a general loathing of homophobics, paedophiles and the organisations that support them. I think that the Vatican is actually the leader in Anti-ness.

Did anyone mention the help that the catholic church alledgedly gave to fleeing Nazis after the war?

Isn't the UK officially (via the Queen) Church of England, therefore the Catholic head of the world and his holidays and visits around the world should NOT be funded by the UK Government.

This leaves a great big gap when the head of Al Quaida comes to visit and asks for a nice suite at the Dorchester, oh hang on, he could already be here as the Government is paying a fortune for religious leaders holidays instead of finding the bad guys out there that cause disharmony.

What percentage of the UK is Catholic, and practising, and bothered about the Pope coming to the UK? Maybe they should fund the visit by his Holiness instead of your regular working Joes?

And all this from a 32 year old Catholic...

I am sure they can have a quick whip around among themselves. Catholics are very good at getting the collection plate out at every available opportunity.

Basically who cares as long as (as #1 says) it is not the UK taxpayer.

Comment No.1 say's it all.

Why should I have to pay for someone I couldn't care less about. If he wants to come here, the Catholic church should cover all costs not just part of it. Otherwise, he can stay at home.

So the publicity trip for the Catholic Church will cost Β£15m, and they only want to pay half.
OK
I’m of on my hols – can I send them ½ the bill?
This is about building the business – pay your own way!

Who ever invited him should fund the visit, it would have been very irresponsible to invite him without first ascertaining that adequate finance was available for the visit. If he has invited himself then he should pay for it. If the government have invited him then the government must pay. This may not be popular with some people but then the Afgan war isn't either and we - the taxpayer - fund that too.

I am non religious so I think that any religious leader who comes to this country should have the costs covered by his flock of sheeple.
One poster mentions the fact that 1 in 10 people in this country is Catholic. So? That means that 9 out of 10 people are not. It seems to me like it is not in the public interest to fund the visit of a leader whos presence will make no difference to the vast majority of people who live here.

There are fairies at the bottom of my garden. I often talk to them - they've told me to go and share the good news of their existence with everyone. Please would the Italian government invite me to Rome for a cultural and spiritual visit to share this good news (at the expense of the Italian taxpayer of course)?

Sounds pretty stupid when you put it that way doesn't it?

I holeheartedly agree with the first comment.
send the bill to the Vatican

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The Pope can pay for my visit to Italy. I would like to see inside the Vatican. I look forward to an invite.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The Pope has two jobs, Head of the Catholic Church and Head of State, the Vatican City is classed as a sovereign city-state since the Lateran Treaty signed in 1929.
So you can argue its a State Visit, for which the tax-payer stumps up.
No doubt many devout Catholics will be having their IUDs removed for the duration of his visit, as happens in South America.

Blinkin' cheek of the man expecting the UK Taxpayers to fund his jolly. On yer bike! Sell off some of your churches treasures to pay for your holiday.

The body that should pay for the visit is the body that invited him.

But they should do something about their budgeting and cost control. Β£15m is excessive.

I see all the usual hatred and vitriol on here when ever anything involving Catholics comes up.
Can't this narrow minded, bigotted, racist little country get over it anti-Catholicism after all these centuries.

There is never this reaction when the Dalai Lama or Aga Khan visit the UK or when the Arch-Bishop of Canturbury goes around the world on his visits to see his congregations.

47. At 12:57pm on 21 May 2010, SystemF wrote:
Who should pay for the terrorists that we can't get rid of in this country and have to spend millions on house arrest, Mecca? the OIC?

By all means send the bill to Mecca.
I reckon a couple of good nights at the bingo should cover it.

agreed the pope and the catholic church,

30. At 12:39pm on 21 May 2010, Steve wrote:
18. At 12:23pm on 21 May 2010, Lime Candy wrote:

As a British taxpayer I've got no interest whatsoever in an old German geezer chanting prayers and waving around a smoking handbag.
---------------------------------------------------------------


You forgot to mention the purple frock

---------------------------------------------------------------

I do believe it's 'white', actually. LOL

Firstly, the British Government should not be allowing the leaders of this organisation/cult in to the UK with their record of depravity.

Secondly, as the above will not happen. If the Catholic Church wants to send their top man to the UK on business, then the Catholic Church should pay for it.

There are some of us who just do not believe in God and religious brainwashing.

The visit should be funded from church coffers.

I'm sure commercial profits of the visit will exceed Β£15M. As a consequence, I would suggest that our new, progressive Government, protect the event in much the same way as the olympics are protected, allowing the church to collect some of those profits to pay for the visit themselves.

As for policing and security, we should pay for the bare minimum - public order and a vehicle escort, just like any other head of state. Any public events should have private security funded by the Church or from admission charges.

If none of the above is viable, maybe the church should sell the television rights to the highest bidder - then the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ would not waste our licence fee covering the visit any more than they cover the visit of, the head of state of any other small principality.

Maybe the Pope should stay at home and give the money to the victims that were abused at the hands of the Catholic church.

Just a thought.....

When the Bishop of Rome puts his hand in his pockets to fund 'My' state visit to his country, then he can come to mine. The likelihood of that ever happening my friends is, zero.

54. At 1:06pm on 21 May 2010, hadis53 wrote:
I'm not a Catholic myself, but this smacks a little of Catholic-bashing again.

The Pope is a world statesman who arguably transcends religion. Who pays when we have visits from other world leaders? Who pays when our Prime Minister or Royal Family goes abroad?

Do we really want to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
from the bad bits ... yes.

Oh i get it, its a christian country when you want to bash migrants and ethnic minorities, but its an atheist country if you have to pay for it! an im not christian, im hindu, but as the queen is the defender of the faith in this country i would let her decide, just so you know i pay 40% tax and im happy to see it go to something other than a new set of curtains for an MP!

Hilarious, Catholics across the UK have been 'invited' to hold a second collection this week to fund the visit opf His Holiness, yet the same bishops have closed smaller churches and reduced the priesthood to the point where the church is on the brink of extinction.
If only tyhe pope was a head of state with his own army to protect him, oh wait...

No one should be paying because he should not be coming!

Why on earth would we invite a head of state who speaks out against womens' and gay rights, actively opposes use of contraceptives in africa, has repeatedly protected paedphiles at the expense of their victims and claims to speak up for the poor and needy while living in a palace that would make Queen Elizabeth II go green with envy.

He should be turned away at the borders and those in Great Britain who call themselves Catholic should think long and hard about whether this man truly reflects their beliefs.

Absolutely NOT the English taxpayer.

Dan Brown should may.

The catholic church is not destitute. It's not a charity case.

They can easily afford to pay for the visit.
And the security.
And the victims of child-raping priests.
And their taxes.

They simply don't have the integrity to pay their way like the rest of us.

Such a silly question. The Pope is a Head of State, so the country he is visiting pays. I assume all those proposing the Vatican should pay will also be happy to fund in their entirety every foreign trip made by the every member Royal family and the Government? Quid Pro Quo afterall.

Although... I love Metallica, so maybe next time they tour the UK I will be able to get a free ticket if they dress it up as a 'state visit'...
Calm down, they already waste loads of 'my tax' on incredible rubbish so why not splash a bit on some spectacle and mysticism?
Please stop being rude about the pope though, I'm not religious, but what if he's right- you'll have some explaining to do when you drop off the perch!

Catholics should be defending their pope and not allow all the anti christian propaganda from propagating throughout message boards without a word of objection.

The UK Government should pay for the Head of the Vatican states visit to the court of St James, and to be presented to HM Queen.

The mighty Catholic church should pay for his Holynesses religious tour of various UK Stadia.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Surely it would be cheaper to send all the Catholics to visit the pope !! personally i think its a waste of money and should definitely not be at tax payers expense our head of state is Church of England.

Who should pay for the Pope's visit? Simple, The Catholic Church. The Tax payer must not pay for this.

47. At 12:57pm on 21 May 2010, SystemF wrote:
"Oh look, more attacks against Christianity by the repugnant secular left. The same 'secular' left that never speaks out against another certain religion.

Who should pay for the terrorists that we can't get rid of in this country and have to spend millions on house arrest, Mecca? the OIC?"

LOL. I find it hilarious that every single issue you comment on in HYS always degenerates into an anti Muslim/anti leftist rant. You really see the world in such simple terms don’t you?
To me this is not about religion as such. Just ask one question, is this visit in the interests of the majority of the population? The answer is no, so why should those who have no interest in listening to an old delusional hypocrite waffle on pay for his visit?
And before you say "oh but what about other heads of state?", I would personally apply the same logic in answer. If it’s not, then we shouldn’t fund it.
And as for your terrorist comment, do you even know what you are talking about? The Muslim faith is not like the Catholic church, it is far more fractured and has no one voice who claims to speak in its authority. It has hundreds of different ones competing for supremacy. Which is why you have so much sectarian violence in many Muslim countries. Would you make the Catholic church pay for the violence that the IRA inflicted? No? Then why do Muslims have to pay for the violence inflicted by others Muslims?
You lack even basic logic in your thought process...

I think that we should make sure, as other countries do, that heads of State are safe. What I question is the deirability of letting this man into the country at all there is too much scandal surrounding his Papacy

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Who should pay for The Popes trip to the UK?

Well...who would pay for my trip to the vatican? Me.

Better be The Pope then.