Now no one here at The Comment is saying the Pope shouldn’t come to Britain, that is not a debate, he is definately coming. This is simply a mere exploration on the question of who exactly should pay? Observe the report on the upcoming Papal visit here:
In the report it is well outlined the difference between the visit of John-Paul II in 1982 and the upcoming visit of Benedict xvi; John-Paul’s visit was a Pastural visit to the churches of Britain, meaning that, aside from his security, his travelling, sleeping, and various activities were paid for by a combination of the Vatican and the Catholic Church here in the UK. However, Benedict was invited by the Queen to come to the UK on an official state visit, as he is the head of the state of the Vatican. Thus, officially, the visit is no longer of religious orientation but instead a visit from a state figurehead. This rockets the costs, which are now said to be stood at around 12 million pound sterling, and puts the burden of those costs directly on the states-people of the country to be visited – us, the taxpayer.
Recent surveys hosted by the BBC show that many are angry at the cost of the visit, but a good argument as to why taxpayers should pay is presented on the video link on the same page by Archbishop Vincent Nicholls, who says that the Pope is a ’spiritual’ leader to billions worldwide:
Now indeed there are arguments against making every resident of the UK pay for the Papal visit through the tax system. The same article as above contains a statistic that 79% of people questioned felt they had no personal attachment to the visit or the Pope himself. Indeed, perhaps some people of alternate religions will dissagree with the Pope and his beliefs and may even be offended by some of them. It would hardly then be ethical to go and demand that they pay tax for the Pope to come and express said views and beliefs.
However, what would be less ethical and practical, would be to demand that simply Christians or Catholics pay through the nose for the visit. The reality is that some form of “tax on Christians” to pay for the visit would be even more unethical and downright descriminatory, and would hardly be greeted with glee given the current state of the economy and people’s personal finances. Equally, to expect the Churches of the UK to foot the bill is unrealistic; though they could probably afford it, it would mean the collapse of many projects and services provided by the Church that so many rely on. In all, it is easier, more sensible, and actually less controversial to have the entirety of the public pay for the Vatican head of state to visit us for a few days. Should you agree to funding the visit of a world leader who does not share the same views and beliefs as you? Well, you would still invite your friend round for dinner even if they supported a different football team, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment