I'm listening to Doctor Andrew (sorry didn't catch his last name) the head of theology at flinders university on ABC local radio and he raised an interesting point

The view in Australia is that the only way politicians should relate to the church is THROUGH there electorate (ie the church influences its followers who then influence there MP's) because we are a VERY secular society, much more so than the US.

So with this in mind is it acceptable for the leaders of our political parties and parliaments to meet with what is after all a religious leader

I realise the matter is slightly complicated by the fact that the Pope is also the President effectively of the state of vatican but the fact he was greeted in the same ceremony as his church leaders separates his role as head of the goverment of the Vatican from his role as the leader of the catholic church. If they were greeting him as the leader of the goverment they would have held a purely secular greeting involving public servants from DEFAT, the minster of foreign affairs, the ambassador, possably the GG and the PM and premure ect rather than George Pell and associates. This can be reflected by a vist from the queen where her greeting would be by secular authorites (including the GG) rather than by a mixture of pollies and Anglican leaders.

Listening to the talk back callers to the program as well as the statements from there guest shows that even catholics are quietly disgruntled by this sort of greeting because its a throw back to the times when the church was ruler rather than the people through pollies.

As you stated, the Pope is sovereign of the Holy See and the Vatican City, both of which are internationally recognized independent bodies, so it makes it tough to avoid such contact. For the most part, the Holy See does not want the Pope to be greeted as "Prince of the Vatican City" (for fear that the loss of that land will negate his internationally recognized status) but as "Soverign of the Hole See" ["See" from "sedes" in latin: seat]. As leader of an internationally recognized sovereign, the Pope should be met and treated as a head of state (I mean, they have representatives in the UN and other international bodies). While visiting the USA, he is not greeted in state as "Archbishop of Rome" or as "Pope" on official letterheads, banners and announced titles, but as "Sovereign of the Holy See". This is a fine political statement: "We recognize your power in a political sense, but we do not in the religions sense." I believe it may be very much the same in Australia.

You will note, the last time the Pope visited the USA, his visit was removed as an official state visit because he was here to conduct business internal to the church. The State Department requires such distinctions in order to avoid any unwanted entanglements. He still got to chat with the president and have lunch, but no state dinner and no official state visit. The net result to us was the same, but to those who monitor such things, it's all but required.

Also, the US government is about as secular as bodies get-- the First Ammendment pretty much guarentees that. There may be some "things" that are still kept around as tradition, but one could point out the fact that the head of our state isn't the official head of an entire religion (i.e. the Queen). In practice, the only real religion you see in the US government is the rare traditions that have been kept around since times immemorable.

~String

Super i dont mean any disrespect but im wasnt refering to legislated seculisum (for want of a better word) but the way religion is woven through politics in peoples minds in the US. As i stated here and as i have said previously if religion tries to mix into politics here its met with anger, religious leaders advocating for a specific polition would be met by protest (and probably the loss of the seat for that member wether they agree with the religious leader or not)

We like to keep politics COMPLEATLY seperate in the unoffical sence as well as the offical one.

That being said this was no secular greeting, as i said there were WAY to many representives of religious leaders for that. If this was a state greeting ambasidors, the GG, DEFAT ect would have been front and center rather than George pell and his cronies in there black robes.

THIS is what pisses australians off, you see we are about apearance as much as fact and if the cerimony APEARS to be our top pollies bowing down to a religious leader they will feel our displeasure (with a MARKED drop in the polls for one thing).

Super i dont mean any disrespect but im wasnt refering to legislated seculisum (for want of a better word) but the way religion is woven through politics in peoples minds in the US. As i stated here and as i have said previously if religion tries to mix into politics here its met with anger, religious leaders advocating for a specific polition would be met by protest (and probably the loss of the seat for that member wether they agree with the religious leader or not)

I agree. I find listening to PM's questions from Australia, UK and Canada refreshing for the total absense of religion. Same thing during election time: people aren't forced to state that they are for, or against this or that religious notion. Hell, in New Zealand, the PM is an avowed agnostic (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554978). You go girl!

THIS is what pisses australians off, you see we are about apearance as much as fact and if the cerimony APEARS to be our top pollies bowing down to a religious leader they will feel our displeasure (with a MARKED drop in the polls for one thing).

Which is really odd, since Australia is a very secular/Anglican nation. Why all the fuss about the Pope? I think the guy's a hypocritical asshole. But, that's me.

~String

your telling me, mum (who is an RE teacher in a catholic primary school) and i had a fight about it the other day. Actually i was a LITTLE harsh in my critisium (i kind of told her that her father would be turning in his grave if he saw her suporting the shift to facisium that this is causing), i dispise the basted, infact i dispise the whole church above the priest rank but what pisses me off more is the legislation which has surounded this event (as stated in the other thread in ethics), thank the tooth fairy for the federal court:p. At heart i rarly think of religion at all except where it intercects with politics, im a political animal:p

There are about 5.1 million Roman Catholics in Australia. That's 26% (one quarter) of the Australian population. So it would be rather prudent for all of the Australian leaders to meet with a man who has a strong influence over such a significant proportion of voters.

They don't have to kiss his boots, but to ignore such an influential man just because he's 'religious' seems pretty stupid.

that means that 74% of the electrot DONT surport him in the slightest and your ignoring the fact that ALOT of those would be non practicing and even of those who DO practice alot are VERY unhappy with the current pope

Now yes Tim costello had a lot of influance with the former goverment but that was because he was the leader of world vision AND the former treasures BROTHER (cant expect a pollie not to talk to there family) but this guy is not. Infact even in the catholic church he is despised. As i said i had a fight with my mum about world youth day, her agument was that just because shes catholic doesnt mean she surports the LEADERSHIP, ESPECIALLY George Pell and the current pope.

Since he has come in most of my family have stoped going to church PERIOD, infact i think mum is the only one who is still going out of my imidiate family and thats because its her JOB.

I would hardly call him influentual, more like devicive, but even thats beside the point. The PM wouldnt meet the queen in her capacity as leader of the anglican church, he would meet her only as our head of state or as the head of state of england (ie a SECULAR leader)

Do you think Rudd should refuse to meet the Dalai Lama as well to ensure the purity of a secular State?

Keep in mind, Parliament still says the Lord's prayer before each sitting (as one example).

actually i strongly object to that, it pisses me off everytime i hear it.

on the dalai lama though firstly rudd DID avoid him to avoid pissing off china, secondly hes more a human rights campainer than a religious leader as far as Australia is concerned

bells, if kevin rudd had met the DL he would have met him as the exiled leader of tibbet, rather than as the leader of budasium.

Put it this way, i THINK kevin rudd is a catholic (even if hes not pretend he is). As a catholic, the correct way of greating the pope is to genuflect and kiss his ring. Now would you think its acceptable for the PM of australia who after all represents US including those who ARNT catholic, to do that?

actually i strongly object to that, it pisses me off everytime i hear it.

on the dalai lama though firstly rudd DID avoid him to avoid pissing off china, secondly hes more a human rights campainer than a religious leader as far as Australia is concerned

Ermm the Dalai Lama is a human rights campaigner because he is the religious leader and because he is in exile.

bells, if kevin rudd had met the DL he would have met him as the exiled leader of tibbet, rather than as the leader of budasium.

It still does not take away from the fact that he is the head of a religion.

Put it this way, i THINK kevin rudd is a catholic (even if hes not pretend he is).
And? Isn't he an Anglican now?

As a catholic, the correct way of greating the pope is to genuflect and kiss his ring.
Not really. Not all do. Just like not all people bow or curtsy the Queen. As I understand it, a Catholic is meant to genuflect and kiss the ring if it is offered. From the media pictures at the airport, the Pope offered his hand for a handshake.

Now would you think its acceptable for the PM of australia who after all represents US including those who ARNT catholic, to do that?
Yes. It shows a sign of respect (if he did do it and is a Catholic).

To be honest, it doesn't bother me either way.

Political leaders hsould meet with people who have an influence upon the culture, economy, politics, etc of their constituency. Clearly the Pope fall into that category. Failure to meet with him would be an abrogation of responsibility. (Not to mention plain rude.)