I wasn't 100% sure which forum would be the most appropriate for this subject -- I'm going with this one because this falls into the category of "current events".

The UK Times article Pope cancels university visit after protests talks about the cancellation of a scheduled Papal speech at Rome's La Sapienza University. The Vatican has cited security concerns in the wake of protests by professors and students who oppose the Pope's alleged view of the relationship of religion to science, and comments about Galileo made by the Pope when he was still a Cardinal.

For the moment, let's take it for granted that neither side has misunderstood the other. The question I want to ask is, do you agree with the way the protesters dealt with the scheduled speech? Should they have been so stringent in demanding that the Pope not visit La Sapienza? Would some other way of lodging their opposition to the Pope's views been more appropriate?

[b]The Vatican has cited security concerns in the wake of protests by professors and students who oppose the Pope's alleged view of the relationship of religion to science, and comments about Galileo made by the Pope when he was still a Cardinal[/b].

It is pradoxical that the Holy Father and the Church now has security concerns, 400 years ago when they burnt Giordano Bruno at the stake, they were ensuring that soceity was "safe " form inquiring and questioning minds. Because Bruno's file went missing we cannot now be certain if his support for Copernican theory was the reason or among the reasons for his execution. Galileo though much more scientific in his approach and the evidence he gathered in support of Copernican theory held on to his "survival instincts" and recanted his statements or he may have met the same fate of Bruno.

Should they have been so stringent in demanding that the Pope not visit La Sapienza? Would some other way of lodging their opposition to the Pope's views been more appropriate?[/quote]

I would like to think that the POPE should yet have been given the opportunity rationalise the dogma of religious doctrine. When the public is confronted with baseless dogma versus the evidence of the scientfic approach, then John Public will have the opportunity to base their faith and actions on what makes sense.

I don't know I'm back and forth on this. Protest is good. And it doesn't seem that it was necessary to cancel the Pope's trip. Or, at least, the article doesn't mention any threats. So it was the Vatican's choice to cancel, probably to avoid uncomfortable heat from the student body.

I guess the only issue I have is that the protest turned into a call to prevent the Pope from speaking. This is not something that I am necessarily always opposed to, in private settings. The question is, was it warranted in this situation? My initial reaction was no, it was not. But, on consideration, there are two points, if I was one of these students, with which I would argue the choice of trying to prevent the Pope from speaking was valid. First, obviously the Pope is not a friend of discourse in the sciences free from the intrusion of religious dogma, and thus not a friend to science education. That he would be invited, against some students' wishes, to "inaugurate the academic year" I feel could be troublesome enough to warrant such retaliation. Secondly, the Pope would only have been speaking to a select group of students. And I think that too is troublesome, considering the situation.

Sure have him come speak, but do so in an open forum. And don't have him inaugurate your school year, when, obviously, enough of the student body is unreceptive to him.

Welcome to the forums, Ravi. I hoe you'll find plenty to talk about around here.

Ravi wrote:It is pradoxical that the Holy Father and the Church now has security concerns, 400 years ago when they burnt Giordano Bruno at the stake, they were ensuring that soceity was "safe " form inquiring and questioning minds.

I don't see that one has much to do with the other. For one thing, the papacy has always had serious security issues. And for another, it's doubtful that anyone currently serving at the Vatican had anything to do with Giordano Bruno's trail or execution.

Rose wrote:I guess the only issue I have is that the protest turned into a call to prevent the Pope from speaking. This is not something that I am necessarily always opposed to, in private settings. The question is, was it warranted in this situation?

Rather or not its socially warranted, I think it's ironic, given that the group was championing the cause of science. Weren't they protesting Cardinal Ratzinger's approval of the Church's suppression of free discourse? And how did they intend to do so? By suppressing further discourse?

That he would be invited, against some students' wishes, to "inaugurate the academic year" I feel could be troublesome enough to warrant such retaliation.

I think that's a valid point, but I'm still not sure the extent to which they had planned to carry their protest was warranted. A protest doesn't have to lead to some decision change of events to be successful. Making your point emphatic is often enough. And having here made the point that the decisions of the university administration were not reflective of their own concerns could ultimately have served as the background to later, more civil attempts to reconcile the administration to those concerns -- and without the blatant self-contradiction of having suppressed a voice in the interests of free discourse.

Secondly, the Pope would only have been speaking to a select group of students.

That's a problematic aspect of the whole episode, and without more information about the university, I'm not sure how to deal with it. Something as simple as security might account for the limited audience, but then, there might be more to it than that. If you run across any more information as to why there was that apparent disparity, I'd appreciate it if you'd throw us a link.

Sure have him come speak, but do so in an open forum. And don't have him inaugurate your school year, when, obviously, enough of the student body is unreceptive to him.

Oh, trust me, I'm critical of the university's decision making process on this one. Although, honestly, how many universities would turn down the chance to have the Pope speak on campus? I'm just not sure the administration's faux pas, however egregious, excuse the inconsistencies in the protester's message.

Then again, it's probably a mistake to assume that the protesters make up a homogenous group. Yeah, a lot of them probably were in line with the ideals expressed by the professor who organized the whole thing. But there were probably some who, as your suggestion implies, were just pissed that the university had made such an elitist affair out of a lecture inaugurating the school year.

Mad wrote:Rather or not its socially warranted, I think it's ironic, given that the group was championing the cause of science. Weren't they protesting Cardinal Ratzinger's approval of the Church's suppression of free discourse? And how did they intend to do so? By suppressing further discourse?

Right, but if I was a student, part of the issue, for me at least, would be that the manner in which he was to appear at the school was not in the interest of discourse. It was, as you noted, an elite part of the student body (for whatever reason, and I imagine part of that was security) that was going to represent the whole of the student body for the inauguration of their academic year. That's not discourse. And considering how some of the student body feels about him, having an invite-only session, in that context, is not cool, in my opinion. In a different context, I'd concede the irony.

From the little I know, I don't necessarily fully support the method. Nor do I think it unlikely that the student body had, possibly, better options. But I don't think the method was necessarily invalid either.

I approve of any method that keeps that particular nutcase out of my yard!

J/K

Later