Letter: Don't blame papal messenger for the message

Joyce McMillan states her views with regard to the visit of the Pope with unequivocal conviction (Scottish Perspective, 17 September). Indeed, Joyce's crie de coeur is for more uncertainty in stances taken by those exploring the meaning of human existence; while being very certain herself that this is what is required.

Pope Benedict would not be the leader of the world's Roman Catholics, were he not committed to the beliefs of that Church. Is it not legitimate for him to be convinced of the truth of the office he holds? Or is unequivocal conviction the prerogative of only some? Courageously, the Holy Father has said that "obedience to the truth of the faith, must withstand intellectual conformism and facile accommodation to the spirit of the age". Bewildering, even infuriating, the words may be to many but it is to be hoped the dislike of the content of the message is not transferred into an unreasonable animosity towards the messenger.

NANCY CLUSKER

Edinburgh Road

Bathgate, West Lothian

How many of the "luminaries" - Richard Dawkins, Peter Tatchell, Stephen Fry, Joyce McMillan, et al - who protested against the visit of the Pope to the UK would have mounted similar protests if, for example, the visitor had been a Middle Eastern or Indian subcontinent head of state?

How many complained, for example, about the security expense involved in the recent state visit of the president of Pakistan, a country not well known for its kindness and tolerance towards its homosexual, Christian or non- Muslim minorities?

The Vatican may disapprove of homosexuality and what they see as sexual immorality in general but, for example, I know of no woman being condemned to death there for adultery by stoning.

The luminaries are most careful about whom and what religion they seek to pillory. The stench of luvvie hypocrisy once more fills the air.

ALEXANDER McKAY

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh