Pope's costly Spanish visit leaves sour taste

The words "controversy" and "obscene opulence" have dogged the papacy since time immemorial.

If it isn't the paedophile priest scandal; the matter of the Catholics whose gender denies them a shot at priesthood; the gays who are not recognised as worthy Catholics; the denial of the value of condoms in slowing the spread of the HIV/Aids virus, it is the dogmatic stance on birth control which has left many parents with children they can ill-afford.

So why are we shocked that Pope Benedict's trip to Spain will cost between $72-million and $86-million, excluding his security?

It's not as though this is the first junket that has run into millions of dollars at the expense of taxpayers, some of whom the pope cannot tolerate and whose rights he's not willing to recognise or protect.

Yes, I'm talking about homosexuals, women and children whose sexual abuse at the hands of some of his priests he has not fully dealt with by exposing the priests involved and having them imprisoned.

His visit to Britain last year cost the taxpayer there £10-million to £12-million at a time when austerity measures and economic hardships were being imposed on that country's citizens.

Similarly, the pope will arrive in Spain this week to find a country in the grip of an economic crisis. The youth he will address as part of Roman Catholic youth festivities are subjected to severe spending cuts and sky-rocketing unemployment.

This is a country which reportedly cut education expenditure by à40-million this year, an amount equal to the price tag of the visit. Frankly, this sounds like a country that cannot afford this jamboree.

Now, there will be those who are bound to accuse me of being too critical. They will come up with all sorts of excuses for this show of crass materialism in the face of escalating global poverty and a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots.

They will try to hoodwink you and me into believing that the pope is a statesman and deserves a state visit, and therefore his travel expenses are justified.

But a closer look at the budget paints a picture of sheer opulence - a 200m-long stage, hundreds of water fountains, 20 giant screens and a giant metal tree at the aerodrome where the pope's final mass of the visit will be delivered.

You may argue that the pope has nothing to do with the preparations or the money being laid out for his visit. You may even say he's a guest who could not influence the purse strings of his hosts.

But you would be wrong. The pope is a powerful man who derives his power, popularity - and the money that comes with it - from the moral and ethical compass he supposedly provides.

It is to him that his followers look for moral and ethical guidance. The pontiff's silence on a matter of expenditure of this magnitude in the face of so much suffering in the world not only goes against Christianity but also goes against his own views two years ago.

In his third encyclical, Pope Benedict reminded us that "charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine". Among other things, he urged for a review of the global economy, which he said required a commercial logic which would work for the "common good".

He bemoaned an economy that sought to promote profit as its exclusive goal and thus promoted a growing divide between the rich and the poor.

He denounced the view that economics are free from the "influences of a moral character" and highlighted the growing claims to a "right to excess in the affluent societies, while food and water were lacking in certain underdeveloped regions".

These are powerful words which, if heeded, could make a meaningful change in the world, but I dare say they mean very little if he cannot enforce them in his dealings with the world he rightly criticised.

Part of the bill for his trip will be paid from the tithes of the poor pilgrims who will attend the events, and the bulk will be paid by corporate sponsors. To take from the poor to finance a multimillion-dollar event, even in the name of "presenting the message of Jesus Christ", is simply morally corrupt.

As for the businesses pouring money into the event - are they being held to a different moral standard to that which the pope referred in his encyclical?