Skip to main content

£12 Million For The Pope Is A Bargain

The British media have been reporting with alarm that The Pope's visit to Britain in the autumn will cost twelve million pounds, up from a supposed eight million that had been proposed at some stage.  The tone of these reports is secular and critical, and a thinly veiled anti-religious attitude underpins them.  Firstly, let us consider this - Catholicism is a major religion, and The Pope - despite the real and imagined faults of his Faith - is its leader.  He is also a political head, of The Vatican.  As such, his visit should be accorded the full seriousness and security that any world leader would expect.  Security needs to be tight because Britain is now the leading world exporter of dogmatic atheism, and here is a genuine hatred of this man in ever-widening circles.  Now, I can understand why some people feel hatred for what he stands for - he is conservative, holds difficult theological views, and he has been linked to terrible accusations.  But mob rule cannot be allowed to gain a foothold in rational discourse.  Either Britain is a tolerant, welcoming, and diplomatic place, where invited guests can expect reasonable treatment, or not. Catholics number 4.2 million souls in England and Wales, by one count, and as many go to Mass as Anglicans attend Sunday service.  While this might seem a small percentage of the overall population, this minority forms a valuable social backbone for communities, particularly in London.  Before the British media sneers or groans too loudly, they should try to grasp the full body horror and convert it from loathing to acceptance: Catholicism is not some external disease seeking to gain admission to the UK with the Pope's visit - but a flourishing organ of this nation already.  The Pope's visit is sadly timed - it is a time of great controversy for him personally, and for his role - but the visit should go ahead, and all legitimate costs embraced.  If the secular state is properly robust, it should welcome such tests, not repel them.

Comments

puthwuth said…
I genuinely hate the Pope and resent my taxes being used to pay for this disgusting man's visit. Step forward, Peter Tatchell -- time for another citizen's arrest.
EYEWEAR said…
David, I fully understand how you must feel. He isn't Mr Pleasant, and talks low and carries a big stick. But tolerance is a watchword I'd swear by, personally. Paying for the Royal Family is a burden for many tax papers as well. But if tax payers only paid for heads of state and politicians to visit who they liked, what sort of diplomacy would ensue? No one would visit. Actually, that might be a good policy.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EYEWEAR said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
puthwuth said…
But I *do* tolerate him -- toleration means precisely putting up with things you don't like. But some forms of toleration are imposed on us from above. There was a case a few years ago of someone attempting to withhold the percentage of their tax she'd calculated went to fund the war in Iraq. I believe the case failed. This is where protest becomes not just a virtue but a duty. I would say the same thing, by the way, about an ayatollah or any other cult leader the government fancied inviting.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".