Papal Visit, September 2010

[Southern Comfort]

So says Ruth Gledhill on today's Times blog, picked up by the BBC, CNN and others. A full 6-day state visit, if everything is to be believed, with venues on the draft itinerary listed as London, Oxford, Liverpool and Edinburgh, addresses to both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall, staying with Her Maj in Buck House, etc, etc.

[docmattc]

Archbishop Nichols is being careful to neither confirm nor deny this.

Let's wait until we hear something official rather than rumour in the blogosphere

[VML]

It was announced tonight on Radio 4 as a 'State Visit, in contrast with the low key pastoral visit by JPII in 1982.'

[Mithras]

So says Ruth Gledhill on today's Times blog, picked up by the BBC, CNN and others. A full 6-day state visit, if everything is to be believed, with venues on the draft itinerary listed as London, Oxford, Liverpool and Edinburgh, addresses to both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall, staying with Her Maj in Buck House, etc, etc.

Wot no Cardiff?

Mithras

[SOP]

So we probably won't have the big open air Masses we had with JPII.

Has got me thinking already. Back in 1982 the event in Manchester had a choir of over 3,000 made up of the regular parish choirs. There was some criticism of that attitude as the music was not sung perfectly and some thought that was not good enough for the pope. I very much doubt we would manage to get 3,000 regular parish musicians to make up such a choir for next year.

Also, will the crowds turn out for the visit next year? Not because of lack of interest or respect but it will be televised and a television viewer will probably see more than someone lost in a crowd. Makes sense but sitting at home watching the telly does nothing for the atmosphere at the live event.

[Southern Comfort]

So we probably won't have the big open air Masses we had with JPII.

Today's Telegraph says the new Wembley Stadium will be one site ─ don't know how they can know this. And it appears that Northern Ireland is a possibility ─ ditto.

And in my original post I omitted Birmingham from the list of possible venues ─ seems pretty obvious that the beatification ceremony would be somewhere around there.

Archbishop Nichols is being careful to neither confirm nor deny this.

.

One commentator thought he could be miffed that he hadn't been told but had learnt about it from the blog leak. Hm. A bit like MPs hearing about things on the Today programme, rather than the floor of the House.

Perhaps, as Doc says, we should wait for an official announcement.

[festivaltrumpet]

And in my original post I omitted Birmingham from the list of possible venues ─ seems pretty obvious that the beatification ceremony would be somewhere around there.

While His Holiness still retains the option, Benedict XVI chooses not to preside at beatification ceremonies. See New Procedures in the Rite of Beatification Section 3. Newman's beatification therefore does not necessarily require a papal visit to Birmingham, or indeed the UK for the ceremony to take place there.

Perhaps, as Doc says, we should wait for an official announcement.

Anything prior to that can only be speculation.

[gwyn]

Mithras asked:

Wot no Cardiff?

Maybe himself's got wind of Tuesday's visit by St. Therese and so has decided not to risk Cardiff.

[musicus]

Thank you, festivaltrumpet. That is a remarkably clear and concise document; one of the best I have seen from Rome.

[Southern Comfort]

An excellent document. Thank you, ft.

Well, the national and Catholic press seem quite convinced that the visit will take place. One major question that no one has yet asked in the midst of the euphoria is who will pay for it.

The last time JPII wanted to visit the Netherlands, the Dutch Bishops (and quite possibly the Dutch government too) said "You want to come? Then you pay for the security, 'cos we can't afford it." So he never went, because the policing costs are huge. But it appears that we will be the recipients of a state visit, so presumably the government would spend the taxpayers' money on it? Or would they? Is the whole thing a cynical gimmick by Gordon Brown to garner the Catholic vote without thinking about the consequences, I can't help asking myself.

And I also can't help remembering last time in 1982, when Papal Visit Ltd managed to bankrupt an untold number of small businesses who had been unwise enough to purchase franchises at exorbitant rates for souvenirs and such, not to mention dealing with many others involved in a way which would be described at best as dubious. It should never have happened like that. Not too many people know that Papal Visit Ltd never paid out a penny in royalties to composers on all the service booklets that were produced for the visit. Some of our composers suffered heavy losses as a result, which have never been recompensed. One of them actually took Papal Visit Ltd to court ─ and won! The rest put it down to what happens when you work for the Church. However, at least one other person (not a composer) committed suicide as a result of all the shenanigans. There are many other facts about the way in which people lost large sums of money in 1982 which don't bear repeating here. Not nice at all, and better to try and forget all about it.

But when I hear that people are already talking about fundraising for another visit (in the midst of a recession ─ can you believe it?), one of my reactions is "If he really has to come, let someone else pick up the tab. We don't need all this again."

Sorry to sound so cynical, but we must be realistic about this.

[SOP]

I did not know any of that side around the last papal visit. The only negative I knew was that all the hype around his visit to Manchester and that we were going to be swamped with around 2 million visitors actually put off some parents from even attempting to take their children to the venue.

But as to royalties, who paid for what, as a week in week out member of a parish church I knew nothing of any of that.

Different pope, different times. A state visit could attract demonstrations and provoke anti-Catholic talk that we do not usually experience this side of the Irish Sea. Or, it could be a time of reconciliation and Christianity actually recognising we have more in common than has been acknowledged.

I am not wise enough to know how it will go.

There will be some who will say to avoid the question of royalties to only use plainchant!

[monty]

The Sunday programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning said JPII's visit was a pastoral one whereas Pope Benedict's would be a state visit.

Great strides have been made if it goes ahead - cannot imagine such a visit even being considered 20 years ago.

[festivaltrumpet]

The Sunday programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning said JPII's visit was a pastoral one whereas Pope Benedict's would be a state visit.

I understand that the visit of John Paul was termed pastoral due to the diplomatic sensitivity of a full blown state visit whilst the country was at war.

[monty]

Ah, thanks FT.

But it turned out that it was a truly pastoral visit as he tried to visit as many venues as he could. It sounds as if this visit would be more formal and political.

[Southern Comfort]

The Sunday programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning said JPII's visit was a pastoral one whereas Pope Benedict's would be a state visit.

I understand that the visit of John Paul was termed pastoral due to the diplomatic sensitivity of a full blown state visit whilst the country was at war.

Quite correct, and in fact it was still not certain as little as two weeks before his scheduled arrival date whether he would actually come at all, given the Falklands situation. (I'd love to know what went on behind the scenes to resolve that! The "Cathedral of Peace" homily at Coventry was surely certainly directed at the political situation?) So ─ all the preparations could have been in vain....