Notebook
It must be an enormous temptation for any P. °Pe to leave the Vatican as often as possible. The atmosphere of that great institunon is stifling, Its bureaucracy includes Many embittered priests who have sacrtficed their original pastoral vocations to Inies behind typewriters. There is much Inekering and backbiting. Over this great apparatus presides an absolute monarch who is judged by his servants principally by the amount of time he is prepared to devote to listening to them. Certainly, Pope Paul VI, who found his mission so burdensome, never appeared happier than when he was travelling. He may have lacked popular appeal, but nevertheless millions turned out to see him because he was Pope. I doubt, for Fxample, if the crowds which he addressed In the Philippines in 1971 can have been smaller than those which acclaimed Pope John Paul II in Poland. Such evidence of ksunple faith on a massive scale must have ren a great comfort to Pope Paul. It must "ave helped restore his confidence in his Mission and his hopes for the future. And if 11°Pe Paul so greatly enjoyed his brief !.scaPes from the cynicism and sophistication of Rome, imagine how Pope John-Paul Must feel — a man of fewer years and greater ei.n,ergY, a non-Italian, and an already estab'Isned popular hero. But the temptation to 13,e Constantly on the move is one that he snould avoid. The Irish deserve a Papal v. 'Sit, if any people do, and I do not begrudge it to them. But this Pope has, within a very short space of time, already paid triumPhant visits to Mexico and Poland. He is ncft going to Ireland and the United States and, according to Peter Nichols on another Page, may be planning early visits to Vienna and the Philippines. There seems, indeed, rit° be no limit to his travel plans. There are mangers in this. First, the Pope must not subordinate the administration of the Ct hurch, which cannot carry on without him, ? his desire to visit every corner of the globe. Secondly — and this may be an unnecessarily lugubrious thought — the ,ttl°re widely he travels and the more popular he becomes (as he undoubtedly deserves t°), the greater the personal risks he will be I:tinning. The world is a dangerous place, Lull of lunatics with guns in their pockets.
Rjeltard West was suggesting last week that tnam, although an extremely unpleasant Inmunist dictatorship, was in fact being 'ess villainous in its treatment of an unwanted minority than many other CornMfist countries have been. Indeed, last we.ekend's UN conference in Geneva on the retugee problem revealed a willingness to cooperate which to some extent under mined the view of the British and Chinese governments that Vietnam is a country totally beyond the pale. Of course, life must be extremely disagreeable for the Chinese minority if they are prepared to risk drowning at sea in order to get out of Vietnam. Of course, it is inexcusable that Vietnam should extract payment in gold for this privilege. But the Chinese have not been forced to stay and they have not been killed, which is already something. This is what makes the issue so morally confusing. We applaud Vietnam for agreeing to mitigate the immediate horror by controlling the exodus. But should we also applaud Lord Carrington for demanding — according to the Guardian — more 'forceful' policies to stop the outflow? So often have we condemned — and rightly — the Soviet Union for refusing to allow its oppressed citizens to escape that it seems, on the face of it, inconsistent to propose that people wishing to leave Vietnam should be prevented from doing so. What would happen to them then? At least it would not be our problem. However, the Geneva conference must be voted a success both for Mrs Thatcher, on whose initiative it was called, and for the United Nations. For its most important objective — the finding of homes for the boat people — was to a large extent met. The offers of homes to the refugees have been more than doubled — from 125,000 last month to 260,000 — which is a considerable achievement, even though it is a long way from resolving the problem. Meanwhile, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman of the Finchley Reform Synagogue has written to Lord Bethel informing him that 'largely as a result of your article "Britain and the boat people" (7 July), our synagogue is preparing to offer a flat in a house which we own in Finchley to a refugee family.' This is a most generous gesture which, as Lord Bethell says, 'encourages us to believe that our efforts are not always entirely wasted.' Here are one or two tips for Prince Charles about how not to answer an interviewer's questions if he wishes (as presumably was his intention in Caernarvon last weekend) to endear himself to the people — in this case, the people of Wales. When asked in a cringingly deferential manner (in this case by Cliff Morgan) whether he thinks that the Welsh Guards are the finest regiment in the British army, he should not reply thamhis is a silly question, which it is, but say something to the effect that British regiments are all unbelievably fine and that there is none finer than the Welsh Guards. When asked if he has got to know and understand Wales better in the ten years since he became Prince of Wales, he should not reply that he doesn't get much time to go there, but say that he does indeed understand and love the principality unbelievably much better. If asked his special interests in Wales, he should not refer to various unheard-of 'Prince of Wales' schemes and awards, but talk gushingly of the magnificent muscial tradition of the Welsh, of the beauty of their country, and of their own unparalleled virtues as a people. In general, the Prince should try to avoid that tone of selfdepreciation which can too easily come across as arrogance. Questions similar to those above were asked in between performances of hymns, folk songs, and martial music at a rather curious ceremony last weekend in the courtyard of Caernarvon Castle to mark the tenth anniversary of his investiture, Still, it was quite agreeable to watch on television — particularly a render ing by Sir Geraint Evans of 'God Bless the Prince of Wales', a song which one almost never hears and of which I would be interested to know the origin.
I recently sneaked a look at the 'new technology' at Times Newspapers, over which much of the trouble has occurred, and ' suddenly understood why the National Graphical Association is so determined to have 'unique access' to it. These video typesetting machines are far too much fun for anybody voluntarily to surrender the use of them: They are like those popular television games and those domestic computers which will do anything you ask. They will set copy in any type and to any width you choose, they will cheerfully make corrections and re-arrange the lines, and do a thousand other things. Furthermore, they have a built-in trade union mentality, for they are constantly telling you what and what not you are allowed to do, flashing words like 'illegal' on to the screen. The NGA will no doubt get its way and acquire a monopoly of such fun and games. I also anticipate that The Times and;Sunday Times will soon come out again, la 41 week's clash between the unions and Mr Marmaduke Hussey being a mere hiccup in the process of disintegration of the management's position.
Previous page
