MASS HYSTERIA
AS THE Spectator reported two weeks before anyone else (Notes, 31 March), there were difficulties about the Prince of Wales's visit to the Vatican. Here is what happened when he decided that he wanted 'a spiritual encounter' with the Pope. He Consulted the Archbishop of Canterbury, Who raised no fundamental objection. It Was understood from the start that the Prince, though he might attend Mass, Would not take Communion — that would have been contrary to the Act of Settle- Ment and to Roman canon law. The Archbishop used his good offices to make the necessary arrangements with the Vati- can. It was agreed that a public Mass was unsuitable, and that the Royal couple should attend the Pope's daily private Mass. The Vatican did not object to any of thls. Nor did the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. The plans went ahead, with some misgivings but no important hitch, until shortly before Easter. It was at this Point that the programme for the visit was Inspected by the Queen. She decided that the Prince should not attend a service in the Vatican. Instead, there was simply a
meeting with the Pope, although the press reports that the Queen's delinquent son probably `joined him in prayers'. It is clear that the Prince very much wanted to attend Mass, and the Queen decidedly opposed it. The only thoroughly odd thing about all this is that the decision not to have the Mass came so late. This made the affair look absurd. Lambeth Palace had spent months arranging things with the Vatican; diplomats in Rome had been planning and discussing little else for an even longer period. An initiative that came from Buck- ingham Palace was countermanded — by Buckingham Palace. How could this have happened? Was it because, since 1 March, the Prince has been without a private secretary? Lambeth Palace, Ten Downing Street and the Foreign Office all deny that they tried to stop the Mass. No one claims that some last minute information sudden- ly changed everyone's mind. So one must believe that the delay was because the Prince held out against his mother as long as he could, or that he tried to `bounce' her into it, not informing her properly of what was going on until he thought that it would be too late to stop him. Whatever the exact truth, the only certain untruth comes, as
usual, from Buckingham Palace press office. Mr Victor Chapman, the press spokesman accompanying the Royal tour, said that `there was no question of the Queen vetoing the Mass', and that the decision not to hold it was purely `logistic- al'. This reminds one of the Archbishop of Sydney's refusal to meet the Pope in Australia on the grounds that he was `too busy'. There seems, by the way, to have been a jinx on the Prince's attempt to attend any form of worship at all in Rome. Poor Father Bevan Wardrobe, vicar of the Anglican Church in Rome, laid on a special evensong and a special choir for the Royal couple, but they were forced to turn back because there were not enough carabinieri to hold back the crowds.
Previous page
