I think this example nicely illustrates the point that people (especially organisations, where collective decision-making is more prevalent) often follow the path of least resistance, and make life as easy for themselves as possible. Chamberlain did it, and the Vatican do it. They may well have said that Franco was a bloody nice chap, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they believed it, does it? It would hardly be the first or last time that they've told a few porkies to keep the peace.
I am somewhat bemused by this Pope and his rather right-wing approach to life. However, it's impossible to tell how much of that he was born with and how much is simply him fronting up for the hardliners within the Vatican.
I don't really have a problem with the Pope visiting these shores - we've certainly had plenty of leaders with worse histories in the past - or with the tax money being used to ferry him around. What I find most bemusing is the seeming wall-to-wall media coverage. As I understand it, there are an estimated 6m Roman Catholics in this country. That is approximately 10%. I appreciate that the visit of the Pope might be a big deal to them, but a large portion of the remaining 90% don't give a monkeys. Why is it getting such a ridiculous level of coverage?
A very resonable response.
Regarding media coverage is this not the first offical Papal visit to the UK? The visit in 1982 he invited himself (obviously he informed the right people and all the other stuff) but was not invited by the country.