Neil McNicholas: Let's welcome the Pope, not count the cost of his visit

The article claimed this was the opinion of "more than three quarters of Britons" whereas it was actually only the opinion of 1,543 people – or 77 per cent of the 2,005 individuals that they questioned.

To begin with, 2,005 people is hardly statistically representative of a population in excess of 62 million and who exactly were the further-reduced 77 per cent that their opinion was taken as "gospel"?

And why do these 1,543 people think the taxpayer shouldn't contribute to the cost even though it's a state visit? Evidently, it is because he is a religious figure!

Unlike the visit of John Paul II in 1982, when to the best of my knowledge there were no such objections, Pope Benedict is not coming to this country "because he is a religious figure".

He is coming at the invitation of the Government because he is a Head of State – the Vatican City State – a fact that seems to be very conveniently ignored when it suits the purpose.

He may well also be the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, but he is not coming to this country in that role but as a Head of State.

Why then is Theos mischief-making by carrying out this survey – because that's what it sounds like?

Do they carry out similar surveys prior to every other Head of State visiting this country at the invitation of the Government? No. And are people asked prior to such visits whether they agree with the taxpayer picking up the bill? No. Then why are such questions being asked on this occasion?

In a letter to this newspaper some weeks ago, I made the point that Catholics in this country are being asked to fund that small portion of Pope Benedict's visit which has to do solely with Church-related matters and, if anything, it is us who should feel aggrieved.

After all, we have already contributed to the cost of the visit through our taxes and have then been asked to pay even more.

Nonetheless people in dioceses throughout the country have quietly and generously responded to this additional request and funds have been raised.

However if, let us say, President Sarkozy or President Obama or Queen Margrethe were to visit, would French or American or Danish citizens living here be asked to contribute to any extra costs that weren't strictly part of the official visit? I think not.

Nor would anyone be questioning why they were visiting in the first place or why our taxes were funding the visit. So again the question arises as to why the Pope's visit is being challenged in this way?

And it doesn't really matter whether, as the article claims, 79 per cent of those surveyed have "no personal interest" in the Pope's visit.

First of all, how many of us ever have any interest in state visits anyway?

But then, secondly, we don't particularly have to be interested, the Pope is here at the Government's invitation, not ours.

That said, surely it isn't asking too much for us as a nation to be as gracious and welcoming as we should be to anyone visiting the country, Head of State or not?

And on this occasion, it being the Pope, let the Catholic Church worry about the welcome it provides in connection with any purely Church-related aspects of his time in this country, no-one else needs to concern themselves with any of that.

The bottom line, however, is that Pope Benedict has been invited here by the Government on a state visit and should therefore be extended exactly the same hospitality (and the cost be paid) as any other Head of State.