Thursday, 22 November 2007

A Clarification from Bishop Hollis...but what of the rest ?

"My remarks on the question of legalising brothels were made in answer to a request from The Portsmouth News to comment on the unanimous decision of the Hampshire Women’s Institutes to support such legislation. Their decision represented a response to things as they are, a situation in which prostitution, sadly, exists. Prostitution, and all that goes with it, is dehumanising and can be vicious. Women engaged in it are open to exploitation and victimisation. It is also associated with violence, the drug culture and the tragedy of worldwide human trafficking.
A way of life that involves such things is immoral and can never be justified, and there are serious issues at stake which must be addressed. Some say that the legalising of brothels may afford some measure of protection to a very vulnerable group of women. If this is true, such legislation could be useful. It was with this in mind that I made my comment; otherwise, I could not support its promotion.
My original comment made it very clear that I am totally opposed to any form of prostitution."
+ Crispian Hollis

So here we have a 'retraction' in the 'I was quoted out of context' genre - fine , he got the jitters after being front page of "The Catholic Herald" - but what of the Blessed Bishop's defiance to the Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum' ? Well ? The rest is silence....You'll notice the photo of His Lordship with Pope John Paul II ? What was Bishop Hollis' opinion of our Pope of Blessed memory ? We may never know but perhaps his asociates or employees may shed some light upon the issue ?

...and {to ' change topics '} meanwhile what of his Liturgist - the notorious Paul Inwood ? [see previous blog postings] Well this came to light from Damian Thompson on holy smoke blog :

I have been sent a copy of an extraordinary letter written by the diocese of Portsmouth “director of liturgy”, Paul Inwood, in the last year of John Paul II’s pontificate. In it, Inwood – who recently tried to stop Catholics from asking for the Latin Mass – attacks the Vatican for “disobedience” and “arrogance” in issuing Redemptionis Sacramentum, a document curbing liturgical abuses. He also suggests that Pope John Paul’s mind was disturbed when he signed it.

Mr Inwood has questioned the late Pope's state of mind

The letter, which appears beneath the crest of the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev Crispian Hollis, is typical of the culture of supercilious arrogance to be found in many English dioceses. It was written by Inwood – a layman best known as a composer of mediocre liturgical music – to Mrs Josephine Nixon of Basingstoke, who had complained at the sniping, anti-Roman tone of an article by Inwood in the Portsmouth diocesan newsletter.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued in 2004 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, condemned “abuses” such as asking lay people to distribute communion when it is not necessary, using glass or earthenware chalices, and saying Mass without proper vestments.

Inwood took issue with the document, and grandly informed the people of Portsmouth that “the Congregation’s Instruction is far from being ‘the word of the Pope’ … like many other documents, it needs interpretation by those skilled in telling us what the technical language means”. In any case, he said, many of the “abuses” had never been seen in England.

Mr Inwood, may I remind you, is the composer of “Alleluia Ch-Ch” and other trendy atrocities; he has received formal training in music (incredible though that might seem) but does not hold any academic degrees in liturgy or theology. Mrs Nixon not unreasonably felt rather annoyed by being addressed de haut en bas in this fashion, and asked him why he felt that a major Vatican ruling could be ignored.

He replied: “The problem with the language used in the document is precisely that, although it may appear clearly written and straightforward to lay people such as ourselves, in fact this kind of document is normally intended for bishops and their advisers, and not for lay people. The language does not necessarily mean what we think it means – some of the technical terms have specific and special meanings that need to be explained.”

Furthermore, says Inwood, the “authors” had failed to incorporate changes that bishops had asked for, and had also contradicted themselves. “Because of their disobedience (some would say arrogance) the result is going to be a lot of confusion … Clearly there is a great deal more to be said – not least about the Pope’s state of health, and which portions of texts are actually his own work as opposed to being pressed on him by those surrounding him.”

What an immensely revealing letter. This is the snooty, sneaky mindset of the diocesan apparatchiks who wag the tail of the Bishops’ Conference.

In 2004 they could get away with defying Rome: churches in many dioceses, including Westminster and Portsmouth, still regularly flout Redemptionis Sacramentum. But this is 2007, and – to their horror – Joseph Ratzinger now occupies the throne of St Peter. They are trying to pull the same stunt with Summorum Pontificum, the apostolic letter liberating the Latin Mass. This time, the Pope is watching.


Anonymous said...

We're watching you too Inwood! It's him whose lost his marbles not our beloved Pope John Paul ll! The arrogance of the man!
But with all these new bloggers, he doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance..nor Bishop Hollis.

David Whitehead said...

How incredibly arrogant of Mr Inwood, it betrays a certain mindset which is profoundly un-Christian in its lack of charity and true liberality. It is also profoundly un-Catholic for the obvious reasons of its lack of respect for the Holy Father personally, and for the Holy See as an institution.

On the side of the angels said...

Yes but don't forget he's saying these things as a diocesan employee - the monkey is dancing to the organ grinder's tune.