15 January 2017

I was quite indignant. You see,

the Provost of the Piskie Cathedral in Glasgow had invited a Moslem to come to his Cathedral at Epiphany and to read some chapter of the Koran which denies the Divinity, or the Divine Sonship or perhaps both, of the Second Person of the Glorious and Undivided Trinity.

And Mr Plod had announced that he was investigating whether a Hate Crime had been committed.

Over the top, I thought. Since I am a Catholic, it would be ecumenical bad manners for me to say what canonical steps should be taken against the daft cleric responsible for the blasphemy. But for Inspector Knacker to prosecute him, and/or the well-meaning Moslem who read the text, for Hate Crime, is quite simply massively disproportionate.

But, as the news item (what journalists revealingly and naively call The Story) unfolded, I suddenly realised that I had got totally the wrong end of Mr Plod's big knobbly stick. The said Plod was not investigating the blasphemers, but ... get this ... the people who had strongly expressed their disapproval of the blasphemy!!! !!! !!!

How very, very, Plod. I am old enough to remember the days of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, when the "Security Forces", poor chaps, had to keep on explaining that dissidents had died in Police Custody because, in their silly Kaffir way, they kept on violently bashing their heads against the boots of their captors.

I don't think the Piskie "bishops" come very well out of it. I am tempted to give them my professional ritual advice on where to put their crosiers. The "Primus" issued one of those shifty hypocritical apologies which are not really an apology at all: he was sorry that people had been upset by the blasphemy. Perhaps, in accordance with Gospel guidelines, he should be renamed the "Ultimus". But that decision, of course, would have to be entirely up to our Partners in Ecumenical Dialogue.

Afterthought: equilibium could be re-established if the Ultimus went along to the Glasgow Central Mosque and chanted the Johannine Prologue in an authentically Scotch dialect of Urdu.

10 comments:

Paul Jaminet said...

Wasn't it a Glasgow cathedral? Perhaps you should rethink your allegiances? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hate-trolls-target-glasgow-cathedral-9616341

Patrick Sheridan said...

This was, of course, how the Turk turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque: by proclaiming from the sanctuary the religion of Muhammad. Except in 1453 the Greeks were all fled away. Here, it seems, the Scots were all sat around listening. Nothing untoward here!

EuropeanCatholic said...

Father,

Is this an early April Fool's joke :) It seems so bizarre even in these strange times!

Would you have a link to a news article?

May Our Lord Jesus Christ bless you in your fidelity to Him and His Church.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

Thanks, Paul. I have duly amended ...

E sapelion said...

We don't know which verses of the Koran were proclaimed, or whether the text was agreed, so they might not have contained anything blasphemous. Not that I think that justifies what the cathedral did.
At first sight verse 35 which concludes the passage on the Nativity looks blasphemous
"35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.",
but even that (and there is more about another 35 verses on) could be based on a misunderstanding. When we describe Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son, we are not saying that God begot Jesus ON Mary.

E sapelion said...

We don't know which verses of the Koran were proclaimed, or whether the text was agreed, so they might not have contained anything blasphemous. Not that I think that justifies what the cathedral did.
At first sight verse 35 which concludes the passage on the Nativity looks blasphemous
"35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.",
but even that (and there is more about another 35 verses on) could be based on a misunderstanding. When we describe Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son, we are not saying that God begot Jesus ON Mary.

Dale Crakes said...

As an American I'm at a loss as to who Mr. Plod is.

Gillineau said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
scotchlil said...

When I see and hear what has become of the Church of my baptism and of generations of my family (to which, thank God, I no longer belong), I can only echo St Mary Magdalene's words: 'They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have put him'. Several members of the family underwent vary hard times in defence of 'Evangelical Faith and Apostolic Order' (the Stonehaven Tolbooth, &c.) They must, wherever they are resting, be utterly bemused, to say the least. I could (and do) weep...

Mike Cliffson said...

Dale, Really? see Urban dictionary.
(I suspect they are wrong in dating it to Enid Blyton's little Noddy series; I suspect, but cannot prove, that it has an older use in music hall and as a happy families card.)