Richard Hickox RIP

Richard Hickox would have been in the 6th form at the Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, when I first went there a a new student. I first remember him from a performance of the Dream of Gerontius he conducted in High Wycombe Parish Church as part of the Woburn Festival. With all the arrogance of a teenager I decided that performance was not a patch on what Sir Adrian Boult could do and so I decided to write of Hickox as no good!
I certainly had occasion to change that opinion over the years since then. Sadly I never did see him in concert since then but everyone will have their own cherished selection of his discography.
This evening I was listening to his wonderful recording of choral music by Sir Charles Stanford - the Songs of the Sea, Songs of the Fleet, and the Revenge. Also by no means to be missed are his wonderful recordings of the Haydn Masses - possibly not always as precise as those of John Eliot Gardiner, but possessed of a warmth and human feeling that more than made up for any lack. Also of note are his recordings of Masses by the very much underrated Hummel.
One could go on and on... and on. English music has lost one of its greatest champions, and in a year which has also seen the loss of Vernon Handley it comes as a double blow.
May they rest in peace.

Before the Conquest......

Last week we celebrated the feast of St Edmund, King and martyr - one of the many Anglo-Saxon saints who made this land once an island of saints indeed. Today I visited Oxfordshire's most important Saxon church - dating from round about the time of the Conquest. The village of Langford, like many of these remarkable places, is a little difficult to find - I suppose in the important places the churches got replaced with modern ones whereas in the real backwaters things remained much the same.

This isn't quite true at Langford though the Saxon tower is the first thing one sees = and an unusually elaborate one at that. The richness of decoration and the awareness of all the latest in architectural practice suggests that the architect was not simply some local man doing his best. In Domesday book Langford is listed as a royal manor, so this may suggest that before the Conquest it formed part of the holdings of King Harold or King Edward.

Around 1200 aisles were added to the nave, giving the church something of the appearance of an early Christian Basilica. The arcades with their round arches have wonderfully slender pillars with cruciform capitals very much at odds with typical Norman work, and it suggests that the importance of Langford was still such as to warrant getting an architect who was in tune with all the latest developments to come in to supervise the work. The lightness of the arcades is a delight to the eye and gives the church a real sense of spaciousness. The proportions have an Early English Style and lightness which is quite unusual for this date. Soon after this the chancel was rebuilt on a grand scale, again with unusual features. The tracery of the East windows is both pleasing and unusual, and the chancel includes a most unusual 13th century aumbry divided into six compartments.

The church also contains Anglo-Saxon sculpture on the grand scale. The East wall of the porch displays a life-size (but sadly decapitated) figure of the Crucified Christ, while over the porch doorway is set another scene of the crucifixion - though when it was moved into its present position those involved assembled it wrong - the figures of St John and Our Lady are on the wrong sides, both of them looking away from the cross!

All this is in a remote corner of Oxfordshire (between Witney and Faringdon) - and a part that is perhaps not much visited - but there is so much to repay the visitor in the villages and the scenery. One other delight is the little Norman church at Kencot.

On the down side this part of the county includes the ghastly development of Carterton. At risk of offending its inhabitants I think that if I wanted to encourage crime of all kinds I would build a place like Carterton. Happily some efforts are now being made to make it a place fit for humans to live in.

Wildest Hertfordshire...

...might sound like an unlikely scenario. Still, not far from Baldock is the wonderful village of Weston. It is reached by narrow roads climbing up the low hills from the valley floor and is an extremely spread-out village. To reach the Church of the Holy Trinity one drives down to the lower end of the village before climbing up a track past various timbered, weather-boarded and thatched houses - probably quite beautiful in the summer and possessed of a different charm in sombre November.

The importance of the Church itself rests in its Norman heart. On the approach there is little to see to suggest this, but on entering the Church the Norman tower on its four extrememly sturdy arches makes its presence more than felt. It remains the dominant feature of the Church's interior.

The North Transept (now used as an office) remains Norman with two simple single-light windows and a blocked up arch in the East wall. This presumably indicates the original presence of an apse holding an altar. The original church would have been cruciform with an apses in each transept and also a central apse in the East. The chancel was rebuilt in an incongruous though neo-Norman style c1840. Of the Norman nave nothing visible remains. The aspect from the North West is probably that which suggests the original building most faithfully.

The SW aspect shows clearly the Norman transept, suggesting the original height of the Nave would have matched it. The nave was heightened when a S aisle was added and a clerestory on that side in the 15th century. The original height of the tower would perhaps have been to below the present tower windows?

Right to Die?

This morning's newspapers carry the story of a young rugby player suffering as a result of an injury sustained on the pitch 18 months ago. Unable to accept that the future he had planned out for himself was now over, he resolved to kill himself - or, rather to persuade his parents to arrange for him to be killed.
Before saying anything else, let it be quite clear that one does not wish to judge someone who feels so depressed at such an accident, or deny the sense of life being pointless that may ensue. Also, unless one has been in such a situation, one cannot simply condemn parents who went along with what their son repeatedly urged on them.
However, there are questions to be raised.

We had no choice but to let our son die, cries the Daily Mail's headlines. But even the Independent, normally in favour of killing people who are sick, old, or unwanted, found this a little hard to take. Though their approval was clearly with the young man's family, they also ran alongside the story of another young Rugby player who had sufffered similar injuries, and who after three and a half years is rebuilding his life and future on a new basis.

I would argue - as did his physiotherapist and others - that Daniel James had simply not had time to come to terms with his injury, nor to see what kind of life he could look forward to. It is entirely understandable that a young man who sees his future ruined might react in this way - at lesat in the short term. But what Daniel needed was not to be killed but to receive help in seeing how his life could be worthwhile. Eighteen months seems like a long time for a young man, particularly when he is incapacitated. What he needed was the wisdom of those who are older and will no doubt have seen more tragedy and disappointment, and the many different ways by which people cope with it and overcome it.

It is true that at the moment we live in a society where large numbers of young people commit suicide simply because they haven't got any reason for living. But even the Independent sees it as a problem where the groups of suicides of people in their late teens and twenties. Daniel's reason seems to have been much the same as theirs - so where is the logic of saying to some people: We think you have a reason for thinking like this, so we'll kill you - while we say to others: We don't think you've got a good reason so why are you causing all this pain and suffering to those around you.
We live in a society which by and large does not believe in a Right to Live but is coming more and more to push for a Right to Die. Do we not see here the truth of Pope John Paul's description of our society as a 'culture of Death.'

Whether people have physical disabilities or not (and the liberal media are always pushing the idea that the disabled have just as much to contribute s anyone else, and are just as capable of enjoying life as anyone else) if they cannot see any point in living then it is up to those around them - and to all of us, to seek to show them reasons. To give them reasons for living, things they can achieve. Maters of life and death should not be controlled by a 'do as you feel' culture.

Those who are sick, disabled or depressed need help, not killing. Or do we really want to end up in a situation where if we go to the doctor suffering from depression we will simply be told to take ourselves away and die because that will solve our problems? When there is a solution like that available why should we be taking up a doctor's time and precious NHS resources. In modern England, it seems, Ebenezer Scrooge is alive and well - even if many others are dying.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Once again we find in some of the Catholic papers a real enthusiasm for scrapping the Act of Settlement which prevents a Catholic from becoming King or Queen. I'm not sure how many Catholics are queueing up for the job but it sounds good. It sounds as if we are indeed people to be reckoned with - peple who are as good as the next man - or woman. And in our age it is not right to show discrimination.
Of course, the voice of reason is nowhere present in any of this. Nor do any seem to think to question why some of those in the liberal establishment should be lending their support for this. As always we should ask cui bono? It is noticeable that many who are anti-Catholic in so many things will still agree that Catholics should be able to succeed to the throne, and really their motivation is quite clear. And it is not out of love for us!
The one point that nobody seems to want to raise about the Act of Succession is that it is simple common sense. If the Crown is Head of the Church of England, then it follows that the person holding that position must be able to support and defend the Protestant Religion. If we are seriously to try and say that a Catholic should be able to be head of the Church of England, would be as ready to say that religious belief should not affect the choosing of the Pope? This shows us the sbsurdity of the situation. The Act of Settlement should in fact not be repealed unless the Crown is no longer to be head of the Church.
Thus the price to pay (there is always a price) for repealing this largely irrelevant Act would be the disestablishing of the Church of England. Some might consider ways in which this would be a good thing - and they may be right. But if the Church were disestablished then this would be a secular state. The Church of England - with all its faults and difficulties - is still the guarantee that in law this Kingdom is a Christian Kingdom.
The only ones who would really feel a profit from repealing the Act of Settlement are those atheistic secularists who support such a move, and no doubt the Moslems who would then see even more of a religious vacuum that they could fill.
I don't want to be King. I do want this to remain - at least in name - a Christian Kingdom, committed at least in the broadest sense to the values of the Christian Faith. It may not be much, but it's better than the alternatives. Let us, as Catholics, support the Act of Settlement, and support Her Majesty the Queen, Defender of the Faith.

Futurechurch

Looking at the Futurechurch website, one is struck by how the name is a misnomer. It looks not to the Future of the Church but to certain present day difficulties, for which it seeks to provide a quick fix.
As Augustine said long ago, much heresy begins with one idea that is good or OK in itself, but becomes concerned with that to the exclusion of all else.

Sr Chris Schenk, of Futurechurch, argues that because the Eucharist is the most precious gift we have been given then it must be the will of Christ that we should all be able to receive it frequently, and that we are therefore justified in doing anything to achieve this laudable goal. This is argument is obviously faulty taken simply as a pice of logic. For example, suppose that something seemed clearly to be the will of Christ but we could only achieve it by some immoral means, then clearly it would not be right to bring it about. We would have to seek other means, or else we would perhaps come to see that although Christ might want it, He might not want it at any cost.

No doubt it is the will of Christ that all His people should benefit from the Eucharist, but time and again throughout history in many parts of the world, the faithful have bee deprived of the Eucharist. We might think of penal times here in England, or of the centuries in Japan when there was no priest in the whole country. At such times the faithful kept faith alive by other means - by obedience, prayer and devotion - not by seeking to change the structure and nature of the Church in order to bring about the end they desired.

Futurechurch does not seem inclined to examine the past any more than it considers the future. A knowledge of what Christians have done in the past is surely likely to be a helpful guide when we find ourselves confronting similar problems. In the pontificate of Innocent III of blessed memory there was a remote village in France that had been without a priest for some years. Eventually the villagers had had enough of this and they appointed the village blacksmith (he being regarded as a man of repute and position in the community) to say Mass for them. Effectively this is the Futurechurch solution. And what was the result? When things came to the Bishop' notice, he asked Rome for guidance. The Pope said that this must stop. Nobody can simply set themselves up as a priest in this way. Yet he also emphasised to the bishop that neither villagers or blacksmith were guilty of sin, since what they had done had been in no way sacrilegious but was born out of a love an desire for the Eucharist.

So, we might ask, faced with a shortage of priests what would be wrong with the Church deciding to ordain men (though I think futurechurch would like to ordain women also) in such situations who could serve as part-time priests while gettin on with their family life and work at the same time. Would this not be a good way of meeting a very real need?

This is where we need to think about the future consequences of our actions. If we were to respond to a fall in vocations by saying that we will ordain anyone on such a basis, many who might like to be priests would think: this is fine. I don't need to make it a commitment of my whole life; I can do it anyway! We would find numbers of vocations falling even faster! It would also totally change the work and role of a priest. A priest is not simply a machine for sacraments. Those to whom he is sent to minister are his family - hence the title of 'Father.' He is there to serve them in a whole range of situations and needs - and frequently at any time of day or night. The work Catholics expect from a priest cannot be done except by a full time and totally committed priesthood.
And there is more in the way of consequenes. With a drastic fall in vocations we would in time find ourselves without bishops - hence the Church would no longer be Apostolic. Without that central bond of communion each community would be reduced to doing its own thing and making its own decisions, and so the church would no longer be One or Catholic. With us all making decisions for ourselves rather than seeking to discern the will of God, the Church would no longer be Holy (that is, belonging to God).
And if the Church of the Future is not to be One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic then what is left?

The people of Futurechurch may not intend or desire such results, and I have no doubt that their love for the Eucharist is as sincere as that of those thirteenth century French men and women, but if we seek a quick fix solution to our problems we may very easily find we have made them worse, even to the point of destroying what we profess to love.

What then is the answer? First, of course, to pray. Second, not to convince ourselves that the results of our prayer are infallible. Listen to others, and to the results of their prayer - because if our insights have come from the Holy Spirit, He will be giving them to others - we can be sure of that. Sr Chris didn't wish to reply to the above points, simply observing that we would not agree. Sadly that sounds so much like a mind that is wholly made up in advance of any argument. Because we don't debate simply in order to win, but in order to clarify our thoughts and test our own ideas - to test spirits so as to discern the one that is the voice of God. And if our thoughts converge into His thoughts then we are all winners!

Multum in Parva...

...is the motto of the County of Rutland, the smallest of all the English Counties and perhaps unsurprisingly one with a very fierce sense of its own identity.

Having a day off today, the first for a month, I headed north up the A1 to see what treasures might be found in Rutland and East Leicestershire, to be rewarded by the amazingly sumptuous Norman Chapel at Tickencote. Multum in parva indeed! The little church was restored and partly rebuilt in 1792 when the West Front and South tower were added. The extraordinarily ornate exterior is buttressed in French style rather than English with demi-shafts. The first picture is of the unusual west front, done in a Romanesque style with a touch of Hawksmoor. This is the plainest aspect of the Church. By contrast the East front is highly decorated with intersecting arches, friezes, bland recesses and mouldings. It also reveals a room above the sanctuary - a feature of a number of Norman churches - though it is not certain whether this upper room overlooked the Church as at Compton or Melbourne. Here, the puzzle is, as at Iffley, why was such a sumptuous church built here?

Inside the mystery deepens as we find a sexpartite vault over the chancel. Traditional wisdom is that the sexpartite vault came to England after 1175 with William of Sens - but the church itself seems to be older than that - probably c1160. A clue may be found in those French style buttresses, for sexpartite vaults had been used in Normandy from very early in the century. So this appears to be a French Church rather than an English Norman one, hidden away in a quiet Rutland village.

But the true glory of the interior is the incredible triumphal arch that marks the entrance to the Chancel. This fivefold arch is described by Pevsner as being 'wildly overdone and in addition incompetently executed.'