Tags

, , , ,

idiots

Not the bishops mentioned, but an interchangeable bunch

What do the Anglican Bishop of Buckingham, the Bishop of Oxford and the RC Bishop of Lancaster all have in common? If you followed the links, you will have the answer by now: the first has called the respected and orthodox ‘Cranmer’ a ‘troll’, prompting the latter to a period of ‘silence’; the second has called for compulsory Christian assembly in schools to be scrapped to ‘make time for “spiritual reflection” containing elements of Christianity and the other major religions’; and Bishop Campbell is not, he tells us, responsible for telling Deacon Nick Donnelly that he should shut down his blog, although he may have been responsible for giving the impression that was what he wanted; what a good job he does not keep a retinue of knights, they too might have ‘misunderstood’ him. These chaps are all paid (not a bad whack either) to be shepherds of the faithful and to be successors of the Apostles. They all seem to be successors of Judas Iscariot; perhaps they didn’t read how his attempt to appease the secular Establishment of the day ended? Perhaps they don’t care?

‘Cranmer’s’ offence was to criticise a Canon who thought those who supported the policy of her own church on ‘assisted dying’ (murder to you and me) were uncharitable and nasty. Now you might suppose a Bishop would be in favour of the policy of his own church, but of course, he’s an Anglican Bishop, which means that he possibly doesn’t know his church has a policy, and, as head of the clergy union, he’s sticking up for his members; so what that the Canon contradicts the policy and insults those who support it, she’s a clergyman and therefore right; others should shut up. How dare anyone point out the utterly gutless nature of the Church of England’s establishment? How dare anyone stick up for orthodox Christianity? For these folk, WWJD? means ‘What would Judas do?’

The Bishop of Oxford, pictured simpering inanely with a more intelligent species behind him (in the DT link) thinks it is all very 1940s to have compulsory assembly. How can folk who have no idea about Christianity want it? He does not appear to have asked himself what he and his wealthy but utterly useless church has been doing since the 1940s that the situation should be as he describes? He utters the usual claptrap about ‘compulsion’ not helping anyone. I give up. As any school-master will tell you, trying to teach languages, maths, or indeed almost anything without compulsion doesn’t work. The lazy little so-and-sos will do anything other than work at something ‘hard’, so you make it interesting, and you make them do it. Judas forbid that any C of E Bishop should think it a good idea to make Christian education interesting, or want to teach the Truth. And to think the fellow gets paid!

As for the Bish of Lancaster, well enough ink, some of it here, has been spent on this. Obviously no self-respecting modernist cleric wants to be associated with Christianity until the work of detoxifying it has been complete, but they might be a bit more tactful – someone might notice that the Vichy regime occupies the benches in the Lords and at Ecclestone Square.

Literally, thank God for the large number of Anglican and Catholic clergy who get on with the Lord’s work. They deserve better than this bunch of Vichyite jellyfish. I never did know what Bishops were for – but to adapt the words of the song: ‘Bishops, what are they good for? Absolutely nothing!’ Ecraser l’infame.