There was once a Welshman and a Welshman and a Welshman ........In his commentary, Reynolds brings together information which I knew from various sources and includes information of which I was not previously aware. He sheds far more light on the treatment of Jeffrey John by the leadership in the Church of England than any of the press accounts.
This increasingly acrimonious and hugely damaging story has emerged from where? And this very private letter was released by who and to what effect?
Nowhere can I find a reference to the supposed quote in the Mail on Sunday headline, and as the letter is from a lawyer, when is Jeffrey supposed to have said this? Isn't that rather key information to the story?
And who, on this Commission, would leak a legal letter - surely this is yet another breach aimed at damaging John? Did the last secret enquiry throw up a culprit who revealed the names on the shortlist for Southwark?
What seems to emerge from all this is that these letters changed hands some time ago, after the Southwark fiasco where Rowan was discovered browbeating the Commission members to reject Jeffrey. bullying some to tears.
The legal exchange must be seen in this context, the aftermath of the Southwark fiasco when it now seems clear a conservative evangelical member of the Commission revealed that John and Holtam were on the shortlist - probably the same person who has now revealed this letter. Jeffrey John would have discovered that although clearing with Rowan Williams that he was OK to allow his name to go forward for Southwark he was then stabbed firmly in the back and ruled out. This despite having be assured by Lambeth that a few years after Reading he would be acceptable as a bishop.
Cont.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:24pm GMT
So, contrary to George Pitcher's vicious little piece in the Mail, John was not saying "make me a bishop- or else!" ....He was saying: "start telling the truth, or else..." - rather a different way of looking at the facts.
Pitcher's unnecessarily nasty account does, I believe, reveal the Rowanesque spin that Lambeth has put on this whole tawdry affair. An affair that has nothing to do with "gay rights" - Jeffrey has assiduously avoided being "tainted" with any support for LGBT causes and has for ever been willing to tow the CofE party line on gay issues even to the point of giving up sex with his life-long partner! In fact Rowan has a much higher profile as a gay campaigner. But everything to do with - Misleading and duping a rather nice, devoted and faithful Churchman and Christian into believing that what bishops and archbishops say can be believed.
Jeffrey has not once given an interview or acted anyway disloyally to the Church of England - he was right to question what underpinned the appalling treatment his candidacy had in the secret dealing of the Commission - the mauling his supporters had was unsupportable, approaching abuse. That this close questioning of the actions of Rowan Williams - combined with the opprobrium rightly heaped on his shoulders when he forced John to resign from Reading and then failed to acknowledge messages from John rescinding his withdrawl - makes the Archbishop and his staff uncomfortable - indeed uncomfortable enough to attack Jeffrey - is perverse in the extreme.
What we now know is that as soon as Jeffrey (through his lawyers) started to question the actions of the appointment commission then the third Welshman in this miserable joke, the lawyer John Rees sought to justify what had already happened by writing that awful document misnamed a legal opinion claiming gay people had to repent if they wanted preferment.
It was another evil and malicious step from Rowan in his dealings with gay people since he took office.
George Pitcher says that Jeffrey's actions in questioning the duplicity of Lambeth Palace and its occupants would throw the rights of gay people back decades.
George completely fails to see that Jeffrey has never been interested in being a "gay bishop" any more than he has ever had an genuine interest in "gay rights" in the Church - Jeffrey is an advocate for honesty, faithfulness and trusting people at their word - he believes they are the mark of a true Church - that is what he is chasing.
Cont:
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 3:52pm GMT
Jeffrey didn't get Southwark as there was a "better man" - because of Colin Slee we all now know the truth and George Pitcher can't spin that Lambeth Palace line and expect to be believed. That's not what happened.
Now we have ended up with the horrendous "legal opinion" from Welsh lawyer John Rees - I do wonder what the future holds for the Church of England after three three Welshmen have done their worst/best.
George Pitcher mistakes who has been responsible for throwing back the place of gay people in the Church - it is not careful, diligent, cautious, courteous almost obsequious Jeffrey John - it is ambitious and determined Rowan Williams who has savaged us and demeaned us in his failing attempt at keeping the communion united and keeping ecumenical dialogue open. It is cruel, but a common characteristic, that abusers blame their victims.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 4:10pm GMT
....
Martin, the quote in the headline that you open your comment with is 'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop' - is that correct?
Your analysis and theory makes perfect sense and fits all the evidence. It explains why people were phoning me on Sunday and Monday in a fruitless chase for inside information, which I certainly don't have. But someone inside Church House or someone with an axe to grind and access to the correspondence certainly would have access.
This places responsibility yet again on the practice and culture inside Church House where devious tactics are being employed to block any progress towards a re-examination on church policy, let alone real change leading to the full inclusion of LGB&T people. It feels a bit like war!
Posted by: Colin Coward on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:19pm GMT
Yes Colin, that's the "quote" I can't find except in the headline. Perhaps I missed something?
One does wonder, Colin what the CofE is doing. Take the appointment of Robert Paterson as the chair of the group looking into Civil Partnerships, he was one of only two English bishops to vote AGAINST giving civil partners pension parity.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 6:59pm GMT
Martin Reynolds is a retired south Wales priest who is an adviser to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement headquartered in the UK.
And I've already been called out for excessive use of exclamation points. So sue me!
UPDATE: The Church Times has further information and commentary on the question of the legality of the actions by the Church of England in barring Jefffrey John from being a bishop.
This is really quite obscene. And what do They hope to achieve by this leak? It's petty, it's cruel, and it's very poor form from so called "Christians".
ReplyDeleteIT, ugly isn't it? I don't know what is the purpose except to smear Jeffrey John, but the only consolation is that the leak may backfire.
ReplyDeleteYou say 'Sue me!' for exclamation marks, but more seriously Martin Reynolds makes direct allegations here of the boss, and such that he could well sue M R if it is not true. My own blog entry was simply on the inequality of treatment highlighted so far, but the M R is direct and accusing and rather changes the whole character of the thing. Note how all this ties in with the Covenant, as if the whole gay inclusion/ equal treatment seems to threaten the very core of the religious bureaucracy and what the religious bureaucrats at the very top have become.
ReplyDeleteAdrian, I realize what you say is true. Will Rowan sue Reynolds? I think not. MR must be quite sure of his information to publish.
ReplyDeleteMy initial comments in another place, when The Mail produced the story;
ReplyDelete"Now that I've had time to read the article properly, I think this may a bit of naughtiness on the part of the Mail. He may or may not have had a correspondence with Goodman Derrick LLP, (and there is nothing from them to say so), although the article claims this is the case, it cannot be specific to his prior nomination for Soutwark which predates the enactment of The Single Equality Act. If there are any legs in this story then I would expect it to appear somewhere in the newspapers tomorrow, (by which I mean not a comic like the Mail.) If there is truth in it, then it will cease to be of value at all, as it will simply mean he will never be considered for preferment as his motivations would now be clearly suspect and the Mail (which was hardly supportive at the time), would have ensured sufficient doubt cast on his motivation."
theme, I'm pretty sure JJ assumes he will never again be considered for preferment, but I, for one, don't suspect his motives. At this point, I don't believe he wants anything for himself, but rather to make things better in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think the information leaked to the Mail was meant to be a smear, vague and poorly sourced as it is.
Mimi, I think you are right. This is a smear, and it's an ugly example of what the battle against the gays has become.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I'd be very very happy to stop making an issue out of being gay if people would just let me.
I'd be very very happy to stop making an issue out of being gay if people would just let me.
ReplyDeleteIT, I know; I know. Well, I guess I don't really know, but I'm weary of the battle against gays, too.
Colin Coward suspects that this old information was leaked now because the Bishop of Salisbury has started looking for an area bishop for Ramsbury. Whoever leaked this did a perfect wrecking job for JJ.
ReplyDeleteIn a new Church Times piece to be found here, Nick Holtam, who was also blocked by the two archbishops from consideration for Southwark, but has since been appointed bishop of Salisbury, is quoted as saying of Dean John that "I am absolutely certain that nobody is going to go to law lightly. If it is the case, then he does this with a really heavy heart, but does so because the Church of England has failed to pay attention to a change in circumstance and in law. It has been a long struggle since Reading [when Dr John submitted to pressure not to take up the post of Bishop of Reading in 2003]; it was an injustice, and is now, I suspect, an illegality that must be addressed."
ReplyDelete".....an illegality that must be addressed."
Erika, that the leak was to squelch any ideas about putting JJ's name forward for Ramsbury makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lapin. It's an interesting article. From what I know of JJ, just from reading about him, he would not sue lightly, but he may have been pushed too far and wants the church to be honest and set things aright.