You are here . on the pale blue dot


'Anonymous' comments without a pseudonym are not published.

Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Monday, 20 March 2017

The Victim




Women in the Church were victims, allegedly. Gays, lesbians and transgenders in the Church are victims, allegedly. 

The true Victim was left hanging on the Cross. His words have been twisted to justify sectional interests to the detriment of the Church. The latest episode is witnessed by the LGBT campaign to have the high profile gay cleric Jeffrey John elected bishop of Llandaff.

Dr John says the bench of bishops is guilty of homophobia. This is the bench which wrote:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

We recognise that you have often been persecuted and ostracized by the Church for your sexuality, that you have been mistreated by the Church, and forced into secrecy and dissimulation by the attitudes of prejudice which you have faced.  We deplore such hostility, and welcome and affirm the words of the Primates that condemn homophobic prejudice and violence.  We too commit ourselves to offering you the same loving service and pastoral care to which all humanity is entitled, and we commit ourselves to acting to provide a safe space within the Church and within our communities in which you can be honest and open, respected and affirmed."

Jeffrey John claims in an open letter to the Bishop of Swansea and Brecon that his situation is exactly similar to that of the Bishop of Grantham who is also in a same sex relationship. It may be insofar as civil partnerships are concerned but I have found no record of Bishop Chamberlain supporting the Out4Marriage campaign, twisting the Bible to support his stance.

Dr John also suggests that same sex couples are no different to infertile couples, or couples who are beyond the age of childbearing. He is badly mistaken. Addressing gay people directly in his Out4Marriage video Dr John claims that "the official church doesn't speak with integrity... so frankly doesn't deserve to be listened to". That does not bode well for the mission of the Church or for bench collegiality. It is a  pick and mix form of Christianity which leads John to claim that "God is Out4Marriage too"!

In his letter to the bishop of Swansea and Brecon who is the Church in Wales' most senior bishop, Dr John said he had been told by "a bishop present at the meeting of the electoral college" that “a number of homophobic remarks were made and were left unchecked and unreprimanded by the chair”. [My emphasis - Ed.]

For members of the Electoral College to leak information is a serious breach of confidence but for a bishop? He or she should seriously consider his/her position.

Regular churchgoers are dying out, literally and metaphorically. Those who have not been pressured into leaving and battle-on are fed up with gays and feminists claiming to be badly treated when the Church clearly has so many women clergy and gay people in their midst.

In England Archbishop Justin Welby appears to have sold out to Women and the Church (WATCH) despite their shameless campaign against Bishop Philip North because he is an orthodox Anglican. Read the history of this sorry saga here.

In Wales Archbishop Barry Morgan led the bishops into battle against Church members promoting same sex marriage. At the same time he was desperately engineering the election of the first woman bishop in Wales before he retired. His candidate also complained of discrimination. On investigation it proved to be nothing of the sort. One stitch-up is one too many.

I hope that the Bench has at last come to its senses. People need to hear about Christ crucified not false claims of victimhood.

Postscript [21.03.2017]

Unsurprisingly given the gay men's chorus which is singing ever louder to Jeffrey John's tune, the LGB pressure group OneBodyOneFaith this morning published an open letter (here) expressing their "concerns" about the way the process to appoint a bishop for the See of Llandaff has been handled. One of the signatories is the Rev Jeremy Pemberton, Chair for the Board of Trustee. It was he who thumbed his nose to the Church of England over the gay marriage issue.

OBOF have only Jeffrey John's word for what took place. That is second hand. There is no context, merely accusation. "The reported unanimity of the Llandaff electors is a strong indication of what they wish to happen" they write. There are two points here. It was common knowledge that many in Llandaff were desperate to avoid a woman bishop. Their best hope of avoiding that eventuality was to support Jeffrey John. Also, given the strong gay presence in Llandaff, the impression given is that many if not all form part of the chorus demanding that Jeffery John should be the bishop-elect.

As we approach Passiontide  the baying crowd becomes louder. There are echoes of "Give us Barabbas". The crowd had it wrong. So does OBOF and the media. Pray that the Bench withstands the media onslaught.

108 comments:

  1. "He or she" shouldn't be given the luxury of time to seriously consider his/her position.
    They have brought themselves and the Church in Wales into disrepute and should be sacked.
    Preferably today before they can do any more damage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. J.J. needs to go back and read Titus 1:5-9.

    "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it."

    I am certain that St. Paul would be called "homophobic" under J.J.'s definition. The wlabel "homophobic" is typically used by homosexuals who feel slighted because what they really want to say is "homo-hating", but since the object of their vitriol is obviously not being hateful, they use "homophobic" so that people will not see the truth in the claim that folks like J.J. are not qualified to be chosen to be a bishop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recall Archbishop Barry being asked about Paul's views, and he replied that Paul was wrong!
      But this is all so upside down. Christianity has never been about me and my rights. How many people have left the CiW quietly as it is no longer orthodox? People are being killed for their christian faith daily in our world and JJ isn't writing letters angrily about their rights.

      Delete
  3. Another excellent article AB.
    I can only join you in saying that the bishop who leaked this, must resign. They have put their loyalty to JJ above their confidentiality agreement and above their loyalty to their colleagues.
    It is surely ironic that the bench opened their clergy (any who could not in conscience perform a gay blessing) to legal action by introducing a service of gay blessing which is not a blessing. It now looks like they might be sued first. Heaven help the pension fund if this snow balls......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what about the Aberystwyth cleric, who, was banned by Barry Morgan for further election as member of the college of electors , following the election of Carl Cooper as bishop of St Davids?

      Delete
  4. Have read Jeffrey John's letter to Bishop John of Swansea and Brecon.
    The letter portrays a person whose focus is on homosexuality and reveals a typical paranoia often unjustifiable evident in homosexual persons. Bishop John -the Bench Chairman -clearly stated that neither homosexuality or civil partnership was a bar to any candidate. Thus why is JJ making such a song and dance about his failed election.
    JJ also said in his letter that he admired those who had breached the confidentiality of the Electoral College :this was an oath of confidentiality. Jeffrey John is a rebel, and has surely confirmed that his rejection was a right decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would Jesus say?20 March 2017 at 17:25

      Why is JJ making such a song and dance?
      Several reasons jump out.
      One, despite Barry Morgan's promises with wining and dining and meddlesome Masson's canvassing on his behalf, he didn't get the job.
      Two, assuming his Wikipedia page is accurate and my mental arithmetic is correct, it's the sixth time he didn't get the job.
      Three, he's made a living out of being a professional victim for at least the last 15 years or so and he was handed the job of Dean of St. Alban's as a consolation prize, presumably because Rowan thought it would keep him quiet.
      Four, he knows he can count on the gay lobby jumping on his bandwagon.
      Five, he knows he can count on sympathetic press coverage from all the luvvies in the media industries.
      Six, taking his age into account, he knows this is probably his last chance of getting a purple shirt (one of his 'friends' has even made a press statement to that effect), so he's calculated he has nothing to lose, gone "all in" and thrown all his chips on to the table in one final gamble to raise the stakes so high to frighten John Davies and Gregory Cameron into folding their cards.

      John and Gregory need to keep calm and call his bluff.
      But they also need to identify the leaking Bishop in their midst and sack him.
      Immediately.
      No ifs or buts.
      The Judas needs to go.
      Now.

      Delete
    2. Subversive Canon20 March 2017 at 18:49

      It shouldn't take the rest of the Bishop's too long to work out who is the guilty party out of a shortlist of five.
      It won't be John Davies or Gregory Cameron since they have been identified as the two alleged homophobes. They're hardly likely to grass on each other.
      That leaves three.
      The questions to ask are, a) who could Barry Morgan have dirt on?, b) who might have a motive? and c) whose name might provide an answer to both of the previous questions?
      Looking into Gym memberships might be a good place to start.

      Delete
    3. @What would Jesus say?
      Your clarification is absolutely correct. By reason of JJ's own conduct in this process ,he has by now talked himself out . How presumptuous of JJ to virtually claim he has a right to be elected to Llandaff. Tantrums are not an attractive disposition for a Bishop.

      Delete
    4. Hole in one Subversive Canon.

      Delete
    5. Lifted from the leaked copy of John Davies' letter to Dr John.
      "The level of speculation fuelled by significant breaches of confidentiality has been utterly deplorable and is a matter which the Bishops and Provincial Office will, undoubtedly, need to investigate thoroughly."

      Which bench sitter might have a motive for such breaches of confidentiality?

      Which bench sitter might need an openly gay friend in the See of Llandaff?


      Delete
    6. Loose tongue & wandering hands21 March 2017 at 09:55

      @Subversive Canon
      How well informed you are.
      Another scandal just around the corner for the poor Church in Wales

      Delete
  5. Somewhat Perturbed20 March 2017 at 17:03

    Breaking statement from the Chapter of St Albans:
    https://www.stalbanscathedral.org/news/archive/2017/statement-by-the-chapter-of-st-albans-cathedral

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is not much depth in the statement from the chapter of St.Albans,which circumvents the real danger in the philosophy held by Jeffrey John. Presumably JJ accepts the validity of the church sacraments,and the great concern is his promotion of 'Out4Marriage' .
      A Bishop should and must expound church teaching .

      Delete
  6. I have no axe to grind. I cannot see why Jeffrey John would not make a good bishop for Llandaff. No bishop is ever going to please everyone, and given the inability of the previous incumbent to unite the Diocese, Dr John would be no worse and possibly a whole lot lot better. For one thing he would be consistent, open and honest - and that would be a welcome change.

    However, I am becoming concerned about how all this is impacting on his health and his vocation, not to say that of his partner. The strain must be enormous and the constant scrutiny can only be corrosive. I am wondering if a sense of vocation to high office in the church can come at too high a price. It is not for me think or speak for Dr John. But is this election becoming too much of a saga about Dr John and less about the needs of the Diocese of Llandaff? Is a priest, however gifted and deserving, nearing the age of retirement, the best choice for a large Diocese in decline, facing serious financial problems, and in desperate need of someone with energy and vision who can steer the ship over a sustained period in perilous waters?

    He may be. He may be not. But more than this, we should be holding him, his partner, and their well-being in our prayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somewhat Perturbed20 March 2017 at 19:02

      I think he would have been an excellent choice for the bishopric of St Davids, especially as he is a native Welsh speaker. Much better qualified for the post than the current incumbent is.
      I have met him on several occasions, wish him well and hold him in my prayers.
      The political shenanigans about the Llandaff election have put the Church in a very public spotlight which has not really shown any of the hierarchy/senior clergy in a good light.

      Delete
    2. No indeed James, you're spot on when you write 'no bishop is ever going to please everyone'. Just think of the much respected and loved Archbishop G O Williams Bangor. He rescued a young wet Barry from the annal of the 70s Llandaff scandal and brought him to Bangor. We are all paying the price ever since.

      Delete
    3. Intrigued of Llandaff22 March 2017 at 22:10

      Which 70s scandal might that have been Enforcer?
      Why would an Archbishop need to rescue Barry and from what?

      Delete
    4. Llandaff Pewster22 March 2017 at 23:34

      I think I may be able to assist you there Intrigued.
      I recall there was a widely held view that moral, ethical and theological standards at St. Michael’s College had declined steeply and there were fears it was heading in the direction of St. Stephens, Oxford with all the undesirable connotations attached.
      The highly regarded and esteemed Bishop of Kensington, John George Hughes was brought in to sort out the mess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hughes_(bishop_of_Kensington ).
      In a nutshell he discovered that at the centre of the mess was one Barry Morgan.
      Morgan tried to do the dirty on Hughes but failed (the scandal).
      The then Archbishop, G. O. Williams, felt sorry for Barry and decided to offer him a lifeline by taking him in at Bangor (a mistake he later came to rue) as the warden of Church Hostel.
      This later closed (another example of everything Morgan touching turning to ashes) and G. O. Williams was often heard openly saying Morgan was promoted way too soon and way beyond his abilities.
      St. Michaels never really recovered fully from its first encounter with Morgan and when he was translated to Llandaff from Bangor his tender ministrations finished it off.
      It is now the huge white elephant of a conference centre which is a millstone around the neck of the RB losing over £300k a year, essentially another pile of smoking Morgan ashes.

      Delete
    5. Enforcer and Llandaff Pewster, many thanks for your timely recollections. This is indeed an aspect of the Barry Morgan story that many of the readers of this blog (myself included) were unaware of. It suggests that even at the tender age of 30, His Darkness was already ploughing a very familiar furrow thanks to the gulf between his ambition and ability.

      In this regard it's interesting to look at Morgan's early timeline from his appointment as deacon and the dates thereof:

      Barry Morgan timeline

      Ordained Deacon 1972, priest 1973
      Curate St. Andrew's Major, Dinas Powis, 1972—1975.
      Chaplain and lecturer at St. Michael's College, Llandaff, 1975—1977.
      From 1977-84 he was chaplain and lecturer in theology at the University of Wales, Bangor

      [See http://prabook.com/web/person-view.html?profileId=164009
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Morgan
      and http://livingmags.co.uk/dr-barry-morgan-bishop-llandaff/]

      You'll see that Morgan was moved from Llandaff to Bangor in 1977. Just two years before, Bishop Eryl Thomas's criminal conviction and resignation had rocked the diocese. Doubtless Archbishop Williams wanted to remove any further cause for scandal as far away as possible. A pity he didn't consider the many overseas dependencies of the Church of England, perhaps Gibraltar, Malta or the parish of the Falkland Islands.

      Delete
  7. It seems strange than people here condemn the treatment of Philip North, who had to stand down despite following the rules relating to his position on women, but seem happy at the treatment of Dr John despite - er - his following the rules regarding the expression of his sexuality. The real problem here is not the people concerned, but the pressure coming from those who are unwilling to follow the Anglican Communion's agreed position.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Those gymnasium showers! Some men like to shower 'in trunks', while others always like the all-naked-bit ...ah well ...very REVEALING: “Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. Unknown and others, supporters of Dr John have been campaigning for years to see him elevated to bishop regardless of his attitude to the Church and her teaching. Are you content with Dr John's statement that "the official church doesn't speak with integrity"? If so, what are you doing in the Church?

    Dr John's 'friend of 40 years' the Rev'd Martin Reynolds has again been on BBC Wales TV News this evening complaining about homophobia. A similar story was aired by him in 2013:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20920065
    Clearly there is a campaign to have Dr John elected regardless of his suitability.

    Bishop Philip North on the other hand is a victim of the progressives while Dr John is a victim of his own making.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin Shipton's latest contribution to the debate.

      http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/furious-letter-gay-cleric-sent-12769110

      "The furious letter a gay cleric sent to Welsh bishops after they refused him a top post"

      Delete
    2. Ancient Briton: there is a marked difference between Bp.Philip North and Dean Jeffrey John.
      Bp. Philip has been subjected to vicious bullying, but seeks to lead his flock in humility.
      Jeffery John is a bully and seeks to make political statements in pursuing the cause of Out4marriage, by feigning prejudice .

      Delete
  10. BBC Wales news has told us that he Bench is going to meet with the various candidates that they have selected for interview.

    Here's an idea. What if all those asked for interview simply refused to attend - and certainly refused to accept the post. That way, the bishops would be flushed-out and shown up for the hypocritical and deceptive bunch they are. It would also mean that dodgy Davies of Ely Tower and whoever the telephone terrorist is (who phoned Jeffrey John) will have to fall on their swords. While we're at it, we can get ride of Morgan's stooges in Bangor & St Davids. A clean sweep. Alleluia (and even in Lent).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Disagree, I'm afraid. If it is true that Dr John was rejected - despite the diocese wanting him (a point most people seem to be overlooking here) - because of his sexuality (and no leaks have given any other reason), then this is a clear example of the Anglican Communion's settled position being ignored by by those that disagree with that position. Exactly the same as what happened to Philip North. There is no other way to look at it on the basis of the few facts that we have.
    In terms of integrity, it is clearly lacking somewhere. It would take people better informed than any of us to be able to definitely say where.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's get one misconception out of the way.
      Whilst the job of the twelve representatives of the Llandaff Diocese was to represent the Diocese if the leaked reports are true, they did anything but represent the majority of their constituents.
      It is inconceivable that 100% of Parishioners in the Diocese would have chosen Jeffrey John. Whatever percentage it might be it certainly would not be 100%.
      The twelve Diocesan representatives were and are Barry Morgan stooges.
      Their sole purpose for being present was to vote as Barry Morgan directed and obtain the predetermined desired outcome. They were certainly not to think for themselves or to consider other candidates, but merely to do as instructed.
      That they failed to do so is nothing short of a miracle but they still had to explain their failure to Morgan.
      So Morgan's plan A is in tatters and he has to resort to plan B - the leaks.
      Not to think for themselves or to consider other candidates, but to do as they were told.
      I suspect the silent majority are quietly and discretely appalled at the prospect of Jeffrey John moving in to Llys Esgob.

      Delete
    2. Well, neither of us can prove it either way. My belief is that whilst there are differing opinions within the diocese, the majority view would have been in favour of Jeffrey John. This seems bourne out by the consultation. In terms of the leaks, initially at least they seem to have come from the more conservative end. The choice of outlet for the leaks is good evidence of that, although - again - this cannot yet be proven either way.
      The question is, if people are "appalled" at a Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Llandaff, then is it because of his sexuality or some other reason. If sexuality, then they are explicitly rejecting the settled approach of the Anglican Communion to gay clergy. If another reason, then the leaks and whispers remain quiet.

      Delete
    3. The majority couldn't care less21 March 2017 at 00:57

      There is no settled approach and therein lies the problem.
      The issue has been botched and fudged for decades, over and over again, in futile attempts to paper over the gaping chasms between traditionalists, feminists and liberals.
      The best thing that could happen is for all the factions to go their separate ways.
      Let the gay clergy lead their gay congregations to gay churches.
      Let the women lead their feminist congregations to WATCH/MAE churches.
      Let the apostolic anglo catholic traditionalist clergy lead their congregations in the traditional way.
      May the Holy Trinity decide which flourish and which founder.


      As for the current dilemma, face the harsh facts.
      The vast majority of the general population in south Wales couldn't give a flying fig who is Bishop.
      In fact less than 28.000 people in the whole of Wales could give a flying fig.
      So hold a democratic referendum in which every person registered on a Parish Electoral Roll in the Llandaff diocese be given their own ballot paper for them to vote directly.

      The question over the wishes of the silent majority would be answered soon enough and the shambles of Electoral Colleges costing £52k and oath breaking Bishop's consigned to dusty history books, where they all belong.



      Delete
    4. Sysyphus, I hope at least you will agree that this is an undignified mess for the Church, a wound which we should all strive to heal. That cannot be achieved by appointing Dr John after his undignified attack on the Electoral College and those who would be colleagues on the bench of bishops.

      I have seen no evidence of humility or recognition that the Holy Spirit guided the decision. Simply accusations of homophobia which have parallels with cries of Islamophobia, a common tactic used to gain a political advantage.

      It is noteworthy that cries of "Homophobia!" have had the desired effect in the media. Unsubstantiated allegations are repeated over and over again. There is no balance, simply repetition of the charge which is based on hearsay in what appears to be an organised campaign in which the oath of confidentiality counts for nothing.

      You have not responded to my invitation to comment on Dr John's statement that "the official church doesn't speak with integrity", a statement he made in his Out4Marriage campaign, a campaign in which he has used unorthodox interpretations of the Bible to justify his views on homosexuality in an effort to align them with orthodox Christianity. That is what those of us who are not in the LGBT lobby object to. And why should we not have an opinion without being charged with accusations of homophobia?

      What Dr John does in his private life is between him and God provided it is within Church rules. It is not Dr John's homosexuality that is being called into question, it is his suitability. History shows that the Llandaff Electoral College simply came to the same conclusion as others have in the selection process.

      Delete
    5. Colonel Mustard21 March 2017 at 10:12

      To quote the Revd J. Gareth Parry from his posting of 27 February at 14:57 on your earlier article 'Why are so many of the clergy gay?'

      "I do not agree with the way the gay agenda has totally taken over every aspect of life in the Church in Wales/Church of England. There is an obsession with victimhood and with self, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ, who said that we should take up our cross and follow Him."

      Very prophetic father.
      The Jeffrey John story in a nutshell.

      Delete
    6. AncientBriton. Yes, I would certainly agree that this is an undignified mess for the Church. I would also say – and I think you’d agree – that I’d far rather we were talking about something else. Our society needs us more than ever, but we seem more concerned with fighting each other than fighting for the people we serve. Frankly, I would also say that both sides are equally capable of being undignified and uncharitable.
      I think you’d have to accept that the accusations of homophobia come about because the only information that we have been leaked concerned Dr. John’s sexuality being the only argument against his “suitability” for the role as Bishop. If there are other reasons, we’ve not heard then from any source that claims to speak with any authority on this. I have little time for people who leak things. But we are where we are. This is what we’ve been told and that's what's started this row. So we can only go on that. Deciding not to appoint someone because of their sexuality is homophobia – an aversion to homosexuality - and against the stated position of the church with regard to clerics in celibate same sex relationships. His theological position has not, to my knowledge (and who really knows what happened, come to that?), been used against him in this case. So I make no judgement on that.
      I wouldn’t have said that church “doesn’t speak with integrity”, but I disagree with its objection to gay marriage. I would agree with what Dr. John went on to say in the same comment:
      "If you are gay, then please understand that God made you as you are, and loves you as you are, and if you invite Him into your relationship, then of course He will bless you and sustain your love just as much as He blesses and sustains any other marriage. I know that's true from my own experience and that's why I'm Out4Marriage, because I'm sure God is too."

      Delete
    7. Sysyphus, no I do not "have to accept that the accusations of homophobia come about because the only information that we have been leaked concerned Dr. John’s sexuality being the only argument against his “suitability” for the role as Bishop". You go on to say "If there are other reasons, we’ve not heard them from any source that claims to speak with any authority on this".
      I have put the problem plainly. You dismiss it and again revert to your unfounded charge of homophobia along with Dr John's other supporters. If championing homosexuality is the best you can do there is no point in discussing the matter. Your objective is clear as it should be to the Bench.

      Delete
    8. AncientBriton. It's not about "championing" or not championing homosexuality. I repeat, again, on the basis of what has been leaked, his rejection was based solely on his sexuality. You - and many others - may have theological differences with him. You may be upset about his comment on the church's integrity. This was NOT cited as a reason by the leak from the Electoral College - so in the absence of any other information the problems you have "put plainly" are those that you identify, NOT those (that, I must emphasise, we know of) identified by the Electoral College or the Bench.
      We all have our opinion. But in this case, the only objections that matter in Dr. John's appointment are those of the decision makers - not those that you express (unless you share the opinion that is reported to have come from a minority of the Electoral College that Dr. John's sexuality is reason in itself to exclude him).
      Dr. John makes this point clear in his letter, which I assume you've read:
      "Much more importantly, the only arguments adduced against my appointment – in particular by two of the bishops - were directly related to my homosexuality and/or civil partnership – namely that my appointment would bring unwelcome and unsettling publicity to the diocese, and that it might create difficulties for the future Archbishop in relation to the Anglican Communion.
      In a telephone call on the evening of March 3rd one of the bishops present confirmed to me that these were the only objections adduced, and explained that the bishops were ‘just too exhausted’ to deal with the problems they believed my appointment would cause."
      So, either you know something we don't. Or you believe that, regardless of the facts that we have, your arguments against Dr. John are the only valid ones and should be seen as the reasons for his not being appointed.

      Delete
    9. Not a scaremongers r.21 March 2017 at 22:57

      This is all hearsay by people who were not present at the proceedings. Everyone signed a confidentiality agreement. Most have abided by it and I suspect others have twisted the truth for their own advantage.

      Delete
    10. What would Jesus say?22 March 2017 at 00:14

      To date there is not a shred of hard evidence that supports or sustains a single one of Jeffrey John's claims or those of his rabid supporters like Scapegoat, who wrote on 20th February that "It is probably a good job that Cathedral Rd had the sense to have a lawyer present. it's just a shame that his expertise is clearly not equal opportunities or employment law."

      In fact there were several lawyers present, amongst which two were the Bishops of St. Asaph and Bangor.
      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cameron - He was educated at Croesyceiliog School in Cwmbran and Lincoln College, Oxford, where he studied law.)
      (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_John - John attended Ysgol Penglais before studying law at the University of Wales, Cardiff.)

      Is it at all credible that amongst the ranks of assembled lawyers taking part in the Electoral College not a one would have protested at any genuinely homophobic remarks?

      Delete
  12. Can someone explain why this point about the unanimity of Llandaff electors means anything? The home diocese gets 3 times each of the other diocese gets to acknowledge its particular interest. Why is it 'foolish' in Dr John's words to respect the result of the Electoral College as constituted.

    The Bench were entirely right in not considering a candidate who failed to reach the mandated 2/3rds majority. In other words they were unappointable - what's unreasonable about that?

    Do the bishops force electors to vote the way they do? I mean, really force? Do they have the right to say, "sorry I think you are being homophobic, you'll have to vote again"? The bishops can only do so much and I doubt interrogating electors as to their motives is a activity that would be considered appropriate.

    We've all probably felt thoroughly cheesed off when we have interviewed for a job we really wanted and been rejected and I know I've asked questions regarding process in time past when it has happened to me. Looking back though, I know in my heart of hearts my grumblings and protestations were vexatious and this is a case of sour-grapes if I ever did see one.

    Those oath-breakers should be ashamed of the damage they have done. Yet, they are being hailed as heroes? Incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is quite definitely NOT the time for a permanent appointment; the mood is too febrile, and the Evil One is having a field day on all sides. On the previous thread someone suggested that the Assistant Bishop should be given temporary charge of the Diocese; he is (or soon will be) 62, and could in theory remain in post for eight years, although three would probably be long enough. During this period of suspension he would act as a caretaker, carrying out the routine tasks of the episcopal office; a small group of senior clergy (retired as well as active, representative of different schools of thought but without strong 'political' agendas) should be appointed to advise and collaborate with him. Priority should be given to waiting upon God, Who seems to be being rather left out of things just now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire21 March 2017 at 16:32

      The Evil One is behind the curtain in his technology room at Llys Ego frustrated for the first time in two decades that he can't control all the moving parts and force his will on everyone.
      Now is the moment for +John to act decisively and swiftly. It is not only his own authority and credibility at state but that of the whole Church in Wales.
      The Provincial investigation into the despicable leaks must be initiated immediately and as "Drain the swamp" has rightly suggested Philip Masson's role is the place to start. Not only is the physical evidence of his duplicitous email freely available for all to see, his dismissal will be no loss to anyone. Masson must also reveal the names of those leaking confidential information to him too.
      This time it won't be a case of "Follow the money" but one of "Follow the stink of swamp Gas".

      Delete
    2. Yes, yes and yes CHG,osi.
      There's a critical need for a rapid but thorough investigation and decisive formal reprimands up to and including dismissal dismissal for gross misconduct and bringing the Church into disrepute.
      The time for a new broom to sweep clean the corrupt culture put in place by His --Darkness is long overdue.
      One change so desperately needed is for whistleblowers to be protected and where appropriate, rewarded.
      Whoever was responsibile for leaking Masson's email should be thanked and promoted.
      S/he has done a great service by revealing Masson's attempt to skew the process.

      Delete
    3. @CHG,osi

      Actually Masson needn't reveal a thing.
      He'd probably be too cowardly to say anything anyway, you know, some misplaced sense of loyalty to fellow Barry-brown-nosers, conspirators and leakers.

      Masson must be invited to resign or face a Provincial court and being defrocked with loss of his pension.

      As for the Llandaff dirty dozen in the Electoral college, +John Davies and the bench already know who they all are. They should, as a group, be summonsed to face the bench and come clean over which of them have been leaking confidences to Masson and other co-conspirators. If they respond by closing ranks rather than have the moral backbone to admit their involvement then the lot should be sacked on the spot, en masse, banned for life from holding any post in the Church in Wales and publicly named by the bench.
      If the leakers refuse to come clean then let them accept collegiate responsibility.

      The rat on the bench should be defrocked, lose their pension and be and kicked out.
      Resignation must not be an option.
      The identity of the rat has already been hinted at on this blog but a brief inspection of all Bishop's itemised phone bills for 3rd March (when Jeffrey John claims to have received his inside information by telephone) should provide the necessary incriminating evidence.
      Any failure to provide the relevant itemised phone bills should draw a negative inference and might itself be sufficient, especially if all other such documentation has been provided by the other Bishops and found to be clean.

      Then the suspected involvement of Barry Morgan must be thoroughly investigated. If such involvement is proven, then since he's already retired, loss of pension might be the only available sanction.

      I am no fan of witch hunts, but in this instance the leaks have been so serious and damaging (with the accompanying media PR disaster for the Church in Wales) the most vigorous in-depth and far-reaching enquiries are entirely justified.

      The swamp must indeed be drained and quickly.

      Delete
    4. Parishioner from Llandaff22 March 2017 at 10:41

      @bishop John (Davies)
      I owe you an apology for jumping to conclusions before knowing the full facts. Please accept my apologies.
      I will make in person when such a time arrives

      There are several commentators on here who I think are suggesting a very good way forward, to root out the disloyal electoral college members and bishop and Canon Masson. Justice needs to be done. The state of the cathedral is bad enough. but it seems like whatever is wrong is broader and the scale of the corruption worse than I ever thought possible

      I jumped to my conclusion based on seeing Jeffrey John's reply to you. I assumed that the reply matched the original letter. But after carefully reading the full, actual letter on WalesOnLine, it doesn't deserve such a reply. I took Dr John's letter at face value. My anger at you and the whole situation you are being blamed for got the better of my temper. I was particularly angry about the "threats" statement but we have discussed it around llandaff and cannot see the threat in there. In summary, I was manipulated. There is nothing you can do to him by way of punishment because he doesn't work for the Church in Wales. The same is not the case for those who infiltrated the process and then manipulated the outcome.

      "I am able to give you my categorical assurance ... please be in no doubt that this is so." I accept this explanation.

      Have you considered the possibility, bishops, that you aren't merely dealing with a leaker but that it's darker and more malicious? I was completely wrong on this, but wrong for a reason, that a letter was published in cyberspace describing things in a letter that were never in the letter. And seemingly describing two totally different electoral college meetings!! (If that makes sense?) There might be a provocateur planting false information into certain ears under the disguise of a genuine "leaker".

      Anyway Best I don't contribute again for a while but @bishopJohn, my apology again

      Delete
    5. Come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire22 March 2017 at 12:22

      I applaud you Sir/Madam.
      It takes courage to make such an apology.
      I hope the humble pie is big enough for all those in the Jeffrey John camp to get their slice too.
      You make valid points too about the saga being darker and more malicious.
      The darkness has been spreading for years and the name of the likely perpetrator is on a shortlist of one.
      Please don't withdraw from this debate entirely, I suspect you might have other valuable insights to offer.

      As for what next, Lux Et Veritas is on the money.
      John Davies needs to take definitive action.
      These leaks have caused such serious damage, firm and robust justice needs to be seen to be done.

      Delete
    6. Absolute power has corrupted absolutely22 March 2017 at 19:11

      As I do from time to time, this afternoon I paid a visit to my elderly, retired, very frail, hard-of-hearing and dim-of-sight former Parish priest.

      Due to not having seen him for a few weeks and the fact that he rarely receives a visit from any Church in Wales clergy (there's another major problem that +John Davies needs to get to grips with!) I provided him with the background of the story of the Llandaff selection process.

      Then I gave him copies of John Davies' and Jeffrey John's leaked letters for him to read.

      It took him twenty minutes to read the letters and twenty seconds to reach his conclusion. Before I could ask him what he thought he looked at me and said "Jeffrey John was promised the job".

      "Who could possibly do that?" I asked him.

      With a weary sigh and a scowl that might have turned me into a pillar of salt he spat out the name "Barry".

      Despite his physical infirmities his mind remains razor sharp.

      Delete

  14. Looks like The Sun is angling civil war in the church.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3138326/gay-vicar-claims-he-was-denied-bishop-job-despite-winning-vote-as-church-said-it-would-be-too-much-of-a-headache

    CHURCH HIRE 'SLUR' Gay vicar claims he was denied Bishop job despite winning vote as Church said it would be ‘too much of a headache’

    'In 2012, he wrote in Church Times that “theologically, ethically, and sacramentally, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple who cannot have children. So, yes, same-sex marriage can be as holy and sacramental as heterosexual marriage. Yes, God is in favour of gay marriage and so should the Church be.”'

    ReplyDelete
  15. Drain the swamp21 March 2017 at 14:49

    Well Bishop John it's over to you. Draining the swamp has to start somewhere. Masson seems as good a place as any. Drain the swamp.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clive, my apologies for another senior moment. Your comment was deleted in error. Please re-submit if you wish,

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the Sun has got hold of it, it must be serious!

    Meanwhile, we have 5 bishops (or is it 6 these days?) who have betrayed the trust of the whole Church, by continuing to scheme and connive under the veil of a confidentiality clause (that is not, and never has been, legally binding in any meaningful way).

    Agreed. No appointment in Llandaff until this shocking skulduggery is brought out into the full light of day, and a more transparent system is put in place - not least by having episcopal electors who are actually representative of the Diocese as a whole and not recipients of Barry the Golfer's order of the Brown Nose.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What should Jeffrey John have done? Two of the Bishops used his homosexuality as a reason to not appoint him when months before they had written to him (and to all Gay people) assuring him of an affirmed, respected, open and honest place in the church. Was Dr John just to roll over and say "well, there's a shame, another job denied me because I am gay" - absolutely not! He's done what Martin Luther King did and what Christ did before him: he's been forced to point out the hypocrisy of the structures that have maligned and abused him and he's said, "enough!". And if you all actually take the trouble to watch the FULL video of Dr. John's video on marriage, he speaks with passion and a real pastoral heart as he reaches out to LGBT listeners and assures them that God offers then affirmation and a welcome. AB takes many of his quotes on that video out of context - watch it all and come to your own conclusion. I take it you're all not Daily Mail readers are you - that you do have a mind and intellect of your own?

    You know then easiest thing in the world for Dr John to have done was to put up with yet another bout of institutional homophobia - but what would that say to those who have been inspired by his example and want to believe in the God he stands for.

    He should have been appointed to Reading nevermind Llandaff - after all, he would not have been the first gay bishop of Reading would he? What irony! And it's a great pity that the last gay bishop of Reading did not have the courage and sense of justice to have spoken out at the time and just said so. I suppose that was a sacred silence also?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scapegoat. I presume that you are so sure of the facts you state above that you must have been a member of the Electoral College? If not you are merely repeating no more tha hearsay!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Institutional homophobia". That is pathetic Scapegoat. Surely you can do better than that if you are confident that you and your gay friends are right and 98.3% have it wrong. Some evidence please.
    You appear to have fallen for JJ's "If you are gay, please don't judge God by the Church. The official Church doesn't speak with integrity on this issue and so, frankly, doesn't deserve to be listened to".
    1 Corinthians 3:4 comes to mind. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/3-4.htm

    ReplyDelete
  21. "on this issue" it doesn't, just as did it deserved to be listened to when it sanctioned slavery - don't you see the correlation? People treated as less than equal simply because of the colour of their skin or their sexual identity. "On this issue" the church does not deserve to be listened to - JJ is not the only cleric to say that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Yawn!"? Another one too exhausted for justice!

    Isn't it sad that this as not hit mainstream news - just a debate that we're having with ourselves as a Church. A few national papers covering it, nothing on mainstream news. Why? Because we literally have become an irrelevance to so many people. Appointing Dr. John would have been a way for the Bishops of our Church to face into that irrelevance and become a Church that is worth listening to. I believe that's what Dr. John was saying when he said the Church does not deserve to be listened to "on this issue". Let's be honest - we're not listened to on this issue - the view that gays are somehow abhorrent isn't a view that the majority of people in our nation hold - they just don't believe that at all. What Dr. John believes in is that once the Church moves on from this irrelevance it will be able to speak with an integrity that would be worth listening to. It's not for nothing that his Cathedral is the fastest growing Cathedral in the CofE - imagine that at Llandaff.

    The Bishop's have been understandably short-sighted but by not facing into the irrelevance with which most average people treat the Church, they have now missed an opportunity to become more relevant and more worthy of being listened to than before.

    Yawn all you want - people want justice and for the Church to really speak to them and matter. Yawning at them will achieve nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You misunderstand Scapegoat. I yawn not through exhaustion but boredom. Many of us have come to regret supporting gay rights. Instead of the oppressed you have become the oppressors. First feminism then LGBT. Many Anglicans have already concluded that there is nothing left for orthodox Christians in the Anglican Church. Where is the justice in that? Enjoy your triumph while you can. Soon there will be nothing left for you to complain about.

      Delete
    2. Actually, it's you you misunderstand. I count myself as an orthodox Christian who belongs to the Anglican Church. I just happen to be gay through no choice of my own, and so what I long for is for the orthodox Christian Anglican Church to truly include me. You will not find my triumphalist. That's where the justice is - simply a desire to belong as a equal disciple with you. Will you allow that?

      Delete
    3. You count yourself as an orthodox Christian who belongs to the Anglican Church so you are included. End of story.

      Delete
    4. AB - you say "many of us have come to regret supporting gay rights" - you're having a laugh. Nothing you have every written on here has been in support of gay rights. You'll point to your 'support' of civil partnership but that 'support' only manifested itself when equal marriage was being discussed. At that point you pretended to be a life long supporter of civil partnership when in reality your position was more like this: 'the gays have their civil partnerships, now they want more, why can't they just be satisfied with what they have been given, why can't they shut up and accept that they have been given more than they deserve - no they seem to want it all". Equality, an affirmed, open, honest and respected place is all we asked. for and this site has done noting to even attempt to achieve that. You have given a platform to extreme homophobia day in day out.

      Delete
    5. https://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/queer-bashing.html

      Delete
    6. The majority couldn't care less22 March 2017 at 10:41

      @Scapegoat
      Correct.
      You are an irrelevance to so many people.
      Just like the silent majority of the 28,000 are an irrelevance to the rest of the general population.

      Justice you say?
      People do want justice.
      The justice desired by the silent majority in Llandaff Cathedral is for the Quinquennial report to be published, the Organ appeal accounts to be published, Health & Safety reports to be published, the general accounts to be open to inspection, the report on the failed Cafe experiment to be published, the truth about the disappearances of Dean Henderson, Father Gilbert, Messrs Moorhouse & Bielby, Huw the handyman & Jade the cleaner and all the other cover-ups perpetuated by the Dean, Chapter and staff.

      Delete
  23. Somewhat Perturbed21 March 2017 at 20:06

    The plot thickens... The Chair of the Board of OneBodyOneFaith, Jeremy Pemberton, and Chief Executive Tracey Byrne have written an open letter to the bishops of Swansea and Brecon, Bangor, St Asaph, Monnmouth and St David's regarding the process of appointing a new bishop to the diocese of Llandaff.

    Full letter here:
    http://www.onebodyonefaith.org.uk/news/open-letter-wales/

    ReplyDelete
  24. AB,

    Another development this evening: see this link to the Thinking Anglicans website and an open letter from South Wales MPs to +Swansea re: Llandaff:

    http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

    The letter is carefully scripted. However a number of points really ought to be made in reply. Whether they will remains to be seen.

    1. Two documents were published before describing the profile requirements. One document states clearly that "lone ranger model" is not acceptable (exact quote). By his actions, JJ has demonstrated precisely this tendency.

    2. The process was subject to complete confidentiality for obvious reasons. This has been thoroughly disregarded by a number of the college members. Commenting on allegations would only further breach what is a 'golden rule'.

    3. The process is and always has been for a 2/3, not a simple, majority of electors. JJ did not attain this level of support, nor did any other candidate. To reject the process when it does not deliver the result that some people require is not good process; it is the very worst process.

    4. A point which seems to be largely overlooked, although you would have thought that the ex-CofE priest Chris Bryant knows it, is that any priest of bishop is called to ministry in the whole Church of God. I presume that is one of the reasons that the diocesan delegates do not represent a 2/3 majority, as they represent a local perspective on immediate needs which must be weighed with the overall perspective of the needs of the whole Church of God. This would be the appropriate reply to the phrase in the letter concerning JJ that he "was the unanimous choice of the electors of Llandaff". The Llandaff diocesan delegates are not the only electors concerned in the recent electoral college.

    There is more than a passing similitude between this letter & the open letter from a Sheffield MP to +Philip North before he renounced the Sheffield diocesan charge, even if this letter has been more carefully crafted for a disestablished church. With these new attacks and thinly veiled threats towards the Church, we have now reached the very thinnest edge of the wedge. 3 of the 4 Gospels all state clearly, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" ...not surrender unto Caesar the thing's which are God's.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The moment when JJ realised he wasn't going to be Bishop of Llandaff...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk_-E2eBrrQ#t=3m18s

    ReplyDelete
  26. JJ shows the logical outcome of liberalism, which is Deist to the core.
    I define God and no one can disagree. So I decide God will bless gay marriage/gossip/ lack of confidentiality etc etc......

    ReplyDelete
  27. An excellent summary by Cranmer:
    http://archbishopcranmer.com/church-wales-hounded-appoint-jeffrey-john-bishop-llandaff/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bravo Cranmer.
      Put far more eloquently than I could manage.
      Jeffrey John has shot himself in both feet, he has been told he isn't getting the job, end of story and time to move on the the next item of business on the agenda.
      1. Hunt the moles and hit the eject button.
      2. +John Davies is translated to Llandaff and drains Barry's swamp.

      Delete
  28. Bishop of Llandaff appointment – statement

    A fuller statement is available on the Church in Wales web site:
    http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/news/2017/03/bishop-of-llandaff-appointment-statement/

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Bishops:

    “Our unanimous view was that to consider further all or any of the candidates nominated at the College, none of whom achieved the required majority of votes to be elected, would call into question the integrity of the Electoral College process, and that, were any one of the candidates offered to the College to be subsequently appointed, that would be unfair to the other candidates.”

    Bishop Tony was elected and was a great bishop of Bangor - his appointment did not call into question the process of the electoral college, did it? This is Bishop John. clutching at straws. You speak to the Llandaff electors and they will tell you that homophobic comments were made about Dr. John and that they went unchecked. And too right the bishops now want to hide behind the cloak of confidentiality. It will not wash with us and if the bench now rush through an appointment then more fool them.

    Bishop John or Bishop Gregory need to offer to come to Llandaff themselves rather than throw in some unsuspecting victim into the post. As for them being lawyers, what rubbish - I studied Maths at University but that does not make me a Mathematician. It's years since I studied Maths and have forgotten most it. Similarly, these two bishops couldn't argue a convincing legal case for toffee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would Jesus say?22 March 2017 at 23:02

      Congratulations, you're quite right and you've fallen in the hole again.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Davies_(bishop_of_Swansea_and_Brecon)
      "He was educated at Bassaleg School, then a state grammar school. He studied law at the University of Southampton, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) in 1974. From 1975 to 1977, he undertook his training contract and he was admitted as a solicitor in 1977. He then practised law in a private practice until leaving the profession to enter the church."
      So now we've established 3 of the 5 Bishops at the Electoral college are legally trained.
      Would you like to go for a full house?

      You admit not being a Mathematician despite undergraduate studies in that discipline so why should anyone have any confidence in your ability or qualifications to comment on anyone else's ability to argue a convincing legal case?
      You might as well be a duck keeper working in the legal department of the Welsh Assembly!

      Let me repeat the question you are so desperately seeking to avoid.
      Is it at all credible that amongst the ranks of assembled lawyers taking part in the Electoral College not a one would have protested at any genuinely homophobic remarks?

      Delete
  30. @scapegoat

    1. Are you saying all of the Llandavian electors are oath breakers? Since you suggest they will discuss the events of the electoral college.

    2. Even if some homophobic comments happened it does not mean the whole process was flawed.

    3. Homophobia has seemingly morphed into disagreeing with anything LGBT. We're these comments real homophobia (that is insulting and discriminatory?) Or were they just a disagreement of the wisdom of appointing someone with unorthodox point of view?

    This is a vexatious campaign and the only victim I can see is +John for all the unfair criticism.

    Sorry to disagree Scapegoat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem you disagreeing at all, but I get the message and I will not post here again. It's a great shame that whenever I have posted my contribution has been met with the usual response of just diminishing and demeaning what I say and suggesting I am merely whinging.

      I'll leave you to it. Hope you get what you want and that your witch hunt against those who broke the sacred confidentiality because they wanted to see justice done is successful.

      I think as some of you have suggested, I'll just contact Jeffrey and try and set up 'a little gay church of my own'. All future banished electors (of whatever gender) will be welcome and if you're that episcopal whistleblower, then we'll be in touch when we're looking for a bishop of our own.

      Have fun everyone, and enjoy the Church you are keen to re-create. Bring back slavery?

      Delete
    2. Llandaff Corruption 0 - 4 Holy Ghost23 March 2017 at 11:11

      The leakers didn't want to see justice done.
      Their objective was to skew and rig the election process in favour of their political agenda and preferred candidate.
      Fortunately for our Church they failed and the Holy Ghost prevailed (and what a welcome change that is in the Llandaff swamp).
      The leakers and their puppet master must face the consequences of their corrupt plotting and Jeffrey John will have to face any consequences resulting from him revealing his true nature and underlying character so accurately described by Cranmer.

      Delete
    3. As soon as you've set up the little gay church of the Unholy Swimming Trunks and All Gymnasium Showers, do remember to inform the rest of the Llandaff gay cabal.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. @Scapegoat
      Please don't leave us and take away your toys so soon.
      Your sophistry, drivel and stomach churning wriggling has been the cause of so much amusement, you might almost be missed.
      How revealing that when you need a Bishop for your little gay church you'll be getting in touch with your Episcopal whistle-blower.
      After your Oscar winning hissy fit following the outcome of the Electoral College I am gobsmacked to learn you don't automatically want dear old Jeffrey John as your Bishop.
      Are you being homophobic?
      Or have you finally, and somewhat embarrassingly, come to the same conclusion as the Holy Ghost, the silent majority in Llandaff and Archbishop Cranmer that your chum Jeffers isn't Bishop material after all?

      Delete
  31. AB, a desperate plea. Whenever Scapegoat next tries to post more of the same, would you please have another senior moment and delete it?
    You have allowed him / her to monopolise your blog. Whoever they may be, they clearly identify with JJ so closely as to refer to him being scapegoated, and while they may derive personal gratification from regurgitating the same old drivel again and again, the rest of us may feel there is nothing more we need to hear about JJ and we can draw our own conclusions about him without any more of Scapegoat's blinkered whingeing. Scapegoat would be better occupied studying the archbishopcranmer post but it's typical of someone so hostile to traditional Anglicanism not to be able to imagine that anyone could validly have a different viewpoint - after all that was the extent of former ++ Barry's "teaching" for 20+ years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need Enough! You will see from his final comment that Scapegoat has managed to calculate that he has been given enough rope.
      The JJ saga has been a distraction in the selection process showing the Church in a bad light for personal gain.
      Scapegoat reminds me of the type of Vicar who drones on and on, week by week about people who do not go to Church and is completely incapable of recognising that he is the problem. Feminism and LGBT+ issues are doing the same aided by the Church, now busy setting up welcoming groups. No-one gives a fig about orthodox Christians.

      Delete
  32. For the urgent attention of +John Davies.

    The ears in the walls have reported that suggestions of leaks by Llandaff members of the recent Electoral College are a smokescreen behind which others are hiding.
    "Lux Et Veritas" has suggested a very practical way of dealing with the disgraceful state of affairs you are now facing and interviewing the Llandaff Electors might still be a worthwhile exercise to be carried out in any case.
    However, if the information reaching my ears tonight is correct you may find it worthwhile to extend your interviews to an Archdeacon from the Bangor Diocese with an axe to grind.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think with many things a confidential agreement means just that, so people are free to speak up, without fear. I recall serving on a jury and all sorts of things were asked and discussed, only so we could all feel OK about a massive decision affecting other people's lives.
    Many in the pew, can't and won't accept gay relationships, it is only fair, that an electerol college is free to mention this. This is not homophobia but recognition that 2000 years of Bible teaching plus Church traditional can't just be brushed aside.
    We all say things confidentially to a close friend or priest, that we would not want printed in the sun.
    This now means electerol college plus the bench can only talk superficially.
    On a separate note...... When and who decided that a bishop could be in a civil partnership or gay marriage? Most of us in the pew, had no idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darth --Insidious Barry Morgan for one, Danny.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9421350/God-backs-gay-marriage-says-Dr-Jeffrey-John.html
      UK: Gay cleric Jeffrey John could become Britain's first openly homosexual bishop
      An openly gay cleric is in line to become a bishop, in a move that could plunge the Anglican Communion into fresh crisis over homosexuality.
      By Martin Beckford Religious Affairs Correspondent
      The Telegraph
      http://tinyurl.com/6endbr
      Sept. 1, 2008
      The Very Rev Jeffrey John was appointed Bishop of Reading five years ago but was forced to stand down by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a personal friend of his, after the election sparked outrage among conservatives.
      He was later made the Dean of St Albans but is now being considered for the post of Bishop of Bangor in North Wales, following the death of the previous incumbent from cancer in June.
      Insiders believe 55-year-old Dr John is highly likely to be chosen, because he is a Welsh speaker as well as being a respected theologian.
      In addition, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, recently admitted he would support the election of a gay bishop despite opposition among orthodox Anglicans and guidelines stating that practising homosexuals should not become clergy.
      His appointment would likely deepen the crisis in the 80 million-strong worldwide church over homosexuality.


      Morgan has been trying to engineer this for decades and it is inconceivable to the silent majority that Morgan isn't behind the latest scandal.

      To make matters worse, since his widely reported retirement at the end of January, he's been seen in Llandaff Cathedral even more often than when he lived just 300 yards up the hill.
      The ears in the walls report he is trying to inveigle his way on to the Cathedral staff as a non-stipendiary clergyman and wanting (demanding) to take services regularly including the weekly Welsh language Eucharist.
      Of course we all know the real reason is that he needs to keep an eye on his glove puppet Gerwhine and to keep those pesky skeletons locked in the cupboards.

      The convention is that when a Parish priest retires they have to leave the Parish and that when a Bishop retires he has to leave the Diocese.
      To do otherwise is unfair on the new incoming Priest/Bishop.

      Morgan needs to be told in no uncertain terms to go forth and multiply well away from Llandaff.
      It would be cheap at the price if +John Davies agreed the C in W would pay for a one-way ticket for Morgan to go somewhere nice and hot.
      The sunny side of Mercury say.

      Delete
  34. Surely, Whistleblower, you cannot be referring to an archdeacon who wooed Jeffrey John for the Bangor election in 2008, only to collude with The Golfer and Cyanide Sue by dropping him like a hot brick when His Darkness declared J John out of the running, and then concocted a tsunami of slanderous (and groundless) accusations against another candidate in the same election, on matters of sexuality and lifestyle no less? He is not as duplicitous as that, is he?

    And it surely cannot be the same archdeacon who admitted sexual impropriety in a Court of Law after a series of encounters in a well-known place of easement on Pontcanna Fields can it?

    Surely, no-one worthy of the Office of archdeacon would be so treacherous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Entirely unworthy. Lecherous and treacherous indeed.

      Delete
  35. The Ass Bishop of Llandaff is stepping down. In a statement sent to all diocesan clergy, Bishop David said he wanted to “hand over the baton” to Dr Morgan’s successor as Bishop of Llandaff to enable that person to “run free”. He will finish on Easter Day, April 16.
    http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/news/2017/03/assistant-bishop-steps-down/

    Speaking to the Church Times this week, Bishop Wilbourne said: “Over the past 18 months, I have been under considerable and in­­creas­ing pressure to relinquish my post and leave Wales.” In one recent con­versa­tion, he had been strongly ad­­vised to resign before Easter.
    https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/24-march/news/uk/mps-join-row-over-llandaff-election

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I Wilbourne can't spell "teeming" correctly it's little wonder he didn't get the Llandaff job himself.
      Another rat is jumping ship before someone competent gets the job and starts unearthing bullshitter --Bazza's skeletons along with Wilbourne's own duplicity or turning of his blind eye.
      Hardly a loss to Llandaff or the Church in Wales.

      Masson next.

      Delete
    2. Was the Ass Bishop a closet Jeffrey John supporter counting on Morgan's chosen heir and successor being handed the job and continuing the cover ups?
      As a life-long cynic I don't believe in coincidences and the timing of his retirement is highly suspect and probably significant.

      Delete
    3. What would Jesus say?24 March 2017 at 17:36

      According to the Church Times article, Wilbourne was openly supporting Jeffrey John.
      Given the disgraceful reply Jeffrey John wrote to John Davies, realistically Wilbourne had no choice. Although I had precious little time for Wilbourne, at least he has had the honour and moral courage to do the right thing.
      1662 is right, Masson should do the same.
      It remains to be seen if Masson has the honour and moral courage to fall on his sword. Somehow I doubt it, I suspect he will have to be winkled out.


      Delete
    4. Thank you WwJs, just spotted that for myself.
      According to Wikipedia, Wilbourne was born in 1955 which makes him only 62.
      There must be more to this than meets the eye!
      What a refreshing contrast between him and His --Darkness who hung on until the last possible moment.

      Delete
    5. Too hot in the kitchen for the Ass?
      I agree with 1662.

      Delete
    6. This is fascinating.

      Speaking to the Church Times this week, Bishop Wilbourne said: “Over the past 18 months, I have been under considerable and in­­creas­ing pressure to relinquish my post and leave Wales.”
      In one recent con­versa­tion, he had been strongly ad­­vised to resign before Easter.

      Who could have been putting him under increasing pressure over the last 18 months?

      The obvious answer is Barry Morgan.

      After all, who else would have the authority?

      I can't help wondering if Barry was frightened that David Wilbourne might have been a competitor for, and get, either the St. David's job or the Llandaff job, ruining his scheme to impose his chosen candidates on both Dioceses.

      His statement doesn't say he's retiring but stepping down
      Is another Employment Tribunal pending with another big payout for mistreatment?
      http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teacher-bipolar-disorder-been-awarded-12519829

      Delete
    7. Llandaff Pewster24 March 2017 at 23:51

      When I posted Masson's leaked email on 1st March, inadvertently I omitted the list of addressees.
      The list included all the chapter members of Llandaff Cathedral but in addition, possibly due to his open support of Jeffrey John, David Wilbourne was also sent a carbon copy.
      As an assistant Bishop, you'd think he was duty and honour bound to draw the existence of Masson's underhanded email to the attention of his superiors.
      In the light of today's developments I can't help wondering if the very sudden departure might be down to a failure to do so.
      As the next most senior persons on the mailing list, if the Dean and Archdeacons also failed to mention the existence of Masson's email to the Bishops, they too should be considering their positions.
      Masson shouldn't even be given the option of "stepping down" but just kicked out.

      Delete
    8. Deeply Concerned Parent25 March 2017 at 14:46

      Madeleine Davies and the Church Times have included the image of those pretty young children in her article, but I wonder if the Church Times - and the person supplying the Church Times with that photograph - obtained permissions from all the children's parents for that photograph to be taken and for its subsequent use in being attached to a scandalous media story concerning allegations of homophobic behaviour by Welsh bishops and distributed world-wide over the internet?
      I'm relieved that none of them is my daughter.
      In the circumstances, perhaps the relevant Provincial and Diocesan safe-guarding officers need to consider their positions too. If the have allowed these children to be used in a public relations war being waged through the media, then it's a disgrace.

      Delete
  36. AB: Your comment of 0735 today doesn't seem to have appeared on this page, although it came at that time in an email. Having followed its link to the Ch Times report I was going to make an observation about the preponderance of females in the Confirmation group pictured therein; if no boys are being confirmed there won't be many men in the CinW in a decade or two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My apologies for the glitch Matthew. Before I could rectify the problem events overtook me. The Ass bishop issued his statement and the Church Times updated their article.

      Delete
  37. Having advanced his own candidature in addition to supporting Jeffrey John one wonders if earlier commentators were looking under the wrong stone for the bishop on the end of the phone. Secondhand stories might account for the absurdities in John's open letter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As merely an assistant Bishop, I doubt Wilbourne was included in the Bishop's meeting concerning the election of a new Bishop of Llandaff.
      And if he was possibly under consideration for the job himself, he could not have been involved.
      Plus (and I suppose this could potentially point in either direction) Wilbourne's name was not amongst those to whom J which might indicate Wilbourne wasn't a party to +John Davies' letter to Jeffrey John OR that Jeffrey John didn't want to implicate Wilbourne.
      I still suspect one of the five.
      One who likes Gymnasia showers.

      Delete
    2. I was not implying that the Ass + was present Ruth, only that he may have heard what went on and put his own interpretation on it. Pure speculation of course.

      Delete
    3. Apologies, my post should read "to whom Jeffrey John replied, which...".
      Old age and poor eyesight I'm afraid.
      Thank you AB, I understand of course.
      But even if Wilbourse was just reporting what 'he may have heard', he still heard it from someone and however many were passing along the gossip, the original source must still have been one of the five.

      Delete
    4. I'm with Ruth on this one AB.
      To be fair, whatever Wilbourne's failings, in his defence I never detected anything like the degree of malice and duplicity so typical of Barry Morgan and the hordes brown nosers who have been steeped in the rank corruption of Morgan's swamp for years.

      Delete
    5. Subversive Canon25 March 2017 at 14:12

      @Ancient Briton
      The letter sent to the Western Mail by Rev Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin seems to support Ruth's suspicions.
      http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/western-mail-letters-thursday-march-12783941
      "However, Llandaff is not entirely without Episcopal ministry. The assistant bishop, the Right Reverend David Wilbourne, remains in post. Moreover, he is the only serving bishop in the Church in Wales who was neither a member of the failed Electoral college nor of the Bench of Bishops which has become mired in the allegations surrounding its conduct."

      I question how Watkin is so sure of his facts (he'd be damn foolish to send falsehoods in writing to the editor of the Western Mail for publication), but assuming he's correct, then Wilbourne could not have been the Episcopal leaker and been sacked for that reason (I am in no doubt he's been sacked).

      Therefore +John, +Gregory and the Holy Ghost have still more stick to put about.
      Crack on boys.
      Follow the stench of swamp.




      Delete
  38. This all looks like the closing of ranks to avoid some uncomfortable facts becoming public knowledge. Was a severance package offered I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With a gagging clause attached?

      Delete
  39. What a sad state of affairs! The C in W is at a low water mark with everything that is going on at present. I have had little cause to think well of the bishops in recent years but I think that Bishop John Davies needs support in the line he is taking over the appointment of the next Bishop of Llandaff. His statement on the procedure is clear; he has not succumbed to the torrent of media coverage which has obviously been orchestrated and he has provided JJ with a clear explanation. The fact that JJ has responded as he has says more about him than about the C in W. I have always had a degree of respect for JJ but my patience has been totally exhausted by his actions on this occasion. The break point is not his sexuality but his promotion of same sex marriage and his arrogant assertion that the "church does not deserve to be listened to". This is not the language of a potential bishop. Perhaps he should reflect that this may have been what prevented him gaining sufficient votes at Llandaff, especially as the C in W voted to maintain the status quo in terms of marriage at it last governing body. I wish Bishop John Davies well in his continuing work in this matter and pray for a bishop who can unite and take forward the diocese of Llandaff after so much unneccesary damage has been done. As for the member of the bench who allegedly broke confidence to report to JJ, it is to be hoped that he necessary action will be taken to deal with that matter once the present important appointment has been finalised.

    Hopeful

    ReplyDelete
  40. The Assistant Bishop has taken the only course of action that is open to him. To stay, under the existing circumstances, would be difficult, unless he became a Provincial Assistant Bishop. The Senior Bishop now needs to close this matter, because it is becoming irretrievable for any new appointee, who already has their work cut out. And it needs a deft hand, a keen intellect and a person of gravitas to begin to repair the awful mess that this episode has become.
    The most obvious candidate to begin the task, is the Bishop of St. Asaph, who will need all of the skills that he deployed in his previous work in the Anglican Consultative Council. But in addition to his work as Bishop of Llandaff (and after he has succeeded Bishop John to the Archbishopric), he will need to recolour the very jaded canvas of a worn and frayed Church in this Province. Worn and frayed, because there is so little that is inspirational within so many of the senior clerics here – a surprising fact perhaps, to an external observer, but not a revelation to many of us, who know them well.
    In identifying a future bishop, it must surely be the case that the charism of leadership is gifted by the Holy Spirit to an individual, from the outset. If it is absent from the start, then the task becomes simply, impossible. But that is just the beginning. From there, it must be identified, fostered and enabled by those in positions of responsibility, in each Diocese. And it is this lapse, in such a vital process of discernment and nurture, which perhaps explains the current tragedy – and for a proud Diocese like Llandaff, it is a tragedy.

    The crisis, however, like all such situations, presents us with an opportunity. There are fresh, intelligent and truly inspirational young candidates of very high calibre among us throughout the Province - we need not necessarily look to the C of E – who can be leaders for our Church.But they will need to be brought forward quickly, and prepared for leadership, in a fairly radical gesture, that signifies a change of the old order. Such a gesture may not be popular with those whose vested interests would be affected, of course. But it might indicate clearly, that the Church in Wales is ready to offer inspirational and spiritual leadership and to engage with the world outside, far beyond Cathedral greens, leaky conclaves, or unsubtle bids for self-promotion, which have brought this whole process into such bitter disrepute and which are truly, a ‘skandalon’ for so many.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Drain the swamp25 March 2017 at 10:02

    If you've sacked the person receiving the email then you have to sack the person who sent it. Drain the swamp.

    ReplyDelete
  42. How far will LGBT's tentacles extend? Floor of the Commons, letters from MPs, Chapter criticisms, Electoral College leaks? The media have swallowed the lot. The Church Times has joined in putting their own spin on the so-called injustice
    https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/24-march/comment/leader-comment/exclusive-wales

    From their Leader comment: "...after pressure from conservatives in the Oxford diocese and the wider Anglican Communion over his homosexuality. It is hard to credit that these words should resurface once more, 14 years later..."

    They resurfaced because Dr John made unsubstantiated allegations in line with normal practice by groups which put their own interests before others, condemning anyone who dares to challenge them with smears of homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia.

    The Church Times makes other insinuations before concluding "Among the 'current challenges' listed on the diocesan profile is: 'to increase the representation and inclusion of LGBTI, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Anglicans as an essential element of growth at all levels within the Church'. If Dr John is not reconsidered, this is a challenge that the Church in Wales has clearly failed."

    I can't see how. Llandaff diocese is full of gays exercising power. The Electoral College simply saw the light.

    ReplyDelete