Sunday, March 21, 2010

Judgment must begin at the house of God

It is more than a disingenuous deflection when those who leap to defend the Roman Catholic Church from the present tsunami of allegations of torture and child-rape point the finger at other institutions which have, from time to time, had their share of pederasty.

“Why,” they wail, “should the victims of clerical abuse be singled out by the media? Why are the prepubescent prey of perverted priests, libidinous bishops and carnally-minded cardinals deemed more worthy of scrutiny and investigation than those abused by other groups of predators?”

And so they cite the vice of various children’s homes, the Church of England, the Baptists, the Lutherans and a few ‘progressive’ schools which have nothing to do with any religious foundation at all.

Pederasty, they aver, is not simply a papal problem.

Very true.

And Cranmer has some sympathy with those who feel some injustice in the matter.

But he has little patience with the poverty of their spirituality and the ignorance they display of the teaching of their first pope.

St Peter said:

If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1Pet 4:14-17)

It may be that Pope Benedict XVI is indeed suffering ‘as a Christian’ as he is ‘stitched up’ by the media and thrown the wolves by his liberal ‘enemies inside the Church’ (which, reportedly, includes members of the College of Cardinals).

But other clerics rightly suffer for being murderers of innocence, thieves of childhood and meddlers in collusion and cover-up.

Yet it is a bit rich for those Roman Catholic journalists to cry foul over an ‘anti-Catholic’ media frenzy when they are not averse to dishing out the same (and worse) upon every trial faced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and every tribulation to befall the Church of England.

Those who berate The Times for its measured, reasoned and intelligent reporting of this crisis are the very journalists who are the first to crow about ‘the end of the Church of England’, the ‘wreckage’ its incompetent bishops leave in their wake, and demand that the proper (ie Anglo-Catholic) Christians swim over to Rome.

But that, of course, is not ‘anti-Anglican’ or ‘bigotry’. That is pastoral concern for the spiritual edification of deficient Protestants and a genuine desire for wholeness in the soteriological fulfilment of wayward and misguided Anglicans.

The media are full of vipers, serpents, dragons and beasts: it is a world of darkness and a den of demons governed by the prince of the power of the air. You might think, therefore, that Christians might seek to be united to confront the zeitgeist.

But no.

Unity is impossible when The Daily Talibgraph prefers to talk of forging alliances with atheists rather than with Anglicans; when its journalists are more absorbed by their own embittered egos and puerile carping than with rational discourse; and when they consistently resort to ad hominem attacks upon their competitors in order to deflect from the religio-political substance they prefer not to face, or their own cognitive dissonance prevents them from even perceiving.

Those robust defenders of Pope Benedict who defame The Times (or, now, ‘the recent Media’) for daring to ask some awkward questions ought themselves to ask these questions. They might learn from the example of Cardinal Sean Brady as he presided over Mass yesterday. In deep pain, from the depths of his anguished soul, he thanked and praised the communications media – even the serpents, dragons and beasts who have been unforgiving in their agonising crucifixion of him over recent months. He was patient, courteous, respectful and humble: in short, he was Christ to them. Even if Ruth Gledhill had been there, he would have extended the right hand of fellowship and smiled warmly at her, instead of descending into hysterical, unreasoned and un-Christian abuse.

The negative media surrounding Pope Benedict is being fanned by his co-religionists, both clerics and journalists. They are gorging this ravenous ‘mood of the moment’ by which the obsessive media live and breathe. It is a game to them, though it be life and death to others. And now Pope Benedict’s entire papacy risks being forever tarnished with allegations of pederasty in exactly the same manner as that of Pope Pius XII has become synonymous with anti-Semitism. And history has a very long memory.

But Christians – real Christians – would not be spitting at the media organisations or cursing the journalists. They would love, as Christ did, and forgive them, not least because judgment begins with the house of God. And we might expect that wrath, when it comes, to be more severe. From those who have been entrusted with much, much is expected. And if that trust involves the guardianship of the lively oracles of God, then there can be no fellowship with darkness. The hypocrites have been rightly and justly exposed, and this is a work of the Holy Spirit in cleansing the temple. But, as Pope Benedict reminded us, let us not fool ourselves into believing that pederasty is the sole preserve of the ordained and religious: it is also a pursuit of the laity. It is perfectly possible to project the sanctified façade of being a Benedict-adoring, Latin-loving, orthodoxy-exalting media hack and a holier-than-thou participant in God's work of chastisement and judgment, while secretly harbouring a penchant for young boys.

Those who seek to wound and destroy their brothers and sisters in Christ are only bringing judgment upon themselves. And that judgment will surely come.


OpenID Michael said...

'Those who berate The Times for its measured, reasoned and intelligent reporting..'


21 March 2010 at 10:55  
Anonymous Stuart said...

For all of your smooth words you don't mask your intense and seething dislike of the Catholic Church.

21 March 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Michael,

Try Tixylix.

Mr Stuart,

Your capacity for self-delusion is worthy of The Talibgraph.

21 March 2010 at 11:06  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This, I would say, is the most balanced post on the subject so far. It needs to be sorted out and not brushed aside with much of the same. There is great shame in all of this depravity. But it is a story of depravity, and the depravity is what lies at the root of it all. The common denominator in all this depravity is children being pumped into organisations....out of sight and out of mind. We all need to think long and hard. It is no excuse to imagine that these kids would have suffered more and would have had to have performed more oral sex for less if such organisations did not exist; society needs to take a long hard look at its self.

As for the church, it needs to perform genuine repentance which will include more than a cursory apology. The whole situation is deplorable from start to Finnish and the day of judgement is upon us all; no more feeble excuses because they simply will not do. Anyone who demands anything less is guilty of neglect and is serving the ends of evil.

21 March 2010 at 11:30  
Blogger British Shorthair said...

Your Grace,

A word on measured, reasoned, and intelligent reporting. You say that:
"The media is full of vipers, serpents, dragons and beasts: it is a world of darkness and a den of demons governed by the prince of the power of the air."

You mean, presumably, "the media ARE..."

21 March 2010 at 11:51  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

May it please YourGrace

Just as religion deflects from human culpability, is used to defend the un-defendable and to obfuscate rational decision making, I hold that it discredits Your Grace’s natural intelligence to make political and preferential capital from the suffering of these child victims.

Point scoring amongst your followers, against those of non theological belief or affiliation depicting 'them' as being less worthy is pure bigotry. A(a)theists do not exist as a body politic. They can be completely rational people or severely mentally disturbed, it rather depends on your choice of purpose for the attachment of the label 'atheist'. Personally I regard myself as a fundamental human-being unencumbered by religious or political programming, trying to make my way and sense of the only life of which I know I am guaranteed. I am a-theist as a matter of stated understanding that I don’t believe in the supernatural world or its mythology.

It appears to me that you are blinkered by the blinding conviction of your own righteousness whether it is in support for the Divine Dave, the un-breachable supremacy of the Anglican Church and your yearning for some fictitious age, when all was good in the world and God was a card holding Conservative.

God for you, it would appear, had had decreed that the natural order ordained that the rich-man in his castle and the poor-man at his gate both morally and aspirationally. The point I am making in all this, is to ask you to consider that the broad use of the epithet and negative connotations appertaining, is derogatory and unjustified. A person of independent thought and freedom of will does not necessarily constitute a legitimate target for you opprobrium when seeking an outlet for your frustrations.

21 March 2010 at 11:56  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Mr/Mrs Dreadnaught

I sometimes think that you are right in your assertion that His Grace is very quick to make political capital out of every and any opportunity, but this may be something that qualifies a Tory brain (they have a blinkered one track mind), and if there is a God, then I think He would use this grossness of heart to bring about the much needed repentance from all concerned, because let's be fair, it has to be time to shed light in dark places. So maybe in a funny round about way, His Grace is serving the Lord more than He realises.

21 March 2010 at 12:09  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr British Shorthair,

In the vernacular, 'media', like 'politics', is increasingly treated as a singular noun.

However, if that is all that detracts from this post, His Grace is humnbly content to alter it to a plural.

21 March 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

Thanks for your sage Scriptural response, which will not please everybody. Harry S. Truman used to say "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

This whole thing is so heartbreaking for everyone, especially its victims. Thank you for drawing attention to the painful, contrite realism of some RC bishops' recent words and deeds, which offers far more hope of redemption than the customary arrogance and triumphalism of some Telegraph hacks.

21 March 2010 at 12:13  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

The Times "measured"?

Please. They are stirring up s--t because the Pope is coming. It is rather obvious.

21 March 2010 at 12:16  
Blogger British Shorthair said...

Your Grace,

I applaud your warm-hearted response to my obvious facetiousness, and have no wish that you forgo the vernacular. In fact, the slightly deeper point behind my original post is that mild ironic archaism sits ill with the emotions stirred up by this particular subject-matter.

21 March 2010 at 12:27  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

"I know of my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous; a crisis without equal on earth. a most profound collision of conscience, conjured up against everything that had been believed - demanded hallowed so far. Where you see ideals, I see what is human. alas, all too human!"

Friedrich Nietzsche

21 March 2010 at 12:52  
OpenID Michael said...

Come off it Cranmer - questioning the intent and sincerity of the Times on this issue, before a Papal visit, by a lady whose social liberal credentials put her at constant odds with the Church, and a man who thinks all organised religion is bad, hardly makes you 'worthy of the Talibgraph' - indeed, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your analysis of the Times' coverage must therefore be cheering on the Telegraph line is a little, well, Talibgraph-esque.

I know you're a little touchy about the RC Church, as is your wont, but at least try and adhere to the standards by which you denounce others.

Your post today was welcome, and too few people are talking about prayer, repentance, judgment and renewal - but as ever, one is inclined to suspect an alternative agenda, or at least a feint whiff of schadenfreude: and that comment on the Times deserved to be picked up on.

21 March 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous Gladiatrix said...

Dear Archbishop

Clearly you dislike Damian Thompson, I don't know why and have no wish to know. However, he has pointed out as you have not that The Times' coverage of the Catholic Church's current crisis has not been reasonable or intelligent. On the contrary Ruth Gledhill in particular, and her other colleagues, have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand Catholic doctrine or Catholic teaching, that they do not know how the Catholic hierarchy is constituted and that they are happy to print allegations against HHTP without first checking whether there is actually any truth to them or doing any background investigation. For people whose trade is supposed to be journalism this is inexcusable; for allegedly specialist correspondents it is indefensible.

The coverage of HHTP's letter is an example in point - The Times published an article which was resoundingly negative about the letter, and its effect, BEFORE the letter had been published and when The Times had no idea what the letter was actually going to say. I am astonished that The Times' editor allowed that to happen. The entirety of The Times' religious affairs staff should be formally reprimanded for their ignorance, their failure properly to do the jobs for which they are paid, their astonishing rudeness and overt bigotry, and for repeatedly denigrating HHTP and Catholics everywhere by showing absolutely no respect either for their beliefs or their right to hold those beliefs.

Finally, the use of the term 'Talibgraph' is an obscenity. No-one at The Telegraph is responsible for acts of terrorism, the murder of British troops, or a deliberate assault on the rights of women. The Taliban has done all of those things. It is greatly to the credit of The Telegraph that it has treated this abuse with the contempt it so richly deserves.

21 March 2010 at 13:09  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

The Times were singled out because they claimed that Pope Benedict was directly implicated in the cover up. Something that was manifestly untrue.

I think that the comparison to Pius was very unfair, by the way. In his case, the Catholic church was innocent of the charges of anti-Semitism. There was a reason that the Pope was considered by Hitler as his greatest enemy. I understand that you may well have compared the two as how the media and biased historians have associated the papacies with scandal. However the juxtaposition of the two appears to justify the latter as if it were true.

Overall, I agree in some respects with your post. The obvious bias of the media in the scandal does not in any way reduce the culpability of the Catholic church in those parishes. It is important both to purge God's church of Satan's influence and to repent and to not sin again. However we should also remember that the church is certainly not the greatest perpetrator of child abuse in this country. The state cannot simply allow the stereotyping of the clergy whilst continuing to cover up the greater scandal in its own children's homes. We risk making a scapegoat of one set of child abusers in order to cover up the crimes of another.

21 March 2010 at 13:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gladiatrix,

His Grace is not entirely sure what you're talking about.

Whatever allegations may legitimately be leveled at The Times, are you seriously suggesting that journalists at The Talibgraph have not 'repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand Anglican doctrine or teaching, that they do not know how the Anglican Church is constituted and that they are happy to print allegations against the Arichbishop of Canterbury without first checking whether there is actually any truth to them or doing any background investigation'?

As you say: 'For people whose trade is supposed to be journalism this is inexcusable; for allegedly specialist correspondents it is indefensible.'

Which is why such carping and criticism from The Talibgraph is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

21 March 2010 at 13:50  
Anonymous oiznop said...

See this from Pilligrimin on DT Holy Smoke blog (before it is censored again) -

(I am re-posting this as it seems to have disappeared within minutes of being posted. If someone is censoring this, please tell me what is wrong with it!)

I have recently resigned from priestly formation for an English RC diocese, and returned from seminary in Rome to being a layman in the Church of England. For all its difficulties and contradictions, the CofE still retains its main strength: a deeply held sense of community responsibility and a real grass roots pastoral tradition rooted in the Gospel and healthily accountable at local level.

Some who throw their weight around on this blog, expressing their strident factional ‘Catholic’ views fail to see that the very concept of ‘traditionalism’ is an estrangement from everyday family concerns that motivated the Son of God and his early church followers as they conquered the world with the Gospel of love.

Amongst many RC priests in England – even the young priests who should know better, and the vocations directors who guide them – there is a growing arrogance that goes along with this ultra-traditional flag-waving. At its extreme end, it goes beyond traditional and tends towards the outright fascist. If Damian accidentally buys into this on his blog, he should lift the veil and see what lies behind it, for he will soon lose media credibility when the real views of some traditionalists he supports – apparently respectable people – are finally exposed for the ugly fascists they are.

The Catholic hierarchy take great care to paper over the cracks, so it appears there are no church ‘parties’, as there are in the CofE; but the reality is quite different, and the remaining Catholics faithful to Vatican II are being intimidated out. If some ‘traditionalists’ had their way, they would round up the liberals and march them off to the nearest football stadium to be quietly eliminated. I have heard such views expressed, and not in jest. But luckily England is not Chile in the 1970s and these particular Catholic fascists have not yet gained enough control.

In human terms, the destructive nature of this institutional factionalism within the Catholic church is far worse than anything happening in the Church of England. The way Catholic adults abuse each other and use their power to ride rough-shod over others is a horrid and revolting spectacle. No wonder there has been such an awful history of child abuse when the adults have no respect for each other as Christians and as human beings.

So, in one sense, the present scandal is a good thing as it dampens the extremists in their ultramontane crowing and opens up the opportunity for debate about the type of institution the Catholic church has become, and the need for a complete shakedown and return to the exercise of throwing open the windows to the Holy Spirit, begun by that wise Pope John XXIII.
Abuse is not a logical outcome of the cruelty of the institution itself, but a sorry testimony to the misplaced testosterone of a male-dominated church where alpha males bully others on a daily basis.
I had hoped to maintain an ecumenical outlook as I returned from the Catholic church to the Church of England, but I am finding it harder than I imagined. In my time exploring vocation in the Catholic church my trust has been damaged too much by treatment in the diocese and in my experience of cruelty and inhumanity at the hands of religious orders.

That has been my adult experience, not from twenty or thirty years ago, but in these last months and years. I dread to think – but I can now imagine – what it was like for children whose trust was abused in a time when these dangerous people had more power and maintained greater secrecy.

21 March 2010 at 14:11  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

What I think is being forgotten here is the strength of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and the loyalty it commands from around the globe, but most notably the US. Having taken on the US as a Cardinal, the Pope is doing the equivalent of marching on Moscow by going for Ireland, and I believe he deserves some credit for that.

21 March 2010 at 15:11  
Anonymous Simon said...

The Times were singled out because they claimed that Pope Benedict was directly implicated in the cover up. Something that was manifestly untrue.

Utter rubbish. This pope has been protecting paedophiles in one way or another for decades and deserves to be called out on it.

In any decent world, he'd have been hung by the neck until his last breath.

21 March 2010 at 15:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

...The Talibgraph...

I agree with Gladiatrix that this is a very inappropriate and shabby attempt at a 'Private Eye'(ism). There will be many Telegraph readers or not, who have sons and daughters engaged on our belhalf and being maimed or killed by the Taliban.

It's neither witty or justified - it's simply offensive, insensitive and crass.

21 March 2010 at 15:22  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Simon 15.22
Utter rubbish. This pope has been protecting paedophiles in one way or another for decades and deserves to be called out on it.

In what way is that true? He has never condoned or covered up the actions of pederasts, nor has he ordered such covers.

Notwithstanding, the story in The Times was untrue as it involved a specific story in which the 'facts' espoused would be viewed as (at best) distorted if they had any relation to the truth.

21 March 2010 at 16:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

The problem is that the newspapers are allowed to get away with writing any rubbish about Christian churches because they know that the Church never sues for libel.

21 March 2010 at 16:24  
Anonymous Simon said...

In what way is that true? He has never condoned or covered up the actions of pederasts, nor has he ordered such covers.

BS, I'm afraid. Ratzi instigated the document requiring victims of abuse to maintain a "vow of silence" on the issue. He is also the architect of the protectorate established for (ex?)Bishop Law. He is paedophile-protecting scum. Yeah, and he lies about condoms too. They "cause" AIDS!

His so-called apology is shameful, full of the kind of language Peter Mandelson would be proud of.

21 March 2010 at 17:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

21 March 2010 at 17:09  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Simon 17.02
I'd like to have a look at the source for the 'vow of silence' issue. It's something I'd like to understand. If it is as simple as you describe, then I'm not sure it's defensible. If it's like the story in the Times, then your argument is void.

Silliness about condoms and AIDS though. They don't directly cause AIDS, they cause irresponsible attitudes toward sex, which causes AIDS. One only has to look at the condom culture in this country before you realise how well that has affected teenage pregnancy rates. Lots of other issues around the condom/AIDS issue I could talk about but that's for another thread.

21 March 2010 at 17:32  
Anonymous len said...

The point of this argument/discussion/ seems to be did the Pope(formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) cover up allegations of child abuse.Just about every source on the net says"yes"
The Vatican says the Pope is being "set up"
Only time will tell.

The works of the flesh are forever exerting a downward pull and sin lies crouching at the door waiting to gain mastery over all of us,none are exempt myself included.(I am not a paedophile I might add).
It is only through repentance and the overcoming of the sinful nature by the power of the Holy Spirit that victory will be obtained.

I have been accused of 'catholic bashing ' by some but it gives me no pleasure to see anyone suffer, we are all in the same boat so to speak.
It is only Christ who will set us free it frustrates me to see people grit their teeth and struggle on in their own strength.
I hope and pray that in these difficult times Catholics will find Christ their strength.
Bless you.

21 March 2010 at 17:47  
Anonymous Gladiatrix said...

Er, I'm actually female and I wrote about The Times because your own blog commented on the criticisms made of it.

21 March 2010 at 18:58  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 11.56, what's your star sign?

21 March 2010 at 19:55  
Blogger oldseadog said...

I have gone in my 74 years from Salvation Army to Anglican to Catholic and now I know not what. But the virus is in my bloodstream.
I am under vicious pressure from my Mistress who is the most clever person I have ever met, and also as mad as a hatter, to condemn the Catholic Church (which she joined against enormous aristocratic pressure).
I agree with all that is said about the male dominated hiarachy et al, the pernicious influence of the priests and their doctines wrecked my marriage. But, but but. Didn't Christ say "thou art Peter,the rock upon which I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."
Or something like it.

21 March 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger Theresa said...


If the document you are referring to that Benedict 'instigated' is Crimen Solicitationis, then you are wrong. It was issued in 1962, long before he was an archbishop or Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith. He updated it in 2001 and if it had been followed, all those guilty of abuse would have been defrocked. The whole irony of the situation is that Benedict since he became Pope, has actually spent a great deal of his time rooting all of this out. He has removed several people and in a way he is making a rod for his own back by doing so and it becoming public. I think we will be a better church at the end of this and I think we have a good leader in Benedict, who is putting the interests of children and the truth before the interests of the church. It's painful just now, but it will be worth it later.

21 March 2010 at 21:32  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Thanks Theresa,
That's cleared that one up

21 March 2010 at 21:37  
Blogger Ivan said...

Cranmer, are there two of you? In another post you berated Bishop Brady for his lack of humility and implied that he could redeem himself only by falling on his sword. Now he is a paragon of supplication. So which is it? Do we now look up the Drop Table, or accept him back like the Prodigal Son.

21 March 2010 at 23:48  
Anonymous Simon said...

I think we will be a better church at the end of this and I think we have a good leader in Benedict, who is putting the interests of children and the truth before the interests of the church. It's painful just now, but it will be worth it later.

I know the religious are deluded, but you are taking the biscuit here. Have you seen the Church's comment on the Irish scandal - they all but blame the children themselves. Ratzi has used the 2001 updated document to silence kids and priests alike.

You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance - it must be hard to believe that The Pope could be involved in these outrageous activities after your years of indoctrination - but is clearly true. He is protecting Law right now, as I type this a paedophile protector is in the Vatican taking tea with The Holy Father and he made it so. You are talking rubbish and you know it.

I know you hate anything that dare challenge your world view and the absolute supremacy of the church; but you, the church and the pope are protecting paedophiles, damaging children and telling out-right lies - and you've all been caught out - it's a stinker ain't it?

22 March 2010 at 00:11  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I must say I don't know much about all this - and I tend to leave it to the boys to talk it out.

One thing I think we may overlook, though, is the need to protect the names of the victims of any such assault. The younger they are, surely the greater the need to save their reputations - for there will always be other evil adults who will turn a story against a child still further; and so children whose entire lives are ruined by what people will go on saying about the effect of the abuse on them: which only compounds what the offender did to them.

In the case of rape of girls, that has, at its crudest, extended to arguments like: 'there's no such thing as rape, she was asking for it.'

I realize that the rapists benefit from and exploit this principle (protection of the victim) - but it does mean that the solution is not so simplistic as 'naming and shaming.' Perhaps that is also a point which may go towards explaining the reluctance of authorities - or even families -to discuss these things without the utmost care and discretion.

The thought deepened for me on a different level when I read that the MOD had recently auctioned off the detailed 'classified' courts martial records of the Royal Navy (up to AD 2,000). And for 20 quid, at that. Fortunately, a naval man bought them: who commented on the rights of victims to anonymity, as well as the scuppering of rehabilitation and second chances for offenders.

I believe we might slither only too easily into the business of judgement and conviction by slander; or just the business of cheapening other people's lives by thinking we know and understand more than we do, and by perpetuating the stench and the filth. We should look to minimize the damage.

22 March 2010 at 09:15  
Blogger Dave said...

Judgement will begin the house of God.
I became a Christian about 20 years ago. I stopped attending church about five years ago. Almost all my friends in almost every denomination across the country (I was an itinerant preacher and worship leader) have left the church.
Power struggles, schisms, heresy, bad teaching, and decidedly ungodly behaviour from supposedly mature Christians eventually drove me away.
Perhaps God is calling His people out of the church?
In case you think I'm pro any one denomination, they're all as bad as each other.
Wordver- crufici

22 March 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger houseofnumbersdoc said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 March 2010 at 19:20  
Blogger pilli said...


Thank you for quoting my post from the Damian Thompson blog. That crazy and barbaric place seems to be censoring more than the Holy Office in its less enlightened times! At least my post eventually stayed, once they realised their paranoia had got the better of them and I wasn't a 'troll'(!) but was speaking from experience.

A friend told me my post had turned up intact here on Cranmer's blog. Good evening, your Grace. I have contributed before, writing from Rome under last year under a different pseudonym and before I re-converted to Canterbury. I will contribute again, as 'Pilligrimin'.

23 March 2010 at 20:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Good evening, Mr Pilli,

You are more than welcome.

Here you will find a most catholic fellowship and expression of opinion.

Oh, and welcome back to the See of Canterbury. Very wise ;o)

23 March 2010 at 21:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older