Tag Archives: Deacon Nick

A statement from Deacon Nick Donnelly

05 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Faith

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Deacon Nick would like to make the following statement as his final word on the matter of his blog. 


A statement from Deacon Nick Donnelly

On Sunday 4th May Martina, my wife, closed down www.protectthepope.com as a Catholic news service. To the best of my knowledge I have always been obedient to my Bishop observing due confidentiality. Obedience and fidelity to the Magisterium are of paramount importance to my vocation.  In obedience to Bishop Campbell I have not posted on Protect the Pope. My wife will not be publishing further news posts on Protect the Pope.

Please pray for Pope Francis, our Church in England and Wales, my bishop Michael Campbell, my dear wife Martina and myself.

———-

I am praying as Deacon Nick asks. Please join me. Jess

 

Protect the Pope

04 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Blogging, Faith

≈ 29 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Saint-Peter

Deacon Nick Donnelly has posted the following on his site, Protect the Pope:

I am now stopping news posting on this website.

Thank you to the many people who have been praying for us.

Thank you also to all of those who have constructively engaged and contributed to the news site.

Please pray for Nick, the Bishop, myself, and the Church.

As we have had a flurry of comments, and rightly so, here, can I now suggest that we all abide by Deacon Nick’s wishes and pray for him, his wife, the Bishop and the whole Church. As the Psalmist has it:

Let, I pray, Your merciful kindness be for my comfort,
According to Your word to Your servant.

Communicating Christianity?

04 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Anglicanism, Blogging, Faith

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

come to me

I know only what I have read on the issue of the Protect the Pope blog and its closure. It seems clear from what has been written here and elsewhere that strong feelings prevail: some say the Bishop closed it; those who defend the Bishop say he did all he could to avoid that outcome, and that even so, in the end, it was not his decision to close the blog. The whole thing has become embroiled in  the ‘culture war’ which afflicts the Roman Catholic Church. Those who think of other Christians as their opponents will do what men tend to do – that is dig trenches and get involved in trench warfare; this is particularly so in a Church where the entire hierarchy is male. I am not saying that women cannot behave in such a manner, just that for many of us it is not the first instinct; though there have always been those who will take their knitting to the foot of the guillotine if they think there is a chance they will see the blood of their enemies shed. In all of this there is an absence of self-restraint, obedience and the love of Christ.

Those of us who run blogs will encounter those who come to them to vent, troll and tease. In a way they are easy to deal with; one blocks them. But what to do when some have very strong views and they fail to coincide either with your own views, or, indeed, the ethos you want your blog to have? Several of our contributors have aroused others to ask me why I do not block them, and I have been asked on more than a few occasions why I allow comments to be made about myself and my own Church which are hurtful?

Our Lord recommends we turn the other cheek and that we go an extra mile, and that we love those who despitefully use us; these things are not easy, and I do not pretend I can do them; but I do say I must try to do them; I find the discipline hard, but useful. My fellow contributors have, on the whole, shown an admirable restraint, and have, on the whole, striven to avoid the sort of nastiness which disfigures the comment boxes on newspapers more interested in viewing figures than communicating Christianity. I hope, too, that I try to set a tone which doesn’t encourage gossipy nastiness; that, too, may not stir the custard, but it also fails to curdle the milk of human kindness.

From what I have read it is clear that the Bishop hoped that the Deacon would exercise more restraint, and that when that did not happen, he hoped a period of prayer and reflection would be useful. Instead, the gap was filled with those interested, so it seems to me, with pouring petrol on the smouldering embers. The blogosphere is an area where feelings run high, and the issues on which Deacon Donnelly was blogging had assumed a fresh aspect with the arrival of Pope Francis. It is hard not to read some of what happened over the last year as a move from protecting the Pope to needing protection from him.

Those who have over-egged every remark of the Pope as heralding the advent of a Church very different from the one that exists, have helped create an atmosphere in which those of an orthodox bent felt threatened; the frequency with which nasty people have shown a willingness to play the school sneak and ‘report’ people with whom they disagree to the ‘authorities’, has also poisoned the wells. When the sneaks and the bullies feel that the headmaster is on their side, they tend to get really nasty. It is hard not to think that is part of what has gone on here.

But much as the orthodox Catholics feel threatened and uneasy, it is surely taking the very path taken by their opponents to denounce a bishop of orthodox hue who felt that things needed calming down? We do not communicate much about the true spirit of our Faith when situations get toxic; we invite our many enemies to comment on how much we depart from the commandment to love each other. Love is hard. It requires something many of us, especially strong men, are unwilling to do – which is to sacrifice something of our ego and our desires in a common cause. Where we can do that, love abides, and where we find it hard, there is the challenge to do better.

Perhaps some of you will think it typical Anglican wooliness (and I am sure one of my contributors would) for me to say that both the Deacon and the Bishop come well out of this. The Bishop has tried to bear in mind his pastoral responsibilities both to the Deacon and to the wider community, whilst the Deacon has recognised that the situation is one in which stopping blogging, for now, might be best. Should we not, as fellow Christians, remember both in our prayers and hold them both in esteem for the way in which they have tried, in this broken and messy world, to do their best? There is no right answer here, as in so much of our activity, there is just a pilgrimage together on the Emmaus road where we encounter the Lord in the breaking of bread. If we stop throwing bread rolls at each other, we might find it a good prelude to the proper use of bread for Christians.

Pilate ‘did not close down Jesus’

03 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Blogging, Faith, Satire

≈ 91 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Pilate washes his hands of killing Jesus Matthew 27:24

A communique from Governor:

Pontius Pilate did not condemn Jesus Christ

When Jesus, called by some the Christ, set up his mission a few years back, we were pleased to see him resisting the efforts by anti-Roman zealots to have the governor arrested for ‘anti-Jewish’ activities. But in the last year or so, that mission seems have shifted from something we like to something we don’t; it is all very well to point out the appalling ignorance and hypocrisy of the Jewish zealots, but pointing to some alleged presence of such things within the Roman-approved Sanhedrin, is quite another matter; if there is any dirty laundry (which of course there isn’t – and there will be no further statement on this) to be washed, it is done by us in private; any so-called public right to know runs counter to centuries of tradition.

The Jesus movement is, of course, nothing to do with the Governorship, but the fact that he is still there when we usually shut down critics with an iron grip round the throat, might have given rise in the minds of the terminally stupid to the thought that it is some way approved by me. The fact that Jesus was still alive might have made really thick people (like those who write statements like this?)  suppose that I approved of him; so you can see why the Sanhedrin wanted to take action.

Now, I am all in favour of everyone saying whatever they like, as long as it agrees with what I think, and as long as it does not upset those with terminally thin skins who like bullying others, but when someone who is seen around the Temple upsets those who wish to go about the lawful business of changing money there, it is a different matter.

I consulted the late King Herod and his successors, models, of course, of how we Romans think secular folk should behave, and I can see from the way he treated John the Baptist, that there were lessons to be learned from him; all faithful Romans might look to Herod as their example here, as indeed in other matters such as widening the bounds of what ‘marriage’ means.

I had Caiaphas tell Jesus that I hoped he would confine himself to preaching about how good it was to share your cloak with Romans and walk another mile with the, and how much we hoped he would stop dividing people by making ad personam comments about ‘vipers’ and ‘hypocrites’; unfortunately this was not taken on board, and so, as Caiaphas put it, it was better than one man should die for the people; but I must emphasise that this was not my decision; indeed I have eye witnesses to the effect that I washed my hands of it.

I regret deeply that certain so-called ‘Apostles’ have made public the contents of the kangaroo court trial of Jesus; the fact is that Jesus voluntarily surrendered himself to the Sanhedrin and agreed to be crucified. I emphasised in a personal intervention which shows what a good man I am, that if he would only give the answers I wanted to my questions, I had the power to save him, but he just muttered something about his ‘father’ and ‘the truth’; what is that, I asked; after all, a more nuanced approach to these things is now the fashion. The fact that my part in this was misrepresented by the ‘Apostles’ is much to be regretted, and will be when I get my hands on the lying scumbags who have made this public  by all men and women of goodwill.

I have recently been told that there is something called Twitter, and I, of course, have my own blog which was once read by Deacon Slope, so I know what I am talking about (is this bit right, or should we tone it down as it makes me sound like a pompous fool – please delete this before published PP). We shold be spreading peace, love and understanding, not banging on about hell-fire, sin and such stuff. I love everyone who agrees with me, as, indeed, does the Roman Empire., and will kill anyone who does not believe me.

signed: Pontius Pilate at Babylon

There will be no more talking about this, no sniggering at the back Molesworth, and anyone saying horrid things will be accused of stirring up apathy.

Luv and stuff Ponty.

[Your excellency, it has been suggested to us that you might want to point out that Jesus’ crucifixion was not only voluntary, but also only temporary]

p.s. can the scriptorium please make sure that this time my personal amendments are adopted and queries deleted. I should like to be associated soon with some eye-catching initiative – could we find this Peter fellow and lock him up for a lack of lurve?

 

Oil, waters, pour

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by in Blogging, Faith, Pope

≈ 23 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

jesus weeps

Geoffrey has set about smiting bishops in the best Baptist fashion, and in truth, it is hard not to conclude that whatever has gone on with “Protect the Pope” could hardly have been handled worse. The one person emerging from it with great credit is Deacon Donnelly, who, in the great tradition of Padre Pio and Newman himself, has assented obediently to a decision which to others appears to be unreasonable; the contrast with Fr Corapi is instructive. Obedience is of no use if one only obeys once one is happy with the decision of one’s superior. The blog was excellent, and Dean Donnelly’s parting from it is of a piece with the conduct of a Christian gentleman. But before anyone throws things at Bishop Campbell, I think it only fair to note that his ‘side’ of this has not been heard any more than the Deacon’s has; there is a lot of windmilling in the dark here.

I can understand, and sympathise with, Geoffrey’s crossness with some of the language used by the diocese; I do wish that the Catholic Church was uniformly better at the public presentation of its message. But I also think it grossly unfair to compare Cardinal Nichols with either Marshal Petain or Pontius Pilate. He is certainly unpopular in the quarters where Deacon Donnelly’s blog is popular, but I deprecate the importation into the Catholic Church of the idiom of America’s ‘culture wars’; it has not done much for the tone of debate across the pond, and its effect has not been positive. If one casts one’s opponents as knaves at worst and fools at best, it seldom conduces to Christian dialogue. I have had examples of it here, and when I hear any blogger compare himself with Athanasius casting aspersions at the Arians, I stifle a longing to say ‘get a grip and look at yourself man’ – you are not the Patriarch of Alexandria and your opponents are not Arians. I am not clear that even then, such a tone helped.

The facts are not fully known to any of us commenting here. I take the point that if it looks like censorship and smells like it, it is; that is, I think, ill-advised, but then I do not know the facts. I think it equally ill-advised to use this as an opportunity to play out another episode of the popular Catholic drama, ‘Vatican II wars”. Those who see it as the origin of everything ill need to explain how the Church would have been spared the effects of the way modern Western society has gone by its absence; those who bang on about its ‘spirit’ have usually not read its letter. Pope Benedict was correct, it needs explaining in an hermeneutic of continuity, and we should not panic because the current Pope makes off the cuff remarks which do not coincide with Catholic teaching. His obiter dicta are not Catholic doctrine.

So, whilst enjoying Geoffrey’s splendid Swiftian satire, and the sound and fury of the Baptist roused like the village Hampden, and whilst deploring censorship, I am tempted to cite Mr Attlee’s comment to Professor Laski: “a period of silence from you would be welcome”. Some of the comments and their tone are helpful neither to the Deacon nor to the Church.

An apology

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by in Faith

≈ 31 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

 

Pilate washes his hands of killing Jesus Matthew 27:24

I should like to apologise for any impression I may have given in yesterday’s post that the nodding donkey in charge of the bishops conference of England and Wales might be compared to the late Marshal Petain. That is an unwarranted slur on the Marshal, who was probably a patriotic Frenchman trying to do his best to save his country once it had been occupied by the Nazis, and who may well have been going ga-ga even then; neither excuse is available for the Pontius Pilate of Eccleston Square.

The level of cognitive dissonance in the Catholic Church has now reached the level where the only way faithful orthodox Catholics can proceed is by averting their gaze and battening down the hatches. One traditionalist site has written of a return to the catacombs, whilst another Catholic blogger has spoken of the need to be circumspect, and folk are wondering whether any priest who blogs an orthodox line will end up with the Eccleston Square Inquisition shutting him down; in the meantime the trolls dance in the comments boxes, emerging from under the bridges to spread their slime, telling respected priests that their time is up (read Ray Blake’s comments boxes with the barmy ‘Fr John’ – who makes Fr Jack Hackett seem a model of sobriety). It must be clear to them that Rambling Pope Frank (and for those of a sensitive disposition, tough, like him, I say it as I find it) has opened Pandora’s box. That’s not to say he is an actual heretic (although as QVO here has pointed out, he has some very odd views), but he is a useful idiot, giving aid and comfort to those who want to turn the Catholic Church into the Anglican Church. The Pontius Pilate of Eccleston Square has said nothing about the man who tried to protect the Pope in 2010, but allowed his house organ to run a nauseating puff on the man who wanted to arrest the Pope; those assuming the lunatics are now running the asylum have the facts on their side here.

The language used by the bishop was classic ‘newspeak’. Deacon Nick, we were told, had been asked to ‘voluntarily’ desist from publishing for Lent. My, my, Orwell would have loved this. ‘Voluntarily’ means, as any fule knoes  that you do it willingly; the threat of being disciplined if you don’t obey does not match any sensible person’s definition of the word ‘voluntary’, and to use it as it has been used is an abuse of language by people who abuse the freedom of speech of every free-born Englishman. If the diocese concerned did not realise that this would come across chillingly, it is an index of how low the people who run it have sunk; they can’t even recognise the language of 1984 when they are using it. These folk are either tone deaf or don’t care. They can say nowt, but as Maria Miller could tell them, that is not a successful strategy for managing a bad situation; I wish them luck with it – they’ll need it. I guess when they work out what Twitter and Facebook are they’ll ban that too. I am sure the tides will obey the King Canute of Westminster. Mind you, as we’ve heard nowt from the hairdressing Salon at the Telegraph perhaps Cardinal Puff-Puff’s writ runs further than we thought; I’ll have a custard cream and a cuppa whilst I wait.

But how foolish this version of the Thought police are. They cannot control the internet, they cannot control the free flow of information. How foolish the trolls are, after all, Pope Frank is older even than I am and may be succeeded by a more orthodox Pope who might fancy his chances in this censorship game. Freedom is like Christ’s robe – indivisible. This is still a free country, and any bishop who thinks he can stop criticism by closing down blogs should reflect on the publicity this has brought to the diocese where Deacon Nick works. I am told that the bishop is a decent fellow, well he should prove it by doing the decent thing and telling the local Mr Slopes to chuck it.

The plain fact is that the centre is not holding, and that evil is prospering because good men can do nothing. The unorthodox will not shut up when told, and in my view they are right, they have the right to speak rot, like the rest of us; but the orthodox will do as they are told. And so it goes – into the dark. But Christ and orthodoxy will prevail, and though all the demons of hell should dance in triumph, they resemble nothing more than Gollum in the fires of Mt Doom. In the meantime, apologies to Marshal Petain and the Vichy Regime, who had least had the excuse that they’d have been shot if they hadn’t collaborated; they shouldn’t have to be bracketed with the Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales.

 

Protecting the Protector?

01 Thursday May 2014

Posted by in Faith

≈ 44 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Is this my colour?

Is this my colour?

There’s some stuff you couldn’t make up. In an era when the rest of the civilized world is all about open communications and transparency and getting the message out there, the Roman Catholic Church has once more shown an ability to shoot itself in the foot and wonder why it is limping.

Back when the Pope Emeritus wasn’t that and was coming to Britain, the usual ‘Gay’ and atheists rentagobs spoke loudly about their determination to arrest him, a Deacon in the North of England, Nick Donnelly, set up a blog, Protect the Pope. It did an effective job and has grown into a place where those who want to get an orthodox Catholic slant on things can go and find it. No doubt the members of the Vichy Regime Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales presided over by Marshal Petain Vincent Nichols found it a thorn in their sides, constantly being reminded of what you are not doing and ought to be doing must have been very tiresome, but as the Pope being protected agreed with Deacon Nick, the Vichyssoise  episcopacy could do nothing. But since Pope Rentaquote came to office with his unique method of spreading heresy by private phone call, Admiral Darlan the local bishop has been lent upon to close down the site decided to add a new meaning to the word voluntary by asking Deacon Nick to shut his cakehole  to desist from blogging. He’s now closed the thing down. Of course the Deacon could have said stuff you, but this being an orthodox Catholic thing means he has obeyed. Of course the bishop now has egg on his face and the collaborators ACTA tendency are rejoicing mightily. You can see the point really, There’s be no use telling off Catholics who blog about the need for women priests, lay control and gay marriage, as they don’t give a stuff for authority. Best concentrate on an orthodox Catholic.

So, Admiral Byng has been shot, and the rest of the orthodox blogosphere is quaking in its boots.  I don’t know if there are any barmy liberal blogs, or if they have any readership other than those needing hearing aids, but you don’t see bishops coming down on them, but then in the Catholic Church under rambling Pope Frank, anything goes – except orthodoxy and criticising the Vichy Regime laxity of Bishops. We can’t have bishops being criticised. You couldn’t make it up could you? Folk who want bishops to have virtually no authority rejoicing when they use it to close down free speech. Can you imagine what they’d be saying if the last Pope had closed down some looney-left Deacon?  There’d have been an editorial in the Bitter Pill, and their ex-correspondent in Rome would have been crying again.

I have no idea what the local bishop thinks he’s doing, but if he thinks this is going to stop folk thinking he’s trying to censor views he doesn’t like, he’s as wrong as he would be if he thinks it will stop orthodox lay Catholics calling him on it.

Oh but you have to love the irony of the wooly liberals using authoritarian methods to shut up opponents they can’t defeat in argument. I am sorry for my Catholic friends. But if anyone wonders why someone who has become sympathetic to Catholicism wouldn’t go into that Church, this is part of the answer. You can’t beat liberal for hypocrisy, but this one is special. Who protects the protector when the guardians of orthodoxy are the traitors at the gate?