Sunday, May 04, 2014

Roman Catholic bishop *did* silence 'Protect the Pope' blog

"I know what journalists are looking for and what they need, and how things will play out in the media" said Opus Dei member Greg Burke, Senior Communications Advisor to the Vatican's Secretariat of State. And in this age of PR-pizzazz, spin and newspeak-seeming, we know how words may be manipulated, photo opportunities contrived and the media carefully managed to create a public image of saintliness and inculcate a creative version of truth. Mr Burke used to work for Fox News: it is naïve to think that he is not deploying his PR skills to project the transformational radiance of Pope Francis to the world: "..behind his self-effacing facade, he is a very canny operator. He makes masterly use of 21st century tools to perform his 1st century office," observed Time Magazine of the Pope himself.

A few months ago, His Grace reported on the sorry plight of Deacon Nick Donnelly, founder of the robustly orthodox Protect the Pope blog, who had been muted (temporarily) by the Roman Catholic hierarchy (ie Bishop Michael Campbell in the Diocese of Lancaster). Essentially, Deacon Nick is just a bit too Catholic for the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, who clearly leaned on Bishop Michael to encourage the blogging Deacon to tone down his criticisms of certain bishops, archbishops and cardinals who are not (in the Deacon's judgment) being wholly faithful to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, especially with regard to an apparent increasingly permissive stance on abortion, contraception, same-sex partnerships and divorce.

And so Deacon Nick was "requested..to voluntarily pause" by the Bishop, and made to feel (if not appear to his irate readership) that he was somehow in the wrong. We were led to believe that this enforced "period of reflection" was confined to the Lenten season, so the Deacon's wife, Martina, kept things faithfully ticking over for 40 days and 40 nights while her husband was voluntarily pausing and freely reflecting in the wilderness. The whole Roman Catholic Blogosphere (along with His Grace) was looking forward to his return for Holy Week, if not soon afterwards.

But then, out of the blue, came the announcement: "Bishop Michael Campbell effectively closes Protect the Pope." And we were informed by Mrs Donnelly:
Bishop of Lancaster, has refused Nick’s request to resume news posting on Protect the Pope. Bishop Campbell has also stated that he does not want anyone posting on Protect the Pope on Nick’s behalf.

Although I have been news posting on my own behalf on the site, I now feel unable to continue.

Protect the Pope will close as a news service on Sunday 4th May, the Feast of the English Martyrs to allow a short period for readers of Protect the Pope to say goodbye to each other.
This met with a swift and firm rebuttal from the Diocese of Lancaster: "Bishop Campbell did not close down Protect the Pope", they snarled.

Now, much may hang on Mrs Donnelly's use of the word 'effectively', for, while the Bishop robustly denies that he has not closed down the blog, Mrs Donnelly is clearly of the opinion that that is precisely the effect of his censorious directions.

Consider the Bishop’s latest account of events and compare that with posts on 'Protect the Pope', in particular the original post which Mrs Donnelly wrote and the first press release issued by the Bishop. The latest statement from the Diocese explains (emphasis added):
Consequently, as a last resort, on 3 March 2014 and in a personal meeting with Deacon Nick Donnelly, I requested, as his Diocesan Ordinary, that Deacon Nick ‘pause’ all posting on the Protect the Pope website so as to allow for a period of prayer and reflection upon his position as an ordained cleric with regards to Protect the Pope and his own duties towards unity, truth and charity. The fact that this decision and our personal dialogue was made public on the Protect the Pope site and then misinterpreted by third parties is a matter of great regret. In fact, new posts continued on the site after this date – the site being handed over and administered/moderated in this period by Deacon Nick’s wife Martina.
But the post on 'Protect the Pope' announcing Deacon Nick's standing down for a period of prayer and reflection does not mention the Bishop at all, and discloses no details whatsoever of their private dialogue. Deacon Nick has rather too much spiritual integrity and respect for authority to blurt out what passes in confidence between a deacon and his bishop.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of Bishop Michael. From the Diocese’s first statement issued to the press (subsequently posted on 'Protect the Pope'), it is manifestly evident that it was the Bishop who first disclosed details of their personal dialogue. And nowhere does he request a cessation of all posting.

The Bishop also states:
On 13 April 2014 Deacon Nick requested in writing that he be allowed to resume posting again from the date: Monday 21 April 2014. I did not accept this request as the period of discernment had not yet concluded. Again,(?) the fact that this decision was forced, misinterpreted and then released publicly on the site – and miscommunicated by certain media outlets and blogs – claiming that I had effectively ‘closed’, ‘supressed’ (sic) or ‘gagged’ Protect the Pope was regrettable and does not represent the truth of this situation. To be clear: I have not closed down Protect the Pope.
The post on 'Protect the Pope' announcing the Bishop’s effective closure of the blog refers to the fact that the Bishop stated that he did not now want anyone posting on behalf of Deacon Nick. Note that the Bishop’s statement does not refer to his apparently new direction that not only is Deacon Nick prohibited (voluntarily) from posting on the blog, but now no one at all may do so.

His Grace is not known for his mental fatuity, injudiciousness or spiritual nescience, but if Bishop Michael Campbell permits neither Deacon Nick nor anyone else to post new material on the 'Protect the Pope' blog, has the Bishop not effectively shut it down?

The Bishop ends his refutation with a swift slap to Deacon Nick and a cruel swipe at Mrs Donnelly: "I am, of course, also conscious, that no bishop can ever ‘close down’ or supress (sic) blogs and websites – such a claim would be absurd."

Absurd? So the Deacon is a bit wacky and the Deacon's wife is being somewhat hysterical.

Yet it has been seen time and again that not only diocesan bishops but also archbishops and cardinals can go to great efforts to muzzle troublesome journalists. What Time observed of the Pope may be said of the whole hierarchy: "..behind his self-effacing facade..(lies) a very canny operator." The reality is that while Pope Benedict XVI reigned, Deacon Nick was secure in his corrective admonishments. Now that Pope Francis occupies the Throne of St Peter, the progressive Catholic Bishops of England and Wales sense the winds of change and feel emboldened to clamp down on the troublesome traditionalist.

The Bishop rebukes his Deacon for making "ad hominem and personal challenges" which, aside from being a manifest tautology, amounts to an ad hominem attack on the Deacon himself, instead of reasoned engagement with the doctrinal issues he raises; for 'Protect the Pope' was concerned with matters of theological orthodoxy, spiritual truth and doctrinal rectitude, and a 21st-century Roman Catholic deacon may be as burdened with these as a 16th-century Roman Catholic monk.

The great irony is that by issuing his damning statement, Bishop Michael Campbell has not only trashed the spiritual integrity and reputation of his Deacon; he has committed the very mortal sin of which he asserts the Deacon is culpable - that of fomenting internal dissent and fracturing the internal unity of the Holy Mother Church by slandering certain members of its leadership. The Bishop is being blatantly duplicitous if not purposely deceitful by pretending that a prohibition on Deacon Nick or anyone else posting on 'Protect the Pope' does not amount to the blog's enforced closure.

Now that 'Protect the Pope' has been effectively closed down, someone needs urgently to establish 'Defend the Deacon'. Either that, or 'Beseech the Bishop'.

84 Comments:

Blogger john in cheshire said...

If Bishop Michael Campbell says he has not shut down the website, does that mean that Deacon Nick can resume his blogging? I am a very recent visitor to the Protect the Pope site and on the few occasions I have been there I found it interesting and thought-provoking. I'd like to see it continue; in fact, I don't see why Deacon Nick should not do so, or am I missing something in the sanctions that could be levelled against him by said Bishop? If so, then this is a good example of why people would be reluctant to attend Church when such people are in charge. I think the Bishop needs to have his own period of reflection, particularly about his role in life.

4 May 2014 at 12:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So then, what has this bishop accomplished? He silences one and creates ten more in its stead. Plus he ensures that bloggers will henceforth hide their identity. How is this a victory? He has removed from himself what little control he had. And he has validated the effectiveness of the medium by seeking to silence it.

Own goal.

csrl

4 May 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger George Gissing said...

" But the post on 'Protect the Pope' announcing Deacon Nick's standing down for a period of prayer and reflection does not mention the Bishop at all,"

It didnt need to - we all know that only one person has the authority to tell him to shut up.

Also it is not neccessary to always print long peronal histories of dissent and internal dissent within the church and there are mechanisms for reporting concerns that are internal. Deacon Nick puts all his complaints in the public domain as fast as possible. By letting his wife post when he has been asked not to and acting as "editor" he is showing complete distain for the bishop by interpreting the letter not the spirit of the instruction. The bishop either has the patience of a Saint or has been letting the Deacon get enough rope to hang himself. I am not sure whether the Deacon has deliberately manufactured this situation or is just dense but sitting in judgement on your fellow Catholics/ Christians all the time is not exactly the spirit of the Gospel. The Bishop's statement is clear - he thought the blog lacked charity ... One of the cardinal virtues.

Silencing dissenters and trouble makers amongst the ordained is what the RCC does ans Deacon Nick was quite happy to go along with this and to incite the Bishops to silence and rebuke others when it wasnt him, just as he bashes secular authority while encouraging everyone to use hate legislation. He wants the freedom of a lay person with the power of the ordained. Sadly he cannot have both

4 May 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

The RCC does hierarchy. It does it rather well. Anyone who goes into the church knows this and accepts it. It is not an evil concept, but asks that the junior defers to the wisdom and judgement of his senior. One of the advantages of hierarchy is that the senior has his own higher authority to answer to. Very handy should the former ‘throw one’ as they say.

We like it that way, though it does show up the CoE for being an undisciplined rabble, of course, but one is prepared to accept that.

4 May 2014 at 13:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

George Gissing

Silencing dissenters and trouble makers amongst the ordained is what the RCC does

I look forward to all those Liberal Catholics being silenced. When do you suppose that will happen?

carl

4 May 2014 at 14:11  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Diocesan Limerick Competition

Contestants are invited to supply a last line:

A foolish old bishop of Lancs
Said, “Deacons as bloggers? No thanks!”
But he failed to connect
To the Streisand effect,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First prize: Summary excommunication.

4 May 2014 at 14:40  
Blogger George Gissing said...

Carl

Doctrinal Unity is the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith who have never been shy censoring anyone. I suggest if you have a problem you lobby them directly rather than doing all the RCC's dirty linen in public like PTP

Toodle pip

Anthony Miller

4 May 2014 at 14:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

IGiO

Authority is also very useful when (say) John the Baptist shows up speaking inconvenient truths, and you would prefer to silence him by cutting off his head. Authority must be used wisely and justly This is a transparent attempt to maintain control of information flow. The division this man created was caused by the hierarchy fearing it would lose control of the narrative. Don't dress this pig in a tux. Its still going to be a pig.

carl

4 May 2014 at 14:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

George Gissing

Doctrinal Unity is the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith...

Which, last I saw, was a part of the RCC - that bring the organization that silences dissenters.

who have never been shy censoring anyone

Then why are all these ordained Liberals still running free? I thought silencing dissent is what the RCC did?

I suggest if you have a problem you lobby them directly rather than doing all the RCC's dirty linen in public like PTP

What happens when the bishops would prefer the dirty laundry not be aired on public. Like (say) Priests caught abusing children being dropped on Parishes without notice. All you have done is confirm my assertion. This is about control of information flow and the desire of the hierarchy to maintain it.

carl

4 May 2014 at 15:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I have never been aware of, or read "Protect the Pope", but on the offchance that any of its authors read these comments, I'd like to pay tribute to them for their obedience.

The standard template in this sort of case is usually defiance - a kind of "you can't shut me down" - but true to their convictions, they have obeyed, even when some may question the worthiness of the people they are obeying.

People make the mistake of thinking that obedience is contingent on the quality of those placed over us. It is certainly contingent on the justness of any instructions - obedience cannot be a defence for doing evil - but that's because obedience is a virtue, and good cannot be wedded to evil. That seems to me to be the crux of Paul's consistent theme of submission throughout his epistles (and indeed, at the core of Christ's teaching of turning the other cheek).

It's not a lesson that the world is particularly keen on receiving, but blessings to the Donnelly household for heeding it.

4 May 2014 at 15:32  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

In Jack's opinion - and he has been a follower of PTP - by using his ordained status and declaring his dioceses, Deacon Nick identified as part of the Church. He is therefore subject to the Bishop's authority. His wife should not have posted in his absence but rested the blog. During her 'reign' the blog grew more hostile and acrimonious.

That said, the Bishop has brought disrepute on himself and the Church by his clumsy and ill-considered handling of this matter. Deacon Nick is not a dissenter, yet he is silenced for criticising those who are seeking to undermine orthodox Catholic teaching on contraception, abortion, divorce, male priesthood and God alone knows what else.

Whilst Pope Benedict was at the reigns, there was a sense of orthodoxy and clarity in the Church. Jack reads many "liberal" Catholic sites where priests openly challenge the Church and its teachings on faith and morals. Why are these not being silenced? Where is the discipline there?

Pope Francis, Jack is disheartened to say, is spreading confusion in the Church and giving the green light to the liberals and modernisers and their tails are up. They need monitoring.

4 May 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Uncle Brian

"And his attempts at back-peddling are pants."

Awaiting my summary excommunication voucher in the post. Is it transferable? I only ask because I am currently not in communion with the RCC and it may be of more use for someone who is.

4 May 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Fear not Carl. This man didn’t expect the Protestant to ‘get it’ first or second time. The protesting nature therein lives very much on. And what have you to show us for this ‘independent’ spirit of the heart ? The long term answer is this, every parish in the episcopate will eventually be its own counsel. It’s happening now. It used to be called Congregationalism. Well, that’s fine if you like your Christianity that way. Having to redefine your doctrines each time a new clerical incumbent arrives to take charge. Or would you - could you avoid the temptation to visit the new man to ‘put him right’ on a few items ? One is picturing that now and grinning...

4 May 2014 at 16:03  
Blogger Len said...

Inspector , you really need to keep up with what Pope Francis is doing..
There are no Protestants any more we are all Catholic.


Catholic doctrines have changed to keep up with the times.
Really!.

4 May 2014 at 16:12  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Len at 16:12

There are no Protestants any more we are all Catholic.

Still dripping wet, Len, I see, from your swim across the Tiber. Allow me to hand you a towel and a warm tracksuit.

Welcome home, Len! You were away a long time! We were afraid we might have lost you for good.

Regards,
Brian

4 May 2014 at 16:28  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Len. you don’t get it either. If it’s what the pope wants, then we have to accept it. Of course, we don’t have to like it, as in dispensing with the Tridentine mass...

4 May 2014 at 16:32  
Blogger Len said...

Uncle Brian; I am actually swimming upstream as fast as I can go away from the gates of ...the Vatican.

But seriously I find it quite interesting the moves that Pope Francis is making...and the implications......

I am studying the declaration
'Evangelicals and Catholics Together' and will keep you posted..
http://www.gty.org.uk/resources/articles/A149/Evangelicals-and-Catholics-Together

4 May 2014 at 16:47  
Blogger non mouse said...

Very interesting, Your Grace - Having long related present-day authoritarianism to present-day RCs, I'm not surprised at this play for domination.

One slightly confusing moment, however. You write: The whole Roman Catholic Blogosphere (along with His Grace) was looking forward to his return for Holy Week. I hope I haven't missed anything, and that YG remains tolerantly on the catholic side of Tiber!

4 May 2014 at 16:56  
Blogger John Thomas said...

It is ironic that this censure by the RC establishment is in defence of, or opposed to attacks on, "Progressivism". A century ago, or less, it would have been assumed by most people that the Hierarchy were trying to silence those attacking orthodoxy, not the reverse! How times change!

4 May 2014 at 17:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Just to be clear, no Roman Catholic is obliged to accept the private words of any pope. We are free to disagree. The exception being the proper exercise of his clerical authority on those ordained, this being bound by Canon Law. As Catholics, we are only bound to accept properly formulated and explicitly stated teachings, through the Magisterium, on faith and morals. This has, very rarely, included ex-cathedra statements by a pope.

Jack, who is not so happy these days, is being to think our current pope is a danger to the faith. Before forming an opinion about his confused 'off the cuff' comments and somewhat unorthodox homilies, Jack reads around blogs - traditionalist, liberal and modernist.

Is the Pope Catholic? used to be a tautological and rhetorical question. With Pope Francis one is not sure. Thus far, he is causing havoc and schism is in the air. We should pray for Pope Francis.

Maybe a new blog - "Pray for the Pope".

4 May 2014 at 17:37  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Well I don't get it at all. It seems from reading the comments here, that if you are a Catholic clergyman then you have to toe the party line, but a 'lay' Catholic is free to slag off the Pope or the Catholic as they wish? I only say this because, after recommendation, I occasionally read the Catholic 'mundabor' blog *I don't comment there as he regards fellow non-Catholic Christians as 'Conversion material', so God knows what he'd make of an Orthodox Jew !*.

But I digress, one of this bloggers recent posts was to picture a list of naval ships ('destroyers'), the last one being a picture of Francis as a 'destroyer' of the Catholic Church[http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/modern-warships/].

Is this what Inspector means by "If it’s what the pope wants, then we have to accept it"??

Confused Dave.

4 May 2014 at 18:37  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Ah David, one needs to qualify his earlier statement in that ‘what the pope wants’ leads to a change in Canon law. As indeed Jack has pointed out.


4 May 2014 at 18:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DK

More like "Don't post anything that irritates, annoys, inconveniences, frustates or otherwise embarrasses the bishop." This isn't about doctrine so much as organizational control. It's a common fault of hierarchies to seek to control information to its own advantage.

And as far as the Inspector and church authority is concerned, you only have to consider how much RC dogma he out-and-out rejects. A RC is required to accept dogma on penalty of anathema. What the Pope wants doesn't evidently apply to teaching.

carl

4 May 2014 at 18:58  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Carl Jacobs & David Kavanagh

A RC is required to accept dogma on penalty of anathema.

I'm not proposing to reopen our suspended conversation about the Council of Trent and Calvinists' reasons for singling it out as their target of choice, but let me ask you this: Don't Calvinists have dogmas of their own? Isn't a Calvinist "required to accept," as you say, the dogma of the elect? And, if so, on penalty of what?

Regards,
Brian

4 May 2014 at 19:13  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Carl, one points out that he accepts what the church teaches is what the church would wish, and that he may not like those wishes. The other point is that the RCC doesn’t control the faithful. You merely adhere to it as a vessel unto which you may know and worship God. Yes, we could all do it by ourselves, but look what that has done to Len.

It’s up to us as individuals to put ourselves forward as candidates for salvation. The existence of the RCC as a guide in that respect is appreciated.


4 May 2014 at 19:17  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

By the way, Carl,, going back to the Deacon blogger case, I think you've hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head with your observation,
"This isn't about doctrine so much as organizational control. It's a common fault of hierarchies to seek to control information to its own advantage."

4 May 2014 at 19:29  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Brian, do you mean like the British armed forces. Arguably the finest in the world ?

4 May 2014 at 19:35  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Inspector General

Sorry, Inspector, old chap, I've lost you there. What am I supposed to have said about our armed forces? That they control information? Well, all armies do that, don't they? Or try to, at least.

4 May 2014 at 20:00  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Oh, and Carl, you said your daughter was expecting to be released from the hospital round about last Thursday, I think? Is she safely back at home now? I hope so.

4 May 2014 at 20:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Uncle Brian

Certainly the Christian faith has essential content. I have no trouble with the RCC establishing dogma. What I can't abide is a RC preening about the benefits of RC authority in one post even has he rejects that authority in another. The Inspector's position amounts to "I love RC authority except when I don't.". If you in on authority, you are all in.

carl

4 May 2014 at 20:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Uncle Brian

Yes, my daughter came home on Wednesday. She is getting home visits from a nurse twice a day. She is doing much better but is still weak. I had to learn how to pack her incision. Way beyond my comfort zone. But courage is doing what you are afraid to do, and parenthood enforces courage.

Thanks for asking.

carl

4 May 2014 at 20:13  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Brian, of course you didn’t mention our forces, but one was drawing a correlation between the RCC and another highly regarded organisation with hierarchy.

One is thinking here of the inadequate equipment the troops were sent out to fight in Afghanistan. It took the soldiers families to campaign on behalf of the men, it not being proper the men should do it themselves. Same with the deacon’s wife. Nothing stopping her from continuing the blog is she so wished. Perhaps it’s a case of wife not entirely agreeing with husbands sentiments and she was glad to wriggle out of the responsibility. We might never know...

4 May 2014 at 20:13  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Carl, one suspects what you can’t abide is that you cannot place this man in the RCC box. Instead, he keeps on climbing up and looking over the sides to see what’s out there, or walking on the the edge of the box. And it is this which annoys your disciplined and orderly mind, the unknown quantity that is yours truly.

Glad to hear daughter on the mend. Do pass on one’s respects to her.


4 May 2014 at 20:35  
Blogger David Hussell said...

After reading Len's reference to the blog, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" , I well, ... read the website statement.

It's worth a 10/15 minute scan to get the gist of it, which identifies areas of commonality and those of disagreement - it is surprisingly succinct, and recommended for bedtime reading.

4 May 2014 at 20:54  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, there is another possible explanation for the Bishop's action here. Follow the link in Part 2 to an article on Humanae Vitae and the dissent this generated. Makes an interesting read.

Basically, it conjectures it became an established Vatican defensive strategy after American dissent over Humanae Vitae. It aims to keep dissenters in the fold and to lessen their influence by avoiding open warfare and avoiding schism. It's not quite appeasement but, in Jack's opinion, it is a damaging approach and has weakened the Church.

Good to hear about your daughter.

Inspector, now don't go peeking over the top of that RCC box or wandering around its edges under the influence of whiskey. Engaging in such activity requires a man to be in full possession of his mental and spiritual faculties.

As you rightly and stoutly say, by the grace of God, the orthodoxy of the RCC will keep you on the straight and narrow path - and Jack is sure your fellow Christians will lovingly point out any errors.

4 May 2014 at 21:05  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Okay, Inspector, I’m with you now. Yes, family support and/or agitation produced results in both cases. I expect you’ll have noticed this snippet in Nick Donnelly’s statement the other day, as reported in the Catholic Herald,:

”Maybe some of you will even consider setting up your own versions of ‘Protect the Pope’. I’d be happy to give you advice about how to go about this.”

So we may have seen the last of Protect the Pope, but I’d be very surprised if we’ve seen the last of Nick Donnelly.

4 May 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The quote from Nick Donnelly’s statement in my last comment addressed to the Inspector General may have provided a last line for that unfinished limerick:

A foolish old bishop of Lancs
Said, “Deacons as bloggers? No thanks!”
But he failed to connect
To the Streisand effect,
And young Nick is still up to his pranks.

4 May 2014 at 23:30  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Tremendous show Brian. You have a natural gift for limericks. One awaits in almost indecent excitement as to what you will come out with on future topics.

Jack. The Inspector admits he does have the odd gripe, and balances uneasily on the edge of his box. He finds comfort in gripe water, no less, as given to babies. Only this man’s is 10 years old and originated in Speyside.

Chars, both.

4 May 2014 at 23:42  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Good one Uncle Brian.

Bishop Michael Campbell is no fool and, so far as Jack knows, neither is he a liberal or progressive.

This whole incident is regrettable and Deacon Nick should do what he says he is doing:

“Though I do not understand the grounds on which Bishop Campbell has made his decision about Protect the Pope I will obey because I take seriously the promise I made when I was ordained."

Not a gracious comment. Jack says if you don't get the reasons then go back and find out.

"If I didn’t obey him I’d be no different from the dissenters who rebel against the doctrines of the Church and disobey her discipline."

Another comment that is unhelpful given the Bishops statement and Deacon Nick's 'compliance'.

“Finally, I continue to encourage all faithful and loyal Catholics to take up the responsibility given us by Our Lord to safeguard, defend and teach the divine doctrines of the Church.

A call to arms for all loyal and faithful Catholics! Meaning? There are disloyal and unfaithful Catholics to wage war against.

"Maybe some of you will even consider setting up your own versions of ‘Protect the Pope’. I’d be happy to give you advice about how to go about this.”

His protest goes on. This is fair enough and he is entitled to hold his position and to face his Bishop down and continue blogging. However, he cannot also claim he is being "obedient". This whole interview for The Catholic Herald was an attack on the Bishop and the Church hierarchy for mismanaging dissent.

Don't get Jack wrong. He agrees with Deacon Nick about the problems in the Church and the responsibility we have to challenge these. However, Jack is not an ordained person and he did not meet with his Bishop and agree to abide by his wishes.

5 May 2014 at 00:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

IGiO

Yes. Well. I never much liked gray as a color. A place for every thought and every thought in its place.

carl

5 May 2014 at 00:15  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Well Carl, it looks like City have it in the bag. Good team and good football and an immense squad of players. Shame for Liverpool as they've waited a long time and Gerrard deserves a Premier League medal. Still, that's football.

As for "grey" - Jack agrees with you once a matter is settled it is settled. There are so many unsettled matters to reflect on. That's to be expected as Jack is a Roman Catholic and you are a Calvinist. Such a shame you're so wrong and Catholics are right.

5 May 2014 at 00:51  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Ps
You missed out a 'u' in colour. Typo?

5 May 2014 at 00:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

Proper English. Interesting links btw. I found them informative.

carl

5 May 2014 at 01:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Btw Jack. Everton was clearly offside on that second goal on Saturday. Shouldn't have been allowed.

carl

5 May 2014 at 01:21  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, maybe but it made the game much more interesting. The referees decision is always right - even when wrong.

Jack enjoys the errors and unpredictability's of refs. It human and adds to the drama of the game.

Good teams take injustice in their stride and overcome them. That's been Arsene Wenger's flaw - he belly-aches rather than roars when he loses. Its the ref's decision, or the weather, or the fixture list, or *whatever*. All that moaning infects a team with a negative attitude. He's a nervous wreck on the bench too.

5 May 2014 at 01:36  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Frankly, I didn't read Protect the Pope often, mainly because I considered the comments there to frequently be poisonous in the extreme.

But - and it's a big "but" - I don't consider that truth is ever served by silencing the people who are saying things one does not like to hear. Whether the Mundabor or the NCR ends of the Catholic spectrum. I consider the Bishop's actions to be extremely ill advised, and he would have done better to learn from his American colleagues who have tried similar "silencing" tactics before, with similar disastrous effect. One is left murmuring the age old mantra about "some people don't learn"

5 May 2014 at 08:07  
Blogger Len said...

Well... on reading the document
“Evangelicals and Catholics Together”

http://www.gty.org.uk/resources/articles/A149/Evangelicals-and-Catholics-Together

I can only agree that the author is correct and when he says "The Reformation was not a tragedy but a glorious victory. The result of the Reformation was not a breach in the true body of Christ but the recovery of the gospel of grace from the near obscurity it had fallen into under Catholic abuses. Protestants who doubt that ought to study church history."

We Christians should not allow the freedoms gained through the martyrs of the Reformation to be surrendered even for the sake of 'unity'.
'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.'(Galatians 5:1)

5 May 2014 at 09:55  
Blogger Shadrach said...

The thing about 'Protect the Pope' is that it was doomed from the start. It is a biblical principle that you can't correct upwards in this way. If an employee make a suggestion to his supervisor, then it may or may not be accepted. Whereas if they go about complaining as to how the supervisors have got it all wrong, he will be censored.

Luther was in a similar situation. It was not his intention to form a breakaway church but to reform it from within. We all know the outcome.

In the PTP Blog, the Deacon, if he got no satisfaction from his Bishop, then he should leave his position before criticising or, as someone said, be anonymous.

5 May 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Carl/Inspector/Uncle Brian,

Thanks for the explanations.

5 May 2014 at 11:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

ECT is a failed attempt to find unity where unity cannot be found. One can understand the effort. It grew out of shared occupancy of common trenches in the culture wars. But there is no way to unify RC concepts of Justification with Protestant concepts of Justification. The two sides can agree with "We are justified by faith." But each side has more to say. The statement us incomplete for both, and ambiguity cannot ever be the basis of true unity.

Unity cannot come until Rome repudiates Trent. The RC would object "You demand we become Protestant." Exactly so.

carl

carl

5 May 2014 at 12:39  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len @ 9.55

Given our flawed human nature and the close interweaving of the western Latin Church with the power elites, perhaps it should not be surprising to us, that after 1000 years, the Catholic Church, by degrees, allowed the Gospel, of salvation by grace, through faith, to become buried, obscured under mountainous accretions.

Parts of the Anglican and other Churches seem to be making different, but equally fatal mistakes.

In each generation it is necessary to strive towards maintaining the essential simplicity and truth of the eternal Gospel. This is and will always be a struggle as God's truth is seen as foolishness to the world's assumed wisdom.

5 May 2014 at 12:44  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl
"But there is no way to unify RC concepts of Justification with Protestant concepts of Justification."

True. Its the same with the Calvinist dogma of predestination and other 'schools' of Protestantism. These cannot be unified either. If anything attempts at unity just breed further disunity.

Heterodoxy and attempts at cafeteria theologies or fudges on central issues, like justification, isn't the Truth.

"Unity cannot come until Rome repudiates Trent."

Don't ever join the diplomatic corp! Hell will freeze over before this happens!

5 May 2014 at 15:22  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

" ... the Catholic Church, by degrees, allowed the Gospel, of salvation by grace, through faith, to become buried, obscured under mountainous accretions."

Mountainous accretions? Come now, the Catholic faith isn't at all obscure. Saying "salvation by grace, through faith" is a simple formula but try explaining it to a collection of different protestants in ways they will all accept.

5 May 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Happy Jack @ 15.42

I am the most tolerant of (other) Christians, but you are missing my point entirely.
Even the most rudimentary study of the history of the western Church between say, the 10th C and the reformation shows that the Church had lost sight of the original purpose of Christ's message and rescue mission to humanity. This had been buried under centuries of accretions. The Church was no longer preaching the need for repentance and being cleansed of our sins, not through "works", such as buying indulgences or pilgrimages or the other assorted obscurants, but by grace, through faith in God's freely given forgiveness, secured by Christ on the Cross, and his subsequent victory over sin and death. Indulgences were a Middle Ages money raising racket, as the jingle says,
"No sooner doth the coin in the coffer ring,
than the soul from purgatory doth spring".

The church had become, in large measure, about power, not God's love (although good things were still being done) and attempts to return to the earlier clarity and purity were viciously put down with violence, witness the burning of Jan Huss, in Prague. Luther had his breakthrough, as he got lucky, there being a fortunate alignment of favourable political, theological and other factors. His German "Elector" protected him, otherwise he too would have been a victim of an unrepentant, arrogant and out of control Church hierarchy more concerned with power than purity. Any other reading of history represents historical revisionism, not the truth. Of course that is now firmly in the past but the fact remains that the reformation was necessary as a result of the refusal of the Catholic Church to recognise its distortion of the Gospel and its refusal to repent and reform, which is what the "reformers" wanted. It would not change, but persecuted the godly, leaving no alternative but for an unfortunate schism.

5 May 2014 at 16:40  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Happy Jack @ 15.42

I am the most tolerant of (other) Christians, but you are missing my point entirely.
Even the most rudimentary study of the history of the western Church between say, the 10th C and the reformation shows that the Church had lost sight of the original purpose of Christ's message and rescue mission to humanity. This had been buried under centuries of accretions. The Church was no longer preaching the need for repentance and being cleansed of our sins, not through "works", such as buying indulgences or pilgrimages or the other assorted obscurants, but by grace, through faith in God's freely given forgiveness, secured by Christ on the Cross, and his subsequent victory over sin and death. Indulgences were a Middle Ages money raising racket, as the jingle says,
"No sooner doth the coin in the coffer ring,
than the soul from purgatory doth spring".

The church had become, in large measure, about power, not God's love (although good things were still being done) and attempts to return to the earlier clarity and purity were viciously put down with violence, witness the burning of Jan Huss, in Prague. Luther had his breakthrough, as he got lucky, there being a fortunate alignment of favourable political, theological and other factors. His German "Elector" protected him, otherwise he too would have been a victim of an unrepentant, arrogant and out of control Church hierarchy more concerned with power than purity. Any other reading of history represents historical revisionism, not the truth. Of course that is now firmly in the past but the fact remains that the reformation was necessary as a result of the refusal of the Catholic Church to recognise its distortion of the Gospel and its refusal to repent and reform, which is what the "reformers" wanted. It would not change, but persecuted the godly, leaving no alternative but for an unfortunate schism.

5 May 2014 at 16:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

Don't ever join the diplomatic corp!

Pfft. Diplomats. Obsequious duplicitous weasily things. What with their "talking" and "negotiating" and "win-win outcomes" and [blah blah blah.] As a famous man once said "The best diplomat I know is a fully-activated phaser bank."

Hell will freeze over before this happens!

Whether it will happen is not the point. It is what must happen before there can be unity. It's a requirement. Rome will of course set its own requirements. The result will be irreconcilable. That's why there won't be unity.

try explaining it to a collection of different protestants in ways they will all accept

The difference between Protestants is the difference between Monergism and Synergism. It's an argument over one simple question with profound implications: "Does faith precede regeneration or does regeneration precede faith?"

carl

5 May 2014 at 18:24  
Blogger Len said...

'Charles Spurgeon' was a preacher of the old school who was not afraid to speak God`s truth without fear or reservation,

'Soon after apostolic times there came the old
Roman rubbish, which in the end proved a
worse hindrance to the gospel than all the
errors which had preceded it.

This Popish rubbish was found in layers; first
one doctrinal error, and then another, and then
another, and then another, and then another,
until at this time the errors of the Church of
Rome are as countless as the stars, as black
as midnight, and as foul as hell.

Her abominations reek in the nostrils of all
Christian men. Her idolatries are the scorn
of reason and the abhorrence of faith.

The iniquities of her practice, and the
atrociousness of her doctrine, almost
surpass belief.

As the gospel is the masterpiece of God,
“Popery” is the masterpiece of Satan!

There can scarcely be imagined anything of
devilish craftiness or Satanic wickedness
which could be compared with her.

She is the unparalleled queen of iniquity!
Behold upon her forehead the name, Mystery,
Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and
abominations of the earth.

The church of Rome and her teachings are a
vast mountain of rubbish covering the truth.'

Charles Spurgeon, sermon on Nehemiah 4:10, “Rubbish” (No. 1156)

5 May 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger Simon Reilly said...

Never mind. A page, that by coincidence bears the same title as Deacon Donnelly's blog, has appeared on Facebook.

5 May 2014 at 19:28  
Blogger Shadrach said...

David Hussell. What you wrote at 16:40 was great . A verily forthright assertion of the historical situation.

5 May 2014 at 20:37  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David Hussell, aren't you confusing the occupiers of the Papacy, human and therefore flawed, with the Catholic Church?

During the time you cite there were many, many faithful Catholics (Saint Francis being one) who made many of the same points. One might agree with your objections to the historical behaviour of sinful popes. This doesn't mean the Church's position on Justification is doctrinally wrong or that the Protestant Reformation was necessary or positive for Christianity.

Today this is no longer about the supposed secular ambitions of the Vatican. As Carl has pointed out, the theological divide is the crux and this is neither obscure or about additions.

Carl
"The difference between Protestants is the difference between Monergism and Synergism. It's an argument over one simple question with profound implications: "Does faith precede regeneration or does regeneration precede faith?"

Or, alternatively, "How does God initiate regeneration and does man have any part to play?"

Hardly a "simple questions" given the proliferation of protestant churches over it and the "profound implications" of the individual answers that come up. There are a variety of nuances within "synergism".

"Synergism", as you know, is a disputed term and is open to different interpretations. The difference between protestants who believe in some form of cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and that grace precedes any such cooperation, can be very wide e.g. whether the grace necessary for the gift of faith once bestowed can be lost and with it salvation?

Granted, the Calvinist formulation is simple - God has chosen His elect before creation and Christ died only for them. Regeneration takes place as a single act in which God regenerates a man and he will inevitably and invariably believe and be saved. Herald the gospel indiscriminately and the Holy Spirit regenerates who He will, according to His sovereign grace and God's preordination.

5 May 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Happy Jack @ 21.55

No I am not confusing anything, but you are trying to...

I've stated the summarised historical facts, but waffle and prevaricate if you must.

Is it that difficult just to recognise that all was far from well ?

Although it's a long time ago, the sad, long tale gives the context for the Reformation.

Honestly it is OK Happy Jack, to not always be "right", and it doesn't have to be about being on a "winning" side.

But go ahead and rewrite the history if you must.

5 May 2014 at 22:13  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David, who's rewrote history, waffled or prevaricated?

Jack was pointing out that the Church is not individual popes whether saints or sinners and there have been many of both. The earthly history of the Church, bound up as it is in political, social and economic forces, doesn't negate its spiritual mission or disqualify the truthfulness of Catholic doctrine. The same forces applied to Protestantism too.

The Roman Catholic Church has formally acknowledged past sins and mistakes and more recent scandals. However, it still holds it is indefectible and infallible in settled matters of faith and morals.

These are not mutually inconclusive positions. The Church has always been aware that it would be ruthlessly and continuously attacked by the enemy. It is Jack's view the Reformers should have reflected more on this. Those who stayed true to the Church did despite their awareness of the corruption of particular members.

They believed, as does Jack, that there are areas God will not permit His Church to make errors in. The selection of particular popes, cardinals, bishops and priests, is not one of them; doctrinal teaching is.

5 May 2014 at 23:33  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, football - eh?

5 May 2014 at 23:39  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Does anyone have any contact with Blowers? I'm a little worried as he hasn't posted since the 29th April and his health I believe is not so good.

5 May 2014 at 23:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

football - eh?

The NFL Draft is Thursday and the big question is whether Jadeveon Clowney or Johnny Manziel will be the first pick ...

Oh. You must mean Soccer as opposed to football. Are you perhaps referring to Liverpool's collapse today?

carl

5 May 2014 at 23:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Jack's very thoughts too Shadrach.

6 May 2014 at 00:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Very good Carl. Some game.

FIFA stands for: 'Federation of International Football Associations.'

And while we on the subject, its The Premier League and not the EPL. Ambitious Americans will soon be trying to call their football league(s) and tournaments 'The World Soccer Championship'. Not going to happen.

6 May 2014 at 00:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I dunno, Jack. A google search on English Premiere League sure does generate a lot of correct hits. Just sayin' ....

And FIFA is a Spanish acronym if I am not mistaken.

carl

6 May 2014 at 00:56  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Google?! An American company by any chance?

"The Premier League is an English professional league for men's association football clubs."
(Wiki)

Just like Latin, Spanish can be interpreted correctly. One doesn't have to be a linguist to work out: 'The Fédération Internationale de Football Association.'

Heard of UEFA - 'The Union of European Football Associations' (in French: 'Union des Associations Européennes de Football.')?

6 May 2014 at 01:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

Oh, it's a French organization, huh? Well, that explains it. Why are you paying attention to French translations of English in the first place? No wonder you are having trouble with proper word usage.

carl

6 May 2014 at 02:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

A-HA! Poor Jack is undone.

From the same Wiki article you quoted:

Outside England, it is commonly referred to as the English Premier League (EPL).

That, combined with the fact, that you are leaning on an incorrect French translation of the Spanish word 'Football' into English adds up to a crushing defeat ... for you.

You may keep your sword. I am magnanimous in victory.

carl

6 May 2014 at 03:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Yes Carl. However, "Commonly referred to" suggests improper usage - probably due to American corruption.

And there is no real translation of Football from either Spanish or French as they both, quite properly, use the English term. After all, the rules and format of the modern game were established in England.

"Football refers to a number of sports that involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot to score a goal."
(Wiki)

Jack says its stretching the "varying degrees" bit to apply it to the American version of Rugby Football.

6 May 2014 at 07:56  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Happy Jack @ 23.33

I shall give up as I do believe that you are immune from simple, reasoned, factual arguments and unaware of when you have painted yourself into a corner.

You are drawing on different periods of time, jumping about all over the place, whereas I am referring to specific periods of history, the Reformers reluctant reactions to the total intransigence of the church in the face of scripturally proven error, and its protection of its money gathering activities and preservation of its own power and worldly status.

As for your "the reformers should have reflected more on this" - you clearly know nothing about Luther's constant personal tortuous reflections on the truth regarding the salvation, his long, reasoned letters to the Catholic authorities and their constant threatening postures, refusing to listen to his arguments.

Yes of course I agree that individual figures may be wrong when the body of the Church, as a whole is not, this is obvious, but history shows that at this time, a vast proportion of the entire power structure of the Church was behind these untruths and errors in order to generate profit.

6 May 2014 at 08:59  
Blogger George Gissing said...

"Basically, it conjectures it became an established Vatican defensive strategy after American dissent over Humanae Vitae....."

Well, it's not just about his views on doctrine is it. Deacon Nick has been very vocal in attacking his own side - almost to the point he is doing the BHA and NSS's job for them while being too silly to realise this...
There's his campaign against PGCE students at St Mary’s University Twickenham as well as primary school students at St Mary's Primary School going on a two hour training session on homophobic bullying run by Stonewall. Deacon Nick's view was that 2 hours is going de-Catholicise the adults and children. The Archdiocese of Southwark said they endorsed the training sessions. Deacon Nick stated something along the lines that he didn't disapprove of anti-homophobic-bullying training so long as Stonewall were not involved. So presumably he's in favour of anti-homophobic training as long as it isn't given by anybody homosexual. The fact that giving some kind of training is a statutary duty is neatly skipped over or around by Deacon Nick who insinuates that it's all the fault of the institutions for not putting up some kind of protest and that if they refuse to answer his questions they have something to hide. Rather than they find him a bore. Of course Stonewall have their own agendas but are they really going to "brainwash" entire institutions out of their Catholic opinions in 2 hours? Perhaps the problem is that they just might?
Deacon Nick further showed his love of gay people by thanking Mrs Thatcher on her death for section 28. It is a shame, says Deacon Nick, that so many schools are abandoning section 28 type policies. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that they couldn't conceal homosexual culture from their students if they tried and the reason that the law was abandoned may have included that it was a practical failure trying to censor all homosexual literature in schools. Deacon Nick fully believes in censorship himself so in my view anyone who stands up for his right not to be censored is a fool.
Then there's his attack on Heythrop College for allowing the Student Union to mount a production of the Vagina Monologues (favourite target of hard right religious nutter protests) in their buildings. Of course the management of Heythrop College probably have no actual power to stop this anyway but the fact they could not muster up the enthusiasm amongst the student body to get anyone to protest at a few lesbians putting on a play presumably makes them all not Catholic enough for not taking a stand against art. Even the EU gets it in the neck on Protect the Pope for not being Catholic enough - despite having a flag that looks remarkably Catholic to me.
All this is faithfully recorded on an "anti-Catholicism" log which once upon a time used to contain pictures , cartoons or videos that Deacon Nick viewed as blasphemous against the Pope and the Church. Today there is so much on the "anti-Catholicism" log that I cannot even find these... perhaps us artists just aren't producing enough material critical of the church or the Pope any more because we're not interested. Or indeed because the old Pope was so bad he resigned and we dont know which of the two Popes to satirise. Of course it is possible Benedict XVI resigned purely due to ill health - just as it is possible that Anthony Eden resigned purely due to ill health.
Whatever. The fact is that Deacon Nick picked on Catholics he sees in Catholic institutions who he views as "not being Catholic church" for two reasons:
1) He cant find enough people outside the Church to protect it from
2) People outside the Church dont care what he thinks. Attacking Catholics for not being Catholic enough makes him feel a triton among minnows?

6 May 2014 at 09:59  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David H, we're not quite connecting here and your are ignoring my points. There's no defence of the Church's behaviour being offered.

The Reformers opposition to " ... scripturally proven error" is not the same thing as the Church's " ... protection of its money gathering activities and preservation of its own power and worldly status." You are not distinguishing between the two.

Scripturally accurate doctrines, like purgatory and indulgences, based on centuries of orthodox Christian tradition and theological reasoning, can be taken advantage of by the wicked and greedy. It doesn't follow the doctrine itself is at fault.

The Reformers "reluctant reactions to the total intransigence of the church" consisted of an attack on both the abuse of power through the misapplication and misuse of settled dogma. Luther not only complained about material corruption in the Church but his " ... constant personal tortuous reflections on the truth regarding salvation" resulted in what was for the Catholic Church, then and now, heresy i.e. salvation by faith alone. And, of course, other reformers attacked the very Apostolic nature of the Church and the need for an organised priesthood at all.

6 May 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger Len said...


I also believe ' Happy Jack 'to be a lost cause...He has dug a hole for himself and will not listen to reason[ let alone scripture] unless it has been through the Catholic 'magical mystery machine'...put in a scripture and it turns it around and spits it out as something totally different and.... can even make up its own interpretations and traditions?. A religious magic machine which keeps on giving?.
There will be other Catholics not so indoctrinated into Catholic fiction who might happen to have an ear to listen to the truth
That is the only reason that I persist......
The Cyber Swiss Home Guard try to bully Bible believing Christians into submission...Jack and the rest always demand answers to their fantasies about 'apostolic succession' and other fantasies which is a total nonsense as every Christian knows.
Best sometimes to leave a fool to his folly rather than join them in it?.

6 May 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger Len said...

There is a growing apostasy among church leaders at home(UK) and abroad.These will be found to be 'false shepherds'.

There is an urgent need to be guided by the Holy Spirit as we enter a very dangerous time when there are those deceiving others and being deceived themselves.

Exactly as Bible prophesy foretells.

6 May 2014 at 12:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len, pure ad hominem - again.

"That is the only reason that I persist......" - to save other Catholics? Come now! By insults and your own version of infallible prounouncements? Please!

Agree with this though:

"Best sometimes to leave a fool to his folly rather than join them in it?"

6 May 2014 at 13:05  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

I think we have had rather enough of two-faced progressive "bishops".

6 May 2014 at 15:40  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Shadrach

Reports have begun to trickle in, at long last, of a reliable sighting of the archcriminal Ernst Stavro Blofeld, accompanied, as usual, by his notorious sidekick, Tiddles. The sighting is said to have occurred on 6 May 2014 at 13:25, under the appropriately macabre heading, “Infusion of Young Blood”. Check it out!

6 May 2014 at 17:43  
Blogger Len said...

Jack... nice to see you agree with my comments.
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for you yet?.

6 May 2014 at 18:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Comment, singular, Len.

6 May 2014 at 19:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

"American corruption" is an oxymoron, and, anyways, not even Americans claim that everything outside of England is America. Don't go blaming us for France. In the Spirit of comity, however, I am happy to use 'Premiere League' since in this context it will be obvious that I am referring to the English Premiere League.

I suppose we could call it European Football, if that would help. Just looking for common ground, here. Trying to be diplomatic and all.

carl

6 May 2014 at 21:50  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Jack will settle for English Premier (note spelling, please)League.

He's not buying the rest.

Football is a world sport, not European - the French and Spanish use the correct term and the USA must too. Come on, Jack knows America is 'exceptional' but you are still learning the game. This term is covered by an international agreement. Before you attempt to take the name over and change the rules, you will have to win the FIFA World Cup.

"Beware of Americans seeking common ground."

6 May 2014 at 22:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older