Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Bishop of London issues statement about St Paul's Cathedral

St Paul’s Cathedral: a statement from the Bishop of London

25/10/11

A statement by the Bishop of London on the protest outside St Paul’s Cathedral.

“This demonstration has undoubtedly raised a number of very important questions. The St Paul’s Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.

“Nevertheless, the time has come for the protestors to leave, before the camp’s presence threatens to eclipse entirely the issues that it was set up to address. The Dean and the Chapter, who are responsible for St Paul’s, have already made it clear that the protest should come to an end and I fully support that view.”

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 8:24pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Suppose the Old Deanery is a little close for comfort!

Posted by: Anthony Archer on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 9:53pm BST

The Bishop really, really does not get it, does he?

Posted by: Rosemary Hannah on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 11:04pm BST

“Nevertheless, the time has come for the protestors to leave, before the camp’s presence threatens to eclipse entirely the issues that it was set up to address...."

Bishop Chartres has only the interests of the protesters at heart, then? Please.

June Butler

Posted by: Grandmère Mimi on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 11:47pm BST

I think St Paul's would be better off letting jovial Father Giles do the talking for the press, rather than the bearded right-wing Father Christmas substitute who, when he occupies the spatio-temporal dimension, goes by the name of the Bishop of London.

Posted by: rjb on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 3:45am BST

"The St Paul's Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration."

For how long and to what effect? We k

new the Occupy group was there within hours, but Chartres has to tell us about the church's efforts? Pathetic.

Maybe the objection to the occupation is about how much more effective it is than the church has been. How can they effect change if they're part of the system thriving on the status quo?

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 4:49am BST

Come, come, + Richard instead of offering your full support to the Dean and Chapter in their ridiculous and petulant stance in closing St. Paul's cathedral you must surely begin to start thinking about moving your cathedra in protest at the closure to another church or, better still, moving your throne to the steps outside St. Paul's alongside the protesters where Christ would surely be.

Posted by: Father David on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 5:17am BST

"alongside the protesters where Christ would surely be."...?
Another lefty liberal nonsense about Our Lord, who when he walked the earth had many opportunities to join the "radical political movements" of his time, but stayed way out of them!

Posted by: Antony on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 8:13am BST

Perhaps Antony and Bishop Chartres should host a "We Just Don't Get It" party on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral.

(Actually, Antony, Jesus' problem with the "radical political movements" of his time was that they weren't radical enough. The Kingdom of God -- now that's radical.)

Posted by: Bill Moorhead on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 3:45pm BST

Au contraire, Antony @ 8:13 am,
I believe long-standing orthodox Christian doctrine was that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine.
As the fully human Jesus of Nazareth, the way I read the Gospels, he wasn't some light and airy theological subject floating through life, just simply accepting everyone's adoration and praise until it was time for him to evanesce back into heaven. He didn't just coast along. He got himself involved. He lived. He challenged leaders, he turned the tables on some of the economic oppressors, he associated with the less-well-off of Judean society and praised their sacrifice. And, as far as I'm concerned, he explicitly called for social justice in his comments to the rich man who wanted to join his cause, in his parable about a rich man and Lazarus, and in Matthew 25:34-45 -- one of the greatest summations of the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament/Jewish Scriptures ever.
When Jesus of Nazareth "walked the Earth", he LOOKED AROUND and acted.

Posted by: peterpi - Peter Gross on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 5:01pm BST

"Another lefty liberal nonsense about Our Lord, who when he walked the earth had many opportunities to join the "radical political movements" of his time, but stayed way out of them!"

It seems to me that Our Lord did take sides, for example he took the side of Lazarus over that of Dives, and endorsed the very radical lefty liberal notion that we are indeed our brother's keeper, that the fortunate and the great are just as accountable as all the rest of us.

Ours is a world of banks too big to fail run by people too important to jail.

Posted by: Counterlight on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 5:34pm BST

None of the ones on offer to Christ were peaceful, were they? I do not for one moment think the church should stop doing what it does - worshipping God and transforming lives. I fail to see how it can do that without engaging with people. Moreover, since SOME of what the protesters want is the work of God as defined by His mother (putting down the might from their seats, sending the rich empty away) it seems sensible to be ministering to them - WITHOUT losing sight of the other aspects of the Gospel. Shutting up shop cannot be the way forward.

Posted by: Rosemary Hannah on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 7:17pm BST

So the 'Health and Safety' issues (that the Chapter wouldn't delineate to the protestors) wasn't the real reason they wanted to move them on?

The protestors have co-operated, and so the Cathedral is re-opening, but if the Chapter had wanted to they could have achieved this outcome at the outcome (and the Cathedral need never have been closed) because the protestors were genuinely mystified and perplexed that their requests for clarification were ignored.

So the protestors co-operate, and the cathedral backs down on the health and safety argument which its losing, and instead we learn from the Bishop of London that it's not because of Health and Safety that he wants them to leave (that was just a device).

It's simply because he wants them to leave.

And he's telling them how best to carry out their campaign.

And it seems like he may agree with resort to law to forcibly remove people engaged in peaceful protest on a legitimate issue which effects the whole country, and the poor, and people's children and their prospects...

...and the way "an establishment" has presided over the financial ruin of a nation, for the benefit of a wealthy and privileged few.

And the protestors are the problem, Bishop?

Posted by: Susannah on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 10:36pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.