The Bishops, The Deacon And The Priest
And it came to pass that a priest – and very successful blogger – was transferred from his thriving parish to another, actually in the same diocese but still – if seen in regards to London – in a galaxy far, far away. One notices – yours truly certainly noticed – that the posts of said blogger have become noticeably thinner since then, or thereabouts; and a number of these posts have to do with the natural beauties of his new parish or other themes unrelated with the Great Battle the man certainly bravely fights every day in his, no doubt, sterling work as a priest.
One also seems to remember that another Bishop, with a name like an asparagus soup, had very openly silenced another blogger, who happened to be a deacon of his, with the very revealing accusation of being “divisive” (what the Bishop with the name like an asparagus soup would have done to Christ I do not even dare to think; but hey, this is V II…).
Yours truly had started to make 2+2 a while ago, wondering whether the blogger priest had not been, more or less openly, but certainly effectively, ordered to decrease his blogging but without shutting it down altogether, because his bishop is a bit smarter than to do like Asparagus Soup did.
I do not think it is so unthinkable that a bishop should order one of his priests to greatly reduce his blogging activity, but without making him shut down the blog altogether, which would give him (the bishop) a bad press worldwide. The more so, as said priest had published a beautiful blog post, which I still remember, pointing out to all that is wrong in the decision to shut down the blog of the deacon. One imagines a bishop (or his office) calling another bishop (or his office), and you imagine the rest.
I also think that, if it were so, the priest might well comply out of obedience to his bishop; and that he might well, if asked, feel obliged not to reveal the real causes of his decreased blogging activity; be it because he finds it indelicate or disloyal, or because he has simply been ordered to do so.
You see, one cannot avoid thinking. The former priest of Blackfen was – is – very popular, and in the Church of Bankruptcy everyone who stands out for the wrong reasons – say: being an engaged Catholic priest – is automatically suspected. He will, also, be a thorn in the side of a number of people, of the divorced and remarried, or contracepting kind. These people will complain to the bishop and play the old broken record: divisive, uncharitable, & Co. The bishop without a spine will, at this point, do what all bishops without a spine do: kow-tow to the noisy “c”atholics, silence the blog as well as he can with minimum risk of scandal and inconvenience for himself, quietly remove the “divisive” priest, and hope for the best. Away from the keyboard, away from the hearts. Away from the successful thriving parish he built, away from the loss of face this causes for the Bishop himself. In the land of incompetent bishops successful priests must be seen as subversive. They truly are a danger for the Official Uniform Decline, who makes no bishop stand out as particularly bad because they pretty much all are.
Please visit the blog (you know the name). A handful of blog posts in March. One in April. Nothing in May. One in June. Nothing since. Actually, only one posts in more than three months; the decrease in posts has been very noticeable since last year, but it has become extreme in this one. It’s like a hibernation in instalments. But no, the blog will not shut down. No uproar this time, thank you very much.
I have thought for a while (many months now) of writing this blog post. But today I read about the very prompt way in which the bishop sanctioned the abolition of the Tridentine Mass in the parish in question, and I make not only 2+2 = 4, but 4:2 = 2, too.
It seems to me that something very foul is at work here, and the bishop may well be de facto silencing his blogger priest and ordering him to keep schtum, under obedience, about his being de facto silenced. And I might be wrong here, but I reflect on this: this is a bishop who sends away an extremely beloved and successful priest and sends in his place an homosexual who immediately proceeds to reintroduce the sale of the “Tablet” and shortly thereafter announces the end of the TLM.
Call it stupidity, call it incompetence, call it outright evil spirit. But however you call it, you know by such a man this is perfectly in the realm of the feasible.
So no, I think it far more probable that I am not wrong here. And yes, I might receive assurances that all is fine.
And no, I would still not be persuaded.