Submitted by a reader:

I’d welcome a similar blog on English and Welsh and Scottish bishops but just in case that isn’t possible and as a stab given my sketchy knowledge of some English and Welsh bishops and the Westminster scene but next to zero on Scottish bishops – let’s start with the Big Gun.

Elsie: Cardinal Vincent:

Where to start?

Groomed by Worlock (homosexual), ordained by Marcinkus (homosexual) and further groomed by Hume (homosexual)

Vinny as he is known was destined for high office from the beginning.

Isn’t that how ot works – pretty boy young priest feted and rewarded by gay protectors and admirers.

Not an intellectual but astute and canny regarding ecclesiastical politics but naive and miscalculating regarding real politics.

Significant other Sr Carmel – unkindly referred to by bitchy gay clerics as ‘the nun.’

He is devoted to her and she is conscious about the power and influence she has – her opinion holds sway about lots of things with Vinny and no doubt they are planning their retirement together.

He has said and says many good things publicly about safeguarding but privately doesn’t get it and leans instinctively towards protecting the abuser (Quigley is a good example) and the reputation of the church.

This mind set and lacuna has damaged him irreparably and (ironically) the reputation of the church.

He probably cares more about his work on the Congregation of Bishops than his diocese.

He enjoys the trappings of his office but is an insecure man who needs lots of praise and doesn’t take kindly to criticism.

Waiting for the Conclave and the Jubilee to retire to his well earned couple of million pad just like Cormac.

Currently wounded by IICSA probably spends a lot of time with lawyers but comforted by Gubay money (half a billion).

Churchman not Shepherd.

Stock, Oakley and McKinney are Vinny appointments- more about them or for another day if this encroaches on the Irish bishop discussion which is fascinating and revealing!!


Dysfunctional and ineffective bishops are one expression of a dysfunctional and ineffective church institution.

At the heart of the matter is the view expressed by one of the reformers: “What Jesus preached was a Kingdom. What we got was a Church”.

Jesus and His Kingdom were and are essentially anti-establishment.

How can that phenomenon be represented by an institution that is rigidly establishment?

It cannot !

And there is the aboriginal dilemma.


The only true future for the churches and the RCC in particular is a return to the NT church.

In that church men and women were equally involved.

No one lorded it over anyone else.

There were overseers, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses but no clerics.

Everything was run by the teaching of the Lord but there was no canon law.

No popes. No cardinals. No archbishops. No curia. No monsignors. No canons.


Licence fee paid