Closed down by legal threats?
Blogged by James Preece on 8th May 2014
It wouldn't be the first time...
Some of you may have been following the blogs long enough to recall the time Fr Michael Clifton was forced to close his "Fr Mildew" blog after threats of legal action by one Mgr Basil Loftus. The blog is gone now, but you can still read the story here. Fr Clifton wrote at the time..
I have been contacted by phone, with letter to follow, warning me that [Mgr Loftus] will sue for libel or defamation for … [writing in an earlier blog post] an allegation that he was a heretic.[...]Bad News. I regret to inform you that I am faced with an impossible situation. Mgr Loftus has refused to accept my apologies and threatens me with action in civil and church courts. As a result I am very worried and will speak to our Archbishop.
Let me be clear: I am in no way suggesting that Mgr Basil Loftus is responsible for the closure of Protect the Pope. I use this example here to demonstrate the the oh so friendly liberal end of the Church has form on this matter.
Don't like what a blogger has to say. Sue them.
Protect the Pope has spent better part of the last few years chasing after people who make a living out of dissent. People like Proffessor Tina Beattie who lost out on speaking gigs. After a cancelled visit to the University of San Diego she wrote...
‘I do not know the exact reasons for the cancellation of my visit, but I have been the target of a blog campaign in recent weeks, which began with a concerted endeavour to have a lecture by me at Clifton Cathedral in Bristol cancelled.[...]The Bishop of Clifton, Bishop Declan Lang, resisted pressure to cancel the lecture but the protestors contacted the CDF, who intervened to say that the lecture should not go ahead.[...]The cancellation of my visit is not the most important issue in all this. The real issues are academic freedom, the vocation of lay theologians in relation to the official magisterium, and the power of a hostile minority of bloggers (some of whom are ordained deacons and priests) to command the attention and support of the CDF. The latter is the most sinister development of all, and it is a cause for scandal which brings the Church into disrepute.
Again, let me be clear: I am in no way suggesting that Tina Beattie is responsible for the closure of Protect the Pope. I use this example here to demonstrate that some of the oh so friendly liberals felt they were "the target of a blog campaign" by "ordained deacons and priests" which "brings the Church into disrepute".
Now consider the two things combined. What if a litigious lefty were to write a letter (or have their solicitor do it) to the Bishop of the Diocese of Lancaster. My client is the victim of a blog campaign which is actually affecting their livelihood. The blog campaign is being carried out by your deacon and if it doesn't stop we will be taking you to court.
Not hard to imagine.
If a Catholic diocese can be forced to pay out over the actions of an ordained individual who harms a child, could they not also be forced to pay out over the actions of an ordained individual who harms a career?
Is the Diocese of Lancaster fabulously wealthy?
So while I find it quite plausible that influential liberals could have had a word with their Bishops Conference chums and some of the big hitters could have ganged up on Bishop Michael Campbell in the playground.. I think it even more plausible that a litigious liberal started making potentially very expensive legal threats to the Diocese of Lancaster.
Bishop Michael Campbell, or perhaps his solicitor, writes..
Protect the Pope makes it clear that the site is a private initiative and is in no way officially affiliated with the Diocese of Lancaster.[...]I asked Deacon Nick, through my staff, for Protect the Pope to continue its good work in promoting and teaching the Catholic Faith, but to be careful not to take on individuals in the Church through ad hominem and personal challenges.
Note how Bishop Campell is careful to formally disassociate the actions of the Protect the Pope blog from the Diocese of Lancaster. Is that something Bishop Campbell would write if he was simply being told by fellow Bishops to rid them of that turbulent deacon?
Then he uses the curious phrase "through my staff" - what does that mean? It hardly sounds like he asked a friendly priest to go and offer pastoral support does it? What Bishop refers to the clergy of his diocese as "my staff"?
So is he saying he asked his admin lady? Send the fellow a quick letter would you.. Perhaps, but I think it far more likely that "through my staff" is a euphamism for "through my solicitor".
I think Bishop Campbell was perhaps afraid of expensive litigation... but it's just a theory.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment