A row has broken out over the presence this week of disgraced Anglican priest Jules Gomes, above, at a Church House meeting in London.
Formerly a priest at St Mary’s on the Harbour on the Isle of Man, Gomes addressed a February 1 meeting staged by supporters of the former Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, who was accused of historical sex abuse.
According to this report, the Bishop of Gloucester, Rachel Treweek, above, blasted his presence at the event, called “Rebuilding bridges”.
He has been invited to speak under that wonderful title whereas all his writings about me and other bishops who are women are being destructive and destroying bridges not building them.
I think it is outrageous that he has been allowed to speak at Church House under that title when his writings demonstrate that he is not up for living in reconciliation or relationship.
Gomes was banned from ministry for 10 years after a disciplinary tribunal found against him following complaints about his behaviour.
Deeply opposed to female clergy, he refers to female bishops as “bishopesses”.
He described Sarah Mullally, above, the new Bishop of London, as “safe space Sarah, the box-ticking Bishopette of Londonistan” who “doesn’t have the foggiest idea about the biblical gospel”.
Elsewhere in a “satirical” blog he described:
A gaggle of anorexic and bulimic teenage girls’ accompanying Rachel Treweek, Bishopess of Gloucester.
I have known him in the past so it is deeply disappointing that he feels able to write things about me and others without ever trying to communicate in a relational way.
If rebuilding bridges is about relationship then it is a very funny and strange way to demonstrate that if you feel able to simply write abusive things on blogs.
Gomes, according to this report, told the George Bell Group:
Over the last two years, the Bishop Bell group has been fighting this battle between chaos and logos. Finally, logos has triumphed.
Hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken by dozens of historians, lawyers, clergy, columnists, churchgoers and choristers have prevailed. The Lord Carlile Review, a leading manifestation of ‘order’, even though restricted in its brief, has found a subtle way to pronounce Bishop Bell ‘not guilty’.
But the bridge over troubled waters is yet to be built. Justin Welby doubts the logos and rejects the light and clarity of order. He returns to the darkness and disorder of chaos in his insistence that a ‘significant cloud’ still hangs over Bishop Bell’s character.