I don't know who wrote this story but he is certainly no Ruth Gledhill. In fact, I don't think even the word "journalist" is appropriate. As he cobbled the whole lot together from Ruth's blog and my blog, I think he may be a perfect fit for the word "hack."

I left a comment:



  1. It’s not surprising that this hack lacks the courage to put their name to a byline. This kind of crap is always the work of cowards.

  2. “married curate” … “liaison with the men”

    This person is seriously weird (the pseudo-journalist not the Mad One)


  3. Well, it has bumped my stats up. And being loved is better than a job and security any day of the week. I think the last time I experienced this warm, fuzzy feeling inside me was after the first time me and the missus did the wild thing.

  4. don’t you find that the wild thing is also about a clue to God’s passionate love? — as well as being just plain marvellous?

  5. Wild thing? What are you going on about?

    The quality of the article strikes me as being “written” for a high school paper filler.

  6. “Wild Thing, I think I love you …”

    “… to satisfy … carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beast that have no understanding ….”

    Just love the BCP.

  7. MP, where is this story posted? I can’t find it anywhere when I search under the opening line.

    It is odd that he hasn’t put a byline to it. That is not standard practice at all, even online.

  8. Thanks. It seems to be subscription only and I certainly am not giving them my hard-earned just to look at the story directly.

    I still think it’s odd there is no byline.

  9. Oh, my.

    You’re married? You don’t perform covert blessings of gay partnership?

    It’s all over between us. Don’t even think about our usual liaison for brunch after church.

  10. OK, everyone, so what’s wrong with it?
    Apart from the unfortunately worded “liaison” and no byline, this is pretty factual reporting as far as I can see.

  11. Isn’t that the site that George Conger writes for?

    He’s a journalist in pretty much the same way that Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw were.

  12. Saintly Ramblings,


    Erika, MP’s critique spells that out — the “reporter” has taken pieces of information from two sources, put them together poorly and in such a way that the reader is actually misinformed by impression. High schoolers can do better.

  13. KJ
    it’s lazily put together, I agree.
    But MP himself wrote on Ruth’s blog:
    “My problems at my present parish are just bog standard choir problems. The organist wanted to choose all the hymns and would not even allow me to alter the odd one or two, occasionally, to fit in with my sermons or the theme of the service. When faced with the fact that actually it’s the priest’s job to choose the hymns and I had been very collaborative in asking him to help me, he resigned and then the choir went on strike.”

    He then goes on to say that he believes his mental health problems have prejudiced the Bishop against him, but he’s not saying that his contract was terminated because of that.
    The implication is clearly that he was not given the opportunity to apply for the post at his own church because of the difficulties with the congregation.

    It’s not well written, but it’s not THAT terribly far off either.

  14. “Religious Intelligence” is clearly an oxymoron for this bloggerhead.

    Sheesh! Anything counts for news these days, eh mate?

    word verification: ‘messer’.


  15. Oh that rag! I thought it might be in something credible like the Enquirer. CoE Newspaper is at best yellow journalism and seldom at its best in my view.


    The secret word is “tramp!” I am just saying.

  16. Erika. I was going to be out of a job anyway, with or without the choir problem. Without the choir problem I might have got the vicar’s job. But I wasn’t made redundant because of the choir. Also reporting somebody else’s slander -the blessing a gay couple thing – is slander. And the diocese didn’t say that my contract ending was anything to do with my blog and they wrote that they did.