The Gazette v the Bishop
The current edition of the Church of Ireland Gazette published more correspondence from church members upset that , chairman of the Church of Ireland working group tasked with submitting a response to the Eames-Bradley Report, has declined to be interviewed about the group's submission.
One correspondent writes: "It is a very sad indictment on the Church and the Working Group referred to in the Gazette that Bishop Jackson has declined to give an interview about its submission to the Northern Ireland Office on the recommendations of the Consultative Group on the Past. If he did not want to take responsibility for answering questions and queries about the recommendations made, then he should never have become involved in the process at all."
The current edition of the Gazette also carries an interview with , who is also critical of the interview-shy bishop of Clogher.
You can download the Working Group's response to the Eames-Bradley report .
Update: Slugger O'Toole on the Sunday Sequence coverage of the Jackson constroversy.
Comment number 1.
At 21st Jan 2010, Celtophile Mancunian wrote:From what I have heard about the story, there seem to be two issues that need untangling.
One is the way the submission to the consultation was handled: this includes missing the dealine for the Church of Ireland standing committee to sign-off the work, submitting the response without such approval, and failing to make the report available to parishioners and the CofI Gazette before giving to public pressure and a FoI request from the "News Letter". The working group's submission has since been signed-off retrospectively by the CofI Standing Committee.
The other issue is the position cited in the report. Reaction across the communities tended to be against the offer of compensation to victims of the troubles, yet the CofI working group's submission took a neutral stance, refusing to either support or oppose compensation for victims.
The continued refusal of Bishop Jackson to be interviewed about the work could be out of embarrassment, frustration or even surprise at the churchy amateurism of the handling of the submission or the problematic conculsions of the working group. Either way, whether one believes the CofI working group's submission to the consultation is "bland" or "measured", the working group recognised that different views exist within the CofI and there is "no consensus" on the issue of compensation. On that basis, I feel it would be harder for Bishop Jackson or the Church of Ireland to defend a submission to the report that declared to support or oppose compensation.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)