Exclusive: Cover-up at St Paul's

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ls-2377923.html

Clerics suppress report on bankers' greed to save church embarrassment

 

A highly critical report into the moral standards of bankers has been suppressed by St Paul's Cathedral amid fears that it would inflame tensions over the Occupy London tent protest.

 

The report, based on a survey of 500 City workers who were asked whether they thought they were worth their lucrative salaries and bonuses, was due to be published last Thursday, the day that the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, Giles Fraser, resigned in protest at the church's tough stance.

 

But publication of the report, by the St Paul's Institute, has been delayed in an apparent acknowledgement that it would leave the impression that the cathedral was on the side of the protesters.

 

The Independent on Sunday understands that the decision has upset a number of clergy, who hoped that the report would prove that the church was not detached from a financial crisis that had its heart yards from the cathedral itself. The decision will fuel the impression that the wider established church is attempting to stifle debate about the tent protest, as leading members of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have failed to comment publicly about Occupy London.

 

A spokesman for St Paul's Cathedral said: "It has been decided to delay publishing this report until further notice as it wouldn't get the proper debate it deserves in light of the present circumstances."

 

The spokesman refused to comment what the report's findings were, but it is understood it raised profound concerns about the banking sector's willingness to accept responsibility for the financial crisis.

 

Such a critical analysis, coming from the institute which is described as part of St Paul's Cathedral's "wider mission", would be seen as highly inflammatory at a time when the church is going to the High Court to attempt to remove 200 tents from its land.

 

The report was the most ambitious in a series of assessments on the banking industry commissioned by the institute, which was set up to provide "an informed Christian response to the most urgent ethical and spiritual issues of our times".

Dr Fraser, who resigned on Thursday over St Paul's hardline position against the protesters, is the director of the institute. He was unavailable for comment. It is understood that the decision to delay publication was taken by the Cathedral Chapter, but it did not play a part in Dr Fraser's resignation.

 

A spokesman for the Bishop of London said the diocese was not aware of the report, and there is no suggestion that anyone beyond St Paul's has been involved in delaying its publication. Yet the apparent cover-up is the latest damaging revelation in the saga which has dented the Church of England's PR image. At a time when few senior church people are willing to come off the fence about the St Paul's protest, there is a danger with the withholding of this report that the church will be seen to be actively suppressing the sort of debate that many of its critics favour.

 

The St Paul's Institute survey was due to be published on 27 October to mark the 25th anniversary of the "Big Bang", when the financial markets were deregulated in 1986.

 

The Rev Andrew Studdert-Kennedy, the Rector of Marlborough, who produced a series of reports on the financial industry during a sabbatical at the institute in the summer, said he had been asked to write a piece accompanying the launch of the survey results. He said last night: "I can see why they chose not to publish the report last week. It was going to get swallowed up by the other things that were happening. I watched it all with absolute dismay. The thing that really bothers me is when people say the church should be engaging in these issues, because that is precisely what the institute was set up to do. It has done an enormous amount of work."

 

Mr Studdert-Kennedy, who refused to comment directly on the survey findings, said he had been "astonished" by the attitudes some City workers displayed towards the financial crisis. He said: "I did speak to many people about morality. I was amazed by how many banking crises there had been and how sanguine people were about them. A number of people said 'this is just what happens – it's the nature of banking, it's the nature of capitalism'.

"It's one thing having a historical perspective, but I was astonished that people didn't try to learn a bit more. There is a recognition that there is something wrong, but a reluctance to admit that they are part of the problem. They can be good at criticism but not so good at self-reform. What we have got there is so much that is human nature, related to how they behave in groups." He conceded that the publicity surrounding the camp had been "awful".

 

He added: "There may have been a very good reason to close the doors, but the way it was going to be seen by the outside world was terrible. It looks as if the church has come down on one side of the argument and the protesters on the other."

 

Yesterday, pressure mounted on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and leading Church of England bishops to speak out about the continuing battle over the Occupy London camp. Dr Williams wrote what is understood to be a "supportive" letter to Dr Fraser when the latter resigned, but has refused to comment publicly.

 

Besides the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, only two others, the suffragan bishops of Buckingham, Alan Wilson, and of Sherborne, Graham Kings, have commented on the continuing crisis.

 

Over the past three days, The IoS asked 80 Anglican bishops to comment on the protest. Besides these three, 16 gave a direct no comment or insisted it was a matter for the London diocese; 18 were away or unavailable for comment, and the remainder failed to respond.

 

Dr Wilson has accused St Paul's of a "hysterical over-reaction" to the protest.

 

Dr Kings told the IoS that the "the PR could have been handled much better" over the saga, adding: "I do question stratospheric bonuses but I am not against capitalism itself."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Typical fence-sitting from the Church really... And it absolutely reeks of hypocrisy... They call themselves "Christians", but seem to gloss over the fact that Christ, in the Bible (you know, that book that this lot are actually supposed to believe in) is pretty clear on what he thinks about greed and money-lenders and the rich.... And yet, there's no definite opinion from the Church, or the Catholic Church either... And they seem to see absolutely no contradiction between what Jesus said in the Bible and their own playing around in the stock exchange...

 

I see no reason for suppressing the publication of this report, the people questioned said what they said, no one forced their hand and told them what to say.. All it would really do is to confirm what most of us think about City bankers anyway, let's be honest... That they're detached from the reality of their actions, that they've no real conscience about what they do, that they dont really think that they're part of the problem.... Wooo, major revelations there..... I guess the next report is going to tell us the Pope's a Catholic....

 

As the Duke of Wellington once remarked - "Publish and be damned".....

 

Perhaps there is no firm standing from the church because it realises that it too is founded on corruption and desire for money. As an institution is has done more, historically speaking, to repress the poor and take from them money they could ill afford to give, the great churches of the world are dripping in gold and the Vatican holds an art treasure second to none yet it has the hyprocracy to ask others to give. The Inquisition and the crusades helped to swell its coiffers considerably (and probably more than any other country in history ever comparatively speaking), and no onefrom within sought to say anything against them at the time, the church's hands, are in short, not clean on this one!

 

I don't say that it does not give charity but in the grand scheme of things it has taken far more than it has given.

This is very sad even the clergy are in the pockets of the bankers now. Clearly there is no division between Church and State. Shame on those involved they sound like Tea party Christians, too foolish to know they are being used to protect the rich. In a nutshell:

"Such a critical analysis, coming from the institute which is described as part of St Paul's Cathedral's "wider mission", would be seen as highly inflammatory at a time when the church is going to the High Court to attempt to remove 200 tents from its land."

Perhaps there is no firm standing from the church because it realises that it too is founded on corruption and desire for money. As an institution is has done more, historically speaking, to repress the poor and take from them money they could ill afford to give, the great churches of the world are dripping in gold and the Vatican holds an art treasure second to none yet it has the hyprocracy to ask others to give. The Inquisition and the crusades helped to swell its coiffers considerably (and probably more than any other country in history ever comparatively speaking), and no onefrom within sought to say anything against them at the time, the church's hands, are in short, not clean on this one!

 

I don't say that it does not give charity but in the grand scheme of things it has taken far more than it has given.

 

Very true in everything you say, but you're describing the actions of the Catholic Church more than the C of E... I'm trying not to blur the lines here...

This is very sad even the clergy are in the pockets of the bankers now. Clearly there is no division between Church and State. Shame on those involved they sound like Tea party Christians, too foolish to know they are being used to protect the rich. In a nutshell:

"Such a critical analysis, coming from the institute which is described as part of St Paul's Cathedral's "wider mission", would be seen as highly inflammatory at a time when the church is going to the High Court to attempt to remove 200 tents from its land."

 

Indeed.... And they dont seem to realise that "Jesus" would probably be down with the protesters and camping out with them... :rolleyes:

 

Indeed.... And they dont seem to realise that "Jesus" would probably be down with the protesters and camping out with them... :rolleyes:

Oh dear that Man of the people, patriot and socialist Peter Hitchens disagrees and thinks Jesus would condemn the protestors. Is there a bigger douchebag? His take on Jesus has less merit than Hitlers take on multiculturalism.

 

You wouldn't find Jesus in a St Paul's tent

I back the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, against the pestilent rabble that has cluttered up the precincts of St Paul’s Cathedral.

St Paul’s may be a bit commercial, but I don’t see how else it can pay for the upkeep of one of the ten greatest buildings in Europe, recently superbly restored. The Church of England gets no tax money.

And the Cathedral’s continued existence amid the soaring towers of mammon is an important reminder of the faith and beliefs that actually sustain our wealth and freedom.

As for the protesters, why are we all supposed to be so nice to them? They seem to think that by brainlessly saying they are against ‘capitalism’, they automatically become good.

‘What would Jesus do?’ they ask, with a whining implication that He would be one of them. Tripe. He despised politics, and rebuked Judas Iscariot (the first socialist) for going on and on about the poor to make himself look good. As you’ll recall, he wasn’t as good as he looked.

Christianity is not about having the right opinions and telling everyone. It is about who you really are, and what you really do, in secret, when nobody is looking.

 

Oh dear that Man of the people, patriot and socialist Peter Hitchens disagrees and thinks Jesus would condemn the protestors. Is there a bigger douchebag? His take on Jesus has less merit than Hitlers take on multiculturalism.

 

You wouldn't find Jesus in a St Paul's tent

I back the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, against the pestilent rabble that has cluttered up the precincts of St Paul’s Cathedral.

St Paul’s may be a bit commercial, but I don’t see how else it can pay for the upkeep of one of the ten greatest buildings in Europe, recently superbly restored. The Church of England gets no tax money.

And the Cathedral’s continued existence amid the soaring towers of mammon is an important reminder of the faith and beliefs that actually sustain our wealth and freedom.

As for the protesters, why are we all supposed to be so nice to them? They seem to think that by brainlessly saying they are against ‘capitalism’, they automatically become good.

‘What would Jesus do?’ they ask, with a whining implication that He would be one of them. Tripe. He despised politics, and rebuked Judas Iscariot (the first socialist) for going on and on about the poor to make himself look good. As you’ll recall, he wasn’t as good as he looked.

Christianity is not about having the right opinions and telling everyone. It is about who you really are, and what you really do, in secret, when nobody is looking.

 

Peter Hitchins is a fascist re****... That is all..... -_-

 

Surely calling Judas "the first socialist", whether it has any basis in fact or not, is an effort to stamp his political agenda on the entire Christian world?

 

What a twat.