An Asian Christian woman living in London blogging about the everyday issues of religion

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Another Day, Another Show of 'Out of Touch' Clergy

This time it is the Rev Dr Peter Mullen, rector of St.Michael, Cornhill, and St. Sepulchre-without-Newgate, City of London. He is also Chaplain to six livery companies in the City of London. Dr Mullen has written a piece for the Telegraph in which he praises the banks. You can read the article in full, link provided below.

Many of the comments left disparage Dr Mullen for his sentiment which, sadly, does not reflect the reality of ordinary folk who deal with banks. Also, banks aren't there to right the wrongs of society. That is the role of Government. Dr Mullen seems to imply that the public ought to be grateful for charitable giving and overlook other actions that may also emanate from donors.

Just because banks give to charity does not mean that they cannot do wrong. Charitable giving is a great conscience saver.

I am sure Dr Mullen is far more educated than I could ever be but I am going to be bold and accuse him of muddled thought and confusing the good relations that he undoubtedly shares with the livery companies against his duty to the greater good who are, often, the unwashed. I flinched at his words 'ignorant and self-righteous narcissists'. Anybody who still thinks that the debate about inequality belongs to those who believe in conspiracy theories and aliens landing in people's gardens is, frankly, out of touch and...ignorant.


  1. Thanks for providing the link to Peter Mullen's article, which shocked me, particularly the use of insults about protesters. I watched Ian Hislop's programme 'When Bankers were Good' last night which referred to certain wealthy bankers routinely giving at least 10% of their income to charitable causes. This compares with today's banks giving away something like 0.47% while reserving much larger percentage for bonuses etc.

  2. Dear Nancy,
    I watched the Ian Hislop programme too and was taken aback at the criticism levelled at it the next day for being too 'left wing'. How can fact be classed as ideology?