It appears that the Rev Martin Dudley truly is a law unto himself, and himself alone.
In today’s Church Times Dudley writes on the letters page:
Your report concerning the blessing of Peter Cowell and David Lloyd contains a number of errors, though you are not responsible for only some of them.
Bishop Broadbent stated that there was a "series of frank discussions" with me which led to my expression of regret. This is not the case. There were no discussions with the Bishop of London or anyone representing him.
I did not issue "a statement of apology to the Bishop of London"; I sent him a letter of regret on the 21st of July, drafted in consultation with my lawyers, to which he replied on 15 September requesting that it should be made public.
Let’s summarise this shall we?
- Bishop Pete Broadbent is either a liar or seriously mistaken / misinformed
- Dudley is not apologising for performing the service.
I think this letter makes it completely unambigious that, as I have pointed out, Dudley sees absolutely nothing wrong in the theology of the service he performed. He doesn’t even regret doing the service, he only regrets the embarassment he caused to Richard Chartres.
Does this present the case of a man who does think he runs a personal fiefdom, accountable to no-one? Last month I asked the question "Who paid Dudley’s Bills?" in which I wrote the following:
The legal team for Martin Dudley incuded Mark Hill.
Mark Hill is Chancellor of the Diocese of Chichester, on the Legal Advisory Commission of the General Synod, on the General and the Executive Committee of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and is Chairman of the Editorial Committee and Editor of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal.
I wonder how much he costs and who paid?
Dudley himself responded to the thread and the conversation was as follows:
"No Answer", came the stern reply.
You would think from the first comment Dudley was actually willing to be open with us about where the funding for his senior legal team came from, but once again he doesn’t feel the need to hold himself accountable to anybody.
I’m not holding out any hope for a reply, but let’s all be clear about two things. Firstly, Dudley does not appear in the slightest bit apologetic for conducting a service that tore up huge sections of the doctrine of the Church of England, and also seems to revel in that fact that he hasn’t been disciplined. Secondly, he invites questions of his actions but then shows no inclination to answer them.
I have it on very good authority (and not just here from Winston, which by the way I think is, contrary to my original surmisings, a pretty accurate description of the political position in Two Cities) that Dudley’s actions have severely hacked off other revisionist activists in London. This whole affair has been far too public for them, and frankly they wish he’d been much more discrete.
From time to time bloggers get accused of simply being ego-centric self-publicists. Heaven help us if Dudley ever discovered the joys of WordPress.
I think we’re all done here aren’t we? Let’s move on.