"That's some flashy wheels for a bishop... Just joking!"
An interesting - though brief - debate occured on the "To David F---" thread on The Cross and The Stake forum a little while ago, concerning Bishop Manchester's ability to drive, of all things.
It started with an accusation, courtesy of davidfarrant:
"To be fair to him (Catweasle now), I should point out that while he can't drive a car, he WAS driving an electric milk float around Holloway from 1971 through to 1972."
To which, KatrinaGarforth-Bles1 took recourse to respond to thusly:
"So, if Bishop Manchester "can't drive a car," how does he manage to own three vehicles, including this American classic where he is pictured seated behind the wheel with his beautiful wife alongside?"
While the accompanying picture showing the Bishop seated behind the American classic would satisfactorily answer the accusation for some, Catherine Fearnley was not impressed:
"NB: As an afterthought if Pol Pot with a Cassock has got three posh cars (which he can't drive) then he should be ashamed of himself when there is half the world starving. Think of what good that money could have been spent on such as drugs and medicine to cure illnesses, food for starving people As my friend in the OCC says, OCC and the Roman Catholic Priests and/or Bishops do not drive in a posh car let alone 3. Really what is the world coming to.
"Catherine"
Catherine's response (in an abridged form) was summarily dealt with by DennisCrawford1:
"Catherine F------- could apply the same question to all Anglican bishops and many Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals who not only have expensive limousines but also chauffeurs to drive them which are paid for by ordinary churchgoers and, in the case of the Church of England, the State, ie you and me whether we like it or not."
While the answer seemingly justifies the ownership of such vehicles within the context of the extravagance found in some sectors of the Anglican and Roman Catholic faiths, does this somehow "excuse" it?
I do not quite follow the logic being presented.
The reasons given for ownership of three separate vehicles also goes on to present the Bishop as someone on the level of a Batman-like superhero:
"Bishop Manchester's jursidiction and ministry obliges him to travel a considerable distance. The "posh car" shown in Message 79 enables a quick response to attend situations requiring his presence. However, it is impractical as it seats only two people. A larger but much slower carrier is also needed when transporting more people with equipment etc and because he stays at more than one residence another is required for day to day convenience. This last is an off-road Range Rover type. All have an essential part to play in his ministry which - unlike clergy who are subsidised with a stipend, including offerings made by people like herself - is financed entirely by himself."
The last sentence is of particular interest.
How exactly did the Bishop come across the monies necessary to purchase and maintain three vehicles?
Could it have come from the sales of his books?
Clearly not, going by a post made by "Vampire Research Society" who quotes The Highgate Vampire's publisher's page:
""All proceeds from this book will be contributed to the Apostolic Church of the Holy Grail.""
Could the Bishop have accumulated the cash by working at well-paid jobs over the years (one would think that a Bishop would not have much of an income)?
The jobs would have to have given him quite a tidy income, considering that the Bishop also owns "three residences in the British Isles"쨔.
