According to The Jewish Chronicle, ‘a concerned member of Pro Ecclesia’, Robert Williams, got in touch with Westminster Central Hall and warned them off about the speakers Fr Kramer and Robert Sungenis. I’ve got some background details on Robert Sungenis, and yes, his stuff is incendiary, and neither representative or in line with Catholic thought. Sungenis’ views conflict with Pope Benedict’s (as put forth in Jesus of Nazareth Vol. 2). Apparently, PEeP’s Mr Williams spoke out about the PEeP conference because if Fr Kramer and Sungenis were hosted it "would be the equivalent of saying Rabbi Meir Kahane was representative of mainstream Judaism". But did Robert Williams say this to his fellow PEeP members before they booked the speakers?
Is it unreasonable to ask why didn’t Westminster Central Hall do a Google-check on the speakers before they accepted the booking and accepted the cash? Why not indeed? And it’s only a cool £4,000 that they took from PEeP. Two facts – Westminster Central Hall cancelled the talk at short notice, and now refuse to give the spondoolicks that PEeP handed over when they took the booking for a conference that was to take place yesterday. But didn’t go ahead, for reasons that we already know.
Cancelling the talk and keeping the money - is it a punishment of sorts – a kind of ‘because-those-speakers-were-not-Christian-enough-for-us-we’ll-not-give-the-£4000-back'? So, because Fr Kramer and Robert Sungenis are not deemed Christian-speakers, Westminster Central Hall may hold onto the money that Christians gave them? But is there some sort of definite way that Westminster Central Hall has for vetting who is Christian and who is not? Because if someone holds extreme, fallacious views does that mean they are excluded from Christianity? Is it even Christian of Westminster Central Hall to decide who’s Christian and who’s not? It’s a very subjective reason for not returning cash - that the speakers were not Christian enough. Christianity is conversion of the heart to Christ – not a private member’s club.
Daphne McLeod may well sue Westminster Central Hall for not returning the money. And she has my prayers that she is successful. ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire’ – but he can’t take the money and not do the work – similarly the hall cannot keep money for a conference that they reneged on holding.