IICSA

2»

Comments

  • One could suggest, though I have no evidence either way as a non-Anglican who hasn't been following the lurid details, that recent enquiries about historic sexual abuse would have highlight historic issues with safeguarding. If someone has more recently come in and put the CofE house in order, bringing safeguarding provision and training up to scratch, then that is something that is worthy of recognition. Which in no way excuses prior failures in this regard.
  • The closing statements at the end of the IICSA sessions concerning the CofE, in which they focused on the diocese of Chichester, made it very plain that the issue of how to deal with victims is a live one, that the current National Safeguarding Team are very much lacking in skill or empathy, and the recommendation was that the problems - current, not historic - of safeguarding are so ingrained and omnipresent that the CofE should handover governance and training on safeguarding to an outside body. I'd say that was pretty conclusive that the current NST and its lead bishop would win no awards - except, it seems from the Archbishop whose own handling of affairs was called into question by IICSA.
  • How, then, do you think the C of E should proceed in this clearly very emotive issue?

    If an outside body took over safeguarding etc., should that body also be made responsible for similar issues in other churches?

    IJ
  • How to proceed? My thoughts would be:
    1. I think it will be a foolish, not brave, ABC who decides to ignore the recommendation that the CofE should get outside, professional help with safeguarding, not just for training but for the whole process.
    2. The CofE - more important the Ecclesiastical - must be made to see that taking the line recommended by Ecclesiastical at all times is not on: further, that allowing Ecclesiastical to dictate terms of reference for Core Groups and the like is no longer tenable, if it ever was.
    3. How other churches choose to act in future in light of what the IICSA has so far unearthed is for them to decide.
    Above all, the CofE as a whole needs to be aware that
    (a) Chichester was not an isolated case, just one of the most prominent; and
    (b) that since c2014 the procedures in place in Chichester for dealing with complaints (and for safeguarding, come to that) have been probably the best in the CofE as a whole. Bearing in mind just how much those procedures have been shown to be wanting, the rest of the church should get off its collective a*se and call in the professionals now.

    Should there be a single outside body for regulating safeguarding in institutions? I'd answer with a qualified maybe: my instinct would be to say yes, but I fear that any government would either hive it off to an already over-worked OFSTED, or would task individual SS departments with inspecting individual churches.
  • You really couldn't make it up, could you?
  • AmosAmos Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    I tend to agree with Linda Woodhead that the questions of theology, of forgiveness (given unquestioningly to abusers, demanded of victims), and of patriarchy and hierarchy aren't being addressed by the bishops (including Martin Warner)
  • I don't know whether the questions of patriarchy and hierarchy are being faced by Martin Warner: what I do think (know?) is that he of all the bishops seems to have a "receive" mode whereas the rest of them seem stuck in "transmit".

    Or as someone I know who was abused (though not by a priest) put it: the bishops really ought to shut the f**k up and listen.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited April 2018

    Or as someone I know who was abused (though not by a priest) put it: the bishops really ought to shut the f**k up and listen.

    Well, yes, and hopefully they will, in the future, and ISTM that having an independent body to sort out the mess might well be the best thing in the long run.

    I do appreciate, though, that this may be too late in the day for many victims.

    IJ

  • How terribly sad, but how good it all comes to light. From the distant perspective of TEC: I pray for you all: victims, perpetrators, bishops and archbishops, families, communities –all, that the light of the resurrection, the light of truth and honesty be embraced no matter how much dross it needs to burn away.

    As a counselor friend and artist, herself an abuse survivor, worked into one of her paintings years ago: 'Speak the truth; dispel the darkness.' May it be so.
  • As a parishioner in an Australian diocese identified in our recent Royal Commission as one of the worst for the occurrence of child sexual abuse, I can only endorse the concept of engaging professional assistance. Our diocesan director of professional standards is a former police officer, and is backed up by other professionals who offer training in safe ministry practice and support for parishes where abuse, historical or otherwise, has occurred, often through the medium of 'parish recovery teams'. Our last two bishops have been leaders in listening to the stories of survivors, and implementing processes for redress.
  • The police have closed down on any further investigation into Bishop George Bell, stating it isn't possible for them to investigate someone who died 60 years ago - see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-close-bishop-bell-abuse-inquiry-tqhvm8r0x.

    But of course, the CofE knows better - their reaction being to announce that they are making their own "independent" inquiry.

    Waiting with bated breath.
  • This is so non-news...

    The police were NEVER going to do anything with an allegation about something so long ago. It was pure window-dressing by the CofE to make such a public fuss about passing this onto the police in the first place.

    As to the "independent" inquiry, I suspect that great care will be taken this time to make sure that things are done "properly". Then it will all go quiet for many months before finally, probably late on a Friday afternoon, a quiet announcement will be made to the effect that the allegation cannot be proven or disproven and so the whole matter will be dropped. But at the end of the day, there will be no restoration for the reputation of Bishop Bell and all the buildings etc previously named after him will remain renamed and he will remain blotted out from the history of the C of E.
  • As some of you may have seen in the news, the IICSA has now reached the case of Peter Ball, former suffragan bishop of Lewes and then Bishop of Gloucester. Yesterday it was the turn of Lord Carey to give evidence.

    To make sense of Lord Carey's evidence you may find it helpful to read the opening statements made on Monday which can be found here

    What is made very clear in the opening statements is just how manipulative Peter Ball was and how he used personal charm and relentless social climbing to further his own ends, not least his promotion to becoming a suffragan and then, against the wishes of the CofEs own people, Bishop of Gloucester.

    I fear that GC is going to take a lot of flack over this when, in reality, his reaction to accusations against Ball was very similar to those who people tried to alert to Jimmy Savile. I feel this is unfair, not least because the first person those complaints would have been seen by was not Lord Carey but Bishop John Yates, formerly of Gloucester. What is remarkable is that he chose not to take the complaints seriously even when concerns were raised by the couple who had run his household when he was in Gloucester: astonishing.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited July 2018
    A hostly reminder to keep the discussion grounded in what's in the public domain. Speculation, whether it's personal or repeated, is the kind of thing that might end up with the Ship in legal hot water.

    DT
    HH
  • BBC News reports some interesting comments by HRH Prince Charles (who, last time I looked, was scheduled to be the next Head of the C of E):
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44979209

    IJ
  • BBC News reports some interesting comments by HRH Prince Charles (who, last time I looked, was scheduled to be the next Head of the C of E):
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44979209

    IJ

    Is it really regret or is he embarrassed about being caught out? Perhaps if Charles can now write to Neil Todd's family to apologise for the way he traduced Neil's memory I might believe there's authenticity in his regret
  • I don't think anyone comes out of this very well, but I think the most questions that need to be addressed are for the CofE.

    Top of my list would be:
    1. Why did the Ball brothers feel it necessary to found their own order (Community of the Glorious Ascension) when there were (are) many already available?
    2. Who in the hierarchy gave official sanction to it?
    3. What mechanism was in place to inspect the CGA - I'd have thought particularly necessary in its early years - as a place to recommend to young people?

    All of that should form part of an enquiry in the CofE - and I'd suggest they get someone in from an order to look at it (my choice would be the Superior of the Community of the Holy Name).
  • I don't think anyone comes out of this very well, but I think the most questions that need to be addressed are for the CofE.

    Top of my list would be:
    1. Why did the Ball brothers feel it necessary to found their own order (Community of the Glorious Ascension) when there were (are) many already available?
    2. Who in the hierarchy gave official sanction to it?
    3. What mechanism was in place to inspect the CGA - I'd have thought particularly necessary in its early years - as a place to recommend to young people?

    All of that should form part of an enquiry in the CofE - and I'd suggest they get someone in from an order to look at it (my choice would be the Superior of the Community of the Holy Name).

    Good idea. I'd use someone from another denomination who could be an authentic critical friend. It needs going back to basics right from foundation upwards with no preconceptions or assumptions.

    As you say who on earth allowed two single priests to found a community aimed at young males (yes I know it was claimed to be "young people" but in this case it meant "young men"). Even allowing for different times, surely some questions must have been asked? If not, why not?

  • Just to be clear, was Bishop Michael Ball ever actually accused of sexual wrongdoing, as his brother Peter was?

    It seems, though, that like so many people within the Church, he failed to act on various allegations against others, in this case whilst he was Bishop of Truro.

    IJ
  • You'll need to set aside a couple of hours to wade through it, but the transcript of the final day of the IICSA hearing specifically on the Peter Ball case can be found here.

    The press picked up on the written submission from the Prince of Wales, but the bit I found most alarming was the summary from various counsel.

    Read it for yourselves and weep.
  • You'll need to set aside a couple of hours to wade through it, but the transcript of the final day of the IICSA hearing specifically on the Peter Ball case can be found here.

    The press picked up on the written submission from the Prince of Wales, but the bit I found most alarming was the summary from various counsel.

    Read it for yourselves and weep.

    Yeah I know. Anthony Lloyd's attitude simply drips with the old boy network being played. Has he any idea what his actios look like?
  • I was actually thinking of a lot further in when it got round to Lambeth, etc...
  • Anyone who wishes can now download the IICSA report on Ampleforth and Downside - the page on the IICSA website to access reports can be found here.

    The investigation into Ealing is separate - one presumes because there is a substantial amount to come out: I have friends who went to Ealing who have given statements, etc, to people from IICSA and they say it is going to be ghastly.
  • The investigation into Ealing is separate - one presumes because there is a substantial amount to come out: I have friends who went to Ealing who have given statements, etc, to people from IICSA and they say it is going to be ghastly.
    I must admit that I am not looking forward to this. In researching my family history, I have discovered two links to Ealing Abbey. One is definite (brother of my grandfather) but dates from the mid 1950s into the early 70's. The other is more recent but the link is, as yet, not proven. I am expecting one of these people to be shown to have been deeply involved in what happened there. I will not be surprised if the other person was involved as well. I had wanted to contact the abbey to find out more about these people but once I read the stories I realised that I really didn't want to know after all.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    O dear.

    On the one hand, I can see that many people (perhaps like TheOrganist) want to see all the skeletons emptied out from the cupboards, the windows opened, and the Augean stables cleansed, but I can also sympathise with those (like Rufus) who, for various perfectly good reasons, may not be so keen.

    There can, alas, be no 100% satisfaction in resolving these issues, ISTM.

    A friend, D., now 59, was sexually abused in his mid-teens by a contemporary (at school), who is currently a Roman Catholic parish priest (he was ordained at first in the C of E), and to whom I shall refer as S.

    D. tells me that S. still visits his (D.'s) elderly mother, with whom D. sometimes stays. D. believes that S. would still like to have sex with him, even all these years later - how true this is, I can't, of course, say. All I can do is to counsel D. to stay away from S. as much as possible (the visits/meetings are infrequent, but leave a deep impression on D.'s state of mind).

    If the Reverend Father S. only knew what damage he had done to D. over the past 40 years, he would (I hope) be ashamed and penitent, complete with sackcloth and ashes, got up regardless. But would any lasting good be achieved thereby, at least for D.?

    In all fairness, I should add that I have no knowledge of any other alleged sexual abuses perpetrated by S.

    IJ
  • Just dropping by to mention that 'inappropriate touching' may also be seen (or be assumed) to have been perpetrated by clergy of other denominations in other countries:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45381687

    ?

    YMMV.

    (FWIW, my sympathies are with Ms. Grande, who had an effing awful experience in Manchester, UK, last year).

    IJ
  • O dear.

    On the one hand, I can see that many people (perhaps like TheOrganist) want to see all the skeletons emptied out from the cupboards, the windows opened, and the Augean stables cleansed, but I can also sympathise with those (like Rufus) who, for various perfectly good reasons, may not be so keen.

    There can, alas, be no 100% satisfaction in resolving these issues, ISTM.

    A friend, D., now 59, was sexually abused in his mid-teens by a contemporary (at school), who is currently a Roman Catholic parish priest (he was ordained at first in the C of E), and to whom I shall refer as S.

    D. tells me that S. still visits his (D.'s) elderly mother, with whom D. sometimes stays. D. believes that S. would still like to have sex with him, even all these years later - how true this is, I can't, of course, say. All I can do is to counsel D. to stay away from S. as much as possible (the visits/meetings are infrequent, but leave a deep impression on D.'s state of mind).

    If the Reverend Father S. only knew what damage he had done to D. over the past 40 years, he would (I hope) be ashamed and penitent, complete with sackcloth and ashes, got up regardless. But would any lasting good be achieved thereby, at least for D.?

    In all fairness, I should add that I have no knowledge of any other alleged sexual abuses perpetrated by S.
    @Bishop's Finger, I agree that is bad. And I 100% agree with what you say about shame, penitence, sackcloth and ashes. I'd also say that it sounds as though this man is totally unsuitable to be a priest in either of the churches in which he has served. However, as people are supposed to think of these things now, rather than 45 years or so ago, is what you're describing the same sort of abuse?

    If your friend was abused by a contemporary at school, that's wrong and disgusting, particularly if there was a significant difference in age or one was in some sort of position of authority over the other. But I suspect some people - I probably wouldn't agree with them - would say that if this was consensual, or looked consensual as far as teenager behaviour can be, if it happened now, should anyone intervene? If they'd found out, they probably would have done then, but would the modern view be that they should have done, or shouldn't have done?

    And if this RC priest, presumably also aged about 59, still wants to have sex with a man the same age as he is, that's contrary to Roman Catholic church's teaching and his priestly calling. But if your friend, whether as an adult he has grown up straight or gay, doesn't want to reciprocate, he's entitled not to. If a heterosexual couple once had a relationship, that doesn't entitle either of them to insist the other ought to be willing to resume it at any time. We don't tolerate heterosexuals who won't take no for an answer. Why should being gay entitle anyone to any greater tolerance on that one?
  • Just dropping by to mention that 'inappropriate touching' may also be seen (or be assumed) to have been perpetrated by clergy of other denominations in other countries:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45381687

    ?

    YMMV.

    (FWIW, my sympathies are with Ms. Grande, who had an effing awful experience in Manchester, UK, last year).

    IJ

    The eerie thing is that he seems to be revelling in his enjoyment
  • Yes. What a sicko. But not alone, I suspect, in his sicko-ness.
    :angry:

    IJ
This discussion has been closed.