In my opinion a person doesn't need to be demon possessed or doing witchcraft to be a sexual pervert or offender. In my part of the world people try to say the same things about being drunk or taking drugs. I do not think the alcohol or drugs or some other thing like demons makes people do anything. Maybe it makes them think it is okay to do what they wanted and blame on something not themself and they did not do it when they were "under the influence". If you get my meaning.
What I think is that people aren't very honest with themselfs. Most people have some thoughts they should not have, and want to do things they should not do. All the unkind things and all the harm things they could do to other people. Sometimes people get into the temptation of it, and there you go, they did the things they know fully well they should not have done. For me that part from the lord prayer about temptation could be about give me the strength to not be tempted to do what I fully well know is wrong. Like I don't think any sex offender does what they do thinking it is right.
Like I don't think any sex offender does what they do thinking it is right.
Human capacity for rationalisation and self-justification is pretty expansive. I seem to recall that one of the steps in preventing reoffending among those caught with CSAM is getting them to recognise that what they're doing is wrong, because most have convinced themselves it's harmless.
I never seen a person in our communities that didn't know sex offending was wrong. Maybe they can fool themself into lying to themself. Most of the sex offenders for us got sex abused themselves or their parents and grandparents got it and they passed it on like a disease. Maybe there is people who never got it done to them first in other places. Our's was from the Residential Schools where they forced Indian Indigenous kids into the schools, didn't see there parents and got language and culture and community taken away, got abused by the teachers and staff. Mostly they were Catholic, Anglican and Presbytarian. Me I think people got to own up to the facts that all people can do bad things like sex offending, which is called sin, and we better not deny that we have bad within us as well as good. There is a lot of lying to ourselfs that people do. Maybe not everywhere but sure see it a lot where I live.
I never seen a person in our communities that didn't know sex offending was wrong. Maybe they can fool themself into lying to themself.
I think that fooling themselves and lying to themselves is what @Arethosemyfeet meant by “rationalization and self-justification.” People engaged in that kind of self-deception may well acknowledge that sex offenses are wrong, but they nevertheless manage to convince themselves that what they’re doing isn’t really sex offending.
I'd call pretty hard on that " convince themselves". Can't say I believe that they convince themselfs. Think they are doing a "poor me" on it. Maybe people in different countries and places think differently about it.
The amount of people who will tell you it is not really rape if the under age child “consented” is depressing. Also if the woman was drunk / intoxicated or didn’t fight you off physically etc etc
The handling of safeguarding issues is problematical at Our Place. Recently our incumbent pronounced openly - during Sunday worship - that complaints had been received sufficiently serious to warrant advice from the diocesan safeguarding officer. And the complaints were focused on the older men in the congregation - 3 of us. We have just been told privately that the complaints are not now being pursued. We have no clue as to the content of the complaints, and we accept we aren’t entitled to know the identity of the complainants. Everyone remains baffled, men and women alike. Rumour and speculation are rife. Morale is at an all time low. Rather than smooth things over from the pulpit (having in my view erroneously opened this Pandora’s Box from the pulpit in the first place) our incumbent convened a short informal post-service meeting with all men in the congregation, women being excluded, to explain that everything had been done properly and there was nothing more to be said. How it could conceivably be thought this would resolve matters satisfactorily is beyond my comprehension.
Jesus wept, that was disastrously badly handled - you should complain to the diocese.
Seconded. To go back a couple of pages, you put in all these safeguarding training hoops - and the incumbent will have done the Leadership module - and you still get idiocy like this.
Singling out three people like that, is not just pastorally insensitive, it is dangerous. Ignorant vigilantes are a real risk - the most famous example in Britain being when a children’s doctor was forced out of her home by folk who confused the words paedophile and paediatrician - this is not an urban myth, it actually happened.
He left the church in 2016 and three years later made a formal complaint about the exorcism and requested an apology from St Thomas Philadelphia, which was supposed to operate under the safeguarding rules of the diocese of Sheffield
Obviously I think safeguarding rules should absolutely condemn and rule out this sort of thing and warn against it - but do they do so clearly?
I'm shocked that this can go on in a Church endorsed by the state that's somehow supposed to be reputable and gets trusted with stuff like educating children! Or am I just out of touch? Is this more common than I realise?
It's not been mentioned in any safeguarding training I've taken, presumably because the sort of person who plans safeguarding training thinks it's so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated, alongside "don't hit the people you're looking after".
I'm shocked that this can go on in a Church endorsed by the state
That feels a bit of a reach/red herring tbh - some people commit murder in their workplaces (even public sector workplaces endorsed by the state) and that doesn’t lead to those workplaces being closed down or privatised.
If every church was doing what that link says then that would be a widespread problem *of* a state church, whereas this looks like a problem *in* one.
I'm shocked that this can go on in a Church endorsed by the state
That feels a bit of a reach/red herring tbh - some people commit murder in their workplaces (even public sector workplaces endorsed by the state) and that doesn’t lead to those workplaces being closed down or privatised.
If every church was doing what that link says then that would be a widespread problem *of* a state church, whereas this looks like a problem *in* one.
I think I'm finding this hard to express well - probably on my part because it upsets me - and that murder isn't quite the right comparison.
Restaurants serve and cook food. There are regulations and if they break them, food poisoning that leads to harm is a reasonable thing to expect to go wrong in the course of that.
Churches mediate spiritual experiences and facilitate worship and community. If they get into stuff like exorcising LGBTQ+ folk it's like a restaurant that ignores all hygiene requirements and sticks condemned meat in their pies. There's foreseeable obvious and scandalous harm there.
People will sometimes break the rules no matter how good the rules - but the rules on noxious things pertaining to a particular sphere of work should nonetheless be very clear for reasons of safety for others.
It should be as clearly forbidden to exorcise people for their sexuality or accused them of witchcraft or demon possession as it should be not to break essential food hygiene rules.
You don't close down all restaurants because one got it wrong or had a rogue chef, but if you have a reputable chain or a brand and it turns out they don't have clear regulations against, say, a very obvious bad practice that leads to food poisoning, and people do indeed get food poisoning as a result of that practice not being clearly forbidden and clamped down on - well then they they need to clearly ban that or lose their reputation and any public support that makes them look reputable and respectable until they change that - if this is indeed the case.
What's not clear to me is whether the Church of England are clear about this being absolutely forbidden and a clear offence? Because if they are, then OK - they're doing their best and it's rogue individuals.
But my question is whether it is clearly forbidden and clearly spelled out, and what are they doing to make sure that's clearly taught against and not something it would be easy for someone to think is OK? As we saw earlier in the thread there's a Bishop currently in post who accused someone of witchcraft when they came to him with a very serious safeguarding problem.
Again perhaps it's because I research in related history- but it strikes me as a big area with terrible potential for harm and abuse and I worry whether there could be systemic or institutional issues which mean in some parts of the church there are at least 'microclimates' of how people do church which could be making this kind of abuse more likely?
I would see it as a very serious safeguarding concern.
He left the church in 2016 and three years later made a formal complaint about the exorcism and requested an apology from St Thomas Philadelphia, which was supposed to operate under the safeguarding rules of the diocese of Sheffield
Obviously I think safeguarding rules should absolutely condemn and rule out this sort of thing and warn against it - but do they do so clearly?
I'm shocked that this can go on in a Church endorsed by the state that's somehow supposed to be reputable and gets trusted with stuff like educating children! Or am I just out of touch? Is this more common than I realise?
I know Matt personally and he really had to fight the diocese to get anything done. Oh, and former Sheffield MP Miriam Cates is on the church's board of directors.
We are still waiting for the promised ban on conversion therapy
Given this current government's stance on trans issues I doubt we're getting one anytime soon, especially since most of the opposition would be happy to be openly anti-gay too.
Comments
What I think is that people aren't very honest with themselfs. Most people have some thoughts they should not have, and want to do things they should not do. All the unkind things and all the harm things they could do to other people. Sometimes people get into the temptation of it, and there you go, they did the things they know fully well they should not have done. For me that part from the lord prayer about temptation could be about give me the strength to not be tempted to do what I fully well know is wrong. Like I don't think any sex offender does what they do thinking it is right.
Human capacity for rationalisation and self-justification is pretty expansive. I seem to recall that one of the steps in preventing reoffending among those caught with CSAM is getting them to recognise that what they're doing is wrong, because most have convinced themselves it's harmless.
I never seen a person in our communities that didn't know sex offending was wrong. Maybe they can fool themself into lying to themself. Most of the sex offenders for us got sex abused themselves or their parents and grandparents got it and they passed it on like a disease. Maybe there is people who never got it done to them first in other places. Our's was from the Residential Schools where they forced Indian Indigenous kids into the schools, didn't see there parents and got language and culture and community taken away, got abused by the teachers and staff. Mostly they were Catholic, Anglican and Presbytarian. Me I think people got to own up to the facts that all people can do bad things like sex offending, which is called sin, and we better not deny that we have bad within us as well as good. There is a lot of lying to ourselfs that people do. Maybe not everywhere but sure see it a lot where I live.
I think that fooling themselves and lying to themselves is what @Arethosemyfeet meant by “rationalization and self-justification.” People engaged in that kind of self-deception may well acknowledge that sex offenses are wrong, but they nevertheless manage to convince themselves that what they’re doing isn’t really sex offending.
Seconded. To go back a couple of pages, you put in all these safeguarding training hoops - and the incumbent will have done the Leadership module - and you still get idiocy like this.
Gay man subjected to ‘exorcism’ at Sheffield church receives compensation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/15/gay-man-exorcism-sheffield-church-compensation
Obviously I think safeguarding rules should absolutely condemn and rule out this sort of thing and warn against it - but do they do so clearly?
I'm shocked that this can go on in a Church endorsed by the state that's somehow supposed to be reputable and gets trusted with stuff like educating children! Or am I just out of touch? Is this more common than I realise?
That feels a bit of a reach/red herring tbh - some people commit murder in their workplaces (even public sector workplaces endorsed by the state) and that doesn’t lead to those workplaces being closed down or privatised.
If every church was doing what that link says then that would be a widespread problem *of* a state church, whereas this looks like a problem *in* one.
I think I'm finding this hard to express well - probably on my part because it upsets me - and that murder isn't quite the right comparison.
Restaurants serve and cook food. There are regulations and if they break them, food poisoning that leads to harm is a reasonable thing to expect to go wrong in the course of that.
Churches mediate spiritual experiences and facilitate worship and community. If they get into stuff like exorcising LGBTQ+ folk it's like a restaurant that ignores all hygiene requirements and sticks condemned meat in their pies. There's foreseeable obvious and scandalous harm there.
People will sometimes break the rules no matter how good the rules - but the rules on noxious things pertaining to a particular sphere of work should nonetheless be very clear for reasons of safety for others.
It should be as clearly forbidden to exorcise people for their sexuality or accused them of witchcraft or demon possession as it should be not to break essential food hygiene rules.
You don't close down all restaurants because one got it wrong or had a rogue chef, but if you have a reputable chain or a brand and it turns out they don't have clear regulations against, say, a very obvious bad practice that leads to food poisoning, and people do indeed get food poisoning as a result of that practice not being clearly forbidden and clamped down on - well then they they need to clearly ban that or lose their reputation and any public support that makes them look reputable and respectable until they change that - if this is indeed the case.
What's not clear to me is whether the Church of England are clear about this being absolutely forbidden and a clear offence? Because if they are, then OK - they're doing their best and it's rogue individuals.
But my question is whether it is clearly forbidden and clearly spelled out, and what are they doing to make sure that's clearly taught against and not something it would be easy for someone to think is OK? As we saw earlier in the thread there's a Bishop currently in post who accused someone of witchcraft when they came to him with a very serious safeguarding problem.
Again perhaps it's because I research in related history- but it strikes me as a big area with terrible potential for harm and abuse and I worry whether there could be systemic or institutional issues which mean in some parts of the church there are at least 'microclimates' of how people do church which could be making this kind of abuse more likely?
I would see it as a very serious safeguarding concern.
I know Matt personally and he really had to fight the diocese to get anything done. Oh, and former Sheffield MP Miriam Cates is on the church's board of directors.
Given this current government's stance on trans issues I doubt we're getting one anytime soon, especially since most of the opposition would be happy to be openly anti-gay too.