There are some very strange aspects to this story. I was reading some of the other stuff mentioned by others above regarding other scandals in the church of England where the book was thrown at ex-priests for bullying rather than sexual stuff.
It seems that refusing to resign is actually a strategy that works in that context.
Yes. If someone is prepared, for whatever reason, to tough it out, disciplinary dismissal, except in the most clear-cut cases, is difficult, costly, and often damaging to the people already harmed.
The laudable aim of protecting clergy from unjust or arbitrary use of institutional power (which may mean loss of home and moving away from location as well as loss of employment) can also, unfortunately, also act as a shield for people who ought to move on or move out.
Those on the other side of the interaction clearly didn't regard it as being innocent.
According to the Church Times report linked above, the two allegations of sex with under-aged boys were denied by the boys themselves. Which indicates to me that (a) the allegations were not being brought by the alleged victims, and (b) the alleged victims didn't even regard the interactions as having happened in the first place.
There is no evidence that this is purely a case of a clerical elite victimising an unpopular colleague.
I'm not so sure about that. The bishop who appears to have been mostly involved in trying to remove him is Julian Henderson, a conservative evangelical and president of the Church of England Evangelical Council which, amongst other things, is strongly homophobic and provides unofficial "alternative spiritual oversight" for clergy who cannot bear the idea that their own bishop may have approved the use of blessings for same-sex marriage. Henderson himself is one of the "alternative overseers".
I don't think it's outside the bounds of possibility that such a bishop (and the coterie of fellow conevos he would have put in place in his diocesan leadership team) may have a problem with one of his canons being openly gay, and may seek to force that canon out of the cathedral by whatever means necessary. It also IMO casts a different light on that bishop's talk of of shadowy networks working behind the scenes to thwart him in that aim - such comments are straight out of the paranoid conservative playbook.
Add in some "all gays are pedos" prejudice (as the NSPCC report was criticised for) and it's not hard at all to imagine that the chief reason a homophobic conevo diocesan leadership team would consider this person a risk to children is simply that he is gay.
So, just to be clear, if you are a parent you should have absolutely no problem with a 16/17 year old boy being inappropriate with a man 30+ years his senior.
If I'm that parent and I have reason to believe that sexual activity has occurred, I shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old refuses to give a statement to police.
I'm going to argue that if I am that parent, I don't have to be homophobic, or in league with homophobic church authorities to see that as a child protection issue.
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
If I'm that parent and I have reason to believe that sexual activity has occurred, I shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old refuses to give a statement to police.
You certainly shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old explicitly denies that sexual activity took place.
I think the reference here is to inappropriate relationships, not a man and his son shooting hoops or a math teacher giving a teenager some extra help.
I think the reference here is to inappropriate relationships, not a man and his son shooting hoops or a math teacher giving a teenager some extra help.
'Inappropriate' is kind of begging the question, isn't it? What we mean is sexual and/or romantic interactions. I can't imagine there are many such relationships that wouldn't have a huge power imbalance.
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
I'd have thought the only situation in which a Canon is not in a position of responsibility to a teenager, vis à vis any sort of sexual relationship, is where the teenager is some random member of the public that the Canon happens to meet completely outside any ecclesiastical context, and probably where the Canon isn't wearing clerical clothes and doesn't introduce themself as a Rev.
Incidentally, I've not encountered the word 'skeevy' before. I had to look it up. Is it in general use? Did everyone else know it, or is it just me who didn't?
Incidentally, I've not encountered the word 'skeevy' before. I had to look it up. Is it in general use? Did everyone else know it, or is it just me who didn't?
I deduced from context, and linguistic proximity to sleazy.
Incidentally, I've not encountered the word 'skeevy' before. I had to look it up. Is it in general use? Did everyone else know it, or is it just me who didn't?
I deduced from context, and linguistic proximity to sleazy.
That's the general idea, leaning more to creepy and a bit disgusting. Not entirely sure where I picked it up from!
I think the reference here is to inappropriate relationships, not a man and his son shooting hoops or a math teacher giving a teenager some extra help.
Would you object to a man shooting hoops with an unrelated teenager?
It would depend on context, in certain contexts - such as when accompanied by a relative, or at an activity club I wouldn’t object to a stranger offering a child sweets or to see a puppy. In some other contexts I would be suspicious about the risk of grooming.
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
If I'm that parent and I have reason to believe that sexual activity has occurred, I shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old refuses to give a statement to police.
You certainly shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old explicitly denies that sexual activity took place.
You've never encountered the phenomenon of a teenager lying to protect someone?
We have plenty of examples of, for example, teenagers who have engaged in sexual relationships with teachers. These relationships are often "consensual", but of course the consent is seriously impaired by the power imbalance. It's not uncommon for teenagers in these situations to lie about the relationship in order not to get the teacher in trouble.
Regardless of whether or not sex actually took place, it strikes me that if a priest and a teenager have got themselves into a situation where there's a plausible allegation that sexual activity has taken place, then there have been some serious breaches of safeguarding policy at a minimum.
Another BBC article which covers much of the same aspects as the others. However, this saga of one victim makes it clear that he wanted something done and was failed by both the police and the Church of England.
.
It concerned an alleged victim of Canon Hindley, referred to in leaked church papers as Boy C. He had tried for almost 20 years to have his complaint aired.
A later internal Church report said that Boy C was a credible witness and that his allegations were that he was “befriended and groomed by Andrew Hindley which led to him participating in sexual acts with him, acts which he now considers to constitute a sexual assault. He feels he was taken advantage of as a naive and vulnerable young person.”
The allegation was investigated by police in 2001 but discontinued. This was because Boy C originally told officers he was 18 at the time of the alleged incident, but later said he was 17, which was then below the age of consent for sex between men. This change of account was assessed by prosecutors to undermine the chances of conviction.
With the police investigation ended, and Canon Hindley always denying wrongdoing in the case, Boy C turned to the Church to do something about the allegations.
But on five separate occasions, the case was stopped from going to internal hearings. The final time - in April 2020 - Sir Mark Hedley, Deputy President of Tribunals, made what appears to be a startling ruling.
He documented that while he thought that it could be proved the case involved non-consensual sex, he could not be sure if the alleged victim was 17 or 18 at the time, so the case could not go forward to a tribunal.
If I'm that parent and I have reason to believe that sexual activity has occurred, I shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old refuses to give a statement to police.
You certainly shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old explicitly denies that sexual activity took place.
You've never encountered the phenomenon of a teenager lying to protect someone?
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
Because it's a legal term of art within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and is defined quite narrowly with respect to religion: "person (A) is in a position of trust in relation to another person (B) if—
(a)A coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs B, on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion". Basically a priest can be abusing their authority as a priest to pursue sexual activity with a 16 year old without it necessarily being a crime. Plus, of course, at least some of the alleged offences took place prior to the act being passed.
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
Because it's a legal term of art within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and is defined quite narrowly with respect to religion: "person (A) is in a position of trust in relation to another person (B) if—
(a)A coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs B, on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion". Basically a priest can be abusing their authority as a priest to pursue sexual activity with a 16 year old without it necessarily being a crime. Plus, of course, at least some of the alleged offences took place prior to the act being passed.
If the priest serves at a church at which the teen worships, surely that qualifies? Or if the priest works with a youth group with the teen in or something. Aren't those all "supervises in religion"?
If a priest is picking up teen boys on Grindr, there wouldn't be a trust relationship.
From that BBC report mentioned a couple of posts above
He documented that while he thought that it could be proved the case involved non-consensual sex, he could not be sure if the alleged victim was 17 or 18 at the time, so the case could not go forward to a tribunal.
I heard this on the BBC radio programme and it slightly poached my brain.
I know that for bizarre and arcane reasons, the Church of England has its own courts, with judges sitting. Is that what is going on here? The case being about clergy conduct?
Because, to be absolutely honest, that's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. And the only explanation I can come up with (that isn't properly explained in the BBC programme) is that the judge at the tribunal was clumsily saying that he thought there might be a criminal case to answer but out of jurisdiction of the Church of England court.
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
Because it's a legal term of art within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and is defined quite narrowly with respect to religion: "person (A) is in a position of trust in relation to another person (B) if—
(a)A coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs B, on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion". Basically a priest can be abusing their authority as a priest to pursue sexual activity with a 16 year old without it necessarily being a crime. Plus, of course, at least some of the alleged offences took place prior to the act being passed.
If the priest serves at a church at which the teen worships, surely that qualifies? Or if the priest works with a youth group with the teen in or something. Aren't those all "supervises in religion"?
The latter, yes. The former, not necessarily. If the rules for PVG (protecting vulnerable groups; think police checks) are anything to go by leading worship does not count in itself; the relationship needs to be more personal. Basically it's intended to cover using professional duties as a cover for grooming, not exploitation of a position of authority per se.
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
Because it's a legal term of art within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and is defined quite narrowly with respect to religion: "person (A) is in a position of trust in relation to another person (B) if—
(a)A coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs B, on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion". Basically a priest can be abusing their authority as a priest to pursue sexual activity with a 16 year old without it necessarily being a crime. Plus, of course, at least some of the alleged offences took place prior to the act being passed.
Pardon? I'm sorry you are going to have to explain that more slowly for me, please.
As far as I can see you seem to have shown that it is an offense for a person in that kind of authority to pursue a relationship with a minor even if they don't actually have sexual relations.
So I'm not following how your final conclusion above can be true.
But even if it is true and it is perfectly/legally fine for a priest to be interested in a relationship with a 16 year old, how does it then follow that this isn't an issue for a child protection risk assessment?
Again, assuming that I'm a parent who has family who comes into contact with a 50 year old man who whispers inappropriate sexual things to my 16 year old, surely I'd be wanting his institution to do something about it? What am I missing?
From that BBC report mentioned a couple of posts above
He documented that while he thought that it could be proved the case involved non-consensual sex, he could not be sure if the alleged victim was 17 or 18 at the time, so the case could not go forward to a tribunal.
I heard this on the BBC radio programme and it slightly poached my brain.
I know that for bizarre and arcane reasons, the Church of England has its own courts, with judges sitting. Is that what is going on here? The case being about clergy conduct?
Because, to be absolutely honest, that's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. And the only explanation I can come up with (that isn't properly explained in the BBC programme) is that the judge at the tribunal was clumsily saying that he thought there might be a criminal case to answer but out of jurisdiction of the Church of England court.
I think the explanation is probably incomplete. I think the point being made was that if the complainant was under 18 at the time the alleged event took place, and therefore legally a minor, that would be a reason to allow the complaint to proceed after the legal time limit had passed. If, however, they were over 18, legally a competent adult, and not a ‘vulnerable adult’ then the legal time limit for bringing a complaint would be harder to overturn, and by the time this decision was made the alleged events had occurred nearly twenty years previously. And the fact that there had been a police investigation much nearer the time which did not lead to charges may also have been a factor.
The BBC report is not clear about what other efforts had been made on previous occasions to bring a complaint and when, or why they were unsuccessful. I’m guessing reasons of space may be why the reasons are not given (but the silence on those may be significant).
I’m not quite sure why they keep referring to ‘internal hearings’. They seem to be making a point, as if that was somehow unusual for an organisation’s disciplinary processes.
They also keep referring to church ‘rules’ which (to me at least) gives the impression that the church could simply change the rules.
It can, and did in 2016 to allow more scope to set aside the time limit, but it’s not just a simple process of writing some new rules. It legally has to go through General Synod in a quasi-parliamentary process, and the changes need formal Parliamentary approval. Then they take effect as law of the land. (This applies to all ‘Measures’ passed by the Church of England, but just things to do with clergy discipline, safeguarding etc.)
It's only a child protection issue if the adult is in a position of responsibility in relation to the teenager; otherwise it's (likely) skeevy but legal. Of course it might have been technically illegal in the days of unequal ages of consent but those laws were themselves homophobic. The skeeviness is a moral issue, but I can't see how you can remove someone from office for that without hard evidence.
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
Because it's a legal term of art within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and is defined quite narrowly with respect to religion: "person (A) is in a position of trust in relation to another person (B) if—
(a)A coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs B, on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion". Basically a priest can be abusing their authority as a priest to pursue sexual activity with a 16 year old without it necessarily being a crime. Plus, of course, at least some of the alleged offences took place prior to the act being passed.
Pardon? I'm sorry you are going to have to explain that more slowly for me, please.
As far as I can see you seem to have shown that it is an offense for a person in that kind of authority to pursue a relationship with a minor even if they don't actually have sexual relations.
So I'm not following how your final conclusion above can be true.
But even if it is true and it is perfectly/legally fine for a priest to be interested in a relationship with a 16 year old, how does it then follow that this isn't an issue for a child protection risk assessment?
Again, assuming that I'm a parent who has family who comes into contact with a 50 year old man who whispers inappropriate sexual things to my 16 year old, surely I'd be wanting his institution to do something about it? What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that child protection deals with potential criminal offences (at least in my experience), not things that are just creepy AF. I mean, it would still be creepy if the 50 year old were whispering to your 18 year old, even if the 18 year old claimed to consent.
I hesitate to say this, but we are also dealing with an autonomous, albeit young, human being, with their own sexuality and, at the age of 16, the ability, and indeed the right to give consent. It is difficult to see this happen in situations which give one the 'ick' factor, but a massive 'ick' factor is not sufficient reason to condemn either side - there has to be actual abuse. I am aware of the extension of the age to 18 where there is a significant relationship of power, but that is rightly restricted in the way described.
This is why "creepy AF" is not the standard of proof, and it is a good thing.
Especially in a very conservative diocese where the cathedral, and a few other more urban churches, is/are a beacon of liberality. All is not exactly as it seems.
And yes, I am a gay man whose sexuality was significantly affected in adolescence by an atmosphere which went way beyond "ick", but of which that ick is the current background level, where it isn't higher (see above).
If I'm that parent and I have reason to believe that sexual activity has occurred, I shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old refuses to give a statement to police.
You certainly shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old explicitly denies that sexual activity took place.
You've never encountered the phenomenon of a teenager lying to protect someone?
We have plenty of examples of, for example, teenagers who have engaged in sexual relationships with teachers. These relationships are often "consensual", but of course the consent is seriously impaired by the power imbalance. It's not uncommon for teenagers in these situations to lie about the relationship in order not to get the teacher in trouble.
Let me get this straight. If a third party claims someone was abused then they should always be believed, but if the alleged victim says no such abuse occurred they might well be lying?
Regardless of whether or not sex actually took place, it strikes me that if a priest and a teenager have got themselves into a situation where there's a plausible allegation that sexual activity has taken place, then there have been some serious breaches of safeguarding policy at a minimum.
Depends on what circumstances you think could render an allegation implausible. The police investigation finds no evidence? Well, abusers are good at covering up. The alleged victim says nothing happened? They're probably lying to protect their abuser. It makes me wonder if there are any circumstances in which an accused individual can completely clear their name, or is it truly a modern-day witch hunt where once the accusation is made the accused has no way of getting out unscathed?
This bullshit is exactly why I stopped doing any kind of youth or children's work at church and stopped doing youth team coaching at the cricket club. The risk that a child or parent who had a grudge or simply didn't like me could utterly ruin my life by accusing me of abuse just wasn't worth taking any more.
But even if it is true and it is perfectly/legally fine for a priest to be interested in a relationship with a 16 year old, how does it then follow that this isn't an issue for a child protection risk assessment?
If something is perfectly fine, then ipso facto it isn't something that needs to be protected against.
Lingering in all of this is the question of the age of consent. In the United States, this is 16, 17 or 18, depending on the state, with some caveats about "younger if with parental consent" and the avoidance of adults exploiting children. It is rare to prosecute teenagers for violating this if they are within a couple of years of age (the Romeo and Juliet exception).
The federal age of consent is 18 (as in the Mann Act, transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purposes.)
The minimum age to marry is usually 18 but again, varies from state to state and often allows "younger if with parental consent".
In the United Kingdom, the age of consent for homosexual acts is 16 years old. This applies in England and Wales, as well as Northern Ireland, where the change came into effect in 2008 when the Sexual Offences Order was passed. The age of consent was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1994 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, and then to 16 in 2001 by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act. This act also made the age of consent for homosexuals equal to that of heterosexuals.
Another BBC article which covers much of the same aspects as the others. However, this saga of one victim makes it clear that he wanted something done and was failed by both the police and the Church of England.
.
It concerned an alleged victim of Canon Hindley, referred to in leaked church papers as Boy C. He had tried for almost 20 years to have his complaint aired.
A later internal Church report said that Boy C was a credible witness and that his allegations were that he was “befriended and groomed by Andrew Hindley which led to him participating in sexual acts with him, acts which he now considers to constitute a sexual assault. He feels he was taken advantage of as a naive and vulnerable young person.”
I think this may be one of the cases where the issue being discussed in Purgatory regarding statute of limitations, may be relevant. It's unclear from the BBC story how old Boy C was when he first decided to report the activity. While it is entirely plausible (and absolutely reasonable) for someone to not feel comfortable reporting something like that because they were still processing it, one must also be cautious of intervening events that could lead to a late report--for example, having a later change of heart that homosexual activity is wrong, period.
I'm not saying that's the case here, or that the charge made by Boy C is inaccurate, but there needs to be some sort of cut off on when something can be reported and acted upon.
I would be more persuaded by the limitations argument if this were really a case of an ambiguous situation being dragged up from 20 years ago with nothing of concern in the interim. This really doesn’t seem to be the situation we’re dealing with here. Which is not to say no smoke without a firing, but there seems to have been more than enough here that a disciplinary process should have been asking some hard questions.
Over thirty years ago, my husband and I were members of a large and thriving church, with a popular minister.
The shock to the congregation when he was arrested on a charge of "lewd and libidinous" behaviour was immense. He maintained his innocence until almost the last minute, changing his plea to "guilty" the day before his trial.
As there was no trial, I am going on what my understanding of the situation was at the time, although at sentencing the judge did say that he accepted that there had been no "physical contact, indecent handling or touching."
Basically, he had been creating situations in which young girls were tied up and / or blindfolded, he had photographed them and created a collection of such photographs for his own purposes. This collection was in a locked box in his office in the church.
He had done this by, as one example, getting the Sunday School to perform "Joseph being sold by his brothers" and had chosen a girl to play Joseph. She was tied up to be "led into captivity."
He had no problem getting the photos developed, because there would be just one or two such photos per spool of film. We were told that none of the photos, taken individually, would have raised an eyebrow.
Had he plead "not guilty" and gone to trial, I do not know what would have happened. I think he may well have been acquitted. There was a section of the congregation who would have given him a hero's welcome had he returned to the pulpit, although I'm fairly sure the Church of Scotland would have ensured that his ministry was at an end, even if he was acquitted. But I don't know.
P.S. I should add that there were some lurid online accounts of this, riddled with inaccuracies, which bore no relation to the situation as understood by the congregation. E.g. he was described as a "Church of England (Scottish branch) vicar" rather than as a Church of Scotland minister, and many other obvious inaccuracies, which should indicate that those accounts are not true.
Most people south of the border do not understand the difference between the Church of Scotland and the Piskies, and have never heard of the Covenanters. Heck, most of them have only a vague idea of English history.
(Sorry, piskies = Episcopalian Church in Scotland)
In the medical world a doctor strikes up a sexual relationship with a patient at his or her peril. Because the General Medical Council has the power to end your career. Because the doctor is in a position of trust and authority and that affects the power dynamics of such a relationship. Nothing illegal or criminal is being implied though. And similarly with a priest and someone in their congregation etc. And particularly if that person is under 18. But a safeguarding matter is not dependent on anything criminal going on necessarily I don't think. Just risk of harm that starts with a power disparity.
I think matters of professional conduct are distinct from safeguarding, but can still be legitimately career-ending. Clergy would, I think, benefit from a clear set of professional standards.
Clergy would, I think, benefit from a clear set of professional standards.
If your implication; that there is currently no clear set of professional standards for clergy , is correct is that not only very concerning but potentially also a solution to these sorts of issues?
I've seen the term come up a number of times, and I don't think it's one used in the States. What is safeguarding, particular in terms of a safeguarding officer/monitor/etc? Is it similar to the concept we have here of mandatory reporters (professional roles or positions that, should they suspect physical or sexual abuse has occurred are required by law to report it)?
A safeguarding officer would be a person in an organisation to whom staff report concerns, and the officer would then record those concerns and liaise with police and/or social services as appropriate to decide on what steps should be taken.
I've seen the term come up a number of times, and I don't think it's one used in the States.
I hear/see “safeguarding” used in the US, though not as often as “child and youth (and maybe vulnerable adult”) protection,” which seems to be more common among my tribe. (Every council of the PC(USA)—Session, presbytery, synod and General Assembly—is required to adopt and implement a sexual misconduct policy, a harassment policy, a child and youth protection policy and an antiracism policy.)
Safeguarding processes are a civil action, which means burden of proof is balance of probabilities - so organisations and social services can action on matters where a proof beyond reasonable doubt is not evidenced*. Safeguarding investigations themselves are typically carried out by social workers - though every area has a multi-agency safeguarding partnership. More info here.
Typically we talk about child protection, in reference to minors, and safeguarding in respect of vulnerable adults.
Children go on the child at risk register, if they are considered to be at risk of abuse - and there are a whole series of processes around that, but most of those situations won’t end up with an someone being charged in criminal court with abuse of a child.
*In cases where abuse is alleged to have occurred, as opposed to being a risk, charge rates remain low - because it is very difficult to prove things like emotional abuse.
Comments
It seems that refusing to resign is actually a strategy that works in that context.
The laudable aim of protecting clergy from unjust or arbitrary use of institutional power (which may mean loss of home and moving away from location as well as loss of employment) can also, unfortunately, also act as a shield for people who ought to move on or move out.
It is possible to bully upwards, and if you are asked to resign - it is usually by someone further up a given hierarchy than yourself.
According to the Church Times report linked above, the two allegations of sex with under-aged boys were denied by the boys themselves. Which indicates to me that (a) the allegations were not being brought by the alleged victims, and (b) the alleged victims didn't even regard the interactions as having happened in the first place.
I'm not so sure about that. The bishop who appears to have been mostly involved in trying to remove him is Julian Henderson, a conservative evangelical and president of the Church of England Evangelical Council which, amongst other things, is strongly homophobic and provides unofficial "alternative spiritual oversight" for clergy who cannot bear the idea that their own bishop may have approved the use of blessings for same-sex marriage. Henderson himself is one of the "alternative overseers".
I don't think it's outside the bounds of possibility that such a bishop (and the coterie of fellow conevos he would have put in place in his diocesan leadership team) may have a problem with one of his canons being openly gay, and may seek to force that canon out of the cathedral by whatever means necessary. It also IMO casts a different light on that bishop's talk of of shadowy networks working behind the scenes to thwart him in that aim - such comments are straight out of the paranoid conservative playbook.
Add in some "all gays are pedos" prejudice (as the NSPCC report was criticised for) and it's not hard at all to imagine that the chief reason a homophobic conevo diocesan leadership team would consider this person a risk to children is simply that he is gay.
That's my take on the situation, anyway.
If I'm that parent and I have reason to believe that sexual activity has occurred, I shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old refuses to give a statement to police.
I'm going to argue that if I am that parent, I don't have to be homophobic, or in league with homophobic church authorities to see that as a child protection issue.
If they are a teacher or policeman or judge or whatever, that's a child protection issue even if it isn't illegal.
Doesn't "child protection issue" always imply a suspicion (however minor) that something criminal may be taking place?
You certainly shouldn't be believed if the 16/17 year old explicitly denies that sexual activity took place.
You don't think any kind of relationship between people of those ages is legitimate? I find that incredibly sad.
'Inappropriate' is kind of begging the question, isn't it? What we mean is sexual and/or romantic interactions. I can't imagine there are many such relationships that wouldn't have a huge power imbalance.
Incidentally, I've not encountered the word 'skeevy' before. I had to look it up. Is it in general use? Did everyone else know it, or is it just me who didn't?
I deduced from context, and linguistic proximity to sleazy.
That's the general idea, leaning more to creepy and a bit disgusting. Not entirely sure where I picked it up from!
Would you object to a man shooting hoops with an unrelated teenager?
In what sense is a priest not in a position of responsibility with respect to a child or young adult they encounter in the course of their calling?
You've never encountered the phenomenon of a teenager lying to protect someone?
We have plenty of examples of, for example, teenagers who have engaged in sexual relationships with teachers. These relationships are often "consensual", but of course the consent is seriously impaired by the power imbalance. It's not uncommon for teenagers in these situations to lie about the relationship in order not to get the teacher in trouble.
Regardless of whether or not sex actually took place, it strikes me that if a priest and a teenager have got themselves into a situation where there's a plausible allegation that sexual activity has taken place, then there have been some serious breaches of safeguarding policy at a minimum.
.
Sorry about the long cut and paste.
BBC News - Why does the Church of England struggle to address abuse claims? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5n2542q82o
Because it's a legal term of art within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and is defined quite narrowly with respect to religion: "person (A) is in a position of trust in relation to another person (B) if—
(a)A coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs B, on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion". Basically a priest can be abusing their authority as a priest to pursue sexual activity with a 16 year old without it necessarily being a crime. Plus, of course, at least some of the alleged offences took place prior to the act being passed.
If the priest serves at a church at which the teen worships, surely that qualifies? Or if the priest works with a youth group with the teen in or something. Aren't those all "supervises in religion"?
If a priest is picking up teen boys on Grindr, there wouldn't be a trust relationship.
I heard this on the BBC radio programme and it slightly poached my brain.
I know that for bizarre and arcane reasons, the Church of England has its own courts, with judges sitting. Is that what is going on here? The case being about clergy conduct?
Because, to be absolutely honest, that's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. And the only explanation I can come up with (that isn't properly explained in the BBC programme) is that the judge at the tribunal was clumsily saying that he thought there might be a criminal case to answer but out of jurisdiction of the Church of England court.
The latter, yes. The former, not necessarily. If the rules for PVG (protecting vulnerable groups; think police checks) are anything to go by leading worship does not count in itself; the relationship needs to be more personal. Basically it's intended to cover using professional duties as a cover for grooming, not exploitation of a position of authority per se.
Pardon? I'm sorry you are going to have to explain that more slowly for me, please.
As far as I can see you seem to have shown that it is an offense for a person in that kind of authority to pursue a relationship with a minor even if they don't actually have sexual relations.
So I'm not following how your final conclusion above can be true.
But even if it is true and it is perfectly/legally fine for a priest to be interested in a relationship with a 16 year old, how does it then follow that this isn't an issue for a child protection risk assessment?
Again, assuming that I'm a parent who has family who comes into contact with a 50 year old man who whispers inappropriate sexual things to my 16 year old, surely I'd be wanting his institution to do something about it? What am I missing?
The BBC report is not clear about what other efforts had been made on previous occasions to bring a complaint and when, or why they were unsuccessful. I’m guessing reasons of space may be why the reasons are not given (but the silence on those may be significant).
I’m not quite sure why they keep referring to ‘internal hearings’. They seem to be making a point, as if that was somehow unusual for an organisation’s disciplinary processes.
They also keep referring to church ‘rules’ which (to me at least) gives the impression that the church could simply change the rules.
It can, and did in 2016 to allow more scope to set aside the time limit, but it’s not just a simple process of writing some new rules. It legally has to go through General Synod in a quasi-parliamentary process, and the changes need formal Parliamentary approval. Then they take effect as law of the land. (This applies to all ‘Measures’ passed by the Church of England, but just things to do with clergy discipline, safeguarding etc.)
You're missing the fact that child protection deals with potential criminal offences (at least in my experience), not things that are just creepy AF. I mean, it would still be creepy if the 50 year old were whispering to your 18 year old, even if the 18 year old claimed to consent.
This is why "creepy AF" is not the standard of proof, and it is a good thing.
Especially in a very conservative diocese where the cathedral, and a few other more urban churches, is/are a beacon of liberality. All is not exactly as it seems.
And yes, I am a gay man whose sexuality was significantly affected in adolescence by an atmosphere which went way beyond "ick", but of which that ick is the current background level, where it isn't higher (see above).
Let me get this straight. If a third party claims someone was abused then they should always be believed, but if the alleged victim says no such abuse occurred they might well be lying?
Depends on what circumstances you think could render an allegation implausible. The police investigation finds no evidence? Well, abusers are good at covering up. The alleged victim says nothing happened? They're probably lying to protect their abuser. It makes me wonder if there are any circumstances in which an accused individual can completely clear their name, or is it truly a modern-day witch hunt where once the accusation is made the accused has no way of getting out unscathed?
This bullshit is exactly why I stopped doing any kind of youth or children's work at church and stopped doing youth team coaching at the cricket club. The risk that a child or parent who had a grudge or simply didn't like me could utterly ruin my life by accusing me of abuse just wasn't worth taking any more.
If something is perfectly fine, then ipso facto it isn't something that needs to be protected against.
The federal age of consent is 18 (as in the Mann Act, transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purposes.)
The minimum age to marry is usually 18 but again, varies from state to state and often allows "younger if with parental consent".
I am glad I don't have to decide such matters.
I think this may be one of the cases where the issue being discussed in Purgatory regarding statute of limitations, may be relevant. It's unclear from the BBC story how old Boy C was when he first decided to report the activity. While it is entirely plausible (and absolutely reasonable) for someone to not feel comfortable reporting something like that because they were still processing it, one must also be cautious of intervening events that could lead to a late report--for example, having a later change of heart that homosexual activity is wrong, period.
I'm not saying that's the case here, or that the charge made by Boy C is inaccurate, but there needs to be some sort of cut off on when something can be reported and acted upon.
The shock to the congregation when he was arrested on a charge of "lewd and libidinous" behaviour was immense. He maintained his innocence until almost the last minute, changing his plea to "guilty" the day before his trial.
As there was no trial, I am going on what my understanding of the situation was at the time, although at sentencing the judge did say that he accepted that there had been no "physical contact, indecent handling or touching."
Basically, he had been creating situations in which young girls were tied up and / or blindfolded, he had photographed them and created a collection of such photographs for his own purposes. This collection was in a locked box in his office in the church.
He had done this by, as one example, getting the Sunday School to perform "Joseph being sold by his brothers" and had chosen a girl to play Joseph. She was tied up to be "led into captivity."
He had no problem getting the photos developed, because there would be just one or two such photos per spool of film. We were told that none of the photos, taken individually, would have raised an eyebrow.
Had he plead "not guilty" and gone to trial, I do not know what would have happened. I think he may well have been acquitted. There was a section of the congregation who would have given him a hero's welcome had he returned to the pulpit, although I'm fairly sure the Church of Scotland would have ensured that his ministry was at an end, even if he was acquitted. But I don't know.
(Sorry, piskies = Episcopalian Church in Scotland)
If your implication; that there is currently no clear set of professional standards for clergy , is correct is that not only very concerning but potentially also a solution to these sorts of issues?
I also hear/see “Safe Church.”
Typically we talk about child protection, in reference to minors, and safeguarding in respect of vulnerable adults.
Children go on the child at risk register, if they are considered to be at risk of abuse - and there are a whole series of processes around that, but most of those situations won’t end up with an someone being charged in criminal court with abuse of a child.
*In cases where abuse is alleged to have occurred, as opposed to being a risk, charge rates remain low - because it is very difficult to prove things like emotional abuse.