Sorry - Permission To Officiate. That is, permission to continue one's priestly ministry after retirement. PTO clergy often come in very handy, with younger and/or full-time priests in short supply.
To be clear, I’m not remotely defending him or what he said, I just can’t believe he said it and err on the side of ‘tone deaf idiot’ more than conspiracy even so.
One would hope tone deaf idiots didn't get promoted to Archbishop.
To be clear, I’m not remotely defending him or what he said, I just can’t believe he said it and err on the side of ‘tone deaf idiot’ more than conspiracy even so.
One would hope tone deaf idiots didn't get promoted to Archbishop.
Which was, indeed, what I was saying in the post immediately before.
The House of Lords statement certainly wasn’t sackcloth and ashes. And it needed to be. My feeling is he just lost it, rather than never had it to find.
No doubt Archbishop Cottrell has taken note.
Whatever the short list for Canterbury, I should think there will now be some searching exploration of possible skeletons in the closet. It’s a safe bet that the media are already doing some digging.
“Purer than the driven snow” as qualification for “doing an impossible job”? My very best wishes - and prayers - for those on the short list.
I should think work is ongoing to sort out the membership of the Crown Nominations Committee. Given the expected size of the Committee and the composition of its membership there may well be difficulty in getting agreement on a short list, never mind a nomination. Given overseas representation, the logistics of Committee meetings look challenging as well. I’m not surprised at forecasts of more than 6 months before a successor is appointed.
I note the observation that the CNC is expected to be more conservative in its judgments, given global Anglican representation. And the safeguarding issues now overshadowing the Archbishop of York add to the difficulties.
It will take more than resignations to change the culture (church and wider society) so that victims of abuse feel safe to disclose what has happened to them and able to expect some measure of justice.
Although if he is resigning 'from the priesthood' then perhaps it has some symbolic rather than practical significance.
@Twangist- yes of course. A priest I knew who was involved as a police liaison officer in an investigation into historic sexual abuse (not connected with the cases discussed on this thread) hinted that there might be more scandals waiting to come out.
I don't know whether safe-guarding has improved in recent years or whether more needs to be done.
Yes, the Tudor case was the reason he gave for his resignation. It might beg the question why he's waited until now before expressing remorse and regret about it.
Better late than never?
The point I was trying to make is that there were (are?) a number of serious safeguarding lapses from the '80s and '90s that are only now beginning to be called out.
All these examples that everyone is self-righteously up in arms about were in the past - 10, 15, or in some cases over 40 years ago. As far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that any of the archbishops or bishops currently under a cloud personally committed any abusive acts.
One fundamental question - how do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
And the deterrence effect of emphasizing that one cannot escape reputational damage by either failing to deal with safe guarding issues or by actively covering them up to protect the institution.
It will take more than resignations to change the culture (church and I’m wider society) so that victims of abuse feel safe to disclose what has happened to them and able to expect some measure of justice.
The real problem is that there appears to have been a culture of protective deniability. When did they know and when did they stop knowing? The net result is a massive credibility problem.
I don’t think it’s limited to the church. The absolutely shocking Sara case, of a child brutally abused and murdered, shows a different kind of collective failure and, I’m sure, a measure of self protection.
One fundamental question - how do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
Another fundamental question—what does allowing people in charge to avoid the consequences of their past actions or inactions say to those who were harmed by those actions or inactions, and what does it say to the general public about the Church’s concern for anyone’s safety?
I'm reminded of the phrase* in the Prayer Book, where we confess that we have not done those things which we ought to have done...an appropriate thought for those who could, and should, have acted, but didn't.
*I may not have quoted it quite correctly, so please put me right if necessary!
Its the look of the thing - that seems to be what drives the Bishop of Newcastle.
paying due regard to those who were abused then.
a different type of collective failure by Surrey County Council.
not dealing with an abuser doesn't make others safe - which is indirectly accepting my point.
deterrence effect or that it might enable people to escape the consequences of their actions, - to which latter, I'd say,
everything has been sharpened up since then and ask
which abusers are deterred by any of this and how?
Nobody has actually answered my question. I repeat it.:- How do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
Like Shipman, Baby P, and another current one which I've commented on recently, Al Fayed, once again, the media and everyone else goes on as though it's all somehow more somebody else's fault for not spotting them or stopping them, than the perpetrator's fault for doing it.
Nobody has actually answered my question. I repeat it.:- How do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
People have answered it by telling you that it’s the wrong question, or at least only part of the question that ought to be asked.
Up to you whether you want to hear answers that might make you uncomfortable.
But to be clear: How do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
It helps by sending a message—one that hopefully will be backed by action and by changes in attitudes among leadership—that the Church absolutely will not tolerate abuse by clergy any longer.
I'm reminded of the phrase* in the Prayer Book, where we confess that we have not done those things which we ought to have done...an appropriate thought for those who could, and should, have acted, but didn't.
*I may not have quoted it quite correctly, so please put me right if necessary!
'We have left undone those things which we ought to have done and we have done those things which we ought not to have done. And there is no health in us'
It is a Great Pity indeed it is an Outrage that the General Confession is left unsaid before Mattins and Evensong. Choral or not it should be said. IMNSVHO.
Wouldn't be surprised if it it all went pearshaped when we ditched the BCP
I suppose I’d have a better perspective, on all of this is there was public data on what percentage of safeguarding situations reported where in fact handled appropriately. I don’t know if the CofE has audited this.
As to @Enoch ’s question, if these people are no longer in post they can’t do the same thing again, even Carey as a priest could have someone disclose abuse to him - at this moment in time I have no evidence that he’d handle that better than he did previously. Likewise everyone else involved.
@Enoch, I think there is an element of justice being 'seen to be done' in all of this, but given what's happened to the RCC in Ireland since the scandals emerged or were exposed in the 1990s, one can understand why. Safeguarding may well have improved but the CofE, and any other institution, has to demonstrate that it can be trusted.
Personally I fail to see what's "self-righteous" about the horror we experience contemplating the abuse people have suffered and the ensuing cover-up. That comes across as a flippant way of putting people down from someone who thinks they're superior to all the people outraged. I hope that wasn't @Enoch 's intention in using the phrase.
And not just in terms of reputational damage, but in terms of due acknowledgement and respect for the 'survivors', as I believe the term now is. And I'm not using scare-quotes there. It's an appropriate term.
Just to say, it’s not past. Statistically speaking, given the numbers of people involved and incidence of offending in the population, there will be people offending in the church now - it’s inevitable. So who is in charge right now matters, in terms of their judgement and actions.
It's a good job +Hartley is outraged, and calling out those who would prefer to remain unnoticed...she's showing that the C of E has at least one bishop with some integrity and courage.
Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley on Stephen Cottrell and safeguarding in the CofE (Church Times, presumably reporting on her appearance on various BBC radio programmes, also reported elsewhere.)
Earlier on Monday, the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, said that Archbishop Cottrell should have done more to remove Mr Tudor. She called on the Archbishop to resign, saying that it was “impossible” to have confidence in him to drive change in safeguarding.
...
Dr Hartley said that the handling of Mr Tudor’s case meant that Archbishop Cottrell did not have the “credibility or moral authority” to act as sole Primate when the Archbishop of Canterbury steps down.
The case “calls into question his ability to lead on the urgent change that is required in safeguarding, both operationally and culturally, in the Church of England”, she said.
On Monday 16th December, ACT on IICSA, including Professor Alexis Jay and colleagues, wrote an open letter to Bishop Helen-Ann expressing strong support for her courageous efforts in exposing the safeguarding failings within the Church of England...
All these examples that everyone is self-righteously up in arms about were in the past - 10, 15, or in some cases over 40 years ago. As far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that any of the archbishops or bishops currently under a cloud personally committed any abusive acts.
One fundamental question - how do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
They don't.
They failed in their duty of care and left people at risk from clerical predators. Allowing abusers to move on and retain their role means that those in authority bear responsibility for subsequent acts of abuse.
Breaking that cycle of tolerance and complacency makes potential victims safer.
Removing a priest from a post is extraordinarily difficult if they don’t want to go. The Clergy Discipline Measure which came into force is an improvement on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 which preceded it, but it isn’t quick and easy. Partly, I guess, it’s a continuing anxiety about bishops exercising arbitrary power, and partly because the consequences of removal are not merely loss of employment, but also loss of home for the person concerned and their household. Clergy are not paid at a rate such that they are likely in those circumstances to be able to enter the housing market. There’s an overview here (pdf).
The quasi-parliamentary legislative processes of General Synod mean that changing the law is not an easy or straightforward process.
I'm reminded of the phrase* in the Prayer Book, where we confess that we have not done those things which we ought to have done...an appropriate thought for those who could, and should, have acted, but didn't.
*I may not have quoted it quite correctly, so please put me right if necessary!
'We have left undone those things which we ought to have done and we have done those things which we ought not to have done. And there is no health in us'
It is a Great Pity indeed it is an Outrage that the General Confession is left unsaid before Mattins and Evensong. Choral or not it should be said. IMNSVHO.
Wouldn't be surprised if it it all went pearshaped when we ditched the BCP
The General Confession is part of Matins and Evensong - both Choral - at our place. Ditto the prayers for the monarch, royal family, the General Thanksgiving from time to time and The Litany in Lent and Advent.
Thank you @BroJames - am I right in thinking that a bishop can, however, suspend a priest, so that they cannot continue with their clerical duties?
It would appear from the File On Four programme that whilst a suspended priest can't continue to officiate in church there is no way to prevent them from, say, conducting a funeral service at a crematorium, for instance.
Indeed, Tudor did just that.
@Enoch may wish to comment on this, given his concerns about things done in the past which have since spparently been addressed or rectified. It was clear that the girls, now women, abused by Tudor were exceedingly and understandably upset that Tudor had initially been reinstated, promoted even, and allowed to continue in ministry.
If it was one of my daughters he'd abused I wouldn't want to see him allowed to officiate anywhere at any time and in any capacity whatsoever.
The BBC interviewed a local counsellor on Canvey Island who had nothing but praise for Tudor. He'd packed the church when others were closing or experiencing decline. That may well be but how does that in any way mean that he should have been allowed to continue in ministry even to officiate as a one-off at a funeral at civic rather than ecclesial premises?
I would have thought that once a priest is suspended he is suspended full-stop. End of story. I don’t know how it works in other sacerdotal traditions.
There are serious questions here. How are people who have been abused by clergy supposed to feel if their abuser continues in ministry in some way despite suspension? Ok, it might be the system that is at fault rather than individual bishops and clergy who are bound by the rules, but in this instance it does look as if the church rallied to protect and defend its own - an understandable and commendable position in other circumstances - but in a way that made it look as if the suffering of those abused and their families were of little or no account.
It's not about 'self-righteous' posturing about historic abuse which has since been rectified, it's about acknowledging and correcting systemic failure.
Thank you @BroJames - am I right in thinking that a bishop can, however, suspend a priest, so that they cannot continue with their clerical duties?
AIUI a bishop can only suspend a priest because and while a disciplinary process is in progress. As in other areas of life (teaching comes to mind) suspension is supposed to be a neutral activity pending the outcome of an investigation or disciplinary process.
I would have thought that once a priest is suspended he is suspended full-stop. End of story. I don’t know how it works in other sacerdotal traditions.
The difficulty is that secular funeral officiants (and I understand not a few officially secular who'll don cassock and surplice for appearances) are now commonplace and there is nothing to regulate who can act as one. The CofE can't control a suspended priest doing funerals outwith the church any more than a school can stop a suspended teacher continuing to privately tutor students.
Comments
One would hope tone deaf idiots didn't get promoted to Archbishop.
Which was, indeed, what I was saying in the post immediately before.
No doubt Archbishop Cottrell has taken note.
Whatever the short list for Canterbury, I should think there will now be some searching exploration of possible skeletons in the closet. It’s a safe bet that the media are already doing some digging.
“Purer than the driven snow” as qualification for “doing an impossible job”? My very best wishes - and prayers - for those on the short list.
made even glummer by this sin of York
This November article in the Guardian includes some detailed information about the process.
I should think work is ongoing to sort out the membership of the Crown Nominations Committee. Given the expected size of the Committee and the composition of its membership there may well be difficulty in getting agreement on a short list, never mind a nomination. Given overseas representation, the logistics of Committee meetings look challenging as well. I’m not surprised at forecasts of more than 6 months before a successor is appointed.
I note the observation that the CNC is expected to be more conservative in its judgments, given global Anglican representation. And the safeguarding issues now overshadowing the Archbishop of York add to the difficulties.
This is going to go on and on.
Moves the Church of God...
Giant tortoises have a much better record of reproduction in recent decades than the CofE.
"Like a giant panda .."
The Turtle moves?
Far more accurate!
Will there be more resignations?
He is 90. This is a meaningless resignation.
89 I think but yes ...
Although if he is resigning 'from the priesthood' then perhaps it has some symbolic rather than practical significance.
@Twangist- yes of course. A priest I knew who was involved as a police liaison officer in an investigation into historic sexual abuse (not connected with the cases discussed on this thread) hinted that there might be more scandals waiting to come out.
I don't know whether safe-guarding has improved in recent years or whether more needs to be done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2714wgdno
Better late than never?
The point I was trying to make is that there were (are?) a number of serious safeguarding lapses from the '80s and '90s that are only now beginning to be called out.
One fundamental question - how do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
They don't.
And its paying due regard to those whose lives have been blighted by the lack of action of those who had oversight.
The real problem is that there appears to have been a culture of protective deniability. When did they know and when did they stop knowing? The net result is a massive credibility problem.
I don’t think it’s limited to the church. The absolutely shocking Sara case, of a child brutally abused and murdered, shows a different kind of collective failure and, I’m sure, a measure of self protection.
*I may not have quoted it quite correctly, so please put me right if necessary!
Nobody has actually answered my question. I repeat it.:-
How do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
Like Shipman, Baby P, and another current one which I've commented on recently, Al Fayed, once again, the media and everyone else goes on as though it's all somehow more somebody else's fault for not spotting them or stopping them, than the perpetrator's fault for doing it.
Up to you whether you want to hear answers that might make you uncomfortable.
But to be clear: How do any of these high profile resignations or any of the outrage of the Bishop of Newcastle contribute to the greater safety of any person who is potentially vulnerable now or in the future?
It helps by sending a message—one that hopefully will be backed by action and by changes in attitudes among leadership—that the Church absolutely will not tolerate abuse by clergy any longer.
'We have left undone those things which we ought to have done and we have done those things which we ought not to have done. And there is no health in us'
It is a Great Pity indeed it is an Outrage that the General Confession is left unsaid before Mattins and Evensong. Choral or not it should be said. IMNSVHO.
Wouldn't be surprised if it it all went pearshaped when we ditched the BCP
As to @Enoch ’s question, if these people are no longer in post they can’t do the same thing again, even Carey as a priest could have someone disclose abuse to him - at this moment in time I have no evidence that he’d handle that better than he did previously. Likewise everyone else involved.
Where are the (metaphorical) nine?
She also has the support of The Survivors Trust and others:
Yes. I've just listened to it. Well worth a listen, but not an easy listen by any means. 😢
They failed in their duty of care and left people at risk from clerical predators. Allowing abusers to move on and retain their role means that those in authority bear responsibility for subsequent acts of abuse.
Breaking that cycle of tolerance and complacency makes potential victims safer.
The quasi-parliamentary legislative processes of General Synod mean that changing the law is not an easy or straightforward process.
The General Confession is part of Matins and Evensong - both Choral - at our place. Ditto the prayers for the monarch, royal family, the General Thanksgiving from time to time and The Litany in Lent and Advent.
It would appear from the File On Four programme that whilst a suspended priest can't continue to officiate in church there is no way to prevent them from, say, conducting a funeral service at a crematorium, for instance.
Indeed, Tudor did just that.
@Enoch may wish to comment on this, given his concerns about things done in the past which have since spparently been addressed or rectified. It was clear that the girls, now women, abused by Tudor were exceedingly and understandably upset that Tudor had initially been reinstated, promoted even, and allowed to continue in ministry.
If it was one of my daughters he'd abused I wouldn't want to see him allowed to officiate anywhere at any time and in any capacity whatsoever.
The BBC interviewed a local counsellor on Canvey Island who had nothing but praise for Tudor. He'd packed the church when others were closing or experiencing decline. That may well be but how does that in any way mean that he should have been allowed to continue in ministry even to officiate as a one-off at a funeral at civic rather than ecclesial premises?
I would have thought that once a priest is suspended he is suspended full-stop. End of story. I don’t know how it works in other sacerdotal traditions.
There are serious questions here. How are people who have been abused by clergy supposed to feel if their abuser continues in ministry in some way despite suspension? Ok, it might be the system that is at fault rather than individual bishops and clergy who are bound by the rules, but in this instance it does look as if the church rallied to protect and defend its own - an understandable and commendable position in other circumstances - but in a way that made it look as if the suffering of those abused and their families were of little or no account.
It's not about 'self-righteous' posturing about historic abuse which has since been rectified, it's about acknowledging and correcting systemic failure.
AIUI a bishop can only suspend a priest because and while a disciplinary process is in progress. As in other areas of life (teaching comes to mind) suspension is supposed to be a neutral activity pending the outcome of an investigation or disciplinary process.
The difficulty is that secular funeral officiants (and I understand not a few officially secular who'll don cassock and surplice for appearances) are now commonplace and there is nothing to regulate who can act as one. The CofE can't control a suspended priest doing funerals outwith the church any more than a school can stop a suspended teacher continuing to privately tutor students.