homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » The Bishop Peter Ball Affair (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Bishop Peter Ball Affair
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

This thread is giving the hosts headaches for several reasons. Exceptionally, I have redacted mr cheesy's comment due to one of these reasons, pending admin appraisal.

Please think extra hard before posting, or we'll be forced to lock the thread to stay within board guidelines (as well as clear of potential legal problems)

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17183 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/criticism-of-my-father-is-an-unforgivable-sin-says-son-of-lord-carey-of-clifton-forme r-archbishop-of-canterbury-f85l6789f

Except that if you read even the article linked to in the Times rather than just the headline visible in the text of the link, that is clearly not what Andrew Carey said.

[ 04. July 2017, 12:45: Message edited by: Gracie ]

--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine

Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which is what I said - but in choosing to even mention the whole belief-in-the-Holy-Spirit thing AC gave the headline writer a gift of a stick with which to beat him (and his father).

And while AC is correct to say that words such as 'safeguarding' are relatively new, and that there is more understanding of the parameters of abuse now than there were, it has been the case that abuse - sexual or physical - of minors is considered wrong for many, many years, even before the Maria Colwell case in the 1970s shone a light on things.

(Incidentally, I'm not aware that the piece in The Times is behind a paywall, but I have no way of telling since I have a subscription...)

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4683 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
(Incidentally, I'm not aware that the piece in The Times is behind a paywall, but I have no way of telling since I have a subscription...)

AFAIK everything in The Times is behind a paywall. The Telegraph at least lets non-subscribers view a few articles each week.
Posts: 9422 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I agree. The headline says almost the opposite to what AC actually says, which only becomes apparent if you read the article almost to the end - and even then carefully, because the sentence in question is unfortunately poorly worded, and may well have been so in the original piece by AC.

By the way, the article is not behind a paywall. You can sign up and read 2 articles a week free of charge.

--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine

Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't know. Here is the Telegraph's take on things.
Posts: 9422 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Yes, I agree. The headline says almost the opposite to what AC actually says, which only becomes apparent if you read the article almost to the end - and even then carefully, because the sentence in question is unfortunately poorly worded, and may well have been so in the original piece by AC.

Christian Today has this quote from AC's article:
quote:
'I'm struck by the absence of any public expression of sadness and sympathy for my father from the current crop of archbishops and bishops,' he writes.

'They certainly wouldn't express any support for him in public because he now suffers from a disease that all bishops fear is contagious - that he has been criticised over handling safeguarding.

'To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit - unforgiveable in the Church of England.

'It's no matter that the term 'safeguarding' hadn't even been coined when Bishop Peter Ball's crimes were first reported...Twenty-five years later you are held accountable for cultural attitudes and standards that are totally different today.'

The part I've emphasized is very unclear to me. (I get that he thinks people have been unfair to his father.) It doesn't really make any sense to say that "to be criticised" is like a sin, so presumably he meant either that those criticizing his father are committing a sin like the sin against the Holy Spirit (as the URL text suggested) or that his father is being accused of committing such an unforgivable sin.

I think the latter is more likely. He's not elevating his father to the status of the Holy Spirit, he's using hyperbole to complain that the "current crop of archbishops and bishops" are overreacting.

Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh dear.

Just when it might be thought that the Peter Ball affair had moved to the back of the pack, Andrew Carey - with a little (possibly malicious) help from a clueless headline writer in The Times has now resurrected the whole thing, and perhaps alienated the few people who might have been inclined to offer Lord Carey some support or comfort. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/criticism-of-my-father-is-an-unforgivable-sin-says-son-of-lord-carey-of-clifton-forme r-archbishop-of-canterbury-f85l6789f

It is natural that a child would wish to offer a loved father help and support, but to suggest in so doing that the sexual abuse of minors was ever condoned or defensible is plain wrong and, if in itself supported by people now, can only add to the widely held viewpoint that the mores governing parts of the CofE then and now are grotesque.

When walking in the vicinity of a hornets nest the best course of action is to tread softly and avoid disturbance, not jam a bl**dy great stick into its middle.

The full article by Andrew Carey is in the Church Times (paywall). The Times article just picks out a few quotes, including:

quote:
However, writing in The Church of England newspaper, his son protested over the way that his father had been treated. “I’m struck by the absence of any public expression of sadness and sympathy for my father from the current crop of archbishops and bishops,” he wrote. “They certainly wouldn’t express any support for him in public because he now suffers from a disease that all bishops fear is contagious — that he has been criticised over handling safeguarding. To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit, unforgivable in the Church of England.

“It’s no matter that the term ‘safeguarding’ hadn’t even been coined when Bishop Peter Ball’s crimes were first reported. Twenty-five years later you are held accountable for cultural attitudes and standards that are totally different today.”

I think you’ve misrepresented what Carey said slightly. He's arguing that if you've found guilty of a safe-guarding related failure, no one has your back. Even if the failures happened before the current rules were written.

Carey's partly right. Attitudes towards this and related issues about how best to care for children and vulnerable people were different back then. As were how seriously reports of abuse were taken, who got believed and how things were dealt with. Pretending that they weren't is just dishonest. You’ve just got to look at recent cases to see that - Jersey. Sport. Army Cadets etc.

Back then, some church leaders acknowledged this was a live issue and were willing to do whatever it took to deal with it. These people were, sadly the exception.

Others couldn't / wouldn't believe that Godly people they trusted / respected would do things like that. Despite vast amounts of evidence to the contrary.

There's also an element in the church that will excuse pretty much anything if someone has a mighty ministry. Or regrets that these things become public knowledge because it looks bad.

But those are reasons, not excuses.

Tubbs

[ 04. July 2017, 14:21: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12644 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, the Christian Today and the Telegraph are slightly clearer, because there is a dash instead of a comma. What AC is saying is that in the eyes of the Church, his father has committed a sin, which like the sin against the Holy Spirit, is unforgivable. Not that those who have criticised his father have committed an unforgivable sin.

ETA - crossposted with Tubbs

[ 04. July 2017, 14:14: Message edited by: Gracie ]

--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine

Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827

 - Posted      Profile for Cathscats   Email Cathscats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't read it as even saying his father has committed a sin. I think he is saying that these days it is unforgiveable in the Church of England to be accused of safeguarding lapses: being a well-educated son of a bishop he knows that the only unforgiveable sin in Jesus' teaching is the mysterious "sin against the Holy Spirit" so he drops in the reference, unintentionally clouding the understanding of the journalists - and others.

--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")

Posts: 148 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.

You're right that he doesn't think his father has committed any serious sin; he's merely been tripped up by changes in "cultural attitudes and standards". Why should anyone expect moral leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury, anyway - he's only the Primate of All England and first among equals, after all - practically a minor functionary. And who could possibly have known at the time that his actions were wrong - aside, of course, from all those who urged him to act differently at the time?

Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hostly Headaches noted, but I'm glad this thread has got back to George Carey. It was the report that he was being asked to withdraw from public ministry that prompted it in the first place, rather than the sins of Peter Ball and his ilk.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 9179 | From: Passing The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed BF.

I am reading through the Report of the Peter Ball Review from the CofE website. The conduct as reported on, in item 3.5.1 is troubling, regardless of 'standards and understanding being different' at the time (which I think is a red herring and distraction frankly):

quote:
...Mr A wrote to Lord Carey expressing concerns firstly about Neil Todd’s welfare and then that the Church had apparently already taken the view that Ball was innocent. Bishop Yates replied, assuring Mr A that all involved were being prayed for but without responding to the second area of concern. Mr A wrote again, asking that the Church consider its response to ‘what appeared to be a biased opinion from the Archbishop”....
It is required to separate out personal feelings or preferences from critical matters requiring judgement. Should we not expect this level of administrative maturity? Those who suggest it was a different historical times would not separate out minimal self-awareness and administrative competence from this, would they?
Posts: 11075 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.

In fact, the quote you cite is not in fact my words. It is a doctored quote originated probably by a night-shift journalist on The Times to fit the story he was writing. A slight change of word from the first 'like' to 'for' makes a little more sense of the actual sentence.

I find myself in despair that journalists from The Times, Telegraph and Christian Today didn't just follow old fashioned conventions and pick up the phone to check the story. But that's another matter.

I am Andrew Carey, btw, and I'm not a complete imbecile. I may or may not be a good writer but I would never say or suggest that criticising anybody is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

I'm unlikely to check back in for a while for various reasons so please carry on this conversation as though I'm not there.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.

In fact, the quote you cite is not in fact my words. It is a doctored quote originated probably by a night-shift journalist on The Times to fit the story he was writing. A slight change of word from the first 'like' to 'for' makes a little more sense of the actual sentence.
The Telegraph does have "for this", but that doesn't really make it any better. "To be criticised" isn't like a sin, whether you're criticized "like this" or "for this." I suspect you probably wanted something more like:
quote:
To be criticised for this is like being accused of the sin against the Holy Spirit, unforgivable in the Church of England.
quote:
I find myself in despair that journalists from The Times, Telegraph and Christian Today didn't just follow old fashioned conventions and pick up the phone to check the story. But that's another matter.
Check the story? The story was "Former Archbishop's son writes column complaining that people are insufficiently sympathetic to his dad." I agree they should have quoted your writing correctly, but aside from that, how much effort do you really expect them to put into follow-up on something like this?
Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The suicide of one of the victims of Ball after he was contacted circa 2012 is extremely troubling, and makes the resignation of Carey only a small response, and one about which is it not easy to be sympathetic. As an outsider to the CofE, the power politics and connections which govern it, I'm struck with the banality of it all, that is, until this scathing and very troubling report. It looks like the business of the church was the business of protecting the Old Boys' Club. This failure is failure according to any reasonable person's standards for conduct of church officials whether it's 1990 or 2017.
Posts: 11075 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This article shows a state of affairs that beggars belief. We can look back 30 years and see how attitudes have changed (if that salves our consciences a bit) but this is today after the Royal Commission has heard all the evidence and released batches of findings.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6723 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I knew somebody who was involved in this case at the time, so as the view that I have was largely derived from what that contact told me you may have to aim off a bit for that. But at the time- back in 93 or whenever it was- I had the sense that ++Carey was saying he was hoping that +Ball would be cleared- *not* saying he was hoping that the accusations would turn out to be groundless, although that may just have been clumsy expression on his part. Definite impression, at the time, that there was a reluctance to investigate thoroughly and a desire to avoid anything embarrassing happening. Not good.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6459 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moira Gibb's independent review has a whole section devoted to Lord Carey. He wrote to Ball's brother that Ball was "basically innocent" even after the police and CPS had investigated and Ball had admitted his guilt and been cautioned.
Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.

Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.

However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17183 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.

Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.

However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.

TBH, the most appropriate response in these situations seems to be, “There but for the grace of God …”.

It’s easy, with hindsight, to wonder why things weren’t dealt with differently. But as Eutychus rightly points out, abusers can be very plausible. Believing that someone who’s a friend is also an abuser is a leap of imagination that not everyone is capable of making. Add other pressures to that and it becomes more understandable. (But not excusable).

I wonder if the response to Carey might have been slightly different if, in light of the report’s findings, he’d instantly offered to resign from his positon of Assistant Bishop instead of having to be asked too. (If I’ve understood the news reports correctly).

One of the reasons that modern safeguarding training is so hardcore, with lots of examples instead of just a few, is to shock people out of compliancy and the belief that abusers are somehow other. But there’s no guarantee. It’s likely that something like this will happen again.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12644 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.

Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.

However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.

Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

What more would it take to convince you? Video of the assaults? An in-person demonstration?

Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.

Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.

However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.

Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

What more would it take to convince you? Video of the assaults? An in-person demonstration?

You seem to have confused Eutychus with Carey.

It was Carey who, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, wanted to believe his friend was basically innocent. Because if they’re not, they’ve a) been friends someone who preyed sexually on children and b) completed failed in their duty of care to the vulnerable. And if that’s the case, what kind of person does that make them?

This really is a “there but for the grace of God” situation. If I was in that position, would I have called it any better? I’d like to think so, but I pray that I never find out.

[ETA: I've got friends who've discovered that friends / family members are abusers. Often they've had no idea as the abuser is so very plausible. It's only with hindsight that things clicked into place. Realising that someone you love very much is capable of such acts is very hard].

Tubbs

[ 05. July 2017, 12:36: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12644 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is minimal administrativd competence comes in. People recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest. Carey is held to to bare minimum standard of understanding he had a dual relationship with Ball, as friend and as admin superior. This is probably covered in first year uni admin class somewhere. Carey demonstrated incompetence.

Family members and friends where there is no institutional admin relationship do not compare. -- Hannah Arendt coined the phrase "banality of evil". Well here we have it, and a man is dead, a series of people were abused, and church greviously harmed.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11075 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

Have you actually read the report?

One of the criticisms it makes is that Ball got away with admitting guilt (in the original instance) for far lessser charges than he should have.

I'm with Tubbs on this. Pride cometh before a fall. I would be wary of believing so assuredly that one could be in the same situation and exercise better before-the-fact discernment.

(I've decided by experience that believing one will never be conned is step 1 in how to become a great mark).

Carey is a favourite target around here. Once again, yes he does bear his share of responsibility but in my reading of the report he is not the only one, and your anger at Ball's deeds going unreported and unpunished appears to be blinding you to the difficulty of Carey's position at the time, coupled with the inherent bias that comes with knowing the person.

No_prophet could be right that there was a conflict of interest there, but I think that is an institutional problem rather than a personal one. The existence of, effectively, a parallel legal system in the form of canon law certainly seems to muddy the waters in that respect.

[ 05. July 2017, 13:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17183 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Carey is a favourite target around here. Once again, yes he does bear his share of responsibility but in my reading of the report he is not the only one, and your anger at Ball's deeds going unreported and unpunished appears to be blinding you to the difficulty of Carey's position at the time, coupled with the inherent bias that comes with knowing the person.

.. and at the moment anyway, it appears that it was just one individual offending. I would agree with some of the other critiques if it were shown to be more systematic.
Posts: 3841 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well-educated maybe, but still not a very good writer. "To be criticised like this is like the sin against the Holy Spirit" - sigh.

You're right that he doesn't think his father has committed any serious sin; he's merely been tripped up by changes in "cultural attitudes and standards".

Bandying around notions of the unforgivbable sin is probably unforgiveable. It is certiny dangerous and unbiblical.

I am no more a fan of Spawn than I am of his father but I said something very similar at the start of this thread about judging somebody by today's standards and insights for stuff they did some time ago.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23064 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Bandying around notions of the unforgivbable sin is probably unforgiveable. It is certiny dangerous and unbiblical.

It was a figure of speech. Not dangerous, not unbiblical - an exaggeration to make a point which fell flat because people repeated it out of the context it was written.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10208 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Have you actually read the report?

One of the criticisms it makes is that Ball got away with admitting guilt (in the original instance) for far lesser charges than he should have.

Nice use of the passive voice there. How, exactly, did Ball "get away" with this? Well, let's consult the report on p. 54:

quote:
However we have been unable to find any good reason for the decision – and we believe it must have been more of a decision than an omission – not to make police aware of the letters which raised concerns about Ball. The failure to pass six of the letters to police, reported to us by Mr F - while providing them with the one which was of least concern – must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment.
A reasonable person might conclude that Ball "got away with admitting guilt . . . for far lesser charges than he should have" because powerful people decided to conceal the most damning evidence available at the time.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm with Tubbs on this. Pride cometh before a fall. I would be wary of believing so assuredly that one could be in the same situation and exercise better before-the-fact discernment.

Plus there's the question of incentives and accountability. No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.

[ 05. July 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10441 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nice use of the passive voice there. How, exactly, did Ball "get away" with this?

That's not the passive voice. It's active.

quote:
Well, let's consult the report on p. 54:
I'm not about to reread it this minute, but IIRC it'not clear from the report to what exact extent Carey was involved in the decision not to pass on all the letters. We can argue about the extent to which he should have been personally involved, but the reality is we don't know to what extent he relied on others' briefings.

Also IIRC from the report, Ball effectively did a plea bargain by admitting to a lesser offence in return for lenient treatment. I'm not saying that was a good decision, but again we simply don't know whether a different deal would have been on the table had the letters been forwarded; we don't know their content. As I said before, the biggest reservation I would have had about the letters (without having read them) is that in more than one case they were written by third parties rather than the actual victims, with no clear explanation as to why that should be.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.

I don't know who that someone might be. As I keep saying, Carey bears a share of responsiblity but from my reading of the report, he is being unfairly singled out here, and he is - albeit belatedly - being held to account.

In one of my professional capacities, I am currently investigating an extremely serious allegation, too serious to post details of here, at some risk to my position. I can assure you that doing so is not putting me on the side of those in authority.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17183 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I can't accept pride before falls, discernment etc.

There was a report of a problem with Ball. Step one is consult with people who can be dispassionate about the situation - people with no connection.

Sort out your motives and purposes you may wish to obtain. Consult someone uninvolved and dispassionate about these also.

And consider that those who are first shall be last, the most vulnerable, other similar Christian stupidity, and consider that the powerful need less help than the weak. Which is a simple point of ethics and morals.

Was Carey doing an informed PYA (protect your ass) and doing it for a this Ball fellow and the church-as-institution? Was he being bad or just stupid? Though stupidity at this level of leadership isn't really an explanation. Not clear if he did a PYA about himself too. Has he asked for forgiveness from anyone? Shown contrition? This is what politicians usually do these days, and he is/was one in terms of his actions. And maybe there's a commentary required about a sick institution?

[tangent]
Not sure about Carey being a target about other things, as I haven't much knowledge of him other than name recognition before this thing. I would not trust his judgement. Senior people are required to show some.
[/tangent]

Posts: 11075 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No matter how negligent (or collusive) someone might be, as long as they're some kind of powerful authority figure there's always going to be someone willing to make the case that accountability is just for the little people.

I don't know who that someone might be. As I keep saying, Carey bears a share of responsiblity but from my reading of the report, he is being unfairly singled out here, and he is - albeit belatedly - being held to account.
Arguing with yourself? I know my posts are good, but this is the first time someone has tried to both claim them as their own and argue against them. [Big Grin]

My problem is that whenever someone says something like "Carey bears a share of responsibility but . . . " whatever follows that "but" will be an argument about why Carey (or any other head of an organization caught doing something unethical) shouldn't be held responsible. Yes, I suppose one solution to someone being "unfairly singled out" would be to suppress any criticism of them. My preferred solution would be to start criticizing everyone else you feel has been left out of their due accountability. If you feel it's unfair to single Carey out for his role in this scandal, feel free to relieve him of his solitude by naming other names.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10441 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Carey often used to come across as a rather defensive person and handled things badly because of it(I may have contributed to that in a small way with something I did early in his Archiepiscopate, but that's another story). But how would his predecessors have reacted? I can imagine Runcie, for whom I have a lot of affection and respect, being very distressed and ending up making a muff of it through dithering; don't know about Coggan; Ramsey I suspect of having been bit of a fence-sitter; I imagine Fisher would have had no hesitation in delivering whatever the episcopal equivalent of the Webley and whisky is, but probably not involving the police because people tended not to in those days.

[ 05. July 2017, 19:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6459 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually we know how +Runcie would have handled this because he had already faced a situation where question marks had been raised about Peter Ball when he was proposed as a potential bishop for Norwich. Lambeth then - and you can take it from me that +Runcie knew all about it - saw the reaction of the good people from Norwich and declined to put Peter Ball forward for a diocesan post. (my earlier post of 23 June on page 1 of this thread refers in greater detail)

Ball was made a diocesan bishop by +Carey in 1992: it is inconceivable that the reaction of the people of Norwich wasn't on-file for him to see.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4683 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Carey often used to come across as a rather defensive person and handled things badly because of it(I may have contributed to that in a small way with something I did early in his Archiepiscopate, but that's another story). But how would his predecessors have reacted? I can imagine Runcie, for whom I have a lot of affection and respect, being very distressed and ending up making a muff of it through dithering; don't know about Coggan; Ramsey I suspect of having been bit of a fence-sitter; I imagine Fisher would have had no hesitation in delivering whatever the episcopal equivalent of the Webley and whisky is, but probably not involving the police because people tended not to in those days.

Didn't Fisher abuse boys in his care anyway, Roald Dahl amongst them ?

[ 05. July 2017, 20:48: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19187 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My apologies, it appears Ronald Dahl's account was inaccurate - his headmaster was the guy who took the post after him.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19187 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, my own reading of the Norwich stuff was not that they were worried about abuse, but about homosexuality. Although the Archbishop's voice in the Crown Appointments process is a significant one, it is only one voice among many. I'm not clear from a cursory reading of the report what if anything had been communicated to the Archbishop at the time of Peter Ball's translation to Gloucester.
Posts: 3245 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Arguing with yourself? I know my posts are good, but this is the first time someone has tried to both claim them as their own and argue against them. [Big Grin]

[Hot and Hormonal] best form of flattery or some such, mumble mumble...

quote:
My problem is that whenever someone says something like "Carey bears a share of responsibility but . . . " whatever follows that "but" will be an argument about why Carey (or any other head of an organization caught doing something unethical) shouldn't be held responsible.
No, he should be and (belatedly) has been. But it's too simple to bay for just one person's blood.
quote:
If you feel it's unfair to single Carey out for his role in this scandal, feel free to relieve him of his solitude by naming other names.
I'm not digging into the thick of the report just now, and the alphabet soup of Mr A, B, C... through to at least F is confusing, but I seem to remember a Bishop Kemp being in the thick of things and looking as though he might have had some control over what Carey did and didn't see. And I do think people can be prisoners of their institutions' defects to some extent, even the leaders.

[ 05. July 2017, 21:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17183 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

It was Carey who, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, wanted to believe his friend was basically innocent. Because if they’re not, they’ve a) been friends someone who preyed sexually on children and b) completed failed in their duty of care to the vulnerable. And if that’s the case, what kind of person does that make them?

None of which constitutes and excuse. I'd also add the natural desire of an institution to protect itself as a factor, especially one that claims morality as part of its function.
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually, my own reading of the Norwich stuff was not that they were worried about abuse, but about homosexuality.

ISTM, homosexuality is a factor in why abuses were covered up in some cases. Given how much it has been considered a sin.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16948 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not quite. He wrote that he believed he was basically innocent. There's a difference.

Carey deserves to take his share of responsibility as the man in the driving seat of the CoE at the time. And yes there was surely institutional pressure to cover up rather than investigate properly.

However, I think many people here are far too naive about the ability of sex offenders to convincingly disguise their misdeeds, and far too confident of their own abilities to discern wrongdoing and to do the right thing about it when in a position of responsibility.

Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

What more would it take to convince you? Video of the assaults? An in-person demonstration?

You seem to have confused Eutychus with Carey.

No, I have not. Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing. All of these were known to Carey when he started contemplating returning Ball to the ministry and when he wrote that he "believed him to be basically innocent". I'd like to know what more Eutychus thinks would be necessary for a person with only an average level of confidence in their own ability to discern wrongdoing.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh for fucks sake. At the time Carey wrote that, Ball had been investigated and had already admitted his guilt.

Have you actually read the report?

Yes, though evidently you haven't.
quote:
I'm with Tubbs on this. Pride cometh before a fall. I would be wary of believing so assuredly that one could be in the same situation and exercise better before-the-fact discernment.
"Before-the-fact discernment"? Before what fact? We're talking about Carey's behavior after the investigation and Ball's admission of guilt. I don't think it required extraordinary discernment to determine that Ball was guilty after he had already admitted that he was guilty.

And I really don't think this has anything to do with my personal blindness (but thanks for that discernment!) From the report I linked to previously (section 4.4.7, pp. 48-49):
quote:
Lord Carey played the lead role in enabling Ball’s return to ministry – that was not a decision taken by anyone else. He wrote to police saying he was considering this before the end of the month in which Ball resigned. He had a degree of personal compassion for Ball that is not matched by an understanding of the nature and consequences of Ball’s abusive conduct. He wrote to Bishop Michael Ball in September 1993 that “I had to face the searching question – if the same allegations and admissions had been made against and by a parish priest, would one not have expected the diocesan bishop concerned to have put him on the List? I did not do so, for in the end I believed him to be basically innocent, and …… my personal regard for him is very high”. This reference to Ball being “basically innocent” is alarming – Ball was basically guilty and had admitted that. Lord Carey was also aware that the Church had received further allegations of potentially criminal actions by Ball.
This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)
Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing.

The fact is that historically, Ball was not convicted, only cautioned. There's a difference between the arrangement arrived at and having a trial in a court of law.

I think we all agree (although you are doing your best to present my position as entirely opposite) that Ball appears to have been guilty of a lot more than he owned to and/or was found guilty of, and that Carey's actions contributed to that. All I'm saying is that to my mind it is far easier to conclude the serious nature of the actual offences with hindsight than in the midst of the situation, and that I do not believe, having read the report, that Carey bore sole responsibility for the CoE's failings in this respect.
quote:
This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)
Carey has been criticised and sanctioned, albeit belatedly sanctioned. He has also issued an apology.

I'm bothered, firstly, and again, by the focus on one person. In your above statement, Carey "is criticised" (Croesos please note, that is the passive voice) for things his son has done.

Visiting the perceived misdeeds of one on the other is not justice by any stretch, and yes, I think that to do so demonstrates a degree of blindness.

Secondly, I'm bothered by your phrase "now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him". It doesn't exude justice; it sounds nasty and vindictive.

This whole attitude smacks to me of "it is expedient that one man die for the people". It's right (again) that as the leader of the institution at the time, Carey bears a commensurate degree of responsibility for failures and is sanctioned as appropriate. What is not right in my view is that this should disqualify him from being the recipient of any compassion whatsoever, and doubly disqualify him because the offences he failed to deal with properly are sex offences.

Of course sex offences and the abuse of power they represent are terrible, but I don't think the general hypnotic fixation on such offences to the exclusion of other abuses of power, and often on historic rather than contemporary misdeeds, is healthy.

Yes, justice should be done and be seen to be done, but I get nervous around people who exhibit a complete absence of compassion in advocating that.

And treating Carey as a scapegoat will not address the failings of the institution.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17183 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Eutychus seems to think that a completed police investigation, an admission of guilt, and an official caution for an offence of gross indecency are insufficient indications of wrongdoing.

The fact is that historically, Ball was not convicted, only cautioned. There's a difference between the arrangement arrived at and having a trial in a court of law.

I think we all agree (although you are doing your best to present my position as entirely opposite) that Ball appears to have been guilty of a lot more than he owned to and/or was found guilty of, and that Carey's actions contributed to that. All I'm saying is that to my mind it is far easier to conclude the serious nature of the actual offences with hindsight than in the midst of the situation, and that I do not believe, having read the report, that Carey bore sole responsibility for the CoE's failings in this respect.

Well, at least you're no longer going on about "before-the-fact discernment" and how people (other than you) are too naive and too confident. That's progress of a sort, I suppose.
quote:

quote:
This is what Carey is criticized for - not that he failed to detect some hidden crime invisible to those unequipped with supernatural powers of discernment. (Well, this plus the fact that his son just wrote a column complaining that he was tripped up by changing "cultural attitudes and standards", and now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him.)
Carey has been criticised and sanctioned, albeit belatedly sanctioned. He has also issued an apology.

I'm bothered, firstly, and again, by the focus on one person. In your above statement, Carey "is criticised" (Croesos please note, that is the passive voice) for things his son has done.

You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.

quote:

Visiting the perceived misdeeds of one on the other is not justice by any stretch, and yes, I think that to do so demonstrates a degree of blindness.

Secondly, I'm bothered by your phrase "now his former colleagues aren't nice enough to him". It doesn't exude justice; it sounds nasty and vindictive.

Too naive, too confident, blind, nasty and vindictive! Oh, and not exuding justice. You're so generous with your evaluations of my attitude; I'm afraid I don't really think that I've kept up my end of this aspect of our exchange.
Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One main difference between now and then is that clergy have regular training about what to do when concerns of this sort are raised and a large part of this training can be summed up in the words "pass the issue on to a competent professional who is not you, sunshine". If a concern is passed to me it would go to the police or social services asap. If a concern is raised about me I would be sent on indefinite gardening leave whilst the concern was investigated. This has the great merit of putting the matter into the hands of people who have been trained to cope with this stuff rather than rank amateurs flying by night.

Lord Carey is hardly the first naive but basically decent man to have been gulled by a plausible crook. In this instance his failure was culpable because of the human cost but lots of people, at that time, would have made similar errors. It's because of those mistakes that we have refined our understanding of what can go wrong and have established new processes that will, hopefully, prevent similar catastrophes.

To a that extent it is unfair to criticise him for mistakes that, hopefully, would not be made now - there is an element of moral luck about these matters - but on the other hand it was his misjudgements which led to the matter being evaluated in 2017 and not 1993.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9693 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.

Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.

Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.

One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7326 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Support of a person and doing so publicly are different things. And the death of a victim of course isn't really on radar.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11075 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don’t think anyone’s disputing that Carey dealt with the whole situation incredibly badly and made totally the wrong calls. Or that the Church Times article was actually probably not helpful to his cause, even though it was well meant. STFU might have served better. Frustrating though it is to see a loved one getting a good kicking that you feel they don’t deserve. .

One of my points, such as it is, was that many contributors to this thread assume that in the same situation, they would have done any better. I’m not convinced.

We under-estimate the desire to think the best of a friend despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

The leap of imagination and understanding it takes to realise that someone you like and who has many good qualities also does monstrous things. And the impact that has.

Or the pressure that exists to deal with something quietly whilst hoping no one will notice. Or not to deal with it at all and hope it goes away. I read accounts of the experiences of whistleblowers as part of my job. It’s terrible. I can see why, knowing that’s what you’re likely to get, some people choose to keep quiet or get another job instead of reporting things.

Plus, in Christian circles, the pressure to be forgiving, not to take legal action against a brother or people’s ability to excuse wrong-doing because someone has a really great Ministry. Christians also tend to be shit at conflict and confrontation.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12644 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am a late-comer to this already very long thread and it will take a long time to read all that has gone before.

I knew the then +Peter Ball when he was Bishop of Lewes, decades ago now. He came over as a deeply spiritual preacher and seemed relaxed and easy going; his manner concealed the dark side of him, which I did not suspect at all.

That said, I could be wrong, but I think +George Carey was an unfortunate victim of circumstances, when he was forced to stand down as an assistant bishop of Oxford. He may have made a historic genuine mistake in not taking the investigation further when he was ++ of Canterbury, which only now leads to him being forced out.

Posts: 1919 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect one of the disadvantages of the caution process was that the full facts didn't come out. Too easy then for the offender to spin it as all a misunderstanding but where the emotional cost of a trial to all parties, and the institutional cost too, made accepting a caution some kind of least worst option. The accused then presents themselves as self-sacrificing for the greater good. I'm not clear how far the police would have shared evidence not given in court, even if asked, let alone proactively raising safeguarding concerns.
Posts: 3245 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

 - Posted      Profile for Huia   Email Huia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can someone explain the idea behind giving a Police Caution please?

Does it mean that the police at that time were taking the abuse less seriously?

Is the defendant admitting some guilt in accepting a caution?

Thanks

Huia

--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.

Posts: 10122 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You're right - Carey shouldn't be held accountable for his son's weak, minimizing complaint. That's all on Spawn. But the publication of that column is part of the reason for the continued focus on Carey.

Do you really mean that? I can hardly think of any circumstance when one can legitimately criticise someone or condemn them for sticking up for a close family member in adversity, particularly not for one's parent or child. Certainly, if such a circumstance exists, this is not one of them.
Yes, I do mean that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize a newspaper column that complains about insufficient "public expression of sadness or sympathy ... from the current crop of archbishops and bishops" and suggests Lord Carey is being too harshly treated for merely running afoul of changing "cultural attitudes and standards."
quote:
Whatever one thinks of his father's record in this case, good for Spawn for leaping to his support. Something has gone wrong with a society's moral compass if it is expecting people publicly to shun their kindred who go off the rails or make mistakes.

No one has expressed such an expectation, though, have they? And is the Careys' plight really the salient feature of this sordid affair that gives you cause for concern about society's moral compass?
quote:
One can, for example, criticise others in this depressing saga for listening too much to Bishop Michael Ball's attempts to stick up for his brother, for giving those attempts too much credence. One can hardly criticise him for trying.

Can't one? I imagine the victims might see things differently.
Posts: 2024 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools