Posted                       

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

---

Posted                       

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...)

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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.'

---

Posted                          

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.

---

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.”

---

Posted                          

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”....

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Bandying around notions of the unforgivbable sin is probably unforgiveable. It is certiny dangerous and unbiblical.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nice use of the passive voice there. How, exactly, did Ball "get away" with this?

---

quote:

---

Well, let's consult the report on p. 54:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

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

Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                         

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                      

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually, my own reading of the Norwich stuff was not that they were worried about abuse, but about homosexuality.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                         

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.

---

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.)

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---