It's good to see you taking up the cudgels again on Justin Welby's behalf, Andrew. You are (almost) a lone voice. He doesn't help himself by apologising for events over which he had no control. Please keep going.
It felt to me the +Justin thought he was making public penance for his failures around Safeguarding.
I am still not clear what he thinks his personal failures were, if any.
I imagine he saw himself repenting of the institutional failings in Safeguarding.
He was right to point out the huge improvement in training and greater vigilance towards the protection of children and vulnerable adults.
However, in a deeply hierarchical organisation like the Church of England the abuse of power, which leads to the abuse of people, is an ever-present danger.
Perhaps he feels that if he is to be scapegoated he should accept the role and that if he wanders off into the wilderness, bearing all the sins of the institution, that will lift them from the people he leaves behind. It doesn't work like that, but I can see the attraction of it to a proud man who knows he's done nothing personally dishonourable.
But I don't know why people call the C of E a deeply hierarchical organisation. I know it has the robes and titles of a hierarchy, but these are quite detached from real power, both inside and outside the Church.
The other mistake Welby made was to say he forgave Smyth. At the serious level of
the abuse Smyth perpetrated Welby can no more forgive Smyth than I can because he wasn’t sinned against- but that became the line that Laura K the immediately latched onto understandably. He should have said that the forgiveness Laura K was talking about was not his to give.
But he should know as an experienced public figure that anything said in an interview may be quoted out of context. He would have had all the media training and so on. The question was a good opportunity to talk about the nature of forgiveness, and so he should have said immediately that it was not for him to give, not as an afterthought (which I think it was).
The other point is that while he would know the difference between forgiving someone and absolving them, most listeners would not. I think they would take his "forgiveness" to mean his absolution. He could have explained that. And if so, he could have referred back to the liturgy: "who has given power unto his ministers to declare pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent". He could have talked about how John Smyth did not repent, but went on to repeat his abuse in Africa. All of this is bread and butter theology for a priest and even more so for an Archbishop. He didn't do any of those things.
Maybe Laura K set him a trap. Or maybe gave him an opportunity to say a lot of important things about forgiveness and repentance, which he did not take.
These are all solid points. They are about the presentation, not the substance, of what he said — but of course on television presentation is all that counts. It's all sizzle and no steak at all.
The next stage presumably will be a row over the "trial" of the 12 named suspects. The NST has not given any details of what they are charged with. Unless they ask their hearings will be secret and eventually something will be published. This secrecy is both counterproductive and potentially in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR.
It may be that the President of Tribunals will decide that so much time has elapsed that a fair trial is impossible. By way of example, Roger Combes learned what he did learn (and that is not clear) because he was curate to Mark Ruston. If Mark Ruston were alive he could tell a tribunal whether Roger Combes actually opened the Ruston Report (Combes seems to deny that he did). How is it possible to reach safe conclusions now?
One of the matters which Makin did not discuss was who gave what advice to Justin Welby. Justin Welby has said on several occasions he was advised over dealings with victims. "Graham" has repeatedly said that if Justin Welby had met him and others and made acceptable statements (it is not clear exactly what they should have contained) his attitude would have been very different. The advice to Justin Welby seems highly relevant to any lessons that might be learned yet Makin did not cover it in his £1M report.
Entirely agree with Mark Bonney: Welby cannot forgive Smyth because he is neither sinned against, nor the Pope, nor God himself. This response of Welby's is, along of many of his other utterances, entirely tone deaf. He may not be completely responsible for the CoE's safeguarding failures, but his comments show very little compassion towards the real victims. A little more humility would be becoming.
It's good to see you taking up the cudgels again on Justin Welby's behalf, Andrew. You are (almost) a lone voice. He doesn't help himself by apologising for events over which he had no control. Please keep going.
It felt to me the +Justin thought he was making public penance for his failures around Safeguarding.
I am still not clear what he thinks his personal failures were, if any.
I imagine he saw himself repenting of the institutional failings in Safeguarding.
He was right to point out the huge improvement in training and greater vigilance towards the protection of children and vulnerable adults.
However, in a deeply hierarchical organisation like the Church of England the abuse of power, which leads to the abuse of people, is an ever-present danger.
Perhaps he feels that if he is to be scapegoated he should accept the role and that if he wanders off into the wilderness, bearing all the sins of the institution, that will lift them from the people he leaves behind. It doesn't work like that, but I can see the attraction of it to a proud man who knows he's done nothing personally dishonourable.
But I don't know why people call the C of E a deeply hierarchical organisation. I know it has the robes and titles of a hierarchy, but these are quite detached from real power, both inside and outside the Church.
I mean, wandering off into the desert for the good of your tribe is the motor for the whole plot of Beau Geste.
The other mistake Welby made was to say he forgave Smyth. At the serious level of
the abuse Smyth perpetrated Welby can no more forgive Smyth than I can because he wasn’t sinned against- but that became the line that Laura K the immediately latched onto understandably. He should have said that the forgiveness Laura K was talking about was not his to give.
I agree, but I think that he did also say it was not for him to give.
But he should know as an experienced public figure that anything said in an interview may be quoted out of context. He would have had all the media training and so on. The question was a good opportunity to talk about the nature of forgiveness, and so he should have said immediately that it was not for him to give, not as an afterthought (which I think it was).
The other point is that while he would know the difference between forgiving someone and absolving them, most listeners would not. I think they would take his "forgiveness" to mean his absolution. He could have explained that. And if so, he could have referred back to the liturgy: "who has given power unto his ministers to declare pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent". He could have talked about how John Smyth did not repent, but went on to repeat his abuse in Africa. All of this is bread and butter theology for a priest and even more so for an Archbishop. He didn't do any of those things.
Maybe Laura K set him a trap. Or maybe gave him an opportunity to say a lot of important things about forgiveness and repentance, which he did not take.
These are all solid points. They are about the presentation, not the substance, of what he said — but of course on television presentation is all that counts. It's all sizzle and no steak at all.
A number of very good points.
The next stage presumably will be a row over the "trial" of the 12 named suspects. The NST has not given any details of what they are charged with. Unless they ask their hearings will be secret and eventually something will be published. This secrecy is both counterproductive and potentially in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR.
It may be that the President of Tribunals will decide that so much time has elapsed that a fair trial is impossible. By way of example, Roger Combes learned what he did learn (and that is not clear) because he was curate to Mark Ruston. If Mark Ruston were alive he could tell a tribunal whether Roger Combes actually opened the Ruston Report (Combes seems to deny that he did). How is it possible to reach safe conclusions now?
One of the matters which Makin did not discuss was who gave what advice to Justin Welby. Justin Welby has said on several occasions he was advised over dealings with victims. "Graham" has repeatedly said that if Justin Welby had met him and others and made acceptable statements (it is not clear exactly what they should have contained) his attitude would have been very different. The advice to Justin Welby seems highly relevant to any lessons that might be learned yet Makin did not cover it in his £1M report.
Entirely agree with Mark Bonney: Welby cannot forgive Smyth because he is neither sinned against, nor the Pope, nor God himself. This response of Welby's is, along of many of his other utterances, entirely tone deaf. He may not be completely responsible for the CoE's safeguarding failures, but his comments show very little compassion towards the real victims. A little more humility would be becoming.
Steph, how nice to see you here!