Farewell and good riddance

He's an absolute disgrace. Obviously raging that he's had to stand down.

I have to confess to not reading the Makin Report - I tend to avoid reading anything remotely political because I usually get too annoyed when I can't do anything about it.

Obviously if the 30 or so people who should have done something, and knew what they should do, didn't do it they should resign. Sometimes you can know the right thing to do but doing it is tricky - no excuse, you have to find a way in circumstances like these.

And when you resign you leave quietly and discreetly.

Sheila Fogarty will be discussing this on LBC radio at 2pm

Septimia
And when you resign you leave quietly and discreetly.

IMO he shouldn’t have been expected or asked or allowed to give a farewell speech. Shame on all those who invited, expected or allowed it to happen.

Septimia

I have to confess to not reading the Makin Report - I tend to avoid reading anything remotely political because I usually get too annoyed when I can't do anything about it.

Obviously if the 30 or so people who should have done something, and knew what they should do, didn't do it they should resign. Sometimes you can know the right thing to do but doing it is tricky - no excuse, you have to find a way in circumstances like these.

And when you resign you leave quietly and discreetly.

It's an independent report and l think every member of the Church of England has a duty to read it. I'm surprised it's not part of safeguarding training, at least. It can be accessed via this link.

You might like a strong cuppa and a box of tissues to hand. It has exceptionally hard reading.
www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/independent-review-churchs-handling-smyth-case-published

He showed no remorse for all those abused young people. His only remorse was for himself and his staff who may have some work to do. Totally disgusted.

Thanks for the link OldFrill.

Welby and others' behaviour makes a mockery of what we try to do at parish level.

Septimia

Thanks for the link OldFrill.

Welby and others' behaviour makes a mockery of what we try to do at parish level.

I think this is fair comment, but Welby's (and others') repeated lack of empathy and arrogance continues to discredit the Church. It remains to be seen who will replace him, and whether he will take a seat in the HoL (it's not been ruled out).

Why do these men have to be shamed into apologising?

Awful weak man.
Anyway he’s apologised. In the Telegraph today. I’ll find it & cut and paste because it’s behind a paywall.
Back in a minute …

Found it.

“On Friday, he said: “Yesterday, I gave my farewell speech in the House of Lords, as part of a debate on housing and homelessness. I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for the hurt that my speech has caused.

“I understand that my words – the things that I said, and those I omitted to say – have caused further distress for those who were traumatised, and continue to be harmed, by John Smyth’s heinous abuse, and by the far-reaching effects of other perpetrators of abuse.

“It did not intend to overlook the experience of survivors or to make light of the situation - and I am very sorry for having done so.

“It remains the case that I take both personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period after 2013, and the harm that this has caused survivors. I continue to feel a profound sense of shame at the Church of England’s historic safeguarding failures.”

Welby’s jokes branded ‘tone deaf’
In his final House of Lords speech on Thursday, the Archbishop implied that the institution’s failure to stop Smyth, a serial predator, would have warranted his resignation regardless of his own personal culpability.

He said: “When I look back at the last 50 or 60 years, not only through the eyes of the Makin Report, whatever one takes one’s view of – however one takes one’s view of personal responsibility – it is clear that I had to stand down, and it is for that reason that I do so.”

He added: “The reality is that there comes a time, if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility, where the shame of what has gone wrong, whether one is personally responsible or not, must require a head to roll. And there is only, in this case, one head that rolls well enough.”

The Archbishop also took the opportunity to crack several jokes at his own expense, commenting that he hoped, unlike his predecessor Simon of Sudbury, his head would not roll “literally”.

He explained that the unfortunate Archbishop “had his head cut off” in 1371 by some “revolting peasants” who then “played football with it at the Tower of London”. “I don’t know who won, it certainly wasn’t Simon of Sudbury,” he said.

On Thursday night, one of Smyth’s victims branded the Archbishop’s comments “tone deaf”.

The victim, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Telegraph: “Tone deaf. Does he not realise he has resigned in disgrace? The Makin Review states that the Archbishop had a moral and personal ‘responsibility’ to have done more to stop John Smyth, the most prolific abuser the Church of England has ever known.”

Last bit. There was a pic of JW amidst the text.

“The Makin Report into the Church’s failure over Smyth, which precipitated the resignation, found that the Archbishop had a responsibility to pursue concerns further in 2013, “whatever the policies at play at the time”. Smyth, a barrister and Christian youth camp leader, abused up to 130 boys across three countries before his death in 2018 in Cape Town.

The Bishop of Newcastle said after the speech that she was “deeply disturbed” by the Archbishop’s language, calling it “unwise to say the very least”.

The Rt Rev Helen-Ann Hartley, who was the only bishop to call publicly for the Archbishop’s resignation last month, said: “It was, in my view, unwise to say the very least. To make light of serious matters of safeguarding failures in this way yet again treats victims and survivors of church abuse without proper respect or regard.”

What is it about some men and apologies?
That's 2 this week alone who have been forced to apologise for their absence of an apology .
Reading the room should not be beyond their capabilities

He has now apologised.

But he should think several times before even opening his mouth, in future.

There's little point in those with safeguarding training within the C of E reporting their concerns to the designated safeguarding officer, so those concerns go on up the line if those further up, shirk their responsibilities.

Therein lies the rub.

And it is not just the C of E that has these problems.

Bridie22

Why do these men have to be shamed into apologising?

A huge amount of ego and arrogance?

Spot on fancythat ego and arrogance in abundance. Thinks he is above the role he has and the church he supposedly serves.

His speech confirmed he has absolutely no idea what damage the abuse caused
It’s frightening to think someone in such a powerful position has no idea what constitutes abuse, even less about his own responsibility for the failure to investigate so enabling the abuser to continue

fancythat

He has now apologised.

But he should think several times before even opening his mouth, in future.

He will go away and live in luxury.

I saw it and the woman looked very uncomfortable.

He's an intelligent man. He knew what he was saying was totally inappropriate but he said it anyway.

But why is he still in the House of lords can't they take a lordship away and what use are all those bishops in the lords dressed in their ridicolous robes Sack them and let the public vote for new lords why do they make deciçions with so little life experience

For so many Christians the fact they claim to be Christian makes them arrogant which helps to make religion less and less attractive

I too was horrified by the tone of JW speech. No contrition by a so called head of the protestant congregation. As I was brought up to believe in the saying "never mix religion and politics", I fail to understand, why such bishops are automatically made Lords, (or Dames if female) and therefore a seat in the House of Lords?

I'm suprised that the designated safeguarding officers don't have to report any concerns outside the church, ie to Social Services. I would've thought not to do so would be failing in their legal duties.It certainly would in any other organisation.