Farewell and good riddance

Jeanathome

I think robes are an utter waste of money. They are signifying some sort of superiority which is laughable.

Exactly so. Like student gowns and caps and capes and expensive wedding outfits, they have been bought or hired to show off for so long that it’s considered a tradition, but it’s really just showing off.

I agree.

I think robes are an utter waste of money. They are signifying some sort of superiority which is laughable.

TakeThat7

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

A voting public will not know what person to vote for. We need people in the H of L with business and a whole lot of other experience, to help balance the awful Governments, including this one, the country seems to elect.
We do not need another second Labour house, we need a balance of politics and all work experiences.
Nothing wrong with appearing in robes, our culture and tradition, if they are fit to wear them.

Wyllow3

"The main thing is that they should be named and blamed"

Agreed, but by what mechanism? Which body?

Yes, therein lies the problem. We can say that the Pope knew about the abominations carried out under the RC, but who’s going to tackle that

"The main thing is that they should be named and blamed"

Agreed, but by what mechanism? Which body?

He seems incapable of humility. He’s apologised now, but I suspect only because it’s expedient for him to do so.

Jeanathome

*There should be a similar public and forensic enquiry into why church officials ignored this problem and those who wee involved in the cover up should be clealry named*

And then what? These people carry on with their charmed existence.

No, they should be made to resign if in senior positions - and their licence to preach, ir whatever it is called should be withdrawn.

The main thing is that they should be named and blamed. There is another thread on GN where the corrosive affect that shame can have on someone, who has no reason can be. All the more reason for publicly naming and shaming those who were content to let others suffer, rather than take action that would reveal to the world what was happening under their watch.

There should be a similar public and forensic enquiry into why church officials ignored this problem and those who wee involved in the cover up should be clealry named

And then what? These people carry on with their charmed existence.

I didn't see it having been away for a few days and after reading the comments here I won't bother seeking it out.
From a victim of historical abuse I find it extremely difficult as I never had 'a voice', and never got justice.

I have every sympathy for anyone with depression, but with depression as with any other health issue. If it stops you doing your job properly, you should either not accept it, or resign if you are in post.

What you do not do is use your health or any other problem as an excuse for ignoring a systematic wrong in your organisation that has been profoundly damaging to many vulnerable people over a long period of time.

Although the cause was different, the computer problem that was persistently denied by the Post Office that ended with innocent people in prison, bankrupt and mentally destroyed is not that different, though on a alrger scale to what has happened in the Church of England. There should be a similar public and forensic enquiry into why church officials ignored this problem and those who wee involved in the cover up should be clealry named.

I was aware he is being treated for depression. I agree with you Luckygirl, depression does not excuse his behaviour in failing to ensure safeguarding policies were followed. I don’t know enough about his behaviour prior to the farewell comments but in both his focus was entirely on himself. Pray for his wife, feel sympathy for his diary secretary, then the truly shocking linking of his head rolling and the decapitated bishop.
He simply failed to accept responsibility or demonstrate a shred of understanding why he should.

Is he one of those narcissistic individuals who succeed in rising to high office?

Iam64

I’m not defending the arch bishop but I wonder if he’s entirely well. He asked for prayers for his wife, not the victims, then his farewell speech took his self obsession to another level. His head must roll etc

Welby is known to be under treatment for depression... he has talked about this over the years ... and I am sorry that he has this miserable affliction. But it is no excuse for his absence of true contrition about the impact of his failures on vulnerable people.

The unedifying sight of people who should know better chuckling along with him from their positions of privilege is utterly sickening.

Separation of church and state is long overdue .... not just at the top but in the education system.

I’m not defending the arch bishop but I wonder if he’s entirely well. He asked for prayers for his wife, not the victims, then his farewell speech took his self obsession to another level. His head must roll etc

So he has apologised for his apology/ leaving speech?

He will have a very ,very confortable life. Perhaps he could contribute a large sum to enable the victims to access life long therapy.

OldFrill , maybe we have different ideas and feelings about what “duty” means. but I was also confused about what you mean by church members.

Only some people who go to C of E services are Church of England Members on the C of E Electoral Roll. I’m not C or E but I do know some people only go occasionally, or go for weddings and funerals.

I suppose I see “duty” as a heavy moral obligation ….so although I think everyone who goes to services should know about the Makin Report and its contents,

I feel concerned for people who are too vulnerable (for example, having had abuse themselves) ill mentally or physically, very elderly or for other good reasons unable to read it right now. I dont like the idea of them feeling they are falling short in anyway by not reading it.

Thats why I suggested that people who can step up and take it on read it and be in working groups to address “what should the church do re those still in their positions".

Its also a concern for all not just 'insiders' if there are to be changes in it being the State Church and the issues around who crowns the King/Queen and whether we should have bishops in the HoL

Parsley3

I saw it too and was astonished by his lighthearted tone. He more or less said that he a scapegoat. There was much chuckling in the male ranks but the Bishop with her head in her hands said it all for me.

putting the “arch” into Archbishop

petal53

I disliked him before but now I’m astounded at his arrogance. He’s a most unpleasant man in my opinion and unfit for the role he occupied.

well this was bravely said petal, I quite agree, a disingenuous
unlikeable man, a cynical post I always felt

Wyllow3

I do think there should be a separation of church and state. Very complicated however, who crowns the king/queen, the relationship between Crown and the church very intertwined. Whole of our history involved, but it now doesn't sit well with a pluralist/secular society.

We are still left with the "who should act on these 30 or so named people in the Makin Report". It doesn't seem as if the police are involved or the CPA. should it?

But I'm not on favour of a suggestion above that everyone attending C of E services/other occasions such as marriages or funerals be "forced" to read the report. Possibly working groups.

I dont know enough about the internal workings of governance in the C of E to know how it could reach a decision making body.

But I'm not on favour of a suggestion above that everyone attending C of E services/other occasions such as marriages or funerals be "forced" to read the report. Possibly working groups.

Who are you referring to. I certainly didn't suggest anyone should be forced to read it, not did l mention funerals or weddings.

I think church members have a duty to read it (not least a duty to the victims).

We should not have people in the House of Lords simply because of the fact they got promoted to be bishops. The recent outing of the CofE at its highest echelons of power as being abject failures on safeguarding should, in a democracy lead to them being banished.
We don’t have Buddhists, Jane’s it followers of Jeddhi knights and we don’t want priests, bishops, immams, or rabbis either.

Loopylyn - some closed communities are still even less likely than the CofE to involve police or social workers where abuse is suspected. Some even cover up even if they aren’t archbishops

I do think there should be a separation of church and state. Very complicated however, who crowns the king/queen, the relationship between Crown and the church very intertwined. Whole of our history involved, but it now doesn't sit well with a pluralist/secular society.

We are still left with the "who should act on these 30 or so named people in the Makin Report". It doesn't seem as if the police are involved or the CPA. should it?

But I'm not on favour of a suggestion above that everyone attending C of E services/other occasions such as marriages or funerals be "forced" to read the report. Possibly working groups.

I dont know enough about the internal workings of governance in the C of E to know how it could reach a decision making body.

What is it about 'wearing the cloth' that seems to excuse this kind of behaviour. Priests, nuns and now CofE.
I don't know enough about other religions to comment but it doesn't look good for those listed!

TakeThat7

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

As a Humanist, I have to agree with your viewpoint TakeThat7.

The UK Parliament automatically awards 26 seats in the House of Lords to bishops of the Church of England. These bishops are able to (and do) vote on legislation, make interventions, and lead prayers at the start of each day’s business.

This is an extremely unusual and anti-democratic set-up, which has a negative influence on the quality and character of British politics. The only two sovereign states in the world to award clerics of the established religion votes in their legislatures are the UK and the Islamic Republic of Iran (a totalitarian theocracy).

DiamondLily

Unhappily, all religions have a lot of abusers existing within their range of “employees”.

So, this won’t change much.🤷‍♀️

Agree DiamondLily.
Hiding in plain sight. Marking their own homework.

I am not a member of the Church of England, but intersted in religious issues. I have for aa long time felt ambivalent about Justin Welby.

After reading and watching Ian Hislop's (editor of Private Eye) account of meeting him at a dinner for the great and good the day after his resignation and now reading about his speech in the House of Lords, I find him quite despicable.

Having admitted his faults over a particuclarly nasty sex abuse case in the heart of the C0f E, any person with any self=respect would have cancelled all future engaements where he was invited because he was of his officiaal role and any parting speech to the House of Lords, if he had to make one, should have been a contrite apology for his faults andnthe harm they did to other people.

The man is despicable.