Should Justin Welby resign?

Father Patrick Smythe, 78, was found guilty of six counts of indecent assault and one of attempted indecent assault following trial at Leeds Crown Court last week.

The ‘predatory paedophile’ committed a string of sexual offences against boys under the age of 16 between 1978 and 1983, whilst working at St Wilfred’s School in Featherstone.

Smythe came into contact with many boys at school and church, taking a number away on school trips where he would take the opportunity to groom and abuse those who were left in his care. The court heard of particular instances whereby he preyed on boys during swimming trips to Leeds and whilst on retreat at a hostel in North Yorkshire.

Above is dated 2022, and is from a solicitors called Farleys.

It seems any young males were in danger from this pervert.

I don't really understand much about church hierarchy, and who is who.

OldFrill my understanding is that young men/boys were Smyth’s target. Boys from 13 years up.

Did his wife know? The boys were invited to join a family meal at his home, not all were abused. Some he would take to the 'shed' in the garden which was soundproofed and when he was abusing a boy he flew a white flag to indicate he should not be disturbed.
If my husband took boys to a soundproof shed I'd be pretty damn sure he wasn't playing dominos.

ronib

OldFrill my understanding is that young men/boys were Smyth’s target. Boys from 13 years up.

Have you read the report? His son was 7.

I'd imagine she must have had an inkling, considering the sheer amount of boys involved.
130 or so, is the estimate ive seen.

OldFrill but how many other 7 year olds did Smyth attack? Boys at Winchester start there at 13.

MissAdventure

She said the first victim, who was 12 or 13 at the time, was abused by Smythe on trips away, that he masturbated the boy and forced the youngster to masturbate him. He claims Smythe also rubbed his penis up against the boy when they were swimming in a river.

Another man claims Smythe touched his penis while they were in the swimming bath.

The third said he was on a camping trip when he woke to find Smythe touching the boy’s penis. He confronted him and Smythe apologised, but Ms Morland said the priest gave the impression that the boy was the only victim.

Are you confusing Patrick Smythe with John Smyth? Patrick Smythe was a priest in Leeds.

John Smyth was not a priest but a member of the C of E.
He and his wife were excommunicated by the church in Cape Town in 2017. Rumours had been circulating about him there since 2013.

Tx Allira.

Oh, I may well be!!!
I need to check out my "facts" before shouting my mouth off.

"Father Patrick Smythe, 78, was found guilty of six counts of indecent assault and one of attempted indecent assault following trial at Leeds Crown Court last week."

Different "Smythe" MissAdventure , this one is a Catholic priest who had already served time in prison for similar offences. The other Smythe was never charged with anything as far as I am aware.

The bottom line is that men (and women) with a predilection for abuse will always seek out those places which give them easier access to their prey, preferably where they have authority and possibly a reason for entering children's bedrooms or in closed environments like cults or strict religious communities where children and perhaps women also have less of a voice. It's not that the organisation is necessarily evil or corrupt, it's the people it attracts and often they form their own little groups within those organisations, which gives them even greater protection.
In the early 90's I worked with a young woman from a Mormon community. It was a big family and she told me that her father abused every girl in the family in turn. She said it felt wrong but her father was a complete authority figure and she always obeyed him. It wasn't the religion that was at fault, he'd become a Mormon because he was an abuser. This is why any organisation has to be constantly on it's guard with clear safeguarding procedures and why I feel so angry that Welby didn't do what he should have done in 2013. tbh I think there's more to come out about this man and those who kept silent.

sorry cross posted!

I just hope Welby resigns from the HoL too and doesn’t sit in there as some faux ‘spiritual adviser’ pontificating to all of us as is his want.

I’m just aghast that he wasn’t stopped by church authorities long before he died.Also surprised that he was married, I assumed he was single.

Oreo

I’m just aghast that he wasn’t stopped by church authorities long before he died.Also surprised that he was married, I assumed he was single.

As far as the Archbishop of Canterbury is concerned - he resigned as he should because, as the top man in the organisation, the buck stopped with him. But he was not alone.
So many people knew but did nothing.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0lyrz5yn9o

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I just hope Welby resigns from the HoL too and doesn’t sit in there as some faux ‘spiritual adviser’ pontificating to all of us as is his want.

So do I.
Or at least have the decency to not ever set foot in there again.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I just hope Welby resigns from the HoL too and doesn’t sit in there as some faux ‘spiritual adviser’ pontificating to all of us as is his want.

Good point. He should be defrocked and forced out of all public office. It may seem harsh, but people in authority need to know that being silent is being complicit.

According to the report, Smyth’s justification for the beatings was that they were chastisement for sins (including eg masturbation) in order to purify the soul by punishing the body. Because of this, the young men could be said to have consented, as they understood it was “for their own good.” But there were grounds for prosecution, for causing serious bodily harm.
Smyth was misusing the Bible to justify his sadomasochism. So it opens up a whole debate about the understanding of the Bible, especially by those who take every word literally and out of context.
Nothing is ever straightforward, but the focus should be on supporting the victims.

JW was not silent, as such, he trusted others including the police, to do their job. He failed to check, to follow it up. So many more people were involved.

Welby would need to be given a peerage which is normal for the Archbishop of Canterbury to receive after his tenure but not automatic. If he's resigned I think it would be morally difficult for him to accept a peerage should he be offered one but who knows?

I feel he would not want one.

Ronib my post suggested you starting a new thread because I didn't want to derail it by responding to your post about Starmer. Please don't draw conclusions that haven't been made.

Chocolatelovinggran

I have mentioned this before, but a barrister relative of mine was recently prosecuting a case in which the elderly clergyman was accused of historic child abuse. His plea was not guilty.
He was found guilty.
What the jury did not know was that he had served two prison sentences already for previous offences.
The offenders wife and daughters attended the trial, and protested his innocence throughout.

Well, they had to protest his innocence or they would be questioned about why the covered for him.

Or were they were so brainwashed and so abused BY him that they truly believed he was a good man?

There are many reasons why his wife may not have realised or spoken out. None of them good.

ronib

00opsidia I am a bit confused by your omission of young men. Smyth was involved with beating young men in the most sadistic manner possible. Not women and not children.

His wife is a woman. I was referring to why she might not have spoken up. His children were young children once.

He may have abused them in the name of Christianity and that may be why they are in denial about it being wrong or that he was a bad man to abuse young men. I know how sadistic he was and with young men, but I was talking about his effects on his family.

Oreo

I’m just aghast that he wasn’t stopped by church authorities long before he died.Also surprised that he was married, I assumed he was single.

It would partly depend on who knew I presume.
And what they knew, or thought they knew.

I dont see being married or not had anything to do with anything.

In the case of someone [not church related] who looked at things online he shouldnt have, his girlfriend and family had no idea.
Their lives have been shattered.
And changed. For specific reasons, they[dont think the girlfriend wants to anyway] are not allowed contact.
The man has moved out of the local area.

Allira

Oreo

I’m just aghast that he wasn’t stopped by church authorities long before he died.Also surprised that he was married, I assumed he was single.

As far as the Archbishop of Canterbury is concerned - he resigned as he should because, as the top man in the organisation, the buck stopped with him. But he was not alone.
So many people knew but did nothing.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0lyrz5yn9o

Bishop Conway did do stuff.