Should Justin Welby resign?

Perhaps because he has resigned rather than been sacked and the process of choosing a new AoC is quite lengthy.

I don’t know much about the C of E and it’s procedures but why can’t the Archbishop of Canterbury step down immediately and somebody else, another Bishop conduct any Christmas services?

Allira, Doodledog will know her story. I can identify four friends whose fathers angry physical and emotional assaults on them were linked to wartime/ptsd

Most parents do their best, some are horrific abusers. Criminalising the abusers is necessary. Criminalising after an out of character isolated smacking is likely to create more problems than it solves imo

Iam64

My parents were born in 1922 and 1923. They weren’t smacked and didn’t smack us. Dad’s family were mill workers, his parents from large families where the belt was used in lads. They chose not to continue this.

I understand Doodledog’s point that her parents reflected their own experience, as many of us do. Not wanting to criminalise families yet wanting to intervene positively remains a pressure

Perhaps Doodledog's grandparents smacked their children, and continued what they knew, learned behaviour, but my point is that it would not have been a consequence of war-time experiences.

Wyllow3

What now seems to be happening is that different Diocese are acting in different ways and different speeds.

From what's been said above, the names in the Telegraph were a rapid response by the Diocese of London, the Diocese of Gloucester rapidly suspended the PTO of Rev Nick Stott, a priest from Cheltenham

Whereas the demands for Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York to resign seems press-driven following the Makin report.

Its far better imo if it comes from the Dioceses as its a clear sign the church is acting (tho what follows suspension isn't clear yet)

Returning to the theme I flagged up it seems to me that the Diocese of all the named people in the Makin report should suspend those named as a start, and rapidly. Suspension isn't resignation, of course, and further action needed, but it would be a very significant across the board start.

My parents were born in 1922 and 1923. They weren’t smacked and didn’t smack us. Dad’s family were mill workers, his parents from large families where the belt was used in lads. They chose not to continue this.

I understand Doodledog’s point that her parents reflected their own experience, as many of us do. Not wanting to criminalise families yet wanting to intervene positively remains a pressure

My parents were products of their own (wartime) upbringings with all the associated trauma that that involved, and I am not saying they should have been criminalised
That does not necessarily follow as a consequence of traumatic war-time experiences.

My parents lived through WW2, my father served in the Forces in WW1 and WW2 but I was never smacked.

The 1980’s saw huge improvements in training all staff involved in work with children and families, about safeguarding.

The problem with a lot of historic abuse was adults wouldn't believe children and the authorities would always believe the abuser and then blame the parents and the child for wasting their time. This meant perverted teachers, sports coaches, priests and celebrites( a certain one from Leeds comes to mind) could do what they wanted. Mercifully since the eighties, hundreds of these people have been caught and charged and allegations of abuse are followed up more seriously now.

In 1986, I reported a child with fingertip bruises on her shoulders and thighs to the head of school where I was on supply. The head did pass on the report, but nothing was done.

My father ‘smacked’ my sister to the point where she had bruises all over her bottom, back and legs. Her PE teacher saw this in the showers, and asked what had happened. When my sister said she ‘had been naughty’ nothing happened. This was the 70s, so a long time ago, but it illustrates why people should not use separate vocabulary for child abuse (as opposed to the words they would use for more general assault) and why all incidents should be reported.

My parents were products of their own (wartime) upbringings with all the associated trauma that that involved, and I am not saying they should have been criminalised, but my sister and I would almost certainly have benefited from intervention of an educational variety.

M0nica

George Carey is a retired Archbishop of Canterbury and nearly 90. Nothing to resign from.

Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York, by so generously excluding himself from the succession is actually side stepping the point that he too has been implicated in the sexual abuse cover-up.
www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/24735297.archbishop-york-responds-calls-resignation/

Apologies George Carey resigned after a previous report found he was guilty of covering up an abuse scandal.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carey

It's definitely complex with teenagers and pre teens who are embarassed and understandably so. If they had been able to speak out at the time, their injuries would have been photographed and documented. Perhaps that's what their parents wanted to avoid. Or perhaps the parents were "leaned on" by the local fielty to hush it up?

Whoever does know should confess and turn in whoever they are protecting. It is the only right thing to do.

@Iam64 I have been involved in cases where action was taken involving a child, but it was not within the C of E. For example one of the contexts was pretty straightforward as the child spoke about the events, there was physical evidence. and previous history of the Mum's having dodgy boyfriend's. Social Services had already been involved in a previous place and they had likely moved to escape detection.

It's usually not complex if someone speaks up , there are marks and social services are already involved, but that would be unlikely in the case of the Winchester College students. Plus the parents hushed it up at the time, which is awful.

i could not keep silent, I’d rather loose my job

I agree but - how many of us have raised safeguarding concerns to be told later that the investigation concluded there was no concern/the victim(s) refused to co-operate /we are concerned but at this stage not enough evidence to do more than keep a watchful brief.
I’m not diminishing the serious concerns about the Smyth abuse. Simply acknowledging the complexity in safeguarding y

Yes I agree Mollygo.

Like Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. It is the most apt thing I can find to say.

Anyone who keeps quiet is complicit and guilty as hell.

We can't change the way the C of E is governed, but we can speak freely and let our views be known. Who knows who is reading. If we prick some consciences in doing so, so may be it.

I for sure would not like to be them. Having worked in Safeguarding (not church!) all my life, I could not keep quiet. I would rather lose my job.

No one should protect abusers, including by ignoring the fact that it has happened or pretending not to know.

(Don't protect anyone who is an abuser or you're as bad as the abuser.)

No one should be excused from acting on the grounds that they are high up in the church any church.
At the moment this is rightly about the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the CofE clergy who are guilty of knowing about the abuse.

Whatever conclusion is arrived at and a decision made about this matter, I hope the same will be applied to the highest in other religions who do know about the abuse that has happened/is happening, but so far would not be held responsible any more than Justin Welby.

What now seems to be happening is that different Diocese are acting in different ways and different speeds.

From what's been said above, the names in the Telegraph were a rapid response by the Diocese of London, the Diocese of Gloucester rapidly suspended the PTO of Rev Nick Stott, a priest from Cheltenham

Whereas the demands for Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York to resign seems press-driven following the Makin report.

Its far better imo if it comes from the Dioceses as its a clear sign the church is acting (tho what follows suspension isn't clear yet)

Wyllow3

00opsidia (and any others who might have ideas)

I'm genuinely interested in how you think matters should be furthered now. This thread has rightly explored the cover ups and the horror of the abuse, and made it clear that Welby's resignation alone doesn't do the job at all, but as above I asked,

"Clearly it's not all right in that others who had as great a part in cover-ups/fail to report.fail to push with police/police failures tho not ultimately responsible have been left in place - over 10's of years.

The huge question is, who decides who else should be asked to leave? How can it happen? Who makes the decisions?

First I'll start with the secular view: From a Safeguarding perspective, I feel that anyone who is covering for anyone who is guilty, must do the right thing and reveal what they know. No one should protect abusers. That's what Desmond Tutu meant I think. (Don't protect anyone who is an abuser or you're as bad as the abuser.)

From a Spiritual POV: Ideally the guilty parties would by themselves confess all and leave their positions. No one can make them do this, but their own consciences should. If they do not, it means they have done so much evil that they have seared their own consciences and definitely should not be in position.

Finally I don't know who makes the decisions or how it can happen. How can it not happen though? How can this rot continue?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Blimey. There’s more ….

A former chaplain to the late Queen is among four priests who have had their licences suspended by the Church following a damning abuse report.

The Diocese of London has withdrawn permission to officiate (PTO) from three clergy pending an investigation into their involvement in the abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, while the Diocese of Gloucester said it had suspended the PTO of Rev Nick Stott, a priest from Cheltenham.

These rotten men. It’s rife.

these rotten men is correct FGT. Before anyone leaps to the defence of men and tells me women can abuse/behave badly/cover up I say yes, I know this. The sad fact remains that the majority of sex offences are committed by men.
What is to be done? It’s the eternal question.
Keir Starmer announced during the election that his government would address the epidemic (my words) of abuse against women and girls. Given his track record I believe he wants to do all he can.
Offences against boys have been less publicised for various reasons. The publicity around Smyth and other men within the church will hopefully ensure boys aren’t forgotten. I’d like to see Mr Starmer talk about offences against women and children. I recognise the evidence to date says girls are the major victim group,

I've no doubt there's more rot which will be bought to the surface, and more names given.

George Carey is a retired Archbishop of Canterbury and nearly 90. Nothing to resign from.

Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York, by so generously excluding himself from the succession is actually side stepping the point that he too has been implicated in the sexual abuse cover-up.
www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/24735297.archbishop-york-responds-calls-resignation/

Jaberwok

What's.going to happen at Christmas? Surely Archbishop Welby won't be conducting Midnight Mass or Mass on Xmas morning ? Hardly appropriate I'd have thought?!

The York one is next in line and will substitute for the AoC. York feels he is too near retirement (they retire at 70) to stand for the permanent post.
These ones need to resign - all names in the report.
Bishop Stephen Conway
Jo Bailey Wells
Martin Seeley
George Carey

Good on you Ian - spot on. Would that more people had the courage to stand up for those who have been the victims of this disgraceful abuse and cover up.

I’d be very happy if my local vicar applied for the job of Archbishop!! He’s so far from rotten. But it doesn’t work like this of course.