Church of England head says it 'colluded with' sex abuse

[Dylar]

Certain institutions are attractive to pedophiles, they provide easy access to children, a propensity to hide the situation to protect reputation beyond a level of inherent trust. It would seem the Church is one of these to an extent, another is private schools.

That's not to say it's rampant in these institutions, just that they have aspects to it that make it easier to go unnoticed, or have the issue dealt with discretely as opposed to making it a public issue.

Objection! An entire institution shouldn't be held responsible for a few members of the clergy that don't have self-control! Unless it's covering it up of course...

[Giovenith]

Certain institutions are attractive to pedophiles, they provide easy access to children, a propensity to hide the situation to protect reputation beyond a level of inherent trust. It would seem the Church is one of these to an extent, another is private schools.

That's not to say it's rampant in these institutions, just that they have aspects to it that make it easier to go unnoticed, or have the issue dealt with discretely as opposed to making it a public issue.

Objection! An entire institution shouldn't be held responsible for a few members of the clergy that don't have self-control!

It should if the institution doesn't immediately do shit about it as soon as they find out.

[Athrax]

Objection! An entire institution shouldn't be held responsible for a few members of the clergy that don't have self-control!

It should if the institution doesn't immediately do shit about it as soon as they find out.

Seriously, I feel like people are so quick to rush to the defense of these institutions even after they admit they fucked up. The CoE and the Catholic Church have both copped up as institutions to how badly they screwed up in dealing with pedo priests, and yet I still people try to use the "it's not the church's fault, it's the individual." The initial incident might have been at the feet of the priest and he should go to prison for that, but the minute that the higher-ups find out and don't take action, or take action to move and/or cover up the crime, they are complicit in whatever happens.

[Fartsniffage]

Certain institutions are attractive to pedophiles, they provide easy access to children, a propensity to hide the situation to protect reputation beyond a level of inherent trust. It would seem the Church is one of these to an extent, another is private schools.

That's not to say it's rampant in these institutions, just that they have aspects to it that make it easier to go unnoticed, or have the issue dealt with discretely as opposed to making it a public issue.

Objection! An entire institution shouldn't be held responsible for a few members of the clergy that don't have self-control! Unless it's covering it up of course...

Rubbish. If an institute has a group of people who break the law then the institute as a whole should be held responsible and examined. An institute is not a person and does not enjoy the rights of a person. They are guilty until proven innocent.

[Giovenith]

It should if the institution doesn't immediately do shit about it as soon as they find out.

Seriously, I feel like people are so quick to rush to the defense of these institutions even after they admit they fucked up. The CoE and the Catholic Church have both copped up as institutions to how badly they screwed up in dealing with pedo priests, and yet I still people try to use the "it's not the church's fault, it's the individual." The initial incident might have been at the feet of the priest and he should go to prison for that, but the minute that the higher-ups find out and don't take action, or take action to move and/or cover up the crime, they are complicit in whatever happens.

Until the church starts actively grabbing these people by the throat, publicly stripping them of their clergy membership, and cooperating fully with the authorities to ensure their imprisonment, they will never be free from blame. Ever. All the charity work in the world isn't going to excuse them from that.

[Athrax]

Seriously, I feel like people are so quick to rush to the defense of these institutions even after they admit they fucked up. The CoE and the Catholic Church have both copped up as institutions to how badly they screwed up in dealing with pedo priests, and yet I still people try to use the "it's not the church's fault, it's the individual." The initial incident might have been at the feet of the priest and he should go to prison for that, but the minute that the higher-ups find out and don't take action, or take action to move and/or cover up the crime, they are complicit in whatever happens.

Until the church starts actively grabbing these people by the throat, publicly stripping them of their clergy membership, and cooperating fully with the authorities to ensure their imprisonment, they will never be free from blame. Ever. All the charity work in the world isn't going to excuse them from that.

Even once they start doing that, these kinds of incidents will always be an albatross around their necks in my mind.

[Purpelia]

God help us ! I mean is this guy literally INSANE ?!?

Probably. I mean, as far as PR moves go this one is a rather large gamble with relatively little in terms of potential payoff. It's like, they already sacrificed that old bishop guy in order to placate public opinion and save face. So right now they have every chance of this just becoming a footnote and going away. Instead this new guy has opted to open up the wound by shouting "this runs deeper than you think!" in order to draw attention which is inevitably going to cause to a further loss of face instead.

And I know what he is getting at here. He wants to use all that attention to reinvigorate peoples belief in his institution by saying "We were evil! But now we shall be better than ever before!" but like that's a very hard sell for very obvious reasons.

So yeah, I'd call it insane.

If they wanted to actually solve the problem they should have done everything in their power to make the whole thing as low key as they could whilst they figured out some method of internal control to prevent it from happening again and do so in a way that is invisible to outsiders.

I just can't wrap my mind around such a treacherous, hypocritical organization.

Not to be cynical, well just a little, but this is the organization that shamelessly claims to represent god on earth after being founded by a king for the explicit purpose of legitimizing his fornication. But I guess god works in mysterious ways?

[The Sauganash Union]

I'm actually shocked this came from a Protestant church. Anglicans, like all other Protestants, allow for clerical marriage.

Typically, it's the Catholics who have sexual abuse, and I think it's the ban on clerical marriage that helps cause this.

[Athrax]

I'm actually shocked this came from a Protestant church. Anglicans, like all other Protestants, allow for clerical marriage.

Typically, it's the Catholics who have sexual abuse, and I think it's the ban on clerical marriage that helps cause this.

Nah, if it were a rash of priests getting caught with prostitutes that might be an explanation, but this is a different problem

[Bombadil]

Until the church starts actively grabbing these people by the throat, publicly stripping them of their clergy membership, and cooperating fully with the authorities to ensure their imprisonment, they will never be free from blame. Ever. All the charity work in the world isn't going to excuse them from that.

Even once they start doing that, these kinds of incidents will always be an albatross around their necks in my mind.

Well that's exactly the issue, the church relies on donations and if the act of some individuals threaten the entire institution then they're incentivised to brush it under the carpet. It's the same with private schools, they'll have the person resign without a note on their record rather than make a public issue of it, and that person is then free to go to another school.

A larger question might be the BBC, which seems to have had issues in the 70's but they talk of it as a masculine culture back then, the 'times were different' excuse.

[Ifreann]

Certain institutions are attractive to pedophiles, they provide easy access to children, a propensity to hide the situation to protect reputation beyond a level of inherent trust. It would seem the Church is one of these to an extent, another is private schools.

That's not to say it's rampant in these institutions, just that they have aspects to it that make it easier to go unnoticed, or have the issue dealt with discretely as opposed to making it a public issue.

Objection! An entire institution shouldn't be held responsible for a few members of the clergy that don't have self-control! Unless it's covering it up of course...

Or if they're Muslims.

---

God help us ! I mean is this guy literally INSANE ?!?

Probably. I mean, as far as PR moves go this one is a rather large gamble with relatively little in terms of potential payoff. It's like, they already sacrificed that old bishop guy in order to placate public opinion and save face. So right now they have every chance of this just becoming a footnote and going away. Instead this new guy has opted to open up the wound by shouting "this runs deeper than you think!" in order to draw attention which is inevitably going to cause to a further loss of face instead.

And I know what he is getting at here. He wants to use all that attention to reinvigorate peoples belief in his institution by saying "We were evil! But now we shall be better than ever before!" but like that's a very hard sell for very obvious reasons.

So yeah, I'd call it insane.

If they wanted to actually solve the problem they should have done everything in their power to make the whole thing as low key as they could whilst they figured out some method of internal control to prevent it from happening again and do so in a way that is invisible to outsiders.

Yeah, nothing restores public trust like ignoring criticism and not obviously doing anything.

---

I'm actually shocked this came from a Protestant church. Anglicans, like all other Protestants, allow for clerical marriage.

Typically, it's the Catholics who have sexual abuse, and I think it's the ban on clerical marriage that helps cause this.

Obviously you're wrong.

[Constantinopolis]

That is, if al this is nonsense and a way to mask themselves of the evil they do, then let's blow the door off this. EVERYONE does evil...EVERYONE is immoral.

...you realize that "everyone does evil" and "everyone is immoral" is literally a core part of Christian doctrine, right?

Also, child molesters are found among every group of people and every profession. There are far more teachers who are child molesters than priests who are child molesters, yet I don't hear anyone saying that schools are dangerous and kids are better off without them. Get a grip.

[Dylar]

I'm actually shocked this came from a Protestant church. Anglicans, like all other Protestants, allow for clerical marriage.

Typically, it's the Catholics who have sexual abuse, and I think it's the ban on clerical marriage that helps cause this.

*Ahem* Protestants also have a long history of sex abuse within the clergy.

[Bombadil]

Also, child molesters are found among every group of people and every profession. There are far more teachers who are child molesters than priests who are child molesters, yet I don't hear anyone saying that schools are dangerous and kids are better off without them. Get a grip.

The Church has some specific issues.. they hold a certain attraction for the reasons I gave above. Second, the Church has specifically hidden the issue and thus allowed it to continue. Finally, the Church holds itself to be a moral guide and tells people how they should live their lives. For these reasons the Church is a problem different to others.

I doubt we can find any statistics on incidence per person in any institution so your claim above is hard to justify. However..

But one key difference is that the private schools who "passed the trash" between one another were not part of a single hierarchical order.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bmep ... lic-church

[Giovenith]

Even once they start doing that, these kinds of incidents will always be an albatross around their necks in my mind.

Well that's exactly the issue, the church relies on donations and if the act of some individuals threaten the entire institution then they're incentivised to brush it under the carpet. It's the same with private schools, they'll have the person resign without a note on their record rather than make a public issue of it, and that person is then free to go to another school.

A larger question might be the BBC, which seems to have had issues in the 70's but they talk of it as a masculine culture back then, the 'times were different' excuse.

How is brushing these things under the carpet in any way an incentive? I hear this excuse all the time, "The church is just trying to protect their reputation." How? How does covering up pedophiles in any way protect them? It has always had the complete opposite effect, every time they do the public get pissed at them and begins to question the legitimacy of these institutions. The public is not a bunch of toddlers with no sense of object permanence, moving pedophiles around doesn't trick us into thinking they don't exist, all it does is send the message that churches don't take child molestation seriously.

Ironically, this defense before of, "Blame the individual, not the institution," actually would hold up if the institution punished these people. People understand that we're only human and that bad things happen despite the best intentions, they only become angry when it becomes clear that the entity in question isn't even trying to make up for or prevent said bad things. Furthermore, people love seeing assholes be punished and condemned: it's why we're bombarded by lie detector talk shows, demand the termination of wrongdoers' jobs, and go on epic witch hunts for people who do something offensive on social media. If the churches actually made a point of throwing these people under the bus, I have extremely little doubt that the overwhelming response would be people cheering them on for it - "Wow, look at this church, they really know how to take responsibility and keep their membership clean and safe for our families!"

Not only is their current approach to the problem reprehensible, it doesn't even make sense in their goal to maintain face.

[Bombadil]

Well that's exactly the issue, the church relies on donations and if the act of some individuals threaten the entire institution then they're incentivised to brush it under the carpet. It's the same with private schools, they'll have the person resign without a note on their record rather than make a public issue of it, and that person is then free to go to another school.

A larger question might be the BBC, which seems to have had issues in the 70's but they talk of it as a masculine culture back then, the 'times were different' excuse.

How is brushing these things under the carpet in any way an incentive? I hear this excuse all the time, "The church is just trying to protect their reputation." How? How does covering up pedophiles in any way protect them? It has always had the complete opposite effect, every time they do the public get pissed at them and begins to question the legitimacy of these institutions. The public is not a bunch of toddlers with no sense of object permanence, moving pedophiles around doesn't trick us into thinking they don't exist, all it does is send the message that churches don't take child molestation seriously.

Ironically, this defense before of, "Blame the individual, not the institution," actually would hold up if the institution punished these people. People understand that we're only human and that bad things happen despite the best intentions, they only become angry when it becomes clear that the entity in question isn't even trying to make up for or prevent said bad things. Furthermore, people love seeing assholes be punished and condemned: it's why we're bombarded by lie detector talk shows, demand the termination of wrongdoers' jobs, and go on epic witch hunts for people who do something offensive on social media. If the churches actually made a point of throwing these people under the bus, I have extremely little doubt that the overwhelming response would be people cheering them on for it - "Wow, look at this church, they really know how to take responsibility and keep their membership clean and safe for our families!"

Not only is their current approach to the problem reprehensible, it doesn't even make sense in their goal to maintain face.

Well.. 'incentivize' might be the wrong word here. I watched this documentary on a private school in the UK where the headmaster and two other teachers were pedophiles. Quite serious pedophiles. A matron noticed something about one of the teachers and spoke to a boy who told her of the abuse. At that point the teacher was asked to resign as the solution, as opposed to taking it to the police..

The weirder point was that the parents were informed, and they sent the boy back to the school on the idea it was solved. Aside from the horror of being sent back to the place the abuse occurred, the headmaster and another teacher continued to abuse boys.

I don't think people know what to do in the case of pedophilia, they'd rather not think about it and make the problem go away rather than bring it out into the open - perhaps they justify it internally on 'reputation of the school/church' but I suspect it's partly just not wanting to accept it.

..that teacher simply went to another school and carried on. Even when it was all brought out in the open some 20 years later there were issues with 'he said/he said' testimony after 20 years.

[Giovenith]

Also, child molesters are found among every group of people and every profession. There are far more teachers who are child molesters than priests who are child molesters, yet I don't hear anyone saying that schools are dangerous and kids are better off without them. Get a grip.

The reason you don't hear that is because the teachers actually get punished. They're banned from working with children ever again. Furthermore, teaching staff is required by law to report any kind of sexual abuse they suspect to the authorities under penalty of being charged as an accomplice, not the system with many clergy where they're allowed to keep their lips sealed about anything they see or hear and the offending party is frequently delivered to a new batch of potential victims. Schools, by in large, actually try to protect kids and willingly hand over teachers who molest to the police. That's why nobody's calling them dangerous, because they have rules in place that are meant to eliminate danger as soon as possible, not keep it around.

Let's say you're a landlord whose tenant's heat is broken in the winter. When they complain to you about it not being fixed, you try to defend yourself by saying that your neighbor's building's heater was once broken too, so what's the problem with it happening to you? The problem is that your neighbor fixed the damn heater. You haven't.

This can't be repeated enough: The problem isn't that it happens, it's that nothing is done about it.

Here's something more worth getting a grip on: How about instead of getting so pissed at the people who are rightfully angry about churches' unwillingness to do anything about a serious problem, you instead turn around and get pissed at the church policies that are giving churches bad reputations in the first place? Get mad at the cancer, not the doctors informing you that you have cancer.

How is brushing these things under the carpet in any way an incentive? I hear this excuse all the time, "The church is just trying to protect their reputation." How? How does covering up pedophiles in any way protect them? It has always had the complete opposite effect, every time they do the public get pissed at them and begins to question the legitimacy of these institutions. The public is not a bunch of toddlers with no sense of object permanence, moving pedophiles around doesn't trick us into thinking they don't exist, all it does is send the message that churches don't take child molestation seriously.

Ironically, this defense before of, "Blame the individual, not the institution," actually would hold up if the institution punished these people. People understand that we're only human and that bad things happen despite the best intentions, they only become angry when it becomes clear that the entity in question isn't even trying to make up for or prevent said bad things. Furthermore, people love seeing assholes be punished and condemned: it's why we're bombarded by lie detector talk shows, demand the termination of wrongdoers' jobs, and go on epic witch hunts for people who do something offensive on social media. If the churches actually made a point of throwing these people under the bus, I have extremely little doubt that the overwhelming response would be people cheering them on for it - "Wow, look at this church, they really know how to take responsibility and keep their membership clean and safe for our families!"

Not only is their current approach to the problem reprehensible, it doesn't even make sense in their goal to maintain face.

Well.. 'incentivize' might be the wrong word here. I watched this documentary on a private school in the UK where the headmaster and two other teachers were pedophiles. Quite serious pedophiles. A matron noticed something about one of the teachers and spoke to a boy who told her of the abuse. At that point the teacher was asked to resign as the solution, as opposed to taking it to the police..

The weirder point was that the parents were informed, and they sent the boy back to the school on the idea it was solved. Aside from the horror of being sent back to the place the abuse occurred, the headmaster and another teacher continued to abuse boys.

I don't think people know what to do in the case of pedophilia, they'd rather not think about it and make the problem go away rather than bring it out into the open - perhaps they justify it internally on 'reputation of the school/church' but I suspect it's partly just not wanting to accept it.

..that teacher simply went to another school and carried on. Even when it was all brought out in the open some 20 years later there were issues with 'he said/he said' testimony after 20 years.

This doesn't really answer much about my post, only that other institutions have a similarly ridiculous mentality. They're shooting themselves in the foot with this strategy. It's like trying to cover a pile of dog doo-doo with a napkin instead of scooping it into the trash: you've kept it out of sight for maybe about an hour, but people are going to smell it out and they're going to be waaaay more pissed at you for not cleaning it up than they would have been for just letting the dog shit in the house in the first place but then quickly getting rid of the mess. You can bounce back from a brief mistake that you've made up for, you cannot bounce back from knowingly allowing the mistake to hinder everyone and refusing to admit any wrongdoing.

[Bombadil]

This doesn't really answer much about my post, only that other institutions have a similarly ridiculous mentality. They're shooting themselves in the foot with this strategy. It's like trying to cover a pile of dog doo-doo with a napkin instead of scooping it into the trash: you've kept it out of sight for maybe about an hour, but people are going to smell it out and they're going to be waaaay more pissed at you for not cleaning it up than they would have been for just letting the dog shit in the house in the first place but then quickly getting rid of the mess. You can bounce back from a brief mistake that you've made up for, you cannot bounce back from knowingly allowing the mistake to hinder everyone and refusing to admit any wrongdoing.

I think the point is that people aren't acting logically in these cases.

[Constantinopolis]

Let's say you're a landlord whose tenant's heat is broken in the winter. When they complain to you about it not being fixed, you try to defend yourself by saying that your neighbor's building's heater was once broken too, so what's the problem with it happening to you? The problem is that your neighbor fixed the damn heater. You haven't.

This can't be repeated enough: The problem isn't that it happens, it's that nothing is done about it.

Here's something more worth getting a grip on: How about instead of getting so pissed at the people who are rightfully angry about churches' unwillingness to do anything about a serious problem, you instead turn around and get pissed at the church policies that are giving churches bad reputations in the first place? Get mad at the cancer, not the doctors informing you that you have cancer.

But they have fixed the damn heater. They have done a lot about it. The Catholic Church, in particular, has completely updated its procedures on dealing with child abuse in recent years.

The vast majority of these child abuse cases that keep surfacing are decades old. And since no amount of improvement can actually go back in time and change the past, these old child abuse cases will keep surfacing and there's nothing that the present-day leadership of the various churches can do about that.

[Constantinopolis]

Not only is their current approach to the problem reprehensible, it doesn't even make sense in their goal to maintain face.

It's not the current approach. It's the old approach, which allowed various people to get away with child abuse decades ago.

Those people are now gradually getting caught, so they keep showing up in the news.

Peter Ball, for example - the Anglican bishop whose conviction sparked this thread - committed his sexual abuses between 1977 and 1992.

[Frank Zipper]

Peter Ball, another of Prince Charles' dodgy mates.

[Purpelia]

Yeah, nothing restores public trust like ignoring criticism and not obviously doing anything.

The best way to atone for your sins is to have a secret way of making sure they don't happen in the first place. The secret part being there to ensure people think even more highly of you because it looks like you are good without even trying.

[Hakons]

But it's not.

It's patently absurd to think that all of Christianity was invented so that some priests could molest children, or do any other kind of evil, and get away with it.

My feelings about the matter is I don't believe any "revealed" type of religion. Rather, I think people can understand God (broadly speaking) by using there own simple rationality and reason. The Founding Fathers were of the same faith called Deism.

Most of the founding fathers were devout Christians. Remember, the 1st Great Awakening spread through the Anglo-sphere just before the American Revolution. The ones from New England were likely Congregational, like John Adams, and the ones from the South were likely Anglican, like George Washington. The middle colonies were a mixed bunch of religions, like Catholic, Lutheran, and Quaker.

God is understood primarily through faith. However, a lot of Christian theology was brought about by using reason and rational arguments. For example, when faced with debate over the trinity, many Christians, like Tertullian and Origen, used logic and faith to defend the triune God. Another group that used reasoning were the Christian apologists. They argued for Christianity in hopes of convincing skeptics. Some famous apologists you might recognize are Thomas Aquinas and C. S. Lewis.

[The Sauganash Union]

I'm actually shocked this came from a Protestant church. Anglicans, like all other Protestants, allow for clerical marriage.

Typically, it's the Catholics who have sexual abuse, and I think it's the ban on clerical marriage that helps cause this.

*Ahem* Protestants also have a long history of sex abuse within the clergy.

Compared to Catholics, it's nothing.

[Dylar]

*Ahem* Protestants also have a long history of sex abuse within the clergy.

Compared to Catholics, it's nothing.

"Nothing" huh. Tell that to the victims and their families. I'm sure they'd be happy to agree with you.