We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Bishop Bell confirmed me. I was, I remember, impressed because, like Field Marshal Montgomery who also visited my school at the time, he was a typically unimpressive little man with a very ugly face! But what a superb example to us today!
There again... Ian Hislop.
Market Garden wasn't impressive. It was ego.
I agree, Montgomery was at best an unimpressive general with too high an opinion of himself. His behaviour over D Day and after was very damaging to British military reputation.
A lot of guys died because of Montgomery's vanity. Falaise should have been a second Stalingrad. But Monty wouldn't have it.
William the Conqueror was born there. The place has always been a problem.
He certainly transformed the Eight Army's effectiveness in North Africa and Italy.
And what about Alamein then?
Too few German soldiers, the famously bad Wehrmacht logistics, and Tommy Atkins.
And lack of air support.
Carl, what can you tell us about Michael Bloomberg? Is he the Democratic candidate with the potential to attract Republican voters away from Trump?
Yet another NE Liberal - former Mayor of NYC. Mayors are not credible Presidential candidates. Understand that I left the Republican party over Trump, however. I am a registered independent. I won't be caucusing and I'm not paying much attention to the Democrats. Primaries are always extreme as candidates play their hands to a motivated base.
Ooops ... wrong article!
Better than a wrong pronoun Jack.
Using the third person pronoun is perfectly acceptable, if somewhat unusual. You're just being discriminatory. Where's your sense of diversity?!
I was with you until you got to slavery and homophobia. It was great Christians who helped abolish slavery. John Newton comes to mind. Homophobia is a modern term used by cultural Marxists who have helped destroy the Church. Such conflation of ideas stains the article.
I think there's still something that the word homophobia was originally intended to cover which Christians should be clear about rejecting: we shouldn't seek to deny that there have been and still are many people who take someone else's sin as a licence to inflict injury and harm on them. In the same way as I would hope that a Christian would intervene if they saw a mob trying to lynch a prostitute, there are things which are "homophobia proper" which we should reject. That doesn't change what Scripture teaches about sexual morality nor does it mean we have to accept terminology that is (I agree) much expanded and highly suspect.
I am going to put in a word too for Thomas Clarkson, who did the heavy lifting. Wilberforce handled the Parliament and Prime Minister with dexterity. Clarkson did the research and the donkey work of spreading the scandal. Slavery today is taught and discussed as if it were a national scandal of which we all ought to be ashamed. It is a national triumph.(PS What are our phones made of and who mines them? Does anyone give a damn? And I do hope nobody who gets irate about slavery has ever taken cocaine/cannabis/heroin which cause endless violence, death and slavery. And that's another issue too...)
Well in the case of Bishop Bell daylight should have been allowed into this long ago. I firmly believe if you want to accuse you do so in the light of common day, not in the shadows of anonymity. And nor do I believe that the Church, nor anyone else for that matter, should be sending fat cheques for allegations which have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This was a civil proceeding and claim, not a criminal case. Out of court settlements happen all the time without acceptance of culpability or liability. The error in this instance was not the payment (which was small given the nature of the allegations) but the Church of England accepting the claims were credible and that George Bell was guilty. There was no need for Welby to say he could not, with integrity, clear Bell’s name.
To be honest, having been in similar situations, Jack has some empathy with Welby's statement:
“We have to treat both Bishop Bell, his reputation — we have to hold that as something really precious and valuable. But the person who has brought the complaint is not an inconvenience to be overlooked: they are a human being of immense value and dignity, to be treated equally importantly. And it is very difficult to square that circle.”
I agree. For many reasons the CoE made a grotesque mess of its handling of this case, but it is worth asking what should have been done that wasn't. In my view, (1) 'Carol' should have been told: "We are not pre-judging anything but we need to cross-examine you, because someone who has genuinely been abused and a golddigger would say the same thing, and cross-examination will give us more information to distinguish. Can you see why we require that?" And (2) That reporter who said others had been abused in a local newspaper should have been followed up by the enquiry, no matter how many phone calls had gone unreturned.
What should have been done ? That is patently obvious: 'Carol's' story should have been rigorously examined and she should have been made to make her accusations in the light of common day, not in this hole in corner manner. Bishop Bell deserved far better than this nonsense. I think the lessons of 'Nick' should be heeded and those who claim to have been abused in 1892 or whenever should not be believed without their story being tested properly. And the last thing that ought to be done is sending fat cheques. Time to derail the compensation gravy train.
Any decent qualified child protection expert assessing this woman's allegations, would have tested her account. "Cross examination" is an adversarial process intended to discredit and undermine. Truth and justice isn't always the outcome. For victims of abuse, this can be harmful and traumatic. This matter was settled and didn't go to court - civil or criminal. If it had gone to a civil court, given that George Bell was dead and the action would have been against the Church of England, it would have been the Church who would have been "cross examining" the claimant and seeking to undermine her testimony. As Jack said, he empathises with Welby in this situation.
I mean the same by "cross examination" as you mean by "testing her account". I agree with the words of Welby you have quoted, but overall I believe he grotesquely mispresided over the matter.
In going public with George Bell's name? He argued that when the details eventually became public at the inquiry, the Church would have been accused of a cover-up. And he was right in this. His error was in stating (or implying) that he believed Bell was guilty when there was no clear evidence for this.
At IICSA Justin Welby said "We've got to learn to put actions behind the words because 'sorry' is pretty cheap."He also said that he had apologised to me in person at lambeth palace in November 2016. He did not. Neither my solicitor or myself remember an apology and the minutes for the meeting, taken by a member of the nst, record no apology. This meeting was 7 months before Devamanikkam was even charged (and nobody knew if he would be). Was Justin Welby so convinced of Devamanikkams guilt that he apologised to me 7 months in advance of charges? This is not likely.Further an internal memo (obtained through a subject access request) from the same member of the nst dated April 2018 clearly states that no apology had been issued.So was Justin Welby mistaken, badly briefed or deliberately telling an untruth to the inquiry?The 'letter' Justin Welby produced (a few minutes before the start of the hearing despite there being months to prepare statements and hand in documentary evidence) , which I have never received, was a fudge anyway and the barrister asked Justin Welby if that was an apology or the beginning of one. I was sat behind him the whole time but he never turned round once.I have still had no formal apology despite being raped by a vicar in a vicarage. I would not want that regurgitated excuse now anyway.If apologies are so cheap..then do it along with restorative action that is appropriate. The truth is that any apology now would be worthless because it would have had to be dragged out of Mr Welby or Mr Sentamu. It is a cold, cold heart that behaves like this.Raped by a vicar in a vicarage as a youngster and the archbishop, nor any of the other bishops who have acted shabbily and shambolicly can even say sorry. I was right in my observations at iicsa....not fit for office.
I imagine that, having paid out lots of compensation to George Bell’s accuser and now being faced with having to compensate his relatives, too, Welby has nothing left for you. Was it your case where the Church paid for a short course of counselling but refused to pay your bus fare to get there?
No that wasnt me
I thought it sounded uncharacteristically generous of the CE.
About time too! Any idea when George Bell's statue will be unveiled at Canterbury cathedral? A great Dean and a great Bishop. Let's hope that his hymn - "Christ is the king" will have been sung today in many churches and cathedrals on Christ the King/Stir up Sunday.
Really? Desperate doggerel and dreadful dirge.
When is Welby resigning?
Probably never. Can you impeach an Archbishop?I see Sentamu is dragging it out until three days before his retirement deadline, in June next year. Who will succeed him? Diane Abbott?
I suppose he could be excommunicated.
You got the gender right.
And the politics, and probably the ethnicity. Eh, Rose Hudson?
Has the Archbishopric of York been taken in modern times by somebody who was not previously a bishop? That would widen the field but in any case here is a list of the 24 current CoE women bishops:
The guide book has been changed. Good.Central to justice for George Bell is the fight against those who judge the past, without sufficient evidence or context, by the standards of today, to buy approval and signal virtue.If you can see this in the case of George Bell, Martin, why do you still support us repenting for the acts of slave traders, antisemites and persecutors of homosexuals? These things were done in different times by other people. To suggest that we bear guilt is just another form of injustice and stupidity.
Absolutely agree, Chef. The biblical, godly principle is that each person is responsible for his (or her) own wrongdoing or sin, and no-one elses's. The instruction given in Deut.24:16, 2Ki.14:6, and 2Chr.25:4, while expressed within a context where the death penalty was implemented, gives a principle of personal responsibility that applies in contexts where other penalties are implemented.
The requirement for retrospective grovelling apology for wrongdoings that are not a particular person's fault or responsibility is a form of guilt manipulation that needs to be resisted with full determination, no matter what the force of social coercion applied to that person to perform an act which is nothing but virtue-signalling. Justice demands that the innocent should not be punished, but the guilt-manipulating coercing social mob cares nothing for justice, but only for vindictive, unjustified punishment.
"The biblical, godly principle is that each person is responsible for his (or her) own wrongdoing or sin, and no-one elses's."
Quite right - perhaps the most definitive passage is Ezekiel chapter 18.
Thank you for the Ezekiel 18 reference - I had forgotten about that one.
It's not either/or.
There is such a phenomena as social or structural sin that resides within a group or a community of people. Think of the modern West world and fornication, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, homosexuality etc., not to mention the hugh inequalities in wealth. It exists within any structure in society that promotes moral evil, oppresses human beings, violates human dignity, stifles freedom or imposes great inequity. Once we recognise these patterns and structures, we need to move toward action on behalf of justice and the common good.
When enough people commit the same sin, it gets much bigger. It gets accepted by society and has much larger reaching effects. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
“Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”
This doesn't mean abandoning the idea of personal sin. “Social sin” and “structural sin” shouldn’t be interpreted as negating personal accountability. This sin proceeds from the accumulation of personal sins. As Saint Pope John Paul said, it is “a question of a moral evil, the fruit of many sins which lead to "'structures of sin.'"
The function of the theological concept of “structural sin” is to name those death-dealing conditions which cannot be reduced to individual sinfulness, but rather shape the situations in which individuals make decisions. It also highlights our moral complicity with this. The source of “social sin” or “structural sin” is personal sin, so the solution rests with our personal actions and also our collective actions. However, we must do more than attempt to change “the system,” as important as that may be. We must also change ourselves.
I think there are two aspects of sin which are worth 'exploring' - Guilt and Effects. Whilst I am not guilty for the sins of my forebears,, I may suffer the effects of their sins- as may society. Indeed the effects may be felt by many succeeding generations -the sins of the fathers unto 3rd and 4th generations. However the guilt does not get passed down. I have quite enough of my own without the burden of their's!
True but unless we recognise the sin and acknowledge the harm caused, past and present, we are disinclined to learn. It seems right to Jack for the Body of Christ, which is one with past and future generations, to own its failings.
Slavery.Coffee and sugar in the 18th century both depended on it. Social life revolved round both. and the people who produced coffee and tea? The planters and the slaves. English Christians (mainly the Quakers) stopped it. Nobody else did - European American, Muslim, African. We should be very proud.Today? How about the human trafficking which provides us with some of our fruit pickers? The slavery in Africa today which provides us with our mobile phones and some industrial diamonds? The people who sniff about Global Warming and their Care for the Poor and then go out and do drugs which are brought to them by a gang of pathetic urban losers in danger of their lives?Wee are blind to all that - what bloody hypocrites we are!
It is worth talking to Nigerian Christians about this. I know some - serious Christians too. They are very aware that we eventually stamped it out throughout the British Empire, but also aware that prior to that we were the largest slave transporters in the world, and abolition didn't do any good for those whom we had transported.
We should no more be proud of the whole business than the Germans should be proud of being ashamed of the Holocaust. What we can do where slavery goes on today is say, "We repented - so should you".
Actually the 'largest slave transporters in the world' were the Arabs.
Change "largest" to "most consistent" and I'd agree. In the 18th century, we were the largest.