And, finally, we’re just days away from the publication of the report from the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry.
For victims of abuse this will be a very difficult time, regardless of what it says.
For those who were in frontline positions of responsibility there are likely to be uncomfortable truths. For authority figures, some at the very top of the ‘Establishment’ who were in other powerful roles in previous decades, there will difficult questions that deserve answers.
And for today’s politicians, there will be a demand for tangible action and no reliance on that God-awful phrase ‘lessons have been learned so it couldn’t happen again’.
Every time there’s a serious case review, we hear it.
Every time when journalists like me ask who should be help responsibile, we’re told it’s ‘the system’ so no one’s at fault.
This report is Jersey’s opportunity to prove to all Islanders and the world that those cited for wrongdoing will face justice, that those running ‘the system’ won’t escape without sanction, and that the victims who were cowed into silence or disbelieved for generations will, at long last, get some form of justice.
“Church resignations” – Argus Letters – Richard W. Symonds
If a former Archbishop resigns because of the Ball Inquiry (“Carey quits over sex abuse report”, Argus, June 27), then the current Bishop of Chichester should resign because of the Bell Inquiry – if, and only if, Lord Carlile’s criticism is of the same magnitude as – but of a different order than – Dame Gibb.
THE Church of England “colluded” with and helped to hide the long-term sexual abuse of young men by one its bishops rather than help his victims, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.
The Most Rev Justin Welby’s statement came as the Church published Abuse Of Faith, an independent review of how it handled the case of Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes who was jailed for 32 months at the Old Bailey in 2015 after pleading guilty to a string of historical offences, including two counts of indecent assault.
The review, chaired by Dame Moira Gibb, found that “Ball’s conduct has caused serious and enduring damage to the lives of many men”.
It stated: “Peter Ball betrayed his Church and abused individual followers of that Church.
“The Church at its most senior levels and over many years supported him unwisely and displayed little care for his victims.
“Much of what we have described took place in different times and should be viewed from that perspective.
“But such perverse and sustained abuse by a senior figure in the Church and the Church’s failure to safeguard so many boys and young men still casts a long shadow.”
During his time as bishop, Ball hand-picked 18 vulnerable victims to commit acts of “debasement” in the name of religion, such as praying naked at the altar and encouraging them to submit to beatings, his trial heard.
The Archbishop described the report as “harrowing reading”, adding: “The Church colluded and concealed rather than seeking to help those who were brave enough to come forward.
“This is inexcusable and shocking behaviour and, although Dame Moira notes that most of the events took place many years ago, and does not think that the Church now would conduct itself in the ways described, we can never be complacent; we must learn lessons.”
He restated his “unreserved apology” to the victims who had been brave enough to come forward, adding: “There are no excuses whatsoever for what took place and the systematic abuse of trust perpetrated by Peter Ball over the decades.”
There is criticism in the review of Lord Carey, who was the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, and other senior figures in the Church, saying the Church was “most interested in protecting itself”.
The review states that Lambeth Palace’s actions, especially in failing to pass on six letters of allegations to the police, while giving them one which was of “least concern”… “must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment”.
The review points out that the Church’s management of those seven letters, containing allegations against Ball, was perhaps “its greatest failure in these events”.
The NSPCC spoke of its disgust at the findings.
A spokesperson said: “It is utterly disgraceful to discover that collusion at the heart of the Church of England led to the abuse of so many young men and boys. Abuse can happen in any institution or walk of life and we must ensure it can never be covered up by the powerful. Abuse in our most revered institutions must be exposed and investigated, offenders brought to justice, and victims given confidence to come forward.”
ARCHBISHOP CALLS ON LORD CAREY TO STAND DOWN FOLLOWING RELEASE OF DAMNING REPORT
THE archbishop of Canterbury has asked his predecessor George Carey to step down as an honorary assistant bishop.
Lord Carey was singled out for criticism in yesterday’s report, with it stating he was more concerned with protecting the church rather than the victims.
In particular, it refers to Lambeth Palace’s failure to pass on six letters of allegations to the police.
Instead it forwarded one letter which was described as being of “least concern”.
The report stated this “must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment”. It added that management of the seven letters was perhaps the church’s “greatest failure”.
It stated: “The letters came from a range of families and individuals quite independently of each other. They raised concerns which were all either indirectly or precisely suggestive of sexual impropriety, or worse, by Ball.
“These were not people who were at war with the Church or had any axe to grind. In fact, some of the correspondents go to great lengths to try to avoid rancour and find a constructive way forward.”
The report found that Lord Carey was significantly involved in the way the Church treated victim Neil Todd in 1992/1993. Despite years of abuse in Sussex, Ball was able to leave the diocese in 1992 to take up his post as Bishop of Gloucester.
A year later, the then 16-year-old trainee monk Neil Todd prompted a police investigation which led to Ball’s resignation from the clergy. Ball escaped with a police caution in 1993 for an act of gross indecency against Mr Todd who took his own life in 2012.
Lord Carey described the paedophile bishop as “basically innocent” and said he had a “very high” regard for him in a September 1993 letter to Ball’s brother Michael.
The review, which said Lord Carey had played a leading role in enabling Ball to return to ministry, described this comment as “alarming”. It added: “Ball was basically guilty and had admitted that. Lord Carey was also aware that the Church had received further allegations of potentially criminal actions by Ball.”
Current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said the review made for harrowing reading.
Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, said Mr Welby had written to Lord Carey asking him to “carefully consider his position”. Mr Croft and Lord Carey will meet “in the coming days for that conversation. In the meantime he has voluntarily agreed to step back from public ministry”.
A BBC article today raises at least two disturbing issues as we await Lord Carlile’s Report on Bishop Bell:
1. Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, has asked the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey to step down from his position as Honorary Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Oxford, in the light of The Gibb Report. Dame Moira Gibb’s independent review criticised Lord Carey: “I accept the criticisms made of me. I apologise to the victims of Peter Ball…I believed Peter Ball’s protestations and gave too little credence to the vulnerable young men and boys behind these allegations”.
2. Lord Carey also did not put the ex-Bishop Peter Ball on the Church of England’s “Lambeth List”, which ‘names clergymen about whom questions of suitability for ministry have been raised’. This List would appear to allude to the “Caution List” as described by Andrew Chandler on Page 196 of “George Bell, Bishop of Chichester – Church, State, and Resistance in the Age of Dictatorship” [Eerdmans 2106]: “Over this it is worth pausing, not least because it is perhaps the only official, printed acknowledgement that there existed in the Church of England a Caution List. (The Archbishop of Canterbury: “To the outside world there is no such thing as a Caution List.”) This named priests known to have been guilty of criminal or moral offence, or viewed with “grave suspicion”. In fact, there were national and diocesan caution lists, and each diocesan bishop was advised to keep his own up-to-date; to consult it before making any appointment, and to pass any new name directly to Lambeth Palace…”
The Gibb report makes a number of recommendations about the Church, saying it should “reaffirm and take steps to demonstrate the individual and collective accountability of bishops for the safety and protection of everyone within the church”.