Tag Archives: Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

April 13 2019 – “Cloud Cuckoo Archbishop” – ‘Bats in the Belfry’ – Christopher Hill

https://rothercottage.wordpress.com/2019/04/12/cloud-cuckoo-archbishop/

one_eyeland_cloud_head_by_sean_breithaupt_44450

cloud-cuckoo-land2

Cloud Cuckoo Archbishop

Archbishop Justin Welby this evening on Channel 4 News urged the country to reunite post-Brexit.

Could he not make a start by promoting unity in his own backyard?

After two exhaustive reports on allegations against Bishop George Bell found that the church’s procedures had been shambolic and the allegations without any legal merit, the Archbishop should have gratefully jumped at the opportunity to close the whole sad affair.

Instead he said that there remained a cloud over Bell’s name, and has since refused to withdraw or apologise for the remark. This has upset many church men and women, some of them influential, and unnecessarily caused angry disunity.

It is never too late. Could he not now concentrate on his immediate responsibilities and help his church to reunite by abandoning stubbornness and issuing a recantation of his ‘cloud’ remark?

Feb 22 2019 – The Pontificating Hypocrisy of an Archbishop?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“The biggest and the deepest way of being transformed is through stepping outside the company of those who reinforce our views and listening to those who disagree with us profoundly. Listening, not so as to speak, but so as to hear”

Archbishop Justin Welby [Church of England’s General Synod – Church House Westminster – Thursday, Feb 21 2019]

“‘Pot, kettle, black’ comes to mind with these pontifications by Archbishop Welby, especially when it comes to that ‘Elephant at Synod’ called Bishop Bell. There are many of us outside the General Synod ‘bubble’ of Church House Westminster who have no wish to be cynical, nor dampen any non-cynical spirits therein, but Archbishop Welby’s exhortations are becoming a little too hard to digest by those of us who take Matthew 7 v 5 seriously. I’ve now lost both confidence and patience in an Archbishop who wilfully and inexcusably refuses to take a leader’s responsibility for Bishop Bell’s character assassination; nor has he the moral courage to apologise for perpetuating an injustice which is staring in everyone’s face except his own”

Richard W. Symonds

Feb 20 2019 – ‘The Bishop Bell Question’ – David Lamming – General Synod 2019 – Church House Westminster [Wed Feb 20 – 17.45-19.00]

2000px-Logo_of_the_Church_of_England.svg

General Synod 2019 – Church House Westminster

Wednesday Feb 20 – 17.45-19.00 – Questions – David Lamming

“Has the House of Bishops considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgement he expressed on 15 December 2017 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’, particularly in view of the Briden Report dated 17 January 2019 and the recent statement by Lord Carlile that ‘The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him’?”

GS Misc 1213 – Progress Report by the National Safeguarding Steering Group – The Rt Revd Peter Hancock – Lead Bishop for Safeguarding

40. The decision of the Right Worshipful Timothy Briden (acting in his capacity as
commissary to the Bishop of Chichester) was published by the Bishop of Chichester
and the Archbishops’ Council on 24 January 2019. The decision related to ‘fresh
information’ brought to the attention of the Church following publication of Lord Carlile’s independent review into the Church’s original handling of allegations against the late Bishop George Bell. The terms of reference for the independent investigation and independent ‘decision-making body’ (Timothy Briden) did not involve re-investigating the allegations made by ‘Carol’, for which a civil settlement had already be made.

 

Feb 17 2019 – “The only ‘significant cloud’ existing in the Bishop Bell case is the one inside, and over, the head of Archbishop Welby. If heads are not seen to apologise, they must be seen to roll” ~ Richard W. Symonds

one_eyeland_cloud_head_by_sean_breithaupt_44450

“The only ‘significant cloud’ existing in the Bishop Bell case is the one inside, and over, the head of Archbishop Welby. If heads are not seen to apologise, they must be seen to roll”

Richard W. Symonds

Feb 8 2019 – RWS Note – “With Lord Carlile QC and Timothy Briden upholding the moral and legal principle of the presumption of innocence and justly declaring Bishop Bell innocent in law, should Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner be allowed to defy this principle by refusing to declare Bishop Bell innocent?” ~ Richard W. Symonds

“With Lord Carlile QC and Timothy Briden upholding the moral and legal principle of the presumption of innocence and justly declaring Bishop Bell innocent in law, should Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner be allowed to defy this principle by refusing to declare Bishop Bell innocent?”

~ Richard W. Symonds

Feb 8 2019 – “George Bell ‘should not have been named’ in Church’s settlement of sex abuse allegation” – Church Times – Madeleine Davies

IMG_2295

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/8-february/news/uk/george-bell-should-not-have-been-named-in-church-s-settlement-of-sex-abuse-allegation

George Bell ‘should not have been named’ in Church’s settlement of sex abuse allegation

08 FEBRUARY 2019

A confidentiality clause should have governed the payment made to “Carol”, the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, has said

The house at 4 Canon Lane, Chichester, once called Bishop Bell House

 

THE blackening of George Bell’s name would not have happened had there been a confidentiality clause governing the payment made to “Carol”, who accused him of sexual abuse, the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, said on Monday.

Dr Warner was addressing supporters of Bishop Bell at the Rebuilding Bridges conference, held at 4 Canon Lane, Chichester, to which supporters wish to see the name “George Bell House” restored.

The naming was up to the Dean and Chapter, the Bishop reiterated (News, 1 February), but he indicated that the cathedral should make more of the Sisters of the Cross, who had donated the house.

“I don’t think simply renaming it ‘George Bell House’ will just do the job. We cannot rewrite history, but we must do better.”

More generally, he suggested that the Church of England must “speak of the achievements, the good things that Bishop Bell did” to restore his reputation. It was “report that makes a person famous for their good deeds. . . So, it seems that for us in the diocese and the Church of England at large, it is important that we are able to speak of the achievements, the good things that Bishop Bell did.”

This had been done on “a number of occasions”, he said, one of which had been his address at a commemoration of the Reformation, in Coburg in 2017. “I believe history will tell the good deeds of Bishop Bell, and I believe they will stand the test of time.”

Dr Warner resisted calls to pronounce Bishop Bell innocent, prompting one speaker to explain that “most here are troubled because the idea of innocence until proven guilty touches everyone.”

He did, though, indicate his acceptance of a key recommendation by Lord Carlile of Berwick, who conducted a review of the Church’s handling of the accusation against Bishop Bell, that the dealings with Carol should have been confidential. “The fault lies with us as the institution, and it is clearly identified in Lord Carlile’s report, as having gone public. We have to own up to that and face it. I’m very clear about that. I take part of the responsibility.

“If you want to know about justice, it’s not about guilty or innocent, but what is made public. Had we said nothing about a settlement with Carol, had there been a confidentiality clause, none of this would have reached the public domain. . .

“We are clear on how wrong we were on publicising the process.”

A statement by Lord Carlile was read at the conference: “The Church should accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and Bishop Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.”

His review had not been asked to determine whether Bishop Bell was innocent, but he had concluded that the case was not strong enough even to be brought to court (News, 22 December 2017).

Among the resolutions carried at the conference was one calling for an apology by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and another asking for a debate in the General Synod.