Comments: Justin Welby and the BBC

Any connections/antagonisms between the Church of England and the BBC are surely heightened by the presence of Lord Green at the centre of the web.

Also (note to non-UK readers) if the media are siding with the Archbishop against the BBC, it could conceivably be part of their ongoing campaign to destroy a public broadcaster.

Posted by ExRevd at Monday, 2 October 2017 at 11:18am BST

He's doing well here too!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/02/justin-welby-unable-to-give-straight-answer-on-whether-gay-sex-is-sinful

Posted by cjcjc at Monday, 2 October 2017 at 3:00pm BST

And the media advisor in Lambeth Palace is...? It's all very well being told to 'mention Jesus' every time you have media exposure; but dealing with a seasoned pro like John Humphrys requires something more substantial and a greater demonstration of cultural literacy. For me, it points up the fact that Welby may be good at 'The Church Talking to the Church' routine; but as a commentator on matters of wider public concern, he absolutely does not get it - and he doesn't do his homework, either. Wonga all over again.

Posted by David Harris at Monday, 2 October 2017 at 3:54pm BST

That Guardian article, about the GQ interview, is about as awful as it can get for the Church of England.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no "straight answer" (oops, he meant to say "good answer"--or was that a Freudian slip?).

He is "copping out," "struggling," etc. His words, not mine.

And then we have this gem: '[H]omophobia was sinful “because you are hating individuals. I don’t think it is sinful to say that you disagree with gay sex. But to express that by way of hatred for people is absolutely wrong in the same way as misogyny or racism is wrong.”'

I fail to follow the reasoning here.

Is the Archbishop saying that it is not sinful to say that you disagree with breasts, or black skin?

Posted by Jeremy at Monday, 2 October 2017 at 4:26pm BST

Sadly, I think that it is unlikely that there is much light to be generated by further dissection of the Saville affair, although there is unfortunately much heat. It's become almost the dictionary definition of what on the left is referred to as whataboutery: the tendency to defend the indefensible but citing something even more indefensible which, you assert, your opponent has failed to condemn sufficiently.

The people who protected Saville, by action and inaction, are long retired and, in many cases, dead. The society in which he was so easily able to operate is also dead. The lessons are hard to draw because of lack of evidence; the lessons are of limited value because we live very differently now. There will be criminal abusers again, but they will be different, and the ways in which we defend against them require consideration of 2017, not 1977.

It is often said that militaries equip and train for the last war; the Royal Navy only just now moving towards littoral warfare rather than defending convoys in the Greenland / Iceland gap and the Royal Air Force has a lot of very expensive interceptors for Cold War duty which are pretty useless for what is needed today. We should try to avoid our debate about child protection being about the past, and how we would have prevented a villain of 1977, rather than the present.

Posted by Interested Observer at Monday, 2 October 2017 at 4:43pm BST

Is gay sex within a loving relationship okay?

That is a yes or no question.

Either it is or it isn't.

It's the Tim Farron question, except this is religion not politics, and it's a reasonable question for a Church leader to be asked. Especially when the Church in question still expects its gay priests to be celibate.

Posted by Susannah Clark at Monday, 2 October 2017 at 8:41pm BST

TEC really needs to cut ties with dear old Mother CofE. What a clown show!

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 7:06am BST

Welby still doesn't realise the extent of the C of E's failure to deal properly with abuse in the past or the present, nor its failure to adequately respond to and support survivors and claimants. As a priest who has been trying to flag up these issues for the last 25 years or more, it's discouraging. Will real progress ever be made? I do wonder whether it's time I too cut ties with the dear old mother church - it's my own church & vicar, Anglican friends, and sites like TA that keep me going.

Posted by Janet Fife at Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 11:19am BST

Poor old Justin. He reminds me of chief executives I have known: unable to keep his mouth shut, fond of the quick fix, unwilling to consider possible unwelcome outcomes, spending little or no time reflecting on how things could have been done better, and most of all hating loyal dissent. "Something must be done; this is something; this is what we shall do; get on with it; tell me when it's done; I don't want to hear of problems." The soundbiter bit. I shall pray for him - that should do the trick.

Posted by Stanley Monkhouse at Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 5:18pm BST

Type the word 'vicar' into Google and click on 'news'. Invariably a list of clergy accused or convicted of abuse appears. And Mr Welby blames the BBC!

Posted by FrDavidH at Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 7:33pm BST

No he didn't FrDavidH. He actually said "I haven't seen the same integrity over the BBC's failures over Savile as I've seen in the Roman Catholic Church, in the Church of England, in other public institutions over abuse."

Posted by David Runcorn at Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 4:28pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.