Different views on individual communion cups:
Peter Anthony All Things Lawful And Honest A Shot of Salvation
“Peter Anthony reveals the murky racist past that lies behind the invention of individual communion cups in Nineteenth Century America and argues against their introduction in the Church of England for a number of theological and practical reasons.”
Steven Holmes Shored Fragments On the use of individual communion cups
Hilary Bogert-Winkler Montreal Diocesan Theological College Individual Communion Cups, Community, and Covid-19
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Richard Coekin and Jonathan Fletcher’s circle
Charlie Bell ViaMedia.News Solidarity, Oppression and the Church of England
Gilo Surviving Church Thoughts on the Elliott Review ‘translation’ by Archbishops Council
Following the Surviving Church piece yesterday, there is an important article in today’s Insurance Post which reports that the medical expert frequently employed on behalf of the Church of England is facing two separate investigations by the General Medical Council for his role as an expert witness in Ecclesiastical Insurance church abuse claims. https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7681106/former-broadmoor-psychiatrist-faces-investigation-for-role-in-ecclesiastical-abuse-claims I hope all members of Synod read this shocking article, to better understand what has been happening to survivors in the Church’s name while your bishops and managers have quietly turned a blind eye. You might imagine it has taken a short while to bring the… Read more »
I’m afraid I have become very sceptical when a character assassination and/or smear campaign of a named individual suddenly arises – in this case Professor Maden.
More information please, before a rush to judgement.
Gilo does not rush to judgement. He has researched this matter thoroughly over at least 2 years, to my knowledge. The Insurance Post is not given to rushed judgements either.
Janet: This is a situation where I feel we shouldn’t express opinions, for the reasons in my response to Kate, below.
I know it is hard, but Prof Maden should be presumed innocent unlessv/ until there is a contrary finding.
Kate: It shouldn’t be hard at all. TA readers might reflect that Professor Maden faces the medical equivalent of the preliminary stages of a CDM. It is not our function or for journalists to sit in judgement. His medical report to the Church in the Bishop Bell case, as analysed in Lord Carlile’s report, was a model of fairness and expert impartiality. For the purposes of medical diagnosis and prognosis he accepted that Carol’s account was true. I’m not commenting on the outcome of that case, but reminding people of the fact that some members of the core group only… Read more »
George Bell Group on the Carlile Report [Paragraph 178, pages 46-48]: “Professor Maden, an expert on ‘false memory syndrome’, comments extensively on the case. He closes his remarks by stating that “I have no doubt that [the complainant] is sincere in her beliefs. Nevertheless it remains my view that the possibility of false memories in this case cannot be excluded. The facts are for the Court to determine. I do not believe that psychiatric or other expert evidence is likely to be of further assistance in establishing whether or not these allegations are true…”. Some members of the ‘Core Group’ did not… Read more »
Richard: Thank you for this. Possibly I was over-generous in my recollection. What Professor Maden actually said was this: “In an attempt to assist the Court, for the purposes of diagnosis I assume the Court finds the Claimant was abused as she now alleges.” The effect is the same. I think that some of our colleagues misunderstand the role of an expert witness. It isn’t to automatically support the party who has instructed them and to oppose the other party (although, depending on facts and circumstances that impression might be created). It is to make an impartial assessment and give… Read more »
Gilo’s research is exhaustive and meticulous. He tends to know what he’s talking about. Of course we await the findings of the two investigations. But are you seriously saying, Kate, that even in cases where we have direct evidence and/or personal knowledge of wrongdoing, we must nevertheless wait for a court or tribunal to reach a verdict before we form a view?
I don’t want to usurp Kate’s right to reply first, and do want to stress here that I greatly respect Gilo and what he does.
I don’t think we are entitled, nor is it proper, to form judgements – or to publicly express them – about someone facing charges in a different professional discipline from our own, and on which we have no competence or right to preempt a court’s or a tribunal’s decision.
Thanks for your vote of confidence Rowland. More to the point, the Insurance Post has been meticulous in its research. And I would imagine has done more research than may be evident. My own view is that Professor Maden does not come out with shine in his reports on Phil, Tony, and Julie. Desk-topping has been called unethical by a bishop and by safeguarding expert Ian Elliott. The way in which it was used in Tony’s case is astonishing. And the Church must surely now insist that no further settlements are followed using this practice. The revelation about use of… Read more »
Would you extend that embargo to complainants who feel that they were seriously misrepresented in Prof. Maden’s reports? Because it seems to me that they have a right to a view.
Gilo and Janet: I propose to wait for the outcome to be decided by the competent medical ethics authority. Of course aggrieved parties are entitled to be heard. My point is that outsiders should leave it to the competent authority who will consider all of the evidence.
Yes, I agree that outsiders need to weigh the evidence and wait for the results of the investigation. I was objecting to what looked like an attempt to silence Gilo, who is not an outsider.
I don’t think that interpretation could possibly put on my original comment on proper and careful reading of it. In fact I find the suggestion of “an attempt to silence Gilo” to be both offensive and the opposite of what I said. I endeavour to contribute to the best of my ability with care and accuracy on TA. I am surprised that what I wrote has been treated so superficially, and wrong conclusions drawn.
I was initially responding to Kate’s comment, which was specifically directed to Gilo. Your replies, and Richard Symonds’s, became part of that conversation so I assumed that you too were questioning Gilo’s right both to have and to state a view. I’m happy to learn that that is not the case.
Frankly, the use of individual cups administering consecrated wine in Holy Communion instead of the common chalice strikes me, frankly, un-Anglican. If folks are afraid of germs, self-administered intinction can be used. Or, simply receive Holy Communion in one kind (consecrated bread) only.