jayne ozanne rape
Church of England

Jayne Ozanne was raped by a priest? Which bishop told her not to report the attack?

Jayne Ozanne (who claimed to have reported this blog to the police last year for ‘hate’) claims to have been raped by a priest in the 1990s. She says she told a bishop about the assault last year, who advised her not to report the attack and to drop the allegations.

Right.

Who was this priest? Is he dead or is he still in active and paid ministry? More importantly, who was this bishop? Presumably, if the rape was reported last year, he (or she) is still a bishop. How could any responsible bishop in this new climate of fortified CofE Safeguarding possibly think it appropriate to advise a victim of rape not to report it and not to pursue it? What opportunity is there for justice without the (surely) necessary investigation and trial? If the man is guilty, where is the retribution? Without acknowledgment of sin, vice or crime, what hope is there for restoration? What about the possibility of this priest being a chronic bully and a serial rapist? Has a risk assessment been carried out on him? If not, why not? Aren’t his parishioners at risk? Isn’t this a question of some urgency? More importantly, has a risk assessment been carried out on this bishop? What other victims of ecclesiastical rape, paedophilia, bullying or any other abuse have been advised by this bishop to drop their allegations? Why the cover-up? Isn’t that another rather pressing question? Don’t we need to know?

Jayne Ozanne is a founding member of the Archbishops’ Council and a lay member of the General Synod. She recounted her haunting experience on Channel 4 News:

“I trusted him because he was a priest, and someone who I thought who really understood why this meant so much to me. I think that’s why I got myself into the situation that I did. But one night he decided that this was all too frustrating, he wanted more, and so he went further than I was anticipating, and to be honest it was too late before I realised what was really happening, and I was a bit shocked, which is a slight understatement. I do remember the tears rolling down – that’s the one thing out of the whole horrid incident I remember, and then not knowing who to talk to, or wanting to talk to about it. And for me the really difficult thing was I felt the most precious gift that I felt I could give my husband-to-be would have been my virginity, and that was taken from me by someone I had trusted. And the shame and the guilt of that is what kept me so quiet and silent for so many years. And having talked to other friends that’s exactly the same problem too. And we were in a culture where I think we believed that we encouraged the guys – it was our fault if we took them too far.

“And then out of the blue I got an email from this chap last year, apologising for mucking me around and for crossing boundaries. And that said to me he knew what the problem had been. I mean he didn’t use the word ‘rape’, but I suppose the question in my own mind and the thing that I’ve beaten myself up about was had he gone on to do this to other people, if he felt able to do that with me? Was this someone who’s a serial predator, or was it just a one-off really unfortunate situation? And so I did go and talk to the police about it, but I then began to understand how complicated reporting this sort of thing was – what I call how nuclear an option it is – you know, for me the biggest issue is that sadly, if you’re a priest, your livelihood, your house, everything is part of your job. And if you lose that, your wife and your children also suddenly start to suffer. And it’s very difficult therefore for someone like myself to think am I willing to put another woman in that situation, and so I must admit I think I did what many people did, I chose not to push this any further, and therefore that left me in this horrid in-between place of feeling guilty for not taking it further, but also feeling ashamed that I’d let this happen.

Cathy Newman probed: “And it wasn’t just the police that you raised it with – you raised this with the church, as well?” At this point Jayne Ozanne reveals something profoundly disquieting about the sheer (ongoing) delinquency of CofE Safeguarding:

“I did. I raise it anonymously to begin with. I rang a safeguarding officer who I thought would be in charge of his area, to ask what would happen. And I have to be honest, the response I got from that gentleman was atrocious, and in fact I said as much towards the end of the phone call, that it had taken me 20 years to get to a point of calling, and to be brushed off… I was originally told he was on the way to the gym, and could he ring me back, and, you know, it was an awful experience, and that didn’t give me any faith.

“I then spoke to another female safeguarding officer who came down and met with me. Then I got this email, and I shared that email with certain church authorities, including the bishop, who suggested that I should perhaps just let it go.

This is unbelievable; really quite incredible. Cathy Newman, somewhat aghast, begins to ask: “In writing? The bishop…”

Jayne Ozanne interjects:

“No, no, just advised me, I think because of my work as a campaigner for LGBT rights, you know, the question was: Jayne, you’ll put yourself in an awful… – I mean, this wasn’t said but this was how I took it to mean – you know, you’ll put yourself in a very difficult position. I know I was aware that Evangelicals might think: ‘Well, no wonder you’re gay if you’ve been raped’. There’s all sorts of other lines that people may say, but the bottom line is that this person should have been perhaps brought to justice, and I should have been supported and encouraged to bring out the truth.”

Well, the truth is now being brought out, thank God. And now a greater truth must surely be made known. It is very odd that Cathy Newman didn’t interrogate and probe as thoroughly as she did over the appalling child abuse meted out by John Smyth under the aegis of the Iwerne Trust (and her ongoing quest to implicate Justin Welby). Who is the accused priest, and who is this deficient bishop? It isn’t too late to bring the former to justice, and it isn’t too late to impress upon the latter that advising victims of sexual abuse to ‘keep quiet’ is beneficial neither to the victim nor the perpetrator; and neither is it conducive to transparency and the necessary administration of justice.

Jayne Ozanne recounted her “bad thing” again for Christian Today:

I was raped – by a priest. No matter that it happened over 25 years ago. It happened. I finally told someone – a bishop – last year, and was advised discreetly to drop the allegations. I’m sure it was with the best of intentions, but it was like a kick in the stomach, adding quite literally insult to injury.

…My trust in the institution had been utterly broken – if one man could carry his calling so lightly, why not another? Asking me to trust the Church to deal with this properly was like asking me to trust a tabloid newspaper to investigate its own journalists about alleged phone tapping. Impossible. The system is heavily weighted to protect its own.

Indeed it is, as we have see in the ongoing case of Matt Ineson who has outstanding (indeed, chronically overdue) CDMs and risk assessment requests against an archbishop and three bishops relating to his abuse as a child. But there appears to be no appetite to discover truth – perhaps because it’s ever so slightly inconvenient – and so the apparent cover-up continues, and the hurt festers.

“Jayne Ozanne’s interview on Channel 4, disclosing the abuse she suffered, made difficult listening,” writes Bishop Sarah Mullally, “but she clearly identified why the culture in the church must change.” Indeed she did, but how can church culture change unless bishops are prepared to confront bishops? “Extraordinary and powerful” is how Canon Rosie Harper described the interview. And indeed it was, but how much more extraordinary and powerful it would have been if we could have known the name at least of the offending bishop. How can the church’s culture of abuse change unless victims are prepared to name and shame offending clergy, as Matt Ineson has bravely done and is determined to see through to some kind of end?

Isn’t it a function of the media to shine a light into the darkness and expose hypocrisy? Oddly enough, in a subsequent report for Christian Today, Harry Farley also fails to ask the obvious questions: he simply states that Jayne Ozanne “claimed she was raped by a priest and told by a bishop to drop the claims”. Who allegedly raped? Who allegedly told her to drop it?

What sort of bishop advises a victim of clerical rape not to report the attack and to drop the allegations because they might damage your work as a campaigner for LGBT rights? What episcopal crassness is this, to suggest that a rapist priest must get off scot-free because the victim’s quest for minority rights might be damaged by the revelation? Isn’t that a form of manipulation? Isn’t it an abuse of power? Might not Jayne Ozanne’s quest for justice and the publicising of such allegations actually raise her profile as a campaigner and so enhance her pursuit of LGBT rights?

Ms Ozanne further writes:

On receiving an email from my abuser last year, I decided to take the bold step of talking to the police. My experience there was reassuringly good, but left me with yet another Church-related dilemma. Obviously, we would need to see whether there was enough evidence for a conviction, but if there was, the likelihood was that the protagonist would be sent to jail – losing his job, his home and his income. He is now married with children, and so the dilemma I faced was this – was I willing to put another woman through the trauma of losing her family home? The Church of England has few procedures to support abusers’ families (or the abused), and it is therefore the wife and children who often sadly pay the highest price!

It appears that the rapist is not being pursued in case he loses his job (and so his family loses their home). Surely this isn’t Jayne Ozanne’s call. Nor, indeed, is it the hush-hush bishop’s. Isn’t it now of great concern to the whole Church of England that somewhere in England a rapist priest is lurking in some parish? Doesn’t the hush-hush bishop at least need to inform the priest’s bishop (assuming they are not one and the same)? Why is Jayne Ozanne (or, indeed, anyone) more concerned that a priest might be defrocked for rape than Damian Green might be demoted or even deselected for allegedly having ‘extreme’ pornography on his PC? What is wrong with full disclosure and the transparent pursuit of justice? Why the Christian compassion for a rapist prelate but indifference and scorn for a perverted politician? A church which shields rapists is no better than one which harbours paedophiles; and a bishop that seeks to cover it all up is no better than a scurvy politician.

“The victim must be believed,” the Archbishop of Canterbury told us in cases of abuse. So Jayne Ozanne must be believed. If the Church of England can trash the distinguished reputation of Bishop George Bell over a single allegation of historical child abuse; and if it can throw former Archbishop George (Lord) Carey under a bus over his errors of judgment in dealing with one prolific abuser, don’t we need to know a name? Or are serving bishops somehow exempt from bothersome CDMs and embarrassing inquiries?

  • John

    Allegations of crimes such as rape should be made to the police, full-stop.

    • not a machine

      I think that’s my take on it also.

  • Mrs S wilson

    Surely the archbishop of Canterbury should immediately investigate these claims as a matter of urgency? Especially in the light of other reactions to abuse allegations. Otherwise doubts will be raised about the veracity of what has been said.

  • dannybhoy

    “My trust in the institution had been utterly broken – if one man could carry his calling so lightly, why not another? Asking me to trust the Church to deal with this properly was like asking me to trust a tabloid newspaper to investigate its own journalists about alleged phone tapping. Impossible. The system is heavily weighted to protect its own.”
    The system is heavily weighted to protect its own….
    And there you have the problem of the institutional Church. Because of its history, its size, and its influence; the temptation to first and foremost protect its reputation is too great.
    If we do that, if we allow truth to triumph then what happens?
    We’re exposed. That carefully crafted facade will tumble, and we will become a laughing stock. Our robes finely woven not of integrity, but of hypocrisy and deceit.
    I am very sorry for this woman and what this experience has done to her faith and her peace of mind for all these years. I hope justice will prevail and God will comfort her and give her peace.
    Meantime Danny says, “Be wary of those who love to parade in robes and revel in ritual. They are made of the same stuff as we who are encouraged to
    look up to them..”

  • carl jacobs

    The best accusations are those which can’t be cross-examined. Without names, nothing can be proved or disproved. Which of course is the point.

  • Chris Bell

    Steady now! We can neither believe nor not believe this account at present……simply because of the absence of any name at all. It is the easiest thing in the world to bring accounts of abuse without any name of perpetrator(s). But it is the hardest thing to bring an account along with precise naming as Matt Ineson has done.
    Thus this account currently has the status of dream…..it occurred but what occurred was imagination and as such is not fit for any objective inquiry. Until facts are given and disclosed it stays in the realm of ‘suggestion and implication’ alone. And look at the damage done by this and by those who would call themselves objective reporters. Smoke damages and kills far more than the fire.

    • dannybhoy

      You’re right. Just because an organisation ‘has form’ when it comes to abuse doesn’t mean every accusation against it is credible.

  • Father David

    We seem to be having to wait a long time before Lord Carlile’s Report on the handling of the single allegation against Bishop George Bell is made public. Next year will be the Diamond Anniversary of Bishop Bell’s heavenly birthday.

  • grutchyngfysch

    “…if one man could carry his calling so lightly, why not another?

    Quite so. Someone who is willing to ignore – nay practice sin in defiance of – the clear teaching of Scripture on sexual immorality is likely to be deficient in other matters as well. Where that translates into a culture which abjures only the standard, you may do well to not know who is in fact sound anymore.

    • A priest committing a sexual sin is bad, sure. However, it’s not the same as forcing oneself on an unwilling woman and raping her.

      • grutchyngfysch

        Rape is sexual immorality. Yes, it’s arguably the most extreme form, but it is still sexual immorality. A husband who rapes his wife has committed sexual immorality against her, for example. Scripture doesn’t teach us to flee from sexual immorality to confuse us about rape: rape is the deep end of waters we shouldn’t even be dipping a toe into. Zero tolerance on it doesn’t imply equivocation about rape: it insists that there can be no tolerance of rapists.

        • In the real world, inhabited by sexual sinners, there is a line between consensual sin, involving both parties, and the imposition of force or some other means to penetrate a woman against her expressed will.

          • Anton

            With the understanding that I am not commenting on the Jayne Ozanne business, let’s make that “the imposition of force or its explicit threat…”

          • Jack accepts that and is also content with “or some other means”. But let’s not reawaken that debate.

          • Anton

            Agreed.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Scripture was given to and for the real world.

  • It sounds like they had become sexually involved and were pushing boundaries of intimacy. He went further than she expected. But is that rape or regret? Has the boundary become blurred? Unfortunately for men when the line is crossed it is only he who can be charged with rape.

    The behaviour was clearly immoral of course.

  • She wasn’t gay at the time then?

    • Mike Stallard

      We had this in my English class when a West African Mum was given a picture (by me) of James I and VI in a gay pose. Once we had established that he was, in fact, gay, she looked him up on her phone and was intrigued to find that he was not only married but the father of two boys.
      She could not stop laughing.

  • len

    It seems the floodgates have opened and accusations are pouring out about all sorts of sexual crimes but how is/or how can/ the truth be discerned about such accusations?.
    It is not beyond the bounds of possibility for some accusations to be malicious but how can this be discerned?.

  • The wife of the offending priest needs to know what her husband gets or got up to especially now the incident has gone public.

    • Mike Stallard

      I could not agree more. When I left the CoE ministry way back, I lost house, income, job and identity at a stroke. My very noble wife and children supported me all the way through and without them I should have been in the gutter. My Mum was a clergy wife and was made homeless too when my Dad joined up in 1941 to be sent to Singapore.
      But she soldiered on…
      Both are marvellous examples of loyalty and also true faith.

    • Redrose82

      According to Ms Ozanna he was not married when the alleged offence took place.

  • Sorry, but this doesn’t sound like rape to Jack. It sounds more like a sexual encounter she regretted.

    “I trusted him because he was a priest, and someone who I thought who really understood why this meant so much to me. I think that’s why I got myself into the situation that I did.”
    What situation?
    “But one night he decided that this was all too frustrating,”
    One night? Where were you? What was all too frustrating?
    “he wanted more, and so he went further than I was anticipating,”
    More than what? What were you doing? What were you anticipating?
    “and to be honest it was too late before I realised what was really happening,”
    You didn’t realise you were having sexual intercourse?
    “and I was a bit shocked, which is a slight understatement.”
    Did you tell him?

    Now Ms Ozanne has made these claims, they need to be investigated.

    • Chris Bell

      I have torn out Channel 4, I have torn out PM question time…….. no longer able to watch this slow suicide of democracy.
      DID YOU TELL HIM? This is, indeed, her question apart from the medical question of becoming catatonic when engaged in the most vital activity known to man.. (or woman)

  • Inspector General

    Ms Ozanne is apparently a woman on a mission. Having abandoned the hetro-norm for reason or reasons which were never made clear (and possibly still haven’t been) she now seems committed to progressing the Church of England over to what may end up as a three way joint rule by Christ’s faithful following, feminism and the believing LGBT elite…(or perhaps they’ll find they needn’t and don’t believe. “I’m joining up. Who cares if I’m a gay atheist. It’s an LGBT power-base now, that’s right, isn’t it? One recalls many a church photo opportunity had by one Peter Tatchell and his protest boards”)

    Rest assured communicants, if the Inspector is wrong on any account, he will no doubt be duly corrected – but don’t hold your breath…

    Nothing more needs to be said. And an unsubstantiated accusation of a priest is just that. Unsubstantiated.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Ah the doctrine of Unsubstantiation…I think Luther missed that one.

  • Mike Stallard

    Rape.
    Strong word.
    I happen to know a woman who was raped in her native Lithuania. Yesterday she was babbling on in Lithuanian in our Church cafe. She walked out and said she was going “shopping”. I asked her where and she replied “Tesco” a couple of miles away.
    I did not offer her a lift because she would have read it wrong. So I smiled and waved instead.

    This seems to be a misplaced fumble gone wrong. Different.

    • Inspector General

      There’s something dashed odd about confident educated women. No appreciation of danger. Like walking home during the small hours through dodgy areas where even an Inspector would baulk after mere sunset for fear of falling prey to a footpad. Crazy people…

      • Mike Stallard

        I feel desperately sorry for her myself. I cannot speak a word of Lithuania but was told by a Latvian friend what her ramblings were all about. Sometimes I have seen her walking along the side of a main road shouting very angrily at the sky.

        • Inspector General

          Sounds like she needs a man. The only problem being she may well have ‘benefited’ from a so called education that informed her that a man to look after her is the last thing she needs…

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Twll Din

          • Mike Stallard

            twll din pob sais
            and pob cymru

            And a heartfelt thanks to the internet here. Google translate could not cut it.

          • Anton

            Well I know what the last words of each line are. (Sais = Welsh abbreviated version of Scottish ‘sassenach”, ie saxon-ach, ie Englishman.)

        • Cressida de Nova

          Carl does that too!

      • Anton

        I remember a very heated online argument between a safety professional who advised women not to walk through certain areas at certain times and a feminist who said she’d do what she damned well liked. Of course the security expert replied that nobody said she couldn’t, just that it was a bad idea, and round and round they went.

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          “a feminist who said she’d do what she damned well liked”

          I bet she locks her front door when she leaves her house, but does not want to take the same level of precaution with her body.

  • Murti Bing

    Definitely a strong whiff of the old Rattus Rattus about this one.

    More grievance, Vicar?

  • Martin Sewell

    If these serious matters are discussed publicly they need to be approached in a sensitive and sober manner.

    We ought to be open to the possibility that names are not named because of an ongoing investigation.

    One cannot judge a person’s reasons for not reporting immediately: one victim I am currently in contact with tells me ” nobody can understand what it is like to know that my disclosure led to my abuser’s suicide.” I will never judge another’s hesitation to report, especially where it may harm innocent third parties.

    References to the complainant’s sexual orientation are dreadful.

    His Grace and I have fought in the Bishop Bell cases for the principle “always listen to the complainant and take what they say seriously”. It is neither favourable towards nor prejudiced against either party.

    This is not the place to determine whether any allegation can be proved to the requisite standard, and so a little intelligent self-discipline would not go amiss.

    • carl jacobs

      When might also consider that an unchallengable accusation works to the tactical advantage of the accuser. She gets to present her story uncontradicted while she enjoys both sympathy and the presumption of truth. And who bears the weight of her nameless accusation? The Institution she is trying to conform to her own ideological image.

      • Martin Sewell

        Carl, this story needs to be read in two seperate ways.

        The truth of the allegation is a matter for the police or the Clergy Discipline Tribunal. There is no advantage to the complainant in that venue, all will be examined.

        The secondary issue, in which the accused’s anonymity is rightly preserved for now, touches upon the quality of the institutional response to any such allegation. To waive one’s own anonymity to place a matter for the improvement of that institution’s processes is an act on integrity and courage.

        I can assure you that we are not so short of testimony to the CofE shortcomings in supporting victims to require invented allegations.

        The knee jerk blaming of complainants is as wrong as the assumption of guilt in the accused. Few who comment will have access to all the facts. Consider or explore the questions by all means but judging on insufficient evidence is foolish.

        • Chris Bell

          And until the anonymity of the accused is disclosed then the allegations must remain entirely out of the public eye. Entirely!!

        • carl jacobs

          I’m not judging the truth or falsehood of anything. I’m simply stating an obvious fact. A charge without specificity is a worthless charge. She does not establish the truth of the matter with her uncorroborated testimony. Is she giving a truthful, complete and accurate account of events? How can we tell on the basis of this statement? And yet she is being treated as if her statement is prima facie true.

          She shouldn’t play the “I’m a victim card” unless she will also add “I was victimized by X”. If she is unwilling to do the latter then she should remain silent and let the legal process play itself out. She doesn’t need to say anything in that case.

          She accused a bishop. That’s a small group of people. Do we suspect them all? Do they all bear the implicit guilt of her statement? How do they each defend themselves from this accusation? How do you separate the innocent from the guilty? This is not just.

        • “[J]udging on insufficient evidence is foolish.”
          Indeed, it is and it cuts both ways.

        • With respect,
          This woman says that she has an e-mail from this priest pretty much admitting the offence, but she is not pressing charges against him for fear of upsetting his family. For all we know, this man may have been raping other women regularly to this very moment. It is her absolute bounden duty to bring that evidence to the Police forthwith, to press charges and to stop the man from repeating the offence.
          Likewise, how is the C of E to enforce its policies if she is shielding this errant bishop? She has a clear duty to name names in order to protect other women from sharing her fate.

          • Anton

            Perhaps she has named them to the church but does not wish to press criminal charges?

          • “This woman says that she has an e-mail from this priest pretty much admitting the offence …. “

            Does she? All she has said about the email is this priest acknowledged “mucking (her) about” and “crossing boundaries”. She has been to the police.

      • Chris Bell

        Again a clear mind. We surely are in need of laser like minds which will have no truck with all this whingeing and whining unless accompanied by very hard evidence.

        • Anton

          There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and laser-like minds are useless in the absence of information.

    • Inspector General

      “References to the complainant’s sexual orientation are dreadful.”

      Why? The complainant wears her orientation on her sleeve, so to speak. Personally, one looks forward to an age where your sexual orientation problems are kept to yourself. We live in hope on that one…

      • Martin Sewell

        Orientation is irrelevant to the character of rape.

        • Inspector General

          So is the fact that she is a woman, then…

          • Dr. Professional

            I’ve heard that it is wrong to leap to such a conclusion these days.

          • Inspector General

            You are on the money, sir, but only for now. It is known that the value of investments can go up or down…

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            It depends with whom or what she identifies.

        • Not entirely it isn’t if it coloured her experience – after the event – of what took place.

        • Hi Martin,

          Big note of caution : just don’t bother getting involved on sexuality.

          There are people who comment on this blog who erroneously believe as a matter of up most faith that being gay or lesbian automatically makes you a sexual abuser or paedophile , who obsess about gay people and who view being gay as the worst evil possible ever to walk the earth. So just don’t bother even trying to counter argue that crap. You will get nowhere.

          • carl jacobs

            So did you write this post to prove my point? Who are these “some” you have in view? Who on this weblog views homosexuality as the “worst evil possible ever to walk the earth”? Who are these nameless individuals who “obsess about gay people”? Are we all supposed bear the stigma of this nameless accusation. Because it is a transparent falsehood for virtually every commenter on this weblog.

          • No.

          • Hi

            Well good bye .if you can’t see what I’m saying then I’m sorry for you..

        • CliveM

          Yes agree

          • Hi

            I’m off this blog from now on as after discussion with my partner , I see no point in bothering and after 6 six years commenting here, I only seen to get upset when I bother to post here and so I call it quits.

          • Chefofsinners

            It’s been good to have you here Hannah. You brought a unique perspective. I appreciate that it’s been costly to engage with people with such different views, but the blog will be the poorer without you. Are you still running your own blog?

          • Hi

            Yes I’m still writing on my partners blog:

            https://cholentandtebeet.blogspot.co.uk

          • IanCad

            That is not the spirit which built the State of Israel Hannah.
            Go away for a while, lick your wounds, restore your soul by reading yet again The Torah. You have a glorious history, a vital presence, and your comments are of great value.

          • Hi

            Thanks but I’m gone .

          • Chris Bell

            Yes, who is this silent censor? Deleting comments………..and unable to argue why? So stay Hannah. The pattern of deletion tells us much about who is behind the blog.

          • carl jacobs

            She deleted her own account. She wasn’t censored. Your accusation against the weblog owner is false.

          • Hi

            For clarification I deleted myself those posts.

          • Little Black Censored

            Hullo again!

          • Hello – Goodbye.

          • No-one “behind the blog” is deleting comments, so please stop your speculative smears.

      • Chris Bell

        Absolutely right.

    • Chris Bell

      “… take what they say seriously” means only that the accusation is qualified for objective enquiry. In the absence of names and details it remains a shoddy implication.
      INDEED A NEW LAW IS REQUIRED.
      One that unambiguously states that if the accuser will not or cannot supply evidential names then that accuser will stand accused. Accused of wasting judicial time and giving grave offence and injury to those who were the object of their accusation.
      It should carry very stiff penalties. Also all those news media that give vent to unsubstantiated claims should know that they will be forced to carry apology and penalty also.

    • “References to the complainant’s sexual orientation are dreadful.”

      Why?

      Rape is not a subjective experience. It is an objective event involving a man ignoring a woman’s refusals to engage in sexual intercourse and using force or some other means to impose his body on hers and penetrate her.

      Early sexual encounters will evoke powerful feelings. If one is ambivalent about one’s sexual identity, it seems to Jack this will be highly relevant to how one experiences and recalls one’s early sexual encounters.

      • Little Black Censored

        Cannot this other Jack you keep referring to speak for himself?

        • You wouldn’t want to meet the other Jacks.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Especially Jack The Email Procrastinator 🙂

    • Hi Martin

      I would also add that by naming the alleged perpetrator, as some want here, then that creates a whole difficulty of being innocent until proven guilty and a trial by media witch hunt. let the police investigate and the CPS do their work and if there’s sufficient evidence bring this to trial by jury . That’s our legal system. We here are not on that jury and as you say should be cautious about commenting on the specifics.

      • What you’re overlooking is the fact she decided against pursuing a police investigation. She’s also claiming an unnamed bishop actively discouraged her from using the Church’s safeguarding processes. Instead of progressing matters – criminally or ecclesiastically – she opted to go public on national television where she would be assured a receptive audience and no difficult would be asked.

        If her allegations are truthful, she has a responsibility to progress matters appropriately for the good of her Church and for the protection of other possible victims of abuse. She been given a platform without any accountability and permitted to put her interpretation on the actions of others without any challenge.

        • carl jacobs

          Well said, Jack.

          • Why? Did you read my post?

          • According to Hannah’s now deleted post, Jack is blinkered by his homophobia.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            You need rose coloured spectacles…

          • carl jacobs

            I read that accusation. Of all the people who comment on this website, I would put you at the top of the “Most Unlikely to be Convicted of Homophobia” list. I couldn’t believe she said that. It’s actually a dispositive comment in my mind about the actual cause of Hannah’s departure.

        • Hi

          If you actually read my post without your homophobic blinkers you will note that I’m suggesting that NOT naming the bishop or perpetrator was the correct thing to do because otherwise this would have created a situation where careers would be ruined and much worse for those involved, without the proper police and legal investigation that such accusations would merit.

  • CliveM

    So now every male Bishop is under suspicion of failing to understand the severity of rape and the need to treat it seriously and every male Priest that she had dealings with of a certain generation is under suspicion of rape. How about the wives and families of the innocent men? How will they feel? Will they be able to trust their husbands? Do they not need to be reassured of the innocence of the man they are married to? Innuendo and suspicion are poisonous, not to the guilty but the innocent. She owes it to the woman who might be at risk and the priests who will be undermined to go to the police. Why would she not?

    • According to Ms Ozanne, she made the sacrifice of not progressing matters legally to save another woman from the trauma of losing her family home if her alleged rapist was imprisoned and defrocked.

      • CliveM

        Yes I read that. I don’t believe she’s lying, I do believe she should put the rapist in the dock and let him be tried by his peers and if guilty jailed.

        She also formally name and shame the Bishop.

        I’m perplexed why, considering the need to protect other potential victims, she doesn’t.

        • On balance, Jack has to say he doubts the veracity of her allegations against the priest – or at least the accuracy of her perceptions. And she’s projected motives onto the bishop. Who knows what he or the police actually said to her.

          • CliveM

            I think one of the problems is I believe she wants to be disbelieved. Especially by conservative, orthodox evangelical types. It would fit her narrative.

            That’s why I believe her and why I would urge her to name and shame. I think also we are owed (because she brought into the public sphere) a chance to hear the defence.

          • “I think one of the problems is I believe she wants to be disbelieved. Especially by conservative, orthodox evangelical types. It would fit her narrative.”

            Well, provided they’re men – and especially men who are opposed to women’s ordination and homosexual marriage.

            Jack hopes the men accused have the balls to make themselves known and give their accounts.

      • Little Black Censored

        She want to have it both ways – perhaps that is an unfortunate expression. She is kind and good but is also a victim requiring sympathy.

  • Chefofsinners

    I am a little perplexed by Ms Ozanne’s words “I was aware that Evangelicals might think: ‘Well, no wonder you’re gay if you’ve been raped’.”
    This is extraordinarily offensive to Evangelicals. Putting words in their mouths, thoughts in their minds, imputing irrational and uncharitable words to people she hasn’t met. Who with half a brain would think that being raped makes women into lesbians? And who is the guilty party here? Rapists, or Evangelicals?
    The implied smear is that Evangelicals discourage the reporting of rape by their supposed attitudes. Was the bishop Jayne approached an Evangelical? I doubt it.

    • “And who is the guilty party here? Rapists, or Evangelicals?”

      All men who have not been liberated from patriarchy, misogyny and sexism, not forgetting homophobia.

      • Chefofsinners

        Yes. Liberation. That’s what we need. Ozanner in the highest. Blessed is she that cometh in the name of the LGBT.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Naughty man!

    • CliveM

      Yes interesting that whilst unwilling to name and shame either the rapist or Bishop, she is willing to condemn evangelicals.

      Wonder why?

      • ardenjm

        Probably class prejudice.
        Evangelicals are so bourgeois after all.

    • magnolia

      Well, I know a one-time friend of one of my children for whom that was precisely the case, and I have a whole brain, thanks! It’s hardly “irrational” to think that the very bad sexual encounter called rape of a woman by a man might put that woman off sex with a man, is it? Behaviourist theory, tout simple. Or are we to suggest Pavlovian responses are only for dogs?. Now Richard Dawkins would call that speciesist! 😉

      At any rate commiserations to Jayne Ozanne.

      • Chefofsinners

        It would be irrational to suddenly desire women as a result of a bad experience with a man. The Pavlovian response would simply be to avoid men.
        But then perhaps your daughter’s friend is irrational.
        Certainly Jayne was rational to fear you.

        • magnolia

          No, it would not be irrational to do so, it would be non-rational, from deep feelings of betrayal and fear that would be entirely reasonable. We are not talking biological machinery set one way or another in perpetuity.

          If you are looking for a soulmate or sexual partner and one path is blocked, it is maybe not so surprising if you go the other way. Is that really a scary understanding to hold? Really? Single sex institutions illustrate the same. Why wouldn’t assault be correlated? Are you not perpetuating the myth that the victim is somehow to blame if you suggest that this is a shameful view and those who hold it (and sympathize with the victim) are scary?

          • Chefofsinners

            So if I have this correctly, you think I am perpetuating the myth that a rape victim is to blame for being raped if I say the experience would not cause them to become a lesbian? How does that follow?

          • magnolia

            Nope, not correct. Imagine the deep soul-invading trauma of being raped. “Cracker” once did a good version of it on a rapist he was angry with, so that he- a man-might get a taste of his own medicine. I am sure it aided men watching to understand. (As for women we have had enough times- having to walk home in the dark with no money to do other, for example, to imagine and fear it.)

            Robbie Coltrane sat on the offender, drew out a pistol, put it in the traumatised man’s mouth, and demanded he kiss it and enjoy it.

            Maybe that (fictional) rapist would avoid “Gunfight at the OK corral” thereafter in prison, and prefer “Mary Poppins”. Logical? Irrational? Rational? Understandable?

          • Chefofsinners

            Unintelligible, I’m afraid.

          • magnolia

            Those who have had to run (or listened to those who have) may read.

            Clearly you haven’t. …

    • Little Black Censored

      “Was the bishop Jayne approached an Evangelical?”
      Statistically most unlikely.

  • Royinsouthwest

    She seems to assume that the phrase “crossing the boundaries” is an admission of rape. Couldn’t it be simply an admission that he (the priest) should not have got sexually involved with her?

    Couldn’t the bishop who advised her to forget about it have advised her to do so because what she described seemed to be a sexual encounter which she regretted after it finished.

    Can consent be withdrawn retrospectively? What if the woman feels regret immediately afterwards, before she even gets out of bed? Should a woman’s regrets be treated more seriously than those of a man?

    What if the priest had not been a man but a woman and it had been a lesbian encounter? Would her complaint have been taken seriously then?

  • Don Benson

    I’m sorry to say there is far too much history here to take anything at face value about this rather ambiguous story. And that’s a real shame because there might have been and there may be genuine hurt which no one should have to suffer.

    But if you use every trick in the book (very effectively) in order to pursue a deeply divisive agenda within your church you cannot expect people to park their brains on one side and accept this one sensational story where you choose not to provide one shred of evidence. Because, once again, people are being accused of something – and that is the modus operandi from this particular source; it’s done as a way of creating a negative perception of those with whom you disagree rather than addressing the real theological argument.

    • bluedog

      Well said. Given the general thrust of M/s Ozanne’s campaign, why was this issue not put front and centre years ago?

  • ardenjm

    Gosh.
    It’s at times like this that you’re happy that a church of just 85 million members is 15 times smaller than the Catholic Church with her almost inexhaustible supply of scandalous stories to deflect attention away from the CofE.
    But do take some consolation from Pope Leo XIII declaring Anglican Orders null and void: at least she wasn’t raped by an actual priest and nor did a real bishop brush things under the carpet – just some blokes who think that poncing about with the remaining accidentals still connects them to the Church’s essential nature.

    For what it’s worth I’m inclined not to believe her.
    She sounds as deranged as this woman does about Catholic nuns:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-41273549

    • Dolphinfish

      How did WE get dragged into this?

      • CliveM

        You didn’t.

      • ardenjm

        I think it started with a priapic bully of a King followed by his karmically punished sickly boy child followed by his deranged because declared a bastard and forbidden to see her Mother daughter followed by a syphilitic ‘Virgin’ Queen with Virgin Mary envy, followed by a Protestant homosexual Scot, followed by an absolutist dwarf who lost his head, followed by puritan fundamentalists who committed genocide in Ireland, followed by…well, you get the picture.

        • Dolphinfish

          Well, when you put it like that…

        • Chefofsinners

          No, no. It was Pope Pork Pius V and his load of papal bull, excommunicating good Queen Bess. There was no way back got your lot after that.

          • ardenjm

            Except there was a way back, clearly: A full century later, when Catholic convert Charles II was followed by Catholic convert James II who reigned for 3 years before being chased off the throne which ultimately led, after his daughter’s reign, to that dishonest stiched-up succession henceforth legally bound to an obscure but sufficiently protestant German bunch called the Hanovers.

          • Chefofsinners

            Slim pickings there for Jonny Catholic. God blessed the Hanovers with the greatest empire the world has known.

          • ardenjm

            And thus the Germans got a taste for it…
            From Hanovers to Hitler.
            There’s a Dan Brown novel in that somewhere.

          • Chefofsinners

            Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yet again.

          • ardenjm

            Sigh.
            This is the internet!

          • Cressida de Nova

            We both have been accused of being in league with Linus by psycho Calvinist Carl. Take it all with a grain of salt.

          • CliveM

            One could point out that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, but really that would be , oh never mind.

            Isn’t it amazing, a post on rape (a topic which needs to be treated sympathetically) gets hijacked by our ‘Catholic’ with a grievance! He has amazing similarities in style with the unlamented Linus. It’s all about him (or in this case RC) never mind the topic.

          • Chefofsinners

            The similarity had also struck me. Linus was raised Catholic. If these two are one then Linus has had an epiphany.

          • CliveM

            No he’s not as self pitying as Linus. He also has previous history on this site it would appear.

        • Inspector General

          It would be wonderful to dig up Henry VIII and confirm his bones are riddled with syphilis as we suspect…

          • Anton

            Take a pneumatic drill to the floor of St George’s Chapel, Windsor? That would be entertaining…

        • Anton

          Karma is a pagan concept and deeply antithetic to the notion of personal forgiveness of sins for those in Christ..

          • ardenjm

            You don’t say?
            Well I’d never have guessed it.

            Here was me thinking karma was just a sarcastic way of talking about immanent justice – since I’m giving the parodied potted history of the egregiously awful Tudors followed by the egregiously awful Stuarts, followed by the egregiously most awful of all Cromwell.

            But some people don’t do irony.

            #rollingmyeyesatthispoint

          • Anton

            Everything else was a distorted version of the truth, whereas karma is just false, Iron Man.

          • ardenjm

            Uh huh.
            Anyone here believe that karma is kosher and can be found in the King James Version?
            No?
            Now there’s a surprise….

          • Anton

            It’s to do with the weight of your sins. That part is very biblical. The alleged consequences of them in easteern paganism are totally unbiblical. In Christ they are forgiven.

          • Little Black Censored

            Laying in on with a trowel is not irony.

          • Chris Bell

            If Karma is pagan then Newtons 1st law of cause and effect is pagan. And we are seeing quite a lot of cause and effect here. However in the case in question it seems there may be an imaginary cause which is however is very real in its effect.

          • Anton

            The amount of karma in your account determines what sort of animal you are reincarnated as (or what caste you are if human) is not pagan?

          • Chris Bell

            I am afraid the 5000yr old Vedantic karma is a little more nuanced than that. If these people knew a little more about Karma they would, perhaps, be more careful about unsubstantiated allegations……….and then going public. God is not to be fooled and Karma has been one teaching that instils a healthy fear. What you sew you will reap. Christ knew all about the subtlety of Karma.

          • ardenjm

            Immanent Justice in its Western avatar ; )

            (That’s just me being gratuitously provocative.)

        • Chefofsinners

          And still preferable to Catholics.

          • ardenjm

            Well the Protestants did get rid of 40% of them in Ireland in the 1640s – several hundred thousand – so I guess they made their preferences clear. Meanwhile we can all clutch our pearls at how awful Mary Tudor was for killing 250 Protestants.
            By my calculation it works out at about 1 English Protestant life is worth 2000 Irish Catholic lives.

            Pretty clear preference there.
            I agree.
            Cheers.

          • Chefofsinners

            Depending entirely on where you draw your boundaries in time and space, thus rendering any debate meaningless as well as pointless.

          • ardenjm

            I’ll take that meaninglessness and pointlessness to therefore apply to your ‘still preferable to Catholics’ remark therefore.
            Of course, that could just be blind and blinkered prejudice on your part which won’t admit of any reasoning.

            But I still like your wise-cracks.

        • Little Black Censored

          Ah, a royalist!

          • ardenjm

            Because I am a royalist I hold crappy royals to task. I’m not an absolute monarchist.
            England has had only one saintly monarch (two if you count St Edmund Martyr – and he was only king of a bit of it.) Some of them have been monsters. The Tudors had a disproportionately high share of awful, however. The Stuarts weren’t any better. The Hanovers were reliably unremarkable. And the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas have been solid. The injection of Greco-Danish blood was destabilizing but for the more recent generations the Anglo-Saxon blood – crazy from the Spencers, reassuringly ordinary from the Middletons – will probably cancel things out somewhat.

    • Inspector General

      The Inspector does not do Christian sectarianism as the Higher Understanding requires of him so is unable to thank you for a post that would be better not have been sent.

      • ardenjm

        Just expressing solidarity in a time of trial from one Church to another ecclesial communion.

        And I still don’t believe her.

        • (ahem) The Church ….

          • ardenjm

            Ah but the Orthodox Churches are recognised as Churches…

          • Sure, but they’re schismatic Churches who nevertheless retain valid sacraments.

          • Lucius

            If you have five brothers, let’s call them Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, and there is a split with one brother, Rome, going one way, and the other four brothers staying together, who really is the schismatic? 😉

          • ardenjm

            Constantinople was born 300 years after the others. So he doesn’t count. It’s the Quinisext Council of 692 that gets Constantinople to muscle in. But by this point anyway Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had all been overcome by Islam leaving just Rome and late-comer
            Constantinople.
            Of the original four ‘foyer’ of Christianity, then, only Rome remained.

            Peter and Paul added their weight to Rome’s authority: Peter’s pre-eminent service being quite clearly scriptural in numerous proof texts.
            This is recognised by Greek Father St Ireneaus of Lyon by 175AD: doctrinally and juridically, Rome had pre-eminence.

            And might I add that Joseph was abandoned by all of HIS brothers, David was disregarded by all of HIS brothers and the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone:
            My money is therefore on Rome in this particular analogy.

            Nice try though.

          • Anton

            We are the Church of Rome.

            Rome is the city having primacy throughout the Empire.

            So we are the church having primacy…

          • ardenjm

            Except I didn’t make that argument.
            Nor do I find it convincing.
            And indeed, by the 4th century the decline of Rome was inevitable.
            By the 6th it was down to 30,000 inhabitants – and Constantinople looked as if it would take on the mantle of the Second Rome.
            Yet 1500 years later there are 1,2 billion Catholics with a Pope in Rome and around 1000 Orthodox under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
            Mysterious are the ways of the Lord…

          • Lucius

            Indeed, His way are mysterious. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13).

          • ardenjm

            That’d explain the ‘Oecumenical Patriarch’ power-grab claim then, right?

          • CliveM

            Which if you think about it, is hardly a ringing endorsement of a church boasting about vast numbers.

          • Anton

            No, *I* am making that argument. And I didn’t expect *you* to find it convincing.

          • bluedog

            ‘Mysterious are the ways of the Lord…’

            Was it the Holy Spirit that directed the Fourth Crusade to sack Constantinople in 1204 AD, fatally weakening the Byzantines and contributing to their collapse in 1453? How many Catholics in eastern Europe died as a consequence of the subsequent Ottoman invasions and occupation? Was that the way of the Lord? It’s easy to be smug if you ignore the history if the Roman church.

          • ardenjm

            “Was it the Holy Spirit that directed the Fourth Crusade to sack Constantinople in 1204 AD”
            No. As Pope Innocent III recognised when he condemned it for setting back Greek-Latin relations possible for ever. (He was right; you’re the proof.) So, hang on: It was bad Catholics who did this. Just like it was bad Orthodox who sided with the Ottomans in their attacks on Lepanto etc.

            “1204 AD, fatally weakening the Byzantines and contributing to their collapse in 1453?”
            You mean like the way the French Revolution contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union 200 years later? THAT kind of “contribution”?

            “It’s easy to be smug if you ignore the history if the Roman church.”
            Spoken like an ex-Protestant who couldn’t quite shake off his anti-Catholic animus so opted for Orthodoxy instead…

          • bluedog

            ‘Spoken like an ex-Protestant who couldn’t quite shake off his anti-Catholic animus so opted for Orthodoxy instead…’

            Oh really.

            As for your conflation of the French Revolution and the collapse of the USSR, where do you get these ideas? Perhaps you spend more time than you are prepared to admit trawling the wilder reaches of the internet.

          • ardenjm

            “Oh really.”
            Yup. Really.

            “As for your conflation of the French Revolution and the collapse of the USSR, where do you get these ideas?”
            I was being sarcastic.

          • Anton

            Veritas in sarkasmos… both were secularising revolutions in a place that had no tradition of personal liberty under the law, and both became bloodbaths.

          • Kennybhoy

            “Just like it was bad Orthodox who sided with the Ottomans in their attacks on Lepanto etc.”

            Not half as bad as the Orthodox who perpetrated the 1182 Massacre of the Latins. The sack of 1204 was incited by the Venetian leaders as revenge for the slaughter of their relatives, friends and fellow Venetians a mere 22 years previous… 🙁

          • Kennybhoy

            “Was it the Holy Spirit that directed the Fourth Crusade to sack Constantinople in 1204 AD…”

            Nope. It was Venetian revenge for the 1182 Massacre of the Latins a mere 22 years previous.

          • bluedog

            Validated by a papal dispensation? Or free-lancing by a Catholic faction that chose an eye for an eye etc?

          • Kennybhoy

            “Validated by a papal dispensation?”

            Jesus wept! ardenjm has already squished this. Try paying attention or, better still, reading a book sometime… 🙁

            “Or free-lancing by a Catholic faction that chose an eye for an eye etc?”

            Two wrongs can never make a right but they make two wrongs not one. It was you who raised the question.

          • Lucius

            I’ll stick with the four brothers and a divine liturgy that even 4th century Christians would recognize and could participate in, as opposed to all the “innovation” in the Catholic Church, like “clown mass” (and yes, it’s a real thing).

          • ardenjm

            Hmm. Well, Greek was used in Rome for the liturgy until the 10th century.
            And of course Russians can’t really kvetch about a liturgy in the vernacular.
            But I take your point about the protestantising vandalism to the Tridentine Rite that happened at Vatican 2. Still, the Vetus Ordo is doing well in various places and it wasn’t as if the Canon was ever suppressed.
            So, on balance: I’m still going with Joseph, David, Christ the Cornerstone and Rome. Much like St Athanasius did.

          • Lucius

            Catholicism has drifted too far into worldly modernity and protestant-style worship in my opinion. The rift between the Orthodox and Catholics originally was largely papal supremacy and the filioque. But I would submit that this gulf has grown far wider, as Orthodoxy has more completely retained the original faith and practice thereof as handed down by the Apostles through the Church Fathers while the Catholics embraced innovation. To compound matters, and forgive me, but I have no idea what Pope Francis believes in.

          • ardenjm

            “Orthodoxy has more completely retained the original faith and practice thereof as handed down by the Apostles through the Church Fathers while the Catholics embraced innovation.”
            Which branch of Orthodoxy are you thinking of? There are so many…

          • Kennybhoy

            “There are so many…”

            Bad man! lol 🙂

          • Divorce and remarriage?

          • Cressida de Nova

            I agree that Catholicism has been strongly infected by Protestant style worship but there seems to be no turning back now.

          • Anton

            If by “protestant style worship” you mean the kind of disco trash songs that have been around since the 1970s, take note that they have been in existence for less than one-tenth of the protestant era and that many protestants abhor them. A Catholic priest who is a personal friend says that the *traditional* English hymnal is the one thing he is jealous of. I always reply that copyright is expired on nearly all of the good ones and that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I genuinely wish Rome well in keeping the disco tendency out.

          • That’s like calling Saint John schismatic because he stayed with Christ at the foot of the Cross whilst the others ran off.

          • Lucius

            I would engage in a good-natured debate Jack, but I am getting a little tired, and already had my fun with my back-and-forth with ardenjm (below). He’s good. Ha! But now it’s my time to pray for reunion with my Catholic brothers. Not sure it could ever happen under this Pope. But one day.

          • God Bless you, Lucius.

            Do say a prayer too for all those Catholics who are confused by Pope Francis. God in His Providence may have permitted such a Pope so that the light and darkness existing in the Church could be more fully revealed and separated. The more the modernists speak out under Pope Francis, the more the extent of their heterodoxy becomes apparent.

          • Lucius

            Perhaps in a stroke providential irony, as the world order we know begins to fracture, the Church we love will reunite.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Rather than confusion I think it is an opportunity for certain Jesuit priests to promote heresy confident that they are sanctioned by the Pope and will not be excommunicated. The Pope’s utterances are too vague to use them as an excuse for challenging doctrine..

          • Royinsouthwest

            The only recognition that counts is God’s.

        • Inspector General

          A tick for your sheer callousness, sir

    • Anton

      Perhaps your disinclination to believe her (and the woman in the BBC item) should be kept private? Either it happened or it didn’t and your basis for deciding which is decidedly short of information. Are you doing it simply on the basis of whether you find her likeable? And are you disbelieving the BBC interviewee on the basis of that she is making allegations about your church?

      • ardenjm

        Not in the slightest.
        For the New-Agey Psychotherapist-I-was-abused-by-nuns-and-priests-and-made-to-eat-vomit Lady: She just sounds crazy.
        For the Anglican Lesbian – she just sounds lesbian.

        • Chefofsinners

          There are various ways to sound crazy… including rushing to judgment when you don’t have all the facts.

          • ardenjm

            But this is the internet.
            That’s what it’s for.
            She probably killed JFK and Princess Diana, too.

          • Chefofsinners

            This is Protestantism. We have higher standards.

          • ardenjm

            Hilarious.
            Like Runcie marrying Charles and Diana in full knowledge of Camilla the mistress – something like that I’m guessing…

          • Chefofsinners

            Cut the man some slack. He didn’t have a papacy to sell, and indulgences are hard to shift in Proddy circles.

          • Chris Bell

            Who on earth is this prat??

          • ardenjm

            Someone you can indulge your self-righteous indignation on to your heart’s content.

    • Anton

      Leo was right. Trouble is, so is Catholic ordination. There is no division of the priesthood of all believers into an officer class who minister Communion and baptism, and those who do not, in the New Testament.

      • ardenjm

        Rinse and repeat until brain thoroughly washed right, Anton?

        Everyone was at the Last Supper after all, not just Our Lord’s 12 apostles, right?
        Our Lady was there, St Mary Magdalen, Martha, Nicodemus, the whole load of them, right?
        All of them being instituted as priests.

        Yup.

        • Anton

          Take it from no less than St Peter, not me: 1 Pe 2:9.

          • ardenjm

            The verb form of hiereus – ministerial priest – is used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a “priestly service”:
            “because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgounta) of the gospel of God.”
            (Rom 15:15b-16a).

            The apostles were the first ministerial priests – and in establishing the Church in the local churches – they became the first Bishops.

            The unique priesthood of Christ (Hebrews 7), the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2 vs 5 and 9) and the ministerial priestly service of the Apostles (of whom Paul is “the least”) are all part of God’s plan for His Church.
            The priesthood of all believers is already clear in Exodus 19:6: “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
            And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves” indicating a ministerial priesthood at the same time.

            Both find their fulfilment in the New Testament: first in the High Priest Christ offering Himself on the altar of the Cross but also in a New Testament apostolic ministerial priesthood (the ministry of the forgiveness of sins through the offering of Christ’s sacrifice) and in the priesthood of all believers – a “nation of priests” offering spiritual sacrifice.

            There is no opposition here.
            Just Protestant brainwashing.
            You need to read your Bible more.
            Take it from me: The Catholic Church gave it to you, after all.

          • Anton

            Ah, you draw analogies with the Old Testament when it suits you and you reject it as outdated when it suits you. Suit yourself. When the women’s group in our congregation break bread and share red wine it is as much Communion as at the Last Supper. We are just glad to be able to do it without being burnt for it.

          • ardenjm

            Well, at least, not burnt this side of the grave, you mean…

            “you draw analogies with the Old Testament when it suits you and you reject it as outdated when it suits you. Suit yourself.”
            It’s called a magisterial interpretation.
            You have one, too. You just don’t realise that you’ve auto-pontificated yourself.

            Mind how you go.

          • Anton

            And also with you!

          • It’s: “And with your spirit” these days.

          • Father David

            Maybe in the Roman Church but the C of E still clings onto the banal “And also with you!” which is a sad reflection upon the Established Church and a great contrast to the glorious liturgies of yesteryear.

  • IanCad

    I cannot conclude but that Jayne Ozanne is an almighty pain in the arse. How many years ago did this happen? Is she not of a sexuality politely described as flexible? Do memories morph into fantasies after long dormancy?
    Far too many uncertainties here for justice to ever be served.
    Fuggetaboutit. Get a life! Who’s paying for this nonsense?

    • CliveM

      You’ve got to be careful not to allow natural antipathy get in the way of fairness here.

      • IanCad

        Nothing fair about basing a charge on a memory dredged up from a quarter of a century ago.

        • CliveM

          Well if what she says is true, he dredged it up first.

    • Anton

      Blimey Ian, if she was raped then she’s been coping with an experience that does real damage to the soul ever since. We need more information in order to say more.

      • IanCad

        Anton, We’re talking about something that allegedly happened maybe twenty five years ago. This woman is supposedly a mature, intelligent being and I find it mighty hard to sympathise with her rediscovery of a harm done so long ago.
        Memory is a fickle thing. Where did I put my pipe?

        • Anton

          We agree that you find it mighty hard to sympathise with her.

          • Chris Bell

            None of this should even be being talked about. It should never have entered the public domain before evidentiary and named persons have been given. It should never have reached the greasy desk of that prurient ch 4.
            It should be now unknown except to the relevant bodies.
            The fact that it is in the public eye suggests more that it is yet another LGB whinge given her recent ‘change of form’. The Church maybe in dire straits but this is simply unacceptable gossip and its purpose is clear….. …………

        • Marcus Stewart

          Ian, the gravity of the ‘allegation’ makes it serious – but I agree with you to the extent that she either shits on the pot or gets off it: report the matter rather than just talking of it, or don’t even raise it, for discussion won’t make her feel better, just reinforce horrible memories, etc

  • bluedog

    Heavens, Your Grace. One is tempted to suggest that the offending priest receive some sort of award for bravery, but will not do so for fear of offending the alleged victim. Reading M/s Ozanne’s remarks, it’s almost as though advancement in the CoE is dependent on the favours of some sort of episcopal Harvey Weinstein. But surely not. Getting the world’s abusees in one place would be the gathering of the century.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Why is it impossible to have any discussion on this blog without ardenjm trying to start a sectarian row?

    • bluedog

      It’s another, more vigorous, manifestation of the Roman Supremacy Syndrome evinced by quite a few contributors to His Grace’s blog.

      • Royinsouthwest

        In fairness to them I think that many of the regular Catholic contributors to the discussions on this blog often make interesting points. It is often informative to explore differences between Protestants and Catholics. I don’t mind such discussions, even if they sometimes get a bit heated. I don’t mind light-hearted discussions, teasing and leg-pulling either, but when ever topic, no matter what it is, is used as an excuse for starting a sectarian argument it does get a bit tedious!

        • bluedog

          True. But the assumption of supremacy never changes, however expressed. Ask the Orthodox, who saw the light in 1054 AD.

          • ardenjm

            And who, at last, have been able to convoke a pan-Orthodox council for the first time since… Oh, hang on, no they haven’t. Mutually anathematizing various caeseropapist nationalist factions have prevented it from happening.
            Again.

            Oh well.
            Guess that petrine principle of unity thing does serve a purpose after all…
            Do you mean that kind of ‘supremacy’?
            Servus servorum Dei…

          • bluedog

            There’s only one caesaropapist church.

          • ardenjm

            Hilarious.
            Do tell.

          • bluedog

            No need. You know already.

          • Russian Orthodoxy?

          • bluedog

            Indeed, and given the autocephalus nature of the Orthodox church there are numerous nationally determined congregations under Patriarchates and Archbishoprics. But note that there is no Pope, no Curia, no CDF and no Magisterium.

          • And no real unity.

          • bluedog

            They seem remarkably free from schism and doctrinal dispute. So, maybe no unity in Roman terms, but an enduring community of interest that leads to voluntary cohesion.

          • The Eastern Orthodox churches are forever squabbling over who has jurisdictional control. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow jealously guard their territories. These disputes tend to concern property far more than doctrine, true, but they are serious divisions.

            Have a read of this for an insight into how the Russian Orthodox Church views herself in relation to non-Orthodox churches. Change a few terms and it could have come from the Vatican.

            https://mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/i/

          • bluedog

            Undoubtedly familiar, depressingly so. But at least the Orthodox have shown remarkable resilience, having survived years under the yoke of oppressors, Muslim and Communist as the case maybe. Whilst they are not without problems as you suggest, it is hard not to be impressed by their overall performance. Ardenjm is almost certainly wrong when he mocks the congregation in Constantinople as dropping to 1000. It’s supposed to be 5000 which is hardly any better, and reflects the deliberate policy of the Turkish government to eradicate Christianity from one of its historic homes. The Patriarch of Constantinople is required to be a Turkish citizen, and with a catchment of just 5000 souls and no seminary it will be increasingly difficult to fill the office.

          • Jack has great respect for the spirituality of the Orthodox Churches and also for their liturgies. That said, they are more subject to political pressure than the Catholic Church. Look at the Russian Church under the Czars and most particularly under Communism.

          • CliveM

            And Putin.

          • bluedog

            You make it sound as though the Russian Church cannot win, whatever the politics of Russia. On the other hand, if the Russian Church was Catholic and had survived the Czars, the Tartars and the Communists, as it has, one presumes you would hold it up as a model of earthly perfection.

          • Possibly. It’s survival is a necessary precondition for its eventual reunion with Rome thus bringing East and West together once more.

          • Little Black Censored

            The Moscow patriarchy, I presume.

          • bluedog

            No caesar, no pope, so no.

          • Darter Noster

            “Mutually anathematizing various caeseropapist nationalist factions…”

            To be fair, it was doing that that got us into this mess in 1054 with the row between the Normans and the Byzantine Emperor.

            I have never encountered a single theologian – ancient, mediaeval or modern – who can give a coherent and convincing explanation of why the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son, as opposed to just the Father, actually matters in any way. What really mattered was the perception of who had the right to decree it, and the politics of the people who backed them, tragically.

          • ardenjm

            “I have never encountered a single theologian – ancient, mediaeval or modern – who can give a coherent and convincing explanation of why the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son, as opposed to just the Father, actually matters in any way.”

            What comes first, the substantial unity of the Godhead or the Monarchy of the Father, I guess… I’m quite partial to the perichoresis line, meself. But then I’m pretty hardcore Thomist about these kind of things.

          • Anton

            But what you haven’t done is explain why it should make any difference to Christian life. The important thing is to know God, not just know about God.

          • ardenjm

            “The important thing is to know God” and to worship Him and to love Him in this life and to be happy with Him in the next – to paraphrase the old Penny Catechism.
            It makes a difference because the Truth of Christ sets you free. ALL of the truth. Not just the bits you happen to think are directly applicable or immediately useful to you….

          • Anton

            *How* does it make a difference? It is vital to accept that God is Trinity, and we have a Creator, a Redeemer and a Helper within. But how does it make a difference to know how God is Trinity? That’s not in the Bible and so far, despite many words, you still haven’t said.

          • Cressida de Nova

            You forgot to mention my favourite part of the Catechism where we are instructed to enjoy our life here on earth…You are supposed to be happy in this one as well as the next one….to be generous with each other and give joy to others.At school we had lots of parties to celebrate feast days etc.I think generosity is an essential part of Catholicism.

          • Darter Noster

            True.

            Christology matters enormously. If you believe Christ to be only God, and not human, that radically affects our understanding of what happens in the Sacraments; the fusion of the divine and the human in Christ is essential to everything the Church teaches about salvation and the means to achieve it, as it affects the relationship between human and divine and leads into dualism.

            Likewise, if you believe Christ to be a divinely inspired human, a cross between Jeremy Corbyn and Gandhi, as seems to be standard amongst liberals of all denominations, and most of the Church of England, these days, then the nature of the Sacraments, the Church, and the authority of Scripture, is radically altered, and the teachings of the Gospel become nothing more than some really groovy philosophy rooted in its time, but subject to change by any other cool prophet with a beard and sandals.

            But which aspect of the Trinity the Holy Spirit proceeds from? If you accept Trinitarian theology, as the Catholic Churches of both East and West patently do, then all 3 are equal, yet separate, aspects of the divine whole. Theologians argue endlessly about which the Holy Spirit proceeds from, but never is there a coherent and convincing explanation of the consequences one or the other belief has for any other aspects of belief. It just becomes a sectarian and academic football.

          • ardenjm

            “all 3 are equal” Equal in their Divine Nature but not in their Personhood: The Father is Father, The Son is the Son of the Father, the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father proceeding and spirated through the Son.

            “yet separate” Not separate: distinct. If they were separate that’d be Tri-theism.

            “aspects of the divine whole” not modal aspects because the divine whole is constituted by the Three Persons subsisting in One Divine Nature: 1x1x1=1

            You’re welcome.

          • Darter Noster

            And any of that makes a difference because…?

          • ardenjm

            Because our intelligence is nourished by the Truth – especially saving Truth – which we strive to understand.
            Thomas’s mystical vision followed by “it is all straw” when talking of his writings wasn’t so as to negate the endeavour of seeking to understand the supra-intelligible Mystery and Truth that God has revealed of Himself and the millions of words he had written trying to do so.

            Go down your route and NOTHING revealed can be said to “make a difference” to the person who hasn’t understood it. And the universal solvent effect of that is clear, no?

            We need to convert our Anglo-Saxon utilitarian pragmatism…

          • Darter Noster

            I don’t have a route on this matter, unless it’s one away from Gnosticism, which teaches that correct understanding of arcane and mystical knowledge is the route to salvation.

            All I have is the understanding that what split the Churches of East and West was an argument over authority, supremacy and politics, rather than any theological dispute with significance beyond a point of stubborn principle. There is nothing in the Filioque dispute which justifies the severing of ties between the Greek and Latin churches; if it had not been for issues of authority and politics, the dispute would have been a theological sideshow, as it had been for centuries prior to 1054.

          • ardenjm

            I agree it would have been resolvable if it weren’t for fallen human nature’s nefarious effects.
            Ditto on the priority of grace not gnosis for salvation.

            Pax.

          • Darter Noster

            Et cum spiritu tuo :o)

          • Hence the significance of “consubstantial” in the creed.

          • Anton

            Christology can be equally sterile. It is vital to grasp that Christ is wholly divine and wholly human, but smartass philosophers in the early church puzzled and eventually divided over HOW He was both, something that makes no difference to Christian living and piety. The Christians in Egypt were deeply divided about it when the first Muslim army came through. Adding to scripture can have terrible consequences.

          • If you don’t understand more about how Christ is both man and God then you can’t grasp the full significance of His Incarnation or its implications for the transformation of the nature of man or properly understand the sacraments.

          • Anton

            Why?

          • That has all been previously explained to you by ardenjm.

          • Something of an artificial divide. Loving God intimately means knowing about Him – “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.”

          • Anton

            If you think that that is an artificial divide then you don’t know Him, I’m sorry to say, and are in great danger. (“I never knew you – depart from me…”) You can read a man’s biography, autobiography, and learn about his deeds and even thoughts, but it’s not the same as knowing him personally. German has distinct verbs for the two.

          • You’ve made Jack’s point for Him. God wants us to know more about Him and to use our minds and reason as well as our hearts and souls to do so and to be open to His revelation of Himself. Our knowledge of God is both personal and communal.

          • Something of a misquotation, methinks.
            Certainly one cannot know someone if one doesn’t know anything about him, but to know all about someone so that you can answer questions about his life on Mastermind is not the same as knowing him personally.
            Unfortunately, seminaries are full of people who may know a great deal about theology and the Biblical languages, but have no personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and, as Anton says, Matthew 7:23 applies.

          • And the communal aspects of a relationship with God? This is where Protestantism hits the rocks.

          • Anton

            The church is the collective of those who know Christ personally and as such it has a distinctive character. One can answer what that character is, too: the true church looks like Christ.

          • You know nothing about Bible-believing churches or you would not say such things. My church is in communion with all those who know and love the Lord Jesus Christ and worship Him in Spirit and truth regardless of denomination..
            However, to be in communion with men and women, no matter how godly they may be, is worth nothing if one is not in communion with the living God.

          • That’s because the Primacy of the Papal Office stands until Christ returns. It’s not an assumption of supremacy so much as an acceptance that Catholics know best because we belong to the Church guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. We just accept we have a responsibility to share these truths with others.

          • bluedog

            ‘We just accept we have a responsibility to share these truths with others.’ Your generosity is much appreciated. For its part, the Holy Spirit has decided to hedge its bets on the future of Christianity, recognising the risks of putting all its eggs in one basket.

            One reads with interest that Pope Francis is working on a global liturgy that even recalcitrant Proddies can accept, and is trialling a married priesthood in Brazil.

          • Always pleased to assist, bluedog.
            That’s just a rumour about a “new liturgy”. As for the celibate priesthood, he is at liberty as Pope to consider changing canon law on this as it is a discipline and not a doctrine.
            [Is it true? Are you a member of the Orthodox Church?]

          • bluedog

            Haha. No. Don’t be taken in by campaigns of deliberate misinformation. Typical Romish trick.

          • Anton

            You go on and on about how good and important the celibate priesthood is and then when it looks like it might be changed you say no doctrine prevents it. That might indeed be true, but it means you would have been wrong in your reasoning here and for the last 1000 years, doesn’t it?

          • Er … no. Jack so wishes you’d get your basic facts right before such knee-jerk response.
            Jack has defended the right of the Church to require celibacy as a necessary discipline for the priesthood in the face of silly accusations that it has no biblical mandate to do so.
            It’s never been a doctrine. The Catholic Church in the East, for example, doesn’t require celibacy from those joining the priesthood but does for its bishops. Once ordained a priest cannot marry. And if the wife of a priest dies, he cannot marry again. It’s the same with Anglicans minsters who join the Roman Catholic Church. If they are married before their ordination as sacerdotal priests it is not an impediment.

          • Cressida de Nova

            By supremacy I suppose you mean Catholics think that they are of the true Christian faith and the other Christian faiths are break aways and not authentic.

          • bluedog

            Well, Cressida, reading the posts on this blog from Catholic commentators, that is indeed the conclusion one reaches. The Roman Church appears anything but inclusive, indeed, downright exclusive. As a non-Catholic one feels dismissed as irrelevant and marginalised by a largely white, middle-aged patriarchy. There are no trigger warnings, just in-your-face accusations of insignificance and hatred of one’s own beliefs. Crushed and rejected, one struggles with thoughts of self-harm.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Tsk….you are pulling my leg again…..troublesome poodle ! If you convert I will offer to be your confirmation God mother. This means I am in charge of your spiritual development and you have to take me to lunch every week so I can explain the finer points of Catholicism to you.:)

          • bluedog

            Heavens, Cressida, this does sound like fun and your instruction on the finer points of your faith over a long lunch would be the cause of envy amongst other communicants, although possibly not Carl. We could send the bill to him anyway. As I see it the correct order would be lunch first and then conversion at some indeterminent point down the track if you make a good case, but not the other way round. Not sure my deliciously lapsed-Catholic bride would be too thrilled if I accepted your offer though; I could end up in the dog-house. But thanks all the same.

    • Chefofsinners

      Because he’s a Catholic.

      • ardenjm

        Come now:
        It’s because he’s a crummy Catholic – a really rubbish one, in fact.

        Don’t let my mediocrity get in the way of Good Egg Catholics who don’t deserve your censure (unless you’re a bigoted Ian Paisley type of course – which I don’t believe you are, given your rather outré sense of humour.)

        • He was being sectarian in Chef’s ironic sort of way. It’s an acquired taste.

    • ardenjm

      Just ignore me.
      Swathes of you do.
      And, in fact, I did mean it quite sincerely: can you imagine how awful the past 20 years have been for sincere Catholics? Thousands upon thousands of cases worse than this one…

      • CliveM

        You can be quite amusing, just try not to hijack every post!!

        • ardenjm

          I have my bulimic gorging moments – you might have noticed.
          Generally in fact I try and not comment on threads that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church precisely because the internal affairs of the CofE are their own business (and I can’t quite believe that Anglicans don’t really accept that they’re just play-acting at the liturgy. I find it impossible to take them seriously.) When people attack the Catholic Church I will give as good as I get. But only ever as a response, of course.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Actually I agree with Clive’s comment that you can be amusing at times! Despite Cranmer being Anglican I think it is incorrect to think of this blog as an Anglican blog. Instead I think of it as being a Christian blog with particular emphasis on matters involving Anglicans.

            I am not an Anglican myself but many of the issues affecting the Anglican Church affect other churches also to a greater or lesser extent and they also affect society in general. Therefore I am glad the blog attracts people from different Christian backgrounds, and a few, but not many, non-Christian too, and I have often learnt things from comments made by people who are neither Anglican nor even Protestant. Happy Jack, for example, can be quite informative on church history and sometimes also on the interpretation of scripture.

  • Darter Noster

    You don’t need the support and encouragement, much less the permission, of Church safeguarding authorities and bishops to pursue a criminal case for rape. It is not the job of any of those people to decide on the likely success of a criminal prosecution, and why she felt it necessary to involve any of them is a mystery to me. That they should try to persuade her not to pursue a case through legal channels is deplorable, but what role did they have in this matter in the first place? If I was raped by a vicar, you can be damned sure I would not be sitting down with the diocesan safeguarding officer to discuss it. If a work colleague raped me, I would not try to deal with it through their line manager.

    That said, the job of a safeguarding officer, and all those in a position of care, is to report even the faintest whiff of criminal activity to the proper authorities who are legally and professionally competent to deal with it, and that responsibility cannot be shirked. Once she had reported it to them their duty should not have been in doubt; only when and if the police had decided there was no criminal case to answer should the diocese have been involved in making a judgement on inappropriate conduct.

  • Brian

    “But one night he decided that this was all too frustrating, he wanted more, and so he went further than I was anticipating, and to be honest it was too late before I realised what was really happening, and I was a bit shocked, which is a slight understatement. I do remember the tears rolling down – that’s the one thing out of the whole horrid incident I remember, and then not knowing who to talk to, or wanting to talk to about it. And for me the really difficult thing was I felt the most precious gift that I felt I could give my husband-to-be would have been my virginity, and that was taken from me by someone I had trusted”
    – to be honest, this doesn’t really sound like rape to me, in the sense that we understand that word: using force and threats, ignoring calls to stop. It was reprehensible behaviour for Christians; as someone put it, ‘a fumble that went too far’. ‘before I realised what was really happening’ doesn’t sound too convincing to me. Or am I missing something?

    • Sex outside of marriage, especially the first time when one looses one’s virginity, will generate shame and guilt. It’s inbuilt in our nature because it goes against God’s will for the proper expression of our sexual instincts. One can accept this was a “horrid incident” for Ms Ozanne. It would seem the priest, (unmarried and unattached at the time?) has regrets about the distress this caused too. However, this doesn’t make it rape.

      • Brian

        Yes, I think this is a lot more likely to be the situation that she is “remembering”. She doesn’t say she was attacked or threatened and the priest was someone to whom she was emotionally attached. Both regretted ‘going too far’, as we used to say – actually quite a common experience in the lives of young evangelicals, who have sex drives just as much as everyone else but also a religious conscience. She was also, at the time, closely associated with the charismatic evangelical world and would be encouraged as a role model by George Carey. A few years back, she issued a rather apocalyptic piece on the future of the C of E over its ‘apostasy’, if I recall correctly, when resigning from the council. I would say she’s a pretty conflicted person and when she decided to identify as a lesbian she has evidently reconfigured her past.

        • bluedog

          ‘she has evidently reconfigured her past.’ Isn’t that the point? When one reads the comment ‘the most precious gift that I felt I could give my husband-to-be would have been my virginity, and that was taken from me by someone I had trusted’, there is an obvious conclusion. If the priest in question had become her husband, Jayne’s position with regard to the incident may have been very different. As it is, she appears to have been ‘let down’.

          • Jack thinks he’s correct in saying that under Mosaic Law a man would be obliged to marry the woman he had wantonly deflowered.

          • Anton

            That is indeed the case. Notice though that the rule is not compatible with monogamy.

          • Wouldn’t the woman be stoned to death if she was having sex with a married man? Or both man and woman if she was betrothed to another? Makes marrying the woman somewhat difficult.

          • Anton

            No, stoning is specifically if a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband. Mosaic Law is gender-specific, and it is not hard to see why: the woman and her children are supported by the man’s labour, and he needs to know that the children he is slogging to provide for are his.

        • CliveM

          The sex drive of the young is one reason why they use to get married so early. With the change to marrying later it’s why premarital sex rates are so high in Christian circles.

      • Ivan M

        I do not recall feeling guilty. Just feeling stupid about it..

    • CliveM

      It is significant I think that after 20 odd years the Priest felt the need to apologise. It would suggest to me at least that he feels his behaviour towards her went beyond a fumble that mutually got out of control. If he feels his behaviour was beyond the pale, I see no reason to disbelieve her.

      • Royinsouthwest

        She does not say if she ever asked him to stop. If she did not do so then, even if her account is 100% truthful, it is doubtful that any jury would convict the man of rape. His behaviour was worse than hers, especially since he was a priest, but they both behaved badly and both had regrets subsequently, although his regrets seem to have come on much later than hers.

        • CliveM

          Im not certain but I think the law requires possitive assent of some manner, so even if she didnt say no, thats not enough of a defence. We actually dont know what happened and perhaps there has been to much speculation. In many ways the result of the way she has chosen to disclose thìs, but I think I’ve said to much.

          • Here’s a leaflet outlining the law on consent.
            It seems to rest on whether the complainant gave any signs that they did not want sexual activity and whether these intimations were ignored. The police would enquire as to how the suspect knew or believed the complainant was consenting to sex. There is a legal distinction between submission and rape. What makes distinguishing the two complex is that many victims do not fight and resistance can be through dissociation, freezing or trying to befriend the defendant.

            https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/what_is_consent_v2.pdf

          • CliveM

            Thanks for the link.

          • Anton

            Was it the same in the early 1990s when the incident is placed?

          • Not sure …. the consent laws have been developed by case law and also by statute.

          • Gill Cain

            The law covering pre 2003 was the Sexual Offences Act 1956 when there is a defence if the alleged ‘rapist’ believed the ‘victim’ was consenting. That ‘belief of consent’ doesn’t have to be ‘reasonable’ to be a valid defence in court.

        • Gill Cain

          Surely the standard is not does someone tell another to ‘stop’ but that they failed to say ‘yes’?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Should sexual encounters be conducted only once agreement has been reached on an agenda, like the Brexit negotiations?

          • Martin

            Gill

            Presumably you’d expect a signed and witnessed statement from both parties to be lodged before such an encounter took place.

      • Anton

        But he did not admit rape in his email, according to her, and he could have been apologising for what he considered was simply nonmarital sex. NB I am not saying that is what happened; like you I regret the rush to judge, below.

        • Chris Bell

          what is the matter with you all??……………..NONE of it has in any way been corroborated….it could turn out that the whole allegation is fake!! Just False memory Syndrome plus a burning desire to bring a shining white LGB*** agenda to the fore. Judgement or non-judgement are currently irrelevant.

          • Anton

            Corroboration is not possible in situations where it is one person’s word against another. We are not ancient Israel in which God himself promised to show who was telling the truth in certain not entirely dissimilar situations – the ‘ordeal’ in Numbers 5 that Joseph spared Mary even when be believed she had been unfaithful, before the angelic visitation to him.

        • CliveM

          See my response to HJ.

      • We don’t know what he said in this email. She says he refers to “mucking (her) around” and “crossing boundaries”. Hardly an admission or apology for rape. These expressions can be understood in a number of different ways.

        • CliveM

          I do wonder why someone would feel the need to say sorry for consensual mucking around. Sorry to God perhaps. Regret perhaps, but sorry says to me, that he feels the line he crossed was more serious.

          • Oh, Jack doesn’t know about that. These were two (Evangelical?) Christians who knew one another through their Church work – and may still encounter one another from a distance. Presumably sex outside of marriage is still considered sinful. We do look back on our lives and regret actions and seek to put right any harm we may have done others. Remember too, Ms Ozanne began well known in the Church of England in 2015 when she declared she was a lesbian.

    • Ivan M

      It seems to be a recovered decorated memory. The man did not force himself on her. She did not threaten him with calling her father or brother. or the police. The set up is designed to let these things happen as part of the natural flow. Though I do sympathize with her, if she had expectations of getting married to the priest.

    • Gill Cain

      Please educate yourself on what does and does not constitute consent and what would constitute rape. Thames Valley Police have produced an excellent video to explain about ‘consent’ and you need to know that ‘using force and threats, ignoring calls to stop’ are not necessary for the crime of rape to have been committed.

      • Brian

        Please educate yourself in talking to people you have never met and don’t know. And please do not talk down to people in a superior manner. And please read CAREFULLY what Jayne Ozanne wrote about her alleged experience and what I and others – Jack and Ivan – have said in reply. She does not say she was forced, beaten, threatened or acting under the influence of drugs and alcohol, they were both mentally competent adults, and she was emotionally drawn to this man who was drawn to her. She doesn’t say she felt ‘violated’, rather that she regrets losing her virginity outside of marriage – which is perfectly understandable to someone with a Christian conscience. The only person who can corroborate or refute her claims is the priest himself, and that is why Jayne Ozanne should report the matter fully to the police to investigate a serious allegation of criminal behaviour.

        • Gill Cain

          ‘talking down to people in a superior manner’? Really? I apologise if I caused you offense. It isn’t appropriate to be disrespectful of people.

          • Brian

            And I apologise if I was thin-skinned in my response. My law student days are long distant but I know that the law on consent (determined by the Sexual Offences Act and case law determination) turns on whether it was given or there was a ‘reasonable belief’ that it was given. What that means is very difficult to say (although you can say what it *doesn’t mean). I haven’t seen the Thames Valley Police video, but to be honest, I don’t have much confidence in what the police say. The British police are very prone to acting reactively according to political fashions – as the hounding of Cliff Richards and others has shown. Many young people, not just Christians, go further than one or either anticipated when kissing and hugging lead to undressing, but this is a subject that parents and youth leaders have never found easy to broach with teenagers; while this couple were clearly adults in any case and there is no indication that judgment was impaired by drink or drugs (as is often the case with young people in Oxford and everywhere else).

  • carl jacobs

    That isnt what happened, Clive. No “bugger” got her down. I am the proximate cause of this departure. Here is what happened.

    Hannah made a post to Martin Sewell (since deleted) in which without naming names she basically accused the commenters on this weblog of being characterized by the Inspector. I quoted a few lines from that post about “obsessing about gay people” and thinking homosexuality was the worst thing in the world. In fact, I took it as a personal insult. It also perfectly fit as an example of the points I had been making on this thread about people making accusations without naming names. So I asked her to name names. Then I said what was obviously true – that her assertion was a transparent falsehood. I wanted to use the word “lie” because that would have been more accurate but I pulled my punch. Why did I want to use the word “lie”? Because she’s been around this weblog for six years. She has no excuse not to know better.

    She made two separate replies to my post. First she simply responded “No” in response to my question “Did you make this post just to prove my point?” A few minutes later she posted the following:

    Hi

    Well goodbye then”

    And she deleted her account. Then she stomped off the weblog like a petulant child. But I have noticed that people can’t just leave a weblog. They have to state why they are leaving to make the departure meaningful. So she came back to say “I’m leaving because you upset me and it’s all your fault. You should feel bad.” Well, I don’t feel bad. I don’t feel bad when someone gets called out and responds by throwing a temper tantrum.

    I am many things. But I am not characterized by the stupidities of the Inspector and I had no intention of letting that acusation stand unchallenged. If she was offended, she needs to look inside and not outside for the reason.

    • CliveM

      Carl

      Well I was using it in a light hearted, encouraging manner as I like Hannah and her honesty and would preferred if she had stayed.

      • Cressida de Nova

        She will be back.

        • CliveM

          Hope so.

        • magnolia

          That is the pattern!

    • Inspector General

      “obsessing about gay people”…”the stupidities of the Inspector”

      Well Well Well

      Carl, for your information you are so right. There is a lot of obsessing about gay people. It’s done by gay people. Or to be more accurate: Admirers of Gays. Apologists for Gays. Gay enthusiasts. Gay activists. Gay extremists. Gay revolutionaries. Gay social engineers with government backing. Get the picture?

      Is it right to be concerned and point this out? Well, yes. Look up the definition of marriage. It’s changed recently. There are more changes to come. The Church of England for example. God is being eased out to make way for the worship of types who need regular testing and treatment at pox clinics. Wonderful how accommodating religion can be when there’s enough around who don’t give a damn, isn’t it? There’s more. An all-out attempt to promote this lifestyle choice in the national curriculum. Oh yes, 5 year olds to be asked if they want to change sex. Many other examples…including an iniquitous invention, the ‘hate laws’. Deny a man in a dress and wig is not the real woman he deludes himself to be – that’s a hate crime. Object to 2 men passionately making love in the back of your taxi – that’s a hate crime. Reassure your 5 year old boy he really is a male and not the girl he thinks he might want to be – that’s a hate crime.

      How do they do it. This tiny crowd? They do it with help from people like you. Decents who say “leave off them, will you. Let them be. They do no harm”

      “All it took was for a few good men to say nothing”

      Anyway, one has diverted you long enough. You’ll be wanting time to knock up something in advance about “obsessing about Sharia people”…”the stupidities of Cranmer”

      • Phil R

        I have missed your clear thinking Inspector and calling a spade a spade.

      • Cressida de Nova

        The western world is largely secular.Moral and educational standards have declined drastically and as a result people are generally stupid, directionless and have no framework of reference to any moral code. It is not a tiny crowd. It has the majority support. You are the one who is part of the tiny crowd .Your values are no longer shared by the masses. Decent people are dinosaurs….museum pieces and have no relevance in the modern age !

    • Cressida de Nova

      Your behaviour in the past has been vicious petulant and ridiculous .Your righteous self image differs greatly from the reality. You are the one who should stop lying to yourself that you are some sort of Christian.

  • Hi

    This “petulant child” who “stomped off” is gone for good.

    • carl jacobs

      That’s your business and not mine. But don’t justify your decision with lies. You are only lying to yourself.

      • CliveM

        It’s harsh to accuse someone of lying. If you remember she did say a couple of days back she was thinking of taking a break and had deleted her previous discus account.

        • carl jacobs

          Yes, it is harsh. But no one ever said the truth has to be gentle. I read what she wrote before she deleted it. Anyone who has been around this weblog as long as she has been around this weblog could not have written what she wrote in good conscience. She had a chance to withdraw it and say she just got mad. She had the chance to defend it and back up the charges she made. She did neither. She reacted by leaving.

          Yes, she was struggling on this weblog. What do you think she was struggling with? She is a lesbian in a lesbian relationship. What did she think she would find here? Affirmation? You can treat people with kindness and respect (and Hannah was certainly treated with kindness and respect by those she accused). But that isn’t ultimately what people want. They want to be justified. They will eventually insist the kindness and respect equates to telling them they are right. It’s not an accident that this blew up over a thread that was only tangentially related to homosexuality.

          She knew what she was writing. She knew it was wrong when she wrote it. She didn’t care. She was mad. I stand by the charge.

          • CliveM

            What I will say is that when Hannah made her comment about some people on here obsessing about homosexuality, it never crossed my mind that she would be including you in that!

          • carl jacobs

            Are you sure? She called Jack a homophobe on this very same thread.

            Who exactly was she talking about?Jack? Chef? You? The only person on this weblog who fits the profile of her accusation is the Inspector. I have been here since the early months of 2011. I couldn’t think of one other person she could credibly charge.

            All she had to do was name names. But then she would have had to defend her accusation. And this she could not do.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Carl is self obsessed obviously.

    • Little Black Censored

      Oh, here you are again!

  • Here’s the agenda:

    “It is utterly wrong to dominate and control a woman sexually, emotionally, financially in any circumstance, but to create a religious environment where this is normalized and supported by theology is especially cruel. I think this is because ‘God’ is where we put the really deep stuff in our lives. Stuff that language, art, even music, can’t easily articulate. If controlling, abusive and violent things are done in the name of God, because the bible tells these men that is how you treat women, then the very place that should be the safest becomes the most dangerous.”
    (Revd Canon Rosie Harper)

    Jack didn’t realise scripture tells men to be abusive, controlling and violent towards women. Can anyone let him know where this is encouraged in the Bible?

    • Martin

      One has to wonder what the qualifications to become a reverend canon in the CoE are.

  • Marcus Stewart

    How awful for Jane.

    Of course a criminal act of this magnitude should be reported, not least because the priest in question may have done it to others (though I can well understand why women hesitate or they don’t); and viz the bishop who believes a grave criminal act has been reported to him, the CDM, authored by the very same bishops, requires that he reports the identity of the priest to the police, if he knows it, lest he is subject to suspension or prohibition. A bishop should want to know if a priest is a rapist and to have him removed from ministry as a danger to others, etc and cannot possibly properly wash his hands of the matter.

    Safeguarding officers, etc are wholly irrelevant to the matter: this is a criminal allegation and should be referred to the police, with a referral to the bishop/safeguarders in addition if wished – not instead of.

    • IanCad

      “How awful for Jane”
      That Jane!!?? She, who’s life work appears to be solely invested in an effort to change the created order? Who corrupts the young? Recruits silly vicars to her cause? Threatens to call the police to investigate those who disagree with her perverted worldview?
      No sympathy from me. In fact, this whole historic abuse nonsense needs to be shut down right now.
      It appears that Rolf Harris may well be exonerated.

      • bluedog

        Is there not a hint of irony in Marcus’ post?

        • IanCad

          Most of my life has been spent in America, thus explaining the shrinkage of my irony perception organ.

          • CliveM

            Irony is harder to pick up on when it’s the printed word!

          • bluedog

            One offers condolences.

          • Chefofsinners

            Reply this email buy v1agra make you organ irony all night. Very cheap.

          • IanCad

            Can’t afford it at present as I am fully invested in helping a nice Nigerian gentleman transfer his inheritance into the UK. Perhaps later.
            Thank you.

  • Simon Platt

    I really don’t follow this. If Jayne Ozanne really thinks she was raped, why is she telling journalists, even bishops (Anglican), and not the police?

    • IanCad

      Quite likely she did tell the police but they were only responding to offences committed at odd-numbered addresses at that time. She should re-apply at a later date – perhaps the stars will align.

  • Anton

    This thread has made some suggestions and judgements that I think go far beyond the facts, but it has certainly raised some interesting questions. Has anybody tried putting them to Jayne Ozanne on her own blog?

    • CliveM

      Nope and I wouldn’t.

    • Nobody knows the “facts”. That’s the whole point. We just have her interpretations of incidents and conversations from her television interview and also an insight into a possible agenda from her letter to the Guardian.

      Go ahead and ask Ms Ozanne questions – and do report back.

      • Anton

        Others below have fewer inhibitions than me…

        You are right. By “the facts” I meant “what has been said”.

  • Chris Bell

    Oh Your Grace please forgive my creepy false allegation and slime. Into the stocks I must go whilst bleeting that ‘Deleted by account owner’ would be a wise move to stop all this smeary accusation stuff. We don’t want anymore of that….do we??

    Methinks I will advise Ms rozanne to do the same for her smeary ‘yes-it-was-done-unto-me-but-I-can’t-give-you-any-details-except-to-go-public-anyway’ and delete her whole account!!

    • Put like that she sounds like a bit of a tease. I wonder how much she led the priest on?

      • carl jacobs

        We shouldn’t go there. The problem isn’t that she made a false accusation. The problem is that she made an uncorroboratable accusation.

        • Brian

          No, I think the problem is that she has made an accusation of rape that deconstructs itself – and she doesn’t seem to realise this. Prima facie, what she describes isn’t rape but two Christians drawn to each other who strayed into forbidden territory and ‘went too far’, as the cliché has it, leaving her with regret over the loss of her virginity at a time when she didn’t think of herself as a lesbian. It grieves me to say it, but she is a troubled and attention-seeking person who wants to fashion the world in her own eyes. Lots of strong-willed people are like that – and many of them can become embittered in late middle age if their life ambitions have not been fulfilled, Finding others to blame for unhappiness or unsuccess is a very common temptation, and the therapeutic culture (to which women are particularly drawn – why else is Hollywood full of endless romcoms and suchlike fantasies?) feeds into this victimhood desire. It is much harder to admit: ‘I screwed up, I made the wrong choice.’

          • bluedog

            Excellent and most perceptive comment. A capacity for honest self-assessment may well be missing.

      • Personally, if we’re speculating, Jack believes it more likely this was her first serious sexual encounter, the priest was probably more experienced, that she regretted where their relationship led and that this had a profound effect on her then and since. From her statements, it is apparent she looked upon her virginity as something sacred and this was taken from her when she wasn’t in full control of the situation. She may have then been abandoned.

        • DSERIES

          Yes.If you are correct then it illustrates the problem that occurs when the definition of rape comes to include relationships that “go too far”

      • Chris Bell

        Is it not all a tease??

  • len

    Accusations must be backed up with facts.Otherwise anyone can accuse anyone about anything.

    I see the usual bun fight is going on who has got’ the authentic version’ of Christianity.Religion has made fools of men who claim to be wise.
    Christ is Christianity. Follow Him, even if it means leaving your religion.

    • Chris Bell

      Yup, leaving the Church nowadays probably means joining with Christ in truer sense. Something that Thomas Merton saw and understood, I think.

    • Sir John Oldcastle

      ‘Victims must be believed’ makes a nonsense of innocence until proven guilty. The above story leaves me profoundly disquieted, not for the churches reaction, but the nature of these public accusations which once again don’t seem to have been made to the proper authorities – the police – but bandied around the media instead.

  • If only we knew then what we know now …..
    It’s really not a joking matter. Let’s be honest, sex outside of long term and committed relationship (i.e. permanent marriage) may or may not be enjoyable and gratifying for men and women. One thing’s for sure, it is harmful to one’s psycho-sexual and moral development as a person and most certainly as a Christian. And it’s women who carry the greatest cost. Although women are becoming more sexually assertive now that sexual roles are dissolving and continence and fidelity are no longer cherished, men have been the main perpetrators of harmful exploitative sex, even if it has been legally “consensual”.

    • CliveM

      I think I may have said this before, but I remember a fair amount of sexual bullying by men. Sex was coerced emotionally if not physically. The sexual revolution left many women as simply targets with little protection.

      • It’s women and children who suffer the consequences of a breakdown in sexual morality which no longer confines sex to a permanent marital relationship or values virginity.

      • Cressida de Nova

        Weinstein comes to mind.

        • CliveM

          At the moment it would seem the whole of the male part of Holywood should come to mind.

    • dannybhoy

      This chap will agree with you…
      ‘Laugh your way to a better marriage’
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9eOjFWEdvI

  • not a machine

    Antonio Carrluchio you shall sorely be missed such wonderful thoughts and flavours gave a feel for good ingredients from the landscape to have good natural food. Every time I will have a morning apricot slice and a cup of Italian coffee I will give thanks for showing the love and joy of food always made with a heart to enjoy your time and live well.

  • Chris Bell

    Who would be interested in roxzannes reply when this was posted on her latest blog “The power of words”?:
    “Yes, indeed, words have power and so do allegations such as ‘yes-it-was-done-unto-me-but-I-can’t-give-you-any-details-except-to-go-public-anyway’. Do you think God is fooled??”
    Moderation being what it is, the question will probably be trashed.

    • Gill Cain

      Yes this was posted and sadly, it seems the person (God and lot’s of other people know who it is) who posted it wishes to remain anonymous and distances himself (I am fairly sure this has been posted by a man) from the post! A post like this is of course going to attract a great deal of criticism as it is rather obnoxious on so many levels!

      • Chris Bell

        You seem to find it so difficult to put the ‘others’ moccasins on so allow me to help you with a small analogy:
        Imagine if you have a child in class of just 5. Then one evening you see on CH 4 news a parent alleging that her child had been seriously abused by one of the children in that class of 5 and that another pupil had tried to cover the abuse up. But this parent refuses to name or give any evidence for her allegation.
        Your concern will be of fear, alarm and panic as you look upon your child and say ‘no it cannot be..no, no……………that parent must give the name of the abusive child now and forthwith or else retract immediately.
        If this is not your reaction then I would suggest praying for it.

        • Gill Cain

          There is one significant difference. Safeguarding in relation to children is a rather different matter to safeguarding in relation to adults, when only those deemed to be ‘vulnerable’ are covered by dedicated legislation.

          • In addition to sexual offence legislation, you want all women to be covered by additional legislation as a “vulnerable” group?

            Ms Ozanne should formally report this alleged offence to the police and ask for a criminal investigation. Additionally, she should also trigger the Church of England procedures. Anything less discredits her and suggests she is just creating a media storm and seeking attention for reasons other than the good of the Church or the protection of others.

            Could you address this point as you seem to be a spokesperson for Ms Ozanne.

  • Royinsouthwest

    A minister in the Welsh Assembly Government has committed suicide after being sacked because of allegations against him. He was a popular man, unusual for a politician, and was not even told what the allegations against him were, apart from the fact that they involved sexual harassment, or who made them, or when the alleged offence(s) took place so it was very difficult for him to defend himself against the allegations.

    Pressure growing on Welsh Labour over death of Carl Sargeant
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/08/carl-sargeant-was-not-told-detail-of-harassment-allegations-say-friends
    Government in Wales faces calls for review and claims party did not deal fairly with minister accused of sexual harassment

    Furthermore one of his close friends, Leighton Andrews, a former minister for education in the Welsh government, has claimed that the Welsh First Minister had been looking for an excuse to sack his colleague.

    This sad case shows the danger of a witch hunt based on claims made without evidence about behaviour which, in many cases, would not even be illegal even if it is immoral.

    • Anton

      One is reminded of the tale of the man who sent anonymous telegrams to friends saying “Flee – all is known” and found that several of them legged it to South America…

  • Matthew Ineson

    The priest and bishop should be named and investigated. If not they are being shielded. In my case my childhood rapist, Trevor Devamanikkam, was left 5 years unchecked by the church despite me having disclosed my abuse to Archbishop Sentamu and Bishops Croft, Snow and Burrows and despite the church being told by the police that he was under Investigation. He was charged in May this year with 3counts of rape and 3 counts of indecent assault of a child. Still the church did nothing. Nobody, no bishop or the National Safeguarding Team, did anything when I disclosed or when he was investigated or charged. And they did nothing towards the end of his life despite them also knowing he was under the care of a mental health team. By their own admission, the National Safeguarding Team (nor anybody else including the diocesan bishop Steven Croft) did any risk assessments or took any other reasonable action…and my priest rapist then killed himself the day he was due in court. I have received no apology, the church has not paid a penny for the counselling I have received for the past two years despite statements to the contrary, and my CDM complaints against bishops who failed to act on my disclosures seem to have ‘dissappeared’. No one, from Justin Welby down has done anything and they routinely ignore me. I submitted risk assessment requests to Justin Welby under Canon C30 months ago asking him to risk assess those who put children and the vulnerable at risk (children and the vulnerable are definitely put at risk if senior clergy do not act on disclosures). I have received no reply to my request.
    They cannot comprehend what this has done to me…and yet they treat me, And others, with contempt while sat on their thrones.
    The ‘safeguarding’ in the church is there to protect the bishops who fail to act properly. It is a wicked and sinful thing to ignore disclosures of rape, not act against a priest under investigation and then do everything possible to protect those who lie to cover their failings.
    I urge Jayne to name the bishop and priest. Let them be investigated. If they have done it once they may do it again. That puts women, men and children at risk and is dangerous. Don’t let my own case, and so many others, be repeated again and again. Stop protecting the institution. Be Christ like.

  • Chris Bell

    “Yes, indeed, words have power and so do allegations such as ‘yes-it-was-done-unto-me-but-I-can’t-give-you-any-details-except-to-go-public-anyway’. Do you think God is fooled??”

    The reply to my comment on her blog is as thus:

    Jayne Ozanne says:

    November 9, 2017 at 8:31 am

    I’ve chosen to publish this comment so that people can see what vile online trolling I get.

    • Brian

      Where is this blog? What’s it called?

    • Simon Platt

      You vile online troller, you!

      • Chris Bell

        Strange thing today: pointing out that unsubstantiated public claims is no more than trolling one gets trolled.
        Jolly good fun!!

    • How vile is that.

      • Chris Bell

        anagram of evil, maybe?

        • Or live.

          • Brian

            or LEVI (aka Matthew). He was VILE before he met the Lord. Some said he was EVIL. But the Lord took the VEIL from his eyes so that he could LIVE.
            (from a children’s talk I used to give with four large cards moved around by kids. Cheesy but memorable. )

  • Brian

    “Ms Ozanne, why not formally report this alleged offence of rape to the police and ask for a criminal investigation? Additionally, you should trigger the Church of England procedures. Anything less discredits you and suggests this is about creating a media storm and seeking attention for reasons other than the good of the Church or the protection of others. At the moment this has the status of gossip and appears to be no more than grandstanding.”
    – This comment appeared today from a blogger called maccuscuria and brought the reply that Jayne is ‘disgusted with untruths being reported and of course there is a criminal investigation underway.’ So we will hear – perhaps.

    • That’s Happy Jack’s WordPress account. Someone had to ask.

      Yes, an interesting and revealing reply given the matter should not be broadcast in the national media if, as she claims, a police investigation is underway. It also contradicts her statement to Channel 4:

      “And then out of the blue I got an email from this chap last year, apologising for mucking me around and for crossing boundaries. And that said to me he knew what the problem had been. I mean he didn’t use the word ‘rape’, but I suppose the question in my own mind and the thing that I’ve beaten myself up about was had he gone on to do this to other people, if he felt able to do that with me? Was this someone who’s a serial predator, or was it just a one-off really unfortunate situation? And so I did go and talk to the police about it, but I then began to understand how complicated reporting this sort of thing was – what I call how nuclear an option it is – you know, for me the biggest issue is that sadly, if you’re a priest, your livelihood, your house, everything is part of your job. And if you lose that, your wife and your children also suddenly start to suffer. And it’s very difficult therefore for someone like myself to think am I willing to put another woman in that situation, and so I must admit I think I did what many people did, I chose not to push this any further, and therefore that left me in this horrid in-between place of feeling guilty for not taking it further, but also feeling ashamed that I’d let this happen.

      Jack will pursue this point further with her on her blog.

      • Brian

        Good work pursuing this. Jayne Ozanne owes it to the public and to the Church of England to be completely open about this allegation of serious sexual assault.

        • maccuscuria says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
          November 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm

          Given you’re saying the matter is the subject of a police investigation, should you be broadcasting the accusations in the national media? Your comment here also appears to contradict your statement to Channel 4:

          “And so I did go and talk to the police about it, but I then began to understand how complicated reporting this sort of thing was – what I call how nuclear an option it is – you know, for me the biggest issue is that sadly, if you’re a priest, your livelihood, your house, everything is part of your job And if you lose that, your wife and your children also suddenly start to suffer. And it’s very difficult therefore for someone like myself to think am I willing to put another woman in that situation, and so I must admit I think I did what many people did, I chose not to push this any further, and therefore that left me in this horrid in-between place of feeling guilty for not taking it further, but also feeling ashamed that I’d let this happen.

          Did you change your mind?.

          • Pubcrawler

            “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

            Is this the case, HJ? Surely there is no censorship chez Ozanne?

          • Yes; no reply. One draws one’s own conclusions.

    • Chris Bell

      It seems that Ms Ozanne finds everything rather vile and disgusting ………when not agreed with.

      All of these trivia shows are but the foretaste of the futile war of the sexes. Hold on to your hats and scarves people.
      Take nothing too seriously but let nothing pass either.

      And I do not want or pine for your agreement!

  • Chris Bell

    Just for the record I received an email from Ms Ozanne. Only the subject line was given, viz:
    “WHO SAYS THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING INVESTIGATED??” and the email contained nothing at all……..not a pronoun in sight.

    And this was my reply far longer than intended. Let it be trolled or ignored for I suspect that many on this forum would not agree. But we start at the basics…..the nub of it all.
    Subject: Identity.
    Ms Ozanne,

    > 34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

    Christ makes it absolutely clear that you are not your sex nor your body. His entire ministry is of this one profound truth. The Cross is our world, the body upon it is our ego and the Resurrection is the ultimate revelation that we are Eternal Spirit. Cleaving to identity with the body is cleaving to ignorance. It is the original sin for in this false identity we are separate from God. He is our identity in the silence of our Existent Heart. He is our Consciousness that we may know Him. The allegory of Adam and Eve teaches that in full truth there is no difference between the male and the female, each is a unique expression of Eternal Spirit. The question; 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked?….” instantly conveys that duality and oppositional thinking had entered the mind.

    This no fable it is a fact of everyday life in our bodies. Whatever happens to us within these lives is precisely what our true Self wants, nothing is to be rejected but must always be learnt from. Just as Julian of Norwich taught that sin and therefore suffering is the way our minds are cleansed of that original ignorance of duality and bringing us into God’s presence. For He is our own Self.

    Therefore our ‘enemies’, those that have hurt us, are the instruments through which we learn that our dualistic desires do not bring any happiness at all, they will be transient, changeful and selfish. And finally damaging to all around. In this we learn, inexorably, that nothing of the world that we desire to change is anything more than our own ignorance. Our oppositional mind. Often called the ego its destruction is mandatory and can only be destroyed by asking “Who am I? What is the real nature of this ‘I’ that I use everyday.” If asked in quiet there will not be an answer to the mind but the Heart will come know the answer. Your identity will shift and your troubles gradually disappear. This is God and God is Knowledge-Existence. And this is Christ’s quintessential message which has been lost to the Church over the course of centuries. It will never be heard again whilst this false, futile war of sexual identity is being waged.

    And it is of considerable importance that is heard again for Fr. Thomas Merton puts it:

    “What we are – our identity – is only truly known to God – never ourselves, nor any other man or woman. The greatest terror of the particular judgment is that, the moment after our death we instantly appear before the face of God and learn our identity – in truth. We finally see ourselves as we really are!! The measure of our identity, of our being (the two are the same) is the amount of our love for God.”

  • magnolia

    As a church we need the OCD unpastoral opportunistic strategising luke-warmhearted control freaks OUT and the decent nonlustful monogamous pastoral sensitive gentle folk in, for all sorts of reasons, so Jayne Ozanne should report him, unless she is very certain it would significantly damage both her and a completely reformed character, otherwise if he is not raping he is probably manipulating , intruding, controlling and making lives a misery somewhere…

  • Brian

    Jayne Ozanne Continues To Censor Respectful Requests To Substantiate Her Public Allegation of Serious Sexual Crime And To Answer Respectful Questions About Her Account.

    – I know (because I have been told) that other questions or comments have not been published and there has been a complete refusal to interact with these or respond to their valid points. Instead the only response (if one is given) is to describe any questioning of her accuracy and consistency as “Vile Trolling”. This is absurd. “Trolling” means provocative or insulting comments attacking a person, not a challenge on factuality.

    – On the other hand, Janet Fife of “Thinking Anglicans” has been freely published to attack the questioner – and to ignore the question. This is called “retreating into taking offence”.

    – This comment from Alastair Roberts on “Psephizo” is quite revelatory on how internet exchanges go:
    “If I treat women as I do other men [ sc. call for substantiation of a point or withdraw], they will feel threatened and attacked by me and feel that I am being misogynistic in opposing them.”
    That’s pretty much what Jayne Ozanne has done and Janet Fife has abetted her. Shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.

    • magnolia

      I disagree with most of the LGBT agenda. For reasons I cannot divulge here, and speaking as a never-other-than-straight and long-married woman, I have suffered substantially, several times from collateral damage from their cause, with little to no sympathy given by the church (not PC you see).

      Nevertheless if people are given enough space there is an element to the human soul which often desires to explain oddities and tell it as it is. That is a healing dynamic. Ms.Ozanne, regardless of my disagreement with many of her views, deserves space to do this. She has named precisely no one, and until she does none of these questions nor comments nor demands to substantiate are fair or justified. She claims to have reported this to the police, and would therefore be wise not to say anything more at all. If her account is truthful- and it seems likely at this juncture, you risk heaping abuse on top of abuse, claustrophobia on top of claustrophobia, powerlessness on top of powerlessness, whether or not she was best-advised to speak out as and when she did, and I cannot see why anyone would want to do that.