ABBOT RICHARD PURCELL CASE NOW MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE ROMAN CORRIDORS OF POWER.

1. If the Purcell matter is being progressed through the Roman canon law courts, then that is a good thing. It is disappointing that the matter was not addressed by Purcell himself (either he’s in complete denial or has just decided to tough it out), nor by the OCSOs who seem just to be weak, nor by the local bishop who just seems to want to bury his head in the sand. The matter going to Rome will escalate the case of Purcell, and even though I am not convinced that they will deal with it transparently, given the Church’s inclination to minimise and cover up as much as they can ‘in order to prevent scandal to the faithful ‘ (!), it will at least put Purcell on their radar and it might just clip his wings.
2. Returning to yesterday’s blog about Langham. I’ve followed the story, and have a sense of a narrative whereby there was an incident involving an 18 + young man, who seems to have been an ‘altar server’, involving a drinks’ party and the presence of other senior clerics, in particular + Longley when he was an auxiliary in Westminster. There appears to have been an incident of Langham ‘french kissing’ this young man. Now, even giving Langham the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, and even entertaining the possibility that this young man was a bit of a tease / flirt and may even have occasioned the ‘french kiss’, there is still an unease and disquiet about a senior cleric such as Langham, who technically was the young man’s ’employer’ or superior, finding himself in such a situation where such a thing could happen. Even given it might have been initiated by the young man, it is the senior and more mature person’s responsibility, especially where there is a power / authority disparity, to ensure that these situations and circumstances do not arise. It’s called prudence. Inviting a young man to an intimate drinks’ party in his private quarters sets all the alarm bells going. That + Longley seems to have felt it necessary to calm things down by taking the young man out to dinner, a questionably imprudent invitation itself, suggests that there was a a need to calm things down because what happened was disquieting to all concerned. All of these facts of the narrative indicate a very ill advised and imprudent situation and actions on the part of the more mature and senior people there, including Langham. If such a thing had taken place in the world of work and business in which I am involved, particularly involving a senior person and someone more junior, it would not just raise eyebrows, it would be looked at closely, questions would be asked and the necessary action taken.
3. Maybe, just maybe, Langham’s removal to Rome from Westminster was occasioned by incidents such as these. It does, however, seem odd that it was thought wise to bring him back to take up a role as the chaplain at Cambridge University, where 18+ year old men abound !
4. There is no doubt that Langham was a talented and personable man, with the languid and gilded gifts that saw him considered to be part of the clerical glitterati of Westminster. It would appear, however, that there was another side to the coin that would manifest itself in the presence of young men and drink, and lead Langham to engage in imprudent behaviour. To this can be added the behaviour and lifestyle expected by the Church itself of its priests, namely purity and chastity of thought and action, and the whole situation just becomes more and more questionable.

LikeLike

The only bad or dubious behaviour that vexes a bishop is chid abuse allegations and that at a push – other that devil do they care – clerical motto is – hear no evil, say no evil, do no evil – Fr Etienne, oh he doesn’t have a nervous breakdown, a psychiatric would have a field day, with transference, repressed memories and attachment issues alone, will go from strength to strength – ye mark my words!!

LikeLike

5.39: Sorry, I rattled you: From the content of this comnent you may have experienced or are presently experiencing the symptoms you repeat. If you are burdened with these conditions, surely you should be more aware of the effects which public scrutiny by others would have on you! There is no vitriol in my 4.30 comment. Don”t you think it’s disgusting to use this forum to tear apart someone who may have personal, psychological issues? Don’t you think it’s morally reprehensible to continually subject any named person to scorn and judgment and be a focus for amusement? Irrespective of Fr. Etienne’s traits, he does not deserve the scrutiny of nasty jeerers or pseudo psychologists! And I still wouldn’t allow you to treat Magna Carta, the name of my cat!! 😁😁😁🤣🤣🤣😁🤣🤣

LikeLike

6.20pm
Darling, I’m not remotely rattled – on the contrary – remember I thanked you that little rush – I’m glad you meant no vitriol mind you, if your message wasn’t vitriolic, I’d hate to be on the receiving end when you are – mind you, I’d probably enjoy that too – I learnt many many rears ago, sticks and stones, may break my bones but words will never hurt me!!
I disagree completely and wholeheartedly – Fr Etienne is a public figure – we live in a free and democratic society and bad behaviour should be called out, challenged, lampooned, ridiculed and if necessary the culprit put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables – trust me, it would do him the world of good!!
Naming your pussy after a Medieval Document is sure to make him sick – have you thought about changing your poor pussys name!!

LikeLike