Cardiff University has distanced itself from Father John Owen, one of the University chaplains, since gair rhydd published controversial comments that he made live on television in May.
The University has removed the chaplain’s profile from their website and has stated, “No chaplains are employed by Cardiff University”.
Following last week’s article, a University spokesperson issued a statement which declared: “Cardiff University is a secular organisation that does not require or promote religious belief in general or any religious belief in particular. No chaplains are employed by Cardiff University.
“The opinions expressed by Father John Owen, one such chaplain, during the BBC’s Big Questions on Sunday May 24, are his own personal opinions, independent of Cardiff University, and in no way reflect the views and beliefs of the institution.”
In relation to the recently published Ryan report, which revealed that sexual abuse is prevalent within Irish Catholic industrial schools and orphanages that are run by the Church, Father John Owen stated live on television that “most of the offences are being committed by homosexuals”.
He continued: “Stick to the facts: the vast majority of the abuse cases in the country – certainly in America – were not taken against what I would call children but 95 per cent of the time taken against teenage boys. Now what does that tell you?”
The spokesperson also said: “The University aims to establish an inclusive culture free from discrimination and based on the values of dignity, courtesy and respect. The University recognises the right of every person to be treated in accordance with these values.
“Such an environment cannot be created or sustained if staff or students are subject to any type of discrimination because of their faith, religious affiliation, philosophical beliefs or non-belief, sexual orientation or any other aspect of their identity.”
1. Jim Bishop
This so-called ‘chaplain’ should be tied to a stake and stoned to death.
2. Terry Noel
Hasn’t this sensationalism all gone a bit far? It’s more than obvious his comments were taken wildly out of context and if anyone saw the programme they would’ve realized just how badly reported this whole affair has been?
3. Marc Thomas
Jim, you’ve got an apt second name and that in combination with your actual comment made me laugh.
I guess you’re joking. But if not, that’s weird. I agree with Terry.
Marc
4. James
I also agree with Terry. I feel a great deal of sympathy for poor Fr. Owens, who now finds himself abandoned by both his diocese and Cardiff University purely as a result of the power of the media in influencing such bodies, and the irresponsible representation of his comments by the BBC’s Big Questions and subsequent articles such as Gair Rhydd’s offensively titled ‘OMFG’ which ‘broke’ this story to the student body.
If this man loses his job, I hope that somewhere within the bodies that helped to manufacture his demise somebody’s conscience will twinge. I know journalists are not bad people, but journalism is a very powerful tool, and must be wielded responsibly.
5. Rhys
Just why does the univeristy need a chaplin in the first place?
6. Kirsty
Both Terry and James seem to be thinking that the naughty BBC have misrepresented Father Owen’s views, and taken them ‘out of context’. While I’m not going to insult your intelligence by presuming your are commenting without actually seeing the program (as many do), but as someone else who saw it I think the allegation is entirely unjust. Being the sort of show it is, Fr. Owen’s comments were not seen in isolation – he had time to speak, and was not cobbled together in editing to make him look bad. While I would not think his comments to be in any way supporting paedophiles, his views did show a blatant underlying homophobia, and therefore I feel have no place in our University, or at all coming out of the mouth of a man who’s role is to represent his organisation to the press.
7. James
A fair point Kirsty. By misrepresentation I meant the Gair Rhydd’s article which seemed to imply that Fr. Owen’s comments represented an association of paedophilia with homosexuality, and thence a denial of the problems in question. His point was not even homophobic, it was that sex with male teens is more akin to a homosexual act than a paedophilic one. I wouldn’t then go so far as to say what we are intended to infer from this, but it doesn’t seem to be any sort of association of paedophilia with homosexuality.
With regards to the BBC’s representation, I appreciate that we are not talking about heavy post-editting. The problem was more one of context, and the fact that in the first place Fr. Owens was placed in the awkward position of defending his church in a very hostile atmosphere, it should be clear that the point Owens was making was not received in the spirit in which it was intended. I would certainly accuse Fr. Owens of a gross error of judgement in appearing on the show in the first place, and in overestimating the willingness of his audience to consider his comments critically. I just don’t think it’s fair to infer from his comments that which has provoked the current reaction.
8. Terry
Hi Kirsty! Yes, I saw the programme and the studio audience certainly made one assumption – that the chaplain was saying there was a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. But he catagorically didn’t say that.
Fr Owen tried to continue with what he was saying but was cut across, and even shouted down, and instead of quietening the room to let him speak, the host only made things worse.
As Fr Owen himself said, people within the church don’t like to face the facts. As I see it, he was only analyzing the situation and facing important facts, ie. the nature of the abuse.
He certainly never made a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
9. b
can someone delete all comments posted by a. They are off topic and in the kindness of terms rubbish hippy nonesence
10. Marc Thomas
“it has to be stopped by our MP’s!”
... by our MPs what? Cat? Bald Wig? Corkscrew? Bad use of punctuation. Tsk tsk.
If you’re going to spam, at least do it in a gramatically correct fashion.
11. Rachelle
Does this mean the Anglican chaplaincy has been dissolved? I find that slightly unfair as those two branches of Christianity are autonomous and I, as a Christian lesbian, recieve tremendous support from my Vicar and her gay Warden (and his husband!)
ps: Mark Thomas, don’t be pedantic. It’s neither big nor clever.
12. sarah
El, your rubbish reporting and over exaggeration of every issue is crap. Tell you what, why don’t you visit bridgend and jump.
13. Andy
Sarah, it’s interesting just how much of malicious prick people can be when behind a computer screen.
Also – ‘visit Bridgend and jump’? Do you mean star jump? Long jump? Maybe just jump up and down on the spot? Weird advice.
14. Quagmire
Eleanor can jump me anyday, giggetty.
15. jonathan
Discrimination is about actions not views. A persons views are his or her right. That is in a free society. Can anyone tell me of a single occaision when this person discriminated against one single student. Other Defination for you a Prig some who looks down on others for not share his morality. A bigot some you discriminates against others for dissenting from his or her ethical views. This University and this comment wall has known shortage of either Prigs or Bigots.
16. Kirsty
While I completely agree that a person’s views are his or her right, it by no means follows that they have a right to say it uncriticised. An important aspect of free speech you seem to have forgotten is others’ freedom to question the views you espouse – it’s why I am fully entitled to say that Nick Griffin is a racist bigot, or that Chris Moyles is just bloody annoying. As such, if people find Fr. Owen’s comments homophobic, they are fully within their rights to say so, protected under the same set of rights that he is. As for discrimination, he is meant to represent the views of the organisations he works for. If they disagree with what he has been saying, then they are entirely within their rights to terminate their association with him. While I agree he should not be driven out by a witch hunt, you could classify this not as a discrimination matter but one of his job description!! Finally, ‘Prig – someone who looks down on others for not sharing his morality’, one could say that this has perhaps been the raison d’etre of many religious people through history – how else to account for the Inquisition, the sexual discrimination that continues within the Catholic Church, its continued opposition to homosexuality, the very notion of heaven and hell. While I am not going to say that people shouldnt be allowed to say such things, I think you should be careful how you throw the term ‘bigot’ around.
17. Sarah M
It was a bit mean so I’m sorry for singling you out and being twatish here. I’v only read two buts of your stuff. Nevertheless the articles I feel are badly skewed.
18. jonathan
I believe someone like Jim Bishop who said “This so-called ‘chaplain’ should be tied to a stake and stoned to death.” is a bigot who does want a witch hunt. A letter to GR said religion should be baned and will be one day. Students with faith feel threaten in this university, that’s all faiths. I know because I feel call to talk to many of the faith groups here. True Kirsty, very true, many religious people have been appauling. But In the Christian tradition self righteous condeming is serious sin. “Judge not for the measure you are measuring out so shall you be measured” Jesus. That’s right I’m a Christian. I’m a sinner you are a sinner and John owen is a sinner. I’m not catholic so I disagree with many of their teachings. However opposition to homosexual ACTs is a biblical teaching common to nearly all Christians. I’ve met two non-pratiscing christian gays. I my self had attraction which I experimented with in my youth. I think some might call me bisexual. However with time and I believe God’s help they lessend. I have friends that I respect, who do all sorts of things not part of orthodox christian life style. I know and like a number of actively gay christians, I disagree with them but I respect thier rights and they are my friends.
19. Jenn (Ex-Angsoc president)
Just to make things clear Rachelle, both the chaplains at the university work for their own respective churches. The buildings are owned by the churches, and the chaplains are paid by their diocese – so the university to my knowledge couldn’t dissolve the Anglican chaplaincy even if they wanted to, which they don’t. The Anglican chaplaincy at the university is not officially linked to the Catholic chaplaincy, other than to belong to the same university, but many students do use both and there are strong friendships between many of the students – especially when volunteering and socialising. By pure fluke, there will be a new Anglican chaplain in September though. Hope that clears things up.
Rhys – Yes, a university could function without a chaplain at all. However – chaplains and chaplaincies provide a unique place to worship, as unlike a local church they try to organise activities around term times, so a lent course being run won’t go into the 4 week Easter break, and the run up to Christmas will finish at the same time as the term, so students don’t miss out by being a transient population when they go home for the holidays. Also, chaplaincies provide Christian students a safe, non-judgemental place to socialise with others who have the same dedication for Christ as themselves.
20. Jonathan
The Ryan report is aviable on the internet http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/ExecSummary.php
John Owen seems to be refering to a simular findings to article 18 of conclusion “Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.” Of course that doesn’t mean homosexuality per se is linked to such behaviour. Niether yet have I seen the slightist evidence that he even implied such. This looks like a work for Broadcasting complaints and a liable law firm.
21. Jonathan
Ok on second thoughts I’ve seen the slightest evidence. But only the slightest, not enough to convict a man and pillary him.
22. Harry Shipman
This is ridiculous. First the medical profession banned butchery and said killing yoru patients was wrong. Now they say you can’t touch kids if you are a catholic priest. Where are these people going to go! With the high rates of unemployment endemic in the UK we wan’t to get everyone into their ideal job asap!
23. Fred West
I know! I can’t get any work doing patios anywhere these days!