Today’s performance by Lord Carey at the IICSA hearing was disappointing, to put it mildly. He showed himself to have been out of his depth in his old role as Archbishop of Canterbury. He showed us how much he had then been lacking in decisiveness. Also, there was a obvious inability to make sound judgments about people and situations. The expressions of regret and the way that he kept on saying that ‘by today’s standards the judgement was wrong’ or ‘we would not do things like that today’ suggested naivety and incompetence. In fact, Carey’s performance today made me feel a bit sorry for him. There was one moment in his story when everything started to go wrong for him. He allowed a meeting to take place between himself and the two Ball brothers immediately after the Police Caution in the spring of 1993. Between them the twin brothers, one the Bishop of Truro and the other the recently resigned Bishop of Gloucester, seem to have successfully browbeaten Carey into a state of confusion about Peter Ball’s actual guilt. Once having put this doubt into Carey’s mind about Ball’s guilt, the Archbishop was never able to act with decisiveness in the matter for the rest of his time in office. As he put it, he constantly ‘vacillated’ in his opinion about the extent and depth of Ball’s guilt. In short, notwithstanding all the evidence at his disposal, Carey allowed himself to entertain the dangerous notion that Ball may have been, after all, fundamentally an innocent man.
I have already discussed the fascinating dynamic in the way that George Carey was overwhelmed by the power games exercised over him by Peter Ball, assisted by his twin brother, Michael. What became abundantly clear in today’s hearing was the extent not only of Ball’s charisma, but also of his narcissism. Carey was just one of the many people that were blinded by the exercise of what appears to be a full blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). It is probably not wise to attempt any kind of diagnosis of NPD but there are striking features in Peter Ball’s personality which tune in with the classic descriptions of this disorder. It is sometimes only after a period away from the narcissist that an individual like George Carey might recognise what has happened to them, how they have been caught up in a grandiose fantasy world that the narcissist occupies.
The first two features of a victim of NPD are the places of success, self-importance and power that this individual occupies. Ball certainly exuded enormous confidence and there was always a sense that nothing was impossible. This was true, whether of spiritual things or other human goals. This larger than life confidence made him attractive to the uncertain diffident young men whom he attracted to his home, those who were prepared to give ‘a year for God’. A third feature of NPD speaks about association ‘only with people of high social status’. This certainly applied to Ball. He managed to drop in his association with the Royal family and other notables at every opportunity.
A detail from the testimony today from Lord Carey was the revelation that he gave Ball permission to renew association with two public schools for confirmations. Without further authorisation, Ball then extended this permission to cover twenty-five other schools. There is no reason to suppose that Ball offended on any of these occasions. But Ball had a ‘gift’ with young people, especially boys, and could put on a good performance, leaving everyone impressed. The narcissist in him enjoyed, even needed to occupy a place at the centre of attention. Thus, he was desperate to get back to accepting such invitations. His temporary absence from these school occasions for a couple of years had been fiercely resisted. In the language of narcissism, Ball needed narcissistic ‘feeding’ and adulation to fill an emptiness within the personality.
Other features of the narcissistic personality, which seem to apply to Ball, are the ways that narcissists are totally lacking in empathy for others, especially the targets for their evil behaviour. One of the features of the hearing has been the extraordinary lack of remorse expressed by Ball or his representatives. It is as though he is lacking in feeling or conscience. The NPD text book also speaks of being ‘interpersonally exploitative’. The well attested sexual abuse of dozens of boys and young men is adequate testimony for this.
One final feature of NPD which applies to Ball is ‘arrogant and haughty behaviour’. This was indicated in Carey’s account of the various ways that the Balls tried to manipulate him over time. Manipulation was attempted, using threats, pleading, even emotional blackmail. Although Carey recognised what was going on eventually, it was by that time too late to stop Ball in his aim of taking back some of the power that he had once enjoyed as an Anglican diocesan bishop. We can offer the judgement that as a sufferer of a full blown malignant narcissistic disorder, Ball was a highly dangerous individual. The church suffers badly from having such people in its midst even when they do not go so far as to sexually abuse young men.
In other pieces I have written about narcissism, I have pointed out how much people are fooled by the possessors of this disorder. As we have already pointed out elsewhere, narcissists often have charisma and charm. They know, as if by instinct, how to manipulate and control the people around them. George Carey was a partial victim. Thus, the narcissistic behaviour was permitted to flourish several years longer than it should have done. Many people felt that they benefitted from the inspirational teaching that Ball was able to bring. Most of them in the latter years probably came to no harm but it was not good for Ball himself to feel that he was somehow exonerated from his appalling behaviour in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
This short reflection on narcissism in the church and the personality of Peter Ball should give us all pause for reflection. His giftedness, his charisma and his ‘saintliness’ were all covers for a highly manipulative dangerous person. Thousands were unable to discern what was really going on in the heart of this evil man. If we are truly unable to discern between goodness and holiness and the actions of a charlatan, then the Christian faith is in peril. All of us need to trust our Christian leaders. Every Ball that arises weaken our capacity for trust. This makes the Christian faith even more difficult to promote in the population of this land. That matters – it matters very much.
Agreed. Good post. I’ve misplaced my comment about today onto another post.
While I agree with your assessment of Ball possibly having NPD I am unsure how helpful it is to name it. A label has the possibility of giving his behaviour an excuse – ‘well he was unwell.’ This is always a convenient ‘get-out’ clause for the church, victims who suffer mental health problems, invariably as a direct cause of their abuse are seen as ‘mad and bad’ by the church, but clergy who abuse and are then found to have mental health problems, often as a direct result of the stress of constantly living a lie and the fear of being found out, are seen as ‘unwell and in need of recuperation, recovery, and understanding.’
Ball was an abuser, if he did not have the integrity or humility to get help then I personally deny him the right to any type of label that may be used to excuse his behaviour.
Listening to Lord Carey I was put in mind of some of the conversations I have had with abused women explaining why they often continued the relationship long after it’s toxic effects were realised.
Some spoke in similar terms of the good aspects of their abusers in the best of times and how that “ compensated “ for the bad times. I have a friend who describes his bi-polar experience in similar terms of extreme highs and lows.
I suspect that this, coupled with the sustained minimisation of the caution by the two brothers accounts for Lord Carey’s Insdequte responses.
Whilst Martin Bashir highlights a degree of ambivalence, even now, in Carey’s attitude towards Ball, I think his reminding us of the overwhelming power of the charismatic leader is an important part of developing understanding the erosive and lingering influence of these narcissists. To think of Carey as simply foolish may underplay the powerful captivating nature of such evil.
I think the label of ‘malignant narcissistic personality disorder’ which Stephen has applied to Ball conveys a warning how evil and dangerous he is, rather than providing an excuse for his behaviour. I don’t see anything in Stephen’s piece which would excuse Ball or let him off lightly. The label does, however, help us to understand how he had such a powerful effect on other people. ‘Psychopath’ is also a mental health condition, but doesn’t tend to elicit people’s sympathy.
I knew Ball and he seemed to have an absolutely magnetic effect on most people, especially men (he wasn’t too bothered about trying to impress women, especially those of low social status like me). Interestingly, he didn’t fool Gordon Rideout (himself much later convicted for CSA offences), who commented to me about Ball: ‘In my experience people who really pray talk about it less.’
Yesterday I was sorting through papers in my study while watching the IICSA live stream, and came across an old parish magazine from All Saints Eastbourne, where Gordon was vicar. It gave me the spooks, I had no idea I still had it. And Gordon’s ‘Vicar’s Letter’ at the beginning was headed: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me: he has anointed me to bring the good news to the poor, and to heal the broken-hearted.’ (Is. 61:1)
That’s another man with no knowledge of himself or the dreadfulness of his crimes.
Thank you Trish, Martin and Janet. As you will appreciate the piece was written under some pressure of time. Labels, even inaccurately applied, are helpful. They give you a handle of finding a pattern in otherwise inexplicable forms of behaviour. Ball’s behaviour was bewildering and confusing to the people he met. They wanted to project on to him sainthood while being uneasy about other parts of his personality. The NPD label helps to bring all the contradictory strands together. It in no way excuses the evil behaviour any more than the NPD American president should be excused. But it allows the rest of us to look calmly and carefully and to see a pattern in operation. That stops us going completely insane in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. The real problem for me is how far wicked behaviour destroys the good that is done by other parts of the personality. Does the good experienced by the boys of twenty five schools outweigh the fact that their preacher was a charlatan? I don’t know the answer to this one.
A key question for me is whether the Church will be able to prevent a similar disaster happening again.
In desperation for big hitting leaders, it is easy to be seduced by the charismatic (small ‘c’) and popular PBs of this world.
Surely we are now very aware of how these people operate?
The post I put in the wrong place comments on the business of bad people doing good. Firstly, I don’t believe people can make up for wrong doing by doing good. That is salvation by works. And it doesn’t work backwards, either! The things people do need almost to be taken in isolation, as it were. They are good, or bad, and that’s it. Also, we really need to get our heads round the idea that a thief is still a thief even if he is good to his wife and children. Stephen, can you transfer the comment I posted on the Neil and Guide stream to here? Is that doable?
From English Athena: Carey made the main news I see. I can’t think of anything to say. I know we were all more naive in those days. We didn’t use the same language. We thought people like Ball were weird, perhaps. Even creepy. But we didn’t think, “This guy is a Bishop and a monk and he is having sex. Sometimes with children” . I suppose it’s an improvement that we now do. Carey on the other hand carried on not believing victims, surely beyond the normal. He had some evidence that there was a case to answer. Why did he think his feelings were all the investigation that was needed? Mind you, in my experience, clergy still do. Not all of course, but it is so, so common.
Thanx!
Worth explaining that a description such as NPA is simply a way of flagging up a bundle of traits/behaviours to point one towards an understanding of what is going on. It’s a descriptive tool, never an excuse. People with anti-social traits do not always act them out to the detriment of others as Ball so graphically did.
The thing is, Ball wasn’t weird or creepy. He was utterly charming, brilliant and talented. Nor was his behaviour seen as ‘having sex’; the complaints referred to in letters concerned naked praying and beatings, and in once case ‘making a pass at’. George Carey made it clear he didn’t regard it as sex if it wasn’t penetration. Fiona Scolding referred to this attitude as ‘Clintoning’ and it used to be quite a common one. Jayne Ozanne alludes to it in her memoir, when she refers to discussions among evangelicals about how far a couple could go without it qualifying as sex before marriage.
George Carey and others are getting a hammering in the media re. Ball, but I think this misses the point. The lesson to be learned is that we can ALL be taken in by someone as charming and manipulative as Peter Ball. I have been, not by Ball but by Rideout and one or two others. We all need to be more on the alert and more aware of the dangers of being taken in but hose with NPD or psychopathic traits.
Quite, Janet: when I have contributed to safeguarding discussions I have flagged up that a special eye needs to be kept on those who are charismatic or make themselves in some way “indispensable”
OK. It’s a fair point. Not creepy, then. And it does help to explain why people didn’t get it. I did think there were allegations of sex, though. My mistake if not. My friends used to call trying not to actually have sex “getting by on a technicality”. This is the shenanigans equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”!
I’m going by the letter read out in yesterday’s hearing, which had been sent to Lambeth Palace. That presumably is the information George Carey had to work with, although possibly he may have had more from other sources. If the accusations I heard read yesterday were all he had, his response that he didn’t think it was sex is more understandable. The inquiry’s task is to sort out who knew what and when, and given the Church’s organisational chaos that’s no easy ask. Even when letters making allegations were sent to Lambeth, it doesn’t appear to be certain who read them and what the reply was. Carey several times asked Scolding what reply had been sent, and she didn’t have that information to hand.
I listened to most of this afternoon’s hearing, and the detective superintendent from Sussex Police, who had been asked for an opinion on whether Carey was guilty of misconduct in public office, said in his view he wasn’t. There were a number of factors, including the poor organisation and confusion at Lambeth, and that Carey had had very bad advice from Bishop Kemp (Chichester) and the Bishop at Lambeth.
I agree on ‘getting by on a technicality’, but that’s from within a 21st century framework. When I was researching my MPhil on sexual abuse in the mid to late 90s it was by no means clear to everyone that sexual abuse could include the kind of behaviour exhibited by Ball and others. We know so much more now.
All the same, it’s clear that, for a number of reasons, Ball’s victims had a very poor response from both the Church and the wider Establishment. And that’s a tragedy.
I think you have a good point, Janet, that all of us be aware of leaders and fellow christians who aren’t who they make themselves out to be. I also was taken in by Peter Ball and wouldn’t accept for a long time that he could have done anything wrong. We need leaders in our churches who are trustworthy, but we shouldn’t trust them without discernment. Spiritual discernment should be our main aim and to be ever watchful.
So much abuse of every ilk starts with narcissism and charisma. I am hardly surprised. And yes, narcissists don’t crave attention—they need it, like the rest of us need food and water. Once you understand that, you start to comprehend how seriously messed up the narcissist is.