to think a priest shouldn't invite little girls into his home

[TotallyAndUtterlyPaninied]

Ok this is my 3rd AIBU of the night and usually steer clear of this section because it's scary

But anyway, everyone's being unreasonable at the mo and I need to get it out.

So we went to our priest the other night to sort out our wedding blessing. He's a nice guy, a little odd, but nice and about 60. We went to his house next to the church and school. When he opened the door there was a little girl of about 7 playing in the car park. He shouted to her 'would you like to come in?' she said no and he said 'why? Come in.' so she did.

Then he said 'where do you want to go? Do you want to watch television or talk?' she said watch TV and clearly felt a little uncomfortable. So he said 'right that's upstairs'. We followed and sorted out the blessing. He then gave DS and the girl a teddy each from his collection. We left and the little girl stayed.

He didn't ask her parents if she could come in- they wouldn't have known where she was, and it was just her and him.

Clearly nothing untoward, but it seems a bit naive for a man to invite a young girl into his home when no one else is there. All kinds of accusations could fly around.

He is breaching his responsibilities though if he is inviting a young child into his home without the consent or knowledge of her parents. Surely/.

For sure Hulababy but there is no indication that there is no consent from the parents.

Totally AIBU is great fun as long as you have a nice thick skin.

I know Morloth. But if the OP believes that this is the case here, then surely she shuld pass this information on to the righ people so it can be looked into.

Our church CP policy would not allow a church worker to be alone with a child (unless their own), even if the parents consented.

They can do it privately, of course, but not in the name of the church.

Totally: There is not a church in the country that would allow this. He is in breach of his JOB which involves working in accordance with various POLICIES one of which will include a Child Protection Policy which will state that lone working with children is forbidden. He is in breach of this policy. He needs reporting to his Bishop or to Social Services, for his own protection if no one else's.

Isn't this awful?

We can thank every bastard who ever thought he had a right to touch a kid for thinking (what sounds like) quite a nice old man is up to no good.

Totally - please don't feel you need to exit - discussion can be lively and it can get a bit rapidfire in AIBU but I don't think there's any animosity here just debate.

It is very sad, Morloth.

No one is saying he is Up To No Good

But this is simply Not Allowed

He does a JOB and that JOB involves working with vulnerable people (children) and pretty much ANYONE working with vulnerable people is prohibited from lone working

It's normal, and right, and for everyone's protection

I know morningpaper, but the fact that we need these guidelines at all is down to the sort of people who would take advantage of the vulnerable. It is yuck and pisses me off.

Poor old man, tries to be do a perfectly normal traditional kind Christian thing by providing a safe bolt-hole for a child at loose-ends -- and gets frowned at for it, sigh.

How do you know she wasn't his niece, or God-child, or dozens of other established relationships to him? I think last part of your talkname maybe ought to be 'Paranoid' instead of Paninied.
If you're that bothered, just ask him who she was to him, doesn't he worry that people might get the wrong idea?

He's quite open to you & the neighbourhood about inviting her in, hardly the modus operandii of your standard Perv.

My (R.C.)priest has 2 grandchildren.

how is that possible? I thought they had to be celibate? or did he become a priest later in lie I think I've just answered my own question .

Unless the little girl is a relative, or the parents had asked the priest to look after her, the priest is being unreasonable.

My parents were scout leaders and even 15 years ago were told that they should never be alone with a child.

Anyone working with children nowadays knows this, particularly with the scandals that have gone on in the last few years with the Catholic church.

The OP is not being paranoid when she takes note of that.

What happens when priests breed? Are they like wizards? Is the eighth son of an eighth son some sort of uber priest?

pink,

some married Anglican clergy were accepted into the Roman Catholic church when the CofE started ordaining women priests.

is pretty much anyone working with vulnerable people 'prohibited from lone working'? I'm not getting what you mean there! Many, many people, priests included, work alone with vulnerable people every day - that is the job, pretty much!

YANBU- totally agree with with pink re vulnerable girl playing alone.

It is at best ill-advised behaviour on his part.

slowreading vulnerable people has a fairly specific definition when it comes to this type of policy - and children would fit into the same category. You'd want to avoid lone working with both - certainly with children, lone working should be avoided in this sort of instance.

I'm confused - I can't find where the OP has said that the priest is a Catholic. The child could just be a grandchild or other family member. We have no reason to believe that the the child was a complete stranger. Did the priest say something to make the OP think the child was a stranger - such as ask what the child's name is?

I can't be arsed with this sort of thread. OP you have no idea of the background so just wriggle a bit further into those judgey pants. If you were that concerned, you know what? You could have actually opened your mouth and asked him. But no, better save it up for here

pinkthechaffinch, you're obviously judge and jury. He's a priest so automatically guilty. Never mind the thousands and thousands of priests that are not paedophiles. FFS.

And that is exactly why so much abuse goes unreported.

Morningpaper is clearly talking sense here.

eyeballs in the sky-if you can't be arsed with this sort of thread, then why bother to post.
If you bother reading my comments properly, you will see that I said that it was his behaviour I found suspicious, not the fact that he was a priest.