Updated Tuesday and again Wednesday (twice)
The BBC has published a File on Four radio programme (43 minutes long), to be aired at 8pm this evening on Radio 4
A priest assessed as posing a risk of “significant harm” to children and young people was given a pay-off. What does this tell us about safeguarding in the Church of England?
The BBC News website reports it thus: Priest thought to pose risk to children is paid off. But I recommend listening to the entire radio programme.
The Church of England has released Statements regarding BBC File on Four Blackburn Cathedral case
Statement from the Church of England
“The case highlighted on the BBC today is complicated and very difficult for everyone involved particularly those who came forward. A number of allegations were made about the Canon over a number of years and a risk assessment was conducted according to the House of Bishops 2017 safeguarding guidance. In the event, none of the allegations resulted either in a conviction in the criminal courts, or in a determination of misconduct in the independent Church courts through the Clergy Discipline Measure.
“He was removed from office on health grounds by the former Bishop of Blackburn, in 2021, under the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure 1949 , but the Canon then brought a claim in the High Court for judicial review of that decision and payment was made in settlement of that claim. The Church of England is currently reviewing the disciplinary procedure for members of clergy (Clergy Discipline Measure), as recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA and a review of the risk assessment regulations and guidance is under way.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, said:
“We are truly sorry when survivors are let down by the Church. We were both made aware of this case, including the concerning background and the challenges caused by statutory and Church processes ending with no further action.
“We absolutely believe that there is no place in ministry for people who are a risk or pose a risk to others and continue to work to ensure that our systems are made ever stronger and more robust.
“This case highlights the complexity of our structures and processes and is just one example of why we asked Professor Alexis Jay, the former chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, to provide options and recommendations for how further independence of safeguarding within the Church of England might be achieved. This work is now being taken forward.
“As the Bishop of Blackburn told the BBC, the Church has made huge strides in safeguarding in the past 10 years particularly in listening to the voices of survivors and victims. However, this case, which goes back many years, shows that we are still working to get our processes right and we must learn from the mistakes of the past.”
This is also being reported in other media:
Updates
Blackburn Cathedral published Public Statement by the Trustees of Blackburn Cathedral
On Tuesday 13th August 2024, BBC News reported details of an investigation by Radio 4’s File on Four programme, to be broadcast at 8.00pm on Tuesday 13th August, into historic safeguarding concerns in the Church of England involving a senior member of clergy at Blackburn Cathedral.
The Cathedral recognises and fully accepts that there were failures, apologises for them, and has learned important lessons. In October 2023 The Cathedral Chapter made a statement about the lessons learned from this case and it can be found here.
Since that time the Cathedral has worked and continues to work assiduously to improve its safeguarding culture, policies and procedures to ensure everyone is, and feels, safe.
Regretfully, the Cathedral cannot undo the pain and hurt of the past, and our thoughts are with those survivors whose trauma may now be re-lived as a result of this programme.
The programme gave details about legitimate safeguarding concerns that were raised repeatedly over a twenty-five-year period and highlighted the systemic nature of the institutional failures within the Church of England that prevented Blackburn Cathedral from dealing effectively with the concerns.
There remains work to be done for these institutional hurdles to be overcome.
The programme disclosed that a sum of money was paid to the individual by the Church of England. No Blackburn Cathedral funds were involved in this payment.
Peter Howell-Jones
Dean of BlackburnFinding support
If you or anyone you are in contact with are affected by this report and want to talk to someone independently, please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or visit safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk.Alternatively, you may wish to contact the Diocese of Blackburn Safeguarding Team: catherine.smith@blackburn.anglican.org or the Diocesan Safeguarding Team in your area or the National Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@churchofengland.org
It appears that the options available to senior figures in the Church to make children safe are:
Encourage a diocese to leak to the media.
Pay an alleged abuser a 6 figure sum
If you didn’t know the Church of England is in a state of safeguarding collapse at national level…
You do now.
The press release is a gem too…,
I could have sworn that the noble archbishops and their council have spent the time since the publication of the Jay report working out how not accept her recommendations, including organising ‘consultations’ AKA less qualified people being asked to redo the work very slowly .
And as for X North- what great strides have been made in Safeguarding over the last 10 years and which victim did they listen to and for how many seconds?
And which bishop was most vociferous in his criticism of the Jay report at Synod? Yes, you’ve guessed it – it was the Bishop of Blackburn. Funny that!
Absolutely, Susanna. It’s a truly appalling situation for those who have been harmed, and those who have tried to pursue justice, and have been failed. I listened to the podcast and have read the things in the public domain about the case. Many will no doubt disagree with me, but I have some sympathy for Julian Henderson. His actions have been criticised, and here I acknowledge I’m no expert in child protection. But looking at it from the perspective of a cynical clerical and legal person who always applies an hermeneutic of suspicion to anything done by a senior cleric… Read more »
I might have felt marginally happier had the organisation made an open statement about it all BEFORE it appeared on this morning’s news, rather than one explaining their actions afterwards.
By odd coincidence, I was only saying to someone last night, in relation to the church’s social standing generally, that credibility requires integrity.
I am deeply grateful to Rowena Pailing for speaking out about her experience at Blackburn Cathedral, and to the BBC team for making this story known. Whilst I have no knowledge of this case beyond what has been presented today, having tried to raise a (completely separate) safeguarding concern in the past with Blackburn Diocese, I can say it was the worst experience of my life. I did so as a lay church officeholder left under no illusions from safeguarding training that we had a duty to report behaviour observed in a church context which concerned us. As it was,… Read more »
The statement from Blackburn Cathedral is even worse. It describes the case as “historic”, as if it happened hundreds of years ago. It expresses concern for those who may be traumatised as a result of the BBC programme (not Blackburns fault at all, then). It then claims the quarter of a million pounds did not come from Blackburn Cathedral Funds, as if that makes it ok.
My local parish is planning a stewardship campaign. No chance!
Agreed, utterly appalling statement from the Dean and Trustees of Blackburn Cathedral. A textbook demonstration of how to make a bad situation worse. En masse resignations of all those involved would seem an appropriate way forward but is never going to happen in the Church of England where safeguarding, as regards the treatment of victims and survivors, would be called a joke, except that it is so unfunny. I have spoken to three seasoned (ie approaching retirement) safeguarding professionals, each of whom has worked in that field throughout their careers. Completely unprompted, each of them (based on their combined 120… Read more »
At the moment all my giving is donations to the local food bank. I prefer giving goods (largely food) rather than cash. I would only give cash these days to a fund with restricted uses.
“goes back many years” – and also goes back not many years at all, in terms of the pay-out stage. This case can’t be consigned to the ‘this is historic abuse and we’ve all moved on’ category.
Helen, the 2 Archbishops claim that the Church has made huge strides in listening to survivors and victims over the last 10 years. This is utterly untrue, the very opposite of the truth. Many, probably most, victims of Church-related abuse believe the current leadership of the Church (Archbishops, Bishops, NST, AC) actually treat victims & survivors worse in 2024 than they have done at any point in the last 35 years. To give but one example: the current external co-Chair of the ‘Response Group’ gets her information from the likes of the NST, AC & Joanne. Yet the external co-chair… Read more »
This is just another example of the way that the Church is more concerned about their dwindling reputation than they are about the victims of abuse. Come on Justin – you must work harder and faster to get your processes right. Why didn’t you sack the Canon 20 years ago instead of letting him continue.
To be fair, Justin wasn’t Archbishop 20 years ago. David Hope, then Archbishop of York, would have been the relevant Archbishop, as the programme stated. And he has been named in other mishandled safeguarding cases.
Since the case has dragged on so long, all the ABYs since Habgood must have some responsibility. I’m not clear when ABCs first became involved.
A number of reports state that the Canon alleged homophobia about his enforced retirement. Is his sexuality the reason why he was protected and why one of our poorest dioceses is now £240,000 out of pocket?
From the sound of it he was subject to homophobia and this provided him with a smokescreen to hide behind. He wasn’t “protected” because of his sexuality so much as homophobes muddying the water.
Objecting to a cleric (allegedly) having sexual relations with teenage males is hardly “homophobia”.
I think Helen King’s Independent article linked below and Judith Maltby’s comment call it right. Homophobia is very relevant in this case in as much as past church homophobia has caused a total lack of senior church managers (especially bishops) who are out and gay, and who therefore have experience of homosexual lives and homosexual culture. Such people are being called upon to make decisions in complex cases involving homosexual people, despite having a total lack of knowledge and experience of the issues, and they keep getting it wrong. For example in this case, somebody with more personal gay experience… Read more »
Well, it is now clear that this was funded by ‘the Church of England’ not the diocese (Public Statement by the Trustees of Blackburn Cathedral). Presumably that applies too to the inevitable legal costs of setting it all up. So, who is ‘the Church of England’ here? From which pot did the money come, and who authorised the use of that pot?
Helen,
Agreed, an important question is who were ALL the signatories required to approve this payment?
For example I assume that even Justin can’t just sign off £250k without the support of others?
The dwindling number of us who actually contribute to funding the Church deserve to be told who approved this payment, and on what basis.
If The C of E cannot be open about that, I imagine a significant number of people may decide to be less than open with their wallets.
Do we know if Andrew Hindley was made Canon emeritus on his retirement? If not he presumably loses the right to call himself ‘Canon’. It may be that this was part of the NDA.
Crockfords does not list him as canon emeritus
Somewhat academic as he could always style himself Canon (retired).
Not unless he was granted emeritus status as part of the payoff deal no.
I think that in the armed forces retention of title with the qualification ‘retired’ requires 20 years of service.
The Archbishops and their Council refused to follow Professor Jay’s recommendations. They didn’t even want her to speak at synod.and yet they are quoting her in their defence. What a disgrace. Justin and Stephen don’t deserve their titles. I know people trying to hold them to account. Keep up that challenge please. 🙏
North portrays himself as the clean ‘new broom’ who is learning lessons. However, it is worth recalling that as well as being a suffragan bishop in the diocese since 2015, he also spent some nine months as acting Dean of the Cathedral (June 16 to Mar 17) when this safeguarding debacle was in full swing.
Also weren’t there some challenges at the time to the way that this ‘internal’ candidate was appointed as Diocesan Bishop of Blackburn? Given what appears to be a very large, very recent, extremely damaging cover up, presumably agreed to by many current senior staff of the Diocese, shouldn’t this whole process of selection be back under the spotlight? It shows the real weakness of internal appointments to Diocesan. An external appointment as Diocesan would have been far freer to ask the difficult questions of their predecessors. I feel desperately sorry for all survivors of church abuse, several of whom I… Read more »
This story jogged my memory of a Church Times report about an ad clerum from the three Blackburn bishops and archdeacons in 2019 in response to IICSA. The Church Times quotes the senior Blackburn clergy: “The Church should be the conscience of the nation and yet as the report shows, again and again we have placed the reputation of the institution above the needs of the vulnerable. “In addition, when the contemporary church fails to respond properly to allegations from the past, this becomes a form of re-abuse, adding a fresh layer of hurt and harm to those whose lives… Read more »
By way of contrast, Dr Bernard Randall has, in effect, been branded as a safeguarding risk in Derby diocese for a sermon he gave on the Church of England’s teaching on marriage in a C of E chapel in a school with a C of E ethos. His attempts to obtain justice, including by bringing a CDM complaint against the Bishop of Derby, have been frustrated and he is now reportedly bringing judicial review proceedings against the President of Tribunals, Dame Sarah Asplin, in which he is seeking disclosure of the designated officer’s report to the president (following his section… Read more »
This sounds remarkably similar to the trouble at Oxford; how on earth can anybody be considered a ‘safeguarding risk’ for simply stating a legitimate opinion which is based on the historic understanding of both scripture and humanity? Maybe the CEEC people have a valid point after all. On the basis of this ban, none of us who still accept the ‘majority’ view of sexuality should even be allowed inside a church – this is the tail wagging the dog to an extreme, and is no way true equality or inclusiveness. To me, an outsider, it looks very much like pure,… Read more »
PS At present I’m reading C S Lewis’s ‘beloved Christian classic’ “Mere Christianity.” On the basis of his chapters on sexual morality and Christian marriage, this is now clearly a very dangerous book, which puts at risk any young person who reads it, and needs to be banned from every church in Derby diocese. If the safeguarding board are anything remotely like consistent in their actions, that is.
“Safeguarding” is the new McCarthyism in the C of E, which always seeks to ride the wave of a regnant opinion, never to challenge it. The Bishop of Derby acted in an utterly disgraceful way.
Dr Randall was sacked for teaching Anglican doctrine, then hung out to dry be his bishop. How very pastoral. Not.
I’ve hesitated before posting this, as I strongly believe the institutional Church uses whatever it can to unfairly disadvantage rank and file clergy when they become embroiled in disputes with the powers that be, and I don’t want to collude with that. But in the interests of balance, in this case, I do think it needs to be said. I am not going to comment about the merits of Dr Randall’s current case, as it may well be sub judice, if his application for a judicial review has been made. But I do have some knowledge of Dr Randall professionally,… Read more »
Given the CofE published the document ‘Valuing all God’s children’ as guidance for schools on inclusion I’m not clear how using 2 sermons to state that it is a sin to alter the body, marriage can only be between a man and woman, and that in a family it is better if the woman does childcare because of her tone of voice is actually the only possible Christian teaching/opinion around this or helpful in the context of a school. To follow it up with another sermon – both to 11-18 year old – with statements that those who believe gay… Read more »
While I endorse the recommendation above to listen to the entire 45 minute radio programme, some readers may prefer to watch the ‘5 minute version’ from the BBC 10 o’clock news item from around 05:45 to 11:00 on Tuesday 13 August https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0021ylr/bbc-news-at-ten-13082024 As the Church demonstrates day by day and week by week, its leadership (Archbishops, Bishops, AC, NST etc) simply lacks the will to address the devastating impact its failings today have on victims & survivors in 2024. This has never been an issue about historic failures. Victims & survivors have never, over the last 40+ years, been treated… Read more »
The local BBC News programme has much more including an interview with the Dean, but this will only be available till around 1800 on Wed 14 August.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00220qs/north-west-tonight-evening-news-13082024
Very sensibly the Dean has no confidence in the current Church of England Leadership as regards Safeguarding.
This interview with the Dean of Blackburn is well worth watching, and I hope it will be preserved by someone for viewing beyond this evening.
It will hopefully appear on the House of Survivors site within the next day.
For those asking, I have uploaded the BBC NW Tonight news piece here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwbfbSvm_Jg
An extraordinary mess of the kind which could be cleaned up easily if all CofE clergy, irrespective of office, were made employees and provided with clear contracts. Then people could simply be fired, rather than the church having to go through an absolute farce of a process to remove the mad, bad, or dangerous from post.
Here here!
Actually it’s ‘Hear, hear!’
I couldn’t agree more. It would also give the many clergy who are not engaged in wrongdoing proper protection against the endemic bullying that goes on across the denomination and access to proper recourse when they are wronged.
It would certainly make things a lot easier in the Church of England if all clergy were to become employees (which is what they are in practice, though not in law), and the idea of the “self employed office holder” consigned to the dustbin of history. There also needs to be a clear command structure setting out who is accountable to whom and in what ways.
We know that the CDM is not fit for purpose. There is a pattern of senior clerics getting suspended with the world at large, and victims, going “what just happened there ?”. Pilavachi, Fletcher, Broomfield and no one can quite see what process was used, how decisions were made and how justice can possibly have been served. Certainly not what an outsider might expect from a well designed CDM process. It is never clear whether the sanction is central or Diocesan, whether it is even an “official” CofE process. The reviews into Fletcher (31:8), Pilavachi (Scolding), Titus (31:8), Scripture Union… Read more »
Am I the only person who is getting very irritated by the (presumably) legally required formula of cant words, “We are terribly sorry, and lessons have been learned”?, which we’re all too familiar with following disastrous failures, whether they be church or social services? All too patently, they are simply just that – a required formula. As Eliza Doolittle said, (and later quoted by Derek Prince), “I’m sick of words.”
Not at all, Mr Davies. It is meaningless tripe trotted out by wrote to supposedly placate whomever. Whenever I hear it, in any profession, I translate it as ‘they probably have something to hide and are definitely going to do nothing.’
If this man was such a menace, why did the police and courts do nothing about him? How can we legally remove someone from office for inappropriate behaviour if the courts don’t back us up?
In reply to ‘Virtual Vicar’: The police carried out no fewer that five investigations but, as the BBC report states, the first two (in 1991 and 2000) “were dropped after the alleged victims and the canon denied the allegations.” In the other three cases (in 2001, 2006 and 2018) the report states: “Police took no further action… In each case Canon Hindley denied the allegations.” The report adds: “Lancashire Police says it assessed all available information and ‘where evidence was available investigations were undertaken and advice sought from the Crown Prosecution Service’ but that ‘this did not result in any… Read more »
I believe the out of time ones were earlier, and that the 2020 ones were on the basis of evidential problems and the likelihood of discharging the burden of proof, one issue as Sir Mark Hedley said being the age of the young man concerned in one of the allegations.
I understood that the age issue was contested, but even for an over 18 surely lack of consent was major issue that could/should have been pursued.
That’s the view I have, but I didn’t pick up whether this complaint was also made before the rule change about timescale for safeguarding complaints, and that was the reason it wasn’t pursued. As another poster suggests, making the judgements public would clarify a great deal.
Evidence.
Numerous independent Lessons Learned Reviews (LLRs) as well as IICSA make the connection between the Church of England’s attitudes and policies on LGBT+ people and the Church’s inability to respond well in safeguarding cases. (For clarity, I do not endorse Hindley’s alleged homophobia defence which to me sounds entirely opportunistic.) Key LLRs are Gibb on Peter Ball (2017), Cooper on Stowe and Maids Moreton (dramatized by the BBC in 2023) (2022), Robson on Alan Griffin (2022). All these cases, it should be remembered, resulted in loss of life. I have been raising this point in Synod since 2018 (joined more recently by… Read more »
The programme ends on what is to me an unsatisfactory and unhelpful note in that it has Rowena Pailing saying: “Bishops have an awful lot of power, if they want to do something, they can do it. So I think that for many of those senior clergy, when they said that they couldn’t do it, what it meant was that they weren’t brave enough to do it.” My immediate response was to ask myself what are those powers that the senior clergy are said to have had but not used in this case. The answer is certainly “there aren’t any”.… Read more »
Thank you, Peter, for bringing some light to this discussion.
There is a parallel with Brandon Jackson, formerly Provost of Bradford and then Dean of Lincoln. He too was ‘unsackable’, and was only persuaded to take early retirement by being given a large payout. However, the Jackson case did proceed to a consistory court hearing, where the judges found him ‘not guilty’ despite the weight of evidence against him – and to the astonishment of observers of the trial. One of the judges was reported to have commented to an archdeacon afterwards that Jackson was clearly guilty, but that he would have continued to pursue appeals and they didn’t want… Read more »
‘unfortunate … i. ‘suggestions that the senior clergy were protecting their own or were not brave enough to do …’ [as] ii. ‘concerted efforts were made to deal with him but were constantly frustrated by lack of police action [and] by his having freehold’. iii. ‘because such statements will gain much traction in the current safeguarding climate which would be very unfair …’
Thank you for summarising this so clearly.
Mercifully the freehold itself is being retired, but only as those who enjoy it leave office.
They could have shut the church.
I agree. I am wondering what the C of E could have done differently. It looks like there were a large number of allegations but none stuck. Paying him off would appear to be the only viable option.
Thank you for these helpful comments – your opinion on the process used to remove him from office and the likelihood of it receiving an unfavourable judicial review, had the Canon’s case proceeded, matches mine (expressed above). I really can’t see what other option was left to Bishop Henderson.
I am just wondering how the process would have worked out in a parallel universe where the person concerned were employed. Using the parallel of education, I am wondering what the process would have been for the governors of a school that employed a senior teacher about whom there were such concerns. By my understanding: With no successful criminal prosecution, there were no grounds for dismissal on the basis of gross misconduct – any such dismissal being deemed unfair (and resulting in compensation). With no internal disciplinary process concluding that gross misconduct had occurred – again any dismissal being unfair… Read more »
In teaching there would be other options – if there was enough complaint over conduct, serious breaches of school policy he could have been called to account and possibly sacked. It doesn’t always have to be a court case or conviction – repeated warnings – verbal and written can be enough. So not as closed in options as it appears. The church has boxed itself into a corner and been unwilling to grasp a nettle to turn this around. This is shocking after so many negative reports, bad practice and covering up of these issues generally. There is still little… Read more »
In teaching it might not be quick or easy but the multi- agency strategy meeting would make sure the recommendations of the NSPCC risk assessment were followed. The school would have to do the mother of all workplace risk assessments to determine whether the teacher could be prevented from having unsupervised contact with children- ( he would require constant supervision and might even have to be followed to the loo) If they couldn’t mitigate the risks he’d have to be suspended because he couldn’t do his job safely. At this point all legal and HR wheels would be turning- and… Read more »
He would most likely also have been barred indefinitely by the TRA, as they work to a balance of probabilities standard of proof, despite having no convictions.
Okay so legal newbie here, but why couldn’t they just sack him? Is this a function of the clerical freehold I don’t understand?
There was no actual tangible evidence against him because victims would not bring a formal accusation – quite understandable unfortunately. Plus he had freehold which makes him impossible to remove unless wrongdoing can be proved via CDM. Not all clergy (in fact very few nowadays) have freehold but most have some employment protection (although we are generally not actually employed) – but some clergy – curates for example – have none and can in theory be sacked at will.
Although (as was reported by Radio 4), one ecclesiastical judge said that a sexual encounter with a teenage boy had clearly been non-consensual, but he was going to dismiss the charge because he couldn’t be certain the lad was under 18. Non-consensual sex (aka sexual assault or rape) is a crime, so why didn’t the judge find him guilty?
It’s understandable Blackburn felt there were forces working against them in this case.
Whether it was consensual or non-consensual, such behaviour (if proved to have happened) is clearly a breach of clerical discipline, involving sex outside of marriage. If a vicar had a (consensual) affair or used a prostitute, he would be sacked, or at least there would be a CDM. Did they consider all the options?
Janet, I think to be fair to Sir Mark Hedley (the ecclesiastical judge concerned) that his full reasoned decision needs to be made public. The limited reference in the File on Four programme to the age issue in his decision needs to be seen in context. Moreover, Sir Mark would not have found Hindley guilty: his function under the Clergy Discipline Measure was limited to deciding whether Hindley had a case to answer at a tribunal. I agree that, as reported by File on Four, his decision seems odd, but that is why we need to see the full reasons.… Read more »
David, Peter,
One of the helpful lessons we did learn from the Martyn Percy case is that publication of the decision lies in the gift of parties and the bishop when the case has has concluded.
Presumably the current Bishop has the power to publish now and thereby help us all understand dissect and explain the logic behind the decision not to exercise available discretions?
Hi Janet, I think there is something in the additional BBC article today which casts some light on this. It seems to say that earlier attempts to bring this allegation to a Tribunal had not been given leave to proceed out of time. That is because unless the complaint was about an assault on someone under 18 then if it is more than 12 months old you need leave to start proceedings. So my assumption is that the earlier attempts to start proceedings must have been on the basis that he was over 18 at the time of the assault… Read more »
Thanks Peter. But is there no leeway to hear a case after a year? Few survivors recover strength to make an official complaint within that short time frame.
Yes there is. The starting point is that unless the case involves misconduct of a sexual nature towards a child, or in some cases a vulnerable adult, then the case must be brought within a year of the last act of alleged misconduct. However permission can be given by the President of Tribunals to commence after a year if s/he considers there was a good reason for not instituting proceedings earlier. Most survivors will be able to rely on the sexual misconduct exception, but if not because the misconduct was not sexual but eg bullying, there would be good reasons… Read more »
So permission could have been given to hear the Hindley case? No wonder the Blackburn lot were frustrated, and felt there were hidden forces working against them.
Okay, thank you. This is what I thought was the case but I wanted to be sure. 🙂
As Charles says the key is that Freehold – the old system – gives a very high threshold before someone can be removed. The phrase ‘Job for life’ isn’t totally technically accurate but is fairly apt. So in the absence of any official finding of Misconduct there’s realistically nothing that could be done, except negotiate a payoff for Canon Hindley to leave.
Peter Collier KC who has been helpfully commenting here is a leading authority on ecclesiastical law, so his assessment of the options carries a lot of weight.
The problem is there is no “they“ who are in a position to sack him. He is not an employee of anybody. He was appointed to the “office“ or position of Sacrist and was entitled to hold that position until retirement unless he were found guilty of misconduct, by a CDM tribunal, which as we know did not happen.
A disproportionately large number of these cases concern homosexual misconduct or borderline homoerotic behaviour toward the young. What is preventing the Church of England from joining the dots in its selection policy? Fear or what?
Perhaps the obvious answer is to allow homosexual priests to get married.
If they were living happy, healthy and sexually fulfilled lives with their husbands, then they would not have the struggles and temptations entailed by an enforced celibacy for which they may not have a vocation.
No, it’s never as simple as that. The penchant for teenage boys is strong with some. And plenty of gay men have ‘open relationships’ because male-male sexual dynamics are very different from male-female and there is no risk of pregnancy. A woman might sleep with a man, thinking he might become her husband and the father of her children, but there’s no such expectation in male-male sexual relations.
But we are not talking about ‘any’ gay men. And plenty of straight men have what you call ‘open relationships’ actually. How do you know all thus anyway? We are actually talking about the relationships shaped by a commitment to the way of Christ. Women too actually James – but you show no interest in them except on highly subordinate terms.
Its selection policy currently requires adherence to “Issues in human sexuality”. You already have homophobia given the force of policy. It hasn’t worked. Maybe try actually valuing same-sex relationships and acknowledging a difference between them and predatory behaviour.
Maybe we should consider refusing to select heterosexual men for ordination, given the number of them who go on to sexually harass or assault girls and women?
Yes, any man who shows such a propensity to harass women is not fit for ordination. Also men with an addiction to pornography. Matured married men who are fathers and have proved themselves are the best people for ordination and as an example to the young men in the church.
As you know, the Catholic Church has been utterly devastated by the sexual abuse of boys and teenagers by predatory priests. Married men with children make better candidates.
I have known some very fine celibate clergy and some pretty awful married male clergy with children.I have also known many great women clergy, married and unmarried, with and without children.
Having seen the strain that ministry imposed on some clergy marriages, I found myself wondering whether there is a strong case for clerical celibacy. I wonder if it would have been as easy for John Stott to travel so widely if he had been married with children.
Your argument is that gay men shouldn’t be accepted for ordination because a proportion of them have abused boys and young men. Surely, to be consistent, you should be arguing that no men should be ordained, because of the proportion who have abused girls and women? Very few, if any, female priests have been found to be abusers.
As for married men, marriage didn’t stop Victor Whitsey, Gordon Rideout, Brandon Jackson, my father, or others.
And, you disagree with St Paul that singleness/celibacy are the option?
So no women then? Or single people? You sound like you are Orthodox but somehow I suspect you re not….
I understand Huw Edwards took his five children to Church. Your preferred recipe against abuse didn’t work.
It is not right to equate homosexuality with these disgusting behaviours. Being gay does not automatically make you an abuser – the number of rape cases involving married people generally, for example, shows that. That is a negative trope that has fed the debate around homosexuality for years and years. Abuse of power has led to the abuse of men, women and children. This applies whether the perpetrator is straight or gay. Married people also abuse so that is not the primary issue here. Feeling entitled, having power and feeling you will get away with whatever you are doing because… Read more »
Thank you, Marise, for introducing some much needed sanity to this discussion. We do indeed need to move on from tired ways of thinking.
Thank you Marise. I agree.
For centuries the desire by men to marry a virgin to guarantee succession rights has led to the common policy for adult men to marry very young girls, to guarantee you get there first.. So the one institution most complicit in facilitating sex between adult men and pubescent children is the institution of heterosexual marriage. Both historically and in the present day.
But somehow that never gets brought up in discussions like this.
And people wonder why we think conservatives are homophobic.
I wouldn’t presume to argue with a distinguished KC about the law, and I have heard similar views from others with experience of the church’s senior institutions about the impotence of the bishops to take action against misbehaving clergy. Nevertheless, despite her probable overstatement of the bishops’ powers, I think that Rowena Pailing is the only one to emerge from this sorry tale with much credit. Despite having been appointed as safeguarding lead for the Chapter, she was told about, rather than being involved in, a settlement which rewarded the alleged abuser preposterously generously whilst doing nothing whatsoever towards the… Read more »
Well said, Malcolm. I knew Rowena slightly in her TEI days, and think her loss to the Church is one that is great. Yet more good clergy gone. Even though I have defended Bishop Henderson in several comments on this thread, and think he was landed with an impossible case to solve, I share Rowena’s dismay at the situation and how on earth the Church as a whole can possibly have to pay an alleged abuser an amount like this to get rid of them.
We are back to Andrew Graystone and the seized up systems again… The majority of non church organisations are legally able to dismiss alleged abusers on the civil burden of proof. The law in this case seems to have greatly assisted Andrew Hindley because of his freehold. Like most abusers he was not going to declare ‘It’s a fair cop Gov ‘ and resign…. And reading the report on Smythe so recently he too squared up to everyone, though in his case not in England . Another very difficult issue with cases which do meet the threshold for prosecution is… Read more »
Absolutely, Susanna. I think the Canon played the system very well indeed, though it pains me hugely to say that, and disgusts me that the system is such that he should be able to. There is so much that needs reform.
Absolutely, Susanna. I think the Canon played the system very well indeed, though it pains me hugely to say that, and disgusts me that the system is such that he should be able to. There is so much that needs reform. How is a difficult question. In this case, the system has protected an alleged abuser and allowed him to walk away with a substantial settlement in lieu of a case he was likely to win going to judicial review, and his reputation publicly intact until this press coverage, including an NDA that gagged the Diocese. But I know plenty… Read more »
Interesting to compare your post with Anthony and Jill’s comments below. Their dialogue perfectly illustrates why most clergy are highly resistant to the idea of becoming secular employees.
I’m confused as to the point you’re making, I’m afraid. I am advocating for clergy becoming employees, but with suitable protections to ensure fairness when things go wrong. I’m very familiar with employment tribunals and professional regulation outside the church. In most professions, the professional concerned can secure professional indemnity insurance, and through either their Union, Professional Association, or a secondary body such as the Medical Defence Union, can secure legal representation at no additional cost or nominal cost. These subscriptions are costly, but the cash element of most professionals’ salaries allow for them. Clergy are not regarded as professionals… Read more »
Another shameful episode handled at best naively by senior Church of England clergy (bishops). Who in the real world receives eight years’ compensation plus benefits? It sounds like at least £350,000, with possible adjustment for tax etc. Time to get real. Clergy need to be subject to normal employment law. Common tenure is simply not fit for purpose. I understand that Hindley, having the freehold was the complication. But going to the usual suspect lawyers wouldn’t have helped. And if the compensation sounds a lot, look at the fees. This is probably a £600,000 total hit to the Church Commissioners… Read more »
What do you make of Aleem Maqbool’s point, made in the Radio 4 Today programme (13th August 2024, about 53.18 minutes in) that a leading child protection expert told him that, when the Church authorities were told in an independent risk assessment that Hindley is a risk to children and young people, then they needed to remove him from office and then deal with whatever legal ramifications may come their way (arguably no more costly that the money spent in paying him off)?? (In this sense Rowena Pailing was right because a full confrontation with the wrongdoing was not had?)
Res ipsa loquitur.
See also the BBC’s InDepth blog today where Aleem Maqbool and Steve Swann say that Sir Mark Hedley has not kept up with the law and his 2020 ruling was based on inaccurate legal facts.
Please see my reply to Janet further up the blog (which has only just been added) on this issue
Thank you, Peter. Yes, your explanation does seem to show a legal logic to his judgement, sadly.
Thank you for your clear explanation of the legal background to this sad case. It’s very helpful to have it laid out for those of us who are not legally trained and don’t have an accurate knowledge of the true situation. Inevitably the BBC report did not explain it well and so misrrepresented the practical options available to those involved.
This is quite a serious allegation by the BBC, which I assume they checked out. I am not a lawyer, so my comments should be viewed accordingly. It would appear that the case of Boy C (note boy) did not proceed because of doubt as to his age at the time of the alleged (but provable – per the Deputy President of Tribunals) non-consensual homosexual relations. As an adult (18 and over) it was stated that there was a 12 month limit for bringing a complaint. As a minor (under 18) that did not apply. Boy C first stated that… Read more »
And most shocking, ++Cantuar and ++Ebor (different occupants of these offices over the long period of this scandalous episode) did basically nothing. And former Bishops of Blackburn were no different.
Translation please?
Lawyer-speak: “The thing speaks for itself”.
The thing speaks for itself (legal maxim)
That approach is commonplace in secular employment, and not just over safeguarding risk – if someone’s face doesn’t fit then a knowing look between the boss and HR department can sort things out, knowing that there are limits on compensation due – but I’d suggest that it’s rather more difficult to get Ecclesiastical Courts to agree to that approach, and I believe it’s they rather than a bishop or archdeacon who is are the only ones with authority to remove a clergy freeholder from office.
It is not clear why the bishop was so anxious to remove the canon at the stage that he did. I cannot see how the presence of the canon in the cathedral could, in reality, pose any risk at all by that stage. There are always poeple about in cathedrals and, if there ever was a time when being a clergyman gave a cloak of respectability, those days are well and truly over. Did the bishop really and truly believe that if they hadn’t closed the cathedral (with the approval of the archbishops) something untoward would happen? And, furhthermore that… Read more »
As Canon Sacrist he may have had contact with servers, choristers and other young people involved in services. There may have been situations when he was alone with them e.g. training servers or rehearsing for a service.
Well surely it should be possible to ensure that he never was alone, and isn’t it good safeguarding practice to ensure that no adult is ever alone with a child anyway?
After all, one cannot base safeguarding policy on the assumption that certain people are ok. Everybody is suspect.
BBC InDepth article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5n2542q82o is worth noting