The Church of England’s House of Bishops held an online meeting this week, after which they issued the following press release.
House of Bishops Meeting – December 2024
11/12/2024
The House of Bishops convened online on December 10.
The House discussed the ongoing action being taken in response to the release of the Makin review and the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Representatives from the National Safeguarding Team outlined the detailed process being followed, in conjunction with relevant dioceses, in relation to those criticised in the report.
Further detail of this process can be found here: Steps currently being undertaken in response to the Makin review.
The House heard from representatives of the response group to the Wilkinson and Jay reports about the detail of independent safeguarding proposals that will be brought to General Synod in February. The lead safeguarding Bishop, Joanne Grenfell, spoke of the focus of the group on fostering trust, consulting widely and ensuring the group listened carefully to those with differing views.
In their work, the Response Group has established broad consensus that any future structure must include independence in relation to safeguarding audit, scrutiny, and complaints functions. Final proposals will go to February’s General Synod who will decide on the next steps.
The House received an update on the ongoing work of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) working groups from Bishop Martyn Snow.
Synod shoukl ask for an Act of Parliament for government to set up an independent safeguarding body to oversee the Church of England and other faith bodies, paid for by the state and with regulatory powers including the right to launch CDM or CCM complaints and to suspend clergy. Only a government funded body will be free from the control of the bishops and apparatchiks.
“Synod [should] ask for an Act of Parliament for government to set up an independent safeguarding body to oversee the Church of England and other faith bodies, paid for by the state”
There is one already. It’s called “the police”.
This is a very black and white response that would ignore much serious abuse. Yes of course I can agree with you that very serious physical and sexual abuse should be a matter for the police but such abuse is the tip of a very large iceberg. I can speak from personal experience. What to most people would consider a fairly minor abuse of power tipped me into prolonged clinical depression. I tried and tried to resolve the hurt I had experienced and eventually was forced to invoke two CDM’s because nobody would listen to my pain. I want a… Read more »
OK, but if the independent state funded (and regulated?) Independent Safeguarding Body comes to determine at some point that the teaching of historic Christian doctrine and ethics constitutes ‘Spiritual Abuse’, being out of kilter with the dominant secular ideology, where does that leave ‘quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit’?
No govt is going to give valuable parliamentary time or taxpayers money to this! And why should they?
Thank you, but why should any faith community have any additional free ride on the taxpayer? They already receive tax breaks on account of their charitable status (which is itself contestable) as well as VAT relief on maintenance, etc. Personally, I am moderately in favour of a national safeguarding agency covering all institutions which have safeguarding responsibilities, whether sacred or secular. It could bel as fines on individuals – could also help fund the agency, on an ‘eat-what-you-kill’ basis, ‘pour encourager les autres’. an agency of the Home Office or MOJ. It would have the ability to initiate investigations and… Read more »
State regulation of safeguarding doesn’t necessarily have to come for free. But the Church of England is in a unique position. It is an established church that is still an integral part of the state apparatus. For example Church of England bishops conduct the coronation of our head of state and preside at Royal weddings and funerals. Senior bishops sit by right in the House of Lords. This symbolism matters and should not be ignored. I look at it from the other way around. Is it acceptable for an organ of the British State to behave in this way ?… Read more »
Am I imagining it or were we promised fuller minutes of these meetings of the House? I only recall that happening twice…