Updated
Continued from here.
The BBC has published a further article: Why does the Church of England struggle to deal with child abuse allegations?
Gavin Drake has written Archbishops’ Council ignored chances to fix safeguarding risk assessment loophole
Bishop Philip North has published a reflection: Three Steps We Need to Take Towards a Safer Church – A Reflection on File on 4 ‘The Priest and the Payoff’
The Church Times reports: Risk assessment should suffice to remove a cleric from office, Bishop of Blackburn argues
Given General Synod’s appalling record on Safeguarding for at least the last 10 years, could one find 10 ‘righteous people’ in General Synod?
Now that Gavin has left, I think it’s probably about 50:50; no more than a couple of votes in it either way.
In addition to Bishop of Newcastle, one would need 9 from Houses of Clergy & Laity, which would be a tough ask.
Remember Romans 3vs10 “There is no one righteous not even one” So not even the Bishop of Newcastle!
However I can genuinely say there are many currently on General Synod including myself for whom getting Safeguarding right is a major concern
On Twitter Crispin Pailing (husband of Rowena, & recently resigned from CofE) just posted a screenshot from 6 yr old Church Times with this comment: “I’m intrigued why @ChurchTimes appears to have pulled from their website this important letter from @PHJBlackburn @rowena_pailing @BpBurnley . Given the subject, you would have thought they would have booked train tickets up the West Coast Line.” This letter followed a CT report (4 Dec) that Paul Benfield had raised the May 2018 suspension of the now ex-Blackburn Canon at Gen Synod & they objected that he was “able to use a privileged position to… Read more »
Here is the letter ..
And here, the comments at the November 2020 Synod
And here, the response from Church Times
The Bishop of Blackburn has written a ‘reflection on the File on 4 programme’ which may be found here: https://www.blackburn.anglican.org/news/960/three-steps-we-need-to-take-towards-a Yet again, like almost every Bishop (only exceptions that spring to mind are current Bishop of Newcastle & Peter Hancock), every member of AC and >95% of General Synod of the last 10+ years, he is looking at things down the wrong end of the telescope (yet again). He blames systems, processes, CDMs etc (all of which were introduced by others/before my time/not on my watch, delete as appropriate) but accepts zero personal responsibility. Until those in authority dress in… Read more »
Entirely true to form for this Bishop, in my opinion. He seems to conveniently forget his years as a Suffragan in the same Diocese, with far more influence and responsibility than many have. As to his view about a DBF employing clergy, after the corruption, incompetence, horse trading and shady dealing I have seen from both Diocesan HQ senior staff and senior diocesan clerics in several roles I have held, I wouldn’t trust a one of them to know the right thing to do, when acting corporately, let alone do it.
I fully support Professor’s Jay conclusion that further tinkering with existing structures will not be sufficient to make safeguarding in the Church consistent, accountable and trusted by those who use its services. I find the leadership lacking in competence, skills and integrity to address safeguarding issues and is totally unable and unwilling to deliver fair justice to victims and survivors. Safeguarding matters need to be truly independent of the Church. Objectivity and a keen eye to examine the evidence base is imperative and is sadly lacking in the present structure.
For all the entirely justifiable sound and fury over this truly shocking case, I have a nasty feeling that it will prove to be ’15 minutes of fame’ for the principal players and that nothing significant will happen to address the underlying problems. After all, the matter has already been escalated to both Archbishops years ago but they have done nothing save wringing their hands that they have no power to intervene. Even if that is the case, they have more power than anyone to introduce legislative change via the synodical process. But, again, they have done nothing and, as… Read more »
Could that be, Malcolm, that so far as ‘joe in the street’ is concerned, what goes on in the CofE doesn’t affect him, so is of no interest, and doesn’t matter a damn? A URC friend of mine once said, quite bluntly, that the church (by which he meant the church overall) has been ignored as irrelevant for decades. And, as this thread is confirming, a lot of that is our own fault – you have to be credible (and relevant) to be listened to, and credibility is a product of integrity. And the organisation we call CofE has thrown… Read more »
I do not understand why there is a lack of willingness to confront safeguarding in a clear and honest manner in the Church of England. In 2024 this matter should be thoroughly resolved and set in canon. In fact, it should have been done twenty years ago. Perhaps is has to do with clericalism or a perception of certain clerics being “untouchable,” but failure does nothing to respond to public confidence. Almost weekly there is a posting here of some matter related to safe guarding – in the Diocese of Toronto we call it screening in faith – and it… Read more »
In a post on the diocesan website, the Bishop of Blackburn, Phillip North, has called for priests to be employed directly by the diocese rather than serve as office-holders.
https://www.blackburn.anglican.org/news/960/three-steps-we-need-to-take-towards-a
Hopefully that would also be an effective way to deal with lazy and incompetent clergy.
That could be interesting if the diocesan bishop does not believe God wants women to be priests, no names mentioned Phillip North…
Jay in the IICSA report commented on the virtually unchecked power of individual diocesan bishops and saw this as an issue hindering proper safeguarding. So X North would like a bit more power?
Bishop Tim Dakin’s power wasn’t unchecked; following a vote of no confidence, he was forced to leave his position. In contrast, despite a unanimous vote of no confidence, Reverend Christopher Haywood, the vicar of St Leonard in Aston Clinton, remains in his role.
Hard cases make bad law
I don’t think there was a vote of no confidence in Diocesan Synod, just the threat of one.
Ah all the vitriol time and time again suddenly becomes clear. As I suspected, and commented on previously, a personal axe to grind. By all means take whatever view you like on a situation that has personally affected you – you don’t need any ‘permission’ from me or anyone else to do that. But when you generalise about clergy, of whom I am one, from whatever you consider this priest’s failings to be, that is both inappropriate and offensive. Kindly refrain.
If you truly are honorable and hardworking, why wouldn’t you seek accountability? Trying to justify the current position makes it look like you have a self-interest in the status quo.
“If you truly are hono[u]rable and hardworking” A bit ad hominem? Kindly keep to the point – Realist was asking you to refrain from generalising. I wouldn’t mind you doing that myself, though as one of the few remaining freehold clergy left, I’d probably expose myself to accusations of self-interest and so on. The ‘idle clergy’ trope has been used time and again to besmirch efficient, devout and hard-working pastors, teachers and prophets (along with ‘only working one day a week.’). Ditto, come to think of it, just about every profession which doesn’t pay especially well and relies on a… Read more »
I haven’t generalised, David. I’ve said that there are some idle clergy, and that they are unnaccountable. My reasons for believing that there are some idle clergy is based on my own experience, and what I read in the press about clergy receiving votes of no confidence. My reason for believing clergy are unaccountable is that there is no mechanism for removing ineffective clergy from their posts. The evidence for this is made plain in the File on Four programme. You mention teachers, but teachers in the UK are quite easily dissmissed. There’s a straightforward process. Many jump before they’re… Read more »
A mechanism exists, but I’m not sure it gets used.
Being employed by a Diocesan Board of Finance, which is a trust, is a very different thing to being employed by a bishop. Proper terms of employment are a very sensible way out of our current mess.
Is there any issue which you won’t use to grind your particular axe against clergy?
It’s all the same issue, Jo B. Clergy are unaccountable. While some members of the clergy are exceptional and work diligently, others are ineffective and indolent, yet all are treated equally due to the lack of accountability.
If Bishops are unable to take action against someone who poses a safeguarding risk, how can they be expected to address those who merely perform the bare minimum? In any other field, there would be established procedures that could lead to potential dismissal.
I have been following the last few days with some interest. As noted on the original TA thread, I have had a previous negative experience stemming from trying to raise a safeguarding concern in Blackburn Diocese, and called there for Philip North to commission a full and thorough independent review of safeguarding in the Diocese over the past circa 35 years. I have found the Diocese’s response to this story interesting, perhaps typified in North’s article linked above. The focus in the response is almost entirely upon the CofE structural barriers in the Diocese’s way as they attempted to remove… Read more »
https://gracetruth.blog/2024/08/16/the-priest-the-pay-off-the-fear-to-do-the-right-thing/
I’m reminded of Bonhoeffer’s powerful essay, After Ten Years, written at Christmas/New Year 1942/43 to his closest friends. It’s a searing exploration of how cultured, educated people with all the intellectual resources of Kant, Hegel, Christianity, etc could be so powerless to prevent the horrors of contemporary Germany. His answer is that well meaning people refused to take their personal responsibility as adults seriously and his behind others’ authority or evasion. “Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil… Against folly we have no defence… What we need … are plain, honest, straightforward men (sic) … To… Read more »
There is scope to amend the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, the CDM, CCM as proposed or the Safegarding Code of Practice to enable an application to include clergy on the DBS barred list, and if that application is approved and an appeal fails, to enable that cleric to be removed from office (rather as if they had been put in prison and were unable to fulfil the duties of their office). Any of those routes would work and would provide external scrutiny which would balance the needs of the cleric with the needs of the Church and the ones making… Read more »
Bishop North’s ‘reflection’ is a valiant attempt at deflection, but it really won’t do. The problem here is not primarily the clergy and the ability of bishops to fire as well as hire. The bishops have been rearranging clergy terms and conditions for years, it’s usually not ended up resolving the issues that run far far deeper within church culture, but simply left clergy feeling more vulnerable in what is an extremely difficult role, that is increasingly losing the respect it once had. The problem starts with the bishops and archbishops themselves, and they need to recognise this and start… Read more »
Sadly it has become only too clear… I was struck by Jon Kuhrt’s description of the COf E being like a giant doughnut with lack of governance in the middle. I entirely agree with Evan McWilliams that proper terms of employment would benefit current clergy, but am much less sanguine about the Director of Finance in the diocese being the employer …. This really will be the bishop, unless there suddenly is a new cohort of 42 non clergy executives who are really running the Church and hiring and firing staff in each diocese and deciding whether to starve small… Read more »
The CCM will not fully address the lack of functional accountability of office holders in the Church of England (including bishops and churchwardens amongst others).
I’ve sent a letter to the Bishop and Dean of Blackburn today. In effect this is what I say: What about the victims? Both CofE Central and the diocese have known about possible victims for years – literally decades in some cases. By my reckoning, at least three bishops of Blackburn and three deans. At least three or more Archbishops. And many other bishops have known. In fact bishops as far back as David Hope (Wakefield) and possibly his chaplain at the time, Tim Thornton. This has been known about by a large slice of the senior layer across a… Read more »
Gilo, You are so right and I pray that some of your good sense manages to penetrate the collective defence mechanisms of the Blackburn diocese senior clergy and jolts them into action, even if this puts them into direct conflict with the rest of the COf E hierarchy. The sad conclusion I have reached over the last couple of years is that the only way the church has managed to function as it has is by denying the humanity of victims and survivors in a pathological way. This is the reverse of the Gospel teaching of course, but victims cannot… Read more »
Ah, Gilo, Searchlight… yes, or indeed Spotlight, which was the movie which first made me aware of the safeguarding failings of the main churches. I checked and that was back in 2016 when I wrote https://shared-conversations.com/2016/02/28/sex-and-power-in-the-spotlight/. As I said back then, “And that’s the problem. Church is a place where terrible things happen, where predators hide, where leaders can’t be challenged easily, and where God is used as an excuse for our own wishes.”
When is a contract not a contract? When it is a religious office deemed to be incompatible with a situation where contractual relations are in play, and where there was no intention by the parties to create legal obligations in view of the “historic and special pre-existing legal framework of the church, of an ecclesiastical hierarchy established by law, of spiritual duties defined by public law rather than by private contract, and of ecclesiastical courts with jurisdiction over the discipline of the clergy” (Diocese of Southwark v Coker 1998. ICR 140, 147, per Mummery LJ). The Bishop of Blackburn is… Read more »
I can see the attraction of this kind of thinking in today’s low-trust context. But I wonder what the theological implications are. Will the church become just another organisation structured around contractual obligations and consequent rewards? Where’s the space for grace and communion in such a polity? I don’t have a solution to this but fear that something profound may get lost. Becoming more like other organizations could have costs as well as perceived benefits.
All this may well be true but the church has been failing victims and survivors since before 2016- and in the case of Smythe, long before that.
Something needs to change ,and promptly, so they are not viewed as just so much collateral damage
Regrettably, we’ve already gone beyond the point of no return with regard to organizational structures. But when there is a high degree of trust, then it doesn’t really matter whether the priest is an office-holder, freeholder, employee, retiree, or volunteer. Your worries about a polity organised around contractual obligations are surely misplaced. The general duty of cooperation between contracting parties, which, by the evolution of case-law precedent, gave rise to the common law implied obligation of mutual trust and confidence in the contract of employment, isn’t inherently incompatible with theological principles. In fact, we could say that anyone in a… Read more »
Thanks for such a thoughtful and insightful reply. I suspect you’re right, that some organisational evolution, or at least change, is on the cards. But just as in a high trust situation organisational status is unimportant, where trust is weak organisational change won’t be a panacea. Deeper ills and pathologies may be at work, beyond the scope of organisational change to address. Moving towards employment contracts, heightened episcopal powers and independent safeguarding may well enable some situations to be better addressed. But independent safeguarders will be frail humans, bound to make mistakes, bishops are sinners, able to abuse power. And… Read more »
I hesitate to comment because I might well be about to expose the depth of my own ignorance – apologies in advance if so:
I’m a bit peturbed by +Philip North’s suggestion that a risk assessment should be sufficient to remove an office holder from office.
I can absolutely see why a Bishop should be able to suspend a priest on the basis of a risk assessment – that must be vital. But my instinct is that some further process would have to exist between suspension and removal from office?
[How] am I being dim?
From working in ‘normal’ safeguarding life outside you are absolutely spot on. It is at that point that the employment processes, and possibly criminal processes begin. There has to be a proper investigation carried out fairly
House of Survivors has posted the following today on X (formerly Twitter) https://x.com/HseofSurvivors/status/1826581095862653035?t=KjTwL4TY_1X18exKnmfqRA&s=19 House of Survivors has not in the past created pages for individual cases. In this instance, we consider the story to be a *national* one for the CofE. We suspect that CofE HQ would like to walk away … and leave Blackburn diocese & cathedral to mop up the burden and the mess. We note the absence of any comment by the Lead bishop. We also note that both Archbishops have beat a hasty retreat. By our reckoning at least 5 Archbishops and a great number of… Read more »