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 »
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong with my post above, in that the second paragraph is all over the place. It should read as follows: “Personally, I am moderately in favour of a national safeguarding agency covering all institutions which have safeguarding responsibilities, whether sacred or secular. It could be an agency of the Home Office or MOJ. It would have the ability to initiate investigations and to impose fines in a quasi-judicial capacity, after the manner of the ICO. It should also have the power to suspend office-holders, and to refer cases to the DPP/police. Fines – which… Read more »
I too agree with disestablishment but I hope this is not the reason or occasion for it. I’d rather it embraced it for its own reasons. You are right that the symbolism of establishment is involved here but there’s no legal reason why state regulation of safeguarding is required just because the Church is established. But the political pressure for disestablishment will grow the longer the Church fails in this area (or others). But, ostrich-like, the Church leadership is wholly unprepared for it.
Am I imagining it or were we promised fuller minutes of these meetings of the House? I only recall that happening twice…
Not your imagination, Helen. But as we know, a promise from CofE HQ is worthless and they are just reverting to type. I gave up reading the ‘Steps re Makin Review’ after a couple of sentences because you can tell it was written by someone in comms before the HoB had even met. We need bishops regulated and subject to independent scrutiny. The stuff that spews from HQ comms makes Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and its newspeak read like some model of integrity and honesty. Have bishops taken leave of their senses, to say nothing of their morals and conscience?… Read more »
Not just “a promise from the CofE HQ” but an apparent commitment to General Synod from the House of Bishops Transparency Group (chaired by Archbishop Stephen) in its interim report to the Synod, GS Misc 1387, at York as recently as July 2024: “This paper reports on the work of the Transparency Group and sets out the steps the House of Bishops has approved to be undertaken to increase transparency… The House of Bishops has approved the proposals in the interim report attached. The particular proposals are for publication of the minutes of meetings of the House of Bishops and… Read more »
Is it possible for the police to investigate the Bishops’ or Archbishops’ actions or lack of them in historic cases of abuse or negligence? Have any criminal offences been perpetrated?
On an earlier thread I quoted from the current 2024 Crown Prosecution website which indicates that there is no duty to report crime:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/reporting-crime
Of course it’s possible that future legislation might change this. Accordingly it’s arguable that there are no grounds to prosecute any of the clergy you mention. issues of moral duty are clearly another matter.
Unlikely. The police themselves are culpable for not recording these cases as crimes in the first place, even when reported through the proper channels.
Building trust? Are they joking, once again? Do the Bishops not realise that apart from a very few of them, that opportunity has been and gone? To put it bluntly, they blew it. What are the people they damaged supposed to do, forget all that has gone before and let bygones be bygones, or some other superficial tripe like that?
As you say ‘Trust’ is a ship that sailed a long time ago. My spiritual director when I was newly ordained advised me to have as little as possible to do with bishops. I didn’t take the advice in my early years, but over time I realised the wisdom of his words. Most of them mean well but their primary concern is the institution, not the priests and people they’re called to serve. They’re by and large risk averse and so will throw anyone under the bus rather than make a stand for the marginalised and oppressed. That’s why they… Read more »
Not a comment on the H of B but a plea that this site’s safeguarding scandal coverage includes a Surviving Church article by Stephen Parsons. It’s one of the most thoughtful things I’ve read and points a way to the necessary culture change. I can’t post a link for some reason but it’s about understanding Smyth’s narcissistic personality and draws on an overlooked bit of the Makin report. It made me think.
https://survivingchurch.org/2024/12/03/john-smyth-understanding-the-dynamic-of-his-toxic-personality/
I’ve always found these minutes of meetings drafted as if they were composed by filling in the blanks to a preset outline.
If I remember correctly, the outline-minutes used to end with a paragraph that said something like, “The House concluded its meeting with prayer.”
Is there any reason that last paragraph isn’t there?
Because, in the Court of Public opinion they know they “haven’t got a prayer”?