Updated Saturday afternoon
Harriet Sherwood reports in the Guardian that the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft has permitted former archbishop George Carey to resume public ministry. Her report is headlined George Carey allowed church role despite part in abuse cover-up.
George Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury who was heavily criticised in an independent report for his part in the cover-up of sexual abuse carried out by a bishop, has been allowed to resume an official role in the Church of England.
Lord Carey stepped down last year as an honorary assistant bishop at the unprecedented request of Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, after a damning report which found the church had colluded over the abuse.
But it emerged this week that Carey has been granted “permission to officiate” (PTO) by Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, allowing him to preach and preside at churches in the diocese. Croft is reportedly under police investigation for allegedly failing to respond properly to a separate report of clerical sexual abuse.
The decision to grant the PTO was made in February despite expectations of further revelations this month about Carey’s role in the case of Peter Ball, a former bishop of Gloucester, at the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA)…
Statement from the Diocese of Oxford on the granting of “permission to officiate” (PTO) of the Most Rev. George Carey by the Rt. Rev. Steven Croft:
In the wake of Dame Moira Gibb’s review, Lord Carey stood down from the role of Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Oxford in June 2017, and withdrew from public ministry for a season. Lord Carey accepted the criticisms made of him at the time and has apologised to the victims of Peter Ball.
In February 2018 Lord Carey contacted the Diocese of Oxford to request PTO (permission to officiate). This was granted by the Bishop of Oxford later the same month.
The granting of PTO enabled Lord Carey to preach and preside in the church where he worships, a church where his ministry is much valued. The granting of a PTO does not indicate a planned return to the role of Assistant Bishop.
Concerning the police investigation mentioned above, the Guardian report continues:
…Croft is one of several senior church figures, including John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, who are reportedly being investigated by South Yorkshire police over alleged failures to act on disclosures of an alleged rape of a teenage boy by a clergyman in the 1980s. The force declined to confirm or deny an investigation was under way.
Matthew Ineson claims he was raped by the Rev Trevor Devamanikkam, and in 2012 and 2013 reported the crime to senior figures in the church, including Croft. He alleges they failed to follow proper procedures and did not advise him to tell police.
Devamanikkam was later charged with indecent assault and buggery without consent, but killed himself in 2017 before coming to trial.
A spokesperson for the diocese of Oxford said: “Written records and notes taken at the time give a different picture to the one Mr Ineson is presenting about how his case has been handled.”
An independent review had been commissioned by the C of E’s national safeguarding team, the spokesperson said…
Updates
Earlier, another report on this subject had appeared in Private Eye. This article is now on the web: Cover-up of a cover-up.
There is now also a report in the Telegraph: Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey given permission to preach by the Church of England.
The BBC has reported (5.5 minutes in…) that Lambeth Palace was consulted by the diocese before this action was taken.
Premier Radio has this: Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey allowed to preach his church again.
The Daily Mail has: Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey is allowed to preach again just weeks before child sex inquiry looks into allegations that he ‘covered up’ abuse.
As a Ball survivor i find it incredibly hurtful what Steven Croft has done. Especially before all the facts have come out. The IICSA Ball hearings are at the end of this month. I understand from emails i have had with the NST at Lambeth Palace that they were not consulted and had no knowledge of Carey’s NEW PTO. We were promised as survivors that he wouldnt get his PTO back and wouldnt be in a position of trust again. Just because someone has a DBS check doesnt mean they are suitable for a position of trust. And this less… Read more »
‘For a season’. I don’t recall that phrase being used before. Looks like about two seasons, in the end.
I see Premier now has the story, https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Former-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Lord-Carey-allowed-to-preach-his-church-again. I assume their wording “it has emerged he secured “permission to officiate” (PTO) at churches throughout the area” is wrong, as the other stories all say it’s just within the church he attends. Or maybe I misunderstand PTO?
PTO is (always, I think) on a diocesan level, not a parish level.
Thank you for your reply, Sam. This does seem at odds with the official statement, ‘The granting of PTO enabled Lord Carey to preach and preside in the church where he worships, a church where his ministry is much valued’, which suggests a far smaller context.
As the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey has said himself, it was “unjust” for the present Archbishop, Justin Welby, to strip him of his Assistant Bishop position.
It was also “unjust” for the present Archbishop of Canterbury to say there was still a “significant cloud” hanging over George Bell, Bishop of Chichester.
As Charles Moore of the Telegraph has said in the Spectator this week, Bishop Bell has been “posthumously libelled by his own church for unproved child abuse”
The only “significant cloud” hanging over anybody on this critical issue is Archbishop Justin Welby.
Archbishop Welby can’t escape this moral maze of his own making – unless he apologises…or resigns. To apologise would be just. To resign would be regrettable.
Not the only one, because the Bishop Bell situation is not the only instance of—to quote Lord Carlile—“oversteer” (or what I would call scapegoating) by the Church of England. The Archbishop of York said, in his recent address to Synod, “Justice also demands that alleged abusers are presumed innocent until proven guilty.” That is a statement about the criminal law, but what about personal reputations? Indeed, that statement begs the question of whether the Church of England will continue to re-publish allegations that it knows may be false. The Archbishop of Canterbury has not retracted his statement that the Church… Read more »
“Why doesn’t Synod ask for its own legal advice on this issue, and then give guidance accordingly, for the future?“
Why?
Because those in the Church of England ‘safeguarding’ hierarchy are simply ‘not up to the job’ – morally or legally.
But ‘they’ know the law on defamation and libel. You can’t defame or libel the dead, so anybody can say anything they like about a dead Bishop (eg George Bell), and get away with it scott-free.
They may know, and shelter behind, that rather simple rule of law, as to the dead. I’m not sure they quite understand the more complex law they must observe, as to the living.
They will know soon enough if Bishop Bell’s niece ‘gets her day in court’.
What I wonder about is a “ failure to mentalize” ie the background of empathy. I recently read a psychological study that suggested this a much larger than expected problem in clergy. So it makes me question what is going on here…. is there an institutional bias ( training, selection) that means that decisions are being made/communicates without a real capacity to understand how tactless & hurtful it might be?
Here is an attempt to reconstruct some chronology. The Diocese of Oxford statement of 26 June 2017 says: ‘Lord Carey accepted the criticisms made of him at the time and has apologised to the victims of Peter Ball.’ https://www.oxford.anglican.org/lord-carey-statement-rt-rev-dr-steven-croft-bishop-oxford/ By Christmas 2017, following his acceptance of ‘the criticisms made of him at the time’, Lord Carey was criticizing Archbishop Welby’s call for him to ‘consider his position’: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/22-december/news/uk/former-archbishop-lord-carey-calls-pressure-on-him-over-peter-ball-inquiry-unjust Then two months later, as has just been made public, Lord Carey’s PTO is returned to him in February 2018 and the diocese’s statement reported on Thinking Anglicans (13 July 2018) is… Read more »
It comes as no surprise to me that George Carey, when Archbishop, had “no present recollection” of the safeguarding difficulties within the Diocese of Chichester. As recent revelations have now shown, those (ir)responsible within the Diocese of Chichester were desperately trying to ‘keep the lid tightly closed on their can of worms”.
According to a report by Martin Bashir on the BBC News (Radio 4 at 1.00 pm) Lambeth Palace was consulted by the diocese before this action was taken.
I first told Carey about my abuse problems with Ball and two other individuals in 1987 when he first came into post in Bath and Wells. I was just 17 then. The abuse happened between 1979 and 87. One of those individuals was a parish priest who was then moved into a marriage guidance position in the diocese. So Carey MUST have known all about Ball. The details of what went on in 1992/3 led to several survivors taking their own lives. Let please remember that. The police still face a IPCC investigation into their role. Let all the facts… Read more »
Amidst all the deliberate obfuscations and hidden agendas surrounding this critical issue, the words of Fiona Scolding QC – spoken on the first day of the IICSA hearing last March (5th) – still have a clear ring of truth to them: IICSA Transcript – Monday March 5 Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Fiona Scolding QC: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan… Read more »
Accountability is for the little people.
If George Carey has genuinely apologised to survivors, is his ministry reflecting this? Is he engaging with those survivors to ensure that they are receiving the support they need to flourish?
Are questions such as this being put to Steven Croft?
Questions:
1 – Why shouldn’t Carey preach to his local congregation. What are the legal grounds for refusing his request for PTO?
2 – Did Croft grant PTO alone, following discussion, or under pressure?
3 – Carey’s PTO was granted in February. Why is this news, now?
4 – When will the inquiry into the Devamanikkam case start? Why hasn’t it started already?
“3 – Carey’s PTO was granted in February. Why is this news, now?”
Throwing up dust?
Well, the answer to 3 is obvious. Synod has just concluded, so it’s time to get some bad news out of the way.
But, further to my earlier comments, can PTO be restricted to the local congregation? I’m now thinking maybe Premier was right… See https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/deployment%20of%20clergy%20with%20licences%20and%20pto%20june%202014.pdf in which 3.5 says it applies to the whole diocese. 3.6 says clergy with PTO can be granted it only on condition that training e.g. in safeguarding is undertaken.
I am growing in the conviction that former Archbishop George Carey is being ‘scapegoated’, and those covertly manipulating the process are ‘rogue elements’ within the Church of England whose motives are far from Christian.
“‘Fall guy’ is a colloquial phrase that refers to a person to whom blame is deliberately and falsely attributed in order to deflect blame from another party”
This seems to apply, and to fit ‘hand in glove’, especially regarding the present cases of both the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey (still living) and the former Bishop of Chichester George Bell (now dead).
Those responsible (and irresponsible) appear to be indulging in an ecclesiastical version of the children’s game ‘Pass the Parcel’ (of Blame) – hoping and praying the Parcel doesn’t land on their lap when the music stops. It would be naive to think the buck of blame stops with the Archbishop at the time (If that was the case, Justin Welby would be in an extremely precarious position). So where does the buck stop in this unholy mess if it’s not the Archbishop? William Nye is a strong contender – or his bosses above him. Most TA readers here know of… Read more »
The problem Lord Carey has is that he wrote to the then DPP about Peter Ball. So ,of course did many other people. There was a distinct sense of lobbying to protect someone who eventually pleaded guilty to a number of very serious charges.
It could be argued that at the time he genuinely believed Peter Ball to be innocent and was exercising appropriate pastoral care. However it hardly inspires confidence in the Church’s commitment to safeguarding.
But Lord Carey was not the only one who did the “lobbying”. Some very powerful figures were also ‘taken in’ by Peter Ball. So, it is pretty outrageous this former Archbishop is being made the fall-guy, being scapegoated, and witch-hunted, by certain people who really should know better.
So where does the buck stop? Ball offended under Carey’s watch and was protected by him. Carey should go and retire quietly.
Peter Ball was protected by people far, far more powerful than Archbishop Carey. Will they “go and retire quietly”?
Former Archbishop George Carey has been ‘thrown under the bus’ to protect a State-controlled Church – just like Bishop George Bell.
Which churchmen are more powerful than the Archbishop of Canterbury?
William Nye
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nye_(courtier)
The Church of England is the Established Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the most senior cleric, although the monarch is the supreme governor.
I’m inclined to agree. This, surely is what integrity in leadership means? But that comes from a heart of humility, a deep sense that what happens to me personally is not as important as what happens to the Body in general. And such an action can’t be forced or taken from one; it must come from the heart….and this, to me, is not about Carey in particular, ( whom I have never met & who may well be a fine man and a good Priest ), but more about how I see leadership and responsibility across the board. If it… Read more »
If that is the case, why haven’t Archbishops Welby and Sentamu already offered to resign?
Well, I think that Sentamu probably should. Likewise some others, at least until justice is done, and ” seen ” to be done. Welby seems to be the person doing more to fix an existing problem, than covering one up/avoiding one?
Archbishop Justin Welby became part of the problem when he inexplicably and outrageously judged that a “significant cloud” still hung over the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester.
For Sentamu the practical question is whether he will get a limited extension, or whether he will have to retire at age 70.
He was born on June 10, 1949, so either way, the announcement should be made this year.
If he does not get the extension, his announcement to retire will probably be couched in terms of “health reasons.”
If this is a reply, which is the button you pressed, then no, but were I a ‘rogue element’ I’d say that anyway. It amuses me to think I could possibly ‘manipulate’ anything in the Church of England. Please can you reply to my question?
That’s a pretty callous statement on a board with a survivor posting his experience.
Can it only be a week ago that General Synod was examining the Church of England’s past and on-going collective and massive failures in safeguarding and pledging to do better? How, for example, does the critique of the Bishop of London stand alongside the return of Lord Carey’s PTO in the Diocese of Oxford, and her remark that survivors ‘had not been involved effectively: the Church could design a service well only if they walked alongside’. Were survivors of Ball consulted in this decision, which must (not to speak for them) feel like yet again the Church does not have… Read more »
I theologically disagree with Doctor Carey, but I believe he is a man of integrity. He should be allowed to put his points across. Has Prince Charles been banned from his role because he spoke up for Ball?
RIW, I think you will find Lord Carey has put his points across in his Christmas letter cited in an earlier posting. See above.