We reported last year on the Bishop of Newcastle’s withdrawal of Lord Sentamu’s Permission to Officiate. Links to our previous articles are here. The bishop issued a new statement on Monday of this week, which is copied below.
A Statement from the Rt Revd Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, Bishop of Newcastle
First published on: 11th November 2024
Please find below a statement from the Right Reverend Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, Bishop of Newcastle.
“Following my call for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury I need to share the contents of a letter I received from both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York a matter of days before the publication of the Makin Report.
“It is my considered view that the letter I received from both Archbishops sent to me in such close proximity to the publication of the Makin review (regardless of its intended publication date) signifies a wider and systemic dysfunction of how the hierarchy of The Church of England has dealt with matters of safeguarding and most particularly the impact of church-related abuse on victims and survivors. Moreover, the archbishops’ use of what I experienced as coercive language when I read their letter indicates a complete lack of awareness of how power dynamics operate in the life of the Church.
“The decision to make this letter and its response public has not been taken lightly. Quite simply it is the right thing to do.”
Click here to read the letter from the archbishops in full.
Please note that the letter received from the archbishops was sent on 31 October and the Bishop of Newcastle replied on 5 November, before the publication of the Makin review. Click here to read Bishop Helen-Ann’s response.
This letter from Canterbury and York is completely inappropriate and shows such bad judgement and awareness that it is, in my opinion, by itself sufficient for York to consider his position. Victims and survivors should be first not last in our list of people to favour or consider, not old boys from the same club who we feel were done badly to. This letter shows that our archbishops have descended to farce and tragicomedy.
It would seem from the published letter the two archbishops are trying to justify their lack of action; probably both are intimidated by the intellectual rigour of a former high court judge.
Sorry to be dense, but who is the former High Court judge?
Former ABY Sentamu. He fled for his life from Uganda.
Indeed, but you somewhat overstate his experience. He was born in 1949, qualified in 1971 and left Uganda in 1974, aged 25. During the intervening three years he was an advocate and (wikipedia says “briefly”) a judge. High Court judges in the UK are usually, although not exclusively, King’s Counsell, and become judges in the later part of their career. Returning to the core topic we are discussing at the moment, John Smyth took silk at 38 as, at the time, one of the youngest silks there had ever been, and around that time was also a circuit judge. It… Read more »
John Smyth was made a QC in 1978 at age 37. He was never a Circuit Judge (and would not have worn the robes of one as mistakenly suggested by Andrew Graystone in ‘Bleeding for Jesus’). In 1979 he was made a Recorder of the Crown Court, a part-time judge at a lower level than a Circuit Judge. It seldom gets comment, but I find that fact one of the most offensive features in this extraordinary saga: he was potentially sitting in judgement on others while engaging in criminal acts himself.
And exploited his status as a Recorder to boost his reputation as a pillar of rectitude
I seem to recall Jesus questioning the understandings of the law of some ‘scribes and pharisees’, and their applicability, for instance regarding healing on the sabbath and the application of text, context and conscience. Or to apply a diocesan strapline: Contemplation, compassion and courage?
King’s Counsel, not ‘Counsell’. Also, Smyth was never a circuit judge. He was only ever a recorder – a part-time judge, with the commitment (usually) to sit as a judge for four weeks a year.
Incidentally, on 11 November the Judiciary website announced the appointment by the King, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice, of 97 new recorders [68 in crime, 5 in civil, and 24 in family], the appointments to take effect on 18 November.
See the list at https://www.judiciary/appointments-and-retirements/recorder-appointments-5/
I made no statement at all about his experience actually. I simply answered someone’s question as to who the High Court judge was that was earlier referred to. I have to say this reads as a very heavy and patronising put down of a remarkable man who spoke out against Amin and was briefly imprisoned before fleeing to the UK.
When John Sentamu was practicing in Kampala in 1971-1974, Amin was at the height of his power. So he may have dealt with some issues that senior lawyers in Britain have not.
John was a high court judge in Uganda until his imprisonment by Idi Amin
“probably both are intimidated by the intellectual rigour of a former high court judge.” There are many ways to describe John Sentamu’s statements over the years, but “intellectual rigour” is not amongst them. Read this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/17/justice-equality-same-sex-marriage His legal knowledge can be seen in his claim that same-sex marriage has a “problem because the definition of marriage is in the 1662 prayer book and article 30 of the Church of England, which both are acts of parliament.” (see https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/11/legalising-gay-marriage-unjustified-archbishops which, like most of the “it’s impossible because legal argument I got off my mate down the pub” claims, total nonsense.… Read more »
Are you being facetious here ?
I’m sorry, but I believe that in any safeguarding context, confidentiality is essential. I believe Helen-Ann had courage to speak out, but I think disclosing a confidential document without checking with the third party involved was a bad mistake. In my own life journey, as a prison administrator, a teacher, and most especially as a nurse handling confidential medical records… you just don’t do that. I think it was hugely disrespectful to John Sentamu (whatever the culpabilities involved in his case).
I agree, Susannah, and have said so to +HA. To qualify as ‘coercive’ the letter would need to contain some real or implied threat. I doubt a tribunal, for instance, would place that construction upon it. I thought it was a genuine attempt to mediate between two particularly stubborn bishops and +HA was indignant that the Abps didn’t entirely see things her way. Putting it into the public domain is a misdemeanour. It was a letter about an ongoing disciplinary process that names a third party who had not agreed to be identified. I also think it will have harmed… Read more »
I think it could technically and legally be in breach of the 2015 General Data Protection, part of which no date can be shared with consent of all parties concerned Jonathan
As someone working in data protection I would say it is by no means as straightforward as that. I would be able to make a decent case that disclosing the personal data in this correspondence is covered by “legitimate interests” as a legal basis, or possibly “performance of a task carried out in the public interest” depending on the legal status of a CofE diocese. Consent is by no means the only valid legal basis for sharing or publishing personal data.
Unfortunately, whether it ought to have gone into the public domain or not, the language used is both coercive and controlling.
What a sad sad state we are in.
Agreed. It’s a very problematic breach of trust, and undermines +Newcastle’s presentation as a person of substance here. As well as setting a catastrophic precedent for any future bishops who might want to exercise leverage over their colleagues, for reasons good or bad.
If ABC&ABY had wanted their letter to be confidential they should have included the standard Private & Confidential formula. Not exactly rocket science.
I may also say that their letter would win no Plain English prizes, rather the reverse, whereas her reply is clear & to the point.
My assumption would be that no such formula was thought to be needed, because it would insult the recipient to think that the senders had to spell out the confidentiality of the letter’s contents, which should have been obvious. But what do I know about episcopal minds and practices these days?
But do you really think the A/Bs should have imagined their letter was at risk of being placed in the public domain?
I send and receive a number of emails with church staff. It may be legal to put them all on twitter as I don’t tend to write “this is confidential”. However I really don’t think that leads to a helpful outcome in church. I do agree that the Archbishops have used many words when fewer would have been clearer and better; but that is a common failing of many many people in church I find (and sometimes outside of church). Maybe they could have worded it less “coercive” – but really if they have a different opinion then how would… Read more »
Does this kind of letter really need marking “Private and confidential”. Should it not be the working assumption?
No, if we want a more transparent Church.
If that’s what you call it, then I don’t want it. I want to be able to read a document, realise something looks wrong, and fire off an email to people in the diocese offices while I’m on a train and not worry too much about typos or if I made a horrible error. Instead they can reply and say “Tim are you sure you meant that, I think xxxx is what’s happening” I think that action is good. If every email I send is likely to go online then I would complain a lot less. Maybe “I” am a… Read more »
This was not a disclosure by a survivor, which of course must be kept confidential. It was an attempt by 3 powerful men to pressure a bishop into relaxing her safeguarding standards.
The complaints about +Newcastle’s publication of the letter are symptomatic of the C of E’s long history of cover-up and denial of unpleasant realities. +Newcastle is a whistle-blower, and we need more bishops like her.
Just thinking of “plain English” Actually +Helen could have been more clear /more plain English. She did not say “I think you should not have asked me to do this” That would be simple and clear to the point. Instead it is inferred. I am quite plain in my emails – sometimes they include “I do not agree with this, but I see I will not likely change your mind and I will not die on this hill. So I will agree to help implement this decision” Or “I believe this is my decision, and for the reasons already given… Read more »
Maybe she did? We don’t have her reply. But whatever she said to them, it would not have helped her make the point, publicly, about the ways power is exercised in the Church. I wonder if the archbishops have made a habit of privately telling bishops and clergy not to be too tough about safeguarding lapses? It would certainly explain why most bishops have got off scot free.
We do have her reply, it’s linked in the main story above.
Thanks Tim, I hadn’t seen that. It looks clear enough to me, though it might have benefited from another comma or two.
The letter isn’t marked ‘Confidential’. Sharing it was an unusual move, as +Helen-Ann was clearly aware. It’s also clear that she had been under pressure from these three very powerful men, possibly for some time. It could be argued that they had not respected her leadership in her own diocese, or the integrity of her views. It’s relevant too that all three of them have been criticised in safeguarding reviews, and were trying to force her to relax her own standards. It seems that in her judgement that might have put members of her own flock at risk. In these… Read more »
That’s well-argued, Janet. Thank you. I still think it was a mistake but you’ve helped show a different angle. My point basically is that the content of the letter included confidential details of John’s case and his stated positions on things, and that it is irrelevant that Justin and Stephen didn’t mark the letter ‘confidential’. It contained content that was confidential about John’s case and I believe he was owed confidentiality, regardless of how politically useful it was to disclose it. But your alternative argument has its own persuasion too.
To her supporters HA is the brave whistleblower, courageously challenging the patriarchy. To her detractors she’s a flaky liability, demonstrating a troubling disregard for professional norms on the basis of ‘experienced’ rather than objectively demonstrable ‘coercion’. Take your pick. Or combine and conflate. This is probably a false binary.
Very likely the truth is in the middle.
A defining feature of Anglicanism…
Totally agree Janet
Good people, who I believe bishop Helen to be, rarely put things of this sort on social media for reasons other than there is an abuse of power going on, and that is how I read this situation
I wonder if the world can be divided into ‘good people’ and ‘the others’.
Catastrophic utopian projects sometimes begin on the basis of such epistemological anthropology.
I agree with you Janet. You need whistleblowers like +Helen Ann. Prophetic ministry. Courageous Woman. Unlike 11 Bishops keeping their heads down.
While there are always serious considerations when publishing exchanges obviously not intended for broadcast, even more so when they refer to a third person, it would seem that all agree in their letters that this is not a safeguarding matter. Taking that into consideration, the timing and vulnerability of the bishop of Newcastle who was a lone voice although it now seems based on their subsequent statements she was only voicing what the majority of bishops actually expected to happen. I would say Newcastle was correct to publish the letters and it was a proper if unusual response the the… Read more »
Vulnerability of the Bishop of Newcastle?
As described elsewhere, as a diocesan Bishop she can’t really be sacked or sanctioned unless it’s incredibly serious and probable (many have tried and failed to sanction bishops so why should she feel vulnerable when she hadn’t done anything wrong).
She isn’t vulnerable at all.
I would question the idea that a diocesan bishop is not invulnerable should some of the national institutions decide that need not be the case…
There are plenty of ways of putting pressure on a diocesan, using ‘soft’ (or at least indirect) means of applying that pressure
I am unconvinced that Sentamu deserves much respect.
I agree Jeremy
So am I.
So the takeaways from this are presumably that: (i) Cottrell, Sentamu and Welby are incapable of learning; (ii) attempts to defend Welby are indefensible; and (iii) on no account should Cottrell be allowed anywhere near Lambeth, and he ought to put himself out of the running or be put out of it by others (also that she can barely tolerate him as her metropolitan). The implications are also that other bishops, specifically Conway, Wells and perhaps Grenfell, also need to go, and go quickly. How apposite that this imbroglio is coinciding with the reading of Williamson’s bill to remove the… Read more »
While there is a current government bill, at the second-reading stage in the House of Commons, to extend by five further years the period for priority elevation of women bishops as Lords Spiritual!
By default ABY is out of the running – unless he declines his seat on the CNC.
As the CNC can’t interview one of their own.
The Bishop of Newcastle will be the next ABC
I really hope not.
If so, she would be the first ABC to have received episcopal consecration in the southern hemisphere.
Conway, Wells and Grenfell should go quickly as JW did. THey will hang on desperately.
I believe we all need to take three deep breaths at this stage and reflect on what public statements we are making. I have been following the chats here: I have read an article by Giles Fraser on the Unherd website and its clear to me as an outsider that the Church of England is in danger of tearing itself apart as it divides into various camps, some pro and some extremely anti Archbishop Welby. We are in danger of losing perspective and over blaming ‘the Church’ when in fact (again disagree with me if I’m wrong), Makin’s report underplays… Read more »
These letters are not without context. Sentamu has been running a campaign for his PTO to be restored and has been telling friends that the Archbishops will intervene on his behalf. I was told about this plan by a couple of his friends a couple of months ago. They asked me to run a letter writing campaign on his behalf. (Just to be clear he did not ask for that – they did). This is a power play by Sentamu. He has asked the the Archbishops to intervene and find a face saving way for him to maintain his moral… Read more »
Thanks for this, Philip. You have said a lot of what I have been pondering since reading Jane’s comment. In my view, I agree with +Newcastle saying that she experienced the language of their letter to be coercive, if that is how she experienced it. She did not say ‘it is’ or ‘it is not’, merely that she ‘experienced’ it to be so. It isn’t for me, Jane, or anyone else to tell her how she experienced the language of the letter. As to how a tribunal would view the letter, well I’m assuming Jane means a CDM hearing. I… Read more »
This context is important. The Bishop of Newcastle had stated at the time of removing +Sentamu’s PTO ‘I am extremely disappointed that Lord Sentamu feels unable to make an apology at this time [for his response to the Trevor Devamanikkam independent Learning Lessons Review] and it is with sadness that I do not feel able to grant him my Permission to Officiate within the Diocese of Newcastle, or delegate authority to him. My door remains open, and the matter is in his hands.’ Instead, of apologising to the Bishop of Newcastle, +Sentamu decided to lobby the two archbishops to weigh-in on his behalf.… Read more »
“Instead, of apologising to the Bishop of Newcastle, +Sentamu decided to lobby the two archbishops to weigh-in on his behalf.” Welby’s excuses over his failings in the John Smyth case boil down to “I was very busy and thought other people were dealing with it”. And yet, here he is, writing a long (one has to say prolix: if this is the prose of the two most senior people in the CofE, no wonder the church struggles to get a hearing) letter in order to support one of his mates. Perhaps if two Archbishops had spent as much time worrying… Read more »
“Instead, of apologising to the Bishop of Newcastle, +Sentamu decided to lobby the two archbishops to weigh-in on his behalf. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the power dynamics at play.”
This is exactly the key issue. The ball remains in Sentamu’s court.
I appreciate +Newcastle as someone of courage & integrity who has challenged the old boys network that is at the core of CoE culture of secrecy & protectionism
Lobbying by the two archbishops has clearly backfired. As many have said, not least +Newcastle, an apology would have gone a long way. I can only think ++Ebor was the lead on this, as there is no love lost between ++Sentamu and ++Cantuar. I utterly support Bishop Helen-Ann on this. ++Sentamu may now never be allowed back to ministry.
I agree Anthony.
And was the publishing of the letters a power play too? It could be so ‘experienced’, couldn’t it?
Those three older, more powerful men must have felt very threatened by the younger, female, more junior bishop. Poor things.
Well, the publishing of the letters is at least arguably a big contribution to the process leading to the resignation of +ABC, as was +H’s interview. So maybe some power at work there. Power was being exercised in both letters in this exchange – it comes with the territory of being a bishop. So I don’t think that we should be naive about the problematic release of these letters being an act in which power was present. The self-assertion of victimhood can be in itself a claim for power. All acts of rhetoric are open to an analysis of power… Read more »
Yes probably, but sometimes one has to fight fire with fire. Sentamu has been told to apologise (quite rightly) and he won’t instead he gets his mates Justin and Stephen to put pressure on Helen-Ann to back down and accept an alternative solution when this is does not appear to be in the best interests of the church at this time.
What is deeply disappointing about this, but very predictable, is the amount of criticism Helen-Ann is receiving, very obviously because she is a woman and a liberal.
None of the criticism could possibly arise from the problematic nature of the act?
It is a power play – yes. Once the card has been played the response is in that light. Bp Helen-Ann had the option of acquiescing. She could go along with the plan and quietly comply. However, she has played a card back. They have considerable unseen power, she has the legal power. I suspect she would have just replied as she did without publishing. Sentamu would have experienced that as her exerting power on him. He believes he is right and he is being oppressed. The reason for publishing seems to be that if the Archbishops can lightly set… Read more »
Well said.
Very well argued, Philip. I have some reservations about the general principle of the pastoral appropriateness of making such correspondence public, as I set out above. But I think it is a stretch, to say the least, to try to claim that +Newcastle is the one with greatest power in the exchange with the Archbishops, or hers is a similarly inappropriate power play as theirs. Whilst undoubtedly both sides in this exchange have exercised power, there is the ‘little’ issue of initiation to consider. +Newcastle did not initiate this exchange of letters, she did not invite the involvement of the… Read more »
That’s how I see it, too.
There is a legal precedent here which held that an Archbishop has no direct authority over a diocesan bishop in their Province. In the case of Jeremy Pemberton -v- the Acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham (in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and High Court) it was initially supposed that John Sentamu, then Archbishop of York, had been instrumental in the decision to remove Jeremy’s PTO. However, during the disclosure of witness statements, it was revealed that the Archbishop had no direct authority over a diocesan bishop and, therefore, he could not have had any involvement in the decision: the action… Read more »
To be precise, I should add that this precedent related specifically to the issuing of Permissions to Officiate. An Archbishop’s authority over diocesan bishops in other matters could be different, I don’t know.
Bring on the day when the retirement of our bishops actually means just that: a stepping back from all further clerical or political work. Enjoy retirement and let the ‘youngsters’ get on with it. Your time is done.
Be careful what you wish for – – Many Lay people in church who do an awful lot to keep things going are retired.
Volunteer Retired Vicars also do a lot; and to an extent if they didn’t I think it would demotivate Retired Lay people from contributing.
Whether this specific retired minister should continue volunteering is another matter. But I would caution generalising.
My comment is aimed exclusively at bishops. The higher the former office, the more difficult to relinquish influence. The C of E would collapse without PTO priests, and retired laity are the backbone of many churches, particularly in rural areas.
Be careful what you wish for.
Retired Lay people do an awful lot of the work keeping churches running – and retired clergy are often a help (especially during vacancy).
Encouraging retired clergy to never help out feels to me as demotivating for retired lay people.
This specific minister on the other hand – well that may be a different story.
But let’s not generalise too quickly.
Thanks Tim. The reaction critics can now have fun comparing your two posts.
That should be ‘redaction’ as all NT scholars will have realised.
Indeed. Alas it looked to me that my first version was never posted and was lost when I refreshed the page. And then an hour later Incan see both versions… I blame MS edge.
Fortunately I think the thrust of what I said was the same in both. I wonder if others do percive a noticeable difference…
Ordination as a priest and consecration as a bishop are not job qualifications akin to attaining a teaching certificate or qualifying as an accountant. Retirement for clergy might mean the end of a “job”, but certainly not the end of the ability to preach the Word or administer the Sacraments (with appropriate license).
I never suggested it was. And my comments were specifically aimed at bishops. See above.
You wrote “retirement of our bishops actually means just that: a stepping back from all further clerical or political work.” My comment mentioned “consecration of a bishop”: see above. Both priests and bishops are Ministers of Word and Sacrament.
Though in the Church there is a saying Once a Bishop always a Bishop, once a Priest always a Priest. If Episcopal Ordination and Priestly ordination are given sacramentally, it is not something that can be turned on and off like an electric light switch as though being a Bishop and Priest was merely a functional thing, if the Church of England does believe in such a thing as the indelibility of orders, other it reduces the episcopate and Priesthood just to functional jobs that cease on the day of retirement as, though the Grace of the Sacrament dies with… Read more »
Close reading of replies are generally a good idea. My comments were aimed exclusively at bishops. See above.
Perhaps they should just be banned from wearing mitres after they have retired from office?
That’s helpful, Laurence, and is indeed the case. There was nothing the Abps could have done to compel +HA to give Sentamu a PtO if she wasn’t willing to, and all three of them must have known that. That’s why I’m puzzled that she’s claiming coercion. You need some leverage to apply coercion and in this scenario none exists. I agree they were trying to influence her, in the direction of a resolution, but there’s a difference between influence (which is pretty much the only tool at any bishop’s disposal) and undue influence, which I don’t think can reasonably be… Read more »
Which process is currently sub judice?
In so far as I know, Janet, there is nothing that is sub judice in relation to either Sentamu’s PTO or this exchange of letters.
Thanks, that’s what I thought.
JC May I respectfully say I disagree. HA will have given great careful thought before she decided to share the correspondence. Not an overnight decision. You may disagree with reading of ‘coercion’. However that is how HA perceived the letter. Very sadly these days many clergy try to say how people should have perceived letters, correspondence orr even a sermon. Might I suggest on Sunday when you consider you have preached a good sermon there may be other views. However if your gathered congregation hear it differently you would be aghast! Please do not suggest you know how HA should… Read more »
Of course you may disagree, Alistair, that’s what this blog is for. I think there are two different narratives running on at the moment and each of us will have to decide which one we find more convincing. The first is that the archbishops are intentional bad actors and cynical wrongdoers. +HA is the courageous whistleblower, kicking over the stone to expose the corruption beneath and ensuring that they receive the humiliation and punishment she feels they deserve. The other is that this is a sorry mess with a complex background and a moment of crisis both for survivors and… Read more »
I’m afraid I disagree with your two narratives description, Jane. You seem to be presenting a scenario where the choice is between a very severe case of post-traumatic embitterment disorder on the one hand, and pure wisdom on the other. My view is your first narrative is over-simplistic as a description of the very considerable range of things people are calling for among those pursuing some kind of redress and/or accountability, and their reasons for doing so. As I see it, you’re absolutely right to say this is a complex mess that calls for a lot of measured, wise, leadership… Read more »
The archbishops clearly have leverage. It might not be absolute authority, but that doesn’t mean there is no leverage nor a power imbalance here. Having it on record that to continue to insist on a fulsome apology Helen-Ann is going against the wishes of the Archbishops clearly is intended to have impact.
Subjudice is a particular legal term that really does not apply here. Putting it in quotation marks doesn’t change that beyond an assertion that you believe that the Bishop of Newcastle should have treated it as such for some reason despite it not being applicable.
Isn’t she effectively talking all three to back off? If so, I think it very effective.
Agreed.
Laurence, Always lovely to hear from you. As I understand it, this was actually Sentamu’s point that as Archbishop he could not have acted on the report he was given of abuse in a diocese that was not his own. However, safeguarding is everyone’s business unlike who people legally marry. The irony is that Sentamu welcomes an intervention by the Archbishops. Power in the C of E is not simply legal. The Archbishops have significant power even if it is not legally enforceable. This is what Helen-Ann laments, they do not seem to recognise how power works in their own… Read more »
Thank you, Philip
Indeed – – and yet I believe the complaint against the former-ABY is all about him not acting/over-ruling a diocesan bishop. He claims he followed sufficient guidance at the time – which he did. That guidance was wrong; his argument has been he can’t be blamed “as much” as the report if he was following the rules. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think there can be a middle ground between saying it was fully his(+JS’s) fault for not doing what the reviewer said he should do – and saying it was reasonable for him to do no more given… Read more »
Yes but – – – If I recall the case against the former ABY ++JS is about him being too respectful/showing deference to the independence of diocesan bishops and not chasing up. The point of contention is that he did was was within guidance and practice of the time (respecting independence) – – but both he and ++JW have been criticised for this – as Justin should have been more “interested”/”involved” in Ely rather than taking it at face value that things would be ok if he left them to get on with it. I think it’s not unreasonable to… Read more »
Perhaps when leaders do or counsel things we like, they are being bold, innovative and decisive, and exercising the power that comes with the territory of leadership faithfully. When we don’t like what they are trying to do or achieve, we deem their influence ‘coercion’ and decry their deployment, or even possession, of power, as something problematic.
The really significant thing for me is that this shows that church leaders like Welby and Cottrell can find the time and the energy to be pro-active over matters when they want to to uphold (or restore) the status quo but cannot find that time or energy for pursuing any matters that might endanger the status quo. The Bishop of Newcastle knew she was under pressure to fall in line with this agenda and that’s why she’s called it coercive.
Just been reminded of the many ‘great & good’ who saw fit to write letters in support of Peter Ball.
I have just made myself reread the letter- Another fascinating thread in one of the soap opera sub plots of the dysfunctional Upstairs Downstairs COf E safeguarding drama. No wonder the church is resisting any whiff of safeguarding becoming independent if this is the current way it is managed- by influence and meddling from on high-except of course when amnesia suits ‘on high’ I am sorry to disagree with those whom I normally respect and feel the letter should have been kept confidential but would ask is this confidentiality or secrecy? From a non church perspective JS , far from… Read more »
Leaving aside whether or not it was appropriate for the letter to be put into the public domain, once it has been, it becomes clear that the Archbishops were putting inappropriate pressure on what they saw as a junior colleague. I must say that I am really surprised that the Archbishops saw fit to put any of what they said down on paper, rather than having a private conversation with their Newcastle colleague, or just keeping out of it. In any case, if they felt this way, why not give Archbishop Sentamu PTO in one of their own dioceses? If… Read more »
Overthinking former anglican, thank you for this. Spot on, particularly the last sentence.
Agreed
Absolutely agree.
I think that all needs to be considered in the context of JS’s failing. Was he not critised for not doing something that the rules/guidance/legal precedent said he could not and should not do? I.e. involving himself in the affairs of a diocesan bishop and trying to influence him? He didn’t do that, has been criticised. I agree he should have challenged the norms of the time and didn’t. But the way you describe it makes it sound much more clear cut. The “advice” being given to NST as I understand it, is to be aware of what guidelines people… Read more »
Hi Tim , The bottom line is that you and I don’t agree- does that make me emotional and lack objectivity? I am not trying to judge what JS did or didn’t do- though I am clear I come from a personal position of believing that anyone in authority told about past serious abuse has a duty to act upon that disclosure. There is an interesting BBC article from May last year where the victim in this depressing case says the reviewer ( female!) was handpicked by the church and not objective enough.So he refused to take part in the… Read more »
Firstly, disagreement doesn’t make or imply emotions are the driving force. Neither in general or this specific case. I’m sorry I implied that by mistake. Thank you for referencing the BBC article, I will try and find it. To me there are 2 points on the letter. 1. were the archbishops right to disagree with her or not. I currently think 60% they were wrong, but am conscious I may swing again. 2. From a place of diagreement is it right for them to send a letter? For the second I think yes. I would send an email myself or… Read more »
Many of us have admired the work, views and stance taken by Bishop Helen-Ann since she returned to the UK. Obviously former ABY has objected to the withdrawal of his PTO by +HA. Her response to ABC and Ys is a carefully and simply thought through letter. ABCandY must now be reflecting why they wrote ill considered letter, with ears bent by Sentamu and his supporters. God weeps with the tears of the survivors.
Well said
Both letters refer to Sentamu simply as “Sentamu”. In formal letters between bishops, isn’t that extremely rude? Shouldn’t it be Lord, Mr or John Sentamu. I don’t know but just using the surname seems discourteous. Is it because he is black?
Sentamu is his given name and the one he commonly uses.
I have always understood that peers can legally use their territorial designation both as signature and form of address. Bishops usually use first name plus their see. I recall years ago hearing “Exeter” and “Salisbury” to identify bishops, with no slight intended.
I see that some of the newer diocesans are opting for their Christian name and the current ‘modern’ name of their see in their signature. The older ‘original’ form for formal signatures was and still is to use the Latin name, e.g., currently in the two examples you mention:
Salisbury: + Stephen Sarum.
Exeter: + Michael Exon:
Exon being an abbreviation of Exoniensis. I guess everyone is familiar with ‘Cantuar:’ and ‘Ebor:’ as the corresponding formal signatures of the two archbishops.
I meant that “Exeter” and “Salisbury” were used when speaking of those bishops. When I heard Exeter, it was often “Old Exeter”.. again, no slight intended.
I recall that Archbishop Sentamu indicated that he wanted to be known as Sentamu rather than John, and used that name in his official signature. He was, and is, Lord Sentamu, a life peer and a retired bishop, albeit without PTO. There is no racial implication.
I see. Thanks to all. I didn’t mean to suggest actual racism, but it does seem (as I suspected) to be an African cultural thing so, in a very loose sense, because he is of African heritage.
If you look into African and other non European cultures you will find that what we call the surname is actually the name that is used most often. In answer to you question ‘Is it because he is black?’ then I would suggest that it is more appropriate to say that it is because he is African.
It is how he requested to be addressed. It is to own and value his culture as an English person of Ugandan origin.
OMG what cultural naivety! I refer the commentator to other answers in this post, but I am also mindful of the echo chamber that TA has created. I long for greater diversity of opinion as well as a cultural diversity to avoid such crass comment as T Pott.
I seem to recall from a previous TA thread that his family name is Mugabi, which he doesn’t use because of its association with a certain Zimbabwean president.
I understand what people are saying on both sides but I have a question for those criticising the Bishop of Newcastle. What do you think her official avenue of complaint was given both archbishops were involved?
Goodness me, Kate and others, this is unbelievably feeble. I wasn’t intending to make another comment but it’s really starting to twang my elastic. The Rt Revd Dr Helen-Ann Hartley is a diocesan bishop with full legal jurisdiction over her diocese and a seat in the House of Lords. Far from being vulnerable she has more positional power and authority than nearly anyone else in this Church and Realm of England. She doesn’t need to complain to anyone – as you say, who would she complain to? – and she cannot be compelled to give anyone a PtO, it’s entirely… Read more »
Maybe you’re not easily coerced!!!
Good. But to have two 2 AB’s and one ex-AB clearly breathing down your neck when you are a relatively new Diocesan might just feel a tad intimidating?
Especially when they control (or have significant influence over) the purse-strings of various funds that may be keeping your diocese afloat…
Your comment reveals what is wrong with safeguarding in the Church of England. Someone thinks people ought to just suck it up. No. Whether you think she has a valid complaint or not is irrelevant: if +Helen-Ann feels something might be coercive she should be entitled to have that properly investigated. Your suggestion that she just needed to say “no” is tantamount to victim blaming. If someone is worried about conduct we want them to raise it.
“who would she complain to?” Seems to me as though she has just, in effect, complained to the press, the public, and perhaps Parliament. Good on her. And I have say, all this keep-private-correspondence-private sentiment seems to me to be part of the problem. If the Archbishops were not willing to advocate for Sentamu publicly, then perhaps they shouldn’t have been advocating for him at all. I believe that the Bishop of Newcastle has laid down a useful marker. If someone not in the pastoral fold wants to pressure a diocesan in writing, then that someone should be willing to… Read more »
I entirely agree with you, Jane.
The question of avenues of recourse if the letter was truly inappropriate is one thing. (I don’t know the answer. But putting the matter before the Bench of Bishops would have been more appropriate than publishing the letter to all and sundry.)
But the idea that the letter – to a responsible adult, diocesan bishop and member of the House of Lords – was coercive is either absurd or an indictment of the lamentable quality of diocesan bishops.
I dont think it needed a complaint.
They said “please consider changing your mind”
She said “no I won’t”
And legally they can do nothing about it.
Matter over.
If this was a “usual workplace” where a boss can make things difficult or over rule you, then that is another matter. But she is effectively an all powerful monarch in Newcastle.
Whether you think it needed a complaint is besides the point. Helen-Ann felt it did and she should be entitled to an effective means of complaint. That doesn’t mean her complaint would necessarily be upheld, but she has to have an avenue to complain. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury, who didn’t seem to need to be involved in a matter involving the northern province, involved himself, I don’t see that Helen-Ann was left with a formal avenue and, despite my question, nobody else has suggested one. I say again, whether you feel she has a valid grievance is beside the… Read more »
“Since the Archbishop of Canterbury, who didn’t seem to need to be involved in a matter involving the northern province, involved himself….”
That is a telling point, isn’t it?
I thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in the Province of York.
In my view, extraprovincial meddling deserves a response outside of channels.
Official avenue for Bishop of Newcastle was to ‘stop rocking the boat’, & follow guidance from her superiors.
Lord Sentamu can obtain a Permission to Officiate in Newcastle if he offers a suitable apology. Alternatively he could move to York where a PTO would be available or he can live out his retirement without a PTO. So he has lots of options. Do we want more Diocesan bishops who take safeguarding more seriously ? I say yes ! The award of a PTO is a very serious matter and the Bishop of Newcastle is simply doing her job and exercising her judgement in good faith. Another Diocesan Bishop might take a different view. The Church of England does… Read more »
Maybe part of the sub-text by Bishop HA , who seems spot on to me, is that at the end of the day she really doesn’t want +Sentamu waltzing round her Diocese ? He is not easily containable. He could return to York, that would be fun(not) for +S .
This is another telling point.
If Ebor wants to give Sentamu PtO in the Diocese of York, then let Ebor do so–and let Ebor deal with the consequences.
(Ebor might have better reason than most to know what those consequences might be.)
However remember – the fault of Justin re: Smyth was not being pope-like and instead assuming another Bishop would do everything needed. The fault of Sentamu was again to leave it to a Diocesan Bishop. Suppose now that Helen was Archbishop and Justin or Stephen were Bishop of Newcastle – and they had decided to grant PTO. Would we not want a pope-like system that enabled her to stop them granting PTO? At the very least would we not want her to write a letter to them to advise them strongly that they shouldn’t? I think the future of good… Read more »
Given the reverse scenario that you present, there is indeed a mechanism for challenging a diocesan. In such a case, it would be a concern raised via NST about the advisability of the decision taken. If suitably framed, failure to take the professional advice of NST could leave the bishop open to disciplinary action – so the checks in that direction (ill-advisedly issuing a PTO) do exist. In the other direction (refusing to issue a PTO where there are valid concerns as to its advisability) less so, as the ABC/Y cannot tell a bishop to issue a PTO. However, they… Read more »
That’s interesting- I thought xxWelby had to stand down because he was in charge but thought safeguarding was someone else’s business and he didn’t need to worry whether the victims and survivors were ok? Which they haven’t been for years and years and years and years ….
This interview of Bishop Helen-Ann on the Sky News Sunday Morning programme may be of interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtwmBzz3saw&t=23s
Simon, thank you for this link.
Dr Hartley’s response is a masterpiece. It is perfectly composed to convey exactly what it is intended to, with precisely the right level of directness and subtlety. It’s so much more erudite than the very tempting two-word alternative.