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.
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.
“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 »
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
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.
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.
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 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 »
And was the publishing of the letters a power play too? It could be so ‘experienced’, couldn’t it?
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.
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).
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 »
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?
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 »
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 »