Helen King Independent Is the Church of England safe for children and young people?
The Church Mouse What is the Church’s of England’s doctrine?
Susan Hunt Surviving Church Blackburn and Kenneth -Safeguarding Failures in the Church
Steve Reeves ISB 11 I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.
The Church of England isn’t safe for anyone at all – except bishops still in post.
Amen to that, Janet. That’s exactly right.
That’s what the Alliance has been saying for sometime, something has to give.
The Alliance’s “solution” is to make churches even less safe for LGBT Christians, and does nothing to address the other issues. Plus, given that it was members of the Alliance that allowed Mike Pilavachi to operate in plain sight maybe your focus should be there?
Yes indeed Janet, as Realist below says, “That’s exactly right”. However the cause of the problem seems to lie with the many Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers who operate a make- it- up -as -you- go- along policy with the bishops saying, “we cannot intervene with the DSAs and their decisions”.
There are some good DSAs. I think the cause of the problem is partly our labyrinthine structures, and partly a lack of will at the very top.
Totally agree Janet. Well said
‘I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.’ Week after week TA publishes the tawdry tale of the CofE’s safeguarding failures. Much of it is picked up by the national media. Yet the archbishops and bishops continue to stall and obfuscate. Not only with safeguarding matters but also with the lives of lgbtqi+ people too. Warm words, profuse apologies and hints at future ‘progress’; but only crumbs materialise. I know there are some hard faced and cynical bishops but I think most of them are fundamentally good people. How do they feel when they read ‘I… Read more »
Which bishops dare break ranks and speak the truth which is plain to ordinary people?
A wonderful piece from The Church Mouse, laying out the problem of establishing doctrine. When I was undergoing the ‘vocations process’ before ordination, I made sure to read the Canons (both of 1604 and as they now stand), the BCP, the Ordinal, the Articles, and many of the Homilies. My pre-priesting retreat reading was The King’s Book of 1543. I know for a fact this exploration is rare, but it gave me a clear understanding of where the Church of England had come from and quite a lot of insight into why we articulate our current positions as we do.… Read more »
Why this constant agonising over doctrine, liberal or conservative?
Do people think they will be saved by subscribing to the right catechism rather than by doing what is right and practicing the mitzvot the best they can?
What is the CofE’s doctrine? who cares and why?
Deciding ‘what is right’ is an act of doctrine-making. The Commandments are statements of doctrine, ie. teaching. One either lives right doctrine or one does not, but one must discern what it is before one can enact it. That is why people agonise over it.
Salvation by faith alone, is a doctrinal statement. John Firth was burnt at the stake because he believed this doctrine mattered, not that he didn’t believe in doctrine.
It’s not ‘deciding what is right’ that has divided Christians into different denominations.
I think that’s exactly what’s created division- disagreement on what’s right and how we discern it. Doctrine isn’t some abstract ‘theological’ idea; it’s as simple as asking how do we follow the commandment that says ‘do not kill’ (assuming someone doesn’t ask whether it actually means ‘do not murder’?).
And to live it it has to come from the heart. Discernment involves the will and the mind; all three must come together. And to do so, we need the Holy Spirit to enlighten all three.
I think you are mistaken.
Ethical precepts are different from doctrine.
Do not kill is a fundamentally different kind of statement from the speculations concerning the character of the Trinity.
And yet the ‘why’ is the foundation of the ‘what’; doctrine and ethics are inseparable. We do not kill *because* mankind is made in God’s image, a creature rather than the Creator of life, and therefore to take life is not within our right. Without thy why, the what has no significance. Ethics are not self-evident and, in any cultural or religious context, are based on doctrines either explicit or assumed.
Well said – doctrine is over-rated.
In the editor’s preface to the Surviving Church piece it is stated that, “It is enormously expensive to force a high-profile church employee to resign”. But it is relatively straightforward, and inexpensive, to summarily dismiss an errant employee – even a high-profile one – without notice pay, as long as there is evidence of gross misconduct, and the correct procedures have been followed. But as the discussion on another thread shows, the canon wasn’t an employee, so there was no applicable procedure. It is now in the public interest to discover the exact circumstances (and amount) of the settlement, and… Read more »
Are any CofE clergy employees? Or are they “office holders”?
Yes, chaplains in the public sector are employees, as are certain clergy who are employed directly by a diocese.
Yes, quite a lot are employees. Some are employed to clergy roles in other institutions, like schools, universities, hospitals, and prisons. Some are central diocesan staff, who are usually employed by the diocesan board of finance. Some, like bishops’ chaplains, are employed by the bishop in his/her corporate capacity. Some are employed by the NCIs. Some are employed by TEIs. But nearly all parish clergy and cathedral clergy are office-holders, whether under freehold or common tenure. (And, of course, there are lots of clergy who are in secular employment and are licensed to exercise their ministries in a self-supporting, usually… Read more »
This is, to me, an unforeseen consequence of an “established church”. On my side of the pond, all clergy (of whatever stripe) are employees, Among the RC, they are employed (usually) by their diocese. In TEC, they are employed by the vestry of their parish or by the diocese. Among most other Protestant denominations, they are employed by their congregation or by the regional authority of their denomination. Rabbis are employed by their congregations.
And, like all employees, the relevant taxes are deducted from their wages.
Not just the Established Church. Certainly in my denomination (Baptist Union of Great Britain) ministers are office-holders, albeit responsible to their own church rather than the denomination as a whole. I can’t speak of course for other major Nonconformist denominations which have more centralised structures.
In the Church of Scotland ministers are categorised as ‘self-employed’, and stipends were usually paid by the local church, although increasingly through the church nationally, given the state of much local church finance. They are also responsible for paying their own tax and National Insurance. Ministers are chosen by the local congregation, but inducted by the local Presbytery, and are accountable to it. If a congregation has a complaint or safeguarding issue with its minister, the goes to the presbytery acting as a ‘court’ of the church. Any appeal then goes up a level to the General Assembly through its… Read more »
This needs some clarification, as regards TEC. Rectors may indeed be “employees”, but not in the same sense as in secular employment, where one can be fired (at least in the US) for essentially any reason at all. A parish vestry cannot simply fire a rector. Typically they might make things so uncomfortable for him/her that the rector leaves. That’s about the extent of what they can do, although I suppose the vestry can vote to stop paying the rector. These days, “Priest-in-Charge” is becoming more and more common, where the clergy is on a 3-year (for example) contract, which… Read more »
I’m pretty sure a rector can be fired “for cause”–embezzlement, sexual abuse, as examples.
Inquiries in the C of E never are set up to get at the truth, and their recommendations are rarely followed. In this case, who would set it up and draw up the terms of reference, and who would fund it? Who would it report to? Both archbishops were appealed to and felt they couldn’t act; are they going to want their decisions closely examined?
There may be an opportunity at the next meeting of General Synod for questions and answers on the topic. And is this is a matter of public law rather than private contract, there may be a number of routes available to get at the truth and examine the issues in the round. For example there could be a judicial review, or the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament calling witnesses, or even a public inquiry like the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry.
Inconvenient questions are routinely not answered or evaded at Synod. Often the real skewering of poor conduct is not in the written question and answer but in the oral supplementary question which is delivered without notice.
Last Synod, Safeguarding questions were listed at the end of the Q&A paper and not reached so no testing of the answers. Insufficient time for questions is allocated. Q&As are our only real opportunity to embarrass the Establishment who cannot plan for every eventuality.
Synod can be misled without sanction.
Yes Minister contains a reflection or two on the purpose of inquiries which is germane to this point – this YouTube clip is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA1VTG3Z23U
Rowan Williams, then Archbishop of Canterbury, offered a different reading of the situation; that trying not to be judgemental about homosexual clergy could lead to “overcompensation”, and the feeling that they should have a second chance if abuse had happened. A head teacher at our local C of E primary school when he found out that a male teacher was grooming and sexually abusing boys at the school offered to give the teacher a good reference provided he resigned, which he did. Only for that same teacher to be given a job at our local comprehensive so that the abuse… Read more »
You quote from my piece for the Independent, Adrian, which is in turn using the evidence given to IICSA. The former ABC was reflecting on reasons for why people were so keen to cover up abuse, and was going beyond the usual points about protecting the institution. It is of course “evil” and the pattern of moving abusers on is precisely that of the Roman Catholic Church, as exposed in ‘Spotlight’, which I wrote about 8 years ago on https://shared-conversations.com/2016/02/28/sex-and-power-in-the-spotlight/
Sorry I do not buy the second chance overcompensation argument. What I would accept is weakness, and prissy inability to articulate the crime committed. This leads to people thinking that offence was quite minor & allows perpetrator to build support base who threaten to cause trouble.
Janet, the piece you linked is very wise, thank you You rightly describe the complexity of this. For example the numbers of priests in the RC church who abuse is dwarfed by the numbers who engage in routine consensual sex, either gay or straight. And as you say, that brings in the habit of concealment. And whilst some of the free rein given to abusive same sex behaviour may be overcompensation by straight people, it may also be other priests saying there but for the grace of God go I. I think you are exactly right in saying much (not… Read more »
Sorry, my apologies, wrong attribution. Helen King not Janet Fife.
Thank you, Helen, for helpful clarification. I was/am troubled by the risk of sliding into crude generalisations about the causes of specific behaviours and we end up with assertions of the sort seen occasionally on TA to the effect that homosexuals should not be eligible for ordination. As frequently pointed out on TA, homosexuality and abuse of minors are not the same thing. Heterosexuals groom and abuse young girls, and murder women. Process which is too difficult to use leads to the sort of parcel passing Adrian refers to, and not only in addressing paedophiles. When I was working we… Read more »
Surely, the first head had a duty of care to report it as a safeguarding issue, and his actions only compounded the offence? There’s a tension here between the Christian ideal – you’ve repented, you’ve done your time so its over and in the past and have a fresh start, and the reality of a society which says ‘oh, no, you haven’t.’ We’ve institutionalised unforgiveness. God gives second chances; the world generally doesn’t. Life becomes a balancing act, between the ideal and the reality. Practically speaking, whatever wrong we’ve done, in this case in terms of crimes, has consequences which… Read more »
John, do you really mean this? Unless you are the victim, forgiveness is not yours to offer, though you may advocate it. That I think is part of the mess the CofE offers to victims. ‘I am being magnanimous, as the gospel teaches, I suggest you catch up’. Sub text ‘this happens all the time, move on’. You can’t mean that. Understanding and compassion are necessary but not at the expense of the victim.
The head teacher was surely guilty, at the least of professional misconduct?
After reading the articles and the comments I went away and read some of Siegfried Sassoon’s poems. They felt relevant to me There is so much to be depressed and indeed, angry about. It’s a miserable state of affairs. But in the darkness I see beacons of light. I see them in some of the comments here and in some of the blog posts. I see people who care. They might lack the agency to change things, but they care and are precious. Let’s not focus so hard on the negatives that we fall to see those, many part of… Read more »
Sometimes you need to get angry before things start to change. People who think ‘Peadophiles need help not condemnation’ make me angry.
Adrian , paedophiles most definitely need help very badly . However this help does not mean covering up what they’ve done, unilaterally deciding they’ve repented when they are probably grooming you , believing what they tell you because deception is part of grooming and getting so caught up in saving them that their unfortunate victims are ignored and forgotten. Back at the day job before I retired colleagues and I found working with most religious denominations hugely challenging because of what we termed the ‘f’ word . No- in these cases it was forgiveness … which meant trying to avoid… Read more »
I came across that, Susanna in my job as a professional driver’s licence officer – and hinted at it a little in my previous post. God forgives, yes, but he also says ‘go, and sin no more’. There have to be legal and social consequences for sinful acts – child abuse undoubtedly being one – which no amount of divine forgiveness can ignore. Indeed, isn’t part of the traditional Christian teaching that you have to make recompense for criminal actions? To own up to the authorities and face the consequences, as proof of the sincerity of your repentance? Or, should… Read more »
Hear, hear! Well said, Susanna.
I most certainly didn’t suggest that.
Paedophiles do need help. Abuse of children deserves condemnation. Not all of the former engage in the latter, and they should get whatever help is needed to keep it that way.
What help do you suggest? Conversion therapy?
Not funny. At all.
Kate, I am interested, which of Sassoon’s poems are relevant here, and why.
Thank you
One quote comes to mind immediately – see if it’s one Kate is thinking of. “If they were there, there’s no need to explain, because you know they’ll understand. If they weren’t there, there’s no point explaining, because they’ll never understand.” So many of these issues are like that – in part you have to experience them – to live through them either for yourself or with someone close to you to actually appreciate the pain involved. There but for the love of God go I – or any one of us – has to be kept in mind, particularly… Read more »
Fair point.
Some people ask me why I am so focussed on these issues. I am not a survivor. I worked in the field professionally.
As a result, many (abused and accused) have shared their stories. When you hear them and observe the obfuscation, incompetence, inconsistency evasion and mala fides within the Church Establishment I cannot walk away.
You think things are bad? – it’s actually worse than you know. There is still no sign of coherent change.
Sobering comments.
Lack of will to change is illustrated by the safeguarding courses in our diocese (only first two modules open to lay peasantry) where none of the scenarios have a priest or deacon (let alone a bishop) as the suspect/perpetrator.
I was out today and came back desperately hoping a learned psychiatrist would have entered the conversation to summarise the current thinking on paedophiles. From a distance it is tempting to ascribe child sexual abuse as mental illness – or perhaps personality disorder. When I trained – a very long time ago – the definition of a paedophile was someone whose primary sexual attraction was to pre- pubescent children. I don’t think this fits John Smythe. The Australian Institute of Criminology published a paper about ten years ago by Kelly Richards called Misperceptions about Child Sex Offenders where she makes… Read more »
That’s certainly a relevant quote, I think.
All of A Child’s Prayer of course, but I was thinking of most of them and his reaction to a dreadful situation. When I wrote the post I had been up most of the night helping a survivor gather evidence for the police (who are being pretty incompetent) and I think the bleakness in Sassoon’s poetry really fits the mood.
Thanks to you both John and Kate. I was only aware of Sassoon’s biographical writings and his wartime protest, which I guess is the context for John’s quote.
But I am also aware that Sassoon is one step in a chain of gay poets: Walt Whitman, Edward Carpenter, Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. Each one mentored and encouraged the next to a certain extent, and, it seems, pressed for greater personal authenticity in their writing. So that made me curious about Kate’s comment.
I shall have to explore Sassoon’s poetry. Thank you.