It’s almost a full time occupation keeping up with all this that has going on in the C of E. Most regular church friends are oblivious to the serious implications for the people affected.
In the meantime I’m ducking and diving the bullying and harassment against myself here in France where poor behaviour is modelled from the top and “investigations” are a joke.
If you are clergy, Janet, you need support. I would suggest clergy join the
union “Unite” but in France that will not be possible. But safeguarding teams are there to help everyone and can be excellent, if Lichfield is anything to go by.
Somewhat by the bye but there is not any such thing as Diocese of Europe. There is Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, often abbreviated Diocese in Europe.
I don’t know why. The Diocese of Chester is never referred to as Diocese of Cheshire. Nor is the Diocese of Chichester called Diocese of Sussex. So why people don’t refer to Diocese of Gibraltar, I do not know.
I completely agree. Try to find some backup somewhere, Janet. Diocesan hierarchies in my quite extensive experience tend towards incompetent at best and malicious at worst. Richard, I’m very pleased to hear of one safeguarding department that has been excellent when clergy are being bullied and harassed. I’ve yet to hear of another. They’ve tended to range from sympathetic but useless at best to collusive at worst. I was reflecting on the dreadful state of things in Church earlier from the safety of being among one of my (thankfully) warm and appreciative congregations. A diocese I know well and where… Read more »
A friend recently went to his diocesan office to read what is written in his “blue file”. He wasn’t much wiser since large sections were redacted. Does anyone know if this is commonplace?
It’s common for any mention of other people to be redacted, on the grounds of their right to confidentiality, and data security. This can lead to large sections being redacted. Some dioceses also appear to redact anything they don’t consider to be in their own interests; others deleted practically everything when the Data Protection Act came in.
Thank you. It would seem that the right to view confidential material about oneself is pointless if the diocese decides it’s too confidential. What a farce.
One needs to be clear that the data owner can release it to anyone; therefore no Diocese should refuse without having made specific inquiry. It is not ultimately their decision. The duty is not to disclose without permission.
Have I missed the point? I understood the majority of complaints in this thread to be that the data subject has been denied (whether wilfully or ignorantly) access to their own data, hence the unlawfulness and apparent breach of section 45 (1) (b).
I haven’t come across that one before myself, Father, but I have heard of it being done. Usually when they want to protect the identity of people who have complained about the priest in question, because they say they don’t have that person’s permission to reveal their identity. So the copy they show is a redacted one, but the copy actually in the blue file is not redacted. I suspect the same principle – GDPR – could lead to anything they consider to be ‘sensitive personal information’ to be redacted.
My friend made a Subject Access Request and the content of an email he himself had sent to the Safeguarding Core group had been redacted group even though no name was mentioned!!
My own experience was that when I was shown my blue file in 2015 (or thereabouts) it was a folder that showed obvious signs of having had a great deal more in it than the rather slim collection of redacted documents. I read them. They told me nothing. Everything of interest appeared to have been not simply redacted, but purged.
Now that’s the experience that’s more familiar to me. In the Diocese where I served my curacy, if you moved to first incumbency in the diocese (which I did), you were invited for an interview with the Bishop. It was all very cordial, but the bizarre part of it was when he would produce the person’s blue file, go through what was in it and purge it in front of them! Less transparent were the several ‘panics’ I experienced where one or other national directive would land about blue files and document retention and the backstage purge would swing into… Read more »
My problem was not so much what was in coloured files (blue, green.yellow. redacted or otherwise) but the backchat and gossip that went on from the day I moved from one diocese to another till the day I retired and beyond. Sometimes people are given tough jobs to do with hard decisions to be made and are not always able to ‘tell the story”. The Bishop and Archdeacon when I moved were amazingly supportive but their successors were anything but. This sort of stuff will never get near a blue file and it’s almost impossible to call it out. I’m… Read more »
Adrian Clarke
1 month ago
The hurt and divisions that still remain 40 years on from the introduction of woman’s ordination is very sad, but a similar process is proposed for the introduction of LLF. And yet revisionist Bishops see this as a perfect expression of Christian unity. More like a structural flaw in the Titan sub design, which makes implosion of the C of E inevitable.
As regularly noted here, the fact that the ‘hurt & divisions’ post women’s ordination persist after 30 years (not 40) in CofE is entirely down to the way that they fudged the whole issue at the time, and then compounded the problems for the bishops.
One things is certain, the CofE never learns from any of its many mistakes, and never will so far as I can see.
As I understand it those male priests with consciences could cope with female perma-deacons (even our “Society” Diocesan accepts & indeed encourages them), it was female priesthood in 1994 that was the red line.
As a woman who was an ordained deacon for 7 years before being priested, it irritates me when people talk about women’s ordination as having begun only when women were priested. Those 7 years in holy orders mattered. And I can testify, as one who still bears the battle scars, that the hurt and division were present even before we were deaconed. And that there were people, when I was in deacon’s orders, who refused the chalice from me and walked out every time I stood up to preach. When I was in a team of parishes, there was one… Read more »
I’ve never understood the ‘taint’ theory, because, like, doesn’t it contradict Article XXVI? “The evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacrament” suggests good old fashioned anti-Donatism whereby the character of the person performing the sacrament has no effect on its efficacy (notwithstanding the strong, early modern language of ‘evil’). A bishop who ordains a… Read more »
When our ultra-high diocesan visited he would not allow the use of the reserved sacrament. This was because it might have been consecrated by our female curate (recently priested – of course not by him!). Actually our male vicar is only marginally better in his eyes, because he accepts female priests.
Of course the Ultras all deny that ‘taint’ as a concept exists in any form whatsoever. They protest too much.
It’s almost a full time occupation keeping up with all this that has going on in the C of E. Most regular church friends are oblivious to the serious implications for the people affected.
In the meantime I’m ducking and diving the bullying and harassment against myself here in France where poor behaviour is modelled from the top and “investigations” are a joke.
I’m really sorry to hear that, Janet. It sounds like the Diocese of Europe is no better than the rest of the C of E.
If you are clergy, Janet, you need support. I would suggest clergy join the
union “Unite” but in France that will not be possible. But safeguarding teams are there to help everyone and can be excellent, if Lichfield is anything to go by.
Unite has certainly supported members in the diocese of Europe in the past and will continue to do so through our Faithworkers Branch.
Great
Somewhat by the bye but there is not any such thing as Diocese of Europe. There is Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, often abbreviated Diocese in Europe.
I don’t know why. The Diocese of Chester is never referred to as Diocese of Cheshire. Nor is the Diocese of Chichester called Diocese of Sussex. So why people don’t refer to Diocese of Gibraltar, I do not know.
I completely agree. Try to find some backup somewhere, Janet. Diocesan hierarchies in my quite extensive experience tend towards incompetent at best and malicious at worst. Richard, I’m very pleased to hear of one safeguarding department that has been excellent when clergy are being bullied and harassed. I’ve yet to hear of another. They’ve tended to range from sympathetic but useless at best to collusive at worst. I was reflecting on the dreadful state of things in Church earlier from the safety of being among one of my (thankfully) warm and appreciative congregations. A diocese I know well and where… Read more »
A friend recently went to his diocesan office to read what is written in his “blue file”. He wasn’t much wiser since large sections were redacted. Does anyone know if this is commonplace?
It’s common for any mention of other people to be redacted, on the grounds of their right to confidentiality, and data security. This can lead to large sections being redacted. Some dioceses also appear to redact anything they don’t consider to be in their own interests; others deleted practically everything when the Data Protection Act came in.
Thank you. It would seem that the right to view confidential material about oneself is pointless if the diocese decides it’s too confidential. What a farce.
Here’s a link to the Data Protection Act 2018, Part 3, Chapter 3, section 45 “Data Subject’s right of access”:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/45
It’s all too clear that some of these redactions, if relating to the data subject, are in breach of the Act and unlawful.
One needs to be clear that the data owner can release it to anyone; therefore no Diocese should refuse without having made specific inquiry. It is not ultimately their decision. The duty is not to disclose without permission.
Have I missed the point? I understood the majority of complaints in this thread to be that the data subject has been denied (whether wilfully or ignorantly) access to their own data, hence the unlawfulness and apparent breach of section 45 (1) (b).
I haven’t come across that one before myself, Father, but I have heard of it being done. Usually when they want to protect the identity of people who have complained about the priest in question, because they say they don’t have that person’s permission to reveal their identity. So the copy they show is a redacted one, but the copy actually in the blue file is not redacted. I suspect the same principle – GDPR – could lead to anything they consider to be ‘sensitive personal information’ to be redacted.
My friend made a Subject Access Request and the content of an email he himself had sent to the Safeguarding Core group had been redacted group even though no name was mentioned!!
Utterly ludicrous! They haven’t the first clue how to handle statutory requirements.
Or they know fine well how they should handle them but choose not to do so. Who will rid us of these troublesome priests?
My own experience was that when I was shown my blue file in 2015 (or thereabouts) it was a folder that showed obvious signs of having had a great deal more in it than the rather slim collection of redacted documents. I read them. They told me nothing. Everything of interest appeared to have been not simply redacted, but purged.
Now that’s the experience that’s more familiar to me. In the Diocese where I served my curacy, if you moved to first incumbency in the diocese (which I did), you were invited for an interview with the Bishop. It was all very cordial, but the bizarre part of it was when he would produce the person’s blue file, go through what was in it and purge it in front of them! Less transparent were the several ‘panics’ I experienced where one or other national directive would land about blue files and document retention and the backstage purge would swing into… Read more »
My problem was not so much what was in coloured files (blue, green.yellow. redacted or otherwise) but the backchat and gossip that went on from the day I moved from one diocese to another till the day I retired and beyond. Sometimes people are given tough jobs to do with hard decisions to be made and are not always able to ‘tell the story”. The Bishop and Archdeacon when I moved were amazingly supportive but their successors were anything but. This sort of stuff will never get near a blue file and it’s almost impossible to call it out. I’m… Read more »
The hurt and divisions that still remain 40 years on from the introduction of woman’s ordination is very sad, but a similar process is proposed for the introduction of LLF. And yet revisionist Bishops see this as a perfect expression of Christian unity. More like a structural flaw in the Titan sub design, which makes implosion of the C of E inevitable.
As regularly noted here, the fact that the ‘hurt & divisions’ post women’s ordination persist after 30 years (not 40) in CofE is entirely down to the way that they fudged the whole issue at the time, and then compounded the problems for the bishops.
One things is certain, the CofE never learns from any of its many mistakes, and never will so far as I can see.
I agree. But the first women’s ordinations were in 1987, which is nearly 40 years.
As I understand it those male priests with consciences could cope with female perma-deacons (even our “Society” Diocesan accepts & indeed encourages them), it was female priesthood in 1994 that was the red line.
As a woman who was an ordained deacon for 7 years before being priested, it irritates me when people talk about women’s ordination as having begun only when women were priested. Those 7 years in holy orders mattered. And I can testify, as one who still bears the battle scars, that the hurt and division were present even before we were deaconed. And that there were people, when I was in deacon’s orders, who refused the chalice from me and walked out every time I stood up to preach. When I was in a team of parishes, there was one… Read more »
March 1994 in Bristol Cathedral.
I’ve never understood the ‘taint’ theory, because, like, doesn’t it contradict Article XXVI? “The evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacrament” suggests good old fashioned anti-Donatism whereby the character of the person performing the sacrament has no effect on its efficacy (notwithstanding the strong, early modern language of ‘evil’). A bishop who ordains a… Read more »
When our ultra-high diocesan visited he would not allow the use of the reserved sacrament. This was because it might have been consecrated by our female curate (recently priested – of course not by him!). Actually our male vicar is only marginally better in his eyes, because he accepts female priests.
Of course the Ultras all deny that ‘taint’ as a concept exists in any form whatsoever. They protest too much.
I suspect that some of these SSWSH characters are driven more by fear of their constituents than by any principle or conviction.