The following statement was issued in response to requests from the BBC and Channel 4 news on 17 June 2020.
A planned independent review into the Church of England’s handling of allegations against the late John Smyth QC is currently underway. In the course of that review, new information has come to light regarding Lord Carey, which has been passed to the National Safeguarding Team for immediate attention as per the agreed Terms of Reference for the review.
A Core Group was formed, according to House of Bishops Guidance, and it advised the Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford, to withdraw Lord Carey’s Permission to Officiate (PTO) while the matter is investigated.
Lord Carey’s PTO was revoked by the Bishop of Oxford on Wednesday 17 June. Lord Carey is currently unauthorised to undertake any form of ministry in the Diocese until further notice.
While the investigation and review are ongoing, we will not be commenting further on this matter. However, for the avoidance of doubt, we wish to make clear that the new information received relates only to the review currently underway, and that there has not been an allegation of abuse made against Lord Carey.
Notes for editors:
- In the wake of Dame Moira Gibb’s review, Lord Carey stood down from the role of Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Oxford in June 2017, and withdrew from public ministry for a season. Lord Carey accepted the criticisms made of him at the time and apologised to the victims of Peter Ball.
- In February 2018 Lord Carey contacted the Diocese of Oxford to request PTO (permission to officiate). Following senior legal opinion, PTO was granted by the Bishop of Oxford later the same month to allow Lord Carey to undertake his priestly ministry at the church where he worships. The granting of PTO was conditional on no further concerns coming to light.
- As with all granting of PTO’s, Lord Carey was subject to a fresh DBS check and appropriate safeguarding training at the time.
- The new information referred to relates to the independent review currently underway, details of which can be read at: https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/promoting-safer-church/reviews-and-reports/john-smyth-review
- The Core Group first met on 16 June.
To have to withdraw one PTO withdrawn over a safeguarding failure could be considered a misfortune, but two starts to look like rather more than carelessness. Let us for a moment leave aside what Carey may or may not have done with regard to John Smythe historically, and look solely at the mess the CofE is in today. Carey was heavily criticised over his handling of the Peter Ball affair both by Moira Gibb and by the IICSA. I think everyone accepts that his actions over Ball went beyond the merely careless and ended up with what amount to… Read more »
Possibly a fine point, but, in the interests of accuracy, I don’t think Archbishop Carey’s PTO has been withdrawn twice. Didn’t he resign after being invited to consider his position by the present Archbishop? Chronology is always important. He was Archbishop from 1991 to 2002, and prior to that, Bishop of Bath and Wells. At present we know very little other than what can be evinced from the above statement from the Diocese and Archbishop Carey’s response. The limitation on the PTO is stated clearly. So perhaps judgmental comments are out of place and certainly premature.
I don’t think that what Carey did or didn’t do twenty years ago matters at a practical level. He behaved badly, but apparently not criminally, and in any event criminal prosecutions are not the responsibility of the church. His protection of Peter Ball, and his refusal to accept any sort of guilt or show any sort of remorse, discredits him in the eyes of all but his (and, presumably, Peter Ball’s) claque. There is no more to be done, as he is retired and no longer has a PTO. He did not make mistakes, he took deliberate, considered… Read more »
With respect, you should read more carefully. I was clearly saying that judgmental comments were out of place and premature in relation to John Smyth, the subject of this thread, not Peter Ball.
The answers to the questions in your final paragraph have been provided above by the editors and already gone into at enormous length on earlier TA threads. But to return to the real point, this is about John Smyth, not Peter Ball, and so far we know absolutely nothing about what has been alleged against Lord Carey in relation to Smyth.
“I was clearly saying that judgmental comments were out of place and premature in relation to John Smyth, the subject of this thread”
Anonymous ‘Interested Observer’ says:
“His [George Carey’s] protection of Peter Ball, and his refusal to accept any sort of guilt or show any sort of remorse, discredits him…He has shown no insight or remorse”
That is simply not the case – and it is a nasty, disgraceful untruth. Let the truth speak.
Lord Carey has several times expressed regret and apology for his acknowledged failures in the Ball case, and was open in his evidence to IICSA. This was in stark contrast to evasive evidence given by other senior church officials, both clerical and lay. They have suffered no penalty.
We have no idea, of course, what the new allegations or evidence in the Smyth case are – and, according to the church’s usual practice, he’s probably ignorant of them too. We need a fully independent system to handle these cases.
Sandra Saer of Arundel has written to me thus:
“I was most perturbed to read of this indictment of Lord Carey. As chair of one The Bell Society’s Rebuilding Bridges conferences, at which he was a valued speaker, I was able to witness, at first hand, his integrity, humility and compassion”
http://rebuildingbridges.org.uk/2018/10/29/october-5-proceedings/
Leaving aside the merits, or otherwise, of your judgment of Lord Carey, if you are going to make such personal comments, may I suggest that you use your actual name when posting, rather than hide behind the anonymous ‘Interested Observer.)
If we rightly judge comments according to their content not by the poster, why does the name of a poster matter?
It matters if it contains an untruth and is potentially libellous
I think soldiers in the First World War would have described this as a buggers muddle. IO’s analysis seems spot on to me – Dr Croft thought ‘no harm in giving the old boy the chance to preach and take the odd 8am communion’. No matter that he’d withheld evidence from the Police and thereby played a contribution to Neil Todd’s suicide. In so far as the public are interested in the CofE this is even more damage to its already battered reputation.
Unfortunately Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford who gave Carey the PTO, had worked for him as Fresh Expressions leader. He was therefore compromised and should not have made the decision to give him the PTO even though it was apparently limited to the parish in which Carey worships.
No he did not. Rowan Williams was the ABC who set up the post and appointed Steve (as he was then) to the national Fresh Expressions role.
Charles, thank you for the correction. I had not checked the dates. My apologies.
Both the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey and the current Dean of Christ Church Martyn Percy have prominently and publicly identified themselves with those who regard the character assassination of Bishop George Bell by the Church of England hierarchy as one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in modern Church history.
Coincidence?
It’s also ironic when one remembers that Lord Carey referred to the Core Group in the Bishop Bell case as “a kangaroo court”.
No connection whatsoever.
What progress has been made with regard to the erection and unveiling of the statue of George Bell at Canterbury cathedral?
My impression is that current members of the House of Bishops are Teflon-coated but once they have retired (or died) suddenly all their mistakes are subject to investigation. And, of course, Deans of Oxford colleges don’t enjoy Teflon-coating either.
It all adds to the picture of an organisation which wants to look as though it is tough on safeguarding while avoiding any investigation of its own ‘in’ crowd.
Err…. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/5-june/news/uk/bishop-of-lincoln-to-be-investigated-under-cdm
Lincoln? But perhaps he wasn’t “in”. ..
I’ve no idea what the issue might be with +Lincoln and am mercifully devoid of contacts in high places, especially contacts of the sort who might drop tantalising tidbits from their plates – it makes life so much simpler to able to respond in all honesty, ‘I haven’t the foggiest’ to anyone who asks me about it – not that anyone does, they know I’m about as much in the loop as an oxbow lake. No doubt we’ll find out what it’s all about in due course. However, the sidelining of our openly inclusive bishop when the Lambeth Conference was… Read more »
Kate’s comment is apposite as I was given a ‘heads up’ only a few days ago about further retired skeletons, in a diocese just inside the province of Canterbury that is (let’s say) the subject of ongoing enquiries, soon to be stripped of their Teflon coating; as well as someone else, formerly on the current Bishop’s staff, but no longer on the Commissioners payroll, likely to be given the full Comms Unit exposure once ‘Inspector Barnaby’ concludes his investigations. You can be sure that, when it happens, the element of collective institutional responsibility will be heavily eclipsed by loud cries… Read more »
It’s unbelievable that Lord Carey could have his PTO withdrawn again, while Bishop Stephen Croft and Archbishop Welby continue free to minister. Croft has been interviewed by police over his failure to act on Matt Ineson’s disclosure of abuse; there is evidence that Archbishop Sentamu also was lax in his handling of that case. There are serious questions regarding Welby’s knowledge of and handling of the Smyth case, and evidence of inaccuracy in statements he has given regarding it. This looks like yet another case of reviews and core groups being weaponised against those the powers that be find… Read more »
The present Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has ‘thrown under the bus’ the former Archbishop George Carey – just as he did with the venerated Bishop of Chichester George Bell. He makes a habit of it when the finger of blame and accountability gets too close for comfort.
Those perpetuating the corrupted power structure of the Church of England allow this to happen, and provides the means to do it, with impunity and immunity.
As an outsider, I have no idea how to right this wrong – only the insiders know that.
Richard Symonds, when you write that George Carey has been ‘thrown under the bus’ by Justin Welby and you wish you could ‘right this wrong’, do you see nothing that serious in fobbing off victims of abuse and lavishing generosity on the abuser, as Carey himself admitted (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/24/former-archbishop-admits-fobbing-sex-abuse-victims/)?
Savi, I am not “fobbing off” anybody. Victims are victims, whether victims of sexual abuse (eg Matt Ineson) or victims of false (or wrongful) accusations of sexual abuse (eg George Bell).
These victims are being ‘thrown under the bus’ by a church hierarchy protecting itself, which includes Archbishop Welby.
This ecclesiastical malpractice must be stopped before further miscarriages of justice occur.
Are you implying then that George Carey belongs to the second category of victims being ‘thrown under the bus’, Richard, i.e. those who are victims of false or wrongful allegations (though not in his case of sexual abuse, rather colluding in covering it up and failing the victims)? Surely he has admitted his failings in the Peter Ball case, if still in denial to some extent?
Savi, there are victims of sexual abuse [eg Neil Todd]; there are victims of being falsely [or wrongly] accused of sexual abuse [eg George Bell]; there are victims of ‘cover-up’ of sexual abuse [eg George Carey]; there are victims of character assassination [eg Martyn Percy]. All victims suffer injustice and I’m reluctant to put them in categories.
I feel sorry for George Carey. I don’t believe he is wicked. He was naive certainly, but then so would I have been at that time In those circumstances. He was a middle grade academic unexpectedly placed in a largely rural diocese who was then nominated for the primacy. Who would not have fallen victim to flattery? Who would have had the self-knowledge at that time to listen to warning bells? And now in his 80s he is hounded by an apparently out-of-control arm of a secretive and dysfunctional organisation. Abuse of the elderly is not unknown in our society, but… Read more »
Lord Carey’s statement seems at odds with the statement by the Oxford Diocese in July 2018. A time line would be really helpful here, if someone felt up to producing one.
https://www.oxford.anglican.org/lord-carey-statement-from-the-rt-rev-dr-steven-croft-bishop-of-oxford/
Also, Kate, the bishop of Lincoln has been suspended for over a year for alleged failures in safeguarding.
Statement from the Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford – July 27 2018 “Lord Carey’s PTO remains in place at this time, providing him with a safe space to exercise his ministry. However, as part of the Church of England’s ongoing response to IICSA, there will now be a process of review and support offered to Lord Carey by the Diocese of Oxford together with the National Safeguarding Team.” Statement from Lord Carey – June 17 2020 “In 2018 the National Safeguarding Team and the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury invited me to meet… Read more »
I don’t see any particular reason to believe either of them. Croft has to explain why he thinks he has no discretion, such that he can only deny PTO if there is a clear, legally-defensible reason. If that’s the case, why are PTOs issued by bishops rather than simply via an administrative check-list? When the Jeremy Pemberton case was being discussed, no-one seriously suggested that the bishop had no discretionary power to withhold a PTO. Rather the issue was whether and how that discretion was bounded by employment law. Croft appears to be arguing that he does not… Read more »
Lord Carey’s letter to Peter Ball has to be seen in context.’Interested Observer’ has no interest in context.
The context is provided by what was said at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [IICSA]…
The former Archbishop of Canterbury simply couldn’t believe Bishop Peter Ball was capable of such evil acts – and more to the point, couldn’t believe that a Bishop could lie to him in such a brazen way.
George Carey was duped and ‘played’ by Ball – just as other Establishment figures – far higher than an Archbishop – were duped and ‘played’.
Bishop Lord Carey may have had his permission to operate as a Bishop or Priest withdrawn by the authorities of the Church of England, however that does not prevent him from accepting invitations from Dioceses of the Anglican communion overseas, to preach, lecture or conduct liturgical ministries as a Bishop or Priest, which he like any other retired Bishop will certainly accept and travel away to carry out such engagements on invitation without a doubt, and for the authorities of the Church of England, to attempt to prevent him from accepting overseas invitations, in dioceses of the Anglican Communion or… Read more »
Travelling abroad would be the equivalent of Carey holding up two fingers to the CofE in an act of truculent defiance. If he has acted wrongly in England, his ‘crime’ wouldn’t disappear if he flew off somewhere else. Besides Covid 19 prevents the elderly travelling anywhere.
He has a close friend in Russ Levenson, rector of the largest episcopal church in the USA, St Martin’s. That said, Carey is not a young man anymore. We used to work with him on various projects, and that is now twenty years ago.
“We used to work with him on various projects, and that is now twenty years ago.“
Who is the ‘we’ in this sentence please Christopher? And what kind of projects was he involved in?
I do not understand your question. As I stated, George Carey was involved in the (very public) work of SEAD and then ACI (1997-2015). He was a frequent speaker, colleague, and personal friend. I received a very fine tribute from him in the form of a minted Canterbury token. Google can help you.
If you do not know something it might be wiser to adopt a more cordial tone. Peace be on your house.
Christopher I don’t entirely understand your reply. And neither do I see anything lacking in cordiality. I thought I’d politely asked you for more information. Your defensive tone suggests you would rather not say.
I wasn’t aware that George Carey was a scholar. Or that he was involved with the Anglican Communion Institute so heavily. But that is helpful to know so thank you for that.
George and Eileen Carey are very close friends with the Levensons, Armstrongs, and the late +Ed Salmon. The Anglican Institute was founded in St Louis, at Ed Salmon’s parish, and Michael Marshall and George Carey were frequent visitors. That predated SEAD and ACI. He was invited to events because he was the Archbishop of Canterbury and could speak about the Anglican Communion. I do not believe anyone inviting him thought he was a scholar (as you put it). I was Chair at St Andrews in the 1998-2007 period and +Winchester was a close friend (he had a PhD in OT… Read more »
SEAD Conference April 8-10, 1999. “Praying Our Faith: Celebrating 450 Years of the Book of Common Prayer, 1549-1999” The opening address will be given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey. The conference will take place at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul in Charleston, South Carolina. ACI Conference: Anglicanism: History and Hope (May 1, 2004) George Carey as speaker, Colorado Springs, Colorado ACI DVD series: Anglicanism: A Gift in Christ (St. Paul’s Bloor Street, Toronto and St Martin’ Episcopal Church, Houston) “Designed for adult education purposes, the set is composed of a series… Read more »
Thank you Christopher. I see from google that
“The archbishop was in Colorado Springs, Colorado, [in 2004] for a summit called by the conservative Anglican Communion Institute, which outlined a series of proposed punishments for the Episcopal Church.”
It was, I was told at that time, considered unfortunate that George Carey was involved in the situation at all. I had not realised that the ACI stirred up that involvement.
I am not sure what you mean. Punishments meted out against TEC emerged from the Instruments of Communion. They did not need ‘stirring up’ but I suspect you know that.
I should have added in the light of developments, and as you often bring it up. My condolences to you re: the historic diocese of South Carolina. That 4/5 portion of the Episcopalians in this area hold title to their own properties. It is as a US Supreme Court justice said at the time when ‘neutral principles’ was instated: if you do not have a written trust conveyance, no ‘Dennis Canon’ will enable a national church to say the properties are theirs. SC, TX and Ill. have now all ruled the same way.
All very sad Christopher. And the only beneficiaries are the lawyers, everytime. Why Mark Lawrence wants to pursue it especially in the light of Coronavirus is anyone’s guess. But it’s got nothing to do with this topic.
“But it’s got nothing to do with this topic.” Nor with any of the previous ones where you brought it up!
Glad to see you invoking this principle.
I’m wondering whether anyone here is taking on board the fact that Lord Carey is 84 and doubtless very distressed by present circumstances. I don’t know anything about his health, but would have thought overseas visits would be unlikely. We can only wait to see what we will be told – if we are told. As Judith Maltby points out, the Bishop of Lincoln has been suspended for thirteen months and, so far as I am aware, absolutely no further information has been forthcoming.
A couple of weeks ago the BBC reported that “Bishop of Lincoln faces safeguarding disciplinary proceedings”, and the Church Times that “Bishop of Lincoln to be investigated under CDM”. They both quoted from a statement from a spokesperson for the Church of England. I cannot find this statement on the Church of England website.
I am afraid I don’t know, but the suspension was considered highly controversial at the time and on 24th May 2019 TA published a paper by David Lamming and linked an article by Phillip Jones, both questioning whether the suspension was lawful. It seems astonishing that 13 months later little more is known, but I wonder whether this is the matter referred to by Tom James in his post above. Geographically and some of the other detail might fit.
“I’m wondering whether anyone here is taking on board the fact that Lord Carey is 84 and doubtless very distressed by present circumstances.” Gibb report: “However, looking now at what happened, one is immediately struck by the extent to which Ball was seen by the Church as the man in trouble whom the Church needed to help. It is notable that the earliest press releases from the Church in 1992 seek prayers only for Ball, who was portrayed as a victim. There is little evidence of compassion for Neil Todd even though from the outset it was clear… Read more »
I can’t take this any further with you. Other people here have replied more eloquently than I am able. We don’t know what fresh allegations are being made against Lord Carey save that they are in the context of John Smyth and not the earlier matters to which you keep returning, Nor, apparently, does Lord Carey know, and that fundamental issue of natural justice is what this thread is all about.
I think it entirely reasonable to treat George Carey in the same way as he treated others. George Carey is not being treated any more badly in this whole saga than George Carey treated, inter alia, Neil Todd. Even if you accept, and I don’t, that George Carey was the innocent catspaw of the all-powerful Peter Ball, that still did not prevent George Carey from showing compassion both to Ball and Neil Todd. He manifestly did not, ignoring Todd and consorting in the hiring of private detectives to discredit him and other complainants. He then concealed from the police evidence… Read more »
There was very little compassion for Neil Todd – and other victims like him – by almost everyone else in the Church establishment at the time. They were just as much duped and played by a very clever, manipulative Peter Ball who had ‘friends in very high places’. What is beyond a disgrace is that powerful, hidden members of that very same Church establishment are now singling out George Carey for blame- and others who are perceived as a threat – making sure they are ‘thrown under the bus’. ‘Interested Observer’, whoever you are, if you are going to point… Read more »
Also remember what was said by Revd Graham Sawyer at the IICSA – July 2018 “The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think… Read more »
I’m no adorer at the shrine of George Carey. He allowed himself to become a stooge for Mrs Thatcher (aided and abetted by her Evangelical Appointments Secretary, Robin Catford). She wanted a politically naive occupant of Lambeth Palace when there was a risk of the forensically rigorous John Habgood making life uncomfortable for her. Carey was very obviously out of his depth throughout his time as Archbishop (just like his present-day successor). His embodying of the Evangelical squirmishness around sex and sexuality has already been well-rehearsed on previous posts.In that, he was a product of his era, and it isn’t… Read more »
A propos your last question, wasn’t the IICSA report due about now, or has it been delayed by the virus? When it comes, I suspect that it will prove highly, and possibly terminally, damaging to the CofE’s reputation.
The statement by the chair, Professor Alexis Jay, at the close of the two-weeks IICSA hearing in July 2019 was, “Our hope is that we will be able to publish this report in the summer of 2020.” [Transcript,12 July 2019, page 88/20-21.] I don’t have any more up-to-date information. ‘Summer’,of course, is a flexible concept (last Saturday being either midsummer’s day or the first day of summer, depending on one’s viewpoint), but I suspect that autumn 2020 is more realistic, especially given the initial indication that the interim report on the Diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball case studies would… Read more »
Everyone interested in these matters should read the first few pages of the transcript that David cites, but for other reasons. In it, EIG explain why they refused to release to the IICSA “legally privileged” documents which their PR people had been recorded reading aloud to journalists, and then weasle over the issue of the withdrawal of pastoral support from one of the victims. It’s vile, and the Church of England might ask itself why it has insurers who behave like this. In the Pell case, he hid behind his treatment of John Ellis by claiming it was… Read more »
It’s a little more complex. Pastoral support was originally withdrawn under advice from Stephen Slack, the Church’s own Chief Legal Adviser at the time. EIG confirmed that advice. And (for the first time in public domain) I have it on excellent authority that Luther Pendragon also confirmed the decision to the diocese. Why a PR firm was involved in individual cases in this way – we’ll probably never know. But it shows the shadowy interplay behind the church’s response. My source had first hand awareness, was involved in discussion with the DSA, and was sufficiently disturbed by it to remember… Read more »
“Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability” This is one of the persistent myths of law, rather like the stuff about “don’t say sorry after a car accident”. In reality, courts just don’t work like that, and attempting to reduce legal process to the exchange of magic words, where all you have to do is use the right magic words (or avoid saying the wrong magic words) and the judge has no choice but to find in your favour, is in another context the stuff of Freeman on the… Read more »
In this regard, I agree with ‘Interested Observer’ about such legal myths:
“…statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability”
As Policy Analyst Dr Josephine Anne Stein points out: “Section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 stipulates that……. ‘an apology or offer or redress, such as paying for medical treatment, is not of itself an admission of liability'”
If the Core Group in the Bishop Bell case had been advised by the Church lawyers of this simple legal fact regarding ‘Carol’, they would have saved themselves – and the Church – a lot of trouble.
Thank you David for the information. I won’t hold my breath, then!
There are different reasons for suspending someone from a post or withdrawing their permission, and there is a lot of confusion as to which are appropriate, lawful and ethical. First, there is suspension pending investigation – which is what seems to be supposed to be happening here. This now comes in two flavours: first there is “suspension as a neutral act” which doesn’t achieve neutrality very often if it is done publicly – the neutrality is technical rather than practical; second there is suspension during investigation where necessary to ensure the safety of the vulnerable – this eg in… Read more »
I expect that it will be linked here, but Stephen Parsons has started a new thread on his Surviving Church blog “George Carey: An Archbishop under siege” which throws some potentially new light on the matter.
I suppose he can still livestream from his kitchen if he wants to.
It’s really rather sad how little attention has been paid to the facts by many contributors on this thread: Archbishop Carey’s PTO revoked without being given any reason, and denied (at least so far) representation on the Core Group sitting in judgement on him. Aren’t these matters of shame for the Church? Also, few seem to have realised that the PTO was limited to ministry in his local church where he regularly worshipped. The kitchen ‘joke’ seems out of place.
From Saturday’s Telegraph:
SIR – The way allegations have been made against the Dean of Christ Church, the Very Rev Professor Martyn Percy (Letters, June 19), breaches the Church of England’s guidelines and ignores recommendations of the Carlile Report into the Bishop Bell fiasco.
I hope that Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury whose right to officiate has been revoked (report, June 18), fares better. Abuse victims know that an organisation which puts PR before justice is no friend of theirs.
Martin Sewell
Member of the General Synod
Gravesend, Kent
For many of us who served in the Canterbury diocese George and Eileen Carey were supportive friends.
It is a tragedy and disgrace that in their old age they are being treated so unkindly. Where are the Christian coutesy and values being shown in all this. It makes me very sad.
Fr John Emlyn
It is indeed a tragedy and disgrace, and we need to remember them in our prayers. But also to be remembered are the many hundreds – possibly thousands – of ‘unknowns’ who have suffered under this “cruel and sadistic protection racket” of which Revd Graham Sawyer speaks.