Updated Thursday and Friday and Saturday
Yesterday (Tuesday), the Church of England’s General Synod debated and voted on two proposed models (labelled 3 and 4) for independent safeguarding in the Church of England, and passed the following motion
That this Synod:
(a) thank all those involved in Church safeguarding, particularly the victims and survivors who give so generously of their wisdom and experience, often at great personal cost, and parish safeguarding officers who make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
(b) affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
(c) thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England; and, noting the significant reservations around model 4 in paragraph 62 of GS 2378 and the legal advice from VWV dated 31st January 2025, endorse model 3 as the way forward in the short term and call for further work as to the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement model 4;
(d) and lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church.
Details, including voting figures, are in an official press release: Synod votes on next steps for independent safeguarding.
Reactions to Synod’s vote include the following.
I tried to listen to the debates, but I have a day job to attend to. I’m part of a team ensuring that when you turn on the lights, the lights turn on. Can someone summarise – I think that option 3 + amendment was put to the vote and passed. Was option 4 ever put to the vote? Or was it not put to the vote because option 3 + amendment passed? What would have happened if option 3 + amendment had failed, and then a subsequent vote on option 4 also failed? What would have happened if option… Read more »
Andrew Brown’s contrary reaction might be of interest to those who are open to different opinions https://andrewbrown.substack.com/
I have added this to my article.
Brown said, “The case for full independence rests on two arguments,…”
Then he falls to identify the actual reason. If the only objective of a body is safeguarding then clearly safeguarding is put first at all times. If a body – such as the Church of England – has safeguarding as one of many objectives it is easy for safeguarding to slip down the priority list. That doesn’t require malice – distraction can be sufficient to dim focus. The main reason independence is important is that the new body has a singular objective.
And no conflicts of interest. Which those working for the Church, and responsible to bishops or diocesan secretaries, do have.
Absolutely – one single priority.
I saw the following comment from a Synod member yesterday, reflecting on the debate: “As far as I could see, the main reasons for choosing model 4 were (a) this was the model the majority of survivors of church abuse wanted us to choose; and (b) It would make a statement to the world (and the media) that we were holding nothing back in our desire to be transparent and accountable and humble. However, I was aware that the survivors and victims were not unanimous in their views, and I was very concerned that we should choose the best, safest… Read more »
But the safeguarding experts also supported option 4. Marsha de Cordova, Prof. Jay, Joanne Grenfell (safeguarding lead). Helen King also supported option 4.
So I think the above statement from a synod member is far from ‘the whole truth’ and is a gross distortion, reasons for which we can only speculate. The word ‘safest’ stands out. Being safe is so far from the Gospel.
I don’t doubt the integrity and good intentions of the synod but I am mystified why the majority felt it best to disregard the detailed advice of the Chair of the Independent Commission on Child Sexual Abuse, the opinion of the Second Estates Commissioner (representing parliament), the advice of the bishops currently working at the forefront of church safeguarding and the Bishop of London who has experience of safeguarding in another national organisation. As well as the experience-based opinion of many survivors. Did they really think they knew better? Safeguarding IS a complex matter and the church needs to get… Read more »
I don’t doubt the integrity and good intentions of the synod
is similar to the phrase
with the greatest respect
I do doubt the good intentions, because they purposefully ignore the many expert supporters of option 4, as you and I detail.
Did they not have their hearing aids plugged in? Were they asleep? Are they blind?
Perhaps, or maybe they listened, pondered, prayed and reflected, and more of them came to share positions like Andrew Brown and Ian Paul than those who did not. You can disagree with them, of course. But don’t traduce them, please.
Maybe this is the problem ? Incompetence and preservation of power and control cannot be called out ? The gospel never called us to be nice to each other. Jesus had many occasions of severe righteous anger. Against whom ?
There were many “experts” who said that option 4 would not be good – – hence the letter signed by various DSOs. So I don’t think it’s that “clear”. As a non-expert; I don’t see how either option 3 or 4 gives the Bishops more “power” / “avoidance of scrutiny”. The DSOs can / have an obligation to act without asking for Bishops’ permission – and they all report to the national body which is (now under option 3) independent. I understand how having all the DSOs and national safeguarding in ‘one camp’ can be better. In many ways I’d… Read more »
The primary experts all recommended Option 4. The DSOs have a vested interest in the situation continuing as it is, and should not have interfered. The majority of survivors – those who have actually had to deal with the current system, and know how awful it is – did not have a voice, and are gutted by the decision.
I was challenging the veracity of your assertions – did they ‘purposely ignore’, or actually pay attention, but simply come to disagree? Is to disagree with your perspective only explicable by being asleep, deaf or blind? The Gospel doesn’t call us to be nice, but it does call us to bless, love and pray even for our enemies. And part of that might be to try to take care not to misrepresent or caricature them, perhaps?
As I’ve said before, power and control are the issues, and these are related to apostolic succession and human pride. To be honest, I gave up on bishops and the church hierarchy many decades ago. They do like to dress up. Christianity is better seen in, for example, a missionary I visited in 1975 in Kenya, he was in charge of a remote hospital, did 3 surgeries before breakfast, and drove 50 miles in the evening to lead a eucharist. Or my college mate who was bishop material, but preferred to serve the people of Everton all his ministry. But… Read more »
Bless them all, but I’m not sure it’s reducible to ‘power and control’ being the issues.
They’re not absent from the situation, of course. I just think it’s more multi-dimensional than some commenters perceive.
Of course. Each of us merely adds a little drop to the discussions.
There will never be any progress as long as the Church is dominated by people who don’t doubt the integrity or good intentions of the Synod, or the bishops.
I wonder if there is anything, anything at all, that might make you doubt it. I doubt it.
To an extent though – once you do seriously doubt the integrity of all / most of the key leaders and leadership bodies… isn’t that when you leave?
So Synod (or at least the people able to influence the people on synod) will always be mainly people who have “an element” of respect for the good intentions of the leaders…
“once you do seriously doubt the integrity of all / most of the key leaders and leadership bodies… isn’t that when you leave?”
Or, like the prophet Nehemiah, you can choose to live in the ruins.
Fair – – but Nehemiah was always in the minority…
‘once you do seriously doubt the integrity of all / most of the key leaders and leadership bodies… isn’t that when you leave?’
Thousands have. The C of E has been steadily losing members. And many more will go now. Others will stay, not because they have any confidence in our leadership, but because they don’t want to leave their local churches and their relationships there. Some, frankly, because of their pensions.
I’m someone who has left, in part because the bishops we ended up with in the Diocese were and are a complete embarrassment – there was absolutely no way I could defend their views or behaviour with any integrity and it was damaging my health and sense of self worth being part of such a dysfunctional and often abusive organisation. Most of us slip away quietly and no one really takes much notice, for me it has been a total liberation, I feel like I got out at completely the right time. You certainly learn who your friends are when… Read more »
But the recommendations of IICSA included “Diocesan safeguarding officers should be employed locally, by the Diocese Board of Finance. The diocesan safeguarding officer’s work should be professionally supervised and quality assured by the National Safeguarding Team. The National Safeguarding Team should set the broad requirements for anyone applying to be a diocesan safeguarding officer.” (Recommendation 1 to Anglican Church). Perhaps we should ignore it, but I can understand why synod members may decide to vote in line with an IICSA recommendation.
Prof Jay, who chaired IICSA, recommended complete independence in her more recent review.
This is not completely correct. It is possible, of course, that Prof. Jay took the job only on the basis that her terms of reference would mandate complete independence. But her terms of reference asked her how this could be achieved, not whether it was desirable, and did not ask her to give an opinion on where the interface between safeguarding professionals and the church at its different levels should be.
She has made it abundantly clear since that she does believe Option 4 was the way to go, and is very disappointed at the result.
It may be that option 4 is the way to go. For me, given what the Charity Commission said about the duties of trustees in delivery, option 4 was not sufficiently worked out to demonstrate that it met the Charity Commission concerns. Different reports have focussed on different priorities for sorting things out – eg Dame Moira Gibb on Peter Ball recommended “The House of Bishops should reaffirm and take steps to demonstrate the individual and collective accountability of bishops” and “The Church should ensure that the responsibility for delivering robust and reliable safeguarding arrangements is clearly located in the… Read more »
‘What we need now is a strategic roadmap with all the pieces joined up. Words were said about consistent resourcing and accountability/HR, but they were not in the reports, or with timescales. And we also need a delivery team with a strategic focus and role.’
Clive Billenness proposed a plan for all this, which was not even debated.
Clive Billenness gave his all. He died on Saturday at Heathrow Airport on his way home from General Synod.
https://www.europe.anglican.org/news/latest-news/announcement-death-clive-billenness
Splendid man. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.
Clive was a fine gentleman, passionate and committed to be the voice for victims and survivors. A great loss. Prayers and condolences are for his wife, Linda, and family.
And he was still working on safeguarding at Heathrow, right up until his death. A valiant warrior for truth, and gentle with it. Linda, and all who loved Clive, are facing an immeasurable loss.
The C of E press release issued at the time of her engagement said that she was to look at independent scrutiny mechanisms (option 3); on the same day, another press release from a PR company said she was to look at fully independent safeguarding (option 4). I am trying to clear up this rather important confusion.
The IICSA recommendations were written in 2022 on the basis of what was heard in the inquiry several years previously. Alexis Jay’s report to the C of E was written in 2024 on the basis of a specific and more recent knowledge of the church situation (which had already begun to move on.) Had Option 4 been discussed, I think that it would have been seen that diocesan officers could remain working at local level – but their accountability chain would be different. And that is the root problem. The accountability structure is, in practice, inconsistent and still allows inappropriate… Read more »
“still allows inappropriate intervention or inaction by individual bishops in different dioceses“
Was that not already changed – when we went from DSAs to DSOs – that they are now empowered to act without any need to inform the Bishop before making a referral or similar.
Certainly I have been told that is the case, that a DSO is meant to operate to their standards and doesn’t need to ask the Bishop or even tell the Bishop before they do something.
And if the bishop is the subject of the safeguarding complaint? The Archdeacon of Liverpool, in a speech, said their recent crisis would have been less difficult if the DSA hadn’t been responsible to the bishop.
What had the allegations against the Bishop of Liverpool to do with safeguarding?
H was accused of sexual assaults and sexual harassment of two women junior to him.
Were they children or vulnerable adults? We should avoid using ‘safeguarding’ as the means to air non-applicable allegations.
I, at least, am confused. Smyth, in some cases, was dealing with over 18 yr olds. Other cases of spiritual abuse have been with over 18 yr olds. Codes of conduct should certainly handle behaviours between over 18 yr olds, such as bullying or coercion, plus of course sexual conduct. They may also cover behaviours between 18 yr olds when under 18 yr olds are involved (e.g. how we interact with parents). I have never yet met a non-vulnerable adult, a major plank of the Christian faith is that we are all vulnerable. So, I have always thought that safeguarding… Read more »
Anyone is vulnerable when being abused by someone more powerful. I was groped as a curate by my training incumbent, and it was safeguarding who (decades later, and ineffectually) dealt with it.
The distinction between ‘vulnerable’ and ‘not vulnerable’ in safeguarding isn’t helpful. It ignores that everyone is vulnerable in certain circumstances. And vitally, it ignores the fact that predators will target anyone they think they can get away with abusing. When someone has been identified as a predator, safeguarding needs to kick in to protect others.
If an ordained person is accused of ‘conduct unbecoming’ they can be arraigned under the Clergy Discipline Measure. No doubt that will also be true of the replacement for the CCM, which is under construction.
‘Safeguarding’ isn’t the cure-all you would like it to be. If complainants are necessarily vulnerable and to be believed before their allegations are tested, the corollary is that the alleged perpetrators are guilty before they can respond. We have seen the consequence in the case of the late Bishop Bell.
Is this part of the problem? CCM, CDM, Safeguarding are not joined up?
My mental model was that they were all the same thing, but maybe my mental model was of where it should go, not where it is.
I’m beginning to run out of enthusiasm for the topic within CoE. Bigger fish to fry.
I described not only how I think it should be, but how it is. My own case was described as a safeguarding one, and I was not what you would call a ‘vulnerable adult’.
By whom?
By the NST and a diocesan safeguarding team.
I wonder if we are at cross purposes here. Perhaps a miscreant priest might be dealt with under a CDM, but the victim/s of abuse perpetrated by that priest dealt with by safeguarding personnel?
If not, who supports any victims of a priest disciplined under a CDM or CCM? And who ensures that such a priest doesn’t target anyone else?
I think it is called ‘divide and rule’.
Thank you for this elucidation.
You raise two further questions. In answer to the first, pastoral care is a prime function of the Church’s ministry, which I don’t think can be outsourced.
Second, if a priest is judged guilty of an offence, the penalty should evaluate that person’s tendency, or otherwise, to continue misbehaving, but nothing can actually prevent recidivism.
This discussion originated with unproven allegations and speculation about the former Bishop of Liverpool. He has paid a very heavy price. Who provides him with pastoral care?
The Bishop of Warrington has also paid a very heavy price. I hope they are both receiving pastoral care, as well as the Chelmsford complainant.
However, I’d like to point out that good pastoral care, which we should be extending to all who need it, is not a substitute for the specialist care usually needed by those who have been sexually assaulted.
Sadly because they fell for the song and dance act… then the amendment was passed. The trouble with ambitious self-publicists, even intelligent ones, is they can be very easy to manipulate behind the scenes. As in so many things, I suspect some behind the scenes ‘organising’ has gone on before Mr Bo-Jangles took to the stage. As I’ve written elsewhere, had we not seen the ways this world works (Nye, Abp Council et al) the amendment would be perfectly reasonable in my view. But we have seen what we have seen, and now I wait for the tactics and obfuscation… Read more »
I think my comment above merely repeats what Martine Oborne wrote: It seems particularly extraordinary that Synod should choose not to follow the advice of most survivors of abuse, who were campaigning outside for full independence; its own lead bishop on safeguarding, the Rt Revd Joanne Grenfell; the Chair of the recent independent report into child sex abuse that it commissioned, Professor Alexis Jay; and the Second Church Estates Commissioner who represents Parliament at Synod, Marsha de Cordova MP. For reasons that are hard to comprehend, Synod instead decided to follow the advice of the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt… Read more »
I also note from Maria de Cordova’s article that the majority of laity did see the value of fully independent safeguarding so it appears that the clergy and bishops are those who still need persuading that the church needs outside expertise and scrutiny in this area. It’s therefore quite hard not to draw the conclusion there’s still at least a measure of ‘protecting ourselves and our colleagues’ going on. This is a contemporary problem not a historic, or perhaps I should say not only a historic, one. Since Christmas we have had the Chelmsford and Liverpool situations and the conviction… Read more »
Sorry. My previous post contained an error. It should read ‘the ex-Bishop of Swansea and Brecon (1999-2008)’.
Nigel your analysis is spot on but it’s not difficult to comprehend why they went for Bishop North’s suggestion – the bishops really do think that they’re in some way above mere mortals and have insights that safeguarding experts like Professor Jay don’t have. They managed to dupe their fellow synod members that that is the case. The saints preserve us.
Other bishops spoke in support of option 4 actually. Not one voice on this.
It was utterly shocking that the House of Bishops did not, in effect, support their Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. This potential permacrisis might turn into a real one. The House should have voted unanimously to defeat the North amendment (Item 38) (in the vote by houses) and make clear that Model 4 was the only game in town. The trouble is that North was put up to this by quite a few fellow bishops, and also by the concerted effort of DSOs to avoid voting for Christmas. They think the Charity Commission is on their side. It is not that… Read more »
The House should have… But it didn’t. There are cogent viewpoints, articulated by intelligent, thoughtful figures like Andrew Brown and Ian Paul who point out the questions outstanding around the Option 4 proposal. ‘Experts’ can be wrong, can’t they, and ‘the Nation’ may not be as univocal as asserted here. Doing right here isn’t obvious, or we’d all agree. Personally, Option 4 sounds like a theoretical utopianism to me. No one knows, in truth, what it would actually turn out to be, what mistakes the fallible people within its currently notional reality would find themselves making, or what the unintended… Read more »
Why are we talking about DSOs voting for Christmas in relation to option 4?
Wasn’t it clarified that they would all have job security and even a chance for more career progression if vote 4 happened?
AA’s words, not mine.
But maybe the DSOs didn’t believe those assurances?
i see they are showing old episodes of Eldorado. Brought back fond memories of the beautiful Pilar.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected (see above). I suspected there had been behind the scenes ‘organising’ going on that needed a convenient ambitious self-publicist to roll out their song and dance act once again…
The problem is not that we have been passing the buck too much, but that we have been maintaining a vice-like grip on it when we should have handed it to someone who actually knew what to do with it. And now the Church has continued its arrogant refusal to admit the scale of its failure and its inability to get safeguarding right. Survivors like me, and many others I know, had begun to hold a little bit of hope that real change might be on the way. We should have known better. The C of E is always saying… Read more »
My amendment to affirm our commitment to “total” independence was specifically designed to make Synod decide and publish its decision unamiguously It decided that it rejected meaningful independence from top to bottom. I highlighted that option 3 was ” the suppliers’ preference” It came from the 106 DSAs. The Church privileged them by paying for a legal opinion; no balancing offer of paying for a legal opinion was made for survivors. This Church never does ” equality of arms” These 106 DSAs picked up their pitchforks on this issue: they had sat on their hands for years as the victims… Read more »
Prof. Jay, Marsha de Cordova and Helen King see this clearly and display integrity. I had hoped (silly me) our representatives on Synod would do likewise. What transpired was amateurism and it was incredibly disappointing. Yet again, it limits accountability, transparency and professionalism. The pain remains with abused victims and clergy as your comment indicates.
Thank you, Martin, for all you have done over the years, and this week, to advance the cause of good safeguarding, and compassion and justice for complainants. It’s not your fault that successive sessions of Synod have refused to listen.
I think there is now no hope for the C of E unless Parliament steps in to wrest safeguarding out of our sticky hands.
Martin, I am ‘addressing’ this ‘reply’ to you, as you were there at Synod, and spoke. I am hoping you may be able to assist. IIUC, from viewing online, and not being a member of Synod, the voting on Item 38 (regarding ‘option 3.5’) was counted by houses, as follows: Bishops: For 23; against 14; abstentions 1 Clergy: For 114; against 65; abstentions 2 Laity: For 106; against 86; abstentions 3 Taking the ‘classifications’ from the list of members provide upthread by the TA moderators, this suggests that 11 bishops did not vote. Had they voted against then the item… Read more »
Synod had a wonderful opportunity begin to redress the profound injustice and woundedness regarding Safeguarding: to choose Option 4. Why does the Church of England take the halfway house option? Our Church history is full of these mealy-mouthed compromises which cost both current and later generations too much. Why wasn’t Option 4 given a full discussion alongside Option 3 so that Synod members could discuss each Option fully before any vote took place? Even car insurance websites allow us to compare and contrast!! Given the importance of the subject matter any rules and regulations about due process could have been… Read more »
Worth recalling the very interesting CofE way in which lay general synod members are elected. It is a system that lends itself to being taken over by narrow interest groups, rather than being at all representative of membership as a whole.
I thought everyone living in the parish or attending for 6 months can be on the electoral roll, and, therefore, eligible to stand for election as a Deanery Synod rep. Everyone on the electoral roll can attend the APCM and is eligible to vote for Deanery Synod reps. I would have thought that, as a result, Deanery Synod reps could be anyone on the electoral roll.
In practice, especially in small churches, it tends to be anyone who is prepared to do it. Our deanery synods meet three times a year and meetings tend to be a) finance b) what diocesan/national initiative are we going to be expected to do next c) attempts to create a deanery community (e.g a service or training that few attend) d) a talk from a charity. I have been a deanery synod rep and have never felt part of the deanery community.
I too have been a Deanery Synod rep for six years. The agenda for the meetings was dominated by the Area Dean. The meetings were merely talking shops and served no purpose whatsoever.
As long as they have time to attend the meetings. Which is not the case for those at home with young children, those who work shifts, and those without transport to get to the meetings.
Electoral Roll Officers have far too much power to exclude people from electoral rolls. I know a case where a person was removed for a reason that does not even exist in law, as even the archdeacon acknowledged. The only way to address such an injustice is by an appeal. The Archdeacon said apeals typically cost thousands of pounds (because the diocese use a solicitor on the panel at £270 per hour) and offered mediation. A few weeks later, after being told the appellant would not be willing to pay thousands of pounds, the offer of mediation was withdrawn without… Read more »
“The General Synod does not comprise of decent people who only want to do their best.” What a sweeping statement and what an insult!
That is the only conclusion I can draw from a unanimous decision to remove the word reasonable from the phrase “reasonable expenses”.
The only purpose I can see was to preclude any effective appeal, and hand total power to EROs to act as they please because, as with other areas in the church, there is no accountability.They do not want it.
Can you see any other explanation?
Whatever the thinking behind a particular vote at GS, stating that GS is not comprised of decent people is unacceptable. In my humble opinion the word “reasonable” has no precise, measurable meaning. It is open to interpretation and frequently results in prolonged legal wrangling.
If they were decent people they would accept that a system where EROs can remove a member for a reason which does not even exist in law, and nothing can be done about it except at an absurd cost of thousands of pounds, is unacceptable. Especially so when the on-line introduction to the rules claims that Rule 4(8)was brought in to prevent names being wrongly removed. It clealy isn’t working as purportedly intended. Decent people would not allow this nonsense to go on. I accept “reasonable expenses” may be vague. Why not state a precise cost? Why present a version… Read more »
There is clearly no point continuing this discussion as you have clearly judged all GS members and found them wanting.
The reason Model 4 fell is that no one put a good enough reason to adopt it. Model 4 was all about process without the detail and no one could explain how it would work in practice. No organisation can out source something for which it has sole legal liability and there are many such organisations in the C of E. The amendment adopted was about putting in place something that was workable in practice whilst the implications of model 4 was worked out in more detail. Unfortunately many Bishops have a track record of setting out what they want… Read more »
A number of speakers put good reasons to adopt Option 4. Among them were our absolute failure to manage safeguarding well in the past and present, and demonstrated inability to do so in the future. The Archdeacon of Liverpool also pointed out that their recent crisis would have been easier to handle if safeguarding had been outsourced – conflicts of interest are a big problem in the C of E. Clive Billenness put an amendment that outside experts be commissioned to set up the new organisation, but Synod rejected that. It wasn’t the reasons that were lacking, but the will.
It depends how you define safeguarding and vulnerability. In the arena of children and vulnerable adults (according to statutory definitions), Jim Gamble and his team of INEQE auditors have given the thumbs up: the Church is in a very different place than it was in the past, which is confirmed by practitioners at the coalface. Model 4 was a non-starter, both legally and operationally. And the Liverpool case would have been beyond the external body’s remit. No. Defective systems of governance and management arise from the interface between ecclesiastical law and HR, rather than safeguarding in the strict sense of the… Read more »
‘confirmed by practitioners at the coalface’ – but not by many complainants, whose treatment has not improved. Ask the Bishop of Warrington, who was placed on indefinite ‘study leave’, when she dared to complain about her diocesan; or the Bishop of Newcastle, when both archbishops pressured her to give Sentamu PTO despite his belief that ‘church law trumps safeguarding’. This is why safeguarding needs to be taken out of the hands of the hierarchy, and placed with an independent organisation. Clive Billenness proposed a way in which Option 4 could have been worked out, but his amendment was defeated. And… Read more »
But that is precisely my point! Adopting Model 4 by taking safeguarding out of the hands of the hierarchy, and placing it with an independent organisation, wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcome of the case you cite. The statutory definition of safeguarding doesn’t apply to non-vulnerable adults. A complaint of sexual harassment can be made under the Equality Act 2010. An employee of the diocese (or cathedral) can invoke the statutory grievance procedures or resign, claiming constructive unfair dismissal for repudiatory breach of contract and its implied term of trust and confidence. But officeholders are not party to any… Read more »
Who cares about statutory definitions of safeguarding? My athletic clubs,through UK athletics, covers codes of conduct between non-vulnerable adults, for example between coaches and between coaches and parents.
UK athletics has codes of conduct for adults. I assume other similar organisations do too.
https://www.hernehillharriers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/codes-of-conduct-parents-carers.pdf
https://www.hernehillharriers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/codes-of-conduct-coaches.pdf_0.pdf_1.pdf
Everyone is vulnerable when there is an imbalance of power, and they are in the weaker position. And we may all be vulnerable for reasons of e.g. bereavement or illness.
I would go much further. I see being vulnerable as the other side of being hard of heart. I see it as something positive. Dostoevsky’s The Idiot was ‘vulnerable’, but would you want it any other way?
I try to be an idiot at least once a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSg3IeP7m64
https://youtu.be/sGnhyoP_DSc?si=8rOhnoz-9quC9Oqw
“People tell me it’s a sin
To know and feel too much within”
I struggle with that assessment, but then I wasn’t there. And now we are entering the realm of weasel words and synod cuddling After the direct intervention of Bishop North, one tribal leader , we have Ian Paul, from another wing writing emollient articles . ‘The people on synod are not evil or stupid or cowardly or self interested’( I hope that’s in the right order) It was a great debate reaching a defensible conclusion as long as you give survivors as a block one vote equal to one each for all the many suppliers and vested interests who of… Read more »
Well said. Dont just stop digging when in a hole also try to ensure the dirt doesnt fall on you
The only difference between a hole, a rut and a grave is the depth and the length.
“The DSOs are a particular worry to me, which includes their professional qualifications”
Serious question: how many people who signed that letter have “professional qualifications” (particularly ones which make them regulated professionals subject to regulatory action by a professional body) and how many of them are well-intentioned generalists who happen to have ended up in a safeguarding role?
A very good question. For starters, can anyone list what professional qualifications in safeguarding exist?
Well, some of them will be social workers, who are regulated by BASW and it is likely that BASW would see their work in safeguarding as being in scope.
But I randomly looked up a few of the signatories to the letter, and I got several retired police officers some of whom had worked in child protection. That’s not unreasonable, but a retired police officer neither holds professional qualifications nor is regulated. A retired police officer working for diocese X has no oversight other than diocese X, who would also be responsible for any discipinary or development needs.
Indeed so, if you read Fr Ian Gomersall’s account of what happened to him on his blog, you will see a very clear example of why this is a problem.
BASW is one of the trade unions for social workers. The regulatory and registration body for social workers is Social Work England.
That actually is an excellent question. Is there a standard DSO job description? Does it require a professional qualification and / or relevant experience? Are they offered professional supervision and support outside their diocese if necessary ? I was assuming ( and probably wrongly I now realise) that DSOs were likely to be experienced police officers or social workers whose jobs would have offered regular Child Protection training. In Local Authorities the LADO who is responsible for evaluating concerns about abuse of children by people in a position of trust is usually a very experienced social worker who has undertaken… Read more »
Several Universities offer Safeguarding MScs to professionals and the NSPCC have a list of training they offer which is specific to children and young people’s safety. Much online training is run by private companies and needs to be carefully and critically accessed. I have no idea what standard of training and experience the dioceses require of their DSOs.
I find Martin Sewell’s comments above truthful, forceful and we desperately need to hear them said. His comments about DSAs and now these comments using their new title of DSOs particularly I find significant. Many have no legal training and yet are dealing with legal issues. An amateurish attitude picked up by Lord Carlile. In the case of my supporting my friend in a wrongful allegation for which in five years there was no investigation or scrutiny of evidence our concerns about the DSA (as she was then called) were considerable. I wrote to the Diocesan Secretary and asked,”what professional… Read more »
Safeguarding is a new discipline and will take time to mature. The idea that there is a perfect fully fledged solution somewhere out there which can be simply bolted onto the C of E is nonsense. It does not exist. Safeguarding in the C of E is evolving just as it is in every other institution. What is important is the direction of travel.
Sorry to get philosophical or theological here, but I’d ask whether ‘Safeguarding’ as a unitary, universal, reified ‘thing’ really exists. In the same sense that I’d query whether ‘management’ as a unitary, stand-alone context-free discipline is a helpful notion (see Andrew Brown’s piece). It always seemed fair – if time consuming – that I had to do large amounts of different training in Safeguarding, for my church roles and then my school roles. The contexts were somewhat different, and while the principles were transferable, the practice was not.
Velocity matters. Of course, there are some particular features of CoE which make it unique, but not as many as some seem to think. As Jay and many others have said, CoE lags behind many secular organisations. Why? Maybe because the synod slowly moves by votes?
I think rather than seeing courses on safeguarding leading to a good DSO/DSA it is more important to insist that the DSA is externally accredited with a regulating body and acts in accordance with those professional standards and not those of the church. External accreditation protects the DSA’s and means there is a complaint route for those feeling let down by their services. As a survivor who worked bloody hard to get external accreditation I was fed up by the number of times the word ‘accredited’ was said at synod. The church is not a regulating body, their courses are… Read more »
Patricia I thought most DSOs/safeguarding advisors still were social workers or externally regulated professionals , and clearly I was wrong . This makes me even more despondent. DSOs need to be externally regulated and so does the majority of the NST otherwise it all becomes a self-perpetuating group who want to be seen as the good and sensible guys who don’t rock the boat . There is also the small matter of educational and class distinction here as most male Bishops are still fairly straightforwardly PSBs and Oxbridge ( interesting that Bishop North seems only to have made the full… Read more »
On this general topic my wife is (and has been for many years) an approved mental health social worker, and spends much of her time in court and carrying out section assessments. She has to undergo regular (3 year?) extensive evaluations to maintain her certification, and this involves keeping up to date with the evolving laws (including mental health law updates and any definitions of ‘at risk’). Every warrant she seeks from a judge has to have a risk assessment. She deals with several warrants a week. All the above ‘facts’ are heresay, we don’t spend much of our time… Read more »
Analysis of what occurred in synod is important but only as a basis for future planning as to the next steps for the safeguarding policy in our church. Understanding as we do the vested interests of the parties involved in manipulating the result, we must develop a strategy which is both coherent and legally possible to challenge the invidious decision of synod which, potentially will allow more people to be abused in our church. Our pastoral duty of protection to all who are vulnerable must be our prime concern.
As some have noted before, Synod bears a greater relationship to a soviet than it does with any genuinely representative deliberative body, and this is most especially the case with respect to the house of laity. It is essentially packed, and it has scant legitimacy. A legislature which cannot approve a budget or censure office holders is both performative and largely negative. Personally, I don’t even think option 4 went far enough, insofar as any agency funded by the Church cannot ever be sincerely at arms’ length: it would always be subject to the active or tacit ‘suasion’ of the… Read more »
Thank you Froghole,
with good people like you with a encyclopeadic understanding of history we could yet see true reformation repentance and a new form of ecclesia rise from the ashes of the old.
While Synod deserves some criticism, far more should be directed at the Response Group (I can’t remember it’s proper name) and the episcopate more generally. I don’t think Option 3 should have been put to Synod but even more it is clear that Synod was not fully and properly briefed. Part of the problem is that Synod is overloaded with paperwork and things like the Gloucester legal advice was sent to Synod members at the eleventh hour and far too late to allow any sensible reaction. For instance, there should have been legal briefings on the Charity Commission letters. And… Read more »
Yes, target dates would be normal in most secular organisations. I don’t follow the details, but my impression was that option 4 wasn’t really debated or put to the vote.
Proposals that would have allowed Model 4 to be debated, voted on and adopted were consistently determined to be ‘out of order’ (i.e ‘not how we do things here’). The suggestion made by Adrian up thread that; ‘The reason Model 4 fell is that no one put a good enough reason to adopt it’ has been resisted by Janet Fife- indeed the speech by the Second Church Commissioner Marsha de Cordova MP and repeated at the head of this thread, spoke directly, and on behalf of the nation, begging that Model 4 be adopted. It’s not a shortage of folk… Read more »
You point to a leadership vacuum at the top of the church at present, with no ABC and the ABY effectively barred from participating in this debate, and why the usually outspoken bishop of Newcastle or the Bishop of London didn’t speak in support of Model 4 is a complete mystery.
She has now posted her views.
But if she doesn’t speak up in debates, what use is that? A passive/aggressive approach is the worst type of leadership.
It is clear that progressives and responsible traditionalists are united in their determination to address the dreadful failures in care within the Church of England.
That is cause for thankfulness
Why do you think that is? Anything to do with views on apostolic succession and authority of bishops and their entourage?
Whom do you exclude in your description of progressives and responsible traditionalists?
Not at all sure I understand your point.
Presumably irresponsible traditionalists are excluded!
Most safeguarding failures so far appear to have been in the evangelical and Anglo-catholic wings of the church, with less (any?) amongst liberals. That’s maybe why Peter sees the issue being addressed by (all) progressives, but only responsible traditionalists.
If that pattern continues to hold, it suggests that a more open and enquiring faith protects believers against the risk of abuse and/or makes them less likely to abuse others. Which will give traditionalists food for thought about whether liberal approaches might helpfully play a part in conservative belief and formation.
i think that was what I was alluding to. It seems reasonable, although I have zero verifiable evidence, that sectors of the church which are more inclined to believe in authority, whether by apostolic succession (anglo-cathlic) or by reputation (conservative evangelicals) are more open to fall prey to failures.
Any correlation between failures and attitudes to female ordination or same-sex marriage, which some seem to propose, I see as confounding factors.
The real factors are power and control.
Good article by Helen King. It’s funny, I only came across TA a couple of months ago because of a minor spat with her (whom I had never heard of up to that point), when I thought one of her quotes to The Guardian could have been more nuanced. No doubt the fault of the journalist. Concerning 3, 4 and 3.5. I asked originally, was it a stitch up? Reading the general tenor of these comments, yes i consider it a stitch up. Karl Popper stated ‘The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.’ and it is inevitable that disagreement… Read more »
An aside: it is a long time since IO saw a reference to the book by Thoulness. I was set to read it in the sixth form in the 1950s and it stood me in good stead as an undergraduate. In discussions at Synod, it would appear that his good advice is still much wanted.
Forgive the typo in my first sentence, ‘IO’ should be ‘I’. There’s no connection to Interested Observer who is sometimes abbreviated to IO. If only I had smaller fingers
Shh. Don’t tell Trump. If he thinks Apple are giving women an unfair advantage over men (smaller fingers), he might ban iPhones.
Bishop of Newcastle’s letter disabuses some here of issues with option 4.
Her second to last para is powerful.
Bishop Helen-Ann is a wonderful breath of fresh air. I see safeguarding as important but it seems to be getting in the way of our witness to and preaching of the Gospel in word and sacrament which we should be all about doing! It reminds me of the earlier child protection emphasis. When I worked in Social services, it was the magic button to press to release all kinds of resources and no questions asked. How relevant is this to so many of our parishes which deal with any issues if and when they arise, quietly and with no fuss?… Read more »
And leave all those who have been savaged from within bleeding quietly in the hedgerows and ditches?
You don;t think the belief by the younger generation that the church is irrelevant and full of paedophiles, however unbased on facts, does nothing to hinder evangelism?
My observation of this debate may or may not be useful but thought i would share. 20 or so years ago, I worked as the property manager in a diocese. Clergy Housing and Glebe and other bits and bobs. Part of the role required management of the building of new vicarages. This required budget management, nodding to the ‘Green Guide’ and appointing a professional team to oversee the design and build. The appointed architect, with details of the land and site and budget would produce initial sketches, I would discuss the ideas with them and then instruct them to draw… Read more »
Could it be that the lack of a strong sense of identity and ‘skill set’–theological education, church history, knowledge of the distinct era of the Church of England before his/her time, pastoral acumen gained from having made mistakes–the ‘Bishop’ must grab hold of the nearest thing to genuine internal strength: external presentation, pomp, ‘I’m a Bishop!’ ism. Throw in an ‘established church’ and a bench of colleagues like yourself, and you have a good reason to see what you have experienced. And this can become epidemic. Rowan Williams in his book on Arius spoke of three domains: the monks (intellectual… Read more »
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Your thoughts are interesting and I will be thinking more on them. Bob
Bob, I think you will find there are more like Anglican Priest, but ‘taking the time to reply’ can be hard to find, esp if a thoughtful contribution is to be made. Sadly, architects are considered by many to be ‘airheads’, not grounded in reality, with poor regard of costs and seeking to change the world- rather like clergy it may be thought. Sadly the ‘planning system’ has been plagued by folk who ‘know better’ regarding window sizing, positioning, materials, etc, etc. Power dynamics, groupthink etc are also at play, despite being well-researched. Deference is another factor in the other… Read more »
Power dynamics and groupthink…key phrases in this context. Would love to hear more from you. I appreciate commenting on blogs takes time though. Bob
great analogy. to answer your questions, of course this is the natural tendency in secular organisations. Throw in ideas of apostolic succession, laying on of hands, fancy dresses, grand cathedrals and music, and a natural ability for verbal communication and persuasion, and there you have it. Power and control. early in my career,I was in the London office and the head office was in Denver. The company was going through tough times. the CEO came over to talk to the london office. He spent 45 minutes showing all kinds of slides. Then he asked for any questions. We were all… Read more »
Back of the room juniors are the best! I have my own story from the Diocese of Exeter but would not get through the editorial controls. Believe me!
I appreciate your reply – all makes complete sense. Bob
I’d just observe I’ve seen and been into some very poorly designed Parsonages built in the last 50 years.
Ha!
Don’t blame the Parsonges Secretary – all the fault of those pesky committees!
I haven’t blamed the Parsonages Secretary. I’m not very impressed by the quality of some architects though.
Bob, I find your observations very interesting. I have seen in the discernment process clergy making psychological assessments of candidates which are really the preserve of qualified and regulated professionals, and the defensiveness of those running such processes when that is pointed out. Unfortunately, raising such concerns was met with a response that ‘The Church knows best’ (an attitude seemingly alive and well in recent days), and criticism that I was somehow against the Church being safe; in actual fact, my concerns about such flawed psychological assessments was that people unsuitable for ministry would be sponsored for ministry on the… Read more »
I too have been reading through other responses. The fear of relying on professional opinion. Alive and kicking it would seem.
Thank you for replying. I’m a first time commenter here and appreciate you coming back to me. Your similar experiences are so interesting. Bob
Thanks, Bob. I should say that I have encountered many great clergy down the years, and also other clergy who I fear are capable of great damage. I never cease to be amazed by the attitude amongst senior clergy that skills such as psychological assessments can be taught on a couple of away days, when lay professionals spend years in training, take higher degrees, become members of regulatory bodies, etc. It is a breathtakingly arrogant attitude. At the nub of this is (I believe) a latent attitude that the laity are an inconvenience when it comes to Church governance; that… Read more »
Not only does ‘the Church know best’ but it also prefers ‘people like us’. This latter tendency is well known, and not only in ‘the church’. That the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) shows certain ‘combinations’ as leading to ‘typical jobs’ (such as ‘priest’) suggests some correlation surely worthy of research in an organisation as big (and important?) as ‘the church’ informing its selection discernment procedures. Regarding ‘recent events at Synod’ it is hard to resist notions working through that ‘bishops know best’, especially amongst laity where the vote for Item 38 (i.e. Option ‘3.5’) was closest. By my reckoning (I… Read more »
Maybe he and Synod were listening to the many safeguarding experts employed by the C of E who were fearful of their jobs being outsourced?
It sounded to me (i listened to the debate on-line) you may well be right.
It’s beyond words if that was the case!
Or not being regarded as ‘sufficiently expert’ if a greater spotlight was shone on their level of qualification by an outside body taking them over?
So fire them all?
And burn everything down! Not what I’m saying… Maybe have an independent body to consider , in the cool light of day, what their qualifications should be? And aim for consistency?
Before I retired I worked with a couple of excellent DSAs as they were then, Both had a social work background, and were externally regulated. Funny that… I think this is where the debate came in
Probably being inept as always, but did the debate about DBFs raiding (liberating?) money from the CCs get debated? Or kicked somewhere into the long grass?
The item was taken after lunch on Friday afternoon and was “adjourned”.
See the report at https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/business-done-14-february-2025-afternoon.pdf.
It did not get kicked into the long grass – Michael Beasley (who was leading the item) gave a remarkable speech asking for an adjournment so that a serious matter could be given proper time.
In the National Governance Measure debate, an amendment in favour of parishes was passed.
Thank you. Kicked into the short grass maybe. I hope it gets that time and attention. I’m not sure what I think about the proposal, and have a fear that it may lead to ultimately unsustainable models of mission and ministry being kept alive for just a bit longer, rather than applying resource where growing disciples is most likely to happen, to sustain the church into the future. But I may well be wrong, and it’s a healthy debate to be having.
That underlies the debate though – are parish churches struggling because they are no longer fit for purpose or because the financial system is stripping away resources leaving them underfunded. Are resource churches a successful model because they are fit for purpose, or because they are having money pumped into them like there’s no tomorrow? And is part of the problem that gathered urban churches have the economies of scale that rural churches don’t, and therefore the SDF approach is less about backing a winning model but just putting money where ministry is easier?
“are parish churches struggling because they are no longer fit for purpose or because the financial system is stripping away resources leaving them underfunded” Presumably the two phenomena have a symbiotic relationship with each other. Church and state have eliminated all of the foundations of parish finance save voluntary donations: (i) compulsory church rate, which went in 1868 (which financed the buildings barring the chancels); (ii) tithe, which went in 1936-77 (which financed the clergy and chancels); (iii) glebe, which went in 1976 (which financed the clergy); and (iv) fees, which went in 2011. However, forcing parishes to depend upon… Read more »
My (blurred) memory of those years is that the House of Clergy voted consistently for the changes you describe here. They were more worried about their own pay and pensions than anything else. Indeed it was anxiety over the pension bill which led the Commissioners into their speculation in land and subsequent disaster. Again, I could be wrong. For most of those years I was writing about other things. But I am sure that the Carey/Turnbull scheme involved centralising control of the finances and diminishing parishes’ autonomy and financial independence.
Many thanks! In addition to the excellent reportage by your colleagues Martin Wroe, Vivek Chaudhary, Frank Kane, Dan Atkinson, etc., there was also the work of John Plender at the FT, Ruth Gledhill at The Times, etc., and books by Terry Lovell (1997) and Andrew Chandler (2006 – the second volume of the official history). Essentially, the Commissioners had come to do too much relative to their base capital (the episcopal and capitular estates appropriated by the then Ecclesiastical Commissioners after 1840) which had waxed during the 1950s and 1960s thanks to the investment strategies of Mortimer Warren and Malcolm… Read more »
This should be emblazoned on banners being brought into Synod. Blazon hanging on the wall of Bishops’ gatherings. Letterheads addressed to the Monarch: “Of the nearly 7,200 churches where I have attended services, fewer than 1% have viable congregations, and many will be extinct within the next few years.” One cultural question I have pondered that I trust M. Froghole to address with acuity. To what degree do those without much religious interest or fidelity, who hold levers of parliamentary and other powers, want the Church of England around–even in massively reduced state, if so it be–because a Monarchy without… Read more »
Many thanks, as ever. I suspect that the overwhelming majority in both chambers, and now regardless of party, are completely indifferent to the fate of the Church of England. I wonder how difficult it has been to recruit even nominal Anglicans to the ecclesiastical committee. It was noteworthy that there was a significant lapse of time – 3 months – before a new second commissioner was appointed by Starmer, which may indicate how little he thinks of the role and of the Church in general (assuming he thinks of it at all). I wonder whether No. 10 had to be… Read more »
Thanks as always. So in a word, the health of the Monarchy as an institution requires nothing from the Monarch’s role vis-a-vis the CofE. If the latter slowly dies and/or is disestablished, it is a matter indifferent so far as the Monarchy is concerned. I suppose I was thinking of the fate of European monarchies more generally and the place (meager) they hold in latterly confected democratic rule.
Thank you, Froghole. As always, a very useful read. Your last paragraph says ‘provision of worship…is most important’. The Church Times reported briefly a few weeks ago on some research in NE England which suggested that if you provide services, people come. That is the only reference I have seen and it has dropped from view, no idea why. Might be worth another look, perhaps mapping it onto your wide experience around the country.
Indeed, and many thanks: there is a tendency to get less and less out of less and less, although when I mentioned this to one incumbent in an especially benighted part of Lincoln diocese, the rather illuminating response I got was “So what?”. Over the last seven or so years (since the amendment to Canon B11.1 in 2016) there has been a significant diminution in the amount of worship, and I cannot help but think that this has accelerated decline, especially in multi-parish benefices where the reform was used as an excise to reduce several churches in a benefice, or… Read more »
I always look forward to Mr Froghole’s contributions for he’s taught me a lot over the years, and so it is with some trepidation that I question m’Learned Friend. He has visited far more churches than any of us and so his opinion is of great matter, and in contrast to his enormous breadth of sight, I’ve remained in my Hurstbourne Tarrant silo – but here have dived deep – and I wonder at his statement that “fewer than 1% have viable congregations”. Over the years I’ve analysed our attendance, breaking it down into all the services and come to… Read more »
Very many thanks, Mr Nash! I have fond recollections of touring your benefice, and even got to Faccombe when it revived regular worship for a while (I had long thought it was a lost cause). Yes, I do scrutinise registers if they happen to be accessible in vestries which are not locked. Occasionally, it is possible – and especially interesting – to read registers which go back decades. In many places the numbers are not much worse than they were when I attended services. I have also read volumes of episcopal registers or registers of archdeacons’ visitations published by county… Read more »
Thanks… I agree with some of your conclusions but am a bit more optimistic that some ( definitely not all) parishes would properly benefit from a greater clerical presence, especially in parishes which are more socially challenging. Though no parish us actually without challenge. A near neighbour of mine in the 80s wondered if there was going to be a Suburban Church Fund…. I’m staggered at 7,200 Church service visits. One a week would take 140 years… Just how old are you? 😉. What’s been your method? I do think more than 1 % are viable but… viability isn’t something… Read more »
Very many thanks, Mr Hobbs. I am 49. I have attended very many more services than one a week over the last couple of decades, and for a long time it has been well in excess of 500 services a year. Inevitably this means starting very early (I leave home well before dawn), and being ruthless about arriving late and/or leaving early (which I hate). It also means taking advantage of as many afternoon or evening services as may be available, and getting to as much as possible during Holy Week and Advent when there are more services to be… Read more »
That’s an impressive commitment Froghole! I’m not sure that in these parts Midweek services are a reliable guide to Sunday strength. No doubt the feel of things might be picked up.
“Also, too often, basic information about service times is lacking”
I’m astonished that I see church noticeboards without a hint of service times… Shere I know they have services every week. Bizzare…
Safe travels….
For me, midweek services are a comparative rarity. They do occur frequently in Advent, especially for churches with festival status where there may be little or no Sunday provision. There are some churches which only offer mid-week services: St Clement’s Skegness, East Barkham or Metton in Norfolk, St Lawrence Warminster, etc., are examples of this. In terms of advertising worship, there are still a number of churches which have nothing online, nothing on notice boards and (even if they are open) no information inside. There are also a good many churches which have excellent websites which tell you all your… Read more »
Fascinating, thank you. Just a couple of observations. Glebe and fees have been centralized, but they continue to contribute to Diocesan stipends funds, don’t they? And while the legal fiduciary obligations of CCs, DBFs and PCCs as charities are real, one would hope that bonds of unity, grace and love within the body of Christ would imply other financial perspectives and relationships between them, presumably? Perhaps I am being naive.
Many thanks! Glebe was centralised by means of transfers to DBFs rather than nationally. Some dioceses have considerable amounts of glebe (c. £100m in the case of the Lincoln DBF, which has the largest of all glebe endowments), but others are much more modestly endowed and so have to rely on investment income. The experience of Lincoln shows where the legal/fiduciary obligations of trustees to increase returns to a trust tend to collide with the unity and grace to which you refer. The DBFs (which are latecomers to the ecclesiastical ecosystem) are limited companies, and their ‘mem & arts’ –… Read more »
I’m wondering about the relationship between the Beasley proposal and the Walker motion? Does ‘Beasley’ take away money that under ‘Walker’ could go to funding poorer parishes? If the money from Beasley goes pro rata to the dioceses from whence it came, it won’t necessarily end up supporting poorer parishes in the poorest dioceses, and will it deplete the funds which could do this under Walker?
These were two different ways of addressing the financial priorities of the national church. The ‘Walker” amendment addresses a principle that the cure of souls in the poorest parishes should be top of the agenda (but not the only item on it). It is based on the idea that this always should have been the Commissioners top priority, and that recent changes to funding streams have changed that (Marcus Walker had a question on funding streams). The Hereford/Beasley motion addresses a different way in which the Commissioners’ priorities were changed in the 1990s, to pass the burden of clergy pension… Read more »
After the Safeguarding item, this was the most important debate of the Synod, and its a disgrace that it never got debated. Combination of the ordering of business, poor chairing of debates, and too many people in love with the sound of their own voices? The Church Commissioners have made over £2bn in asset gains after inflation in the last 10 years alone, and it makes no sense to hoard all this money at the centre (or issue it in small dollops with multiple and costly strings attached) whilst parishes and Dioceses are going to the wall. It would make… Read more »
I really don’t know! Maybe knowing that if you can’t pay your parish share means you won’t have a vicar next time concentrates the mind and encourages generous giving. Thinking, knowing, or imagining that the Diocese suddenly now has enough money to provide you a priest may actually discourage local giving, perhaps. Genuinely confused. But instinct suggests to me that where the faith and generosity of the local church inspires the giving of the living to sustain and grow the ministry of now, in cash, service and people, the future will be blessed. Where faith, morale and self-offering are impoverished,… Read more »
Given the massive costs of survivor support reparations and ongoing lifetime care, in Australia today a Catholic Priest in Ballarat died leaving 70 known child victims , here in Australia there are calls to strip the institutions of tax free status. It looks like the CofE will be disestablished and the Lords Spiritual evicted from the building . We know there are many many wonderful people in the CofE and Anglican Churches worldwide. What we see in Australia is 26 separate Dioceses a split between conservative and liberal with reparations bills via civil claims threatening the viability of smaller bush… Read more »
I think that there has been too much focus on structures and not enough on the human beings involved in safeguarding. Surely safeguarding “professionals” need to be professionally qualified ? Does service in the police force make you a “professionally qualified safeguarder”? If you want to be a social worker you have to complete an accredited course at university. Why doesn’t that apply to Safeguarders ? Independent can too easily mean unaccountable. How are interview panels going to be selected who will draw up job descriptions and will these be made public ? And what constitutes abuse. If a young… Read more »
If a young parishioner is being sexually abused by her father should the church be prepared to help ?
Of course. Isn’t there something being proposed that all responsible adults have a statutory or legal duty to report concerns? If my neighbour has a child whom I hear crying every night in pain, or has bruises, am I not responsible?
Judge Judy has many episodes where somebody tries to counter sue for calling social services to check their child. Judge Judy always tells them, it is their duty to report concerns, your case is dismissed.
My basic training as a member of our Church Council said nothing at all about listening to children, it was all about adults reporting concerns about other adults. Nothing at all in our parish offering a listening ear to children in trouble for whatever reason. If you are 10 years old it is not at all obvious that you are allowed to talk to a priest or other trusted adult. Childhood can be a very troubling time. I raise this because I think it’s important but also because I think that church safeguarding is really about safeguarding the church from… Read more »
My experience is very limited if not zero. I agree the scope of safeguarding should be very clear, and I think for sports it is spelt out reasonably if not perfectly. If there is a concern about a 10 year old, my reading of my club athletics rules is that there is very limited contact between the club safeguarding officer and the child, it is passed to local authority at an early stage. The club safeguarding officer only does basic check on importance and urgency. But there is no doubt that if a coach feels a child has had a… Read more »
My own safeguarding training did include topics related to children.
& how many of those safeguarding training scenarios had the priest as the criminal? The priestly abuse track record in my Dio is dire, not that you would guess that from safeguarding training.
” The case for full independence rests on two arguments, of which only one is ever made explicit: that is the notion that the Bishops and the Church of England more generally cannot be trusted to do safeguarding right.” (Andrew Brown) But everywhere else this is the case. For example: The UK police defer to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for internal safeguarding issues. The IOPC is completely independent of the police and is responsible for investigating the most serious complaints and conduct matters involving the police. This argument by Mr Brown overlooks the matter of conflict of interest.… Read more »
From the outside it is inexplicable isn’t it? Imagine trying to tell someone like ET…. It is as though there was a traffic system where those at the top of the tree, Bishops mainly, drive the best cars . Curates and congregations committed to their charge have correspondingly smaller ones ( unless they have Money of course, but that’s another story for another time ) Most Bishops are good careful drivers as are most clergy, but the odd one is terrible and causes dreadful injuries to some people in the congregations committed to their charge. But if you are a… Read more »