At some point over the next couple of months, we will receive the written report of IICSA on the Diocese of Chichester. No doubt there will be a flurry of paperwork as the Church of England responds to the inevitable critique of its past failures. What will be interesting is to see whether IICSA is now satisfied that the Church has put its house in order after the many past lapses. Have lessons really been learnt, as the cliché runs? While we await to hear these conclusions, we have read this past week a further example of poor record keeping and sloppy systems of communication within the Church. The Daily Mail recounted the story of Mark Kiddle, a convicted ex-Vicar, who was at the centre of an abuse episode going back to the 80s. The Mail has not been completely accurate in its reporting when it says that Kiddle was ‘moved to another parish’ after the trial and suspended sentence. He appears rather to have been allowed to attach himself to a City of London Church as an honorary assistant for several years. During this period, he was offered but declined the position of a ‘Deputy Priest in Ordinary to Her Majesty.’ This episode again demonstrates that the Church of England was in the past deficient in keeping proper records of serious abuse convictions on the part of its clergy.
Stories of this kind from the past are, sadly, rather common. But today we are reasonably confident that Church safeguarding procedures would ensure that indefinite suspension would immediately follow any such criminal conviction. PTOs or licences are also far harder to obtain for retired clergy. Everyone in this category is criminally checked and has to attend a safeguarding course. A PTO will be withdrawn if this is not complied with. From this point of view the Church is showing commendable diligence in protecting the vulnerable. But there is another part of the story where the Church is doing less well. In this Kiddle story, as with all other abuse accounts, there are victims. The victim in this case has no name given because of legal restrictions. Presumably the Church authorities have known about his identity for 30+ years. He now feels it important to sue as a way of dealing with his suffering. The Church naturally feels obliged to defend itself, so it employs lawyers and other professionals to mitigate as much as possible its financial liabilities. In whatever way it is handled, the abused individual is forced by the church to become a litigant. He is, for no fault of his own, forced to become the ‘other’, the one who stands over against the institution for which he may still have much loyalty and affection. This litigant role is costly in every sense and, for the abused survivor, it may feel very much like a new episode of abuse.
The enormous growth of the safeguarding ‘industry’ in the past ten years in the church and elsewhere has created a complex structure of professional training, regulations and policies. Surely things can only improve with all this effort? I have tried with information available online to understand how these safeguarding structures at a national level are supposed to work. The most senior body appears to be the National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG). This relates directly to the Bishops and oversees the other groups mentioned below. The National Safeguarding Panel (NSP) is a larger group which consults and advises on work done in this area. This is the body for which Meg Munn has recently been appointed as chair. It has a membership representing a variety of constituencies, including survivors’ groups such as MACSAS. This representation has allowed the NSP to claim that a ‘survivor perspective’ is influencing the agenda of the Church and its responses. But even as survivors are heard in this overseeing body, there is one important way where they have failed to create a decisive change in the other similarly sounding body, the National Safeguarding Team (NST). The NST is the front-line organisation which employs professionals to deliver the safeguarding policies and structures for the entire Church. It provides the necessary expertise for all the training that is going on up and down the country. The one glaring weakness in the NST is that it has neither the focus nor the expertise to deal with the needs of abuse survivors. I have, in a previous post drawn attention to the seventh statement in the stated role of the NST. Here we find that its ‘(sic) role is to develop and implement national survivors engagement and support work’. I am not sure exactly what these words mean in practice, but we do know that the published list of professionals working in the NST does not include a named individual to work with those already abused. Time and time again the message I hear from survivors is that the NST does not appear to be concerned about listening to the sufferings of the past. There is perhaps a fear of legal implications. But, as I have pointed out in a previous post, http://survivingchurch.org/2018/01/29/the-church-of-england-needs-better-lawyers/ the Law (Compensation Act 2006) does not regard the care of survivors as compromising any possible legal process. To put it another way, caring pastorally for the abused does not affect the level of pay-outs that might arise in civil cases. A readiness to engage pastorally with survivors might actually have the effect of reducing overall liability. Where legal remedies are sought by survivors, it may be in part the result of feeling that this is the only way of gaining the attention of the Church authorities. I am sure that the survivor representatives on the NSP are aware of the less than empathetic face of the NST in its dealing with the survivor population. The impression that is given is that the NST has been set up mainly to defend the financial and reputational interests of the Church. This will involve them in always trying to defuse and deflect the narratives of those who carry terrible stories of abuse from the past. Any attempt to bury the past or cast doubt on the veracity of survivors will always result in additional pain for this group.
The somewhat uncaring and even cruel interaction that often seems to mark the NST in its dealings with the survivor population is also felt to characterise the behaviour of some bishops. I suspect that the cases conducted by lawyers against the Church on behalf of victims would drop considerably if all the bodies connected with safeguarding really began to focus on the task of improving relationships with survivors. It is precisely because many safeguarding professionals and the bishops have been advised (wrongly I believe) by lawyers who work for insurance companies to keep survivors at arms-length that the chilly atmosphere of non- pastoral engagement and confrontation has evolved. If all bishops could start to behave as chief pastors once again, a lot of the tension and pain felt by survivors would end.
In one of the documents produced by the Church of England on the topic of safeguarding, it is stated that the ‘Church of England will care pastorally for victims/survivors of abuse and other affected persons’. A similar promise was made for those are the ‘the subject of allegations of abuse’. Somehow this part of the task of safeguarding has not yet happened. A survivor may be fortunate enough to have a local Safeguarding Adviser who goes the extra mile in showing understanding and insight in the matter of abuse trauma. Or they may not. Certainly, it is not part of the job description. Without funds from the centre for therapy and support it is hard to see how such professional and effective caring can be sustained. As long as the message from the centre seems to be one of defend and defuse as a way of protecting church assets, it is hard to see that the future will bring to the church anything except expense and a deteriorating reputation.
If IICSA are satisfied that the church has put its house in order they need to consider the following:
On 10 December 2017 I e mailed a diocesan bishop to point out that, by his refusal to pass on documents, he was not complying with the House of Bishops’ data sharing protocol. He ignored my suggestion to meet him so I could explain the continuing effects of this on my family and me.
On 14 December I forwarded a copy of my email to the NST, raising my concerns for safeguarding in the whole church as a result.
I requested an acknowledgement from the NST but did not receive one.
During the IICSA hearings in March 2018 I found out that my email had been passed around the NST, only to be passed back to the bishop who was withholding the documents!
I understand that the NST could have instigated disciplinary proceedings against the bishop but they have failed to request any further evidence from me in order to do so. I have asked why but received no response. (Admittedly, they still have another month before being out of time.)
Is this the safeguarding leadership people want?
Hi JayKay. A. new website is being launched to ‘assist’ religious organisations with transparency. They have been written up in Newsweek so it seems bona fide. Here’s the link: https://faithleaks.org/#about
HI JayKay. You might be interested in the following – a new website has been set up to ‘assist’ religious organisations with transparency. They’ve already had an impact on the Mormon church, where they started by releasing details of the leaders’ salaries. They’ve been written up in Newsweek; the article includes a link to their site. https://www.newsweek.com/faith-wikileaks-religion-mormons-transparency-leaks-703962
Thanks Janet – I’ll take a look.
I think you will gather from the tone of my piece that I am not expecting the Inquiry to hand out plaudits to the NST. There are other fragments I am hearing that confirm your report. I am trying to help readers make sense of what soon may be in the public domain. Untangling these different bodies in the church which all sound like the other is a start in the overall process of comprehension. Thanks for your sharing.
Thanks Stephen. I wanted to point out what I have seen of the issues that are on-going at the highest level as I believe they should be a matter of great concern for everyone. I am grateful that your blog enables me to raise this.
Sadly for those bishops who do wish to prioritise safeguarding, truth and integrity the conduct I refer to above clearly undermines their efforts.
Those of us outside the purple circle can’t stop the bishops from deceiving each other but at least we can try to let our experiences be known.
Thanks Stephen. Is it representatives of one of these groups who came to talk to some of those who’d had the safeguarding training to see if we had had the real deal? I brought up at this meeting that it is perfectly possible for a Reader in particular to take emeritus without PTO, but to carry on taking services, and in that case to have no DBS check. Who’s job is it to make sure that the retired are not just carrying on? And since then I had a conversation with a retired clergyman running a church where it seems getting a DBS check was not on the list of things you have to do when licensing a Reader! The warden went through the roof when my friend queried it, but why wasn’t it? Is it on now? And in how many other Dioceses is that also the case? Getting the paperwork wrong can have consequences!
Though in no way a fan of the NST I think the not responding pastorally to survivors is a far bigger issue than that of lawyers adviving against it. The NST is an advisory committee it has absolutely no power, it is therefore window dressing that has been put in place to look good but essentially fail. With each diocese remaining completely autonomous and the diocesan Bishop king of his castle, the NST can only advise that the diocese treats a survivor better but if the diocese refuses there is nothing they can do. For this to change and dioceses to lose their autonomy it would need to go to the House of Lords, on which a lot of Bishops sit, and have Royal assent, which with a huge call for the church to be dis-established isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
The NST could respond a lot better than they do but with provincial case managers (the people that deal with survivors) averaging a year for the job, turn over is high and morale obviously incredibly low because I imagine they feel as frustrated by their lack of power as everyone else.
I am currently ‘working’ with the NST to ensure their complaints policy is put online on their website in accordance with their own latest policy! So JayKay and Athena you may want to take a look at it when I eventually manage to ‘work’ with them sufficiently to achieve this, it is truly something to behold!
Hi Trish. This is extremely interesting. I would be glad to talk about it further, in confidence. If you would like to do that please email me via Andrew.graystone1@btinternet.com. Stephen (whose blog this is) will vouch for my bona fides.
Thanks Trish. Good work.
Trish you can indeed trust Andrew if you wish to contact him. I just wanted to add my appreciation for what you have shared. It is hard to obtain information about the day to day workings of the NST . I can only record what people share online or in Andrew’s booklet We asked for Bread. My impression is that survivors become invisible for the most part. Flashes of light and insight like you provide help one to grasp the wider picture. Overall it remains an unhappy picture of pain and hidden suffering.
Thank you Stephen. I couldn’t agree more that the NST is a dreadful piece of work which is why survivors need to be quite clear about what they can realistically hope to achieve by involving them and often this only seems to be more pain. There is no stronger advocate of getting rid of the NST than me but while dioceses retain their absolute right to autonomy it is hard to see any structure that would be anything but window dressing.
Being kind to people is incredibly important in making people feel seen and heard but too often in the church that happens initially but when the going gets tough, loyalties and career enhancements are put to the test, that nice person is suddenly running in the opposite direction and that can often feel worse and more abusive than if they had never bothered in the first place.
What the church truly lacks is transparency. Information is hard to get, impossible if you are not a survivor and have no ‘reasonable right’ to know, communication is often conveniently appalling and on the whole senior clergy remain completely without self awareness, existing only in Bishop bubble land.
Thank you Trish for focusing on the difficult relationship between dioceses and the NST. A great deal of secrecy obscures the work of safeguarding. I am still hoping that IICSA will address the safeguarding structures and suggest better ways of doing things. I had hoped that the NST was supposed to raise standards all round. There is far too much of reputational management going on with enforced secrecy being implemented. Once the veil of secrecy is enforced all kinds of horrors will go unnoticed.
And thank you again Stephen for providing a space where the secrecy can be BROKEN. It’s absolutely vital that was is happening is known “out there”.
I wonder if diocesan bishops realise that references they may receive from (at least) one of their number cannot be trusted because of information that is being deliberately withheld from them? Nobody likes to be deceived and perhaps some struggle to believe that this happens.
If any senior church leaders are out there and would like to see the evidence I would be happy for you to pass on my email address.
I am currently in debate with two non-Church bodies (a garage and a phone company) and what eventually overtakes even the issues raised is the lack of communication. I almost feel failure to acknowledge a request should be made an offence!
“We’ve read your email but we aren’t going to do anything about it” would at least be preferable to utter silence.
I shouldn’t laugh, but I do know what you mean! We got a grudging settlement out of Scottish Power by going to the ombudsman. I can recommend that. Pity there is no such body that can deal with faith organisations.
The observation that churches would do better to engage with persons who’ve experienced abuse is spot on.
In my case, I now have an active disciplinary complaint against the former bishop diocesan, Shannon Johnston, regarding his repeated failure to honor his canonical obligations to address abuse in the church. Last I heard, the reference panel has been rescheduled four times. Meanwhile, the national church has repeatedly failed to respond to my request for a status update, leading me to suspect that, once again, the church is going to try to cover things up.
In the meantime, allegations have surfaced that Bishop Shannon has covered up sexual harassment of a female church worker by a priest under his supervision. That case appears also to be going nowhere fast.
To top it all of, the bishops in this diocese well know that my former rector, Bob Malm, has repeatedly lied in his court filings, even going so far as to try, in violation of the law, to drag my mother, dying of COPD, into court. They have ignored all of this, going so far as to say that none of this is of “weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.” Meanwhile, Bishop Susan Goff, now the acting ecclesiastical authority for the diocese, says she’s going to hold “listening sessions” to learn about people’s hopes, fears, and frustrations. Why bother if she isn’t going to address the problems she already knows about?
Truly, the church is broken and morally bankrupt.