One of the pieces of advice that is offered to every research student or author of a learned tome is ‘check your footnotes’. It is so easy when inspecting a nearly completed manuscript to allow the eyes to pass over a reference at the bottom of the page and assume it is correct. Sometimes it is not, and there are then serious consequences to the integrity of the whole document. This week we have seen both our Archbishops being let down in the equivalent of a footnote checking exercise. Both Archbishops or their advisers, in different ways at some point, had not checked their footnotes. The consequences of getting something wrong have been, over a period, very serious. At least the IICSA process and the detailed questioning of the lawyers has allowed truth to be revealed.
The first of the two failures to ‘check footnotes’ which has had serious consequences for Matt Ineson and his disclosure to the Archbishop of York was the latter’s assumption that the disclosure was being dealt with by the Bishop of Sheffield. The basis for this belief was the knowledge that the then Bishop of Sheffield, Steven Croft, had also received a disclosure from Matt. Each bishop failed to take any action to inhibit Matt’s abuser, Trevor Devamanikam. The effect of the failure of both bishops was to leave the accused clergyman unchallenged for five years. The consequence of this neglect of duty by both bishops was indeed deeply serious. It is a cause of regret to the integrity of the senior levels of our Anglican leadership that no apology for this failure was forthcoming from the Archbishop of York. Surely, he could have admitted to a regret that not checking his assumptions about who was dealing with criminal behaviour by a clergyman was so serious. In fact, an expression of more than regret was required. Here we had a criminal act not being investigated properly, all because a senior figure in the Church failed to pick up the telephone or instruct one of his staff to do so. A cynic might offer an alternative explanation which is to suggest that the Archbishop was doing everything in his power to bury bad news which might impugn the reputation of the wider church.
The IICSA hearings uncovered a second ‘footnote’ failure, this time on the part of Justin Welby. The issue concerned a detail about whether or not a letter of apology had been sent to Matt. The Archbishop, no doubt briefed by one of his staff, confidently asserted that such a letter had been sent in July 2017 a month after Devamanikam took his own life. Matt, who had given evidence the previous day, denied that he had ever received such a letter and he also produced evidence, via a email from the NST that was written ten months later which stated that no apology had been issued. The Archbishop also went on to say that he has issued a personal apology to Matt in November 2016. Certainly, Matt’s lawyer who has present at the meeting had no recollection of such an apology and there is no mention of it in the minutes taken by the NST. At this stage, seven months before the charging of Devamanikam, there was no reason for such an apology to be given. One wonders what is the status of the copied letter that the archbishop produced to the Inquiry? Was it a knowing fake or was one of his staff desperately trying to make a bad situation a little less awful? From Welby’s point of view, we have to ask, putting the best possible gloss on the episode, why he seemed to be so lacking in curiosity about exactly what had happened. Once again, we can be grateful to the IICSA process for eventually uncovering the true facts, or at least casting strong doubts over the ‘official’ testimony.
Clearly, we see flaws in the ability of Lambeth staff to produce reliable information for their boss to disseminate to the media. Welby cheerfully told the world in a television interview that John Smyth was ‘not Anglican’ on the basis that he attended a non-Anglican church at the end of his life. This particular inconvenient truth has been proved. The records of the Diocese confirm his status as a Reader in the Church. That fact is to be included in the ‘lessons learned’ inquiry on Smyth that we are assured is to take place soon.
In every walk of life, the readiness to be on top of detail is an important part of leadership and responsibility. Leaders, even those who have a multitude of staff working for them, are not exempt from this requirement. Checking facts and paying attention to the detail of information is particularly important when the welfare and happiness of individuals is involved. As I wrote in my previous piece about the quality of leaders, leaders need to be involved with those they lead. Obviously, there will be limits on what bishops can know personally, but they can use their sources of information to make sure everyone is caught up in some sort of knowledge and caring network. As a parish priest I found that a Good Neighbour Scheme allowed me to be in touch with far more people than I knew personally. At a time when the majority of funerals were still done by the parish priest, I found I always had some direct personal information about everyone for whom I officiated. Checking up by using available sources of information is part of the process of attending to detail. Even when I do not know something or someone, it is normally possible to find someone who does.
The truths about Matt’s ‘shabby and shambolic’ treatment by the church after his original assault thirty + years ago will probably never be completely known. What we have seen is at best incompetent treatment but at worst dangerously cruel. The failure to check up on the details by not just one but two Archbishops is bound to undermine our confidence that the Church is at present in safe hands. For there to be a successful change of perception in the area of competence we need to see some radical movement in terms of action and gestures of reconciliation towards survivors. Rather than failing to apologise to a known victim of abuse, the Church needs to create systems of management and oversight that inspire confidence. Confidence and trust have been badly eroded in the Church of England over the past two weeks. Effort, imagination and attention to detail need to be in evidence among all who accept the responsibility of high office in our Church.
Your fourth para:- “inconvenient truth has been disproved” . Proved, I think. I’m currently ploughing through the articles in the Church Timeses I hadn’t opened. Heavy stuff. I do hope it all has some effect.
Many thanks. The Times today reported that, of all national institutions, only parliament is now held in greater contempt than the Church. The loss of trust has been almost total.
1% of those aged between 18 and 24 identify as Anglican (we can be confident that only a fraction of them are regular attendees). This elides with my experience of having attended services at about a third of the stock. The Church of England now commands the nominal loyalty of little more than 10% of the population. We will soon be left with no Church from which to survive.
Also, the phrase ‘check your footnotes’ might have its origin in the advice frequently attributed to the famous patristic scholar and president of Magdalen, Martin Routh (1755-1854, a great influence on the Tractarians): “always verify your references”.
Froghole your reference to the saying of Martin Routh is probably correct and my made-up quotation is probably linked to that original.. Either quotation is important when reading detailed work. Archbishops and bishops fail to attend to detail at their peril!
There is evidently a failure of will – and of goodwill – here. Both archbishops have now been aware for several days that no apology was in fact made – and they still haven’t apologised.
In fact ++ Sentamu refused even to apologise to Matt for the original rape by Devamanikkam, despite being asked if he would do so by counsel to the Inquiry. There can be no reason for such churlishness. We ar eb sign badly let down by our leaders.
Sorry, ‘being badly let down by’
I find it difficult to keep confidence in a church that hushes up abuse or any other failure that happens. We don’t have apologies for Peter Ball and a curate and priest at my local church that suddenly disappeared off radar because of their behaviour. Don’t they realise how let down we feel by learning of the failure of leaders we have befriended and respected. Everything hushed up and no- one supposed to talk about it but continue to attend the church and keep smiling.
In theory, someone speaking the truth with absolute verifiable accuracy would be held in the very highest regard.
Conversely, someone boldly asserting statements which prove to be wrong, ought to have anything they say be received with scepticism.
But it doesn’t really work like this, as we know. There is a relationship between our level of scepticism and the highlighting of erroneous statements, but it is not linear.
For some people, for example certain politicians I can think of currently in the news, they can say almost anything they like and their adoring fans will nod assent. People aren’t really looking for truth per se, they are looking for a saviour.
It is part of the human condition to blind ourselves to obvious shortcomings in our leaders, long after damaging leadership mistakes have been made. Opponents repeatedly pointing out error, are just ignored.
Matthew Ineson’s treatment by senior bishops has been truly shameful by any objective criteria, but no one seems to care.
However there are significant changes in following as pointed out above. Each of us reaches a tipping point, a sort of quantum shift, or like falling off a cliff.
It is said that we “buy” emotionally, but make decisions intellectually. We decide against a person also emotionally. And that quantum change is sudden and decisive.
We are seeing the cumulative effects of individuals moving away from the C of E.
What makes us change? I suspect it has to affect us personally. It has to include significant personal loss. Most of us contributing to this blog have lost greatly under Anglican leadership.
We are now witnessing a procession of senior leaders being caught out in one error or another. Their responses range from being indignant at people daring to question them, through denial, to faux apologies and non existent repentance.
Not much will change internally initially because there is still significant sycophantic support. But external to the elite, there is a growing army of very angry people highly energised to expose and eradicate all that is wrong and ongoing. It is essential that we network closely together because the strain of acting alone is almost unbearable.
I also think we need to be creative in communicating with people ignorant of our experiences and would welcome ideas for doing so.
What I just can’t get my head around, is while even leaders can be forgiven missing some details now and then, why can’t they be gracious now and just admit it and say sorry? Why the resistance and the continued cruel failure to apologise to Matt (whose courage and tenacity leave me speechless )
Both Archbishops said some things at the enquiry that sounded very good and trauma-informed etc etc. But they just becomes hollow words, insulting really, until the missing apologies are made.
It wouldn’t take much. I should have done more. I should have apologised sooner and properly. I regret…am sorry…offer to meet, want to know how we can restore a right relationship….please forgive me.
I have said it often enough to colleagues and family and people I work with. Why can’t Archbishops?
In a word: lawyers.
In two, lawyers and insurers.
It may well be that they’ve been instructed not to admit liability, for fear of a deluge of claims on the Church. Saying “sorry” is an admission of liability.
Some of their risk may be insured. Insurers want naturally to limit their exposure.
Worse however than the above, in my opinion, is a refusal to accept that the Church the bishops represent is not actually good and wholesome.
You’ve got a point. But it is possible to be sorry about something that isn’t your fault! A bereavement, for example. All those lawyers ought to be able to give some advice on that score.
Personally I believe it is lazy (at best) to hide behind lawyers. They have an important job to do, within complex constraints, in many parts of our society. But they shouldn’t be leading this.
A key quality of leadership is courage. Courage to do the right thing. I haven’t seen a lot of this yet, but I live in hope.
An apology is not an admission of liability, and insurers have not told them not to apologise. They have simply chosen not to – and forfeited our respect by the omission.