Mark Bennet reflects on the way the Osborne report of 1989 indicates a quite distinct set of mores over sex current in the Church at that time. The culture of the Church protecting its own and failing survivors seems to have been also endemic in the previous generation.
The screening of the documentary “The Church’s Dark Secret” this week was salutary for me, even though I had been following the stories of safeguarding failings in the Church for some years. It threw a spotlight on attitudes and behaviours which we find shocking today, and on uses and abuses of power in the Church to protect those in privileged positions.
One issue the documentary did not address was how typical the response to Neil Todd and Peter Ball was. Did Peter Ball hold such a significant position in the minds of church authorities that his treatment was essentially unique, or were there aspects here which were more typical of the time? The emerging material around the activities of Jonathan Fletcher demonstrates some common themes, but the aspect of positional privilege is present also in that story. It is easy to see the two as examples of the abuse of particular power and privilege separate from the more normal life of ordinary people.
As a matter of course institutions rarely record how they bury their shameful secrets. In this case, as it happens, there is some documentary material which records the “sorts of strategies” which were apparently being “widely followed” as late as the late 1980s and presumably still into the 1990s. This makes it roughly contemporaneous with the shocking stories of abuse which are now coming to light. The document revealing these attitudes and strategies is the Osborne Report of 1989, titled “REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS ON HOMOSEXUALITY”. Though the existence of the report was widely known at the time, its content was suppressed. It was eventually published by the Church Times in January 2012. The full text is available at http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/osborne_report.pdf.
Most of the text, which runs to 144 pages is a careful analysis of the attitudes within the Church to the issues of homosexuality. There is no sense in which abuse or safeguarding is a principal or a main consideration. There is, however, a short section which touches on the response to pastoral problems and failings around sexual misbehaviour. The most significant extract is copied in full below. Being essentially an aside in a longer report, there is no detailed analysis of the attitudes and practices involved. When I read it, it shocked me to the core. Here practices which allowed significant abusers to hide and to continue in ministry are recorded with minimal critical comment. Here, the response to “breaking the law” does not involve reporting to the police or statutory authorities. Here, the pastoral care of the victims and survivors of broken pastoral situations gets a bare passing mention, whilst the maintenance in ministry of clergy and ordinands seems to be a priority.
For me this raises two key issues. First, we can criticise leaders in the past for maintaining the culture they inherited, rather than challenging it. That would be wrong. The failings involved in the widely reported cases of abuse are not only the failings of a few individuals in places of power. The Church as a whole was failing. The problem was not only “them” but “us”. Second, until this truth is owned by the Church as a whole, the attempts to change the culture and practice will likely prove ineffective. The extent of denial is too great.
The dynamics around the disclosure of abuse by a victim frequently involve, I would suggest, a sense of shame and failure evoked in the person who receives the disclosure. The discovery of a widespread practice which would horrify us today may do the same. I have certainly felt it, and have made all kinds of excuses to myself not to give this material particular prominence once I discovered it. But. unless the Church is able to own its shameful history both institutionally (in response to culture and practice) and personally (in response to individual disclosures) I fear that “safeguarding” will remain distorted. It will be the “safe” parts of the safeguarding agenda – like training and DBS checks – which will get the priority and the money. The shameful parts will continue to be pushed to the margins together with the victims and survivors who bring our shame and failure to light.
I hope that new attention to this material will help the Church of England to reach a more honest appraisal of its past. More significantly I hope that it will help the Church towards a better response to the victims and survivors of abuse.
EXTRACT FROM THE OSBORNE REPORT (1989 and published 2012)
294. All strategies for pastoral care need to give careful thought to their likely outcome. In many cases the future well-being and reputation of the persons involved may well depend on a clear understanding of where different choices lead. ACCM, college principals, directors of ordinands, and bishops need to bear this in mind when dealing with sensitive situations involving care and discipline of ordinands and clergy. These become particularly sensitive where matters of personal conduct are under question. Such situations are, of course, not just concerned with homosexuality.
295. As far as we are able to determine the following sorts of strategies are widely followed.
a) When an ordinand or one of the clergy discloses their sexual temptations, support and encouragement is offered and more thorough counselling advised if appropriate.
b) When an ordinand or candidate for ordination discloses a homosexual orientation, s/he is advised that if s/he chooses to promote the homosexual cause or to live openly in a sexual partnership s/he will seriously impair their range of ministry and that s/he might better seek some other form of vocation. If the person declares their intention to remain very discreet in their sexual activities, those in authority have to judge whether this seems a likely option and to assess whether a clandestine sexual life will be detrimental to their moral and spiritual life and ministry. Likewise if s/he declares an intention of celibacy those in pastoral charge need to consider the sort of support necessary to sustain this vocation.
c) Where there is a case where sexual behaviour has been unprofessional, say with a consenting adult in their pastoral care, discretion and discipline work together. The priority is to search for the best way forward for all concerned. Penitence and purpose of amendment and the acceptance of care and counselling to help the process of change are essential. If such are not forthcoming, resignation may be required.
e) When the sexual behaviour of clergy causes scandal, they are asked to explain themselves. If this behaviour or talk is thought to be essential or unavoidable by the person involved, the bishop might ask whether it is reasonable to expect his congregation or parishioners to go along with such behaviour if it offends their conscience and judgment. Other work might be considered if things reach an impasse, otherwise a resignation with no alternative Churchwork might have to be required.
f) When such behaviour involves breaking the law, eg by sexual involvement with a minor (especially one in his personal care)and there is no reason to suspect that the case is known to any but the two of them, the person concerned is warned of the great danger that they and their ministry are in, be moved to penitence, and be advised to terminate the relationship gently but swiftly and to go on leave of absence prior to moving parishes. The provision of pastoral care for the minor is discussed. Immediate resignation may be required of such clergy.
STRENGTHS OF THIS APPROACH
296. The present way of handling such pastoral measures:
a) upholds the principle of the sinfulness of homosexual genital acts, but is compassionate towards lapses, especially when there is evidence of penitence, faith and the desire to amend.
b) recognises that sin cannot be abolished, but that it has to be left behind, and that an individual may need help in growing past his sins.
c) keeps sexual sins in the private area as far as possible.
DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
297. The present methods may be perceived to lack clarity. From one side it may be suggested that there is not enough toughness in opposing homosexual conduct. On the other hand it may be seen as discriminating against homosexual persons.
298. It runs the risk of inhibiting clergy and ordinands from being open to the bishop. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that homosexuals are very cautious about how much they feel able to share with their bishop. All of this can lead to deception, hypocrisy and concealment which are detrimental to spiritual growth and healthy adult relationships.
The omission of any suggestion that illegal behaviour should be reported to the police is very obvious. But, not so long ago, the secular guidelines were that you couldn’t refer to the police unless the child concerned wanted you to. The problem is that clergy, still, feel they should investigate. So they might pass it on later, but don’t do so immediately. And the first thing they usually do is corrupt the evidence by phoning the alleged abuser! And could we consider embarrassment as a factor? It’s hard to think straight if you’re shaken rigid.
Ah yes, 295(f): move them to another parish. The tried and tested method of the Roman Catholic Church, as seen in the movie “Spotlight”. Oh dear.
Thank you for brining this to our attention, Mark. I think this is an important article, and it’s an eye-opener to see what was acceptable bye practice way back when.
What is the churches attitude to law breaking in other ways?
If I committed a series of burglaries and then repented and confessed to a priest, wouldn’t part of that repentance involve taking responsibility and accepting the consequences legally? Would a priest encourage me to go to the police in that circumstance? What if I had killed someone? What if I had committed fraud?
I find the acknowledgement that they have broken the law but completely ignoring that incredibly arrogant. Did the church feel it was above the law? Does it still feel like that?
Good points! I don’t know.
I think this document is important as it shows a deliberate strategy, totally embedded in the culture, of secrecy, denial, and moving people on. The chilling part is where it talks about sexual involvement with a minor “where there is no reason to suspect it is known to anyone but the two of them.” It describes a response that totally fails to see this through an abuse/trauma lense. It reads as though the assumption is the boy needed pastoral support for the loss of his naughty daddy. As I tweeted earlier, abused children were collateral damage in the church’s dangerously inept attempts to solve it’s dilemma over homosexuality.
So the instruction was – be moved to penitence, terminate the relationship, take leave and move on. It seems incredible that, despite breaking the law – a minor cannot give informed consent – no one, namely the police, need actually know and off we go again to carry on elsewhere. You might be dismissed but probably not? Oh and we might discuss pastoral support for the minor. Good grief. I wish I was surprised but in the light of events I’m actually not. Appalled is a better word. The concern is for the institution and not causing a scandal. Let’s sweep everything under another rug and move on……
They seem to have been under a misunderstanding that it was a genuine two-way relationship, rather than abuse. Christian psychiatrist John White wrote in ‘Eros Defiled’ (1977) about children taking part in relationships with adults. It seems to have been a common misconception. Thank God our understanding of abuse and the trauma it inflicts has developed over the years.
Does anyone know if this Report has been submitted to IICSA ?
And to any police investigations regarding those in decision-making capacity? eg. Operation Redstone in Lincoln which is in Phase 2.
A comment has been removed from this post for its offensive content. Please take care in what is written here.
Sent to Chair of NSP, Director of Safeguarding CofE, and lead Bishop.
Dear NSP members,
I’m not sure if the 1989 Osborne Report and 1979 Gloucester Report were submitted to IICSA ?
I also think they should be handed over to Sussex, Lincoln and Metropolitan police. Lincolnshire Police are carrying out Phase 2 of Operation Redstone – investigation re decision-making capacity. And the paragraph in the Osborne Report is very significant. It shows for the first time a strategy of geographical therapy and would seem to implicate the whole of the hierarchy at the time. No alarm bells seem to have been rung by those writing or reading that astonishing paragraph.
These were official CofE reports and presumably seen by archbishops and bishops.
https://twitter.com/seaofcomplicity/status/1218521056148848641?s=19
http://survivingchurch.org/2020/01/18/have-attitudes-to-sex-changed-in-the-church-over-the-past-30-years/
Thankyou
Gilo
The Osborne Report, which remained unpublished for 23 years, is enormously significant. As it potentially opens up wider issues, I asked for this article to be quoted additionally on TA, and this has been done.
I also found this interesting: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/issues%20in%20human%20sexuality.pdf
It was drafted in 1991, only a few years after the Gloucester and Osborne reports, and in some respects represents a synthesis of the two. It does seem that there were signs of an evolution in the attitude of the Church at that time, but I found it a useful insight on the thinking of the authorities a generation ago.
Two things struck me: (i) that the short discussion on paedophilia is buried within an extended review of the Church’s approach to homosexuality (although the one relevant paragraph, 5.10 on p. 51, is at pains to assert that the two tendencies should not be conflated); and (ii) how strongly orientated the report is towards the proclivities of the clergy, especially in part 5, as if the Church is just the clergy and not the laity. It is also striking that the report has little, if anything, to say about abuse and the recipients of abuse, which I found ‘illuminating’ in itself.
You will also see that this report was endorsed by George Carey, who contributed a preface. As such this document might help to explain some of his thinking (sic.) in the context of the Ball affair. It may also be compared with the latest pronouncement of the House of Bishops on the meaning of marriage.
I remember the furore around that Lambeth conference – with particularly evangelical African church leaders concerned about any liberal attitude to homosexuality. My African friends told me this was partly because their countries were predominantly homophobic; and the African church saw such a liberal attitude as undermining their defence against Islam. (Merely reporting this, no evidence to confirm or not). The report appeared to be a response to this and was a typical Anglican compromise. I grew up in the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church and knew lots of gay clergy and LGBT christians, Abp Runcie was known to be tolerant of this and there people were out as any Walsingham pilgrimage would show (the lace cotters!) Carey was not in the same place theologically and so there was a definite change in temperature. But it does make an interesting back drop; was the cover up of clergy misconduct/abuse an attempt to appease those upset by the stance on ‘practicing’ gays? You can’t help but feel sad for everyone on this
Ah yes, ‘Issues’, with the interesting comment in 3.19 that sexual pleasure is only equalled by ‘that of certain drugs’…
And indeed, the ‘church’ is always about the clergy, because the CofE insists that standards should be different for clergy and laity. And then closes ranks to protect its clergy.
Part of the problem with different standards is sanctions. There’s not much you can do about the quiet couple sitting behind the pillar. (I’m not talking about sex abuse here) But you do have some pressure to apply to those you pay. But no one remembers SSMs and Readers! You may want to apply tougher standards, but it’s hard if there’s no money involved.
The report is now in process of being sent to IICSA and also to police.
So many things strike me.
The report itself raises no question or critical comment. Section 295 is admittedly not advisory but observational – but it offers this in a matter of fact way without any awareness of its own rapidly glissanding terminology. A situation accurately described as ‘breaking the law’ moves to one of ‘relationship’ without the need for a new sentence! And by the end of the same sentence has included protection of ministry, geographical therapy, and change of parish. Only in the last sentence is the possibility of resignation mentioned. And briefly in the penultimate line – it is hard to imagine what the Report envisaged ‘pastoral care for the minor’ might entail. Especially as the focus throughout is clearly on potential rehabiliation for the clergyman.
Section 296 re-affirms the need for secrecy – previously and chillingly expressed by ‘and there is no reason to suspect that the case is known to any but the two of them’.
Alarm bells all stayed on silent. Those preparing this report – and those reading it which included the House of Bishops at the time, were seemingly able to skate past this paragraph without a second glance.
Lincoln Police in Operation Redstone Phase 2 are investigating those in decision-making capacy. So this report may have significance for these inquiries. The indication would be that Lincoln, and also Chichester, were not unusual situations but part of an embedded strategic pattern. A strategy which even when recorded observationally to the bishops went unquestioned and unchallenged.
I know in my own experience that religious houses were being used as ecclesiastical dry cleaners for these situations. But at the time when I might have spoken out – was living and breathing my own experience of cover-up which lasted 4 decades. I have never seen the strategy so clearly expressed in an official report.
If you can stomach it, and I warn you the next paragraph might be a potential trigger. The ‘Gloucester Report’, another official report from a decade ealier, chaired by Bishop John Yates includes this paragraph:
“It is clear that there is a class of child-molester, who is typically attracted by young children (often of either sex) whom he wishes to fondle or whom he invites to inspect his genitals. Such behaviour, more pathetic than immediately dangerous, is understandably greatly shocking to the parents of the child, and in some cases the child himself will be frightened and disturbed, though there may be no long-term ill effects.”
‘Gloucester’ Report, 1979. General Synod, Board for Social Responsibility.
Para 179, p56.
Report was called: Homosexual Relationships: a contribution to the discussion
Bishop John Yates later went to be Bishop at Lambeth under Archbishop Carey.
Mr and Mrs Moss took their concerns about Bishop Peter Ball to him in 1992.
Thank God we have moved on from believing that it doesn’t bother the child.
Wow. I agree totally that the pretty evil idea of it ‘not bothering the child’ makes one speechless, it is so wrong.
But on 4 points I disagree:
(1) Did anyone actually *believe* something like that or was it a doctrine of convenience for the compromised? After all, people voice the same doctrine-of-convenience for the powerful when they talk about divorce (‘it does not bother the child’ – as though the poor child were given any say) in defiance of commonsense (and of Judith Wallerstein’s research).
(2) The idea that there is a ‘we’. There is no communal amorphous mass called ‘we’ – because many individuals can think for themselves and are too educated, and not enough scared of peerpressure, to succumb to groupthink.
(3) ‘Moved on’. Yes, as a stage 3 – but only because people in stage 2 had moved *backwards* into that ‘belief’ when people had previously in stage 1 known it to be nonsense.
(4) The idea that everyone used to think that. When was that the case? When did people in general think such a thing as that? Quite the contrary: among Christians and among sensible people it was a rare view. The Christian correspondence of the time showed that there were always many who always knew such attitudes to be evil. The trouble was, in a media-dominated society, that no-one listened to the Christians. We had to wait for decades for the holders of the other viewpoints to mature and finally understand that the Christians were right. Cf. Joan Bakewell finally realising that Mary Whitehouse had a point (that the sexual revolution served the interests of unscrupulous lotharii and those who couldn’t care less about sexualising children or about much else either).
……
and quoting a passage direct from IICSA. C.5: The events leading to Peter Ball’s arrest:
Bishop Yates did not say anything they considered to be helpful. He simply told them that if they had any further concerns they should go and see the Bishop of Tewkesbury, Jeremy Walsh. Archbishop George Carey said this information was never passed to him, although he and Bishop Yates had a relationship of trust.
Mr and Mrs Moss also visited Bishop Walsh, who had not heard anything from Bishop Yates. He was surprised at what they told him but offered no helpful solution. Mr and Mrs Moss were left feeling isolated and did not know what to do. They had told two senior clerics about Peter Ball’s behaviour but, as far as they could see, nothing was done.
I thought that the wider issues arising from this report would be better discussed on TA (out of respect for Stephen’s relevance ‘rule’), but it hasn’t taken off at all there. One just hopes that TA people might read this blog and the further revelations contributed by Froghole and Gilo. It’s enormously important and relevant.
I hope the issues are read and picked up too. The Gloucester report is shocking. ” more pathetic than immediately dangerous,” and “no lasting ill effects”! Speechless!
Tragically that minimising/denial culture has been endemic. The 2 bishops I reported to in 2002 did nothing. I don’t think that would happen now, but clearly some are not listening to survivors. I can’t understand how the bishops can remain mostly silent publicly about this and then publish that awful document about Civil partnerships, which has nothing pastoral about it. I despair
Tried to rewrite 295e with another ‘breaking of law’ in mind…
When such behaviour involves breaking the law, eg by driving away after a road accident whilst in possession of a stolen vehicle (especially in his own parish) and there is no reason to suspect that the incident is known to anyone, the person concerned is warned of the great danger that they and their ministry are in, be moved to penitence, and be advised to return the stolen vehicle swiftly but quietly and to go on leave of absence prior to moving parishes. The provision of pastoral care for the victim of the RTA is discussed. Immediate resignation may be required of such clergy.
The IICSA report on Chichester Diocese posited that the lax attitudes towards abuse in the Church were due partly to its confused attitude to homosexuality. Officially the Church regarded the latter as sinful, while in fact tolerating it as long as there was no scandal; there was a certain degree of sympathy towards gay individuals . And because it was all swept under the carpet (an attitude which doesn’t seem to have changed very much, sadly), the distinction between consenting and abusive relationships was not understood. I seem to recall that IICSA specifically mentioned Rowan Williams, among others, in this context, but my memory may be faulty in this respect.
I think this is the background to the relevant paragraphs in the Osborne Report.