The transition from the old system of Consistory Courts in the Church of England to the supposedly more streamlined Clergy Discipline Measure in 2006 was supposed to bring greater simplicity. The earlier system, used for disciplining erring clergy, had only operated in a few cases in recent years. Speaking generally, these cases were cumbersome and incredibly expensive to organise. In effect it was proving impossible to hold offending clergy to account. The clergy had also been protected by freehold privileges in addition to the complexity of the old processes. Unless they were found guilty of an offence judged criminal by the civil authorities, the clergy were almost immune from any checks to their behaviour.
The CDM which came into active operation in 2006 provided for a streamlining of the old system. One of the main changes that came into the system was in the way that it allowed anyone, layperson up to a bishop, to take out a CDM claim against a clergyman/woman. Obviously, some cases against the local Vicar were going to be trivial and the Measure anticipated this. Complaints about changing the hymn book could be filtered out at an early stage and most minor grumbles were not allowed to proceed very far. Theoretically it was only the most serious complaints that reached the attention of archdeacons, lawyers and the Diocesan Bishop. Among the most serious complaints are those which involved accusations of serious safeguarding offences. These might be referred via the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser (DSA) to the attention of the National Safeguarding Team. They could then appoint a Core Group to look at the case and make recommendations. Penalties could range from a rebuke to a suspension for an unlimited period. In 2021 we are awaiting a new revision to the CDM. What has gone wrong? The complaints I list here are partly recording what I have heard personally, and partly reflecting the results of research done by the Sheldon Community in Devon. They have collected many of the most appalling horror stories of lives ruined by false accusations and terrible delays in process for those accused.
My own complaints about the CDM process fall into four sections.
1 Unequal process across the country. There is a ‘postcode lottery’, it would appear. Some dioceses have excellent DSAs and compassionate bishops who have equal regard for justice and the well-being of both the accused and the survivor. Although DSAs are not expected to take on a pastoral role, they are sometimes the only person in a safeguarding scenario who can show the slightest bit of real caring. The others involved, archdeacons, lawyers and communications people seem often only interested in the detailed protocol of the process. That process does not speak of care for the abused or other damaged people. Where there is no attempt at caring, either for the accused or survivor, we find a process that can be, at worst, utterly soul-destroying and toxic.
2 Apparent failures to distinguish the serious from the less serious offences. Clergy from time to time make what can be seen as genuine mistakes. By a mistake I am referring to one-off action which is done in moment of thoughtlessness or because of stress. These mistakes are the sort of actions that are regretted almost immediately after they are done. I want to identify clearly that there are slip-ups of words used in anger or decisions connected with money that are immediately regretted. As an example of the latter, a Vicar might ‘lend’ church money to a feckless person who fails to pay it back. He might use upsetting language in front of a child. The question that has to be asked in every case is whether there is a pattern of behaviour being demonstrated. The word ‘risk’, from a common-sense interpretation, really only applies to actions that are likely to be repeated. Many forms of bad behaviour involve repetition and such repetition is suggestive of what we must refer to as addictive behaviour. Some compulsive forms of behaviour which may involve alcohol, pornography, sex or gambling are likely to require a serious professional response. It is right and appropriate to use the word ‘risk’ in speaking about these kinds of actions. With sex offences, it is likely that there is a pattern of repeated behaviour perhaps lasting several years. The offender may also have found some dubious theological or psychological ways of rationalising this behaviour. Such a scenario is extremely dangerous. In any event, assessments of risk are best made by specialists. When the word is used loosely or inappropriately, it ceases to have any meaning or protect anyone. We have seen the absurdity of applying the word risk to Dean Percy from the evidence that is in the public domain. The allegation against him refers to a single episode, not a pattern of behaviour that would suggest risk of harm to people in general.
3 The third observation about CDMs I have made is how often we seem to encounter a block in establishing the truth of what actually happened. The people involved, not necessarily the perpetrators and their supporters, seem often to have blank memories. One of the most distressing things for a survivor is to pluck up courage to disclose abuse to a senior member of the Church, only to find later the said bishop or archdeacon claims to have no memory of the conversation. The words ‘I have no recollection or memory of that’ are cruel and devastating for the survivor. Abuse amnesia, which I can call it, is also common among whole swathes of church people who belong to particular networks. Keith Makin has approached many people who might have had memories of John Smyth. Hardly anyone came forward of their own volition. The same widespread amnesia seems to apply to those who know Jonathan Fletcher. Abuse amnesia is common in the world known to survivors and we need to give it its proper description which is lying. To claim not to know when you do know is straightforward deceit. The Percy case, even before it got to the first CDM against him, had already involved lies and the manipulation of records. Fortunately, the assessor Andrew Smith spotted the lies and named them and the individuals responsible for them. One would have hoped that certain witnesses, after being named as distorters of truth, would have been questioned rather more carefully in subsequent investigations. Certainly, in a court of law, a barrister, seeking to establish truth by the age-old process of cross examination, would want to draw attention to past lies. This would help a jury assess the likelihood of whether truth is now being told or not. The witness statements in the Christ Church case have not been examined forensically. I am told that there are a number of glaring inconsistencies which have not yet been challenged. Lies and the supressing of truth seems to infect CDM processes in many instances that I know of. The problem is made worse by protocols that deny a survivor or accused person a place on the Core Group which is responsible for examining the case..
4 The fourth area of disquiet is the selectivity of cases. The fact that that the Bishop of Lincoln and Archbishop Carey were given instant suspensions and their cases leaked to the press, all within the same 24 hours, suggests a political process at work. Why them? Why do we not hear about other CDMs launched against bishops and even Archbishops? I know of at least four. The claim that CDMs and Core Groups have been used as weapons against individuals who are expendable is highly plausible. Dean Percy has been a gadfly to conservative theologians for a long time and has made enemies. Given the record of the Church choosing which CDMs to ‘big-up’, it is hardly surprising for us to suggest that some political process is at work in his case. The behaviour of his own Bishop has also not suggested discretion and even-handedness in the way the case has been dealt with. Indeed the opposite.
There is a lot more to say about CDMs and some of it has been set-out in earlier blogs. The main conclusion I have to make is that the Church of England, in its desire to possess an independent legal structure, has created a monster which now seems out of control. There are too few ordinary people prepared to be part of these processes, so the same highly paid lawyers play an over-prominent role in maintaining the structure. Dean Percy faces the same firm of lawyers working for the Church and his College. Is it surprising that there are numerous conflicts of interest in his case and no doubt in others? Who are the ordinary people sitting on Core Groups, making crucial decisions about a person’s livelihood and future? Are they allowed to speak up for common-sense and justice, or are they swept along by legal processes which tend to be biased towards the institution rather than the individual? The short conclusion of this blog post is that the CDM process and the exercise of the internal legal protocols by the Church of England has done a great deal to undermine the reputation of the Church. Systems of justice that harm abuse survivors and others who challenge the status quo of the institution, will eventually be called out by those who look on. The CDM, which began as an attempt to upgrade the old discipline process for the clergy, has become something that may destroy the whole institution.
Minor point. Some at least of the DSAs, advisors, have been renamed DSOs, Officers. This supposedly should give them more power, and is a change that was requested by survivor groups. I’ve no idea whether that makes a blind bit of difference! If it hadn’t been for a beautifully timed fault on our landline and broadband, I was due to start testing that today and have had to cancel until we can chat privately! I’ll let you know.
Actually when I was first employed by the Diocese of Bath and Wells the job title was DSO – but my ‘power’ was relatively negligible and I personally felt ‘advisor’ sounded more hopeful and might I have more influence … sadly changing a name does not confer power where power and control is so embedded.
Thank you Athena. I am aware that IICSA made this as one of their recommendations. I am not really up to date on the way things are working at the local level. The information about who is a DSO and who DSA at this moment is probably only to be discovered by trawling through 42 diocesan web sites. This is not something I have fancied doing. A point that I should have made in my piece is that DSOs, as someone said to me, are like junior officers on the Western Front. They have a short life expectancy. This is very disheartening for survivors who have poured out their heart to a DSA/DSO only to find that there has been a new appointment next time they are in touch. I think I have written why the job is so stressful.
Very thoughtful and helpful. Thank you Stephen. I will recommend it to my friend who is embroiled in a case.
You write, with reference to the Martyn Percy case, that “I am told that there are a number of glaring inconsistencies which have not yet been challenged”. As you are no doubt aware, the woman who made a complaint about Dean Percy’s conduct has publicly asked for “all those discussing this publicly and sharing confidential documentation to desist”, on the grounds not only that this is “creating an environment in which future survivors of harassment will not be able to come forward”, but also because the publicity this has generated has taken “a toll” on her. As someone who purports to have a “special interest” in “when the Church is a place of harm and abuse”, might it not be kinder and more compassionate to the person who a made a complaint (as well as, potentially, future complainants) to desist from making these somewhat scurrilous assertions, especially when you are apparently reliant merely on hearsay?
This is a difficult one. As a survivor of very serious abuse myself, I want to support other survivors – and have done for several decades now. Being something of an old hand in this field, I recognise that any time an allegation of abuse is made publicly, there is going to be widespread discussion and even speculation about it. That’s simply inevitable. It can serve the alleged victim/s well, in that if there are victims they may come forward and bolster the case of the original complainant. On the other hand, some people may well attempt to defend the accused. This is fair enough, though difficult for complainants, since it isn’t reasonable to expect the supporters of the accused to tolerate their name and reputation being tarnished without some kind of reply. This is why most of us prefer to keep the allegations secret. It’s in our own interests.
In this case, the allegation was made very public indeed. This may not have been Ms. X’s doing but it certainly wasn’t the Dean’s doing, nor that of any of his supporters. Given the publicity the previous attempts to oust the Dean had received, and the dismissal of them as being without basis, and the interest (and outrage) the circumstances have aroused, there was bound to be a lot of comment once the accusation had been aired. This is especially the case with the CDM, since CDMs are not confidential, as I understand it.
This very sad situation is inflicting harm and abuse on both Ms. X and on Dean Percy. Given Stephen’s longstanding interest in justice and good process in the Church, I think it’s very useful to have his observations.
There is a problem in that the substance of the complaint was leaked by the malcontent dons to the Fleet Street press. Comment ensued.
The primary responsibility for breaching the confidentiality of complainant and respondents alike, lies with those who weaponised the complaint in pursuit of their collateral purpose which was to undermine the Dean. They had tried and failed to do so with false allegation on four prior occasions. One cannot be surprised if a certain scepticism creeps into how this has been handled by the College.
The substance of the complaint is a separate issue from the malign manipulation of the narrative and the process. It is possible both to wish a proper impartial assessment of the complaint and to be outraged at the lack of integrity with which College and Church have received a no doubt bona fide concern and fouled the waters of justice.
Do you unreservedly condemn those that took that initial step of disclosure?
I am somewhat cynical about there being a really strong motivating desire to change CDM. The Sheldon Community have offered their suggestions in the absence of those appointed by the church to actually oversee the reform, doing it properly.
As a survivor, I have been told more times than I can remember, by clergy, authorised listeners, laity and other survivors, ‘you dont want to bring a CDM it’s a dreadful process, you won’t survive that.’ I am not alone in being told that, CDM’s are reabusive whether the survivor or an advocate brings them and it is completely true they should be avoided at all cost but there is an upside for the church in that. Survivors struggle on looking for other ways to find justice and can be batted away with no real resolution.
A disciplinary process that is fit for purpose, and which people could safely advise using would have the consequence of having more complainants and that is not something the church has any desire for.
A number of comments have reportedly gone astray recently. Dick, my tech consultant, is looking into it. Meanwhile please do not post unless you have saved your comment first. One alternative is to try a different email or if all else fails, send the comment to me parsvic2@gmail.com with the headline COMMENT FOR SURVIVING CHURCH. I can then post from here.
Martin Sewell and Janet Fife have both said, more effectively, what I would have wished to say. One understands Stephen Gardiner’s position, and we are all sympathetic to Ms ‘X’ and the Dean.
But the point can’t be emphasised strongly enough that the action taken by the Governing Body and the Chapter is a procedure for the dismissal of the Dean, a very different matter from an inquiry into the facts which might, or might not, justify a far lesser penalty – if any at all. That is left to the Church and the CDM.
If nothing else, it is an extraordinary anomaly that the two procedures are possible alongside each other.