Few of us have lived through a moment in history that could truly be described as revolutionary. The historians among us can point to certain pivotal episodes that powerfully changed for ever the experience of whole countries and the individuals within them. Three political upheavals come to mind which have a clear claim to be called true revolutions. In each case the populations are still experiencing the effect of what then took place. These revolutions that come high on the seismic scale are, respectively, the American (1776), the French (1789) and the Russian (1917). There have of course been numerous other lesser revolutions in Britain and elsewhere, but none come close to these three I have named. In each of them there was radical change – change that happened almost overnight.
What are the features of a revolutionary event that make it significant and history-changing? The word implies a turning upside down of the old order. The old has passed away for ever, never to return. An entire population may be forced to accept a new reality about the way they are governed. Resources of property and power may be reordered. Sometimes the rich and powerful are deliberately persecuted, and an entire new class of people is created to manage the new system. The only time in my life that I have witnessed, at first-hand, events which were thought at the time to be a revolution, are the political upheavals in Greece in 1967-8. I watched the way that the traditional intelligentsia was shoved into the shadows (or prison) and a new bullying class of bureaucrats elevated to run the government and the police. In short, officialdom became harsh and coercive. Fear of strangers became the norm. The person you were speaking to might be an informer reporting to the State. What I am briefly describing has been the norm for many unfortunate nations, and, tragically, is once again being reasserted in the occupied areas of Ukraine. The deep irony of so many of these oppressive regimes is that they believe themselves to be pursuing commendable revolutionary aims. In the case of Russia and the political oppression of parts of Ukraine today, the political justifications (removing Nazis) have turned out to be totally spurious.
The word revolution is one that can also be applied to an event in any institution where dramatic irreversible changes take place. Looking back over the past ten years in the CofE I detect three events that are revolutionary in the sense that they were unprecedented and at the same time irreversible. To describe any event as revolutionary is of course a subjective assessment, but I would suggest that as the result of these three moments something really important has taken place. The first pivotal moment for the CofE, and indeed for the whole of British society, was the revelation of the horrendous behaviour of Jimmy Savile in 2012. I do not intend to dwell on this evil individual and his nefarious behaviour, but rather comment briefly on the seismic shift in attitudes which we witnessed throughout every institution. After Savile, many abused individuals were able to come forward to disclose their stories and know that they would now likely be believed. Many British institutions have had to face up to the presence of sexually abusive individuals within them. The way that football, athletics, schools, and prisons were found to be infested with many abuse cases is an issue that we are still dealing with. The CofE, along with many other institutions, has been compelled to allocate considerable sums of money to provide training and expertise for both its employees and its members to deal with this massive problem. Safeguarding for the vulnerable, however much we may critique its implementation, is something that is here to stay. From a historical perspective, I see a direct link between Savile’s dreadful behaviour and the setting up of our NST in 2015.
Locating a second revolutionary moment in the CofE takes us away from the world of safeguarding to another theme often considered by this blog, the exercise of power in the Church by bishops. It could be claimed that in our CofE, the power of the bishop to teach, admonish and discipline has been traditionally unchallenged. In recent decades we have seen the growing influence of synods, but these have not claimed ownership of all manifestations of traditional episcopal power. The power available to diocesan bishops remains considerable. If a bishop decides to use his power arbitrarily, even tyrannically, there is nothing readily available in the system which has the right to challenge it. Only criminal activity or breaches of safeguarding rules are subject to sanctions exercised by other authorities. Traditionally, the system has worked through the expedient of extremely careful vetting and formation for senior posts in the Church.
The second revolution in the CofE took place in the Winchester Diocese in 2021 when a group of senior clergy expressed their intention to propose a vote of no confidence in their diocesan, Tim Dakin, at the Synod. +Tim was not being accused of safeguarding or criminal offences but rather of presiding over a regime of bullying, fear and the destruction of morale in the diocese. As far as I can tell, such a challenge against a bishop has never before been recorded in the CofE. The fact that this threat ultimately led to the retirement of +Tim indicates that a powerful precedent has been set. It is now possible for Synods to challenge the power of bishops when they are believed to be abusing this power. Diocesan Synods would only ever rarely seek to propose such a vote, but the way that bishops exercise their power in the future must surely subtly change to take account of this event in 2021. Another such challenge may well resurface at some future point in another diocese. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
The third revolution that has taken place in recent weeks is the extraordinary sight of a bishop seeking to control criticism of his actions by resorting to legal processes and the threat of a defamation suit. Such an action has never, as far as I can gather, happened before in the Church. I am course referring to the recent story of a CofE bishop publicly trying to shut down critical comments made on the Archbishop Cranmer blog. The basic issue here is not who is right in the interpretation of the events under dispute. The question that has to be faced is whether a bishop or, indeed, the wider CofE, stands to gain anything from an extraordinary and clunky demonstration of episcopal power. Threatening anyone with legal action, before other methods of conciliation have been explored fully, does not make good publicity for the Church. Indeed, even the threat of such action may change the way that bishops are regarded in the future. The public will be aware that such legal action costs money and institutions which spend money in this way rapidly undermine a willingness to provide voluntary donations in the future. The law is a clumsy way of settling disputes at the best of times. When legal processes are used by an organisation which purports to believe in reconciliation, love and goodwill, something looks out of kilter. A bishop is known as the chief pastor in his/her diocese and any recourse to legal threats seems to be a denial of all the values implicit in a pastoral relationship. My instinct tells me that this precedent of invoking the law to intimidate someone who is raising their voice to challenge power will not end well. It will have a variety of unforeseen and possibly damaging consequences both locally and nationally. I doubt if the bishop, using the sledgehammer of legal methods, has thought all these through. The political climate of the Anglican Church is already fractious over matters of sexuality and doctrine. Opening fresh ‘fronts’ with critics in new areas is wasteful of energy and much needed resources. The Diocesan Synod in this case will be concerned to see any of their charitable funds expended in this way. There will, rightly, be calls for mediation and dialogue rather than the use of the blunt methods of a legal process. The story, whatever its outcome, will be long remembered and the reputation of all bishops diminished in the eyes of many people. The ordinary churchgoing population of the diocese will also have less incentive to attend, let alone give generously to their local churches.
Three events or episodes- each may be seen as revolutionary in their implications for the life and functioning of the CofE. Each episode was an unprecedented moment which has perhaps changed the history of the CofE for all time. First, we are all living in a post-Savile world. That horrendous episode forced everyone including members of churches to take the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable more seriously than before. The enforced retirement of the Bishop of Winchester has changed the idea that bishops in the CofE are beyond criticism or accountability. In the same way the use of legal threats against an individual for exploring what happened in a notorious episode of power abuse within the church, suggests that the role of bishop currently needs re-examination and re-discovery if the idea of episcopal oversight is to remain a viable and helpful one for the Church of the future.
As so often, am in awe of the power of your writing. The perceptions gathered here are acute. What a brilliant way to gather three events together.
If there is a ‘Stephen Parsons book’ in the future (there needs to be) this could form part of one chapter. There’s a wealth of chapters in this blog and several books.
There is wisdom in the old revolutionary owl!
Thought provoking observations!
Couldn’t agree more with Gilo. Stephen’s writing on this blog goes from strength to strength.
The way that lawyers offer advice to bishops will also change of course, with the most recent “third revolution”.
Any professional advice is based on knowledge of the legal framework, and an evaluation of previous potential and actual courses of action, reputation risk to the legal firm and so on.
So, was the legal letter effective? Did it shut the site down? Did Cranmer apologise and correct his alleged misbehaviour? Or did the action increase the knowledge and awareness of what has being going on in said Diocese? I would tactfully suggest the latter.
It’s only my opinion, but knowing the quality and integrity of legal trained people I know, I very much doubt that sending that letter was their best advice. It seems far more likely they would have advised against it, but reluctantly followed client’s instructions. Sometimes clients are their own worst enemies. When previous legal advice now appears to have exacerbated the situation, any professional in this position, would be ruing the unwanted attention. And increasing the fees.
You would think the solicitor would have frankly refused this work. I suspect solicitors unconnected with church life would not have realized what would appear about the bishop of Oxford in the comments when Cranmer published the letter. You would, however, have expected both of them to take ten seconds to glance over the Archbishop’s CV and realize they’d picked the wrong man.
Well, he’s being paid, so I doubt he cares (though he embarrassed himself by using ‘infer’ incorrectly in his letter – a concept lawyers should understand…)
I’d like to know WHO paid. If the Dio/Church, that’s an improper use of Church funds. If Croft paid it he wasted his money as a own goal, as it’s attracted far more (negative) publicity for him. He looks unwise/thin-skinned.
Xtians not going to law (unless last resort) also seems to’ve gone out the window… A threatening solicitor’s letter is going to law.
There is another common thread between the revolutions you cite. They were all prefaced by economic stress and, more specifically, a fiscal crisis of the state. 1776 came about because the British state tried to coerce the colonists to help pay for a massive debt overhang from the Seven Years’ War, from the success of which the colonists had derived huge benefits, but which could not be financed within the UK without significant political instability. 1789 came about because of the insolvency of the French state (thanks to accumulated war debts and Necker’s blunders over debt conversion). 1917 was the result not only of the failure of the Russian state in the field (including in 1905), but of its inability to finance its military outlays other than via hyperinflation. The 1967 coup in Greece followed a long period (since 1943, and a shorter period since 1965) when prices had often been rising by at least 10% pcm, and in the period 1943-44 it suffered a hyperinflation exceeded only by that of Hungary.
In all instances the main push for revolution came ‘from above’. The rebel colonists were affluent merchants or planters (as Dr Johnson noted, the ‘loudest whelps for liberty are from the drivers of the negroes’). The fall of the Bastille was prefaced by the ‘revolution of the notables’ in 1787-89 against the fiscal policies of Brienne (who was wanting the untaxed first and second estates to bail out the state so as to forestall insolvency). The revolution led by Kerensky was that of disaffected landowners, industrialists and bourgeois. The 1967 coup was that of Karamanlis supporters against the threat of progressive policies advanced by Papandreou.
So too the ‘revolution’ in Winchester. The authorities were demanding subventions from the diocesan ‘elites’ and ‘interlocutors’ in diocesan synod: these subventions were either in the form of demands for more money or cuts in provision. This was a ‘fiscal crisis’ precipitated by demographic collapse and the breakdown of the fiscal settlement brokered in 1995-98 between the dioceses and the Commissioners. The turning by the DBFs of the parochial screws has been a Pavlovian response on the part of the DBFs to demands by the Commissioners that subventions by the centre of the dioceses are contingent on ‘reforms’ which eliminate diocesan deficits. Yet the diocesan deficits are a direct consequence of the 1995-98 settlement: the DBFs are the Commissioners’ asbestos shield.
Revolutions tend to devour their children. The merchants and planters who put themselves in the saddle in 1776-83 found their right to rule challenged when the ‘era of good feelings’ turned into the Jacksonian revolution of 1828. The notables who revolted against royal government in 1787-89 often round themselves headless in the Terror. The Russian bourgeois of February 1917 had been destroyed a year later. The colonels were destroyed by their hubris in Cyprus. That does not augur well for the Church.
The “genie is out of the bottle” phrase is a useful one with respect to a new world order that we now live in. The power and speed of the internet and related social media means that it is virtually impossible for news to be clamped down on, or otherwise suppressed.
Only this week a national newspaper printed an article about a politicians’s potentially favouring his then mistress for a remunerative opportunity. The article was quickly withdrawn in later print editions, and online, but a screenshot I viewed on Twitter had already been reposted over 5,000 times. What, are they going to sue 5,000 people?
To be clear I am completely bored with the story, which may or may not be true, but wasn’t a surprise either way. However it is concerning when untruths are published, if this turns out to be the case.
One lesson is this: if you are in a public position you can no longer control the message about you. Even mainstream media, which generally have a known bias, will show more of an overview of a situation if other competitors are “printing” it, because they know their loyal readers, whilst enjoying the bias, will start looking elsewhere, if they don’t.
Twitter, and other social media, will clamp down (at glacial pace) on fake news. Very wealthy people can (and sometimes seem to enjoy) mislead people on Twitter, be fined millions of dollars, and take the hit. Obviously much of this is bad, but it’s the world we live in now.
Very often the established Church seems a couple of decades behind everyone else in their thinking. Canute like, the senior leaders try to keep the tide back using life-expired methods. It hasn’t worked.
Reflecting on the Percy case, as an example of defended-against fake news, it seems to me that the best the respective parties can do, is to live proper Christian lives of pastors. If it were me, I’d do it away from the big city, in the rural fields and parishes, and amongst the poor, bereaved, lonely and sick, at the food banks, but with cameras turned off.
If there’s another thing true about the new world, it’s that people quickly get bored if the news dries up. On the other hand they will begin to respect you if you start treating them well.
Thoughtful and rigorous as usual, Stephen. I would venture to suggest that Steve (or Steven as he now preferes to be called) Croft is not the first diocesan bishop to send in the lawyers after a website called out his dislike of public criticism.
Here in Wales, the former Archbishop, Barry Morgan, who had (in my opinion) a controlling agenda, a tendency to ride roughshod over genuine debate and dialogue with those who held a different opinion, as well as a capacity for ‘divide and rule’, did exactly this to a blog caled The Llandaffchester Chronicles. Admittedly, the blog was a magent for a rather unsavoury ecclesiastical mysoginy; but there were regular examples of how Morgan and his colleagues were spending charitable resources inappropriately, engendering bullying behaviour and indulging in the worst examples of nepotism.
Because Morgan was pursuing (what was being presented) as a theologically liberal agenda, people assumed it was just a mouthpiece for a disaffected conservative rump of the diocese. That was until the appointment of an excellent woman as Dean of Llandaff unravelled after nine weeks. Then Morgan’s spin-doctors dissembled over the real reasons, and the whole episode became the subject of an NDA. When the blog began to suggest that oppisition to the Dean being a woman was very far from the truth of why she resigned after so short a time in office, and the Dean herself had to insist on corrections to this in online versions of local media reporting, coupled to suggestions in the blog that the real reason was the Dean’s unwillingness to collude with dodgy accounting practices or to front policies giving vent to the Archbishop’s vindictive trait, the lawers were sent in with all the energy and committment of a 13th Century crusade.
What happened? The blog was closed. But another emerged within a matter of weeks, under a different name, pursuing the same agenda.
It was claimed – by Sir John Harvey Jones, I think – that the mark of a failing organisation – one that knows it’s failing – is a panicked, inward-looking response: it thinks it can’t control outside events so doubles-down on control of the inward. That is what I perceive the CofE doing in the coercive control of clergy under the safeguarding mantra, including the throwing under the bus of innocent individuals for the sake of episcopal reputation (which we see of Oil Welsby, for example). The CofE has little or no influence beyond itself (indeed in some quarters is a laughing stock: ironically by the liberals it seeks ever more to appeal to). The liberal fashions it comically follows are enabled by a lack of foundational faith by those allegedly called to model it. I’m convinced there are many bishops who would not so long ago be regarded as heretics, in no small part because of theological ignorance per inadequate education.
More and more – partic first-generation women – have come through Noddy courses (eg, Bp of London), and as no bishop now examines the clergy – nor each-other – for orthodox belief and teaching, anything goes – and it is. The new orthodoxy is safeguarding: get that wrong and there’s trouble alright, but believe and teach any old dross (and you’ll probably be promoted).
The appalling CDM – suspiciously conspicuous in finding against bishops (was the ghastly Dakin ever ‘done’?) – is a manifestation of control. We know from recent reports condemning its use and abuse that it’s ranged against the trivial: far too many are put through the mill, causing severe stress, illness, and sometimes considerable legal cost, only for there to be no finding of misconduct. It’s proved a charter for the malicious litigant. And it was something Croft chose to ‘swerve’ on a technicality while proclaiming he’d done nothing wrong (so why not submit to judgement?)
If we needed more evidence of managerial control, consider the appalling multiplication of archdeacons (including the newly-invented assistant archdeacons). With an invariable year-on-year reduction in stipendiary clergy (see the official stats) and claims of inadequate funding, there are considerably more of these ‘crooks’ than 20 years ago. Bishops know it’s impolitic to increase their own number – there are already far too many – so they do it by the back door, appointing those who will reduce their workload and take some of the flack. What failing organisations appoint *more* managers and reduce front-line staff in the marketplace for customers? You couldn’t make it up…
I hope diocesan synods grow some and rebel against this corruption – but don’t hold your breath as they’re stuffed with liberals, just like the bishops in whose image they are: liberal anoraks.
Thank you for this analysis. There is a risk, however, that Winchester will not prove to be a revolutionary moment, but instead be the Church’s equivalent of Hungary or the Prague Spring: a portent of how the Church might do things differently, had it only the will, including the will to resist at a diocesan level. Then, at some future point – far too late – it might effect meaningful reforms, but by that time it will matter little since the whole institution will have disintegrated to a nullity; indeed, in Gorbachev style, the reforms might result in The End.
The problem is that diocesan synods will only be able to challenge bishops if they are not packed with the clerical and lay nomenklatura. It seems to me that your average diocesan synod member has risen up through the lesser (deanery) soviets, by toeing the diocesan line or performing acts of political and/or financial abasement or obeisance to the authorities and/or area deans. These, then, are not the sort of people who tend to rock boats. Indeed, they too often function as quiescent lobby fodder. Too many of the clerical members will be wanting to advance their careers (or else survive), and too many of the lay members – susceptible to the active or tacit ‘suasion’ of the authorities – will be content to allow their locality/parish to ‘take a bullet for the team’.
Until diocesan synods feel able to challenge the authorities, they will continue to accept, meekly, the diktats of bishops and diocesan officials (who are now invariably a front for the Commissioners), and nothing will change. For it is the Commissioners who, by tying financial support to the dioceses with reforms designed to eliminate deficits, who are accelerating the evisceration of the parish. The unfolding tragedy which is the grading process in Lincoln diocese is a textbook example of this disastrous dynamic: the £4m operating deficit will only be covered (in part) by the Commissioners if the diocese realises savings, liquidates assets and extinguishes liabilities; thus, churches are closed en masse (indeed, I met one rural dean recently who was champing at the bit to close everything), and clergy numbers are cut. That Dakin managed to inspire a revolt is a tribute to the truly extraordinary nature of his pontificate; most other bishops will essay many of Dakin’s stratagems, and will be able to ram them through diocesan synods, because the bitter pills will be sugarcoated in the language of collaboration, collegiality and hope.
Similarly, the bishops act in this way because they are just another layer of nomenklatura, and when they meet together they also want to prove their collegiality and pliability ‘for the sake of the team’. This means they can be manipulated easily by the balance sheet operatives.
Interesting you mentioned JH-J, since after he finished the late Denys Henderson effected the split between the legacy ICI and the phoenix AZ, and where is ICI (Mond’s baby) now?
Frog: I’m sure your analysis is correct. My perception from the diocese I know best – which isn’t well – Oxford – is that there is considerable clerical and lay dissatisfaction with the ‘centre’: the large number of ‘snr’ clergy at it and its admin. But the moaning happens underground: few clergy seem prepared to take a stand (which I’m not suggesting is easy as I know when they do the ‘coercion’ starts…) Still, if enough took a stand they couldn’t be ignored. Some evangelicals do, via threat of or actual withheld funds. Others ‘threaten’ the use of PEVs (whom the incumbent bishops hate).
Doubtless there’ll be more rebellion as money becomes tighter and squabbles over it grow. Episcopal authority can only wane in a zeitgeist antithetical to authority. Bring it on!
Marcus, I’m not sure how you’re defining ‘liberal’, but many observers are deploring the growing influence of evangelicals in the C of E. Whereas bishops who didn’t believe all articles of the Nicene Creed used to be fairly commonplace – see for example the Yes Prime Minister episode where Hacker has to appoint a bishop. Not to mention Trollope’s bishops in the Barchester Chronicles and, more recently, David Jenkins, Bp of Durham. It seems to me that our bench of bishops is actually less liberal, not more so.
As for the CDM, it’s a mess. But it was brought in because two cases had proved that the previous disciplinary system was entirely inadequate. One of these was the Lincoln Wars of the 1990s, when the very public hostilities between the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, and mutual accusations, caused a national scandal. The Dean, Brandon Jackson, was eventually tried in a consistory court for ‘conduct unbecoming’ after a verger claimed to have had an affair with him. He was acquitted, but last summer Private Eye reported that a civil suit brought by another woman claiming he had indecently assaulted her was settled out of court.
General Synod voted in favour of the introduction of a new discipline measure in 1999 or 2000; I was one of those who voted in favour. It then took some years to draft and go through all the stages before becoming law, and has since proved to be not fit for purpose. But neither was what came before it.
Marcus: Your comment regarding CDM and Mr Dakin: twice Jersey raised CDMs against him for his instructing the Dean to defy local law – Jersey being a Crown Dependency – if it conflicted with his agenda and instructions.
It was submitted to Lambeth but they threw it out because it was issued “outside of the UK” as Jersey is not part of UK. I have seen the paperwork.
Lambeth refused to address the issues raised as well – usual story of Lambeth circling round a bishop to protect him, despite the serious allegation of a Safeguarding issue over abuse of power and incitement to break the law. It’s been buried in Lambeth’s archives in the hope it will not see the light of day, despite that and many other instances of abuse of power in those years, which still stand unadmitted and unaddressed. How do you get a CDM to stick on a bishop? Maybe having an independent body to whom to refer such matters who will be dispassionate, objective, accountable, transparent, just, fair and honest.
Can these characteristics be found in the Church of England?
Up to now you can’t. If you can prove misconduct, they will always find some “reason” to throw out your cdm. Being able to prove misconduct against a senior cleric amounts to having your cdm dismissed. They will always find a way to interpret rules in the best interests of those you complain about. Fairness and justice are ignored. It can’t be right that an Anglican cleric can hold sway but not be subject to the usual disciplinary processes. Then the serious issues will be ignored and buried. They appear to interpret safeguarding to mean safeguarding the reputations of senior clerics. And like a certain prime minister, even breaking the law is not a reason to take action. For instance if, due to disability, you cannot fill in the form to file cdm, you may well find your complaint can be ignored because they won’t deem it to be a complaint until the form is filled in. And if, the reasonable adjustments required by law under the Equality Act are not made, well then, tough luck, no form no complaint. It would be interesting to compile the various “reasons” cdms have been dismissed.
Richard: Morgan was a notorious control freak, and nasty. An avowed liberal (which I use neutrally here), he was far from liberal in the (ab)use of authority. But that’s far from unknown of so-called liberal bishops: everything’s up for question except their status.
Incidentally, a similar case of Dakingate has happened in the (vastly numerically smaller) Aberdeen Dio, where a significant proportion of the small number of clergy rebelled against their new ‘bullying’ bishop, Mrs Dyer. That couldn’t have been more ineptly handled by the Coll of Bishops: they commissioned an investigation (by a respected theologian from another Church), then ignored its recommendation that she had indeed been a widespread bully, wasn’t viable and needed to go. Some of the complainants were women priests, so it couldn’t be characterised as Traditionalist/sexist opposition.
The ‘optics’ are appalling: bishops claiming to oppose and condemn bullying, yet backing (publicly, probably not privately) a person whose behaviour is reported (investigation and personal account) to be breathtakingly poor.
People have left the Church, there is litigation, giving is likely down, some parishes have refused to send monies to the Diocese per related claim of mismanagement, some clergy have refused to work with her, and there will be significant legal cost. It seems that rather than retire slightly early or resign for another job given her untenable position Mrs Dyer’s content for the corrosion to continue and flog her dead horse.
For those who missed it, or by way of reminder, here is a link to Stephen’s article on the Aberdeen situation:
http://survivingchurch.org/2022/06/13/allegations-of-bullying-and-financial-mismanagement-in-scotland/
Frog: I’m sure your analysis is correct. My perception from the diocese I know best – which isn’t well – Oxford – is that there is considerable clerical and lay dissatisfaction with the ‘centre’: the large number of ‘snr’ clergy at it and its admin. But the moaning happens underground: few clergy seem prepared to take a stand (which I’m not suggesting is easy as I know when they do the ‘coercion’ starts…) Still, if enough took a stand they couldn’t be ignored. Some evangelicals do, via threat of or actual withheld funds. Others ‘threaten’ the use of PEVs (whom the incumbent bishops hate).
Doubtless there’ll be more rebellion as money becomes tighter and squabbles over it grow. Episcopal authority can only wane in a zeitgeist antithetical to authority. Bring it on!
Slightly off topic, but only slightly. After years of bullying, being lied to and lied about, what does restitution look like? Any suggestions?
Aren’t harassment and intimidation, which is what bullying is, illegal? And lies are either slander or libel, depending on which form they take. If they affected your career and life, that should amount to serious monetary compensation. And the police, if not corrupt, should investigate and take appropriate action against all those involved. So how about a criminal prosecution and compensation? Can’t put things right of course, and wouldn’t make your suffering go away. But it would go a long way to putting a stop to what is effectively sanctioned law breaking by church officials. And anti social behaviour is anti social behaviour, even if committed by those wearing dog collars and mitres, and their solicitors if they have been involved. And what about the laws about bullying etc. in the workplace? I believe those in managerial posts have a responsibility to act in such cases. It will take drastic action to reform, and restitution would have to play a major role. It would be much better than the current safeguarding reviews which do not find fault even if an innocent person is driven to suicide or a Bishop has a history of ignoring safeguarding complaints. Like hardened criminals, I fear some senior clerics will not repent. Again off topic but it was recently in the public domain that about 30 Bishops have cdms pending. If they all manage to get away with it we need to ask why the Church hides behind what they say is a legal process, yet does not comply with the same standards as do our law courts so that justice can be seen to be done? I’m afraid you will have no restitution whilst secretive processes masquerading as our open system of criminal and civil prosecution continue. I think a sincere apology may help many victims, but as wrongdoers would have to feel remorse the wait may be rather a long one, especially as an apology was not given even when directed by iicsa. But you never know. Tyrants and their tyrannical regimes have been toppled in the past. Would that form part of restitution?
Thanks for this, Mary, I only just found it. Yes, my life, and the course of my life, was changed. Which probably cost me financial stability. And in some cases, balance of probabilities is enough to get you financial compensation. But the problem is always proof. Many of the people who saw enough will have forgotten by now. Some have died. I think talking to the Bishop will probably be the best I can do. If he can change, first his own Diocese, and then the wider church, I really will be well pleased. But it’s hard to swallow that there will be nothing for me. But we’ll see.
I think you’ve missed one other seismic moment; the sight of Archbishops, bishops, senior clergy and highly placed church officials on the witness stand being required to produce material and to answer the questions being out to them.
IICSA’s carefully thought-through and forensically delivered approach demolished the usually robust defences of the institutional church and was a textbook example of accountability which has never been achieved by Synod or any other mechanism since.
Perhaps one day, Synod questions might look like that: ‘So bishop; you are required to produce for us the email chains and any other documentary evidence relating to the drawing up of the risk assessment in question … A reminder that when it comes to questions you will be requried to answer the question and will be on oath … ‘
Some fifty years ago, as a reasonably newly converted student, I found a book setting out principles of Christian morality on our CU book stall. It was brilliant, spoke sense using everyday language and was eminently readable.
Who was it by? Well, I don’t know for sure who wrote it, but it was published under the name of a certain Jimmy Savile……..
Gosh! You mean Savile was the publisher? Can you remember the title?
I have a feeling he wrote it.
He was indeed the author. Sadly, after forty odd years, both the title and the publisher have been deleted from my memory banks. It may have been a Catholic publisher – am fairly sure it wasn’t IVP.
It is possible, of course, that it was ‘ghosted’ but he was certainly credited as the author. Seems very strange, now.
It could be “ Love is an uphill thing” published in 1976 . A second hand copy is advertised as very rare with an asking price of £199 (eBay)
Savile also wrote God’ll Fix It published by Mowbray in 1979.
Excerpts can be found here:
https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/godll-fix-it/
Amazing that a Prime Minister has resigned partly as a result of his covering up his part in regard to a sexual predator. Any hope our Archbishops and Bishops will do the same?
He certainly illustrates the power and pull of a charismatic narcissistic personality. The Church has had its fair share of these too and we should be very wary of getting sucked in there too.
With #gate fatigue, I can’t quite bring myself to read his biographies just yet, but we know of his schooling at Ashdown, a notorious home for sex abuse, documented elsewhere (Alex Renton 2017). The climate there forces you to block out the awful reality. For some this ends up with a personality like his. For the deeply narcissistic, they believe their own truth, often convincing others to do the same. It’s largely made up of course, and the whole thing has collapsed.