by ‘Jonathan’
I was ordained in the summer of 2018 to begin a four year curacy in a diocese in the south west of Britain. This is a time of on the job training for new clergy to prepare them to take on a parish of their own at the end. A portfolio of evidence is compiled and sent off for assessment. A satisfactory portfolio is required to continue in ministry and apply for another role.
The first 18 months of my curacy were very challenging, I was very unhappy and felt something was up but couldn’t figure out why. The confidence and competence I had had prior to ordination seemed to have vanished. At around the 18 month mark some comments from the vicar training me rang major alarm bells. After doing some research it dawned on me why I had been struggling so much. This vicar was emotionally and spiritually abusive using gaslighting and other bullying tactics to manipulate and control me. It also became apparent that I was not the first to have had such an experience with this individual.
The diocese were reluctant to move me, or even talk to me about the matter, ignoring me for several months. I couldn’t take the abuse any longer and was signed off by my GP. At this point they finally agreed to move me, on the basis that ‘no one was at fault’. I was grateful to be moved to a different context with a wonderful priest who treated me with respect, didn’t try to force me into her own mould, or cross boundaries in regards to my marriage and family. This contrast made even clearer how bad the previous vicar had been. My conscience compelled me to raise this as I feared others could be put in the same situation as I had been. I was additionally concerned that my abuser was on the Senior Leadership and Development Program and may take on a senior position in the Church of England in the future.
It took months to feel like I was taken seriously. The complaints process was incredibly slow, and the bias evident. Every component of my complaint, and the 200 pages of evidence, was completely dismissed. Indeed, my abuser seemed to have successfully turned the tables so that I came out of the process as the one at fault. This experience was traumatic and required trauma therapy to begin to recover from. As I tried to make sense of the outcome I requested the evidence he had supplied to counter my complaint. An Archdeacon made a horrendous blunder in mistakenly sending me statements from individuals who had explicitly forbidden him from sharing them with me. This was exposed completely accidently by myself when I contacted these individuals to defend my wife and autistic son who had been unfairly attacked in their statements, chiefly by my abuser’s wife.
The NDA
I had submitted my portfolio of evidence in the September of 2021, by the January I had heard nothing and was beginning to become concerned. I chased this and was eventually invited to a meeting on Valentines day of 2022 to discuss the ‘timeline’.
This turned out not to be the case when it was dropped on me in that meeting that I would not be signed off from my curacy. My portfolio had been returned and had passed, but for reasons relating to my complaint and defending my family they were not going to sign me off. I had no future in the CofE and had to step back from my job immediately. I had been given up to a year’s extension due to ill health and shared parental leave in my first context. However, it was deemed that even with a year’s extension there was no way to remedy the situation, it was a done deal. This decision was made by one individual who had very little contact with me and even confirmed to me ‘What I wrote/said was my judgement, and I did not involve anyone else in making that judgement”. This all seemed immensely unfair and a very poor process. I was asked to step back from everything I was doing from that meeting and go on what was essentially gardening leave.
Once this had been presented to me, I was told they were going to offer a ‘package to help me out’. Some coaching and counselling could be provided as well as lost earnings as a lump sum. Myself, my wife and my three children would need to leave the house within 2 months. It turned out, not be a package to help me out, but a settlement agreement with non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses. I felt incredibly misled, I was equally puzzled as Justin Welby had said the previous year that NDAs should not be used in the CofE. From conversations had since, it seems NDAs are still standard practice in the CofE and I fear Welby’s words were nothing more than virtue signalling.
I was incredibly grateful for union support and a rep negotiated the deal for me to try and arrange a better deal that would actually enable us to leave the house and move on. My rep got covid and missed a deadline which forced the sponsoring Bishop to send me a letter confirming what I was entitled to, without settling, and they still wanted to settle. It turned out I was entitled to everything in the initial settlement agreement regardless of settling. I was disgusted that the church was willing to act in a such a way. It became clear that this deal was about one thing. Buying my silence.
I ummed and aahed for several months, I feared I would have no choice but to sign to be able to afford to move on, but every time I got close to signing my mental health would plummet. I struggled with suicidal thoughts enormously during this period. Words from a documentary exposing a megachurch resonated hugely with my experience: “What I have consistently heard from abuse survivors from faith communities is the following: the abuse that was perpetrated against me by the perpetrator was traumatic, and is going to take me a lifetime to process and to heal from. What was worse that than that, was the response of the very community that I thought was going to be my greatest advocate, but they turned their back on me. That, I don’t know if I will ever heal from.” Boz Tchivijian, Attorney Advocate for abuse survivors.
I later discovered I was able to request financial support from another organisation setup for survivors of church related abuse. I should have been referred to this, as well as various other forms of support, the moment I made allegations. Unsurprisingly the diocese failed to do this. Eventually, despite being pressured, I chose not to sign. I couldn’t go through with, which is why I’m free to tell my story here.
I contacted Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to see if he would follow through on his words regarding NDAs. I got a response from a safeguarding officer telling me to go elsewhere and this statement regarding NDAs
“In relation to the issue of the Non-Disclosure Agreement, you raise an extremely important and valid point. The Archbishop is himself opposed to NDAs, which prohibit people from making proper complaints against an organisation or indeed appear to prohibit appropriate whistle blowing. The Archbishop is aware that on some occasions in reaching a settlement with an employee then there is a need for a confidentiality clause to be part of that agreement.”
It seems the Archbishop overstated his point in public. But as the email made clear he’s not going to follow through.
I’m absolutely disgusted by what I’ve seen. I can’t believe an organisation claiming to be a church can treat people in such a way and act in such an unethical way. I am grateful to be able to walk away and cut all ties with the Church of England and my home diocese. It is not something I want to be a part of. I hope NDAfree and others can work to put an end to these horrendous practices that can be so damaging to survivors like myself.
A dreadful experience. The training incumbent is presumably able to take on another curate. I lived in a benefice where three successive curates failed to complete their curacies. Every time, the curate was blamed. I never cease to wonder at the Church of England’s inabilty to do the basics eg in safeguarding. Why is it so woefully poor when at its core is our Lord’s strong message of hope and redemption?
Because at the C of E’s core is the presumption that it will side with the person in any given situation who has the most power. And that is the opposite of what the Bible means by ‘righteousness’.
They were given two new curates within a year of me being moved…
So they could be chewed up as well, I suppose. Why hasn’t the church grasped that expensive theological training is wasted if the training incumbent drives a curate (or several curates) out of the ministry?
What an atrocious story Jonathan, and I’m really sorry you’ve had to go through this. Many hundreds of people who have read or contributed to these pages over the years, won’t unfortunately be at all surprised by what you say. In itself this won’t be much comfort to you, I understand, but it can help to unburden yourself. There is also a great deal of experience here in dealing with these matters.
I am very sorry indeed to hear of your story, Jonathan, and that of your family’s suffering. Please know that many of us will be praying for you. I was interested in the response to your contacting the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
In my role as advocate for Kenneth (see previous blogs ‘The Kenneth Saga’), I have written twice to the Archbishop. Each time it was a letter posted Special Delivery and each time it was, like you, responded to by a safeguarding officer. In my case two different officers but the responses were stereotyped and almost word for word the same. There was no indication my complaints had even been read and certainly not responded to in a specific way – this, although the two letters were entirely different and about two different problems.
The first was about the safeguarding procedures and our problems with that, and the second one about the total lack of independence in an ‘Independent’ Review for Kenneth which was conducted within the parameters laid down by the Diocesan Core Group. This last was interestingly the subject of a similar letter I posted to the Archbishop of York. His response was from the Executive Legal Officer and whilst I am still awaiting the reply I have every expectation it is likely to be a thoughtful and considered one coming from a professional legal person.
The responses from Lambeth Palace is worrying to me because I wonder if the Archbishop is aware of these letters, especially yours Jonathan. Who decides whether or not the Archbishop will have sight of them?
Jonathan’s letter seems as important to the Archbishop as to Jonathan, so what was the reason it was dealt with by a safeguarding officer? After all, it was querying what the Archbishop had said about NDAs, so how could a mere safeguarding officer answer that? Following on from this particular experience of Jonathan of trying to make contact with the Archbishop I wonder if the reason the Church of England seems to be falling apart is because there is no authority or lead from the top.
I was told on good authority that the Archbishop has little influence, certainly not over the bishops in their various dioceses, being more of a nominal head. Many of you may know this but it came as a surprise to me. Is it really true? Like you, Jonathan, I was told to go elsewhere and yet there is nowhere else to go; that is the problem and the reason the Church of England is failing on all fronts.
If I may quote your comment Steve Lewis on the previous blog, February 19th 12.13pm, you said, ‘What can be done? Personally I believe the C of E is finished, it just hasn’t really accepted this yet’.
Surely that sums up the state the Church of England at present?
Sadly I’ve come to the same conclusion. In all that I’ve seen the CofE seems to exist purely to protect those at the top, plenty of people can be sacrificed to maintain that.
I have long felt that training incumbents should have a psychological assessment before the allowed the privilege of training a curate. Unfortunately the church looks for ‘training parishes’ rather than suitably mature training incumbents and then we witness a succession of curates being treated badly. It’s shameful
Also someone who is bullying their curate is quite likely to be bullying their Lay Readers, Churchwardens, organists, PCC members etc as bullying will probably be their default management style. This will alienate many who come to church and discourage others from attending.
Yes indeed, and from the outside and from a distance, it can look like the incumbent is doing a good job and is very effective. They are able to ‘make things happen’. This all adds to why someone raising concerns may not be believed.
I believe they do receive a psychological assessment. This may sound preposterous, but I believe people like him can be deliberately selected for their “qualities”. Think of him as a potential diocesan enforcer, like the Lambeth Palace example Andrew Graystone cites in his book (“Bleeding for Jesus” 2021). I’ve also seen this first hand in the business world, which I repeat, is a kinder place.
The recruited bully does the dirty work others are too squeamish to do themselves. Using the usual tactics, they can always distance themselves if the thing goes pear shaped.
They know exactly what they’re doing keeping him in place.
I’ve seen bullying like this in the secular world, in business, but in the Church it is far worse, in one important sense: because it is so personal.
True, any bullying affects the person, but this gets to the very heart of who you are, your faith, your identity as a priest.
Yes, the Archbishop is not like the Pope. In one sense they are just the chair of the Bishops’ committee. Each bishop is lord in their own Diocese, and to a degree, each incumbent is lord in their own parish. You can instantly see how this lack of control can be abused. There are things called Bishop’s guidelines, but they are just that, and can be set aside. They can even set aside Canon law, under certain conditions.
The diocese in question is (as is the parish) charity, presumably. One avenue worth exploring might well be whether they have fully discharged their obligations inder charity law; a question that might well beput to the Charity Commission, whose folk do not appear to be as overawed by dignitaries as the dignitaries might hope …
Really saddened to hear about your ordeal Jonathan and wish you and your family strength and happiness in moving forward. Nothing about what you have written surprises me, my Lessons Learned Review is under a confidentiality clause, which I was told was vastly different to an NDA, not sure how as both are gagging orders and the comment you received from Lambeth, which was almost identical to mine, but in a different context, makes the term interchangeable.
Having asked a solicitor about confidentiality clauses I think a lot of it relies on intimidation in order to ensure silence which is shocking but the church has bullied and intimidated for centuries so no real change.
I hear that you say you are happy to cut all ties but in doing that you have lost your dream, your vocation, an integral part of you has been murdered. That is a violent abuse of your inner child. If you struggle, and why wouldn’t you, Safe Spaces does understand about the damage caused by intimidation so do think about seeking their support and of course the redress scheme sometime next century! Take care.
To Pondering Minstrel, It would seem to be really good idea but I have tried it and failed. Apologies for repeating myself from my previous comments but it is part of the whole experience.
Acting on behalf of Kenneth I did explore that possibility. Inspired by the Micah 6:8 Initiative
http://chng.it/HLF4dhVd6Q , (a letter written to Baroness Stowell, Chair of the charities Commission and published August 2020), In August 2021,I wrote a detailed document outlining Misconduct and Mismanagement by the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group. Everything I said was evidenced by emails, minutes of meetings, witnesses and information from three Subject Access Requests. The document was in four parts, Misconduct and Mismanagement, Bullying Tactics, Comments about an Independent Review (which was not at all independent but within the parameters of the Core Group’s instructions) and an Appendix listing charts available on request with details of dates and times of evidence which, if explored might have exonerated Kenneth.
I sent this out to every member of the Safeguarding Core Group, senior safeguarding people in the church, senior church members and everyone in the Diocese including the Bishop who might have an interest in such incriminating evidence. No-one responded. I sent it to the Arcbishop of Canterbury where it was dealt with by a safeguarding officer who, when asked, said he had, ‘skimmed through it’ but as Kenneth was not ordained he could not deal with the case. He referred me to safeguarding procedures in the Diocese who knew all about the case anyway.
The Communications manager of the Diocese said that this particular church “was not a charity governed by the Charity Commission. They are however governed by the Church of England.” He said “the case is now closed”.
I discovered last week that the church is very much governed by the Charity Commission. On that wrong view my document was dismissed.
It still remains factually true and is evidence that would stand up in any court.
Was it sent to the Charity Commission? Did they respond?
Good Question and no I didn’t. Obvious thing to do now you have posed the question. Who would you suggest I sent it to? That is part of the problem and I should be gratful if you could help on this.Thanks for that.
Of course Pondering Minstrel! I remember! The reason I didn’t contact the Charity Commission at the time I wrote the Document was because the Diocesan Communications Manager had said that the particular church dealing with Kenneth’s case was not governed by The Charity Commission but by the Church of England. It was only last week, many months later, that I learned he was quite wrong in saying that. Apologies for not remembering earlier.
Their website offers some guidance …
https://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/raising-concerns/
Thank you
Jonathan, I am so sorry to read your story, but thank you for having the courage to tell it.
My experience of the CofE has similarities to your own, and like you, I decided to walk away from the Church and cut all ties.
I have been lucky in that I initially started worshipping with another denomination, and when my story came out, they encouraged me to consider undertaking some ministry for them in a lay capacity. So far, I have felt more supported than I ever felt in the CofE. That said, once something like this has happened once, it makes you ever vigilant, and that vigilance never goes away.
You clearly have gifts, and I hope that in time, a context outside of the CofE will emerge where you feel that you can put those gifts to good use. In the meantime, my thoughts are with you and your family, and I wish you all well.
Feeling suicidal is grim – I had eighteen months of it in the 90s. Can I commend Psalm 13, Psalm 18, Psalm 107, Paul’s comment in 2 Corinthians 1:8 and that if you are near Woking, you drop in for a coffee?
Hi David, thanks fr your comment. Fortunately things are much better since choosing not to sign the NDA. I fear signing it would have pushed me very close, if not not over, the edge. Sadly I don’t live near Woking but thanks for the kind offer 🙂
Jonathan, well done for not signing. Jesus spoke of covered up things coming out, which sits uneasily with the whole idea of an NDA to my mind , and also have you noticed Proverbs 10:9 which at least one person in high office has missed? How does an NDA fit with that?
My partner was forced to sign an NDA to cover up six months of bullying and harassment from their “superior”. Hilariously the bishop didn’t even know that they (the bishop ) had signed one, clearly not having bothered to read it asking my partner nervously if they were going to bring a bullying complaint. We then learned that “superior” rode a coach and horses through it by slagging off my partner at a meeting for other staff.
Appalling. Are you or your partner thinking of putting in a letter to the Charity Commission?
Absolutely awful. I am afraid that the Church feels able to threaten and bully then expects you to keep quiet so their misconduct is covered up whilst having a go at you. If you do not fall in with their wishes and complain you become the bully and they will claim they are victimised by you. It appears to be standard tactics. You both have our sympathy. Just remember, in their eyes they can do nothing wrong, and you can do nothing right. That is their stance. Hope you find some support here.
For most of my life the expectation was always that the Church would be a place of deep nurture, especially in time of need. This was backed up by strong “pillars”, people of huge character who did indeed provide that nurture in earlier times.
But with the progression of time came many losses. Most of these folks left or died.
There are newer friends here, people of integrity and character, with varying views of course and backgrounds and this experience is different.
The old expectations have (for me) now been laid to rest. Support is available, but not in the old places and old ways. I, for one, have stopped looking there.
I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that we have heard a number of stories in which NDAs have been used in ways that are not legally sustainable. For example, complainants report that they have been told that an NDA prevents them from disclosing anything about their complaint to any other authority — I believe this to be incorrect, in that some such disclosures are always protected. In other cases, the material covered by the NDA has been commented on in public by church personnel — this may well be a breach of the NDA (possibly GDPR as well).
It might be helpful if qualified legal advice could be sought, and published, for example by House of Survivors to help those who have signed NDAs understand exactly when such NDAs are valid, what their obligations are, what does and does not constitute a breach (especially with respect to protected disclosures), what the consequences of a breach would be, and how to challenge a possible breach (of NDA and of GDPR) by other parties.
This topic was very fully discussed on the earlier thread “The hidden cost of an NDA in the Church of England” 26th July 2022.
I can’t offer anything authoritative except to repeat that NDAs have a perfectly proper place when used for legitimate purposes. It’s clear that they are sometimes abused and possibly unlawful and unenforceable. For convenience I repeat here the link to the government guidelines website on this subject.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-disclosure-agreements/non-disclosure-agreements
Just one point to add. An NDA is a contract. All contracts require the mutual agreement of both parties to the contract terms. A contract entered into under duress is voidable, i.e., of no effect at the option of the party subjected to the duress. The Government guidelines helpfully explain necessary steps if the confidentiality is only to bind one party. It’s a fair guess that they are not always followed, but without any personal knowledge or experience of NDAs in a church context, I can’t say anything authoritative.
“This topic was very fully discussed on the earlier thread”
That was precisely my point. Rather than having these matter discussed ad hoc by people with varying degrees of expertise, my proposal was for a central resource developed in conjunction with legal experts.
Every case depends on its own facts. The government guidelines go a long way to setting out general principles, although not in a church context. All power to your suggestion. We must see whether it is taken up. Maybe that requires a direct approach to the bodies you mention.