I recently had cause to read through the summary of the Clergy Discipline Measure (2003) as set out on the official CofE website. Although the Measure is now due to be replaced with a new revised version, this original attempt to put something in place to check malfeasance among the clergy, seemed eminently sensible and measured. As I read it, I tried to shut out the reports of CDM disasters that I have heard about that have taken place since it came into effect in 2006. Some have reached the public domain while others have been privately shared with me as a concerned blogger. Surely the combination of a qualified legal adviser and a diocesan bishop, which the Measure sets up as a quasi-legal determining body to deal with clergy disciplinary cases, would have the wisdom to administer truth and justice in every case that comes before it? Bishops, we would hope, possess the status of trusted leaders and will only be appointed to their position because they have gained the respect and confidence of those who have worked alongside them over their years of ministry. Are not such figures all able to demonstrate the qualities of pastoral wisdom and goodness? With these qualities, surely it is impossible for them, with the help of legal guidance, to allow any injustice to occur when dealing with clergy accused of malfeasance? Sadly, this hope sometimes turns out to be misplaced.
My reader will not be surprised to discover that the CDM process has, in many instances, failed to live up to its aim to be a simpler, more straightforward method than the old consistory courts for dealing with problems of discipline among the clergy. When I review some problem areas in its implementation, there is one thing that inevitably creates problems in providing justice. This can be summed up in the single word – malice. In using this word, I am far from suggesting that every disciplinary case in the Church involves the presence of any malice. No doubt there are dozens of cases which are dealt with equitably and justly. I would hope that most of the cases that come to the attention of the Diocesan bishop and his legal adviser are responded to expeditiously and well. These are never heard of again. It is only when malice comes to be a factor within the process that real problems can occur.
Malice can come into CDM processes from at least two directions. The first direction is from anyone, lay or clerical, who dislikes a particular clergyperson and decides that complaining about them will somehow make them disappear from the post they currently occupy. Most of these malicious complaints are picked up at an early stage and are quickly dismissed. But the very fact of facing a CDM may be extremely demoralising to the respondent. They will live with uncertainty and stress for some time and, even if they are eventually found innocent, their self-confidence as a pastor to their flock may have been irrevocably undermined.
The second potential scope for malice in the CDM process is more serious. This is when a member of the clergy finds themselves the object of dislike or even enmity by other senior clergy who then use the CDM processes to harass them. A failure to be neutral on the part of a diocesan bishop is not unheard of, and this hostility is extremely difficult to counteract by the affected clergy. The Christ Church drama demonstrated the way that the CDM process became used at one stage to further the deliberate malice against the Dean from other clergy as well as members of the College. Few of us would have the necessary stamina to withstand constant attacks of this kind. One of the most depressing things about the saga is the way that official church structures, in the form of the NST and the diocese of Oxford, had allowed an evidently spurious CDM claim to be pursued for months against the Dean between March and September 2020. Seven allegations against the Dean were eventually dismissed. It was especially striking in this case that no vulnerable person existed on whose behalf a safeguarding inquiry could properly have been instigated. There was actually no complainant individual at all: the issue had been entirely fabricated by the Dean’s enemies. Eventually it dawned on the church authorities that their processes had been highjacked by the Dean’s enemies and the complaint was thrown out. In the meantime it had taken several months of deliberation to arrive at this conclusion. It was quite clear to those of us on the outside, that malevolence was at work and the whole CDM process was being undermined and manipulated by what appears to be a very public manifestation of spite. Even a single example of church processes being manipulated by the malice of identifiable individuals helps to destroys our ability to have confidence in such processes. If a bishop, and here I have examples in my mind, ever uses the church disciplinary processes to undermine a member of his/her clergy for reasons that have to do with dislike, then the integrity of that bishop as well as the whole CDM process itself is bound to be seen as flawed and without credibility.
Another serious problem with the CDM process has been the inordinate time for some investigations to take place. The ones we hear about are those that seem to drag on interminably, putting a clergyperson and his/her family under appalling stress. I am not sure that I would be able ever to recover from six months enforced ‘gardening leave’. This talk of suspension brings one on to another issue which is the fact that it is very unclear why some, but not all, clergy are forced to ‘stand back’ while their case is considered. This inconsistency can give rise to massive injustices. George Carey was forced, in a fanfare of publicity, to surrender his permission to officiate for a time because it was discovered that the known abuser, John Smyth, had attended the college, Trinity College Bristol, while Carey was principal. Smyth’s attendance was part-time, and he probably only rarely visited the college. Why the NST made such issue of this detail, when a rapid examination of facts clearly exonerated Carey from any culpable behaviour, is a mystery. The Smyth allegation clearly upset Carey quite badly. Those looking on must have wondered if this was an example of a weaponised disciplinary action. Was it that Carey, now in his 80s and on the edges of the national Church, provided an opportunity for those who are senior in the safeguarding world to show that they can act tough to protect the vulnerable? The same solicitude for protecting the vulnerable was not taken in a far more serious ongoing case where there is an unresolved CDM. This particular individual, known to readers of Private Eye, has allegedly committed far more serious misdemeanours. Not only is this clergyman allowed to continue in his current post, but he is also permitted to apply for a senior post elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. Having an ongoing and unresolved CDM against you is, apparently, no impediment to promotion in the Anglican Church. A bishop issuing a ‘safe to receive’ letter for a clergyman with an unresolved CDM may be committing a falsehood, but he also may be wanting to remove a suppurating sore out of his jurisdiction. In popular terms, the bishop is flinging a dead cat over the wall for someone else to deal with!
If we were able to claim that the CDM process is conducted everywhere with perfect justice and impartiality, we would still be left with fact that the whole system is often shrouded in secrecy. Sometimes we are told a lot about the individuals caught up in the process; on other occasions we are left in the dark. I probably hear more about individual cases as people write to me. I am quietly appalled at the level of malice that is found in some of these cases where things have gone badly wrong. Speaking very generally, the complaint I hear again and again is that those at the highest levels of authority in the church are far more interested in shutting down inquiries into bad behaviour than in finding justice and reconciliation. Meetings with bishops are sometimes described as experiences of being bullied so that the victim will not seek to reveal their story. The focus is on the reputation of the institution and its officers rather than on putting right a past wrong.
A hierarchical episcopal church like the Anglican Communion has the chance to be an excellent model for Christian bodies everywhere. For this model to work well, however, there has to be complete integrity within the structure and among the leaders, so that every member of the body has confidence and trust in them. If any of these episcopal leaders engages in malice or dishonesty, it does not take long for a cancer of suspicion to spread across the whole body. It is also not easy to be a bishop when previous holders of this office have spent time in prison or others are found to have involved themselves in lies and dishonesty in order to defend the institution. The statistics that were revealed recently about public attitudes towards public institutions, show a significant decline of trust toward the Church and the clergy who lead it. The bishops of the Church of England should perhaps be spending far more time in discussing how to communicate their absolute integrity to the ordinary people of Britain. Churchgoing Christians also need to show themselves as decent wholesome people before anyone will want to hear what they wish to communicate about God. At present we have been witness to too much outright seediness in our Church for the outsider to feel attracted to what we may have to offer.
Malice, or something like it, also exists when a senior cleric admits offences during CDM investigation, is found guilty of conduct unbecoming, but refuses to accept the penalty of being asked to resign. So continues as normal protected by the diocese and hardly anyone knowing the CDM ever happened. Victim left in bits. Not even an apology.
Can you imagine this happening in our courts? The defendant is found guilty of rape, but tells the judge he doesn’t accept the jail sentence handed down and leaves the court a free man. Only in the Church of England!
I agree that the CDM procedure needs reforming for the benefit of both Clergy and laity. It’s just a shame that the main example used in this article doesn’t actually exist…. There was no CDM against Martyn Percy in early 2020. This was an NST investigation. You can see the statement on the Oxford Diocesan Website here: https:// www. oxford.anglican.org/news/bishop-of-oxford-statement-dean-of-oxford-martyn-percy-september-2020. php
As far as I am aware, my CDM complaint against Martyn Percy for sexual harassment/assault was the only CDM against him in 2020.
Because there was no CDM, this article contains some defamatory remarks – namely:
“The Christ Church drama demonstrated the way that the CDM process became used at one stage to further the deliberate malice against the Dean from other clergy as well as members of the College.”
This is unequivocally false- no CDM means no ‘deliberate malice’ from clergy and college through the use of a ‘CDM process’
and
“One of the most depressing things about the saga is the way that official church structures, in the form of the NST and the diocese of Oxford, had allowed an evidently spurious CDM claim to be pursued for months against the Dean between March and September 2020.”
Again, entirely untrue. There was no ‘spurious CDM’ so ‘official church structures’ did not ‘allow [it] to be pursued for months’.
This is a really important issue – I hope the article can be amended so that it doesn’t include misleading information.
In the instance of George Carey and Smyth, I can add a little. I have seen the correspondence between the NST and Lord Carey in that case. Keith Makin, who is investigating the Smyth case, had come across a letter from 1982 listing George Carey (then principal of Trinity College Bristol) as one among a number of people who had been sent a ‘note’ about Smyth. Nothing was said about the contents of the ‘note’. The NST immediately assumed, without any evidence, that 1) Carey had seen the note which was sent to Trinity; and 2) that the note was in fact the Ruston Report – 2 1/2 pages of closely typed foolscap detailing Smyth’s crimes. A high school pupil should have been able to spot the gaps in logic here.
In fact it was very unlikely that the Ruston Report was sent to Carey, who had no links with Iwerne; its circulation was limited to a vey few Iwerne leaders. Moreover, no one else who had been sent the ‘note’, nor the Anglican clergyman who had sent it round, nor anyone on the circulation list of the Ruston Report – all of whom the evidence shows did know of Smyth’s crimes – has been subject to any discipline at all.
It seems that Lord Carey was either being treated as a sacrificial lamb, to ‘prove’ that the Church is serious about discipline; or that there was actual malice at work.
And we only heard about this case because it was so high profile. How many others are suffering similar blatant injustices?
It is apparent to many that the denomination which sought to reform Catholic malpractice is now in urgent need of reform itself (I write as a baptised and confirmed Catholic). Once wordly and ambitious priests are running the Church, there may be no other way out, but to begin again. For those of us who still, despite everything, still love the Church of England, we hope This is not so. But it shows why it is important to catch the cancer when it is immediately detected before it spreads. We desperately need such leaders when senior posts become vacant. One senior leader whom those with integrity could rally round and demand reform. Do we have such a person? We need an axe not a cardboard knife.
Surely one of the biggest failings is that the Bishop is the judge. I submitted a CDM against a clergy woman who had blatantly lied – and in writing – to the Consistory Court, one of the oldest Courts in the land. I was forced to take this step because the Archdeacon, amazingly, did absolutely nothing. The Bishop relied on the advice from the Registrar, who himself failed to give an unbiased opinion. The CDM was dismissed, as was my appeal to the President of Tribunals, an appeal which had to be confined to setting out why it is believed the Bishop made the wrong decision. (If you are interested, a copy of this submission can be read here: http://www.rfmaulden.co.uk/presoftribunals.htm ). In the face of self-evident clergy misconduct, the assertions of which are supported at every stage by documentary and photographic evidence, that the (as it turned out, Deputy) President of Tribunals did not remit this matter back to the Bishop can only lead me to conclude that, rather than see justice carried out, the Church’s primary objective is to protect its own. Further, a precedent has now been very clearly established in that, without comeback, any member of the clergy can effectively say anything, even including outright lies, to the Consistory Court in order to get his or her pet scheme through the Faculty Jurisdiction. This whole matter should have been stamped on immediately – and hard – by the CDM process which, thanks to a tame Bishop and a biased Registrar, singularly failed in its task.
Kevin, some of that also relates to my own experience. The thing I find most galling is the brazen lies told by clergy, lies which are believed despite a lay complainant providing evidence of the truth. In one part of my long running ordeal, a cleric lied several times in a sworn submission (against me) to the Deputy President. Guess who was believed?
Thank you for this comment. It is a crumb of comfort to know that my experience was not isolated, although I’m sorry you had to suffer too. Yes, it seems the church gives blanket immunity when it comes to clergy lying; the last thing one would expect from ordained Priests and the first thing one would expect the church to ensure is punished.
This problem with the appeal struck me as well.
The appeal has to show the Bishops decision was Wholely wrong , not just dodgy or biassed but wrong in every way.
With someone as wise as a bishop that is rarely going to be so.
In my case the VP of Tribunals emphasised the damage which had been caused to me but couldnt change the bishops decision because ” he was allowed to make that decision if he wished”.
This route to failure has been designed into the CDM.
Yes, a ridiculous and powerless appeals process.
How do know whom to believe? I find it hard to keep an open mind, but strive to.
When people are blatantly lying, as least as far as we’re concerned, it is worth looking at motivation. For some, and for me the persistent instances being reported on from various sources verify this, institutional dishonesty is endemic at high levels in the Church of England. Invariably it is lying to preserve the reputation of the Church, and by extension their positions within it.
For others, a more intractable source of dishonesty, and it may well intersect with the above, is where people believe in “their own truth”. A narcissistic personality makes up his own narrative and has no difficulty believing it. You’ll never change him.
In the age of transparency, people who are willing or able to change will eventually realise that the lies are counterproductive. The Church generally lags decades behind the rest of the world in realising this.
Thank you, Steve. The burden of proof is, or should be, documentary evidence etc but clearly that can simply be brushed aside by the Church when it suits (just look at the examples unearthed by the IICSA and the convenient flood at Bishopthorpe and the deliberate fire at Chichester). In my case it was sadly, out and out narcissism.
I can relate to that too, as can my husband. Clergy are permitted to lie, even in writing . It seems that there is a consistent pattern of documentary and photographic evidence proving blatant clergy dishonesty which is simply ignored by those making decisions. If that is so, no amendments to the clergy disciplinary measure will avail us. My Archdeacon too did nothing. Except run away from me in a full church when I tried to speak to him because he was ignoring my emails. I was told his cassock went flying, he couldn’t get away fast enough! No wonder Meg Munn stated vulnerable parishioners are unsafe in the Church. It seems that some clergy are too. My husband and I are still waiting for episodes of abusive behaviour by our Rector whilst robed to be dealt with in accordance with a letter from the Bishop’s Chaplain. But as my Bishop has a history of ignoring safeguarding complaints, our Rector is permitted to carry on regardless. What concerns me is that after his predecessor was made to resign due to my complaints, a vulnerable adult alleged abuse by him. We can only hope and pray this pattern is not repeating itself, especially as the predecessor was himself monitoring another key leader who required it.
Good heavens! How the Church can fail to address such outrageous behaviour is completely beyond me. Apart from the hurt to you, your husband and other victims, they seem incapable of recognising how their actions, inactions, buck-passing, blame culture, suppression of facts, criticisms, narcissistic behaviour etc etc are viewed by the faithful and those in the outside world, particularly where the organisation exists (or should exist) to promote fairness, justice and truth.
Hmmmmm….
You’ve had cause to make formal complaint against two successive rectors, and are sufficiently well known by the archdeacon that they seek to avoid you.
I’m wondering if you’re more unfortunate than most, to so frequently be a victim of clerical abuse.
Or, Jonathan, if you’ve never been a victim of clerical abuse, are you more fortunate than many?
Mary is female and disabled – both factors which might make her more likely to be a bullying target.
Jonathan, you might want to read this article on the C of E’s Past Cases Review 2 (they had to repeat the exercise after it became obvious that PCR1) was a massive cover-up): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/c-of-e-review-uncovers-400-new-cases-of-abuse
You will see that women and vulnerable adults are more likely to be the targets of abuse and bullying in the Church – as Mary and so many others of us have tragically found – and that victim-blaming is part of the Church’s unhealthy culture.
Excellent article thanks for sharing Janet.
The findings that women and vulnerable adults are more likely to be abuse victims are unsurprising. Misogyny and ableism are absolutely rife in the c of e. As well as racism and quueephobia.
Jonathan J this is a space to support survivors, not knock them when they’re already down.
Perhaps you could apply for a job in Mary’s diocese? It appears that your behaviour would fit right in
As a priest subject to the stress and costs of two vindictive and vengeful CDMs by the same individual I am sorry that our bishops are disinclined to dismiss some complaints at the outset. The clergy are uniquely vulnerable to spurious charges that would get nowhere in the civil courts. We are not Mary Poppins figures. We have lives and loves. The Church must dispense with the strangely clericalist habit of setting clergy up as “good examples”.
Spurious, yes. Demonstrably provable, however, is something quite different. That the initial default position by the Bishop should be that everything is spurious is simply wicked. There are such things in any job or calling – particularly in public ministry – as standards, accountability, responsibility and consequences. If you truly feel so vulnerable and threatened, then perhaps your vocation lies elsewhere.
I don’t think that’s fair, Kevin. Geoffrey is right that clergy are subject to spurious complaints in a way which few other professionals – with the possible exception of teachers – are. Unlike most other professionals, we live in the community we serve, are expected to be available 24/7, and have ill-defined roles. In addition, the nature of the job means that we are often dealing with unbalanced and disturbed people, and that much of what we do is not visible to others. That combination of factors means that people feel entitled to complain about all sorts of trivial (or sometimes serious but exaggerated or imagined) things.
Yes, some clergy do a poor job, some are bad, and some lie. But many good clergy are persecuted. And it’s the sensitive and conscientious ones who are often best at the job, but most affected by bullying and complaints.
The system we have now doesn’t serve well people with a valid complaint against clergy, nor clergy subject to spurious complaints. Good process is vital and in everyone’s interest.
And if a clergy person is in a minority group, they are easy targets. Some clergy are targets of hate crimes.
I think that’s a bit of a harsh response.
I’ve never been subject to a CDM, but a colleague has been subjected to one which was dismissed after 6 months, during which time the cleric was ‘invited’ to step back from his ministry. Had he not agreed he would have been suspended.
The claim was spurious, my colleague managing to prove his innocence, itself difficult to do and a reversal of the usual principles of natural justice.
But the impact has proven permanent: the cleric now scarred by the experience and whilst he has returned to his ministry he will never be the same again. A happy and confident man has been reduced to a shadow of his former self.
The church has been poorly served … a competent priest has been broken and trust in the bishop by observing clergy severely damaged. Hence the significant increase in union membership, an unimaginable situation a decade ago.
We must and need to do better – yes, we need to address actual misconduct when it is uncovered but the presumption of innocence should be our starting point. CDM seems to do the opposite.
Clerics under CDM investigation are not always asked to step back or be suspended. It isn’t automatic. Even after admitting offences and being found guilty of conduct unbecoming, clerics can choose to refuse request to resign. Perhaps it varies from one diocese to another.
To be flayed at the hands of a church is a brutal experience, and one from which it is very difficult to recover. This is particularly so if our allegiance to her was great.
To be expelled from our congregation, whether actively, or constructively, is to share in the sufferings of Christ. But any knowledge of the theology of suffering we thought we had, can never quite prepare us for the shaming and shunning, the collapse in status or loss of position. For many a home is gone, a family and the exit from a familiar community.
In the acuteness of pain, the suffering of others across the divide, is often impossible to comprehend.
Resurrection is possible after crucifixion, but there will be permanent scars. What we have to suffer through our own gethsemanes will be a shadow of His, but nonetheless He is with us and the desertion of others is thus theoretically incomplete, however empty, crushed or angry we feel.
Agreed. I’ve been there. The psalms are a great comfort, and Jesus seems near.
‘When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
my grace all sufficient shall be thy supply…
When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
the rivers of grief shall not thee overflow,
for I will be with thee in trouble to bless,
and sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.’
And I have been comforted by Isaiah 43 : … Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through the fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. For I am The Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour… You are precious in my sight… Do not fear, for I am with you…
And it is true, I passed through the flame which did not burn me.
Lovely. The hymn ‘How Firm a Foundation’, which I quoted above, is based on Is 43. That passage has sustained many a Christian though dark times.
This Rector’s predecessor, a vicar, failed to follow House of Bishop’s safeguarding guidelines, and openly defended the abuser, allowing him to hold what a former crown court prosecutor described as a responsible voluntary role. The vicar was also responsible for monitoring another key team member who required it. He also lied about another incident by a retired priest with pto and a reader/churchwarden who was then permitted to go forward for ordination whilst having an unresolved safeguarding complaint. The vicar admitted partial guilt at cdm. The decision of the investigating Bishop was that I could prove offences not admitted at a church tribunal. The present Rector has insisted that the safeguarding report saying that all guidelines had been followed given at APCM for the year the vicar admitted to not following safeguarding guidelines stands and should not be corrected to reveal the truth. Right at the end of the cdm proceedings the vicar’s request that his offences (for which he was given a penalty) be dealt with outside the measure. This meant that the Vicar’s guilt and misconduct were not published but covered up. However this Rector has written criticising me for asking a steward to speak instead of using visual signals as, being blind, I cannot see them. He has also written to criticise me for not following the visual signals of another steward. He failed to make the adjustments to a written agreement NST deemed necessary and communicated to him and which should then be shown me. After my guide dog stopped working in church due to her harassment I needed to resort to a guide cane. The Rector streamed a service during which he criticised people who used sticks to aid their mobility. I was present in church at the time. Finally, after a communion service whilst still robed and standing outside the Church porch as the congregation was leaving, he behaved so abusively I was frightened. At the next service he took , also communion, he became abusive towards another member of the congregation before the end of the service. As he behaves abusively in full view whilst still robed I naturally fear him as I cannot see him and he lives just up the lane, on my way into town. So at one time we had a vicar defending an abuser with a responsible role who was accused of being abusive to another vulnerable worshipper, another leader who required monitoring, and a Reader/Churchwarden (now ordained) and retired priest about whom the vicar lied in order to cover up their actual misconduct. Any red flags anyone?
Mr Jeffries, your post upset me which is why I replied to it below having not managed to press the “reply” button as I intended. However I am still distressed by your remarks. Perhaps I can draw to your attention that person’s with public profiles, even the former Archbishop of York, have disclosed that they have have, on several occasions been on the receiving end of racist remarks, or been pulled over by the police who believed that only white people could afford expensive cars. To state the obvious, as a white person I have never been treated like this but do not make disparaging remarks to those who have been unfortunate recipients of such repeat incidents. . For your information Hate laws were enacted after the mother of a disabled daughter killed both herself and her daughter because they could no longer cope with being victims of anti social behaviour which only occurred because of the daughter’s disability. Reviewers were upset and shocked at the high numbers of disabled persons who are victimised and harrassed, and worse, because they are disabled. Quite often this occurrs on a regular basis. If this is not you are indeed fortunate. Because once any one living near you indulges in anti social behaviour, harassment and assault and general initimidation, you will be picked on until they are made to stop. If, like me, you cannot always even tell light from dark, you have no method of avoiding abusers. You become easy pickings. This is what happened to me when I moved here five years ago. My former vicar agreed with my description of the behaviour of one abuser which was well known to him. his description of the behaviour I complained about tallied with mine. Unlike other sighted persons I could not get away from them, and could not avoid them. Unlike sighted persons I had a guide dog who was also harassed to the point where she gave up work leading to a complete loss of my independent mobility. I have to put up with the fact that I will always be easy pickings for those with anti social inclinations. When one clergyman, who later was accused of abusive behaviour by another vulnerable worshipper, chose to ignore my plight and defend two abusers, that was indeed a misfortune and he was found guilty of his offences. I have the letters from the present incumbent, and NST to show I have the misfortune of both not receiving adequate protection, and of a clergy person harassing me simply for being blind. Whilst you are entitled to your personal opinion which may include cynicism of my situation, I wish you to know I am deeply distressed by your remarks.
Mary, the hurtful remarks you rightly complain of are, as you know, a pretty typical reaction. Sadly, abusive behaviour does “clump” up, one of my sons was bullied at school, even by a teacher at one point, the other never was. On the other hand, bullying is so incredibly common, most people have suffered it at some point. Although if it’s not persistent, they tend to ignore it. Please don’t let these unkind and heartless comments hurt you too much. They are, as you know, standard fare from thoughtless people. Some folk just don’t consider the possibility that they may be mistaken!
Thank you Athena and Janet. Smiley face emoji!
One thing we’re seeing now, and it’s a particularly ugly development, is the weaponising of safeguarding protocols to attack victims further.
When a victim comes forward, we’re all too familiar with the typical responses, which include bog-standard disbelieving, pretending to disbelieve, victim blaming, etc. but taking this to a whole new level, institutions unite in contriving counterclaims, cynically manipulating CDMs and other processes (such as they are) in an attempt to obliterate the original victim and their claims. These campaigns can be relentless, cynical and usually involve others as pawns, often unwittingly.
It’s all very ugly and a universe away from how Christians are meant to relate to one another.
‘By their fruit you will know them’. We were given this 2000 years ago to help order our thoughts. For me it can take time to work this out with an individual. In revealing our thoughts online, one way or another, we are telling the world what we’re like.
Finding ourselves in the centre of one of these places, it’s a most unhealthy place to be. There are those who thrive on conflict and enjoy their misuse of power. Most of the victims end up leaving. A steady procession is pathognomic of a corrupt leadership.
And the latest cynically manipulated process is that the independent safeguarding review into whether or not it is safe to make safeguarding complaints in our Diocese will not now be published. Yet again, evidence ignored , victims persecuted and criminalized and a failure to disclose the truth.
No doubt they’ll say they’re ‘on a journey’, which is their way of pleading for tolerance of their dishonesty and lack of transparency. The journey seems to be making very little progress.
Yes they have a development plan, so obviously cannot show under present Bishop that it is safe to make a safeguarding complaint.
Oh wow
That’s EXACTLY what the abusive inclusive church claimed to me
We’re on a journey.
How come we’re not moving then?
‘Like a mighty tortoise moves the Church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where we’ve always trod.’
Not original to me, I’m afraid.
Churches where abuse is discovered so often come up with similar pleas and verbiage, it’s almost as if they all use the same comms phrasebook…
But of course the real Church of God, which so often consists of those powerless and on the margins, is really moving. We’re gaining ground because blogs, chatrooms, and social media enable our voices to be heard, and it turns out there’s an awful lot of us -‘numbers too big to ignore’, to quote Linda Ronstadt. Thank God for that.
Agreed. Many periods of hibernation for the tortoise
To those of you who know me I have been supporting a Respondent, Kenneth,elderly and now infirm, since March 2020, in an allegation he denies.
Kenneth has made two Subject Access Requests and although much of these have been redacted, there was sufficient material to read what has been said in Core Group meetings, telephone calls and emails to reveal a whole sordid, dishonest sham. I have logged the details of all this information from SAR accompanied by evidence of the blatant untruths and seriously unlawful procedures by the Core Group, especially two senior clergy.
As you may remember from previous blogs Kenneth has returned to his church but under strict conditions. He is beginning to move forward in life but still feels the stress that there has never been an investigation or scrutiny of evidence and therefore there has been no opportunity for him to be exonerated from this allegation.
Having read your comments on clergy telling lies to protect their own and preserve the reputation of the church and Stephen Parsons saying, ‘those at the highest levels of authority in the church are far more interested in shutting down inquiries into bad behaviour than in finding justice and reconciliation’, I doubt my strong evidence will make any difference to Kenneth. However we shall continue and here is where you all working together might help to change things for us all.
My suggestion is that if as many of us as possible write to the Archbishops with succinct, evidenced complaints about safeguarding procedures and lack of independence of any organisation in the Church of England, specifically NST and the newly formed ISB, we might have some effect. I suggest we flood them with such letters; not emails because they seem to go into a black hole, but letters addressed to a specific Archbishop and posted ‘Special Delivery’ (this is important because it is then possible to track who received and signed for the letter). It would be more effective if we all do this at more or less the same time; so would a deadline of posting on Monday October 24th 2022 be possible or would earlier be better?
If we are ignored, which we usually are, some-one will have to acknowledge receipt of the letter. That will be a job of work for them. Also, since the safeguarding audit at Lambeth took place there seems to be a new regime dealing with complaints. Such a lot of complaints that we could muster between us should spark alarm at the very least.
Anyway even if we are not effective, the safeguarding officers will know the letters have been sent and therefore they cannot pretend they do not know what is happening. That will be our minimum achievement, that they know the numbers of people who have suffered from abusive safeguarding procedures.
To it, my friends. Write your letters and let us see what happens. There is nothing to be lost by doing this and with the Holy Spirit on our side, something to be gained.
We look forward to the future together.