Today, the last day of the Peter Ball hearing has left me with a number of reflections. It has been in many ways been a tough week to listen to all the testimonies. But however painful it has been for me, it will have been far more traumatic for those who have suffered abuse in the past and for whom such evidence arouses deeply disturbing memories. It remains to be seen whether the conclusion of this part of the Inquiry brings any kind of peace to those who have suffered.
The hearing today once again raised the question of the culpability of George Carey in his woefully inadequate attempts to deal with the aftermath of Ball arrest and caution in 1992/3. I have already expressed an opinion on this, but I was quite swayed by the strong arguments of William Chapman who, in his concluding remarks, suggested that the behaviour of Carey amounted to a virtual criminal conspiracy to pervert justice. It remains to be seen which side of the fence the Inquiry will come down on. Will they decide that the former Archbishop has behaved so foolishly and incompetently that he is himself is guilty of a punishable offence, or will they take a softer line as I have done? One telling piece of evidence against Carey was that he allowed the seven letters from victims to be shared with Ball’s lawyers but not the police who were responsible for prosecuting.
The real heart of what has been revealed this week is not the actual abuse that Ball inflicted but the suggestion that there was a massive Establishment conspiracy to protect him. The great and good were apparently seeking to protect one of their own. Whether or not Carey was caught up in any conspiracy is not clear. What is certain is that Ball’s brother, Michael Ball was stirring up some of his fellow bishops and other friends in places of influence to write letters on Ball’s behalf. Ros Hunt had received phone calls from bishops urging her to shut down the complaints of the victims she knew. The activity of these unnamed bishops is indeed shocking. Even if they were convinced of Ball’s innocence, they were behaving in a totally dishonourable and potentially criminal way. I regret that these bishops were not named. The clumsy attempt by Michael Ball to record conversations with individuals on the phone, speaks of a concerted effort make things difficult for anyone who had information against Peter Ball. I might also remind my reader of the extraordinary events in the palace in Chichester when the Bishop Eric Kemp, when talking to Inspector Murdock, was quite clearly acting with malice to prevent the pursuit of truth and justice.
Talk of the Establishment having an interest in protecting Ball, one of their own, leads me to feel that we may be on the edge of another bigger scandal which touches on this case. This did not come up in the present IICSA hearing. I am referring to the Smyth/Iwerne affair. To remind my readers, this was a scandal affecting Winchester College boys who were among those who attended Christian evangelical camps at Iwerne in Dorset. John Smyth, a well-connected lawyer, administered beatings to some of these boys as part of a ‘spiritual discipline’. Some boys received as many as 800 lashes. The subsequent effect on their mental health was little short of catastrophic. Actual sexual activity was not recorded but it is hard to conclude that there were no sexual motives for behaving in this extraordinary way.
An internal church report about Smyth’s behaviour was written in 1982 and this concluded that his actions were serious enough to attract criminal charges. The report was shared around the trustees of the Iwerne Trust (later to become the Titus Trust). Their response was to ‘ship’ Smyth off to Zimbabwe where his nefarious activities seem to have continued. This action of spiriting him out of the country drew on the connections and resources of quite a number of people.
Why do I bring up the Smyth affair in the context of the IICSA hearings? It is because there are uncomfortable parallels with the Ball case. Both incidents involve individuals of high social standing. The Iwerne trustees who dealt with the Smyth scandal reads like a Who’s Who of the evangelical world of the time. In both cases there was a rallying round to protect an individual who was guilty of criminal behaviour towards young people. Each story also involves an Archbishop. Justin Welby, an Eton boy, attended the Iwerne camps in the 70s and later as a junior officer while an undergraduate in Cambridge. At the time of the Smyth scandal at the end of the 70s, Welby had graduated and was living in France. There is however evidence from a published account of his life that he remained in touch with the camps as a speaker from time to time. Some of those involved with the story are incredulous that he would not have heard of the rumours about Smyth when he was a young adult. For him to claim that he only knew of Smyth’s activities when he became Archbishop in 2013 stretches belief.
The story of Ball and that of Smyth seem to have uncomfortable links. The survivors of Smyth are still distressed that the church does not seem to be interested in what they went through. There is no attempt at investigation, no reaching out to them. The telling of their story by Channel 4 was something that happened, and the church seems to want to move on as quickly as possible, hoping that everyone will forget. The lid had to be put back on the bottle as quickly as possible. Clearly that will be impossible to do. But the longer that there is no discussion about the events of the late 70s and early 80s in Winchester, the more the survivors are forced to suffer. Not only is their suffering increased, the story has more potential to blow up in the face of the Church of England to do further harm to its reputation. Just as George Carey may have thought that he was somehow protecting the church by obstructing the Ball story, so the present Archbishop may be playing a similar game with the events connected with Smyth. Police investigations which show a similar competence to that revealed by the Gloucestershire and Sussex police are now needed. Somehow, according to my sources, the activity of the Hampshire police is less vigorous. We may have to wait for some time for this story to reach a conclusion. But, once again it is clear that we must not allow the church to do its own investigations. Bishops may have many skills, but the vigorous uncovering of truth does not appear to be one of them.
Such a sad time for the church’s many victims. I do hope some bishops get done for conspiracy either to commit grievous bodily harm, or to pervert the course of justice. Because they jolly well have. By the way, I think you mean Ros Hunt, not Hall.
Thank you Athena. I will put it down to the heat.
😀
The Peter Ball fiasco is bad enough let’s not have the Church of England blamed for Iwerne too though the press seem happy to enjoy linking it as a C of E responsibility. It never was.
If it involved people highly placed in the church, I guess that’s a connection. It’s horrifying, anyway. Good to see you commenting, Leslie. I appreciate your way of looking at things.
The Iwerne camps may not be Anglican in a formal sense, but when the founder, the trustees, the staff, volunteers and campers are virtually all members of the Church of England it is hard not to conclude that we are dealing with a C/E organisation. The public schools with which it has had an association are all Anglican if they have a religious foundation. I can name from my enquiries the past and current trustees and they all seem to be male and well-connected evangelical clergyman from the Anglican Church. In Feb 2017 the Archbishop apologised for the scandal on behalf of the church. Which church was we talking about if not the Church of England?
The IICSA hearing threw up hints of a cover-up by the Establishment to protect one of its own. The apparent cover-up that is going on over Smyth has the same smell of a concerted attempt to bury truth in the name of institutional reputation. That is the evil of today. Covering up truth is evil and just as serious as the initial crimes. I also have heard the excuse that Iwerne camps are not Church of England. Nevertheless, I am prepared to suggest that every single senior person in the organisation holds some authority from a C/E bishop. There is so much more to come out.
I agree about the prominence of C of E personnel but the C of E did not set up the Iwerne Camps, had no say in the running of them, could not close them down as though being the responsible body. I think it was foolish of the Archbishop to apologise as though they were C of E establishments. Fair enough we should take it on the chin when the buck stops with us – and in the case of Peter Ball it certainly did – but we shouldn’t be the whipping boy for every wrong.
Having said all this I think you were right to highlight the behaviour of Smyth and the lack of bringing him to the bar of justice.
How much impact will this week’s Inquiry have?
I managed to watch much of the live stream and was impressed by the professionalism of some and the sloppiness of others. At times I found myself gasping at the breathtaking arrogance of privileged position, the we-do-what-we-like-how-dare-you-question-us attitude of high public office contrasted with the considered deference of less highly esteemed public servants.
Some of the proceedings were broadcast live on BBC News. I wonder though how many people were actually watching the rest of it; the bits not affecting His Royal Highness.
I wonder how many priests or bishops from the C of E were watching. A few were I know. There were plenty of lessons there for those in leadership. It wasn’t a day of reckoning, it was a week. Some day anything we’ve done or have failed to do may be poured over in minute detail. Intentions may be imputed to us which we never believed we had. Shape up and be accountable right here right now, or, I would tactfully suggest, get out of public ministry.
But my guess is that although many victims were watching and hoping for justice, a majority of people weren’t watching at all. Much of the news now is fed via social media. We largely control our own feeds. People who rant are muted. Organisations that rave are unfollowed or blocked.
I’m not sure anyone is really listening.
Will the C of E change? A little probably. There will be a tightening of procedures to cover backs. But for me the big problem it has is a growing irrelevance.
Little mention was made of other denominations, and we know they have had their scandals too, but the Anglican Church is no longer the default destination for new seekers. And this has being going on for decades. If you were looking to find faith now, would you start with the Church of England? Surely not now?
Of course, it is not going anywhere soon. Cash poor it may be , but with a vast off-balance-sheet land and property bank, its future is set in stone. Ironically this security is a barrier to change.
In our town there are a number of new churches. The two largest meet in our biggest theatres. Their spaces are flexible and rented, without legacy restrictions and maintenance time bombs. They are full of ex-Anglicans.
A good few reading this might say “good riddance” to the C of E. But let’s not forget that surviving church must surely include the church surviving.
These hearings have demonstrated the church’s diffuse structure, with little accountability and hardly any authority for its top man.
It must adapt or it will be disappear into a collection of museums.
Years ago I used to visit disparate churches and experience being a newcomer incognito. A question I always asked myself was: “is there any mention of God or Jesus?”
After a week of listening, apart from God being sworn by, there was none.
Many thanks for your reporting all this week. I find it hard to put my response in words. I can’t help thinking of Jesus’ wry comment/command regarding toxic power and entitlement “But it is not so among you” (Mark 10.43). He knew all about putting stumbling blocks before little ones. Cannot someone have pointed out the obvious this week, that what we’re talking about is the essence of the anti-Gospel, the darkness that Jesus illumines? Did no-one bother to reflect on that explicitly?
This week was all about Peter Ball, so that was CofE. It was also a court, so the QCs were not free to muse on the theology. It would be good to look at abuses in other churches, and indeed other organisations. Abuse happens in lots of places. I agree, some did not even come across as trying to be professional. As to the CofEs material assets, some churches may be a bit of a millstone, but it wouldn’t actually be possible in reality to realise anything like their nominal value. And the investments pay pensions.
hi EA that’s interesting, in what sense was it a court? I don’t think I fully understand the setup.
IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) is a legally constituted enquiry, set up by the government to examine child abuse in England (I don’t think it’s the whole UK, but not sure) and how it has been handled by various organisations. The Church of England is only of these organisations. Witnesses are placed under oath, as in a court, and questioned by Counsel (barristers) in the presence of a highly qualified panel. Not the setting, then for discussions of theology, though Lord Carey did make some attempt to place his remarks in a theological context.
It would have been appropriate, however, for bishops and archbishops to have commented, including on theological context. So far they have been silent.
Thanks Janet.
Thanks. You mean the Bishops and Archbishops under questioning? I didn’t watch it all. So I’m not sure if people missed opportunities. But those outside now, yes. I’d welcome some reflections. Preferably penitential! Wayfarer, my comment earlier was to Steve Lewis really, and it just added on to the end. I was hoping to take up some of his questions. The question, “where is God in all this?” needs to be answered by the church . Urgently.
I meant that currently serving archbishops and bishops, whether involved in IICSA or not, should be giving a lead regarding repentance, making amends to victims, and the putting the whole thing into a spiritual and theological context. But it seems they’re mostly silent, and if they react at all it’s to blame someone else.
Isn’t God where God always is, on the cross with the victims? And God is wherever God’s healing love and prophetic truth enter into the situation, for example on this website, in my view.
Amen
The Times has double-page spread today on the establishment cover-up: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peter-ball-the-sinful-bishop-and-a-very-english-cover-up-23wwkdxvk (though it’s behind a paywall so you may not be able to see much of the article).
I very much value the contributions and responses on these pages. Thanks everyone!
I also splashed out £1.90 on today’s “Times”. Years ago a friend described this as “the Establishment’s Paper”. Its coverage of the Ball affair was about as un-establishment (is that a word?) as you can get. Well worth the read, but not in a good way. It’s sad that it’s come to this, but good that the serious Press are exposing the bad things going on.
Right at the start of the week someone here mentioned the question of how the church says sorry. This site is a perhaps a good place to explore the theological and practical application of repentance and forgiveness. But perhaps next week?
On the finances side, a collapse is probably the commonest reason behind radical change in organisations. I don’t see this happening anytime soon notwithstanding the pensions deficit but I may be completely wrong. If society decided to remove or reduce the charitable status, the loss of Gift Aid could be catastrophic. We’ve all seen the public benefit clauses in church accounts. After these exposures, the Church has hardly helped itself in this regard either.
Thanks again. It’s been an intense week.
I spent an hour today with two people employed by the CofE to check on the delivery of safeguarding training. I’m glad they’re doing it. And they seemed to be listening.
I came across an interesting article in the official magazine of the British Psychological Society by Ian H. Robertson on how power affects the brain. He says “having power over others – defined as controlling resources that they want, need or fear – has profound effects on mind and brain, as does being in the power of others.”
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-26/edition-3/how-power-affects-brain
It has as much application in ecclesiastical circles as elsewhere.