In September 2018, the Church of England, as part of its ongoing safeguarding efforts, published a very comprehensive fact sheet on different types of abuse. It is an attempt to encourage a reader to become used to recognising the great variety of abusive practices that can occur in the Church and elsewhere. In 2015, English law codified the idea that domestic abuse is much more than just physical violence. It may include a range of behaviours that come under the broad category of coercion and control. Even without evidence of physical violence, a man or woman can now be convicted of a criminal offence for abuse. Educating people to have a broader understanding of abuse in a religious context was also needed. I have a personal interest in this topic. When I wrote my book Ungodly Fear over twenty years ago, I was trying to explore this idea that the misuse of power in a church context was a widespread reality and the cause of much suffering. Abusing power is a far bigger topic than just the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person.
This morning, on a sister blog Archbishop Cranmer, we heard new details about the Dean Percy affair. I do not propose to repeat the points made in that disturbing article, but to use some of Cranmer’s material to indicate that Percy has become the victim of many of the types of abuse mentioned in the 2018 document. Apart from naming a wide range of abusive practices, the 2018 CofE document also provides suggestions of the way that the Church can respond to the victims and survivors. Percy, because he has been labelled as a perpetrator, has not been offered much help, pastoral, financial or practical. Help is supposed to be offered in such cases, according to the Church’s safeguarding protocols but only the tiniest amount has been forthcoming. Somehow the level of vitriol in the College is such that a regime of extreme isolation has been imposed. The help and support that Percy has been able to gather is that which has come from family and friends. He has also seen the complete depletion of the family finances.
The 2018 document first of all discusses emotional or psychological abuse. I would see these two forms of abuse as sometimes distinct categories and, at other times, overlapping. Over the past three years there have been many examples of psychological threats and abuse towards Percy. Phone calls/emails late at night are part of the stock-in-trade for those who want to harass and put someone permanently on edge. Also within a community like a college, it is not difficult to create an unfriendly environment for an individual. Shunning and ostracism, when they are practised, are especially cruel. This is a topic to which I often return in this blog as it is one of the most evil practices that can be enacted. The 2018 document mentions this behaviour when it describes ‘causing or forcing isolation/withdrawal from family/friends and support networks’. The extraordinary lengths to which the Censors and members of the Chapter has gone to prevent members of the clergy/colleagues even visiting Percy are described as practices that the Church should be fighting against. Can unproven allegations of sexual harassment ever justify the rolling out of such viciously cruel behaviour?
Abuse can also be financial. The 2018 document has in mind such things as the forcing of an elderly person to change a will or hand over property. In Percy’s case, the financial abuse has been by forcing him virtually to bankrupt himself in employing lawyers to defend him in the first legal challenge by the College to oust him in 2018. He was declared innocent of all the 27 original charges brought by the Censors. Percy’s accusers were also shown up to have produced manipulated documents. In short, the accusers engaged in lying to make their case. Retired Judge Andrew Smith saw the lies and commented on them in his report. In the latest attacks by College and National Safeguarding Team, overseen by the Bishop of Birmingham, Percy has been unable to instruct legal representation. This is partly for financial reasons and partly for reasons of his health.
The CofE document mentions discriminatory abuse. This is taking advantage of someone who is in a weaker position because of poverty, disability or some other handicap. Discriminatory abuse is to be found all over the recent treatment that Percy has received. The Sub-Dean, Richard Peers, has taken it upon himself to prevent even the fellow members of Chapter from making contact with Percy. Such isolating of a sick man, socially, spiritually and psychologically is desperately underhand behaviour.
Institutional abuse is described. This is the kind of situation that might occur in a Home where one patient is treated badly because they are deemed to be difficult in some way. When an institution, like a Home, turns against an individual, it is hard to see how anyone can resist such enormous pressure. It is clearly going on at Christ Church. The financial bullying of Percy, backed by the enormous financial resources of the College, was another example of institutional abuse. The Censors must be hoping that the Dean’s ability to fight back financially will eventually be defeated by the sheer fire power available to the College because of their endowments.
Abuse by neglect and acts of omission are other examples of behaviour suffered by Percy. The utter failure of the College or Canons to reach out to a sick man to offer help and support of any kind is an inexplicable failure of any institution, let alone one founded on Christian principles. The 2018 document is not a particularly Christian document. It is rather an adaptation of the Care Act of 2015 which wanted to show how we need to take a much broader understanding of abuse than society has done hitherto. As with the Charity Commission, the values being articulated are human values. If Christian individuals and institutions find these hard to hold on to, what can we expect of the rest of society? Are we not able to hope that Christians take morality and goodness seriously?
The final category of abuse mentioned in the document is complex abuse. This is a name given to a situation when an institution or an individual is using a variety of abuse methods against one person. We have already indicated that Dean Percy is the target of a many-sided form of abuse. Complex abuse might be considered to be an convenient shorthand for what is going on here. But there is one great irony about the document Types of Abuse. This was put together by experts in the Safeguarding world to help Christians identify those in need of help. Here we are discovering that in fact it is, in this case, the Church itself committing acts of abuse against an individual. If I am right in identifying six of the categories of abuse in this church document being set in motion by church officials, then someone needs to blow a whistle on this event. We often speak about survivors on this blog, but here we have to describe Percy as a victim. Six forms of abuse coming from two distinct institutions, operating with an extraordinary level of malice, is enough to put anyone into a breakdown. No one going through such an experience is easily able to fight back. Humanly, the force being used is barely survivable. The only human strength that can operate here is that provided by supporters, family and friends.
Two things need to happen if the Church is to emerge from this disaster with any integrity. One is that all the clergy who have been guilty of dirty tricks and abuse against Percy should be named in a new Clergy Discipline Measure process. There have been so many procedural dishonesties in this episode. One mentioned by Archbishop Cranmer, is what I call the dirty dossier. This is a fraudulent risk assessment document submitted with the CDM documents to the Bishop of Oxford. The College have admitted that they were wrong to back this document but the damage has done in creating the over-the-top risk assessment which has now been put in place around the College. The second thing that could save the day and rescue the Church’s integrity from a mire of self- destruction, is for someone of stature to come forward. They would then ask for all the destructive church processes to be halted for a while. The one person that could do this is the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to be entangled with the same legal firms as have been advising the Diocese of Oxford and Christ Church College, as well as the various bodies that work out of Church House. Stephen Cottrell, hopefully, can recognise what a disaster these events are for the whole Church of England. I believe that the paths of Dean Percy and Cottrell have crossed in the past. If that is true, he will know that Percy is not a sex-crazed lunatic, which is how his enemies at Christ Church have been trying to portray him for their own political ends. If the Archbishop pf York could put in place a moratorium on the church processes for three months, this might help to calm things down and stop the current madness infecting and afflicting the church in Oxford and elsewhere. There is a crisis; we need something dramatic to happen to resolve things. Stephen Cottrell, you are our last hope!
Stephen, you are so right in this. Nearly 30 years ago, the children’s home where I worked was subject to allegations of abuse as a result of a new deputy Social Services Director, who wanted to make her mark. 52 of us were suspended. Fortunately, through the strength of numbers and putting pressure on councillors, we eventually got an independent enquiry which exonerated us and resulted in the Director and the deputy resigning and the rest of us being redeployed or receiving a financial settlement. Even at that time, the enquiry was reckoned to have cost the County Council around £1m. Martyn does not have the luxury of these numbers, but perhaps those of us who want to see fairness for Martyn – and believe in his integrity – should start a campaign of writing to + Birmingham (as in charge of the CDM), to +Oxford as the diocesan and to ++ Canterbury and ++ York (copying the Charity Commission into our correspondence). I believe totally in Martyn’s innocence and integrity but equally believe that any challenges to this should be based on fairness, openness and, dare I say, the spirit of Christian charity and humility. Initiating CDM processes during absence due to sickness is certainly bad practice and could well be illegal. I’m sure our legal participants to this blog will clarify this. Martyn has already suffered enough at the hands of vindictive academic and ecclesiastical manipulators. It is time for more vocal support for fairness and transparency of process.
LlTotalky agree, and thank you! Like many who care for Martyn, it is time that this appalling vindictiveness against him be dealt with systematically as you suggest.
Thank you for this contribution, Robin. I have the strong impression that most former colleagues among the Hon. Canons have been gagged.
If, and we have to say if, a fraudulent document was used in initiating the CDM procedure, the CDM should be set aside, no ifs and buts about that. You can’t have a legal disciplinary procedure based on illegal material.
So, the full facts about that document including how and by whom it was produced must be established urgently. I believe steps to that end are already in hand.
This is getting increasingly awful. I’m currently doing my refresher in safeguarding. It’s a lot more complicated than it used to be, and good! But I’m jolly sure the people who deal with me haven’t done any refreshing recently! Do you have a link to that blog?
Be wary of some of the comments. They are very much an insider’s club on that blog with quite a different ethos to this one. They shouted down one of our members (known to all of us) recently and attacked so ruthlessly a prison chaplain that he deleted all of his comments. But, as Stephen says, the article is compulsory reading to get the essential story. From the above, you will realise that I don’t recommend your commenting there! Hope you don’t mind being told!
Thanks Rowland!
https://archbishopcranmer.com/ Compulsory reading. I am not very good at remembering to put links in!
Several different cohorts of people will be “put off” by this grubby saga: student applicants to the College, potential ordinands in the CofE, potential churchgoers, current churchgoers, quiescent victims of sexual abuse and bullying, and applicants to senior leadership in Church roles, to name a few.
No one wins. It’s impossible to come out of this unscathed. Truth is a victim. Any gains are pyrrhic.
The adversarial paradigm rarely works. The Percy case demonstrates this.
I think what distinguishes the present situation from what has gone before is the suggestion that there has now been a breach of criminal law, not just irregularities in the Church’s own procedures, very serious as some of those have been. We can only wait to see whether this latest development changes things. It may be that only outside intervention will do so.
I wonder what the “remedy” would be, were this to be a criminal matter, and successfully prosecuted?
btw: The Jonathan Fletcher report is to publish in full and unredacted tomorrow 23rd March
sorry missed this in the previous article
Do we need a petition to Stephen Cottrell? I am sure those of us who have tried to support Martyn Percy financially would sign and hopefully many others.
Do we need a petition to Stephen Cottrell? I am sure those of us who have tried to support Martyn Percy financially would sign and hopefully many others.
Am I missing something? Are we doing the same thing again that we said we would and should not do? Haven’t we learned the lesson? This and other blogs are full of comments mainly dwelling on the needs of the person accused of wrongdoing, and not the person daring to speak up and make a complaint.
Now, where have we heard this before…of an institution that cares more about attending to and protecting their own, than hearing and caring for the person who may have been harmed?
There’s no doubt that in this case the person accused is also on the receiving end of bad practice and behaviour. But that does not justify us in thinking and speaking only of him and not showing concern for, or even mentioning, the needs of other party.
Initially, he was accused of mismanagement, in effect. And then exonerated. And then re-arrested on the courtroom steps. And then again. So it did seem he is a victim. The latest twist is definitely unpleasant. But the alleged victim has not been forgotten, she and her needs have been mentioned on this blog. It seems as if this involves two things going on which are not related.
There are two stories indeed going on. One is of an unknown anonymous individual who has made a claim of sexual harassment. As we know nothing further, there is nothing really to discuss on this blog or anywhere else. We do however know a great deal about the other party who has been accused. Not only do we know about his personal and academic past, we know about his his tireless championing for victims of abuse. This goes back over twenty years. We know that he has been exonerated in a quasi-judicial process of 27 charges of misconduct. The judge concerned publicly stated that tampering with documents by his accusers had taken place. Of course we discuss the things that are visible in preference to things that are hidden out of sight. The story that is being told here is about an individual battling against a powerful institution. The other story is, to be honest, outside what is at present known about, so it is really difficult to say anything useful, positive or negative.
I think it’s actually about two individuals battling against a powerful institution.
And one of them is much more power-less than the other.