by Helen Yaxley
I was recently Googling ‘bullying vicars’ because I felt that was an apt description of what I had been subjected to. In so doing I came across this blog which was extremely enlightening. It was then that I realised that this type of behaviour within the CofE might well be described as not unusual. Nevertheless, it is far from acceptable. I would like to share my experiences of dealing with the Church’s disciplinary processes, following which I was utterly frustrated and didn’t know where else to turn.
My experience is a long and distressing story, not involving any sort of sexual abuse, but with elements which perfectly illustrate the dysfunction of the Church’s hierarchy and inadequacy of its complaints’ procedures. This is a case where a vicar has made written allegations against me, including that I had been cautioned by the police. The allegations, which I knew to be false, were proven to be lies, with evidence gained from the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer and from the police. Gaining the evidence I felt was a totally humiliating procedure; I knew I was not a criminal. And yet, having obtained this proof of lying by a vicar, the Church was unwilling to do anything about it.
I originally approached this vicar by phone, with concerns about the actions of one of his congregation, his organist, which were causing me and my vulnerable elderly parents considerable distress. Neither my parents nor I were in his parish. I had never met him or spoken with him before. He is a vicar in the Ango-Catholic tradition. I had hoped the vicar could help in some way – perhaps through some sort of mediation. Despite not being a member of his parish, I expected that a member of the clergy would be impartial and would respect my confidence.
I could not have made a bigger mistake. As well as breaching my confidence, he was anything but impartial, strongly taking the side of his organist in the second telephone conversation I had with him. He was extremely dictatorial and downright rude and came across as a bully. He then, some time later, misrepresented the conversation in a written statement produced for a Court of Protection bundle, where he made clear that he knew the organist “in a personal way”. The vicar was not present at the court hearing, and there was no determination on his statement, but his personal attack on me in this statement caused me considerable distress, and continued to eat away at me. This character assassination of me had been written by a member of the clergy whom most people would expect to be truthful and caring.
After the court case, I wrote to the vicar, taking issue with his comments (in a civilised manner) and requesting a meeting. He declined. I spoke to a friend who is a vicar and who said that if I had concerns, I should approach the vicar’s Archdeacon. I did this, but the Archdeacon said that without a recording of the phone call, to determine exactly its contents, there was nothing she could do.
This issue continued to prey on my mind, not least that the hostile and bullying manner of this vicar did not accord with Christian principles. As I had never met him, I felt that if I did so it may help to resolve matters. I wrote to the Archbishop of York setting out some of the background and to see if he could facilitate a meeting, given that the Archdeacon seemed powerless.
In this letter I made reference to safeguarding matters concerning the organist in respect of my parents, simply as background information, explaining that this was not regarding abuse of anyone in the Church but that it lay behind the reason for my initially contacting the vicar.
When the Archbishop’s office replied, my request for a meeting was declined but the Archbishop’s Chaplain stated that she had passed safeguarding concerns to the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer. This was not something which I had requested, and surely as a general rule, it should not have been done without my being made aware and without gathering the relevant information. I wrote back immediately urging caution, but it was too late.
After further correspondence with the Archbishop’s office I was advised by the Archbishop’s Chaplain that my only course of action within the Church was to a raise a formal complaint against the vicar under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). The highly formal procedure initially involved making an out-of-time application because of the amount of time that had elapsed since my initial contact with the vicar. I made the application, to which the vicar responded. In short, his written response addressed to the judge dealing with my application, was yet another character assassination of me including outrageous allegations. He seemed intent on bullying me into silence and portraying me as a worthless individual who had committed a criminal act.
In this statement the vicar wrote that I had made a safeguarding complaint against his organist (which I had not), I had been reported to the police for doing this, there had been a full investigation and I had been cautioned. He stated that I had been told that should I make any further complaints I would face the possibility of prosecution. I find this totally unbelievable. The implication of the statement is that the vicar believes that if a person makes a safeguarding complaint to a church official, and that complaint is investigated and does not find any wrongdoing, it is therefore a matter to report to the police and worthy of a caution and possible prosecution. I would have thought that a vicar would be conversant with the procedures around safeguarding. Quite clearly, no one would ever make a safeguarding complaint if they thought they may be cautioned and/or prosecuted for doing so. Be aware, I had not raised a complaint. (I approached the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer for clarification after the complaints procedure described below was completed. He made it abundantly clear to me that he had spoken to the vicar following the Archbishop’s Chaplain’s referral regarding the organist, but had not described me as a complainant, contrary to the vicar’s statement.)
My out-of-time application was approved enabling me to pursue my formal complaint against the vicar. The complaint took its course. It was dismissed, both initially by the Archbishop of York, and also on appeal to the responsible judge at Church House in London. However, the vicar’s response of blatant lies to my out-of-time application regarding safeguarding and the police was not considered as part of my complaint, according to the Diocesan Registrar who advises the Archbishop on legal matters. The Diocesan Registrar also made clear that it was not of sufficient substance to be considered under the CDM if it were to be raised subsequently. I was dumbfounded. Lying to a judge by a member of the clergy in a CDM process doesn’t even meet with a rebuke.
I, of course, knew that I had not even been spoken to by the police, let alone given a caution, but was advised by the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer in York to gain proof via Subject Access Requests from the police. I was more than happy to do this despite finding it totally humiliating. After waiting several months, because of police backlogs with Subject Access Requests, I discovered what I already knew – there had been no police investigation, I had not been cautioned nor informed of possible prosecution. I took this proof to the Archdeacon whom I had spoken with before. She listened sympathetically and agreed to put my request for a meeting with the vicar, suggesting it would be useful for a mediator to be present. I was very pleased that she was finally willing to intervene. Meeting the vicar face to face was something which I knew I would find helpful. It might at least have given him the opportunity to explain his motive and furthermore apologise. That, I felt, would have been the least he could do. I wanted him to see me as a human being and not a punchball. The following day I received an e-mail from the Archdeacon who had contacted the vicar and he had declined the meeting. She stated, “He does not feel that the meeting you suggested would be appropriate and so I’m afraid that there is no more that I can do in this situation.” I was amazed – talk about marking own homework! This I cannot imagine being the norm in any other organisation. It appeared again that the Archdeacon was powerless.
My final step was to write again to the Archbishop of York, setting out the evidence gained from the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer and from the police. This was met with a curt reply written by the Archbishop’s Chaplain stating that the Archbishop “could not get involved with or comment on a matter that has been fully considered and properly disposed of in both a CDM and subsequent review carried out by an independent judge”. As stated previously, it had not been dealt with. I felt I was up against further lies from the Church – this time at the highest level. The reply continued, informing me that the Archbishop’s Office would not be entering into further correspondence on the matter. This meant that the lies of the vicar had been compounded by a complete misrepresentation by the Archbishop’s Office regarding what had gone before and a clear attempt to sweep the whole thing under the carpet.
This saga, whilst clearly of a much lesser scale than the abuses recently exposed, still illustrates fault lines in the Church’s processes and hierarchy and in its attitude to safeguarding. In any other walk of life the telling of blatant lies in a written statement would at least attract censure from an appropriate individual in the organisation. In ignoring this behaviour, it is condoned and is a green light for the perpetrator to continue. Furthermore, had my initial contact with the Archdeacon been pursued (how often are telephone calls recorded?), or had the Archbishop acted appropriately when I initially approached him, CDM would have been unnecessary, and I would have been saved several years of heartache.
This is an appalling story. I am so sorry you experienced this.
I’m sorry to say this but welcome to our world.
My experience was near identical:
an out-of-time application because I waited thirteen months for an apology
the vicar wrote a character assassination of me including outrageous allegations and four blatant lies
he was intent on silencing me and portraying me as a worthless individual, indeed a fantasist and liar
The worst part – the Deputy President swallowed it all whole, rejected my complaint and wrote some callous stuff in his report.
That vicar is free to pick off other victims and no-one with authority over him is the least bothered.
Recently in a safeguarding meeting an Archdeacon said “clergy don’t lie”. I just wandered what planet he lives on. Clergy, like the rest of us are flawed human beings. I am so sorry you have had such a dreadful experience. There is never any excuse for lying. Especially the sort of lying to which you were subject. I am horrified by your experience.
“Clergy don’t lie” indeed! My former church had two incumbents in succession who did.
“Clergy don’t lie” indeed.
God, these people.
I never came across such lying and misuse of power then amongst C of E vicars and evangelical pastors. Particularly if it’s in relation to a woman raising an issue.
There are of course some beautiful humans who are c of e priests too. But unless I know them and trust them I don’t set foot anywhere near c of e spaces anymore.
My story isn’t dissimilar to yours x
Helen, I’m so sorry you’ve had this appalling experience, but I have to say I’m not surprised. My own experiences of trying to get York Diocese to deal properly with safeguarding complaints has also been poor.
You don’t say when all this occurred – was it under the current Archbishop of York or the previous one?
Hello, Janet
I am extremely grateful that you and Catherine, Peejay, Anne and English Athena have made comments which are very supportive and helpful.
The Archbishop is Archbishop Cottrell whom I initially approached in November 2022.
I have no faith, sadly, in him, his office, or the Diocesan Registrar whatsoever. However, I must add, that when I travelled from my home in Sheffield to York to meet the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer, I was listened to and he did all he could to help but, like the Archdeacon, is clearly powerless.
I am, and have been so distressed that I shall not surrender easily.
Thank you all very much.
Yes. My safeguarding officer was very good. But they can’t do anything. It has to be a Bishop. And often, they don’t.
Nothing I hear about “Anglican Safeguarding” shocks me. There are so many unsatisfied adult victims, uncertain whether to stay in the Church or leave. To pick a faithful pastor and parish, but avoid commitment of time or energy (or money) to the wider diocese can make good sense.
Is so-called “Anglican Safeguarding” just a woke joke? Paradoxically, it often insults the primary values of biblical justice referenced in 2 Corinthians 13:1, a repetition of a central principle of natural justice found in Deuteronomy. More fundamentally, do everyday adult church members get any protection really, or is so-called “Anglican Safeguarding” about “VA’s and children”?
Is the axis of discussion between “Safeguarding” diocesan employees and the Bishop another woke joke? It is perhaps better to send a crisp statement about bullying directly to an Archbishop. Woke joke diocesan mechanisms infantilise complaints and set things up to be dealt with informally (i.e. on favourable terms to the diocese).
They don’t like too much put down on paper or email, to be directly addressed as other organisations work. Answering simple questions in print is never their strongpoint from what I have seen………….
Helen, I’m very sorry to read your story.
As James notes, Anglican safeguarding really isn’t set up for protecting adults who aren’t defined as ‘vulnerable’. One of the issues is that the Church of England still uses a safeguarding policy dated 2017. The safeguarding world has moved on greatly since then. Anyone with an idle hour may find it instructive to compare ‘Promoting a Safer Church’ with the United Reformed Church’s latest safeguarding policy, reissued in its sixth edition in 2023. One will note that the URC’s safeguarding definitions are much broader than the Church of England’s.
In my more cynical moments, I wonder if the CofE is intent on retaining the narrowness of its current safeguarding definitions, otherwise it might have to deal with a downpour of poor behaviour which, as things stand, it can argue are not ‘safeguarding issuee’, and thus, no action is required.
I am so sorry for the considerable distress you suffered and the worse distress you suffered at the hands of a vicar who obviously didn’t care about truth and the powerless people who should have helped you.
Thank you for your account Helen.
Page 250 of the Smyth report has this:-
’15. Seek independent safeguarding assurance that the current whistleblowing procedures are robust and that individuals, whether ordained, lay or volunteers feel able to report concerns of a safeguarding nature, as well as institutional and individual ‘cover-up’ of abusive situations. This to include a review of all relevant policies and procedures, ensuring that they explicitly protect people from the risk of personal criticism when reporting allegations or suspected abuse.’
But DARVO [deny-attack-reverse-victim and offender] has been the standard Anglican ploy to silence, ostracise or remove Anglicans reporting bullying, harassment and other crises.
What’s really interesting in the case above is the report of the allegation of a vicar’s written remark. Why the Church cannot give a precise written response to this is surely mysterious in the extreme.
Very sorry to hear this. Bullying and defamation of character is serious and can be devastating. The national director of safeguarding was informed in my presence that threats to omplaimants are a common feature. Whilst I am not surprised you got nowhere, I am surprised you were allowed to make an out of time cdm. I am sorry to say you have joined the many who have failed to receive justice. Many believe disciplinary processes are being used to cover up.
Is ‘not-fit-for-purpose’ a misnomer? ‘Non-existent’ perhaps better describes how non-VA (vulnerable adult) complaints are handled by Anglicanism. ‘VA and child’ sees the Church do what it has zero statutory chance to escape doing. Are adult church members often just ‘over the top’ cannon (canon) fodder for the machine guns?
Helen so sorry to read this, sadly I think many of us have experienced the same, though good to hear that you and others have had positive experiences of diocesan safeguarding because my own experiences have been extremely poor and a CDM of a Bishop is a complete joke and on appeal, as you comment Helen, the judge is downright rude, lacking any trauma informed training and clearly sitting next to the powers that be at the old boys luncheons.
I am as James says a VA and just so no one feels left out or hard done by they treat VA’s exactly the same, like crap!
You deserve justice and apology Helen, like most of us do, fight on but don’t forget to be kind to yourself because you are the most important person not them.
Thank you for your kind words, Ashley.
This blog serves as a wonderful reminder that we, as individuals, are not alone and are very important with the capacity to help others. Many thanks to Stephen in this endeavour.
Just experienced a Vicar weaponising the Safeguarding procedure to ostracise a member of the congregation because they disagreed with her priorities and (big mistake) tried to talk to her about it after a service during which she had invited people to talk to her. Having had procedures where the Complainants were ignored, the CofE appears to have moved to a position whereby the DSO assumes the Complainant’s account is the “truth” and natural justice is denied in that the Accused is guilty without a legal process. Reminds me of a John Cleese training video called “Meetings, bloody meetings” where a Judge says, “Right, let’s begin with the sentence, then we’ll have some evidence and then the charge and a verdict!” Or words to that effect. The DSO is also, apparently, able to diverge from the CofE procedures as they see fit! There is no mention, as someone else commented, of Biblical principles.
There’s no consistency. Complainants are still often ignored. Sometimes safeguarding is still sometimes weaponised against the innocent. I think it’s mostly incompetence, but sometimes it does seem like there are hidden agendas at work, or that they just go for whichever option is easiest.
Did the Harold Shipman changes result in reduction or removal of ‘conflict of interest’, and a much more detached professionalism in UK death certification? Is that where protection of all adults and children in our Church (not ‘safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children’) needs to go ASAP? In the interim time, is there an argument to generally copy serious written concern in the first instance to an Archbishop, so that a diocese appreciates an outsider is already ‘on the case’?
I rather agree with you, Janet. An important feature of my experience was the central role of the Diocesan Registrar. It was clear that she had not properly read or understood my complaint – she said a certain point was not clear – the guidance notes state that if anything is unclear they are to contact the complainant for clarification – this did not happen.
I suspect that the Archbishop did little more than repackage her guidance with little further thought, if any. One element missing from this process is curiosity regarding the vicar’s motive.
There’s the old story about the Cornish tin mines Stannary Courts, where the accused was hung and drawn before the court decided whether or not they were guilty.
Unfortunately the Inquisition had a similar reputation when it came to dealing with people who thought for themselves (aka heretics) in effect heads we win, tails you lose.’
I’ve had experience of this as well – arrogant, indeed sociopathic clergy who abused their staff and any laity who stood up to them, and apathetic bishops (managers….) who solved the problem by promoting the offender to another diocese. Its not dissimilar to the Civil Service technique known as ‘promote and post’. In the world but not of it?
-“Starry sky above, moral law within”!- Was Kant right about the primary evidences for God? The depravity exposed in Smyth-Fletcher-Pilavachi scandals reminds us of the moral law within, and how ordinary or everyday people often recognise the voice of conscience to a far greater measure than elite religious hierarchies.
Modern astronomy is a cardinal evidence for design. Nobody near an airport denies the design at work as jets land or take off into the autumn darkness. Yet do secular humanists try to deny the evidence for design in billions of stars?
There can be a place for evangelism and apologetics on the church fringes. I no longer make any substantive yearly Anglican parish contribution after seeing the ‘safeguarding’ quagmire and DARVO (deny-attack-reverse-victim and offender) at work.
But I still believe there is solid evidence for ‘One Solitary Life’ fulfilling the great messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53. I am reading ‘Your Verdict on the Empty Tomb’ by the late Val Grieve. ’10ofthose.com’ do a deal of X100 for £100 to include free UK delivery.
Apologies for diverging onto this, but one thing really springs to mind on the current reading of Grieve’s book. It’s how the Church depends on linear logic and assessing probabilities to present the Christian message with conviction.
Yet are these abilities seen to be compromised in multiple safeguarding and bullying scandals? A Church which cannot convince people about the quality and standards of its internal housekeeping has major problems.
Firstly, is the institutional Church in a moral mess that repels agnostics or atheists? Secondly, does a similar lack of logic or conviction also compromise the ability of senior leaders to credibly present their creed in the public space?
Churchill spoke about the darkest part of the night coming just before morning. Perhaps the Anglican Church will be more formidable in terms of future evangelism, if it seizes the opportunity to do what is needed on the safeguarding of each and every member.
Well, much as I agree with you, I wouldn’t like to predict what will happen.
We are supposed to be the light of the world – but didn’t Jesus say something about what happens when ‘the light in you is darkness’? There used to be a favourite old chorus which went ‘Walk, walk, in the Light, walking in the light of God’. There must be plenty of little ordinary joe Christians doing their best to do that, but being failed by the orchestrated, professional corruption of church organisations which have lost sight of the truth and abuse their power.
Looking at current discussions on Thinking Anglicans, it seems the Empire (establishment) is striking back; there seems to be a concerted attempt to undermine Makin, rather than the need to get down on our collective, organisational knees in repentance, followed by thorough housecleaning.
The answer to your penultimate paragraph’s questions at present surely has to be ‘yes’ – to our detriment. Its an old, old truism, that what you do and are speaks louder than what you say – wysiwyg as the computer geeks put it. And at the moment, the message the CofE is proclaiming, all too clearly, is that we stink to high heaven with corruption, pride, lust and general wickedness. ‘By your fruits you shall be known.’
Didn’t John the Divine have something to say about this in his letters to the seven churches? But we can safely ignore him, can’t we? – There’ll always be an (Church of) England.
Sorry to be so abrasive, but I am really angry over all this – seeing things I’ve long suspected being exposed as true is not a pleasant feeling. We need God’s light in this shambles – and, by heaven, we need the purging fire of the Holy Spirit. When, oh when will she fall? Either that or I and a great many others have been living and believing a lie all our lives.
PS. I think this link sums up pretty much what I feel about all this:
https://www.catholic365.com/article/4021/when-jesus-came-to-birmingham.html
The poem’s stuck with me for many years – the closing reference to Revelation (not, I think in the original) sums up everything ‘Woodbine Willie’ was saying.
God bless.
“Honour your master Jesus Christ, not only in words and songs, but rather foremost in your deeds” (A quote attributed to Einstein). Blasphemous contempt for 2Cor 13:1 has crashed the institutional church. We are left with deserters and Anglican Anabaptists. Funny, those old cynics, who paid in 50p a year or thereabouts, and went to communion monthly, were maybe wiser than I imagined as a child. They directed serious giving of time and money elsewhere. The Bible directs us to ‘the widow and the orphan’, not the graveyard-rectory-bell tower etc…etc…etc………
I had a very similar experience and now can’t attend the only Anglican Church in Berlin. Religion finds us all at our most vulnerable and priests have a lot of power. What I find devastating is the total absence of kindness and empathy from top to bottom in the Diocese in Europe. The false allegations drove me into depression but nobody cared.
Isn’t empathy, kindness and Christian love supposed to be what clergy do ?
Apparently not.
Shouldn’t what you preach from the pulpit be applied to the way you deal with vulnerable parishioners ? Apparently not.
‘Lackey Observers’ is surely the other gripe. The well worked DARVO tactic of deny-attack-reverse-victim+offender can be worked by a small team of clerics and/or accomplices. But it often takes lots of other people to look away, or see absolutely nothing amiss when there clearly is plenty overtly wrong, for bullying stunts to be pulled off successfully.