I continue to feel a profound sense of shame at the Church of England’s historic safeguarding failures. – Archbishop Justin
There are numerous words in the English language that need to be defined before we use them. When ++Justin used the expression ‘profound sense of shame’ I realised that I did not know precisely what meaning he was giving the word shame. I do not blame him for my uncertainty over his use of the word. While most people do, from their experience of life, have a pretty good idea of what the word means, we still need to pause to ensure that we are drawing on the same well of common experience as that belonging to ++Justin.
In this reflection about shame and its meaning, I am going to speak about the word in terms of a burden we lay upon ourselves through our actions, rather than one imposed on us by others. I hope that my attempts to use the word in a consistent way do not stray too far from the common-sense meanings that most of us share. For me, the word shame is one that usually involves a degree of emotional distress and trauma. The first thing to be said about shame is that it is a strong feeling. If one has shame, one feels it acutely. The relationship with events or behaviour that cause this shame is quite distinct from the one that an individual has with an action creating guilt. Guilt can also be a strong disruptive feeling, but somehow most people come to terms with levels of guilt in a way that never seriously disturbs the conscious mind in the way that shame does. As I think about these two words, shame and guilt, an image comes to mind to indicate the difference. In using the word guilt, I imagine a sponge that has soaked up a considerable amount of water. So far, the sponge has managed to keep the soaked part out of sight and the impression is given to the outside that the whole sponge is completely dry. The word shame on the other hand denotes a sponge that is completely soaking. There is an overwhelming, even overpowering awareness of guilt with no attempt to hide it. The person experiencing this intensity of guilt is encountering shame and the full implication of their actions. In feeling shame, they have gone beyond caring about what other people think; the only concern is their complete surrender to the sense of genuine remorse and regret over what they have done.
The gospel narratives have two sections which describe the abject sorrow of the penitent, and which may also be considered as descriptions of self-inflicted shame. They are so well known that I do not need to recount them in full. The first account is the parable of the Prodigal Son and the second is the description of the publican when compared to the Pharisee. The power of both accounts is that we can sense the abject grief of both men as they come to an awareness of their lowly status before God. Both the prodigal and the publican had no claim on God, but they simply poured out their deep sense of shame in his presence. The texts suggest that God was able to use that profound shame as a stepping stone to rebuild relationships. At the same time the reader also sees that the approach of the Pharisee did not provide the raw building blocks to enable a true reconciliation with God and neighbour. The ‘confession’ on the part of the Pharisee was, as we would say, phony and shallow. He went home without the divine forgiveness that he sought.
Abject felt sorrow for sin is described by two further words in the English language. Each is used to convey the acute state of shame-filled awareness in both religious and secular contexts. These words, contrition and compunction, are not commonly used, but each strongly points to a meaning that would contribute something of value to our discussion. We are introducing ideas that point to God requiring something more than a simple generalised admission of faults as part of our preparation to receive the sacrament. The two words were both known by the early church Fathers and mediaeval spiritual writing. When used by one of the Desert Fathers for example, such words suggest a depth of sorrow for moral failure which is far deeper that anything that is suggested today by most books of spiritual guidance. The words and all that they imply remain in the spiritual literature and remind us that there is a level of penitence that God requires but which few of us aspire to or give much time to explore.
Another word that seems to be attached to the ideas of remorse and real sorrow for sin is one that we have discussed on the blog some years ago. That word is tears. Weeping is not often discussed in modern works of spirituality, but it certainly had an honourable place in the writing of the Desert Fathers and other writers in the eastern traditions of spirituality such as Evagrius and John Cassian. I am no expert on this corner of Christian writing, but tears were an important indication that sorrow for sin was taken very seriously. One important Byzantine writer, Symeon the New Theologian, made the bold statement to his followers ‘never communicate without tears’. This injunction seems to be a command to weep over the gravity of our failings when placed alongside the generous and loving presence of Christ in the sacrament. There is much more to be said on this topic but, in spite of the place given to this profound form of self-examination in Scripture and the spiritual classics through the ages, this is an area of the Christian life that most of us know little about.
In this post I have suggested that there are several levels of sorrow and remorse to be experienced in response to the things we have done wrong. The first level, and possibly the most superficial, is a sense of guilt which may exist only at the level of a vague discomfort rather than bringing out deeper feelings. The level that involves shame, and which Welby was referring to, may or may not include real feelings and such things as remorse. Equally other ways of expressing sorrow for past evils exist, but they may be only well-crafted words such as those given in a public apology. We may find that most corporate expressions of shame are typically devoid of both feeling and sincerity.
In writing this, it occurs to me that Church of England has great difficulty at dealing with emotion and, in fact, finds any open expression of feelings distasteful. Emotional displays were seemingly shunned in the Iwerne culture and Nash, the founder, strongly resisted the incursion of charismatic influence. He was keen to promote a manly culture which did not give space to emotions of any kind. It is hard to see that an appropriate understanding of such things as remorse and sorrow for sin was ever part of the conservative male dominated culture that has been bequeathed to the Church by the Iwerne constituency. I personally received much of my emotional and spiritual education through the medium of music. Had I not been involved in music at my second-tier public school, I wonder whether there would have been any other way of learning about the cultivation of emotion and the life of the spirit in the widest sense. The miasma of repressed emotion has made a home in many parts of our Church of England. Perhaps the current crisis in leadership of our national Church can in part be ascribed to an apparent emotional illiteracy of those in charge. We might go so far as to suggest that English public-school culture, with its indifference to the life of feeling and empathy, has contributed to a poverty in the ability to feel. When feeling is undervalued or despised, then shame, the kind that ensures that true penitence takes place, cannot be felt. It is that kind of penitence and remorse that survivors and victims long to see from those who have wronged them as abusers and bystanders. Tears, grief and true heartfelt sorrow are what we need currently in the Church. A Church which risks showing some genuine contrition and shame for the past might have a chance of creating a new beginning for itself. The reliance on words, crafted by a firm dedicated to the task of damage control and crisis management, will never serve up what is needed in these times of enormous danger for the Church of England,
The bishops have not had to deal with anything like the current situation before. Tectonic plates have never shifted as dramatically and suddenly as in this past month. One Archbishop has resigned (historic event in itself) closely followed by calls for the second Archbishop to follow. And in the midst of these seismic events, a courageous diocesan Bishop is making any amount of serious waves. Bishops have not had to face this previously. Alan ‘Elbows’ Wilson could easily be dismissed by the hierarchy as a beardy weirdy – when he had more courage, integrity and a mind for justice than the rest of the bishops put together. A few retired bishops have spoken out (notably Pete Broadbent) but no diocesan has had the presence of mind to speak out against their own failed and dysfunctional culture. It’s clear her peers view the Bishop of Newcastle as someone they need to freeze out … in much the same way that many bishops have repeatedly blanked survivors and our complaints. It’s a pattern many of us have experienced. The blanking and suspension in a vacuum has sadly changed little in the response of some bishops across the past decade.
I suspect the women in the episcopacy are mostly grateful that they’ve managed to be accepted into the old boys club, and firmly hoovered up into the establishment (the Bishop of London is a case in point). They have spoken out hardly at all. I often wondered why Viv Faull didn’t speak out more. A bishop with more of a brain on her than many of her colleagues; and enough experience of the shadow side of the institution to have been a powerful voice for change. She has always stood some way apart from the rest of the bishops and been her own person. But she bottled out at a crucial stage… or more likely was silenced? She started speaking out in 2019 but was quickly put back in her box, presumably by the Nyebots or by whoever happened to be the ‘whip’ Bishop at the time.
The bishops have never known how to speak ‘corporate transparency’. They’ve always assumed the Centre or the Top would speak it for them. We’ve seen centralised contrition issued from both Archbishops in the past, which has been empty of real meaning while the structure continues to treat necessary questions and legitimate complaints in ways that demonstrate reputation management is still to the fore in the mindset of the hierarchy. Plenty of bishops, probably most if not all, have been aware of this institutional disparity but have preferred to remain mute. A big problem in my view, alongside the culture of fear which the Bishop of Newcastle rightly points to in the bishops – is the pattern of behaviours that arise from siloed thinking. As long as me and my diocese are OK. The bishops find it very difficult to take responsibility for their collective culture. Each individual Bishop has tended to only worry about their patch. Some are good and decent. Others are disaster areas. Some are kindly disposed and some are disposed to cruelty. And up until recently any Bishop wanting to make any kind of safeguarding statement or do any safeguarding-related interview had to go via the dreaded comms in Church Hse. Even national media had to go via Nye’s apparatchik. Everything has been centralized to enable the Nyebots to better control narrative and manage reputation.
Another major problem facing the Church: whose hands exactly are on the levers of change? Are there any levers? Certainly not been the lead bishops’ hands. When they’ve tried to effect change they’ve discovered they have nothing much more than rubber levers to play with which spring back into starting position. Some lead bishops have found themselves thwarted by Nye and/or Lambeth Palace in the past. Some of us remember the frustration and anger of Peter Hancock when he was Lead at finding that Lambeth Palace could organise an interview with Justin Welby without letting him know. An interview which then contained a range of significant untruths about the Smyth case.
Why have the bishops collectively not been able to shape effective levers and insist that Nye and any others blocking progress get out of the way. Nye and his court have been a significant hindrance to the Church responding well. Why have/are the bishops so slow in recognising this. Why are they so muzzled by fear? Is it because they have to go mitre in hand to the centre for funding and dare not speak out of turn lest the Welby/Nye axis cut off vital payment for diocesan projects?
Perhaps it suited the bishops to be lazy in their siloed mindset. It’s convenient to let the status quo remain unchallenged, because the hierarchy is protected by that status quo. Privilege and power are maintained. But that’s all changing rapidly now. Newcastle is identifying so many aspects of the low-grade culture of the bishops, which makes it much easier for the media to bring a necessary spotlight to that culture. There are likely to be several stories coming which provide further evidence of the dysfunctional culture. I don’t think the media will tire yet. They will eventually, but in the meantime it’s open season.
So with this as the current and inevitable backdrop post the crisis of Welby – it ought to be fairly easy for enlightened and savvy bishops (yes a few do exist) to get together and accelerate change. Really push together on the slow old lawnmower engine of this rickety structure to accelerate the pace of things. Perhaps to come up with a shared vision mapped out – of the Church they want to be, the response to survivors they want to be, and the kind of redemption and repentance they would wish to see embodied by themselves and the wider Church.
But then why aren’t we seeing any of them come alongside Newcastle’s statements in support? Why aren’t any of them even name-checking her? Praising some of her insights? Her colleagues are carefully stepping around her as if she’s not there. A deeply transgressive presence who they all avoid … rather in the way that the religious leaders avoided consorting with the ragged and disturbing prophet of Galilea.
What or who are they all frightened of? Are they frightened of each other? It seems a limp culture behind the purple enclosure. The sky’s not going to fall in any further… the sky has already fallen in! The wisest of them must surely recognise this, so why have they so little courage to match that of the Shepherdess of the North?
The other thing which needs constant repeating in the midst of all this episcopal fear is around mandatory reporting. The Church hasn’t much hope as an institution of stepping off the scandal merry-go-round until MR is in place in the statutory framework. For some reason bishops aren’t getting this, don’t want to get it. I notice some of them mouthed the words in their post-Makin statements. But it’s difficult to really know what they mean when the words ‘mandatory reporting’ are given little real context. The words have lost their meaning as Tom Perry recently said to me. The bishops have the perfect opportunity to support exactly the bill needed as it travels through parliament. Tanni Grey-Thompson’s bill is the Church’s hope for the future and will empower the institution to deliver one-Church safeguarding clearly and without any of the confusion we’re still seeing manifested. Why the bishops aren’t 100% behind this is a mystery to me. It’s really in their interest to bring the Church publicly and fully behind this bill with their support.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3328
I have argued previously for the planning of a Truth and Reconciliation process. But am not particularly surprised the Church has put zero preparation into this as part of the Redress Scheme. Has this been a canny move by the Archbishops Council to delay the scheme? Or is this too much conspiracy theory? Sometimes supposed conspiracy is better viewed as incompetence and shallow thinking. But on bad days I fear that any means fair or foul will be employed to delay the actual start of the Redress Scheme. Why would it be otherwise? This is the Church of England which delays every promise. Like others, my trust in this institutional hierarchy is low. And my trust in anything from Archbishops Council is zero. In my view, they should be removed from the frame. I agree with Helen-Ann of Newcastle – the top tier including Church Hse, both Palaces, the offices of Archbishops, entire NCIs – should be placed into Special Measures. That’s how serious I think it is for the Church at this juncture. There will not be real willingness to change until the Church sets about finding and making leadership structures dedicated to transparency and integrity and accountability. At present the old dispensation will cleave to power. But it needs to go, so a higher grade culture might hopefully take their place. Under current leadership it is clear that the Church of England is not fit to be in any sense the national Church, and unfit to be part of the legislature in the House of Lords. The deep soul sickness manifested by the Church across the past decade and longer, cannot be redeemed until the quiet corruption of protectionism is a thing of the past. If you want to find the locus of that protectionist culture, look behind the walls of Church House, Westminster. And Bishops, wake up to the new reality and start showing considerably greater courage and visible determination to address your own collective cultures of fear, power politics and dysfunction.
The reputation of safeguarding in the Church of England could hardly be worse. Mired in controversy, badly led, and regarded as unworthy of trust of confidence, the crises in its provision and oversight lurch from one disaster to another. As an illustration of the parlous state of affairs, these risk assessment documents analysed by Clive Billenness appear to be part of the planned, deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy in 2020 and beyond.
The documents remain a significant bone of contention with the honesty and integrity of Church of England safeguarding under such intense scrutiny from the media. Especially as coverups, conspiracy and corruption are so rife in this sphere and go hand in hand with persistent incompetence. The analysis from the audit by Clive Billenness point to wider issues of grave concern, of which a handful are noted here.
1. Both Archbishops (Cottrell and Welby) have repeatedly blocked an independent inquiry into the forged documents and the weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy. They have instead proposed internal investigations run by persons with extremely serious conflicts of interest, and under terms that would exclude consideration of the alleged forgeries, despite assuring General Synod otherwise.
2. Steven Croft as Bishop of Oxford consistently defended the forged risk assessments as “assessments of risk, which are different”. He did so publicly, knowing full well that the provenance of the documents were doubtful and lacked proper authorisation. This is an extremely serious safeguarding failure on his part. Dr. Croft made extensive efforts to defend the alleged forgeries and their authors, and avoid implication of his own lawyers and clergy in these actions.
3. The Diocese of Oxford may have a case to answer, as Bishop Croft consistently supported the documents as valid, and supported the authors as legitimate parties in their authorship. The analysis also shows that the Archdeacon of Oxford was originally in receipt of one complaint, and then later denied that in order to sit later as a judge in a subsequent tribunal against Percy. Yet the Archdeacon denied and rejected any conflict of interest to preside as a judge. The metadata shows this to be unreliable.
4. A Church of England bureaucrat working in Westminster – Sion Hughes Carew, the Administrative Secretary to the Legal Office Synod Team – who’s metadata suggests he had a hand in the preparation and dissemination of the forgeries was ordained by Glynn Webster, the Bishop of Beverely, a Flying Bishop. This raises the question of possible motive, with members of The Society, supported by CofE legal officers, engaged in weaponisation of safeguarding against Dr. Percy. The risk assessments were prepared and heavily promoted by those who already litigating against Dr. Percy, with clear evidence of assistance from senior CofE lawyers.
5. Emails and other documentation show that several written pieces of Dr. Percy’s evidence submitted to Kate Wood as part of her investigation were redacted and altered without his knowledge or consent. It is not known if these redactions and alterations were made by Ms. Wood herself or subsequently by church lawyers. However, we do know from emails that Ms. Wood invited plaintiffs to augment and co-ordinate their earlier evidence only after Dr. Percy had submitted his evidence. The plaintiffs were then allowed to re-present their modified accounts for her final report. Meanwhile Dr. Percy’s crucial evidence for his defence was removed without his knowledge or consent.
In view of these findings, the case for an externally-led and fully independent inquiry is made. We can only guess at the reasons why the Diocese of Oxford, NST, Secretary General and both Archbishops have made such substantial efforts over the years to ensure that no such inquiry happens, and instead proposed an internal process run by persons with clear and substantial conflicts of interest in these matters. The evidence for deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy appears to be very substantial. The NST has consistently deflected and declined calls for a fully independent inquiry into how their own processes were deliberately abused by persons working for the Church of England’s officers, and parties working for the Diocese of Oxford.
Document Content Analysis
An analysis of the content and metadata of two documents by Clive Billenness
Certified Informations Systems Auditor (CISA) for
Revd Dr Martyn Percy
15 December 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared at the request of Revd Dr Martyn Percy and is an analysis of the metadata of two Portable Document Format (.pdf) files provided to me by Dr Percy. I have also noted where there appear to be inconsistencies or matters of significant note between the contents of the documents and information freely accessible in the Public Domain.
I have noted the authorship and origins of both documents as described in the documents’ metadata and have concluded that while one document is a collation of multiple documents which have been assembled into a .PDF, the other is a document originated in Microsoft Word and containing evidence of tracked changes and comments from different sources identifiable by initials.
I have noted that a number of pages within the assembled document, entitled “Risk Assessment” falsely associate the name of Ms Kate Wood with them even though Ms Wood has publicly denied in the media having any involvement in their preparation. I have recommended a further investigation be conducted into how these pages were prepared since the criminal offence of Forgery may have been committed during their preparation given that they were subsequently submitted as evidence in legal proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.
I have further noted that in the second document, which appears to be an earlier, draft version of the statement of facts within the complaint against Dr Percy to which the first document related, contain a number of factual statements about the involvement in the investigation of allegations against Dr Percy of different individuals as well as the involvement of members of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team which were omitted from the final version.
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
1.1. Revd Dr Martyn Percy requested me to perform an examination of two .PDF files, one containing a number of documents related to a complaint under the Church of England’s Clergy Discipline Measure brought against him in 2020, the other appearing to be a draft copy of one of the documents in the larger document
1.2. He asked me to provide him with my observations on the documents, highlighting any significant issues which I discovered.
1.3. I have performed a technical review, examining the documents as provided. They have been transmitted to me by e-mail by Dr Percy and I do not possess evidence of the full chain of transmission and storage since he received them. I am therefore unable to certify their provenance or authorship beyond that which is electronically detectable in each document.
1.4. Given, however, that the metadata indicates that the document was created on 9 November 2020 at 16:48:37 and was last edited on the following day at 13:14:37 while the first discrete document within what is clearly a collation of documents bears the signature date of 5 November 2020, I have no reason not to believe that this the original file received by Dr.Percy.
1.5. All documents have been managed in a Read-Only Environment since receipt and I certify no changes have been made to them whilst in my custody. Copies can be forwarded upon request to any third party for confirmatory examination.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Many computer applications store data about the properties of a document they have created to assist in document management and retrieval, and also to provide a history of changes (revisions) made to the file since it was first created. This referred to as Metadata.
2.2. Microsoft Word creates and stores not only a standard set of metadata on all files which are created using it, but offers various means to supplement this with additional metadata to assist with the tracking of changes to documents. I have confined my work in this analysis to the use of the built-in metadata reporting tools to be found in:
2.2.1. File…Info…Properties and
2.2.2. Review….Show Comments and Review
2.3. Portable Document Format (.pdf) documents are most often associated with the Adobe Acrobat software package, although there are now many other tools and systems which can create .pdf documents capable of being read by a wide variety of .pdf readers and tools available in the market. .PDF software is also frequently built into multiple purpose printer/scanners which can operate independently of a computer (or be connected to one either directly or via a computer network), enabling documents and images to be converted directly into .pdf files. The .pdf format contains a wide range of options for the inclusion of metadata, including the capability to restrict the ability to print or alter the contents of a .pdf file and to apply Digital Rights Management so that only a licensed user can view the contents of a .pdf file.
2.4. .pdf files can contain a wide range of metadata, some of which is dependent on the source files from which the .pdf has been created. Since .pdf’s can be assembled from multiple files originating from many different source computer packages.
2.5. I have not attempted to parse the document deeply beyond the inbuilt analysers in my .PDF reader, other than to verify that there are no hidden JavaScript elements in the file which might constitute a risk to a computer on which the file is opened. No such risks were identified.
2.6. For the purposes of my analysis, I first examined the .pdf files provided by loading them into Foxit Phantom PDF software and then using the inbuilt File…Properties function to view the “Description” information. I supplemented this with a further analysis of the Metadata using the online PDF Metadata analyser https://www.pdfyeah.com/, and finally conducted an examination of the files using the open source software package PdfStream Dumper v.9.3
3. DETAILED FINDINGS
3.1. The following files were examined:
* Complaint CDM MP.pdf (File 1) and
* CDM MP Draft.pdf (File 2)
3.2. Turning first to File 1
3.2.1. This a .pdf created using the DocsCorp PDF package on 09-11-2020 at 16:48:23 by an author identified by the initials ‘rmr’. The file was last modified on 10-11-2020 at 13:14:37.
3.2.2. I was unable to determine whether this file was originated by combining a number of other existing .PDF’s or by the amalgamation of a number of source documents derived from multiple sources which were then recompiled as a single original .PDF from those sources. Given, however, that different pages contain different fonts including:
* Times New Roman
* Garamond
* SegoeUI
* Calibri
* Cambria
* Arial
* Courier
As well as pages which are identified as images and pages which are identified as originated using a text-processor into TrueType fonts, it seems most likely that this file is an assembly of .pdf files and scanned documents originated separately.
3.2.3. Additionally, different compression ratios are shown for graphical items on different pages (e.g. page 7 reports a compression ratio of 15% while page 9 reports a compression ratio of only 3.9%) as well as different sizes of originating graphical items.
3.2.4. It should be noted that on Page 7 of the document, the signature of Graham Ward appears to have been inserted into the document from a picture held digitally on file, and not to have been placed on the document directly as a signature. This is evidenced by the level of “artefacts” surrounding the signature (the distortions associated with the application of compression algorithms within the .jpg standard).
3.2.5. This is significant as it is not possible to determine whether this component of the file was ever actually directly authorised by Mr Ward or his consent given to the application of his signature.
3.2.6. I also noted that the page titled “Oxford Cathedral – Activity risk assessment for Cathedral Choir School” [page 41] referred to “Risk alerted in report received 22/1020 [sic] (Kate Wood)” and
3.2.7. the page titled “Christ Church – Activity risk in College” [pages 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46] contained the line
“Second risk assessment: Kate Wood (Independent Safeguarding Consultant) on 22 October 2020
3.2.8. The same line also appears on the page titled “Christ Church – Activity risk assessment on Site: Deanery and College” [page 47]
3.2.9. I was mindful that in the 19 March 2021 Edition of the Church Times (page 6), Ms Wood was quoted as saying:
3.2.10. “I asked the college several times to publicly explain the error and to confirm that I had not conducted a risk assessment…… This public correction does not appear to have happened, though I am told that the error has now been corrected on the document.”
3.2.11. The article continues “A spokesperson for Christ Church confirmed that Ms Wood’s name had been incorrectly included in an early “risk assessment draft”. This was corrected before the assessment was finalised.”
3.2.12. Ms Wood’s name, however, appears in the packet of papers prepared for the consideration of a Clergy Discipline Measure proceeding, apparently signed and submitted by Mr Graham Ward on 4 October 2020.
3.2.13. I have further noted that in the Decision of the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Oxford in the matter of a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 by Ms K Gadd against Revd Canon Richard Peers, reference was made to concerns about these documents. However it was stated in paragraph 29.4 on page 7 that:
“four risk assessments were subsequently prepared on the basis of the conclusions in the Wood Report. (These and other safeguarding processes put in place at the time have been criticised. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal is not concerned with the details of how those operated or with evaluating their appropriateness.)”
3.3. Turning to File 2
3.3.1. This is a .PDF file apparently created using a copy of Microsoft Word 2016 and authored by Sion Hughes-Carew. It was created on 12-06-2021 at 11:33:55 but clearly refers to an earlier document, since it contains the same text and signature of Graham Ward as in File 1 but is dated 1st November 2020 – i.e. 4 days before the version which was included in File 1 as sent to Dr Percy. It should be noted that although this was clearly not a final document, it had already had a scanned signature applied inserted into it, which is perhaps slightly unusual for a legal document to be submitted as part of a judicial proceeding which is recognised for these purposes under the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3.3.2. This version of the document appears to be displaying comments made on the document by ‘AJ’ and ‘GW’. When Word is tracking changes made to a document during preparation, it normally applies the initials of the first and last name of the person to whom the copy of Word on which they are working is registered. There is no means within the document of identifying who ‘AJ’ and ‘GW’ are. I note however that the complaint was submitted by Graham Ward on behalf of Ms Alannah Jeune.
3.3.3. There are a considerable number of differences between the two version of the text occurring on page 4 of File 2 and that which appears on page 4 of File 1 (the submitted document).
3.3.4. The most significant differences between File 2 and File 1 are that in File 1 (the version apparently submitted as part of a CDM):
3.3.4..1. References to the involvement of the Senior Censors of the College and the Archdeacon of Oxford in a discussion following the report of the incident have been removed.
3.3.4..2. References to the Sub-Dean and the Archdeacon contacting the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer have been removed.
3.3.4..3. References to the presence of the Diocesan Harassment Officer at a meeting following contact with the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer have been removed.
3.3.4..4. References to a professional agency for Risk Assessment being contacted have been removed.
3.3.4..5. References to the Diocesan Safeguarding office being unsure whether the allegation was a safeguarding matter, rather than sexual harassment/assault have been removed.
3.3.4..6. References to the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team, while awaiting the full report of the investigation, having strongly recommended that a complaint be submitted under the CDM have been removed.
3.3.5. I have also noted that both File 1 and File 2 state that
“The police have proceeded with an investigation (Ms. Jeune’s hair – cut on the day of the incident – has been sent for forensic analysis for traces of DNA).”
3.3.6. I have noted that on social media recently (‘X’) Ms Jeune has stated publicly that this did not occur, and that the Police returned her hair to her without submitting it for forensic testing.
3.4. FURTHER CONSIDERATION
3.4.1. I was mindful that in the 19 March 2021 Edition of the Church Times (page 6), Ms Wood was quoted as saying:
“I asked the college several times to publicly explain the error and to confirm that I had not conducted a risk assessment…… This public correction does not appear to have happened, though I am told that the error has now been corrected on the document.”
The article continues “A spokesperson for Christ Church confirmed that Ms Wood’s name had been incorrectly included in an early “risk assessment draft”. This was corrected before the assessment was finalised.”
3.4.2. Dr Percy has informed me, however, that this document originated from a set of electronic documents provided to him as a part of the exhibits for use in the forthcoming hearing of the complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure, and were therefore identical to papers which would have been provided to those responsible for considering the complaint.
3.4.3. Despite requests from Ms Wood to have references to her name removed from the document, and a public confirmation by Christ Church that this would be undertaken, her name remained on a document giving the impression that she, as an external expert, had participated in the preparation of this document.
3.4.4. I then considered the provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 which sets out a number of criminal offences:
1. The offence of forgery.
A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.
2. The offence of copying a false instrument.
It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.
3. The offence of using a false instrument.
It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.
4. The offence of using a copy of a false instrument.
It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.
3.4.5. Given that Ms Woods had publicly stated that she had repeatedly requested that her name be removed from these documents, and that representatives of Christ Church had publicly stated that her name would be removed, and yet it remained on Risk Assessments which formed part of the evidence bundle submitted against Dr Percy, it appears that documents containing information which was known to be false were submitted, an act which was arguably to Dr Percy’s prejudice.
3.4.6. As such, these documents appear at first sight to contain knowingly false information and so meet the criteria specified to be ‘false instruments’ and consequently for an offence of forgery as specified in Section 1 of the Act to have been committed. Offences under Sections 2 – 4 of the Act may also have been committed by others if they knowingly copied or used these documents in proceedings against Dr Percy.
3.5. Given also that when concerns were raised about these documents before a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal, it declared that is was ‘not concerned with the details of how those operated or with evaluating their appropriateness’, further independent investigations are now recommended to determine the process by which these documents were created, who authorised their release containing false information and how this occurred. These investigations will then indicate whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. The two documents passed to me for examination contain metadata which show that they are consistent with the dates on which any original copies would have been created, and I am therefore reasonably satisfied that they are true, unaltered copies of files sent to Dr Percy.
4.2. File 1 contains copies of “Risk Assessment” which allude to the involvement of an external consultant – Ms Kate Woods – which she has denied any involvement in the preparation of and which a spokesperson for Christ Church College Oxford publicly acknowledged and stated that her name would be removed. However, her name, and therefore her professional status, remain associated with the documents submitted in support of a charge under the Clergy Discipline Measure.
4.3. Since this appears to disclose possible offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the matter should be referred for further investigation since the issue of false instruments may well meet the criteria of the offence of forgery.
4.4. This will involve inquiries into how these documents were originated and also what approvals were given for their publication and distribution.
4.5. A comparison of the 1 November 2020 version of the particulars of complaint and the submitted 5 November version show that a considerable number of items of potentially relevant information were omitted. The effect of these omissions is to conceal the involvement of a number of associated parties in relation to the incident under investigation, including the apparent involvement of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team in encouraging a Clergy Discipline Measure case to be initiated.
4.6. Given that all cases against Dr Percy have been dismissed, these omissions apparently had no effect on the ultimate outcome of the matter, and they are therefore remitted to Dr Percy to decide what action(s) if any to take.
‘The tragedy of life is often not in our failure, but rather in our complacency; not in our doing too much, but rather in our doing too little; not in our living above our ability, but rather in our living below our capacities.’
This quote from the African American minister Benjamin E. Mays seems sadly apt given the church’s response to knowing for decades about John Smyth’s abuses. It takes a while even to begin to digest the Makin Report – the immense and on-going suffering of those groomed and abused by Smyth, and then the response, or rather lack of response, from those who knew about what was going on: the response was a denial of awareness, a sadly familiar pattern of behaviour (see ‘Sex, Power, Control’ for too many other examples). By 2012/13 the reviewers note that although safeguarding concerns were widely recognised in all organizations, it was not so in the church:
14.3.35 We have demonstrated that this was far from the case, with serious abuse and crimes being covered up at the time. This complacency continues ….
It’s been suggested that one response to hearing about something that disturbs us, is to default to complacency: it’s an easier option that taking action – nothing to see here. One definition is that complacency is: “a feeling of self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by a lack of awareness of actual pending trouble, deficiencies or controversy.” The self-satisfaction includes being pleased with one’s position in life, one’s merits and situation, and so lacking awareness of any defects. Research describing why people get complacent and demotivated at work, suggests that among other things, this generally results from the intransigency of the organizational culture, implacability of the work climate, the inflexibility of supervision and management. One suggestion in unpacking the inaction is that those hearing about Smyth’s abuses defaulted to complacency, partly because of the organizational culture of protecting ‘reputation’; the rigid hierarchy, and, the power of a particular theology. This all contributed to “confirmation bias”, one of the helpful ideas put forward in the Makin Report which causes a person, or a group, to interpret what is going on, or only look for further information which confirms their currently held belief. And “confirmation bias” leads to complacency.
The Makin Report is divided into sections linked to chronology. In each section, the reviewers state how the abuses were known about, and how no action was taken – other than to ‘cover-up’. From time period 1982-May 1984 the intransigency of the organizational culture is clearly revealed:
12.1.2 For this period … a significant number of ordained Church of England Clergy knew of the abuse between March 1982 and July 1984, some may well have known or suspected it even earlier than 1982 although information confirming this is not available. One of these was very senior, a Bishop, and several others were well known influential leaders within Iwerne networks and the wider Conservative Evangelical world … powerful and influential leaders in Evangelism were also aware of the abuse.
12.1.6 … a sufficiently large number of prominent people within the Church did know of it. Significant enough to say that the Church of England “knew” in the most general sense, of the abuse.
And
12.1.10 (l) All decision-making during this period regarding investigating and responding to the abuse was ‘managed’ by a group of men that included ordained Clergy and prominent Evangelicals.
The intransigency and ‘group think’ collective complacency was stronger than any sense of criminal activity:
12.1.10 (m) We must reach the conclusion that this constituted a cover-up of the abuse by those few individuals who were told at the time. This interpretation of what occurred has been questioned by many, but our firm conclusion is that a serious crime was covered up.
Complacency generates many negative outcomes which may be injurious not only to an organization, but to individuals in it. So together with ‘managing’ the knowing about the abuse went a complete disregard for the well-being of the victims, the ‘self-satisfaction’ did not extend to thinking about those outside the collective ‘group think’.
12.1. 10 (i) There was little support offered to the victims. Indeed, there is evidence of Mark Ruston being critical of some victims when questioning them. There is also evidence of what amounts to “victim blaming” in some of the correspondence.
And: (n) There is no reference to the welfare of the victims at the important meeting at the Carlton Club, where decisions were made as to how to proceed.
The general lack of concern for those who had experienced the abuse went alongside a lack of concern for the acceptance of what had happened, and the risks involved in ignoring this. The reputation of the institution, and the refusal to take on the ‘one of us’ aberrant perpetrator Smyth contributed to the inaction.
In the business model, a culture of complacency is seen as something that develops over time, and that is reinforced by each risk taken in order to meet some short-term need, without experiencing an adverse effect. This means that behaviour that deviates begins to be normalised, so that the continual inaction and lack of responses to allegations about Smyth’s behaviour became the norm. This is despite increased awareness of safeguarding. Whilst complacency is not in itself criminal, it can allow such criminal behaviour as that perpetrated by Smyth to exist. Complacency is deeply troubling as it works quietly – often a subtle drift beyond inaction into what might be called ‘evil’. For the C of E, the on-going complacency around the lack of action following allegations led to a false belief that somehow the right thing was being done – when it wasn’t.
Moving to Smyth’s time in Africa:
13.1.1 (h)‘Throughout this period, that before and after, there was a moral duty to act on knowledge of abuse and as argued previously, a duty to report crime. John Smyth was able to abuse boys and young men in Zimbabwe (and possibly South Africa) because of inaction of Clergy within the Church of England.’
And in connection with the postcard sent and acknowledging wrong doings 13.1.30-13.1.32:
13.1.32 This is one of the clearest demonstrations of the Church Officers … that suggest potential collusion with him [Smyth] rather than prevention of further abuse by him.
13.1.139 There is no evidence that any proactive attempts were made to alert authorities in Zimbabwe by Church of England officers… By the time any attempts were made to warn those in Africa, John Smyth had already begun to abuse boys and young men. The starkest fact is that the UK abuses should have been pursued further, reported to the UK police and pursued by them. David Fletcher and others were still continuing to cover-up and to draw a veil over the abuses they knew about in detail from the late 1970s until 1982… David Fletcher and others, deliberately and knowingly, stood in the way of that investigation.
With the time period of 2012-2016, the complacent attitude and inaction seems increasingly astonishing, if not impossible to understand. At the highest level, and among a wide grouping of church officials the abuses were known about.
14.1.1.(d) There was a distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation of the matter …
15.1.24 Victims’ expectations … were that Justin Welby had committed himself, and the Church to meaningful engagement with victims and to investigating the alleged abuses and to supporting them, but as time went on, victims’ frustrations and anger grew as these promises were not kept nor acted upon.
The patronising and neglectful attitude to the victims, let alone an in any way a trauma-informed response, is noted several times by the reviewers, and that the protection of the Iwerne name and evangelicalism generally was repeatedly put to the fore at the expense of helping victims and preventing more abuses. So how can this level of complacency possibly make sense? At the level of faith and belief is it that the particular theology advocated by Smyth and his cronies somehow minimised and then even ‘justified’ the punishment beatings? Hard to think that … but it seems that allowances were endlessly being made for the perpetrator’s behaviour, a perpetrator who some strongly believed was bringing boys to Christ. The very details of the on-going funding of Smyth confirms this. Could those knowing about the abuses really prioritise their particular take on evangelical theology over the well-being of children?
Could a strange blend of a particular brand of evangelical theology plus personal experiences of corporal punishment perhaps from boarding school days lead to the destructive entitlement syndrome? “It didn’t do me any harm” group think, that so distorts morality and compassion. Different research studies suggest that if you are exposed to and encourage a punitive mentality, then this provides an internalized support for systems of punishment against others and sometimes against yourself. Punishment is said to be a central theme in much evangelical theology, where US research shows that evangelicals sincerely believe punishment works, and the data shows they are favourable to the harshest forms of punishment which are socially acceptable in any given situation.
Benjamin E. Mays whose words I used at the start of this piece was a minister in the US, a civil rights activist, mentor to Martin Luther King amongst others, and President of Morehouse College for black male students in Georgia. His beliefs were the very opposite of complacency: he believed that social action could be built on integrity and respect, that right could overcome wrong, that stereotypes could be broken through, and that each person needed to take responsibility for their actions to make the world better. He believed: ‘And there was light’.
The dingy accounts of the sad sequence of cover up, denial, and deception in the Makin Report that continue on through decades, and are painstakingly recounted in over 250 heart-breaking pages rather suggest the opposite.
A Statement from CofE-Air: Proud Sponsor of Lambeth Palace FC
In recent months, it has been suggested that Church of England Airways—better known as CofE-Air—has enjoyed a less-than-stellar safeguarding record. This is wholly unfounded. But it is apparently impacting Lambeth Palace FC, who recently parted company with their Head Coach, Justin Welby, after a very poor run (Ed: surely several seasons?) of results.
CofE-Air wishes to make the following points concerning all the intense, undeserved, ill-informed and very unfair media scrutiny endured, and a handful of baseless complaints from a few of our passengers who claim to have had a less than satisfactory experience of journeying with us. In our statement, which will not be subject to media questions or further comment from us, CofE-Air reminds the public, passengers and its Purple Clubcard members that:
We take our passengers’ and customers’ comfort and safety very seriously. Safeguarding everyone who journeys with us is, front and centre, our number one priority. Safeguarding is what CofE-Air is all about, and we aim to deliver a service like no other.
2. We offer an elite high-cost low-budget safeguarding service for everyone. We avoid additional costs being passed onto our customers by making sure that our pilots, ground crew, cabin crew and other staff are unregulated, unlicensed and unaccountable to any industry standard.
3. We keep our published budget lower still by using lots of unpaid volunteers to oversee safeguarding, check-ins, etc. This ensures that all passengers are responsible for each other at all times, as safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, not just the pilot(s) and crew.
4. In the unlikely event of any emergency procedures being required onboard one of our journeys, customers should be aware that all our staff have had crash-awareness training to the basic minimum standard. This means that when a crash does actually happen, the staff should know that there has been a crash and will be able to confirm that. They are fully trained to be aware of crashes.
5. In the unlikely event of a serious accident, Purple Clubcard members must sit facing forward in business class and first class, and should not on any account look backwards or attempt to intervene on behalf of those seated in economy class, who will be supported by our volunteer crew.
6. For the avoidance of doubt, Purple Clubcard members seated in first and business class must on no account respond to any cries for help or demands for assistance from economy class passengers. The volunteer crews will distribute forms to fill in for all those in distress, sometimes whilst the emergency is actually taking place. Obviously, Purple Clubcard members should never speak to the media about a serious incident.
7. Delays in reviews, journeys and transit are never, ever our fault and are frequently caused by troublesome passengers making annoying complaints about poor standards, lack of regulation, too much money being spent on PR, lawyers, advertising and marketing, and not enough on passenger safety. This only adds to our costs and causes further delays on journeys. If only passengers would shut up and stop complaining, we might be able to run an uninterrupted service for once.
8. We do not offer independently assessed compensation, assistance, or redress schemes to any passengers injured through our service or suffering delays (including fatalities) attributed to our provision. To do so would increase our costs. All our independent arbitration and mediation schemes are run in-house by trusted third parties who meet Mr. Nye’s criteria for CofE-Air independence.
9. In the unlikely event that you might have encountered a below-par experience with our service, or had a safeguarding issue unresolved, our website publishes details of how to complain. The complaints hotline is monitored on a monthly basis (we spin the bottle to select a random number between 1-31 for the day the ‘phone is answered). There is an unmonitored email address to write to, and you can also write to us at the designated PO Box 1662, Vennells Court, London – where , again that box is emptied one Sunday per month in Ordinary Time.
10. If you have a complaint that does not fit our criteria, then we do not undertake to consider your grievance. The policy on non-standard complaints and grievances is available upon request from Mr. Nye’s personal office, but is not published. But you can always write and ask.
11. In the event of a possible inflight accident, or more likely, an on-ground collision, and more likely still a failure to take off at all, or there being no means of embarking on the journey whatsoever, all passengers must assume the CofE-Air brace position.
12. In the front pocket of your seat you will find the brace position described in detail: tense up, put on a rictus grin, say nothing to the media, and pretend that whatever happens next, it was all planned and will be OK anyway. Familiarise yourself with the aisles and exits. Look after yourself first before you look after anyone else. Run. Do not look back.
13. However, please ensure that Purple Clubcard members have already disembarked and are taking refreshments in the complementary lounges before you even think of moving. Church on Sundays is the kind of place where clergy preach on “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.” This does not apply here.
14. Remember that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, and you may be financially liable for any claims made against CofE-Air. We employ nobody to any industry standard, and when a crash or accident happens, the volunteers and passengers are usually culpable. Purple Clubcard members are naturally indemnified.
15. We do not carry life jackets, whistleblowing equipment or lights on our journeys. These might be industry standard, but CofE-Air is not subject to the law in the same way, so this allows us to keep our fares high, competing with the most expensive, yet operating on low-cost budgets.
16. Pilots and paid crew who might accidentally or deliberately fail in safeguarding duties are subject to our strict and rigorous internal disciplinary procedures. An indication of how safe CofE-Air actually is can be gleaned from the very few pilots who are ever grounded, suspended or subjected to any meaningful disciplinary action.
17. However, volunteer ground crew and non-essential low-profile staff often make the most egregious safeguarding mistakes. We aim to punish these individuals with the full force of our disciplinary code. (Let them be an example to us all, and a sign of how seriously we take our PR).
18. Re-branding. In the event of an established safeguarding position or role becoming completely untenable, CofE-Air reserves the right to keep that person in post doing exactly the same job to the same standard as before but rename the position and role so as to give the impression that it will all be different from now on. It won’t be.
19. We remain resolutely opposed to adopting any normal industry standards, as that might adversely impact on the control, cost, quality and reputation of our service.
20. At all times remember that CofE-Air puts safeguarding at the front and centre of its concerns, and that is why the very best people to conduct Fatal Accident Inquiries, Performance Reviews, Critical Incident Reports, Lessons Learned Assessments and Retrospective Analyses are hand-picked by the owner of CofE-Air, and also the Chairman and Owner of Lambeth Palace FC, Mr. William Nye. As on the football field, so in the journeys undertaken with CofE-Air. You only get the results that he is prepared to commission and underwrite. All other results are wrong, and will be treated as such.
21. We do run a bus service – but only for throwing people under who can be made to take the blame for our failures. Please note, this is not a Replacement Bus Service. Our buses do not connect destinations or have any other purpose other than to emphasise our zero-tolerance policy towards any failure to keep up appearances.
22. In the event of your journey being delayed, sit down and wait for the announcements in the departure or arrivals concourses. Or just go home. Whichever is quicker. Maybe go home?
23. In the event of an accident, unfortunate death or other injuries, we also ensure that all of our Lessons Learned Reviews are delivered in a timely manner to ensure that the reputation of our safeguarding is safeguarded, and customer confidence is maintained by:
Running the clock down.
Redacting embarrassing evidence and facts, and named individuals (only those we might need to protect) in order to save face.
Ensuring nobody can remember what the original problem was.
Delaying publication – over five years late remains the Gold Standard.
Enabling the guilty to retire in peace without being impeached.
Reducing the possibility of bad publicity.
That way, the public may never suspect for a moment that any of this service to passengers is carried out by unregulated, unlicensed, unaccountable and non-standard personnel and that there is no independent regulator to appeal to when things are going very badly wrong.
The Lead Bishop for CofE-Air stated:
“Whilst it is true that I, and indeed all of my predecessors, have no externally-validated qualifications in safeguarding whatsoever, or undertaken any industry-standard eternally-recognised training outside CofE-Air, and have no transferable skills or expertise that another carrier could ever deploy, valued customers and passengers on any and all CofE-Air journeys should nonetheless be reassured by the uniqueness of our standards which speak for themselves.”
A spokesperson for the safeguarding carrier industry said:
“CofE-Air are completely unregulated, unlicensed and wholly unaccountable to any normal industry standards of health and safety, and operate outside basic legal oversight. CofE-Air’s record is utterly atrocious, falling well below the minimum standards for any provider. If you do travel with them, you will have no rights, and no recourse in the courts if things go wrong, which they usually do. You travel with them entirely at your own risk, and in so doing will be taking your life in your own hands. Or putting your life in their hands. We strongly recommend you do not undertake any journey with them. Ever.”
It is hard to extract positive lessons from the woeful saga of John Smyth and all that has followed. In the midst of all the sometimes shabby and even dishonest behaviour on the part of leaders and others in the Church of England, I have found one clear display of professional integrity. This was not located in the Church, but from some in the journalistic profession, most notably in the efforts of Cathy Newman and Channel 4 to uncover the truth. Not only did the Channel 4 team reveal the truth of a festering scandal in the C/E but the same high-quality journalism has continued in the aftermath. Cathy has interviewed several of the key players in the drama, Smyth’s son and the Report author, Keith Makin. It is good to see and hear Makin for the first time, when for so long his name has been merely the title of an invisible and much awaited report.
In this blog post I want to turn my attention away from information in the Report but start by first mentioning a commentary section that most readers will probably not read, the psychological assessment of Smyth by Dr Elly Hanson, in the appendix. In this sub-report we are offered insights into the psychology of Smyth and what his actions suggest by way of a psychological/psychoanalytical profile. I do not propose to repeat her comments, but to observe that much of what she draws out of her assessment focuses on narcissism and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). What struck me was that the word ‘narcissist’ was also the word that PJ Smyth, Smyth’s son, chose as the one to sum up his father’s personality at the conclusion of his very revealing interview with Cathy Newman.
Long-term readers of this blog will know that I have frequently been drawn to the notion of narcissism as a key concept for the understanding of power abuse in the Church. Confusingly, the word has acquired different meanings and usages in popular discourse. Sometimes it is used in a debate or discussion without the parties taking the trouble to find out what the other side means by the word. I found myself first using the word in the context of religious or cultic groups, having read the work of Len Oakes, an Australian scholar. He illuminated a link between narcissism and the personalities of many charismatic leaders. The scholars that Oakes was reading were the generation who struggled to give the word meaning in the context of clinical practice rather than as a description of modern culture. Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut, the pioneer clinicians to discuss the meaning of narcissism, were formulating their classic definitions and theories in the 70s. Their ideas gained sufficient acceptance within the psychoanalytic profession to appear in the 1980 version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III. The discussions about what constitutes narcissism have, of course, been refined since 1980 but many, if not most, of the classic signs of NPD have survived intact into DSM-V, currently the authoritative statement used by the psychoanalytic profession.
The question of what precisely PJ Smyth meant when describing his father as a ‘grand narcissist’ does not matter at one level. The word is one that always needs to be defined in any discussion lest it become a source of misunderstanding and confusion. I use the word often but take care that the person I am speaking to knows how I am using it. The important and interesting fact is that PJ used the word and we may find that, as we try to unpack the term, we obtain fresh insights into John Smyth and his extraordinarily evil behaviour. Our examination of the word may also provide a key to understanding the corrupt dysfunctional behaviour of other religious leaders.
The definitions given in DSM III -V do not represent the final word on narcissism but they do offer us a series of traits found in the one who is defined as being afflicted with NPD. The nine traits mentioned by the different editions of the DSM all seem to focus, directly or indirectly, on a relentless and pathological struggle for power and desire for control. These are thought by the sufferer to be the keys able to satisfy a constant but unsatisfied craving for importance and self-esteem. This reflects my own personal amateur attempts to understand the NPD literature which is summarised for us by the descriptions in DSM. While experts might vary in the way they describe NPD, my remarks here are my attempt to make sense of the dense language of the pioneering clinicians like Kohut and Kernberg. The DSM traits seem to indicate that the NPD sufferer is like a starving man. His (typically a he/him) starvation, or voracious appetite, is so that he will be loved and admired. For whatever reason, the narcissist is the one who has been let down or even betrayed in the process of growing up. He is one who has been wounded in childhood and now strives, using all his power and resources, whether social or psychological, to extract from others the respect and adoration that was, for some reason, unavailable to him while growing up.
It goes without saying that not every sufferer of NPD will have the giftedness and sheer power of personality to be able to attract and manipulate others in ways shown to us by Smyth (and Donald Trump). Others remain crushed and defeated by their failure to be admired and loved – a gift given to most children by their parents. The individuals who have the inner contentment that comes through ‘good-enough’ parenting, do not need to manipulate or control others. That is the obsessive concern of the true narcissist. The sufferer of NPD, the one who also has the force of personality to get their own way in pursuit of their addiction to importance and grandiosity, is hard to live with. If they oversee an organisation, they will be difficult or impossible to challenge. Everyone walks on eggshells, terrified of provoking what is called narcissistic rage. Some or all of the nine traits of NPD as listed in the DSM can be identified in any bullying individual who uses the power of his personality to bludgeon or manipulate others into a place of control. While they are ‘lording’ it over others, in a way that contradicts Jesus’s injunctions about the use of power by his followers, the insatiable appetite for power and dominance is being temporarily gratified.
Narcissistic dynamics do not just involve individuals and their esteem addictions. They are also to be observed in political and religious structures. Many commentators have spoken about the toxic narcissism of Donald Trump and the way that he has used the Republican party and his mesmeric gifts of dominance to obtain a position of power never achieved since the fascist dictators of the 30s. It would of course be wrong to describe the Church of England as a narcissistic organisation, but it does provide extensive opportunities for narcissists to flourish within its ranks, and particularly in its hierarchy. Words like ‘grandiosity’ ‘messianic’ and ‘high-status’ are all found in the descriptions of NPD and these characteristics are all obvious when we look at the pursuit of dominance seen in John Smyth and many others who have misused institutional authority. Repeatedly we note the way that hierarchs, individuals within the structural Church, have chosen to support the organisation that gives them their status rather than listen to their personal consciences. Only a few nights ago, Tuesday 26th , did we hear once again how five bishops ignored the pleas of Matt Ineson about his abuse by a priest. One wonders whether it was the relationship to the structure that inhibited their actions and whether things would have been different if they had had only to respond to their consciences.
Returning to the comment and description by PJ Smyth of his father as a ‘total narcissist’, we are able to see how the word does sum up many of the aspects of behaviour of this notable malefactor. In using this one word we touch on not only the evil perpetrated by a single individual, but a further uncomfortable reality. This sees that it is not only individuals who are narcissists or sufferers of NPD, but organisations, such as the Church of England, are prone to incubate such behaviour. Bishops, clergy, church administrators and lawyers, some of whom are being scrutinised currently for their historic failure to act over the abuses, are unlikely to be solitary narcissists. They are better described as institutional narcissists – those who use the opportunities given to them by their position within a hierarchy, to indulge their taste and need for self-importance and power.
Once again, I am returning to a theme which I have discussed many times because I believe it to be of such importance. We need to embody in attitude and action the words of Jesus, ‘I am among you as one who serveth’. In a serving church, narcissism stands out like the monstrous carbuncle that it is. ‘Forgetting’ to act on a disclosure of abuse comes to be revealed as a narcissistic self-promoting action. Acting and not acting as a way of gaining power and gratification, either for ourselves or the organisation we work for, will often result in terrible evil and injustice. Smyth was a toxic narcissist, both as an individual but also as part of the various Christian tribes which gave him authority, even permission, to become the monster that he was. Institutions that fail to understand the nature of the power they have, can allow that same power to fester and become something truly dangerous and a cause of harm.
Trust and Confidence in the leadership and hierarchy of the Church of England is irretrievably broken. Victims and Survivors of abuse, and those subject to falsified allegations, can obtain no truth, justice or mercy from the CofE. Its leadership is blind, deaf and dumb in the face of its incompetence, corruption and coverups. There is no sign of repentance, reparation or reconciliation. This is harming the work of local churches and ministries in other spheres. Yet the hierarchy remains aloof from accountability and independent scrutiny. Consequently, this is destroying morale across the entire ministry of the CofE. Without change, the crisis will continue and only deepen.
We call for personnel in Lambeth Palace and senior bishops to be removed from or withdraw from any involvement or responsibility in Church of England safeguarding, pending a fully independent and statutory inquiry into the coverups over abuse, expenditure on those coverups, and the systemic issues in governance that have led to such disgrace, public disgust and despair inside the church. It will be impossible for the CofE to recover public trust until then. If trust and confidence are to be restored in its leaders and any of its safeguarding work, we petition the following:
1 An immediate Statutory Independent Inquiry into the operations of Lambeth Palace, Church House Westminster, its officers, expenditure, and the entirety of its safeguarding work.
2 The immediate suspension from safeguarding duties of those bishops and church officers who also knew of the details of the Smyth case and have consistently obstructed further reviews into cases brought by victims and survivors.
3 The full and immediate adoption of the recommendations of the Jay Report, without interferences from those cited above, identified below[i]
4 The Redress Scheme chaired by the Bishop of Winchester, and Interim Support Scheme, handed over with immediate effect to a trusted independent third party.
5 Safeguarding in the Church of England to be subject to immediate professional, fully independent scrutiny and independent external regulation.
6 Victims of abuse, survivors, and those deliberately harmed by false accusations are to be fully and promptly compensated.
7 The Church of England’s hierarchy to adopt, without demur, all Nolan Principles for Public Life, the Freedom of Information Act (2000), the Data Protection Act (2018), statutory employment law and human rights law.
If the Church of England fails to adopt this Seven-Point Charter by the February 2025 meeting of the General Synod, we request that the HM Government immediately remove HMRC Gift-Aid Status from the Church of England and the Charity Commission forthwith withdraw charitable status from the Archbishops’ Council.
[i] The following need to step aside from all responsibility in safeguarding in the interim, and consider their positions: William Nye. The Lead Bishop for Safeguarding and the Director of the NST. The bishops of Lincoln, Oxford, Rochester and Guildford. The Archbishop of York. The Head of Legal Affairs at Lambeth Palace and the Provincial Registrar for the Southern Province. The Bishop for Episcopal Ministry in the Anglican Communion.
