by Martin Sewell
At the York Synod I indicated that I would be tendering my resignation from the General Synod and I now confirm that, having, fulfilled promises to individuals to deliver whilst in post, I have now felt able to make good on that promise.
In this piece I shall set out my principled reason; in a second post I shall explain why I felt remaining was not a good use of my time. The culture of Synod is broken and I see no way forward during my term of influence.
There is a year left on my term of office, and I could have let it quietly expire, but decided it was better to go early for a number of reasons. Some might be interested in them so here is a brief outline,
First, when re-elected I had indicated that I would not be seeking any further term, so my time for departure was already fixed. As matters have developed I became convinced the I could achieve none of my purposes by remaining and so it was time to go.
When I first secured election I had stood on a platform to promote “transparency and accountability”; I disapproved of candidates who did not set out in their election addresses precisely what they stood for, often running under coded phrases instead of being honest.
I had recently read Douglas Carswell’s excellent book “ The Death of Politics and the birth of I-Democracy” in which he had won approval across the political spectrum for identifying how “ the Internet would change everything”. I saw how this would impact the Church and its governance and wanted the CofE to be readied for the culture of disclosures that was plainly about to impact the Establishment in its multiple forms.
Having recently recently retired as a Child Protection lawyer I added – almost as a throw away line- that my experience in Safeguarding might come in handy, and so it transpired.
When I entered office I was followed by a number of “headline cases”on Safeguarding in which I became involved – Bishop Bell, Matt Ineson, the Iwerne Camps/Smyth scandal events in the Oxford Diocese and several others of importance; it is not immodest to say that together with my colleague David Lamming, we became the voices of victims of injustice within the Synod itself; other voices were making equally important contributions outside of Synod. They were turbulent times., yet we were met with obstruction and obfuscation of those who cannot see that the times were changing
Amongst the advocates for change there was then a simple unity of vision. The Church was unjust to complainants and respondents alike, it was complacent arrogant dismissive and frequently obstructive. Even when their leaders did “get it” Synod often did not – many still do not.
Yet determination and public opinion did achieve some purpose and those abused by the Church adapted to the new environment in a variety of ways and I make no criticism of them for doing so.
Some have walked away; some have received a measure of satisfaction for their grievances; others have resolved to abandon trying to work with the Church and to concentrate on Parliamentary lobbying. Others are waiting on the sidelines to see which of these disparate strategies offers them the best way forward. There is similar variety in determining how one defines “independence” in future Safeguarding structures.
Be that as it may, and wholly respecting each perspective, I came to recognise that whereas once I could legitimately claim to speak
“for survivors” ( who at one time were united in the singular purpose of seeking justice) this was increasing becoming less so. It was not for me to adjudicate such differences of approach or lend such credibility as I possessed within the Synod Chamber to one view or the other.
I have, over nearly ten years said what I thought on Safeguarding matters: collectively the Synod knows my views and if they have not taken my points already, there is little more I could say to improve on that.
With the passing of the Redress Scheme and the kicking into the long grass of the reform of Safeguarding oversight, there seemed to be nothing of consequence likely to be decided in the remaining months of this quinquennial. It was time to go.
I should offer sincere thanks to Synod colleagues who offered me personal support and encouragement; they know who they are, and they do not know how important they were in sustaining me in the toughest of times.
My decision does not mean that I shall cease supporting the reform project, it is simply that I need not do so from within the institution. I shall expand upon those additional reasons for walking away in a separate post.
An interesting reflection. Thanks. Do you feel it’s helpful to speak of ‘Safeguarding’? There is something evasive in how bullying and harassment of “non-vulnerable” adults can be neglected. Might it be much better to simply speak of adult and child protection, with statutory and non-statutory elements?
Not the worst idea but it is the word in wide currency. At least it is an entry into a necessary mindset that leads to considering other areas of injustice.
The Church has had a slew of safeguarding disasters and if the nomenclature were to be changed it might be perceived as evasive “ rebranding” which would be unhelpful.
As my next piece will show there is a great more deal to be done
‘Protect from harm or damage with an appropriate measure ‘ is one dictionary definition. But is ‘Safeguarding’ in Anglicanism about statutory ‘child and VA protection’? And does this exclude non-statutory processes for non-child and non-VA bullying-abuse-harassment, which often end up overseen (or ‘seen over’) by episcopal teams with an unmistakable conflict of interest?
Or let’s turn this one around: Churches protecting VA’s and children assume adults have capacity (and ability) to protect themselves against ill-treatment. But do recent decades point to this latter idea being untrue?
Everyone is vulnerable in the presence of an ingrained, hardened abuser, whether the abuser wears a collar or not. Clergy are uniquely trusted, and, unfortunately, there are those who will abuse that trust. Just as bad are the clergy who stand by and allow it to happen, and even enable it by allowing new church members to be mentored by offending clergy. There is a difference between a vulnerable person and a person who is made vulnerable by a situation. It is the latter part that is not recognised. They try to cut down the number of victims by excising people from the victim set, trivialising their experience. Look at the situation of Sarah Everard: a healthy, fit, intelligent and streetwise young woman who was murdered by a man who misused his authority to gain access to her. Clergy can use their collar as a ticket to abuse, or use their brethren’s clergy status to try to cover it the abuse and their own sickening roles in enabling and allowing it to happen.
Clergy who behave like this should never be allowed to work with children again.
Thank you for doing the right things for the right reasons. Although I recognise you don’t need to explain anything to anyone, I appreciate how you have taken this as an opportunity to highlight the issues while offering solutions. You’ve given so much time and so much of yourself to this situation of poor safeguarding in the Church of England. Personally, I am grateful for your leadership. I will never go back to a CofE Church, and despite this fact, I could feel your influence and care; if only the clergy in the CofE showed the same shepherding care, as per C30, they are supposed to pattern themselves after Christ, after all.
Victims are difficult to deal with; we are often struggling with mental illness as a result of the clergy abuse and subsequent punitive treatment by the Anglican church. It is a hell of a burden to help someone carry, and thank you for helping us with that load. Unlike Simon of Cyrene, CofE clergy will not carry the load with us or walk the journey. Instead, they stand in the marketplace and do not lift a finger to ease anyone’s burdens while placing more load on the backs of victims and people like yourself, who try to walk with us. It is as if Jesus never spoke Matthew 23 at all, and no doubt their expedient theology will help them to sidestep the call to shepherd and care for their flock while allowing evil to happen. The Church of England will not change or adapt – they see this as a good thing. Their theology allows abuse and the victimisation of victims, along with terrible safeguarding, all while standing in the marketplace with their long tassels. The hypocrisy and self-deceit mean people should stay away from it or they can become complicit.
I’ve always thought that most leaders in modern societies, whether church or not, more and more resemble the Pharisees of the Bible. Their concern was for power, wealth and prestige and a sheen of religion covering their greed and ambitions. Looking at the present social and political landscape and the myriad scandals both in the church and in the world, nothing has disavowed me of this opinion. Hypocrisy, corruption and injustice flourish in the hallowed halls of the wealthy, powerful and influential whilst millions live uncertain and hard lives.
I’m not sure that’s a correct reading of the NT Pharisees? It’s perhaps more true of the Sadducees. The Pharisees were zealous for strict observance of the Jewish faith and religious practices, but missed their grounding in the deep love and kindness of God. And some of them looked down on those they considered less religious than themselves. I’m sure we can all think of modern parallels! There but for the grace of God…
Martin
Would you consider casting a lawyer’s eye on a statement by KRWLAW? Title is ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores
Belfast-Tipperary transfer.’
Here it is pasted below:-
Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores
Belfast-Tipperary transfer
Our client, Edward Gorman, settled his case on Friday against the Church of Ireland’s Diocese
of Down and Dromore and the Scouts Association arising out of historic abuse he suffered at
the hands of Reverend William Neely. Rev Neely was the Minister for Mount Merrion parish in
east Belfast and a local scout leader in the 1970s. Our client’s claim included allegations that Rev
Neely groomed and repeatedly sexually assaulted him in the early 1970s.
Neely was transferred to Tipperary in 1976. It has long been our client’s belief that Neely was
transferred with full knowledge that he was an abuser and yet was allowed to continue to act as a
Minister.
Our solicitor, Gary Duffy, who represented Mr Gorman commented: “This is one of the first
cases to resolve involving allegations of historic clerical sexual abuse within the Church of
Ireland.
Eddie has been at the forefront of bringing to light the abuse that was carried out in the Mount
Merrian parish in East Belfast and the actions of the Church of Ireland to protect Rev Neely. It
is significant that Neely was transferred out of the East Belfast Parish in 1976 and was moved
across the border to Co Tipperary. It has long been our client’s belief that the Church of Ireland
was aware that Neely was an abuser and that he was transferred across the border to prevent him
being exposed. If that is the case then it raises serious questions as to why he was allowed to
continue in his role as a Minister and if this role allowed him access to children.
I commend Eddie’s tenacity in stepping forward to call out the horrific abuse he suffered when
he was a child. His bravery in discussing his abuse has now led others to come forward to
discuss their own at the hands of Rev Neely.”
Mr Gorman, speaking on the settlement stated: “I really hope my case today will help support
calls for a long overdue inquiry into clerical abuse in this country. I am but one of a number of
victims of Neely. There may be many others out there who for obvious sensitive reasons will
find it very difficult to come forward . Hopefully my case will give confidence to others to do
just that. I myself found a voice after listening to the narratives given by other victims and
survivors who were brave enough to go public with their accounts of historic abuse. It helps give
me some closure but no amount of money will ever compensate for the loss and distress Neely
put me through.
”
Proceedings were issued in 2022 and concluded last Friday just prior to Mr Gorman giving
evidence. The settlement included £100,000 compensation, the costs of the legal proceedings to
be covered by the Defendants and only the Scouts Association settling without a formal
admission of liability.’
Does the KRWLAW statement (pasted above) flag up concern about Bishop David McClay failing to formally name the late Canon W G Neely as a child abuser? Did the Anglican Church in Ireland (Down and Dromore Diocese) effectively fix a non-disclosure on itself? If this did happen was it a fair and good way to use Church money or energies? Or do Church of Ireland members deserve an explanation? The Archbishop of Armagh (equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury) is John McDowell. In a celebration of his 2020 elevation he refers to a Billy Neely. Is this the same Neely who was later exposed as a predator and child abuser? I have cut and pasted and IRISH TIMES report below. The second paragraph celebrates or refers to a deceased Canon Billy Neely. Is this a different Neely, or the one exposed as an abuser? If the latter answer is correct, then why no statement from the Archbishop? Could there be very good (actually very bad!!!) reasons why the Church of Ireland appears to possibly have served a Non-Disclosure clause on itself in regard to the late Canon W G Neely?
IRISH TIMES NOTES27 APR 20
Church of Ireland Notes from ‘The Irish Times’
New Primate
Last month the Rt Revd John McDowell, Bishop of Clogher, was elected by the House of Bishops as the new Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in succession to Archbishop Richard Clarke who retired on 2 February. His translation from Clogher to Armagh was fixed for 28 April and so takes effect next Tuesday. However, due to the current restrictions he will remain resident for the time being in the See House in Fivemiletown, where in addition to being Archbishop of Armagh he will also exercise an oversight of the Diocese of Clogher. No date has yet been set for his enthronement in St Patrick’s cathedral, Armagh.
The new Primate is a native of East Belfast where his faith was nurtured in Mount Merrion parish where the rector was the late Canon Billy Neely. He was schooled locally, initially in Rosetta Primary School, and then in Annadale Grammar School and is among the school’s high achievers. He was an exact contemporary of his brother, who until recently was Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and the Maynooth historian, Professsor Raymond Gillespie. Ahead of him in school was the poet Tom Paulin, a fellow of Hertford College, Oxford, and his brother, Oswyn, a prominent member of the Northern Ireland legal profession and currently a member of the RCB’s Library & Archive Committee.
Annadale was followed by Queen’s University where he read history, and then into business where his potential was recognized by his employers, Shorts Bombardier, who sent him to the London School of Economics for further study.
After testing his vocation in the Church of Ireland Theological College, he was ordained in 1996 for the curacy of Antrim and in 1999 was appointed Rector of Ballyrashane & Kildollagh. He moved from the Diocese of Connor to the Diocese of Down in 2002 when he was appointed to the east Belfast parish of Dundela. In the parish of CS Lewis and JC Beckett he became part of a sophisticated liturgical tradition, while a period as an honorary secretary of the General Synod introduced him to the machinations of the councils of the Church at its highest level.
Some were surprised at his election to the See of Clogher in 2011, seeing him as a natural successor to Houston McKelvey as Dean of Belfast, but he has more than fulfilled the confidence of the electors in his careful oversight of a cross–border diocese. Further afield he was a sensitive chairman of the General Synod’s Centenaries Working Group and is currently Chairman of the Church of Ireland’s Commission for Christian Unity & Dialogue and a calm voice in the often rancorous Brexit debate.
The new Primate will be will be the 106th in the succession of abbots, bishops and archbishops of Armagh since St Patrick, following, among others, James Ussher, Richard Robinson, Lord John George Beresford, John Allen Fitzgerald Gregg, George Otto Simms and Robin Eames. Few doubt that he will prove a worthy successor.
We are appalled at the shenanigans of Synod in recent times and support you in your resignation. Synod does not give truthful information to its members. For example, Gavin Drake pointed out in February 2024, that the GS 2236 paper deliberately gave wrong information in order to affect the voting and even gave a view on the Prof Jay report before it was published!!
We are all grateful for your strenuous efforts to bring truthfulness and transparency to Church of England safeguarding and are sorry that the people you target are so afraid of you and losing their positions of power that they ignore you. They might ignore you but no-one else does. We clamour that your well thought out evidences are heard.
Kenneth and I first heard of your influence through the Micah letter in August 2020, just after it was published and only a few months after the allegation made against Kenneth. We naively thought this would bring justice to Kenneth and other victims. I quoted from it ad nauseum in formal complaints and to those we thought might help us. It was ignored. Subsequently we quoted from your open letters and on one occasion even sent the entire letter in our pleas for justice but to no avail.
You speak of colleagues ‘sustaining me in the toughest of times’ but you, Martin, have sustained Kenneth and me and others no doubt in ‘the toughest of times’ without probably realising it or knowing. So, now you have left the frustrating restrictions of Synod, go for it, we wish you well and I am sure we shall get there in the end.
Many thanks for all you do and we look forward to your next episode in Surviving church.
Also of course, particular thanks to Stephen for these blogs enabling us all to come together and support each other.
In my complaints and search for justice I often send links to a relevant SC blogs to support my plea.
BISHOP DAVID McCLAY of Belfast would be a good man to feature on Surviving Church blog.
Ask Bishop McClay about this KRWLAW post: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’.
Why can McClay not bring himself to publicly confess how his Diocese cynically covered up clerical child abuse for almost 50 years? How can this ever be squared with a priestly vocation to the following the values of Our Lord?
Our Lord said: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Why is David McClay so unable to name the late Canon W G Neely as an abuser, and to honestly admit how his Diocese concealed the abuse for almost 50 years? Could there be multiple Neely victims, hurt or insulted by Bishop McClay’s failure to publicly admit how Neely was an abuser, and how his Diocese hid this for such a very long time?
CofE schools use external safeguarding teams (eg local council team) to train staff and to provide safeguarding support in case of disclosures, offenders etc.
Why hasn’t the CofE changed to the same safeguarding teams for its churches? They would be in a much better position to assess disclosures and risks, and would be seen as independent experts that take an objective view – and so reduce suspicion ?