Dear Bishop Sarah
As editor and contributors to Letters to a Broken Church, we congratulate you on your recent appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury. You have our good wishes. You will be taking on impossibly heavy burdens, and too often amid hostility simply for being a woman. We have no wish to add to those burdens.
You will be aware of our conviction that safeguarding and the care of complainants should be at the top of the Church’s agenda – and therefore of your agenda – for two reasons:
1) caring for the vulnerable should be a priority for every church and charitable organisation;
2) we presume that as Archbishop of Canterbury you will wish the Church of England to continue in good health. But if it continues to mishandle safeguarding complaints as it has in the past, and too often does at present, abuse scandals have the potential to cripple or even to destroy the Church.
We would like to offer you our assistance. We are arranging for a copy of Letters to a Broken Church to be sent to you under separate cover. We offer, among us, experience and expertise as survivors, abuse lawyers, theologians, sociologists, liturgists, journalists, and campaigners. We are ready to put that expertise at your disposal. In addition, we can bring you up to date on progress, if any, on the cases we describe in our book. You have only to ask. We hope you will work with us, and with other survivors and survivor advocates, in our mission on behalf of survivors of church abuse everywhere.
With best wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
Rev Janet Fife
Natalie Collins
Dr. Andrew Graystone
Rev Rosie Harper
Jo Kind
Matthew Ineson
Rev Stephen Parsons, Surviving Church
Rev Prof Martyn Percy
Martin Sewell
Simon Barrow, Ekklesia (publisher)
Ideas have consequences: ‘Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’.
A great mass of older Anglicans grew up with a sense of their Church essentially being honourable, or even beyond reproach.
‘Letters to a Broken Church’ certainly blows away the cobwebs on that myth. It a great paperback, with the short chapters all reading well individually.
When you witness savage Anglican BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment), and experience DARVO if you try to whistleblow, it can be a lonely experience.
You instinctively think how: ‘it’s just bad luck and rogue bishop’. But the Anglican Church is simply awash with it.
The DARVO Anglican machinery is well oiled and efficient. Watch when ‘Bishop Clay-foot’ nonchalantly blows out your complaint nonchalantly: “You just imagined it”.
‘Letters to a Broken Church’ successfully reminds victims of maltreatment how they are far from alone.
Whilst Letters to a Broken Church is a good resource that Bishop Sarah should pay heed to for her to find the open letter relevant and pertinent I think its autors needed to engage with the fact that they are fully aware of what is going on in safeguarding today. To name just a few, the governance review, safeguarding structures programme, Jagged Edges initiative in Newcastle diocese, the up coming ‘in the dioceses’, the planned service of lament, prayers for the abused by the Faith and Order Commission etc.
I am not saying that all these things fundamentally changes how safeguarding operates in the church because I don’t believe it does but Bishop Sarah, like any manager, will have to support them and for her own mental well being have a belief that they will make a difference.
I think what really misses the mark for me in this letter is its lack of humility. Since letters to a Broken Church was published the survivor participation scheme has grown to over 150 survivors and groups so that no one person or group dominates the dioscourse. I do not have time to be active at many of these sessions but those I have attended have included current survivor clergy male, female and LGBTQ, doctors, safeguarding professionals from other organisations, disabled people, people from other faiths and denominations and sisters from religious orders in Europe. This eclectic mix has a wide range of knowledge and experience to add to bog standard survivors like me.
If the authors of the open letter wish to contribute to the discourse then I am sure they will be welcomed in the same way that any of us are but it seems that they assume their knowledge and experience, which they suggest Bishop Sarah should listen to, in some way outweighs the rest of us.
Those are interesting points, Patricia, but let me pose shocking questions in response: does Anglicanism have a massive and hidden BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) Halloween horror movie type problem, and has this been hidden from public view (and the laity, too) in a manner akin to the UK’s Grooming Gang scandal cover ups?
We certainly want to see the male abusers behind the Grooming Gang scandal jailed, and the victims compensated and protected from further harm. But letting each victim have a radio/tv/newspaper slot is not the best idea for resolving the problem, or actually helping victims. ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ is brief and to the point, with a wide range of perspectives, victim-activist-journalist or professionals with a specific role-interest-background.
I remember horror and anger in 1990’s Ireland when the full scale of Catholic Church abuse cover up by priests emerged. A stunned close friend, a weekly mass attender in earlier life a few years earlier, spelt out “PRIEST-paedophile resident in every small town”. But pure anger and outrage is not enough, however firmly it is spat out.
What came to pass in Ireland should maybe guide what needs to happen in the Church of England. Leaders who covered up abuse got fired. Victims got listened to. Church land or property was sold off to compensate victims. Public gullibility, about not querying what bishops or priests said, vanished instantly. A climate arose where future victims would be listened to.
Alas, within Anglicanism we have not shifted fully in this direction. ‘Christian Brother ‘to die in jail’ after new abuse sentence’ is a BBCNI article from28.11.24. Catholicism in Ireland is not able to continue hiding the scale of hidden abuse present. Assets go up for sale to pay legal bills and compensation. But a glaring difference is present when we look at the persisting culture within the Anglican Church.
KRWLAW (a leading Belfast Human Rights law firm) have posted: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores
Belfast-Tipperary transfer’. Why can Bishop McClay, an evangelical Anglican GAFCON man, not simply name and shame the deceased abuser, Canon W G Neely? Why is Anglicanism still awash with cases where our leaders cannot step up to mark, and grasp the nettle?
‘Letters to a Broken Church’ fabulously exposes the scale of the problem, and the trauma to innocent victims being concealed. Chapter 5 by Ian Elliott contrasts the lack of Church of England progress with how Irish Catholicism has been radically reshaped. It’s a very helpful book. And it’s good for the new Archbishop to be presented with a copy from the people cited above.
Patricia,
In Australia we have many organisations and individuals doing advocacy. I do not see or interpret the open letter to either lack humility in fact it was written in a very compassionate way from my view.
In Australia multiple voices advocate across the political arena and to Faith Communities with both internal and external voices .
Sometimes our advocacy gets side lined or siloed and often groups don’t see eye to eye on issues and strategy.
But the metaphor “ let one thousand flowers bloom” is apt in this difficult traumatic and turbulent space.
I am hoping that some key Australian and Aotearoa NZ advocacy groups and individuals can likewise write to ++Sarah inviting her when she visits to meet with us and understand our challenges and support needs.
Warmly Richie . Socasupport.org
Thanks for your comments Richie and I certainly do believe that the more voices that are added to the discussion the more chance of democratic decisions. Maybe in Australia the culture of survivor contribution is better established than in the UK but here for the most part no survivors were given a voice then for quite a few years only certain survivors or groups were given a voice, this was deeply damaging and reabusive for many survivors. It is only recently that the opportunity for many more survivors to have a voice has been established.
Survivors generally acknowledge they can only speak for themselves because how can anyone advocate for someone they don’t know. Advocate for a cause certainly, ask Bishop Sarah to meet with and listen to survivors but suggesting she may want to listen to a certain cohort of people is a retrograde step for survivor engagement and open letters always put the receiver on the back foot not allowing for genuine responses.
As you can probably tell I find the letter massively retriggering as it takes me back to the days when only a very select few were thought worthy of a voice, no disrespect to those few, it was the institutional set up that was at fault not them.
Thank you Tricia and Richie for your comments. Letters has made a massive contribution to highlighting the problems to church safeguarding and all thanks to it’s authors. Equally some things have moved on and perhaps it’s time for a Letters #2 with additional voices?
I hope many other survivors, both individuals and groups, will also contact Sarah. Tricia is right that there are many more engaged with the church now and that is a vital improvement.
Sadly there is still no place for collective survivors voices (because there’s a range of views) to be expressed and heard. No survivors on the NSSG. No way for survivors on different workings groups to consult with the wider body of survivors. Because of that, individual survivor’s criticism can be written off as ‘well you had a bad experience but it’s not typical, you’re a ‘loud’ and ‘difficult’ survivor.’
The truth is we don’t know what is typical because there isn’t any mechanism to find out.
I’m grateful for all voices and hope that we can find a way to work together more and have more collective power in the future.
Thank you to all signatories for such a positive and hopeful message.
We now pray that it will bring about justice and peace for all survivors of church abuse. We especially hold in our hearts those who have been suffering for many years.
When I posted my comment I had not read the previous two comments.
It does not alter my view that we are truly grateful to these people for constantly seeking justice for the survivors for so many years. They just have not given up and for that deserve our utmost respect and gratitude. Our prayers are with them to give them strength to continue.
Let’s strive to be honest and frank. Top calibre journalists and activists agitated-and they wrote plenty about BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment)-but the John Smyth QC exposure only came when Channel 4 News got involved.
Denial is common to all humanity. Adolf Eichmann, even in his final 24 hours before his execution, could not bring himself to confess his guilt. I suspect that a fresh senior team is needed in the Church of England. Is the number of senior C of E people, connected to unaddressed scandal cover-up, simply too vast for justice to prevail?
I think James many of your comments are accurate, bullying is a huge problem that the church is not addressing, other survivors from different denominations make it clear that the church is not moving at pace to improve safeguarding and as I said in my original comment Letters to a Broken Church is a good book for Bishop Sarah to be reminded of. I gave money I could not afford to help fund the publication of the book and have never regretted it but if the authors cannot demonstrate that they are familiar with what is happening today, have joined focus groups, spoken with numerous survivors then knowledge in any subject quickly becomes dated and can be dismissed.
I am sure most people don’t agree with me but so what at the time of publication of Letters to a Broken Church I wouldn’t even have been allowed a voice.
I appreciate your point, Patricia, about individual cases getting reasonable attention. Even if Lambeth palace had to be sold, and Canterbury Cathedral converted into a Wetherspoons, the Church would be strengthened by BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) cases finally getting dealt with.
Individual schemes, local or national, can have an impact. But when we apply a sort of Occam’s Razor style attempt to explain BAH problems, and also address them, then it boils down to two issues for me. Firstly, the sacrosanct biblical principle, of following the witness evidence of ‘2 or 3’, cannot be ignored. That seems like the greatest issue damaging the Church. Grooming Gangs, and all sorts of Church abusers, get nonchalantly confident when they get away with abuse repeatedly. The numbers do not add up-in terms of natural justice-when you look at the catalogue of victim numbers in individual abuse cases.
Secondly, it’s not enough tp document BAH. You need to have barrister or judge level people, to square up to senior Church leaders who conceal clear evidence of abuse. There need to be plain repercussions, like bishops or archbishops covering up NAH tragedies getting removed. Confronting absuers and those who protect them is never easy. That’s where a judge or barrister level person has special skills and experience. That is the step that really changes things: confronting abusers and abuse concealers. We are, by degrees, slowly moving in that direction. When it no longer becomes a respectable crime, for a bishop to cover up abuse and bullying, then the Anglican Church will be well on its way to recovery.
There is some progress within the Church of England. The Church of Ireland’s Belfast bishop, recently declining to name a notorious abuser (the late Canon W G Neely), would probably not happen in the Church of England now, or be accepted by the public. To give one victim £100K, but not name the abuser felt really odd.
There is a major Anglican convention in Belfast next summer. Will Bishop David McClay perhaps find the courage, to publicly name the late Canon W G Neely as an abuser before that time? And might Bishop McClay share details on how many non-disclosure settlements have been fixed with one or many more victims in this one tragic situation? Also, what’s the cost to Diocesan funds in terms of legals fees and compensation payments. Bishop McClay heads up the Down and Dromore Diocese. But could it be a Down and Out Diocese if there are lots more claims?
Just reflecting on your comments, Patricia, and something else jumps to mind. It’s the Church use of NDA’s. I can suddenly see why they are so controversial: victim testimony gets silenced, abusers and cover-up people get protected, and momentum to expose further abuse cases is lost. Church members lift the bill, but do not see what is being paid out on legal fees and compensation. I suddenly can see why this stinks at so many levels.
This is a good idea ; i remember the top Safeguarding officer in the NST saying that he gets all his trainee safeguarding officers to read and learn it.
The first unofficial rule of recruitment is: “Not like the last guy”. For senior positions like hers, the key thing for those selecting for it, will be to avoid someone who speaks out on issues he doesn’t fully understand, with a sort of moral superiority tenor, and then has to backtrack rapidly, or hide away until the inevitable furore dies down.
Welby had the unfortunate tendency to make proclamations about, for example companies controlled by beastly billionaires eg Amazon, only for it then to emerge that the C of E had extensive investment in the very same entity.
The thread of his proclamations tended towards sort of woke lefty, presumably to appeal to that section of humanity, whilst coming from and continuing to support the HTB stream, with well publicised right wing backers.
He’d have been much better off saying nothing, which is something I suspect Bishop Sarah will do. The very first thing in her pre-office briefing for the role, will be a strict comms strategy. Don’t repeat your predecessor’s blunders. Don’t speak out on ANYTHING without words pre-agreed by the communications officer. If in doubt say nothing.
I’d be very surprised if there were any response whatsoever to this open letter. I’m sure she’s read the book and noted its contents. Sarah represents an Institution. Again. Maintenance of the status quo, at least publicly, is the name of the game. I often write in the hope that I am incorrect in my assumptions.
But can a Harold Shipman moment change things instantly? A new reality emerged for the GMC and medics, with there being much needed change, but also bureaucratic ‘BS’ which remains problematic. Anglicanism could also change rapidly. ACC [Anglican Consultative Convention] takes places in the summer of 2026 in Belfast.
The city harbours a dark Church secret. A local GAFCON bishop (an evangelical purist ready to off lots of advice, and convinced of their own authority and leadership expertise) has failed to name a deceased abuser (Canon W G Neely). Why was this abuser’s identity shielded or protected for almost 50 years?
And might the £850000 ‘Spire of Hope’ spike, on Bishop David McClay’s Cathedral site in Belfast, cover the legal and compensation costs? The BBC and local media are aware of a £100K settlement to one brave victim (now deceased).
But locals believe there could be lots of victims, and wonder if more NDA’s are hiding how much collection plate money (or other Church money) has vanished on trying to keep the Canon W G Neely abuse case hidden: in both legal fees and compensation payments.
Will we see a prophetic (and transparently honest utterance) from Bishop McClay?
The times really are-‘a changing’-and the media have the scent on shameful cases like this one.
‘Beauty for Ashes – Conversations – No. 1 Matt Redman – Sadness and Songs’ is a fabulous online interview with the bit from 24 mins onwards perhaps of special interest to ‘SC communicants/communicators’………….
My own take away from this reminding ++ Sarah of the book is that scanning its index and a few contributions, much of what was being identified then as requiring action remains outstanding.
I neither can nor purport to speak for others: many have added their views along the way. That is entirely proper: we need not keep referencing each other. Every brother and sister is doing what we can and let us be glad in it.
My own chapter focussed upon delivering a structure for the empathetic receipt and proper addressing of complaints. If writing it today I would expand upon the theme by referencing the need for similar respectful engagement with those bringing complaints against the Secretary General and/or Archbishops Council. The CofE remains a poor recipient of grievance in this regard.
Everybody will respond to the new era differently: some will ignore it some will take their time before speaking, we chose to write a reminder. Each can only do what they think best reflects what they can offer in the circumstances.
The Church of England still has an awful long way to go in its safeguarding. I hope and pray that our incoming archbishop while have the will and the wherewithal to tackle the mess.
This report makes (yet again) for grim reading: https://independentsafeguarding.org/blog/f/what-does-mr-xs-case-mean-for-church-of-england-safeguarding
‘will have’
…..and is the Anglican situation possibly even much sadder than we all as yet imagine? That’s my strong suspicion! BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) exists on an epic scale within Anglicanism.
The Justin Welby and John Smyth QC story is not edifying. And within Irish Anglicanism, why has Belfast’s Bishop David McClay not publicly named ‘Canon W G Neely’ as an abuser? KRWLAW posted: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’.
A Church which covers up horrific maltreatment, of children and younger people, has very major problems. What sort of everyday adult, junior cleric, curate or ministry trainee maltreatment is still being hidden? And do the Anglican laity, denied a show of hands vote or meaningful democracy, use their feet and wallets to show disapproval of Church behaviour?