By a PCC Member
In the light of Alice Thomson’s recent article in The Times on 8th September 2026 (‘God help vicars while Mullally’s in charge’ – see: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/god-help-vicars-mullallys-charge-lmrgw7tkh), Surviving Church shares one typical account of a clergyperson currently being abused by the processes and hierarchy of the Church of England. It is no wonder that the numbers coming forward for ordained ministry continue to collapse.
Shortly, very shortly, before Christmas 2024, our suffragan bishop came to our two morning parish services to make an announcement that shocked us – our much-loved, highly gifted, incredibly hard-working Incumbent, Fr Mark, was suspended with immediate effect, supposedly as a ‘neutral act’, and he was to have no contact with us. There was, of course, no information about the reason, but safeguarding was explicitly mentioned. To some in the church and to many in the wider community, this meant only one thing, and sure enough, rumours quickly began to circulate.
Yet when the suspension was renewed six months later for a second time, the reference to safeguarding was quietly dropped with no explanation – nor apology. How can a Christian organisation behave like this? This situation has now dragged on into a third calendar year – a parish robbed of its priest’s ministry, but more seriously, a wonderful priest’s vocation and reputation trashed. For what reason? And to what end?
I feel not just deeply frustrated but also extremely angry. Letters to the diocesan bishop receive platitudinous replies referring to ‘policies’, ‘process’, and ‘procedure’. Is this how we build the kingdom?
My interpretation of the situation? Fr Mark is outside of the mould and as such anyone in authority who felt insecure could view him as a threat – but to the extent of wanting to destroy his ministry? Maybe.
After the suffragan bishop’s announcement at that first morning service, I went forward to say a few words to encourage the congregation to stand firm in their faith and their commitment to church life, and I prayed for our church – and for Fr Mark and his wife. After the service, the suffragan bishop rebuked me for praying for our priest – and not the ‘victims’. Really? It was already decided by the hierarchy that there were not just ‘complainants’, but ‘victims’.
I was banned by the bishop from speaking at the second service. It was deeply distressing. But my distress is as nothing compared to Fr Mark’s. There was even a subsequent attempt by the same suffragan bishop to use threats of total isolation to secure Fr Mark’s immediate resignation. No wonder his health has been so severely affected.
What breaks my heart most of all is watching the deliberate, slow-motion destruction of this priest and his family. Suspension in the Church of England is routinely called a ‘neutral act’, but in reality, it operates as a form of administrative solitary confinement. For nearly two years, they have been left in a cruel administrative vacuum.
The constant threat of total isolation, mounting financial anxieties, and the sheer hostility of being cut off from the community they served so faithfully has caused severe, clinically documented harm. To see a brilliant, compassionate priest and his wife forced to endure this level of continuous psychological and physical strain—while the diocese simply looks the other way—is completely unconscionable. If this is how a Diocesan Bishop ‘pastorally cares’ for his clergy, then the word ‘pastoral’ has lost all meaning.
Sadly, our local lay leadership and PCC have chosen to act at the direction of the diocese and refuse to have any meaningful contact or communication with Fr Mark. A good number of church members have felt compelled to take this line too, whereas others have felt utterly confused. I – and there are others too – have refused to outsource my conscience to the diocese. I have maintained my pastoral relationship with our priest, which has resulted in some pretty nasty things being said and written to me.
I find myself in the painful position of trying to continue to serve the Lord in the parish in which I was baptised and confirmed (and now serve on the PCC) while supporting our priest as I did before he was suspended. There are those, horrified at the way Fr Mark has been treated at every level, who have left the church entirely, including some who were on journeys into faith supported by him. Tragic. Local leaders want us to believe all is well and the parish is flourishing, but the tensions and divisions are evident to anyone who looks below the surface. One church member will no longer even exchange the peace with me.
As someone who takes safeguarding deeply seriously, I have been appalled by how the word ‘safeguarding’ was weaponised in all this. To announce it publicly from the pulpit, allow toxic rumours to spread across the parish and wider community, and then quietly drop the safeguarding label months later without a single word of public retraction or apology is a horrific failure of institutional governance. It harms genuine safeguarding. It manipulates congregational trust. It uses the language of ‘protection’ to execute administrative destruction. True safeguarding protects the vulnerable and seeks truth; it does not inflict unassessed clinical harm on an unrepresented priest and his family.
Fr Mark worked hard to build excellent relationships with the wider community. His suspension has badly affected these relationships, with secular neighbours bemused that the Church could treat one of its own ministers this way. Sadly, secular bodies involved with this case have proved far more sympathetic and supportive to him than the hierarchies of the Church. Where is justice? Where are Gospel values?
Fr Mark has repeatedly made pleas for this matter to be settled by independent mediation or statutory conciliation – only to meet constant, cold rejection from diocesan leaders and their commercial solicitors.
To those leading reviews into institutional culture: I ask you to look past the defensive legalistic jargon of ‘policies and procedures’ and see the human ruin left in the wake of these disciplinary processes. Every single offer of conciliation has been met with a corporate refusal, demonstrating a preference for total destruction over Christian reconciliation. If the Church of England continues to treat its finest ministers like this, it will not just lose its clergy—it will forfeit its very soul.
I feel angry, frustrated, and distressed. It looks as if the situation may well drag on to a third Christmas – and beyond. No wonder there are more resignations by priests than retirements, no wonder there are so few vocations – who in their right mind would offer themselves to be treated like this?
My inspiration to keep going in faith and service comes from Fr Mark, who constantly reminds us: ‘The Lord is more’.
A pity ‘The Times’ link (above) does not open. Is there a different BBC or other internet link? Thanks.
James, Here’s the link to The Times piece: https://www.thetimes.com/article/f33a1e5c-1413-4b13-b090-cce71b7dddd7?shareToken=c77391cfe68dbd49ffe2474262bc1160
This anonymised case study could be one of any number of CofE dioceses. But in this case the identity of the Bishop concerned is known and obvious, as he’s a renowned bully. The Archbishop of Canterbury is fully aware of who this is, yet declines to act in the face of this monstrous abuse of process. The NST, likewise, washes its hands. These are the Courts of Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, who lie, gaslight, accuse and abuse through their fiefdoms.
With no truth or justice from our leaders in the CofE anywhere in sight it’s no wonder that all trust and confidence has collapsed in bishops, and with it any hope of vocations to ministry ever recovering. If bishops can abuse their clergy like this, then Christ is dishonoured and the gospel is made a sham. Will Mullally act to promote truth and justice? All indications suggest she will support the status quo, and will side with bishops who abuse.
Why has the rector in question not gone public, and presented his situation to the wider public?
He’d by CDM’d, I expect. I have personal experience of this, and there are numerous cases where clergy are told there will be CDM against them soon, but they can’t be told what the allegation is, but they’re then suspended in the meantime as a neutral act. They are also told they can’t speak to others about what the allegation may or may not be, as that would be a further breach. It can then take months, even years, for a case to be made and brought forward or never brought, as in this case.
In this case the bishop is just renewing the suspension all the time to bully Fr Mark out if ministry. Mullally knows all this, but does nothing.
I don’t comment specifically about Fr Mark’s case except to feel natural sympathy. I have just written this on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ in a different context:
“Suspension of a priest in the context of a safeguarding allegation, and the procedure to be followed, are set out in sections 36 and 36A of the CDM 2003 (as amended). I cannot see that ‘suspension as a neutral act’ is possible in such a context, otherwise there would have been no need for the Church or General Synod to make such specific legislation to authorise suspension. The same provisions are carried forward (I have to say in my opinion) in less clear language in the Clergy Conduct Measure 2026 which has yet to come fully into force.”
Is Fr Mark the subject of a CDM? Have the police, at any stage, made any announcement that they are investigating allegations against Fr Mark?
The answer is “No” on the CDM. Fr Mark has not been charged with anything. The Bishop just keeps on renewing suspending Fr. Mark, because the bishop says he can, and the legal officers in the diocese and Lambeth Palace all just ignore due process and justice, and the Archbishop does likewise.
The police have brought no charges of any kind against Fr Mark either. And as he’s committed no crime whatsoever, that’s hardly any surprise.
This situation is Orwellian and Kafkaesque. It is hard to imagine an example of lower standards of truth and justice than the ones the bishop promotes. If this were a third world country run by a dictatorship, where one could be suspended or locked up for hundreds of days without charges ever being brought, questions would be asked about human rights in our International Courts of Justice.
But this being the CofE, and the bishop is protected by the powers that be in Lambeth Palace. Mullally does nothing. The NST don’t investigate the abuse against Fr. Mark perpetrated by the bishop. It is an absolute disgrace.
If suspension occurs under the CDM there is a right of appeal to the President of Tribunals. I don’t understand the situation here from the author’s description. If it is a safeguarding issue, the CDM applies. There will have been written notice of the suspension and its renewal(s) which ought to have contained a statement of the right to appeal. I think that’s as far as I can, or should, go here. It requires competent professional advice.
There’s no safeguarding issue, Rowland. There never was. There was gaslighting about this spread by the hierarchy of the diocese, but then they withdrew it, as it was false and defamatory. But the bishop still appears to be able to suspend any clergyperson “pending” a CDM being served. There are other cases like this too, though few as hideous as this.
Bishops have no accountability to anyone, and so the threat of a CDM can be used to preemptively suspend clergy who they want to bully and be rid of, as in this case. The clergy have little legal defence and of course no resources to fight. And the CofE lawyers all just collude with the bullying, as he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is a corrupt and system weighted in favour of those in power, and against the defendant, and any concept of truth and justice prevailing. Mullally knows this. Every bishop does. But it suits their interests to maintain this status quo.
The current system allows gaslighting and weaponised safeguarding claims to be used against clergy to threaten, intimidate, remove and destroy them. If Mullally cared about truth and justice in the CofE she’d call it out. But she’s seen clergy under her watch destroyed like this before, and even commit suicide. She does nothing. So Fr Mark’s bishop has freedom to bully any and all clergy who dare to speak up or speak out about the abuses. The diocese lives under a reign of fear and terror.
The President of Tribunals says the suspension is a matter for the bishop and so can’t intervene. As there is no CDM, the President can’t rule on anything! Mullally is aware, and claims she cannot intervene. So the bishop can (and does) have freedom to continue exercising his bullying and unaccountable power against any clergy seeking to support Fr Mark.
This now makes partial sense. Under section 36 of the CDM the President of Tribunals has power to intervene on an appeal against suspension in the course of a CDM which has started. Section 36A sets out the procedure for an application to the President of Tribunals to commence a CDM out of time and this doesn’t include the same right of appeal against suspension. But your description doesn’t really fit either scenario. It’s still a matter needing expert independent advice.
I tend to agree. Meanwhile the bishop suspends whoever gets in his way, and will claim the CDM is in progress. But that’s now several hundred days. The President of Tribunals washes his hands of responsibility as there’s no CDM filed. The bishop just carries on with his abusive bullying and harassment of anyone who dares to question him. Morale, trust and confidence in the diocese have collapsed to be replaced by fear and depression. Mullally looks on, and does nothing. The CofE lawyers get ever-richer for their hands in this.
This is one of the reasons that the Church of England needs to set up a completely independent and qualified body to investigate all safeguarding issues. Sadly diocesan departments for safeguarding are not always as professional in this field as the bishops and senior clergy seem to think and too often it turns out that there are conflicts of interest. General synod needs to go back to the drawing board!
Speaking from a safe distance, and being unconnected to the specific Rev M case, another painful question (or two) might be asked:-
1) Why do the laity in Rev M’s parish not rebel, and challenge the lack of transparency, demanding that charges sufficient to result in suspension get presented in writing?
2) Related, but a little different, have the senior ‘lay’ professionals in lots of our Anglican parishes already walked away en masse, in frustration and disgust at bullying cover ups?
Because, James, the laity are told if they step out of line they will get merged with a neighbouring parish and lose any future full time vicar. The same threat is made on quota payments during the enforced suspension of the vicar. Pay up or you’ll be punished.
The bishop is not a shepherd. He’s a wolf. His reign owes more to Putin than any pastoral role model. Meanwhile, Mullally looks on and does nothing.
Indeed. The hungry sheep look up and are not fed – instead they become prey to wolves. What worries me is the change which comes over some sensible and pastoral priests when they get elevated to the episcopacy. It seems that they want to prove their power, rather than following the Good Shepherd. Are bishops still engaged in the self-appraisal process? I remember filling in a confidential form some years ago for one of our suffragans. This should be where bad practice and bullying should be picked up.
…and a Titus 3:10 moment arises in Anglicanism a lot of the time…
Educated and professional laity eventually smell a rat over time.
Multiple parties are ignored: media, witnesses, whistleblowers, victims.
The know-all bishop and archbishop strut around oblivious to mayhem.
Why has Mullally not resigned after the photo fiasco on the 9/11 anniversary?
This frank and open blog reveals yet another appalling truth of persecution by the hierarchy of the Church of England.
PCC member please assure Father Mark and his family of our prayers.
So much shocking truth has been written in these comments and previous blogs especially, in recent times, by Anon. Surely the people who perpetrate these injustices cannot continue to ignore their guilt and part in this.
As a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada I am not familiar with the procedures of the Church of England, so my question is in no way a challenge but a request for information. Although the Abp. Of Canterbury is the Primate of All England, does she have authority to intervene in the personnel matters of another diocese without a direct appeal from one of the parties involved? The matter outlined seems appalling and devoid of Christian compassion, but is the Abp. being criticized for neglecting something she is not authorized to do anyway?
Church of England diocesan bishops are largely autonomous within their own diocese subject to any specific statutory intervention applying. Every diocesan swears an oath of obedience to his/ her archbishop. In ordinary circumstances the Archbishop of Canterbury has no involvement in internal matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York and vice versa. I have quoted above the current relevant legislation (Church of England Measures have the full force of law) relating to safeguarding matters involving a priest or deacon. Neither Archbishop has any part or responsibility in the procedure: relevant jurisdiction is exercised by the President of Tribunals, a senior ecclesiastical judge. From the limited information currently available, as disclosed here, it appears (1) that no formal disciplinary proceedings have been commenced and (2) the President of Tribunals is unable to act for that reason. It seems to be a stalemate which calls for independent expert legal advice.
These are interesting themes. What people say, and what it really means, can be a huge Anglican problem.
I wanted a small Vietnamese coffee filter, but the shop had only large ones. The man at the till spoke limited (or no) English.
I took a large Phin type filter over to him, and using a kind of sign language hinted how I wanted a smaller one. He typed a message in Vietnamese into his phone, then translated it to English. It read: No small filters left but expecting new order of them tomorrow.
We get accustomed to hearing stories about Anglican bishops having next to absolute rule in their own dioceses. But “answerable only to God” could be translated or understood in a plainer way: “answerable to absolutely nobody”.
A range of vexed or problematic theological or social issues have challenged English speaking Anglicanism. But is church collapse driven in many cases by something else, a different elephant in the room: horrific bullying cover ups, and a total collapse of trust in senior Anglican leaders?
I have tried to provide a legal background to this without knowing or commenting specifically about Fr Mark. He clearly needs independent advice.
A similar question has been asked on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ to which I replied:
“As explained above, there are specific rules about suspension based on safeguarding allegations. They have statutory force and, e.g., written notices, length of suspension and any renewal period(s) are, among other things, specified and must be followed. Of course there have to be reasonable and proper grounds before imposing suspension. An appeal lies to the President of Tribunals. In cases where the President’s permission is required to commence a CDM out of time, the President’s refusal ends the suspension instantly.”
The last half dozen verses of Deuteronomy Chapter 19 bring an immediate adult understanding of how to handle serious allegations. An abuser has to face consequences, as does a false witness. Why should anyone-lay or clerical or other church worker-ever get suspended with without rapidly seeing the witness evidence against them in writing? Unless there is some unique obstacle, like protecting underage children or highly vulnerable adults (who possibly cannot for some reason testify directly), can a tactic of endless legal delays really be justified?
William, Abp. Mullally has powers to insist that the parties conciliate. She also has powers to take action against a bullying bishop. She chooses to do nothing.
Rowland, the persecuted priest has to fund his own personal legal costs to get independent advice. The bishop uses church lawyers, not at his expense, to persecute and bully anyone in his way. It is an utter disgrace.
I’m afraid that answer doesn’t really help in responding to William Bellamy’s enquiry from Canada. I think you are confusing moral authority and legal powers. I’m clear that the Archbishop has no role in the conciliation process in section 15 of the CDM as it applies to a priest or deacon. I don’t think we are helping William Bellamy or Fr Mark by making categorical statements about powers other than the legal ones in the CDM. You say that there is no CDM and that the President of Tribunals has no knowledge of one. It’s a conundrum and needs the services of a canon lawyer given all of the facts and documents in the case..
Suspension is never a neutral act. A person getting suspended, or being barred, or facing any other type of draconian restrictions, should be able to ask for and receive the reasons for a Church governing body’s decision in writing. This type of situation is an indictment against our bishops and archbishops.
The Archbishop does have moral authority, which is significant – though of course bishops do sometimes flout the moral authority and influence of archbishops. And an archbishop can suspend a bishop, though s/he would have to have legal grounds to do so.
The media are a huge ally here, especially the BBC. Phin Vietnamese coffee filters are incredible little devices, provided you follow the instructions and are patient! The slow drip inevitably gets a result…….
In England we have seen Justin Welby kicked out. He did not resign voluntarily, as an act of complete freewill. The media refused to let the John Smyth QC case die. One nil to the media over the Anglican Church, courtesy of Channel 4 News!
The Scottish Episcopal Church fixed the highly damning Torrance Inquiry into a ‘dire’ (‘Dyer’) Aberdeen and Orkney Diocese crisis. But they failed, in the first instance, to evict Dyer for bullying. But Anne Dyer had to go. Two nil to the media!
The Bangor Cathedral scandal shook the Church in Wales. Andrew John eventually had to resign. The Independent ran: ‘Priests indulged in ‘binge drinking culture’ and played ‘seven last shots of Christ’ at Welsh cathedral’. Three nil to the media!
Watch this next space!
BBC in Belfast produced a 9 June 2026 40 mins documentary-FAITH AND FAILINGS-which remains available online. After around 100 days, there is still no meaningful Church of Ireland response from Bishops or Archbishops.
Why did a vicious child abusing and beating sadist get a new clerical post in Co Tipperary during the 1970’s? Why did he continue to have exposure to children? Why is he buried around 25 paces from the Irish Primate’s Armagh Cathedral seat?
The grave site of the heroic King Brian Boru-slain after a battle-is a considerably greater distance away from the entrance door of Armagh Cathedral than the chid abuser priest. Yet Archbishop John McDowell remains silent……
‘Rev Dr Canon William George Neely’ has a tombstone epitaph ending PRIEST SHEPHERD FRIEND according to the BBC. Why is John McDowell silent about this figure? Neely was allegedly celebrated in a Church press statement.
At the time of McDowell’s “enthronement” in 2020 we read: 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.