The Church Times’ 22^nd May issue contained a notice that the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) would be discussed at the House of Bishops’ meeting in June.  This debate is a hopefully a precursor to a replacement or a radical amendment to this piece of church legislation.  Since the CDM came into effect in 2006, it has been controversial.  Some who have suffered its outworking have experienced it as extremely stressful, painful and traumatic.  Indeed, the legislation is regarded by many as the most appalling piece of church self-regulation that has ever been conceived.  Left intact or with only minor tweaks, the CDM has been thought to have the power to cause lasting damage to the Church. 

When the Church of England brought in CDM, it was to replace the extremely cumbersome regulations that existed in church law to tackle the problem of clergy malfeasance.  Before 2006, the Church could do nothing to discipline an erring cleric unless he/she broke the laws of the country.  The CDM was an attempt to make it possible to take action when the church authorities deemed behaviour by a member of the clergy to be unbecoming or the cause of scandal.   

One of the main changes was that anyone, Archdeacon or ordinary parishioner, could make a complaint about a clergyperson.  Whether the complaint was trivial or weighty, it had to be examined and taken seriously.  Over the years since 2006, numerous issues have arisen over the implementation of the measure.  Some have pointed to the expense while others have complained about the inordinate amount of time involved.  Survivors are asked to provide written evidence to back up their complaint, and may spend many months compiling a dossier that is never read; yet the one-off submission of written evidence is the only evidence that is allowed.  After the conclusion of the CDM, there may be a review – but in one case the views of the survivors were redacted from the version that was posted online.  

During April, an article on the CDM and church safeguarding, by Josephine Stein, was published in the journal Modern Believing.  The article is a powerful critique of the way the CDM has been implemented and deserves to be read by the bishops and anyone concerned about the way that the CDM has failed abuse survivors. It extends points on this topic made in Stein’s essay in Letters to a Broken Church, and explains why reform or rejection of the  CDM is urgently needed for the sake of the health of the whole Church. 

Stein’s article explains why the CDM has been an unsuitable tool for dealing with cases of clergy sexual abuse and other safeguarding issues. Each suspected case of abuse will involve at least one survivor/victim as well as an alleged perpetrator.  Any legal process will do little or nothing for an abused person or victim.  The CDM seeks evidence that can be verified independently, which is nearly impossible as abuse is normally conducted in private and often uses insinuation and/or non-verbal threats.  The abuser typically uses grooming and spinning a web of secrecy around the events, especially in a case involving children, to further conceal his actions

Only through a psychologically informed process of interviewing an alleged victim, is there likely to be uncovered what Stein calls ‘dyadic dynamics’ between the perpetrator and his target (most perpetrators are male).  This expression captures well the nuance of a manipulative process whereby a powerful individual exploits one who is weaker.  A process based only upon written evidence is hardly the best way to uncover the truth about abusive behaviour.  Finding out what really happened will be better accomplished by informed  questioning by a psychologist, who could also very quickly spot false accusations.  

An abused person who has suffered at the hands of an abusive leader needs always to be at the heart of any process after the event.  The CDM process, by being focussed on establishing blame and punishment, allows the victim of abuse to be put to one side.  Practical outcomes, like suitable counselling, psychotherapy and/or spiritual direction for a victim and steps to prevent a perpetrator continuing the pattern of abuse, need to be put in place as part of the overall process.  If these important issues are not dealt with, the harm to the victim as well as the reputation of the Church will be massive and long-lasting. 

Stein considers the role of core groups which sometimes form part of the Church’s response to allegations of abuse.  The setting up of such a group might, on the face of it, be seen to be a good way of informally resolving and obviating  a full CDM process.  In practice, as we saw in an earlier blog post, these core groups have not always been well managed.  Furthermore, core groups ignore confidentiality by ‘sharing’ information widely, which may enable the perpetrator and his allies to take retaliatory action against the ‘accuser’.  This is deeply unsafe.  The focus according to Stein has been on ‘managing’ the problem rather than seeking the best outcome for all concerned.  When core groups work in a way that excludes a survivor, they can become a gross attack on his/her privacy and well-being and will tend to obstruct justice.

To mention one recent example, the core group set up by the Church to examine the case of Martyn Percy at Christ Church Oxford seems to have been ‘weaponised’ against him.  It is unclear who authorised this process, but it has led to a situation where allegations against Martyn are discussed in a forum where he is not represented.  Private Eye has examined this case in detail.  Because of all the publicity over this case, we are likely to see the eventual discrediting of core groups as currently constituted as a suitable response to safeguarding allegations. 

Stein’s article makes some very important points about the needs of survivors which the CDM process does not address.  Survivors of abuse, she claims, do not usually have money at the top of the list of their needs.  However, her comments on psychological, spiritual, legal and financial support for survivors need to be taken to heart. 

Negotiating settlements with insurance companies and their lawyers is also experienced as damaging and re-traumatising.  There is also the issue of legal fees for survivors.  Legal fees and internal costs to the insurers can end up more than double the amount ultimately received as a settlement, which by any objective standard would be considered incommensurate with the costs borne by the survivor related to the abuse.  Stein refers to a quote from an essay by Andrew Graystone published in Letters to a Broken Church.   Graystone’s question for church leaders in their approach towards survivors is this: ‘not .. how little can I pay them, but how much can I love them.’

The other major issue that Stein brings to our attention is the ‘one size fits all’ approach to clergy under accusation by the CDM.  Clearly there are different levels of misbehaviour.  Once again, having an independent assessor trained in a relevant discipline can uncover such things as immaturity or a personality profile that includes habitual dishonesty that may lie at the heart of a case of misbehaviour.  Such assessment may sometimes be able to ‘rescue’ an offending individual from being lost to the profession permanently if some sort of rehabilitation is appropriate.  In some cases, something similar to Circles of Accountability and Support may be the right way forward. 

In her final comments, Stein expresses her sense of urgency that the conflict laden/legalistic approach to clergy discipline must be superseded.  We may hope with her that the Church of England through the action of the House of Bishops will discover a much broader range of responses both to perpetrators and victims of abuse.  Failures in this important area not only make the Church an unsafe place, but they undermine the Church’s standing with the wider community.  That collapse of trust is a serious matter.