When the book of Jonah reports that God changed his mind over the destruction of Nineveh, the reason given for this decision was the repentance of the people. The idea of God changing his mind occurs in other parts of the Old Testament, notably in the story of Abraham pleading for the city of Sodom. The total number of righteous people in the city, which would justify its survival, is gradually negotiated down by Abraham’s pleadings. Both these accounts show that, for the writers of these books, the changing of decisions or opinion is something that happens. It is not something that has to be resisted at all costs. If God can be seen to repent of the decisions that he has made, then the same can occur for ordinary humans. It is certainly not to be regarded as a matter of shame or disgrace.
Why and when do people change their mind over decisions they have made? I think there are three main reasons, all of which are honourable. In the first place, an individual may obtain new information about a situation. This forces him or her to rethink what they have decided. Then there is the activity of another person, the persuader, as we see in the Abraham story. The art of persuasion or rhetoric is often able to shift a person’s decision, especially if it is done with skill. Finally, some people change their mind over something because they take the time to reflect about it. Attitudes and opinions seldom stay the same over periods of time. We know of course people for whom the opposite is true. It is a matter of pride that their opinions about other people and ideas remains firmly fixed and unchanged. I refer to them as the ‘what I always say’ brigade. This dogmatic frame of mind is not especially attractive as a human trait, but it is widely encountered in church circles.
In spite of the examples of God changing his mind in the pages of Scripture, most people find it difficult to change their minds once they have made a decision. We may suggest a number of reasons for this. One is that it is thought to be a sign of weakness not to maintain an opinion or attitude once it has been clearly stated. Fixed opinions are considered to be a sign of human strength. Strong unchanging convictions are widely celebrated in some Christian circles. It is also a source of pride for some to say ‘I am never wrong in my opinions’. Groups of people with strong unyielding opinions also gain much self-esteem in belonging to groups that cannot and will not falter in their convictions. Many Christians gravitate to such groups. These are often associated to what we would broadly describe as a conservative approach to the Bible. Many so-called Bible believers hold on to a single version of the truth thought to be revealed in Scripture. When beliefs are held in this way, it does not allow for much in the way of flexibility of thought or the ability to change one’s mind about anything.
Over the past week we have seen a welcome change of mind on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This change of mind is connected with comments he made about George Bell, the late Bishop of Chichester, who died in 1958. Bell’s memory had been tainted by the suggestion that he had been responsible for a case of child abuse in the early 50s. Welby’s apology and change of mind over his remarks has allowed a great man’s memory to be recovered for the future. My own interest and concern for Bell’s reputation goes back to the time when I knew him, or, rather learnt to recognise him as he strode across the precincts of Canterbury during the last months of his life. In some way this slight personal contact has made me solicitous for his memory. It is unnecessary for us to speculate on the real reasons for Welby’s change of mind. We just need to accept it and be grateful for it.
In the world of safeguarding there are other current examples of injustice which cry out to be resolved, if only the accusers would carefully examine all the evidence and follow through, without endless hold-ups, to act on what that evidence tells us. One case that is never far from this blog is the situation at Christ Church Oxford and the involvement of the Church in the dispute. The state of play there has reached a kind of impasse between the Dean, the Bishop of Oxford and the NST. Various church investigations have taken place, and these have all concluded that there are no further steps to be taken in the investigation of Percy’s behaviour by the Church. Martin Sewell in a question at General Synod on Tuesday afternoon summed up the situation very succinctly and well. He asked: ‘Would the Church be ‘stating unequivocally and clearly that, from the point of view of the national church, there is currently no impediment to the Dean of Christ Church resuming his ministry as soon as his health allows it’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7rAldeH2Oc question comes at 4 hr 11 min Sewell was doing two things simultaneously with this question. His first challenge was to the church authorities, asking them to state clearly if there were other accusations against the Dean, not so far aired, and which justify seeing him as a continuing safeguarding risk. If there were, this might explain the endless delays in the church legal processes. He was also pointing out that, as far he could see, the legal processes of the Church against the Dean were now exhausted, leaving no justifiable reason in church law for continuing to enforce impediments against the Dean. it is important to understand that the rules applied at General Synod Question Time are very restrictive and strictly enforced. The point has to be made in two or three sentences. Had he more time, Sewell might have highlighted what some of us know.
If there were any serious concern in the Bishop of Oxford’s mind that the Dean presents a risk of sufficient weight to justify the extraordinary strictures imposed upon him by the College and Cathedral, he and the National Church institutions have available to them the provisions of the 2016 Safeguarding Clergy Risk Assessment rules by which a proper independent professional would both define what “the risk” is supposed to be ( which nobody has yet put in the public domain ) and what proportionate steps – if any – are needed to manage it.
Currently the Bishop clings to a highly discredited set of risk assessments prepared by nobody with expertise, both hostile to the Dean and who attributed their work to persons who denied all knowledge of it.
The fifteen seconds that followed Sewell’s question were instructive to watch. Bishop Jonathan Gibbs, as the lead bishop for safeguarding, came up with the official response. What he actually said about going by the book in the way the Church operated in these matters, was not addressing the point that Sewell had raised. Before giving this non-answer, the Bishop appeared mute. He looked around for help to answer the question, but nothing was offered. it was clear that neither he nor any of the lawyers or church officials had any proper responses to Sewell’s question. We are left to conclude that there is currently no legitimate reason for the Church authorities to collude and cooperate with the bullying and persecution of the Dean by members of the College Governing Body. The truth of the situation is that the Church nationally has been sucked into a whirlpool of professional jealousies within the College and aided and abetted by factions within the Diocese of Oxford. This is proving impossible to resolve in the absence of decisive leadership and a strong grasp of the principles of justice. Bishop Jonathan is not senior enough within the system to make the necessary decisions to sort out this problem. Change in the situation can only come from authority higher than he represents. Tuesday afternoon showed that he had no answers and none to suggest. There needs to be a readiness on the part of those senior to him to be prepared, as Archbishop Welby has done, to engage in a decisive change of mind. Someone in the Church needs to ‘repent of the evil that he had purposed’ against the Dean of Christ Church so relationships and morale can be restored.
Archbishop Welby has set an example to the whole Church that it is possible to be wrong and be prepared to admit to it. I hope and expect that many people have welcomed this gesture. In the safeguarding world it is particularly welcomed, especially if it proves to be the beginning of a trend to openness and justice in the Church. Church leaders, from archbishops downwards, know how much harm has been done by refusing to engage with the fact that people in authority get things wrong, sometimes tragically wrong. The Archbishop has asked for a leaner, humbler church. What better place to start that with a Church takes really seriously the place of apology, the place where there is no shame in saying publicly ‘Sorry I got it wrong; let me try my best to put it right.’ That is what is urgently required in the Christ Church tragedy to help restore integrity to the entire body.
A frind of mine pointed out to me this morning an article in the Times that said the Charity Commission had told Christ Church to reimburse Martyn’s legal costs of £400k
Having just checked, sadly the Charity Commission’s stance isn’t quite as firm as that. As reported by ‘The Times’:
“The charity watchdog has put pressure on one of Oxford’s oldest colleges in its long-running row with the dean, suggesting that it could contribute to his £400,000 legal costs.
“The Charity Commission said that it would be “reasonable” for Christ Church to repay the Very Rev Martyn Percy’s legal fees, a move it has strongly resisted.”
As I read it, the Charity Commission may tell (rather than has told) Christ Church to reimburse the Dean’s expenses. It’s good to see the CC taking an interest in this case.
To put the article by Andrew Billen in The Times in context, the Charity Commission were responding to a request by the ChCh trustees for ‘advice and guidance’: “Can the charity make a contribution towards the Dean’s costs for legal representation in the tribunal process?…” The answer was (as partly quoted by Billen): “based on what we understand to be the current situation, we would see that as likely to fall within the range of reasonable decisions that trustees could make.”
In other words, a decision by the trustees to fund Martyn Percy’s legal costs (presumably those incurred in the Smith tribunal in 2019 as well as, prospectively, for representation in the second tribunal set up in relation to the hair stroking allegation in respect of which the Dean has been remains suspended) would be lawful. The answer may (or may not) be welcome to the malcontents at ChCh determined to get rid of the Dean by fair means or foul and we await their reaction to it. The headline in The Times (19 November, page 15), “Christ Church may pay up in dean row” has an interesting double meaning.
The Charity Commission have taken more than just an interest in the case, as their letters to the trustees of 27 January 2021 and 31 August 2021 make plain.
It’s a hopeful sign, then?
It’s just so hard to understand why some body like the Commissioners haven’t acted more decisively before now.
Sorry, but I’m appalled by the Archbishop’s about-face regarding Bishop Bell. It’s a slap in the face for survivors. I have read the Carlisle Report and information in the public domain, and I know someone who has met ‘Carol’. I believe her. The report makes no finding of fact, it criticises the process. There is no exoneration.
All this shows is that clergy with influential friends can get away with abuse.
There are many of us in a similar situation.
I agree about Percy, but sad to see this blog betraying survivors and siding with the Archbishop and Bell’s advocates.
This j
Jane, you do not speak for all survivors on this issue. Some survivors certainly feel as you do; others of us, having read all the evidence in the public domain (and possibly some that isn’t) believe that Bell may well have been innocent.
It really isn’t fair to accuse Stephen, who has worked tirelessly for survivors for nearly 30 years, of betraying us. There is room for difference of opinion.
People who love truth are *always* open to changing their minds based on evidence, since at no point in time have they examined all the evidence, and they examine more as time goes on.
This is why one doubts that people who *never* change their minds are truth-lovers.
As to whether change is a good thing, of course it is not, intrinsically. Nor is it a bad thing, intrinsically. There are instances where it is good and instances where it is bad. Change for the better is good, and change for the worse is bad.
Hello Janet,
Of course none of speak for anyone but ourselves; and I am aware others feel differently. I’m also aware of others who feel the same.
I’m just stating my feelings and opinion. I feel betrayed. You may not. We can indeed have different perspectives here. I am just as entitled to mine as anyone else.
When we take sides on cases with someone accused of abuse, we are making a statement about whom we believe. That is significant. Only Carol, Bell and God know the whole truth in this case. But it is important to remember that most survivors will never get a criminal conviction. Less than 2% of rape cases, for example. So we will rarely be dealing with certainties.
It would be more supportive of survivors for this blog at least to acknowledge that, and make it clear that there is evidence on both sides of this case. So we can say with equal weight that Bell may have been guilty. That we are in solidarity with the majority of survivors who can never ‘prove’ their abuser’s guilt; and therefore we will at least remain neutral on the issue in this case. The Carlisle Report very carefully did NOT make a finding of fact on the case. It highlighted mistakes in the process. It did not exonerate Bell, it questioned whether the investigation and conclusion were thorough and fair. It wrongly made an assumption that core groups should make a finding of fact; they most explicitly do not.
I have no less respect for you Stephen, or the vital work you do here. But I think you’ve made a wrong call on this one, which is damaging to the cause of survivors and the truth. Sorry, but that’s how I feel.
I believe Carol, and I can imagine how dreadful it must be for her to know the Archbishop has apologised and has welcomed a statue of her ‘alleged’ abuser. We do disagree, but I think its important that this perspective is given at least equal weight here.
Hi Jane. The terms of reference of the Carlile Review, which were drawn up by the Church of England, did not allow him to make a finding of fact as to whether Bell was guilty or innocent. Nevertheless, Lord Carlile made it as plain as he could do within those terms, that he regarded Bell as innocent. He has been more explicit in remarks since. So it isn’t the case that Lord Carlile was ‘very careful NOT to make a finding of fact on the case’; rather the reverse.
I know experts on abuse who say that in 90% of cases the alleged victim is telling the truth; in 10% of cases the complainant is confused, exaggerating, or not telling the truth. In my view, survivors weaken our cause by maintaining that every allegation must be assumed to be true; by doing so in doubtful cases, we will lose the sympathies of people who would otherwise be supporters.
My own experience is that I have proved my case against one abuser; I have no evidence against another, but have partial corroboration from two other victims. But there were two more in my childhood of whom my recollections are more shadowy. I think I know who they were but it’s possible that I’m wrong. Truth can be very complicated.
I once assumed an allegation to be true but it later turned out to be false, and I had wronged the accused. I don’t want to repeat that mistake.
So my attitude is to always be prepared to believe an allegation of abuse, and always to support the accuser where I have the opportunity to do so; but to admit it when the evidence leads in another direction.
I was speaking to a QC recently who was careful not to use “ belief” or “non belief “ in the pre-determination, but the term “ capable of belief”. Some complainants cannot get over the properly required threshold. That does not make them less entitled to respect. The binary approach is damaging .
Thank you Martin. At least that respect would be a start.
Also remembering we’re not talking about criminal threshold here (sure) but balance of probabilities.
All I’ve seen suggests that Lord Carlisle thought it was believable that Carol was a victim of child abuse. The issue was whether there had been a thorough investigation of the accuracy of the identity of the perpetrator.
The triumphalism around the Bell apology doesn’t respect her as a CSA victim at all. That’s what I am finding especially distressing.
It appears that if you have the temerity to be right but, rather
inconveniently are still alive, the national church will not oppose injustice. If this is how the church treats one of their own, a member of the clergy and a distinguished one, what hope is there for any other victim of injustice? I do hope the Dean will be reimbursed his legal fees and recovers from his persecution. He has brought to light not only the injustice heaped upon those the church wishes to silence, but, as Stephen points out, that even with information showing unjust, plain wrong, and corrupt practices being in the public eye, the church does nothing. There is no one willing and able to speak up and challenge the church, not even the Lead Bishop for safeguarding. That is why I fear that any changes to safeguarding will end up being purely cosmetic. There is no point in changing a system if it will be run by people with the same mindset as are now in post. Yes, God may change his mind, but I fear the Church of England will not.
1. Well said Christopher.
2. As I read this blog it is about people changing their minds, not a rerun of the Bell case. It is a pity that offence has been taken where offence does not appear to have been given.
3. Survivors are not a consolidated group who all agree with each other and I hope never will do.
4. I am a survivor.
Indeed it’s good that we are open to changing our minds, when on reflection or new evidence we decide we were wrong previously. That is the focus of the blog, and the courage to act differently is clearly needed in the Percy case.
The Bell case was used as a positive example, which is therefore what I am commenting on. I am giving my perspective, as a survivor, about the circumstances of an apology about an alleged abuser, which have an impact on the survivor in question, and on some other survivors (and yes I am one) who don’t have a finding of fact about their case.
I was clearly don’t speak for all survivors. I hope we do agree about some things (that all abuse is wrong, for example) but of course there will be many shades of opinion about others and that is right and healthy.
I have not taken offence. I feel betrayed. As I made clear, I still have utmost respect for Stephen.
Another Bible passage to consider is 1 Samuel 15:29, where Samuel explains to Saul, “the glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man that he should change his mind.”
I find this fascinating, as the fact is that God has just repented of appointing Saul as king. = changing of mind.
The books of 1 and 2 Samuel contain a number of conundrums to my mind, for example, why does Eli get it in the neck for his failure over his sons as priests (literally), while Samuel’s sons turn out to be unjust judges, and you can’t get much worse than that in the OT, but Samuel does not even get a caution?
Here’s another one: Goliath was nine feet tall, but Saul was head and shoulders taller than the people, so they alone looked each other in the eye. What’s that about?
I would like to investigate these riddles some day. So much to do!
Decision inertia, that is sticking with choices made a long time past their sell-by date, is endemic to us all.
However in leaders the exposure amplifies the errors we make as we are forced to defend publicly an increasingly untenable decision. The longer we leave it, the harder the volte face becomes.
Yorkshire Cricket is in a mess right now, with allegations of institutional racism. English Cricket has wisely stood up and made an unreserved apology. Whether or not deep culture change will happen remains to be seen. Yorkshire are certainly making changes.
Behind Cricket’s decision to apologise is the key driver of money, despite the alleged sincerity of any announcements. Sponsors have fled from Yorkshire, and its famous ground Headingley has been denied international fixtures. This is very big for them and English Cricket fears the contagion of financial loss spreading to our whole country’s balance sheet.
CC Oxford seems immune to financial loss not least because of its vast reserves. I doubt change will occur there for this reason. Public disapproval and even ridicule seems to have made no difference to their position. I’d be surprised if the Charities Commission will exercise its teeth.
The easiest way to stick with your decision is to block your ears. Restriction of data input is institutionalised in certain parts of the Church so that established ways of thinking and being are hardly ever challenged.
Often on these pages I state an opinion which I genuinely hope is wrong.
From my perspective, and for what little it’s worth, we will never know the truth about Bell, and the shadow hanging over his reputation will remain, albeit in a diminished manner.
What I think stuck in the craw for many of Bell’s supporters was the presumption on the part of the Church authorities that Bell was either guilty or that he was likely to have been. There were two reasons for that reaction: (i) it appeared to overturn the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise (the ‘golden thread’ of English jurisprudence) as part of a more general (real or imagined) witch-hunt in the wake of the Dolphin Square and other allegations; and (ii) it savoured of an opportunistic attempt by the Church to deflect upon someone conveniently dead some of the attention that ought to have been paid to living abusers and those who helped conceal their abuse.
Tellingly, even if Carl Beech was a fraud, the ‘hysteria’ of 2010-15 led to IICSA, which has revealed in excruciating detail the large-scale underbelly of abuse across many walks of life, not least the churches.
I can understand the visceral feelings of some survivors. The ‘golden thread’, and the doctrine that the burden of proof is upon the claimant/crown, and must be proven beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ makes convictions insuperably difficult in many cases. This is unwarrantably ‘hard cheese’ for the claimants/victims.
I have little doubt that Carol suffered abuse. A searing childhood memory of that type is not to be forgotten. The question is whether it really was Bell who abused her, and whether it was best to have made that allegation 37 years after the man’s death, and 45 years after the alleged abuse. In 1990, 45 years after the end of WWII the War Crimes Bill was rejected by the House of Lords on the grounds that any conviction made after that length of time would be unsafe (it was eventually brought into law via the Parliament Acts 1911-49 without the Lords’ consent).
During the Lords debate of 4 June 1990 there were some interesting speeches, including from a number of senior judges. Lord Shawcross (chief UK prosecutor at Nuremberg) remarked of the decision to discontinue prosecutions in 1948 was based on the axiom that: “Justice long delayed is no longer justice. We have been able to take pride in the fact that our…justice has that quality of swiftness”. Lord Donaldson of Lymington, MR (by no means a perfect judge) noted that the evidence of identification is, “as every judge knows…the most difficult and dangerous form of evidence. It was the subject of special warning in the decision of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Turnbull in 1977….a case turning upon identification five years after the offence is alleged to have been committed would give anyone pause for considerable thought. It would lead the judge to issue very serious warnings to the jury. Identification after 45 years is a wholly preposterous proposition.”
I can (I hope) understand Carol’s long silence. Moreover, when she approached Eric Kemp in 1995 she was simply told to contact her local incumbent (his customary approach to abuse allegations, it would seem) and was, presumably discouraged.
Moreover, making allegations against the one bishop in the history of the diocese who had a reputation equivalent to, or in excess of, St Richard would have been a brave thing to do at any time.
However, it is not clear what Carol wanted (and perhaps we will never know): she could not get ‘justice’, Bell being long dead. Did she want an acknowledgement of the wrong? If so, that would necessitate a trial of the facts, which would have been acutely problematic five decades’ on for the reasons described by analogy with German war crimes.
So, it seems to me that she was in a catch-22 situation: (i) she could not realistically have brought the allegations whilst Bell was alive on the the decades immediately following his death because of the vast esteem in which Bell was held; but (ii) if she wanted recognition of her case based on sound principles, the many people who knew Bell (and who helped nurture and sustain his reputation) would have to have followed him to the grave, and yet by the time they had done so the credibility of a trial of the facts would have been compromised.
What I hope is now the case is that deference to high ecclesiastics (or to clergy in general) has broken down, perhaps forever, and that victims will no longer find themselves in the bind which I assume (though cannot be certain) afflicted Carol.
Bell was incontestably a Great Man, but my feelings towards him are somewhat ambivalent (and ambivalent quite apart from the allegations). They are likely to remain so, even with an archiepiscopal apology. The shadow of the allegations will never quite be dispelled for me. If Carol was indeed correct in the details her allegations, the continuing ‘residue of suspicion’ would perhaps be a form of ‘justice’, at least of an unsatisfactory kind.
Thank you, Froghole, that is clear.
Thank you, Froghole, for reminding us of this important debate in the House of Lords over 30 years ago. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I have been able to access the Hansard record at the touch of a few buttons on my laptop. The arguments on both sides are worth reading (so far I have only scanned them: the debate lasted over 9 hours from 2.58 pm, with the House adjourning at ‘eighteen minutes past midnight.’)
In the context of this thread, there is an interesting quote in the speech by the Bishop of Southwark (then Ronald Bowlby):
“For that reason I have found it difficult to accept fully the words of the late Bishop Bell, quoted last December by my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans [John Taylor]. Bishop Bell said:
“A time-limit should be fixed for dealing with war criminals of every category”.”
Both bishops voted for the amendment (passed by 207 votes to 74 against) that declined to give a second reading to the Bill.
I think Froghole to understand why someone wants their story acknowledged long after the abuser is dead is hard to explain unless it has been a lived experience. One of my abusers died over 20 years ago and yet I longed desperately for my story to be told in PCR2 and my Lessons Learned Review, not because I could ever make a legal claim to compensation but because the actions of my abuser had changed my life for ever. My story was incomplete without adding his behaviour into the mix. Who I am and the person I became were deeply defined by my abuser.
I do not think it is about wanting to achieve anything it is about trying to come to terms with the story of who we are.
Yes Trish, I agree. This is not just about compensation or punishment for the offender; it’s about getting the truth out there and being validated. It’s really tough for the majority of survivors who don’t get that.
Many thanks, Trish. I have assumed, all along, that Carol was not after attention or cash, but that she wanted to expiate as much of the pain of the memory of what happened to her but getting her story recognised, if not by the Church authorities, then by the press and/or public.
So, yes, thank you for stressing the need to make the narrative known for its own sake.
What I think was especially deplorable about Kemp’s response (as recorded by Carlile) is that a marginal comment had been included – presumably by him or an aide – on the letter she sent on 3 August 1995 indicating that Carol was from a difficult area or background (‘this is where the council houses problem people’, at para. 84): in other words, her allegations were either the symptom of a disturbed mind and/or she was fishing for compo. This perhaps underscores the need for people to have their story recognised by the authorities for its own sake, so that victims are recognised as people worthy of consideration – as entities – rather than as problems to be ignored or swept under the carpet.
Now I am going to cause some offence. My wider issue with Bell is precisely because of his attitude towards Germany during WWII. I do not doubt that the RAF committed atrocities with their policy of saturation bombing. However, we have to recognise that the Allies were of the view that the bombing which occurred was necessary, not only for strategic, but also for moral and political reasons. This may seem strange, but one of the reasons for Germany’s aggression during the 1930s is that it had not been defeated comprehensively in 1918. The Right in Germany were therefore able to utilise the myth of the ‘stab in the back’ (the Kiel mutinies) as a pretext for their rise to power. Moreover, as Alan Milward noted in 1965 the primary object of Blitzkrieg was that rapid warfare would not disturb the civilian economy: Germany could win, and win on the cheap, with life going on as normal.
Nor is that all: as most historians now recognise, Keynes created a myth of a Carthaginian peace at Versailles. Germany could easily have paid the massive indemnities calculated by Cunliffe and Sumner (the ‘heavenly twins’). What happened is that, absent Austen Chamberlain, successive British policymakers indulged Germany. This made France ever more frantic: Britain was perceived as a capricious and unreliable ally and, most of all, an ineffectual one (there are echoes of this today, and it explains France’s decisive turn to Germany in 1947). Bell was ‘captured’ by the myth Keynes created. His principle antagonist in the Lords debates, Vansittart, was not. Bell was therefore part of a ramp of what Lenin (in a different context) called ‘useful idiots’.
The ghastly assaults on German cities *may* have been ‘necessary’ – to bring the enormities of what the German population as a whole had sanctioned home to that population – but to facilitate the creation of a new and peaceful Germany.
‘fishing for compo’? What does that mean? I’m not familiar with the expression.
Apologies to Froghole for replying first, but I would have thought (rather obviously) “seeking compensation”.
Oh! I was thinking Last of the Summer Wine.
Many thanks for that, Mr Wateridge!
I feel that there was the insinuation in the marginal comment appended to Carol’s 1995 letter that the diocese thought that she was angling for compensation. Carlile adds ‘In my view that was an inappropriate comment to have written’. I have perhaps spent too much time with Australians: ‘compo’ is how they often describe compensation.
Also, I must hasten to add that Bomber Command perhaps greatly overstated the military value of saturation bombing. However, there was a [deplorable] psychological value to it. Bell was as alive to the evils of Nazi Germany as anyone (perhaps more so, and was certainly better informed than many of his critics, including Vansittart), but if Valkyrie had succeeded and the likes of Beck, Oster, Tresckow, Witzleben, etc., had come to power, the chances were that a post-war Germany would still have had a large, if not predominant, militaristic element (even if Hans Schonfeld’s promise to Bell in 1942 of a balanced government had come to pass); the defeat would not have been total, and the Right would have remained defiant (and would have kept alive the ‘stab in the back’). What happened to Germany in 1943-45 was appalling, and perhaps even a war crime, but it seemed to inoculate Germany against militarism forever. Many in government were fully aware of the nature of what was being perpetrated against Germany, and deplored it, and yet thought it necessary for these reasons. This explains why, despite his palpable courage, many thought Bell entirely wrong-headed: as if he was telling them what they knew perfectly well already, as a well-known exchange with the minister of food illustrates:
“”George”, said Lord Woolton, “I believe that you are going to make a speech. . . there isn’t a soul in the House who doesn’t wish you wouldn’t make the speech you are going to make . . . but I also want to tell you there isn’t a soul who doesn’t know that the only reason you make it is because you believe it is your duty to make it as a Christian priest”.”
Oh Trish, that is such a perfect way to describe it – coming to terms with the story of who we are.
I agree that for most (not all) of the survivors I speak with, it’s about truth, accountability and safety, not punishment or compensation.
The average time to disclose abuse is 7-12 years after it happens. Traumatic memory is such that experiences can be buried, and emerge as disjointed flashbacks. So Carol’s situation is not unusual. My clergy abuse began in 1978 & ended in 1990. It was not safe for me to disclose at the time.
Establishing the truth after so many years is not easy, with no forensic evidence, but is still possible, as many inquiries have shown.
Our current systems fail survivors, and all of us, because we allow abuse to continue. We need to change our minds, by radical reform of safeguarding and criminal justice systems.
I wouldn’t comment on a situation without seeing some evidence, but I do believe survivors I meet, just as if you told me you had been burgled, I would believe you. There is no evidence that victims of abuse lie any more than victims of other crimes.
Thank you for your posts, Froghole. These are such difficult issues, and you always help us to navigate them thoughtfully.
Sadly I think you are not yet correct that deference to bishops etc is gone. There are at least 9 bishops who have been exposed by survivors like me of failing to act on safeguarding disclosures, and they all seem to be protected. It’s changing very slowly.
Many thanks for that, Jane.
I feel that a lot of the reportage associated with this case has not given sufficient (or, perhaps, any) consideration to the likely dilemma in which ‘Carol’ found herself.
As to deference to bishops, I was in a diocese in the east Midlands yesterday, and it was evident to me from a couple of conversations that bishops are no longer held in particular esteem, at least by their own clergy.
One of the reasons why I think that the dioceses ought to be abolished, save as pastoral agencies, is that if the bureaucracies which surround bishops vanish, and if the bishops just become pastors, they will not be enveloped in officialdom, administration and process, and so will become more immediately accountable. I suspect that a large part of the mystique associated with the episcopate is not so much the ‘hocus-pocus’ element as the fact that they are enveloped in layers of officialdom. When someone is dealing with a bishop s/he is dealing, in effect, with a corporation (indeed, a bishop is a ‘corporation sole’ in legal jargon). A lot of people will find this intimidating, and will recognise immediately that they are in an asymmetrical relationship. As such, they will back down. This, I fear, is precisely what Carol did in 1995, nearly two decades’ before she made her second attempt (when she might have been hoping that the national change in mood towards these cases would have made things more propitious for her).
What I ought to have acknowledged in previous posts is the primary of reconciliation: not only by getting the truth recognised by the entity responsible for the abuse (or shielding it, thus causing secondary abuse or re-abuse) but enabling the victim to effect a form of reconciliation with his/her past, although that reconciliation will invariably be partial/incomplete because of the searing nature of the experienced endured. It is deeply regrettable that the first instinct of the entities which receive claims or allegations discount that vital impulse, and immediately think of the financial and reputational consequences. Often, and paradoxically, the financial and reputational consequences are as bad as they become precisely because the authorities discount victims’ quest for self-reconciliation and acknowledgement.
Survivor of abuse needs to be reconciled with our own history, yes – and a hugely difficult task that is, taking perhaps a lifetime and beyond.
A survivor of church abuse may also want to be reconciled with the church (local church or denomination) in which the abuse took place. When a person is abused (in any sense) by a church representative, the survivor’s relationship with that church is inevitably impaired. I hope it doesn’t need saying that the responsibility for both the impairment and the relationship rests with the church. This is why apologies from church leaders are of the utmost importance.
I can understand Jane’s frustration that an apology has been extended regarding an accused person, when so many innocent survivors have had no apology. I know people who have been falsely accused as well as many survivors, and I believe apologies are necessary in both cases. Justice is justice.
It’s beyond my understanding why Anglican bishops and archbishops are so incredibly bad at apologies. My own case was effectively proved and settled months ago, and the church really ought to have extended an apology immediately. Instead I had to ask for one through Ecclesiastical Insurance, who had handled the claim; they got no response. My excellent solicitor, Richard Scorer, then contacted the church direct. He got a holding reply which has not been followed up. Several weeks ago we asked the Archbishop of York, my own diocesan, to apologise on behalf of the Church of England for the repeated mishandling of my case over several decades. So far, nothing. As far as I am concerned, my relationship with the Church of England is irretrievably broken. And all for the lack of an apology from senior clergy who (in theory at least) ask for God’s forgiveness every day. Why can’t they ask forgiveness from the church’s victims?
Indeed. My view is that the Church is a trust organisation. Not in the sense of a body of people who give and receive trust but a confederation of legal trusts with fiduciary obligations.
These, then, are people who are trained, first and foremost to conflate the reputation of the organisation to which they have a fiduciary (and often contractual) obligation with its financial health.
All questions and problems will therefore be distilled through this financial prism.
They are not thinking about what is good for you or for the reputation of the legal trust they represent (usually the DBF). They are, instead, thinking first about the financial impact to them of any response to you. In their [warped?] imaginations, your welfare as a victim is an actual or contingent financial liability, but the strength of their balance sheet is the chief barometer of: (i) the fulfilment of their fiduciary obligations; and (ii) the ‘health’ of the trust they represent. They believe these things even if you are simply seeking an apology and no compensation; they will always suspect that an apology will be a ramp for compensation at some future point.
With such a zero sum game outlook they cannot, and perhaps will not, see that if you are satisfied with their apology the reputation of their legal trust will be enhanced. They do not look at the problem this way, because the main measure of importance to them is their P&L account.
This was brought home to me yesterday when discussing the debt of the Lincoln DBF with a couple of people in that diocese. There have been high levels of churn within the diocesan office, and the ‘turmoil’ of the diocese is well known. I asked about the link between the threat of mass closure (viz. the current self-grading scheme) and the DBF’s c. £5m debt. Why couldn’t the Commissioners just write it off, I asked? I was told: “Why should the Commissioners do so? The DBF could easily write it off, if they wished. They’ve got about £700m!”
I appreciate that much of that capital will be illiquid, but it struck me that for the sake of a comparatively trifling debt, the diocese is prepared to: (i) savage clergy numbers; and (ii) shutter a large number of churches. The diocesan authorities *may* think that way (I cannot be certain and might well be wrong) because, in their eyes, their fiduciary obligation is essentially to the welfare of the DBF, and not to the parishes (or the ‘diocese’). All that matters to them is reducing the £5m liability and preserving the £700m by whatever means in their power.
The Church Commissioners *may* have the same mentality. Yes, they have now established a sustainability fund for the dioceses (note, not the parishes) but what they have, they must hold. Thus parishes may well die, and that is no affair of the Commissioners (though, in reality, it is).
This is another reason why the DBFs need to be scrapped.
With these perceived ‘mentalities’ it’s hard to sustain hope…
Of course, many dioceses do not have the historic assets of Lincoln or a few other dioceses.
Well, it’s very short-sighted, even from a financial point of view. Because as large numbers of people lose faith in the church and leave, or reduce their giving, income goes down.
I agree. However, the authorities rely on two things to help preserve their assets.
The first is the utter opacity of Church finance, and the fact that no one bar a few cognoscenti appear to know anything about it. In this respect, ignorance is opportunity (for the authorities)!
The second is congregational inertia. Few regular attendees are especially interested in Church affairs. From the vantage point of a DBF the primary task of the pew fodder is to maintain the flow of cash, and to secure the viability of the parish share system. What they – the pew fodder – don’t know won’t hurt the DBF (or the Commissioners).
The absurd (deliberate?) complexity of the Church allows the authorities to ‘play’ the pew fodder, as well as to confound those who would wish to seek redress.
Now I am probably caricaturing things by simplifying the issues in this way. Perhaps I am also being unfair. Yet as a good structuralist I do sometimes wonder if institutional failures (especially in an organisation which purports to be pastoral) often have their origins in institutional structures, lines of accountability and, above all, flows of funds.
Yes, but people who have been abused in church have been attenders (unless they were abused in a church-run school or orphanage or similar). And if those people stop going and giving, and their friends and family do also, that’s a financial loss.
Then there are those who leave the ministry through disillusionment, like Matt Ineson. The church has lost a large financial investment right there.
Yes, thanks to all. I haven’t been sexually abused. As a survivor of twenty years of bullying, I have let go of any thought of people’s being punished. But I still want to be heard. Debriefed, if you like. How can the bishops move on into a better church without a proper understanding of how things were, and often still are?
They’d much rather put expensive wallpaper over the gaping cracks in the walls. That’s how the C of E works.
It took me over forty years to describe what our priestly school teacher subjected us to. IICSA proved a good listener. I had considerable reservations about going to them.
The police eventually told me he had died thirty years ago and that was the end of that. Did he go on to other places and abuse other children? Did the police trace his network of “friends” with similar interests?
What he did was part of a mightier whole of a deeply disturbing upbringing. Which bits did the most damage? Crimes were committed in current terms, both literally and psychologically. Remedy against either was neither sought nor available as far as I can see. Perhaps one day?
My response encompasses the range of different responses here and in earlier pages. I’ve wrestled with ideas of revenge and forgiveness, compo and therapy.
Personally, letting go of anger is self-healing and doesn’t necessarily preclude action in the future, both for myself and on behalf of others. Not everyone will be able to share this position. Relentless shouty attacking of others leads to actual or mental muting and I have concluded, is counterproductive. Nevertheless I understand it.
On a personal note, my mother in law is in hospital and may not make it. She is nearly 96, and it is not a tragedy. She had a good week with us visiting. But it is hard for the family just waiting. Could I ask for everyone’s prayers?
Of course. Praying for you all.
of course, prayers for you all. My mother-in-law is 96 too and is at home but failing. These times are hard.
Will do. Best wishes, Steve
Losing a parent is tough, whatever their age. My prayers are for you all, Athena and Jane.