by David Brown
As a layman who served on a Bishop’s Staff team for some 12 years, I am now privileged to hear testimonies of a number of priests, in some cases relating how they have been subjected to discipline by irregular process. Such testimonies shed much light on the ‘underbelly’ of episcopal activity, showing how some bishops are destroying a vital leadership role within the nation. This leads me to trumpet the need for an independent review of our Church’s episcopal culture and practice.
Here are three unnoticed—or ignored—signs of ongoing catastrophic leadership:
- Oversight. A manifest impoverishment of oversight (over-seeing) allows serious episcopal frailties to develop. There seems to be an inclination to believe any persuasive voice, lay or ordained, on the basis of hunch or an opinion of a criticised priest. The situation appears to be worse in cases where the accusations reflect the bishop’s personal opinion of a priest ‘under assault’, irrespective of whether or not those accusations can be substantiated with actual evidence. Thus, in a worrying number of cases, bishops have not upheld the oaths they swore at their consecration, “to know their people and be known by them…. to use their authority to heal, not to hurt; to build up, not to destroy”’. Committee work receives a greater priority over the essential task of listening to, understanding and enabling parish clergy to flourish in their ministries, some seriously overloaded and in tough and large benefices. Some command a low priority on bishops’ time; ‘shepherds’ preferring to focus on their own priorities, in incessant higher profile committee work and centralised initiatives.
- Non-accountability. Diocesan bishops are accountable to no-one apart from themselves, not least in their treatment of clergy. Readers may be surprised to learn they have no line-accountability to an archbishop. This may have worked well in times past when there was a deservedly high level of trust between leaders and led. In today’s culture, signs appear of an accumulation of power over parish clergy that can lead to ministries and livelihoods being terminated without proper process. This deficiency seems to be exacerbated by a lack of appropriate training and experience. Their power over clergy, not least through disciplining, is immense and potentially destructive of ministries and livelihoods. In some respects they have more power than magistrates who undergo careful selection, then substantial training and ongoing stringent oversight. Bishops wield the threat of the Clergy Discipline Measure as a weapon of control. The rights accorded to all citizens of the United Kingdom to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are frequently denied to members of clergy by the very people who should have the highest duty to ensure that these rights are rigorously assured.[41]
- Professional disciplinary errors. These generally come to the surface, not because of any oversight, but because a harmed priest has the energy, the advice, and probably the funds, to mount a legal challenge. This has ‘worked’ with some of my clergy friends, one achieving a six-figure financial settlement, tied to Non-Disclosure or Confidentiality Agreements that even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York seem incapable of weaning their Bishops away from. Such sums are squandered from diocesan funds, largely drawn from the free-will offerings of un-involved laity; sometimes supplemented by assets drawn from central funds supplied by the Church Commissioners. These donors do not realise that their gifts are being used, not to spread the Good News of Christ, but to conceal the errors, incompetence and wilful misconduct of those to whom they have entrusted their donations. Should bishops come to fund such compensation personally in whole or part, many might judge this reasonable. The impact could be immense. Furthermore, in Charity law, trustees of the diocese could have some liability. The diocesan boards of finance (DBF) may be registered Charities and arguably vulnerable should the Charity Commission become aware of charitable fund misappropriation. A structural difficulty arises when a diocesan bishop is the DBF chair. Some DBFs are instead companies limited by guarantee, in which case members have a moral duty to call out fund misappropriation.
There thus seems an urgent need for an independent review of episcopal culture and practice; arguably so urgent and important that the 2022 Lambeth Conference should be postponed until it is carried out. Meanwhile, without fair and Christian governance, the Church is unlikely to achieve its vision of being “simpler, humbler and bolder”. Where parish clergy cannot trust their bishops, they will be reluctant to step out in faith, becoming necessarily concerned at having to look back over their shoulders. Meanwhile, the current (widely discredited) procedures continue to be applied and create new ‘casualties’ amongst parish priests.
[41]This is a very powerful point.
Wise and helpful post. Thank you
Many thanks. On 13 Vendémiaire (i.e., 5 October) 1795, the young Napoleon Bonaparte marched onto the plain of Sablons with his cannon and administered the famous ‘whiff of grapeshot’ (Thomas Carlyle’s phrase) which dispersed royalist forces and saved the young first republic. He was rewarded with the army of Italy.
What the bishops to whom you refer need is a whiff of grapeshot. Not in the sense of being fired at by cannon (or blown from them in Mughal/Raj style)…, but in the form of a Charity Commission probe.
We see the trepidation that the Charity Commission is causing amongst the dons of Christ Church, and the risk of £4m in costs being apportioned to each of them. Why not bishops and DBFs also? If anyone has an issue with the way in which bishops are spending diocesan assets, then file one of these forms with the Charity Commission: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-charity.
Bishops and other DBF trustees need to be conscious of the fact that if they are using diocesan funds other than for the purpose for which those funds ought to be expended, then they will be in breach of their fiduciary obligations, and they may be at risk of having to indemnify the relevant trust from their own pockets, or else having to tap their insurers (presumably EI), resulting in higher premiums. Follow the money.
If bishops cannot be punished, or be accountable to anyone but themselves, because of some absurd and self-serving doctrinal nonsense, then they ought to be punished by the Charity Commission or some other secular body.
If it remains the case that, despite all the negative publicity, bishops remain determined to abuse process or to dissipate scarce resources (putting pressure on clergy posts and vulnerable churches as a consequence of their malefactions), then please use the Charity Commission’s complaints process to expose their wrongdoing. It is especially regrettable that the Church is not subject to FOIA (despite receiving, or having received, a good deal of public money via grants, VAT reliefs, etc.), so the complaints process remains one of the few mechanisms available.
So please use it, or at least threaten to use it. The whiff of grapeshot that will result from the utilisation of the complaints process ought to frighten some bishops and/or ‘persuade’ DBT trustees to stand up to some of the more determined members of the episcopate.
I thought as you do Froghole, but in a different context and was simply ignored by the charity commission, so . No longer hold out hope that the commission is willing to act. As a vulnerable beneficiary who has been seriously harmed by an employee of the DBF, under charity law I have the right to contact Trustees. The DBF have threatened me with legal action if I do so, and the charity commission have made no response allowing the DBF to continue to ignore the serious harm done to me and to continue to issue threats which may possibly be illegal. Additionally neither my parish or the Diocese have registered they each have a serious concern which may affect their reputations. Of course the commission may act in the scenario you mention but in my experience they will not necessarily act even if you have evidence to substantiate your complaint. According to their website the commission takes harm to vulnerable beneficiaries seriously so I thought they were bound to act. My suspicion is that politics plays a part. I would be very glad to be proved wrong and hear that the commission does send a whiff of grapeshot on someone’s behalf. They have acted very belatedly n regard to Dean Percy and only after a great deal of bad publicity. David’s post is extremely worrying. At a time when employment law has spelled out best practice, the Church is free to simply ignore it. It is concerning that we hear of so many reports of injustice and malpractice in regard to clergy complaints and those who suffer blatant injustice have no reasonable remedy unless they risk bankrupting themselves. Too often Bishops can be shown to be partial in their decision making knowing they are unaccountable and that their targets are helpless. Looked at from a standpoint of management they appear extremely incompetent and frequently negligent in carrying out their duties. Looked at from a pastoral standpoint their behaviour is of such an abysmally low standard that the term”pastoral ” cannot be used to describe them. And looked at from a standpoint of justice, either that of state or biblical justice, they are non starters. Too often Bishops cannot be led to the starting gate and it is no wonder the direction they take is contrary to the standards protecting most employees, and contrary to natural justice. As to fulfilling any kind of Christian standards, they don’t seem to know where to begin. They are failures as managers, failures as pastoral leaders, and failures as spiritual leaders. Any kind of fair trial is anathema. All that seems to count is that Bishops get what they want. The suffering of those unjustly targeted by them is of no account to them. Strong words I know but softer words have availed nothing.
Many thanks, Mary. How very depressing for you and your family, but how good it is that you continue to agitate for change (if you will forgive the impertinence). The Charity Commission’s apparent lassitude may be due to politics. It may also be due to resources. Their budget is relatively modest (c. £29m), but they did succeed in underspending it in the last reported year: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025877/Charity_Commission_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2020_to_2021.pdf. I have little doubt that the shortfall could have gone some way towards covering the cost of a comprehensive investigation of failings by the episcopate and DBFs in the exercise of their powers.
It seems to me that one of the reasons why bishops and other hierarchs get away with things as they do is because it is difficult for victims to band together (many victims, quite understandably, do not wish to divulge the details of their cases), and to do so by lobbying the Charity Commission. However, I wonder (I am thinking aloud, so to speak), whether victims really do need to band together and either make a collective complaint to the Charity Commission, or else bombard the Charity Commission with so many repeated requests so that they buckle eventually, and launch a probe. Maybe a collective approach by victims to MPs might also put some pressure on them.
If I am at risk of sounding like a broken record, I do feel that it is the bishops’ own interests for them to be relieved of these matters: for safeguarding to be vested in an independent agency, and for bishops to cease to have any control over administrative and financial matters (which ought to vest in the Church Commissioners). Why give bishops control of these matters? It’s like giving a child matches, by which I mean that the system vests in bishops powers which have life-changing consequences for many people, and most bishops have little meaningful training respecting these powers.
We also imagine that the bishops have political heft. If they do, it is essentially residuary and largely imaginary; the vast majority of ‘the political establishment’ view them, charitably, as an irrelevance or, more likely, with contempt. Just how politically exposed and vulnerable they and the wider Church are will become very evident on the next demise of the crown, when there will be a resurgence of demands for disestablishment, and perhaps also for disendowment. Again, I would suggest that it is in the bishops’ own political interests to reduce the circumstances giving rise to that contempt.
No imperternance on your part, Froghole. What a good word, agitate. I am sure resources do play a part. Thank you for pointing that out. But what trust can we place in an organisation which allow s an unfit candidate to be named as the next commissioner? I do agree also that it would be in the Bishop’s best interests to have these powers taken from them. I also agree that it is harder for indviduals, either clerical or lay to receive justice whilst “agitating” alone on a case by case basis. I have put my hope in the drip drip effect and that possibly this will lead to an independent review. That is why I too sound like a broken record.
Many thanks, Mary. It seems to me that change is usually best effected by means of collective action, and by applying the techniques of agitation, which liberation movements from the Land League to the civil rights campaign utilised, in order to achieve their political objectives.
Ultimately, power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and as Stalin remarked “how many divisions has the pope?” The Church, therefore, has no meaningful political power, and what influence it possesses is solely a function of its role as the promoter of a particular form of morality. If it cannot even live by its own precepts it has no influence. It is the State which has the power, and the Church will quake before it if it pressed by the State, in a [vain?] attempt to secure the residue of its pseudo-privileges. Therefore, what victims need is a parliamentary sponsor, as a conduit in order to help them get what they want.
There is no longer any ‘Church party’ within parliament; the last remnants of any such grouping faded away in the 1990s, and most especially after Lords reform in 1999. The legislature is now dominated by people born between the mid-1960s and mid-1980s, who grew up in overwhelmingly secular and irreligious circumstances. Only a trace element of them are more than nominally Christian, whilst a clear majority will have no faith. These legislators will find the pretensions of the Church to an independent jurisdiction or to a form of special legal authority to be mostly risible, and that it has been tolerated for so long (since the Church lost most of its jurisdiction between 1825 and 1858) only because it was presumed to be so obscure and, therefore, inoffensive as to be not worth dissipating valuable parliamentary time in securing its final abolition.
*If* victims can organise themselves, and can present their case to ministers and officials (including the Charity Commission) they might find themselves to be pushing at an open door. They might also find that the much-vaunted ‘power’ of the bishops, and of the Church, to be as solid and enduring as the smile of a Cheshire cat.
Should there be a victims’ league, insofar as there may not be one already?
There isn’t a victim’s league yet…
MACSAS has supported individuals, as have Survivors Voices. I would certainly be interested in being part of a collective action, focussed on reform & accountability.
Who could be the parliamentary sponsor, I wonder?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what is meant by the term victims league.
The expression ‘victims’ league’ is probably a maladroit one, and I note (and many thanks to Jane Chevous) the existence of MACSAS and Survivors Voices. I cannot see that MACSAS has a lobbying arm, at least based on a review of their website, but I note that Survivors Voices has ‘changemakers’, and does appear to have an ‘activist’ arm.
What I had in mind was not so much an organisation dedicated solely to accountability, like the Argentine Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, or an organisation dedicated solely to promoting reforms, like the Howard League, as much as a hybrid of the two. Maybe campaigning on behalf of individuals and campaigning for wider reforms is something which MACSAS and Survivors Voices do already (and apologies to them, and to you, if this is the case).
Further to Jane’s query, the sponsors I had in mind at first glance would be people like Liz Twist (Lab., Blaydon), Stella Creasy (Lab., Walthamstow) or Chris Bryant (Lab., Rhondda). Twist has campaigned against various forms of abuse. Creasy has campaigned very effectively against loan sharks, and Bryant is a former priest who has a very ambivalent relationship with the Church. On the Tory side, I would think perhaps of Kate Griffiths (Burton-on-Trent). Of course there may be other equally credible and/or sympathetic potential sponsors.
I also wonder if there might be the possibility of some linkage with the White Ribbon Campaign.
In addition, it would be interesting to know what Unite are doing on behalf of their clergy members who have been caught up in CDM nightmares, and whether Unite are lobbying the Church and, more especially, the government in relation to this.
Thanks for the explanation. I could only think of a football league having temporarily forgotten the Howard League who do an excellent job! I have always thought sustained collective action would be the best and quickest route and hoped that the unsafe practices of the Church would be reviewed by parliament/ house of lords. Your knowledge is very helpful. Perhaps a reader of this blog may feel able to put out feelers to see if we can run with this. As well as the understandable reluctance of many survivors to air their abuse (something I found almost impossible myself at first) fighting your case if you are currently doing so is laborious, time consuming and distressing. This, together with the confidential nature of our complaints, and the fact that revisiting traumatic events triggers further trauma makes collective action difficult. I don’t think I would have have persisted if breaches were acted upon so I could attend services safely, that and the fact we had several leaders involved in safeguarding offences making our parish unsafe. We have seen the difficulties other survivors have endured over many years. As Stephen has recently highlighted, even in a well documented and publicised case involving many abused persons, no one has been held to account after ten years for their inaction. We badly need sponsors.
I can’t speak for Unite and clergy, however the days when unions would bring an organization to its knees are long gone.
I have had experience of two different unions in two separate bits of bother in the NHS and both just folded up in front of management. I subsequently walked out of the employer and a solicitor told me I was certain to win a claim for unfair dismissal.
The reason for this failure to act is apparently that unions are more interested in collective bargaining which supposes a good relationship with the employer.
I wouldn’t waste my time or money belonging to a union again.
Many thanks for that, John. I guess that experience elides with the knowledge that I have of Unite, and I suspect that under Sharon Graham there has been (and will continue to be, as per her campaign) an increasing stress on ‘results’, that will be achieved by the unions working with employers, and not disrupting the operations of the latter. That has been the main thrust of Unite’s policy since 2007, and it was oddly passive in the face of much corporate wrongdoing, even during the ‘firebrand’ McCluskey years.
Presumably, Unite will only lift a finger if there is a coherent counterparty with whom to bargain (instead of 42 different diocesan ’employers’) and there is a critical mass of aggrieved ’employees’, which is doubtful since clergy will be raising grievances sporadically, and almost always one at a time.
Incidentally, Martyn Percy was/is, as I understand it, represented by Unite.
Speaking as a Unite Faith Workers rep, I have never been busier and calls to the Helpline have multiplied. It isn’t just the Church of England either. Bullying seems to play a part in many of the cases we deal with although pastoral reorganisation, mostly to save money also accounts for a lot of cases. Diocesan HR departments vary greatly and what can easily be resolved in one can be a major issue in another.
Many thanks for that, and I am glad to read it. It would be interesting to know if Unite is lobbying the Church (and dioceses ) for changes to the CDM, or its abolition, and for greater protections for clergy and other Church workers, given that there does seem to be widespread bullying.
I would also be interested to know whether there is any overlap between the coercion you describe and pastoral reorganisation, especially in view of the financial plight of many DBFs in the wake of the pandemic. I have heard of instances where clergy have been ‘encouraged’ to move on to create vacancies and, therefore, opportunities for the amalgamation of benefices, but that is generally hearsay. I suppose the question is whether and when the ‘encouragement’ becomes coercive.
Re one of my earlier comments, I have checked Holdsworth and Helmholz, and I ought to mention that the ecclesiastical courts lost perjury in 1823 (they had lost ‘unnatural offences’, witchcraft and bigamy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) to the common law courts, and defamation in 1855. The largest part of their business by far was matrimonial and testamentary work, so when that went in 1857, they were left as a mere husk.
There was Unite input into CDM revision about a year ago: I was amongst those involved.
I have been strong in criticising episcopal culture, yet need to add that bishops–and the whole church–have inherited and usually upheld a custom of undue deference. This has possibly skewed bishops’ self-understandings. Jesus’s words in Matt 18.4 seem important here–“Whoever humbles himself Iike this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”. I think this needs to affect all Church relationships. Deference can be pernicious in shaping how we all relate, and I’ve been rather slow to cotton on to this. It is, I suggest, a two-sided matter.
Like you Mary I have little hope in the Charity Commission taking any action. Individual survivors often report to the Commission but to no avail and though it would be easy for the Commission themselves to link all the complaints and see it as a bigger problem they don’t. In a similar way to the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) which must receive hundreds of complaints from clergy abuse survivors they say they keep the complaints on file to join them together but don’t. It is deeply frustrating and I no longer waste my time as their responses can be as abrupt and abrasive as those of the church.
As for contacting MP’s there are many survivors’ SAR’s that show that when they did the MP sided with the Bishop. In my SAR the Bishop told the MP I was mentally unstable and the matter was being treated pastorally! Acting collectively suggests that survivors’ all know eachother but the reality is we are all kept apart under the guise of protecting our data so banding together is, purposely I suspect, far more challenging than would appear but I am absolutely up for it if it could be achieved.
Taking away safeguarding from Bishops and Diocesan Secretaries is, in my opinion, vital if any progress is to be made.
Totally agree with your last paragraph Trish. It must be clear to the charity commission that there is a huge problem which they seem reluctant to tackle. I also contacted the ICO saying I was blind, had documentary evidence I could post, but that I was unable to upload it. They wrote back saying that as there was no evidence they would close my case! I have made them keep it open and accept posted evidence but it is dispiriting to complain to an organisation which does its best not to see your evidence. I was very lucky with my MP. however. I laid the documentary evidence in front of him. He was a solicitor and found the evidence compelling. He wrote to my Bishop but said the Bishop would not reply. I am now in the process of filing cdm against my Bishop but fear compelling evidence will not be enough to gain justice. First my complaint was ignored in the hope that I would go away. I then heard from a national safeguarding caseworker that my complaint was not about safeguarding. I have won both battles but feel that if national guidelines are first ignored, then acted against, I have very little hope of receiving a fair hearing and justice. The guidelines do not say that those at the highest level can ignore guidelines , but being unaccountable they do. If your complaint against your Bishop is ignored, who else can you go to? How can that person then adjudicate a case they ignored? I know you have tried to be heard fairly, as have other survivors. The law and guidelines are consistently ignored and our government allows the situation to continue, giving absolute rights to those whose show contempt for fair play and justice.
I am very sorry that you and Trish (and others) have been subjected to such exhausting and dispiriting processes.
You write: “He wrote to my Bishop but said the Bishop would not reply. I am now in the process of filing cdm against my Bishop but fear compelling evidence will not be enough to gain justice.” If it is any consolation, I find that hierarchs and their underlings seldom respond to written communications and, even if they do their replies are often, at best, perfunctory (many older prelates had a very different attitude, if I recall the kindness given to me by the likes of Donald Coggan). In the civil service a letter from an MP must receive a prompt, considered and detailed reply; all other communications will be put aside until the MP (or peer) has been sent that response. Failure to do so would have serious consequences for the relevant civil servant and/or minister, and the speaker of the House might even get involved. How slovenly and arrogant is your bishop by comparison!
Another problem is that ecclesiastical lawyers generally serve the Church, since it is such a tiny profession, and they will often have little or no interest in advising private clients in relation to the preparation of CDMs (they will claim that they are conflicted, as they almost certainly will be): another reason why ecclesiastical law needs to be abolished as ‘law’.
As mentioned, the Church has received considerable sums of public money in the recent past via VAT reliefs, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, the Listed Places of Worship Roof Repair Fund, etc. These subventions have relieved the Church to a considerable extent. Whilst bishops will argue that this money has relieved individual parish churches and not dioceses, many parish churches will have been able to pay parish share to DBFs because of these subventions and reliefs, so the DBFs have therefore been receiving indirect subsidies from the state. As such, bishops have a moral duty of accountability, and I think that any parliamentary sponsor should require them to have a legal accountability as well.
Capt. Brown has rightly referred to the culture of undue deference, and its roots in Scripture. However, the humility enjoined by our Saviour ought to apply at every level, as per Proverbs 11:2 and 18:12, Luke 14:11, Romans 12:3, Philippians 2:5-8, James 4:6, etc. What I sense amongst certain hierarchs is a culture of overweening entitlement, enjoyed by some deeply mediocre people, a number of whom would not have been raised to the purple were the Church a normal organisation, or had it not such an extremely shallow talent pool. Indeed, I also sense that this culture of arrogance and entitlement is that much greater because the financial rewards are so slender (it is therefore an offset), and because the competition for ‘position’ sometimes puts very average people into positions of power (I use the word ‘average’ in its Australian sense).
A further problem with the system of ecclesiastical law, as it stands, is that the lawyers are appointed by and work for the Bishop, yet funded by the Diocese. I wonder how often Registrars have seen fit to challenge any episcopal action or decision? (After all, they are fee earners for their law firms–and law firms aren’t charities). By challenge, I mean put their own futures on the line. In several CDM cases described to me, there’s no evidence of their insisting on rigorous observation of the CDM Code of Practice. I wonder if some bishops have any professional appetite for reading such stuff. Any concern for the care of their flock allows small choice in the matter. There’s a significant asymmetry here, needing to be faced if there’s any aspiration in bishops and lawyers to act professionally.
Good point. My diocese blockedmy email knowing I cannot write letters as I am blind. Diocesan solicitors insisted that all my communication must be through them threatening me with legal action if I do communicate with any Diocesan Officer or clergy direct. The Registrar is senior partner of the firm of Diocesan solicitors and knew I had been threatened by them once again. So I wrote to the Bishop via the solicitors trying to file cdm against my incumbent. I asked them to confirm they had forwarded my mail to the Bishop as previously both solicitor and Registrar played a game of cat and mouse, neither confirming nor denying they forwarded my emails to him. Eventually, after many weeks when the Bishop had neither engaged with my formal complaint nor with my attempt to file cdm I wrote to both solicitor and and Registrar saying it was a serious matter to threaten me with legal action if I do communicate directly and yet fail to confirm my formal complaints I been forwarded to the Bishop. I reminded the Registrar he was employed as such and should behave in a suitable manner despite his conflict of interests. I said also that this kind of behaviour could be seen as collusion in safeguarding failures. Within 50 minutes I received an email from a Diocesan officer saying the required assistance to help me file cdm ( necessitated by my disability) had been arranged. Apparently after weeks of inaction it took 50 minutes for the Registrar to contact the Diocese, the Diocese to contact their employment lawyer, the Diocese then to contact a barrister who would then give the assistance. I was then politely asked to to inform the Diocese when an appointment had been made. As I had been told when threatened by the solicitors that Diocesan Officers and clergy had been told not to write to me I then asked the solicitors to confirm they would they would not take legal action if I followed the direct communication I was not permitted to have with the Diocese. As the Diocese carried out the first solicitors’ threats and took action because I complained about breaches of restrictions implemented by the DSA after receiving cease and desist letters, I needed a guarantee the police would not appear on my doorstep to charge me once more and tell me to appear at the police station for an interview under caution with another trial to follow.
That is a very good point. It seems to me that there are two types of ecclesiastical lawyer. There is the small cadre of full-timers, who are often registrars or deputy registrars, and so have no interest in biting the hand which feeds them, and the part-timers, who are usually (predominantly) charity, property and/or trust law specialists who do a bit of ecclesiastical work on the side. The bit they ‘do on the side’ is usually to do with faculty jurisdictions, and therefore aligns with their property interests, or it is to do with the operation of ecclesiastical corporations, and so aligns with their charity/trust work. They will not get that work if they rock the boat. Even many of the full-timers do a mix of work within their respective law firms; moreover, only a very few firms have a critical mass of ecclesiastical law professionals. It’s very much a tiny closed circle.
The registrars, like the chancellors, emerged from the episcopal chanceries of the middle ages and early modern period. They are, essentially, the ‘officials’ or ‘commissaries’ of the bishop. One of the grave flaws in the system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is that the ‘separation of powers’ between the executive and judicial functions has never been effected as satisfactorily as with the secular arm, although many diocesan chancellors will be at pains to stress that separation. Indeed the distinguished ecclesiastical lawyer (fellow of CCCC, rector of St Mary Abchurch and highly unpleasant rapist), E. Garth Moore, was, as chancellor of Southwark, at constant daggers’ drawn with Mervyn Stockwood, in an effort to demonstrate that a chancellor is not a bishop’s lackey, as Stockwood presumed he ought to be.
The ecclesiastical courts were, of course, swept away in 1640; few mourned, as they were highly unpopular. They were revived in 1662, luckily, despite the animosity of the common lawyers (who had been too closely associated with the parliamentary cause), and endured chiefly because of the unusual distinction between a more flexible civil law and a more rigid common law, with the civilians functioning as a ‘family party’ (to use Dickens’ term from ‘Pickwick’) in Doctors’ Commons. The absurdity of this arrangement was increasingly manifest, and they started to lose lumps of their jurisdiction, starting with defamation in 1825, and finally probate and matrimonial in 1857; some of the most eminent civilians were in favour of this change, notably Stephen Lushington. That the ecclesiastical courts were not swept away in 1873 may be attributable to the Judicature Act being the work of a very conservative and high church Liberal, Lord Selborne LC, who did not want to scrap something as relatively inoffensive as the now-rump ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
However, would Selborne and Gladstone have felt the same way if they knew how that jurisdiction would come to be gamed by opportunistic and unscrupulous bishops? It’s time to end this charade.
In case anyone isn’t aware of Bishop Pat Buckley, he is a former RC priest who got into trouble with his bishop and ended up going independent. He wrote a column for years for the News of the World and has a ministry of publishing things the church would rather be kept quiet.
He is pretty much legally unassailable because he has no assets so in addition to making sure he has proof of what he publishes, any solicitor would advise a client against claiming libel. Apart from anything else, publishing what is going on is the point.
I just want to mention this because while it can seem distasteful but if the law, every other avenue and even MPs are unhelpful sometimes you just have to go public. As a former RC myself as far as I can see it is the only thing which forces the church reluctantly to do something.
Quite frankly, the stipendiary ministry has become dominated by weak and ineffectual pompous narcissists, well past their sell-by date. And that’s just the men! The women have so far failed to inspire. They have had to ingratiate themselves into patriarchal systems and remuneration packages, which are wholly incompatible with the reforming zeal many of us had hoped for in the days of the Movement for the Ordination of Women.
MOW was about dismantling overbearing power structures, and revolutionizing the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy, by incremental steps. The golden era of women’s ministry was probably the period during which the contributions of the early pioneers came to the fore, after they were first ordained as non-stipendiary deacons in 1987.
But the increasing rise of clericalism, powerful diocesan structures – and the onerous financial burdens imposed on the parishes by virtue of the late-1990s reforms as to how clergy costs (stipends, pensions and housing) were to be funded – have tended to crush this early idealism. In my view, WATCH has become another one of those top-heavy power structures, albeit one largely dominated by women!
So they now need to push to abolish the Church of England Pensions Board and the Central Stipends Authority. The bishops should set an example by going non-stipendiary. Let the laity run the Church!
Disillusionment with the C of E, and especially its senior layer, seems very widespread – and, in my view, mostly deserved. But I’m puzzled, Andrew, by this sentence in your comment above:
‘The golden era of women’s ministry was probably the period during which the contributions of the early pioneers came to the fore, after they were first ordained as non-stipendiary deacons in 1987.’
I agree that we owe a huge debt to women who served in a lay capacity (e.g. parish workers and deaconesses) prior to the first female deacons being ordained in 1987 – but why single out only the non-stipendiaries among those early pioneers? Don’t those not rich enough to serve without a salary deserve credit too?
I would disagree also that the years following 1987 were golden ones for women’s ministry. It was damned tough for many of us in those days, having to overcome prejudice and misogyny, remain calm in the face of insults, and prove ourselves over and over again. Being in the middle of the Church’s battleground about the priesting of women could be gruesome too, especially in dioceses where the opposition was strong. I wouldn’t want to relive those years for anything. If I’d known what it was going to be like I’m not sure I’d have gone through with it.
I do agree, however, that women have had to learn how to work within a patriarchal system – particularly those who wanted advancement – and have proved disappointingly unable to reform it. But then, I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t possible for anyone to reform the C of E. The corruption is too entrenched. Either it will slowly dwindle and die, or God will work through events to shake it up so drastically that renewal can take place.
Thank you Janet!
I completely agree with you when you say that: “we owe a huge debt to women who served in a lay capacity (e.g. parish workers and deaconesses) prior to the first female deacons being ordained in 1987”, and that it is unfair to “single out only the non-stipendiaries among those early pioneers”. Indeed, you are also right to point out that: “those not rich enough to serve without a salary deserve credit too”.
What I see as the Golden Years for women’s ministry were precisely because they were typified by being tough, when you had to “overcome prejudice and misogyny, remain calm in the face of insults, and prove [y]ourselves over and over again. Being in the middle of the Church’s battleground about the priesting of women could be gruesome too, especially in dioceses where the opposition was strong.” I know, I witnessed the tough terrain!
Although you say that you “wouldn’t want to relive those years for anything,” and that If you’d known what it was going to be like, you wouldn’t be sure you’d have gone through with it, it was clearly worthwhile for those who came after you for whom it has been a somewhat smoother path.
Hi Andrew. You’re right, it does make it worthwhile. That is really the only reason I’m glad I stuck with it. And of course, we women were mostly supportive of each other, too. But there are many of us who will always bear the scars of those years.
Like the apostles, I suggest.