The Archbishop of York wrote to a complainant regarding several serious cases of miscarriage and misconduct of process and injustices in safeguarding policy and practice, to which the individual has been repeatedly subjected. The diocese concerned, Lambeth Palace staff and the NST were all culpable of serious errors, misconduct and coverups. Nothing was done. The email from the Archbishop of York is dated 29 March 2022 (with emphasis added in bold):
Dear XXXX
I hope this finds you well, or at least better than you were.
So many letters have been flying around that I have to confess I have possibly read them in the wrong order. However, I do know that is how it seems to you, and I get that.
Neither do I completely understand why referring the serious issues you raise to the Independent Safeguarding Board isn’t the best way of trying to independently understand what has happened and plot a better way forward.
For a long time people have accused the Church of England of marking its own homework. I share that concern. Hence, I have been a champion of independence over scrutiny of safeguarding for many years. Now that this Independent Board exists I believe it presents the best (and maybe the only) way of taking your complaints and concerns seriously, holding the Church of England to account and enabling us, where necessary, to change.
Now I know your concerns are much wider than your own particular case, and of course I am aware of the pain that others have experienced. And as you may or may not recall I have also myself been subject to investigation myself, so I have a very small taste of how this can feel and what it does to you.
You remind me in one of your letters that evil flourishes when good people do nothing. But we are not doing nothing. We are setting up an Independent Board to scrutinise safeguarding in the Church of England and provide a place where grievances, concerns and alleged injustices can be brought.
That may not be enough. But it has barely started, and I believe it needs to be given a chance.
Evil also flourishes when good people stop talking to each other or only communicate with megaphones.
Or where good people who are trying – often under the radar – to bring about change are so stymied and defined by the mistakes of the past that the very real hope that has been worked for a long time is not given an opportunity to work.
I don’t want us to get into that place. And of course I am dismayed at some of the actions you propose making. I honestly believe that there is a better way of having your legitimate concerns addressed.
And here I don’t want to put things in writing, not because I fear being quoted – though I note your intention to publish correspondence – but because words on a page don’t have a tone of voice. And I want to communicate to you how dearly I hope to bring change and development to safeguarding, but I also want to say that I truly believe real progress has been made and I see it in the way that we are responding to many survivors at the moment, and I could quote several recent examples where people have thanked me for the care and support they have received. I don’t want this put in jeopardy. I know you don’t either.
So this is where I am now. Archbishop Justin and I are proposing that all your concerns are laid before the Independent Board. That is what it is there for.
Help me understand why this is not an acceptable way forward. Or bear with me, and give this a chance.
With my prayers and very best wishes,
++Stephen
Terms of Reference were duly published by the ISB for independently assessing the grievances in question. However, the Terms of Reference did not engage with the grievances, and specifically excluded them. After objections were raised, both Archbishops reiterated the independence and integrity of the ISB in a joint letter (June 14th 2022).
Readers are invited to form their own view as to whether or not the Archbishops regarded the ISB as acting independently and competently in complex safeguarding cases? There is no mention of Phase One or Phase Two.
Dear XXXX
Thank you for your email to both of us.
We realise that we don’t have a common view about what ‘independent’ looks like, but it is difficult to see how the Church could be overseen by any body in this area without contributing to its costs. The ISB is still a new body and it is entirely appropriate that this matter is referred to it.
As you know the ISB has drafted the terms of reference for the work it thinks is appropriate to do and, having discussed the matter on several occasions we really do think we need to afford them the space to do that work. It is a source of continued disappointment to us that you don’t have confidence in this and are unwilling to participate. As we understand it, the invitation to be involved remains open and we hope you realise this.
You seem convinced that the dice are loaded against you before the game has begun. We categorically don’t believe this is the case. As Stephen has consistently repeatedly said whenever you have spoken, we both believe there are important questions to be asked and issues to be addressed. It is our belief that the ISB will do this and we have both worked hard towards its establishment and creation. Moreover, they have indicated that they will be able to report by the autumn this year.
Why not then cooperate with the process, let them make their report, and then see where we are? How could this possibly be worse than the situation we are in at the moment? We have been part of a process that has referred this to the ISB. They have said that they will look at this and report back.
So can we invite you again to reconsider your opposition to cooperating with this process and also, if we may, reconsider the language you use to sometimes besmirch those who are actually trying to help you and move this forward. We are amongst those people and so is Maggie Atkinson. Please think about giving [Maggie] the space and time she needs. If it turns out you’re right, and the whole thing is a sham, and the ISB is in the pockets of those who are against you, then that will become clear. We, however, do not believe it for a moment. And, if we are honest, can’t quite understand why you have reached this conclusion, and wonder whether you have considered how others might interpret this?
With every blessing,
The Most Revd & Rt Hon Justin Welby The Most Revd & Rt Hon Stephen Cottrell Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishop of York
Footnotes: This investigation was subsequently removed from the ISB. Maggie Atkinson was suspended and then dismissed for data breaches. Although William Nye cancelled the investigation, no other process of inquiry is yet in place. The Archbishops’ Council have now sacked the ISB.
Do they believe what they’re saying when they speak/write? How is it that far less eminent people can see straight through their various arrangements?
At best this debacle is omnishambolic. They teeter from one blunder to the next. Each turn heaps pain on people already suffering terribly. And every faux pas brings the Church they purport to represent into further disrepute.
Regarding safeguarding, their one hope must be to turn this over to an independent organisation completely outside their control. Before this is imposed on them.
Stephen,
Over the last 6+ years I have suffered loads of lies, leaks, breaches of my confidentiality etc as a whistleblower & Smyth victim by the likes of Lambeth, Bishopthorpe, NST, AC and 95% of GS etc.
However I have always been able to ‘console’ myself in the knowledge that many others survivors were being treated much worse by the C of E hierarchy than I was.
Despite all that I am so utterly shocked by the content of the above, that words fail me.
The really scary thing for someone who so wants to see the C of E to repent and change re Safeguarding, is that the only response of the current leadership is just to double down further, rather than to repent in sackcloth and ashes which is the minimum requirement after the events of the last 30 years.
Every time the very top leadership pass by on the other side, dozens of victims of Peter Balls,, the 130 worldwide John Smyth victims, the dozens of victims of J Fletcher/ECW, the more than 70 complaints from Iain Broomfield’s own congregation, or 100s more from MP/Soul Survivor etc etc etc, they actively enable and encourage and embolden the next C of E abuser.
And none of them ever seem to want to get off this merry go round.
They merely shoot the messenger who speaks truth to power, aka Jasvinder and Steve from the ISB.
One day everything that is done in secret will be revealed.
The leaders of the C of E behave as though they have complete impunity to do as they please, and that they will never face consequences.
Yet it is a really important part of our faith that we have to give account of ourselves.
So for abuse victims of the church, first damaged by those in the holy robes, then gaslighted by the senior leaders in holy robes – it leads us to question our faith.
Because if church leaders (the so called ‘anointed’) behave completely against the character of God and then senior leaders back them and do the same – what do you think that does to our faith? The faith of abuse victims, our friends and families, and more widely across the nation. It’s such a key part of why people have left the church.
We can all see the blood on your hands.
The emperor has no clothes
It’s time you understood what people in this nation see when they look at the church. A hiding place for the worst kind of abusers; an arrogant institution that will never hold itself to account or make restitution; a relic from the old empire that is deeply damaging to women, people of colour and LGBTQ folk
You need to clothe yourselves in the modern day version of sackcloth and ashes – which is a truly independent ISB that is allowed to do its job. Reinstate Jas and Steve, remove Meg Munn and stop obstructing truth and justice
There are two meetings next week for survivors to meet with 2 members of the Archbishops Council on the 3rd and 4th, so that we can share our views and feelings. On the 5th Steve and Jasvinder have their last day!
What a complete farce, I would prefer they were honest and actually said “we don’t care what you think because we aren’t going to listen.”
As the letter says I will have to consider the language I use because I can’t think of any without 4 letters in them at the moment.
They are welcome to make contact with me.
Tried to post this earlier, but will try again. I’ve several observations.
1. The Church is a confederation of confederations. Each diocese is a confederation of self-supporting parishes. The national Church is a confederation of dioceses. In view of the premium placed on subsidiarity (as the parishes originated mostly as manorial chapels or endowed minsters) episcopal control was weak. The power of the episcopate was only substantive in the field of discipline, and this power was guarded jealously.
2. Since the 1840s attempts have been made to realise efficiencies by welding together a genuinely national Church. However, this has been in the context of declining attendance and income. The incomes and prestige of the clerical profession have fallen dramatically. Therefore playing power games within the Church becomes a psychic offset, essential to preserve faltering self-esteem. The exercise of control offsets the lack of monetary compensation, and becomes a form of compensation in itself. The exercise of disciplinary power by the episcopate is paternalistic, discretionary and, therefore, capricious. The declining prestige of the profession has made people more willing to expose clerical malefaction.
3. The abandonment of Erastianism led to self-government, which drives accountability and creates its own irresistible momentum. That process is in conflict with the preservation of episcopal power, and it makes it all the more important for the bishops to indulge in rear-guard actions, bolstered by the revived diocesan bureaucracies which have waxed since the 1920s, and which provide the bishops with a nexus of support in diocesan and national synods.
4. IICSA raised the spectre of state intervention and a return to Erastus. The ISB was therefore created to forestall more profound change, and to keep reform within limits acceptable to the episcopate. Two of the ISB members, sadly, took their TOR at face value; a smash-up was inevitable. However, the present crisis does not resolve the dilemma: any supervisory function will only be acceptable to the Church if it does not jeopardise the bishops’ control over discipline. The rights of abuse victims do not form part of the underlying calculation.
5. The AC is the mouthpiece of the bench. The nature of its response to the crisis reveals the dilemma. Adopting the Millwall defence, it reasons that the civil power will not act on any threat to intervene, and will not sacrifice parliamentary time or taxpayer money to fund an alternative to the ISB. That brinkmanship, risky as it is, may well pay off. That it shreds the reputation of the Church still further is deemed a risk worth taking to preserve the pay and pensions of current staff; the future will just have to take care of itself.
6. The bishops also rely on Synod not taking action, because reform would result in a scramble for the spoils by Church parties, victims being sacrificed to preserve factional peace.
Safeguarding in the Church of England will never improve, it will just get worse, another PCR3 will happen again soon, more high profile priests and safeguarding advisors who have gone under the radar will come to the publics attention, and, no independent safeguarding board can ever challenge abuse in the church until church abusers in positions of trust are removed.
I expect the next Independent Safeguarding Board will be removed by the archbishops, and then in term they will be asked to step down like John Stentanu.
I can’t understand how so many abused people are suffering because of the church’s complete lack of respect and compassion let alone honesty. Surely these should be at the heart of Christian faith. Most of all it is the length of time that this has persisted with no chance of completion or moving on.
Like many traditional institutions based on power the crumbling is beginning I suspect.
Margaret. Church abusers if they do not repent, confess their sins and turn away from their wicked ways one day will face Jesus, the people to whom they work for. Justin Welby should have a zero tolerance approach to anyone in church leadership who abuses and to remove them.
Stephen, Thank you for posting these letters which are very revealing.
Those of us who have been closly following the events of the past week will see the discrepamcies between the information in these and information given in the radio broadcasts. With Synod fast approaching I am sure that all concerned members will be preparing as to what can be done there because we are all agreed that something must be done and urgently.
We wish Synod members well and any support from the rest of us will be given willingly. Just ask.
The Church of England, just needs to be inclusive towards everyone, everyone can have free speech, and are a valuable member of the church community. We do not exclude anyone.
I think we have to assume that the archbishops and Mr Nye are not blithering incompetents: that this course of events was not only foreseeable but foreseen by them, and that the present situation, being the reasonably probable outcome of their actions, is a situation that they intended. The question for them, then, is: to whose advantage is this situation?
It is certainly not to the advantage of the Archbishops’ Council or the wider Church as an institution, as it seriously damages their reputation for probity and efficiency. It is not to the advantage of the clergy or the laity of the church as it damages their confidence in the ability of the church leadership to lead. It is not to the advantage of those who are not Christians, as it reduces the chance that they will seek to turn to Christ through the church. It is not to the advantage of victims and survivors, as it seriously retraumatises those directly involved, and further diminishes the confidence of those not yet involved.
The only group that I can see finding the situation advantageous are the abusers, past present and future. How is it possible that this could come about?
You have more politely expressed what I thought. I finally gingered myself up to read the stuff in the Church Times. And the only thing I could think of was “what the hell are they up to”! I just can’t imagine.