As we all know, the Church of England is governed according to a system of law or internal rules, known as canons. Some provisions in this legal system tie it closely to the secular legal structure of English law. When we speak about the relationship between church law and secular law, we are in a complex area of legal territory which is summed up by the use of the word established. This single word points us to the way that church rules get interwoven with the secular laws of our nation. Because establishment only applies to England, the other British nations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own canons to regulate their affairs. Few clergy have had to involve themselves with understanding church law as most of the time they are encouraged to hand over any church legal problems to the experts in this area of church life. I once had to stand by while my local council battled the question over whether a class 6 highway, running through my churchyard, was the responsibility of the church or the local authority. The then Chancellor of the Gloucester Diocese, Garth Moore, declared himself minded to hold a Consistory Court on the matter, since the existing rules did not provide a clear precedent for this situation. The Court, with its massively attendant expense, did not in fact take place, since the Chanceller died before the Court could be assembled to judge the matter.
This one event during my time in Gloucestershire was perhaps the only time when church law was brought to my attention. Those in charge of churches and parishes now spend far more time being made aware of legal regulations that govern the running of ordinary church life. Since the beginning of the ‘safeguarding era’, everyone with administrative responsibilities has had to spend a great deal of time ensuring that all the legal form filling is correctly completed. Clergy now also work with the ever-present concern that one of the parishioners may file a CDM complaint, something that may require an immediate suspension. The anxiety that someone may bring up an accusation from the past, even from the distant past, means that some clergy insure themselves against such an eventuality even though they are now retired. In 2024, church law is no longer to do just with arcane rules and issues to do with archaic property rights. Today it reaches far more obviously and intrusively into the Sunday-by-Sunday rhythm of ordinary church life and, not infrequently, causes distress and actual harm.
My generalising comments about church law do not stem from a place of familiarity with the topic, but rather from a place that most of us occupy, that of bafflement and occasional deep frustration. Church law penetrates ordinary parish life far more than in the past so that it can interrupt ordinary events in an unhelpful way. When an ordinary parish has to negotiate its way through a legal minefield, the fall-out is seldom experienced as benign. Those who have encountered church lawyers, employed at vast expense to defend the church institution, sometimes use words like ‘brutal’, ‘dishonest’ or ‘unscrupulous’ to describe their way of working. There was nothing gentle or compassionate observable in the conduct of the Christ Church Percy case on the part of the well funded College legal team. The recent appearance of a rapidly expanding safeguarding ‘industry’ has nowhere revealed a culture of compassionate attention to the needs of survivors by the specialist legal teams. Julie McFarlane’s account on Radio 4 of her ordeal at the hands of the lawyers employed by the Church to defend her clerical abuser is salutary. Gilo also speaks about the way that well-paid church lawyers use ‘aggressive and bullying questioning to try to avoid paying (in abuse cases) more than nominal amounts in compensation’. At the opposite end of the ‘industry’ we find legal work being attempted by groups without the benefit of anyone present who has training or skill in legal matters. Much of the work of Safeguarding officers in the Dioceses will involve legal questions but few of these employees have legal training. Forensic skills, needed to establish the truth or falsehood of an accusation, are unlikely to be in evidence within a church-based core group. Thus, we still hear the claim, as in the ‘Kenneth’ case, that the ‘child must be believed’ without even the most rudimentary examination of relevant evidence. In Kenneth’s case, the miscarriage of justice has now lasted over four years, and no challenge to the original assessment is possible because there are no mechanisms available to question the arbitrary judgement of an untrained core group and a DSA. Sometimes, also, the lawyers who serve the church by holding church courts get things badly wrong. It is now generally accepted that the enormously expensive Consistory Court against Brandon Jackson at Lincoln was wrong in its conclusions. A similar criticism could be levelled against those senior church lawyers who repeatedly advised bishops that they could not apologise to abuse victims without incurring potential financial liability. A legal rule was firmly re-established as recently as 2006 in the so-called Compensation Act. This stated clearly that apologies did not affect any legal decision connected with compensation claims.
The legal shenanigans in Aberdeen and the Scottish Episcopal Church currently display another church situation where legal processes and decisions are causing enormous damage to church life. I have no comment to make on the guilt or otherwise of Bishop Anne Dyer. What I find appalling is that we have an extremely expensive legal structure which is unable to deliver the justice that is required for both complainant and accused. The Procurator expressed his opinion that although there was ‘realistic prospect of conviction’, the process of giving evidence by the complainant was ‘a source of anxiety’. Thus, proceeding with the case was not in the public interest. My own reaction to this manifest failure in the church’s further inability to operate a functional operation of justice is a combination of frustration and disappointment. What should we conclude from this failure to declare neither innocence nor guilt in Scotland? Is this far smaller church also unable to operate within a functional justice system so that matters of great importance to the ordinary congregations of Aberdeen can be resolved? In any institution a failure of justice, or even the ability to determine facts about the behaviour of its senior leader, will act as a fatal blow to the working of morale and trust in the ranks. It is hard to see where the story will go from here. One expects that Bishop Dyer will work out her remaining years in the diocese until retirement, but without any of the fire that should belong to her ministry. Too much information about alleged bullying has leaked into the public domain for her to be able to carry on as if nothing had happened.
There is one section in the story as recorded by the Church Times on the 11th October which I find revealing but also rather depressing at the same time. As part of a statement from the Diocese with the announcement of the halting of the proceedings against her, Bishop Dyer added the comment that she was ‘extremely pleased that this unfortunate episode has been brought to a successful conclusion.’ I found myself slightly choking over these words as there is no evidence that the halting of proceedings has resolved anything, least of all creating a ‘successful conclusion’. There is also a remarkable absence of regret at the serious damage that has been caused by the case to individuals, the diocese and the whole Scottish Episcopal Church. The Bishop’s comments can, no doubt, be attributed to a publicity officer or crisis manager. While we have been spared the Church of England language of ‘lessons have been learned’ in this statement, we are still given words that betray an appalling lack of insight or regret for an incredibly damaging episode in the life of this small Christian denomination. The allegations of ‘bullying and the abuse of a position of trust and responsibility’ would suggest that a time for reflection and self-examination, not to mention humility, was required from the Bishop. Humble acknowledgement of any failure on her part is completely absent from this statement. An opportunity for using the two-year suspension for moving towards a new servant style of leadership also does not appear to have been explored in a way that might have made the picking up the task of leadership a little easier.
Over the past twenty years or so the Church (in England and Scotland) has found itself more enmeshed with the tentacles of legal conflict due to safeguarding concerns and the binary choices that the LLF is thrusting upon us. The irreconcilable differences being laid bare by our failures to agree on same-sex issues may push the Church to having to resolve its tensions by using the law rather than the tools of reconciliation and love. From what we have seen in Scotland and England, the law has not proved to be a good tool for resolving tensions and divisions. We need to be able to establish reconciliation without being forced to avail ourselves of the inflexible tools of a legal system. Until recently that was the case. Any further descent by the Church into a world of litigation must be regarded as a step back away from the teaching and spirit of Christ.
LACKEY PEOPLE and little people-that’s the established order within Anglicanism. Empty Cathedrals and Churches tell a tale.
Servile lackeys in the clergy have all too often failed to challenge Bishops when ill-treatment or abuse of adults-trainees-children was self-evident. Individual conscience is a sensitive instrument. But is the law (especially as applied in Church by Bishops) crude, blunt, coarse?
Bishops have perpetually failed to fix urgent formal inquiries when confronted with more than ample witness (or whistleblower) evidence. The fullest available and relevant evidence, assessed by an independent judge or panel, is the standard we expect in courts. The essential essence of sound law is not rocket science.
But Church scandals (especially high profile charismatic-evangelical ones like New Wine and Pilavachi) see unaccountable senior leaders claim special “authority”. Anyone who challenges-‘the anointed’-is then a heretic or “troublemaker”. Kangaroo Court Justice has been exposed in lots of scandals, with victims shunned and perpetrators of savagery protected.
The saddest irony is how courts (and other secular groups) apply biblically derived principles of natural justice as a matter of course. Letting the witness evidence speak for itself is what truly matters in the final analysis. The Old and New Testament speak about the evidence of 2 or 3 witnesses being of paramount importance.
Does our Bishops’ wilful or naive ignorance of basic legal principles underlie countless Anglican abuse scandals? Conflicted bishops perhaps feel some sense of an absolute duty of care to their staff. Their ability to impartially act justly is hence compromised.
Bishops seek ‘criminal’ standards of proof from victims. This empowers abusers over time, who come to realise they are free to do pretty much as they please. And does this underlie countless problems which are tearing our denomination to shreds?
There is no AI solution, no procedures solution, no committee solution, no lessons learnt solution, or any other formulaic device which will extricate us from the current hell. Contempt for what the bible has to say about ‘natural justice’ is the real problem.
The scale and number of victims, in repeated high profile scandals, gives the game away. But our Bishops and Archbishops’ cowardice prevents them from admitting this. There can be no meaningful progress until they do.
Your comments about the behaviour of lawyers isn’t dissimilar to criticisms made by groups representing rape victims who are subjected to similar purgatory. The problem stems from our fundamental legal system, which is based on adversarial contests between two opposing sides. (Someone once said that hopefully, the truth might get squeezed out between them.)
‘Absolute duty of care to their staff’, aka ‘the Old Pals Act. Any organisation which has legal powers to be its own judge, jury and executioner, be it police, medical, military or clerical, is wide open tp corruption and abuse.
Stephen speaks of a “rapidly expanding safeguarding ‘industry’”without any compassion to the needs of survivors and that members of these groups lack training or skill in legal matters especially in forensic skills.
Kenneth’s diocesan secretary said that the safeguarding team were unable to carry out a forensic examination to the level required but it was not necessary anyway as, “The primary role of the safeguarding team” was to ‘protect and prevent the circumstances occurring which might result in future allegations or concerns being raised’. However they did nothing in practical terms to fulfil these requirements; instead they labelled Kenneth ‘High Risk’, a view based solely on unfounded and fabricated evidence.
Thus the consequences of an untrained and unskilled group.
There was no independent complaints or appeals procedure to turn to. In her report Professor Jay pointed out that this lack of proper procedures led to decisions and outcomes ‘often taking years to be concluded’ (page 29 Jay report).
This is exactly what has happened, Kenneth’s case will soon be entering its fifth year and still counting. Three weeks ago Kenneth asked the dean if he could have a former voluntary role restored. The dean said not whilst the allegation against him still stood. It only ‘still stood’ because the dean colluded with the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser (DSA) in refusing an investigation. There never has been one.
Similarly, last year Kenneth’s Diocesan Bishop also supported the DSA. Although he had met with us for over two hours, read all our evidence, and sympathised, he still accepted the DSA’s contrary story of our case. He said sometime later, “I am not in a position to override the advice I have been given”, adding, “but ‘Kenneth’, will remain in my prayers”. Why did he say that? Why did he not take action on what he knew to be untruths on the part of the DSA? He is a bishop. Surely it is his moral duty to uphold Christian values as indeed it is with the Archbishops and other hierarchy of the C/E who are also closing their eyes to the truth.
What are they afraid of that they feel unable to promote Christian values of honesty truth and compassion? They tell lies in order to protect their own reputations and those of colleagues.They have no thought of the suffering of the victims. How could the Archbishop of York lie to Synod at the expense of the survivors? Yet he did. This corruptness is evident from the top down; have they no conscience?
My friends, it is high time these senior clergy responsible for such cruelty are called out. Their high powered autocratic rule should end and soon. I hope all such safeguarding blogs and comments are being drawn to their attention. Not only might they realise they are heading towards the destruction of the C/E but some at least might have a pang of conscience.
To all you damaged souls and to those fighting their cause, my prayers, as always, are with you and now I include those in the C/E who are persecuting you.
Clay-footed leadership incompetence, as exposed in serial adult or child ill-treatment cases, often has many potential elements. But the media often hone in on historical abuse of children by paedophile clergy. Yet there are many more types of punishment dished out to Church members.
The point made here is a really good one. The leadership chaos within Anglicanism sees kangaroo court justice prevail: innocent people are accused or punished, while perpetrators of abuse are shifted and shielded. How often are the safeguarding credentials, qualifications or experience of staff actually listed on diocesan websites?
I witnessed a scandal where a diocese lost a professor, a teacher, a medic and a businessman. All had good reason to feel they were unfairly being accused of sexual misdemeanours in vulgar terms. Yet when this was reported to an Archbishop no formal inquiry ever followed.
Spiritual abuse is enmeshed within charismatic-evangelical groups. “Anointed leaders” brand anyone who challenges them “a troublemaker”, and surround themselves with servile lackey support workers. The “anointed leadership prophet” does not need to worry about everyday material realities or law.
What value has accountancy, financial skill, victim trauma counselling skills, national law, human rights, Church rules? A personal hotline to God can replace all of this! Why bother with the Bible, or that troublesome direction to let the evidence of 2-3 witnesses settle matters.
Sad indeed, James. I was once thrown off a jury as being emotionally unstable and unfit for service, following a complaint against me by either a vicar or one of his lackeys – the court system denied me justice by treating me as a criminal, and NEVER ONCE asking my version of the story.
The reason? I had stood up against an oppressive and sociopathic priest (who hated evangelicals) who was grossly abusing a friend of ours, his curate, and complained to the bishop. As my friend said, she knew she would never get justice in that parish, or diocese – indeed, chummy boy was promoted and posted. ‘Dead cat over the wall.’
Having been dismissed, I told the court clerk exactly what lay behind it, and said ‘I suppose you realise, you’ve been lied to?’ The look of sheer horror on her face was more than enough reward – also destroying what little trust I still had in the CofE and UK legal system in the process. All power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The real antidote is honest lawyers in positions of power. That’s my suspicion, anyway!
Did Harold Shipman work via an established UK practice, where local solicitors documented deaths as a sideline, as well as everyday family or property law?
Was it better to have a dual (law-health) qualified person working independently over a wide area, with concentration on death reporting alone?
Light at the end of the tunnel is nearer than we think. Our Bishops need to be stripped of (or surrender) safeguarding responsibilities.
Safeguarding needs to not be a niche thing-VA’s and children. Anyone can be abused (ill-treated) and all need to be protected. It will happen, hopefully sooner, not later…….
That sounds a very difficult experience, John. But well done for standing up for the curate.
I sometimes encounter people who think it bizarre that anyone should have enemies. It’s clear that those people have never made a stand for justice or truth.
Well, it didn’t do my emotions much good – or my respect for authority. The sad thing was that Jill and I were the only people in the parish prepared to make a stand. Say no more.
James, if the bishops surrender or are stripped of their safeguarding responsibilities , there must be a strong independent appeals facility as advised by Professor Jay. Otherwise the whole process will be in the hands of those without proper training or legal skills. We have seen in Kenneth’s case what happens when that happens because the bishop has abdicated his responsibilities.
Should read,’abdicated his safeguarding responsibilities’.
Lackey people, with no respect for lay people, have trashed the Anglican Church. Bullying bishops, who shift and protect abusers, are a menace. But lackey people, who subserviently watch it all unfold without responding, are another major problem.
National anti-discrimination law, and natural justice, plus company or public sector rules, apply in countless settings. Lay people in the Anglican Church have no union or immediate representation. Therein is the recipe for the chaos we see. Bishops who fail to protect lay members ‘outsmart’ themselves. Word gets around fast, and dioceses or parishes quickly empty.
Why do we not have retired judges, or barristers, overseeing safeguarding over larger areas? People outside of dioceses would eliminate the-‘conflict of interest’-when a diocesan employed or based person has responsibility. We also need to protect absolutely everyone. This rubbish of only ‘child and VA protection’ is sheer folly. It’s a creepy halloween myth that Church abuse is largely about sleazy paedophile priests or youth workers. The full gamut of hidden abuse is massive.
Is there an irony with Pilavachi? Is the Anglican Church inclined to say that what was done to ministry trainees was not a form of abuse? Would repeatedly straddling semi-naked trainees in bedside massages have provoked a stronger response in a business or public sector setting?
Two stunningly good new Church newspaper articles shed light on the sentiments in the Church-‘by law’-established piece above.
Evangelicals Now (Oct 2024) has:-‘How do Christian legal principles help navigate scandals?-‘ by David Shepherd. It’s in essence about not letting the witness evidence of 2-3 speak for itself. Is this-if judged harshly-a form of blasphemous contempt for the bible? Natural justice-as derived from the bible-is good enough for our courts. Pity the C of E has less regard for-‘natural justice’-when we read around multiple scandals being exposed.
C of E Newspaper 11 Oct 2024 has ‘Priests should be trained to recognise power imbalances after Pilavachi review’. Law-Laity-Lackeys underlie multiple abuse or ill-treatment cover-ups. Lawlessness is well exposed by the media. Laity (and victim) powerlessness is self-evident. Lackeys, in the clergy, is the still unspoken problem problem. Has the Pilavachi story got many-‘less than innocent bystanders’?-clerical observers who kept quiet? The fear of being exposed as-‘a troublemaker’-underlies a-‘Cosa Nostra’-silence problem. Until that is-‘exorcised’-Anglicanism is doing ‘pseudo-exorcisms’ of its own membership: not clever!
Well, you could go and ask the directors of a certain London store what they think about that, I suppose….
Pressed the wrong key…… And what about those PCC’s, General Synods and other bodies who have a damned good idea what is going on, but for reasons of personal prejudice, politics or denominational ‘deference culture’ choose to keep their eyes closed, or support the ‘status quo’? This is always the problem – getting the ‘silent majority’ to stand up and be counted – particularly if they have a vested interest of some sort in not disturbing things, there are going to be problems. It isn’t just Parliament where those who refuse to obey the party whips who get the boot…..
Back to human nature again, I’m afraid.
Or the duty of a small number of people to question and challenge? Truth challenges power etc…Other thing is to focus away from money and buildings……..