By a PCC Member
In the light of Alice Thomson’s recent article in The Times on 8th September 2026 (‘God help vicars while Mullally’s in charge’ – see: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/god-help-vicars-mullallys-charge-lmrgw7tkh), Surviving Church shares one typical account of a clergyperson currently being abused by the processes and hierarchy of the Church of England. It is no wonder that the numbers coming forward for ordained ministry continue to collapse.
Shortly, very shortly, before Christmas 2024, our suffragan bishop came to our two morning parish services to make an announcement that shocked us – our much-loved, highly gifted, incredibly hard-working Incumbent, Fr Mark, was suspended with immediate effect, supposedly as a ‘neutral act’, and he was to have no contact with us. There was, of course, no information about the reason, but safeguarding was explicitly mentioned. To some in the church and to many in the wider community, this meant only one thing, and sure enough, rumours quickly began to circulate.
Yet when the suspension was renewed six months later for a second time, the reference to safeguarding was quietly dropped with no explanation – nor apology. How can a Christian organisation behave like this? This situation has now dragged on into a third calendar year – a parish robbed of its priest’s ministry, but more seriously, a wonderful priest’s vocation and reputation trashed. For what reason? And to what end?
I feel not just deeply frustrated but also extremely angry. Letters to the diocesan bishop receive platitudinous replies referring to ‘policies’, ‘process’, and ‘procedure’. Is this how we build the kingdom?
My interpretation of the situation? Fr Mark is outside of the mould and as such anyone in authority who felt insecure could view him as a threat – but to the extent of wanting to destroy his ministry? Maybe.
After the suffragan bishop’s announcement at that first morning service, I went forward to say a few words to encourage the congregation to stand firm in their faith and their commitment to church life, and I prayed for our church – and for Fr Mark and his wife. After the service, the suffragan bishop rebuked me for praying for our priest – and not the ‘victims’. Really? It was already decided by the hierarchy that there were not just ‘complainants’, but ‘victims’.
I was banned by the bishop from speaking at the second service. It was deeply distressing. But my distress is as nothing compared to Fr Mark’s. There was even a subsequent attempt by the same suffragan bishop to use threats of total isolation to secure Fr Mark’s immediate resignation. No wonder his health has been so severely affected.
What breaks my heart most of all is watching the deliberate, slow-motion destruction of this priest and his family. Suspension in the Church of England is routinely called a ‘neutral act’, but in reality, it operates as a form of administrative solitary confinement. For nearly two years, they have been left in a cruel administrative vacuum.
The constant threat of total isolation, mounting financial anxieties, and the sheer hostility of being cut off from the community they served so faithfully has caused severe, clinically documented harm. To see a brilliant, compassionate priest and his wife forced to endure this level of continuous psychological and physical strain—while the diocese simply looks the other way—is completely unconscionable. If this is how a Diocesan Bishop ‘pastorally cares’ for his clergy, then the word ‘pastoral’ has lost all meaning.
Sadly, our local lay leadership and PCC have chosen to act at the direction of the diocese and refuse to have any meaningful contact or communication with Fr Mark. A good number of church members have felt compelled to take this line too, whereas others have felt utterly confused. I – and there are others too – have refused to outsource my conscience to the diocese. I have maintained my pastoral relationship with our priest, which has resulted in some pretty nasty things being said and written to me.
I find myself in the painful position of trying to continue to serve the Lord in the parish in which I was baptised and confirmed (and now serve on the PCC) while supporting our priest as I did before he was suspended. There are those, horrified at the way Fr Mark has been treated at every level, who have left the church entirely, including some who were on journeys into faith supported by him. Tragic. Local leaders want us to believe all is well and the parish is flourishing, but the tensions and divisions are evident to anyone who looks below the surface. One church member will no longer even exchange the peace with me.
As someone who takes safeguarding deeply seriously, I have been appalled by how the word ‘safeguarding’ was weaponised in all this. To announce it publicly from the pulpit, allow toxic rumours to spread across the parish and wider community, and then quietly drop the safeguarding label months later without a single word of public retraction or apology is a horrific failure of institutional governance. It harms genuine safeguarding. It manipulates congregational trust. It uses the language of ‘protection’ to execute administrative destruction. True safeguarding protects the vulnerable and seeks truth; it does not inflict unassessed clinical harm on an unrepresented priest and his family.
Fr Mark worked hard to build excellent relationships with the wider community. His suspension has badly affected these relationships, with secular neighbours bemused that the Church could treat one of its own ministers this way. Sadly, secular bodies involved with this case have proved far more sympathetic and supportive to him than the hierarchies of the Church. Where is justice? Where are Gospel values?
Fr Mark has repeatedly made pleas for this matter to be settled by independent mediation or statutory conciliation – only to meet constant, cold rejection from diocesan leaders and their commercial solicitors.
To those leading reviews into institutional culture: I ask you to look past the defensive legalistic jargon of ‘policies and procedures’ and see the human ruin left in the wake of these disciplinary processes. Every single offer of conciliation has been met with a corporate refusal, demonstrating a preference for total destruction over Christian reconciliation. If the Church of England continues to treat its finest ministers like this, it will not just lose its clergy—it will forfeit its very soul.
I feel angry, frustrated, and distressed. It looks as if the situation may well drag on to a third Christmas – and beyond. No wonder there are more resignations by priests than retirements, no wonder there are so few vocations – who in their right mind would offer themselves to be treated like this?
My inspiration to keep going in faith and service comes from Fr Mark, who constantly reminds us: ‘The Lord is more’.