Imagine a PC(USA) containing all the past and subsequent splits as factions.
But in that case, we’re primarily talking about the conservative–moderate–liberal spectrum, which seems to me at least a little different. Though maybe not.
Yeah, it's not an exact parallel - but even in that range you are talking on very different practises of worship - ranging from exclusive psalmody through to mega-church like evangelical, very strong ideas on the need to commune infants and so on.
Yes, I can see the parallel, even though as you say, it’s not an exact one.
But yes, I’d imagine the official/national nature of the CofE is a major factor here, and that it might lead to something akin to division into political parties, maybe?
The official nature means a certain cultural dominance that has played into a reluctance to leave it and go elsewhere, coupled with the fact that its formation merged multiple strands of the Reformation (from Lutheran and Reformed) as well as completely secular reasons for starting a new church.
And yes, that makes sense, too. I guess I was just comparing the CofE to the Episcopal Church
Yeah and the original composition of the Epscopal Church was much more culturally and economically homogenous than the CofE, in part because of the voluntaristic nature of the Church (less so initially but more so after the drafting of the Constitution).
Also, what was Tudor's churchmanship? 'Sound' or up the candle?
Are the two mutually exclusive?
Oh God yes - see the Evelyn Waugh quote about Pusey House in Brideshead Revisited - which I’m not about to link to or repeat here.
You could be an Anglo Catholic duke and you’d still be below the salt.
Confusingly Anglo catholics would also use the word ‘sound’ of fellow travellers they approve of, but there’s sound and sound. Anglo Catholicism carries with it all sorts of unhelpful associations - political, social, etc. which when it comes down to it are not those of the Establishment.
He had been suspended from ministry for 5 years in 1988. That was around the time Childline was set up, partly to support children who were being treated as willing participants in their own abuse, even being presented by defence council as having 'seduced' the poor men who couldn't be expected to resist 'temptation'.
I think attitudes have progressed, thank goodness, although not as much as I would like.
Again, I am not sure what Cottrell could have done differently, although I am open to having it explained. Tudor had gone through both a criminal trial and Church penalty for those offences. No, he shouldn't have been able to resume ministry in the 1990s, but given he was, until another offence came to light what should his bishop have done?
It is perfectly possible for an employer to have a change of recruitment & retention policy and then not retain staff who are not consistent with the new policy.
It may be possible depending on the circumstances, although dismissing staff who are not consistent with a changed policy may amount to unfair dismissal.
In any event, clergy in local church settings (not just in the Church of England) are not usually legally employees, but office holders and the law for office holders is not the same as for employees.
Changing the legal framework is possible via the quasi-parliamentary processes of General Synod and subject to Parliamentary approval. Typically, however, English law is very resistant to the idea of laws having retrospective effect. It can be done, but requires the clearest possible wording, and tends to be highly controversial.
Some of David Tudor's timeline while in the diocese of Chelmsford (mostly BBC and related):
In 2005, Tudor was suspended as police investigated an allegation he had indecently assaulted a child in the 1970s. He was not charged and was allowed back to work under conditions.
From January 2008, Tudor had been working under a safeguarding agreement preventing him from being alone with children or entering schools in Essex - and yet months later he had become an area dean in charge of 12 parishes.
The BBC investigation also found that, in 2012, Mr Tudor paid £10,000 to a woman, known as Jessica, who says that she was sexually abused from the age of 11.
A spokesperson for Archbishop Cottrell told the BBC that he had been guided by legal advice that no further action could be taken, and that Mr Tudor “admitted no liability” in making the payment.
While Mr Cottrell's office maintains there were no legal grounds to act until 2019, the BBC can reveal that Mr Cottrell was told in 2012 about the £10,000 payout Tudor had made to Jessica, who says she was sexually abused by him, sometimes very violently, from the age of 11 during the 1970s when Tudor was training to be a minister.
Stephen Cottrell was Bishop of Chelmsford from 2010 to 2020. According to Church Abuse (in relation to the BBC's File on Four), there were a number of things that Stephen Cottrell could have done differently:
For a start, the Archbishop could have removed from Tudor the office of Area Dean of Hadleigh. The position of Area Dean is the gift of the bishop and can be granted and removed at will. By retaining Tudor in that position, Stephen Cottrell was retaining the inherited position where Tudor was given additional responsibility and authority over other clergy.
It was also open to Stephen Cottrell not to install Tudor as an honorary canon of Chelmsford Cathedral in 2015. Tomorrow’s File on Four programme says that Cottrell’s office told them that “the new title for David Tudor wasn’t a promotion or personal reward but happened because of a change in policy, meaning Area Deans will automatically made honorary canons.”
Did this change in policy happen in a vacuum? Was Stephen Cottrell not consulted on it? Did nobody review who the area deans were to see who would be made a canon under the new policy?
...
Thirdly, in 2012 that Tudor had made a £10,000 out of court settlement to “Jessica” (a pseudonym used by the File on Four programme). Cottrell told the programme that he had received legal advice to the effect that as the payment was made without an admission of liability, no action could be taken.
Wrong: it was perfectly in order for this to have been the impetus for a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure. As “Jessica” had initiated a civil claim against Tudor, it is highly likely that she would have provided a statement to an archdeacon to allow such a complaint to proceed.
This last point raises several questions. We don't know the detail of any statements the diocese might have been provided, or of the legal advice that Cottrell received (eg the risk of the Church being sued by Tudor if it had proceeded with disciplinary action). I note that in the years around 2012, there was an ongoing question about the extent to which employment law applied to clergy. (In 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled - that office holders should not be treated as employees - in a case regarding unfair constructive dismissal dating from 2009, although that was specifically about Freehold rather than Common Tenure.)
Canon Hindley at Blackburn? Where he was paid off, in the end?
It's where the rubber hits the road, isn't it. Closing down the cathedral would have been criticised. Paying him off was criticised.
The trouble with saying it is OK to break the law on a matter of principle is that 'principle' is very subjective. Personally I think everyone has a right to due process, and everyone should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. Unfortunately that creates a situation where abusers can operate in the grey areas that can't be proved.
When I was a school (back in the last millenium!) there was a teacher that all the girls 'knew' to avoid. I can't remember how I heard, but I 'knew' it was unwise to be alone with him. A few years after I left school I heard he had been sacked for sexually assaulting a pupil.
What should have happened if I had reported that all the girls knew he was dodgy? When there was nothing I had seen or experienced? Probably nothing any other girls had seen or experienced, but had sensed? Should he have lost his job on those grounds? Should the headteacher, listening to their pupils, have been willing to break the law and sack them because the issue was so important? It would have saved that girl from being assaulted.
What if those concerns had been reported to the police, who (most likely situation) found no substance to them? Should the headteacher have sacked the member of staff anyway? What if the initial concern had been malicious - because they had maybe given a detention for not completing homework? And then gossip spread the 'knowledge'.
Part of the trouble with safeguarding is that good safeguarding is preventative. But the law - rightly - insists on evidence of wrongdoing.
I am a social worker and PSO, just to be open about my involvement in CofE safeguarding. So I follow these cases closely. And I find it worrying that complex situations get reduced to simplistic headlines that suggest these decisions are easy and it is straightforward to remove abusers.
It isn't easy to remove someone's livelihood - quite rightly. There needs to be proof of an offence (to at least a civil degree of balance of probabilities) that has not already been punished.
But safeguarding risk assessments try to predict the future, which is open to all sorts of legal challenge.
I think the clergy not being treated as employees makes the situation much more difficult than it would otherwise be - but in terms acting on principle, Tudor’s case seems to have met a civil threshold since at least 2012 and he wasn’t removed for another 8 years.
CRB checks came in in 2002, I am required to pass an enhanced check on a regular basis to keep my job. Could something like that not be included in an amended clergy discipline measure - and could that not have been put into the 2003 measure ? If bishops knew the situation surely they should have used that knowledge to inform that act.
Clergy have been subject to CRB checks, and, since 2012, regular DBS checks. Obviously I don’t know what David Tudor’s checks showed up. I’m guessing that the offence he was acquitted of, and the convictions overturned on appeal would not have shown up on the checks. I’m guessing that it is because he was believed, on the balance of probabilities, to present a risk that the arrangements to prevent him being with children were in place, but for a variety of possible reasons the concerns may not have been able to be proved (even on the balance of probabilities) in a tribunal so as to secure his dismissal.
It already is and not just for clergy. But you still can't destroy someone's livelihood and lay waste to their vocation based on suspicion.
A priest aquaintance of mine was suspended following accusations that were made to the police of abuse that was supposed to have happened decades earlier. He was just abandoned by his diocese. He commited suicide the day before he was due to report to his police station for an interview. The police later said he had no case to answer.
These can be complex situations and shouty headlines based on knee jerk reactions are not the way to go.
That’s normal. Someone who retires or resigns from office doesn’t have permission to officiate until they apply for it in some place in a diocese where they will be ministering.
The days are long gone when a retired priest could simply be asked to ‘help out’ - even if the retired priest was also and archdeacon, bishop, or archbishop.
Clergy have been subject to CRB checks, and, since 2012, regular DBS checks. Obviously I don’t know what David Tudor’s checks showed up. I’m guessing that the offence he was acquitted of, and the convictions overturned on appeal would not have shown up on the checks. I’m guessing that it is because he was believed, on the balance of probabilities, to present a risk that the arrangements to prevent him being with children were in place, but for a variety of possible reasons the concerns may not have been able to be proved (even on the balance of probabilities) in a tribunal so as to secure his dismissal.
And without a current DBS check clergy are not allowed to do anything at all. No pastoral visits, no Sundays, nothing.
Which is why you're told to get the renewal submitted in plenty of time before the current one runs out.
I'm assuming that in this instance, as Turner was dealing with adults, it was decided that provided there were other safe-guards in place, the risk was acceptable.
And that Tribunal case, if he was dismissed, wouldn't succeed.
Which, based on my reading of Tribunal cases, is totally possible. As other posters have pointed out, press coverage of Tribunal cases is often more about provoking outrage in the reader than explaining how employment law actually works.
And without a current DBS check clergy are not allowed to do anything at all. No pastoral visits, no Sundays, nothing.
Which is why you're told to get the renewal submitted in plenty of time before the current one runs out.
To be fair, they don't actually "run out". But good practice is to have them renewed every three years. In any case, they're only as good as the date they were issued.
And without a current DBS check clergy are not allowed to do anything at all. No pastoral visits, no Sundays, nothing.
Which is why you're told to get the renewal submitted in plenty of time before the current one runs out.
To be fair, they don't actually "run out". But good practice is to have them renewed every three years. In any case, they're only as good as the date they were issued.
And only show you've not been caught for anything...
Back in 1989, when my minister was jailed, he would have had a clean SCRO check certificate.
(I can't remember when SCRO (Scottish Criminal Records Office) checks were introduced - I had one in the mid 1990s to help at my kids toddler group. Its PVG (Protection of Vulnerable Groups) here now.)
I think it was mid to late 90s, @North East Quine . I was working as church officer for a church in Edinburgh‘s new town then, and I remember that the scout master was declaring he would quit if he had to get an SCRO check. Not that he was criminal, he just thought he should be trusted as he had been up until then. In the end he was persuaded.
And without a current DBS check clergy are not allowed to do anything at all. No pastoral visits, no Sundays, nothing.
Which is why you're told to get the renewal submitted in plenty of time before the current one runs out.
To be fair, they don't actually "run out". But good practice is to have them renewed every three years. In any case, they're only as good as the date they were issued.
And only show you've not been caught for anything...
Yes they are only part of safeguarding. The other part is good practice within an organisation.
I think it was mid to late 90s, @North East Quine . I was working as church officer for a church in Edinburgh‘s new town then, and I remember that the scout master was declaring he would quit if he had to get an SCRO check. Not that he was criminal, he just thought he should be trusted as he had been up until then. In the end he was persuaded.
I don't think he was the only one to feel that having to be checked was an affront to their dignity.
Mind you, some folk probably felt like that when driving tests came in ...
Anyone can be allowed the status of the ABC for a season, it’s supposed to be in accordance with God’s will not only that of a few who have been allowed the selection status or taken it for themselves.
Who knows whether it was God’s will or not that Justin Welby took the seat for a while?
Let’s all pray that whoever follows Welby will be. 🙏
I think, as Welby’s predecessor discovered (and spoke about), there is a significant mismatch between the public profile of the ABC (and the expectations that generates) and the actual power of the Archbishop.
Williams said something along the lines of the higher up you go, the less you can do. I think this points to a real structural and institutional issue.
Personally, Welby’s first failure was in not checking up in or after 2013 that a fellow bishop and the diocesan safeguarding people in that diocese were in fact doing, or had done, what they ought to have been doing. (It is clear that the diocese did report Smyth to the police, and it is undisputed that there were meetings with the police about Smyth. It seems though that the police did not treat it as a report of a crime for investigation.) This is where the issue of the mismatch between perception and actual structure is importante.
Welby’s second failure was in not having a prompt and proper meeting with victims. I think there were reasons for that, but I think it was a failure nonetheless.
In the introductory remarks to his House of Lord’s speech on housing and homelessness I think Welby’s attempt to deflect any pity from himself misfired in failing to recognise the suffering of the victims of Smyth’s abuse. That attempt to deflect pity is what the first two paragraphs were about. The third was about how different things are now in the church in regard to safeguarding.
Makin states
On the balance of probabilities, it is the opinion of the Reviewers that it was unlikely that Justin Welby would have had no knowledge of the concerns regarding John Smyth in the 1980s in the UK. He may not have known of the extreme seriousness of the abuse, but it is most probable that he would have had at least a level of knowledge that John Smyth was of some concern.
Personally I think they are wrong.
Precisely because of the seriousness of the abuse, and the role Smyth had I think it would have been, and was, kept very quiet indeed, and I don’t think at that time Welby was moving in circles where there would have been any kind of disclosure at all. Their thinking would have been that Smyth was out. The ‘wound’ in the Iwerne organisation was cauterised. As far as its leadership was concerned it was case closed. End of story – they hoped.
Iirc Makin points to Welby being warned off Smyth in Paris after Smyth had been "moved on" from the UK.
The fact that Smyth’s African activities seem to have been partly funded by folk with links to Iwerne circles is worrying. He (Smyth) was "out" but not that "out".
It was before Smyth went to Africa, and, IIRC from Makin, before Smyth’s abuse had been reported to anyone in authority. Makin covers it at sections 11.3.84 and 11.3.85.
It was before Smyth went to Africa, and, IIRC from Makin, before Smyth’s abuse had been reported to anyone in authority. Makin covers it at sections 11.3.84 and 11.3.85.
Why should any church leader automatically get a peerage simply because of their role? Baptist Union General Secretaries, Moderators of the Church of Scotland, Presidents of Methodist Conference (etc) don't get them "by right".
Why should any church leader automatically get a peerage simply because of their role? Baptist Union General Secretaries, Moderators of the Church of Scotland, Presidents of Methodist Conference (etc) don't get them "by right".
Could part of it be that the retired Bishops are experienced as Lords spiritual?
(Not saying that's good and right)
Why should any church leader automatically get a peerage simply because of their role? Baptist Union General Secretaries, Moderators of the Church of Scotland, Presidents of Methodist Conference (etc) don't get them "by right".
The Church of Scotland has a different Moderator every year. After doing their stint as Moderator, they return to parish ministry. Giving each one a peerage wouldn't work because the Lords would quickly become awash with former Moderators, and the demands of their post-Moderator years wouldn't allow for time to spend in the Lords.
I realise that, and the BU President is the same. However we have a General Secretary who is the ipso facto long-term denominational leader, I guess you have an equivalent.
RC clerics are not allowed to sit in legislatures. It is said that Cardinal Hume (who QEII liked to refer to as "My cardinal") was offered a seat in the Lords but had to decline.
There was at one time a ban on RC clergy sitting in the British House of Commons.
A good few years ago now a former Scottish RC priest was elected as MP. Although he had left the priesthood ,the law had to be changed before he was allowed to take his seat.
Comments
Yeah and the original composition of the Epscopal Church was much more culturally and economically homogenous than the CofE, in part because of the voluntaristic nature of the Church (less so initially but more so after the drafting of the Constitution).
Oh God yes - see the Evelyn Waugh quote about Pusey House in Brideshead Revisited - which I’m not about to link to or repeat here.
You could be an Anglo Catholic duke and you’d still be below the salt.
Confusingly Anglo catholics would also use the word ‘sound’ of fellow travellers they approve of, but there’s sound and sound. Anglo Catholicism carries with it all sorts of unhelpful associations - political, social, etc. which when it comes down to it are not those of the Establishment.
Even if he had already been subject to a penalty from his employers?
Point 4.5 - https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/determination-on-penalty-the-revd-david-tudor-29-october-2024-4130-4263-1764-v.1.pdf
He had been suspended from ministry for 5 years in 1988. That was around the time Childline was set up, partly to support children who were being treated as willing participants in their own abuse, even being presented by defence council as having 'seduced' the poor men who couldn't be expected to resist 'temptation'.
I think attitudes have progressed, thank goodness, although not as much as I would like.
Again, I am not sure what Cottrell could have done differently, although I am open to having it explained. Tudor had gone through both a criminal trial and Church penalty for those offences. No, he shouldn't have been able to resume ministry in the 1990s, but given he was, until another offence came to light what should his bishop have done?
In any event, clergy in local church settings (not just in the Church of England) are not usually legally employees, but office holders and the law for office holders is not the same as for employees.
By law Church of England clergy can only be removed from post against their will by a specific legal process laid out in the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 or in certain situations the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963.
Changing the legal framework is possible via the quasi-parliamentary processes of General Synod and subject to Parliamentary approval. Typically, however, English law is very resistant to the idea of laws having retrospective effect. It can be done, but requires the clearest possible wording, and tends to be highly controversial.
Stephen Cottrell was Bishop of Chelmsford from 2010 to 2020. According to Church Abuse (in relation to the BBC's File on Four), there were a number of things that Stephen Cottrell could have done differently: This last point raises several questions. We don't know the detail of any statements the diocese might have been provided, or of the legal advice that Cottrell received (eg the risk of the Church being sued by Tudor if it had proceeded with disciplinary action). I note that in the years around 2012, there was an ongoing question about the extent to which employment law applied to clergy. (In 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled - that office holders should not be treated as employees - in a case regarding unfair constructive dismissal dating from 2009, although that was specifically about Freehold rather than Common Tenure.)
Didn’t someone recently say they would close a church in order to take a specific member of the clergy out of circulation ?
It's where the rubber hits the road, isn't it. Closing down the cathedral would have been criticised. Paying him off was criticised.
The trouble with saying it is OK to break the law on a matter of principle is that 'principle' is very subjective. Personally I think everyone has a right to due process, and everyone should be treated as innocent until proved guilty. Unfortunately that creates a situation where abusers can operate in the grey areas that can't be proved.
When I was a school (back in the last millenium!) there was a teacher that all the girls 'knew' to avoid. I can't remember how I heard, but I 'knew' it was unwise to be alone with him. A few years after I left school I heard he had been sacked for sexually assaulting a pupil.
What should have happened if I had reported that all the girls knew he was dodgy? When there was nothing I had seen or experienced? Probably nothing any other girls had seen or experienced, but had sensed? Should he have lost his job on those grounds? Should the headteacher, listening to their pupils, have been willing to break the law and sack them because the issue was so important? It would have saved that girl from being assaulted.
What if those concerns had been reported to the police, who (most likely situation) found no substance to them? Should the headteacher have sacked the member of staff anyway? What if the initial concern had been malicious - because they had maybe given a detention for not completing homework? And then gossip spread the 'knowledge'.
Part of the trouble with safeguarding is that good safeguarding is preventative. But the law - rightly - insists on evidence of wrongdoing.
I don't see how that circle can be squared.
It isn't easy to remove someone's livelihood - quite rightly. There needs to be proof of an offence (to at least a civil degree of balance of probabilities) that has not already been punished.
But safeguarding risk assessments try to predict the future, which is open to all sorts of legal challenge.
CRB checks came in in 2002, I am required to pass an enhanced check on a regular basis to keep my job. Could something like that not be included in an amended clergy discipline measure - and could that not have been put into the 2003 measure ? If bishops knew the situation surely they should have used that knowledge to inform that act.
A priest aquaintance of mine was suspended following accusations that were made to the police of abuse that was supposed to have happened decades earlier. He was just abandoned by his diocese. He commited suicide the day before he was due to report to his police station for an interview. The police later said he had no case to answer.
These can be complex situations and shouty headlines based on knee jerk reactions are not the way to go.
The days are long gone when a retired priest could simply be asked to ‘help out’ - even if the retired priest was also and archdeacon, bishop, or archbishop.
Ouch
And without a current DBS check clergy are not allowed to do anything at all. No pastoral visits, no Sundays, nothing.
Which is why you're told to get the renewal submitted in plenty of time before the current one runs out.
I'm assuming that in this instance, as Turner was dealing with adults, it was decided that provided there were other safe-guards in place, the risk was acceptable.
And that Tribunal case, if he was dismissed, wouldn't succeed.
Which, based on my reading of Tribunal cases, is totally possible. As other posters have pointed out, press coverage of Tribunal cases is often more about provoking outrage in the reader than explaining how employment law actually works.
Yes please. My apologies.
And only show you've not been caught for anything...
(I can't remember when SCRO (Scottish Criminal Records Office) checks were introduced - I had one in the mid 1990s to help at my kids toddler group. Its PVG (Protection of Vulnerable Groups) here now.)
I don't think he was the only one to feel that having to be checked was an affront to their dignity.
Mind you, some folk probably felt like that when driving tests came in ...
No other (honourable) option. His final speech showed a complete lack of understanding of pretty much anything.
Oh, I'd go much further than that. IMHO his farewell words in the Lords showed why he should never have been appointed in the first place.
This perhaps underlines the problems with hindsight, though I do agree with you.
There is that. If he was the best candidate just how bad were the alternatives?!
OTH, if the speech went through any kind of third-party checking before being delivered, those supporting him aren't up to much either.
.. and generally what does it say about the culture of an institution where someone like that can be elevated to the highest office ?
Who knows whether it was God’s will or not that Justin Welby took the seat for a while?
Let’s all pray that whoever follows Welby will be. 🙏
Williams said something along the lines of the higher up you go, the less you can do. I think this points to a real structural and institutional issue.
Personally, Welby’s first failure was in not checking up in or after 2013 that a fellow bishop and the diocesan safeguarding people in that diocese were in fact doing, or had done, what they ought to have been doing. (It is clear that the diocese did report Smyth to the police, and it is undisputed that there were meetings with the police about Smyth. It seems though that the police did not treat it as a report of a crime for investigation.) This is where the issue of the mismatch between perception and actual structure is importante.
Welby’s second failure was in not having a prompt and proper meeting with victims. I think there were reasons for that, but I think it was a failure nonetheless.
In the introductory remarks to his House of Lord’s speech on housing and homelessness I think Welby’s attempt to deflect any pity from himself misfired in failing to recognise the suffering of the victims of Smyth’s abuse. That attempt to deflect pity is what the first two paragraphs were about. The third was about how different things are now in the church in regard to safeguarding.
Makin states Personally I think they are wrong.
Precisely because of the seriousness of the abuse, and the role Smyth had I think it would have been, and was, kept very quiet indeed, and I don’t think at that time Welby was moving in circles where there would have been any kind of disclosure at all. Their thinking would have been that Smyth was out. The ‘wound’ in the Iwerne organisation was cauterised. As far as its leadership was concerned it was case closed. End of story – they hoped.
The fact that Smyth’s African activities seem to have been partly funded by folk with links to Iwerne circles is worrying. He (Smyth) was "out" but not that "out".
My mistake
Anyone prepared to put a bet on that?
Could part of it be that the retired Bishops are experienced as Lords spiritual?
(Not saying that's good and right)
The Church of Scotland has a different Moderator every year. After doing their stint as Moderator, they return to parish ministry. Giving each one a peerage wouldn't work because the Lords would quickly become awash with former Moderators, and the demands of their post-Moderator years wouldn't allow for time to spend in the Lords.
A good few years ago now a former Scottish RC priest was elected as MP. Although he had left the priesthood ,the law had to be changed before he was allowed to take his seat.
Thanks for spotting the misplaced post BF - no worries! L
There used to be a ban on lunatics sitting in the H of C, but perhaps that's no longer the case.