No, I can't say I'd heard of them, but they would probably be of more use in the H of C (were they to be still in the land of the living, of course) than a fair few of the present members...
Come on, we don't want Papists and sectaries from heretickal conventicles sitting in the House of Lords. That would never do ... 😉
Lord Soper was there of course and there have been plenty of RC peers, even when they were considered 'recusants'. But no, nonconformist ministers wouldn't automatically get a seat in the Lords.
Recusant peers retained and inherited their titles throughout the period between the Restoration and Catholic emancipation but were barred from sitting. If they conformed they could sit. When the Catholics were emancipated in 1829, they resumed their seats immediately.
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.
Given the default response would have been to attempt to bury the whole thing under the deepest carpet and hope no one found it, I don’t doubt that for one second.
There is often too much focus on the potential damage to the reputation of the church or the risk of undermining the rest of a
“marvellous ministry”. With the victims being seen as inconvenient and less important than anything in the first sentence. Followed by frantic minimising as it couldn't have been that bad, he seemed so nice …
No doubt the suggestion Smyth relocate somewhere far away had the same motivations. (With possibly a side order of racism).
Yes, when the Smyth business came to public knowledge, a parishioner asked my then vicar about him and the reply was “ He’s been forgiven by God”.
Can't think why people may find it difficult to trust the church on safeguarding....
Especially given the amount of safeguarding courses this incumbent must have been through.
It beggars belief
@BroJames You say of the conclusion about Welby's knowledge of Smyth "Personally I think they are wrong" and I have to ask, Why?
There is solid evidence that JW not only knew Smyth far better than he has let on, and he himself told The New York Times that the person who drew up the 1980s report, The Revd Mark Ruston, was a major influence on his decision to go forward for ordination. But don't rely on that, look at the words of Welby himself to The Guardian in February 2017, speaking about Smyth:
"I was at that particular camp in the mid-70s. I was young then – 19 to 21 or 22 – and I was completely unaware of any abuse. I never heard anything at all, at any point. I didn’t have the slightest suspicion at all. As I recall him, he was a charming, delightful, very clever, [a] brilliant speaker. I wasn’t a close friend of his, I wasn’t in his inner circle or in the inner circle of the leadership of the camp, far from it."
And you try to square that with the knowledge that during his time at the Iwerne camp Smyth was lodged in the accommodation where Welby was Dormitory Captain - a position he described as a junior leader and counsellor. IMO that just doesn't fit with not being in either Smyth's "inner circle" or the "leadership of the camp". And nor does it make sense that JW and Smyth would be exchanging Christmas cards for more than a decade after JW stopped going to the Iwerne camps and after Smyth had gone to Africa.
@BroJames You say of the conclusion about Welby's knowledge of Smyth "Personally I think they are wrong" and I have to ask, Why?
There is solid evidence that JW not only knew Smyth far better than he has let on, and he himself told The New York Times that the person who drew up the 1980s report, The Revd Mark Ruston, was a major influence on his decision to go forward for ordination. But don't rely on that, look at the words of Welby himself to The Guardian in February 2017, speaking about Smyth:
"I was at that particular camp in the mid-70s. I was young then – 19 to 21 or 22 – and I was completely unaware of any abuse. I never heard anything at all, at any point. I didn’t have the slightest suspicion at all. As I recall him, he was a charming, delightful, very clever, [a] brilliant speaker. I wasn’t a close friend of his, I wasn’t in his inner circle or in the inner circle of the leadership of the camp, far from it."
And you try to square that with the knowledge that during his time at the Iwerne camp Smyth was lodged in the accommodation where Welby was Dormitory Captain - a position he described as a junior leader and counsellor. IMO that just doesn't fit with not being in either Smyth's "inner circle" or the "leadership of the camp". And nor does it make sense that JW and Smyth would be exchanging Christmas cards for more than a decade after JW stopped going to the Iwerne camps and after Smyth had gone to Africa.
At that age I had all the awareness of a hamster. Toxic situations also have a habit of warping your idea of what is normal.
Welby would have seen a few things as a camp staff member that looked odd - and can be explained by hindsight - but would have been waved away by others.
Mark Ruston had a formative influence on a number of people who went forward for ordination. His ministry appears to have been very fruitful and ‘successful’.
He was forty years older than Welby, more than old enough to be his father, and party to a terrible secret which he and others kept secret for years. I am certain he didn’t open up about it to a student who was lodging with him, not even (perhaps especially not) one who was an ‘Dormitory Captain’ on Iwerne camps.
I think many (most?) at the time, not just Welby, saw Smyth as “charming, delightful, very clever, [a] brilliant speaker”. Very few were party to the dreadful secret.
I’m sure I’m not the only person who exchanges Christmas cards with people who were important at a particular phase in my life, but with whom I have no meaningful contact from one year’s end to another. The leader of the youth group I was part of until my early twenties would be an example. We exchanged Christmas cards for decades, and it was the only contact between us.
The demarcation in camps like Iwerne was very rigid. It was not unlike the distinction between pupils and staff in the schools from which participants came. There were the leaders and the participants, some of whom would be brought on or encouraged by being given supervisory responsibility over other participants (not unlike a prefect in a school), or, if able, encouraged to give a talk. They might even come back as a recent participant to talk about faith and life in the world beyond school and university. But they would have very limited entrée into the inner workings of the organisation or its secrets unless and until they reached a position of becoming trustees themselves.
On the basis of my own experience I find it entirely credible that Welby and others like him with similar quasi-leadership roles new nothing at all of the iniquities of Smyth.
Welby graduated from Cambridge in 1978 and married the following year. As far as I can tell from Makin it was only in 1978 that Ruston began to hear rumours or accusations against Smyth, and it was not until three or four years later that he investigated and produced his report.
Frankly I find it almost incredible that someone whose habits and mores were shaped in the 1930s and ‘40s would have shared his findings with anyone other than those to whom he gave his report, and certainly not someone who had lodged with him as a student two or three years previously - even given Welby’s continued involvement with Iwerne.
Actually I think that, given the nature of what was uncovered, MW would have been very likely to speak to JW about it, if only to (a) ascertain whether or not he was among the victims, and (b) if he was, to offer support.
Actually I think that, given the nature of what was uncovered, MW would have been very likely to speak to JW about it, if only to (a) ascertain whether or not he was among the victims, and (b) if he was, to offer support.
A suggestion that JW might want to broaden his experience by volunteering elsewhere and a vague enquiry about his experiences whilst he was there seem more likely.
The abuse was first reported to Ruston in February 1982. A week later he was supplied with a list of victims by someone who was himself a victim and had been drawn into taking part in administering beatings.
We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I think it extremely unlikely that Mark Ruston made any enquiries of any possible victims beyond that list. That includes not enquiring of someone who had lodged with him as a student three and a half years previously, and was then married and living and working for Elf Aquitaine in Paris.
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.
Unless you're making a point about the harm done by the ideological secrecy, I fear you're veering close to missing the point in relation to the specifics of what Justin Welby personally did or didn't know. As Anglican Ink points out, quoting extensively from Makin:
Makin provides evidence such as contemporaneous notes from the time, including the Rushton report which made it clear a circle of key leaders know of the abuse from 1982 onwards. “The decision was made that the authorities will not be informed (most importantly the police) and that the matter will be “held secret” by this small group,” Makin reports.
“The evidence from the time, which includes a great deal of contemporaneous correspondence between the people shown the Ruston Report, shows, clearly, that there were several possible reasons for the non-disclosure:
(i) To protect the reputation of the Iwerne movement.
(ii) To protect the wider reputation of Conservative Evangelicalism.
(iii) To protect the reputations of the individuals involved with Iwerne.
(iv) To protect the reputations of the victims’ parents.”
“In an interview with us [Makin’s team], David Fletcher {head of the Iwerne Camps from 1962-86 and a rector at St Ebbe’s Oxford] said: “I thought it would do the work of God immense damage if this were public.”
But, Makin notes the abuse became widely known within church networks. “Our conclusion is that members of the Church did know of the abuse. The wider Church organisation could have and should have known of the abuse and, furthermore, a sufficiently large number of prominent people within the Church did know of it. Significant enough to say that the Church of England “knew” in the most general sense, of the abuse.”
The "institutional responsibility" that Justin Welby took in his resignation statement relates to what the CofE "knew", while the "personal responsibility" probably relates to what he personally knew in 2013. I'm not convinced that the detail of precisely how much or how little he knew (and/or can remember) between 1982 and 2013, or an opinion given on the balance of probabilities, makes a great deal of difference.
No I agree. There was institutional cover-up by senior people (mainly men) to protect (in their view) the good work (in their view) of Iwerne. I think they were wrong (both in principle and, as it turns out) in practice. It may well be right that the head of the organisation should resign for those failures beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
I am only arguing about the question whether Welby had any personal knowledge before 2013 which should have put him on some kind of notice about Smyth, or about which he should have taken action.
I think it's about rather more than Iwerne - at the very least, the issue of protecting "the wider reputation of Conservative Evangelicalism" seems pertinent.
And the review's conclusion that "a sufficiently large number of prominent people within the Church did know" about the abuse relates to the period 1982 to 1984, which makes the issue of what Justin Welby knew about it before 2013 somewhat moot, in relation to all the other people who could have taken action in the 30 years up to that point.
I think it likely that a significant number of people are still wondering how many of the significant number of clergy and prominent people in the CofE who knew about John Smyth and the abuse over the years are going to be held to account.
We want to acknowledge the leadership and exemplary behaviour of Bishop Peter Hancock (identified by Keith Makin (24.1.2)) and a tiny handful of others who prefer to remain anonymous, not least for their own protection. However the Church Hierarchy have actively persecuted us, particularly since 2017 and continue to do so in 2024. We continue to be lied to in 2024, and numerous promises made to us continue to be broken. All of this has been from the C of E hierarchy, including the most senior Bishops and administrators in the C of E in 2024.
However many of us have received marvellous support from friends, family and others, from both within the C of E and from outside.
Only with fears over Blunt’s health, and of ensuing negative publicity should his confession and immunity from prosecution emerge upon his death, did Edward Heath’s government request the monarch’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, fully brief her.
This time round, it's John Perumbalath, appointed Bishop of Liverpool in 2023, who's accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment by two women (one of whom was another bishop), while he was Bishop of Bradwell (in the diocese of Chelmsford, of which Archbishop Stephen Cottrell was bishop up to 2020).
Part of Cathy Newman's report addresses his appointment to Liverpool: members of the committee "in charge" are allegedly now "furious" that they weren't told about any issues relating to his conduct; he allegedly failed to demonstrate his competence in safeguarding and consequently failed to secure a majority vote, at which point some members were allegedly leant on by Stephen Cottrell and another bishop to approve his appointment. (Most of which the CofE denies.) https://www.channel4.com/news/church-abuse-scandal-bishop-accuses-bishop-of-sexual-harassment
The charity regulator is engaging with the Church of England over the urgent need to improve its safeguarding arrangements, following the publication of the independent Makin Review and ahead of key debates at the Church’s General Synod (Parliament) next month.
In February, the Synod is due to consider proposals and legislation related to safeguarding including options for new structures, in response to various independent reports including the Makin Review. While the Commission does not regulate the General Synod itself – which is not a charity – decisions the Synod makes impact on charities within the Church.
The Commission renewed its engagement with Church authorities following the publication of the Makin Review – an independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth QC.
A meeting was held between senior representatives of the Commission and the National Church Institutions, including the Archbishop of York, earlier this month.
Following this, the Commission is writing to all members of the General Synod who are also trustees of Church charities to draw attention to their legal duties, specifically their duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. This includes ensuring that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose, and that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up...
The charity regulator is engaging with the Church of England over the urgent need to improve its safeguarding arrangements, following the publication of the independent Makin Review and ahead of key debates at the Church’s General Synod (Parliament) next month.
In February, the Synod is due to consider proposals and legislation related to safeguarding including options for new structures, in response to various independent reports including the Makin Review. While the Commission does not regulate the General Synod itself – which is not a charity – decisions the Synod makes impact on charities within the Church.
The Commission renewed its engagement with Church authorities following the publication of the Makin Review – an independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth QC.
A meeting was held between senior representatives of the Commission and the National Church Institutions, including the Archbishop of York, earlier this month.
Following this, the Commission is writing to all members of the General Synod who are also trustees of Church charities to draw attention to their legal duties, specifically their duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. This includes ensuring that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose, and that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up...
The planned changes in the law to introduce mandatory reporting in some circumstances may also concentrate some minds.
Channel 4 News (UK) reports that *the Church of England is in crisis*...that's news ?
That's normal surely?!
Maybe the key difference now is that so many people have gone through church-mandated safeguarding training or been exposed to DE&I policies at work, there's a lot less tolerance for Bishops / their equivalent getting things so obviously wrong. Repeatedly.
Would a regular common or garden parish priest or lay reader have been suspended whilst investigated if allegations similar to those +Liverpool faced surfaced?
If you don't want to / can't watch video, note that all three Channel 4 links above now appear to come with transcripts, from which I quote below.
Addressing Twangist's question; in the first part, Andrew Greystone makes the point:
In most areas of life, if you were a head teacher of a secondary school or a consultant in a hospital, there is no doubt that the person against whom these allegations have been made would be stood down in a neutral way whilst they were investigated and dealt with. The Church may say that they have investigated these allegations. They think it’s all fine, but at no point in that process did they choose to step John Perumbalath back from his responsibilities.
While Revd Robert Thompson says:
It could well be another instance of a church cover up. I think one of the difficulties at the heart of the top of our church is that there is a protectionist culture between bishops in relation to bishops behavior. And lots of us know that happens all the time. If this was an ordinary clergy person, they would be treated in a very different way, I think.
Note that clergy discipline (the Clergy Discipline Measure) is handled differently to laity.
In the case of Dr Perumbalath, allegations from the woman in Chelmsford reached the attention of the National Safeguarding Team (NST) in February 2023, after a referral from a priest in whom she had confided.
When the woman discussed with the NST the possibility of bringing a complaint under the CDM, she felt deterred by the team’s response.
“I was talking to my [NST] caseworker . . . and she said that they had talked to the church lawyers, and were not going to put in a CDM on my behalf, because the evidence was on a knife edge as to whether it would succeed,” she told the Church Times.
On another occasion, she says, an NST member told her: “We don’t even like our own processes; it’s a horrible process, going through a CDM.”
The NST disputes this account, stating that there was no attempt to dissuade her, but that efforts were made to explain the process — which is “not survivor-focused” — in order to be both honest and trauma-informed. Its position is that, while the information received did not meet the threshold for the NST to take out a CDM, it would have supported her through the process.
And later in the article (which highlights concerns about the CDM - the Clergy Discipline Measure):
In the case of the woman in Chelmsford, the 12-month limit expired while she was still reflecting on the NST’s warnings.
Among her concerns is whether the NST’s decision not to bring a complaint itself reflected inadequate assessment of the evidence.
I see that he's chosen to "retire" (after less than 2 years in the role). His statement is here.
There's little evidence (well, none at all) that he understands the issue of anyone needing to have confidence in the leaders of the CofE, or in its disciplinary and safeguarding processes.
I see that he's chosen to "retire" (after less than 2 years in the role). His statement is here.
There's little evidence (well, none at all) that he understands the issue of anyone needing to have confidence in the leaders of the CofE, or in its disciplinary and safeguarding processes.
Doesn’t suggest he’s even entertained the idea he could have done something inappropriate. Teflon armour is fully engaged.
Meanwhile, in another Palace a different Bishop is probably raging that this on top of the not being able to sack that other bloke has cost them the Canterbury job … It’s so unfair!!!
Meanwhile, in another Palace a different Bishop is probably raging that this on top of the not being able to sack that other bloke has cost them the Canterbury job … It’s so unfair!!!
I actually had the same thought, though I had them as a (popular) outsider bet.
I’m thinking Bishop of Norwich. There are at least two excellent female candidates but my gut tells me that for the PTB that might be a step too far. They’ll be looking for a non controversial appointment and I think Norwich might fit that bill.
I’m thinking Bishop of Norwich. There are at least two excellent female candidates but my gut tells me that for the PTB that might be a step too far. They’ll be looking for a non controversial appointment and I think Norwich might fit that bill.
I’m thinking Bishop of Norwich. There are at least two excellent female candidates but my gut tells me that for the PTB that might be a step too far. They’ll be looking for a non controversial appointment and I think Norwich might fit that bill.
Just for clarity, are you referring to a replacement for ++Canterbury, or +Liverpool?
I think its too early to write off a female, if only because most of the eligible male candidates are less than inspiring.
But that would shatter the church of England. It's already broken of course, and the same is true of the Anglican communion.
Exactly, it’s the only way the situation could be made immediately *worse* (even if it needs to get worse before it gets better) - now I’m sympathetic to the idea that it’s probably a nettle that needs to be grasped sooner or later, but who in their right mind is going to accept a deal of
‘Your appointment has just detonated all the structures and status quo in England and in what still passes for the Anglican communion, here are the keys, have fun.’
Tbh I’m half persuaded that anyone coming in on those terms should be ruled out on the grounds of clearly not understanding the proposition, or masochism.
Serious thinking needs to be done on equality of opportunity to be ABC, and what that will look like*, so that we never again - I’d argue it is too late this time - end up at the point of discernment without having done it and therefore, realistically, ruling out candidates on the grounds of gender.
A female ABC *could* be done now, but really who would it be fair on? Never mind traditionalists, or the outriders on the other side desperate to ‘send a message’, or the average person in the pews, at the centre of it will be a human being, for which the CofE will have found a new and interesting wheel to break them on.
I’m not kicking the can down the road. I want this sorted for next time. But this time is, through inaction and heads in sand, not sensible. IMO. YMMV.
*as in, so it’s not all up for grabs at the moment it happens, so it’s not a surprise, not as in it will look different for men vs women
Of course, this sort of survival is the last thing the church needs if it is to have any kind of life, but I can't see the appointment committee appointing a woman now. Preserving existing structures is the fool's errand which stymied the last two incumbents, but there may be a difference between preservation at all costs and wilful destruction
Of course, this sort of survival is the last thing the church needs if it is to have any kind of life, but I can't see the appointment committee appointing a woman now. Preserving existing structures is the fool's errand which stymied the last two incumbents, but there may be a difference between preservation at all costs and wilful destruction
Precisely - which is why I’m really saying is ‘it’s a new archbishop, you’ve got (dv) a decade or so before this comes up again. Start the clock, get it sorted. Never again.’
This is what I'd do, and quickly too.
Forget the long-winded CNC process - to be blunt some of the blame for the lack-lustre appointments of recent times lies squarely at their door. The whole process is dreadful and the approach of finding someone *acceptable* to all parties/wings/prejudices has got us into the current tangle.
Look elsewhere. Look at what is required - someone who can get on with the wider Anglican Communion, someone with gravitas, someone with the common touch and, above all, someone who is largely above/out of the rats-in-a-sack world of the current CofE hierarchy.
Take a look at the current age limit and be prepared for it to be extended for the right person so that there is time to sort out the administrative mess that is the CNC. The Supreme Governor was 73 when he became King and is now 76: since no one is suggesting he step-down on the grounds of age, why apply a limit to his Archbishop?
And now here is who I'd appoint: Gregory Cameron, +St Asaph.
Now I'm off to find my tin hat and make for a convenient slit trench .....
Formally, the role of the Crown Nominations Commission is to advise the Crown about who to appoint to a diocesan episcopal role. And in practice, for many years now, the Crown has simply accepted the Commission‘s advice.
The Commission itself is a creation of the General Synod of the Church of England, and its existence is established in the standing orders of General Synod. As I understand it, therefore, the only way of dispensing with the Crown Nominations Commission would be to amend the Standing Orders of General Synod. This could not now be done before the July meeting of Synod.
Even if General Synod could agree to bypass the Crown Nominations Commission, either for this appointment, or generally, I imagine it would be extremely difficult to achieve agreement about who on behalf of the church should advise the crown about episcopal or archiepiscopal appointments.
In short, irrespective of the merits of dispensing with the Crown Nominations Commission, I can’t see how that could be achieved within any reasonable timeframe.
Hmm. It might be easier to simply abolish the monarchy, or at least relieve the King of the burden of being Supreme Governor of the C of E...
Seriously, though, what a pickle the C of E seems to be in at the moment. Maybe good will come out of it all, in the long run, but with the church fragmenting and losing worshippers, it's hard to see a rosy future.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society_of_Birmingham
No, I can't say I'd heard of them, but they would probably be of more use in the H of C (were they to be still in the land of the living, of course) than a fair few of the present members...
Come on, we don't want Papists and sectaries from heretickal conventicles sitting in the House of Lords. That would never do ... 😉
Lord Soper was there of course and there have been plenty of RC peers, even when they were considered 'recusants'. But no, nonconformist ministers wouldn't automatically get a seat in the Lords.
The question is, would they want to?
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Given the default response would have been to attempt to bury the whole thing under the deepest carpet and hope no one found it, I don’t doubt that for one second.
There is often too much focus on the potential damage to the reputation of the church or the risk of undermining the rest of a
“marvellous ministry”. With the victims being seen as inconvenient and less important than anything in the first sentence. Followed by frantic minimising as it couldn't have been that bad, he seemed so nice …
No doubt the suggestion Smyth relocate somewhere far away had the same motivations. (With possibly a side order of racism).
It was not uncommon for abuse and abusers to be so regarded in the 1980s.
Can't think why people may find it difficult to trust the church on safeguarding....
Especially given the amount of safeguarding courses this incumbent must have been through.
It beggars belief
There is solid evidence that JW not only knew Smyth far better than he has let on, and he himself told The New York Times that the person who drew up the 1980s report, The Revd Mark Ruston, was a major influence on his decision to go forward for ordination. But don't rely on that, look at the words of Welby himself to The Guardian in February 2017, speaking about Smyth:
"I was at that particular camp in the mid-70s. I was young then – 19 to 21 or 22 – and I was completely unaware of any abuse. I never heard anything at all, at any point. I didn’t have the slightest suspicion at all. As I recall him, he was a charming, delightful, very clever, [a] brilliant speaker. I wasn’t a close friend of his, I wasn’t in his inner circle or in the inner circle of the leadership of the camp, far from it."
And you try to square that with the knowledge that during his time at the Iwerne camp Smyth was lodged in the accommodation where Welby was Dormitory Captain - a position he described as a junior leader and counsellor. IMO that just doesn't fit with not being in either Smyth's "inner circle" or the "leadership of the camp". And nor does it make sense that JW and Smyth would be exchanging Christmas cards for more than a decade after JW stopped going to the Iwerne camps and after Smyth had gone to Africa.
At that age I had all the awareness of a hamster. Toxic situations also have a habit of warping your idea of what is normal.
Welby would have seen a few things as a camp staff member that looked odd - and can be explained by hindsight - but would have been waved away by others.
He was forty years older than Welby, more than old enough to be his father, and party to a terrible secret which he and others kept secret for years. I am certain he didn’t open up about it to a student who was lodging with him, not even (perhaps especially not) one who was an ‘Dormitory Captain’ on Iwerne camps.
I think many (most?) at the time, not just Welby, saw Smyth as “charming, delightful, very clever, [a] brilliant speaker”. Very few were party to the dreadful secret.
I’m sure I’m not the only person who exchanges Christmas cards with people who were important at a particular phase in my life, but with whom I have no meaningful contact from one year’s end to another. The leader of the youth group I was part of until my early twenties would be an example. We exchanged Christmas cards for decades, and it was the only contact between us.
The demarcation in camps like Iwerne was very rigid. It was not unlike the distinction between pupils and staff in the schools from which participants came. There were the leaders and the participants, some of whom would be brought on or encouraged by being given supervisory responsibility over other participants (not unlike a prefect in a school), or, if able, encouraged to give a talk. They might even come back as a recent participant to talk about faith and life in the world beyond school and university. But they would have very limited entrée into the inner workings of the organisation or its secrets unless and until they reached a position of becoming trustees themselves.
On the basis of my own experience I find it entirely credible that Welby and others like him with similar quasi-leadership roles new nothing at all of the iniquities of Smyth.
Welby graduated from Cambridge in 1978 and married the following year. As far as I can tell from Makin it was only in 1978 that Ruston began to hear rumours or accusations against Smyth, and it was not until three or four years later that he investigated and produced his report.
Frankly I find it almost incredible that someone whose habits and mores were shaped in the 1930s and ‘40s would have shared his findings with anyone other than those to whom he gave his report, and certainly not someone who had lodged with him as a student two or three years previously - even given Welby’s continued involvement with Iwerne.
A suggestion that JW might want to broaden his experience by volunteering elsewhere and a vague enquiry about his experiences whilst he was there seem more likely.
We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I think it extremely unlikely that Mark Ruston made any enquiries of any possible victims beyond that list. That includes not enquiring of someone who had lodged with him as a student three and a half years previously, and was then married and living and working for Elf Aquitaine in Paris.
I am only arguing about the question whether Welby had any personal knowledge before 2013 which should have put him on some kind of notice about Smyth, or about which he should have taken action.
And the review's conclusion that "a sufficiently large number of prominent people within the Church did know" about the abuse relates to the period 1982 to 1984, which makes the issue of what Justin Welby knew about it before 2013 somewhat moot, in relation to all the other people who could have taken action in the 30 years up to that point.
I think it likely that a significant number of people are still wondering how many of the significant number of clergy and prominent people in the CofE who knew about John Smyth and the abuse over the years are going to be held to account.
In November, in response to the publication of the Makin Review, Andrew Graystone issued a statement on behalf of a number of victims and survivors of John Smyth - they don't mince their words about their attitude regarding the current CofE hierarchy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4q0efal-Ig
Part of Cathy Newman's report addresses his appointment to Liverpool: members of the committee "in charge" are allegedly now "furious" that they weren't told about any issues relating to his conduct; he allegedly failed to demonstrate his competence in safeguarding and consequently failed to secure a majority vote, at which point some members were allegedly leant on by Stephen Cottrell and another bishop to approve his appointment. (Most of which the CofE denies.)
https://www.channel4.com/news/church-abuse-scandal-bishop-accuses-bishop-of-sexual-harassment
Bishop Rose Hudson-Wilkin, who was attending a retreat for the bishops, drew the short straw and was sent out to bat for the Church.
https://www.channel4.com/news/abuse-scandal-no-cover-up-by-church-says-bishop-of-dover
Revd Dr Charlie Bell (member of the General Synod) suggests that the bishops have lost the confidence of pretty much everyone (including some of the bishops themselves, I suspect).
https://www.channel4.com/news/church-seems-determined-not-to-get-this-right-says-priest
The planned changes in the law to introduce mandatory reporting in some circumstances may also concentrate some minds.
That's normal surely?!
Maybe the key difference now is that so many people have gone through church-mandated safeguarding training or been exposed to DE&I policies at work, there's a lot less tolerance for Bishops / their equivalent getting things so obviously wrong. Repeatedly.
Addressing Twangist's question; in the first part, Andrew Greystone makes the point: While Revd Robert Thompson says: Note that clergy discipline (the Clergy Discipline Measure) is handled differently to laity.
https://anglican.ink/2025/01/29/diocesan-leaders-call-for-in-investigation-into-bishop-of-liverpools-conduct/
It contains this statement
"However, we understand that an allegation of misconduct was not fully investigated, and we believe that in the interests of justice this should now happen."
We shall see.
There's little evidence (well, none at all) that he understands the issue of anyone needing to have confidence in the leaders of the CofE, or in its disciplinary and safeguarding processes.
Doesn’t suggest he’s even entertained the idea he could have done something inappropriate. Teflon armour is fully engaged.
Meanwhile, in another Palace a different Bishop is probably raging that this on top of the not being able to sack that other bloke has cost them the Canterbury job … It’s so unfair!!!
I actually had the same thought, though I had them as a (popular) outsider bet.
Same
Just for clarity, are you referring to a replacement for ++Canterbury, or +Liverpool?
But that would shatter the church of England. It's already broken of course, and the same is true of the Anglican communion.
Exactly, it’s the only way the situation could be made immediately *worse* (even if it needs to get worse before it gets better) - now I’m sympathetic to the idea that it’s probably a nettle that needs to be grasped sooner or later, but who in their right mind is going to accept a deal of
‘Your appointment has just detonated all the structures and status quo in England and in what still passes for the Anglican communion, here are the keys, have fun.’
Tbh I’m half persuaded that anyone coming in on those terms should be ruled out on the grounds of clearly not understanding the proposition, or masochism.
Serious thinking needs to be done on equality of opportunity to be ABC, and what that will look like*, so that we never again - I’d argue it is too late this time - end up at the point of discernment without having done it and therefore, realistically, ruling out candidates on the grounds of gender.
A female ABC *could* be done now, but really who would it be fair on? Never mind traditionalists, or the outriders on the other side desperate to ‘send a message’, or the average person in the pews, at the centre of it will be a human being, for which the CofE will have found a new and interesting wheel to break them on.
I’m not kicking the can down the road. I want this sorted for next time. But this time is, through inaction and heads in sand, not sensible. IMO. YMMV.
*as in, so it’s not all up for grabs at the moment it happens, so it’s not a surprise, not as in it will look different for men vs women
If I was in Church House now, dull and ‘uninspiring’ would be something to cling to like a plank of wood tossed on a stormy sea.
It’s not the brave choice, but safe would look good….
Precisely - which is why I’m really saying is ‘it’s a new archbishop, you’ve got (dv) a decade or so before this comes up again. Start the clock, get it sorted. Never again.’
Forget the long-winded CNC process - to be blunt some of the blame for the lack-lustre appointments of recent times lies squarely at their door. The whole process is dreadful and the approach of finding someone *acceptable* to all parties/wings/prejudices has got us into the current tangle.
Look elsewhere. Look at what is required - someone who can get on with the wider Anglican Communion, someone with gravitas, someone with the common touch and, above all, someone who is largely above/out of the rats-in-a-sack world of the current CofE hierarchy.
Take a look at the current age limit and be prepared for it to be extended for the right person so that there is time to sort out the administrative mess that is the CNC. The Supreme Governor was 73 when he became King and is now 76: since no one is suggesting he step-down on the grounds of age, why apply a limit to his Archbishop?
And now here is who I'd appoint: Gregory Cameron, +St Asaph.
Now I'm off to find my tin hat and make for a convenient slit trench .....
The Commission itself is a creation of the General Synod of the Church of England, and its existence is established in the standing orders of General Synod. As I understand it, therefore, the only way of dispensing with the Crown Nominations Commission would be to amend the Standing Orders of General Synod. This could not now be done before the July meeting of Synod.
Even if General Synod could agree to bypass the Crown Nominations Commission, either for this appointment, or generally, I imagine it would be extremely difficult to achieve agreement about who on behalf of the church should advise the crown about episcopal or archiepiscopal appointments.
In short, irrespective of the merits of dispensing with the Crown Nominations Commission, I can’t see how that could be achieved within any reasonable timeframe.
Seriously, though, what a pickle the C of E seems to be in at the moment. Maybe good will come out of it all, in the long run, but with the church fragmenting and losing worshippers, it's hard to see a rosy future.