Archbishop and senior clergy covering up child abuse still

[Meezer]

Church Times has link to full report.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/8-november/news/uk/prolific-brutal-and-horrific-makin-report-calls-out-the-smyth-abuse-and-the-cover-up

Victim statement
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/8-november/news/uk/prolific-brutal-and-horrific-makin-report-calls-out-the-smyth-abuse-and-the-cover-up

The fact Welby won't resign is also a disgrace. I have been told for years by a clergy friend that the CoFE now has better safeguarding practices than other churches- but this is crap, they are all as bad as each other, then they wonder why so many victims of abuse hold them in contempt. Christian leaders continue to ignore child safeguarding in favour of men's demands every time,- as another victim group (children of transpeople) mentioned here.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/schools-trans-policies-children-of-trans-parents/
I am so angry and disgusted at the lot of them. (And I'm writing it here as I can't tell the AoC!).

Totally agree with you OP. Welby needs to go as well - he's nearly at retirement age (70) so he will go, but who knows who will replace him and will this sort of thing just carry on?

Thanks @AlteredStater for responding- this subject is so uncomfortable many christians just ignore it.

Every single victim of abuse in church who speaks up is so brave, and many will never dare because of the leadership failures and lack of support. Which I suppose just reflects the rest of society- which is a shame, as Churches should be a contrast, beacons of light and support.

Justin Welby said "I’ve taken advice as recently as this morning from senior colleagues and no, I’m not going to resign for this. " To be frank, he did not need to 'take advice' over such a serious failure - he should exhibit personal honour and integrity by resigning immediately.

@Thegreatestoftheseislove agreed- especially considering how he acted regarding the former Archbishop Carey- Welby is just another hypocritical christian who'd rather ignore child abuse than act. Surely this level of safeguarding failure makes it impossible to stay in his role.

Safeguarding only works if everyone is onboard and those with agenda won't ever be onboard.
Other will just want to bury their head in the sand and ignore any issues

Amy Orr-Ewing wrote a very good piece here:
Truth must come to light, however uncomfortable - Amy Orr-Ewing

The problem is, having spoken up, is that people don't want to believe a minister could do it.
People said to me "I have never known you be anything but kind and tell the truth, but that can't be true." Even though there were witnesses and other people had complained about the same thing, people who were in power in the church did not want to believe it.

You can use three literary quotes to illustrate how people react.

First: Harry Potter "Decent people are easy to manipulate". People don't want to believe it. It's easier to believe that someone is lying about what they have seen/experienced than a minister has done it.
It's often seen as kinder to keep quiet or try and smooth it over. Thing is smoothing it over is fine if it's 50/50, but when it's one side is the abuser, it is effectively not believing the victim.

Secondly: Wind in the Willows "I'm not a rabbit, I'm a weasel." As a reader we can see that the only reason that "rabbit" has to be able to object straight away is that he is, in fact, a weasel. Otherwise they'd be as confused as the other 11 rabbits.
Being guilty gives a huge advantage because they know what they are going to be accused of, so they have their excuses ready formed - and even may already have prepared the way. So the churchwarden or whoever thinks "well he told me he wasn't there, and he didn't even know he was being accused of it, so he must be innocent."

And thirdly: Matilda. I can't remember if it's in the book or the film, but Matilda asks how the Trunchbull gets away with it. She's told that what the Trunchbull does is so extreme that parents don't believe it.

As an example, let's say the minister has tripped up deliberately one of the elderly parishioners. He then starts telling people how concerned he is for her because she's clearly getting confused/memory issues and is wobbly on her feet.
Now honestly, how many of you if you heard someone say that the minister had deliberately tripped up an 80yo would think there was any truth in it? It's ridiculous! What would he get out of that?
And when the pastoral lead tells you that the elderly lady is really getting confused, that is a much better explanation isn't it? It's much more comfortable to think she was confused and the person telling you is spreading nasty rumours, isn't it?
And the minister was compassionate when he told you, he really cares for her...

In fact the person you probably come out thinking worse of is the person who said it. And as you think that, you probably feel a bit of protectiveness towards the minister. Imagine people saying such things about them?
And you don't think too much more about it. You don't realise that the pastoral lead thinks she's confused for two reasons, one is that the minister told her, and secondly because when she went round to see the lady, the lady was insistent that the minister hadn't been round the day before.
You see the latter couldn't have been true, because the minister had told her he had visited... she must be confused, poor thing.

And there is nowhere to go if the church/dioses/synod refuse to believe it's happening. People will close ranks to anyone from outside their church, and, you know there is a shortage of ministers so there is a worry that if the minister is given a "hard time" they won't get another minister (and ministers that are guilty may well point this out).
Smaller denominations in particular, if anyone from there is asked to investigate, they almost certainly know the minister, or certainly people who know them, so any investigation is likely to be biased, possibly unconsciously, but still biased.

In order to give space, there needs to be a non-denominational place where people can go and ask for help, which the denominations recognise as having authority, and not under their control.

Thanks @MargaretThursday
The iicsa national child abuse enquiry recommended a statutory duty to report abuse. So why havent any government done this?
Have just noticed posted wrong link to victims statement- will find it again.

The iicsa national child abuse enquiry recommended a statutory duty to report abuse. So why havent any government done this?

The problem is that it's a difficult one to enforce.

I've only once had a serious disclosure from a minor (not against a minister). Although I was pretty confident she was telling the truth, there was, even then, the back of my mind that I was blowing a family apart, and even if it wasn't true it was going to be horrific for the family.
It was also very traumatic listening to the child talking, but I wasn't confident that the child would stick to the truth when it came to the crunch either, which could mean that nothing could be done, but the child could be badly effected by the reaction of the family.

I'd also say that the disclosure went from being little things that were easily swept aside "I don't like X" was I think the first thing that was said. Once she knew I was listening, it was like a torrent which had been building up.

Now I suspect if I hadn't sat down and started listening seriously, in her mind, she would have told me, but I ignored/dismissed her. But the first ten or fifteen minutes could have been pretty much any young teenager gripe - I think she was testing out to see if she could tell more, but if nothing more had been said, I certainly could have claimed that I didn't think I'd been told anything. It was probably more her attitude that gave it away than the words.

I suspect if you did make it statutory, it would make little difference. Because either people would choke it off sooner - because honestly, people don't want to know, or they would close their ears "there is none so deaf as those who don't want to hear".
So they would honestly say that to their mind they hadn't been told.

Rev Dan has put out a video on it (he's one of several CoE vicars who has been very critical of Welby and other CoE matters generally).

Have found the Victim's statement- hope this link works.
www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/statement-in-response-to-makin-review/

What it demonstrates, yet again, is that a large group of Church leaders absolutely knew, and had even been told in writing, about what was happening. But they deliberately covered up child abuse which resulted in further children being harmed.

It's lovely to see the Victims Statement naming a Bishop who is good. But amidst my anger is immense disappointment that many of those leading the CofE (who everyone, whether Christian or not,should be able to respect even if they disagree with them) appear to be people without integrity or honour, hypocrites of the highest order.

This is very interesting. I have just completed the online safeguarding training for the c of e and whilst the content was useful, the questions that needed answering to pass were ridiculously easy, which will mean that some people, especially those who are doing refresher training, won't bother doing any of th course and will just skip straight to the questions. Unfortunately it felt like a complete box ticking exercise. I had hoped it would be better.

I have t done any safeguarding training before so don't know if other training is equally crap

@Geneticsbunny
Mostly the questions are basic on most safeguarding I've done on line.

Part of it is that they have to be multi-choice and if you make it too complicated then it can be hard to make a subtle difference. When they've tried making this more complicated in that, I've found my answer is often "well probably A, but in some contexts B with a little bit of C added in" which would be great in a discussion, but not for a pass/fail.
In that way face to face is much better.

There are various levels in the safeguarding so it does get more involved.

Roughly most people need to know that if any doubts whatsoever you pass onto the safeguarding lead.
Some things like county lines (can't remember if that's in basic) is something that we may well as parents be very aware of, so seems simple, but the older generation, of whom there are disproportionate in church, may well not be. My dm wasn't and I also had to point out to her quite strongly that her area would be rife with it, because her first reaction was "that wouldn't happen here."

But I don't think the CofE has got it right. There are some things that I think have almost no benefit, and possibly none at all, but means people will think it's fine.

My particular bugbear is being asked to get a friend not in the church to provide a reference. I cannot see any point in this because you can ask who you choose. I'll put bets that there isn't a person in the country who couldn't find someone that would say they were fine.
Apparently this is "best practice". My feeling is that it makes people think "oh they must be safe because they have a DBS and a reference" when in real terms all that says is that they haven't been caught and have a friend who is prepared to lie for them...

There is a lot of work to be done in churches around safeguarding, but also a lot of work in other places too. It isn't uniquely a church issue.
And safeguarding is changing all the time, so doing it as a refresher there is often something new to look at.

Thank you. That is reasonably reassuring in terms of the training.

In case of interest I have found there is a currently a Parliamentary Bill about those failing to report abuse.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3743?s=09

Have read online 'It makes reporting mandatory for those in a position of trust working with children, and protects them from retaliation if they report in good faith. ...For those who might think this is overkill or too complicated, be aware that we have had mandatory reporting for suspected money laundering for over 20 years. We currently protect our money more than we protect our children.'

I believe as it's a private member's bill it is unlikely to go through but someone who knows more than me can hopefully advise!

From Catholic Unscripted on YT.

Thing is my understanding is that if I am in a position of trust and a child confides something, or I notice something, then I am morally obliged to report it anyway.

This has meant I have occasionally gone to the safeguarding lead and reported something that was said/seen that actually I do not think is abuse, but it could be, and in case there is a bigger picture.
So I have gone with a written report along the lines of:
"Saw X in group today. On her lower arm she had a mark about 1" long which looked bruised. When I asked, she said mummy did it on Thursday with a cable.
She demonstrated how mummy was twirling it round and, she said she put out her hand to catch it, and it hit her arm. Mummy put cream on it, but said it didn't need a plaster. X was quite happy to talk about it."
It was not for me to judge that this was/was not abuse, merely give the details to someone else in a better position.

But I'm not sure legislating it would make much difference. People will just choke off victims sooner, if they feel they don't want to know, or only hear what they want to hear, and it would be difficult to prove that they had been told.

I understand it may not help with verbal reports.
Legislation would however enable action to be taken against staff who lack moral integrity, even to the extent of failing to act even when , like in this Smyth case, there is overwhelming evidence, written reports and multiple victims. It is deeply sad the group this is needed for includes Church leaders!

I agree, I'm just a bit concerned that it might mean people are inclined to avoid listening to make sure they don't put themselves into that position.
Although I suppose that if they don't do anything, or deny it, then it's not worse than the current position anyway, and if it encourages a few people to step forward then it can only be a good thing.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I’ve experienced a church denominational leadership refusing to “take sides” when the wife of one of their pastors left him for domestic abuse. No amount of independent evidence would shift them off the fence, they simply and blatantly refused to look at it. Only years later when he was exposed in court did they grudgingly admit to each other what a hideous thing it was that he had done. But his wife, who had sought their support at the beginning, never even received an apology from them. But God sees all and God will have the last word.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/justin-welby-step-down-archbishop-canterbury

He's stepping down.

He's resigned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cj505ygdp17t

@Troubledwords I didn't update thread before posting- thanks.
I still feel very sad he didn't go until pushed by all the pressure though.

I was talking to dh about this and we felt it was partially his attitude that lead to his inevitable resignation.
If he had said that he was going to be taking time to consider the report and decide on actions for the best, which could include him stepping down, then there would have been less "baying for blood", rather than coming straight out saying he wasn't going to resign.
He could then have taken time to produce something with recommendations for how to avoid this sort of thing happening again, and then stepped down with less of a bad feeling over it.

Personally I's also have liked to see some acknowledgement that he was trying to take God's advice too, not just senior church people, but he may have felt that would sound like a slam dunk excuse (and I've certainly seen it used as such) not to resign.

I also think he, and others in that case need to consider one thing. When I was bullied, I don't want to ever see those bullies again, and, yes, I'd like them to be held to account, mostly now to stop them doing it again. The bullies are ultimately the ones who were responsible.
But those I feel more anger for are those who knew what was going on and chose to ignore/hide it. They had the power to stop it, or at least try to, but chose not even to put their head in the sand, but actively to encourage the bullies and lie to hide what they were doing. And it was a choice - they chose the easiest one for themselves, but in doing so have caused damage to the church in a far more unhealable way, because it can't be talked about, and have allowed more people to become victims.

@MargaretThursday You raise some interesting issues.

All parish Churches and vicars are told to prioritise safeguarding, to consider the needs of abuse victims and the vulnerable- but those in power, both lay and clergy, don't, and they rarely face sanctions or removal. And some of them are astonishingly pompous and self important. It's total double standards.

It's not just clergy like the Bishop of Lincoln who also need to go if there is to be a culture change. And the new Archbishop will be chosen by the same group of powerful people as last time... they need to give the House of Survivors the right of veto over the shortlist!

This was very sad for me to hear. I didn't know it was going on as well and I attend an Anglican church but I am non demontional.

This should never happen. We have to remember that we need to keep our focus on Jesus who is the only one where perfection will be found and that we make mistakes as humans. I pondered myself and wondered about my church attendance given the church I attend, but I am going to worship God.I have also very good rectors at my church. J

Sometimes they say a leadership needs to pass and something better will come along. Let's hope that is the case, but don't allow this to undermine your faith.
I found this article helpful. You may need to save it quickly to read or try reading it in Microsoft Edge.
www.premierchristianity.com/columnists/the-church-is-being-damaged-by-scandals-heres-3-reasons-why-i-still-have-hope/15608.article
Keep strong everyone.