Andrew Goddard writes: After summarising the tumultuous events of last week in relation to the Bishop of Liverpool, in this article I set out what is currently known in relation to the CNC process that led to his nomination. Two further sections outline the allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment made by two women and how they were handled. Each section presents a short chronology before identifying some key concerns and questions.
In relation to the CNC process, three concerns which have been raised are unfounded but three others are explored: the fact three votes were taken in order to secure the 10 votes needed for nomination and the proposal now is to reduce the threshold to 9 votes; much more seriously, that there were concerns raised in relation to his suitability in relation to safeguarding; and evidence that some members felt coerced and bullied by the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Oxford to set safeguarding concerns aside and support his nomination. These are set in the context of proposed changes to CNC processes coming to General Synod.
The handling of the two initial disclosures (January to September 2023) lead to at least five areas of concern:
- Bishop John’s continuation in ministry during investigation
- Whether proper processes were followed
- Why his installation and start of public ministry was not postponed
- The understanding of, and interaction between, Safeguarding, Vulnerability and Misconduct
- The CDM process
Four additional areas of concern are noted in the period from September 2023:
- Bishop John’s voluntary interview under caution
- The decision not to grant permission for Bishop Bev’s out-of-time CDM complaint
- Bishop Bev’s stepping back from episcopal ministry for over 500 days
- The lack of details about a recently constituted review of processes.
Additional Note: Bev Mason, the bishop of Warrington, has asked for this comment to be posted on the blog, and I add it here because of its significance:
Andrew, thank you for this comprehensive article and for your sensitivity. If I may, I would for the purpose of clarification, like to state that I did not seek to take leave of absence from the diocese of Liverpool. I persistently sought due process to bring this matter to a conclusion. Extended study leave was suggested by the archbishop of York’s office on three occasions as a pastoral response to my formal safeguarding disclosure against the Bishop of Liverpool. At the third suggestion by the Archbishop of York, in mid August 2023, I agreed and commenced the study leave on 7th September 2023. I would like to add that I remain immensely grateful to the Bishop in Europe who at very short notice, opened up the possibility of a chaplaincy in his diocese. This would extend to 4 chaplaincies, across 12 months as I awaited a resolution.
With regard to the safe recruitment of the Bishop of Liverpool, I was made aware in February 2023 that the Bishop of Liverpool had ‘bombed’ on safeguarding questions at interview. I was advised to retain safeguarding responsibility for Liverpool at least until the Bishop of Liverpool did some training. This was unsolicited. As the Acting Diocesan Bishop (responsible for safeguarding in the diocese) and according to proper process, I reported this to the Archbishop’s Secretary for Appointments; Liverpool’s Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor reported this to the NST.
I was given assurance in April 2023 that the Bishop of Liverpool had been safely recruited and there were no issues.
Rt Revd Beverley A Mason
Bishop of Warrington
Last week saw three shocking reports from Channel 4 News (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) relating to the Bishop of Liverpool, John Perumbalath, and to his appointment process. In the months leading up to his April 2023 installation, an allegation of sexual assault was made against him in January 2023 by a woman in his previous diocese of Chelmsford. Then, two months later, there were concerns raised about the process of handling this and a further disclosure of sexual harassment. These came from an originally anonymous woman bishop who later identified herself as the other bishop in the diocese of Liverpool, the Bishop of Warrington and, at that time, Acting Diocesan Bishop, Bev Mason.
On Thursday 30th January, John Perumbalath announced his retirement from active ministry in the Church of England while making clear that “Since those allegations were made I have consistently maintained that I have not done anything wrong and continue to do so” and “this is not a resignation occasioned by fault or by any admission of liability”. His resignation followed senior non-episcopal leaders in the diocese writing letters expressing concern (Tuesday) and then calling on him to step aside from all ministry in the diocese as his position was “currently untenable” (Wednesday).
Major questions have arisen about the process by which Bishop John was nominated to Liverpool and how these complaints have been handled particularly in relation to the role of the Archbishop of York as his Metropolitan. These follow earlier concerns about the handling of the case of a priest guilty of sexual offences against minors, David Tudor, by the Archbishop of York when he was Bishop of Chelmsford. Subsequent further evidence that he had twice renewed Tudor as Area Dean (2013 and 2018), made him an honorary canon (2015), and described him in 2018 as a “Rolls Royce priest” revealed the misleading nature of the Archbishop’s initially self-justifying statement in response to the case becoming public. It is also important that the Archbishop has had a long working relationship with Bishop John and was central in his appointment to all three senior posts he held before retirement (Archdeacon (2013) and Area Bishop (2018) in Chelmsford, then Bishop of Liverpool in 2022).
What follows set outs details of the evidence relating to the Liverpool Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) process and then the allegations and the responses to them, including the treatment of the Bishop of Warrington.
It is important to recognise that much still remains unknown and further details may satisfactorily answer questions and concerns raised in what follows or, alternatively, prompt further questions and deepen concerns.
The Liverpool CNC & John Perumbalath’s Nomination
Chronology
| 16th May 2022 | Shortlisting CNC meeting for Bishop of Liverpool |
| 21st-22nd June 2022 | CNC interviews of shortlisted candidates for Liverpool by 14 members |
| 18th October 2022 | John Perumbalath announced as Bishop of Liverpool |
| 25th November 2022 | Elected by the College of Canons of Liverpool Cathedral |
| 20th January 2023 | Confirmation of Election making him legally bishop |
In the light of reports by Channel 4 News and the Telegraph it is important to clarify three areas where unfounded concerns have been raised and highlight three areas—two of them very significant—where there are genuine concerns and serious questions which are as yet unanswered.
Three unfounded concerns
- The allegations that have now gone public were not withheld from the Liverpool CNC as they were not reported until over six months after the CNC met (see below).
- Bishop John did not fail to secure the necessary two-thirds support of CNC members; it simply took three votes to achieve this.
- The fact that there were further votes after Bishop John failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority is not unusual on CNCs because of the super-majority required (10-4). This process is therefore not (as some have suggested) like the French or Danish referendums in relation to the EU where failure to get the desired result on a vote should have been accepted but was not and then overturned in a subsequent vote. If there were not repeated votes then CNCs would much more often fail to nominate.
First concern: Number of CNC votes
Voting in CNC occurs by successively eliminating the candidate with the least votes until only two remain. At that point a candidate requires not a simple majority (8-6) of the 14 members of CNC but a two-thirds majority (10-4) if they are to be nominated. It is reported that (presumably at that final stage) Bishop John had the support of 9 members (the Archbishop and Bishop of Oxford and 7 of the 12 other members), one short of the number needed to be nominated.
There followed a second vote at the suggestion of the Archbishop as Chair which secured the same 9-5 result. Then a central member of the CNC supportive of Perumbalath suggested a third vote in which the necessary 10 votes were achieved. It is reported that a female member later disclosed she had “laid aside her concerns over safeguarding” and changed her vote.
It is not known how many times a CNC repeatedly votes to see if a candidate can secure two-thirds and whether proceeding to a third vote after two 9-5 votes failed to reach the threshold is unusual. Repeated votes would normally not follow immediately after each other but only after further discussion of the candidates and prayer to enable discernment. It is, therefore, important to recognise, given proposals coming to Synod, that it was the requirement of 10 votes (which it is being proposed is reduced to 9) that would have enabled the minority’s concerns to be aired repeatedly in the CNC discernment over the course of three votes rather than being set aside after securing 9 votes on the first ballot.
Second concern: Safeguarding
Prior to interview by the CNC, all short-listed candidates are interviewed one-to-one by the Head of Safeguarding who writes a report for the CNC to consider. If a candidate fails that interview they are not called to the CNC for interview. It is clear that Bishop John passed that safeguarding interview although it appears that some concerns may have been raised. A statement from the Archbishop said
Like all other candidates for this role, Bishop John Perumbalath was interviewed by the national safeguarding team who found no concerns about his operational safeguarding experience and recommended some development work for him as he took on additional strategic safeguarding responsibilities—which is commonly the case for new diocesan bishops
It is not clear whether “commonly the case for new diocesan bishops” refers to the need for him to take on additional strategic safeguarding responsibilities or also to the recommendation for “some development work”.
During the CNC interview there is always a question relating to safeguarding asked of candidates. This, like the preceding interview, has been widely understood also to be a “pass/fail” question given the importance of safeguarding. It would appear that his answer to this question was not viewed as satisfactory by some of the CNC members.
One CNC member, believing there was “an abuse of process”, has decided the seriousness of the matter justifies them breaking their oath of confidentiality and effectively whistle-blowing. They report that “It was suggested that the safeguarding issue identified regarding John Perumbalath was a basis to reject the candidate”. In response it was, however, claimed that the Diocesan Safeguarding Team would provide support to the bishop. Both the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Oxford (standing in for the Archbishop of Canterbury) therefore urged Perumbalath remain under consideration. The CNC member who has given a report to the media wrote:
But Stephen Cottrell urged members to keep him in the process. Steven Croft agreed…I was shocked by this attitude to safeguarding, effectively that a candidate identified as a safeguarding risk is acceptable because Stephen Cottrell says so….
It is deeply concerning that it would appear that significant safeguarding concerns had been raised in the discussion and yet still the candidate was considered, with further votes increasing pressure on the five members who were concerned in order to try to shift the vote of at least one of them, despite the safeguarding nature of their concerns. The Bishop of Newcastle has stated about the alleged “failure in the safeguarding-assessment process for Liverpool” (and before the detailed account from the whistleblower appeared) that
I was told repeatedly that failure in this area would mean automatic disqualification from being considered for a diocesan role. I am therefore personally dismayed by that aspect of the Channel 4 reporting.
Third concern: Coercion and bullying
It is alleged by one of the CNC members present that undue pressure was put on members that amounted to bullying:
I was concerned that I had witnessed bullying of two [women on the committee]. I was very concerned but did not know which way to turn.
I believe there was bullying of the elected members.
This appeared to me as evidence of coercion by Stephen Cottrell and Steven Croft.
Although the Archbishop has rejected this allegation (as has the Bishop of Oxford), his claim that “the CNC’s ballot process ensures that no one knows how others voted, specifically to prevent coercion or undue influence” fails to acknowledge that pressure experienced as bullying or coercive could be put on Commission members collectively (e.g. stressing the serious consequences of not making a nomination to a diocese with significant challenges and so leaving it without an appointment for another year or more). It is also likely in the discussion to have been clear which members were unhappy to nominate Bishop John and so pressure could be put on them individually in conversations (as has been alleged to have happened at a now long past CNC with the memorable statement of Colin Slee, “At a critical point in voting ++Sentamu and three other members simultaneously went to the lavatory; after which the voting pattern changed”).
In addition, this report (and the defence above about the current voting process) shows the danger in the proposal being brought by the bishops to General Synod to remove the secret ballot and even more the proposal that the Archbishop chairing CNC be given an extra, casting, vote to secure the necessary majority when it is not achieved under one member, one vote.
Any experience of coercion or bullying is a serious matter and especially so when the pressure being applied is in relation to concerns being raised about safeguarding and it seems likely, given the reports, that discussion before each of the three votes would have included airing of safeguarding concerns on the part of CNC members unwilling to vote for him.
Conclusion
There are major concerns that serious reservations were raised concerning John Perumbalath in relation to safeguarding ability at the CNC but the Archbishop of York as Chair and the Bishop of Oxford not only did not see these as rendering him unappointable but used the multiple voting, their power as a bishop and Archbishop, and perhaps private conversations with members, to change one member’s vote, setting aside her safeguarding concerns, and secure his nomination.
This is important background for understanding the Archbishop of York’s response when the allegations against Bishop John were raised in early 2023. He was one of very few people who knew that (one hopes uniquely) the reason Perumbalath’s nomination had struggled to secure two-thirds support at the CNC was because of serious safeguarding concerns on the part of a minority of CNC members but that he had persisted, from the Chair, to push for and ultimately secure his friend’s appointment.
Disclosures and their handling (January 2023–September 2023)
Chronology
| March 2019-January 2023 | A woman in Chelmsford diocese alleges that during this period, on 3 (or more) occasions, including in the month he was shortlisted for Liverpool, she was sexually assaulted by Bishop John. |
| 16th January 2023 | Announced that the Bishop of Stepney would take up the role of lead safeguarding bishop from the Bishop of Rochester at the end of March. |
| 20th January 2023 | Bishop John’s confirmation of election as Bishop of Liverpool. |
| 24th January 2023 | After reporting the latest incident to her husband and vicar, the woman met with the Archdeacon who had been informed of her disclosure. |
| 17th February 2023 | Concerns were referred to the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and a “core group” set up. |
| 26th February 2023 | Bishop John said farewell to Chelmsford diocese. |
| 6th March 2023 | Bishop John paid homage to the sovereign |
| 15th March 2023 | Woman writes letter to the Archbishop of York, whom she knew personally, informing him of her disclosure. |
| 24th March 2023 | Archbishop replies by email and says, “I did know that an allegation had been made against JP but, rightly, I didn’t know who had made it until I received your letter. Your letter does contain new information which is relevant to the case. I will have to share that with the NST as it will help them build a picture of what has happened and what should be done as a result to ensure that behaviours like this are properly dealt with and learned from”. The Church Times has reported that the Archbishop “recused himself from any involvement when her complaint came to light, because he knew both Dr Perumbalath and the woman herself”. |
| March 2023 (date unknown) | Bishop Bev Mason made her own disclosure concerning Bishop John. In her letter to the diocese she stated, “In March 2023, when, as your acting diocesan bishop, I was advised of a complaint raised against the Bishop of Liverpool and a subsequent investigation by the National Safeguarding Team, I raised what I believe were significant concerns, which included my own disclosure. The focus of my concerns centred around due process”. |
| 13th April 2023 | NST report on Bishop John: “The NST concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a safeguarding-related complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) itself but offered the woman support if she wished to do so”. The NST also recommended reflective learning by Bishop John on maintaining professional boundaries and the Church of England has stated that he “fully engaged” with this “learning outcome” (on this terminology and how it might be more bluntly stated see the comments of Andrew Brown). The Church of England also funded therapy for the woman for a year. |
| 22nd April 2023 | Bishop John installed as bishop in Liverpool Cathedral and begins public ministry in diocese. |
| 10th May 2023 | A senior church woman in Chelmsford responding to the first woman’s concerns about Bishop John (which included the bishop’s indiscretion with information that was acknowledged as a “well known” characteristic of him) told her that “we can argue that he should have had some sanctions but they have apparently tried to address his unboundaried behaviour”. |
| 20th July 2023 | Bishop Bev’s disclosure passed to NST and a further “core group” convened. At some point this group reported that it had been “assessed not to be a safeguarding matter but a matter of alleged misconduct”. |
| September 2023 | Bishop Bev withdraws from active ministry as Bishop of Warrington |
There are at least the following five areas of concern from this chronology and reports relating to these events.
First Concern: Continuation in ministry?
It is unclear what action the Diocese of Chelmsford (and/or the Archbishop of York given Bishop John was by then legally Bishop of Liverpool) took in relation to Bishop John, having referred serious allegations against him of sexual assault to the NST. His farewell service continued as planned just over a week after the referral. In most other professions there would be a suspension with no implication of guilt during a time of investigation and assessment. It seems unlikely that no action would be taken against a parish priest facing such serious accusations (given the actions taken against some clergy on much less serious charges) and, in the words of Bishop Bev in her letter:
A bishop cannot be above the law. A bishop cannot be dealt differently from a priest. If anything, a bishop must be held to greater scrutiny. This is a biblical imperative.
Second Concern: Proper Process?
Bishop Bev is clear that her own disclosure was in the context of raising in March “what I believe were significant concerns…The focus of my concerns centred around due process. Throughout these past 510 days I have remained consistent and persistent in my pursuit of proper and appropriate ecclesiastical judicial process”. Originally relating to the first complaint these questions also arise about the response to her own disclosure including the apparent delay of four months before it was referred to NST and the subsequent events explored below.
Third Concern: Bishop John’s Installation
It is clear that in the month before Bishop John began his public ministry the Archbishop
- knew the concerns that had been raised by a number of CNC members about his safeguarding ability
- was already aware of allegations of sexual assault against him (he was told at some point in March that a ‘core group’ had been set up)
- was discovering “new information…relevant to the case” (his email of 24th March)
- had been alerted to significant process concerns and a new personal disclosure by the Acting Diocesan Bishop with safeguarding responsibilities in the diocese
- was still awaiting the NST verdict which only came less than 10 days before the planned installation and was, inevitably, very narrow in its scope (see below) yet raised concerns, on the basis of the first disclosure, about maintaining boundaries.
This raises the obvious question as to whether consideration was seriously given and requests made to postpone the start of his public ministry until matters had been fully investigated and his innocence and safety established.
Fourth Concern: Safeguarding, Vulnerability and Misconduct
It is noteworthy that the evidence was deemed not sufficient to bring a safeguarding-related complaint under the CDM in relation to the first complaint and “assessed not to be a safeguarding matter” in the second. We know that Bishop Bev’s complaint was classed as one of “alleged misconduct” and given it has been described as “sexual harassment” and the initial complaint related to a number of alleged sexual assaults it seems clear that the Chelmsford disclosure too must have been a matter of alleged misconduct.
Under Canon C30 where a safeguarding risk assessment takes place, including of a bishop, it is as to “whether there is a significant risk” of harm to a child or vulnerable adult (Canon C30.2(3)). Here “ ‘vulnerable adult’ has the same meaning as in the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016” (Canon C30.6). That meaning is
a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, old age, emotional fragility or distress, or otherwise; and for that purpose, the reference to being impaired is to being temporarily or indefinitely impaired.
It has been suggested that neither of the women were judged to be vulnerable adults despite the power imbalance and the second complainant being expected to serve as the suffragan bishop when the man she had made a disclosure about was the incoming diocesan bishop.
It is also the case that
The aim of an Internal Church Investigation is to establish whether or not there are ongoing safeguarding concerns and whether the respondent is suitable to fulfill a Church role which carries the potential for engagement with children, young people and/or vulnerable adults. The aim is NOT to establish the guilt of the respondent.
There appears to be the real possibility that it was thought that a safeguarding assessment was the only way of addressing this issue and that if it was judged there was not a significant safeguarding risk then there was nothing more that could, or perhaps even should, be done by the Archbishop as the one who “has throughout his province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters therein, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, and, during the time of his metropolitical visitation, jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom” (Canon C17.2)
Fifth Concern: Clergy Discipline Measure
Although the first woman was offered support by the NST if she wished to bring “a safeguarding-related complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure”, the woman has now spoken of how she “was deterred from pursuing a CDM” by what she was told about the CDM process by the NST. That process will shortly be replaced but this highlights another major problem that contributed to the failings in this case.
Disclosures and their handling (September 2023–January 2025)
Chronology
| September 2023 | Bishop Bev withdraws from active ministry as Bishop of Warrington |
| November 2023 | Chelmsford woman reports sexual assault to police |
| January 2024 | Channel 4 has reported that the Archbishop and his Chief of Staff had a pastoral meeting with Bishop John about his behaviour in which is said to have “acknowledged how his actions could be perceived”. |
| March 2024 | Bishop John voluntarily interviewed under caution by the police in relation to the alleged assaults |
| 25th March 2024 | Announcement at diocesan Chrism Eucharist that “with the permission of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Liverpool”, Bishop Mason “remains away from the diocese of Liverpool and is not carrying out any engagements”. |
| 5th April 2024 | Church Times reports the diocesan announcement noting that “Her absence is not thought to be health-related”. |
| April 2024 (date unknown) | Archbishop of York informed of Bishop John’s interview under caution. |
| April 2024 (date unknown) | Police decide to take no further action against Bishop John. |
| Unknown date | Bishop Bev raises a CDM (the day following the first C4 report the page giving details of members of the Clergy Discipline Commission was updated to record that the Bishop of Liverpool ceased to be a member on 17th October 2024) |
| Unknown date | Deputy President of Tribunals refuses permission to bring CDM after the one year deadline. |
| 28th January 2025 | First Channel 4 News report breaks news leading to letter from Senior Leadership of Liverpool Diocese |
| 29th January 2025 | Second Channel 4 News report leading to further letter from Senior Leadership saying Bishop John should step aside as his position “currently untenable” |
| 30th January 2025 | Announcement of retirement of Bishop John and responses from Archbishop of York and Senior Leadership Pastoral Letter from Bishop Bev Third Channel 4 News report with more details about CNC |
First Concern: Interview under caution
The Essex police investigation led to the Bishop of Liverpool being voluntarily interviewed under caution by the police in March 2024. The Archbishop was made aware of this development the following month which was also when the police decided to take no further action. It would therefore appear there was some time between Bishop John being called for interview and being interviewed and the Archbishop being made aware of this, during which time the first public announcement was made about Bishop Bev’s absence.
Again there are questions as to whether this response would be acceptable and normally followed were a parish clergyperson to be in a similar situation. There is also an interesting historic episcopal parallel in the case of Bishop Michael Perham. He was similarly interviewed under caution in August 2014 also in relation to claims of sexual assault where it was ultimately concluded by the police there were no grounds for action. This situation quickly became public as a result of him stepping back from ministry, suddenly as soon as he was interviewed, only months in advance of his already announced retirement.
Second Concern: Clergy Discipline Measure
The Archbishop of York supported Bishop Bev when she applied for permission to bring a CDM after the one year deadline. There are quite narrow conditions under which this can be granted but cases exempt from the limitation period include alleged misconduct which is of a sexual nature and where the judge is of the opinion that the adult complainant was vulnerable at the time of the alleged misconduct. However
Even if the President decides that the complainant was not vulnerable at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct, the President may nonetheless grant permission for the complaint to proceed
(summarising section 9(4)). Here again questions arise as to how “vulnerable” is defined. There is also a process (Section 37A) for “suspension of bishop or archbishop pending determination of application to bring proceedings out of time” and it is unclear whether this process was attempted but failed at this stage or not undertaken by the Archbishop of York.
Third Concern: 510 days (and counting)
In her letter to the diocese, Bishop Bev refers on a number of occasions to “these past 510 days”. Given the date of that letter, this refers back to 8th September 2023. That would therefore appear to be the date at which she stepped back from her ministry as Bishop of Warrington. This would have been seven weeks after her disclosure was finally passed to the NST and therefore presumably this stepping back happened in the light of receiving the NST assessment and how the Archbishop of York responded to it.
The Archbishop of York has stated that “Nobody asked or required the Bishop of Warrington, [and] certainly not me … to take some extended sabbatical leave”, and that she had said that “what she needed was space”.
This raises one of the most shocking and distressing elements of the official handling of the case:
- a woman bishop makes a disclosure of sexual harassment against her incoming diocesan bishop and raises concerns about the handling of an earlier disclosure of alleged sexual assault against another woman
- she is informed her complaint has been “assessed not to be a safeguarding matter but a matter of alleged misconduct”
- the alleged misconduct against the senior male bishop is not now properly investigated by the Archbishop
- Instead, she is effectively given a choice between continuing to work with the bishop whose conduct had led to her disclosure or to withdraw from exercising her episcopal ministry.
Sadly, many clergy, and massively disproportionately women clergy, have experienced harassment, bullying and other forms of misconduct in ministry. The way in which this case appears to have been handled only increases existing deep concerns about systemic institutional failures in this area.
This raises multiple questions that urgently need to be answered including:
- the processes that were being followed and why they were used,
- how this response and outcome fits with a focus on victims,
- how this self-evidently unsustainable situation in the diocese was allowed to continue for so long,
- how it was going to be resolved (presumably the hope was that Bishop Bev would at some point give up pressing her concerns) and
- how it was thought the true details of the context of her departure from ministry and the handling of the two complaints was going to be kept secret rather than becoming public and so causing a scandal as it has now done.
Fourth Concern: Reviewing what happened
According to the Bishop of Dover speaking on Channel 4, a review of the handling of these matters by a barrister was instigated recently by the Archbishop of York. It is not clear exactly when and why this happened but it is possible it was only when it became clear the story was likely to become public, a week before it did. No further details have as yet been made public as to the nature and terms of reference of this review or with whom its findings will be shared.
Conclusion
The series of events described above has led to two women victims being unable to have their complaints properly examined and dealt with by the Church of England, in part because the NST judged them not to be a matter of safeguarding. One of those has also been unable to exercise her episcopal ministry for over 500 days as a result. In addition, the male bishop against whom the complaints were made has now taken early retirement while denying all charges and complaining of trial by the media. It is clear that the whole process has been a disaster and further eroded trust in the Church of England’s structures and in the handling of matters such as this by senior leadership.
Bishop Bev has been clear that throughout she has been “consistent and persistent in my pursuit of proper and appropriate ecclesiastical judicial process” and Bishop John has written that he shares her concerns about the process and that “the process, if there was one, failed me and my colleague”.
The Archbishop of York (“I won’t quit over abuse crisis. I’ll bring change”) has admitted “I have made mistakes” and also blamed the need “to live with the constraints and inadequacies of our systems”. He is clear in his belief that “because God has put me into this position as well as the church, then I believe I have an opportunity this year”. The question is whether, given all the issues raised now in relation to the appointment of, and accusations against, the former Bishop of Liverpool and the treatment of the Bishop of Warrington (following so soon after the details of his handling of David Tudor in Chelmsford) the wider church continues to have anywhere near the level of confidence and determination that he clearly has that he must “play my part in making this change happen”.
In discerning the way forward what is now needed is genuine corporate lament and repentance, public accountability regarding what has happened, radical reforms, and renewed hope in God and, as Bishop Bev has witnessed to, the goodness of God. In her words,
I regret we as a church have not properly and satisfactorily addressed concerns that have been raised. My prayer is that now things have been brought into the light, there will be no more defendedness but an honest scrutiny of what we are doing, how we are doing it, where the gaps sit and how we address them. Our aim as an institutional church should be to work together across disciplines and departments to ensure our church is a safe, grace-filled, Christ-centred, flourishing environment/workplace for all.
There are many questions that I have as a result of this very difficult experience. These are now being raised and I trust, will be listened to and engaged with by senior leaders from within the national church. This, I hope and pray, will be a kairos moment for the church—a time of honesty, humility, repentance, unity, hope and blessing—a time when we can tear down the idols that have disoriented us and raise up again the incarnate God, who was crucified, is glorified and who is the Lord of the Church—the Lord of all.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
I take Perumbalath’s action in resigning as speaking more clearly than his words, but there is important missing information. In this era when “sexual assault” can range from penetrative rape to touching them nonconsensually on a non-erogenous body part, what was Perumbalath alleged to have done?
I have an exceedingly low opinion of Stephen Cottrell, but someone in a secure position who changes his or her mind under verbal pressure in an anonymised vote is not particularly courageous, and courage is needed in the church.
It would would have been of some importance to have known the criminal offence for which he was interviewed under caution.
Presumably he will have been represented by a lawyer, who could advise silence to question.
Unless there were some independent evidence it seems unlikely that the threshold for charge would be passed. But it is also unlikely that the episode and decisions would be made by someone in the lower ranks of police or CPS services.
Beyond the alleged criminal matter were there not sufficient warning signs from the circumstances in any of the processes of manipulation, domination, control which would be lower than the threshold to prosecute a criminal offence.
As a slight aside, while I was very briefly part of senior management in the NHS, as part of a leadership course, underwent 360 degree assessment and Myers-Briggs, I was informed by the independent course providers that senior managers were largely within a narrow, similar, band of Myers-Briggs personality types.
Likewise the CoE? And has there been a shift, a movement of type?
The details of the allegation were read out in excruciating detail on C4 on Tuesday. Link in the piece
John Perumbalath’s account is worth reading. Bit surprised Andrew didn’t refer to it as it fills out some details from his point of view. I’ve only just come across it. He claims it was the woman giving him unwanted attention and implies she felt spurned when he kept his distance. https://anglican.ink/2025/01/31/bishop-of-liverpools-writes-in-the-wake-of-his-resignation/
It certainly flows coherently.
I do not understand Bishop Mason’s position.
Is she on sick leave? Has she been suspended?
Is she on administrative leave? Is she still being paid by the Church and occupying a church house?
This is an intolerable state of affairs.
James, it’s not too difficult to comprehend. If you as the former acting Bishop of Liverpool, learned you were to be replaced by a person whom you believe has sexually harassed you and sexually assaulted another woman, have one or both these allegation (from your perspective, inadequately) investigated and (inappropriately) dismissed, and are then expected to work under the authority of said newly appointed bishop, it would be “challenging.”
Jack, I understand that. My point was that she occupies her post under employment law. So what is her legal position? Any lawyer or auditor would be bewildered by this.
Just on a point of information bishops, like most clergy, aren’t employees and are not subject to employment law. We occupy our posts under Common Tenure. The better question might be why, now the moral impediment to functioning in her role is removed, she is not invited by the Archbishop to resume it. Presumably as acting diocesan (again)!
That is a very good question Pete
What exactly do you find intolerable re Bishop Mason? That she is still being paid, if she is? Still lives in provided housing? I find it baffling that this is the part you chose to comment on, the woman who was not able , very likely to an imbalance of power, to work with Bishop John. What was her choice? So yes, let’s have a go at the victim and speculate about what’s going on there. I’d like to focus on why did she have to go on leave when she was the one who was wronged?
I was not criticising her but a church that has made her position intolerable and then silently pushed her into a twilight zone – while still using church money. Isn’t this the definition of corruption? Perumbalath should never have been appointed.
I thought the whole point was that Abp Cottrell did not sanction nor support her having time off.
I think he said he didn’t require her to. That’s not quite the same thing.
So whose decision was it that she do so?
Which finding says she was wronged? Is that something you are just assuming? But why? Because she is female? Because all charges are accurate that anyone ever made? Because people always perceive and intend things the same way?
Sorry, but unless I’m missing something, throughout this analysis there seems to be an assumption of guilt, cover-up, and abuse of due process. This despite the police and Church authorities finding insufficient no corroboration of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or actual safeguarding breaches by Bishop Perumbalath. There’s plenty of speculation and “joining of dots” about these events and his appointment as bishop, based on leaked information, but little in the way of evidence. “Shocking reports” by Channel Four is not good enough. Has the assumption of innocence been set aside in favour of a theory the “old boys network” (the Archbishop of York was his “friend”) being advanced as the reason for his appointed as bishop?
Would a reasonable person have appointed John Perumbalath where there was a “cloud of (past) suspicion”. Perhaps no; perhaps yes. In any event, nine and then ten members of a panel did so. Frankly, it’s no good one member bleating afterward the event she was pressurised into this. How was she pressured?
There either was a substantiated “sexual assault” (i.e., a physical, psychological and/or emotional violation in the form of a sexual act, inflicted on someone without their consent) against the first woman, or there was not – ongoing suspicion and allegation is insufficient. The same applies to Bishop Mason’s allegations of “sexual harassment” (i.e., behaviour characterised by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances). Without the thresholds for such a finding, neither woman can properly be referred to as a “victim”.
Perhaps I’m missing something in all this and am open to being enlightened. Now, if the appointment criteria is a future bishop must be “without (any) reproach (substantiated or not)”, a lower threshold were blame can be assigned to perceptions or reports of past behaviour, there might be a case to answer. Presumably, this is the core business of the CNC.
Let me add, I’m no supporter of either the Archbishop of York or the Bishop of Oxford.
‘This despite the police and Church authorities finding insufficient no corroboration of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or actual safeguarding breaches by Bishop Perumbalath.’
Yes, I think you have missed the point. The police threshold for prosecution is high; the only other question explored was ‘safeguarding’. Neither woman was judged to be ‘vulnerable’ so this was not a safeguarding question.
In neither case has there been an exploration of clergy conduct. why not?
>>Neither woman was judged to be ‘vulnerable’ so this was not a safeguarding question.<<
So there was no church investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse/sexual discrimination? They were simply ruled them out because neither women was deemed non-vulnerable? Was the ground "exhibiting behaviour considered unbecoming of a church leader" ignored as a result of the complaints being out-of-date?
As I understand the process, if an allegation of misconduct is delayed for more than 12 months, permission by the complainee can be sought from the President of Tribunals to take it forward, giving good reasons for any delay. It's then the role of the President of Tribunals is to determine whether good reasons exist and whether such a case goes before a disciplinary tribunal.
Wasn't it Dame Sarah Asplin, a British judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who was President at the time? Were submissions made to her by these women? Did she give a ruling? She's not known to be a "shrinking violet" and somewhat renown for her decisions in 'Percy-Gate'. Has she been asked to release her decision on this? These are normally deemed confidential but are submitted to the appropriate Bishop.
Just noticed it was the Deputy President of the Tribunal, David Turner KC, who made the decision regarding Bishop Mason’s submission. Even so, it was adjudicated, not ignored.
Ian
My naive little self would imagine that if reports of sexual abuse by the same member of the clergy kept coming up that measures would be put in place to at least monitor that person, if not actively protect the public from them.
I think we are all vulnerable to sexual abuse. But even if the church could guarentee that the two alleged victims were not, what happens if he came into contact with someone who *was* vulnerable.
PJ, assuming the alleged complaints against him are upheld. He’s innocent until proven guilty.
As my dear mother used to say: “If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there’d be no need for tinkers.”
Jack,
I respect your considerable expertise in safeguarding, but ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is overly simplistic even in the law, let alone the community of (hopefully) grace. In law, someone may or may not be charged; and may or may not then be granted bail, of a particular amount. These things all reflect – among other things – the authorities’ provisional view of the likelihood of guilt.
Anton, whether or not woman A’s accusations should have been the subject of a safeguarding hearing is now moot.
And, actually, I was wearing my old trade union representative ‘hat’ in these making these observations, as well as my experience at employment tribunals. I just think it grossly unjust to label a man a sexual abuser/sexual harasser of women on the strength of unsubstantiated hearsay and without him having had the opportunity to test this evidence and answer the accusations.
It’s a matter for a CDM charge of “exhibiting behaviour considered unbecoming of a church leader” and if good grounds exist for delaying the complaints made by woman A and Bishop Mason. However, from what I can gather, neither have followed the procedure to request this. This is the “appropriate ecclesiastical judicial process”. Indeed, the anonymous woman C who alleges bullying at the CNC, is also entitled to submit a complaint on these grounds.
It really won’t do to simply attribute this to institutionalised, systemic sexism and claims that women have no opportunities for redress. And, if I’m being completely honest, I found Bishop Mason’s statement somewhat passive-aggressive. She has agency and a position of authority and is taking on the role of victim.
As for Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Oxford, well, they deserve all they get!
Thank you Jack, I agree with all of that.
Happy Jack
I’m not suggesting he be disciplined for unproven allegations. I’m only talking about public safety measure, such as ensuring he’s not left alone with women or vulnerable people
Might there be a DEI dimension? Is it possible that there was an eagerness on the part of Cottrell and others that Perumbalath be appointed because of his non-white heritage, and thus a greater willingness to overlook potential barriers? Just a thought.
I think it would have been wise to have allowed the CDM complaint to proceed despite being out of time given all the circumstances. That seems a misstep and ends up looking like a cover up on a technicality. However, it does look like processes were followed. We can question the wisdom of appointing someone with serious concerns raised about him. But we also need to bear in mind that concerns aren’t findings. Sometimes these things are more obvious with hindsight. It’s hard for us in our armchairs to know how serious the allegations are – the accuser says it was a kiss and a (separate) grope, he denies it and says it was a public place and seems to imply it was a misunderstanding somehow. I assume she knows what she experienced. But there hasn’t been a finding against him. It puts us out here in an invidious position in knowing how to think about it.
‘There may be a DEI dimension?’ I couldn’t possibly comment. I am sure that the fact that David Tudor is from Barbados and John P from India is just a coincidence….
Of course, it’s not a coincidence. Well, at least, it’s no more a mere coincidence than the link between FAA’s DEI policy initiatives and the recent plane crash in Washington DC.
And who needs hard evidence of a DEI dimension, when insinuation (whether overt or tongue-in-cheek) is enough to confirm what some have always suspected about minority ability and advancement.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting anything about ‘minority ability and advancement’.
I would hope that all appointments are made on the basis of calling and ministry, and not on the basis of ethnicity…
Yes, though it is a big If. It assumes that the former was warranted, which may or may not be the case.
This form of argument can also spawn: ‘Goodness, UK has abortion access so we cannot have inequality so Northern Ireland should get it too.’ Or indeed, ‘Goodness, UK unlike N Ireland has abortion access, so we cannot have inequality, so UK should have it removed.’. Oh – wait a minute….
Sorry, this is really a reply to Jonathan Perkin below.
Abp Cottrell has generalised that there are several minority ethnic people who should receive senior appointments, without giving numbers or evidence. He made at least one other minority ethnic appointment in Chelmsford that struck me as surprising and didn’t seem to have turned out well. As long as we appoint on what the American legal academic Winkfield Twyman has called a ‘We must have a . . .’ policy, we will continue to risk appointments backfiring.
John Root
Absolutely.
Will
But then I think, apart from these two, all the other high profile abusers were born in England, white men
What, you mean all the high profile ones from a small pool in a country that is largely what you call white, and was even more so at the time?
Peter, that might be because
a. we live in England, and
b. until very recently, around 95% of the population was white.
Ian
Yes but it disproves the idea that these abusers were ignored because of they originally came from other cultures.
Clearly the cofe has an abuse epidemic and the abusers come from all wings of the church and all ethnicities
No, it does not have an abuse epidemic.
The most high profile instances of which you speak are either many years ago or adjudged by both church and police as to some degree exaggerated.
But that doesn’t make good copy, so the media firstly endlessly rehash old cases for the spice value,and secondly cry foul (and also ignore rulings) when the initial allegations are found to be exaggerated.
This you term an epidemic. Because the media does, and the media never allows anything not to be shock-horror, and never allows the church (which church??) not to be in crisis. Can’t you see through it?
Ian
You are burying your head in the sand. It seems likely in a few weeks both ABC and ABY will have resigned in disgrace for their part in allowing abuse to occur, multiple other bishops have been involved. The most influential youth leader resigned because of his own abuse.
How many senior people need to be involved before you recognize that this isn’t a few isolated cases?
Er, I was the co-sponsor of the petition which led to ABC resigning. Did you know that? Hardly burying my head anywhere!
Next week: The common denominator of central African criminals is that they are dark skinned. Is this a conspiracy? We need to be told.
I think there is a sliding scale extractable from the allegations:
1) A possible misremembering of a kiss, perhaps mixed with a dream
2) A mistaken movement of an inch or so possible from many sorts of things, but took a kiss from the cheek to the mouth
3) A kiss on or near the mouth
4) A deliberate and sexual kiss on the mouth
Different degrees of fault here, and according to the beholders, nothing clearly inappropriate, though the beholders clearly have limited vision, and that can take one straight back to ‘he said, she said’ which is a minefield.
The first woman alleged that Bp Perumbalath groped her breast. She described it in considerable detail. She also alleged that the kiss was forced: that Bp Perumbalath held her head between his hands and kissed her forcibly on the mouth.
We don’t know whether or not these allegations are true, but they don’t leave room for ‘misinterpretation’.
Hang on! Steady the Buffs! If Justin Welby had to resign over a person who was not an Anglican minister, who was not offending within the auspices of any Anglican church or organisation, was a leader at a youth camp which is not Anglican, for rumours of offences, even though dreadful, that Justin was not ‘curious enough about’. Then surely, The AofY ought to resign over two Anglican ministers, who were operating within Anglican churches, for offences that were not rumours but officially disclosed by no less than another Anglican Bishop?
God help the CofE.
I don’t think I can disagree with your logic…
Jonathan
I dont disagree, but it was Welbys own behavior that led to people demanding his resignation – the way he had repeatedly disregarded victims etc…his resignation speech was appalling. It’s a sad indictment on the church that people with so little moral fiber can become archbishop.
Yes, I would agree.
Smyth was also brining the legal profession into disrepute, but strangely no one mentions that.
LJMT
He wasnt using his position as a lawyer to abuse children. He was using his position as a Christian youth worker to abuse children
John Smyth was an Anglican lay reader in Winchester Diocese, the Iwerne camps were run by an Anglican vicar, and John Smyth’s crimes were not mere ‘rumours’. They were described in first the Ruston Report (1982) and the later Coltart Report on Smyth’s activities in Zimbabwe.
How can anyone ever get an accurate picture unless you outline which features were and were not Anglican, rather than limiting yourself to the former, which is bound to look like (or be?) bias.
Some speak as though they already know who ‘victims’/’survivors’ and ‘abusers’ are.
Given the lack of detail given (and even leading church figures in Liverpool itself are very much in the dark) they must know that they are not telling the truth about that.
The simplistic black and white of goodies and baddies simply compounds that. No grey areas are allowed, as though no different perceptions, different ways of looking at things, different cultures existed. They don’t? (Anyone can see that even *one single culture firstly is never the same from one decade to the next, and also is never uniform from one part of the country, or milieu, to the next.) In normal distribution the whole thing is grey areas, not that that is 100% relevant, but it does make you think.
And there is a further compounding by almost anything becoming termed sexual assault. For this, read AN Wilson, The Vicar of Sorrows. Apparently, though it sounds incredible, someone was too close to someone else in a narrow corridor.
And a third compounding. If in the course of a friendly embrace, someone moves (body position) inadvertently or otherwise, that is out of the control of the other party.
(And when people are clothed, as they generally are, then is the other person in a couple of seconds analysing in detail whereabouts the other was or was not in physical contact? In an embrace, the contact is pretty general.)
All of this quite apart from the fourth factor: the possibility of malicious or scorned or ‘wronged’ contributions and especially on those that bank on capitalising on (or cashing in on) a culture that tends to favour the female e.g. in family courts, and where a portfolio life with no obstructions to having one’s own way has almost become some’s expectation.
The reason the C of E processes are lamentable is that it is not possible to be otherwise when there is such micro-attention to safeguarding even from generations ago. They are desperate not to get anything wrong, because of the inevitable media backlash. (When the police class something as not important enough, the media cry Foul because the police have stopped their ‘fun’.) However – most of their cases are unprovable either way. So decisive action is totally impossible.
And cases proliferate when the bar for e.g. ‘sexual assault’ gets set lower. It is now so low that things can be so classed which were not remotely remarked upon by any of the other many people present.
Cathy Newman purrs on twitter, re the Liverpool story, that she has a ‘BIG’ story about to break. Sit back and get your popcorn, never mind the families of people who may be falsely accused, or accused of what is almost nothing. Andrew Graystone promises afficionados that there are two more stories about to break. For our delectation? Setting up a feeding frenzy. Suddenly, they pull all the strings (together with ascribing infallibility to all victims and survivors, a label which can be assumed by very many on flimsier pretexts together with those who deserve it; and even the latter have much more to be said about them than that, and are not infallible) with an imperative of maximum sensationalism, sometimes maximum pettiness, and regularly maximum damage to what they call ‘the church’ being the barometer by which truth is tested.
As we speak, a man is in danger of being jailed for two years for kissing a high achiever from his own nation in a moment of high euphoria. That achiever said that she not he was in control of what could and could not happen (inequality, then), meaning that no-one can kiss anyone without asking first(!). (It did not occur to her that that was quite distant from any previous norm?) Psychologically healthy people kiss others quite often and probably forget it a second later, so we are here prioritising being psychologically prickly instead, as though that was a good (!) thing.
Anyone who copycats that case (that comes from a very particular feminist/sexually-unequal moment in Spain’s history) will be in danger of being left high and dry once that fad blows by.
And in all this, those of warmth, who have the presupposition of healthy warm families and cultures, are first to suffer, together with aforesaid family. The precise reverse of the way things should be.
People complain very strongly about abuses. The *same people also complain very strongly about false accusations. But they are sitting on the sidelines, so can afford to criticise. Whereas the poor people charged with making decisions (quite apart from the fact that most private matters are person A’s word against person B’s, and A and B may not even disagree at all anyway, just have different perceptions/cultures) need somehow to see which is which, because they are caught between Scylla and Charybdis, the devil and the deep blue sea.
But they do not have the evidence wherewith to do so. So they wait, and in do doing are accused of kicking the can down the road.
The Anglican malaise is that it actually *wants gossip and tittletattle and scandal, because that is what makes the whole thing worthwhile and entertaining for them; so if there is none, some gets manufactured. It is their fix, just like party leadership contests are in a different milieu. And they descend from a ‘World for Christ’ church to an ‘oooh, he touched me’ church. Other denominations are getting on with the programme.
Having just read an article about Mike Bickle and the way the allegations against him were handled – or should say covered up – by the leadership at the International House of Prayer Kansas City the statement that ‘Other denominations are getting in with the program’ rings very very hollow indeed.
Rosemary
Other denominations are getting with the program … of covering up abuse – would be accurate.
It doesn’t ring hollow at all. ‘Other denominations’ is different from ‘all other denominations’.
Anyway my comment was onn the way that the public at large sees that as the headline. What one leader does is not necessarily going to be symptomatic of an entire denomination, even when churches are affiliated and not independent.
Christopher,
If the allegations contained in the Tuesday channel 4 report ( which the presenter said came from a statement in her possession) formed the basis of a witness statement to the police which prompted a police interview under caution, it’s seriousness goes well beyond the category you seek to put it in.
The statement to the police would open the woman up to a crime, if false.
And of itself that would render the woman vulnerable.
For anyone who has no direct experience of the criminal law system, it may seem to be of little importance, but it is no small matter of oo aa he touched me.
It is suggested that it ought to have been a red flag to the Bishops, outside any criminal processes and of sufficient weight for the whole circumstances to be known in the appointment processes.
The burden of roof is always on the claimant and the standard of proof, is higher in criminal than civil matters, especially when there would only the accusers word on oath against the acccused’s denial.
There is one other legal aspect to consider, to weigh and it is ‘similar fact evidence.’ That is more legally defined, but its name gives a hint on what may be weighed in testing veracity and ‘translated’, transferred to church processes.
There is another aspect that doesn’t seem to have considered.
Believers are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Is what has been alleged something that would be appropriate, acceptable for a brother in a relationship with their sister?
Alleged, no. Actual, maybe. It has been clear for some time that a central thing is how things are perceived without being so intended. That was in Bp of Liverpool’s initial statement, and reflects the assessment that had previously taken place. To that we add the inevitable cultural differences, and the way that people pretend these do not exist.
There will always be cultural differences betweedn touchy feely healthy cultures and merely touchy (i.e., prickly) sexual-revolution cultures.
But when we read the longer account (found on Anglican Ink) it is remarkable how coherent the story seems: bishop is good looking and like most good looking priests receives attention from the other sex; when that becomes too close he rightly distances himself, and it is at this point that the other feels (quite wrongly and unchristianly, if this is the correct explanation) scorned and wronged, and translates this into vengeful charges.
The other allegation was downgraded from having a sexual element to having none.
Christopher
If it were not for Cathy Newman, the abuses of John Smyth and Justin Welby would never have come to light. I think the church should be honoring her rather than denouncing her. Do we care about people’s lives or do we care about the church pretending to be something it is not?
She was late to the party but brought the publicising of far more details. First to publicise was Thorn 1989 second Coltart 1993, third Olonga 2011, fourth ‘Graham’ and Revd Paine 2012, letting the Church of England know (this fourth was less public but more focused on those who ought to sort things out); and fifth Cathy Newman’s report.
Christopher
Nothing at all was done to stop Smyth or bring him to justice until Cathy Newman started reporting on it.
I understand other people may have attempted to get the bishops to care, but they didn’t succeed
In the UK he was stopped from having contact with his victims, stopped from working with the young, stopped from even continuing his previous life. He was stopped from going to Above Bar Church.
He was stopped from being in good standing with the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, as he had previously been.
In Zimbabwe, he had a report written against him and was put on trial, and had various bodies expressing no confidence in him and blackballing him Zambesi Trust, his own organisation, tried to halt his operations. People were flying between continents to ‘stop’ this and that.
In South Africa, he had to move from church to church because he was stopped from attending, ministering, having leadership roles.
All that amounts to a lot of ‘stopped’. Before Cathy Newman ever came on the scene.
Christopher
They got him to agree to move to Africa where he continued to abuse little boys, at least one of which died in mysterious circumstances.
You make it sound like they actually took measures to stop him. No they helped cover up his crimes.
This answer does not just ignore points already made, it ignores points already made repeatedly.
So for the nth time:
-The main thought in their mind was explicitly to remove him from those he had harmed and from others in their age-group. These were in 2 categories: (1) those who had been reluctant to break ties with him in 1982 (about 4), (2) any others he might by his nature make contact with. (There were only two main thoughts. They gave a list of precisely two. The other was to care for the harmed. Other factors seem not to have been in their minds.)
-He did not ‘continue to abuse little boys’ because charges against him in the UK were almost exclusively re adults and 17 year olds. Little? Without knowledgeable qualification, these are sensationalist lies and tabloidesque lies.
-Was he or was he not with oversight when he went to Africa?
-Do you know enough about the specifics of the case to get beyond predictable stereotypes?
-If some can get beyond stereotypes and some cannot, which of the two groups do we listen to?
-So putting him on trial and giving evidence is not steps to stop him?
Flying to Africa is not steps to stop him? Holding crisis meetings? Writing a dossier?
You seem to know not a lot about the case. If someone is put on trial, you classify that as being nothing to do with trying to stop them?
Who are ‘they’, anyway? You seem to have only vague second hand knowledge, so why should we listen?
Your answers to the above?
>>Neither woman was judged to be ‘vulnerable’ so this was not a safeguarding question.<<
So there was no church investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse/sexual discrimination? They were simply ruled them out because neither women was deemed non-vulnerable? Was the ground "exhibiting behaviour considered unbecoming of a church leader" ignored as a result of the complaints being out-of-date?
As I understand the process, if an allegation of misconduct is delayed for more than 12 months, permission by the complainee can be sought from the President of Tribunals to take it forward, giving good reasons for any delay. It's then the role of the President of Tribunals is to determine whether good reasons exist and whether such a case goes before a disciplinary tribunal.
Wasn't it Dame Sarah Asplin, a British judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who was President at the time? Were submissions made to her by these women? Did she give a ruling? She's not known to be a "shrinking violet" and somewhat renown for her decisions in 'Percy-Gate'. Has she been asked to release her decision on this? These are normally deemed confidential but are submitted to the appropriate Bishop.
‘So there was no church investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse/sexual discrimination?’ Not that I am aware of.
Ian …. wasn’t that because they were ‘timed-out’ (over 12 months since the alleged incidents) and neither woman submitted representation to the President/Depute President of the CDM Tribunal for leave to move forward?
It may have been outside the the limitation period but it is suggested that that would not put it outside the relevant (logically probative) factors to be weighed in the appointments processes, especially as it seems that details were known by a Bishop pressing for appointment.
Unsubstantiated details”, Geoff, Or, to put it another way, hearsay and gossip.
It is quite often the case that someone other than the complainant can brings the CDM process. It is often done by archdeacons.
The main question is why JP was not required to stand back at the time. Is it really possible for two bishops to be working together in one diocese during a CDM process between them?
That might be relevant, Ian, if said CDM process had been initiated. And surely a bishop is more than able to initiate a CDM complaint? So I really don’t buy that. Bishop Mason’s allegation of sexual harassment was ‘timed-out’ and more expert advice and assistance could and should have been sought from within her network. Is she saying it was denied her? Her justification for going public is that “bishops are not above the law” … yet she never tested the proper legal option open to her. In the case of the woman alleging sexual assault, the safeguarding team have denied discouraging her from submitting a CDM complaint.
HJ,
The complaint to the police which resulted in interview under caution was personal witness testimony, so very far from hearsay.
And the bottom line in any testing of witness testimony is whether or not they are believed especially under oath.
And the standard is higher for a crime: there must be no reasonable doubt, that is, the tribunal judge/jury must be sure.
In civil cases the standard is lower; on the balance of probabilities, that is, more likely than not.
This is basic stuff that gets lost in the febrile atmosphere of public opinion and seemingly within the realms of CoE processes.
Here is the article I wrote calling for Stephen Cottrell’s resignation following the revelations about his mishandling/non-handling of David Tudor.
https://safeguardingtheinstitution.com/2025/01/23/why-stephen-cottrell-should-resign-as-archbishop-of-york/
I’m even more convinced that Stephen Cottrell should resign now.
This makes for interesting reading – if any of the statements about Stephen Cottrell are true he should face an immediate lifetime ban from the Charity Commission from any involvement in Safeguarding whatsoever for (1) actively and knowingly promoting extremely dangerous and sexually predatory individuals to ecclesiastical offices in the Church of England without any form of control, check, balance, intervention or monitoring – when in office they decided to treat his endorsement as a signal to do whatever they wished and (2) for reportedly using coercive, menacing, manipulative and threatening behaviours to extract compliance from others in promoting extremely dangerous and sexually predatory individuals to ecclesiastical offices in the Church of England.
Careful. one cannot claim John Perumbalath is/was an “extremely dangerous and sexually predatory individual ” I not your caveat “if any of the statements about Stephen Cottrell are true”; the same applies to JP.
Whatever he did or did not do, it was in front of a lot of other people who did not notice anything. Your summary is very inaccurate and also cruel.
To me, this isn’t an isolated case at all, but the continuation of a system that minimizes abuse, bullies victims into silence and promotes people willing to go along to get along.
Well intentioned priests who actually care about the people in their communities rarely become bishops.
The only way this will change is if the whole church hierarchy starts prioritizing things like morality, decency, honesty and goodness.
JP? I understand he has written a statement of self-exoneration based on implicate consensuality – so he has clearly ruled himself out of any of the alleged behaviours and categories associated with Stephen Cottrell:
https://anglican.ink/2025/01/31/bishop-of-liverpools-writes-in-the-wake-of-his-resignation/
Bishop John’s response appeared at Anglican Ink some days ago. If I missed mention of it above, apologies.
Clearly there seems to be a case greater safeguarding checks should have been made before the Bishop of Liverpool was appointed. However, he was never charged nor convicted in court and remains innocent until proven guilty.
Tonight C4 news correspondent Cathy Newman has also reported allegations against the late Reverend Fletcher, formerly Rector of conservative evangelical St Ebbe’s church in Oxford, that he was a sexual abuser. Though again we must remember he was never charged nor convicted of such offences
T1 – Antonio Gramsci summed up the current situation with safeguarding in the Church of England:
“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters” – Antonio Gramsci
The only, meqningful safeguarding is being carried out by Channel 4 in dealing with this “time of monsters”.
The recent letter signed by ‘106 persons associated with church safeguarding in CofE dioceses and cathedrals: General Synod Letter February 2025 – Final’ is a document completely detached from reality and is a statement of total denial of the seriousness of the situation.
Ah, Antonio Gramsci, the well known anti-Christian Marxist and one of the fathers of “critical theory” aimed at bringing down the cultural and family institutions that support capitalism.
Gramsci actually wrote
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
An accurate translation is:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.
I remember this because it appears at the start of Joseph Losey’s magnificent film of Mozart’s Don Giovanni.
Standards of behaviour between brother and sisters in Christ extend beyond offences against the state, that is, a crime.
Anyone read the scriptures?
Yes, the church should have higher standards than the world. But the Church of England and the Church of Rome in their repeated sex scandals (I make no judgement on Perumbalath) have lower standards than the world. Hence the attempt – not entirely wrong – to import the world’s standards in this area.
Personally I think the problem is clerisy and hierarchy, which will always mean that insitutional churches will try to cover up for themselves out of embarrassment, rather than let light be shone in their darkest corners. Hierarchy is supposed to solve the Quis Custodiet problem, but it actually makes it worse.
Much as I agree, I’m afraid that the non-institutional churches behave little better.
Whether or not that is true, the damage is far more localised if there is no hierarchy.
Or much more difficult to stop, at least hierarchical churches will have in depth safeguarding procedures now and disciplinary tribunals etc to deal with abusers. Non institutional, often stand alone churches could be run by a clique with no accountability to anyone but themselves and if an abuser is prominent in that clique they can be difficult to stop
T1, you have ignored my point that a hierarchy, far from overseeing the leaders of individual congregations effectively, actually covers up their sins. It is the cover-up at episcopal level, far more than the abuse which individual priests perpetrated, that caused the collapse of Catholicism in once-fervent Ireland.
You speak as if safeguarding practices will solve everything. But they mostly comprise a tickbox exercise to cover the leaders when something goes wrong. The core of the trouble is that the church in our culture is not holy enough.
There have been plenty of cases of sexual abuse in say the Southern Baptists, who have no Bishops at all
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/12/southern-baptist-church-sexual-abuse-scandal
The Church of Scotland also has no Bishops yet has had to payout for abuse in one of its care homes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-48097224
Anton, you and Pope Francis are in agreement that clericalism is at the root of abuses of power in the church. That, combined with a misguided belief one must “protect the brand” by giving priority to abusers, not their victims.
But what do we mean by the term “clericalism”?
As Wiki documents, Pope Francis in his address to the Synod in 2018 described clericalism as:
The Pope sees clericalism as a form of “ecclesiastical narcissism,” as well as a “club mentality and a corrupt system of cronyism.” This mindset, combined with disordered sexual desires, creates a situation pf heightened risk to those vulnerable to abuse.
This can apply to women too and is not restricted to the male of our species. And it doesn’t need a clerical hierarchy to fester. The solution isn’t the abolition of ordained ministry or the tearing down of hierarchies.
By clericalism I mean the setting-aside of a subgroup of believers by ‘priestly ordination’, despite St Peter and Revelation 1 saying that all believers are priests with Jesus as High Priest. We’ve discussed that issue before on this blog; can we on this thread simply agree to disagree?
Seems that the CoE is being carried along on a cultural tide away from clericalism as it invites suggestions from the public for the next Archbishop of Canterbury. BBC news at lunchtime today.
Is this for real? Or a laugh? Or misreported? Or misheard?
General Synod next week, too. Here is what will be discussed when:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/revised-outline-of-business-for-circulation-23-01-2025.pdf
Well the C of E is established church for every resident of England, so it is in law their church too where they are entitled to be married or buried in the Parish church nearest to where they live or were born. As long as they pick from the pool of C of Bishops no reason they cannot have an input if interested
Geoff, this is wonderful news!
Finally the Church of England is moving into the enlightened 21st century. It will be consider the views of the marginalised and excluded. It can listen to atheists, non-Christian deists and theists, Muslims, Jews, New Agers, and all manner of folk. It can truly become the defender of all faiths.
In this day and age, as the established Church, one wonders too whether its fair and right the post is limited to Christians and Anglicans. Yes, yes; I know, I know; by law its there to uphold and defend the Protestant faith from the scheming Romanists. This threat has long since passed. Let’s now open the doors wide and let the full smoke of modernism in!
Atheists, non-Christian deists and theists, Muslims, Jews, New Agers, and all manner of folk are all entitled to be married in their local Church of England Parish church or buried in its churchyard if they wish as it is the established church. As indeed are Roman Catholics. Even if most won’t the option is there. No reason they cannot also have a say on which Bishop becomes its next Archbishop
The King as C of E Supreme Governor has, while remaining a Christian Anglican, also made clear he will be defender of all faith not just Christian Protestant faith
Yes HJ.
What a BRF, a Brian Rix Farce. The stage is set, the script is Written on the Wall.
Is the public stock of the CoE rising, or laughing?
Nominate the Chairman of the Secular Society or Muslim Council.
After all, in eyes of T1, the authorised and authentic voice of the CoE, they all believe and worship the same God.
Are you vying for the office on this site?
No, the candidate for Archbishop will be chosen from the Diocesan Bishops of the C of E in England and secular atheists and Muslims would not apply or be picked anyway. However as the C of E is established church for all the people of England, every adult in England is entitled to a say in who they think of those Bishops should be Archbishop
But Jack ! When you addressed Anton by stating that he “and Pope Francis are in agreement that ‘clericalism’ is at the root of abuses of power in the church.” ; he (Anton) actually thinks that”the problem is clerisy and hierarchy.”
As I understand these terms (I may be wrong) both are saturated in opprobrium; clerisy being associated with the attitudes and pronouncements of the clerical pseudo – intelligentsia. And as for hierarchy, Anton has already made his interpretation of that term transparent on many occasions.
As to your quotation from the lips of Pope Francis describing clericalism as arising from “an elitist and exclusivist vision of vocation”, I was of the opinion that that definition fits his role precisely! Unless ,of course , he is not speaking ex cathedra as in the case of some of his most recent pontifications which tend to be more ex sedecula than ex cathedra.
Come on now, Colin.
Having a ministerial, sacerdotal, priesthood doesn’t inherently result in “clericalism.” We all have different gifts, offices, and callings in the Church. It’s a spiritual danger to be aware of, not a certainty. Priests, popes and bishops are there to serve the People of God, not to lord over them. They do so by pastoring their flock, confecting the sacraments and preserving doctrinal integrity. It’s not about the role itself, but performance in the role. It calls for humility, integrity, and self sacrifice.
And Pope Francis has never exercised “ex-cathedra” authority; nor has any pontiff since 1950.
There are two of the ten commandments (of those specifically involved with behaviour towards other people) involved here. The command against bearing false witness against your neighbour and the command against adultery, both of them extended by Jesus in Matthew 5. In looking at the ethical fundamentals I am struck by how little our age is frightened by God’s implicit judgement against either of these, but the one that is barely mentioned is the command against false witness.
If the church could reawaken at least the awareness of the undesirability of both unrestrained lust and gossip we would be in a far more propitious climate and see less of these dungheaps of dirtiness that radiate out into disillusionment. They drag us all down.
In times such as this I would recommend a good soak in the Book of Habakkuk.
And a good exposition of it, perhaps @ bibletruthpublishers.com/habakkuk/hamilton-smith/h-smith/la139461 or /biblehub.com/commentaries/homiletics/habakkuk/1.htm. Shalom.
I do not fully understand the involvement, or rather lack of involvement, of the police in allegations of sex crimes within the CofE. In essence it appears that the Church runs a separate system of investigation through ‘safeguarding’ and ‘clergy misconduct’. This means that Church cases are only raised with the police at quite a late stage in the process, and make the investigation even trickier. What is the basis of such allegations not being reported immediately, rather than going through Church processes?
Think you’ll find police and church investigations run in parallel.
Any member of the public can report a crime to the police to investigate. There are constituent parts of crime , which is an act against the state..
It is not known at what stage the report was made that resulted in the police interview under caution.
Would you, KBS, have gone direct to the police?
If not, why not? Answers not required.
KB
Yes and there’s a lot of “I was told it had been reported to the police” going on!
There’s clearly some deliberate attempt to keep the media and police out, some failure to comprehend that sexual abuse is a crime and some of the genuinely less serious stuff isn’t criminal, but is immoral and devastating to the victims nonetheless
Of recent high profile C of E clergy and connected cases, Fletcher was investigated by police as part of the Smyth investigation which was dropped when he died. The Bishop of Liverpool was questioned and investigated by police who took no further action. Tudor was charged and had 2 criminal trials but while the second got a conviction that was overturned on appeal though a C of E tribunal struck him off.
Hertfordshire police are not currently investigating Pilivachi although a C of E investigation found wrongdoing
T1
I do not understand there being no police investigation into Mike P – the allegations are that he was wrestling kids as young as 13 sometimes nearly naked. Maybe because it was not penetrative there’s no chance of prosecution so the police have higher priorities?
But I heard one victim say that for him the emotional manipulation was worse – promised all sorts of career opportunities that were all lies. There’s so much that isn’t criminal, but is so morally reprehensible the church should not have had anything to do with it.
You need to specify which Fletcher. They are (genetic) brothers!
Let’s be a bit cautious when it comes to identifying and detailing the errors of others, be they senior clergy or those we know personally. A couple of insightful pieces in today’s Church Times that relate to this thread and which I found helpful: one by Frances Ward speaking from her own fallible and ambiguous experience of leadership as a cathedral Dean. She counsels us to avoid judgmentalism since we are all frail and prone to errors of judgement and have blind spots. ‘Cleanse thou me O Lord from my hidden faults’, which by definition we cannot see in ourselves, should frequently be on our lips. That is a wise approach rather than the tabloid-esque rush to judge and condemn others that we are all prone to, as if we were ourselves innocent of offences. Self-awareness is a precious,sometimes fragile and hard-won virtue. And a second article by Andrew Brown which makes a similar point abut the dangerous rush to condemn which the world is very keen on today. (I’m not of course referring here to the type of awful abuse that was perpetrated and covered up by powerful men in the Iwerne/Fletcher/Smyth network from the 1980s until 2013 but the rush to accuse and judge others when we might ourselves be equally prone to mistakes.)
Where is the line to be drawn?
I am extremely wary of those who bandy about words, judgementalism and condemnatory.
Reporting of facts, without fear or favour, is neither.
There is, of course a scriptural method for determining such matters.
And this is where we revert to the application in structural systems and hierarchy that Anton, above, critiques. Or that could be condensed into what may be termed ‘culture’ of the organisation.
Matthew 18:15-17
Thankyou Tim
Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Thanks. Yes, gentleness, self-awareness, self restraint, are a good place to start from. So instead of, ‘what can I prove the other person has done wrong’ (of which I of course could never be guilty) we begin from a deep love for the church and our own repentance for whatever part we have played in creating the current situation. That also slows us down which is often a wise strategy. It’s a bit unpopular in today’s social media and quick to accuse culture, but aren’t we sometimes asked to resist the culture?
Dear Jack,
The reference to ex cathedra et al. was not given as an historical insight , but as a gentle rebuff to your tendency to portray the Roman system, especially in the light of the current C of E debacle, as a rock of stability. Your glowing picture above of Catholic practice is commendable. But the reality where I live and in countries like Spain is that many of clergy have as a result of historic abuse of ecclesiastical power now capitulated to the growing secularism of their flocks. Your definition of pastoral embraces worship and doctrine but does not include ethics- particularly sexual ethics.
In short, in relation to the primary objectives of this post, Rome differs little from Canterbury!
Colin
Yes and I live fairly close to Boston which is where secular journalists uncovered systematic abuse of children by approaching 100 RC priests, deliberately enabled by the diocese. This was the original scandal that ballooned into abuse cover ups being exposed in churches around the world.
There’s a really good and challenging movie about the investigation called Spotlight, which I think everyone should see
Colin, Catholic ethics draws on four sources: Scripture, Tradition, reason and experience. Scripture and Catholic doctrine are faith sources; reason and experience are sources others also use in their ethics. For a Catholic, there is no contradictions between the four sources.
This includes sexual ethics.
The abuse of ecclesiastical power is not a new phenomenon, be it temporal or spiritual – including sexual abuse. Being a Catholic doesn’t mean believing we will never have doctrinal disputes, confusion or questions. Nor does it mean we will never face human failures rooted in our fallen nature by those in positions of authority. History shows the Church has always been a “dying” and “rising” Church. The Church’s journey and experience through the centuries are interwoven with the human history. She was buried in the catacombs; and rose again with Constantine. She died in the dark ages; and rose with Charlemagne. She died with the Renaissance; and rose again with the saints of the Counter Reformation.
The Catholic Church is like the field with wheat and weeds that Jesus describes in Matthew 13. Until the end of time we’re going to have good fish and bad, wheat and weeds. As G K Chesterton writes in ‘The Everlasting Man’:
Catholicism is not and has never been immune from the influence of error or heresy, or corruption. The rock of stability simply becomes honed and polished by the trials and difficulties she weathers.
HJ,
Discernment or delusion, Magisterium denial: or denuded; eroded; subsidence into a sink hole of …?
It is the Church of Jesus Christ, His Church, that will never die, not CoE, not Roman Catholicism, not any denomination.
Well Geoff, I happen to equate the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ with the Catholic Church. But then you know that already.
‘ Morning Delirious Jack.
Actually Jack, I didn’t, didn’t know that already.
It is serious error and seriously sectarianism, maybe even of OT high altar proportions.
True believers, born from above, across all denominations form the body of Christ, His church. His Church invisible (called-out-by- Him-people) within the admixture of ‘church’ visible.
In street and door knocking evangelism it is heard, ‘I’m Catholic’ as if it shuts down all conversation. Not only that; the very idea it is Christian, Christ has any part is alien or anathema to them. The shutters come down.
It is almost cult – like, with an atmosphere of cult.
It is almost like attempting to talk to JW’s, although they are adamant they are Christians (which is oddly unlike Catholics).
My aunt who was a staunch RC would never describe herself a Christian, a follower of Christ, nor did she know the gospel after a lifetime of Mass attendance. Roman Catholic? Certainly. Christian…? Her funeral service was unblushingly, unapologetically, upliftingly based on scripture, Christian at core, seemingly by a man of faith not just going through the motions, parroting words, a man she didn’t personally know as a care home resident in her last years.
So not even the Orthodox Churches are included? I can understand you want to exclude all non-RC western churches but surely the Orthodox are within the total exclusion zone? And things move on and change, as ecumenical initiatives such as ARCIC recognised so that points of deep, fundamental and agonistic difference somehow seem to be reconciled or found to be of less importance centuries later. Churches, all churches, do in fact change and adapt but sometimes the fierce arguments are about the latest point of change which then looks different to a later generation. Or sometimes not.
“…I happen to equate the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ with the Catholic Church.”
Well, Jack, you are of course free to do that if you choose; but the real issue is whether God does also. Your only ‘evidence’ is the post biblical narrative of a denomination which chooses to assume ‘apostolic succession’ in perpetuity to itself. Given the less than perfect historical events and geographic limitations of the RCC and the invisible workings of the Holy Spirit in whatsoever place, events and people he chooses, would it not be safer to leave the consequent membership of the Church of Jesus Christ to God himself?
The evidence of the lives of Roman Catholics as compared to the lives of people from other Christian denominations is surely varied enough to make clear that one single self declared denominational boundary cannot bind the grace and judgement of God: he alone is the only one who can search within the absolute boundary of every individual’s heart, and it is his judgement alone which counts.
Don, Catholic teaching agrees that “one single self declared denominational boundary cannot bind the grace and judgement of God.” (Incidentally, the Church isn’t a ‘denomination’ and its authority isn’t ‘self declared’.)
What the Church teaches is that there is no salvation apart from Christ and His Apostolic Church. Those who through no fault of their own are “invincibly ignorant” concerning this truth are not culpable for their lack of knowledge before God. Those who are invincibly ignorant have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or His Church. God will judge the hearts and lives of Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-believers. Membership of any Church is not a ticket to salvation, nor is the absence of membership, in itself, a certain denial of salvation.
In short, anyone “who seeks God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, tries in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” As John 15:22 and John 9:41 indicate, a person is not responsible for what they could not have known.
Incidentally, the Church isn’t a ‘denomination’ and its authority isn’t ‘self declared’
Yes, most denominations declare themselves to be the one true church.
Jack,
Do you think that the proportion of CAZtholic priests in Ireland who committed sexual abuse is higher or lower than the proportion of adult males throughout the population?
Anton, I know of no empirical data that suggests that Catholic priests sexually abuse minors at a level higher or lower than clerics from other religious traditions or from other groups of men who have access and power over children (e.g., school teachers, coaches, scout masters).
In the USA, for example, the data reports that 4% of Catholic priests sexually violated a minor child during the last half of the 20th century. Research from the US Department of Education found that about 5-7% of public school teachers engaged in similar sexually abusive behaviour with children during a similar time frame.
James’s Law: once a thread exceeds 90 comments, the probability of it becoming incomprehensible (and changing topic multiple times) approaches 1.
Yes James, Chaos comes to mind and to what purpose? !
Perhaps trial by social media was it’s genesis?
I have been asked by Bishop Bev to post the following clarification and correction to my article which she has sent me.
Andrew Goddard Article
Andrew, thank you for this comprehensive article and for your sensitivity. If I may, I would for the purpose of clarification, like to state that I did not seek to take leave of absence from the diocese of Liverpool. I persistently sought due process to bring this matter to a conclusion. Extended study leave was suggested by the archbishop of York’s office on three occasions as a pastoral response to my formal safeguarding disclosure against the Bishop of Liverpool. At the third suggestion by the Archbishop of York, in mid August 2023, I agreed and commenced the study leave on 7th September 2023. I would like to add that I remain immensely grateful to the Bishop in Europe who at very short notice, opened up the possibility of a chaplaincy in his diocese. This would extend to 4 chaplaincies, across 12 months as I awaited a resolution.
With regard to the safe recruitment of the Bishop of Liverpool, I was made aware in February 2023 that the Bishop of Liverpool had ‘bombed’ on safeguarding questions at interview. I was advised to retain safeguarding responsibility for Liverpool at least until the Bishop of Liverpool did some training. This was unsolicited. As the Acting Diocesan Bishop (responsible for safeguarding in the diocese) and according to proper process, I reported this to the Archbishop’s Secretary for Appointments; Liverpool’s Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor reported this to the NST.
I was given assurance in April 2023 that the Bishop of Liverpool had been safely recruited and there were no issues.
Rt Revd Beverley A Mason
Bishop of Warrington
Sadly… isn’t it now as clear as it can be..
1. P should never have been appointed as a Bishop. I can’t see any vicar being appointed in such circumstances.
2. The process was badly handled…knowingly manipulated.
3. The AB York response was appalling.
Resignation seems appropriate…return to Parish Ministry. See how that interview goes.
Sadly, the trial by social media is prolonged by the good Bishop.
I fear that she is not aware of the facts of Affliction or God’s interests in it.
The Puritan Fathers knew a vast amount of the afflictions of myriad injustices, especially of the Church, their writings are full of sweet expressions in relation to their many afflictions.
I recommend the great Puritan Divine Thomas Watson’s thoughts on this at
/bibletruthpublishers.com/7-afflictions/thomas-watson/extracts-from-the-writings-of-thomas-watson/t-watson/la131657 Shalom.
Er, are you suggesting that when an injustice is perpetrated, we should just accept that?
IMHO, after 520 days or so, the “good bishop” knows a fair bit about the afflictions of myriad injustices.
We may choose to suffer personal afflictions quietly, but if inaction would put others at risk, we must not stay silent.
On what basis have you decided that the former Bishop of Liverpool’s experience qualifies as ‘affliction’, and that the Bishop of Warrington’s experiences don’t so qualify?
Janet Firth,
Well, Bishop AP has lost his reputation and been denied his calling to serve God. He’s also lost his livelihood and his home. All this without any finding of against him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or behaviour unbecoming a church leader. Bishop M on the other hand, is being portrayed as a latter day Joan of Arc, and has been on agreed study leave for pastoral reasons since September 2023.
Was St Paul wrong to appeal to Rome?
I do not agree that sin, especially in the church, should go on without comment. That seems to me “un-gospel”. How one bears up under it is another issue.
A very good question about Paul, and it is not clear what the answer is.
There is a Higher Court than than any court of social media / pubic opinion;witness Our Lord whom people gladly heard then shouted Crucify him.
There is also a court higher than any Ecclesiastical court/panel.
” Wait for the LORD and keep His way, and He will raise you up to inherit the land. When the wicked are cut off, you will see it.
I have seen a wicked, ruthless man flourishing like a well-rooted native tree,yet he passed away and was no more; though I searched, he could not be found. Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.
(Psalm 37:35-37)
The Court of Heaven dispenses perfect justice,it is the final Appeals Court, that has often been my experience of it anyway.
Yes there is a higher court with God as Judge amd his justice but are you really saying there is to be no justice system here on earth, under God, no accountability?
Our sense for justice is innate. God given.
God’s laws, God’s standards.
Is injustice to be perpetuated ? Systemic and condoned, exploited even? Without consequences.
Did Jesus ‘cleanse’ the temple?
His will on earth, be done.
Bishop Beverley Mason has revealed the Archbishop of York as acting repeatedly to deceive the church at large and to obfuscate the truth when he was repeatedly told of concerns about Perumbalath. Bishop Mason was shunted aside to keep her quiet when she should have been listened to.
This is disgraceful. The man must resign.
I imagine Cathy Newman is writing her next scoop.
James, I don’t think there is a evidence of this: “Bishop Beverley Mason has revealed the Archbishop of York as acting repeatedly to deceive the church at large and to obfuscate the truth when he was repeatedly told of concerns about Perumbalath.”
All there is is unproven allegations, background noise and gossip, and anonymously leaked personal accounts of the the CNC deliberations.
Jack, then I am getting ever more confused by this story. There is Perumbalath’s own account on Anglican Ink and the discussion on Anglican Unscripted 900.
Do you have an opinion on these?
Nobody seems to be acting like a responsible adult here.
James, the story is being spun and it seems to me there are differing agendas at play.
Unless and until Bishop JP’s account of these incidents is challenged openly, or the allegations against him tested and confirmed in a court of law or church tribunal, I’ll stay with the presumption of innocence. If his account of the accusations made against him by the woman from Essex and that by Bishop M, and the contexts in which these incidents allegedly took place, is true, then I’d say there’s little of substance in them.
Bishop JP’s account on Anglican Ink seems heartfelt and genuine, and suggests the treatment he has received by the media and his clerical colleagues is disgraceful.
So far as Bishop Mason’s criticisms of the Archbishop of York is concerned, they seemed based on no more than supposition and leaked personal accounts from one woman member of the CNC.
Jack, I have reread JP’s account and it is both heartbreaking and bewildering: I do not know what or who to believe.
If JP is correct, then he is not wicked but unwise.
Whst is the truth about the woman in Chelmsford?
Does Bishop Mason allege harassment by him? I cannot find anything clearly stated. But she seems to be saying ABY stitched her up. Nobody looks good in this farrago.
If you have physical contact with a woman, you are a molester.
If you don’t, you’re a cold fish.
I had a colleague once who was acutely aware of this minefield. Some people thought him excessively reserved. I considered him prudent. He retired with an unblemished record.
James, I’ve conducted safeguarding courses with male seminarians alongside a woman colleague. As a basic rule-of-thumb, my advice was not to do or say anything to a woman you wouldn’t otherwise do or say to a man. Compliments and innocent banter can be misconstrued as flirtation, and innocent physical touch and contact as sexual.
Sexual dynamics are powerful and they differ between men and women, as do our perceptions of encounters. It’s also important to be aware of and in control of sexual feelings as they invariably arise from time to time, and also to be aware of one’s body language and where one’s eyes might wander.
These were personal ‘rules’ I followed as a senior manager who worked closely with women. It is possible to be professional and also approachable and warm without risking being tempted or misunderstood.
The judgement of the ecclesiastic “courts” or the judgements of the juries of social media?
I prefer the Judge of all the World will do right, against all workers of unrighteousness.
Deuteronomy 32: 32 ~ 35.
32For their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
and from the fields of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison;
their clusters are bitter;
33their wine is the poison of serpents
and the cruel venom of asps.
34“‘Is not this laid up in store with me,
sealed up in my treasuries?
35Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and their doom comes swiftly.’
36For the Lord will vindicate his people
and have compassion on his servants,
when he sees that their power is gone
How? Through whom? It has not throughout scripture history of redemption, been through pious retreat or gnostic indifference, but mostly through people, and some with exceptional intervenions.
It is not a matter of personal preference, but of whole bible context in genres, in history.
” the Judge of all the World” also gave Israel laws, judges, punishments.
I don’t think lifting scripture out of its historical context is right handling.
We all (I’m hoping!) “prefer” him… that’s not the issue.
Let’s remind ourselves, Bishop JP has not been found guilty of sexual assault or sexual harassment by a Court of Law of a Church Tribunal; nor has he been given an opportunity to be heard on whether his behaviour was “unbecoming a church leader”. Also, there’s no corroborated reports of his pre-CNC interview or his CNC interview, indicating he was unsuited to the role of Diocesan Bishop due to safeguarding failures.
The allegation of sexual assault against Bishop JP by a woman from Essex was raised in January 2023 – just 4 days after he had been confirmed as the new Bishop of Liverpool. In March 2023, Bishop M seems to have supported this, or at least deemed it to amount “significant concerns”, and conjoined this with her own allegation of sexual harassment by Bishop JP.
The allegations of sexual assault were considered by a NST ‘core group.’ This concluded these did not reach the necessary safeguarding threshold, i.e., their was no evidence of sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult. We can speculate as to their reasons; but we don’t know them. For whatever reason, and again we don’t know, this woman decided against initiating a CDM complaint on the grounds of improper conduct by Bishop JP.
I guess a question might be: should Bishop JP’s installation ceremony have been postponed pending the conclusion of these NST inquiries? There was also the matter of Bishop M’s sexual harassment claim, though its not clear if this was formalised at this stage.
Thereafter, having been effectively cleared by the Church of England of safeguarding concerns, Bishop JP was installed as Bishop of Liverpool at a ceremony in April 2023.
In July 2023, three months after his installation, Bishop M’s allegation is passed to NST and a “core group” convened. Why the delay – or had she submitted it sometime after March 2023? This group found that this too was not a safeguarding matter but a matter of alleged misconduct.
In September 2023, it is agreed that for “pastoral reasons” Bishop M would take a period of “extended study leave”.
In November 2023, the Essex woman reports her allegations of sexual assault to the police, and in March 2024, Bishop JP is interviewed by them. In April 2024, the police decide to take no further action against Bishop JP.
Were these accusations credible and should they have resulted in Bishop JP being required to take mandatory “garden leave” whilst the police conducted their inquiries? Is an interview under caution sufficient cause, or procedurally required, given the Church was already aware of the nature and substance of these allegations?
Somewhat late in the day, and immediately following the first Channel 4 report in late January 2024, Bishop M decides to raise a CDM. Being ‘timed-out’ this is considered by the Deputy President of Tribunals. He decides there are no valid grounds for the delay and refuses permission to bring CDM after the one year deadline.
So where exactly are the procedural failures in all these repeated referrals and reports to the Church and to the police? And where is there any finding of guilt against Bishop JP?
Maybe thete is a need to look again at what was wrtitten around the CNC appointments process and resulting breach of confidentiality there to bring a fuller picture to what is known.
And yes, what is written in the article, some of that is hearsay, legally defined, in that it is not evidence of what actually happened, but it represents a record of what is said to have happened on that process.
It may have been succinctly summed up in a hearsay word ‘bombed’ in the addendum by Bishop Mason.
Andrew Goddard’s questions remain unanswered there.
Geoff, what is said to have happened by one anonymous person participating in that process. Really, so what if the CNC took three votes?
Here’s an idea. Once nominated candidates are vetted by the NST, just replace all the CNC discussions with the casting of lots to see who God has chosen. Let’s return to an ancient and honoured Scriptural method of determining God’s will in such situations (Lev. 16:7-10, Prov. 16:33, Acts 1:26).
Will someone raise this at Synod on behalf of Happy Jack, please?
I would like to recommend this for The Vatican as well.
Jack, you have connections ….
I’ll contact my deep-cover sources, James.
I have my doubts about the Archbishop of Kabul.
Is that because he was appointed by Pope Francis? Technically he’s the Superior of Afghanistan,
Father Scalese is a ‘Barnabite’ and members of his Order vow never to strive for any office or position of dignity, or to accept such a position other than commanded by the Pope. Personally, I think all clergy should take such an oath.
Difficult, if not impossible to evangelise in a Taliban controlled region and for 7 years he was effectively restricted to the Italian embassy.
The thing I don’t understand is the understanding around what is a vulnerable person. I attend and volunteer at a Baptist church, and anyone helping in any ministry must undertake safeguarding training in our church.
In that training it was highlighted that anyone can be deemed to be vulnerable to those who have a spiritual authority role. So any ministry lead could be viewed as having spiritual authority of those both awaiting in that ministry, and those using that ministry. Obviously some areas are highlighted more as having obvious vulnerable users such as children and youth ministry, ministry to those with learning difficulties, and prayer ministry.
This doesn’t seem to be evident in the C of E understanding of safeguarding, and appropriate measures.
Neither do I Chris…. it seems short in definition…
And I’m in the CofE…!