Protocols and practice guidance for the Church of England’s Past Cases Review 2, (PCR2) have been published today. Individuals who wish to make representations to the PCR2 process or who need to come forward with information or make any disclosures regarding church related abuse are encouraged to make direct contact with their diocesan safeguarding adviser. However, recognising that this may not feel safe for those with a lived experience of abuse from within the church, a dedicated telephone helpline – 0800 80 20 20 – operated independently from the church, by the NSPCC, has been set up.
Anyone can use the helpline to provide information or to raise concerns regarding abuse within the Church of England context; whether they are reporting issues relating to children, adults or seeking to whistle blow about poor safeguarding practice. Survivors were not invited to contribute to the 2007-2009 PCR and the Church has wanted to ensure a different, trauma informed approach is taken by PCR2.? Listening to survivor voices has helped to shape how this review will be conducted.
The issuing of this guidance is just part of the ongoing scrutiny work around past cases across the Church, and follows a report in 2018 into the original PCR (2007-2009) which revealed shortcomings both in the process and final result.
Seven dioceses were asked to repeat a full Past Cases Review with work already underway based on draft guidance. The final guidance directs all dioceses on steps that must be taken to independently review all outstanding files. PCR2 must be completed by the end of 2020.
The telephone helpline number and details of how to make contact directly with the diocesan safeguarding team will be promoted locally by each diocese
Bishop Mark Sowerby, chair of the PCR2 Management Board said: “It is the aspiration of the Archbishops’ Council that by the end of the PCR2 process, independent review work will have been carried out in every diocese and church institution within both the letter and the spirit of the protocol and practice guidance.
PCR2 is a central part of the church’s proactive approach to identifying where abuse allegations have not been managed appropriately or safely
We are committed to responding well to all survivors of abuse and I pray that the PCR2 is another step to making the Church a safer place for all.”
There are links to several documents:
Updated again Friday
Today Surviving Church has today published?Matt Ineson’s statement.
The Church of England has announced a “Lessons Learned” review into my abuse.?I will not be cooperating with the review…
Do read the whole of his statement.
Stephen Parsons writes:
We would hope that his refusal to co-operate with the review into his case will result in some change in the ways these reviews are done. We can hope so and we and many others will be watching. The way out of this failure to protect and care for survivors will surely involve radical changes in leadership, both in the safeguarding industry and the episcopal oversight that is supposed to be in force. Whether this will will happen is unclear but the status quo is now so flawed that we all should be clamouring for change so that transparency and justice can be found.
Press coverage of that day’s hearing was included here.
Media reports of this statement:
…In response, a spokesperson for the Church’s National Safeguarding Team said: “The Church is committed to an independent lessons learnt review into its handling of the Trevor Devamanikkam case and the Terms of Reference and reviewer are soon to be announced. All aspects of the case will be looked at including the detailed evidence given at IICSA by Matthew Ineson. The report and the Church’s response will be published in full once it is completed.”
The Church added that it respects Mr Ineson’s decision but that the review is vital and have met with him to discuss the terms of reference further.
It added that only some inquiries are carried out independently.
…A spokesperson for the NST said on Wednesday: “The Church is committed to an independent lessons-learnt review into its handling of the Trevor Devamanikkam case, and the terms of reference and reviewer are soon to be announced. All aspects of the case will be looked at, including the detailed evidence given at IICSA by Matthew Ineson. The report and the Church’s response will be published in full once it is completed.”
Under the House of Bishops’ policy, lessons-learnt reviews are carried out in all serious safeguarding situations, but not all are carried out independently.
Archbishop Cranmer?Martin Sewell?“Shabby and shambolic” – the CofE still conspires against truth and justice in historic sexual abuse
…In this case, it is by no means clear who is driving the decision to limit the terms of the review. Is it the Archbishops, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops’ Council, the National Safeguarding Team, the National Safeguarding Supervisory Group, the acting National Safeguarding Director, the incoming National Safeguarding Director, the Lead Safeguarding Bishop, or the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council and Secretary General of the General Synod? Is the decision administrative or executive, individual or collective? One only has to list the potential decision-makers to illustrate the lawyer’s point. Grappling with this organisation and its confusing structures is extraordinarily difficult for an aggrieved individual. It should not be like this.
It is therefore legitimate to pose three simple and direct questions:
1) Who in the Church of England has the power to change these decisions?
2) Who will accept responsibility for not changing them if we want to challenge these matters in detail at the next meeting of the General Synod?
3) How do we change the decision-maker if access to justice is denied?
I do, of course, refer to justice to accused and accuser alike, which can only emerge from fair and independent process. In short, if the shabby and shambolic behaviour continues, who carries the can?
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Further reflections on Deference in the Church
Archdruid Eileen The Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley An Expert on Retail and Christianity Writes
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and others Washington National Cathedral?Have We No Decency? A Response to President Trump8 Comments
David Hamid Eurobishop Deacons make history in the Diocese in Europe
Archbishop Richard Clarke The Irish Times Church of Ireland has put its survival over public engagement
Peter Allan Church Times?Humanity’s third movement
“God’s work in creation is not finished”
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Boris kippers and sacred truth
Simon Robinson ruminations, contemplations, stumblings On being assaulted in church24 Comments
The Bishop of Stafford, the Right Revd Geoff Annas, announced yesterday that he is to retire from his role at the end of November. There are details on the Lichfield diocesan website.
As pointed out in a comment on this post, the Bishop of Doncaster, the Right Revd Peter Burrows, announced his retirement some time ago. I have been unable to find an online announcement, but the Sheffield diocesan website does have details of his retirement service in September.10 Comments
Surviving Church Jane Chevous reflects on IICSA
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church An ethically challenged Church? Bullying and threats
Paul Bayes The Guardian Rough sleeping is not only a moral issue – it’s the measure of a just society
Georges Staelens Blogue de Georges Messes vespérales/Evening Masses
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love True and untrue images of God in the church7 Comments
Andrew Lightbown Theore0 Speaking of Fresh Expressions, sacramentality and mission
Simon Taylor ViaMedia.News Does the Bible Really Say…that Creation is?Straight?
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love The Christlike God – seamless creation and evolution9 Comments
Continuing the story from here.
Alan Perry who is Executive Archdeacon in the Diocese of Edmonton, has written this blog article:?Marriage Canon Redux.
And he also wrote another article, a few days earlier:?Read the Memo: The Living Church and the Chancellor’s memo on marriage.
These articles seek to explain very precisely what the legal situation in the Canadian church remains.
The Chancellor’s original 2016 memorandum is available here.17 Comments
Richard Peers Quodcumque – Serious Christianity Our Archbishop is baffled – What are we going to do about deference in the Church of England?
Michael Sadgrove Equal Enlarging marriage
Meg Munn Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel Presenting to the Synod
The diocese of Southwell and Nottingham has announced that the suffragan Bishop of Sherwood, the Rt Revd Tony Porter, will retire on 22nd March 2020. More details here.6 Comments
Queen has approved the nomination to the Suffragan See of Reading: 15 July 2019
Queen approves nomination of the Venerable Olivia Josephine Graham to the Suffragan See of Reading.
Published 15 July 2019
From:?Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Venerable Olivia Josephine Graham, BA, Archdeacon of Berkshire, in the Diocese of Oxford, to the Suffragan See of Reading, in the Diocese of Oxford, in succession to the Right Reverend Andrew John Proud, BD, AKC, MA, who resigned on 1st May 2019.
The Oxford diocesan website has more details. The new bishop will be consecrated on 19 November 2019.15 Comments
The Bishop of Truro, Philip Mounstephen, prepared a report for the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on the subject of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s support for persecuted Christians.
This has now been published:?Independent Review for the Foreign Secretary of FCO support for Persecuted Christians.
There is an excellent summary of it at Law & Religion UK:?Independent Review of FCO support for persecuted Christians.
The government press release is here.0 Comments
The Anglican Journal has this story:?Linda Nicholls elected primate.
Here is the statement issued by the new primate after her election (which also deals with the earlier vote on the marriage canon).3 Comments
Updated Monday morning
The General Synod of the?Anglican Church of Canada is meeting in Vancouver.
The synod affirmed this statement, originally published in March:?A Word to the Church: Considering the proposed amendment of Marriage Canon XXI. This contains at chronology of the preceding steps in this proposal. (h/t Tim Chesterton)
The Anglican Journal reported:?Marriage canon amendment fails to pass at General Synod.
The 42nd General Synod voted against Resolution A052-R2, which would have amended the marriage canon to allow for same-sex marriage, after the resolution failed to pass by a two-thirds majority in all three orders. While two-thirds of the Order of Laity (80.9%) and Order of Clergy (73.2%) voted in favour, less than the required two-thirds (62.2%) voted in favour of the resolution in the Order of Bishops
.The final results of the vote, which took place on the evening of July 12 at the Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre, were as follows: The Order of Laity saw 89 members (80.9%) vote Yes and 21 members (19.1%) vote No, with one abstention. The Order of Clergy had 60 members (73.2%) voting Yes, 22 members (26.8%) voting No, and two abstentions. In the Order of Bishops, 23 members (62.2%) voted Yes and 14 members (37.8%) voted No, with two abstentions…
Subsequently, a number of Canadian bishops published messages in response, as reported in an email:
Madia reports:28 Comments
Laurie Gudim The Episcopal Café Our Duty to Strangers
Nick Baines Bishop of Leeds What is the Will of the People asks Bishop Nick at Harold Wilson Lecture
David Gillett ViaMedia.News Does the Bible Really Say…that Baptism Should be Withheld from Some People?4 Comments
Updated 26 July?(video recordings added)
Today, the final Friday, ?was originally intended to be used only for closing statements from the lawyers representing the various parties. However, it was announced at the end of Thursday that an additional witness would be called first on Friday morning. This turned out to be David Bonehill, Claims Director of EIG and and John Titchener, Group Compliance Director of EIO.
The Church Times has a report of what happened:?IICSA reprimands Ecclesiastical over earlier advice to C of E and evidence to Inquiry11 Comments
Updated 26 July (video recordings added)
Video recordings are available:
Church Times?IICSA: I am ashamed and horrified, says Welby21 Comments
Updated 26 July?(video recordings added)
Transcript for day 7 (Tuesday)?See below for further links
Day 8 witness statements
At the time of writing no further documents for day 8 have been published by IICSA, but there is extensive media coverage:.
Press Association via Daily Mail Vicar tells abuse inquiry archbishops ‘not fit for office’. (this report also appears in numerous other newspapers)
Church Times?Absolute power will corrupt bishops, says Sentamu
Doncaster Free Press?Former South Yorkshire vicar claims sex abuse reports were ‘ignored’ by clerics
ITV?Vicar tells abuse inquiry archbishops ‘not fit for office’?(includes video report)
And this analysis at Surviving Church:?The Matt Ineson IICSA testimony. A crisis of leadership in the Church of England?
Documents adduced on day 7 include the following witness statements:
And there is this media report:22 Comments
Order Paper 6 – Tuesday 9 July morning – details of the final day’s business
Synod members’ blogs
Andrew Nunn Heading home
Stephen Lynas bathwellschap I’m going home…0 Comments
The Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) is responsible for providing the prime minister with the names of candidates to be diocesan bishops in the Church of England. The current rules are that the CNC must provide two names and place them in order of preference. Recent prime ministers have agreed to always submit the first name to the Queen. The second name is then only required if for some reason the first choice becomes unavailable.
But each of the two names must be supported by two-thirds of the CNC members. So if the CNC is able to agree on a first name, but not on a second it has to reconvene and start again, even though the second name is rarely required.
General Synod was therefore asked to amend its standing orders so that the Crown Nominations Commission
i) Submit one name to the Prime Minister, subject to the support of two thirds of the voting members of the Commission in a secret ballot; and
ii) May agree on a second name if they so wish, also subject to the support of two thirds of the voting members of the Commission in a secret ballot as a reserve candidate.
The submission of one name will not therefore be dependent in any way on the agreement of a second name.
Synod agreed to these changes yesterday afternoon and they will come into effect on 10 July 2019.
The first meeting to be affected by these changes will be next week. The CNC will be having its second meeting (the one at which the names are chosen) for the forthcoming vacancy at Hereford on 15/16 July 2019.
There is a paper explaining these changes in more detail: GS 2144.34 Comments