Church of England - safeguarding failures: sexual, physical, pschological and spiritual assaults ... why are we not enraged as a nation?

The reason I pose the question towards men is this: 2025 marks just 10 years since men ‘allowed’ women to be bishops - good of us, eh? One single decade. At the point the church chaps caved in to common sense, women had been MPs for almost a century and the sex discrimination act in place for some four decades. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool of taproom sexists had stopped patting women on the bottom whilst insisting they pop the kettle on … love.

Noting that 10-year-milestone, a few weeks ago, I made a decision that goes against my better judgement: I asked my team to bring together a package of analysis, to coincide with International Women’s Day, that shines a light on the impact women have had, and are having, on the Church. It goes against my better judgement because - and as / if she reads this, the woman in question will recognise herself instantly - a woman I admire and respect in abundance once told me: “International Women’s Day is a handy power tool for men. Why should women settle for one day a year? It implies men have control of the other 364 days. It’s bull shit.” Since receiving that wisdom, I have shied away from ‘celebrating’ IWD.

But. And it’s a big but. Whilst the modern office environment, good ones at least, has perhaps outgrown a moment in the calendar when we pause to reflect on equality, the Church hasn’t. The Church isn’t even ready for IWD, let alone outgrown it. So I pressed on.

I’m glad I did. Before I tell you why, ponder this: in recent weeks, revelations about the Church and the way some of its men treat children has shocked the nation - it ought to have brought ire and outrage, but for some reason, it hasn’t. One man alone, John Smyth, a report concluded, subjected more than 100 children to ‘horrifically violent assaults’ - sexual, physical, psychological and spiritual. A group of eight boys he isolated for his own evil gratification received 14,000 lashes of a garden cane between them at his hand, two of them, 4,000 each. It is the kind of treatment prisoners of war receive in torture chambers. These were children entrusted to the Church, though. Not prisoners of war. The Church, the report by the Iwerne Trust revealed, covered it up. Protected a monster. The investigative work that went into the report was carried out in 1982. It was made public in 2016. Neither of those dates is a typo.

Now, juxtapose what you have just read with this: the Church of England’s governing body, the General Synod, on which men outnumber women by two to one, has recently refused independent safeguarding. Arguably the foremost authority on child safeguarding, Professor Alexis Jay, strongly recommends the Church adopts an independent model. The Church’s governing body has refused to do so. Why would the Church, which has proven itself, repeatedly, as being incapable of keeping children safe, reject a recommendation from someone whose work includes helping authorities to understand what went wrong in Rotherham? Professor Jay is despairing, telling the Church it is letting down victims badly. More than that, I believe that by refusing independent safeguarding, the Church is complicit in creating more victims of abuse. More children harmed. More lives ruined. Honestly, we as a people need to care more about this. We need to be more vociferous.

If you think I am sounding frustrated, wait until you pick up tomorrow’s Yorkshire Post. In our weekend edition, and for the benefit of our subscribers online, you will discover a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with the Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley. When it was filed, I read it, read it again and read it again. Its author, David Behrens, captures something arresting. Helen-Ann’s words reveal someone who is clearly exasperated, isolated and perhaps even fearful. You will, as I did, feel her courage in the pores of the pages. A spiritual, brave, pragmatic woman who communicates better than any PR you’ll ever meet. Someone who cares, absolutely. And not just about herself or her friends, the clergy, the Church itself. Helen-Ann comes across as a flock-first bishop, above all else.

Honest in her assessment of the future of the Church she tells us: “It will take somebody with a bit of steel and resilience to grasp the dysfunctional nettles at the heart of the Church institution. I think people are looking, for once, for a bit of leadership and clarity from the Church.”

I can think of no better person to lead with clarity, compassion and integrity than Helen-Ann. The Church itself would benefit enormously - reputationally and existentially - were it to make Helen-Ann the first female Archbishop of Canterbury. Without question, she would put noses out of joint and consign certain customs and practices to the bin - where they belong - but I am quite sure that children would be safer on her watch and so too the prospects of the Church. The question is: does the Church have faith in women? Will the Church ever entrust its moderation to a woman? Is the Church for everyone, or not?

Let us pray…

James

This is an online version of the editor’s regular newsletter. Not all of James’ newsletters are published as online articles as well. To ensure you don’t miss one, subscribe today to lend James and The Yorkshire Post your support > https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/newsletter