Letters to the Editor

Deadline for letters for 2 January edition: noon on 23 December.

Bishop Mullally complaint and Smyth documentary

From Mr Joseph Egerton

Madam, — It is now accepted that an allegation against the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, was not processed as it should have been under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). Although we do not have details of the complaint, it clearly relates to the management of an allegation of abuse against somebody else, not a suggestion that the Bishop had acted abusively. Bishop Mullally may well be completely innocent. At the very worst, she made a mistake, and is there a single diocesan bishop who has not made a mistake?

The mishandling of this case is not an isolated incident. An allegation of failing to act properly over a complaint was made against Archbishop Welby after Lambeth Palace was informed of allegations against John Smyth by the diocese of Ely. That allegation was not dealt with properly either.

In both cases, the allegations should have been processed under the CDM and in the first instance placed before the relevant archbishop — in the case of Bishop Mullally, the Archbishop of Canterbury; in the case of Archbishop Welby, the Archbishop of York. In neither case did this happen. In the case of Bishop Mullally, the complaint was simply not processed. In the case of Archbishop Welby, the complaint was referred to a core group, a committee convened ad hoc to manage the investigation of abuse too serious to be dealt with by an individual diocese. The complaint should clearly have been processed under the CDM, referred in the first instance to the Archbishop of York.

As Oscar Wilde’s Lady Bracknell observed, “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.” The carelessness of the ecclesiastical apparatchiks populating Lambeth Palace and Church House has not just badly embarrassed the Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and denied her a hearing and an informed judgment: it has also denied a victim of abuse a judgment on an allegation that may have been misguided but not made in bad faith. Archbishop Welby and the victim of Smyth who made the complaint were similarly denied justice.

There must be an urgent inquiry, conducted by a KC, into the handling of allegations against bishops and archbishops, to establish what went wrong and what needs to be done. Two blunders on this scale are two too many. We do not need a third.

JOSEPH EGERTON
Canterbury

From Graham

Madam, — As a victim of John Smyth who has campaigned for years, I am pleased with the documentary See No Evil. I came forward to disclose the abuse in 2012, and, almost 14 years later, our story is told, and told well, with the collaboration of a number of victims.

I do reflect that, almost 14 years later, there are still great gaps in our understanding of why Smyth was not stopped first in 1982, but then more recently in 2013, when multiple senior clerics had the disclosure. There are many people who are still not telling the truth. We also do not feel we have had justice. CDMs continue, but still almost nine years after Channel 4 first exposed the abuse, no one has been held to account. Lots of people say that they did “what they were required to”, but patently Smyth was not stopped, and was not brought to justice. No one actually did what was needed.

GRAHAM
Address supplied

From the Revd Malcolm Lorimer

Madam, — I watched the See No Evil documentary. I was moved by the testimonies of Smyth’s wife and children and their bravery to confront the “sins” of their father. What was missing were the church officials and the Titus Trust trustees who knew at the time what he was like.

MALCOLM LORIMER
Holmes Chapel, Cheshire

Support claimed for Inclusive Church open letter

From the Revd Ed Hodges

Madam, — Your report (News, 11 December) on the Inclusive Church press release presented a fundamentally flawed use of statistics that must be corrected.

The press release claimed “over 7000 signatures” and support from “3001 churches” for their open letter. A quick review of the open letter’s published data, however, reveals only 6468 total signatures. More troublingly, several churches — including my own parishes — were included in the “churches list” without their knowledge or formal support. Your story, therefore, seems to suggest that many of the congregations of larger churches support the content of the letter and does not accurately represent the nuanced reality of Christians worshipping alongside one another while not in complete agreement.

When either side of the LLF debate engages in this kind of misleading numerical display, it only further poisons the well and continues the ecclesiastical culture war. The strength of our belief should not be measured by the size of a digital petition. Perhaps the time has come to stop shouting “My side is bigger than yours!”, but to trust our Bishops, canon law, and Synod, and simply move on.

ED HODGES
St Matt’s, Exeter

Socio-economic comment must be better argued

From the Revd C. Peter Molloy

Madam, — The case for removing the two-child cap is important and deserves to be made with clarity and substance. Unfortunately, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow (Comment, 5 December), does not achieve this. His moral instincts — generosity, interdependence, and concern for vulnerable children — are commendable, but they are presented in broad strokes without the evidence or reasoning needed to persuade those who remain undecided.

While Bishop Snow urges us to make the case against the two-child cap, he fails to do so himself. He relies on generalities and impressionistic biblical references, and yet never engages the policy’s stated rationale or explains how abolishing the cap would produce better outcomes. Assertions about long-term social and economic costs are offered without supporting evidence, and the argument never moves from principle to policy in a coherent way. If the Church is to offer leadership on this issue, it must show its workings rather than rest on sentiment.

The lack of nuance in conflating the charity of the Early Church with the responsibilities of an increasingly secular state is also unhelpful. It is entirely reasonable for Christians to embrace personal and corporate responsibility for the poor while questioning whether government redistribution is efficient or effective. In a society in which Christian influence on public policy is steadily declining, we cannot simply delegate our moral duty to the State.

C. PETER MOLLOY
Address supplied (Buxted, East Sussex)

Advent messenger

From Mr Howard Smith

Madam, — “Amen!” to Canon Angela Tilby’s heartfelt plea for Advent to be kept as a penitential season (Comment, 12 December). I fear, however, that hers is a voice crying in the wilderness.

HOWARD SMITH
Oadby, Leicester