A Retired Rector's Reflections

In September 2022 the police and a senior church safeguarding officer investigating historic abuse by a priest encouraged me to make a complaint against the Diocese of Manchester for failing to respond in any way to a disclosure, made several years earlier, of serious sexual assault on me by the priest. I had disclosed on two occasions. I was reluctant to do so but in the end I did. Given what resulted I wish I hadn’t.

I took time, and energy, to carefully write down what had happened. I emailed the dedicated diocesan safeguarding complaints email address. The safeguarding complaints policy informed me the email would go to the the Diocesan ‘COO’ (Chief Operating Officer / Diocesan Secretary). I heard nothing, absolutely nothing, not even an auto respond of acknowledgement. After six weeks of silence I emailed again, and that began a flurry of activity. I was told ‘someone’ had brought my email to the attention of the COO. (Immediately ringing alarm bells about the confidentiality of the procedure). I was told there had been a computer error. Later, it was admitted that actually the problem was the COO didn’t know how to access the safeguarding complaints mailbox.

The COO suggested my complaint against the safeguarding team be investigated by the safeguarding team. I objected, seeing it as a department marking its own homework. Finally the complaint was independently and well investigated, that aspect was resolved.

However, I then complained at the COO’s totally unacceptable delay of six weeks to even respond to my serious complaint. This had inevitably caused me unnecessary stress and upset. I also complained that I should not have had to ‘fight’ for an independent reviewer.

The COO referred these safeguarding complaints to the Chair of the Diocesan Board of Finance. That seemed a bizarre choice, given the COO had the authority to ask any suitable person to investigate. I assumed the Chair of the DBF had had training and experience in dealing with abuse victims. That was not so. He began a paper review and when it became clear he had no intention whatsoever of speaking to me to check details or hear my concerns in person, or indeed to put in place any assistance pastoral or administrative for me as a victim of church abuse, I requested a phone call to state my case. In this phone call I was subjected to unpleasant argument, disagreement and long pauses, which made me sure he was actually doing something else while speaking to me. In the whole of my ministry I had not been subjected to such a dreadful conversation, and bear in mind I had been a maximum security prison chaplain for eight years! I was made to feel I was a trouble maker for complaining and had no justification for doing so. This was highly inappropriate for someone investigating a complaint. In the end I terminated the abusive call as quickly as I could.

The ‘crowning’ of all this came when I complained about the abusive phone call of the Chair of the Diocesan Board of Finance to the COO. She replied that she would have my complaint investigated and had chosen – the Chair of the Diocesan Board of Finance to do so! Absolutely unbelievable and blatant marking of one’s home work. Within 24 hours the Chair of the DBF reported there was no case for him to answer. The situation had become Kafkaesque. I was clearly not being treated with respect and my mental health was being affected. Efforts were being made to dismiss my complaint by people who had no training in dealing with such safeguarding matters or with victims of church sexual abuse. At no point, contrary to national church guidelines, did the COO offer me an independent advocate to assist me in the process.

I decided to draw my concern to the attention of the Bishop of Manchester. I indicated that I felt my complaint had not been dealt with in a timely or serious way, and I had been offered no support in the process. His response was both weak and floundering, and totally lacked personal pastoral concern for me as the survivor of abuse. He offered no words of regret for what I was enduring. A friendly caring phone call would have gone a long way. None came. The Bishop of Manchester made the extraordinary comment that he couldn’t do much (‘It is important I do not exceed my authority…’) and claimed it was ‘logical’ for me now to refer my concern to the deputy Chair of the Diocesan Board of Finance. Unbelievable. In what way was that ‘logical.’ In which institution does a ‘deputy’ investigate complaints against a senior? – well the Diocese of Manchester, it would seem.

A ‘lessons learned’ review of my complaints took place. I was not told of it. I was not invited to check any details submitted to it, or to make any representation to it. I was not given the opportunity to review with others what had happened to me. I received a copy of the review and noted several significant mistakes, some of the serious errors had been glossed over. In addition there was no acknowledgement of the distress the people involved have caused me.

This has taken months and months. Finally (after over eighteen months) the matter has been referred to the independent chair of the diocesan safeguarding committee. She, at least, has taken time to speak with me personally, and listened. I await her response and a fullsome acknowledgement of, and apology for, the distress this has given me.

My experience is that safeguarding is generally done very well in parishes, and diocesan safeguarding officers, like the Manchester one, do difficult and good work.

However, I believe diocesan senior officers including bishops, are woefully inadequate and incompetent in handling safeguarding complaints and caring for abuse victims. I was treated shamefully by the Manchester diocesan staff and the safeguarding complaints procedures, and this, quite honestly added to my abuse, and has very seriously affected my early months of retirement. It would appear from other more serious recent events this kind of treatment is a common feature in the Church of England.

So when the Bishop of Manchester writes, in the light of the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbuy due to the dreadful debacle in the Church of England over the care of victims of abuse, “I remain committed to the ongoing work of ensuring that safeguarding in our diocese operates within a culture that is completely focused on the needs and voices of victims and survivors” perhaps I can be forgiven for being cynical for believing this is just yet more empty words. Actions not words, are needed.

In the handling of my complaints I certainly did not, as a victim, experience from the Bishop and senior staff in Manchester Diocese “a culture that is completely focused on the needs and voices of victims and survivors.” Very far from it.