Let the investigations take their course, because we don't know enough about the events.
One thing I'll say though, regarding "All five have contested the complaints because they were made after the church’s required one-year limit."
That does seem an astonishing limit to set. Surely a one-year limit on issues to do with sexual abuse defies reasonable justice.
Whatever the 'letter' of the church rules, the spirit of justice demands that serious allegations and complaints are not constrained by technical time-limits, especially when both parties are still living and able to defend themselves.
Maybe I misunderstand why a 'one-year limit' is used to justify contesting a complaint that clearly needs addressing.
Sexual abuse often involves huge amount of guilt and shame for the victim, and understandably he or she may sometimes not come forward for years, until they reach a point when they are able to face it full on.
'One-year limits' seem inappropriate, unless I am misunderstanding why they justify challenging potentially legitimate complaints.
Oh dear. There are no winners from cases like this. Can anyone recall the precise wording of the amendment to the 1 year CDM statute of limitations?
I think it is never, ever, good in matters of responsibility for ethical behavior for church officials to retreat behind technicalities like this one-year statute of limitations.
Regardless of the truth of the matter, such maneuvers give the appearance of evasive behavior to avoid the acceptance of responsibility.
For people in positions of responsibility in the church, authority must be earned as well as received (as in election, ordination, or appointment).
This kind of behavior only erodes the authority of religious officials both with parishioners and with the general public.
Susannah, this isn't a case of sexual abuse. This is a complaint that the named clergy didn't respond to the complainant's original complaint. So, if I have read this correctly, first the complaint about sexual abuse was made, and then over a year later, the second complaint was made, that the five clergy hadn't responded to the first complaint.
So the one-year limit applies because more than a year elapsed between the original complaint and the second complaint.
As it happens the CDM allows the one-year limit to be set aside by the "president of tribunals" where they consider that to be appropriate:
Simon, Does this mean that if a complaint is ignored for a year it goes away? Why wasn't it addressed in the first place? In TEC any bishop that ignores a complaint would find himself on trial. Period.
Simon, I think the underlying issue is that whatever the letter of the law states, the response may well be seen as the hierarchy closing ranks - even if that is not the case. My personal view is that there needs to be more transparency, openness, and integrity displayed by bishops and archbishops.
Thank you for the clarification, Simon.
Simon, leaving aside the particulars of the case, the failure to respond adequately to a complaint is surely an ongoing matter, and therefore no time limit should apply to a complaint about an ongoing failure. It is different to where a complaint was properly handled, and all procedural steps followed, in which case a time limit for appeal should, and does apply from the date of the close out letter.
It has to be like that otherwise a complaint can simply be filibustered out of time and that has to be unfair in any sense of the word "unfair".
As a teacher I can be prosecuted if I don't act on evidence of abuse.
Despite these failings to take safeguarding issues seriously, the CoE went ahead with the enthronement of Steven Croft in Oxford. Croft was told 3 times by the survivor! Where was the attempt to address these concerns and basic questions?
This case has resonance with my own case (bishops in denial being a main feature) but it is really a lot more disturbing. In the case of Michael, the alleged abuser is alive and these bishops were told as recently as 2012 and 2013. There was total breakdown of communication, pastoral concern, and above all 100% failure to regard basic safeguarding awareness as necessary. Somehow the seriousness and potential risk simply didn't seem to occur to them. What were these figures thinking?! And what was the culture of those immediately subservient to them who were also presumably aware of this man's attempts to alert these bishops. One of the biggest challenges facing survivors when we come up against the inertia, denial, amnesia and dysfunctionality of the church is the deferential culture which allows bishops to get away with responses (or lack of response) which anywhere else would more likely be challenged and dealt with. The fault has not lain simply with bishops and their culture - it is an entire institutional culture at senior level which sees the church self-referentially, and has failed to challenge or question what elsewhere they would probably raise an alarm to.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.