In a short item on the Liverpool diocesan website it has been announced that the Rt Revd Beverley Mason is to resign as suffragan Bishop of Warrington.
The Rt Revd Beverley A Mason has resigned as suffragan Bishop of Warrington in the Diocese of Liverpool. This will take effect from 1st October 2025.
The Rt Revd Ruth Worsley, Interim Bishop of Liverpool says:
‘It is with heavy hearts we receive this news today. We are thankful for all that Bishop Bev has given in her ministry among us here in the Liverpool diocese. She goes with our love and prayers for the future.’Bishop Bev has written a letter to the people of the Diocese which can be read here
The letter is copied below.
We have covered earlier aspects of this story here and here.
A Pastoral Letter to the Diocese of Liverpool from the Rt Revd Beverley A Mason
3rd September 2025
My dear sisters and brothers,
On 30th September 2025 I shall formally leave my post as the Bishop of Warrington. It has now been over two years since I was advised to take ‘extended study leave’ on the understanding that the causative matter would be resolved soon thereafter. Although resolution was out of my hands, I am profoundly sorry that it has taken so long.
There is much learning the Church might take from the past two and a half years, but only if we have: (a) the humility to lay down defensiveness, (b) the grace to listen — especially to those who have been most affected by this story, and (c) the courage to review and engage in honest conversations about what has happened. The fact remains: people have been significantly affected and two bishops are now no longer exercising an episcopal ministry.
In my letters to the College of Bishops and to the General Synod (Feb 2025) I expressed my hope that this might be a kairos moment for our Church — for which we are all responsible — whereby we prayerfully and with humility examine our processes and behaviours. Only self-examination will lead to contrition, repentance, amendment and the blessing we long for. After a long time of personal self-examination this remains my hope and prayer.
When systems or processes unintentionally lead to distress or difficulty for individuals, whether lay or ordained, it is important to pause, reflect and address the root causes. As a church, with pastoral responsibility at the heart of who we are and what we do, we can do better and we can model something better for a bemused world.
As I look back upon my time with you in Liverpool, I thank God for you and for our shared ministry in the Gospel. It has been a joy to witness a faithful and confident Christianity among our churches — even in spite of sometimes profoundly distressing and utterly tragic circumstances. When things have seemed hopeless, your faith has shone like the stars, (re)orienting those without hope to the God who gives us a sure hope. I am so thankful for your faith and your ministry.
I am deeply grateful for the friendship and partnership in the Gospel with our ecumenical brothers and sisters, and for the strong bonds between the two cathedrals — linked by Hope and united in love. I have appreciated our friendship with other faith leaders, with local councillors and politicians, those from within the public and business sectors, the excellent BBC Radio Merseyside — and indeed with all who have partnered with us, working for the good of Liverpool — especially among the most deprived and vulnerable.
I remain deeply proud of the Christ-light in you that is shining across the diocese — of your courage to try something new for the sake of the Gospel, and of your resolve to think and re-think as you listen to the stirrings of the Spirit. Please never lose this!Under the new leadership of Bishop Ruth, I am so encouraged and hopeful for the diocese of Liverpool after what has been a bruising time.
At my licensing service in November 2018 it was important to me that my ministry among you should begin with footwashing. Had a service of ending been appropriate and timely, I would have wanted to repeat this. Footwashing is first and foremost a declaration of love and service to the One to whom our life is dedicated and of following His example. Simultaneously it is an honouring of the dignity of the other – to whom our Lord has given His life. Footwashing is a visible attempt at laying down one’s ego, status and hubris. It is a reminder that we all need a saviour and there is but one Saviour who, even before his death on the Cross, stooped to wash the feet of His friends.
Dear friends, as I now look forward, I do not know what my future holds, but I am confident that I shall remain in God’s presence and under his grace and kindness. For the moment, this is enough. Thank you for your friendship and for your prayers. Please know that you shall remain in my prayers.
With my love and blessing.
+Bev
The Rt Revd Beverley A Mason
Curiouser and Curiouser! “I do not know what my future holds”…. But in April + Bev , as your thread revealed welcomed “ fresh vista” etc in Church in Wales.
I am dismayed by this news. Too many people are left shattered by this corrupt, uncaring, institution, its dysfunctional systems and processes, and those so determined to cling to the remnants of its discredited status that they are unable and/or unwilling to work with the Spirit to make the Church into what it could and should be.
God speed, +Bev. I hope and pray you’ll find a way to continue serving that enables you to be free of these misguided, dangerous, people.
Truly saddened by this news. Our Leaders should have been able to resolve this…..mishandled, yet again. +Bev is in my thoughts and prayers.
Is this supposed to be the end of any discussion or insight into yet another C of E safeguarding shambles? Certainly does not inspire me with any confidence in C of E safeguarding process – rather the reverse.
Was it a Disciplinary process rather than Safeguarding?
Either way it’s a right mare’s nest.
One wonders whether had things been addressed through pastoral mediation rather than formal process, the outcome might have been different for all concerned?
But maybe that wasn’t plausible or agreeable to the parties, and anyway may not have yielded any different result at the end of the day (or years in this case.)
Your question underlines how little we actually know about this. And why should we actually? And isn’t is possible that sometimes – with even the best processes in place – things just can’t be resolved?
Why should we know? Well, 1. The persons concerned are senior leaders of the established Church. 2. They are in public office, paid by the Church (i.e us). 3. Telling someone to go on “study leave’for two years sounds like abuse of funds. It looks like one rule for the big boys and girls, another for the underlings. 4. Bishops seem to get away with behaviour that would sink a parish minister. 5. The Church of England frequently lectures politicians it doesn’t like (e.g. Croft on Farage) without addressing its own safeguarding failures (Croft, Sentamu).
in this highly generalised response you do not actually know any more than I do actually. That is my point. But you still appear ot have taken sides. I, like all of us, want confidence that robust processes are in place in the church. I accept that there have been very significant failings accords the church in this regard. But that is not the same as demanding that the details of any particular crisis or issue must be made public and fully known to us. I want the first. I do not think the second is appropriate, or even our… Read more »
The C of E used to be highly respected & given the benefit of the doubt in such cases. However it has so regularly indulged in denial & cover-up that it has long forfeited that trust. To declare that we should trust them just because we cannot be sure of their guilt is to give them a free pass to continue as they are rather than reform.
Bishop Mason claimed that Bishop Perumbalath had sexually harassed her. Perumbalath denied this but resigned. Mason is sent away ‘on study leave’. Either Perumbalath did what he’s accused of or he didn’t. Somebody isn’t telling the truth. That’s the issue.
You continue to ignore my main point. But you underline my other one. We simply do not know what happened do we? And neither party wanted the details made public.
I don’t know what your “main point’ is, David. Bev Mason says Perumbalath ‘sexually harassed’ her but gives no details at all. Why does she not explain her complaint? This is a very serious business, which could amount to an accusation of indecent assault. Perumbalath is accused of the sexual assault of another woman and of Mason but denies these claims. Nevertheless he is forced out, which must mean he is considered by Cottrell to be culpable in some way. The members of the Church of England have a right to know but the hierarchy are covering up. THAT is… Read more »
‘I don’t know what your “main point’ is, David’.
I wrote above, expanding my previous expression of it … ‘My last point is, quite possibly, the most important one. With even the most godly, senior church leaders, and with the best, extended support processes on offer, relationships can and do break down at times and remain unresolved and for reasons it is not appropriate to make public. It happens.’
David: that’s not the issue here. Working relationships can break down because people have clashing personalities and rub each other the wrong way. That’s what you seem to be talking about. Or they can break down because someone does something actually wrong, which is the issue here. One woman alleged that Perumbalath forced a kiss on her and groped her. That’s actually a police matter. Bishop Mason alleges that Perumbalath “sexually harassed” her – but has never explained what this means. Does this mean suggestive comments or actions short of physical contact like messages that wiould be wrong from a… Read more »
Perhaps, but we don’t necessarily have ‘a right to know’ in all cases, especially if those most closely involved choose not to make the details known. And I think David’s point that, ‘With even the most godly, senior church leaders, and with the best, extended support processes on offer, relationships can and do break down at times and remain unresolved’ is surely correct.
That misses the point, Tim. 1. Perumbalath was forced to resign but maintains he was wrongly treated and was forced into early retirement and lost his home. Was he treated justly? 2. Bishop Mason claims Perumbalath “sexually harassed ” her but has never explained what this means. It is not right to accuse a man publicly but then refuse to explain. That is not just. 3. Many clergy have faced CDMs for lesser conduct and those details are known to the public. 4. Bishop Mason was off work but on full salary etc for over 18 months, without explanation. Is… Read more »
Both may have resigned their posts, but neither has been laicized and both remain bishops in the Church of England.
Pease do not trivialise my words. I did not speak of ‘personality clash’. It is clearly much more. I spoke of relationships break down. And that is precisely over ‘actual actions’ and – just as important – their interpretation.
David, I wasn’t “trivialising” your words, I was seeking to interpret them fairly and to understand why (in your words) “relationships break down”. I stated there are two principal reasons why this happens: either people don’t get on because their outlooks and personalities notably clash (that is why we can’t be friends with everyone) or because one person (or both) does something seriously wrong to the other. The point you keep ignoring is that Bishop Mason has publicly accused Perumbalath of “sexually harassing” her, which must mean sexually suggestive words, messaging or gestures falling short of actual assault – but… Read more »
I don’t think it’s fair to blame Bp Beverly for publicly accusing Bp John of sexual harassment and refusing to give details. It’s clear that enormous pressure has been placed on her not to say too much – for all we know she may have been slapped with an NDA. Also, her allegation was made to support another woman’s; if that matter is still being investigated or under a disciplinary process, she may not be able to say more.
You can’t be “slapped with an NDA”. You either agree and take the money or not. But to accuse another of wrongdoing without any substantiation goes against all natural justice.
On the contrary; in the UK it’s common to know that accusations have been made and charges filed against someone, but we don’t hear the details and evidence until legal and disciplinary procedures are underway or have been completed. In the C of E, where we don’t have transparency, often the details are never known.
That’s not an NDA, that’s a court’s injunction. An NDA is a voluntary agreement.
But I have known bishops apply enormous pressure to impose an NDA, such that agreeing was hardly voluntary. The NDA subject was under coercion.
And it doesn’t alter my point that there is nothing unusual about not knowing the details of an allegation.
GS 2354 digs down into this kind of thing. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/gs-2354-trust-and-trustworthiness-within-the-church-of-england-a-preliminary-report.pdf.
Paras 216-224 encourage far greater transparency than is usually the case. The price of transparency might well be a perceived loss of power and sense of authority. But we need some bishops willing to break that cycle of secrecy. Otherwise the culture is perpetuated and normalised.
I am sure that the powers that be would like it to be the end of any discussion but I hope that it isn’t because the outcome is most unsatisfactory. It is the same old, same old ‘move on, nothing to see here’. And yet, two bishops have now been forced out of ministry, without any proper judicial review having taken place, at least as far as we know. Disgraceful!
Is it not possible that whatever lies at the heart of this falling out was “six of one and half a dozen of the other” and that if only one of the bishops had been “forced out of office” a great injustice would have been done? as David Runcorn noted, none of us “knows” what happened but that has not stopped many people “taking sides”. It’s simplistic to claim that “somebody is telling lies”. In E M Forster’s “A Passage to India” we never know what actually happened in the Marabar Caves. I remember writing essays about the question, for… Read more »
It isn’t that mysterious. Cottrell and those around him have obviously concluded that Perumbalath overstepped the mark in his behaviour toward two women and forced him to resign. Because Bev Mason refuses to say what she thinks Perumbalth did wrong to her, she doesn’t help matters and her long letters don’t clarify anything at all. She just needs to speak clearly, not write long mystifying letters. Let me add another level of complication. Perumbalath is an Indian, from a caste-ridden culture that is notably hierarchical and deferential in character and style. It doesn’t fit in easily with the rough and… Read more »
James, maybe Bishop Bev hoped to stay in post and so was effectively gagged? And has now left under an NDA ? The C of E had form in this….
But who could have gagged her? Only Cottrell was above her – which would fit because he was responsible for Perumbalath’s appointment. We don’t know if there is an NDA.
I thought Welby had spoken out against the use of NDAs in the Church of England, after £500k was spaffed in Winchester in Tim Dakin’s disputes with clergy,
Welby denounced Wonga.com; then was told the church owned shares in them and said they would be sold; then found out they were part of wider lucrative investments and hung onto them.
NDAs often preclude people from criticising an institution; and this statement doesn’t criticise the CofE. And they often preclude divulging confidential information; and this statement says nothing that is not in the public domain. So it’s consistent with an NDA but that doesn’t mean there is one.
Welby did speak out against NDAs, but that hasn’t stopped him or any other prelate from using them. Sometimes they’re called ‘confidentiality agreements’, but it amounts to the same thing.
She could have been gagged by church lawyers acting for the diocese or archdiocese.
Perhaps, but since none of us has detailed information from the inside it’s not possible to say that ‘obviously’ the Archbishop of York forced the bishop of Liverpool to step down. That’s speculation that serves no one. I have known white English clergy behave in very authoritarian and hierarchical ways, and Pakistani clergy be very gentle and humble. Stereotyping is unhelpful. And referring to our Archbishop as ‘Cottrell’ is disrespectful, I would never refer to you by just your surname.
Tim, feel free to refer to me however you wish, I won’t be offended! I see that most people here refer to Archbishop Welby as ‘Welby’, so I hope they feel rebuked by you. I too have known white – and black – English clergy acting in authoritarian and hierarchical, but that doesn’t alter my experience of upper-caste Indians and Pakistanis (who share a common culture). I knew Nazir-Ali when he was chairman of Trinity College Council as well as some clergy in Rochester diocese. Most Pakistani Christians are from the lower caste Hindu minority but Nazir-Ali was from a… Read more »
Except that all societies have conventions about how we show respect in spoken and written communication, including to those with whom we disagree. It’s even more important when we refer to our brothers and sisters in the faith to do so reverently. And I do, indeed, think referring to the former archbishop as ‘Welby’ is inappropriate and has a detrimental effect on us all. We run the risk of allowing discussion to be conducted in a negative, accusatory and nasty tone that harms us all and makes learning from one another more difficult. (The passage of time makes a difference… Read more »
Tim: not “all societies” but “all sub-cultures”. Feel free to follow your own sub-culture – as the BBC did in the 1930s and 40s when it respectfully(?) referred to ‘Herr Hitler’. Like ‘Dad’s Army’, I guess. Foreigners struggle with British irony. But as for me, I spent a lot of time down under so I don’t have British hang-ups about class and deference. The old PM was ‘Thatcher’ to me, not ‘Mrs Thatcher’, although I am nearly always deferential in referring to women (just the way I was brought up). Generalisations are actually more helpful than you imagine because they… Read more »
I don’t think that convention still exists in England, if it ever did. Traditionally men often referred to each other by their surnames; my father certainly did, even (or especially) when he was on good terms with the man.
I’m a Times reader, and the Times refers to most people, male and female, by their surnames after the initial mention.
‘But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call
anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be
exalted.’
And what do you call your paternal progenitor? Or the person who taught you to drive? And all brothers – no sisters then?
David, I imagine rerum novarum (a great encyclical, btw) was offering a dominical riposte to Tim’s criticism of me for not showing proper titular respect to His Grace the Most Reverend Stephen Cottrell, Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England PC etc. In future I will strive to show proper titular respect when referring to President Trump, the Lord Mandelson, HRH Prince Andrew, Sir Keir Starmer MP PC etc etc.
After all, titles *are important in the Established Church, aren’t they?
Do you actually need to refer to any of President Trump, the Lord Mandelson, HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Sir Keir Starmer, MP, PC at all?
I often refer to them in conversation and blogposts. Why do you ask?
Respect has to be earned. As the old Warrant Officer said to my new entry class of teenage cadets: “You Call me Sir, and I call you Sir. The only difference is that you mean it, & I don’t”
I think it is given. Unless our default starting place in relationships with other people is suspicion?
When an organisation has been as badly run as the CofE, with all too many scandals, automatic respect is lost. The hierarchy need to accept that they need to be humble & genuinely work to regain that respect.
At my school, the army sergeant major pointed his baton at a cadet and said ‘there is an idiot at the end of this baton’, and got the answer ‘yes, sir, and it is not at this end’.
ps. my best friend went into the navy, and I think worked on submarines.
This is so sad.
Bishop Bev should never have been the one asked to take ‘study leave’.
As I see it, Francis James and James provide a pretty cogent summary of the situation regarding Bishop Bev. I struggle with the suggestion that as the entire details of the situation cannot not be disclosed then nothing should . Interestingly there were no comments in the previous post regarding Jonathan’s article about following on from a NDA. I am presuming that Malcolm Dixon’s ‘same old same old’ has hit the nail on the head in respect of Bishop Bev . Apart from the COf E’s apparent culture of bullying the weak to control reputational damage- ( what price justice… Read more »
It appears that Perumbalath should have been fired as soon as the Archbishop of York became aware of the reality that he should never have been appointed.
Is this a matter for his resignation, where is his honest statement clearing Beverley’s name as blameless and a fine Bishop deserving promotion?