The Church of England has issued a press release (copied below) to mark the first anniversary of the publication of the Makin Review.
Progress update following publication of Makin Review
04/11/2025
Statement from lead safeguarding bishops Joanne Grenfell and Robert Springett, who chaired the Makin Task and Finish Group
“This week, we mark the first anniversary of the publication of the Makin Review and acknowledge again the deep harm caused by the abuse committed by John Smyth and the failures in the Church’s response.
“We are profoundly sorry for the ways in which the Church failed to protect children and vulnerable adults and for the lasting impact of those failures. Over the past year, we have continued to listen to survivors, offer them support and respond to the recommendations and observations in the independent learning lessons review. These came immediately to the National Safeguarding Steering Group and have continued to be scrutinised and acted on over the year, with implementation now well underway. Survivors are a key part of this work.
“Our commitment is clear: to create a Church that is safe for all, where safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, and where survivors’ voices inform our decisions. We know this process will require humility, accountability, and sustained action.
“We want to thank all, particularly those with lived experience, who continue to hold us to account and shape the improvements that are needed. We are committed to transparency, continued progress, and lasting change.”
The National Safeguarding Steering Group has published a paper that will be presented to General Synod in February, setting out progress on the Makin Review recommendations and next steps.
The paper details final approval of the majority of the recommendations from the Makin Review. Of the recommendations, 24 are accepted fully and three in part. The Steering Group will continue to scrutinise the implementation of all the recommendations to support rapid and continuous improvement of safeguarding practice across the whole Church.
This paper updates the work that has gone on during the past year to implement recommendations from the Makin Review.
A new Code of Practice is in place which places anyone working or volunteering in a church under a legal duty to report any safeguarding concern they are made aware of. The Code specifies the process and timescales for reporting. Failure to comply with the Code can result in disciplinary action.
The National Safeguarding Team has sought to bring disciplinary proceedings against 11 members of the clergy who were criticised in the review, eight of which are currently in progress. The Anglican Church of Southern Africa has undertaken and published its own report into the abuse that took place there.
The development of an independent scrutiny body is underway, which will provide external oversight of safeguarding practices within the Church and hold Church bodies to account with powers to require compliance. Alongside this, the strategic and operational independence of the National Safeguarding Team is being reviewed.
A programme of independent safeguarding audits of cathedrals and dioceses is already underway. So far 15 cathedrals and dioceses have been audited and had their reports published, with clear recommendations for action. The Church now has a set of National Safeguarding Standards which provide a framework that aids the consolidation, analysis and implementation of both the Makin recommendations and those from other reviews, including the Future of Church Safeguarding and from the independent audit programme.
Finding support
If you or anyone you are in contact with is affected by the publication of this report and would like to talk to someone independently, please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or visit safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk.
Alternatively, you may wish to contact the diocesan safeguarding team in your area or the National Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@churchofengland.org.
There are also other support services available.
It is disheartening to see that this document which is supposed to be in reponse to the abuse of Makin has been used to attack the utterly unrelated Seal of the Confessional. I wonder if anyone who practices confession, including survivors, was consulted. Despite two reviews, clear guidelines and no evidence that anyone has ever used confession to conceal abuse in the Church, those who attack it for ideological reasons and because they don’t understand it continue to do so. All reports show that confession has solace to victims and survivors, some of whom utilised it to begin coming to… Read more »
I don’t see how the Seal is compromised by mandatory reporting. The reality is that confession has been misused by people offending against others. The graces of the practice and the protections of its offering remain available for those who approach it with sincerity and truth.
There are no cases in the Church of England of the seal of the confessional enabling abusers at all, so this is untrue. Outside our communion, those cases involve priests lying to people, saying the seal includes the penitent, which it does not. Mandatory reporting will open the door to making a confession about reporting a penitent for wrongdoing, not a penitent approaching a priest in the person of Christ for absolution of their sins. It will also destroy any effect a priest could have in confession in encouraging an abuser to hand themselves in and withhold absolution. In effect,… Read more »
“There are no cases in the Church of England of the seal of the confessional enabling abusers at all”. I wonder how you possibly to so certain of that?
By ICCSA and the two reports we have had into the seal. Unless the two reports that said victims and survivors who went to confession regularly didn’t want the seal to go, and it helped them realise they were not responsible for their abuse, were wrong.
The claim you made was about abusers not victims.
There is no evidence that the seal of the confessional has been responsible for widespread abuse in the cofe. The evidencde, that is facts, not fabrication from those ideologically opposed to the sacraments shows the complete opposite, that confession has been a balm and support for victims and survivors. I mean we have only had two reports in the Church of England into confession that have shown this, maybe we need another.
It is claimed by Richard Scorer, a lawyer and luminary of the National Secular Society, in a publication by them on June 25 2018, that abuse has been confessed in circumstances where further crimes could have been prevented had the priest not remained silent. He’s mainly concerned with Catholics but it is really hard to believe that this sort of thing has not significantly happened. That may not be a decisive consideration if one claims that the influence of the confessional has in fact stopped bad people and ‘converted’ them, but that is not too easy to be sure of.… Read more »
Sacramental confession is little used in the Church of England, even, from my experience, in Anglo Catholic Churches. Abolishing the seal (which despite some bishops jumping the gun, will involve changing canon law) is likely to destroy the practice. It is unlikely to make much difference either way to safeguarding matters other than some will be deprived of the spiritual comfort they may have previously had from the practice. At present there is one exception in canon law to the seal (where concealment of a crime would put the priest hearing confession’s life at risk). If the seal was removed… Read more »
I’m a bit confused here, can someone help me understand.
If ‘mandatory reporting’ is required, does that mean that a priest offering sacramental confession would have to report a disclosure of abuse made to him/her by a victim, whether the victim wished this or not? E.g. ‘Revd Mother, I’m here to confess murderous thoughts about my Uncle who….’
Sacramental confession is included in the Rule of Life of some of our Religious Houses too. I am not ‘ideologically opposed’ to the sacraments at all. However, I believe mandatory reporting should be legally obligatory. If a person’s contrition doesn’t extend to taking responsibility (which may mean going to the police) then mandatory reporting is the responsibility instead where confession of serious abuse is involved. We are all complicit in the sin of the world, but with God’s mercy the Church may become a community of repentance. Holy contrition can open the door to the flow of God’s Love. Given… Read more »
When William Temple was ++William Cantuar a member of his clergy asked him to hear his confession, and he would not. He said that it was ‘unsound’ for a diocesan bishop to be confessor to his own clergy. He added that Dom Gregory Dix OSB shared that view. Details in Temple F.S. (Ed.) ‘Some Lambeth Letters’ OUP (1963).
Thank you. It raises issues of power differential and reputation control. Within community or church, confession of sins against someone and seeking forgiveness may be part of collective life. Indeed it may be necessary to stop doing harm to oneself or the other person. But I suggest there should be a process of referral to an external confessor (rather than ‘in house’ absolution) where criminality is involved or there is risk of harm to others (for example, because of the compulsive and repetitive nature of some sex offenders). In these very serious matters, I believe mandatory reporting is a duty… Read more »
I thought IICSA did find that some abusers thought confessing their abuse left them free to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, and potentially abuse again? Wasn’t that a factor in the Dean of Manchester’s case?
“Mandatory reporting…will just completely destroy any trust in the seal of the sacrament and render it pointless.” You saying it doesn’t make it so. The fact is that every pastoral conversation carries an absolute expectation of confidentiality. Matters disclosed in pastoral interactions that fall under mandatory reporting requirements are by definition not confidential. This does not invalidate the confidentiality of pastoral conversations. In fact, it places legitimate boundaries about what is properly confidential when there is a burden of professional ethics and harm prevention. My question to you is what makes the Seal different in quality or intention from the… Read more »
I agree completely.
Smythe very much operated a confessional abuse system – making his victims confess so-called sins & then violently assaulting them under the guise of beating out the sin. As to the seal, its very secrecy ensures we do not know what was covered up. Moreover it is priest to priest confession that causes most worry. Nobody can believe that criminal priests like the apalling Peter Ball (bishop no less!) did not indulge in numerous cleansing confessions over the years.
Smythe did not practice sacramental confession, though; what he did was not covered by the seal. What he did was abusive; it has no way of relating to the way sacramental confession is practised today, including by victims of abuse in the church who are anglo-catholics. Regarding Ball, that is pure conjecture; it’s unlikely he confessed his abuse as he didn’t, like most abusers, think what he was doing was wrong. The current guidance, which we now have, and should be referring to is very clear that those who commit abuse must be withheld absolution and told to hand themselves… Read more »
I believe that disgraced cardinals O’Brien and McCarrick would make their confession to junior clergy in order to ensure their silence.
This topic was discussed at length on TA not long ago. Loosening the seal may look attractive at first blush, but (posting as penitent and confessor) doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.
That’s not how the seal works you cannot confess to someone you have sinned against in the RC Church.
It is all so simple in your world isn’t it? If your confessor is known to you it is more than likely that you have sinned against him(or her) in some way at some stage. It is recorded that both McCarrick and O’Brien used the confessional – as penitents – as a means of manipulating junior clergy.
George, I really don’t understand this. Are you saying that at no point ever has anyone confessed in to being an abuser to a priest in the context of confession? If your answer is ‘no’ how could you know if the Seal is maintained? If ‘yes’ and the Seal is respected, then they have spoken to a priest about being an abuser and that has not been disclosed. You may think that this is acceptable, even good, but for most of us it is covering up abuse. In the 1980s I was attached to in a parish where the confessional… Read more »
That is an abuse of confession and obviously wrong, horific and a cdm offence in the cofe. Please do not deliberately represent what I have said and read the words I have written above which are based on the factual reports we have from the Church of England We we are in 2025 and talking about confession practices now which are regulated by the House of Bishop’s Interim Guidance.
The issue I have with your approach is that it addresses “the seal” as an abstract concept. In a case in which an abuser confesses abuse, what practical steps should the confessor take to validate repentance and restitution before pronouncing absolution? It is the potential abuse of absolution that is for me the key aspect here. Also, although it is poor understanding, “the seal” has (according to victim testimony) been used to silence victims by alleging that they are bound by it (so should not disclose outside the church). I believe it to be true that there have been cases… Read more »
AC parishes are not immune to virtue signalling, with “Confessions heard by appointment” on the notice board or website. Hardly an invitation. Taking the sacrament seriously means letting the faithful know that a priest will be in the Lady Chapel on, say, Monday to Wednesday in Holy Week at 7pm. Often no one will turn up, but one might – and then it really is Easter come early!
I have mentioned Christ Church St Laurence (CCSL) in Sydney so many times on TA. I recall that at CCSL in the 1980s as Holy Week approached a request was inserted in the pew sheet stating that at that time of year the clergy were extremely busy and that requests for sacramental confession outside the times set for it should only be made if absolutely necessary. The priests at CCSL would be in the confessional for hours on Good Friday p.m. I doubt whether that is so today.
Australia has legislated for mandatory reporting. No criminal sting operations have been done yet to trap Clergy who fail to report abuse revealed in this particular cult like control system within religiosity but time will tell. Although the Roman Catholic Church was the worst offender with Priests regularly hearing abusers confessions and absolving them I am sure that in High Church places across the Communion myriad crimes extreme domestic violence and spiritual physical emotional and sexual abuse was confessed over decades and covered up. If any Cleric covers up these days they face both imprisonment and defrocking. The cult of… Read more »
Parishes who see this as a vital part of the ministry of reconciliation can find themselves with a priest who sees it differently: either on theological grounds or because he/she hasn’t read Luke 15.10 and considers sitting in a side chapel when no one turns up as time wasted. A source of pain for penitents as finding an alternative is not easy.
The above post was to suggest an example of good practice – although not relevant to the seal. More pertinent is setting a boundary between a pastoral conversation and confession (e.g. hearing confessions in church, not in a study), and knowing when one is likely to become the other. As for the abuse of absolution, every priest must know by now that absolution should be withheld from abusers until they turn themselves in. The abuse of the seal which Mark Bennett references seems as unlikely to be repeated as it is reprehensible. Although confessors do report that they’re far more… Read more »
The legislation in Australia is more clear. If you hear a confession that links to abuse and fail to report the admission to authorities this is a criminal matter where you may face charges. Historically it has been more difficult to link church workers to direct cover up of knowledge of criminal abuse but currently Confession which is practised only in small outliers statistically has finally been tackled as a pernicious practise when a Cleric fails to report the abuse of children. It’s hoped this is extended to vulnerable adults and victim survivors of domestic violence and assault . When… Read more »
Phil Groves, like me , is struggling to be clear what you are saying here. Please do not read this as deliberately representing you. Mark Bennett spells out what is needed very helpfully.
As someone at the catholic end of Anglicanism, I agree that this is a complex ethical and pastoral question about the Seal. I strongly recommend to anyone who wants to engage at a serious level: Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture (2011) published by Oxford University Press by the academic Marie Keenan. It is an evidence based analysis and includes an examination about the way the confessional can be enabling to abusers based on interviews with convicted abusers (largely priests, if I remember correctly). It is sobering. Yes, it is a study of the… Read more »
Marie Keenan’s background allows her to write with singular authority. While not playing down individual agency, her main criticism is aimed at her Church’s power structures and lack of accountability. She also sees the scandals as part of a wider problem of priestly celibacy. Reports of the number of priests said to be sexually active (housekeeper ‘with benefits’ is not confined to the Irish novel) adds weight to her argument that compulsory celibacy is neither healthy nor achievable. Although it should be noted that the same research shows that priests are proportionally less likely to be abusers than the general population.… Read more »
The research stating that church workers are less likely to be abusers than the general population was based on quantitative data sets that created inaccuracies. Australian research while not debunking Marie Keenan found that church workers statistically were identified as abusers at a far higher rate within certain professional groups.