I
have lived in the diocese of Chichester for nearly 35 years. For far
too much of that time I have watched with increasing distress the
gradual revelation of the cycle of crime and cover up in the abuse
scandal that has persistently bedevilled the diocese. This diocese
believes in the warmth and comfort of the gospels. This diocese
painted itself as a place of refuge for religious souls cast adrift
by the sea of change in the modern world. And for more than a
generation this diocese has responded to the needs of the souls in
its care with brutal corruption.
The
abuse and the cover up have been well documented for some years now,
but often in a haphazard way. During March the Independent Inquiry on
Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) focussed on Chichester as one of its case studies, and pulled all the evidence together in one place. The
transcripts of the fifteen days of hearings, and the dozens of
documents which back them up, make for harrowing reading.
The
events of both the abuses and the cover up were quite effectively summarised by Andreas Whittam Smith in the Independent on March 25th.
He portrays the various abusers, and outlines the failure of attempts
to improve safeguarding, the actions of various protectors of the
perpetrators and the culture within which they were allowed not just
to survive but to flourish. He calls it “normalising”. In the
latter part of the article he focuses on Peter Ball, and he ends with
the words of the current bishop, Martin Warner.
The
evidence given to the IICSA makes clear that, despite the charging
and sentencing of (some of?) the perpetrators, the diocese is still
in immense difficulties. There will no doubt be continuing attempts
to assert that the slate has been wiped clean. There will still be
some who belittle or disbelieve the brutality that has been
practised. There are still some who allow themselves to be duped by
the obvious niceness of Bishop Peter among others. There are many who
will know that they should have taken action. And there will be many
who do not know how to conduct themselves to ensure that safeguarding
is done properly in the future. The slate is not clean because there
is still so much to do.
Responsibility
falls at two levels, the perpetrators and those around them. The
perpetrators that we know of are rightly being punished and must make
their own amends. For some of those around them, who actively ignored
guilt and encouraged the continuing commission of brutal crimes,
perhaps punishment is appropriate too. I make no apology for using
the word “brutal” despite litte evidence of violence in the
crimes committed. Brutality can be practised in a caress. The fact
that it is done with a velvet glove makes it no less violent, no less
domineering, no less brutal. The diocese has to face up to that
reality, that it was covering up not just a minor sin but a series of
deplorable crimes.
And
there is a particular problem for Chichester diocese that requires a
particular depth of soul searching. This evidence to the IICSA (near the end of page 2) makes
an uncomfortable connection between the perpetration of these
offences and opposition to the ordination of women. It does not have
to be that way, but there must be a different construction, a
different way of thinking and a different way of being if the diocese
is to get back to fulfilling its Christian mission.
I
paused, as Andreas Whittam Smith obviously did, at Martin Warner’s
final words to the inquiry. (Here, pages 93-94)
“While
apologies can begin to sound formulaic, I do want to register my
sorrow and apology for the sexual abuse of children that has taken
place in the diocese of Chichester, and for the ways in which it has
been mishandled in the past.
“This
comes from the bottom of my heart as a human being, but also more
formally from me as the bishop of this diocese. I also grieve for the
loss of access to faith that this has often resulted in: a terrible
realisation, and it is that which has sustained my efforts in
ensuring that the diocese of Chichester reforms.”
The
words that made me pause were the last sentence. The bishop says he
is primarily motivated by the loss of access to faith suffered by the
victims. In my view this is far too narrow a focus. Faith has an
inestimable position in the minds of Christians. But a misguided
emphasis on the primacy of faith is part of what led to Chichester
falling into this pit in the first place. Abuse damages the bodies
and minds as well as the souls of the victims. Souls may be mended in
the afterlife, but bodies and minds can only be cared for on this
earth. If the victims of these abuses get to the end of their lives,
and we have not healed their souls, then healing awaits them in the
life beyond. If they get to the end of their lives and we have not at
least attempted to heal their bodies and minds, then we have failed.
Reparation must apply to the scars carried by body and mind, or it is
meaningless. And efforts at reform must focus on producing a church
that heals and nurtures bodies and minds as well as souls. Without an
emphasis on the current physical reality of the victims and their
lives, any repentance and reform will be meaningless. Until there is
widespread recognition of the brutality done to bodies and minds as
well as souls, that was permitted and protected by the diocese, there
will be no moving forward and no peace, however much people think
there is.
