“We are the Hollow Men” (T S Eliot).
The Hollow Men are those individuals who are spiritually empty, devoid of meaning and purpose, and trapped in a state of despondency. They are characterized by their lack of individuality, identity, and connection to something larger than themselves, existing as mere shadows of their former selves.
*
Annus horribilis is the Latin phrase oft rolled out to describe the travails of a wretched creature subject to the public gaze whose 365-day stretch has not been good.
A leader writer for English left-leaning (well – sought of liberal) Observer newspaper (itself a beleaguered institution despite a trust fund of amount of dosh available to prop it up) had cause to roll it out on 21 December 2024 in asking the question: How does the Church of England recover after its annus horriblis?
This question was asked in response to the present scandal engulfing the Church of England (CoE) regarding institutional sexual abuse. A supplementary op ed question might be: Should the Church of England recover after its annus horriblis?
This is another scandal of horrific proportions and one quite openly known about within the hierarchy of the CoE for decades. Including amongst the Bishops, Arch or otherwise.
*
The question asked by the Observer is, I suggest, valid because the CoE is the Established Church in and of England and its leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), is also the practical and ceremonial head of the worldwide Anglian Communion (PLC). The Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the CoE is the Archbishop of York.
Both senior executives of the spiritual arm of the English constitutional settlement occupy thrones on the board, one of which has now been vacated. The COO was scheduled to slide into the Big Chair. However, some other pesky Bishops grumbled like disgruntled extras from Succession and the Big Chair remains empty.
The Archbishop of York said: “trust has been broken” and that he as the “wrong person” to bring much-needed reform to the CoE. Whilst the Roman Cardinals lit a fire in double-quick time whilst locked in conclave and a new Pope emerged through a puff white smoke, their brothers in Christ are still huddling behind the bicycle sheds muttering incoherently about the top job. Their attitude toward recent events and unwanted revelations appears to be one of embarrassment when it should, I propose, be one of contrition for the acts of systemic and systematic clerical sexual abuse inflicted upon children within the care of the institutions they serve by monsters- in this instance John Smyth QC – they protected.
*
A Ghost of Lambeth Palace past, a previous Archbishop of Canterbury, has relieved himself of spiritual duties having been similarly blindsided by corporate short-sightedness when confronted by the abuse ‘problem’ within the sullied naves and the crumbling edifies of the COE. Profits are down and trust has plummeted.
The estimated wealth of the CoE is £22 billion. The Church Commissioners alone manage a £10.4 billion endowment fund, while the 42 dioceses hold £6 billion in assets (according to the Save the Parish Save the Parish which includes a useful pop-up Excel spreadsheet).
The Ghost of the Archbishop inhabits the corridors of Lambeth Palace still (apparently much to the chagrin of the other residents – whoever they are). It can be assumed he lives rent free to fret amongst the gloom and reflect upon his sin and his Fall from Grace.
Most recently it has been reported that the CoE has plans to spend £1.6 billion over the next three years to boost clergy stipends and help cash-strapped parishes (Reuters 09 06 2025).
If this were an English village, of which the Parsh Church remains a key communal feature, the vicar (Justin Welby) has taken the last bus, following the postmistress (Paula Vennells) earlier, who left in a flood of crocodile tears of contrition but with her corporate pension and share-portfolio secure. The vicarage and the post office are now closed. The pub has evaporated (unless purloined by Farming Media Enterprises Inc for tax arrangement purposes).
And what of church and the school?
In observing the betrayal of faith in institutional religion throughout the parishes that constitute the jurisdiction of the CoE through the exposure of systematic and systemic institutional child sexual abuse, there is the stench of unexposed collusion and corruption, denial and decay. This the rot in the moral and spiritual authority of the Established Church of England – and begging the question of whether it is now time of an Act of Disestablishment?
*
The Disestablishment issue is, I would suggest, for the victim/survivors of sexual abuse and the betrayal of trust the least demanding of many questions they must have.
Those forever missing in the accounts of this annus horriblis for the senior clergy of the CoE are the victims/survivors of these appalling and horrific acts of sexual abuse by Smyth and others stalking the safe places within their church.
These acts of sexual abuse against children occurred within the spatial and temporal framework of the institutions of an organised religion those sacrosanct spaces and place.
They occurred often within the context of a justification of a theological pretext both within the ‘theoretical’ practices of scripture and the ‘practical’ usage of spaces – sullied naves, camp sites, dank dormitories, the ‘study’ of the parochial church house as the English coyly describe as the ‘vicarage’ with is their honey still for tea charm.
As is now so well-known now across Ireland the presence of the Catholic Priest was one so often instilled with fear and dread. The English vicar now claims to the same malevolent presence. This is despite the proclamations of and guarantees to safeguarding after the event and too late and to too shallow to have meaning or sense in terms of the sanctity of trust whether ethical, moral, spiritual or practical in terms of care.
These are the proclamations and guarantees too late for the victims/survivors who speak/spoke after being silenced-muted by suppression and/or fear.
They are also the victims/survivors who cannot speak because of suicide and their enforced absence from the unbalanced corporate ecclesiastical ledger of unaccountability.
*
It is only in the recent past that the extent of systemic and systematic clerical child sexual abuse enabled and tolerated for decades within ‘spiritual systems’, be they Catholic or Protestant, has been exposed by the work-voices of victims/survivors – of their own volition – and which has now resulted in incomplete and insincere corporate narratives of ‘safeguarding’ and ‘safe-spaces’ and forgiveness as a type of retribution with limited reparation (the estimated wealth of the Catholic Church of Ireland €3.743 billion). (Irish Times 31 08 2021)
The Catholic Church of Ireland (North and South: this church did not recognise and certainly did not respect artificial political borders established as late as 1922 and therefore could manipulate local laws on adoption and forced labour in its laundries and industrial schools with impunity) no longer has any political power in Dublin or Belfast. It is an institutions that defends at great expense (which it can afford given its huge wealth) each claim for compensation brought against it through its reliance on structural obfuscation or evasion of the allocation of any liability and denial of culpability (“He was a rogue Priest” or “The Order of the Sisters of Symphysiotomy has, of course, been dissolved” – all legal queries to Sue, Grabbtit and Run LLP”).
The well-meaning Ryan Report (The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA)) described the abuse as “systemic, pervasive, chronic, excessive, arbitrary, endemic” The Guardian 21 05 2009. The Commission’s recommendations were restricted in scope by two rules imposed by the Irish government, and therefore do not include calls for the prosecution or sanction of any of the parties involved (childabusecommission.com/lander). These restrictions blocked access to justice for victims/survivors and has led to litigation to address the justice deficit that was created.
The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference stated in 2009 that “the Ryan report represents the most recent disturbing indictment of a culture that was prevalent in the Catholic Church in Ireland for far too long. Heinous crimes were perpetrated against the most innocent and vulnerable, and vile acts with life-lasting effects were carried out under the guise of the mission of Jesus Christ. This abuse represents a serious betrayal of the trust which was placed in the church.” In August 2018, a list was released revealing that of the over 1,300 Irish clergy who were accused, only 82 were convicted. Survivors during the child abuse redress process at the last stage were gagged, while the religious orders were given protection against prosecution. (BBC 20 05 2009)
And the Irish government apologised – so that is ok – in a weak lipped and watery-eyed gesture which has been justly rejected by victims/survivors in a collective despairing angry cry of bitter and anguished ressentiment for justice denied. For it was the Irish government that established the Ryan Commission, set its terms of reference and set its restrictions in terms of the attribution of liability both civil and criminality in order, assumed, to encourage compliance and co-operation without a fear of retribution and punishment.
An apology from a government without a vestment of understanding or integrity is without worth and the victims/survivors know this because it was the political institutions of the embryonic Irish Free State that endorsed and enabled (including its medical profession) the culture and practices of the churches (Roman Catholic and others including Presbyterian) and local authorities and statutory bodies.
Across the Island of Ireland (North and South), in part due to the dead grip power of the Roman Catholic church from before the 1922 political settlement and the violent Legacy of the Troubles, the exposure of clerical child sexual abuse and now the reckoning has – despite the deep conservatism of political culture in Dublin – diluted the dissipated claims to any moral authority and political influence of the Roman Catholic Church North and South – embraced by the divided political classes in Belfast as a point of unification in a common cause above sectarian conflict – has become part of an international cross-border narrative of shame, retribution and attempts at ‘reconciliation’ – whatever that means – it is a societal collective guilt, society let the priest get away with it.
*
Within Little England the scandal of abuse within its Church of England was subject to scrutiny of a sort by way of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). The IICSA published its findings on Safeguarding in the Church in 2020. (IICSA). As with the Ryan Commission, the IICSA was similarly restricted in its scope, authority and powers to condemn. Importantly, it was burdened by the scope and scale of its proposed work and in defining its own purpose. It was fatally flawed from the start and its progress was criticised by the government that created it. Its conclusions and recommendations have – as with so many statutory-public inquiries been discarded by government into the circular Whitehall wastepaper basket. Its should not be used as model when similar legislation is introduced via Stormont to investigate historical clerical abuse (HCCA) and the Mother and Baby Home ‘scandal’.
The IICSA subsumed parallel investigations into the Roman Catholic Church, local authorities and Westminster politicians enabling the CoE, by way of deployment of an army of demonic lawyers and PR consultants, managed to avoid any serious public rebuke from the IICSA Panel in its endeavour not to provoke any further contention:
“The Church of England failed to protect some children and young people from sexual predators within their midst. In the past, the system of child protection was under-resourced. Safeguarding personnel were at times ignored and their advice overlooked, in favour of protecting the reputation of clergy and the Church. During the Inquiry’s hearings, senior leaders in the Church apologised for its actions, recognising that failings identified by this investigation and other reviews were ‘profoundly and deeply shocking’.” (IICSA page 108)
That final comment – profoundly and deeply shocking – came from the Second Witness Statement of Archbishop Justin Welby 25 June 2019 (Exhibit JW2 as prepared by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP). Welby concluded his statement with the following: “In conclusion, the question that continues to exercise my mind most is that of justice” paragraph 73 page 26).
Thank you for your jurisprudential turn of thought there Justin.
The Chair of the IICSA was Alexis Jay who was then commissioned by the CoE to review its procedures recommending independent scrutiny and regulation of abuse cases “but this has been largely shelved by the bishops” (Observer 21 December 2024) (“The Future of Church Safeguarding” 55 pages 21 February 2024). Despite the claim made by the unamend spin people of the CoE: “We recognise the deep and lasting impact of abuse and are committed to ensuring that safeguarding in the Church is independent, transparent, and accountable” (BBC News 25 02 2025). Jay’s Report may now be being revived by the CoE given the publication of the Makin Review later last year. (The Independent Learning Lessons Review John Smyth QC (7 November 2024)) (Makin)
*
THE “prolific, brutal and horrific” abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, a Reader in the Church of England, was covered up by “powerful evangelical clergy”, the Makin Review concluded. The “Independent lessons learning review” by Keith Makin, (originally due to be published five years ago), lists the Archbishop of Canterbury as among those who failed to act.
From 2013, the Church of England knew “at the highest level” about the abuse committed by Smyth who was “arguably, the most prolific serial abuser to be associated with the Church of England”, abusing at least 115 children and young men across three countries and five decades. The Makin Review sets out in detail the extent of the “traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks” perpetrated by Smyth, beginning more than 50 years ago.
Makin gives voice to victims/survivors of abuse inflicted by John Smyth:
“I was once asked if I still thought about being involved with John Smyth. I replied, ‘No’, but in fact I have done, more than I realise probably, to the extent that at times I have let it define me, like letting what I see in the rear-view mirror distract me from what’s in front”. A victim of John Smyth, 2022 (Makin Review page 1).
“1.3 John Smyth was an appalling abuser of children and young men. His abuse was prolific, brutal and horrific. His victims were subjected to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks. The impact of that abuse is impossible to overstate and has permanently marked the lives of his victims. John Smyth’s own family are victims of his abuse.
“1.4 John Smyth’s activities were identified in the 1980s. Despite considerable efforts by individuals to bring to the attention of relevant authorities the scope and horror of Smyth’s conduct, including by victims and by some clergy, the steps taken by the Church of England and other organisations and individuals were ineffective and neither fully exposed nor prevented further abuse by him.” (page 2)
“To the victims who suffered at the hands of John Smyth, we hope that this report and its subsequent impact will help you find peace for you and your family; we dedicate this Review to you. We feel immensely privileged and honoured to have been able to meet with those personally affected and abused by John Smyth. We are acutely aware of how difficult the decision to engage with us would have been for many victims and their families. For some people, this abuse had been carried silently for over 40 years, and for many the trauma and suffering continue. Those who were able to contribute have openly shared their experiences of the abuse as well as articulating the devastating and lifelong impact that this has had. The nature and extent of the abuse we heard about is truly shocking.”
“Many people will find this report and its contents very distressing, and we would urge caution to every reader as they go through it. The abuse by John Smyth was prolific, brutal, and horrific, the descriptions that follow reflect this. His victims experienced a tragic range of abuse including physical, sexual, psychological, and spiritual abuse, his actions reaching into the realms of ritual abuse at times.”
“20.1 There is clear evidence that the abuse perpetrated by John Smyth in the UK were “covered up”, minimised and held as ‘secret’ from at least 1982 (and possibly earlier)” and “21.1 John Smyth was able to radicalise his victims, by using his misinterpretation and misuse of the Scriptures. He taught, preached, and exploited children and young people by applying a false theology, based on selected Scriptures, taken out of context.”
“It is already known that many people in the Church of England were aware of Smyth’s abuse in the early 1980s. The Iwerne Trust launched an investigation after a young man grew so fearful of the beatings that he tried to take his own life in early February 1982 (Church Times 20 August 2021: Titus Trust: ‘This is what we knew of John Smyth’s abuse, and when we knew it’). A confidential report, completed in 1982, was written by a C of E priest, the Revd Mark Ruston, when he was Vicar of Holy Sepulchre with All Saints, Cambridge (“the Round Church”), with the Revd David Fletcher (who was employed by Scripture Union to run the Iwerne camps, and died in 2022). Despite the concerted effort of clergy to prevent a “leak”, a growing number of people learned of the abuse in the years after the Ruston report. In some cases, they were told directly by these clergy, who chose to issue personal warnings rather than alert the authorities. Mr Ruston made a reference to the abuse in a sermon in 1989. It became, the review says, an “open secret amongst a whole variety of people connected with the Conservative Evangelical network” — one that was “badly kept”.” (Church Times 07 11 2024)
“I thought it would do the work of God immense damage if this were public.” (Makin Review page 62 at 12.1.10 (e)).
*
The Church Times is the paper of record of the CoE. Private Eye is the paper of record for many of its subscribers (many of whom regularly threaten to cancel their subscriptions following an apparent transgression of apparent good taste). I suspect some readers of the latter attend services of the former because the Eye does occasionally reflect a High Table (probably The House) Anglican (or that particular Anglo-Catholic) moral censoriousness.
In England – and Private Eye is a particularly English-institution with roots in the satire boom of the early 1960s and only two editors since then – Private Eye, despite the threat of financial ruin by way of defended litigation pursued against it by deep-pocketed disgruntled litigants – has pursued by way of dogged journalism rooted in research (note the Paul Foot Award) the exposure of wrongs within the institutions purporting to govern the beleaguered English. From Sub-Postmasters to clerical institutional sexual abuse within the CoE.
Private Eye has been steadfast in the exposure of and commentary on the hypocrisy of the senior clergy of the CoE since the publication of the Makin Review. Indeed, the esteemed editor (Ian Hislop) took to his pen following a confrontation with the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury during an event at the British Museum. The Independent 21 11 2024. Hislop said it was “jaw-dropping” to see Justin Welby at the British Museum’s annual dinner for trustees just a day after he quit for an “appalling scandal and cover-up of monstrous abuse”. criticised those at the gala that approached Mr Welby to comfort him and tell him he is “brave” for resigning. “These particular Christians were far too keen to forgive each other for their sins,” Mr Hislop wrote, “and far too slow to seek justice for the poor victims in their flock”. He added: “Welby seemed to me to be unrepentant and unashamed. I am not convinced he has been punished enough – unlike the poor boys his friend so mercilessly flogged in the name of Christianity.” Welby had said he was quitting “in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse”.
A letter writer to Private Eye the following week advised “Your editorial should be made compulsory reading at all Anglican church services this Sunday … it won’t be of course”. Another letter writer (himself a vicar) wryly observed that he was reminded, regarding Welby’s ‘shock’ at the Makin Review of Smyth’s appalling sexual abuse of children, that it was similar to Boris Johnson’s telling Parliament how shocked he was when someone told him there had been parties going at 10 Downing Street. Is it an Old Etonian thing?” Finally, from NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED, “Welby is showing as much contrition as his protégée Paula Vennells has”. The last bus from the village with two disgraced clerics and a postmistress with a bag marked SWAG.
Welby’s contrition was most evidently not displayed during his performance before his peers in the House of Lords. The Lords Spiritual probably eyeing the doors of the Upper Chamber with the same nervousness that struck their brethren Lord Laws. An Act of Disestablishment? Welby at the British Museum and Welby in the House of Lords did nothing for his church during the moment of his departure (BBC News 05 12 2024). During his speech to the House of Lords Welby mused that he pitied his diary secretary who had worked hard on arranging his diary for the year ahead, before the announcement of his resignation:
“My Lords, it is often said and it is a cliché to say it—but hey, I am the archbishop still—that if you want to make God laugh, make plans. On that basis, next year, I will be causing God more hilarity than anyone else for many years, because the plans for next year were very detailed and extensive. If you pity anyone, pity my poor diary secretary, who has seen weeks and months of work disappear in a puff of a resignation announcement.”
“The reality, which I wish to start with—then pay some thanks and then talk about housing—is that there comes a time, if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility when the shame of what has gone wrong, whether one is personally responsible or not, must require a head to roll. There is only, in this case, one head that rolls well enough. I hope not literally: one of my predecessors in 1381, Simon of Sudbury, had his head cut off and the revolting peasants at the time then played football with it at the Tower of London. I do not know who won, but it certainly was not Simon of Sudbury.” (Hansard 5 December 2024)
Whilst pitying his diary secretary, he showed no pity for the victim/survivors of the clerical sexual abuse specifically as described in the Makin Review. Welby appeared to accept technical and institutional culpability questioned his own personal responsibility to wrath of those abused by sexual predators.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, added her voice of condemnation to Welby’s turn before his peers: she was “deeply disturbed” by some of the his language. “To make light of serious matters of safeguarding failures in this way yet again treats victims and survivors of church abuse without proper respect or regard,” she said. She was “disappointed” to see other bishops in the House of Lords laughing at some of the jokes. (BBC News 05 12 2024).
This was a Valedictory Speech according to Hansard. The truth was outed in the pages of Private Eye through the views of its letter writers. This included a number of clerics and a former CoE Diocesan volunteer safeguarding officer whose NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED ruefully commented that:
“Much that I have read in Private Eye, and following the publication of the Makin Review about the response to Smyth’s abuses and various other situations has confirmed to me that my experiences are far from isolated. I will say that I strongly believe in forgiveness, not least because of my own frequent need for it. However, Christian teaching is that forgiveness follows confession and repentance.”
Not through a Valedictory Speech raising laughs in a House of the Lords.
*
To return to the compelling issues in the wake of the Makin Review.
The anguish and anger of the victim/survivors is not diminished or salved by the internal machinations and passion of the senior clergy.
But as Welby said during his Valedictory Speech:
“The reality is that the safeguarding and care of children and vulnerable adults in the Church of England today is, thanks to tens of thousands of people across the Church, particularly in parishes, by parish safeguarding officers, a completely different picture from the past.”
So that is ok then.
As to future occupancy of Lambeth Palace two observations can be made related to power and money.
First, writing the foreword to the annual report of the Church Commissioners, which manages the church’s property and investment portfolio, Stephen Cottrell, the current Archbishop of York, said: “The Church Commissioners is truly sorry for the prolific and abhorrent abuse highlighted in the report and its lifelong effects on his victims.” The annual report from the Church Commissioners for England – which manages the Church’s investment portfolio – described their reputational risk as currently being “at an elevated level” and that “This case and other safeguarding failures undermine public confidence in the assertions made by the Church, including the Church Commissioners, about the importance of, and priority given to, safeguarding.” (Yorkshire Post 10 06 2026)
Second, the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) is responsible for appointing the next Archbishop of Canterbury, examining candidates, holding interviews and eventually putting forward a name to the Prime Minister, who then passes it to the King. Lord Evans chairs the Crown Nominations Commission. (Church Times 17 12 2024 Lord Evans of Weardale, a former director-general of MI5. He is an “active and communicant member of his local parish church”, Downing Street says.
The readers of this publication may find it ironic that MI5, the Church, child sexual abuse and safeguarding appear in the same sentence in this observation.
*
The Makin Review identified at least ten Bishops and 30 ‘rank and file’ clergy who knew about the abuse inflicted by John Smyth but failed to stop him and indeed offered him sanctuary and impunity. The CoE appears now, obviously, to want to assure its flock that safeguarding is now in place. That is not the point. There must be a demonstration of repentance and shame. There must be a cultural imperative to transition from forgiveness of their sins as church leaders toward enabling justice for victims/survivors who suffered terrible abuse because of those sins.
Hear Christopher Stanley on this podcast:
