CofE safeguarding probe reveals hundreds of new incidents; archbishops declare, “No excuses.”
After an independent examination found hundreds of new safeguarding instances that need additional evaluation or action, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued an apology for the Church of England.
Until now, the Church of England has not conducted a study as comprehensive as the Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2).
Independent examiners from across the Church of England’s 42 dioceses pored through tens of thousands of files and data dating back 80 years.
It was done since the 2007 evaluation that had been done was judged insufficient due to a lack of victim participation.
CofE safeguarding leaders throughout the UK are now handling 383 new cases, 168 of which include children and 149 of which involve vulnerable people, according to PCR2.
It has been determined that 242 of the accused abusers are clergy, 51 are church officials, and 41 are volunteers.
These are examples that “independent reviewers recognized as needing further consideration under today’s safeguarding standards and, if appropriate, additional action,” the Church of England said.
“These include anything from incidents that led to referrals to regulatory bodies to lapses in adhering to best practices.
The reviewers concluded that “allegations were typically handled with informally, without adequate investigations or records or referrals to the relevant diocesan safeguarding specialists.”
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York wrote a preface to the assessment in which they expressed “great grief and deep humiliation” at the report’s conclusions.
For the church to fail in its mission to spread God’s love and affirm the worth of every person, “there are no viable justifications, no rationalizations,” they said.
After PCR1, we were certain that the previous abuses and the pain endured by survivors, victims, and their families had been discovered and took the next logical step, conducting PCR2.
“We moved quickly to address issues using established protocols designed to best meet the victim’s requirements. Our strategy centered on providing this for the abused children and vulnerable people who deserved nothing less.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have apologized to victims and vowed to make the Church of England a welcoming and inclusive community.
Our hearts go out to those who are still reeling from the anguish they had to go through as a result of our mistakes, and we offer our deepest condolences. Our deepest condolences go out to everyone in the family who has been negatively impacted by this terrible incident in the past.
“We are very sorry that this ever occurred. This is not your fault, and you should not feel guilty. We should have been more attentive to the needs of victims and survivors.
“Our faith demands us to take safeguarding seriously; to prevent abuse from happening; to react properly if it has; and to do all this in support of our effort to make church communities and institutions safer places.”
According to abuse victim and independent PCR2 Project Board member John Bakker, the report “goes a very long way to remedy the shortcomings of the first PCR process, and ultimately indicates that the Church will be a safer place as the suggestions continue to be implemented.”
The survivor community is a treasure trove of knowledge and experience that may help the Church immensely in its pursuit of safety. Thus, it is crucial that they be included in any suggestions for carrying out the recommendations,” he said.
To ensure that safeguarding inside the Church is trauma-informed, “this will involve complete and appropriate engagement, not merely being consulted or asked for their thoughts.”
According to Mr. Bakker, the survivors of abuse will need continuous care from the Church of England, and the study should serve as a launchpad for further advancements in safeguarding.
The church as an institution has a responsibility to show survivors its Christian principles and activities in real and meaningful ways. Repentance, justice, compassion, care, love, forgiveness, respect, honesty, and the truth are among them,” he remarked.
It has so frequently failed in many of them that the abuse that many survivors have endured has been exacerbated by the reaction (or lack of response) of the Church, as an institution and by people at all levels within the church.
It is my hope that the survivors will see this report as evidence that the Church has taken steps to rectify its previous mistakes, both in terms of culture and individual situations. Yet, time will tell whether or not this is indeed the case.
As I have said before, “safeguarding work is never complete,” and this report must serve as the basis for action, learning, and continuing progress, “I reinforce the message to the bishops, other church leaders, and the safeguarding teams both nationally and locally.”
2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks