“The Archbishop’s judgement and integrity are being called into question, yet again” ~ Richard W. Symonds
SURVIVORS of abuse perpetrated by John Smyth have written to Lambeth Palace to correct the Archbishop of Canterbury’s assertion that Smyth was “not actually an Anglican” — a comment made during an interview on Channel 4 News last week.
In total, the letter lists 14 points of dispute about the Archbishop’s comments.
During the interview on Friday, which explored the Church of England’s response to Smyth’s abuse, Archbishop Welby said that Smyth “was not actually an Anglican. The church he went to in South Africa was not Anglican, and Iwerne was not part of the Church of England.”
Smyth was living in South Africa when a disclosure of abuse was made in Ely diocese in 2013, and died there last year. He was a former chairman of the Iwerne Trust, which ran holiday camps for boys at English public schools, and is now part of the Titus Trust. A six-month Channel 4 News investigation, broadcast two years ago, found that both the Iwerne Trust and Winchester College had learned of allegations of abuse by Mr Smyth in the 1980s, but failed to report them to the police (News, 10 February 2017).
One of the survivors who wrote to Lambeth Palace this week, Graham*, described the claim that Smyth was not an Anglican as “farcical”, given that he worshipped in the C of E.. The letter tells the Archbishop that Smyth had in fact been a licensed Reader in the diocese of Winchester.
A spokesperson for the diocese of Winchester said: “When the allegations first came to light we reviewed our records. There was nothing to suggest that John Smyth had had a formal role within the diocese and so no further investigation was undertaken.”
Graham also listed the many links between the Iwerne Trust and the C of E, pointing out that survivors in the United Kingdom and trustees of the Trust — some of whom were ordained — had attended Anglican churches.
In his interview, Archbishop Welby said: “The Church of England was never directly involved, but we take responsibility because there was a Church of England clergyman, though not on the payroll, who was in charge of the Iwerne Trust and there were Anglicans there . . .”
He also emphasised that the allegations did not pertain to the Iwerne Trust’s camps — the abuse had taken place at Smyth’s home.
But Archbishop Welby did not mention that the report commissioned by the Iwerne Trust and compiled in 1982, prompted by a suicide attempt by a survivor, was written by a C of E priest, the Revd Mark Ruston, when he was Vicar of Holy Sepulchre with All Saints, Cambridge. It described what it called the “beatings” of 22 young men.
“The scale and severity of the practice was horrific . . . eight received about 14,000 strokes: two of them having some 8000 strokes over three years.”
The contents of the report were disclosed to a number of Anglican clergy. Smyth went on to live in Zimbabwe, where he continued to run holiday camps — Zambezi Ministries — and South Africa.
“Had any one of these men spoken out about what they knew, upwards of 60 African children might not have been viciously beaten, and Smyth might have faced the justice he deserved,” the letter says.
Archbishop Welby told Channel 4 News that he had had “no idea” of Smyth’s abuse until 2013. “I heard a report about an allegation of abuse; it was made in Ely diocese, and the Bishop of Ely had contacted the statutory authorities . . . and I wrote to the Primate in South Africa.”
In fact, it was the Bishop of Ely, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, who wrote to the Church in South Africa.
Asked about a promised review, Archbishop Welby told Channel 4 News that it could not take place until the Church had secured the participation of the other organisations involved: a reference to Scripture Union, Winchester College, and the Titus Trust.
“Unless you can get everyone in you are never going to get anywhere near the truth,” he said. “We’ve written to them; we’ve not had answers from all of them; and I would very much like them to reply promptly and quickly, and let’s get on with it and discover what we need to learn.”
Several survivors of Smyth’s abuse have launched a civil claim against the Titus Trust (News, 24 August 2018), and it is understood that the Titus Trust will consider a review only once these have been concluded (News, 1 March).
Graham suggested that it was “perverse that the decision as to which organisations should have the veto on a review has been taken before the review itself, when all of the facts are not yet known”.
He also disputed the Archbishop’s comment that there had been “very rapid contact” with the survivors, and that the bishop in charge of safeguarding and safeguarding officers had met them.
On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Lambeth Palace declined to clarify the Archbishop’s comments but said that he hoped to meet survivors “as soon as possible”.
*Name changed to protect anonymity
“Bishop Bell’s memory”
Sir – Dr Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson’s letter (March 24) puts the case for the late Bishop George Bell very well.
Those of us who live in the Diocese of Chichester suffer a further frustration. Within days of the Church’s original finding being published, orders were given to remove almost all memorabilia to George Bell. In places where this was not possible, such as in the south aisle of the cathedral, a notice was displayed for many months referring to being a cloud over George Bell’s name.
At the same time, a building in Canon Lane that had been refurbished with nearly £1 million pounds of funds and named “George Bell House” was renamed “4 Canon Lane”.
Dr Hildebrandt Grayson asks how long we shall have to wait for the Archbishop to have the grace to admit that the Church made “the most colossal error of judgement”.
We in Chichester are asking how long before we can see the restoration of his name, and particularly of George Bell House.
Chichester, West Sussex
BISHOP GEORGE BELL
As former Chichester Cathedral choristers and Prebendal School pupils in the late 1940s and 1950s, we protested in 2015 at the defamation of Bishop George Bell implicit in the church’s response to the claim by a woman around the same age as us that she had been sexually abused by him when very young (“Justice for Bell”, letters, Jan 19). We are delighted at the conclusions of Lord Carlile of Berriew’s report.
We choristers had a fair sense of George Bell as a man whose fundamental integrity we saw, and throughout our life have continued to value. Our doubts about the claims reflected the strong impression he made, and also the fact that we, alas, had some real experience of what a paedophile could be: a master was relieved of his post and replaced without police involvement when one of us went with his parents to tell the dean what had been happening. We have never accepted that “Carol” identified Bishop Bell rightly as her abuser.
The church now has a responsibility to restore Bishop Bell to his deserved and special place in its life. He remains a saintly figure for those who knew him in the way we did, or have studied his record. Bishop Bell spoke out bravely and worked tirelessly.
He called the 1943 bombing of civilians in Hamburg an unjustifiable act of war. He was the closest foreign friend and supporter of the 1944 Lutheran martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He helped to found the World Council of Churches in 1948. He welcomed to his bishop’s palace Jewish refugee families from Nazi persecution.
It is surprising that Archbishop Welby and various bishops seem no longer to recognise why this great, clear-sighted man has been treated as an Anglican saint with prayers for his own day of remembrance in the calendar. Holding their offices, they surely should.
Tom Sutcliffe, Roger Davis, Stewart Kershaw, Grevile Bridge, Roger Manser, Peter Watts, Roger Gooding, Tony Plumridge, Peter Hamel-Cooke, Francis Sutcliffe