“We would like to commend a suggestion made by Bernie which is to hold an official Day of Reconciliation across the Diocese. It was also suggested that the focus of such a day – a Sunday, it was recommended – could become a feature of the Diocese calendar on an annual basis … ‘lest we forget …’“
[Source: The Shemmings Report 2019 – Conclusions and Suggestions for a Way Forward – Page 85]
CHURCH TIMES AND THE SHEMMINGS REPORT
“SEX, POWER, CONTROL – RESPONDING TO ABUSE IN THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH” BY FIONA GARDNER – CHAPTER 10 – ‘SPIRITUAL ABUSE, THE SPIRITUAL SICKNESS WITHIN THE CHURCH AND SIGNS OF HOPE’ – PAGES 161-162
If safeguarding remains within the remit of the institutional church, the it seems generally agreed that a whole church approach to safeguarding is needed. This could include an arrangement equivalent to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, tasked with bringing out into the open all the past wrongdoings by the institutional church towards victims and survivors. This would make an absolute priority of the return of the true narrative of events to its proper position in the mainstream accounts of what actually happened. This would be a reversal of the established power and control, and indeed ‘the truth will set you free’ (John 8 : 32).
The 2019 Shemmings Report on the prevalence of abuse in the diocese of Chichester commended a suggestion made by one survivor they interviewed, which is to hold an official Day of Reconciliation across that diocese: ‘It was also suggested that the focus of such a day – a Sunday, it was recommended – could become a feature of the diocese calendar on an annual basis…”lest we forget”.
The report also gave three proposals, ‘developed as an organic, co-produced, open and transparent process, with diverse individuals and organisations to achieve genuine “ownership”, because it is now well-known and accepted that the protection and safeguarding of individuals from sexual abuse and exploitation requires the whole community to take an active part’.
These include a series of filmed conferences and seminars on subjects such as “Supporting Survivors”, “Screening New Applicants”, “Maintaining Openness”, “Celibacy and Close, Intimate Relationships”, “so-called) Desistant Paedophiles” etc.’ Key speakers could be invited and the events filmed with survivors very much present as participants or speakers.
The Shemmings Report also advocated further research into understanding sexual offending and an action research programme to evaluate progress on key areas. These include: recruitment and training of clergy; generally restricting access by clergy to children on their own or unsupervised; prosecuting offenders; further thinking about the concept of forgiveness; and continuing support for survivors. It also includes the idea of changing the culture of the organisation.
THE SHEMMINGS REPORT 2019
Introduction
In 2017 the Independent Safeguarding Advisory Panel for the Diocese of Chichester
recommended that the Diocese commission research regarding the history of sexual abuse in
its churches. This recommendation was in recognition of the large number of proven cases of
abuse that had come to light in recent years. In making this recommendation, the Panel was
mindful that more was known about what had happened than why it had happened, and in
particular why such a relatively large concentration of cases had occurred within this
Diocese.
The Diocese approached Professor David Shemmings from the University of Kent to lead the
research. Professor Shemmings, a leading expert in the use of interviews and qualitative
methods in social research, and his wife Yvonne, who works with him in numerous training
and research contexts, conducted a series of interview with Diocesan staff, police colleagues
who had worked investigations into abuse in the Diocese, and victims of abuse.
The Diocese is very grateful to Professor Shemmings and Yvonne for their work, and to all
those who contributed to this research. In particular, the Diocese wishes to thank those
victims of abuse who agreed to be interviewed, reliving very painful experiences in order that
those responsible for preventing abuse in church now can learn lessons from the past.
Many readers of this report may be unfamiliar with ‘qualitative’ studies as opposed to
‘quantitative’. In reading this material, readers should understand that the authors have been
exploring the experience of those whom they have interviewed rather than examining facts in
all their detail. This is a distinct discipline that differs from that used to compile reports that
set out factual evidence. The experiences of those interviewed are important because they
describe the real effect of events upon their minds.
The report makes for difficult reading, particularly as it shines light on elements of the culture
of the Diocese and its churches that contributed to abuse of the vulnerable. The voices in this
report add to the findings of the recently-published Chichester case study from the
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the review conducted by Dame Moira Gibb
into the case of Bishop Peter Ball, and other similar reviews that have highlighted not only
the guilt of individual abusers, but also the responsibility of the wider church regarding its
culture, leadership, and values. No matter how difficult it is to hear the voices in this report,
particularly those of victims whose experience challenges the Diocese to its core, it is vital
that we approach these perspectives with an open mind and a humble attitude, recognising the
depth of hurt that has been caused and the moral imperative that is placed on us as a result, to
do all we can now to ensure that children and adults are safe in our churches.
The report adds to the wealth of research in this field, but as it identifies, there is much more
to learn. The suggestions contained in both this report and others offer food for thought, for
the wider church and not only for this diocese, and indeed for other organisations. Careful
consideration will be needed on the best areas to focus on. Meanwhile, we commend this
report to you and trust that the moral challenge it contains will continue to drive the Diocese
towards further improvements to our safeguarding culture and practice.
Sexual Abuse by Clergymen
in the Diocese of Chichester
‘You Can’t Say No To God’
FINAL REPORT
Yvonne Shemmings MA (by Research)
David Shemmings OBE PhD
PAGE 4
To be able to move on after a series of seismic or catastrophic events, it is necessary to
remember the past while deliberately focusing one’s gaze to the future. When driving a car
we look forwards, through the windscreen, yet we would be a dangerous driver if we didn’t
regularly look in the rear-view mirror; but we would end up an even more dangerous driver
if we only looked through the rear-view mirror. The aim is to get the balance right which, in
our driving analogy, is pre-set for us, given the relative sizes of the windscreen and mirror.
PAGES 83 TO 92
Conclusion and Suggestions for a Way Forward
Conclusion and Summary of the Responses to the Research Questions
We were asked to explore the views of key individuals and relevant published documents
about i) patterns of victimisation and offending behaviour and ii) factors within the Diocese
which may have contributed to the initiation and maintenance of the abuse.
Perhaps unsurprisingly there were differences of opinion and perspective that can best be
summarised in the following four points:
- Some, but not all, felt that there was nothing unique to the Diocese of Chichester
about these tragic events, and surmised that this kind of abuse had occurred – and
may still be taking place – in other parts of the country. - There was a difference of opinion over whether the abusers were i) predatory sex
offenders to begin with, who then chose the vocation of priesthood as a gateway to
young males (and sometimes females) and/or vulnerable adults or ii) whether they
took the opportunities when they arose, but didn’t actively set out to abuse or iii)
whether there was something endemic about the ‘closed’ (some said ‘secretive’)
community within the Church which, coupled with the requirement for homosexual
priests to remain celibate, produces in some men, an unquenchable and unrequited
need for intimate close relationships that can sometimes cross a line and become
abusive and even coercive. - A divergence of viewpoints was noted around the extent to which those in authority
were seen as ‘initiating or maintaining’ the abuse (one interviewee disagreed with
the suggestion that anyone in the Diocese had ‘allowed’ the abuse to flourish or
continue). From official reports, and court transcripts, it does seem now to have
been shown that different individuals overlooked or ignored allegations or moved
offending priests to another diocese but this, it was suggested, isn’t the same as
saying that members of the Diocese ‘allowed’ the abuse to start or ‘encouraged’ it to
continue. Nevertheless, there were examples in our interviews of individuals saying
FINAL REPORT 84 | P a g e
that priests had, on occasion, watched each other abusing victims. There were also
claims, from a number of respondents that warnings were unheeded and sometimes
ignored, and these also appear in official reports. - Finally, (but not mentioned in the Findings) the question of whether or not certain
statues or other memorabilia of priests should remain in view divided those
interviewed. Some felt they should be destroyed as they represented for them an
affront to those who were abused. However, one respondent felt that it was
inappropriate to remove them from the history of the Church.
And as we saw in the previous section there was some disagreement about the extent to
which an organised ring of offenders operated in the Diocese. Perhaps ‘social network’ is a
more accurate term to describe what happened. One way of capturing how such a network
operated is to consider the effect of one incident that we were told about. We stated earlier
that one senior priest met with a new member of the clergy in his room, while sitting with a
boy on lap, with his hand on the boy’s thigh. This is, we believe, a powerful example of how
cultural values, beliefs, opportunities and even expectations could have been transmitted, in
a ‘deniable’ way.
Everyone we interviewed agreed that these events were shocking and terrible for those who
had endured the abuse. It was also agreed that survivors had been let down in terms of the
validation and support they had received.
Moving Forward …
In a recent edited book entitled Protecting Children and Adults from Abuse after Savile35
Anne-Marie Mcalinden refers at the end of her chapter to the trial and conviction of the
notorious child sex offender, Frank Beck, who abused children living in residential
establishments between 1989 and 1991:
‘The scale and extent of Beck’s abuse seemed, at the time, unthinkable and surely
unrepeatable. Presciently the inquiry chair, Andrew Kirkwood, QC, wrote: “It would
35 Edited by Marcus Erooga (18 Jan 2018), published by JKP.
FINAL REPORT 85 | P a g e
not be wise for anyone to approach this Report on the basis that it all happened a
long time ago and that nothing like it could ever happen again” …’. (p.22).
Kirkwood was right to issue this caution as, since then, we have seen a relentless and almost
incomprehensible number of revelations involving the sexual abuse of children, young
people and vulnerable adults.
We would like to suggest that Kirkwood’s caution still rings true today and, hence, we would
urge the Diocese to heed it deliberately and consciously, and not be tempted to approach
the future by adopting the mantra ‘That was then; this is now’. Inevitably there is now an
understandable need to move on from what many believe has been a terrible stain on the
Diocese but this can, in our view, only be safely and respectfully done by regularly training
everyone’s collective eyes and ears on what happened in the past.
We would like to commend a suggestion made by Bernie which is to hold an official Day of Reconciliation across the Diocese. It was also suggested that the focus of such a day – a Sunday, it was recommended – could become a feature of the Diocese calendar on an annual basis … ‘lest we forget …’.
We now present three proposals which we believe would, if implemented fully, take the
Diocese into the future without turning its back on the past. Each proposal, we argue,
should be developed as an organic, co-produced, open and transparent process, with
diverse individuals and organisations to achieve genuine ‘ownership’, because it is now well known and accepted that the protection and safeguarding of individuals from sexual abuse
and exploitation requires the whole community to take an active part.
We also believe strongly that these proposals will be of considerable interest to other
organisations facing the same challenges – whether or not they realise it, or want to believe
it even when it is staring them in the face. We share the view expressed by a number of
those interviewed that the abuse would not have been confined to the Diocese of
Chichester. It will almost certainly have been happening elsewhere, and in other religious
FINAL REPORT 86 | P a g e
organisations; and we have seen it more recently in football, gymnastics, music and artistic
academies … and tragically this list will, no doubt, be added to.
Because they has been gained through the experiences of survivors, some of whom one of
us (Yvonne) was privileged to meet, we believe the Diocese is in a strong position to take
the central messages further afield, to other organisations just beginning to discover their
own horror stories.
Before considering the proposals we strongly urge that, if it hasn’t been undertaken already,
a review of all existing recommendations is undertaken and that progress is plotted on a
GANTT-type chart to see what actions still need to be taken.
A WAY FORWARD: THREE PROPOSALS
A common thread running through these proposals is our hope that this report becomes a
part of a platform for debate and discussion, rather than just left on the shelf to ‘gather
dust’. We believe that a good place to begin would be to have a round table meeting with
the people interviewed, to begin to discuss openly the key points of discord and
disagreement that emerged in the research (for example over the notion of ‘cover-up’, the
existence of an organised paedophile group etc.). If it proved difficult to conduct such a
meeting we would suggest the use of trained mediators, so that individuals can be helped to
‘hear’ one another without becoming defensive or intransigent.
Proposal 1: A series of filmed conferences and seminars
We offer for consideration that the Diocese convenes a series of conferences and seminars
for different audiences on different subjects e.g. ‘Supporting Survivors’, ‘Screening New
Applicants’, ‘Maintaining Openness’, ‘Celibacy and Close, Intimate Relationships’, ‘(so called)
Desistant Paedophiles’ etc. The aim would be to invite key and renowned speakers to these
events which we would suggest are filmed. For example, depending on the focus of the
conference/seminar, one might consider inviting Dame Moira Gibb, Edi Carmi, Marcus
Erooga, Craig Harper, Theresa Gannon, Sarah Mullally (the new Bishop of London), Sir Roger
FINAL REPORT 87 | P a g e
Singleton … and others. We are also of the opinion that survivors should be invited to these
events as a matter of course – as full participants, either as presenters or as respondents in
plenary sessions (or both).
We suggest further that the first set of conferences/seminars is aimed at members of the
Diocese only, but that later on it would be important to take the papers and presentations
to a much wider geographic audience as well as to other organisations currently facing
similar challenges e.g. the BBC, sporting organisations etc.
Proposal 2: An Action Research36 programme to evaluate progress on key changes
There are clearly a number of areas which need to be addressed in the future (some of
which we know are already being discussed). An Action Research (AR) approach ensures
that progress is systematically reviewed and practice amended or altered throughout each
step during the change process. Typically, a team is established whose members can have
access to each other’s ideas and observations about the progress of change through a
facilitated online platform offering secure chatroom features such as BaseCamp37
.
We suggest six innovations be considered as part of an Action Research Project:
A. Recruitment, Selection and Training of New Clergy and Lay Members
Many of the findings in this report relate directly to recruitment, training and selection at all
levels in the organisation. The aim of this part of the programme is to explore more recent
innovations in screening to exclude potentially abusive individuals from entering the
organisation. The NSPCC regularly runs training in Safer Recruitment Practice38. We heard a
view expressed that recruitment and selection practices had improved, for example, with
36 Action Research is a well-known and documented method of evaluating the effect of change while it is
taking place. It focusses primarily on process but, equally, it can be extended to outcomes. The point of the
approach is that changes can – indeed, should – be made during the innovation, rather than waiting for the
results of the research to emerge.
37 Visit https://basecamp.com/how-it-works
38 See https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-you-can-do/get-expert-training/safer-recruitment-training.
FINAL REPORT 88 | P a g e
some psychometric testing at the stage seminary training, but more may need to be done at
a local level (and there may be value in considering additions to the testing battery).
Another development that might prove useful is the introduction of ‘serious, interactive
games and simulations’39 that have been developed at the University of Kent’s International
Centre for Child Protection. Such supplements to traditional training can be used for clergy,
members of the laity as well as for awareness-raising among parishioners and members of
the public within the Diocese.
B. Prevention of Abuse within the Diocese
Here the aim is to question the idea that there is, or is ever likely to be, homogeneity among
sexual offenders, hence strategies to prevent abuse need to take account of the myriad
reasons that abuse happens within an organisation. Marcus Erooga in his recent edited
book40 wrote a chapter entitled ‘Thinking Beyond a Single Type of Organisational Sex
Offender’ and it might well act as a source for this part of the Action Research Project. He
distinguishes, for example, between preferential sex offenders (‘those with a conscious
desire to sexually abuse children’), opportunistic sex offenders (‘those who are motivated to
abuse and do so because potential victims are available … and the organisational setting
either inadvertently facilitates, or fails to prevent, abusive activity’) and situational sex
offenders (‘whose propensity to abuse is previously unknown or unacknowledged, and their
offending is specific to the set of institutional factors which potentiates their offending’).
C. Restricting Access to Children (on their own or unsupervised)
It is presumably now accepted that events and activities that give unrestricted and/or
unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults need to be reviewed urgently (this may
already be taking place, but it will need to be evaluated in operation). This requires a
39 See https://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/ccp/simulationsindex.html. The Centre for Child Protection won the
University Faculty Teaching and Learning prize and Enterprise and Innovation award in 2014, the Guardian
newspaper award for Technological Innovation and, very recently (November 2017), the Higher Education
Academy’s UK Teaching Innovation Award.
40 op cit Erooga, M. (2018)
FINAL REPORT 89 | P a g e
Diocese-wide understanding – among the clergy, the laity and with parishioners and
congregations more generally – that certain events such as residential or camping weekends,
pilgrimages and trips abroad etc. which have been a feature in the past should be reviewed
for the future. Similarly, the practice of adequate and effective supervision of children and
vulnerable adults would need to be considered during Sunday school, as well as in youth
club attendance and Bible study groups.
Perhaps another relevant point to consider within this theme is found in the following
extract from a new book edited by Richard Gartner entitled Understanding the Sexual
Betrayal of Boys and Men41. Again, the aim is to promote debate through open discussion.
In a chapter written by Gartner himself, he states:
‘The more victims accept the familial implications of calling someone Father, Mother,
Sister, or Brother, the more the sexual abuse has incestuous connotations. So, many
victims of priests are psychologically dealing with a form of incest. And, a priest is not
simply “a” father. He is a direct representative of “The” Father, a living
representation of Christ. p.248
Boys most easily preyed upon by priests are likely to come from families with deep
religious convictions … They may be altar boys or choir boys who feel engaged in
their religious lives and have idealized views of their spiritual mentors. p.249
As boys, they looked to their abusers for solace and support, and were betrayed. The
trauma for each was shattering. Overlaying their betrayal was the specific effect on
the child’s spiritual life following abuse by a trusted “representative of God.” Each
man had a terrible crisis of faith. When that faith was destroyed they were thereby
further alienated from their religiously observant families.’ p.259.
D. Prosecuting Offenders (and the working concept of ‘forgiveness’)
We would suggest that there needs to be a very clear message to everyone connected with
diocesan matters, but especially those in ministering roles, that ‘if you abuse children or
adults then you will be investigated and if found guilty you will be punished and your career
in the Church will end (but not your membership of it)’. The reason for this level of clarity is
41 Published by Routledge in August 2017.
FINAL REPORT 90 | P a g e
that, from the reports we read and from many of those interviewed, it was not clear if this
was the message given or, if it was, whether it received with this intention in mind.
We also wonder – respectfully, as this next point is both outside of our own knowledge and
the brief for this research – if all members of the Diocese understand precisely what is
meant ‘in practice’ when a sexual offender who is a priest or member of the clergy is said to
have been ‘forgiven’. From our interviews there emerged different and contradictory
viewpoints. This might, therefore, be a suitable topic for discussion and open debate.
E. Offering Continuing Support for Survivors
There are now many therapeutic services available to survivors of different kinds of trauma.
We would urge the Diocese in the final component of the proposed AR Project to undertake
a review of the different approaches available along with an analysis of the evidence base
for their effectiveness.
F. Changing the culture of the organisation
During the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in March 2018, Sir Roger
Singleton (chair of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and former Chief Executive of
Barnardos, UK) made a number of points during his testimony. We suggest that the Diocese
obtain the transcript from the IISCA session and consider whether and how to apply his
insights.
Proposal 3: Research to Understand Sexual Offending – ‘FIND OUT WHY?’
The final proposal is the most ambitious and, if embraced and implemented, would send a
clear message that the Diocese – as well as the wider Church of England – that it wishes to do
something radical about the pernicious problem of sexual abuse, which continues to surface
in different settings and different organisations across the world.
FINAL REPORT 91 | P a g e
There are a variety of different views about why (mostly) men want to sexually abuse
children and vulnerable adults and why, when they are finally apprehended, many show no
remorse. What was in the minds of Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Paul Gadd, Ian Watkins etc.
when they consciously and deliberately subjected children to the most cruel, depraved and
relentless abuse? In this study, why did some priests abuse their positions of trust?
We argue that existing explanations of sexual abuse fall short in one key respect: they do
not explain why it is that some adults want to molest and sexually assault a young child, for
example. Consider one of the commonly-held explanations for the depravities of Savile,
which is that he did those things ‘because he could’. This is true at one level, but at another
it leaves unanswered what, for us, remains the central question: ‘Whilst, no doubt, he did it
because he could … but what we don’t know is why he wanted to do it in the first place?
Until we Find Out Why – and far more than our current understanding permits – we believe
that children and vulnerable adults will remain at risk of being sexually abused. (Our use of
the word ‘understanding’ here means ‘fathom’ or ‘comprehend’ the perpetrator’s behaviour
and motivation; we do not mean ‘agree with’ or ‘sympathise with’).
To Find Out Why we need to conduct research in a number of areas which so far haven’t
been examined in much depth, partly because such studies are costly to fund. We need, for
example, to look at neurological, biochemical and genetic research with convicted
perpetrators (with their consent, naturally). But it is also important to step back from purely
individualised insights and examine how and in what ways the society and culture we live in
legitimates and perpetuates misogyny and violence towards women and children. Hence
the research will also need to be informed by anthropological, sociological and social
psychological insights from around the world.
The reported examples of sexual abuse by priests, religious teachers, certain ‘celebrities’ in
the broadcast media and now more recently in sporting organisations have all eroded
people’s trust in some of our most established organisations. Churches should be safe
havens, places where followers can turn for comfort and peace. Instead, for some, they
have become the source of fear, distrust and cynicism. Similarly, children should have felt
FINAL REPORT 92 | P a g e
THINKING ANGLICANS
Richard W. Symonds
RE: Helen King ViaMedia.News Independence & Safeguarding: Marking Our Own Homework?
Helen King ends her article: “As for those who have already suffered at the hands of church abusers, listening, repentance and redress must be prioritized”
May I suggest as a priority a “Day of Reconciliation”, as recommended by the Shemmings Report 2019 – an officially-recognised Day within the Diocese of Chichester and beyond it. This excellent report appears to have been almost totally disregarded by the Church of England hierarchy:
“We would like to commend a suggestion made by Bernie which is to hold an official Day of Reconciliation across the Diocese. It was also suggested that the focus of such a day – a Sunday, it was recommended – could become a feature of the Diocese calendar on an annual basis … ‘lest we forget …’”
[Source: The Shemmings Report 2019 – Conclusions and Suggestions for a Way Forward – Page 85]
Tim Chesterton
I enjoyed Simon’s article and, as I said in the comments on Via Media, it made me think of the character in one of Susan Howatch’s Starbridge novels who says that one of the most important phrases to remember in the spiritual life is “I can be wrong.” Reply
Richard W. Symonds Reply to Tim Chesterton
It’s easy enough to admit “I can be wrong” in the spiritual life. It takes real moral courage to admit “I was wrong” – especially in public life.
A gesture of reconciliation – like ‘I was wrong’ – will not come from the Chichester Cathedral hierarchy [eg the Dean] unless the likes of Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner admit ‘I was wrong’, especially regarding Bishop Bell. These powerful people [who have a lot to lose if they admit such wrongdoing] are perpetuating abuse by their moral cowardice – not just an abuse of power but also an abuse of justice.
Email between ‘C’ and ‘R’ – 07/03/2021
G – The most conciliatory gesture, if they really want reconciliation, would be restoration of the name George Bell House
R – Indeed, but such a conciliatory gesture – like “I was wrong” – will not come from the Cathedral hierarchy [eg the Dean] unless Bishop Warner and Archbishop Welby admit “I was wrong” regarding Bishop Bell. These powerful people [who have a lot to lose if they admit such wrongdoing] are perpetuating abuse by their moral cowardice – especially an abuse of justice.
The Bell Society 