A CALL to “resist the temptation to weaponise people and their circumstances for other purposes or campaigns” was issued by the Bishop of Warrington, the Rt Revd Bev Mason, on Monday, as members of the General Synod gathered in London.
In a second pastoral letter, issued 11 days after she revealed that she was the second complainant against the Bishop of Liverpool, Dr John Perambalath (News, 30 January), Bishop Mason distanced herself from calls for the resignation of the Archbishop of York.
“I would like to openly and publicly state that I do not support such calls and would ask that, in our pursuit of good and transparent processes and structures that [are] fit for purpose, we do not weaponise or personalise this endeavour to the detriment of individuals,” she wrote.
“Although there are still unanswered questions and my own situation remains unresolved, it is untrue that the Archbishop has not provided support.
“In August 2023 once my formal disclosure had been made against the Bishop of Liverpool, the Archbishop of York recognised the very sensitive and difficult situation I found myself in and, for pastoral reasons, encouraged me to take extended leave pending a resolution. The Archbishop ensured there was pastoral support in place for me throughout, which continues to this day. Claims asserting the Archbishop of York did nothing are not true.”
Bishop Mason warned that “quick-fix solutions that apportion blame, calls for resignations which suggest something is being seen to be done are tempting. But do these really resolve anything and bring about a cultural, professional, and holy shift that we now need? A corporate and individual self-examen is perhaps a more theological approach to the kind of scrutiny that every part of the Church should now be open to.”
The letter, addressed to members of the General Synod, followed a comment posted on the Psephizo blog on Saturday. The author of the blog, Canon Andrew Goddard, an honorary curate at St James the Less, Pimlico, wrote that he had been asked by Bishop Mason to post the comment, in which she sought to add “clarification”.
In this comment, she said that the Archbishop of York’s Office had suggested that she take extended study leave on three occasions “as a pastoral response to my formal safeguarding disclosure against the Bishop of Liverpool”. At the third suggestion — in August 2023 — she had agreed.
The comment continued: “With regard to the safe recruitment of the Bishop of Liverpool, I was made aware in February 2023 that the Bishop of Liverpool had ‘bombed’ on safeguarding questions at interview. I was advised to retain safeguarding responsibility for Liverpool at least until the Bishop of Liverpool did some training. This was unsolicited. As the Acting Diocesan Bishop (responsible for safeguarding in the diocese) and according to proper process, I reported this to the Archbishop’s Secretary for Appointments; Liverpool’s Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor reported this to the NST.”
Archbishop Cottrell has previously defended the assessment of Dr Perumbalath’s safeguarding competence before his appointment (News, 31 January).
And last Friday, he told The Times: “Nobody asked or required the Bishop of Warrington, [and] certainly not me . . . to take some extended sabbatical leave.”
Among those who have called for the resignation of Archbishop Cottrell is the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley. Speaking to the Radio 4 Today programme on Monday, she said: “I do not think that it’s appropriate for the Archbishop of York to be in post, and certainly to be leading the change that the Church needs at this time.” Allowing David Tudor to remain in post in the diocese of Chelmsford had been “abhorrent”, she said (News, 16 December 2024).
On Tuesday, Synod members are due to vote on a motion proposing the transfer of diocesan and cathedral safeguarding staff to an external national body (News, 24 January). There was a need to “send out a clear message about independence in safeguarding in the Church”, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, told the Today programme.
“It is true that we have made attempts to try and do that in the past; they haven’t worked. So I think now we have to listen to those who are calling for the maximum possible degree of independence.”
Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, also gave indications that she was likely to vote in favour of the motion, which is to be brought by the lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell.
People were “disgusted and horrified” by stories of abuse and its handling by the Church, Bishop Mullally said. “We have to take that very seriously, and I think that their reaction has to shape the way in which we respond to it. . .
“Safeguarding procedures, culture, and practise has improved, but it does need a step change, and I think that is what we need to do to restore trust in the Church. . . I will play my part in the Synod . . . to make sure that we do pass the motions that relate to independence and the Clergy Conduct Measure.”
In the wake of calls by both Archbishop Cottrell and the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, to consider whether clergy should become employees (News, 10 January), Bishop Mullally drew on comments that she makes in the Church Times, in which she warns that “common tenure is an insufficient framework to ensure the well-being of the Church as a whole or the individuals in it, lay and ordained” (Comment, 10 February).