ANALYSIS to distinguish between theological objections and “specific grievances” against individual bishops should be undertaken in the diocese of London, a new safeguarding audit report recommends. The diocese, given its large size, also needs to address issues of capacity, the report says.
The audit, by the INEQE safeguarding group, found that structural provisions, designed for specific pastoral purposes, “may at times be perceived as being utilised in response to wider leadership or theological disagreements”.
It points to the fact that, in the Two Cities Area, 22 — nearly 20 per cent — of parishes have resolved to receive extended episcopal oversight.
Such patterns should be scrutinised by the London Diocesan Fund (LDF) “to ensure ongoing accountability and integration of parishes, whatever their theological conviction”, the report says.
The report, published last week, praises both the diocese and St Paul’s Cathedral for their safeguarding efforts. The diocese is “well-led and possesses the appropriate safeguarding lens at a strategic level”, it says. An overwhelming majority of both the parish workforce and the worshipping community reported feeling safe.
But the diocese is at a “critical juncture”, it says. “The current reliance on an overstretched workforce to bridge the gap between structural complexity and operational necessity is unsustainable.”
The sheer size of the diocese — in which the five episcopal areas are individually as large as many smaller-to-average dioceses — places the episcopal team under “immense strain”, it says. Under-resourced area bishops and archdeacons are making “stark choices” — between engaging in pastoral work or attending to safeguarding support, for example. The national Church “should reflect on whether this ‘5-in-1’ model is sustainable in its current form”.
Overwork is evident at other levels, the audit found. The expansion of the safeguarding team — which has having tripled in size to 10.6 full-time equivalent posts — provides a “false sense of security”, it warns. The team, operating in a “high-pressure environment focused on immediate risk management rather than proactive support”, is also riven by “professional and personal divisions, and grievances amongst team members” which require an independent HR review.
Staff and volunteers, particularly those in safeguarding roles, reported high workloads, burnout, and a sense of “doing the bare minimum” owing to resource constraints. Clergy were “routinely managing complex safeguarding situations, particularly involving issues of mental health, homelessness, and individuals presenting with acute distress” without any framework for “safeguarding-focused supervision” for clergy.
Survivors and victims provided “mixed accounts”. Some viewed the culture as lacking in trauma-informed approaches. The Church’s “perceived protectionist tendency” emerged as a theme.
The audit praises the leadership of Archbishop Mullally during her time as Bishop of London, during which she “successfully led a transition from an under-resourced model to a more robust and balanced, if still stretched, safeguarding operation”. It describes her “willingness to initiate blunt conversations regarding inappropriate behaviour”.
She was, it says, “profoundly affected” by the case of Fr Alan Griffin — who took his own life after being falsely accused of child abuse — and has overseen “a deliberate cultural shift”.
In the wake of Fr Griffin’s death, Archbishop Mullally spoke of a “deficit of trust” in the Two Cities Area (News, 1 October 2021). The INEQE audit observes that the diocese’s leadership operates in “a complex environment”, negotiating “the ongoing challenge of maintaining unity and meaningful relationships with clergy who hold differing convictions”.
A “significant and well-informed range” of people who engaged in the audit described “internal politicisation”, on the LDF Trustee Board, “where debate is often skewed towards the concerns of specific theological traditions rather than objective safeguarding considerations.”
The audit also looked at St Paul’s, and describes a “palpable sense of institutional safety, underpinned by a leadership team that views safeguarding not as a peripheral compliance exercise, but as a core component of its Christian mission”.