Carey’s return to ministry sparks row among top Church leaders

CHURCH of England bishops are turning on each other after a lead figure on safeguarding was locked out of discussions about an archbishop accused of covering up child sexual abuse.

Lord Carey stepped down as an honorary assistant bishop in Oxford last year at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, when a report last year accused the Church of colluding with disgraced paedophile bishop Peter Ball in the Nineties.

But months after being asked to step down, Lord Carey was allowed to return after the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, reinstated his “permission to officiate” (PTO) this year. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Hancock, who leads the Church’s response to safeguarding, revealed yesterday he was not consulted about the decision.

Despite Bishop Hancock being sidelined, The Daily Telegraph understands other senior figures in the Church, including at Lambeth Palace, were involved and approved Lord Carey’s return to ministry. The bishop described the step as regrettable, adding it had caused victims further distress.

“I regret it [the decision to grant the PTO] not because I want to intervene in matters that relate to another diocese, but just because what I hear from those I speak to, the victims, the survivors, those who are particularly troubled by the Church’s actions, that see this, perceive this and believe this to be something which has caused them more distress,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme. PTO is a legal requirement for anyone preaching or taking services in the Church of England.

Last week, it emerged that Prince of Wales had described action against Ball as “monstrous wrongs”, after extracts from letters submitted to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse were made public. The letters show that the Prince put Ball in touch with staff on the Duchy of Cornwall estate who arranged a house for him after Ball lost his job as Bishop of Gloucester.

In a statement read to the inquiry, the Prince expressed “deep personal regret”, adding Ball had “misled” him.

Yesterday the Bishop of Willesden, Pete Broadbent, appeared to join the veiled criticism of Bishop Croft’s decision in a comment on the Thinking Anglicans website.

While insisting he was not commenting on a specific case, he said “it’s clear that there is no right to a PTO … there are bishops who have been denied it” and “when renewing PTO, previous history (including safeguarding history) should be reviewed.”

It comes after Bishop Croft defended his decision to return Lord Carey’s permission, saying there “were no legal grounds” to deny his request for PTO.

“However, as part of the Church of England’s ongoing response to IICSA, there will now be a process of review and support offered to Lord Carey.”

But a senior canon lawyer said a bishop did not need legal grounds to reject a PTO and suggested Bishop Croft was trying to excuse a poor decision.

Ball was given a police caution and resigned as a bishop in 1993 after being accused of sexual abuse but was allowed to continue in ministry and did not face a criminal trial for more than 20 years, by which time one of his victims had taken his own life. Lord Carey was criticised for his “uncritical support” of Ball, even after he had accepted a caution.

‘The survivors see this, perceive this and believe this to be something which has caused them more distress’

In my recent Thatcher studies, I am looking at events 30 years ago. They make an interesting contrast with today. In 1988, Mrs Thatcher made three speeches that she could easily have avoided altogether.

In May, she spoke to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland about the relation between her religious and economic beliefs. In September, she delivered the famous Bruges speech which began her battle against a United States of Europe. A week later, she addressed the Royal Society, becoming the first world leader to put forward the theory of global warming and the need for a world response.

All of the above speeches were controversial. None, in any direct sense, won her votes. But all three contributed to her political dominance, because she used them to set the agenda. They all contained startling and powerful ideas. Critics had to respond to her, not the other way round.

It is puzzling that this does not happen much today. Theresa May seemed to understand it early in her time as prime minister when she spoke up for the “just about managing” people. Since making a mess of last year’s general election, however, she seems to have lost her nerve. Her desire not to share her thoughts about anything with the British people has become almost pathological.

Odder still is the case of Jeremy Corbyn. Opposition is supposed to give you space to think out loud, yet Mr Corbyn takes great pains to avoid it. Have you ever read a long interview with him since he became leader? Have you heard a speech where he sets out his philosophy? Aneurin Bevan, after founding the NHS, famously said: “The language of priorities is the religion of socialism.” Mr Corbyn’s socialist faith is fanatical, but his language of priorities is inaudible.

There is therefore a massive gap in the market of political ideas. If, in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and the wafer-thin parliamentary majority, party leaders find it just too risky, others can benefit if they fill the gap. The only minister currently capable of doing so is Michael Gove, but I fear that his wobbly, overcomplicated position about Europe is weakening him.

Which leaves the back benches. Possibly the man up there on the left-hand side of this spread today is looking for a quiet summer after his exhausting time at the Foreign Office. He must not allow himself that luxury. As his cool, careful and forensic resignation statement in Parliament this month made clear, he can make a serious argument as well as turn a comic phrase. Now is the time. Last week’s hearing of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) produced a tough but essentially fair questioning of Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. He is criticised for mishandling the case of Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Gloucester who, many years later, was imprisoned for the abuse of several young men. Lord Carey admitted his mistakes. His counsel defended him against charges of collusion and cover-up.

The material about Lord Carey that was discussed at IICSA was not new. By the weekend, however, an attempt to “get” him seemed to be under way. On Saturday, the Bishop of Oxford, who in February restored to Lord Carey his right to officiate as a priest in his diocese, announced that, because of the IICSA hearings, “there will now be a process of review and support offered to Lord Carey”. “Review and support” are churchy weasel words meaning that his rights as a priest may come under attack. The Bishop of Oxford did not inform, let alone consult, Lord Carey before issuing this veiled threat.

The next day, the BBC’S religious programme, Sunday, allowed Lord Carey to be denounced by Peter Hancock, the bishop in charge of safeguarding. It gave no platform to any defender of Lord Carey.

Why are the Cofe authorities so keen to trash their former leader? If they think he has committed some iniquity, why – as he has himself suggested – do they not bring a formal disciplinary procedure against him? If they think he has not, why do they not stand by his integrity as a priest, and wait for the inquiry to report?

The answer, presumably, is that they are scared of attack. Twentyfive years ago, the Church was too inclined to believe the denials of clergy in abuse cases because it feared for its reputation. Today, it is too inclined to believe any criticism thrown against clergy now retired or – as in the wrongs done to the name of George Bell, the former Bishop of Chichester – dead. Such self-protective behaviour was wrong then. Today, it takes the opposite form, but it is still self-protective and still wrong.

To the justified anger of all abused people who have not received justice must now be added the justified anger of all those falsely accused of child abuse itself, or falsely accused of covering it up.

It is an iron law of British weather that as soon as you comment on it in print, it changes. I have often been caught out this way, as scorcher has turned to downpour, or vice versa. Sure enough, as I studied the front page of Saturday’s Guardian – “This is the face of climate change, say scientists”, followed by alarmist copy about extreme heatwaves and wildfires “wreaking havoc” – I noticed that my copy was spattered by raindrops.