‘Absolutely not the time for humour’, Bishop on Welby speech

The Archbishop of Canterbury says a head had ‘to roll’ over the Church of England’s handling of abuse by the late John Smyth – believed to be the most prolific serial abuser ever to be associated with the Church of England.

Justin Welby’s speech in the House of Lords was the first time he has spoken publicly since he announced his resignation almost a month ago, after an independent review found he had failed in his ‘personal and moral responsibility’ to do more to stop Smyth.

Survivors of Smyth’s abuse have described Justin Welby’s speech as ‘frivolous’ and ‘tone deaf’.

One, Mark Stibbe, told us that it was ‘punctuated with comments that suggest he is now questioning his own personal responsibility.’ Another survivor, known as Graham, notes that Welby ‘pities his diary secretary but has not a word for victims.

We spoke to the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley.

Cathy Newman: What did you think of the speech when you saw it?

Helen-Ann Hartley: Cathy, for once, I’m finding it hard to find words that are appropriate other than to say I was greatly disturbed. I think to, first of all, prioritise your diary clearing and then to evoke graphic and violent imagery of one of your predecessors being beheaded, with a tone that seems to put the focus away from personal responsibility to a sense of corporate responsibility all before you’ve even got to mentioning safeguarding and the victims and survivors. I find it astonishing, actually, and incredibly poorly worded and timed.

Cathy Newman: One of the survivors told me that you and Bishop Julie Conalty, who has safeguarding responsibilities, got in contact with him today to sort of apologise for Welby’s tone. Why did you feel the need to do that?

Helen-Ann Hartley: Because, in a sense, I’m a bishop in the Church of England and I know from my own diocese, in fact I was I was contacted pretty soon after the archbishop’s speech by one clergy person who said they were they were despairing because yet again at the grassroots, good work is being undermined. But I think as a bishop in the Church of England, I felt that I had to apologise to that survivor because I was quite ashamed of the tone that the archbishop took.

Cathy Newman: Do you think he regrets resigning, the archbishop?

Helen-Ann Hartley: I don’t know who’s advising the archbishop at the moment, and I don’t actually know what he thinks. But it would appear from his words that he seems to be placing an ambivalence on personal or corporate responsibility. Yes, he is the Archbishop of Canterbury and he has resigned. But actually, the Makin Review named, quite clearly, his own failings in the matter.

Cathy Newman: He did take responsibility and he has resigned, which is more than many of his senior colleagues have done, so I suppose you give him credit for that?

Helen-Ann Hartley: Yes, indeed. And I think, as I’ve said before in other interviews, I think any person named in the Makin Review who’s still exercising public ministry, whether that person be a bishop or or a priest or clergyperson or somebody who holds a license or any other kind of public ministry, do need to step back pending an independent assessment and review. And I still hold to that line very clearly. So, yes, it’s appropriate that Archbishop Justin has taken responsibility. But I think the problem with his words in the speech is that there’s a level of ambivalence between whether that’s actually personal or is it more of the sense of corporate-ness in his role as archbishop?

Cathy Newman: Do you feel, though, that he might be using humour in the House of Lords to get through what must be a very difficult time for him personally?

Helen-Ann Hartley: I’m sure. But the House of Lords, it’s a privilege to be able to speak in that context. And I know because I’m a member of the Lords Spiritual. And obviously humour has a time and a place, but this is absolutely not the time or place for humour and certainly not a speech that appears to not show due regard and care and compassion for victims and survivors of abuse.

Cathy Newman: Other bishops were sort of laughing along with him. So, do you think they’re out of tune with the public on this or are you, who are very much the lone voice of criticism, are you out of tune with them, the bishops?

Helen-Ann Hartley: I was really disappointed to see colleagues laughing, and that’s been pointed out to me. I think some of them looked embarrassed and awkward. I think it’s easy to forget when you’re in the chamber that the cameras are on you. So I think it’s really unfortunate that they laughed. Deeply unfortunate. I know, because I continue to get hundreds of emails and letters and phone calls, that I’m not out of step with the mood of the nation, I think, in regard to this. And I did actually today receive a very conciliatory card from a colleague who I’ve agreed to meet next week. So I hope that I can begin to build bridges again with some of my colleagues, but I need to be absolutely clear that the stance that I’ve taken, it’s not about me. It’s about the victims and survivors who have been affected by the abuse, particularly revealed in the Makin Review. And it’s something that I have to do as a bishop and particularly with the responsibilities I hold in my diocese towards victims and survivors of abuse.