The recent speech by Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has drawn significant backlash from victims of abuse within the Church of England. The reaction highlights the gravity of safeguarding failures that have marred the church’s reputation and affected numerous survivors. Welby’s address was his first public statement since announcing his resignation as archbishop last month. In his speech delivered in the House of Lords, he spoke about the necessity for accountability following a review that criticized management of abuse allegations within the church.
Victims have expressed their disgust and disappointment, stating that the tone of Welby’s speech was inappropriate and made light of serious matters. They found his failure to express any remorse or acknowledgment of the plight of the survivors troubling. Specifically, the independent Makin review that scrutinized the Church of England’s abuse handling indicated that Welby “could and should” have reported John Smyth, a notorious child abuser who preyed on young boys, to the authorities back in 2013. This failure to act sparked outrage, as it is well-documented that Smyth abused over 100 boys during the 1970s and 1980s.
In his presentation, Welby stated, “there comes a time if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility where the shame of what has gone wrong… must require a head to roll.” However, abuse survivors like Mark Stibbe were quick to condemn such rhetoric as “frivolous,” given the distress many have endured. Stibbe, a victim of Smyth’s assaults, articulated his dismay, emphasizing that this issue extends far beyond mere institutional critique; it touches upon life and death for many survivors.
Welby’s speech included an allusion to a historical figure who faced execution, which many found particularly distressing, given the context of abuse. The archbishop remarked, “I hope not literally,” aiming for some levity. Survivors noted that the occasion warranted a tone of sorrow and accountability rather than humor, especially when discussing events that have led to severe mental health struggles, including suicidal thoughts among victims.
Another victim, who spoke under the pseudonym Graham Jones, echoed these sentiments by describing the speech as lacking in sorrow and appropriate consideration of the traumatic experiences endured by survivors. Jones articulated his disgust, stating, “This would have been an opportunity to look into the camera and say sorry,” but instead, the tone adopted was inappropriate for the gravity of the subject matter.
The fallout from the speech has seen widespread condemnation within the church community. Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley, expressing her disappointment, labeled the language used by Welby as distressing. She noted that the levity surrounding the discussion of significant safeguarding failures disregards the respect due to victims, further exacerbating the trauma they have endured. Hartley, a prominent bishop, had previously called for Welby’s resignation following the Makin report’s revelations, indicating her strong stance on accountability within church leadership.
In light of this controversy, Welby is set to step down from his role on January 6, with a transition plan in place. Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, will temporarily lead the Church of England pending the appointment of a permanent replacement. It remains to be seen how the church will navigate this scandal moving forward, as they face mounting criticism, both from within the institution and from survivors.
As this unfolding narrative continues, a safeguarding risk assessment is anticipated following the troubling disclosures stemming from the Makin report. Additionally, the revelations have led to more significant discussions regarding church leadership, accountability, and the need for procedural reforms to protect the vulnerable and honor the experiences of those affected by abuse within church settings.
In conclusion, the backlash against Welby’s speech underscores the urgent need for sincere dialogue and reform within the Church of England. It highlights the necessity for leaders to recognize the profound impact of their words and actions on survivors, who have already endured far more than their fair share of trauma and injustice. If the church is to rebuild trust and integrity, it must prioritize the voices and experiences of those it has failed in the past.
