This morning, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband piled the pressure on as they failed to back him, with Starmer saying the victims have “obviously been failed very, very badly”.

The abuser at the heart of the scandal is John Smyth QC, a barrister and Christian summer camp leader who is said to have subjected as many as 130 victims to sexual violence before he died in Cape Town in 2018 while under investigation by Hampshire police.

Details of the abuse were known as early as 1982 but only emerged in the public domain in 2017 thanks to investigations by the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4. According to the Telegraph:

Victims said Smyth would invite them to his home in Winchester where he would order them to strip naked and cane them on their exposed backsides. One said he could feel the blood spattering on his legs; another had to wear an adult nappy afterwards.

The scandal exploded this week due to the publication of an independent report, the Makin report, several years overdue, which found that Smyth’s crimes could have been exposed in 2013 if Welby, who had become aware of the allegations that year, had followed up to ensure the police investigated. His failure to do so meant Smyth was never brought to justice, the report said.

Andrew Morse, 63, who was violently abused by Smyth when a teenager in the 1970s, said Welby’s failure to act in 2013 was a “dereliction of duty” and a betrayal of victims.

He said: “I think it feels like he prioritised his position and the reputation of his church above the plight of the victims and, because Smyth was still alive at that time, above other potential victims as well.”

The Archbishop initially refused to quit, saying he had apologised for his own failures and the abuse by the Church in general but did not intend to resign.

In a statement to the Telegraph on Monday, a Lambeth Palace spokesman said:

The Archbishop reiterates his horror at the scale of John Smyth’s egregious abuse, as reflected in his public apology. He has apologised profoundly both for his own failures and omissions, and for the wickedness, concealment, and abuse by the church more widely. As he has said, he had no awareness or suspicion of the allegations before he was told in 2013 and therefore having reflected, he does not intend to resign. He hopes the Makin review supports the ongoing work of building a safer church here and around the world.

It is the first time an Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned due to scandal. His predecessor Rowan Williams stepped down in 2012, but this was to take up a position as master of Magdalene College.

Welby knew Smyth from his time volunteering at Christian summer camps in the 1970s and contributed financially to his ministry during the 1980s. He claims to have had no awareness of Smyth’s abuse before 2013, though has recently admitted that he had been warned to “stay away” from Smyth in 1981. Welby told the Makin review this warning was vague and he assumed based on “incompatible personalities” rather than anything sinister. It evidently did not register as a cause for concern. He continued to send Smyth a Christmas card.

Unbeknownst to Welby, a secret report was compiled on Smyth’s abuse in 1982 by Mark Ruston, a vicar who interviewed 16 of his victims. However, following the report, rather than exposing Smyth or informing the police, the matter was covered up and Smyth encouraged to relocate to Zimbabwe, where he continued his abuse.

Whatever Welby did or did not know before 2013, the thrust of the criticism of the Archbishop was what he failed to do after 2013 when, now installed in Canterbury, he was informed of the full extent of Smyth’s abuse.

Welby was clearly at fault, as he admitted before he resigned when he apologised for not doing more. But he was also badly let down by his advisers. He was told by his then chaplain, Jo Bailey Wells, that the Bishop of Ely, Stephen Conway, who was handling the case for the Church, considered that the trust responsible for the camps (the Titus Trust) must not be informed at that point, because the matter was being investigated by the police. Makin writes: “Welby is told, therefore, that the matter is being dealt with, the police have been informed and a letter has been sent to the appropriate Bishop in Cape Town.”

Bailey Wells subsequently advised Stephen Conway that she would leave it to the diocese to pursue and take no further action until the police had provided further advice.

However, it wasn’t actually true that the police were investigating at the time, and damnably for Welby, he did not follow the matter up after this. This is despite the clear scale and severity of abuse, Welby’s personal connection to Smyth and the fact that at the time Smyth was still alive and active. Welby only took further action after the exposé in 2017. Even then, it took him until 2021 to do what he had promised in 2017 and meet with victims.

Makin notes: “Welby advised reviewers that he was consistently following advice from police and safeguarding colleagues.”

In other words, Welby is not accused of failing to follow correct safeguarding procedure. Rather, he is accused of failing to go beyond that procedure and make sure action was being taken. Because he knew he was following procedure (and maintains he didn’t know before 2013) he thought he could survive. But he was wrong. Following the letter of the law was not enough on this occasion, not when you’re the Archbishop of Canterbury and you knew the perpetrator personally, and when it involves the most prolific known abuser in the Church’s history who at the time was still at large. Welby failed to see the additional dimensions of the scandal, beyond the strict adherence to safeguarding protocol and advice, and when this came to light he lost the confidence of his colleagues and the wider public.

Part of the problem he faced was that he had himself taken a very firm attitude to others over alleged safeguarding infractions, most notoriously suspending the Bishop of Lincoln Christopher Lowson for almost two years in 2019 for similar allegations of failing to handle safeguarding matters correctly. Welby later reinstated him and apologised. In the past few weeks Welby had told a podcast that covering up child abuse was a “dismissal offence” and the Church would take tough action against those seeking to protect “wicked people”.

Justin Welby has been a highly controversial Archbishop of Canterbury over the 11 years he has been in post, particularly among conservatives both inside and outside the Church. He has made numerous political interventions, invariably from the political Left, including criticising the Conservative Government’s flagship Rwanda scheme to address illegal immigration. He has branded his church “deeply institutionally racist” and backed radical race-based initiatives, such as a commitment to give away £100 million of C of E funds in ‘reparation’ schemes. He has driven forward an extreme eco-agenda, with the C of E committed to hitting Net Zero carbon emissions by 2030. And he recently faced calls to resign after bringing in church services for the blessing of same-sex couples and admitting that he no longer accepted the Church’s biblical teaching on marriage.

He came under fire for closing churches during Covid and for what was widely seen as a managerialist, anti-parish agenda inspired by the disgraced Post Office former CEO Paula Vennells of Horizon scandal infamy, whom he backed to be Bishop of London in 2017.

He was also facing a further challenge this week in a judicial review of a decision not to allow a disciplinary case to be brought by Rev Dr. Bernard Randall, a chaplain who was banned from ministry for giving a sermon at a private school on identity politics and LGBT ideology. Despite being cleared of all wrongdoing, Randall remains barred from ministry due to a decision by the Bishop of Derby, Libby Lane (known for being the C of E’s first female bishop). The judicial review addresses Welby’s failure to permit Randall to bring a disciplinary case against Lane, a failure described by a leading lawyer as “plainly wrong“.

Conservatives will not miss Welby and many had long wished to see the back of him. However, it was when liberals and senior clergy joined in the resignation calls that it became clear he could not cling on.

All eyes will be on who will succeed him. With a liberal currently as Archbishop of York, the Church of England and global Anglican Communion will need an orthodox cleric in Canterbury to have any chance of holding the show together. However, the usual pattern is for a liberal to succeed the ‘conservative’ (such was his background) Justin Welby. Perhaps York’s Stephen Cottrell will move to Canterbury and an evangelical be put in York – though that would be scarcely less divisive as Cottrell is not an acceptable figure to conservatives.

In the meantime, the key post of Canterbury will be vacant, just as the Church prepares next year to bring in services that closely resemble same-sex weddings, a development that is threatening to split the Church.

It’s not a happy time for the Established Church.

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons

This article (Justin Welby Resigns as Archbishop of Canterbury) was created and published by The Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Will Jones

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.