THE former Archbishop of Canterbury the Rt Revd Justin Welby told the Cambridge Union last month that his resignation — “one among the loneliest moments I’ve ever had” — was the appropriate thing to do, but that there have been other ways by which he could have handled the fallout from the Makin report, and that its creator was mistaken on some points.
Having spoken in regards to the importance of truth in the course of the event, a recording of which was posted online last week, he was challenged by an audience member to say when he had first known in regards to the abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, and why he had “minimised” it. The questioner quoted from the Makin report, which stated that Smyth “could and may have been formally reported to the police within the UK and to authorities in South Africa”, and that, had that been done, John Smyth could have dropped at justice much sooner.
In his answer, Bishop Welby maintained that he had first learned of the abuse in 2013 and of its extent only in 2017. “Makin is mistaken . . . Not deliberately, but he didn’t see a little bit of evidence that subsequently got here out after his report and after my resignation. . . The little bit of evidence is emails from Lambeth to Ely, and from Ely, letters to South Africa where Smyth was living, and letters to the police by which the reporting was fully given to the police and the police asked the Church to not perform its own investigations because it might interfere with theirs.”
Asked earlier about his resignation, he said: “I’m going to be very careful since it’s not likely about me. There can be people here who’ve been abused, who’re the victims of abuse, sexual abuse or physical abuse, emotional abuse. And I even have been very open that I’m one among them. So I’m aware of what it means.”
There were two reasons that it had been “right to resign”, he said. One was that he had not done every little thing that he must have done in response to the disclosures of abuse. The other was “shame” in regards to the extent of abuse within the Church. “The only proper thing to do was to take responsibility as the present head of that organisation.”
It had been “one among the loneliest moments I’ve ever had and the reverberations of that I still feel”, he said.
In his opening remarks, Bishop Welby reflected on the importance of standing up for the reality, recalling his decision to criticise the Government’s Rwanda scheme during his Easter sermon in 2022 (News, 22 April 2022). “I remember a sense of knowing this was going to cause trouble, but additionally feeling very deeply that, if I used to be faithful to Christ, I’d say those words. It did cause trouble and a part of the results of that trouble was my resignation last 12 months.”
Asked in regards to the Church’s record on other issues, he was self-deprecating. He had modified his mind on the blessing of individuals in same-sex relationships during his time in office, he confirmed: “When they fall in love, and after they live out that love faithfully and with stability and caring for others, it is a large blessing for them and for society; and I even have seen that in so many places that, in the long run, even I started to understand that I used to be being thick.”
He agreed that the Church of England had “lost its nerve” by closing church buildings in the course of the pandemic, but said that “at the moment, we had no idea what the virus was.” The House of Bishops had been told that the virus could “survive on a chilly surface for as much as 72 hours”. There had also been a call from the Government asking the Church to set an example. “They said, ‘Look, if you happen to don’t shut the churches within the C of E, we won’t have the ability to get anyone from ethnic-minority groups and particularly Islam. They are waiting to see what you do.’”
Asked about reconciliation, he praised a C of E school in east London by which 164 different languages are first languages. “How will we rejoice difference but not let it get completely uncontrolled? I do know we will’t have open borders, I said this repeatedly within the House of Lords, we haven’t got the resources. We have to think about the individuals who receive people in addition to the individuals who come to be received. . .
“How will we construct over the subsequent generations a way of what it’s to be this nation in a way that we may be really happy with and rejoice in and see it as a spot that may be a shining light for the world?”
As for the subsequent Archbishop of Canterbury, his prayer for the Crown Nominations Commission was that it selected someone “who symbolises of their way of being and of their manner that they take care of people, whether or not they are vital or not, and [who] isn’t keen on power”.
