On Monday morning, the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, had called on Archbishop Cottrell to step down over the case of Mr Tudor, a priest who had faced multiple police investigations for indecent assault of girls below the age of 16 (see story).
On Monday afternoon, however, the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty, said that, although she agreed with Dr Hartley that questions needed to be asked about the case, she did not think that Archbishop Cottrell should resign.
“We can keep having resignations, but that isn’t going to solve our problems,” Bishop Conalty, who is the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding in the C of E, told the BBC Radio 4’s The World at One.
She said that, while she had questions about some aspects of the case, and thought that church safeguarding processes needed to change, it seemed to her that Archbishop Cottrell “did not have the power to remove this cleric from office right up until the point at which he was able to suspend him”.
“There are questions to answer, I’m absolutely clear about that, and, in that, I agree with Bishop Helen-Ann. I’m less clear as to whether those issues are a resigning matter in the context of this case,” she said.
Bishop Conalty said that, on the basis of information in the BBC investigation into the case, she could not see grounds for Archbishop Cottrell’s resignation.
On the same programme, the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, emphasised that bishops “do not have the power to hire and fire”, and that it seemed that the Archbishop of York had had his “hands tied” in the case of Mr Tudor.
Bishop Mounstephen praised the BBC’s investigation, but said that questions of resignation should not take place amid a “trial by media”, but that established processes should be followed, and improvements brought to bear on the whole system.
The lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, also focused on the need for reform, including the way in which the clergy are employed and disciplined.
“Alongside better safeguarding structures, which are already being revised, we need issues of clergy conduct more broadly to be tackled. This must include better use of effective disciplinary and capability processes, and the proper use of risk assessment, so that people are not allowed to continue in ministry when unacceptable risk is present,” she said.
Current rules prevent the pursuit of a disciplinary case on the basis of accusations that have already been investigated. There is no provision for removing a cleric from office based on a risk assessment.
Dr Grenfell said that she would also like to see clergy terms of service, and the establishment of an “office for professional conduct in ministry”. Currently, the status of clergy as office-holders makes it harder for them to be removed from post.
Some of these issues came into the spotlight in the summer when the former Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Julian Henderson, defended a payout for a canon at Blackburn Cathedral as the “only option” for his removal (News, 16 August and 23 August).
An independent review of the way in which accusations against Mr Tudor were handled has been commissioned: a decision welcomed by the current Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani. “I understand the desire to respond quickly and decisively,” she said in a statement on Monday. “At the same time, and even more importantly, we must respond well.
“I know that in situations like this, turning to process can be perceived as an easy way out, but it is poor process, or an absence of process, that has led to many of the Church’s failings in the past, and we must not repeat those mistakes now.
“We must allow those professionals whose particular responsibility it is the time and space to review this case properly and fully, so that we can be guided by their conclusions,” she said.
Dr Francis-Dehqani joined the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, in offering to meet survivors in the case. The abuse mostly took place while Mr Tudor was ministering in the diocese of Southwark in the 1970s and ’80s.
“The behaviours admitted by David Tudor indicate a serious and damaging breach of his pastoral and professional obligations as a priest, and I would like to apologise unreservedly for the pain and trauma that his actions have caused,” Bishop Chessun said.
“I am deeply grateful for those who have had the courage to share their experiences and engage with this long and difficult process.”
The BBC investigation found that, in 1988, Mr Tudor twice stood trial, in both cases accused of indecent assault against girls under the age of 16. In the first trial, he was acquitted, but had admitted to having sex with one girl when she was 16.
In the other case, he was convicted of indecent assault against three girls, and served a six-month sentence, but the conviction was subsequently quashed on the basis that the judge had misdirected the jury.
One of the girls in the first trial, whom the BBC refers to as Debbie, told the programme that she was abused by Mr Tudor between the ages of 13 and 15.
She said: “He abused his position of trust, and it’s had a huge effect on my life. Having that huge secret pulled me away from my parents. I’ve lived with shame for 40 years.”
The BBC investigation also found that, in 2012, Mr Tudor paid £10,000 to a woman, known as Jessica, who says that she was sexually abused from the age of 11.
The payment was to settle a civil claim brought against Mr Tudor after the police had decided not to pursue charges.
“Nobody would make a payment if they haven’t got something to hide,” Jessica told the BBC. She called on Archbishop Cottrell to resign: “It feels like he spat in my face; I think he should leave the Church as well.”
A spokesperson for Archbishop Cottrell told the BBC that he had been guided by legal advice that no further action could be taken, and that Mr Tudor “admitted no liability” in making the payment.
In 2015, Mr Tudor was appointed an honorary canon of Chelmsford Cathedral — a move that, a spokesperson for Archbishop Cottrell said, had been the result of a policy change to grant all area deans the title.
Dr Hartley, however, told the BBC that this could not be justified. By making someone an honorary canon, “you are absolutely uplifting someone’s ministry,” she said.
The granting of an honorary canonry to Mr Tudor was something that Bishop Conalty could not understand, she said. She also queried why Mr Tudor could not have been removed from the position of area dean.
“The abuse is absolutely appalling, and it seems clear to me that he should never have been allowed to return to ordained ministry after the five-year suspension,” Bishop Conalty said on Monday.
In a statement, Archbishop Cottrell said that “the process at that time did not prevent him from returning to ministry in the diocese of Southwark in 1994. Changes to the way safeguarding is now managed and scrutinised would mean the decision taken in 1988 would not take place now.”
The BBC reported that Mr Tudor’s return to ministry was assisted by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. Leaked documents obtained by the BBC purportedly show that, in 1996, Lord Carey asked for Mr Tudor’s name to be removed from a central record of clergy who had been subject to disciplinary proceedings.
According to the BBC, Lord Carey said that he had no memory of Mr Tudor, and a spokesperson for the C of E said that the agreement that Mr Tudor could return was made “with some trepidation”.
A spokesperson for the diocese of Southwark told the BBC that the decision to impose a five-year rather than a lifetime ban on Mr Tudor “seems absolutely inexcusable in today’s context, and would not have been made today”.
DR HARTLEY received support from the campaign group ACT on IICSA, which includes the former chair of the Independent Inquiry into Childhood Sexual Abuse, Professor Alexis Jay.
In an open letter to Dr Hartley, the group thanked the Bishop for “standing alongside the children, many of whom are now adults, who have suffered lifelong trauma as a result of sexual abuse within the Church of England”.
The letter, which was signed by Professor Jay, along with the chief executives of more than half a dozen survivor organisations, commended Professor Jay’s report on the future of safeguarding in the Church of England, and called for its recommendations to be adopted in full.
The report, the letter said, had been “rejected by Synod last year”. In a debate in February, the General Synod had voted to launch a consultation on the report, which had been published two days before the Synod was due to scrutinise it (News, 1 March).
The decision to opt for a consultation was criticised at the time by Dr Hartley, who told the Church Times that the C of E needed to adopt Professor Jay’s proposals without delay (News, 1 March).
At the next meeting of the Synod, in July, however, Dr Hartley made a speech endorsing the approach taken by the Response Group which had been given the task, after the February vote, of preparing detailed options for the future of church safeguarding (News, 12 July).
On Monday, it was confirmed that Synod members would be given a choice between two models of independent safeguarding.