Response to the Telegraph article, 22/6/19
In early 2017, the current vicar and the safeguarding officer became aware from two separate sources that unnamed individuals had made allegations about the Revd Jonathan Fletcher, who was the vicar of Emmanuel from 1982 until his retirement in 2012. An immediate safeguarding report was made to the diocese. We understand from the diocese that the information was passed to Hampshire Police on 3 February 2017, who concluded that no police action would be taken.
The Bishop of Southwark decided that Jonathan Fletcher could no longer hold Permission to Officiate in the Diocese of Southwark. We do not understand this to have been based on any criminal concerns.
Since late September 2018, Emmanuel Church Wimbledon has received further disclosures regarding Jonathan Fletcher which have all been reported to the diocese. We understand that the diocese has reported all disclosures to the Police, who have concluded that no Police investigation is required.
We are appalled and saddened by what has been disclosed. We apologise to all those who have been affected. We are offering them independent pastoral and counselling support, and we have been actively taking steps to identify others in need of such support. We are committed to taking further steps to do so, and to support anyone who comes forward.
Whenever we have become aware of Jonathan Fletcher seeking to minister, and although it is not our formal responsibility to do so, we have taken such steps as we can to stop him.
Emmanuel Church Wimbledon takes safeguarding very seriously and has the necessary policies and procedures in place. This includes reporting information and concerns to the appropriate authorities in line with current Church of England policy.
The news article cited in this statement can be found here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/21/minister-spiritually-abused-vulnerable/
That no actual sexual abuse is alleged, but rather a different category (viz. ‘spiritual abuse’), seems telling to me. Everything seems to point to this case’s not being morally or theologically straightforward.
From yesterday’s statement at the EMA:
“Further disclosures since March 2019 have largely related to a different practice of one to one massage, ranging from partially clothed massage to massage where both men are said to have been fully naked throughout and to have taken turns to massage each other. Again, this conduct seems to have become a regular part of the relationship between Jonathan and certain men over a period of time.”
That may not legally be considered sexual abuse, but it clearly has a sexual nature, and a homosexual one at that.
I am confused. Anglican Unscripted will hint to us what he did, but won’t use his name. The parish and the bishop use his name, but will not describe the offense. The information about the offense was given to the police, who have ruled that there is to be no investigation. In the “April” document (earlier today on Anglican Ink) the bishop writes that there are “no matters of criminal concern.” That would seem to indicate that it is not a matter of of statute of limitations, but that indeed there is no crime.
So, whatever the offense is, the clergy are “appalled” but it is not criminal.
So, a minister has committed such grievous offenses that he cannot be allowed to minister. The bishop locally revoked his license within the diocese. The bishop with oversight (I assume Rod Thomas is the bishop with oversight as “flying bishop” for a conservative parish) does not think he was involved in criminal activity but his conduct was appalling. SO…..WHY HASN’T HE BEEN DEPOSED?????
Is this just the CoE trying to avoid having a church trial to remove the man from ministry?
Thought it was mentioned the parties were of legal age; 16 (?).
I’m confused and very wary of guilt being taken for granted before the case is even properly constructed. I have seen more details, but none of them in themselves lead straightforwardly to the conclusion that Jonathan Fletcher has done anything worthy of (virtual) deposition from ordained ministry.
Fletcher has admitted his guilt the Evangelical Ministry Assembly was told today. See the video and transcript posted on this website.
I saw that document earlier today. In the stasis system of forensic rhetoric, what Mr Fletcher gave was at most an admission of facts, not of guilt; even on the factual level, not everything may be as it seems. I think Mr Fletcher agrees, given his response thus far. I continue to be uncertain of the merits of the case.
The facts are that a number of men were engaged in naked or semi-naked massage sessions with Fletcher. That is totally inappropriate for a clergyman (or any christian), so yes, I think the word “guilt” is appropriate.
There is also worse behaviour that hasn’t been made public.
And I very much doubt that multiple men all independently enticed Fletcher into doing the exact same thing with them.
Fletcher has admitted his guilt the Evangelical Ministry Assembly was told today. See the video and transcript posted on this website.
As Rev Conger suggests, please see the story now on Anglican Ink titled: “Statement given to the Evangelical Mission Assembly on the Jonathan Fletcher affair” I will warn readers that there are rather graphic descriptions of behavior that, regrettably, is indeed “appalling.”
I understand there are no details as a libel lawyer has been engaged.
What is so troubling about this the total lack of detail. Exactly what was Jonathan Fletcher doing, and for how long was he doing it?
Gavin Ashenden said, in the Anglican Unscripted video, that it was “homo-erotic pastoral engagements with young men of a manipulative and blackmailing kind” and “it ranged from sexual horseplay to something much more serious”.
The fact that Emmanuel Church is not saying anything gives the impression of a cover-up.
My understanding of Safeguarding Trust (at least in a CoI context) is that it applies only to U18s. The fact that it keeps coming up in this discussion confuses me. Apparently none of those involved were under 18 which means “Safeguarding” should not be mentioned as it evokes a much more sinister matter. Perhaps the Vicar did engage in behaviours that should discredit him as priest, pastor (or mentor even) but the mere mention of “Safeguarding” evokes a level of criminality which is neither fair nor appropriate.
It is great, however, and certainly in no way libelous, for a congregation to stand up and say this has happened in our assembly, it is unacceptable and we will will not accept in from current or future leaders (and would be very troubling if found among our members as it points to a life bound up in sin as opposed to the love of Christ).
crannog- I would note that within the CoE, virtually all references refer to “children or vulnerable adults. It is quite probable that many or perhaps all of the young men who were victims would not have described themselves as “vulnerable”, but it seems obvious that they indeed were particularly vulnerable to the authority and charisma of this particular abuser.
I take an almost opposite view, I am shocked that the police and church safeguarding “experts” could come to the conclusion that there was no danger to children. It seems impossible that young people, especially those well rehearsed in Biblical morality, unless there was a long period of psychological preparation, beginning at a very young age. The CoE has adopted the word “grooming” to describe to describe the psychological abuse of children for the purpose of “training” them to accept deviant sexual behavior from authority figures in the future (as they have adopted the words “spiritual abuse” in place of “abusive sexual domination by an authority figure in the church”)
So, frankly, I believe the various “safeguarding” authorities who declared Fletcher to be no danger to children ow an explanation to the general public and particularly the parish community. And if they do not have a very good explanation should be immediately removed from office, because the danger to children seems self evident.
TJ, having checked the CoI main web site for Safeguarding. It does indeed reference Safeguarding for adults.
“The guidance applies to all aspects of ministry in the Church of Ireland whether within a church building or within parishioners homes. It is the responsibility of everyone in the Church of Ireland to ensure that adults at risk of harm due to their personal characteristics and / or life circumstances are not left at risk of abuse.”
and
“The Church of Ireland takes seriously all concerns, allegations, suspicions and disclosures of abuse and requires such to be reported to the statutory authorities, …. All adults have a fundamental right to be respected, nurtured, cared for and protected from harm or the risk of harm.”
I think the vagueness and “all inclusiveness” of this section of policy plus the justifiable priority given to children keeps parish level training focused on youth and youth work.
tjmcmahon, when reading your first paragraph above, my first instinct is to roll my eyes and say “such a view classes everyone as “vulnerable” and makes a mockery of the thrust of Safeguarding Trust initiatives.”
I want to be fair, but perhaps it does. We are all vulnerable to false teaching, emotional rhetoric and getting caught up in other’s passions and enthusiasms. While everyone who avails of this aspect of our nature to get our support, hoover up our money or use us for their pleasure, is taking advantage of and therefore abusing us. I think, however, for Safeguarding to have any general effect it must be focused squarely, in the case of adults, those who are especially vulnerable,
As for you view on “grooming” — our schools are now being used to groom, TV and cartoons are being used to groom–it is happening all the time. It is probably safe for the Safeguarding panel to say, in a secular sense nothing abnormal is happening here. It is also clear the congregation is not accepting the secular “normal” as acceptable from their leaders and are therefore warning others about the potential threat.