Ann Onymous writes: Our late Queen famously once said ‘recollections may vary’. Ever the diplomat. Our current Archbishop was known to be a huge fan of Her Majesty. In a 2021 BBC Newscast interview when he was asked about the need for an honesty culture—and an honesty culture that comes from the top—he responded:
That is clearly essential—and isn’t it wonderful that we have such an extraordinary example at the top—of the Queen with her complete integrity in every possible way.
Many years after it was promised, the Makin review into the abuses of John Smyth and the resulting cover-up by many in the Church of England has now been published. Reading the detail of the Makin review and its various appendices is horrific. There have been many press reports detailing the scale and nature of the abuse, but the depth of abuse and the following ‘open secret’ that it became still shocks one utterly upon reading it. One victim is quoted as saying:
If Justin Welby or the Church of England had exposed John Smyth’s abuse in 2013 publicly, it would have been a different life or a different end of life for my father.
The connections between Archbishop Welby and John Smyth stretch back to the 1970’s, and there have been reflections on what Welby knew when. Piecing together the snippets and statements from across the report does not make for an entirely congruent picture.
According to Makin’s research, in the summer of 1975 both Justin Welby and John Smyth attended the Summer Iwerne Camp. They did so again the following summer, and the summer after that. The next year, 1978, Justin Welby is lodging with Mark Ruston and Makin details that he was overheard having a “grave” conversation with Ruston, about John Smyth, whilst lodging with him. Justin Welby advised the reviewers that he does not recall this conversation but confirms that he did share accommodation with Mark Ruston during this period. [The ‘Ruston report’ which was written in early 1982 details much of Smyth’s abuse to that date and clearly states that offences had been committed. Makin notes that there was also ‘evidence of what amounts to “victim blaming” in some of the correspondence’.]
Makin observes that Welby attends the Summer Iwerne Camp again, in the summer of 1978, and that by the summer of 1979 he is listed as a speaker at that summer’s camp.
In the Archbishop’s February 2017 interview with LBC’s Nick Ferrari (Makin’s Appendix 23) Welby noted that he went off to work in Paris in 1978, ‘was abroad the time that the report was done and had no contact with them at all’. In an interview outside LBC later that same day in 2017 (also Appendix 23), he said he had gone ‘to live in Paris in ‘78 and came back in ‘83 and had no contact with the camps at all’.
Inside LBC, he said he never heard anything at any point about Smyth—he ‘never had the slightest suspicion’. In the interview outside LBC the Archbishop added:
obviously it would have been wonderful to have known and been able to stop it but there wasn’t any sign at all or knowledge, and you—listen—you get used to boys’ schools. I went to an all-boys school, and back in the 70’s people would say watch out for so-and-so. There was never anything like that. There was never anything that raised one’s suspicions.
By the time of the Makin review, recollections have definitely varied.
The Makin review describes how around the Easter of 1981, John Smyth took a group of four of his victims on a skiing trip to France. The group stopped off in Paris on the way. Recalling the visit to the Makin reviewers, the Archbishop said:
While we were in Paris, and this I do remember, John Smyth came through Paris, stayed the night in Paris on his way to Switzerland with a group of Iwerne boys, senior campers, and they came to St Michael’s Church which we attended on a Sunday morning.
Peter Sertin, the Chaplain of the church asked Welby if he used to attend Iwerne and said that Smyth was visiting—so Welby went up to Smyth at the end of the service:
as one does over the coffee, and said ‘Hi John, it’s Justin’, and I can still remember, he was extremely offhand…’.
Not quite ‘no contact with the camps at all’.
But there was more to follow. After the boys had returned home following their time away with Smyth, Sertin confided to Welby that one of the boys had “spoken to him” about Smyth. Makin notes
Peter Sertin warned Justin Welby that John Smyth was not a good man and to “stay away from him”’. In the Archbishop’s own words ‘I saw Peter who was a good friend, the Chaplain and he said, ‘You know that Smyth fellow?’, and I said ‘Yes’, he said ‘He came back through’, I said ‘Oh, really?’ He said ‘Yes. Not a nice man, really not a nice man’.’
Sertin told Welby that ‘one of the boys had a chat with me’. Welby recalled to Makin that
I don’t know who it was and I wouldn’t remember if he’d told me but he wouldn’t have told me, he would have kept it strictly confidential, but he said ‘I wouldn’t have anything to do with him if I were you’, but no more than that.’
To Makin and the reviewers, Welby has commented that this warning was vague and he thought it was based on ‘incompatible personalities’. It doesn’t quite match his 2017 interview stating that
and back in the 70’s people would say watch out for so-and-so. There was never anything like that. There was never anything that raised one’s suspicions.
Makin observes that
Justin Welby had some knowledge of John Smyth, with a concern being expressed about him. He carried this knowledge into later life, when he did become aware of the serious concerns.
Despite Sertin’s warning, Welby and Smyth continued to exchange Christmas cards for several years while the Archbishop was in Paris, and on his return to the UK, including while Smyth was living in Zimbabwe. The Archbishop describes this as ‘usual for the time’. Welby says he recalls ‘making donations’ to Smyth to support his Ministry in Zimbabwe, and that this was
within a “typical and usual pattern” for the time, with gifting to prominent people heading Ministries and the like being common and unremarkable.
Whatever any previous conversations with Sertin or Ruston might have been, by August 2013 the Archbishop was aware of the abuse allegations surrounding Smyth. Justin Welby wrote or stated in an email from that time that he knew John Smyth in the 1970s and stated that the matter is ‘disclosable and must be done by either us or them’, the “them” being the Iwerne/Titus Trust. He was advised by his then chaplain, Jo Bailey Wells that Stephen Conway (at that time Bishop of Ely) considered that the Iwerne/Titus Trust must not be informed at this juncture, because the matter was being investigated by the Police. Makin comments:
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. It is not clear what the reference to the matter being “disclosable” means. If it refers to the need for a disclosure to authorities (the Police) needing to be made, this was not fully followed up.
Jo Bailey Wells subsequently advised Stephen Conway that she would leave it to the diocese to pursue and to take no further action until the Police had provided further advice. But Makin notes that
there is no evidence in the Lambeth Palace records passed to Reviewers to indicate that Jo Bailey Wells followed this up.
There was a large volume of such referrals coming to Lambeth Palace at that time, but Makin observes that this…
referral should have stood out as being remarkable—at least three victims were known of, with a further number (around five or six) having been referenced by a victim. Fundamentally, the diocese was expected to follow safeguarding procedures but there was no oversight from Lambeth Palace, even though they had been alerted. This is all the more surprising, given that Lambeth Palace had been told of, and had acknowledged, that Justin Welby may have a connection with John Smyth.
Makin’s analysis of this 2013 period is pretty damning. He describes ‘a distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation of the matter’ as evidenced by the lack of further questioning and follow up, in particular regarding any reassurance that a known abuser was not still actively abusing. Makin concludes:
Smyth could and should have been reported to the police in 2013. This could (and probably would) have led to a full investigation, the uncovering of the truth of the serial nature of the abuses in the UK, involving multiple victims and the possibility of a conviction being brought against him.
In his 2017 LBC interview Welby said that during this period ‘we checked that the police had been informed and they had been’ and when asked what further interest he took responded that ‘well, we keep an eye on it, obviously’. Makin, as detailed above, mentions that there is no evidence from Lambeth Palace to show that Jo Bailey Wells had in fact continued to follow this up. When pushed again in his LBC interview, about what progress was made, he responded that ‘we found out what was going on but as you know John Smyth had moved’ referencing Smyth’s move to South Africa. Ferrari pushes him on calls and conversations with the Bishop of Ely (Stephen Conway) on the matter, but no details are forthcoming, just reference to the national safeguarding team who ‘came on board’ and how he was ‘sure it was being rigorously handled by the Bishop of Ely’.
There is then a gap from 2013–2017 about which Welby expressed concerns to his staff in an email which Makin quotes, writing ‘any ideas for an answer welcome’. He was right to be concerned. Makin’s opinion is that
Welby held a personal and moral responsibility to pursue this further, whatever the policies at play at the time required. He was advised to not pursue this further whilst a police investigation was underway (which it wasn’t) but he should have made further attempts to reassure himself that the matter was being pursued, particularly with regard to the approach to South Africa.
Makin can find no evidence that this happened.
The gap ended with the Channel 4 News investigation presented by Cathy Newman being aired in early 2017. The matter suddenly become far more public, and press interest picked up. Outside that LBC studio in 2017 Welby also made various comments about the victims of abuse. Promises to them. He said that ‘their interests have to come first’, ‘these are the people we care most about’ and ‘they really, really matter’. He said that he regularly met with survivors of abuse and listened to their stories. Victims began to express increasing frustration, not only with the answers given in his interview but that these commitments he had made were not being met. Makin notes ‘as time went on, victims’ frustrations and anger grew as these promises were not kept nor acted upon’.
Seven months after the LBC interview, victims frustrations at what they saw as promises broken were such that they were organising demonstrations at Canterbury Cathedral, with the intention of securing a meeting with Welby. It didn’t help; Makin notes:
No such meeting took place until April 2021, a clear four years after the programme was first aired. Welby advised reviewers that he was consistently following advice from police and safeguarding colleagues.
Makin comments several times through the review on the impact that these promises not being honoured had on victims. Victim accounts have David Porter, Welby’s then Chief of Staff, also promising meetings with the Archbishop, to no avail. Welby had, says Makin ‘made a promise to meet with the victims’ but ‘this did not translate into an actual meeting until four years later’ despite the unprecedented scale of this abuse, nor the abusers connection to Welby.
In the meantime, a degree of damage control had been attempted. When Cathy Newman interviewed Justin in 2019, Welby said that neither John Smyth nor the Iwerne Trust and its camps were ‘Anglican’. This claim has since been withdrawn. Makin notes that interview ‘contained several incorrect assertions by Justin Welby’. Welby tried to say he knew nothing of the open secret, that he had ‘never heard of that, ever at any point’ and that he ‘wasn’t in those (Evangelical) circles’ while Makin asserts that ‘he was, and is, very closely associated with that network’. Newman asked Welby if he wasn’t sufficiently curious—to which he responds ‘curious about what?’. Two years after the 2017 news investigation, the inquiry had not started. Welby attempted to defend this by saying that ‘The Church of England was never directly involved’ and blamed the absence of review on the lack of participation by the ‘key organisations that were at the frontline’. He went on to assure Newman that ‘we were in very rapid contact with them [survivors] through the normal way the church does this. I have not met with them.’ When further pushed on camera about meeting them he said ‘I will certainly…as soon as it can be arranged in the diary…’.
In 2021, two years later, when there finally was a zoom call with a number of victims, Welby made a commitment to ensuring that all the Clergy identified as possibly not acting on information they had, would be investigated by the National Safeguarding Team. One of those on the call held up a list of names, which Welby confirmed would act as the basis for the investigations. But the only investigations carried out by the National Safeguarding Team took place in response to referrals; victims were left feeling yet another promise of Welby’s had been broken.
Welby suggests that he would have been ‘more active’ if he had realised the seriousness of Smyth’s offences in 2013. However, the evidence put forward by Makin ‘suggests enough was known to have raised concerns upon being informed in 2013’ and highlights Welby’s experiences at Iwerne in the 1970s and his being warned off John Smyth in Paris in 1981. Makin is clear that
on the balance of probabilities, it is the opinion of the Reviewers that it was unlikely that Justin Welby would have had no knowledge of the concerns regarding John Smyth in the 1980s in the UK…it is most probable that he would have had at least a level of knowledge that John Smyth was of some concern.
Welby asserts during that 2019 interview that ‘we were in rapid touch with the survivors’. Makin is clear that ‘this is not correct’ citing instead considerable delay in establishing any contacts and in setting up a helpline for victims.
The Makin review was finally published this week, with haste following a leak. Cathy Newman again interviewed the Archbishop for Channel Four. He reiterated again that he ‘heard about this for the first time in July, August, 2013 about four months after I took over and didn’t know anything before then, or I have any suspicions’. Her response? ‘Well, that’s not quite true’.
In this most recent interview he concedes that in that 2013–2017 gap he did not make sure that the Smyth case ‘was pursued as energetically, as remorselessly as it should have been’. He defends his financial support of Smyth in the 70s and 80s saying ‘lots of people funded his mission’. He expresses regret about following the advice he was given to refuse to see victims; ‘I shouldn’t have taken the advice’. But when asked if he will resign, as victims are calling for him to, he says
I’ve taken advice, as recently as this morning from senior colleagues, and no, I’m not going to resign for this. If I’d known before 2013 or had grounds for suspicion, that would be a resigning matter then and now, but I didn’t’
In a written statement from the Archbishop following the publication of the review, he again apologises for not meeting victims for so long; ‘no Archbishop can meet with everyone but I promised to see them and failed until 2020. This was wrong.’ And despite the conversations with the Makin reviewers of the concerns expressed to him in 1981, and the Makin note about the overheard conversation with Ruston, that written statement continues to declare that ‘I had no idea or suspicion of this abuse before 2013’.
In the December 2021 BBC interview this post opened with, the Archbishop was asked about the need for prominent leaders in public life to be ‘straight about things’ (in the context of various COVID rule breaks). His reply included the following:
You just have to acknowledge where things have gone wrong and say ‘yes, that was wrong’. And I noticed the former mayoral candidate immediately stepped down. That seems very honourable. He stepped down from his various posts. That seems to me to be an honourable and proper way of doing it.
If that is the’ honourable and proper way of doing it’ for others, why is that not the honourable and proper route for the Archbishop?
Nobody can say it is not my fault. It is so absurd. To say, ‘I have heard about a problem but it was someone else’s job to report it’, that is not an acceptable human response, let alone a leadership response. If you know a child is being abused, not to report it is simply wrong, for every human being.
If it was not acceptable then, can it be acceptable now?
The author of this guest piece wishes to remain anonymous for personal reasons.
We pray for you often at my church. I kneel and watch the people I have been called to love and serve form your name with their lips and then send it, wrapped in that very ordinary, parish piety, up to God.
We pray for you because we know what weight you carry in your position. It is not a job I would wish on my worst enemy such is its magnitude in Church and in State. Specifically we pray for you that you might have discernment and wisdom. In light of recent events, it is clear that those prayers have been in vain.
I don’t write in judgement, but as a fellow sinner. As a mere parish priest I make mistakes every day. I am profoundly conscious of the times I get things wrong, when I hurt people by my foolishness or ignorance, and when I let down the people I am called to serve. That weighs heavily on me, not for reasons of social embarrassment, but because I believe, as I am sure you do, that I will one day have to give account of them to Christ himself.
In light of that, I pray another prayer in my church twice a day: the words of your predecessor Thomas Cranmer in the confession at Morning and Evening Prayer. ‘We have left undone those things which we ought to have done’. In the case of the details now in the public eye, forgiveness requires more than words, it requires sacrificial action that mirrors the Grace you must surely lean upon if you truly do seek forgiveness.
We will continue to pray for you, but I for one will be praying that you will resign. The damage you have done to this church will take a very long time to repair. More importantly, those things you did and failed to do inflicted such damage on people—made in the image of that same God—might never heal. Any healing of individuals or the institution must now be in His hands, not yours. The way you might serve that process best now is to resign.
If you will not go for the love of the institution, if you will not go for the love of its people and priests, if you will not go for the victims, if you will not go for reasons of your own embarrassment or shame, then I pray you; for love of God, and Him alone, go.
Yours faithfully
Fergus Butler Gallie, Vicar of Charlbury with Shorthampton
Petition: The Makin Report into the abuse committed by John Smyth has highlighted serious failures in the culture, structures, and leadership of the Church of England. We are deeply ashamed of these failures, and the way that survivors have been betrayed.
Alongside other concerns, the report highlights the particular responsibility of Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for these failures. He ‘held a personal and moral responsibility to pursue this further, whatever the policies at play at the time required’ which he failed to fulfil.
Given his role in allowing abuse to continue, we believe that his continuing as the Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer tenable. We must see change, for the sake of survivors, for the protection of the vulnerable, and for the good of the Church—and we share this determination across our traditions. With sadness we do not think there is any alternative to his immediate resignation if the process of change and healing is to start now.
Revd Dr Ian Paul, member of General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council Revd Robert Thompson, Vicar of St Mary’s Kilburn & St James’ West Hampstead, member of General Synod. Revd Marcus Walker, Vicar of Great St Bartholomew, member of General Synod
