The archbishop of York, sexual abuse, and bureaucracy
"
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.
"
A legal nightmare
Stephen Cottrell, the archbishop of York is facing calls for him to stand down; honestly I'm surprised they didn't come sooner as they were alluded to in news reports concerning Justin Welby's failure to safeguard. It is easy for us to criticize failure but this isn't what happened here.
I raised fears about the nature of safeguarding and legal ramifications in cases where there was no police action but safeguarding was needed; in such a situation it risks compromising further police action and slander suits from the person involved.
The reverse problem seems to be true here.
The Church took action but it was inadequate and contradictory.
The problem is, as actions had been taken against David Tudor, Stephen Cottrell couldn't technically take a secondary action against him on those cases:
So what did the Church do about David Tudor?
Taken from the BBC article this for punishment, red for lifted/negated punishment:
"
In 1988, David Tudor was a defendant in two criminal trials
In the first trial, he was acquitted of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old school girl although he admitted having sex with her when she was 16
In the second trial, he was convicted of indecently assaulting three girls and was jailed for six months. The conviction was quashed on technical grounds because the judge had misdirected the jury
In 1989, Tudor was banned for sexual misconduct by a Church tribunal but was allowed to return to ministry after 5 years
In 2005, Tudor was suspended as police investigated an allegation he had indecently assaulted a child in the 1970s. He was not charged and was allowed back to work under conditions
From January 2008, Tudor had been working under a safeguarding agreement preventing him from being alone with children or entering schools in Essex - and yet months later he had become an area dean in charge of 12 parishes
"
Additions (mine):
David Tudor was made an honorary canon (a role that allowed him to assist in cathedral services) by a "Church policy during the bishop's time in office, meaning area deans were automatically made honorary canons." (Stephen Cottrell's statement.) (Clarificaton this was a diocese level change, not C of E wide)
a
The problem is as a settlement was reached rather than a judge finding him responsible, David Tudor technically wasn't considered responsible therefore the Church wasn't technically allowed to
make another ruling against him, despite the obvious.
In 2018 X (name not disclosed) made a complaint to the police about David Tudor but no criminal proceedings followed
David Tudor suspended in 2019
In October 2021, X brought her complaint against Tudor to the Church
December 2022, Y brought her complaint against Tudor to the Church
28th October 2024, a Church tribunal bars David Tudor from the clergy for life
Turning over the table
Whilst no legal or punitive measures could be made against David Tudor, that doesn't mean that nothing could be done:
Excommunication is a dark area of Christianity both in terms of theology and in practical terms; Catholicism has a history of mixing excommunication and the rights inferred by apostolic succession, in essence believing that the Pope can excommunicate a person in life and in the hereafter, the C of E on the other hand has been incredibly cautious in using this measure.
The C of E's history with excommunication is so lax that there are only 9 people recorded on wikipedia as have been excommunicated and most of them centuries ago, and with the most recent in the victorian era.
The only official piece I could find online was as part of the articles of faith written in 1562 as part of the book of common prayer which reads:
"
XXXIII. Of Excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided
That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.
"
I won't lie, I had to read that about three to five times to get heads or tails of it, and it only is a statement of common sense once interpreted...
Excommunication
There are various verses on excommunication but this is the clearest in terms of morality:
"
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.
Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
"
To sum up the rest of the method:
If a person goes astray advise them to change their way.
If they refuse to change their ways meet with them with a second person with you so their is a witness of their stance
If they still refuse would go to trial by congregation and if the congregation decides that the person is being immoral and unrepentant the person would be ejected from the congregation and only be allowed back once they have repented.
Modern excommunication in the C of E
According to the britannica in the Anglican church a bishop is able to excommunicate a person but as I said before, this hasn't been done for over a hundred years so the reality is much more murky. The world has changed greatly and excommunicating would be a murky topic for the C of E.
All that said, the precident is still there and as no one has tinkered with the mechanisms of the Church it would atleast be a potent temporary measure. Also as such an act would be to publicly denounce the individual. Whilst not normally a powerful tool, with David Tudor's past record the congregation would be in full agreement with it and even if the excommunication didn't stick, it would have ended his career as a priest.
The problem is in this day and age, libel and slander laws makes such an act personally precarious. It is essentially to play Russian roulette with one's career. You might remove someone like David Tudor, you might lose your job, or perhaps both.
But to my mind the key word here is career.
I personally couldn't have been in Stephen Cottrell's position without denouncing Tudor. To let my position, or more accurately the risk of losing that position and likely getting sued get in my way.
The idea of someone who is acting under my power doing such things, I would consider myself culpable spiritually, even if legally and practically you have done everything.
But practicality shouldn't matter for Christians. It's not easy but the personal cost of discipleship shouldn't matter.
Final thoughts
I don't judge Stephen for his actions, it is a difficult call but personally letting legal and personal concerns get in the way isn't my way, but I'm much of a scorched earth style person. Extreme responses are natural to me, for better and worse.
What would have happened if such an extreme measure had been taken? What would the cost have been? What would have been the fallout?
Would it even succeed?
These things are difficult to know and only those in Stephen's position can know the full ramifications of the act.
I don't claim wisdom, but I believe not to debate the matter is wrong. And I have a tendency to advocate excommunication... (well I warned you I was a bit scorched earth).
It should be noted that the C of E's measures have improved since the original legal nightmare and thus in theory this problem shouldn't ever happen again. At present external oversight is being looked at by the synod, and it's uses and how it may or may not function.
External links
Image sourced from the archbishop of York's website
Коментари