The Church of England is once again under scrutiny for its failure to protect vulnerable individuals within its fold. The case centers around John Smyth, a former barrister, who, between the 1970s and the early 1980s, used his position of authority to subject young boys and men to horrific abuse. His actions, which spanned multiple countries, from the United Kingdom to Zimbabwe and South Africa, were not only egregious in their violence but also in the extent of the cover-up that ensued. The Church of England, the purported moral beacon of the Anglican Communion, finds itself mired in a web of deceit, neglect, and institutional failure that implicates some of its highest-ranking leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
The extent of the abuse was revealed in a chilling investigation that unearthed decades of brutality, with as many as 130 victims coming forward to recount their harrowing experiences. Smyth’s abuse ranged from physical violence so severe that it caused victims to bleed, to psychological and sexual exploitation that scarred many for life. The Church’s response to these revelations, however, has been nothing short of inadequate. The Church’s highest offices, including that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have been found complicit in a sustained failure to act decisively upon learning of the abuse.
A Legacy of Silence and Inaction
The Church’s own internal review, led by former social services director Keith Makin, paints a damning picture of institutional complicity. Over a span of 40 years, the abuse perpetrated by Smyth was known by numerous clergy members, from Bishops to Archbishops, yet little was done to bring him to justice. In 1982, a secret report about Smyth’s abuse was compiled, yet the Church allowed him to continue his activities unchecked. In the 1980s, even after it became known that Smyth had abused boys at evangelical camps, his ties to senior Church figures remained unbroken. This failure is not merely a series of isolated incidents, but a reflection of a broader culture within the Church that prioritized its reputation and institutional interests over the protection of its members.
Read More: The Guardian’s Exit from X: Statement Against ‘Toxic Media Platform’
At the heart of this scandal lies the figure of Justin Welby, who assumed the role of Archbishop of Canterbury in 2013. Although he claims to have first learned of Smyth’s crimes in 2013, the Makin report casts doubt on this narrative, asserting that enough information had been available to prompt immediate action well before this time. Critics argue that Welby’s failure to pursue the matter more aggressively contributed directly to the continued suffering of victims. His role in the Church, after all, places him at the pinnacle of its moral and spiritual guidance, and as such, his failure to act raises serious questions about his leadership and accountability.
The Failure of Safeguarding Systems
Despite the release of the Makin review and its scathing criticisms, the Church’s response has been to focus on reforms rather than immediate accountability. Welby himself admitted that he failed to “pursue this as energetically as it should have been,” acknowledging the deep shame of his inaction. Yet, despite his acknowledgment of fault, he remains steadfast in refusing to resign, insisting that his failure did not rise to the level of a resignation matter. This reluctance to step down, despite calls for his resignation from abuse victims and others within the Church, underscores a deeper issue of institutional inertia and a failure to embrace full accountability.
The systemic failures are not limited to Welby alone. A broader network of clergy and Church officials, including Bishops and former chaplains, were aware of Smyth’s abuse but chose to remain silent or even facilitate his activities. This institutional silence was compounded by a failure in safeguarding procedures within the Church of England. Despite claims that the Church has reformed its safeguarding protocols, the reality remains that victims are often treated as an afterthought. The safeguarding system, which now employs a far larger team, was clearly insufficient to address the scale of the abuse when it first occurred.
A Crisis of Trust
The response from within the Church has ranged from a reluctant acceptance of responsibility to outright denial of complicity. Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, for example, has stated that the Church is implementing reforms to restore trust, yet victims and survivors are far from convinced. For them, the reforms are little more than a reactive measure, one that comes too late to offer real justice or reconciliation. Many survivors of Smyth’s abuse are left feeling that the Church’s leadership is more concerned with protecting its institution than with supporting those it has wronged.
Read More: UK Surgeon Exposes Israel’s Deliberate Targeting of Children in Gaza with Drones
As victims demand greater accountability, including further resignations, it is clear that the Church of England is facing a crisis not just of reputation, but of moral and spiritual credibility. The institution that has long prided itself on being a moral guide for the nation now finds itself at the center of a scandal that questions its very integrity. This is not merely a crisis of individual leaders, but one of an institution whose very foundations have been shaken by its repeated failures to address systemic abuse.
The Need for Institutional Change
In response to this ongoing crisis, many have called for sweeping changes within the Church. While the resignation of key figures like Justin Welby may provide some symbolic closure, it will not resolve the deeper issues that have allowed such abuse to flourish. What is needed is a fundamental shift in how the Church handles allegations of abuse, a complete overhaul of its safeguarding procedures, and a commitment to putting the needs of victims first. This is not just a matter of individual accountability but of institutional transformation. The Church must demonstrate that it is willing to confront its past, take responsibility for its failures, and actively work to prevent such abuses from happening again.
The tragedy of this scandal is that it could have been prevented at multiple junctures, had the Church leaders shown the moral courage to act when they first became aware of Smyth’s crimes. Now, as victims continue to suffer and demand justice, the Church of England must come to terms with its legacy of neglect and begin the long, difficult process of rebuilding the trust it has so tragically lost. Whether or not this is possible depends on the willingness of the Church’s leadership to confront uncomfortable truths and make the changes that are necessary to protect those it claims to serve. Only then can the Church hope to emerge from this crisis with any semblance of its former moral authority intact.