John Smyth is, arguably, the most prolific serial abuser to be FACILITATED BY the Church of England.

Because that is what the behaviour of all those clergy and others criticised by the reviewers, amounts to. In fact, let's be honest, the review has uncovered a pretty much perfect recipe for 'how to abuse vulnerable young people and get away with it for decades in plain sight of the Church of England'.

For around 40 years, Smyth conducted 'Christian camps' (the Iwerne camps) for young men and boys, at which he beat many of them until they bled. He also did this in a purpose-built shed at his home. Once again, we are left to wonder about the moral and ethical weakness of all those who knew something was wrong, yet failed to go to the police. This includes many senior clergy in the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Let's look at some of the Key Findings of the Makin Review (pp. 1 and 2of the report). I have added my own emphasis in bold.

1.3 John Smyth was an appalling abuser of children and young men. His abuse was prolific, brutal and horrific. His victims were subjected to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks. The impact of that abuse is impossible to overstate and has permanently marked the lives of his victims. John Smyth's own family are victims of his abuse.

1.5 Church officers and others were made aware of the abuse in the form of a key report in 1982 prepared by the Reverend Mark Ruston. The recipients of that report participated in an active cover-up to prevent that report and its findings -- including that crimes had been committed - coming to light. There is no excuse or good explanation that justifies that decision. Different -- and we strongly suspect better, for subsequent victims -- outcomes would have followed had appropriate reports to the police and other statutory authorities been made then.

1.6 In line with the ToR, we have placed the actions of individuals and Church bodies in context, and considered against the standards of practice which applied at the relevant time. An argument which has been offered in order to partially explain John Smyth's abuses is that they were examples of over-enthusiastic corporal punishment. The conclusion of the Review is that he committed criminal acts of gross abuse.

1.8 In the period between 1984 and 2001, at which time John Smyth relocated to Zimbabwe and subsequently South Africa, Church officers knew of the abuse and failed to take the steps necessary to prevent further abuse occurring. Throughout this period -- and particularly given the Church's adoption of formal safeguarding policies from 1995 -- the Church had sufficient knowledge of the abuse to have taken those steps.

1.10 There were individual failings by senior clergy, and clergy who subsequently became senior. That grouping includes a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Diocesan Bishops and Canons and Reverends.

1.11 Following specific developments in 2012, from July 2013, the Church of England knew, at the highest level, about the abuse that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. John Smyth should have been properly and effectively reported to the police in the UK and to relevant authorities in South Africa. This represented a further missed opportunity to bring him to justice and may have resulted in an ongoing and avoidable safeguarding threat in the period between 2012 and his death in 2018.

1.12 The Church's reaction to the expose of John Smyth's abuse by channel 4 in February 2017 was poor in terms of speed, professionalism, intensity and curiosity. The needs of the victims were not at the forefront in terms of thinking and planning; the response was not trauma-informed.

So, what exactly was Smyth doing?

In addition to sin-related physical abuse, John Smyth also introduced the concept of "training beatings", not related to a particular sin, but as a further means of (in his terms) "getting closer to God". This was described in the Ruston Report of 1982: ""training" beatings of some 75 strokes every 3 weeks were instituted, as being better than only going down after a "fall", though these persisted. .... The custom of semi nakedness gave way to complete nakedness "to increase humility". For training beatings a man undressed himself, for "falls" he submitted to being undressed by the operator." (Report, p. 41).

In 1981:

Mark Ruston records that 'Iwerne people are suspicious of' John Smyth. Anonymous 'Postcard' reportedly sent to David Fletcher with the message 'When will someone stop this disgusting activity going on in John Smyth's shed?' (Report, p. 40).

A new shed was built in the garden of the Smyth family home in 1981, replacing the previous shed that was used. This new shed was soundproofed and had only one window, facing towards the Church which lies at the back of the garden. The shed was situated out of sight of the house, away from the road and hidden behind a large hedge. Unusually, the door into the shed was set right up against a hedge to the side of the garden. The shed is likely to have been designed by John Smyth with the abuse in mind, including a purpose-built bench to assist in administering the abuse. (Report, pp. 48-49).

Let all that sink in. This is stuff that was known about by church people, remember. Supposedly the body of Christ here on Earth.

Instead of being a beacon of love, truth and responsibility to the people for whom Christ died, the Church of England fostered a culture (some would argue that it still does) that enabled groups and individuals to run it along the lines of a dodgy second-hand car dealership. That is, a set-up determined to maintain its own status, privileges and name, plus the reputations of key individuals, in the face of evidence of criminal activity. And that's before we even get to the moral and ethical issues raised by not only the crimes themselves, but also those 'lapses' that followed -- repeatedly -- that enabled Smyth to simply carry on with business as usual. Got that?

Smyth was not only facilitated but enabled to continue his depravity. At the expense of vulnerable boys and young men. While the Boys in Cassocks and their pals covered it up and continued to look holy. Well, they don't look holy now, do they?

Smyth was enabled to practice his depravities by inventing a false theology:

He contended that the way to Christ was through suffering, and he offered a "programme" which included ensuring that suffering was a route to the atonement of sins. This false thinking and perverted approach was known to the people around him and could have been challenged for what it was. Similar approaches were taken by him in Zimbabwe. (Emphasis mine).

Given that this 'suffering' involved horrific beatings:

"I had a sense that each cane stroke had left its own mark on my body, however when I was beaten more than 30, or even as much as 100 times, there was no sense of any individual stroke marks....just a bloody mess".

A victim of John Smyth, 2022 (Report, p. 31)

.... we may be forgiven for asking questions of those leaders, helpers and Church officers (clergy or otherwise) who were present at the times of these appalling crimes. Are we seriously supposed to believe that boys and young men, in receipt of such horrific physical abuse, didn't show any signs of it afterwards? So how come nobody noticed? Clearly, there were no bloody clothes, or an inability to sit down comfortably, or crying boys, at these camps, and the leaders must have all been utterly unaware of any of it. Strange, that.

Just how stupid do these people think we are? Even in the 1970s and 1980s, this would have been shocking and should have been reported and stopped. It represents nothing less than an abuse of power -- in silencing the victims and their concerned friends. This is one point on which I disagree with the comments of the reviewers -- beating people until they bled, frequently, was not in line with 'the standards of practice which applied at the relevant time' (Key Findings, 1.6). The only practice in line with the standards of the time was keeping quiet about bad behaviour of 'important' and powerful individuals like Smyth. Yet even that should not have been a pressure on Christians who knew of abuse going on.

We find that the 1982 Ruston Report recognized that crimes had been committed, but took the decision to actively cover this up:

These were offences of a serious nature and against the law, as was clearly defined in the Ruston Report at that time (Section 47 of the Offences Against The Person Act, 1861). (Report, p. 50).

The Ruston Report clearly states that offences had been committed. The choice is explicitly made to withhold the knowledge of offences potentially being committed from the police. (Report, p. 62).

If the Ruston Report in 1982 had resulted in a report being made to the police (in terms of the assertion that a serious crime, or crimes, had been committed) and this had been investigated, the wider Church would have known of the abuse. In attempting to keep the matters secret, the number of people directly initially knowledgeable of the abuse was limited to those to whom the report was circulated. However, as we have detailed later, this "secret" became a very poorly kept one indeed, with many people knowing of the abuse, including ordained people throughout the time, as analysed in this Review. (Report, p. 61).

Given that all this was such a poorly kept secret, we can conclude that plenty of folks knew about it, for years, and not even one of them had the guts to blow the whistle at any point. Even in 2013 when the facts were supposed to have miraculously and suddenly appeared - when one of the victims bravely spilled the beans to the Diocese of Ely.

A piece in the Daily Telegraph on 7 November 2024 reads:

The Archbishop of Canterbury's failure to act meant that the Church of England's most prolific child abuser was never brought to justice, a report has found.

John Smyth QC's "abhorrent abuse" of more than 100 children and young men could have been exposed in 2013 -- three years before it was made public -- if Justin Welby followed up to ensure the police investigated concerns.

That's the leader of the established Church in the UK. Got that?

I have merely skimmed the surface of the Review here. Anyone wishing to read it can do so at https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/john-smyth-review.

So, what does all this tell us about the long-term culture embedded in the Church of England?

It clearly operated (still operates?) as what in the UK is referred to as 'the old boys club'. For those not familiar with the British private school system (from which the great and the good go on to control the rest of us in government, politics and business), the phrase 'old boys' refers to men who all went to the same or similar private schools, and thence on to Cambridge or Oxford. In other words, 'the right sort of people', 'people like us'.

I'm not claiming that everyone who attended a private school is problematic, but British society has enabled this for centuries, not least in the upper echelons of the Church of England in the past. Welby himself went to Eton and Cambridge. As far as I understand it, George Carey (1991-2002) was the first ABC not to have been to Cambridge or Oxford. You get the picture.

British private schools for boys were notorious for their corporal punishment. Accordingly, when confronted with Smyth's crimes, at least one person was able to say that Smyth was simply engaging in 'over-enthusiastic corporal punishment'. For which read, 'it doesn't hurt boys to be punished'. And why not? Most of our prime ministers and secretaries of state over the years in the past would have been caned black and blue at school. So, it's ok, isn't it? The point being missed, of course, is that punishment is not required to get closer to God. Yet nobody thought to complain officially. And of course, there were those two little letters after Smyth's name: QC. Queen's Counsel -- a senior legal figure. He had a The Establishment behind him, to defend him if necessary. Yet even this does not excuse the failure of so many Christians to act on their concerns.

Sadly, more recent events cause us to question just how much the culture within the upper levels of the CofE has changed. As recently as 2022, reviewers found allegations of abuse from 383 cases, involving children and vulnerable adults, that required 'further attention'. This followed on from the 2010 Past Cases Review, which claimed the Church had only found 13 new cases requiring further action. Again, the review was carried out by, er, the Church of England.

The alleged perpetrators, who are still alive, include 242 clergy, 53 Church officers and 41 volunteers whose role included engagement with children.
Many no longer hold positions in the Church - but in some cases, their identity was not recorded.

The cases range from errors in information sharing to those that should have been referred to the police.
But the report does not include details of the seriousness of the abuse.
BBC News, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63144354

That was in 2022, folks.

So, what of the perpetually apologizing Archbishop Welby? This week, he revealed, in an interview with the UK's Channel 4, that he has considered resigning ahead of the report's publication (and to cap it all, it also appears that he had donated money to Smyth at some point or points).

"I have given it (resigning) a lot of thought and have taken advice as recently as this morning from senior colleagues and no I am not going to resign."
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/07/church-of-england-covered-up-john-smyth-abuse-children/).

Do tell us, Archbishop, who were the senior colleagues you consulted? Clearly, they want to keep you on in your role, despite having so monumentally failed to tackle abuse in the Church, and seemingly failing in your statutory duty to report abuse to the authorities. Does that indicate any sort of culture change?

And what exactly are your criteria for resigning? Perhaps you can tell us what does need to happen for your moral compass to swing into action?

Don't hold your breath, folks.

Further comments on this topic, from 2021, can be read here: https://viewfromthecrowsnest.net/2021/05/20/archbishop-welbys-apology-to-john-smyths-victims/

Judith Sture is a UK-based contributor to VirtueOnline.
Dr Judi Sture is a:
Consultant in Biosecurity, Biosecurity Education and Bioethics;
Research Ethics Specialist;
Biological Anthropologist;
Bradford, United Kingdom