Once happy parish brought to its knees
Let us picture a large, happy and successful rural parish, during an interregnum. An application is received from a priest looking for their first parish. An interview is arranged by the diocese; who say their archdeacon must run it. He arrives with a list of questions to form the bulk of the meeting, he further says that though he has references for the candidate, he will not show them, declaring them, not relevant. As this candidate had been a curate in the diocese for three years, it was reasonably assumed the references could show nothing amiss. The panel ask for time to consider the matter, but are told that a decision must be given that afternoon. After two years of looking, the panel feel compelled to accept the diocesan candidate.
Fast forward twelve months, the parish is a shambles, bullying is rampant, slanders about church members widespread, all the voluntary officers, wardens, treasurer, secretary etc. have either been fired or resigned. The sick lie unvisited, the bereaved weep unconsoled. The organisation of funerals and weddings, chaotic. A vote of no confidence in the incumbent is passed overwhelmingly, but then ignored. The congregation and income are in free fall, the organist and choir harried and driven to resignation. Cash is running out and, in a desperate bid to cover the scandal, the diocese volunteers a 90% reduction in the parish share. However, beyond delaying insolvency, which would be welcome, they offer no help.
Where they are answered at all, appeals to the diocese are met with time wasting evasiveness, any review of specific points is dilatory and unashamedly biased. Underlying it all – a blank refusal to look at the wider picture of a hopelessly unsuitable priest, systematically wrecking a parish. The priest involved is spoken of as though she were the victim of a conspiracy. In a jaw dropping reversal of reality, parishioners airing their complaints have been branded ‘cowardly bullies’ by one of our bishops. There is no place here for whistleblowers and victim blaming is the order of the day. And all this, in the place where the Lucy Letby saga was so recently played out. Have we learned nothing?
But wait: where we see a disaster, does our Bishop see an opportunity? Is his avoidance of action to resolve this problem indicative of his intent to leave us swinging in the wind, until nothing is left but a few bleached bones, which he can then rearrange in any way he wants; perhaps as part of some multi benefice super parish? I am reluctant to ascribe duplicity to a Bishop, but no amount of quoting ‘proper protocol’ or ‘procedures which must be followed’ can excuse this abandonment of his overriding duty of care to his flock. The plain fact is that if the will truly existed to resolve this issue, it would have been resolved months ago.
