Judge's report into Bishop of Southwark

In the highly unlikely event that I were ever to become a member of General Synod, I would want some questions asked about the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 under which the Bishop of Southwark was investigated recently. I would want to know how many cases were being investigated, the status of those under investigation and how much it was all costing.A tribunal system as used by doctors and lawyers has to be an improvement on what went before, but there remain inadequacies that need sorting out. The secrecy surrounding the whole process cannot be helpful in the long term to the Church. (Update: the Bishop of Southwark has complained to the PCC about the headline in the main paper. We ran an apology for the headline only today and republished the story online with a different headline. The Evening Standard has spoken to Paul Sumpter, owner of the car, who said: 'I know steaming drunk when I see it and he was steaming drunk.' Damian Thompson suggests how the Bishop could have saved himself a lot of bother. More links and detail at Thinking Anglicans.)

See also Stand Firm's discussion, and the Southwark 'Christmas service' at Ship of Fools. Comments also at VirtueOnline.

According to John Rees, provincial registrar for Canterbury, several other bishops have been subject to complaints, along with a number of other clergy. We can expect the first tribunal hearing later this year, with its decision published some weeks afterwards. Meanwhile, ecclesiastical lawyers throughout England are busy writing 'preliminary reports' similar to Judge Rupert Bursell's 20-page document we were leaked this week  into what happened to Dr Tom Butler after he left a Christmas party at the Irish Embassy. One of the reasons the old system of discipline, with its rare but lengthy consistory court hearings, was done away with was because of cost. But I can't help but wonder how much it is costing to pay all these lawyers to write all these reports, replete with footnotes and supporting documentary evidence.

Canon Rees last month delivered a Power Point presentation to the Ecclesiastical Law Society in London on the practical issues surrounding the new measure. Judge Bursell had been due to do the lecture, but was unable to do so due to illness. Ironically, as Canterbury's provincial registrar, Canon Rees would have normally done the preliminary report on Dr Butler, but he handed the task over because one of his partners in his law firm is the Southwark diocesan registrar, which might have been perceived as a conflict of interest.

Canon Rees says: 'It is still early days. There have been quite a number of cases. On the whole I think it is working quite well.' He says it is taking longer to get cases to tribunals than had been expected, and the secrecy is not unusual when compared to other professions. 'It was the mind of the Synod.'

I can see it becoming an issue however when reports get leaked, as they inevitably will. In the case of the Bishop of Southwark, Judge Bursell's report came to me with a Notice of Decision attached from the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated 22 February and dismissing the complaint from John Adams, a former churchwarden in the Southwark diocese. The Judge had concluded that there was 'sufficient substance' to justify proceedings against Dr Butler in relation to the complaint of drunkenness, but that Mr Adams did not have a 'proper interest' to make the complaint.

During conversations with Lambeth Palace and Dr Butler's office during the day, it became clear that Dr Rowan Williams had only decided in May to take no further action against Dr Butler after a subsequent complaint was made and another report written by Judge Bursell. But because of the secrecy, we could not be given this second report, or the name of the second complainant.

And there was no question that the first report made for an interesting read.

Dr Butler was found bloodied with a black eye and a bump on the head outside Bishop's House in Tooting Bec, South London several hours after leaving the Irish Embassy last December. He was seen throwing children's toys out of the window of a stranger's car and when challenged, is reported to have said: 'I'm the Bishop of Southwark – it's what I do.'

At first the Bishop, who has continued his regular slots on Radio 4's Thought For The Day, said he had been mugged. Later, he suggested a neurological affliction might have been to blame for his memory loss.

However, witnesses claimed he fell over after drinking too much.

In his formal complaint, Mr Adams said that he felt 'outraged by the extensive publicity of the drunken exploits of the Bishop of Southwark.' Mr Adams, a retired engineer, also wrote separately to Dr Williams claiming the Bishop had 'lost any remaining respect of the laity that he had and can never be a focus of unity in the Diocese of Southwark.' Mr Adams attached to his complaint a selection of 'humorous' press cuttings intended to illustrate 'the ridicule to which our church has been subjected.'

In his report, Judge Bursell, who is also an ordained but non-stipendiary Church of England minister, said to the Archbishop: 'Having analysed the evidence on which you must reach your decision it is my view that there is substantial evidence to support Mr Adams' contention that the Bishop was drunk on the night in question. It is also my view that such drunkenness (if it occurred) was more serious because of the Bishop's office in the Church.

In summary, therefore, in my view there is sufficient substance in the complaint to justify proceeding with it under the Measure.'

There were two footnotes to this paragraph, acknowleding the possibility that 'other evidence' might emerge to put 'a different complexion on the matter', but also that the evidence of drunkenness was sufficient 'even if the civil standard of proof is to be applied.'

Judge Bursell said that Mr Adams' outrage was relevant to the seriousness of any misconduct 'as it reflects upon the general laity.' He also said that the same was true of any loss of respect among the laity. And he said that an allegation of misconduct may be 'more serious' if committed by an office holder such as a bishop.

Judge Bursell, deputy chancellor of the St Albans diocese, did not call any of the parties to the incident but in accordance with rules laid out in Church law, relied on the evidence submitted by Mr Adams, which consisted mainly of newspaper reports and the transcript of a Radio 4 interview given by Dr Butler to John Humphrys on the Today programme. Had the complaint progressed further, witnesses would have been called at a later stage to a tribunal, which would have met behind closed doors.

The Judge also went on to note: 'Drunkenness has always been an offence against the laws ecclesiastical.' While a one-off occasion of drunkenness cannot amount to a habit, he said, 'one occasion of public drunkenness may well amount to a failure to fashion a cleric's life according to the doctrine of Christ and, certainly, may amount to a failure to make himself a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ or to make himself an example of righteous and godly living.'

This would place the Bishop in breach of Canon 26, of the Church's law, he suggests. 'In my view this would amount to conduct umbecoming or inappropriate to the office or work of a clerk in Holy Orders.'

He continued by noting that drunkenness was not only a ground for 'deprivation of office' under old Church law, but more recent guidance suggests that 'drunkenness wiothout any aggravating features should normally be met with a rebuke or a conditional deferment or discharge.'

He said: 'In my view, this bears out that a cleric's drunkenness may very well not be a trivial matter: much will depend upon the surrounding circumstances. In my view, if the Bishop were indeed drunk and in consequence became part of a fracas, his actions were neither minor nor trivial, as is in part reflected by the reactions of some of the laity, including Mr Adams.'

However, he recommended the Archbishop dismiss the complaint because Mr Adams was not a person who 'has a proper interest in making  a complaint'. Under the 2003 Measure, a complaint against a bishop must be brought by such a person, or by a person nominated by the relevant bishop's council. The Judge said that not everyone has a 'proper interest' in the shortcomings of any cleric. He explained: 'Every Anglican has in one sense an "interest" in the discipline of the clergy but that does not mean they have a 'proper' interest on each occasion.'

Although Mr Adams is a regular worshipper in the Church of England, Judge Bursell said: 'In my view, that is not sufficient to give him a proper interest in instituting proceedings against his diocesan bishop.'

Lambeth Palace said initially: 'The complaint by Mr Adams was dismissed on the basis of the legal advice given to the Archbishop in Chancellor Bursell's report. However, as a result of that legal advice, the Archbishop considered that it would be unhelpful to leave matters as they stood. He therefore caused further investigation to take place and a separate complaint was then laid. In the light of the further evidence put before him in connection with this separate complaint he decided on legal advice that no further action should be taken. It is not the case that his decision in May was based on the report he received earlier in the year.'

Subsequently Jonathan Jennings clarified further: 'The report in question was a preliminary report, intended merely to assess whether - if true - the allegations made by the complainant would be strong enough to justify proceeding further with the disciplinary process under the Clergy Discipline Measure. The report's finding is that some of the allegations - if true - would be serious enough to justify being taken on to the next stage. Some allegations it discounts. At this preliminary stage, no explanation or answer by the person complained against is required or expected. Only at the next stage would the opportunity be given to the person complained against to give his side of the story. This report, therefore, is based on only the complainant's account. For that reason, the report does not make any judgement as to the truth of the allegations. A footnote makes it clear that other evidence "may in due time put a different complexion on the matter" and, crucially, a clause in brackets makes it clear that the question of the truth of any allegation is yet to be determined: Chancellor Bursell qualifies references to the alleged drunkenness in the complaint with the phrase "if it occurred".'

The Bishop of Southwark also interrupted his holiday to tell us: 'The Archbishop of Canterbury has ruled that on the basis of the evidence and legal advice, that there will be no further action. The Church has not ruled that I was drunk. The Church has ruled that no further action will be taken.'

Nevertheless, questions about what really happened that night remain, in my mind at least. Here are some relevant passages from Judge Bursell's report, which I have interposed into the transcript of the interview Dr Butler did with John Humphrys on the Today programme, soon after the incident.

JH: But you must have asked yourself why would anybody have made up that story?
 
BB: I ask myself what had happened in the, in the whole of the evening. It is bizarre.

Judge Bursell: 'There is no apparent reason in the various newspaper [reports] to support the suggestion that Mr Sumpter [owner of the car] and the onlookers had any reason to make up such a story; indeed, the most probable way in which any of the Bishop's belongings could be returned is if they had been found by Mr Sumpter in his car. Moreover, according to the Church Times the Bishop accepts there is no CCTV evidence of his being mugged and the newspaper reports state that the police have now ceased to look for a mugger.'
 
JH: Had you drunk a lot?
 
BB: It was the same sort of reception as I have been going to for 20 years. It would have been . . .
 
JH: Some people there said you were behaving a bit oddly.
 
BB: Well, it would have been totally out of character. I am very careful at such receptions. It is part of my job. I am always very careful and I cannot believe that I could have made that journey home across what is after all a difficult city on several Tubes and, and buses if I had had too much to drink.

Judge Bursell: 'Expert evidence would be required to support the Bishop's supposition that an inebriated person could not travel his route that night. So, too, medical evidence would be required as to the effects of amnesia covering a period of two to three hours, whether caused by drunkenness or by a blow or blows to the head.'

JH: But you don't drink very much normally or do you?
 
BB: Normally at a reception I, I, I have a glass or two of wine and I enjoy talking with people. As I say I have been doing this for 20 years. I am very careful. This would have been totally out of character.

Judge Bursell: 'On the other hand, according to The Mail on Sunday, "several witnesses, one of them the extremely reputable journalist Patrick Cockburn, who was also at the party, have come forward to tell us that, yes, the Bish [sic] had had one too many."

JH: So you do not get drunk frequently or at all?
 
BB: No. I don't get drunk frequently. As I say, I wouldn't be able to do my job if I got drunk frequently.

Judge Bursell: 'Although the Bishop told the radio interviewer that he did not "get drunk frequently" [frequently underlined] (emphasis supplied), that does not rule out the inference that he does on occasion [on occasion underlined] get drunk.'

Comments

[damien wan]

Its appalling that he has not had the good sense to admit to his faults and offered to resign.
He has lost all of the respect and affection that was due to his office and become the laughing stock not only of the cocktail circuit but of the whole country.
Why does he cling to office ???
It cant be that he would lose his highly priveliged(and pension) and expensive lifestyle that is paid for by the Church Commissioners.
How god inspiring is this spectacle to the folks sat in the pews???

[stephen clark]

You may be interested to know that here in South Australia, where I am a priest, the largest brewery is called the Southwark Brewery. So this would not be the first time soeone had been Southwarked!

[Bob Kay]

The incident of the drunken Bishop is trivial.
The abuse of women and children is far more serious but didn't it take some prodding to get them to own-up?
The investigation of abuse and cover-up of wrong doing by the CofE should be widened to all areas in which the church conducts its business. Specifically the use of adverse posession to acquire lands to which it has no title needs investigation. The church not only abuses women and children, it abuses its neighbours too (evidence supplied)

[James Richards]

It's interesting how many comments simply assume that the bishop was drunk and was lying about it. The leaked report (which was essentially advice about whether to 'prosecute' or not) concludes that there was prima facie evidence of drunkenness and that this would be a disciplinary offence, but the complainant did not have a 'proper interest' (i.e. he was not directly affected by the bishop's actions nor did they occur in a sphere for which the claiman had particular responsibility).

The report concluded that the case should not be pursued. The Archbishop decided that was an unsatisfactory state of affairs had further investigations carried out and a complaint was laid. Bp Tom brought medical evidence, I guess, which showed that he had received a blow to the head and that his behaviour and amnesia were consistent with that injury. The complaint accordingly failed.

Mr Sumpter 'knows' the bishop was drunk - presumably on the basis of a smell of drink and the bishop's behaviour - both of which can be accounted for quite innocently. Maybe I'm doing Mr Sumpter an injustice, perhaps he breathalysed the bishop or took a blood sample!

[Tom Jackson]

In another debate, Irene has posted a link to the text of a presentation in Sweden by Melanie Phillips titled "Liberalism v Islamism". I mention it here in the context of the comments Heredal and I have made on Islam.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=510

In my opinion it is a brilliant analysis of the many issues where Islam and it's position in relation to the Western world is concerned. I would say this, of course, because it include many of the points that I have mentioned in my contributions here but in a far more professional, all-encompassing and detailed manner than I would ever be capable of.

[Tom Jackson]

Heredal, you are missing the point.

The New Testament cannot be used to support or encourage violence or hatred. People may try; they may misinterpret and misuse Christ's teaching but when it comes down to it, they can be shown to be distorting the Christian message. The interpretations from the Old Testament are a matter of debate but remember, my statement here refers to Christians.

I won't insult your intelligence by providing quotes from the Koran or examples of how Islamic belief can be said to instruct Muslims in the ways of violence and hatred to "infidels". I am sure you are familiar with such passages.

So there is no justification in trying to draw a comparison between the teachings of Christianity and those of Islam where violence and hatred are concerned. As a Christian, I could not hijack an aircraft and fly it into a skyscraper in accordance with my faith; as a Muslim, I could.

You make the point, and I agree, that there are many Muslims who ignore the call to violence and hatred. When challenged by religious believers or, more importantly, those of their family and friends who are devout followers of The Prophet Muhammad, if they are to remain true to their faith, these moderate people have no alternative but to bow beneath the pressure. And that is because those devout followers can call upon the foundational beliefs and teaching of Islam to support their position.

As a Christian, no-one can do that to me! I cannot be coerced into strapping a satchel of explosives to my back to murder innocent people because there is nothing in Christian foundational beliefs and teaching to encourage me to take such action. Murder is an anathema to someone who believes in Jesus Christ

The question of violence in the history of Christianity has been put into context elsewhere in this debate. The Church has a lot to answer for; of that there is no doubt but actions of Christians throughout the world which are so readily condemned cannot be justified and supported by Christian teaching. It has been pointed out that misuse and misinterpretation - either deliberately or in ignorance - is to be expected when in the hands of "flawed" human beings.

[heredal]

Tom, the point about Islam is that it has many adherents who do not interpret the religion as violent, and ignore the violent pasages, just as there are many Christians who ignore the violent passages and calls to violent action in God's name in the bible. But then there are others who argue that the bible gives them the right to beat children. There was a Liverpool headteacher who even went to court a couple of years ago to say that the legisaltion preventing him using the tawse and/or cane on children's bottoms was an infringement of religious rights. The Vicar of Putney gave examples in a Guardian article last year of an american christian group that issued instructions on how to apply corporal punishment to children as young as one - all in the name of Jesus!

The difference is that Christianity has long since stopped its very violent campaign of enforcing belief. But Christianity has gone through periods where excessive and horrible violence was used to enforce belief and conversion.

Did you not see the furore that greeted the Pope in Brazil? He contradicted pretty much every historical detail known about indigenous "conversions" to Catholicism in the Americas by claiming that Brazil's indigenous had been "silently longing" for Christianity when the Catholic priests arrived. Thus, claimed the pope, "the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas." And in its missionizing, the church had performed a wonderful duty by "purifying" indigenous peoples, and that any reversion to their ancestral practices must be considered a step backwards.

Not surprisingly, indigenous groups whose ancestors were tortured, enslaved, or just plain killed via war and disease in the catholic efforts to convert in the Americas were very angry over this. John Paul II at the new millennium apologized to indigenous peoples across the hemisphere for the Church's treatment of them throughout the previous 500 years. Yet Benedict apparently disagrees with his predecessor.

[Tom Jackson]

"That would make the Church's message : "this is the ideal for which to strive, but don't expect our clergy not to fall short of it. However, you must do as they say, not as they do.""

My point, Heredal, is that, take any message you like, put it in the hands of a human being and it is a sure bet there will be distortion, misinterpretation or misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise. That is human nature and the Church is no different to anywhere else.

The biggest influence on my early Christian life was an elderly Rector, a man of impeccable character, great energy and a close personal relationship with God. Full of the evangelical spirit, I used to have heated debates (arguments?) with him about the seemingly docile and unimaginative degree of effort shown in spreading the Christian message within the Parish.

But through him, I came to understand the sheer weight of procedural responsibility in administering a Parish church and serving it's community. It is a massive and complicated undertaking to organise and conduct the activities involved, from Sunday Services to taking funerals and weddings, from visiting the sick to comforting the bereaved. And so much more.

For such a man to keep close to his faith while operating in the world as it is today is a magnificent achievement. Is it any surprise that the pressure gets to some people, that the organisation becomes more important than the message it is there to proclaim?

There are a vast number of church officials who manage to balance their responsibilities and do a superb job in difficult circumstances. But in our world today, it is the drunken Bishop or the paedophile choirmaster who makes the headlines. Some situations may be more serious than others (as Agnes points out) but show me anyone who maintains a 100% record in terms of behaviour and effectiveness, who never falls below the standard society expects of them. If so inclined, it is always possible to criticise.

Your comment about applying similar criteria about those who adhere to Islam is confusing. On one hand we have a belief system where the foundation and teaching cannot be used for violence and hatred and on the other, Islam where - if the believers do follow the teaching and instruction -hatred and violence is not only possible but is actually encouraged! Rather than not make any concession, I applaud anyone - lapsed Muslim or otherwise - who has the humanity to refuse to adhere to such a belief system.

[Nigel]

Ruth and I have elsewhere on my blog pondered the possibility that the Bishop's drink was spiked. It is not an explanation he himself has offered, so maybe he knows it wasn't, but neither has anyone to my knowledge asked him. Perhaps they should.

[Tim]

Heredal, you have misunderstood my position! I am appalled that unelected Christian bishops form part of the legislature. I cannot imagine how this undemocratic state of affairs, which is also wholly unrepresentative of the wider society, has been allowed to remain for so long. Those in favour suggest that clerics add some mysterious spiritual dimension to the proceedings; in my view their contribution is no more and no less than an elected Doctor of Philosophy, or any other free thinker. The way that religion has railroaded agendas over time is scandalous. These people only speak for their like-minded compatriots, within self-interest groups and it is very obvious that they also continually disagree amongst themselves over moral issues - issues often based upon interpretations of bizarre ancient texts many people would regard as irrelevant. Human beings are also entitled to live in a world free from dogma and its effects. That spiritually disinterested but highly moral people should walk in fear of being blown to pieces because of someone else's arcane ideology appalls me. I find the Christian church unforgiving, presumptuous judgmental and very often overbearing in its views; witness the recent debacle on sexual equality, and a range of related issues. I am interested in the basic human rights of the wider society. My point about the bishop was meant to highlight the inordinately long time taken to pronounce upon a minor matter in the face of large moral issues the church claims to address. The bishop may or may not have disgraced himself; no witnesses are giving evidence in any summary court. I find it amazing just to what extent Christians are prepared to judge others and what criteria they employ!

[heredal]

Tim and Tom, I think you are arguing here and elsewhere (I may be wrong!) that the Christian religion per se is perfect, but those who adhere to it are only human, and therefore society must expect them to be fallable (apart from someone living in Rome, I believe). But few who post here seem willing to make that same concession for our Islamic friends.

That would make the Church's message : "this is the ideal for which to strive, but don't expect our clergy not to fall short of it. However, you must do as they say, not as they do."

It doesn't seem to be a sales pitch that is going to have much impact.

I think it would help if the Church didn't hold itself out there quite so much. For example, it berates us every Christmas about the evil of consumerism, in some fairly emphatic and absolute terms, then a few months later the Church Commissioners are trumpeting their successful investments in retail parks and retail warehouses. Doh! If it's evil, it's evil. Don't then be surprised by the reaction if you are found out to be saying, well, what we meant is that it's only a bit evil, but not nearly evil enough that we can't enjoy taking a profit from it ourselves.

Perhaps not the best example but it does illustrate the absolute / relative problem, and the bind the church seems to get itself into sometimes.

Agnes Day is absolutely right that the whole matter is trivial compared to more serious issues such as clergy who abuse children. But if the church can't investigate an out-of-character lapse by an allegedly tipsy bishop without making a drama out of a minor crisis, it doesn't fill one with confidence that the in-house case review of sex abuse cases will be any better executed.

[Chris Gillibrand]

PS according to St Thomas Aquinas, drunkeness (allegedly!) is its own penalty

"Drunkenness may be understood in two ways. First, it may signify the defect itself of a man resulting from his drinking much wine, the consequence being that he loses the use of reason.

On this sense drunkenness denotes not a sin, but a penal defect resulting from a fault.

Secondly, drunkenness may denote the act by which a man incurs this defect. This act may cause drunkenness in two ways. On one way, through the wine being too strong, without the drinker being cognizant of this: and in this way too, drunkenness may occur without sin, especially if it is not through his negligence, and thus we believe that Noah was made drunk as related in Gn. 9. On another way drunkenness may result from inordinate concupiscence and use of wine: in this way it is accounted a sin, and is comprised under gluttony as a species under its genus. For gluttony is divided into "surfeiting and drunkenness," which are forbidden by the Apostle (Rm. 13:13)."

[Tom Jackson]

"This may in part indicate a lack of confidence, drawing attention to a need for a signally visible icon upon which to fix constructed beliefs."

I honestly believe, Tim, that the expectations we place on people in public life or on those in authority and then our willingness to shoot them down when any sort of transgression or perceived failure is identified is not a symptom of our disappointment at an "icon" failing to meet realistic objectives but represents a characteristic of our society which is increasingly unhealthy; a total lack of respect for anyone or anything.

In the world today, we simply cannot expect anyone at any level to meet the standards which can - if someone with a specific agenda so wishes - be so readily applied in the various areas of their lives. Many great leaders and people of stature from history would have been prevented from making vital contributions to our country had they been subject to the level of scrutiny and judgement which exists today.

Every time David Beckham steps up to take a free kick near the opponent's area, he is expected to score; which is totally unrealistic. Let's sing his praises when he succeeds and be disappointed but not overly critical when he misses. Having been dropped from the international side for reasons seemingly unrelated to his skill as a footballer, our chances of qualification have been significantly reduced.

Ok, that's a frivolous example but the principle is valid. Someone who appears to suitable for the job steps up to the plate - be he a footballer or a Prime Minister - and is willing to accept the responsibility. I, for one, am as incapable of running the country as I am at taking a free kick; so, thank God, there are people who have the ability, skill and willingness to take on the job.

So the real problem, whether it is a Bishop or a Prime Minister, is to evaluate their performance and behaviour, making a realistic assessment which takes account of the many factors involved.

But so many people do have an agenda these days, the newspaper editors, rival politicians, armchair football pundits etc. that there is always someone to pick out the failings and - honestly or otherwise - create a furore, totally ignoring any contributory factors or a perspective which places such failings in the wider context of the individual's performance. It also ignores the impact upon the area to which the person was contributing.

If someone is repeatedly and consistently failing, it should soon become obvious that the person is unsuitable for their position and responsibilities. My concern about the Church is that in failing to be treat this matter with some urgency, in failing to be transparent, who can blame anyone for suspecting an attempt to avoid censuring someone who may actually be unsuitable?

[Tim]

As you say Heredal, the bishop is adamant he was not drunk. There is a wider point. If Canon Rees is to be believed there are 'several other bishops', currently the subject of complaints, awaiting due process under the tribunal system which, according to our writer is apparently cloaked in secrecy. Since these may be members of the House of Lords, itself suffering from terminal illegitimacy, perhaps appointee status also entitles them to immunity from transparent ecclesiastical proceedings and a nosey electorate. As members of the Anglican church, they retain some autonomy within the its group status and are free to be regarded as paradigms of virtue. Attention is nevertheless drawn to the inescapable conclusion that a specific faith group has no more democratic right to be represented within the legislature than any other self-interested faction.

In the case of the Bishop of Southwark, much mention has been made about him 'coming clean' and admitting he was drunk, which implies that many believe him to have either lied, or been creative or confused in his account. With moral absolutism apparently out of the window then, along with the infallibility clearly expected of high office, it really is little wonder that there is a burgeoning secular belief that the unwieldy Anglican machine has very little relevance to the wider society. However, in the interests of humanity, the bishop's otherwise long term valient efforts to adhere to his faith might have been mentioned by some of the grim axemen lurking within his clearly unimpressed congregation.

[Chris Gillibrand]

One may well ask of Anglican bishops, "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

The Catholic answer to this is obvious.

[AGNES DAY]

Further to the earlier comments:

I am sick of hearing these personal attacks on Bishop Tom, he is a great Bishop, who admittedly did something very silly, which I am sure he now regrets. Yes he could have handled the aftermath of this one-off incident in a better way; as he could have held up his hands and agreed that he was drunk, but couldn't remember a thing about it.

However, I wonder if those who criticise the Bishop of Southwark, including Mr Adams the complainant, have ever heard of "not casting the first stone", and "do not judge and you will not be judged."?

Perhaps this Mr Adams should just get a life, and do something more useful than spend his time collecting together newspaper cuttings, and radio transcripts about this incident.. Indeed, it seems to me most un-Christian and more uncharitable behaviour for a "former church warden."

I find this whole matter very trivial compared to more serious issues such as clergy who abuse children.

[Frank Schnittger]

As is often the case in such matters, the initial offense (of alleged drunk and disorderly behaviour) is the least serious of the issues raised by this case.

The Bishops subsequent attempt to blame the episode on a mugging or illness, if found to be untrue, is much more serious because it speaks to his character and integrity, and could have wasted police time to boot.

We then had the further spectacle of the allegations being deemed serious enough to warrant further investigation and action, and yet no further action being taken on the grounds that the person making the complaint had no proper interest in doing so.

But as Revd John P Richardson has noted, " a churchwarden is legally an officer of the diocesan bishop, and one would have thought that even though he only a former churchwarden, Mr Adams would therefore have such a 'proper interest'. (And if not, then who, amongst the laity, might?)"

Perhaps the final outcome of "no further action" is indeed a fair resolution of the issues raised by this particular case, but how will we ever know? The manner of the resolution will hardly raise public confidence in the process.

[Vic Watson]

This story refuses to go away because the Bishop did not do the honorable (and honest) thing at the time and acknowledge that he had been a bit stupid. Some humility would have been a good (and Godly) thing to show. Instead we had to listen to these frankly ludicrous claims that he had been mugged or might have suffered a 'mental abnormality'. It was his failure to accept the consequences of his own actions that has done the most damage to his image and that of the church of which he is supposed to be a leader.

[heredal]

Tim

You make some good points, but I wonder how different it all might have been if the Bishop had admitted that, yes, he had had a few too many, as some witnesses appear to be confirming, and it had, quite unexpectedly, affected him in ways that subsequently horrified him (ie breaking into a car, telling the police he'd been mugged when he hadn't been, etc)

All decent people, anglicans or not, would I'm sure have thought much more of him for so doing, and then thought no more about it. We'd probably have raised a glass to him muttering "there but for the grace of god, etc etc". Maybe the press would have lost interest too. It's well known that clergy enjoy a tipple or two, and why not - they are only human ater all, as you say. It is also well known that alcholism is a problem in clergy like it is in the rest of society, and addiction of various kinds is no respecter of personal belief.

Had the bishop come clean, then perhaps more people, and indeed the retired church warden adding to the bishop's discomfort, would have been more ready to forgive this single transgression. The "one strike and you're out" mentality (which you rightly say 'signifies no humility and endows society with a form of behavioural probity it does not possess; a society incapable of transgressing, only judging,) might not have had such prominence.

However, I think the bishop is adamant he wasn't drunk, in which case this protracted procedure will continue to infuriate us all until someone decides what caused his behaviour. But one could ask why is there any investigation at all? If the man says he was not drunk but rather took ill, such that he had no idea what he was doing (either before the blow to the head or after), surely you can't submit him to a disciplinary process and a subsequent punishment just for him being ill?

[Tim]

The convoluted statement from Lambeth Palace serves only to suggest that The Times' account of Mr Bursell's report was misleading. Incredibly, the investigation into this incident has taken six months. The diatribe so far suggests that the church no longer retains an ability to exercise discretion, or to prioritize, with regard to what it sees as vital or perfunctory in matters of discipline. As Tom Jackson has suggested, we may expect too much from public figures, deifying them and somehow regarding them as distinct in terms of human nature. This may in part indicate a lack of confidence, drawing attention to a need for a signally visible icon upon which to fix constructed beliefs. Mental images of a bishop are seldom of a human being wearing casual clothes and a willingness exists to suspend belief that this person is capable of human frailty. For this reason, to accept less than 100% in terms of exemplary behaviour, from someone who at one level is a symbolic figure forming an integral part of a Christian mindset, may be a step towards eroding a personal understanding of the composite.

In terms of discipline, it has become obvious that this issue has exploded beyond all sensible proportions. The 'one strike and you're out' mentality has no basis in human reason, because it signifies no humility and endows society with a form of behavioural probity it does not possess; a society incapable of transgressing, only judging. In that, it removes the bishop from society, placing him somewhere he is not. Significantly to hold this view seems at odds with Christian teaching. Who will stand up and give an accurate account of the Bishop of Southwark's humane biographical credentials, over time, in order to put this one issue(currently unduly preoccupying the Anglican church and those who persistently commentate on it) in clear perspective.

[John Hillman]

I commented on the article itself but can help but say here that this appears to be uphelpful journalism. Leaked secrate reports! BTs conduct has been reviewed by his boss ABC under due process and the issue closed....but no we need to comment publicly and debate and for what good motives..Christain love, forgiveness, anything wholesome, good biblical practice? Please help me out here and help me see some good honest motivation behind the leak and article. I can't help think about stone throwing etc.

[michael jensen]

Does anyone seriously think he WASN'T drunk? Is he still to maintain the charade?

The cover-up and dissembling is far more worrying than the drunkeness itself.

He should resign forthwith.

[Robert Ian Williams]

An actor on the soap Coronation street was recently sacked for being drunk on the set. It would seem that Coronation Street has trumped the Church of England for morals.

[heredal]

"We would rather concentrate of the failings of individuals rather apply an expectation which reflects the real world. Even where organisations such as the Church are concerned, while they should always strive for the highest standards, we should not expect too much - not, that is, unless there is some other agenda (as demonstrated so frequently by those secularists amongst us)."

Come off it, Tom.

You make a case for moral relativism, something the church usually abhors in favour of its divinely imposed moral absolutism. Hence the talk of applying "an expectation which reflects the real world." Having done so, you think there is a mischievous secular agenda at work, as though it is secularists who are now hounding the poor man for his momentary lapse, compounded as it was by his subsequent behaviour. But it is not just believers like you who have some sympathy with the Bishop's current plight. I suspect that most if not all secular folk had probably forgotten all about this case before it hit the Times again today.

Why do those who advocate moral absolutism complain if and when they find themselves being judged by the standards they relentlessly promote? You chastise secularists for some sort of evil agenda, yet it was not a secularist who brought the complaint about Bishop Butler that adds the twist to today's revelations, but a fellow anglican and former church warden. And even then he is a man deemed to be "not a person who has a proper interest in making a complaint." Not much chance of a secularist wreaking havoc if an Anglican can't bring a complaint!

So it was not a secularist wanting the moral absolute applied to the bishop, but a fellow Christian with what appears to be a rather strict and self-righteous attitude. That is the only agenda being played out here. You can safely leave secularism out of it.

[Pete Broadbent]

Ruth - of course if such a report comes into your hands, you're bound to publish it ("You're a journalist, that's what you do...")

But there are some worrying aspects of what has happened; in particular, the way in which it is likely to undermine confidence in the new Clergy Discipline Measure.

What's been leaked is an internal report on whether there was a case to answer, equivalent to a Crown Prosecution Service report in criminal cases. Now, it may well be that a leaker feels that Bishops are fair game for such a leak, but it's not likely to inspire confidence in the system on the part of the average clergyperson who's been complained against.

If it's possible for the report on Bishop to get out [from where? Lambeth? Judge's chambers?], it's possible for it to happen to anyone else, too. Not good news for the working of the Clergy Discipline Measure.

I suppose it's less likely to leak when it's not about a bishop, but you can envisage the destruction of someone's ministry [scenario - priest falsely accused of child abuse; investigation shows no case to answer; report leaks; priest can't carry on with ministry despite being completely exonerated, on the "no smoke without fire" approach]. There probably ought to be a leak investigation, not just for +Tom's sake, but for the sake of the system. (But I wouldn't expect you to reveal your sources!)

[Tom Jackson]

"There may be some confusion here over human frailty; not that it would cut any ice with the dire machinations of these judgmental people."

I have some sympathy with this view, as I do with the references to "undue attention" relative to the wider responsibilities of the Church.

The problem is - as applies to many other issues in our society these days - it is not the gravity or consequences of situations such as the possibility that a Bishop may have been drunken and disorderly but the manner in which those responsible handle the matter.

Politicians have very little respect from the general public because very few people believe what they say or have respect for the manner in which they conduct themselves and either mishandle or ignore their responsibilities. The same could be said of some of those responsible for administering the Church and putting Christ's teaching into practice.

A perception that a situation has been given a coat of whitewash, that someone has avoided being accountable for actions which reflect poorly on themselves, their family and friends or the organisation to which they are responsible, increases the level of cynicism which clouds so many areas of our society today.

The Bishop, like the rest of us human beings (as J Pearce pointed out), is flawed and imperfect. Alcohol is not something I have a problem with but I have - or have had - plenty of other vices which are of a similar distraction and whatever the circumstances of this particular incident, I have a great deal of sympathy with Dr Butler.

There is an unrealistic expectation in this country that anything less that 100% in terms of judgement, behaviour and outcome is unacceptable. We would rather concentrate of the failings of individuals rather apply an expectation which reflects the real world. Even where organisations such as the Church are concerned, while they should always strive for the highest standards, we should not expect too much - not, that is, unless there is some other agenda (as demonstrated so frequently by those secularists amongst us).

Judging by the lastest statement reported to be issued by Lambeth Palace, maybe we should set our expections just a little lower.

[TJE]

I am old-fashioned enough to believe in the one-strike-and-you're-out rule when it comes to eminent people who are required to set a behavioural standard on account of their position in society.
Politicians seem to get away with virtually anything these days: is this also to be the case with Bishops in the Church of England?

[HDT]

Statement from Lambeth Palace, as found at:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/070606.htm

"A report in today's Times is headlined Bishop was drunk after Christmas Party, leaked report says (online version as at 12.35am; wording for other versions may differ). The headine accompanies a story about a report into allegations around an incident last December involving the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Dr Tom Butler.
The suggestion in the headline that the report has concluded that the Bishop was drunk is completely misleading. It comes as a result of a misunderstanding of 1) what the report, prepared by Chancellor Bursell, is intended to address, 2) the stage it represents in the procedures of clergy discipine, and 3) the untested nature of the allegations which were set out in the complaint.
The report in question was a preliminary report, intended merely to assess whether - if true - the allegations made by the complainant would be strong enough to justify proceeding further with the disciplinary process under the Clergy Discipline Measure. The report's finding is that some of the allegations - if true - would be serious enough to justify being taken on to the next stage. Some allegations it discounts.
At this preliminary stage, no explanation or answer by the person complained against is required or expected. Only at the next stage would the opportunity be given to the person complained against to give his side of the story. This report, therefore, is based on only the complainant's account.
For that reason, the report does not make any judgement as to the truth of the allegations. A footnote makes it clear that other evidence 'may in due time put a different complexion on the matter' and, crucially, a clause in brackets makes it clear that the question of the truth of any allegation is yet to be determined: Chancellor Bursell qualifies references to the alleged drunkenness in the complaint with the phrase 'if it occurred'.
The finding of the report was that the complaint was sufficiently serious to justify further exploration under the Measure. Although the complainant was not qualified under the Measure to bring it forward, a subsequent complaint was taken to the next stage in the disciplinary process, enabling the bishop to give his own account of what had happened. It was only at that point, on the basis of all the evidence then before the Archbishop, that he took the decision, announced last month, that no further action should be taken.
It would, therefore, be entirely misleading to represent this preliminary report as being any kind of judgement or finding that the Bishop of Southwark was drunk on the night in question."

[A renegade priest]

The stress is too much to bear, get me a drink quickly, I want to get completely "Southwarked" by closing time.

[Tim]

The issue is not as Mr Bursell suggests, one in which an offence of alleged drunkenness is made worse by the high office of the defendant, but the fact that the issue has been made spectacularly visible by all and sundry. If this undue attention defines the level of concern exercising Anglicans in matters such as these, then it goes some way to explain why it takes so long for the church to solve other serious social problems within its wider ministry. This is a fairly pointless internal game played by people wrapped up in their own pomposity. There may be some confusion here over human frailty; not that it would cut any ice with the dire machinations of these judgmental people. The world is full of impossible laws and codes of behaviour. Why on earth couldn't someone have had a word with the Bishop in camera, all planks aside? Or is he to be forever judged, not for the years presumably spent trying to minister to the faithful, but for some opaque incident, situated uncomfortably near to the church's inbuilt self-destruct button?

[heredal]

"I would want to know how many cases were being investigated, the status of those under investigation and how much it was all costing"

Well, aside from the cost, that is a sentiment I think most Anglicans will surely feel towards the investigation of sex abuse cases as well as the very occasional - and by comparison relatively innocuous - case of a bishop getting drunk and making a bit of a fool of himself in the immediate aftermath.

But then Alan Marsh says in relation to Tom Butler's case "Surely nobody really imagines that a bishop will ever face discipline under a system administered by bishops?"

So shouldn't there also be concern over the lack of a totally independent enquiry into potential child abuses cases, and the fact that the CofE will simply be investigating itself?

If concerns can be expressed in the Butler case about secrecy of the disciplinary process and bishops being unable or unwilling to police themselves effectively, what are we to think about the church's self-investigation of sex abuse cases that may or may not have occurred?

It would be a tragedy for the church if sex abuse investigations ended up like this relatively innocuous issue, by comparison, with leaked reports to the press and the resultant mess, not least dragging the PCC into the frame immediately.

[Revd John P Richardson]

The difficulty here is surely over who might have both a 'proper interest' and sufficient detachment to bring a complaint against a bishop.

It is hard to imagine a member of Bp Butler's own diocesan staff doing so in this particular case.

However, a churchwarden is legally an officer of the diocesan bishop, and one would have thought that even though he only a former churchwarden, Mr Adams would therefore have such a 'proper interest'. (And if not, then who, amongst the laity, might?)

Added to this, it is often claimed by Anglican bishops that the diocese is the 'local church' and that the ministry of parish clergy is their own by extension. As they fondly say in services of Institution, it is "your ministry (the clergy) and mine (the bishop's)".

One would have thought that, on this model, any lay member on an electoral roll of any church in the diocese would have a 'proper interest' in the behaviour of the bishop, just as they would in the behaviour of their own minister.

Unfortunately, the outcome of this case suggests an 'episcopal immunity' enviably close to that of the 'diplomatic' kind.

I notice, incidentally, that the original headlined story has been pulled not only from the Times' website but from those of the Daily Mail and This is London. Presumably Mr Butler was not happy.

[Tom Jackson]

"Religion is an utterly human construct, in philosophy and structure. Hence it can only ever be utterly flawed (as humans are flawed)."

J Pearce made this observation in an other discussion. The Church, as the embodiment of "religion" provides the structure around which our faith can be supported and expressed. As an organisation administered and controlled by "humans" who are "flawed", it should come as no surprise that the failings of the Church are many and highly visible.

The problem occurs when people like J Pearce - and I may be doing him a disservice here, for which I apologise - are unable to separate faith from the structure that we create and support as a necessary - if somewhat "flawed" - focus for the cohesion and fellowship of those of us who are believers.

Now there are practical reasons why an organisation such as the Church must, to some extent, be organised and operate as any other organisation in our community. And it is unrealistic of that community - believers and non-believers - to expect everything to be perfectly administered and tickerty-boo.

But those who administer Church affairs do have a serious responsibility to be aware of the unique perspective the community has of the organisation and to respond to their expectations that, as the embodiment of Christ's teaching, as far as is possible the Church will be different to, for example, Marks & Spencer or Barking and Dagenham Council.

There is an expectation of openness, honesty, transparency and a standard of behaviour that, sadly, is not always exhibited in other organisations. Without these characteristics, the public perception of the Church (and therefore, of Christ), is distorted and cynical. Allowing for the difference in seriousness, protecting a Bishop who may have misbehaved is no different to protecting a paedophile choirmaster as far as the public is concerned.

In both such situations, if the official concerned is innocent of any complaint, surely it is in the interest of everyone concerned that the process of investigation is conducted openly and in accordance with procedures that are above criticism and subject to public scrutiny, if so requested.

The opportunity for cynicism and allowing the Christian ethos to become tarnished should be eliminated wherever possible. Only then may it become possible for J Pearce's interpretation of "religion" to encompass the faith we have in Jesus Christ rather than the Church as a worldly organisation operating in a manner Christ would have condemned.

[michael jensen]

What a farce! Why doesn't the guy take a hit for the team and resign?

[Alan Marsh]

Surely nobody really imagines that a bishop will ever face discipline under a system administered by bishops?