Modern Believing


Modern Believing (2020), 61, (2), 153–168.


The Church of England’s official responses to clerical abuse compound the harm done to victims/survivors, as well as damaging clergy accused of abuse, congregations and not least, the Church itself as a Christian institution. This article explores the reasons why the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) and other current responses to abuse are incompatible with Christian discipleship, and presents Christocentric alternatives which prioritise the cure of souls and reconciliation. This approach draws upon non-adversarial practices such as occupational psychology, pastoral and social work intervention and restorative justice to craft bespoke responses to ecclesiastical abuse by clergy and church leaders. Improved understanding of clerical abuse and applying theologically grounded responses would improve spiritual recovery for all those wounded by ecclesiastical abuse: survivors, perpetrators, congregations, church leaders and their families and communities. But it is the Church of England itself which would stand most to benefit from enacting its Christian vocation.

Access Token
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here


Archbishops’ Council (Ministry Division) (2014) Criteria for Selection for Ordained Ministry in the Church of England. London: Church House Publishing. Google Scholar

Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) (2003) Google Scholar

Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) (2016) ‘Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016’, Google Scholar

Chevous, J. (2019) ‘Jane Chevous Reflects on IICSA’. 20 July. Surviving Church, Google Scholar

Graystone, A. (2019) ‘An Entirely Different Approach: The Church of England and Survivors of Abuse’ in J. Fife and Gilo, eds. Letters to a Broken Church. Ekklesia: London, pp. 59–63. Google Scholar

Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy (2015) Revised edition. London: Church House Publishing. Google Scholar

House of Bishops (2011) Responding Well to Those Who Have Been Sexually Abused. London: Archbishops’ Council. Google Scholar

Ison, D. (2017) ‘Cassock Chasers and Compromised Clergy: a Response to Abuse in the Church’, 5 December. Christian Today, Google Scholar

Leach, J. and Paterson, M. (2010) Pastoral Supervision: A Handbook. London: SCM Press. Google Scholar

Myer Hopkins, N. and Laaser, M, eds. (1995) Restoring the Soul of a Church: Healing Congregations Wounded by Clergy Sexual Abuse. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Google Scholar

Plant, S. (2018) Safeguarding Review, Christ Church Abingdon. CCPAS report, 14 May, Google Scholar

Schraer, R. (2019) ‘Why Are Rape Prosecutions Falling?’, 12 September. BBC News Online. Google Scholar

Stein, J. A. (2015) ‘Leadership and Transformation: Improving Safeguarding Practice in the Church of England’. Report written for Bishop Paul Butler, February 2015 (available from the author at Google Scholar

Stein, J. A. (2016) ‘Surviving the Crucible of Ecclesiastical Abuse’, Crucible: The Journal of Christian Social Ethics, July, pp. 22–35. Google Scholar

Syed, M. (2015) Black Box Thinking: Marginal Gains and the Secrets of High Performance. London: John Murray. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here


Author details

Stein, Josephine Anne