Replies to questions about the resignation of the Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn from Archbishop Keith Rayner, Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia
Bishop Browning's Resignation
Since the announcement of Bishop George Browning's intention to resign, I have received many letters. Most of them express anger, which is variously directed at the church, the hierarchy, the Special Tribunal, unnamed people with base motives, or myself personally.
These letters emerge from an atmosphere of grief. Bishop George is a much-loved and highly respected bishop, whose qualities are appreciated by those who know him well. The possibility of losing such a bishop creates a situation akin to bereavement. So it is a very emotional situation. What intensifies the emotion is the fact that the news of his intended resignation has reached people in his diocese in a context where people are deeply aware of the agony through which Bishop George and Margaret and their family have been passing.
In this climate misconceptions readily arise, and people then make judgements on the basis of those misconceptions. Many things that have been said to me reveal that many people are quite unaware of certain relevant facts. Other things quoted as fact I know to be quite incorrect. The hearings of the Special Tribunal are confidential to protect the parties, but this can itself lead to some misapprehensions about the process. While I am bound by this confidentiality there are a number of things which can be said.
Rather than write long letters to all my correspondents, I have decided it would be better to pinpoint some of the misconceptions so that at least we may have the facts straight. Let me list statements that have been made to me explicitly or by implication, together with my comments:
- The Church has known about this for 15 years, so why act now?
Not true. So far as I am aware, the matter only became known outside the people involved in 1998. The first complaint was made in that year initially through the sexual grievance procedures of the Diocese of Newcastle. As those procedures are confidential, it was not known to others not directly involved in those procedures.
- The Church initiated the proceedings before the Special Tribunal.
Not true. The matter was triggered by lodgement of a statutory declaration on behalf of the complainant, following the failure of the Newcastle procedure to reach a conclusion satisfactory to the complainant.
- The Archbishop of Sydney brought the matter to the Special Tribunal.
True. A charge against a diocesan bishop must be brought either by five members of the diocese concerned or by a diocesan bishop. The nature of the charge meant it was not reasonable to expect five members of the diocese to bring it (as only one person was involved). Yet here was an apparently genuine complaint which needed to be tested. The Archbishop as Metropolitan rightly felt that he could not shirk the responsibility to see that the matter was tested by the procedures which the constitution and canons of the Church provided.
- The Tribunal took 18 months to do its work.
Not true. The reference to 18 months relates to the beginning of the procedures in Newcastle Diocese. The formal charge was made to me on 3 December 1998. It did not proceed immediately because, being conscious that the Special Tribunal procedure would be formal and legal and might not be appropriate to deal with this kind of case, I wanted to check with the complainant's solicitor that she really did want to proceed by this route. On 1 February this year the solicitor confirmed by phone that this was her client's wish. The formal proceedings of the Tribunal, so far as Bishop Browning was concerned, began on 12 March 1999 when I formally advised him of the charge and asked for his response. I received his response on 14 April 1999.
- The procedures of the Tribunal were unjust. It was a 'Kangaroo Court'.
Not true. Strict care was taken to operate under the provisions of the Special Tribunal Procedures Canon of General Synod. If the Tribunal had not done so, it could justly be accused of a breach of natural justice. A retired judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court was present at the major hearing to ensure that proper proceedings were observed. The case proceeded and as in a court each party was represented by counsel. It is true that the case for the complainant was strongly put, and Bishop Browning undoubtedly found this (as most people under cross-examination in a court would find it) a very painful experience. For the complainant also it was clearly a painful experience. In its final judgement the Tribunal did not accept every argument put on both sides. It weighed the evidence and made its considered impartial judgement.
- Bishop Browning was required to resign.
Not true. He was specifically not required to resign. It was required that the fact that he had been admonished as a result of the hearing before the Special Tribunal be revealed, with sufficient background information, to the Diocesan Council of Canberra and Goulburn. If they expressed confidence in the bishop, knowing the relevant facts, then he would be in a position to continue as bishop of the diocese, knowing that he had that support. In the public announcement that would follow, it could then be made clear that the event of years earlier had been faced up to, repentance recognised and forgiveness accorded. This was not the outcome, because Bishop Browning chose to table to the Council a letter announcing he would be resigning. This was his decision, which I understand reflected his judgement that he would not be in a position to continue to give the diocese the leadership it needed. The Council, unwillingly as I understand it, felt it had no course but to accept the bishop's decision.
- It was unjust and cruel to make the matter public.
This is a matter on which there may well be differences of opinion. There were two reasons for this decision. The first concerned principle. The Church has been under frequent attack in recent years for covering up matters of this kind. If - as critics of the decision argue - this was a trivial matter, publication would do no lasting harm once it was clear that the matter had been faced up to and the Church had encouraged the bishop to carry on. Subsequent public reaction would seem to support this view. If, however, it were seen as a serious matter, should it be kept secret?
Whatever is thought of this matter of principle, there was a quite practical consideration. Great care was taken to keep the matter confidential during the process. This had prevented the matter becoming public. However, once the Tribunal had made its recommendation it would be more difficult to prevent publicity, whether from the complainant or others. Already a growing number of people were aware of the hearing taking place. It was highly likely that the matter would leak, and if it did so in a climate of suspected cover-up and with the exaggeration likely to accompany rumour, the consequences for the bishop and the Church would be far more serious. Better to speak the truth openly at the outset.
- The Church has been unforgiving.
Not true. Whatever critics and commentators might have said, no word of unforgiveness will be found in any statement made by me or any other representative of the church. The tone of everything that has been said is reflected in the following quotation from the media release in which I announced the resignation:
"The Christian Gospel takes human failure seriously", said Dr Rayner. "But it takes equally seriously Christ's Gospel of grace, forgiveness and restoration to new life. Bishop Browning has decided to resign for the sake of his Diocese, and I respect that decision. But I am sure it will be right for the Church to find ways by which his dedicated service and great gifts can be used in the future."
- There has been a conspiracy.
Not true. It is a natural reaction to look for someone to blame when tragic events occur. We have witnessed the tragic working out of the consequences of an event that occurred many years ago. In the process there have undoubtedly been mistakes. I would be the first to agree, and I pointed out before the form process began, that the Special Tribunal was not really designed to deal with this kind of case. I have no doubt that the Church will review its legislation in the light of this experience. But we were bound to allow a person who had a complaint to bring her complaint forward through the procedures which our canons provided. There was no conspiracy.
No answers to questions, however accurately given, can take away human grief. It may be that many who read this paper will not be able to hear these answers just at present. I give them, however, trusting that in due time all of us will be able to understand more clearly what has been a profoundly unhappy series of events for everyone concerned.
Archbishop Keith, Melbourne
Primate