by Andrew Tettenborn, Spectator
To much fanfare, the Church of England this week instituted a plan, funded to the tune of some £150 million and overseen by a well-respected City law firm, to compensate the victims of abuse carried out by church officials. So far, so good. But when we are talking big money like this, eligibility needs to be carefully circumscribed, with tough boundaries set. Unfortunately, one doubts whether the new Abuse Redress Measure, which set up the scheme, does this. However well-intended, it actually risks a worryingly unpredictable and at times arbitrary use of church funds.
An obvious problem is its sheer width, which strays beyond the clearly deserving case of people physically or sexually assaulted by church officers in the course of their duties (and whom the law already requires the church to compensate). It sweeps up not only physical but so-called ’emotional abuse’. This is difficult terrain. Religion is in the business of harnessing emotion and channelling it, often in a disconcerting way, in the right direction. The suggestion that even potentially this could be a serious wrong inviting a claim for damages misses this point, applies secular standards where they don’t belong, and forgets that you don’t go to church to be affirmed but to be made uncomfortable about not being better. If you don’t like this, feel free to leave: but you shouldn’t be able to sue.