This is not the first time the Archbishop has come under fire from within the Church. Since he took up the position in 2013, he has been criticised for his approach to same-sex marriage and interventions over government policy on immigration.
If the Archbishop wished to resign, he would need the King’s acceptance. This approval is not guaranteed; when Lord Carey tried to step down, the late Queen reminded him that she “can’t resign” either.
Dr Paul, one of the Synod members who started the petition, said that if the Archbishop did not take it upon himself to resign, the General Synod could pass a vote of no confidence in him at the next meeting in February.
This unprecedented measure would require approval from all three houses which make the Synod – the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity – with at least 50 per cent of the vote. It would not be legally binding.
“It is almost impossible to get rid of an Archbishop,” explained the Rev Marcus Walker, Rector of St Bartholomew the Great, in the City of London, another Synod member behind the petition.
He added: “The point is, what kind of a last few years will he have? He’ll be dumped on by protests. Who will want him to come and mark the anniversaries of their church? I can’t imagine what staying on would look like.”
In calling for his resignation, Bishop Hartley told the BBC: “It’s very hard to find the words to respond adequately to what the report tells us.
“I think rightly people are asking the question: ‘Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe?’ And I think the answer at the moment is ‘no’.”
She also published a letter from both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, which she received before the Makin Report, on a separate safeguarding issue. She claimed the language used reflected a “systemic dysfunction” in the Church’s safeguarding, and accused the Archbishops of “coercive language”.
A spokesman for the Archbishop of York said he was “saddened” that the letter was being described as coercive, as this was “not his intention”, nor did he wish to “cause any distress”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has insisted he had no “no idea or suspicion” of Smyth’s abuse before 2013 but acknowledged the review had found that he had “personally failed to ensure” it was investigated.
He has been accused of lying when he told Channel 4 News in 2019 that he was unaware of the severity of the child abuse.
Related News :