The Church Doesn't Have a Confessional Problem. It Has a Culture Problem.

Last week, General Synod debated the future of the seal of the confessional. It was an important discussion, raising difficult questions about theology, safeguarding and the responsibilities of clergy when faced with disclosures of abuse. Faithful Christians hold different views on whether the seal should remain unchanged, be qualified or removed altogether.

These are legitimate questions, and they deserve thoughtful theological reflection.

However, there is a danger that this debate distracts from the Church's far greater safeguarding challenge.

If Synod leaves believing that the seal of the confessional is the Church's biggest safeguarding problem, it will have missed the central lesson of the last thirty years.

When the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) examined the Church of England, it considered the seal of the confessional. Yet its most significant findings were not about confession. They were about failures of leadership, governance, accountability and organisational culture. Time and again, the Inquiry found institutions more concerned with managing reputational risk than safeguarding risk.

That should concern every church leader.

The Church's greatest loss of public confidence has not arisen because priests have honoured the seal of sacramental confession. Rather, it has followed repeated failures to respond well when abuse was disclosed.

Survivors were not believed, concerns were minimised, allegations were managed rather than investigated, and difficult decisions were delayed. The greatest safeguarding failures have not occurred inside the confessional. They have happened in meeting rooms, bishops' offices and leadership teams where institutional self-protection too often took precedence over institutional integrity.

Most churches already have safeguarding policies, reporting pathways and mandatory training. The issue is rarely the absence of a framework. The real test comes when safeguarding becomes uncomfortable, costly or reputationally damaging. At that point, leadership matters far more than policy.

Whenever safeguarding concerns arise, organisations naturally think about legal advice, communications and reputation. Those questions are understandable. The problem begins when they are asked before a far more important one:

Who is at risk today, and what must we do to protect them?

That is the question IICSA repeatedly found organisations had failed to answer.

The Government's introduction of mandatory reporting reflects a wider shift in public expectation. Safeguarding can no longer depend solely upon institutional discretion. Whether that legal duty should extend to sacramental confession remains a matter of theological and legal debate. Whatever view people take on the seal, the wider direction of travel is clear: society increasingly expects those in positions of trust to prioritise the protection of children over institutional interests.

During the Synod discussion, the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Revd Jonathan Baker, made an observation that deserves attention regardless of where one stands theologically:

"Ambiguity really does not assist making our Church safer."

He was right.

Across Serious Case Reviews, Domestic Homicide Reviews and Safeguarding Practice Reviews, the same themes emerge repeatedly. Harm flourishes where responsibilities are unclear, accountability is weak and leaders hesitate. Clarity creates confidence. Ambiguity creates risk.

The Makin Review into the Church of England's handling of John Smyth reached much the same conclusion. It exposed not simply individual failures, but a culture characterised by delay, deference, weak accountability and institutional defensiveness. Those are not problems that can be solved simply by changing one canon, however significant that canon may be.

Meanwhile, ordinary safeguarding failures continue every week.

Parish Safeguarding Officers often work in isolation with little support. Training expires. Records are incomplete. Information is not shared effectively. Survivors wait months for answers. Difficult conversations are postponed because they are uncomfortable or politically inconvenient.

None of those failures has anything to do with the seal of the confessional.

They have everything to do with culture.

For too long, the Church has confused protecting its reputation with protecting its witness. The two are not the same.

Witness is not preserved by avoiding difficult truths or protecting institutional image. It is strengthened when leaders choose transparency over reputation, accountability over self-preservation and the welfare of children and vulnerable adults over the preservation of power.

The future of the seal of the confessional will continue to be debated, and faithful Christians will continue to disagree. Those conversations matter and should continue with grace, humility and theological seriousness.

But whatever General Synod ultimately decides, no canon, policy or legal reform can compensate for a culture that prioritises reputation over people.

Until that changes, the Church's greatest safeguarding challenge will not be the confessional.

It will remain its culture.

~Michelle Burns

Guarding the Flock

Writing this blog takes time, care, and a lot of tea. If it’s been helpful to you, you’re very welcome to buy me a cuppa as a small way of supporting it. No pressure at all – I’m just glad you’re here - Michelle

Further Reading

1. General Synod of the Church of England (2026). Debate on the Seal of the Confessional.

2. Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) (2020). The Anglican Church Investigation Report.

3. Rt Revd Jonathan Baker, Bishop of Fulham. Comments during the General Synod debate (July 2026).

4. Crime and Policing Act 2025. Mandatory Duty to Report Child Sexual Abuse.

5. Keith Makin KC (2024). Independent Learning Lessons Review into the Church of England's Handling of the John Smyth Case.

6. Church of England. House of Bishops' Safeguarding Policy and Practice Guidance.