I walked into Monday’s meeting with my DDO and ADDO prepared. I was calm and willing to shine a light, not fight, on the meeting with the Bishop, especially after meeting with Tim Goode.
We began discussing my mental health. I struggled understanding the bishop’s problem. Nothing has changed or impacted me in fourteen years. My Dependent Personality Disorder with Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder traits diagnosis came when everything collapsed. My career and marriage ended. My health changed. My mum died. I battled alcoholism. All patterns of loss and substance dependency. Life is now different. Despite losing my dad, my uncles, and navigating difficult situations, I’ve not destabilised. I’m seeking an ASD assessment following a managed, unaffected fourteen year period of stability. It’s not problematic like the bishop implied.
They explained that Personality Disorders struggle with pressure, relationships, and responsibilities in leadership roles. Priests with PD exist, but the bar is higher and treated more cautiously. My stability, strategies from support groups, and explanation help, but still require clarity. ASD and Neurodivergent diagnoses, however, is different. As soon as I’m diagnosed they want to know.
I asked why the bishop mishandled it. They said she only had the fifteen year old information within the C4 forms to work from, which erased my present reality, and focused soley on my marriage. She has no mental health training or experience and subsequently used inappropriate language. The Fearfully and Wonderfully Made report shows it happens a lot. It shouldn’t. The bishop could and should have said she understood the past concerns, recognised my explanation, and wanted to support the ASD process, which my DDO thankfully did.
We moved to the C4.4 and C4.3 issues. Like above, none of my progress or discernment outcomes was provided, completely disadvantaging her when my knowledge blindsided her. She focused on the predetermined C4.4 decision and whether my PD affected my marriage. The problem seens to be departments working independently. If C4 information ran through my DDO, he could have briefed her, but it sits in a separate department, which disadvantaged her and me.
The FWM report matters here. Every conversation and decision should have disability informed oversight, based on training and awareness, but none of that happened. The Church functioning as a broader ecosystem of isolated parts created harm, mirroring examples like the Yorkshire Ripper case where information existed in isolated areas but was never collectively shared.
We then discussed my muscular dystrophy, the FSHD2 rediagnosis, current progression, and future prognosis. It’s a difficult, horrendous sounding conversation. Yet I still work throughout the week. I manage my body, know my limits, when I feel vulnerable, when I need to rest, adapt and carry on, and balance life carefully.
We talked about sacraments as something I might not be able to do. I cannot raise the chalice, break bread, or lift a baby for baptism. My DDO and ADDO mentioned disability theology and contemporary adapted sacramental actions, like adaptations I already do. This sounded positive and inclusive, but the problem is tradition. The idea that things must be done the way they have always been done, causing the bishop in the future to believe I cannot fulfil the role based on institutional expectations. This problem is mentioned in the FWM report.
We explored degeneration and the bishop’s suggestion that I should consider lay ministry instead of priesthood, something I’ve been repeatedly asked. I addressed this carefully. I’ve been called for fifteen years. If I wanted a lesser role, I would have taken it. The FWM report highlights internalised ableism that pushes disabled people into lesser roles. Yet my Carousel Conversations suggested the opposite. They saw priesthood in me and my true calling. This may need assessing clearly later.
We then discussed timeframes. Hannah and my marriage reaches three years in April 2027. Technically I cannot move to Stage 2 until then. The bishop implied a two year pause due to dating issues, despite my DDO and ADDO previously aiming for January 2027. They want to avoid disadvantages and build a plan that is theologically strong, represents me, and prevents potential objections. I mentioned involving Archbishop Sarah Mullally, as Tim suggested, but my DDO found that hostile. They do want to consult her but in their way. If she supports the plan, it carries weight.
Placement was next. They asked what I wanted. I stated either a high church to explore more traditional actions or a mission church to explore different mission and communities, and for either to meet my full access needs. Accepting that accessing churches is difficult, my DDO offered to find a placement in Rochester, the diocese where I live but not worship in. Such cross diocese, inclusive efforts surprised me and wasn’t what the bishop had said. I am hopeful.
We discussed training and me completing Level 4, 5, and 6 and only need two reflections, which can be done independently. This means Stage 2 is almost completed as I've already done it, allowing my ordination to potentially be shortened, countering the pause.
We talked about disability oversight and the new disability officer, Melissa. I am cautious. She was appointed because of what happened and does not share my lived experience. I agreed to contact her as I am happy to explore my world for better support but I also wanted discussions to include me cooperatively.
Finally, we discussed spiritual abuse. I shared the footnotes of fifteen years of institutional harm. They asked what I wanted to do. I didn’t know. I still don’t. It’s no longer raw, but has given me enough experience to spot red flags and to name it. I named three priests but didn’t mention the bishop. I can't shake the feeling that I should have said something. The February meeting was unsafe and reflected the FWM report concerns. Whether that’s her behaviour, the system, lack of information, an unrecognised triggered moment, or a combination, something needs addressing. I don't ever want to be alone in a meeting with her again. This genuinely isn’t about hostility or malice, or the process being affected; it’s about safeguarding me as a disabled candidate. I just didn't know how to word it without it being perceived as me overreacting, being difficult, or undertaking a personalised vendetta.
The meeting ended with a promise of a plan, placement options, and continuing my existing life and ministry. I felt heard. Tim warned me to be careful. I am. Being listened to does not equate to equity. Time will tell, but it feels like a positive direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment