The Diocese of Gloucester, in partnership with the National Safeguarding Team, hosted a Safeguarding Good Practice Participation Forum in October. Here we share some of the key learning from that important conversation.
It provided a safe and collaborative space for Parish Safeguarding Officers, diocesan and cathedral safeguarding teams, and NST colleagues to explore key issues around victim and survivor participation, share learning, and ask questions.
This focus was on listening well to those who have experienced abuse, and on how the Church can respond in ways that protect dignity, rebuild trust, and avoid causing further harm.
The full video of the forum is available below, with the key learning points highlighted in the following text.
A central part of the forum was hearing from Ann, a victim of serious church-based sexual abuse. In her early twenties, she suffered profound harm at the hands of a Church of England priest in Gloucester. Now in her eighties, she chose to speak publicly in hopes that her voice might help others feel less alone.
Trust and first contact
The forum explored how the experiences of victims can inform safeguarding practice. Ann spoke about the difficulty of reaching out to the Church after so many decades. Her first contact came through a letter to Bishop Rachel in 2024, and Bishop Rachel’s reply – believing her and expressing sorrow – was deeply validating. However, being ‘referred to safeguarding’ without clear explanation was confusing and initially upsetting. She emphasised how important it is for victims to have a clear understanding of who is contacting them, why they are being contacted, and what will happen next.
Ann pointed out that trust can feel fragile when safeguarding officers support victims but are employed by the same institution that caused harm. Early contact was by phone only, delaying rapport. Meeting in person with Brett Riches, Gloucester’s Diocesan Safeguarding Officer, helped her feel heard and grounded.
Language, identity and respect
A key discussion centred on the language we use to describe individuals and their stories. Within the National Safeguarding Team, their public communications normally refer to ‘victims and survivors’. However, the forum made clear that day-to-day safeguarding practice should always begin by asking individuals what terminology they prefer.
Ann, for example, identifies as a victim. She explained that ‘survivor’ can imply that harm has been resolved or left behind, when its impact continues long-term. Using careful, person-led language is important, as the words we use can either help build trust and make engagement possible, or unintentionally cause further distress.
References to prayer can be painful for some victims. Ann prefers phrases like ‘thinking of you’ or ‘we’re behind you’. Engagement with faith can be complex. Ann described confusion and grief around her faith – wanting to retain belief but also feeling alienated by what happened.
Even making small linguistic choices, such as referring to abusers by initials rather than a full name, can give victims more control and safety.
In line with the National Survivor Participation Framework, there were discussions on the importance of using people’s preferred first names, and to view them not as service users but as partners in shaping safeguarding practice. Those who enter our systems do so carrying deep personal histories of harm, courage and resilience. Their journey of redress, recovery, and healing is deeply personal and evolving. Empowering their agency and building trust begins with respecting their chosen identity, and avoiding assumptions about identity, experience, or faith.
Emotions and impact
Victims of abuse often carry long-term emotional impacts. Ann described herself as not angry, but living with sadness, guilt, shame, and despair. Meeting Brett was significant; she felt heard and validated. She spoke of having ‘worn a mask’ for decades and how letting it slip felt uncomfortable yet freeing.
Safe and supportive engagement with trained safeguarding officers can be a step forward in feeling supported.
Ann also experiences hyper-vigilance – sensitivity to sounds, needing to sit with her back to walls, scanning environments.
Recovery isn’t linear but made up of multiple, parallel strands: faith, emotions, relationships, trust. Each requires separate support and patience.
Reflections on listening and moral injury
Ioannis Athanasiou, Partnership and Engagement Lead for the National Safeguarding Team, reflected on what he learned from the forum.
He highlighted that trauma silences people, and that abuse damages not only the individual but the whole body of the community. Moral injury captures both the suffering caused by abuse and the betrayal of trust by institutions.
He expressed that recovery must be relational; abuse happens in relationship, so healing must too. Listening validates truth and resists denial, while lament is essential, allowing anger, grief, and despair to exist without rushing to fix them.
Sharing experiences can turn private pain into collective memory and drive institutional change. Co-production – to work with victims, not just for them – transforms participation into genuine repair, helping to rebuild trust and a sense of belonging.
He said:
“What struck me most in the forum was Ann’s courage. After making the brave decision to remove the mask and co-create a video with our support, she stood before others to share her harrowing experience of abuse at the hands of a Church of England priest in Gloucester. When a victim begins the journey to reconnect with the Church, and with their faith more broadly, through participation, we must remember that while an event may conclude, their personal journey toward wellbeing continues, often alone.”
Book your space on our Creating Safer Worshipping Communities Conference in May →
News Hub
