“The Church of Ireland thought it could make bishop a man who had once had to resign from a parish because he had an affair with a female parishioner”. In yesterday’s Irish News, columnist William Scholes referred to Archdeacon Leslie Stevenson’s withdrawal as Bishop – elect of Meath and stated that “the damaging episode could have been avoided.” If the church felt it could make a man a bishop who had had an affair with a female parishioner, “at best this was misguided. At worst it was arrogance”
Scholes commented, “A story in the Irish News on Friday revealed details of an affair Mr Stevenson had when he was rector of Donaghadee – just two days later he announced he was going to ‘decline the appointment’. It was an unprecedented development.
“On top of the hurts from the 1999 episode, the weekend’s events represent a personal tragedy for Mr Stevenson and his family. There are others involved including the divorcee with whom he had the relationship and is now also a Church of Ireland rector.”
Scholes continued, “In the Church of Ireland, bishops are nominated by an electoral college made up of bishops, clergy and lay people. Soon after their nomination is rubber-stamped by the House of Bishops.
“Mr Stevenson may now reflect that he should have declined the nomination at the electoral college stage in January. But the bishops as chief pastors, must also share responsibility for allowing him to be put in such a difficult position. While it is likely that all of the bishops had at least an understanding of Mr Stevenson’s background, three had detailed knowledge. One of that number, Bishop of Connor Alan Abernethy, was on the Meath and Kildare electoral college. Whatever his qualities – and by all accounts the 53 year-old has had an effective ministry in Portarlington – they needed to be balanced against the difficulties his appointment might cause the wider Church in terms of pastoral oversight.
“Yet the bishops appear to have calculated that questions and disquiet surrounding the credibility and authority of Mr Stevenson as a bishop could be ignored. It is difficult to conclude otherwise.
“By confirming his nomination they left Mr Stevenson vulnerable to exactly what happened – the story coming out and he being forced to consider his position.
“Nor was there any reason to think that even if the story didn’t come out, it wouldn’t come out in the future.
“Exposing Mr Stevenson and the Church’s witness to such a scandal seems reckless. And it all begs the uncomfortable question, which may be in the thoughts of delegates preparing to attend the Church’s General Synod in Armagh next week – if a newspaper had not run the story, would Mr Stevenson not have been Bishop Stevenson tomorrow.”