Asked to pay for use of church when selling?

phlash

I have no idea about this situation, but I know that my local church does a lot more for the community surrounding it than the Council does with its comparably huge budgets.

I also agree with one of the previous posters, ministers are not well paid, and quite often give the majority of what they 'earn' back to the church anyway.

Whether you (RichyRich) believe what the Bible says is nonsensical fairy stories or divine truth is irrelevant to this thread, and I'd suggest you be a bit more sensitive about your babblings, keeping what you do have to say to the OP's query.

hev_2

If I understand my history correctly, (and that is certainly not a given ) then it may go back to mortmain - land which the church once owned is always under certain restrictions, such as tithe. In feudal law you had to pay a fine to leave a property. This fine was also required when the owner died (heriot). FWIW feudal dues were abolished by case law in the sixteenth century, but that probably does not apply to the church. Not much help to the OP. Perhaps some friendly legal may take it on for the fun of it. If you like a good fight, and are willing to tough out all the legal reading, it may be worth taking on. I myself would chicken out completely and pay

BTW, please leave off the Christian bashing. I personally find it extremely upsetting. If you wouldn't say it about another religion (including Wicca) then please do not say it about a Christian. Many Thanks.

Hev

RichyRich

phlash wrote: »

I have no idea about this situation, but I know that my local church does a lot more for the community surrounding it than the Council does with its comparably huge budgets.

I also agree with one of the previous posters, ministers are not well paid, and quite often give the majority of what they 'earn' back to the church anyway.

Whether you (RichyRich) believe what the Bible says is nonsensical fairy stories or divine truth is irrelevant to this thread, and I'd suggest you be a bit more sensitive about your babblings, keeping what you do have to say to the OP's query.

And I suppose a message declaring you know nothing of the law surrounding the issue, defending ministers and the church, and insulting me is right on topic :rolleyes:

At least I have tried to provide helpful information in my posts.

EDIT Sorry, I didn't mean to "Christian Bash" anybody. In my defence, I would make the same criticisms of any organised religion - where the wicca reference comes in I'm not sure, I don't know much about it, but it would certainly be open to the same analysis as any other as far as I was concerned. My point about the church is this - here's an archaic law, from when pretty much nobody had a choice about religion. The law said churches could levy monies for repair of the chancel. In this day and age where so many people are areligious, and have little or no connection to the church, it's hardly relevant to modern life. The church owns massive investment funds which it can use to pay for these repairs if it wants. It's hardly following in the Christian teachnings to take people for all they've got is it? This is not really relevant to the thread, but was mentioned by me earlier (granted, quite abruptly) as an aside. That is all it was intended to be. Sorry if I have upset anybody.

Posters above are correct, we should get this thread back on topic. If anyone wants a religious debate, I'm happy to have one on another thread, but let's leave this one to help the OP.

Once again, sorry.

EDIT ENDS

hev_2

RichyRich wrote: »

And I suppose a message declaring you know nothing of the law surrounding the issue, defending ministers and the church, and insulting me is right on topic :rolleyes:

The OP has a difficult challenge with many different possible angles and sources of the charge. I feel bad that I cannot help them and hope that information I posted earlier may give a glimpse into other ways of pursuing the matter.

I feel I have to say that your abuse of a religion that was almost guaranteed to upset some people was not helpful, regardless of your beliefs. In this post I am not trying to defend one particular belief system, just trying to ask that no-one's belief system is trashed, including atheism.

Hev

Hermione54

The church owns massive investment funds

These 'massive investment funds' are these days actually used to fund the miserable pension paid to retired ministers; there is very little left for anything else, which is why the church is having such a struggle to maintain its historic buildings (unlike France, Germany, Scandinavian countries etc this is not paid for out of taxation). The church has also sold nearly all its land and is now only the 70th biggest landowner in the country, far behind even some private individuals.

So they are required by Charity Law to explore every possibility to keep the roof on these public buildings which they hold in trust, many of them medieval gems. The original post though does seem odd and I smell a scam, possibly by a solicitor acting on behalf of an insurance company. Chancel liability is in fact very rare, but lots of people have exploited public concern about it.

Ask your parents to have a word with their local vicar, who, despite the tone of some comments here, would probably be as outraged as you are about it and might be able to ask some questions of the church hierarchy in Exeter. I do know that the solicitors who deal with church affairs in Devon are Mitchelmore's (spelling?) and their phone number is 01392 687421. Why not give them a ring? There may well be a perfectly innocent explanation.

Graham_Devon

Richy never had a go at the church or ministers, I did.

hermonie, you obviously believe. Thats great. But you say these massive investment funds are paid to ministers. Fine, what they do with their money has nothing to do with me.

When they tell my parents they have to pay out because of an archaic law, thats when I take a stand. Why should my parents? They don't believe, they don't want anythign to do with ministers, the church or anything else.

So they have to pay for other peoples beliefs because the church says so? No one backing up has answered indebting a bloke to the tune of 500k +

Anyway, there is no way around it. It's not an insurance policy, they are paying for the building and putting their share into it. They are moving 200 miles away, so it's nothing to do with having further use of it or anything.

It is to do with repaires to the spire/steeple. The church does not have one. So why should we have to pay the church 1. based on an archaic law, and 2, to pay for repairs to something that does not even exist!

Heres a pic of the church from my old bedroom window. Wheres the steeple / spire?!

RichyRich

Erm.......Isn't it that thing with the clock on?

(and seeing as we're clearly not keeping it on-topic, why the hellshould churches be funded by taxation? Because they are in France and Germany? I can think of lots of things France and Germany have done in the past that I'd rather not be part of. If the state funds churches - which it does - via the queen as head of the Church of England - surely it must also fund mosques, gurdwaras, temples and any other religion people profess to support. Anyone up for joining the Ancient Order of RichyRich?)

Graham_Devon

This is a spire, and I'm glad I don't live there as that looks like it's gonna cost loads!!



And a steeple is also a bit like it, always goe's into a point



Thats my understanding anyway. Google kinda makes me think I'm correct too.

What the church on my pic has I don't know, it's just like, well, a square of nothing. It don't even have a bell.

RichyRich

Hmm, I didn't think a steeple had to have a point. I had a look on the OED and got this

steeple, n

1. A tall tower; a building of great altitude in proportion to its length and breadth. Obs.
2. a. A lofty tower forming part of a church, temple, or other public edifice (often serving to contain the bells); such a tower together with the spire or other superstructure by which it is surmounted.

NOt that I'm disagreeing with you, maybe regional differences mean people have slightly different interpretations of what constitutes a "steeple"?

hev_2

Graham, I am sorry that your parents are getting stung for this money. I am sure that a lot of churchgoers think you should not be stung in this way.

As the thread has really wandered off topic, here is my pennyworth.

The reason that these laws apply to Church of England churches is, in one of the least religious societies on earth, the Church of England is a state religion and it is less than two hundred years since there were serious disabilities for not being a member - ask a Quaker or a Jew! That long word that everyone loves to quote, disestablishmentarianism, applies. It means supporting the abolishing of our state religion.

Many church buildings are not financially viable. This is, on the whole, a secular society with many of those with religious beliefs following other faiths than the Church of England. People don't go to church.

However, should the dwindling congregation decide to sell the church and meet Sunday afternoons in a school hall there is an immediate protest. Tiffany wants to walk down an aisle with her two eldest daughters as bridesmaids. The family want little Gucci to be christened in the same church as Grandpa. Old Smithy was a big member of the golf club and the Round Table, and he should have his funeral in church. Why should they not have the picturesque building that they otherwise ignore for their use (sarcastic question mark)

I remember a vicar, through gritted teeth, remarking that they had finally raised the £100,000 to repair the authentic stone window in their twelfth century listed church and he wondered what St Paul would think of the use of the money. They had to find the money - it was a listed building and they did not have any choice in the matter. I really hope that he did not raise any of the money through ways that have caught the OP's parents.

This is no reason why the OP's parents should get stung - it seems so unfair, but I am trying to show what a minefield this all is. There are so many levels. To use the Parish Church in the centre of Leeds for a wedding (according to a notice I saw there) cost £168, for a centrally located church with a Pugin interior. Can you imagine the howls of protest if the CofE decided to sell the prime piece of land, right next to the market and the bus station, to spend the money on pensions, work with the homeless, refugees etc. I do not know, but I would be seriously surprised if the Leeds Parish Church was financially viable. The interior is historically important and so has to be treated with (expensive) care.

I do hope that the OP's parents do not have to pay their money. After all, this is the purpose of the thread. It has wandered a bit. I will try and resist the temptation to post when I have nothing of use to help the OP. All I can say is, good luck!

Hev