Chancel Liability... wtf?

[Castiel]

One day I think it would be interesting if you could explain what your interest is in the church and religion to defend it so strongly and to devote so much study to it when I think you don't have what one would consider a "conventional" belief system. I think that would be rather interesting. However, I suspect you could easily counter than many clergy don't believe as such and see it as a humanitarian calling and only derive satisfaction from their pastoral work.

My interest is mainly academic, and I am as likely to be critical as to defend...it only appears that I am defending all the time because the forum is generally attacking religion all the time. If you read some of the threads with Kedge, Stef, Adnan and some others you will see me at my most critical. I do not have a belief system in the sense of a religious one, I am undecided on such matters as I have yet to find something that suits my experience and thoughts.

I think the Catholic Church (as an institution) is wrong in its interpretation of Pauline Scripture for example, something that gets me into some pretty heated arguments at work on occasion and is completely contrary to how the Catholic Church see it. I think they are wrong on how they have politicised the Church, I think they are wrong in how they promote dogma, I think they are wrong in how they judge certain sections of society, I think they are wrong in how they see Church Law as sovereign and all the issues that creates (such as the Child Abuse issues), with other religions as well I think they are wrong in how they do not denounce and control radicalism and interpretations that promote political ideology at the expense of their spiritual doctrines, I think it is wrong that they try to force universal beliefs on everyone, I think they are wrong in a whole range of things that I could go on for days.

However I don't agree that religion is inherently evil, or that the Church is whatever form should be removed from society as some suggest, I think that it has its place and is integral to a healthy society and that although, like all man-made edifices it has its flaws and we should criticise them, we should also recognise their benefits, which often is not the case in discussion.

I also wouldn't read too much into how I defend religion on an internet forum, in reality I am pretty ambivalent about it and other than my work (which relates to historical rather than contemporary literature related to religions and non religions, it is also quite a small part of my work overall) I am not worried or particularly personally involved in promoting Churches or their related religions, my work is extant whether they continue to exist or not.

I know many clergy who are not what you would call believers in the piety sense, I think they all have a belief, but often it is not always in keeping with their chosen religions doctrine and if more of these people spoke out and used their position to influence that doctrine then perhaps reform in our religions would be somewhat quicker and more relevant to their congregations. However as with many human endeavours it is not the liberal, broad minded person who shouts the loudest, and that is unfortunate.

You might be interested to know that many of the theologians and linguists I work with are in fact Atheists or Agnostic, only a few have any religious affiliation in a spiritual sense.

 

[aln]

However I don't agree that religion is inherently evil, or that the Church is whatever form should be removed from society as some suggest, I think that it has its place and is integral to a healthy society and that although, like all man-made edifices it has its flaws and we should criticise them, we should also recognise their benefits, which often is not the case in discussion.

Part of that belief probably comes from you not thinking its all made up. Those of us who feel its just a bunch of storys being applied as fact to tell us how to behave and what to believe, will find it pretty disturbing considering few religions don't have bad points.

On regards to the benefits, some exist, but I do not believe we need such organisations to recieve a sense of belonging, wellbeing and to give charity. Beyond that I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

With regards to removing the church from society, that itself seems a little bit outragous given we are supposed to be a free society. I will submit though I'd like to see their special status stripped. As per this thread, they should pay for their own upkeep. They should pay the same sort of taxes any other business does.

 

[Xordium]

/snip

Interesting and mostly what I guess I already knew. So the religious interest is because of the dominance of religion at the time you are interested in rather than a specific interest in it rather like my interest in science is because it is intertwined with my old profession?

 

[Castiel]

Part of that belief probably comes from you not thinking its all made up.

I don't have any belief and that is the point, I do not apply any truth value to scripture outside of what can be proven or substantiated through various scientific disciplines, such as Linguistics, Archaeology, and so on...I do not and have never forwarded any truth value to theological beliefs of any kind.

Those of us who feel its just a bunch of storys being applied as fact to tell us how to behave and what to believe, will find it pretty disturbing considering few religions don't have bad points.

I don't contest what others believe, I only address misconceptions or misunderstandings in how people ascribe actions or beliefs to various groups, I also try to be objective in my criticism and I don't ascribe to a sweeping generalisation of all Faiths and their respective value to society.

On regards to the benefits, some exist, but I do not believe we need such organisations to recieve a sense of belonging, wellbeing and to give charity. Beyond that I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

Some people do not need such fellowship or they find such fellowship in other ways, however there are a significant number of people who do find both solace and identity through their religion and spiritual beliefs, we should as a society allow people to have the freedom to practice their beliefs as they wish as long as they do not harm others, when they do harm others then we need to address that, as do the institutions responsible. As far a charity is concerned, there are many secular charities, but we cannot get away from the fact that much of the work done in the UK and without with certain groups such as the poor and the homeless and those disenfranchised from society are helped by various churches and religious institutions, they also play an important part in our society in general. They are not perfect, but then nothing is.

With regards to removing the church from society, that itself seems a little bit outragous given we are supposed to be a free society. I will submit though I'd like to see their special status stripped. As per this thread, they should pay for their own upkeep. They should pay the same sort of taxes any other business does.

The church is not just any other business though and they receive charitable status for good reason, they do an awful lot for charity and without them the costs to the Taxpayer to replace all the work they do in our communities would prohibitive and would likely mean people are worse off then they are today.

Each of us is entitled to our opinion and I realise that many people on this forum at least subscribe to a form of anti clericalism, even if they do not realise it...I do not, I think that religion has its place and while I respect the views of those who disagree I feel they are not always objective about it.

 

[Castiel]

Interesting and mostly what I guess I already knew. So the religious interest is because of the dominance of religion at the time you are interested in rather than a specific interest in it rather like my interest in science is because it is intertwined with my old profession?

I have an interest in science as well, my occupation and PhD is in a multidisciplinary scientific field, but the issue is that religion has for various reasons been at the forefront of keeping records, preserving texts and histories, and is the primary source of much of the extant literature and relics necessary for linguists, archaeologists, historians and so on for their research. It is not so much about the dominance of religion, but the mechanisms of religion that created an environment that protected and nurtured knowledge...I know that this is something many people will get all hot under the collar about, but nonetheless it is true.

 

[Xordium]

I have an interest in science as well, my occupation and PhD is in a multidisciplinary scientific field, but the issue is that religion has for various reasons been at the forefront of keeping records, preserving texts and histories, and is the primary source of much of the extant literature and relics necessary for linguists, archaeologists, historians and so on for their research. It is not so much about the dominance of religion, but the mechanisms of religion that created an environment that protected and nurtured knowledge...I know that this is something many people will get all hot under the collar about, but nonetheless it is true.

Well your PhD sounds a bit more interesting than mine as it was born of necessity rather than interest.

 

[Mr-White]

Lower your offer on the house to cover your costs or find another property.

MW

 

[bam0]

I think that it has its place and is integral to a healthy society and that although, like all man-made edifices it has its flaws and we should criticise them, we should also recognise their benefits, which often is not the case in discussion.

I find that kind of opinion sickeningly patronising, a "belief in belief".

 

[Castiel]

I find that kind of opinion sickeningly patronising, a "belief in belief".

I'm sorry you are so offended by my opinion...although I do not really understand this belief in belief accusation, I don't believe in their belief, but I do think that those that do believe have the right to practice those beliefs and that the institutions themselves bring positive benefits to our society, whether we are secular or otherwise.

I do not see what is patronising about that or sickening quite frankly.

 

[bam0]

I'm sorry you are so offended by my opinion...although I do not really understand this belief in belief accusation, I don't believe in their belief, but I do think that those that do believe have the right to practice those beliefs and that the institutions themselves bring positive benefits to our society, whether we are secular or otherwise.

I do not see what is patronising about that or sickening quite frankly.

What I mean by it is that you do not believe, but you see it as advantageous that other people do believe, your statement that you think religion is integral to a healthy society shows a relativist position; "It is acceptable that I do not believe but it would not be acceptable if everyone did not believe" that I find patronising.

(Just to be clear I understand your position is one of neither belief nor disbelief)

 

[Castiel]

What I mean by it is that you do not believe, but you see it as advantageous that other people do believe, your statement that you think religion is integral to a healthy society shows a relativist position; "It is acceptable that I do not believe but it would not be acceptable if everyone did not believe" that I find patronising.

(Just to be clear I understand your position is one of neither belief nor disbelief)

You may find it patronising, but I didn't mean it that way so you shouldn't. I meant that people should be free to believe if they wish to and as we live in a world where many people do have such beliefs then a healthy society recognises and accepts that. If no one had any such beliefs then we wouldn't need religion so I don't really understand where you made the assumptions that you did from what I said.

To clarify I also think that as we do live in a world that has such beliefs and therefore the religions and institutions that accompany them, and that overall they have a positive impact on our community despite their problems, there are exceptions and there are many things to be critical of and there are many negative aspects that could do with improvement or discarding entirely, but in Western Culture and Society at least, I feel that despite the problems inherent in religion they have also bring positive benefits to us all.

If we lived in a hypothetical world that was totally secular without belief, spirituality or any religion with similarly predisposed secular institutions and community driven structures then I would say the same thing.

I don't believe in belief for beliefs sake, that is up to the individual and it would make no difference to me if there was no such thing as long as the same benefit was apparent in society.

 

[Haggisman]

Castiel, I do agree with the majority of your statements, and I'm sure there are some instances where the church has had some benefits (that's not to say the same benefits couldn't have come from a non-religious source), however:

we should as a society allow people to have the freedom to practice their beliefs as they wish as long as they do not harm others, when they do harm others then we need to address that, as do the institutions responsible.

Forcing people out of their homes to the point of bankruptcy is certainly something I would class as "harming others" and yet it seems that some find it perfectly acceptable.

I have to have home insurance to protect against damage, and pay for any maintenance repairs myself, as do all other home-owners and the majority of organisations. Why do the church get special treatment (other than the fact it's "historical")?

Now I wonder if the liability insurance has an exclusion for "acts of god"

 

[Robosapien]

I can't actually understand why churches were built in the first place, let alone why they are still standing. Every one of these structures is a testament to stupidity and it leaves me in utter disbelief that they exist at all.

Why do they need to depend on financial technology. Shouldn't they just depend on goodwill?

 

[Basher]

I can't actually understand why churches were built in the first place, let alone why they are still standing. Every one of these structures is a testament to stupidity and it leaves me in utter disbelief that they exist at all.

Really?

To worship God?

 

[Castiel]

Forcing people out of their homes to the point of bankruptcy is certainly something I would class as "harming others" and yet it seems that some find it perfectly acceptable.

I agree the Wellbanks were treated unfairly, although they were aware of the liability and could have insured against it, they took the word of former occupants and the PCC legal advice of 1968 without getting it checked out themselves, their Parents were specifically told about the liability in 1970, as were the Wellbanks both in 1974 and 1986 as made clear in the Judgement.... they also benefited from reduced rates due to that liability. It also was not their Home, they lived 100 miles away, they inherited the property (a Farm).

It is also a misconception that a property is worthless if it has such liability as it is easy to get insured whether a potential or actual liability exists. Also it is important to point out that for an example like the Wellbanks, there are plenty of PCCs that do not take advantage of the liabilities and the Church position is not always the same as a PCC position.

The General Synod of the Church of England and the Law Commission both recommended that the Law was unjust and should be repealed. This was not supported by the Parochial Parish Councils or successive Governments and Parliaments and the CoE have stated they have no power in law to overturn this, they can only advise their Bishops to recommend to the PCCs not to pursue such claims and release lay rectors from their obligations, many Bishops have recommended to the PCCs that they release all Lay Rectors from their obligations as a result, whether the PCCs take any notice I don't know.

I have to have home insurance to protect against damage, and pay for any maintenance repairs myself, as do all other home-owners and the majority of organisations. Why do the church get special treatment (other than the fact it's "historical")?

Now I wonder if the liability insurance has an exclusion for "acts of god"

I have insurance against a potential chancel liability, so will anyone that buys my property as the insurance is perpetual and will last as long as the property is here, and it was a one of cost of about £100 which was part of the conveyancing. I also know that our PCC is one of those that is not registering any Chancel Liabilities with the Land Registry and so at the end of this year any liabilities will be voided. I doubt it is the only one.

As unfortunate and unfair the Wellbanks experience was, it is the exception rather than the rule.