[Magdalen] Proposed Property Settlement in Episcopal LitigationTurned Down

[ROGER STOKES]

If someone leaves a sum of money or investments to a parish then it is the parish's to do with as it wishes, subject to any conditions attached to the bequest.  For example if it is for the maintenance or enhancement of the fabric then it can't be diverted to ordinary running expenses.  The problem with that is that sometimes people will look at the parish's assets and think they don't need to give so much for the running expenses.  That can make things tight in the revenue account.
Giving of property is another matter as the parish cannot actually own property in a technical sense.  The church and parsonage house are nominally owned by the incumbent, or at least that used to be the case as I am not sure what happens when there is no freehold incumbent.  I know that some years ago a priest-in-charge had to be given the freehold when it was agreed to replace the Vicarage as nobody but nobody had the right to sign the legal documents.  That much has now changed as the bishop can now sign.  The ownership is technical as the ownership is attached to the role, nit the individual person.
Other property is vested in the Diocesan Board of Finance, which is a legally constituted company limited by guarantee, as custodian trustee.  As the diocese can only be dissolved or amalgamated by due legal process involving the monarch this means that there is no way that an individual or group could have a legally sustainable claim to be able to take property out of the Church of England.
Parishioners have a right to be baptised, married and buried in their parish church (and don't forget that we have parishes with defined geographical boundaries).  Baptism can be deferred to allow time for catechesis and gthe right to get married is subject to some restrictions.  The priest can refuse to solemnise the marriage of someone with a former spouse still living and there is no authority to solemnise same-sex marriages.
Yes, church law is part of the law of the land and has to be ratified by Parliament and submitted for the Royal Assent.  Canons also need to receive the Royal Assent before coming into effect but the real decisions are made by the General Synod.  Earlier this century (about 2001) the Parliamentary Committee which considers C/E legislation twice sent one proposed Measure back because they thought it gave bishops too much arbitrary power and denied natural justice but that is the only time I can recall something like that happening.  This process does not apply to the Diocese of Sodor and Man or the bit of the Diocese of Winchester in the Channel Islands because they are Crown Dependencies with their own legislatures.
Having said all that the Church, in one or more of its various guises, is responsible for maintaining all its buildings.  The local Church Council maintains its church and any hall it uses, and these have to be inspected by an architect every five years to see what repairs are needed. If a Church Council decides it can no longer justify keeping a parish church open then it can initiate the process for getting it officially closed, a process that takes years and where any parishioner (whether or not they attend church) can object to the proposal.  

Once it has been officially closed then the diocese is responsible for keeping it safe and secure until an alternative use is found or it is vested in another body like the Churches Conservation Trust.  This applies even if the church is now no more than a few stones which are all that remain of the walls.  It's an expensive nightmare.
Roger 


     On Tuesday, 16 June 2015, 19:51, Lynn Ronkainen <houstonklr at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 
Martin>> O I wish we had "Government owned" churches. Let me rephrase due to 
my lack of knowledge...


IF a CofE church receives an endowment, who administers it and who does it 
rightfully belong to?
We have heard many stories here in the pub about the CofE E churches being 
compelled to marry/bury as part of their connection to the 'state', how far 
does that oversight go in regard to what is the individual church's 
possession, and what is not?

I was of the understanding that the Church of England is under the purview 
of the government of the UK. If so,  how is it that the churches are not 
considered government owned? Just because a government owns something does 
not mean it pays complete upkeep etc for it. The US Episcopal churches also 
do not 'own' their own churches either, but are rather part of the Church 
Corporation, an entity that encompasses all of the Episcopal churches under 
the purview of the Presiding Bishop. The growing misunderstanding of this 
'contract' is obviously a large part of the current troubles here when a 
church wants to 'take the property'.

Lynn