the word 'appalled' does not begin to cover it

[winterbadger]

I think it's terrifically important to save, preserve, and protect historic buildings, including church buildings.

But to bankrupt someone wholly unconnected with the church in the name of doing so is atrocious and outwith any Christian principle I was brought up to recognise.

Summary: A couple who live in Wales but inherited farm in Warwickshire are being required to pay nearly £200,000 for upkeep of a church near the farm because one of the fields of the farm was designated at some point in the distant past as property that should support the church.

Even one of the Law Lords who decided the case called the relevant law "anachronistic, even capricious".

Apparently homebuyers can now purchase insurance to protect one against later discovery of such a liability.

Sheesh.

Comments

[winterbadger]

Infuriatingly, the parish council (and as far as I can tell the culprits seem to be the parish council, *not* the CofE) are *REFUSING* to accept the land as payment for the debt. And they are only going after this family, not other holders of rectorial land (presumably because they know these people have money).

Frnakly, I am a bit surprised, given what little I know about the curren Archbishop of Canterbury, that he has not seen fit to intervene and either discourage or speak out against this action. It can only have a corrosive effect on the relatiosnhip between the Church and its adherents on one side and the rest of the country as a whole. I can only imagine that an action like this is going to increase hostility towards the church and bring nearer the day when the government disestablishes it and legislates out of existence any more holdover laws like this one.

But it would appear from this and the controversy over homosexual adoption that the CoFE remains more rooted in an unmodern and unpleasant past than I realised.