Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T05:32:54.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What do we mean by mission? A consideration of Re Holy Trinity, Horwich

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2012

Catherine Shelley
Catherine Shelley
Affiliation:
Assistant Curate, in Manchester Diocese
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The recent judgment in Re Holy Trinity Horwich in Manchester Consistory Court raises some interesting questions about the interpretation of mission in the application of the Bishopsgate questions. Thanks to the tests posed by the Bishopsgate questions, arising from the cases of Re St Helen Bishopsgate and Re St Luke the Evangelist Maidstone, the law governing faculty applications requires that the status quo be preserved in cases of church buildings with ‘special architectural and historical interest’ unless outweighed by the ‘necessity’ of ‘the pastoral well-being of the parish or some other compelling reason’.

Type
Comment
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , May 2012 , pp. 272 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 (2011) 13 Ecc LJ 383.

3 26 November 1993, unreported.

4 [1995] Fam 1.

5 George, Charles QC provides a helpful guide to the genesis, development and application of this jurisdiction in ‘The ecclesiastical common law: a quarter-century retrospective’, (2012) 14 Ecc LJ 20–42 at pp 30–36Google Scholar.

6 Re St Mary the Virgin Sherborne [1996] Fam 63, [1996] 3 All ER 769; Re St John the Evangelist Blackheath (1998) 5 Ecc LJ 217; Re Holy Cross Pershore [2002] Fam 1, (2001) 6 Ecc LJ 86; Re St Mary the Virgin Essendon (2001) 6 Ecc LJ 415.

7 Re St Mary Newick (2009) 11 Ecc LJ 127.

8 Leeder, L, Ecclesiastical Law Handbook (London, 1997)Google Scholar, para 8.16.

9 Wickham, E, Church and People in an Industrial City (London, 1957), p 142Google Scholar.

10 Ibid.

11 Broadhead v Oakes (1856), Sheffield Independent, 9 February 1856, cited by Wickham, Church and People, p 142.

12 Wickham (ibid) cites The Diary of Thomas Asline Ward (published 1909) thus: ‘Puseyism is progressing; the pews are swept away from Chesterfield Church’.

13 Sandford, J, The Mission and the Extension of the Church at Home (London, 1862)Google Scholar, cited in Wickham, Church and People, pp 142–143.

14 Leeder, Ecclesiastical Law Handbook, para 8.16.

15 See Ombres, R, ‘Faith, doctrine and Roman Catholic canon law’, (1989) 1 Ecc LJ 33–41Google Scholar; Doe, N ‘Towards a critique of the role of theology in English ecclesiastical and canon law’, (1992) 2 Ecc LJ 328–346Google Scholar.

16 McGregor, A, ‘Religion, doctrine and the ecclesiastical courts’, (2011) 13 Ecc LJ 333–341Google Scholar.

17 Re All Saints, Sanderstead (2012) 14 Ecc LJ 141. See George, ‘The ecclesiastical common law’, pp 29–30, 38.

18 Adam, W, ‘Changing approaches to the Bishopsgate questions’, (2003) 7 Ecc LJ 215–221Google Scholar.