‘ensure that no church ceases altogether to be used for public worship’ (canon B14A)
A brief and belated comment on the application of ecclesiastical law to the coronavirus situation.
For 3 long, painful months in 2020 (March to June) all churches in England were forced to close as part of a national ‘lockdown’, a regime of draconian restrictions of fundamental human rights, the purpose of which was to arrest, or at least to slow, the spread of the infamous coronavirus. All public worship was forbidden, with scarcely a murmur of protest. The 2 greatest feasts of the Christian year, Easter and Pentecost, could be celebrated only at home or on the internet. Blogging about the finer points of ecclesiastical law seemed futile during this lockdown limbo.
Later in 2020 there was a second, briefer, lockdown. This time there were mild ecclesiastical protests, which were apparently effective. The third, most recent, lockdown has (thus far) spared churches, though this could change at any time. Public worship is still allowed at the time of writing.
However, some churches did not reopen after the easing of lockdown restrictions, and others have closed voluntarily, even though the secular authority does not presently insist on this.
These voluntary church closures are discussed in a paper ‘Suspending Public Worship: Some Legal Questions and Answers’, version 3, 5th January 2021, issued by ‘the House of Bishops Recovery Group’ and published on the Church of England’s website. (Grateful thanks to the Law and Religion blog for drawing attention to this.)
As the paper notes, canon B11 and canon B14 require (public) services of Morning and Evening Prayer, and of Holy Communion, on all Sundays and on certain other important days. These services must be held ‘in at least 1 church in each benefice or … plurality‘.
Thus Sunday services are not required in all places of worship, or even in all parish churches. But the incumbent must still provide such services in at least 1 church within his cure of souls.
However, the Recovery Group paper justifies the voluntary closure of churches on the basis of canon B14A. This canon provides that the requirements of canon B11 and canon B14 may be dispensed with
(a) on an occasional basis, on the authority of the incumbent and the parochial church council (‘PCC’) or
(b) on a regular basis, on the authority of the bishop, and at the request of the incumbent and PCC.
These powers of dispensation should (obviously) be exercised only for ‘good reason’.
The paper acknowledges that the distinction between (1) an occasional basis and (2) a regular basis may not be entirely clear, and suggests that the local archdeacon may be able to answer this question (cf p.3).
However, the paper does not address the critical limitation of both these powers of dispensation conferred by canon B14A and cited above
‘In giving a [dispensation] the person or persons doing so must be satisfied that there is good reason for doing so and shall … ensure that no church ceases altogether to be used for public worship‘.
This makes clear that, although the number of Sunday services may be reduced for a good reason, Sunday worship cannot be discontinued altogether, even on an occasional basis (i.e basis (a)). On its wording, the limitation does not apply only to the bishop’s dispensation from services on a regular basis (basis (b)). It applies to both dispensations. The incumbent must therefore still provide at least 1 Sunday service for the benefit of his flock, no matter how supportive the bishop and the PCC may be.
Canon B14A may be applicable to the coronavirus situation. If fewer clergy and lay ministers are available to take services, and fewer worshippers attend them, this may well be a good reason for reducing the number of services.
On the other hand, fewer Sunday services may encourage a greater concentration of worshippers, thus increasing, not reducing, the risk of transmission of coronavirus. But canon B14A does not, on its wording, authorise the complete cancellation of public worship, even for a limited period.
Churches can be closed under the authority of a church buildings scheme, under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 (s.42). However, a church buildings scheme may be made only by the Church Commissioners, not by the bishop or the incumbent (s.26). Nor can it be made in a hurry. There must be prior consultation, advertisement, consideration of objections (ss.20-30). An appeal against a scheme lies to the Privy Council (s.12).
Moreover the 2011 Measure permits the closure of churches only for redundancy, even though that word is no longer used. The closed church must be ‘not required as a parish church or chapel’ (s.42(1)). There seems to be no provision for temporary closure, or for closure on health and safety grounds.
And the 2011 Measure is careful to provide that ‘where a parish has no church, the bishop shall make [alternative] provision for public worship’ (s.43). So even when the church is lawfully closed for some reason, including a health and safety reason, this does not override the requirements of canons B11 and B14. Church services must still be held somewhere else.
The Recovery Group paper correctly observes that there is no legal right to access a church for private prayer. However, it neglects to mention that there is a common law right to attend Divine service in the parish church. Such a right cannot be suspended without clear legal authority. Good intentions are not enough.
Phillimore relates that, once upon a time, ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction to exclude parishioners from church, by means of a ‘suspension ab ingressu ecclesiae … from the hearing of Divine service and receiving the Holy Sacrament, which may therefore be called a temporary excommunication’ (Ecclesiastical Law, 2nd edition 1895, p.1072).
This jurisdiction is, of course, long obsolete. But even if it still existed, it could not apply to the coronavirus situation. Suspension ab ingressu ecclesiae was a criminal sanction, awarded for some infringement of the ecclesiastical law (usually brawling in the church or churchyard). It was not a civil health and safety measure. Moreover the purpose of all ecclesiastical sanctions over the laity was metaphysical, pro salute animae, concerned with the soul’s health, not physical health. And suspending public worship contradicts the whole purpose of ecclesiastical law, which is the administration of the Christian religion.
The health and safety concerns are understandable, of course. But if there is no ecclesiastical authority for suspending public worship, recourse should be had to the secular law.
The common law right to worship is discussed in an earlier blogpost, filed under this category.