Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x24000115
Naomi Gyane
The petitioners, who were resident within the parish, applied for a faculty for the reservation of a grave plot. The incumbent did not consent to the petition; the policy of the PCC was not to support new applications for reservation as the churchyard would be full in less than ten years.
{"title":"Re St Paul, Caton-with-Littledale","authors":"Naomi Gyane","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x24000115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x24000115","url":null,"abstract":"The petitioners, who were resident within the parish, applied for a faculty for the reservation of a grave plot. The incumbent did not consent to the petition; the policy of the PCC was not to support new applications for reservation as the churchyard would be full in less than ten years.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x24000012
Morag Ellis
Cathedrals have been described as ‘normative space’ insofar as their regulation both shapes, and is shaped by, their architecture. This article extends that description and applies it, by analogy, to listed Church of England churches and examines how the concept of ‘normative space’ relates to, and informs, their regulation within ecclesiastical and secular systems. The article goes on to outline the implications for (1) architectural and artistic innovation and (2) the worship and mission of the Church.
{"title":"‘Juristecture’ and the regulation of normative space","authors":"Morag Ellis","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x24000012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x24000012","url":null,"abstract":"Cathedrals have been described as ‘normative space’ insofar as their regulation both shapes, and is shaped by, their architecture. This article extends that description and applies it, by analogy, to listed Church of England churches and examines how the concept of ‘normative space’ relates to, and informs, their regulation within ecclesiastical and secular systems. The article goes on to outline the implications for (1) architectural and artistic innovation and (2) the worship and mission of the Church.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x24000140
David Willink
The petitioners sought a faculty for the disposal by sale of two damp-affected paintings. The DAC recommended the proposal. The court, out of an abundance of caution, directed consultation with the CBC pursuant to rule 9.6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (under which consultation with the CBC is mandatory on a petition for the conservation, alteration or disposal of an article of special historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest). The CBC preferred to see the conservation and retention of the paintings, there being a strong presumption against the sale of church treasures. The petitioners described the CBC's position as unrealistic, and the DAC noted that the paintings were of limited significance; they would continue to deteriorate if kept in the church; and the petitioners had neither the funds nor the inclination to seek them to fund their restoration.
{"title":"Re St Thomas the Apostle, Killinghall","authors":"David Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x24000140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x24000140","url":null,"abstract":"The petitioners sought a faculty for the disposal by sale of two damp-affected paintings. The DAC recommended the proposal. The court, out of an abundance of caution, directed consultation with the CBC pursuant to rule 9.6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (under which consultation with the CBC is mandatory on a petition for the conservation, alteration or disposal of an article of special historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest). The CBC preferred to see the conservation and retention of the paintings, there being a strong presumption against the sale of church treasures. The petitioners described the CBC's position as unrealistic, and the DAC noted that the paintings were of limited significance; they would continue to deteriorate if kept in the church; and the petitioners had neither the funds nor the inclination to seek them to fund their restoration.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x24000176
Jack Stuart
In the course of its consideration of a petition for a faculty for a significant re-ordering project, the court commented on the proper approach to such petitions in order to assist their progress through the faculty process.
{"title":"Re St Mary the Virgin, Stebbing","authors":"Jack Stuart","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x24000176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x24000176","url":null,"abstract":"In the course of its consideration of a petition for a faculty for a significant re-ordering project, the court commented on the proper approach to such petitions in order to assist their progress through the faculty process.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x24000152
Jack Stuart
This Grade 1-listed mediaeval church had a substantial Georgian reredos. It dominated the east end of the church, hiding three-quarters of the plain-glazed east window. In 2012 a faculty permitted its temporary removal to another location in the church while essential works were done to the chancel. Following this, the consequent increase in light coming from the windows was welcomed by petitioners, and fragments of medieval wall painting were discovered behind plasterwork which the reredos had previously protected. The petitioners now wished to make the temporary removal of the reredos permanent, relocating it to hang above the west door.
{"title":"Re St Michael and All Angels, Bampton","authors":"Jack Stuart","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x24000152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x24000152","url":null,"abstract":"This Grade 1-listed mediaeval church had a substantial Georgian reredos. It dominated the east end of the church, hiding three-quarters of the plain-glazed east window. In 2012 a faculty permitted its temporary removal to another location in the church while essential works were done to the chancel. Following this, the consequent increase in light coming from the windows was welcomed by petitioners, and fragments of medieval wall painting were discovered behind plasterwork which the reredos had previously protected. The petitioners now wished to make the temporary removal of the reredos permanent, relocating it to hang above the west door.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x2400019x
David Willink
Adjacent to, and connected to, the churchyard was an area known as the ‘church garden’. The land had been given to the church in 1960 for the purpose of adding to the churchyard, the deed of gift conforming with the formula set out in section 5 of the Consecration of Churchyards Act 1867. After a long period of disuse, the land was used to create a garden, separated from the churchyard by a hedge. The garden was never consecrated. As well as containing amenities such as a lawn, trees, flower beds, benches and a ‘fairy grotto’, the garden had been the site of various scatterings and interments of cremated remains. No authority had ever been sought for such interments.
{"title":"Re Holy Rood, Edwalton","authors":"David Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x2400019x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x2400019x","url":null,"abstract":"Adjacent to, and connected to, the churchyard was an area known as the ‘church garden’. The land had been given to the church in 1960 for the purpose of adding to the churchyard, the deed of gift conforming with the formula set out in section 5 of the Consecration of Churchyards Act 1867. After a long period of disuse, the land was used to create a garden, separated from the churchyard by a hedge. The garden was never consecrated. As well as containing amenities such as a lawn, trees, flower beds, benches and a ‘fairy grotto’, the garden had been the site of various scatterings and interments of cremated remains. No authority had ever been sought for such interments.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"112 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x24000048
Frank Cranmer
Probably the biggest legal news of the period under consideration was the judgment of the Supreme Court in R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, [2023] WLR 4433, in which it held unanimously that the Government's policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. One critical issue was that under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a right under the ECHR – and the Secretary of State is a public authority for that purpose.
本报告所述期间最大的法律新闻可能是最高法院对 R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, [2023] WLR 4433 一案的判决，在该案中，最高法院一致认为政府将寻求庇护者送往卢旺达的政策是非法的。其中一个关键问题是，根据 1998 年《人权法》第 6 条，公共当局的行为若不符合《欧洲人权公约》规定的权利，即属违法--而国务大臣就是公共当局。
{"title":"October 2023 to January 2024","authors":"Frank Cranmer","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x24000048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x24000048","url":null,"abstract":"Probably the biggest legal news of the period under consideration was the judgment of the Supreme Court in <jats:italic>R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department</jats:italic> [2023] UKSC 42, [2023] WLR 4433, in which it held unanimously that the Government's policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. One critical issue was that under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a right under the ECHR – and the Secretary of State is a public authority for that purpose.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-18DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x23000492
Norman Doe
During the reign of Elizabeth I the ecclesial and legal ‘revolution’ under Henry VIII, to establish in England a national church under the royal supremacy, was converted into a ‘settlement’. It steered a course between radical puritans and recusant Catholics. Clothed in legal propriety, this settlement was articulated both juristically and theologically by the great Richard Hooker (d. 1600). After the return to Rome under Mary, the Elizabethan Acts of Parliament re-established the English Church, revived legislation made under Henry VIII and Edward VI, and imposed uniformity in worship. The period also sees the use of ‘soft-law’, like Articles, Admonitions, and Advertisements. Parliament rejects the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum in 1571, but Canons were passed piecemeal in 1571, 1575, 1585, and 1598. The turn of the Welsh Tudors to rule ended in 1603. The Scottish Stuarts came next. The reign of James I (1603–1625) saw bitter dispute between the King and the common lawyers over the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical. But there was one lasting legal landmark: the Canons Ecclesiastical 1603/4. This new code was studied theologically by a contemporary cleric, Francis Mason. Whilst several notable civilians from that time have become well-known – such as John Cowell (d. 1611), Daniel Dun (d. 1617), Clement Colmore (d. 1619), and Thomas Ridley (d. 1629), Francis Mason is largely unknown. However, he is very worthy of inclusion in the canon of Anglican priest-jurists. What follows sketches the life and career of Mason, outlines his treatise on the Canons, and discusses that treatise in a wider context, including comparing it with a similar work by Bishop Edward Stillngfleet (d. 1699).
{"title":"VI: Francis Mason (1566/7–1621)","authors":"Norman Doe","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x23000492","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x23000492","url":null,"abstract":"During the reign of Elizabeth I the ecclesial and legal ‘revolution’ under Henry VIII, to establish in England a national church under the royal supremacy, was converted into a ‘settlement’. It steered a course between radical puritans and recusant Catholics. Clothed in legal propriety, this settlement was articulated both juristically and theologically by the great Richard Hooker (d. 1600). After the return to Rome under Mary, the Elizabethan Acts of Parliament re-established the English Church, revived legislation made under Henry VIII and Edward VI, and imposed uniformity in worship. The period also sees the use of ‘soft-law’, like Articles, Admonitions, and Advertisements. Parliament rejects the <jats:italic>Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum</jats:italic> in 1571, but Canons were passed piecemeal in 1571, 1575, 1585, and 1598. The turn of the Welsh Tudors to rule ended in 1603. The Scottish Stuarts came next. The reign of James I (1603–1625) saw bitter dispute between the King and the common lawyers over the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical. But there was one lasting legal landmark: the Canons Ecclesiastical 1603/4. This new code was studied theologically by a contemporary cleric, Francis Mason. Whilst several notable civilians from that time have become well-known – such as John Cowell (d. 1611), Daniel Dun (d. 1617), Clement Colmore (d. 1619), and Thomas Ridley (d. 1629), Francis Mason is largely unknown. However, he is very worthy of inclusion in the canon of Anglican priest-jurists. What follows sketches the life and career of Mason, outlines his treatise on the Canons, and discusses that treatise in a wider context, including comparing it with a similar work by Bishop Edward Stillngfleet (d. 1699).","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-18DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x23000509
Marco Galimberti, Tania Pagotto
This article discusses the application of the proportionality test which the Court of Session in Scotland and the European Court of Human Rights carried out when reviewing the limitations to worship and public gatherings imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article concludes that judges should not use the proportionality standard of review as an avenue to circumvent their duty of neutrality towards religious dogmas.
{"title":"Man shall not live by bread alone? Freedom of worship, COVID-19 and the Courts","authors":"Marco Galimberti, Tania Pagotto","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x23000509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x23000509","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the application of the proportionality test which the Court of Session in Scotland and the European Court of Human Rights carried out when reviewing the limitations to worship and public gatherings imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article concludes that judges should not use the proportionality standard of review as an avenue to circumvent their duty of neutrality towards religious dogmas.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-18DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x23000595
Edward Dobson
The first item of business at the February group of sessions was to revive the General Synod (Remote Meetings) (Temporary Standings Orders) Measure 2020, which enabled Synod to conduct hybrid meetings. Previously in operation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the standing order had lapsed and was brought back into operation until 5 February 2026.
{"title":"General Synod of the Church of England","authors":"Edward Dobson","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x23000595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x23000595","url":null,"abstract":"The first item of business at the February group of sessions was to revive the General Synod (Remote Meetings) (Temporary Standings Orders) Measure 2020, which enabled Synod to conduct hybrid meetings. Previously in operation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the standing order had lapsed and was brought back into operation until 5 February 2026.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139516627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：