THE PCC of a village church in Herefordshire has been refused permission to reorder the inside — to incorporate a latest community library and kids’s area — since the plans involve moving the font.
The Consistory Court of the diocese of Hereford ruled that relocating the Nineteenth-century font away from the church entrance of St Mary’s, Almeley, could be contrary to canon law. Therefore, it refused to grant a college for the work.
The Diocesan Chancellor, the Worshipful Mark Ockelton, writes in his judgment that the church underwent a major restoration in 1868, when box pews were removed and the present font was installed, alongside latest woodwork.
Under the brand new proposal, the present pews were to be removed and disposed of, and replaced with chairs. An area within the south aisle was to be fitted as a community library, and one other area within the west aisle was to be for kids.
A latest choir vestry was to be constructed as a part of an extension to the east of the church. The north door could be reopened to offer a second exit through the brand new choir vestry. To the east, still within the north aisle, the font was to be placed (without its base) towards the corner of the constructing, leaving an area between it and the vestry “able to holding a few dozen chairs if required”.
The purpose was to “update the facilities, to adapt to current liturgical practices, and to make the constructing usable for a big selection of functions”.
Currently, the font is near the predominant entrance, and immediately visible.
The Chancellor writes: “Canon law has only a few specific requirements concerning the placing of fittings in a church, but considered one of them pertains to the font.”
He quotes Canon F1: “In every church and chapel where baptism is to be administered, there shall be provided a good font with a canopy for the keeping clean thereof.”
It also says: “The font shall stand as near to the principal entrance as conveniently could also be, except there be a custom on the contrary or the Ordinary otherwise direct; and shall be set in as spacious and well-ordered surroundings as possible.”
The Chancellor had, he said, identified the legal difficulty of the proposal when the petition for reordering was first referred to the court for a choice. “It is obvious that it took everyone by surprise. No constructive changes to the proposals were offered,” he writes, even after he pointed to this on his visit to the church.
It was “disturbing”, the Chancellor said, each “that the law regarding the placing of a font in a parish church was not something that was taken under consideration in formulating the proposals”, and that the canon looked as if it would have “escaped the eye of the then parish priest . . . the architect and the DAC”.
The canon was clear that the font should be near the predominant door. There were two exceptions to that rule: “If there be a custom on the contrary, or if ‘the Ordinary otherwise direct’.”
The petitioners identified no custom on the contrary at Almeley, the Chancellor said. The Ordinary for present purposes was the Consistory Court, and, “on abnormal principles of law and of judicial practice the Court wouldn’t direct departure from the law save for good reason, based on precedent if available.”
The Chancellor also identified that the law of the Church of England, whether contained within the canons or elsewhere, was a part of the law of England. “It has the next status than guidance, or liturgical practice, or good ideas.”
There were also good liturgical and symbolic reasons for the particular prescription that the font be as near as possible to the principal entrance, the Chancellor said. “Each individual becomes a part of the church by baptism, in order baptism is spiritual entry to the Church, the font is in an appropriate relation to the physical entry to a church constructing.”
The PCC, nonetheless, was not prepared to contemplate using another spaces near the door for the font because those spaces were required for other non-liturgical purposes — a table-tennis table and a football table were mentioned. Its raised base was said to be a visit hazard, and its position “not convenient” for social occasions in church.
There were no unusual or exceptional circumstances going beyond the conventional and expected consequences of placing the font near the predominant entrance that will justify an exception to the final rule, the Chancellor concluded. He was not persuaded that there have been sufficient reasons that the placing of the font as prescribed by the canon shouldn’t apply. That meant that the reordering of the church would should be checked out again as an entire.
The Chancellor declined to grant the current petition. The DAC would want to contemplate any latest petition.
