|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Case Reports
Re Holy Trinity, Eckington
(Worcester Consistory Court: Mynors Ch, November 1999)
Font – relocation
A petition sought the removal of the font from the west end of the church (listed grade II) to a position just to the west of the chancel steps to the south side. The benefits were said to be, inter alia, that the font would be in a freer area, that parents and godparents would be more visible to the congregation, that the current position of the font meant that the baptism party may feel excluded rather than included in the main act of worship. Canons F1 and B21 deal with the number and position of fonts and the timing of baptisms. The chancellor considered the authorities relating to the moving of fonts and the Response by the House of Bishops to Questions Raised by Diocesan Chancellors dated June 1992 and came to the following conclusions:
i. There must be a ‘decent’ font in every church, that is a permanent fixed object to act as a visible symbol of Christian initiation (St George, Deal [1991] Fam 6). It should have a cover and only be used for baptism (canona F1 and B21). All new fonts if possible should be suitable for affusion, immersion or submersion;
ii. There should generally be only one font in a church, anything else is an anomaly. Any pool used for immersion or submersion should generally be concealed (Bishops’ Response and Deal ante);
iii. The font should be in as spacious and well ordered surroundings as possible (Canon F1(2));
iv. The basic rule is that the font should generally be ‘as near the principal entrance into the church as conveniently may be’ (canon F1);
v. There is no absolute legal, liturgical, or theological bar to locating a font elsewhere in a church (St James, Shirley [1994] Fam 134) e.g. if the area around the principal entrance is not spacious and well ordered or where there is a desire to demonstrate a different symbolic point, but this should certainly not be decided solely on the basis of visibility (Bishops’ Response);
vi. It would only very rarely be appropriate to move a font from a position it has occupied for centuries (Shirley ante and St Luke, Maidstone [1994] 3 WLR 1165).
The chancellor refused to grant a faculty on the basis that moving the font would not be an advantage, its present location could be made to work more satisfactorily, and the effect of the proposal on the character of the listed building would not be beneficial.
[JG]
|
Search the Case Reports & Journals (issues 1 to 39) |
|
|
