Ship of Fools: When the needs of the dead outweigh the needs of the living

Thread: When the needs of the dead outweigh the needs of the living Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027858

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Of the churches where I'm curate, three of them are surrounded on all sides by a graveyard. Two of these are mostly Victorian, the other goes back a century earlier. None can still be used, except in exceptional cases, where a grave has been reserved, or there's a family plot. My fourth church has graves on one side but is largely built onto the side of a hill.

Only one of these churches has running water (ie a sink to wash things in). None has a toilet, all have poky, cramped, damp vestries. All would benefit enormously from an extension, roughly 12 foot by 12 foot to make a workable vestry and toilet. Even (gasp!) a room that can be separately heated to have meetings in.

But of course we can't, or not at all easily, because of the graves. Most of the stones are illegible because we're near the sea, and can only be worked out from comparison to old records. Their families are long gone.

Other churches have plaques on the wall to commemorate the long-forgotten (like over 200 years) which can't be moved, meaning nothing can be done in that part of the church to make it more useful today.

At what point is it reasonable to say that the needs - or our respect - of the dead are being given a higher priority than the needs of the living? Churches cannot possibly hope to 'compete' these days unless their facilities are up to date. Yes, people don't expect much from quaint country churches - but how much better would it be to subvert those expectations and be able to make country churches really use-able in a 21st century way?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

According to http://www.york.ac.uk/chp/crg/crgcontext.htm#whattodo,

quote:
Once interred, human remains cannot be disturbed without a special licence from the Ministry of Justice. This requirement is defined by s25 of the Burial Act 1857. A licence is required even where remains are disturbed accidentally. Licenses have never been made available for the purpose of reusing a site for burial, although there are many instances of licenses being issued for the removal of bodies from churchyards to facilitate building, road-widening and other developments.

It is possible for exhumations to take place ‘from one consecrated place of burial to another by faculty granted by the ordinary for that purpose’ without need of a Ministry licence. Essentially, this means that where an exhumation is taking place in consecrated ground, with any remains re-interred in consecrated ground, then faculty only is required.

Again, the Ministry of Justice website provides information on the legalities of exhumation: http://www.justice.gov.uk/coroners-burial-cremation/burials

(my bold)

Does this help?

[ 06. February 2014, 10:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Just move the graves. It happens all the time. Heck, in some U.S. states you don't even have to move the graves to build on the land.

In most cemeteries you only get your grave for 99 (or whatever) years anyhow.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

This modern squeamishness about burial sites is all very late-Victorian Romantic nonsense (and even they were happy to essentially 'blend' the remains beneath Bath Abbey to make it more stable). We should just get on with it, as the Church has done for centuries.

In fact, why we ever abandoned ossuaries baffles me. Perhaps modernity will take to the columbarium as a solution? They can be very handsome.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Someone I know once said: 'Let the dead bury the dead"

Once again the institution (the Church) gets in the way of the ministry (the church)? Perhaps it's high time to hand over the keys and walk away to do the stuff for real?

(simplistic, I know)

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The key to your post, Panda, is, I think, the word 'easily.'

You can't 'easily' get a faculty for an addition to any church with Grade 1 or 2* listing.

There are always burials around country churches even if all the stones have been taken down and stacked along the churchyard walls to permit easier mowing by the Parish Council--this is common where the churchyard has been closed to burials. Are your churchyards closed, or are people still being buried in them?

You should talk to your DAC and your Archdeacon and your benefice architect (the person who does the quinquennial inspection). Your PCCs should talk together and decide whether they're up to the necessary applications for grants and the extensive fundraising.

It probably is possible for you to get a lavatory in your churches, but it's never easy--and that's not an issue of the graves so much as the many humps put in the road by SPAB, English Heritage, the Victorian Society, and all those who worry about carbuncles--that and the matter of money.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There is also the attitude (less common nowadays) that churches are not supposed to be comfortable places. I guess some of that idea still lives on in places of pilgrimage, where people travel the last distance on their knees, and in the observance of Ash Wednesday with (sackcloth and) ashes. The thinking goes - loo today, comfy chairs and carpets tomorrow. So you are meant to suffer a little when you go to church - stone floors, hard pews, little or no heating.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
There is also the attitude (less common nowadays) that churches are not supposed to be comfortable places. I guess some of that idea still lives on in places of pilgrimage, where people travel the last distance on their knees, and in the observance of Ash Wednesday with (sackcloth and) ashes. The thinking goes - loo today, comfy chairs and carpets tomorrow. So you are meant to suffer a little when you go to church - stone floors, hard pews, little or no heating.

The problem with that attitude (and I am not accusing you of having that attitude!) is the major hurdle it brings for disabled worshippers, particularly those of us with bowel conditions. Even my own IBS (not the most severe bowel condition by a long way) means I could not worship in a church without a toilet. When I need the loo, I need the loo, and no I cannot hold it in. It's even worse for those with Crohn's, or Ulcerative Colitis, or other more serious conditions.

I do see an attitude towards disabled people in church, that buildings become more important than people, and it stinks and is distinctly not in keeping with the Gospel. I realise English Heritage et al do not make things easier, but the church should surely take a lead in such basic provision of people. But then, given that only two theological training colleges in England are wheelchair-accessible (St Johns Nottingham and Oak Hill), I am afraid that things won't change.

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do see an attitude towards disabled people in church, that buildings become more important than people, and it stinks and is distinctly not in keeping with the Gospel. I realise English Heritage et al do not make things easier, but the church should surely take a lead in such basic provision of people. But then, given that only two theological training colleges in England are wheelchair-accessible (St Johns Nottingham and Oak Hill), I am afraid that things won't change.

I'd say that this issue is one that is very real, however these things can be worked out with the "authorities", I've seen it happening in somewhere near by. Where they are even going in for a rain capture system to run the water works (as it is far from mains water).

As to colleges, Queen's in Birmingham is also wheelchair-accessible.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Felafool:

quote:

Once again the institution (the Church) gets in the way of the ministry (the church)? Perhaps it's high time to hand over the keys and walk away to do the stuff for real?

Which part of the State law did you see enshrined in the institution of the Church? The Church has a long history of the 'consolidation' of graves (i.e., digging bodies up and grouping them together; sometimes preserving the memorials/gravestones in ingenious ways). It's a fairly modern notion that families who buy graves and plots expect them to be in some sense eternal.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Under the tower is the classic place for the lavatory in the English country church. Take a look on the internet and you'll see scores of projects where an architect has ingeniously fitted a fully wheelchair-accessible toilet (with baby-changing area) and a servery (with hot water and storage area) under a tower. When the church is also able to manage heating, then meetings and concerts of all kinds are possible even in a small church without constructing an annexe. However, annexes are also being built. Money is generally the deciding factor, money and the quality of the design and specifications. Three of my four country churches now have lavatories and heating. We're waiting to hear from the DAC on our plans for the fourth as we speak. All the churches also have open churchyards (ie ones still used for burials). So it can be done, Panda.

Just to add--not long ago we did a Festal Evensong giving thanks for the completion of one of these schemes, with a visiting choir singing Bruckner's 'Locus Iste' as Introit. We took a large collection for the crisis in Syria. [Smile]

[ 07. February 2014, 12:45: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

We can't use the space under the tower - it is the vestry.

We are applying for permission for a small parish room, next to the disabled door (re-opened 13th century).

1. We were told we couldn't attach to the church (Grade 1).
2. Nor allowed a covered walkway - despite the fact that because of facing into the weather the door swells and can't be opened even by the strong able-bodied.
3. The tower room measures (at best) 10x10 feet: it accommodates choir, spare chairs, flower arrangers stuff, urn, choir music, etc. DAC joined forces with loon from English Heritage and thought it could also accommodate a photocopier!
4. Local council building control officer spent all his time worrying about the glass in the disabled door being double-glazed - never mind that the rest of the church has sufficient glass to surface at least one tennis court.

We'd love to build something bigger than one room but have been told we can't - notwithstanding we've just added ground to the churchyard which should last for 50+ years.

The same DAC and SPAB who raise all these objections make no comment about the plot for cremated remains which, with its small memorial stones, looks like a cemetery for pets and blights the approach to the church to a significant degree.

The heritage industry needs to learn that the reason so many old buildings survived in the first place is that people made them work by adapting for their (then) current-day needs.

An example of what would be sensible: if churches were allowed to install (probably external) secondary clear glazing to stop heat loss.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Double glazing... you - you modernizer!

But that would be great. I do think our buildings, and the space around them are at grievous risk of getting too holy for their own good. When you consider that most cathedrals also served essentially as covered markets, complete with animals in many cases, you do wonder if we're getting a bit precious.

But at the risk of derailing myself, my OP was considering graves and memorial plaques. In my largely un-minuted experience, most regular (actually regular, not once-a-year) church-goers tend to be fairly open-minded about these things. It's the ones whose granny's granny is in the back left corner, but who only ever come to church for funerals who are most likely to kick up a fuss. And God knows they'll be the ones up in arms when we have to close a church because it's just too darned difficult to work with.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Double glazing... you - you modernizer!

But that would be great. I do think our buildings, and the space around them are at grievous risk of getting too holy for their own good. When you consider that most cathedrals also served essentially as covered markets, complete with animals in many cases, you do wonder if we're getting a bit precious.

But at the risk of derailing myself, my OP was considering graves and memorial plaques. In my largely un-minuted experience, most regular (actually regular, not once-a-year) church-goers tend to be fairly open-minded about these things. It's the ones whose granny's granny is in the back left corner, but who only ever come to church for funerals who are most likely to kick up a fuss. And God knows they'll be the ones up in arms when we have to close a church because it's just too darned difficult to work with.

I have had clergy complain to me about this latter category (and I can't blame them)-- however, they are often great fodder for a Friends of Saint Nerses the Impaler group, which more-or-less happily raise funds for the building without ever having to attend services. An organizer can often guilt-trip them into board membership on the basis of the plaque to their Great-Aunt Hermione, and from there one easily puts the squeeze on them.

Not only does this help provide additional income for a parish, it involves people more widely in its life (even if not as intimately as one would like) and, most especially, when they are involved with any changes, they are committed to them as well, precluding much Change-Is-Evil protest.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

As someone who works in the heritage sector (although not for EH or the SPAB), I'm actually pretty fed up with the persistent badmouthing of the sector that goes on in boards like this.

It is true that the church has a duty to its parishoners, but it also has a duty to future generations to maintain the building, including not only its structural integrity but also its historical and aesthetic integrity. Working with specialized consultants from the heritage sector is intended to see that these two needs are balanced against each other. Most of the time, at any rate, it works.

I have friends who have been involved in the restoration of an important Victorian parish church, a process that has lasted several years and cost millions of pounds. The results have been magnificent, and they've only had good things to say about the input of English Heritage, the Victorian Society, and the Diocesan Faculty Board.

Generally, frustration would seem to come from clerics and parishoners who, not being aware of the needs of historical buildings, wish to move with more haste than prudence. This sort of building can be disastrous in the long term (and even in the short term) as various botched restorations from the Georgian period onward demonstrate.

Our church buildings are the greatest resource the Church of England has, as well as one of the most significant parts of English cultural heritage. A little care to see that they are preserved does not seem out of place.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

Surely a faculty could be obtained to move the memorial plaques, if there is no suggestion that they would be removed from the building?

The problem is of course not so much the building preservation industry as the building wrecking industry which gave architects a terrible reputation as good things were destroyed in the name of modernisation (consider the demolitions of the 1950s and 60s - in particular, what the Ulster Transport Authority did to Bangor railway station to the extent that when a decision was made to build a new bus/rail interchange in the 1990s, the remains of the old building were demolished - other 1990s/2000s railway station modernisations have made full use of the old railway buildings!)

I think the status quo is an overreaction to that.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Well said, S. Bacchus. It is worth bearing in mind that the buildings of the Church of England are part of the historic heritage of the localities in which they are located, and of great artistic and genealogical interest in people who are not C. of E. worshippers.

Of course, they are also houses of God's worship, but as you say - these two needs have to be carefully balanced.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
...what the Ulster Transport Authority did to Bangor railway station to the extent that when a decision was made to build a new bus/rail interchange in the 1990s, the remains of the old building were demolished - other 1990s/2000s railway station modernisations have made full use of the old railway buildings!)

Heh, same thing happened with Scollay Square subway station in Boston, with not infrequent calls to do the same to the 60's city hall it was designed to complement. Unfortunately, they are replacing the 1960's sleek, modern number with a a 2010's sleek, modern number that will, no doubt, be just as unloved come 40 years from now.

[ 08. February 2014, 13:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

S Bacchus:

quote:
Generally, frustration would seem to come from clerics and parishoners who, not being aware of the needs of historical buildings, wish to move with more haste than prudence.

Without wishing to detract from your main point, which is well taken, might I point out that the clerics and parishioners may wish to move with haste because their building is falling down around their ears and they are the ones who are actually using it?

Our church, for example, was repeatedly targeted by lead thieves. After the third incident, which was discovered only after a couple of days of torrential rain that did thousands of pounds' worth of damage to the organ and other fixtures, English Heritage grudgingly allowed us to reroof it with less tempting stainless steel on the parts that didn't show. The only ones who've noticed the difference (apart from those of us who prefer not to have to wear wellies and sou'westers when receiving the Eucharist and are enjoying the novelty of a roof that doesn't leak) are the pigeons.

I mean, I understand that lead is the best material for church roofs. In an ideal world anyone who tried to remove it would be struck dead by the Wrath of God. But in this less-than-ideal world, all the other things we tried didn't work.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

Like many suburban churches, our building started as a chapel of ease, so we have an essentially full, largely (but not totally) unvisited grave yard. Many of the monuments are engulfed in ivy, illegible and sometimes dangerous. The ground and the council ground around it (don't ask) are closed to further burials.

There are two pastoral uses that I would like for our churchyard.

1. Green space on which we could do stuff. Run around it, put up a marque, heck, even grow some veggies.

2. The open burial grounds for this area are generally inaccessible (distance, transport) to the local population who are not generally well healed. I would like people to have the opportunity to bury their loved ones in a place they could get to and the church can minister to the living as well as the dead.

Given that the one piece of Shakespear that people know is based on someone being dug within living memory so that the ground could be re-used, time to change our policies.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

S Bacchus
I'm not anti-heritage - and agree that we should endeavour to hand on to future generations buildings of quality in good nick and unvandalised.

But what do you do when an adviser (fairly lowly) from EH tells you one thing and an independent adviser (very high up) from Cadw tells you the direct opposite?

And while preserving the architectural integrity of buildings is important, I think it is also incumbent on congregations to try to set an example of good stewardship of resources by not wasting energy: plain secondary glazing would help in that enormously. The alternative is churches with no heating at all - that would be totally correct for the period for our 12th/13th century church, but we might then lack any congregation to pay for the upkeep.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
As someone who works in the heritage sector (although not for EH or the SPAB), I'm actually pretty fed up with the persistent badmouthing of the sector that goes on in boards like this.

It is true that the church has a duty to its parishoners, but it also has a duty to future generations to maintain the building, including not only its structural integrity but also its historical and aesthetic integrity. Working with specialized consultants from the heritage sector is intended to see that these two needs are balanced against each other. Most of the time, at any rate, it works.

I have friends who have been involved in the restoration of an important Victorian parish church, a process that has lasted several years and cost millions of pounds. The results have been magnificent, and they've only had good things to say about the input of English Heritage, the Victorian Society, and the Diocesan Faculty Board.

Generally, frustration would seem to come from clerics and parishoners who, not being aware of the needs of historical buildings, wish to move with more haste than prudence. This sort of building can be disastrous in the long term (and even in the short term) as various botched restorations from the Georgian period onward demonstrate.

Our church buildings are the greatest resource the Church of England has, as well as one of the most significant parts of English cultural heritage. A little care to see that they are preserved does not seem out of place.

Very few people want to see a total lack of historical church buildings. However, the people within those churches (and particularly the disabled, who are fucked over even when it comes to a lot of secular buildings but Jesus seemed to think were rather important) are always, always vastly more important. That is the point people are making.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
S Bacchus
I'm not anti-heritage - and agree that we should endeavour to hand on to future generations buildings of quality in good nick and unvandalised.

But what do you do when an adviser (fairly lowly) from EH tells you one thing and an independent adviser (very high up) from Cadw tells you the direct opposite?
...

Indeed. One of our churches is still recovering from being given apparently sound, well-researched, unhurried advice on how to make the place less damp, and which actually resulted in rivers of condensation coming down one wall. Another has been told to whitewash the outside, in keeping with how it was 400-odd years ago (why is this relevant to us now?) and in two years it's half flaked off and looks worse than before.

I hardly need to mention how the money for these could have been better spent.

I'm not anti- my old churches in the least, but I think we are trying too hard to make the buildings too much like what they used to be.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
"Good frend for Jesus sake forebeare,/ To digg the dust encloased heare;/ Bleste be the man that spares thes stones,/ And curst be he that moves my bones."

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
... Our church buildings are the greatest resource the Church of England has, as well as one of the most significant parts of English cultural heritage. ...

I sincerely hope that its people, the scriptures and the presence of the Lord within its life and sacraments are resources of infinitely greater value and significance for the CofE than even the most spectacular cathedrals.

If that is not the case, we really are doing it wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
the 60's city hall it was designed to complement. Unfortunately, they are replacing the 1960's sleek, modern number with a a 2010's sleek, modern number

One would be hard pressed to say which of those two buildings (sorry the links have not copied) is the less attractive, interesting or worth preserving for those that come after us.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

One example of modernising a church building to put people first is shown in those churches (including mine) which have chosen to replace a heavy wooden door with a glass one. At first sight, it seems a needless waste of money, but the argument put forward is convincing - it allows people who might be nervous about entering a church building to take a peek and to reassure themselves before entering. I notice that many of the larger churches and cathedrals now have visitor-friendly glass doors, perhaps some of the smaller churches would like them but don't have available funds. I am coming around to the idea - using one of these metal handles is often quite a knack and many are the times, when church visiting, that I've almost given up trying to get in.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
"Good frend for Jesus sake forebeare,/ To digg the dust encloased heare;/ Bleste be the man that spares thes stones,/ And curst be he that moves my bones."
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I know you're being facetious, but it's a good point! Why forebear for Jesus' sake? Will he be insulted if we move bones, when the soul should be with Jesus in paradise? How long should the stones be spared for?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

The issues are, as any fule kno.

a) It takes pots of cash
b) English Heritage. Particularly if you have ever taken money from English Heritage in the past. When I was a lay person living in London and the church needed extensive repairs someone suggested tapping the Victorian Society for money. Absolutely not, retorted the Rector. When you take money from such organisations they make you sign a contract in blood (your blood) beginning with the words "I, John Faustus..."
c) Public opinion. In one instance I know about the Rector decided to move the rood screen to a niche in the balcony. This would preserve the historic Victorian rood screen whilst allowing the modernisation of the liturgy. Whatever one thinks of that sort of reform what he should not have done was to hold a public meeting open to interested members of the public, many of whom were not regular churchgoers but didn't want to see changes to "their church".

Which means that the building has to be really sabotaging the mission of the church before the clergy and PCC decide that they have the time and energy to take on that little lot. Some clergy, alas, use this as an opportunity to run down small rural churches in order to regretfully suggest that parish of ease status might be the way forward.

It can be done, but it takes time and effort. A tactic where a local communnity values the church, even if they don't worship there, is to persuade people with the relevant skills to work on a fund raising working group so the congo can focus on mission and evangelism whilst the fund raising continues apace.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
"Good frend for Jesus sake forebeare,/ To digg the dust encloased heare;/ Bleste be the man that spares thes stones,/ And curst be he that moves my bones."
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
I know you're being facetious, but it's a good point! Why forebear for Jesus' sake? Will he be insulted if we move bones, when the soul should be with Jesus in paradise? How long should the stones be spared for?

Well indeed - part of me wanted to respond to this topic with that classic song, They're Digging Up Father's Grave to Build a Sewer - which actually captures some of the instinctive response to such actions quite nicely...

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
S Bacchus
I'm not anti-heritage - and agree that we should endeavour to hand on to future generations buildings of quality in good nick and unvandalised.

But what do you do when an adviser (fairly lowly) from EH tells you one thing and an independent adviser (very high up) from Cadw tells you the direct opposite?

Speaking as a civil servant, there is no point in asking English Heritage for advice if the church is in Wales, and no point in asking Cadw if you're in England. The rules are different and the funding is different. Even if they are acting independently of their parent bodies, the advisers are bound to come from different places when considering your needs.

There are many issues with the listing system and the impact it has on the owners/users of listed buildings, but the churches are the main ones affected because so many older buildings are churches and chapels. Closing churches does not help financially because we remain responsible for maintaining listed buildings until and unless they are sold.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Rev per minute
We do know which country we're in and that the rules of EH and CADW differ.

The chap from CADW came to look wearing the hat of an independent expert.

Not only far better qualified that the guy from EH but with years of experience at very senior level - he's been consulted by the French government, among others, so no lightweight.

But the under 30 year old from EH knew better - and was rude in the process.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

I'm sure that my colleague from Cadw gave the better advice, but if you're under English Heritage that's what you have to work with (or work around...)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'm really surprised you can't move gravestones. I've helped do it for a small rural churchyard, which was still taking burials. We could only move certain graves, certain ages and no local families still wanting burials in family plot. The gravestones went along the outside wall of the churchyard (which was better than when the Georgians / Victorians did it, the old gravestones then ended up as flagstones in the kitchen passage of what is now the Old Rectory).

It's engraved on my memory as one of the graves we were working around was my grandfather's. I was entranced to find little fragments of bone in the ground we were raking over to grass over. I copped a few thumps for audibly identifying ribs and phalanges in case my still living grandmother heard.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our church now has the gravestones right up against the church. The former graveyard is now a wide open space where people sit in the summer and have picnics; we also hold the church fete there. It is also a lovely green area where people can take wedding photos. There have been some trees planted and architectural features restored, to make the place a pleasant setting for visitors to the town. Oh, and also we sometimes hold open air services there, providing an overlap between church and community. So, yes, with imagination it can be done.

[ 16. February 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Bruckner's Tomb

See those little orange blobs behind the grille? Those are row upon row of skulls. I don't recall exactly the circumstances causing them to be there, nor whether they were placed there before or after Bruckner's sarcophagus, but they were formerly in one or more cemeteries.

This room in the crypt of Saint Florian's Abbey near Linz is directly below the organ. One day, Bruckner (a former chorister and teacher there) happened to be in that space while the organ was playing, and was struck by how the ceiling focused its sound upon one spot. He asked to be buried there, and this wish was granted.

This is just one of numerous remarkable scenes in this abbey, which I found collectively overwhelming. It's as though God decided to focus beauties of many kinds into this place, like the arches concentrating the sound, or like sunlight through a magnifying glass, into a white heat. We might flutter into it like so many moths, and wonder afterwords how we could get out alive.

Strangely, perhaps, I didn't find this array of skulls at all macabre, but very peaceful. Devout people used to keep skulls in their homes as a reminder of mortality. I also noticed, in a church in Salzburg, a skull plainly visible behind glass on a side altar-- in this case presumably a saint's relic.

If circumstances don't allow for an entire body to be preserved, perhaps we can take a cue from our less squeamish continental brethren and conserve part of it, moved out of the ground into the church itself. I think I'd regard that not as a desecration but a promotion (certainly if allowed to keep watch over a Bruckner [Smile]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Churches in the UK used to have ossuaries - after a certain amount of time the bones of the dead were dug up and placed in the ossuary and the space in the churchyard was then freed up for more burials. Any memorials - only for the middle to upper classes on the whole - were in the church.

Occasionally the poor were commemorated in wood but those markers rotted away.

Maybe we should start a campaign - BBO Bring Back Ossuaries!

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Well said, S. Bacchus. It is worth bearing in mind that the buildings of the Church of England are part of the historic heritage of the localities in which they are located, and of great artistic and genealogical interest in people who are not C. of E. worshippers.

Of course, they are also houses of God's worship, but as you say - these two needs have to be carefully balanced.

And being paid for amd maintained in many cases by a handful of parishioners who are largely pensioners, who want to worship the Lord and not have to work keep the nations heritage going.

I'm not denying the value of these buildings, but if they are the nations heritage and people outside the church find them important, then the nation and people outside the church should maintain them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Churches in the UK used to have ossuaries...

Are you sure of that? I thought it was a southern European custom, which doesn't really work with water-sodden soil.

Going back to the OP, if a church is extended over a part of the churchyard with bodies in it, wouldn't that mean it was consecrated land both before and after, and that all that needed to be taken account of was whether any bodies are disturbed by digging the footings, or whether memorials had to be moved? Wouldn't changing from being a corpse buried outside to one buried inside, move one posthumously up the social scale? Or would the risk of that happening prevent getting a faculty?

I'm sure I've seen an instance in the last few years of an extension with a hall and some loos built over part of a churchyard.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
At what point is it reasonable to say that the needs - or our respect - of the dead are being given a higher priority than the needs of the living?

The way you describe the building and the situation, it will probably be harder and harder to do anything as time passes. If the rules where you are (England?) is anything like the rules in Norway, you probably cannot do anything. In Norway we have a ‘Directorate for Cultural Heritage’ (no. ‘Riksantikvaren,’ lit. ‘the State Antiquary’), which has a webite here. They are a bit controversial. In 2008 a congregation weren’t allowed to change their chairs (link in Norwegian, but with pictures). In the sixties they had installed plastic chairs because they didn’t have the money to get better ones, and they wanted new chairs in 2008. They weren’t allowed to do that because the chairs were typical for the sixties with moulded plastic chairs.

If they have some kind of ‘Directorate for Cultural Heritage’ where you are, it will probably be harder to make changes as time goes by, not easier. Your church is probably considered a cultural heritage.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Well said, S. Bacchus. It is worth bearing in mind that the buildings of the Church of England are part of the historic heritage of the localities in which they are located, and of great artistic and genealogical interest in people who are not C. of E. worshippers.

Of course, they are also houses of God's worship, but as you say - these two needs have to be carefully balanced.
And being paid for amd maintained in many cases by a handful of parishioners who are largely pensioners, who want to worship the Lord and not have to work keep the nations heritage going.

I'm not denying the value of these buildings, but if they are the nations heritage and people outside the church find them important, then the nation and people outside the church should maintain them.

While I would agree with you, this doesn't seem to be happening and there is little likelihood that the state will follow the French 1905 model (confiscation and subsequent leasing for worship) nor the Québec one (state-funded foundation issues substantial grants for the maintenance of historic churches). In the immediate term, I know that some places have formed local support societies (e.g., Friends of Saint Ichabod's) which can more easily obtain support from non-church-goers and the wider community).

As well, clergy and volunteers are not always comfortable with the reality that there are not a few worshippers who are there because they perceive it to be the religious building for their area, are happy to worship the Lord in that place, but might well not in another.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Getting members of the local community to contribute is a fine idea, but if the local community is small then you're still left with severe underfunding.

And at the moment, we find that while people are prepared to support our summer fete or something for the Children's Society, they're not so happy about just general fundraising. What has been noticeable is the number of non-churchgoers who are now prepared to ask questions about church matters in the news - women bishops, SSM - and comment about what they perceive as the church's backwardness, particularly with regards to women.

All of course greatly helped by the CofE stipendiary PP mother of our biggest farmer's daughter's partner who not only refused to baptise their baby but said that as a child of lesbians no baptism carried out by anyone else would be valid either. Wonderful [Mad]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
…but said that as a child of lesbians no baptism carried out by anyone else would be valid either.

Really?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Getting members of the local community to contribute is a fine idea, but if the local community is small then you're still left with severe underfunding.
*snip*
All of course greatly helped by the CofE stipendiary PP mother of our biggest farmer's daughter's partner who not only refused to baptise their baby but said that as a child of lesbians no baptism carried out by anyone else would be valid either. Wonderful

Perhaps, then, your funding base is not your greatest issue!! I've never heard anything like this before and, believe me, I've heard plenty.

The external community approach is more helpful for legacy funding than as a continued source of cash. I have seen some surprising examples of how provisions in wills can total up over a 5-10 year period.

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

Our State Government has just introduced amendments to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act which provides for renewable tenure of gravesites especially in the capital, where there is anticipated to be only 30-40 years burial capacity.

Graves in specified places will be tenable for 25 years renewable on payment of a fee, although exemptions apply for religious and cultural beliefs requiring perpetual interment. If the renewal fee is not paid the grave will be exhumed and the site made available for a new burial. In any event the interment right lapses after 99 years.

It seems that ossuaries may be making a comeback, as there is provision in the Act for their operation.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0