I reported here that the draft Parochial Fees Order 2011 had been defeated at General Synod earlier this month. This order proposed revised fees for weddings and funerals from 1 January 2012.
I wrote then that the current order (the 2010 Order) would remain in force. William Fittall, the Secretary General, has today issued a paper (GS Misc 999) explaining in detail the implications of Synod’s decision. His paper includes topics such as transitional arrangements for incumbents who have not assigned their fees, what PCCs may and may not charge in addition to the statutory fees, and when fees may be waived.
Our html copy of GS Misc 999 is here.
The concluding point No 12 of William Fittall’s paper reads:
‘The Archbishops’ Council will be considering at its next meeting in September what conclusions to draw from the points made during the July debate and how best to create the conditions in which revised proposals might be brought back to Synod for approval, probably in February.’
…’revised proposals’! Can’t they just leave it alone?
Is this a whiff of the kind of autocratic centralising that we’ll get if and when the Covenant is approved?
Peter,
Can you point me to a post explaining Parochial fees or can you explain them here, please, for this American.
Chip
The Parochial Fees are a statutory schedule of fees payable for weddings, funerals and some other services and matters. In the Church of England they are set according to a statutory scheme statute (part of being an Established Church). The fees have been charged in much the same way for many years, on the whole being updated in line with clergy stipends, to which they have a historic link – the fees were originally charged by the incumbent and formed part of his income, and it is still possible for clergy to receive the fees, in which case their stipend… Read more »
The current fees table
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/56804/Fees%20Table%202011%20both%20sides.pdf
Mark Bennet has laboured hard in a long response to tell us that the Synod (like the C of E) contains a plurality of views, something which we know already.
Thus, my original succinct plea remains regarding fees ‘just leave it alone’.
Naturally, the same advice goes for what the Covenant is trying to achieve in the wider Anglican Communion that contains even more diversity.
Thank you, Peter.
This is clear as mud; we remain churches separated by common prayer . . .
Chip
Chip – That was Mark – not me. I can’t really add anything except for this link to the “Four Funerals and a Wedding” report.
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/38839/gsmisc877.rtf
Part of the problem Americans have in understanding this issue is another example of the “connected by an ocean/divided by a common language” problem. The dictionary definition of the word “scheme” gives it three main meanings: 1. a plan, design, or program of action to be followed. 2. an underhand plot; intrigue. 3. a visionary or impractical project. In England, I gather that the word “scheme” is frequently and comfortably used in the first sense, a plan, design, or program. In the USA, the chief meaning of the word “scheme” is the second one, as in the Ponzi scheme carried… Read more »
I believe that if the “chief” meaning of scheme were the “second one”, it would be in position 1, not 2. Dictionaries define words in order of common usage. Scheme, like plot, can refer to something that is underhanded. But that’s not the primary meaning.
Richard, if the dictionary I used for this set of definitions had been an American dictionary, it would have had the definitions in the order you propose. But believe me, in the USA the second meaning is the chief one. ‘Nuff said. JNW
“A scheme is not a vision” (Leonard Cohen)
Apologetically
D
In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first two meanings are for an archaic use as an astrological or astronomical diagram, second for a concise statement or table, and, lastly:
“: a plan or program of action; especially : a crafty or secret one “
Note that – especially a crafty or secret one.
The first example used – indicating most prevalent common usage of a word – is
“a scheme to cheat people out of their money”