| Friday 5th October, 2007 You are here: Home - 5th October 2007 Index Page - 5th October Letters Page |
Mobile phone masts on churches
The Daily Telegraph reported on 25th August that the Court of Arches, the highest Church of England court, overturned, on appeal, a ruling earlier this year which banned dioceses from allowing telecommunication companies to erect or install equipment in or on church spires or steeples which could "facilitate the transmission of pornography even in a slight or modest way". The newspaper report suggested that the appeal was upheld on the basis that "the risk associated with the internet is of children viewing pornography or even being drawn into sexual abuse, and this has been clearly identified by the Government and by mobile phone operators and action has been taken to counter the risk".
As a Christian, and one who has held a senior post in Social Services with a primary responsibility for Child Protection, I have been following the debate in England and was dismayed at this decision of the Court of Arches, confident as I was the appeal would have failed.
The presence of an Orange mast in our steeple in St Comgall’s church, Bangor, is currently being reconsidered. The transmission of unsavoury phone messages had not really been considered and now, with imaging and internet link-up, our parish church, which should be wholly and solely for the worship of God by a people called to be "holy and blameless" (Eph 1: 42), could be seen to be facilitating the communication and exchange of information and material abhorrent to our holy God.
I fully appreciate the opportunities for good through telephone and internet services, including worship initiatives. One can exercise choice in accessing these or indeed those at odds with God’s Spirit, but our parish has no choice over what is passing through our church’s steeple.
I pray that the Church of England will reconsider its latest decision, that the Church of Ireland will show spiritual leadership and that our own parish will explore all means of terminating our contract with Orange. We have been unable to get a guarantee from Orange that no illicit material would be facilitated by the mast.
James E. Fulton
14 Bryansglen Avenue
Bangor
Co. Down
BT20 3RU
"Woe is me for I am undone." (Isaiah 6: 5, KJV).
Canon Mayne is absolutely correct (Letter, 21st September). It is, of course, the creed as recited in the Roman Catholic Church which mentions Christ’s actual death on the cross (see The Roman Missal, page 6, ‘Profession of Faith’), not our version at all.
How remiss, nay, how foolish of me, confusing our creed, "he suffered and was buried", with that of the Roman Catholic Church, "he suffered death and was buried". A senior moment maybe?
I confess my sin, and repent "in sackcloth and ashes", and offer to the good Canon, and, indeed, to all your readers, my heartfelt, grovelling apologies!
William L. Fleming
2 Onslow Gardens
Bangor
Co. Down
BT19 7HH
A little over a year ago, a pilot programme called Church21 began throughout the Church of Ireland. Its broad aim was to ask: What does it mean to be Church in the 21st century? and, How can we live that out in a real, relevant and meaningful way in our parish situation - big, small, urban, rural, north, south, east and west of this island? Quite a challenge.
The programme began in September 2006 with a weekend in St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, after which facilitators were assigned to work with the pilot parish from each diocese. Saturday 15th September 2007 was the follow-up day and what an encouraging day it was, as people from each church met and shared what their particular parish had done over the last year. Some had undertaken larger projects, most had undertaken small things - welcome signs and teams in churches, coffee after services, youth groups and the like. It was holy ground. There was no sense of any particular things being more significant than others; there was just joy at what God had done in each situation.
Although the work will continue, the Church21 pilot scheme has sadly come to an end. It was a privilege for the Virginia group to be part of it. Much credit must go to all involved in the running of the programme. I do hope the powers that be will not just see Church21 as a oneoff scheme, but will see it as something worth investing in in the long-term so that many more parishes will benefit.
Church21 was and, I hope, is something for the Church of Ireland as a whole to be united in, to get behind and to be proud of.
Craig McCauley (The Revd)
The Rectory
Virginia,
Co. Cavan
Thankfully, I can now bring this correspondence to a happy conclusion due to clear information supplied by one of my clerical friends who wrote in these columns.
There was some confusion as to which reports were being referred to. There were two, the ARCIC one, Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ, published in the spring of 2005, and a subsequent one from a study group set up by the Standing Committee of the General Synod to give the official Church of Ireland response.
This committee’s report was unanimously passed by the General Synod in 2006. It meant there was no change in the theological dogmas of the Church of Ireland regarding Mary.
There was no Church of Ireland member on the ARCIC committee, but it remains worrying that those Anglicans on the committee did accept the report. It is surely a lesson for the Church of Ireland to make sure that the content of two such important reports must not just be given to the clergy, but must in some convenient form be available for the people in the pews. I am pleased that Canon Mayne has made such a proposal and look forward to its implementation.
I am content to have an answer to my original question and to know exactly where the Church of Ireland stands.
Maureen Donnelly
Donard Cottage
Clough
Co. Down