| Friday 29th February, 2008 You are here: Home - 29th February 2008 Index Page - 29th February 2008 Letters |
Clergy housing
I am writing in response to the letter from Betty Neill (Gazette, 25th January) which articulated the distress which
many Church of Ireland clergy and their families suffer as a result of the need to find alternative accommodation, often in extremely difficult and tragic situations.
I write on behalf of the Church of Ireland Housing Association, now known as Trinity, and the Church of Ireland Retirement Trust, and in light of the direct contact these organisations have had over almost 30 years with too many of our clergy and clergy widows in situations upon which Betty Neill reflects.
The Church of Ireland must listen to these concerns and open a debate to explore appropriate solutions which could lead to positive action. It is simply intolerable in our modern and caring society to continue to permit the great strain which many clergy experience resulting from the tied house.
I support the call to introduce other options to the tied house as a matter of urgency and demonstrate practical Christian love, so that those who give so much to so many can make a less stressful transition to a happy and welldeserved retirement.
In the interim, Trinity Housing offers a range of appropriate retirement housing in Northern Ireland and the Church of Ireland Retirement Trust offers financial assistance, where renting is not an option, towards the purchase of a suitable retirement home.
Arthur D. Canning
Chief Executive
Trinity Housing
95a Finaghy Road South
Belfast
I read with interest the letter from Betty Neill (Gazette, 25th January) regarding clergy housing and the necessity of clergy spouses to vacate the rectory within a specified time after bereavement.
I should like to add these further observations. Not only in the case of death, but also when the cleric has serious, or potentially terminal, illness, the clergy spouse has the added anxiety of the housing insecurity. I have lived in tied houses all my life (my father, as well as my husband, was a clergyman).
At age 40, my father suffered his first massive heart attack and was not expected to survive. I remember, when I was 12, the oldest of four children, my mother returning from the hospital crying that we had nowhere to live if daddy died. He suffered a number of further heart attacks, involving hospitalisation, before he dropped dead (literally) on his way out to church one Sunday morning, aged 60. The physical and emotional upheaval involved in rehousing my mother was traumatic.
I fully endorse Mrs Neill’s observation that the tied house can be a source of deep resentment among many spouses, and frequently leads to a breakdown of relationships at parish level. Badly-maintained rectories and indefinite postponement of necessary basic repairs can leave the clergy family beholden to their vestry. Indeed, clergy in this regard have fewer rights than tenants. At least tenants, without changing their employment, can move out when their lease expires, if routine repair work and maintenance, etc. is not up to standard.
Due to the obligation to live in the tied house, clergy and clergy spouses are denied the emotional satisfaction and material advantage of developing a home which is truly their own, a safe place in times of anxiety and one in which the clergy spouse can remain after bereavement. These issues will not be addressed until the fundamental problem of tied housing is resolved.
I would like to thank Betty Neill for the perceptive, compassionate way her letter brings this issue to the attention of the Church at large.
Rachel Brew
The Rectory
37 St Fintan’s Park
Sutton
Dublin 13
I would like to reply to the article by Mr Alex Kane (Gazette, 8th February), giving us the sensible reasons why religion should have no influence in politics. "Keep your religion out of my politics," he says in closing.
Well, I can’t help wondering if men like William Wilberforce hadn’t dared to stick their noses into the politics of their day, would the slave trade have reached such an early conclusion? Or, indeed, if Lincoln hadn’t been guided by his beliefs, would it have ended when it did?
Amazingly enough, all the atheists I’ve read are glad to point out the failings and excesses - and there have been terrible excesses - of religion and, in particular, they point to the bête noir of them all, Christianity, but I’ve yet to see a mention of Joseph Stalin in one of their books. Here we have perhaps the greatest atheist of all time - a man who ruled with singlemindedness and zeal over an almost undivided nation.
In a present-day scenario, can I assume that Mr Kane wouldn’t welcome Church involvement in the politics of Zimbabwe in order to try to secure an improvement in the lives of ordinary people who have to live their lives in constant fear under the jackboot of Mugabe?
Mr Kane tells us that the Church simply isn’t capable of playing a political role in a secular society and that most (‘intelligent’ inferred) people don’t look to the Church any longer for guidance in their lives. Perhaps so. Yet, despite the influence of Oxbridge atheists and the massive television coverage they receive ad nauseam, I’m led to believe that in the last census, 72% of people in the UK claimed to be (horror of horrors) Christian. Presumably, at least some of these nominal believers do look for some form of guidance at some time from some Church or other.
Leslie Talbot
Dromkilla House
Ballybrenagh
Tralee