Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:02:07.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Re Romsey Abbey

Winchester Consistory Court: Ormondroyd Ch, 3 January 2018 [2018] ECC Win 1 Work of art – consultation – benefits outweighing status quo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2018

Ruth Arlow*
Affiliation:
Chancellor of the Dioceses of Norwich and Salisbury
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Case Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2018 

Romsey Abbey is a Grade I listed church. St Etheldflaeda was the Abbess in around 1000 ce and is, along with the Blessed Virgin Mary, a patron saint of the abbey. In 2016 the abbey hosted an exhibition of paintings by Christopher Gollon, which included, as a bespoke addition, the diptych of St Ethelflaeda. The diptych is a piece of modern art, depicting the saint and a candle. According to the artist it is designed to be ‘challenging and controversial’ while inviting worshippers to contemplate the saint's serenity and to reflect on their own faith. It was designed to be hung against the backdrop of two Norman arches by the door that the nuns of the community would have used to enter the church. At the conclusion of the exhibition the bespoke painting was offered to the church at a ‘discounted’ price of £6,000. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) voted by a majority to buy the painting as a permanent feature of the church, subject to obtaining a faculty. The decision was taken without prior consultation with the congregation, meaning that the notice for the faculty was the first notice to the wider congregation of the PCC's decision. The notice resulted in 15 letters of objection criticising the lack of consultation and process by which the PCC had made their decision. Other objections included the fact that the painting was disturbing, out of step with the historic nature of the church's architecture and detracted from the Abbey's beauty, and that the money could be better spent.

In applying the Duffield guidelines the chancellor found, based on evidence from the Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Church Buildings Council, that introducing the picture would not harm the architectural or historic significance of the abbey. Therefore the only question to address was whether the benefit of introducing the picture justified changing the status quo. The chancellor took seriously the objectors’ view of the painting as so disturbing that it was an impediment to worship. Taking the matter as a whole, however, he found that the benefits seen by the PCC of commemorating the saint, adding to the liturgy and encouraging visitors outweighed the objections. A major factor was that the size of the abbey meant that those who were inspired by the picture could benefit from it while those who were not could avoid it. [Catherine Shelley]