The chancellor considered a petition for the introduction of a memorial plaque to commemorate the life of the petitioner's late mother in replacement for an existing memorial plaque on the church organ. The petitioner's mother had lived in the parish and served the church and community there for a period of forty years until her death. She had played significant roles as church organist, local teacher, fundraiser and community benefactor. She had played a principal role in saving the church from closure and in bringing the church hall back into use. The parochial church council (PCC), which had a policy against new memorial plaques, supported the petition by a majority, although it had unanimously rejected a previous petition in similar form. The vicar, diocesan advisory committee (DAC), area dean, archdeacon and former incumbent all opposed the petition.
The chancellor reviewed the case law pertaining to the introduction of memorial plaques and considered the existing policies and norms. He acknowledged that a faculty for a memorial plaque would only be granted in an exceptional case and listed the following factors as relevant to the consideration of exceptionality:
i. An association between the person commemorated and the church should be established, the presence of other family plaques would not be determinative and care must be taken not to give the impression of privilege or superiority;
ii. Sufficient time should elapse after death to allow perspective to be put on the life, character and service of the deceased so as to enable careful, mature and objective assessment of these;
iii. If the person's character or contribution was already marked in some way then the plaque might be unnecessary;
iv. The petitioner should engage with the church authorities to explore alternative means of commemoration, such as by way of gifts based on the actual and genuine needs of the church;
v. There must be clear evidence of the very special or outstanding contribution of the deceased to the church, community, country or humankind. Simple assertions without supporting evidence would be of little or no value. For exceptionality it must be established that the service of the person goes substantially above and beyond that expected by the Church, should withstand the test of time and be of meaning to future generations, not simply contemporaries of the person to be commemorated;
vi. Although some comparison of service is necessary, it should be undertaken with caution and avoid giving the impression that some of the faithful are of greater value than others;
vii. The chancellor needs to rely on the counsels of the church, including the PCC, DAC, clergy and parishioners. Substantial consensus of opinion is desirable. Decisions should ensure consistency, although each case should be decided on its merits. The DAC is competent to advise on exceptionality, and due weight should also be given to the views of the clergy given their day-to-day contact with the faithful. A PCC should not make controversial decisions in an interregnum without the advice of senior clergy responsible for supervision of the interregnum;
viii. Given the primary purpose of a church as a place of worship and mission, it is relevant whether a plaque would serve as an inspiration, deepening the faith of others or as a focus for disunity and resentment;
ix. It is relevant whether the church already has an excess of plaques so as to cause clutter;
x. The plaque must be an artistic adornment and in keeping with the church's character and the words should make sufficient link to the character and service for which the person is to be commemorated.
The chancellor found that the petitioner's mother was adequately commemorated elsewhere in the church and that her contributions, though considerable and significant, had not been very special or outstanding such as to go substantially above and beyond the faithful discipleship expected by the Church of all of its members. The faculty was refused. [RA]
