| Friday 21st March, 2008 You are here: Home - 21st March 2008 Index Page - 21st March 2008 Letters |
Letters to the Editor
I have read most of the letters in the Gazette about housing for retiring clergy. I am both a daughter and wife of clergy. I believe there is no choice but to have tied housing for clergy in active service. Imagine the extra difficulties, stress and delays of selling and buying a house before a move, as well as the fees involved.
I also believe we are not encouraged to retire into a parish where we have served. Even if I don’t like some things about a particular parish house, I believe moving in to it is still the only option. Generally speaking, the laity in the parishes to which we have moved have been keen to make the houses as comfortable as possible for us and I have greatly appreciated their efforts over the years. Several of the houses have been better than anything we could have afforded.
However, we also need to ensure that clergy families have the option to and are encouraged to make provision for themselves in case of illness or retirement. A savings scheme, perhaps with the RCB, where the clergy could take the money for their deposit, when they thought the time was right to purchase, might be one possibility. In the case of their untimely death, this money would be available for the family.
Those of us who have, in fact, made provision for our retirement face other difficulties. The tax authorities refuse to treat the house as a primary residence, leading to severe penalties. If we sell the house we purchased to buy something else which will be more suitable for our retirement, we are caught for capital gains tax. An owner-occupier wouldn’t be. Nor can we get tax relief on a mortgage. In our case, the tax authorities told us that we couldn’t be owner-occupiers as we are occupying the rectory. Clergy wives are also criticised for working, but for many, this is the only feasible way to pay for their own home. It is time for a full and frank discussion about these issues. Generally, the needs of the clergy spouse have been ignored. I would welcome a forum where all these issues could be aired and answers sought.
Rosemary Kingston
The Rectory
Drumconrath Road
Carrickmacross
Co. Monaghan
The Revd Colin Coward of Changing Attitude argues (Gazette, 29/02/08) that "to acknowledge that people engage in intimacy in nonapproved circumstances isn’t to undermine the ideal of fidelity in marriage". Indeed not. But Changing Attitude not only acknowledges but encourages such behaviour. A publication entitled Sexual Ethics on its website - www.changingattitude.org. uk - suggests that:
• exploration of our sexual selves can be something which benefits from involvement with more than one person
• serial commitments and serial faithfulness may be a more realistic aspiration than permanent, faithful, stable relationships
• brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace. On this last point, the website says: "Risky, but then, as Paul Tillich said: ‘A Christian is safest taking risks!’" I doubt if that is a proper application of the famous theologian’s dictum. Not surprisingly, the document says: "We do not think there should be any attempt to proscribe particular sexual activities between consenting and mature adults who genuinely believe they have thought about [certain specified ‘rights and wrongs’]." Mr Coward warns that "destructive forces are at work in our Church". On that limited point, I think he is right – the destructive potential of the above suggestions is immense. Of course, he lays the blame instead on literalists with a pre-enlightenment mentality. But I think the reader has the right to know the degree as well as the direction in which he wants to change our attitudes.
Dermot O’Callaghan
27 Monument Road
Hillsborough
BT26 6HT