Dumbfounded and Disillusioned

[contrabordun]

Caveat - I'm not a lawyer, but I think that you're either asking the wrong question, or at least, asking it in the wrong way. Certainly, there's a lot of 'it depends' in there.

First of all, it will depend on what you mean by 'make them shut up'. Physical restraint and ejection from the building? That's going to bring in other laws besides freedom of speech - broadly, the owner of a building has, under most circumstances, the right to use reasonable force to eject somebody from that building if that person is behaving objectionably. That issue could involve tensions between property rights and the right of the person not to be assaulted.

Second, (although from your question, I guess this doesn't apply) the person may have voluntarily agreed not to say certain things. Most employees are under a similar obligation not to publicly embarass their employer - their right to do this is protected by freedom of speech, but the privilege they enjoy (ie employment) depends upon their not exercising this right. Eg the Westminster Abbey organ scholar who was sacked for putting his thoughts on the Rutter commission for the Royal Wedding onto Facebook. In a similar way, if I sign a non disclosure agreement with a prospective customer, the terms of which I break, laws on freedom of speech will not protect me from being sued under that contract. So, an organisation could 'shut somebody up' by threatening consequences of a repetition (or imposing consequences as a deterrent to others) and this would not infringe freedom of speech, merely the occupying of a certain position whilst using that freedom. (How that would apply in the case of [RC] clergy I will leave to the professionals!)

Third, (unless this is just an urban myth) freedom of speech is legally protected only at Hyde Park Corner (although even if this was ever true, I bet it's out of date under the HRA).

[dmu3tem]

Many thanks for that reply. I recognise the circumstances you describe. However, I still think it is relevant to ask what statute and case law is applicable in such instances.

So, if someone can point to particular items this would be really helpful as it would give some precision to the debate.

For example, when an organisation requires employees as a condition of employment to sign a contract limiting their freedom of speech what statute or case law upholds this?

If it turns out that neither priests, clergy, or any other member of the congregation have signed any such as contract can they still be held bound to it by virtue of the fact that they have entered the building and are taking part in the service?

Here are some further dimensions that could be explored on the same lines:

[1]The law of libel. My understanding (probably flawed),is that for a libel case to be brought the accused has to have said something that is manifestly untrue.

So, if this was to be applied here, presumably it has to be proved that the person making a hostile statement about the recent liturgical changes has lied. Therefore if an opinion based on incontrovertible fact is uttered this might not be libel.

[2] The limitations on freedom of speech as a 'fundamental' right have been raised; and this, of course, has relevance to the question under review here.

There is a common assumption that 'freedom of speech' is a fundamental 'right' that should not be overridden by other 'law'. Thus here there is a question of to what extent (if at all) can English Statute/Case law be overridden by an appeal to 'fundamental law'. My training as a Medieval/Early Modern historian tells me that Statute used to be regarded by some as simply a 'statement' of what the law was. In other words Parliament was acting like a law court whose judgements could be overturned if the 'judgement' was deemed 'incorrect' by some 'higher' authority - for example that nebulous thing called 'the Common Law' (cf. the case of Godden vs Hales under James II). Now this attitude had been firmly rejected by the end of the seventeenth century, and from that time onwards it was held that the 'supreme' - or 'fundamental' - law was what statute declared it to be. So a statute like The Bill of Rights (1689) could be overridden by a subsequent statute. I note though that one of the consequences of closer union with Europe is the possible re-emergence of a body of such fundamental law that might override statute.

To sum up, even if 'full' freedom of speech is not (or need not be) protected by statute, it 'may' still be guaranteed by a 'higher' European law such as the Convention on Human Rights. So, is there anything in this document that 'protects' or 'limits' the 'right' of people - including clergy - to make statements in church that other people in the organisation might disapprove?

[contrabordun]

For example, when an organisation requires employees as a condition of employment to sign a contract limiting their freedom of speech what statute or case law upholds this?

A valid contract is enforceable through the courts by virtue of itself. It doesn't need any external law (other than the common law framework of contract law, which basically sets out the conditions under which a contract comes into existence).

If it turns out that neither priests, clergy, or any other member of the congregation have signed any such as contract can they still be held bound to it by virtue of the fact that they have entered the building and are taking part in the service?

Definitely not unless there was a specific notice to that effect on the door, and probably not even then. Contacts can have implied terms, but it would be difficult to stand up an argument that by entering a church one had entered into a specific behavioural contract not to criticise the new translations.

[1]The law of libel. My understanding (probably flawed),is that for a libel case to be brought the accused has to have said something that is manifestly untrue.

Falsehood is a necessary (but not a sufficient condition) for a statement to be libellous - there are others, eg it has to be defamatory.

So, if this was to be applied here, presumably it has to be proved that the person making a hostile statement about the recent liturgical changes has lied. Therefore if an opinion based on incontrovertible fact is uttered this might not be libel.

You can only libel a person, not an event. So making a hostile statement about the changes themselves can't be libel. (You could, of course, quite easily libel the persons involved in making the changes). "Fair comment", an opinion genuinely held, based upon incontrovertible facts and not maliciously made is a defence against libel.

To sum up, even if 'full' freedom of speech is not (or need not be) protected by statute, it 'may' still be guaranteed by a 'higher' European law such as the Convention on Human Rights. So, is there anything in this document that 'protects' or 'limits' the 'right' of people - including clergy - to make statements in church that other people in the organisation might disapprove?

To make statements - yes. To make them in a church building during a service, and to continue to do so in defiance of the wishes of the proprietor of that building - no.

[Psalm Project]

The new confiteor is getting 'nice' treatement...
the bit about "He descended into Hell'

Rev has taken a very radical view of this (proclaimed from the pulpit last sunday) "This language might have been OK 2000 years ago but it makes no sense to anybody now" - 'So, we will say instead - He descended among the dead"

The brown rectangle on the rear wall of our church (aka DOOR) is looking good!
Folks, I'm sure you don't wish to be bored further with this stuff
This willy-nilly adaptation of the 'new' texts is going to create a double-whammy confusion situation! It's making me tired!

[Eastern Promise]

Perhaps we should just become Protestants.


You know you want to........

[Psalm Project]

(Credo - not confiteor - I'm sure you all realised)
As for becoming protestants... in my dear city and immediate surrounding county... two notable organs have be built/rebuilt...
The Anglican Cathedral (St Finbarres) - work in progress - €1.2 Million... plus a small seaside town - a new Henk Van Eeken historic copy/reproduction - €320,000...
My three manual Phoenix - £30.000 Sterling...
So... maybe I'm descending into 'Hell' - only to rise again, like the phoenix, in Anglicanism

I'm sure I'll be ranting more over the coming while...
I simply wish that such a maverick attitude did not prevail. The new texts are printed and available at mass - why, oh why must PP decide to mess it all up by inserting a personal preference?

[nazard]

I would be very upset were anyone to become a protestant. The catholic church is where we belong, and we can be sure that she will be guided by God to the right place in the end. This priest's personal views are just that, personal, and he has no right to force them on anyone. I would recommend that you use the official words yourself at mass, giving a forceful lead if you feel sufficiently courageous. Dignum et justum est.

[dmu3tem]

Many thanks, Paul, for your answers to my questions. Just one thing, though, could you - or perhaps someone else - state which statutes/case law substantiate these positions? Even in Common Law, my understanding has always been that there are specific trials (Case Law) to which judges refer when a new case comes up.

[dmu3tem]

I would be very upset were anyone to become a protestant. The catholic church is where we belong, and we can be sure that she will be guided by God to the right place in the end. This priest's personal views are just that, personal, and he has no right to force them on anyone. I would recommend that you use the official words yourself at mass, giving a forceful lead if you feel sufficiently courageous. Dignum et justum est.

Personally I find this kind of attitude extraordinary. When all is said and done the Catholic Church on earth is an organisation/body of people run and made up of fallible human beings. Humans can, of course, be guided by God, but even here there must always be a doubt about whether the message we think we are receiving really comes from this source. That is why, within any religious body, it is so important that there is freedom for anyone to honestly express doubt. After all, when we die, the Gospel tells us we are required to account for our own actions - and thoughts - as individuals. At that point we cannot say 'Oh I did or said this because I was told to do it by some outside organisation.'

This is particularly pertinent to texts used in services, including the revised translations of the Mass. When we utter them in a service we are each subscribing as individuals (as well as in collective group) to what they say. These texts have been drafted/translated by fallible human beings. They have, no doubt, worked hard, used great linguistic expertise and honestly tried to do their best. They may even have been 'guided by the Holy Spirit'. We are asked - and there is scope for this - to 'have faith'; to trust that the people who have done this work really have produced the 'best' possible language/statements; but that should not mean that we suspend our personal judgement/conscience entirely. We must not use 'blind faith' to override the unpalatable fact that we cannot be sure that those who drafted/translated the texts have received spiritual guidance, however hard they tried to find it. Even if some 'guidance' has been given, we do not know whether this has been given all or some of the time. If we have doubts or reservations are these by definition the flawed products of fallible human frailty, or are these 'doubts' the consequence of God speaking to us? We don't - and can never in an objective sense - know for certain. In these circumstances there has to be room for people to say what they feel about given texts.

The key limitation is that the expression of such opinions should never be allowed to promote violence, either in attempts to provoke, or to silence people for saying things that are uncomfortable for others (in other words a church service should not necessarily be a 'comfort zone'). That is why the principle of genuine religious tolerance is so important, and why it needs to be safeguarded by law.

[nazard]

Thomas, I do wonder if you have extrapolated from what I wrote a little. The catholic church is not protected from error except in a very limited way. The catalogue of infallible statements is very short. However, the church is guided, and I believe that we can trust God to bring it to the right place in the end. In the meantime errors will continue. I do have a problem with Protestantism: not because I want it to cease to exist in some unpleasant or premature way, but because I see it as a symptom of our failure to unite behind the ultimate truth. The Church of England had a very unfortunate start, but, I believe through the power and influence of God, it has remained more or less on track. Those denominations which differ most seriously from the catholic church do seem to remain small. I am catholic because I believe that the catholic church is the body Christ set up to unite His people for ever, and am obviously saddened that others do not hold my opinion. I do not, however, wish protestants any harm, or wish to restrict their freedom to be protestant. I do wish to welcome them into the church as and when they feel comfortable with the church.

It is worth reading Newman's "Apologia pro vita sua". He describes his homecoming wonderfully.

[Eastern Promise]

"The Church of England had a very unfortunate start, but, I believe through the power and influence of God, it has remained more or less on track."

..especially now when its leadership will be backing gay marriage etc...

[Gedackt flute]

Thomas, I do wonder if you have extrapolated from what I wrote a little. The catholic church is not protected from error except in a very limited way. The catalogue of infallible statements is very short. However, the church is guided, and I believe that we can trust God to bring it to the right place in the end. In the meantime errors will continue. I do have a problem with Protestantism: not because I want it to cease to exist in some unpleasant or premature way, but because I see it as a symptom of our failure to unite behind the ultimate truth. The Church of England had a very unfortunate start, but, I believe through the power and influence of God, it has remained more or less on track. Those denominations which differ most seriously from the catholic church do seem to remain small. I am catholic because I believe that the catholic church is the body Christ set up to unite His people for ever, and am obviously saddened that others do not hold my opinion. I do not, however, wish protestants any harm, or wish to restrict their freedom to be protestant. I do wish to welcome them into the church as and when they feel comfortable with the church.

It is worth reading Newman's "Apologia pro vita sua". He describes his homecoming wonderfully.

Perhaps getting off-topic, but I'm not sure about the term 'Protestant'. As far as I know, nobody says that they are a Protestant. They say that they are Christians - and may follow this up with 'Non-conformist', 'Independent', 'Methodist' etc.
I would imagine most Anglicans would be very offended if they were referred to as 'Protestants'.

[gwyn]

I would imagine most Anglicans would be very offended if they were referred to as 'Protestants'.

?

[Peter Jones]

Perhaps getting off-topic, but I'm not sure about the term 'Protestant'. As far as I know, nobody says that they are a Protestant. They say that they are Christians - and may follow this up with 'Non-conformist', 'Independent', 'Methodist' etc.

It's a very broad term :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

[Nick Baty]

As far as I know, nobody says that they are a Protestant.

They certainly do up here – it's a badge of honour for many.