Now, not being funny but I would have thought that anyone who was doing around one hundred weddings a year was seriously mistaken had they thought that the acts were going to go unnoticed for too long. Mind you, I have to assume that, fees apart (which would have been £27,600 a year on 2009 rates - mmm, nice), anyone who sees the number of weddings rise from thirteen to two hundred and eighty three over consecutive four year periods should expect a visit, even if it was just to see how he'd managed the rise.
And of course, he'd also have received an invite to the diocesan 'Wedding project' training day (which I think he might have to forfeit now unless it's passed).
So, working on the assumption that the going rate was around three k a pop, that's a fair amount of dosh for those organising and performing the services (sic!). In fact that makes it a business with a million quid turnover and yet rather than get the Queen's Award for seriously large endeavour our DC is certain to be heading off to start a cell group in a government institution (not of his choice though sadly) after the Summer hols are past.
Apart from doctoring electoral rolls and having bride and groom living in the same street almost every time (obviously no one claimed he was a bright DC!) and perhaps the only bright moment comes in the reality that he chose to remain silent. After all, on the evidence so far, the brightest thing he might have done was say nothing if he wasn't going to put his hands up (in guilt, don't think he was charismatic ;) ).
What is odd is the fact that the Revd Brown is 'openly gay' and attention to this is added by the press as something material to the happenings under investigation. Perhaps some are trying to link homosexuality and being bent (i.e. 'dodgy, corrupt, whatever) but I think this is an extrapolation too far. But hey ho, good on them for trying and well done to those who seek media inches for homosexual clergy (regardless) - all might be happy with this case for their own reasons tonight!
Philip Jones, the Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings, told reporters that Father Brown had committed a "betrayal of trust towards his congregation and the wider community and that they (the Church) was particularly sorry for those who have been deceived and hurt by the actions of Father Alex Brown.
The church and the community of St Leonards-on-Sea are faced with a betrayal of trust on the part of Father Alex Brown.
The Diocese of Chichester sets high standards and expects its clergy not only to comply with the law but also to honour the trust placed in them at their ordination and the promises made on becoming a vicar.
We are saddened that a priest in Chichester Diocese has found himself in this position and we are conscious of the effect on the Church of St Peter and St Paul, St Leonards-on-Sea, and the concern caused to those who have in the past been properly married at that church."
Father Brown, who is currently suspended also faces the possibility of 'disciplinary action from the Church'.
What a prune and what a sadness for the Church of England at a time when we are working so hard to regain the place that Weddings once had within our buildings. Mind you, assuming that there was someone rubbing their hands at the blokes diocesan board of finance - how on earth did they miss a sum getting on for £30k a year and not ask questions. I would have assumed that even if it was just to have others emulate him, that someone would have raised the phenomenal growth in weddings and income to the diocese!
Making a monkey out of Church Weddings!
2 comments:
Vic,
Having read the stuff on the case the Border Agency have stated that Father Brown did not make any personal gain from the weddings.
I am sure that there will be a Church investigation - it is a little late for Disciplinary Action against Father Brown, but perhaps someone at Chichester Diocese Board of Finance might need some re-education on propriety.
And what has his sexuality got to do with his criminality? Nothing as far as I can see.
It was the sexuality bit that confused me most of all - as I said in the blog I see the reference to his sexuality as a bit of an odd extrapolation. After all, it's his actions in performing weddings and not his private life in the dock here.
I am glad that the bloke hasn't made money from the situation and am amazed, like you, about the lack of something or other on the part of someone with a spreadsheet!
All very odd indeed.
Very sad indeed - for his church and its members, for the diocese and for the man himself.
Post a Comment