No PRIESTS FOR ENGLAND.
C. Archer Wallington in his letter is In error in thinking that I was gibing at the
bishops, What 1 was trying to bring out was that we have somehow got out of touch with the whole spirit of the Gospel about money 'natters.. I do not say that there is any easy solution, but I think the root of the trouble is this: historical circumstances have forced the clergy of the C. of E. into a middle-class with of living. This is often not the case with the R.C.s, and perhaps that is one reason Why they seem to have more working-class adherents than we have.
The average wage in the coal industry, whieh is, I think, the highest paid trade in country, is still less than £550 per year. "lanY of the obligations which the clergy ass "me, and which the miner doesn't, are due
`c the middle-class standards which the clergy are expected to keep up; but even so, these need not always cost the priest more than the sport, beer, pools, etc.: which the miner is share to keep up, and needs to if he is to 'lace the social life of his mates. x111 think that a new approach to the Whole rihlect is needed by the Church Commis-. '1°,ners, and that it should be on these lines: i "1 Instead of a flat rate of income for all in,cianbents, their standard of living should a't- adjusted to be roughly equivalent to the -v,erage standard in their parishes. al!() C'verY incumbent should have an expense car owance according to circumstances (e.g., a for a man who had to look after two Vr'shes: more money where there was an e(Vid in the family, etc.).
be bought or built which the incumbent's wife could look after easily without more than occasional help.
In general the public attitude of the Church should not be that security is essential to godliness. If that was the case we might as well give up as hopeless anyone who has any real worries' to cope with. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?—Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL GEDGE 3 Chapel Hill, Eythorne, Dover
Previous page
