Background

In Re St Mary the Virgin Morpeth [2024] ECC New 2, the petitioners – the Revd Simon White, Rector of Morpeth, Dr Andrew Mowat, a churchwarden, and Camilla Stephenson, the Supervising Location Manager for DNA Films – sought a faculty to permit the filming within the church during June and July 2024 of a sequel to two “horror” films: 28 Days and 28 Weeks After. The sequel was to portray “a post-apocalyptic world in which people are largely infected by a ‘rage’ virus which leads them to violence” [1&2]. Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle was to direct the film, which would star Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jodie Comer, Jack O’Connell and Ralph Fiennes [4].

The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal for approval, while a member of the PCC objected to the proposal and, though not wishing to become a party opponent, asked for her views to be taken into account. In the circumstances, said Wood Ch, “this is not an unopposed petition” [5]. Further, the Archdeacon of Lindisfarne

“had researched the previous two films in the sequel … and formed the preliminary view that the subject matter of the film rendered filming in a consecrated church potentially inappropriate regardless of whether the proposed church scene might be regarded as intrinsically unobjectionable”

and had counselled the parishes in her Archdeaconry against their agreeing to filming [9].

The Statement of Need drew attention to the past use of the church for an episode of the ITV drama Vera and gave examples of filming in other churches “involving murder, science fiction, fantasy and horror”. It suggested that the consequences had been broadly positive but recognised that “there will be a small number of people who disagree with the use of sacred spaces for this purpose” [23]. The Rector suggested that the film gave a chance “to engage with a popular apocalyptic genre, whether one likes it or not, the content of which ‘could in part be described by the Book of Revelation’” and that the church was “appropriately portrayed as a place of sanctity with a storyline that is more biblical than profane”. He did not believe that using the church would bring it, the parish or the Diocese into disrepute [24]. The churchwarden had seen the script and had “reported to the PCC that there was no blasphemy, very little swearing and no disrespect to God” in the scene to be filmed [25].

The Chancellor noted that the producer had asked to meet him shortly before the notice period expired:

“Although I was not available, the more important issue was what I regarded as the inappropriateness of providing a forum for potential lobbying when the matter was to be adjudicated by a judicial process. The court anticipated real difficulties in determining how that could be done without affording all other interested parties a like opportunity” [28].

The relevant canons

Under Canon F 15 (Of churches not to be profaned):

“1. The churchwardens and their assistants shall not suffer the church or chapel to be profaned by any meeting therein for temporal objects inconsistent with the sanctity of the place, nor the bells to be rung at any time contrary to the direction of the minister.”

Canon F 16 (Of plays, concerts, and exhibitions of films and pictures in churches) mandates that:

“1. When any church or chapel is to be used for a play, concert, or exhibition of films or pictures, the minister shall take care that the words, music, and pictures are such as befit the House of God, are consonant with sound doctrine, and make for the edifying of the people.”

The arguments

The sole objector set out her objection as follows:

• the unfairness of a process whereby the PCC only became aware of the proposal on being told that the churchwarden had signed a non-disclosure agreement, which meant that he could not discuss the details of the film;
• that filming in the church would be damaging for the Church of England in the long term;
• that the financial incentive was a particularly powerful one that she thought inappropriate;
• that she believed that she was not the only member of the PCC who was concerned, but others felt constrained from speaking out; and
• that she did not believe that “God would want his buildings to be so used for such ghastly events” [29].

The petitioners replied:

• that no evidence had been offered to support the assertion that there would be damage to the Church of England;
• that the PCC minutes showed that the fee had not been the driving force, though the PCC was obliged to act in the best interests of the charity and the Diocese;
• that no evidence had been offered to suggest that members of the PCC were in some way restrained from speaking out; and
• that DNA Films had offered to show the objector “a synopsis and, if necessary, script pages” [30].

The opinion of the DAC

While the DAC “fully supported the use of churches as spaces where creativity and the arts could be expressed, even where the theme covered difficult topics’, “[t]he theological review of the (confidential) script by the Archdeacons highlighted that the content and language of the proposed scenes were disrespectful of Christian theology and practice”. It therefore supported the Archdeacons’ objections [31].

The judgment

The question for the court was whether the petitioners had satisfied it on the simple balance of probabilities that the proposed secular use of St Mary’s was “consistent with its consecrated, sacred nature” [38]. Nothing suggested that the new film was going to be materially different from its predecessors [39] and

“looking at the scene to be filmed, the theological and other objections presented to the DAC, and accepted by it, suggest that, on the face of the script itself, it can properly be characterised as intrinsically objectionable. It contains notions and imagery which offend against the Canons of the Church of England and which those best placed to advise have characterised as theologically problematic, allowing the church to be profaned, inconsonant with sound doctrine, not edifying to the people and not befitting the House of God” [40].

Though only one objection had been received, it chimed very much with the theological view offered to and accepted by the DAC and was “a view that would be shared by many members of the Church of England and those non-members who are nevertheless broadly sympathetic to it” [41]. Though reasonable people might hold differing views about filming the scene in St Mary’s, there was “a powerful and well-supported opinion that the scene is intrinsically objectionable in its own right and that, regardless of the wider context, it would be inappropriate to permit it to take place” [42] and Wood Ch was satisfied that the scene in question was objectionable on its own terms [43]. He was also “unpersuaded” that a refusal would have a material impact on the objective of encouraging the film industry to work in the North East [44]. Application refused.

In an Afterword, Wood Ch added at [51] that the case demonstrated the desirability of formal written guidance about filming in churches and on church land in a readily accessible form.

Comment: Readers with long memories may recall the controversy about the installation in Durham Cathedral of Bill Viola’s video installation The Messenger, which the Cathedral commissioned in 1996. I suspect that almost thirty years on, very few people would now be offended by the sight of a nude male. But issues such as this are very sensitive to the facts.

[With thanks to the Revd Raymond Hemingray.]