Then what you mean to say is that ecclesiastical law is more like “common law” (decisional law, precedential law, or judge-made law) or “equity” (chancery law).
And by their way, the state can be a party to a civil action, so that’s not a valid distinction.
I believe there are two definitions of the term “civil law”.
One term refers to legal systems derived from Roman/Napoleonic law such as France and Louisiana, specifically as opposed to legal systems derived from the “Common Law” of England, such as Virginia and Ontario.
The other term is used (at least in common law areas) to refer to that part of the law that deals with civil disputes and actions rather than to criminal violations such as murder, DUI, or possession of hoobidyjoobs with intent to flipscram. Suing someone for a trademark violation or for negligent injury are “civil law” proceedings if done in a common law country. Nobody is at risk of being convicted of a crime and being sent to prison.
If you read my posts you’ll see that I understand these distinctions. However, none of these multiple definitions make sense of the claim that “ecclesiastical law is more like civil law than statutory law.” Whether you are talking about a common law country or a civil law (code) country, that statement is gibberish.
You’ll find that trademark infringement can also be a crime.
From the Wikipedia page of the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks:
Oh good grief!
Ecclesiastic law is not laid down in parliament, OK?
A breach of Ecclesiastic law is not a criminal offence, OK?
A breach of Civil law is also not a criminal offence OK?
Some Civil Law is also enacted through Parliament in Statute but still does not qualify as criminal offences. Breaches of Court orders applied by the Civil Courts may be criminal offences, for instance the non-payment of compensation, or an order not to trespass in a certain area.
Breaches of Statutory law are the main way to commit a criminal offence but not the only way since some criminal offences are breaches of Common Law. Some Civil Law is also enacted through Parliament in Statute.
Ecclesiastic law is not enacted through Acts of Parliament, some of it may be common law and precedent but can also be laid down in Ecclesiastic Acts.
No breach of Ecclesiastic law is a criminal offence, just as breaches of Civil Law are also not criminal offences, in this there is a similarity. As for the sanctions applied by Ecclesiastic courts, I am not aware if the breach of an Ecclesiastic Court applied order can be a criminal offence or not.
I reckon in the past the Ecclesiastic courts and their sanction did have some real teeth.
These courts were used in the past to enforce tithing duties, as recently as the 1930’s and the flat refusal of tenant farmers to continue paying tithe rents to the church was a source of much dispute mainly around Norfolk. The last tithe act expired in 1977, having cut short the 1936 Act which had been due to wind up tithe rents in 1996. During that dispute the main protagonist was the Anglican Church which would not reduce its demands upon tenants during the 1930’s depression, and the original failures to pay up did go to the ecclesiastic courts and soon spilled over into Civil Law.On that basis is seems to me that non-compliance with Ecclesiastic court orders were not state enforceable nor were these classed as criminal offences, hence the need to resort to Civil Law.
Baron Sacks!?
Well, that’s the end of that lineage.
See, this is your problem. This is a fallacious line of reasoning. These three propositions do not imply the conclusion that “Ecclesiastical law is more like civil law than statutory law.”
Thus, some civil law is statutory law.
Thus, some criminal law is statutory law, and some criminal law is common law.
And, some civil law is statutory law, and some civil law is common law.
And, thus some ecclesiastical law is like statutory law.
Your distinctions are nonsensical.
Rather nice way to select the point you are attempting to make instead of the point I was making in response to the OP.
Ecclesiastic Law is similar to Civil Law in that breaches of either are not breaches of criminal law.
You have decided to look at enactment of law, I have attempted to look at the consequences of those laws.
As far as the person or body corporate is concerned, it is the consequences of lack of compliance that are likely to be most important rather than how these fields of law have arisen.
That’s also fallacious. Some consequences of violating criminal law may indeed be similar to remedies in civil law, such as injunctive relief. So, really, the sole similarity is that you can’t be put in prison by an ecclesiastical court. But you could simply have said, “You can’t be put in prison by an ecclesiastical court” without trying trying so hard to make a tortured comparison.
You keep still making a basic error in trying to equate statutory law to criminal law. It’s false. Statutory law can be criminal or non-criminal. Criminal law can be statutory or non-statutory. Statutory law can have criminal-like penalties or not. It’s simply wrong.
The Church of England has control/influence in some schools; there are two categories: Aided (the church contributes funding and appoints a majority of governors) and Church Controlled (the church appoints a minority of governors) - in either case, the religious influence on the character of the school is quite liberal.
Chancel repair liability is one area where property owners can find themselves saddled with a requirement to pay for repairs to the church, even if they aren’t religious.
But is that any different from other faith schools? It isn’t a preserve if the CofE.
I’m not sure if the relationship is formalised and standardised the same way for other types of faith school - but in any case, state funded schools are expected to have Christian leanings, with particular - although slight - emphasis on the Church of England.
Exceptions can be made for individuals who don’t want to participate, or entire schools which do not want Christianity in the spotlight, but they are exactly that - exceptions, not the rule.
I have not compared the awards made by Civil and Criminal courts, I have merely stated that breaches of Civil law are not criminal offences.The awards often have similarities, all except for the provision of incarceration.Comensation can be awarded by Criminal Courts but this is limited and any fines go to the State, whereas financial remedies required in County Courts etc can be very much more substantial - through to unlimited amounts in personal injury cases, for example, and go to the plantiff.
As for the penalties available to Ecclesiastic courts, well, I do not know about forms of remedy but they certainly cannot impose custodial punishment, I suspect that financial remedies are very limited hence the reason why the Anglican Church resorted to Civil Law to try impose tithe rents in the 1930’s
I have also added that failure to comply with a Civil Court order can then be a criminal act, but that is hardly the same thing, you are still being selective in your points of rebuttal.
Whilst I acknowledge that the State may be party to a Civil case, it may be and it is frequently the case that the state is the persued rather than the plaintiff.
In criminal cases the State is almost exclusively the prosecutor. I am not aware of any case where the state has been the accused. It is extremely difficult and extremely rare for an individual to persue a private criminal prosecution. Even attempting to gain leave to persue a private prosection is a court affair in itself.
Not a word of this is relevant to the statement “ecclesiastical law is like civil law and not like statutory law.” That statement remains gibberish. It can be neither true nor false because it is meaningless. There are no definitions of “civil law” and “statutory law” that make them contrasting opposites. Civil law can be either statutory or not and statutory law can either be civil or not.
If you had said “ecclesiastical law is like civil law and not like criminal law” then you would at least have a statement over which there could be a debate regarding whether it is true or false.
Not necessarily. A civil law jurisdiction uses a system of law that is derived from the Roman civil law. While codification is common in civil law countries, it is not requirement.
For example, pre-Revolutionary France was a civil law country, using laws derived from the Roman civil law, but the law was not codified nor entirely statute based. There were different legal customary laws in different parts of France. The Civil Code was a project of Napoleon, to provide a uniform legal system throughout France that was entirely statute based. But France did not suddenly become a civil law country with the passage of the Napoleonic Code in 1804.
Similarly, Quebec uses the civil law, but prior to 1866, it was based on the coûtume de Paris, the customary law that had been in force in Paris at the time New France was founded. That source of law was a mixture of customary law, similar in methodology to the English common law, and local statutes in force in Paris. Quebec became a code jurisdiction in 1866, with the passage of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, but it had always been a civil law jurisdiction.
Even today, Scotland uses the civil law, but does not have a civil code.
I’m going to take shot in the dark here and speculate that the term civil law as opposed to ecclesiastical law means laws made by the civil (not church) authorities.
Here are a couple of questions related to the Chuch of England. How does the general population in the UK feel about the Lords Spiritual in Parliament? Is there any drive to disestablish the state church?
Hey! I’m against that on principle. I’m an adherent of antidisestablishmentarianism. But that’s GD.
hehe.
What polls that exist, as studied http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/house-of-lords-reform/here, indicate a narrow majority in favour of booting the bishops out of the Lords.
Disestablishment seems a topic rarely discussed, although it was mentioned a number of times by columnists after the General Synod voted down women bishops.