Does sanctuary still exist?

Last week I posted comments on a positive reflection of monasticism at the start of Advent. For a Surrey cathedral in contrast, Advent 1 saw a shocking event when armed police shot dead a mentally ill man in the cathedral grounds, a very clear profanation of demarcated sacred space. When considered along side recent events in parliament involving the arrest of a Tory MP and the consequent searching of his office, this occurrence does raise questions in my mind. Are the police above the law and does sanctuary exist any more?

The disturbing events in Surrey suggest the answer to the first question is yes and the second, no; they also find strong echoes in some of my own research and make me wish that excommunication was still a viable punishment in modern society. Not only was a man shot, but the dean had to insist on saying prayers for him and the police closed the cathedral without consultation. The bullets also penetrated the walls of the cathedral and entered the building: a good job that there wasn’t a service in progress then. Evidence in visitation records, charters, chronicles and letters details the penance enjoined on the perpetrators of violence against church property and persons, which include the shedding of blood in consecrated ground. These punishments involved pilgrimage to the site of the outrage, being beaten by the associated clergy and fasting, all very visible signs of having done wrong. Not only had these people transgressed against the earthly church, but also against God. Medieval society understood that there were boundaries that ought not to be transgressed.

Obviously none of this is going to happen to the police involved or their superior officers. Indeed, I would argue that such penalties would be essentially meaningless given that it seems the police have little idea of what they have done. The national and local news reports state the bald facts: man, possibly armed, shot by police in grounds of cathedral. Later, we read statements from his family that tell us the dead man went to the cathedral to ‘find solace’ and ‘because he felt closer to God’. These reports also tell us that services had to be cancelled.

In contrast, the Church Times (the Church of England’s newspaper) focuses on the reaction of the staff, and it is here that we find that the police involved had little understanding of what a cathedral (or any church for that matter) does and what it stands for. Cathedral clergy are not just responsible for the odd service or two on a Sunday, but maintaining a daily round of morning and evening prayer, weekly services, outreach through community services (school carol services for example) and witness to the Gospel. To close the cathedral without consultation amounts to a serious lapse in courtesy at a very basic level and more seriously interferes with worship. I understand the need to seal off a crime scene, but surely some provision could have been made for the clergy and people to use a particular entrance to the cathedral, thus allowing worship to continue and indeed further prayers to be said for the dead man and for the cathedral community. An alleged comment by a constable that this was like someone being shot outside Tescos sums up the situation perfectly.

I realise that the police do a difficult job and often have to make split decisions in the heat of the moment based on incomplete  information, but I’m not sure how shooting bullets through a person and into a congregational building is ever a good idea. Instead of punitive penances, the cathedral should seek some good in this sad episode by inviting the police to seminars and services in order that they might understand the purpose of sacred space more fully, just as parliament should run sessions on constitutional history for the Met. Only then will the police be able to serve communities to the best of their abilities.