Has the Catholic Church ever received compensation from the Church of England?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krisdun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Catholics should compensate druids
  2. Protestants should compensate Catholics
  3. Evangelists should compensate Protestants and Catholics
  4. Atheists should compensate all of the above
 
No we atheists were here first. First there were people, then there was religion.
 
Krisdun said:
Establishing any religion by an act of parliament will likely disadvantage people of other faiths
Click to expand...
There’d probably be a lot of minuses. Is anyone recommending that? I think we’re talking about the merit of compensation for an historical injustice.
 
Compensation does not work when done generations later. Those who would be paying were not those who committed any wrong, and those who would receive were not the one wronged.
 
Also a lot of the old Abbeys/priories have been in private hands for hundreds of years. Most have no link to the Church of England.

Who would compensate the church:

The monarchy?
The government?
The family the land was originally gifted to?
The family that owns it now?
What if it is part of the National Trust?

Then you need to ask, who gets the compensation? Is it the orders they were seized from? Rome? Or the Catholic Church in England?

It’s super complex.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
In a perfect world, there would be, but we do not live in a perfect world. Not even close.
Click to expand...
Well then the Church should compensate Spain’s Moslems for.the mosques that were converted to churches during the Reconquista for starters.
 
Are you suggesting that the CoE profited by selling properties and/or land (which were not theirs originally) to private owners who in turn may be continuing to gain financially to this day? Is this sort of practice still allowed in English law? It would be scary to think that the CoE are still legally allowed to ‘seize’ any religious building (e.g. Catholic Church, Mosque, Temple etc) in the country for their own use?

I would say any compensation should go to the Catholic Church in England.
 
Last edited:
Krisdun said:
Are you suggesting that the CoE profited by selling properties
Click to expand...
On the dissolution of the monasteries, the property passed to the Crown, which sold most of it off (to the already rich) with the money going to the Exchequer to finance wars, building, stuff like that. Those Church buildings and land necessary for religious use passed to what became the Church of England.
Krisdun said:
It would be scary to think that the CoE were legally allowed
Click to expand...
It isn’t.
Krisdun said:
I would say any compensation should go to the Catholic Church in England.
Click to expand...
There won’t be any to pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
I doubt that they ever will received money from the British Government. This happened a long time ago and I would guess that most Brits would not be in favour of it.
 
No, The Crown seized them and gifted (some) of them to families who were loyal to The Crown especially in the North after the uprisings.
But yes some private landowners are still profiting from the use of lands seized from Catholic Orders the same way that some are still profiting from common land they “obtained” under The Enclosures Act.
Definitely not saying the C of E had much to do with it.
 
why would the assets of monasteries/churches owned by the CoE (formerly property of the Catholic Church) pass to the Crown? I thought that would happen only if there was no owner involved?
 
As to who should pay the compensation, that should be between the Monarchy and the Crown, but not directly from the current owners of the properties. This is because the buildings were taken by the Crown, but with the aid of Parliament that made the Crown “Head or the ‘Church’ of England”.

As to Monasteries, the money for them should be given to the order, as to normal Parish Churches, the money should be given to the appropriate Catholic Dioceses or if it’s easier for the government, all directly to the Bishops Conference of England and Wales who would then work out how to distribute it between each of the Bishops of England and Wales Dioceses.

As to any compensation claim where who to give it to cannot be worked out, the money should be given to Rome. Parliament should have a choice:
  1. return the building directly
  2. pay compensation for that building, especially if it belongs to another person and not to the ‘Church’ of England any longer.
 
Last edited:
This is a question…I don’t know the answer.

Currently when the Church Of England wants to build a new church or hall etc, the money comes from the congregation. If they close a church the money they get from the site goes to the diocese. So the UK Government doesn’t fund it or benefit from the sale of properties.

Prior to the reformation who funded the building of churches (catholic) in England? If it was local landowners and the congregations. Then didn’t the majority of them convert to anglicanism and therefor still use the same church buildings that they or their decedents had paid for?

Canterbury cathedral gets no government funding and cost approximately £18,000 per day just to keep the doors open and the building from being unsafe. They only way they can keep the building open is to charge an entrance fee of £12.50. Its similar at most major UK cathedrals. In France many church buildings are claimed by the state to be historical monuments. So when they need repairs often its joint effort between the French national government, the local government and the town.
 
Alex5 said:
Then didn’t the majority of them convert to anglicanism
Click to expand...
No. Not when Anglicanism came anyway.
Alex5 said:
Prior to the reformation who funded the building of churches (catholic) in England?
Click to expand...
Church from money given to her from various sources. Catholics did not work as Orthodoxy did. It wasn’t property of crown neither common people. Also, monasteries were built by Church not by people… crown seized them and gave them to noble families in return for their support.
 
Alex5 said:
Prior to the reformation who funded the building of churches (catholic) in England? If it was local landowners and the congregations. Then didn’t the majority of them convert to anglicanism and therefor still use the same church buildings that they or their decedents had paid for?
Click to expand...
The fact is, that these lay people payed that money to the church and not for them self to own. When you put money in the collection, it is an unreturnable gift, a bit like a Christmas present. It then belongs to the receiver. If these people later decide to convert, that money cannot be given back. A Hindu who becomes a Muslim cannot claim back all the money they gave in collections from a Hindu temple for example.

These buildings belong to the Catholic Church and this money should be given back. While lay people have no part in the ownership of churches, it must also be taken into consideration that most people only converted by force.
 
Last edited:
Alex5 said:
This might be true but I don’t think you find many Brits in favour of this.
Click to expand...
This might very well be, but this is irrelevant because the buildings were not stolen from all Brits collectively and it does not effect them directly. I live in England by the way
 
I’m not even sure the Catholic Church in England and Wales would be in favour of it would they? I mean I don’t actually know obviously.

Given that it’s only as recently as 1829 that Catholics were emancipated and the effects of the Catholic/Protestant split still has effects on British politics today (N Ireland, Brexit etc) it could be a divisive move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top