How do non-Catholics justify stealing Catholic Churches?

[phil8888]

Many very large and beautiful cathedrals and churches were stolen during the protestant reformation, and other events. Did the Catholic Church receive any recompense for this, or were they just taken? If they were simply stolen, isn’t this a major travesty?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Many very large and beautiful cathedrals and churches were stolen during the protestant reformation, and other events. Did the Catholic Church receive any recompense for this, or were they just taken? If they were simply stolen, isn’t this a major travesty?

##** How is this different from the vandalism of Christians which destroyed “pagan” holy places ? It isn’t: that kind of behaviour is one way of getting rid of the previous cultus; which is what Protestants & early Christians were trying to do, just like others before & since; including - presumably - those Catholics who burnt cartloards of Talmuds & destroyed Protestant churches & Bibles as well as synagogues (at which point we’re close to the topic of censorship). **

The Calvinists who destroyed Antwerp Cathedral in 1566, like the Christians who vandalised the Serapeum in 391, or St. Boniface cutting down oaks in the 8th century, were trying to destroy the former religion. When King Josiah of Judah defiled the holy places of Baal-worship in the 620s BC, he was trying to disgrace & insult & end it. The English Reformation is a bit different - the destruction happened in several waves, not all equally official. Henry VIII wanted to get rid of the Pope, re-fill his coffers, reward his cronies, & promote his own version of the Reformation. The damage under Elizabeth took longer to happen, & was more nearly religious. But the whole subject is very complex…

**IMHO, the rights & wrongs of the Reformation should be left in the past, which is where they belong. Let the dead past bury its own dead memories - we don’t have to be imprisoned by them. Besides, there is nothing anyone can do about them. **

 

[phil8888]

Those are completely different issues. In the case of the Pagan places, all the pagans had converted to Christianity, so instead of using these building to worship false gods, they used them to worship the True God.

The Protestant example is much different. The Catholic churches were stolen, nothing given for them, and it was done forcefully. Catholics were left to the wayside with no options. They were forced out of places they had spend years building with their own money.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Those are completely different issues. In the case of the Pagan places, all the pagans had converted to Christianity, so instead of using these building to worship false gods, they used them to worship the True God.

**FWIW, that is the god you worship - he wouldn’t matter a straw to those who had their own gods, such as Serapis, Isis, or some other; why should he ? **​

The Protestant example is much different. The Catholic churches were stolen, nothing given for them, and it was done forcefully. Catholics were left to the wayside with no options. They were forced out of places they had spend years building with their own money.

##** IOW, there is absolutely no difference - if there is, where is it ? The Calvinists (among others) consider[ed] Catholicism evil; the Christian vandals of the fourth & following centuries considered paganism evil. So both groups tried to expunge the evil, & by much the same methods. Neither party was being sweetly ecumenical - they were trying to destroy what they hated as examples of what they considered displeasing to God & a danger to purity of religion. **

**Read Firmicus Maternus sometime - his sympathy for the religion he used to profess is precisely nil. Which is why he tried his utmost to persuade the Christian Emperors of his time - the 340s - to destroy the old religion. Eventually but slowly, it was destroyed, largely by the help of a series of laws promising all sorts of severe penalties (death included) to those who disobeyed. **

**When Bishop Theodore of Alexandria destroyed the Serapeum, it was still in use. The Mithraea in Rome were not museum pieces - they were in use as shrines (some of what is known of Mithraism comes from the fact that Mithraic religious impedimenta were hidden away to avoid their destruction). The cultus of Zeus Marnas was destroyed by Christian activity - otherwise, it would have continued as the cultus of Isis did at Philae until 532 when Justinian I closed it down. One of the activities of the monk Pachomius lay in this direction - he was a zealous destroyer of “pagan” shrines, & not averse to beating up those who frequented. Basically, the man was a Christian thug. He seems to have been of the same temper as Cyril of Alexandria, the nephew of his predecessor Theodore (see above) whose preaching in 415 led to the lynching of the philosopher Hypatia. . There is no moral difference between a Protestant preacher calling down fire & brimstone on “Papists”, & an Egyptian monk rousing a Christian mob to destroy the shrine of a god. Only the superficial things are different. **

 

[truthseeker333]

Interesting points Geer …

I see what you are saying, I think, and I agree with many points, but in terms of object, circumstances, and intention of a moral act, I don’t see what you mean when you say this:

“There is no moral difference between a Protestant preacher calling down fire & brimstone on “Papists”, & an Egyptian monk rousing a Christian mob to destroy the shrine of a god. Only the superficial things are different.”

I think the object of the act of some frustrated and misguided Protestants of that time is different than the same for some Catholics who destroyed pagan ritual sites. The destruction of a Catholic Church IS in fact a very serious moral evil since the structure IS in fact the house of the bride of Christ. A pagan temple IS NOT the house of the bride of Christ, although there are elements of truth in paganism generally. I can’t see how that difference is superficial. It seems to me that since a very serious evil act occurs when the object of the act is very serious, then those confused people (who hardly represent Protestantism as a whole) committed an evil far greater than the possible, though uncertain, evils of some Catholic zealots who destroyed pagan sites to bring forth the fullness of truth of Christianity.

I think it is possible that the intentions of the actions, to which you rightly allude, may be similar, at least in terms of ridding a culture of a former religious tradition.

I do think that the infallible Magisterium will let the Church know if recompense is necessary for stolen or destroyed Catholic property, but at this point in history I highly doubt that this demand will happen, as I think you agree. As well, I’m sure we both agree that if justice is not satisfied in this world, then it will be satisfied in the next, even for Catholic zealots, since our God of Love and Justice is ultimately never slighted.

What do you think? Peace in Christ …

 

[SIA]

Many very large and beautiful cathedrals and churches were stolen during the protestant reformation, and other events. Did the Catholic Church receive any recompense for this, or were they just taken? If they were simply stolen, isn’t this a major travesty?

What kind of garbage is this? This is pure unadulterated hatred unfounded and unwarranted. And the Catholic church expects charitability in dialogues with Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox? Please… Nobody needs to put up with this garbage!

 

[phil8888]

What kind of garbage is this? This is pure unadulterated hatred unfounded and unwarranted. And the Catholic church expects charitability in dialogues with Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox? Please… Nobody needs to put up with this garbage!

What’s the Thames Swim Team?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Many very large and beautiful cathedrals and churches were stolen during the protestant reformation, and other events. Did the Catholic Church receive any recompense for this, or were they just taken? If they were simply stolen, isn’t this a major travesty?

In the case of England, it was an action of the Crown. So if you are looking for payment, please see the Queen.

 

[phil8888]

In the case of England, it was an action of the Crown. So if you are looking for payment, please see the Queen.

Good idea. I dont think the Catholic Church gave away their churches, and no one paid for them. So I think now they should get them back. They put a lot of time and effort into building those churches.

 

[JackQ]

What kind of garbage is this? This is pure unadulterated hatred unfounded and unwarranted. And the Catholic church expects charitability in dialogues with Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox? Please… Nobody needs to put up with this garbage!

No its not. The English seized a number of churches in Ireland years ago, and never gave them back. St. Patrick’s in Dublin is still an Anglican church. I didn’t know this myself until I traveled to Ireland.

 

[manualman]

What Gottle is pointing out is that the adherent of ALL religions think that theirs is the TRUE one. Therefore, if you take the principle of “It’s OK to seize, destroy, sack, etc. the places of flase worship, but not those of the TRUE religion” then every listener perceives you as giving permission to them to sack and pillage everybody else.

Objectively, there can only be one true religion. We know it’s ours, but we need to behave in a manner that gives others the respect we expect them to give us. That hasn’t always been the case in history. And maybe it can’t be. I’m really not sure what would/will happen if we give respect to a faith bent on conquering us. In this day and age, we may be spoiled by our historic success.

 

[SSTeacher]

Many very large and beautiful cathedrals and churches were stolen during the protestant reformation, and other events. Did the Catholic Church receive any recompense for this, or were they just taken? If they were simply stolen, isn’t this a major travesty?

I suppose the justification might possibly be found in the phrase, “might is right.”

The plight of English Catholics during the post–Reformation era is an interesting subject to study because it was the Protestants who wrote the history along the way so it’s their controlling interpretations that generally hold the greater sway. For example, Protestants have paid much attention to the five–year reign of Catholic Queen Mary. She reigned from 1553 to 1558. Queen Mary has been much disparaged. Indeed, she has been dubbed “Bloody Mary.” On the other hand, despite all the Catholic blood that was spilled during the forty–five–year reign of her half–sister, Protestant Queen Elizabeth who ruled from 1558 to 1603, the Protestant view is that hers was a different case altogether and she is remembered by the endearing nickname of “Good Queen Bess.” And the persecution endured for centuries by English Catholics as a result of Protestant establishment legislation isn’t remembered at all. Indeed, it wasn’t until the first half of the nineteenth century that the English Catholics got a break, courtesy of the British Parliament. In 1829, the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed. It removed most civil restrictions placed on Catholics and even allowed Catholics to hold most public offices, including office in Parliament. But legislation can only make wrongful deeds punishable. It can’t win over minds. As late as the 1920s there are stories of English Catholics being spat upon as they made their way to Sunday Mass. I daresay that the English Catholics who were treated so cruelly by their Protestant countrymen during those awful times would have counted it a blessing if their tormentors had contented themselves with simply confiscating churches.

Historically,
Mick

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Interesting points Geer …

I see what you are saying, I think, and I agree with many points, but in terms of object, circumstances, and intention of a moral act, I don’t see what you mean when you say this:

“There is no moral difference between a Protestant preacher calling down fire & brimstone on “Papists”, & an Egyptian monk rousing a Christian mob to destroy the shrine of a god. Only the superficial things are different.”

I think the object of the act of some frustrated and misguided Protestants of that time is different than the same for some Catholics who destroyed pagan ritual sites. The destruction of a Catholic Church IS in fact a very serious moral evil since the structure IS in fact the house of the bride of Christ. A pagan temple IS NOT the house of the bride of Christ, although there are elements of truth in paganism generally.

But - that is how Catholics think Worshippers of Isis did not think, “I don’t like what the Emperor is doing, because he closing down a temple in which Christ is honoured, so the Bride of Christ will be harmed if it’s not left open”.​

**Worshippers of Hadad in Damascus did not think, “How wonderful it is that the Bride of Christ is honoured by the taking-over of this temple of Hadad so that St. John the Baptist can be honoured in it” - they worshipped Hadad, as their forefathers had done for so long that the temple is even mentioned in 2 Kings 5 as the “house of Rimmon”. **

**These people had no more reason to bother with Christ, than we have, to think of or honour the hero Triptolemus, or the gods Hadad or Tanit. We cannot ascribe Christian or Jewish outlooks to those who were neither; we cannot expect them to have ideas there is no reason for them to have. When people were syncretistic, as when some tried to combine Attis, Helios, & Christ, that’s a bit different: that particular group thought of themselves as Christians; but when c. 200 BC Romans worshipped Hadad-JHWH-[some other god] on Delos as a composite deity, that is very unlikely to be Judaism in any form. **

**The question of which religion or god is “right” needs to be kept separate from historical study; and historical insight should never be confused with personal commitment. A Catholic historian may not find a character attractive, & may be right not to - but that reaction cannot be allowed to hinder or upset his work as a student of the past & its contents; otherwise, you have poor history. **

I can’t see how that difference is superficial. It seems to me that since a very serious evil act occurs when the object of the act is very serious, then those confused people (who hardly represent Protestantism as a whole) committed an evil far greater than the possible, though uncertain, evils of some Catholic zealots who destroyed pagan sites to bring forth the fullness of truth of Christianity.

I hope to have clarified that first comment.​

I think it is possible that the intentions of the actions, to which you rightly allude, may be similar, at least in terms of ridding a culture of a former religious tradition.

I do think that the infallible Magisterium will let the Church know if recompense is necessary for stolen or destroyed Catholic property, but at this point in history I highly doubt that this demand will happen, as I think you agree. As well, I’m sure we both agree that if justice is not satisfied in this world, then it will be satisfied in the next, even for Catholic zealots, since our God of Love and Justice is ultimately never slighted.

What do you think? Peace in Christ …

**Some years ago Durham Cathedral was offered to the Catholic diocese of Hexham and Newcastle. The offer was refused - wisely IMO, because the CC in England and Wales has its hands full trying to maintain the property it has already in a fit state. **​

Besides, the wealth of the Church is in things not seen. I hope very much that no such offer is ever made, or accepted - where our hearts are, there will our treasure be.

 

[mystified]

Many very large and beautiful cathedrals and churches were stolen during the protestant reformation, and other events. Did the Catholic Church receive any recompense for this, or were they just taken? If they were simply stolen, isn’t this a major travesty?

Would ye be meanin’ the likes of St. Paddy’s in Dublin?

 

[phil8888]

Most of the time with these pagan places, the churches only took over the land or the edifice that was there. It’s not as though there was a Cathedral standing there, and they just moved in. But in the case of Protestants, they took over an already built cathedral.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I suppose the justification might possibly be found in the phrase, “might is right.”

The plight of English Catholics during the post–Reformation era is an interesting subject to study because it was the Protestants who wrote the history along the way so it’s their controlling interpretations that generally hold the greater sway. For example, Protestants have paid much attention to the five–year reign of Catholic Queen Mary. She reigned from 1553 to 1558. Queen Mary has been much disparaged. Indeed, she has been dubbed “Bloody Mary.” On the other hand, despite all the Catholic blood that was spilled during the forty–five–year reign of her half–sister, Protestant Queen Elizabeth who ruled from 1558 to 1603, the Protestant view is that hers was a different case altogether and she is remembered by the endearing nickname of “Good Queen Bess.” And the persecution endured for centuries by English Catholics as a result of Protestant establishment legislation isn’t remembered at all. Indeed, it wasn’t until the first half of the nineteenth century that the English Catholics got a break, courtesy of the British Parliament. In 1829, the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed. It removed most civil restrictions placed on Catholics and even allowed Catholics to hold most public offices, including office in Parliament. But legislation can only make wrongful deeds punishable. It can’t win over minds. As late as the 1920s there are stories of English Catholics being spat upon as they made their way to Sunday Mass. I daresay that the English Catholics who were treated so cruelly by their Protestant countrymen during those awful times would have counted it a blessing if their tormentors had contented themselves with simply confiscating churches.

Historically,
Mick

**Catholics under Elizabeth I were not helped by the treasonable acts in which some of them engaged: the involvement of some Jesuit hot-heads & traitors did anything but help loyal & falsely accused men such as St. Edmund Campion. Not all were guilty of treason - but enough were, to make all the Company look like fifth columnists. **​

---

With events such as:

• the Northern Rising - 1569-70
• **the deposition of Elizabeth I (which would have had grave temporal effects if it had worked) - 1570 **
• the Babington Plot - 1586
• the attempted invasion by the “Invincible” Armada -1588
  **as well as **
• the very bloody persecution of Protestants by the Spanish in Flanders
• the slaughter of French Protestants in the last week of August 1572 (& the Pope’s praise of this)
  **there was not much reason to trust the loyalty of Catholics - especially as the doctrines that **
• no faith should be kept with heretics
• mental reservations could be used to qualify the speaker’s words without any outward sign of this
  **were still on the go. **

---

**Even apart from all that, the succession was not secure - & she had to play off other (& more powerful) rulers, so that they would not combine against England. At this time, Spain was a Catholic Colossus, stretching all the way from Italy to Mexico; it was very strong, very rich, seemingly invincible. So much so, that despite the drawback of 1588, the myth of its military invincibility did not shatter until it was hammered by the French in 1643. **

---

**IMO, she did extremely well. **

---

 

[phil8888]

Besides pagan places of worship, did Catholics steal any churches from other Christians or other groups? Plus, even if Catholics did take over pagan places by attrition, how does this somehow make what these groups did to the Catholic Church justified? The places they stole were enormous works of majesty!

 

[SIA]

Besides pagan places of worship, did Catholics steal any churches from other Christians or other groups? Plus, even if Catholics did take over pagan places by attrition, how does this somehow make what these groups did to the Catholic Church justified? The places they stole were enormous works of majesty!

I think that your fanaticism is not being taken well for obvious reasons. You should rethink this rhetoric that you are spewing here and get off the hate wagon against Protestants. This is already getting to be old hat and strives nowhere in a positive direction to create meaningful dialogue to those which your church considers separated brothers and sisters.

 

[phil8888]

I think that your fanaticism is not being taken well for obvious reasons. You should rethink this rhetoric that you are spewing here and get off the hate wagon against Protestants. This is already getting to be old hat and strives nowhere in a positive direction to create meaningful dialogue to those which your church considers separated brothers and sisters.

What’s the Thames Swim Team?

 

[lordgrog]

Might I point out that, whatever one may think of anglicanism, the CoE on an instititutional level is the former Catholic Church in England. Cathedral/parish churches weren’t pinched at all - better to complain about the abbey churches confiscated during the dissolution.

Some of the Lutherans may similarly have legitimate claim to churches within their jurisdictions - obviously, with the reformation being so messy there will have been plenty of naughtiness too.