But no priest or group of laity has the right to take church property with them when they change denominations, for a Diocese holds such property in trust for the mission and ministry of the Church of England to all the people of its parishes and this duty of care would continue.
I don’t myself see how a parish could legally “take” the parish church and other assets without specific statutory authority.In the case of the parish church, it would presumably mean a Scheme under the Pastoral Measure or specific legislation enacted for the purpose, and this could only be done with the goodwill of the Diocese.In the case of assets such as the church hall or other parish property, appropriation to another denomination would almost certainly be a breach of trust and would not be possible without the co-operation of the Diocesan Board of Finance as Custodian Trustees and probably also the involvement of the Charity Commission.Parsonage houses are, of course, governed by the Parsonages Measure and an Incumbent cannot alienate the parsonage without obtaining the authority required by law, again the Diocesan Board of Finance or the Church Commissioners.Of course, in the months and years ahead much of this might well be crawled over by lawyers on all sides, but the general principles seem to be clear….
“People can leave the Church of Rome, but they can’t take the property with them.” Pope Clement VII.
Oh, the irony!
Ah, but in the church of England case, the property was originally part of the church of Rome. Let the lawsuits begin!
It’s staggering that he didn’t realise what he was saying.
it really is business as usual for the infamous thrower of toys from mercs…he has consistently given nothing to traditional Catholics and now he seeks to do the same…
…fortunately his speech far from settles a subject which is complex and as yet untested
FWIW I think he’s broadly right concerning the legal situation, as far as I understand it. It’s interesting (and to me surprising) to hear he’s had several inquiries about the legality of property going with departing congregations such that he’s paid for legal advice and used time in his Diocesan Synod speech to talk about it.
There may be a 500 year old irony that goes unmentioned but, to be fair, Bishop Tom was not personally responsible for expropriating Roman Catholic property during the Reformation and so probably doesn’t feel he has to defend or explain something he didn’t actually do. I am however slightly bemused that he’s chosen to deal with this by “megaphone” diplomacy – presumably it will now be picked up by the papers as it plays into a story of the RC/Anglican conflict – rather than individual conversations with priests or a letter to all clergy (etc.).
Does it seem a bit unreal that many Anglicans, including Bishop Tom, are majoring on “discourtesy” of the lack of consultation with the ABC. It seems to put politeness before substance, and form before reality – the English temptation. Rather than engage with the substantive matter of TAC’s request for Communion with Rome and what that means for the Anglican tradition or indeed the ABC’s inability even to speak in the face of evident wrongs to Anglican clergy in TEC, Bishop Tom apparently thinks the most serious issue in all of this is rudeness.
From my recollections of when I was living in England, I think the issue is much more complicated there than it is even here in the States. I am familiar with several Evangelical C of E churches that incorporated as C of E churches. Perhaps I was being told fiction, but my recollection as it was explained to be was that it is easier to associate and disassociate from the C of E than it is in the US from TEC.
I would also think that if push came to shove in the Church of England over this, I think there could be some perverse but interesting pairings of political bedfellows on this issue. There are strong opponents to having a National Church, and if funding fights over property helped to end an Established Church then money would appear for legal fights. Having an established church is also a political issue in England. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians that would love to see the government get out of the Church business altogether.
Oh give them their &^%$#$ property. Let them worship Mammon in their buildings and you get get on with the preaching of the Gospel – a Gospel of which the Bishops and their allies are sadly ignorant.
I was in England last month and discovered that the C of E has a number of “redundant” churches. They are unused by congregations and stand empty. How about making some of these available?
exactly mark 10: The PR would be appaling if they start playing mean. Here in my town there are loads of other Anglican churches and no viable congregation that would want to take over here. Furthermore our congregation built, cleaned, maintained, and nurtured the present building which has always been a spiritual home to a disticntly Catholic faith. Neither the Diocese nor Crown contributed it was entirely built by the community.
So legally an interesting case but surely hardly worth fighting. Not when releasing it would allow a worshipping community to stay together and worship as they feel God is calling them. TO make such a community homeless with no real desire or need to put someone else in is just nasty. Why not lease it with peppercorn rent?
Where congregations are split- why not seek a church sharing arrangment so that everyone wins?
What–no buildings?
Perhaps they could team up with [url=http://www.churcharmy.org.uk/pub/home.asp]Church Army UK[/url] and learn a little bit of street ministry.
(…as the rabbit scurries back to the bunny burrow…)
#1,2,3 beat me to it. The Church of England was founded and ruled by the Bishop of Rome for over 900 years, much longer than the time since the Henrician “Reformation” (or rebellion/UDI). Will the good bishop follow his own advice and return these properties? The CofE can’t maintain the churches it already has.
I wonder if the bishop might profit by taking a gander at Aesop’s fables, particularly the one about a manger.
#13 “The Church of England was founded and ruled by the Bishop of Rome for over 900 years,”
What an extraordinary statement!.
The Church of/in England existed for centuries before the Pope declared himself the head of it, and continued happily when the monarch claimed the top spot. Re:- buildings – I assume that you do not include churches built since C1580 in your assertion of RC ownership, which is most of our churches in fact.
During the time of Roman Rites, the greater majority of churches were built by landowners, local communities, and trade guilds. These were essentially market places and defences against attack, with usually a sanctuary screened off at the east end, where religious observance was carried out with little if any participation by ordinary folk.
We do have though many early churches with tiny, failing congregations and no means of maintaining the building. If Papa Benny wants a few of these financial ‘millstones, I am sure there could be a deal in there somewhere ;-).
Chris Baker – Durham UK
#15: I meant of course (as I’m sure you knew) that the Church in England was reconstituted under papal rule in 597. By the time of the Synod of Whitby, the church in all the land was brought under Roman obedience.
Very many parish churches, and most of the best known cathedrals, predate the Reformation. Not all of them (e.g. a few in Durham!) have tiny, failing congregations.
BTW, I’m as evangelical as they come. I was simply drawing attention to the bishop’s unreflective, imperious tone. But hey, he’s the bishop of Southwark, it’s what he does. 🙂
You’re wrong, old grumpy. The Catholic Church in England, being in communion with Rome and established by missionaries sent by Rome (be they Italians or Irish), has always been a community of the Roman Rite (Sarum, or otherwise). Read Bede’s work – Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People). Who built the buildings or donated land is nearly irrelevant. What matters is canon law that determines who has custody of property. Witness the ongoing tussles between TEC and splinter groups. Then, as now, Church property was overseen by the Ordinary, or in the case of monastic holdings, the Abbot who was/is steward. When Henry VIII confiscated property he did so from Rome, i.e., the Church in communion with Rome. He wouldn’t have to steal what was already his now would he? That is, unless it wasn’t really his to take in the first place. King of the realm he was, but he had to divorce Rome to make himself pope and to justify his land grab.
An example comparable to Henry’s malfeasance would be the actions of the Stalinists who stole property from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (and Catholics in Russia) and gave it to the state (puppet) church, that is, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Slowly, despite resistance from the state church, property is being returned to its rightful owners.
Septuagenarian has it right.