Church Ownership

nomull27

Are ruined Catholic churches, without graveyards, on private property, still technically the property of the Catholic Church/church of Ireland*, or whom ever owned the church before it fell into ruin?

If these properties are under full ownership of the property owner, can they be restored or are their laws prohibiting this?


*eg. catholic churches taken by the Anglican church after the Protestant Reformation.

CDfm

A good topic.

You can't find catholic graves by & large pre 1830 .

I saw something recently on St Mary's Collegiate Church in Youghal which was derelict following Oliver Cromwell stabling horses and cattle their c 1650 til its restoration in the second half of the 19th century .

http://www.youghal.cork.anglican.org/history/

A Roman Catholic Church was built near it circa 1798

http://archiseek.com/2009/1798-st-marys-roman-catholic-church-youghal-co-cork/

I thought it might have been later but thats what the site says.

Peregrinus

It depends.

If I recall correctly, prior to the reformation parish churches, etc belonged, in civil law, to the diocesan bishop, who was regarded for legal purposes as a corporation. After the reformation the CofI bishop (rather than the RC bishop of the same diocese) was regarded as the legal successor. When the CofI was disestablished in 1869, the bishops ceased to be regarded as corporations and their church property passed to a body created for the purpose called the Representative Church Body (RCB), which still exists and still owns (most of) the parish/diocesan property in the CofI.

Monasteries, abbeys, etc were a different kettle of fish. Their land never belonged to the bishop, but instead the monastery or abbey was itself regarded as a corporation, and it owned the land. At the time of the reformation these corporations were dissolved and the crown claimed their lands on the basis that they were now ownerless, and ownerless property reverts to the crown. The crown either retained land it acquired in this way, or granted it to loyal supporters as their personal property, or handed it over to (CofI) bishops to use for church purposes. Property granted to private individuals may still be held by their descendants, or it may have been taken by the Land Commission and parceled out, or they may have sold it privately. Property handed to bishops may now be owned by the RCB, or it may have been sold in the meantime.

Having said that, the land on which monastic or ecclesiastical ruins stand is generally not farmed, and has limited market value, and mostly nobody wants to buy it, so much of it will still be owned by the RCB or by the descendants of people to whom it was granted.

As for restoring it if you are the property owner and are so minded, the usual planning laws would apply. Plus, most of these structures are listed as national monuments, which presumably involves a whole different set of regulations regarding any work you might want to do on them.

nomull27

Thanks for the answer, were most of these ancient parish churches were ruined around 1640-50 around Cromwellian Conquest, or some later or before? In of the ruined catholic churches near my house there is a catholic grave marked 1770! Would most catholic before the 1830's be buried in cillíní?

CDfm

nomull27 wrote: »

In of the ruined catholic churches near my house there is a catholic grave marked 1770! Would most catholic before the 1830's be buried in cillíní?

My grand uncle was buried in a grave marked 1777 .

They needed permission from the protestant minister at the time for burials .

Peregrinus

nomull27 wrote: »

Thanks for the answer, were most of these ancient parish churches were ruined around 1640-50 around Cromwellian Conquest, or some later or before? In of the ruined catholic churches near my house there is a catholic grave marked 1770! Would most catholic before the 1830's be buried in cillíní?

Pre-Reformation parish churches may have fallen into disrepair after the Reformation for a variety of reasons.

A church may have been abandoned because, when things settled down, the number of Anglicans in the district using the church simply didn’t justify providing a minister and maintaining the church.

Or, a church may have been abandoned because, in time, it was replaced by a newer and larger building erected on another site.

Or, a church may have been abandoned because it was damaged by storms, or in a conflict, or whatever, and it was judged not worth the expense of repairing it.

Catholics could always be buried in Church of Ireland churchyards. One aspect of seeing yourself as the “national church” is accepting that you have a calling to minister to the entire community. Consequently any resident of the parish was entitled to be buried in the churchyard (or married in the church, for that matter), regardless of denominational identification. I don’t have any figures for what proportion of Catholics were buried in Church of Ireland churchyards, but my guess would that this wasn’t at all uncommon. But little evidence of this remains since the peasantry, typically, didn’t have tombstones.

CDfm, prior to 1869 a resident of the parish had a legal right to be buried in the churchyard (unless the churchyard was declared full). In practice this had to be negotiated with the parish minister, to agree exactly where the grave would be, when the funeral would be held, etc. But the question of whether you could be buried there at all was not really up for discussion.

Since 1869, there has no longer been such a legal right. However the tradition of the CofI would still very much reflect that position. There could have been a few ministers who started to get picky, but this wouldn't have been typical. As a churchyard approaches fullness, however, ministers might try to limit new burials to people with a greater connection than simply living (or dying) in the parish - people with relatives already in the churchyard, perhaps, or people whose families are long-established in the region. I suppose some might have tried to limit burials to people who are CofI, but I don't know how common that attitude would be.

MarchDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholics could always be buried in Church of Ireland churchyards. One aspect of seeing yourself as the “national church” is accepting that you have a calling to minister to the entire community. Consequently any resident of the parish was entitled to be buried in the churchyard (or married in the church, for that matter), regardless of denominational identification. I don’t have any figures for what proportion of Catholics were buried in Church of Ireland churchyards, but my guess would that this wasn’t at all uncommon. But little evidence of this remains since the peasantry, typically, didn’t have tombstones.

Whether you want to accept it or not this was a MAJOR problem for Catholics - not a solution. Devote Catholics wanted a Catholic burial in ground sanctified by their church.

Likewise the issue of no Catholic marriages being legal in the state until the 1840s was felt deeply as practicing Catholics did not recognise a marriage not conducted by a Catholic priest.

CDfm

Peregrinus wrote: »

CDfm, prior to 1869 a resident of the parish had a legal right to be buried in the churchyard (unless the churchyard was declared full). In practice this had to be negotiated with the parish minister, to agree exactly where the grave would be, when the funeral would be held, etc. But the question of whether you could be buried there at all was not really up for discussion.

I don't really know the ins & outs of it but I wonder if burials were a nice little earner for the C of I. You also had to keep the tithe payers happy . That said, the grave was very well maintained between 1777 & when my dads uncle died in 1980.

Peregrinus

MarchDub wrote: »

Whether you want to accept it or not this was a MAJOR problem for Catholics - not a solution. Devote Catholics wanted a Catholic burial in ground sanctified by their church.

But churchyards attached to pre-Reformation Catholic churches which had passed into the hands of the CofI were sanctified grounds, in Catholic eyes. In fact, one phenomenon that we observe is that, when an older pre-Reformation church was abandoned in favour of a new post-Reformation church, Catholics continued to be buried in the old churchyard, for precisely the reason you point out, while Protestants might be buried either in the old churchyard or in the new.

Another common practice was for Catholics to be buried in the vicinity of abandoned monastic buildings. (These weren’t, technically, dedicated as burial grounds in the way that churchyards were, but they were regarded as “close enough”).

MarchDub wrote: »

Likewise the issue of no Catholic marriages being legal in the state until the 1840s was felt deeply as practicing Catholics did not recognise a marriage not conducted by a Catholic priest.

Actually, there was never a time when Catholic marriages weren’t legally recognized in Ireland. If you married before a Catholic priest, you were married. The problem was that, at times during the penal period, the ministry of Catholic priests was either restricted or banned outright, which could make it difficult to marry before a Catholic priest. How big of a problem this was depended on how severely the penal laws were being enforced.

It was dissenters who had the real problem, though. In 1844 a court decision held that a valid marriage could only be contracted before an episcopally-ordained clergyman. That was fine for Catholics and Anglicans, whose clergymen are episcopally ordained, but it left Presbyterians and other nonconforming Protestants (and also Jews) in a sticky situation, and that let to Parliament legislating to provide for Presbyterian marriages, Quaker marriages, Jewish marriages and registry office marriages.

MarchDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

But churchyards attached to pre-Reformation Catholic churches which had passed into the hands of the CofI were sanctified grounds, in Catholic eyes. In fact, one phenomenon that we observe is that, when an older pre-Reformation church was abandoned in favour of a new post-Reformation church, Catholics continued to be buried in the old churchyard, for precisely the reason you point out, while Protestants might be buried either in the old churchyard or in the new.

A Church or Cathedral that was taken over by the Anglican church at the Reformation is/was certainly not considered by Catholics to be still sacramentally or canonically Catholic. So burial in a C of I church graveyard for Catholics – no matter what the space's origins- was not an easily acceptable solution during penal times. I'm not saying what the practice might have been - Catholics had to make quite a lot of compromises - it was considered nevertheless to be a back door solution.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there was never a time when Catholic marriages weren’t legally recognized in Ireland. If you married before a Catholic priest, you were married. The problem was that, at times during the penal period, the ministry of Catholic priests was either restricted or banned outright, which could make it difficult to marry before a Catholic priest. How big of a problem this was depended on how severely the penal laws were being enforced.
It was dissenters who had the real problem, though. In 1844 a court decision held that a valid marriage could only be contracted before an episcopally-ordained clergyman. That was fine for Catholics and Anglicans, whose clergymen are episcopally ordained, but it left Presbyterians and other nonconforming Protestants (and also Jews) in a sticky situation, and that let to Parliament legislating to provide for Presbyterian marriages, Quaker marriages, Jewish marriages and registry office marriages.

Well my understanding is that the Hardwicke Act of 1753 applied in Ireland as all Westminster Acts did. Under this Act the only 'legally binding' marriage was the one performed before an Anglican priest. There certainly is evidence that Catholic priests often gave ‘permission’ to landowning Catholics of all classes to marry in the Anglican Church after the Catholic ceremony. Certainly in my own mixed religious family there were stories of Catholics marrying first before a Catholic priest but then marrying quietly in a Protestant church because of the fear that the Catholic marriage was not considered legal and therefore succession and inheritance could be invalidated. It was a legal issue – not a religious one.

With so many wealthy landowners owning property in England and Ireland the Anglican marriage would seem to be the only one that would legally secure inheritance according to the Act..

In 1753, however, the Marriage Act, promoted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, declared that all marriage ceremonies must be conducted by a minister in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England to be legally binding.

Although Jews and Quakers were exempted from the 1753 Act, it required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/

Peregrinus

MarchDub wrote: »

A Church or Cathedral that was taken over by the Anglican church at the Reformation is/was certainly not considered by Catholics to be still sacramentally or canonically Catholic. So burial in a C of I church graveyard for Catholics – no matter what the space's origins- was not an easily acceptable solution during penal times. I'm not saying what the practice might have been - Catholics had to make quite a lot of compromises - it was considered nevertheless to be a back door solution.

I’m open to correction here, but I think the strict position was that a formerly Catholic church now in the hands of the CofI was considered to have been defiled as a church (and, hypothetically, would require reconsecration if it passed back into Catholic hands) but not as a burial ground. Being buried there was a sensitive issue, and negotiation the burial with the CofI incumbent could be distasteful to some who saw it as acknowledging his authority over the place. (The result of this was occasional clandestine burials.)

MarchDub wrote: »

Well my understanding is that the Hardwicke Act of 1753 applied in Ireland as all Westminster Acts did. Under this Act the only 'legally binding' marriage was the one performed before an Anglican priest. There certainly is evidence that Catholic priests often gave ‘permission’ to landowning Catholics of all classes to marry in the Anglican Church after the Catholic ceremony. Certainly in my own mixed religious family there were stories of Catholics marrying first before a Catholic priest but then marrying quietly in a Protestant church because of the fear that the Catholic marriage was not considered legal and therefore succession and inheritance could be invalidated. It was a legal issue – not a religious one.

Lord Hardwicke’s Act didn’t apply in Ireland. The common law position prevailed until 1844, under which a couple could marry by the exchange of appropriate vows. For Catholics, this usually took place in Catholic chapel and before a Catholic priest, as Catholic canon law required. From a civil legal point of view, the chapel and the priest were irrelevant; the marriage was valid simply by virtue of the couple exchanging vows.

The problem, though, was proving that you were married. If you were married in the Anglican church, the entry in the church register would be accepted by the civil courts as proof of your marriage. Catholic church registers, even when they could be produced, did not have the same status.

For most people this was irrelevant. Their neighbours and their community knew they were married, and that was all they needed. But if there was a question of property inheritance or the like, then there could be a fear that the existence of the marriage might be challenged or doubted. Consequently people might marry in the Anglican church, not so that they could be legally married but so they could prove that they were legally married.

owenc

nomull27 wrote: »

Are ruined Catholic churches, without graveyards, on private property, still technically the property of the Catholic Church/church of Ireland*, or whom ever owned the church before it fell into ruin?

If these properties are under full ownership of the property owner, can they be restored or are their laws prohibiting this?


*eg. catholic churches taken by the Anglican church after the Protestant Reformation.

No whoever they were last used by they belong to. For example there is an old church about 15 miles from me and that hasn't be used since the 1800s; it is now owned by the church of ireland. And i doubt they could be restored the condition of those churches is a disgrace.

owenc

MarchDub wrote: »

Whether you want to accept it or not this was a MAJOR problem for Catholics - not a solution. Devote Catholics wanted a Catholic burial in ground sanctified by their church.

Likewise the issue of no Catholic marriages being legal in the state until the 1840s was felt deeply as practicing Catholics did not recognise a marriage not conducted by a Catholic priest.

So what, Presbyterians weren't aloud to practise either.

owenc

And one question? The people who married in the anglican church, did they convert or did they just marry there and no convert? Was it like a civil marriage now i.e a government marriage?

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

So what, Presbyterians weren't aloud to practise either.

Were there Presbyterians in Ireland during the reformation ? Catholic Emancipation is a bit of a misnomer. It wasn't catholics that witheld rights from Presbyterians or Methodists or Quakers or Jews.

Peregrinus

owenc wrote: »

And one question? The people who married in the anglican church, did they convert or did they just marry there and no convert? Was it like a civil marriage now i.e a government marriage?

It was a marriage service according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, exactly like the service two Anglicans would have. You didn't have to join the Church of Ireland to marry in this way; anyone living in the parish was entitled to be married in the parish church, by the parish minister. (It's still the case that the CofI will marry a couple, neither of whom are members of the CofI.)

The problem for Catholics (and of course Dissenters) was that they might be reluctant to participate in Anglican ceremonies, and/or resentful of having to do so.

Peregrinus

CDfm wrote: »

Were there Presbyterians in Ireland during the reformation ? Catholic Emancipation is a bit of a misnomer. It wasn't catholics that witheld rights from Presbyterians or Methodists or Quakers or Jews.

Presbyterianism arrived in Ireland in the early seventeenth century (from Scotland). There may have been individual Presbyterians before that, but no organised Presbyterian congregations. That would have been at the tail-end of the Reformation.

Catholic Emancipation was so called not because Catholics did the emancipating, but because they were emancipated. The legal measures enacted in 1829 referred only to Catholics; legal discrimination against dissenting Protestants, and most legal discrimination against Jews, had already been removed by then.

CDfm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem for Catholics (and of course Dissenters) was that they might be reluctant to participate in Anglican ceremonies, and/or resentful of having to do so.

What were the main laws that discriminated against Dissenters and was there any differences with the anti-catholic laws.

Peregrinus

CDfm wrote: »

What were the main laws that discriminated against Dissenters and was there any differences with the anti-catholic laws.

I confess I’m a bit vague on the details. In general the penal laws directed against Catholics were much more sweeping, and more often enforced, than those against Dissenters, Jews, etc. The principal discrimination against Dissenters and others was a measure enacted in 1707 which confined a wide range of public offices, military commissions, etc to members of the established church. Dissenters also suffered (along with Catholics) from the non-recognition of their churches and church records – so, for instance, they might have difficulty in showing that they were married. But the practice of dissenting protestant religions was never prohibited or restricted, and in fact the salaries of Presbyterian ministers were paid by the state – not on the same generous scale as for Anglican ministers, but, still . . .

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

What were the main laws that discriminated against Dissenters and was there any differences with the anti-catholic laws.

The Law passed in 1704 - The Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery spelled out quite clearly the limitations on Catholics in the state. Although dissenters also had limits put on them, Catholics were targeted in the way that no other group was - This Act prevented Catholics from purchasing land, owning a lease for longer than 30 years. Catholics were forbidden to make wills and succession rights were practically obliterated as it stated that on the death of a Catholic landowner his land had to be divided equally between his sons. This was a way of ensuring that Catholic land would be dispersed and become smaller. The strength of the landowning class was primogenitor because it held large estates together - and this was taken from Catholics. However, should one of the sons become Protestant, the estate could pass to him fully.

I have a copy of the Act but its limits and prohibitions on Catholics are too long to go into here. The professions were also closed to Catholics. The law in particular saw a large exodus of Catholics who 'converted' to the C of I in order to still practice.

Later in 1728 Catholics were forbidden to actually vote in any election.

owenc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Presbyterianism arrived in Ireland in the early seventeenth century (from Scotland). There may have been individual Presbyterians before that, but no organised Presbyterian congregations. That would have been at the tail-end of the Reformation.

Catholic Emancipation was so called not because Catholics did the emancipating, but because they were emancipated. The legal measures enacted in 1829 referred only to Catholics; legal discrimination against dissenting Protestants, and most legal discrimination against Jews, had already been removed by then.

Yes there was meeting houses. Some of them still exist from the 1700s. They are old buildings. This is one near me : http://maps.google.com/?ll=55.120895,-6.739597&spn=0.05188,0.187025&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=55.120846,-6.739716&panoid=cI0bxoSgpRLoOUBTLyybcw&cbp=12,172.67,,0,3.18

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

Were there Presbyterians in Ireland during the reformation ? Catholic Emancipation is a bit of a misnomer. It wasn't catholics that witheld rights from Presbyterians or Methodists or Quakers or Jews.

Yes there were several thousand in the north coast in the early 1600s.

owenc

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was a marriage service according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, exactly like the service two Anglicans would have. You didn't have to join the Church of Ireland to marry in this way; anyone living in the parish was entitled to be married in the parish church, by the parish minister. (It's still the case that the CofI will marry a couple, neither of whom are members of the CofI.)

The problem for Catholics (and of course Dissenters) was that they might be reluctant to participate in Anglican ceremonies, and/or resentful of having to do so.

But how can you marry in an anglican church if your not anglican. Thats not right.

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

Yes there was meeting houses. Some of them still exist from the 1700s. They are old buildings. This is one near me : http://maps.google.com/?ll=55.120895,-6.739597&spn=0.05188,0.187025&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=55.120846,-6.739716&panoid=cI0bxoSgpRLoOUBTLyybcw&cbp=12,172.67,,0,3.18

Nice one .

owenc wrote: »

Yes there were several thousand in the north coast in the early 1600s.

That's quite a heritage.

owenc wrote: »

But how can you marry in an anglican church if your not anglican. Thats not right.

That's history, it is just a fact it happened and you cannot judge back then by today's standards.

Peregrinus

owenc wrote: »

But how can you marry in an anglican church if your not anglican. Thats not right.

Well, many non-Anglicans didn't want to marry in the Anglican church, and resented the pressures to do so.

CDfm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, many non-Anglicans didn't want to marry in the Anglican church, and resented the pressures to do so.

You mentioned legal marriages and inheritance rights being a big thing.

This was more than subtle pressure to conform.

Peregrinus

CDfm wrote: »

You mentioned legal marriages and inheritance rights being a big thing.

This was more than subtle pressure to conform.

I didn't say it was a subtle pressure. If you had any property, it was a very considerable pressure. But of course most Catholics had no property, and it made little practical difference to them if they couldn't produce a marriage certificate that a court would accept. The likelihood that they would ever need to do so was remote.

I'm not defending the law; just exploring its impact on people. Basically, it didn't matter a great deal to the peasantry, who were mostly Catholic, because they had no real need of legal proof of marriage. They could get married in a Catholic ceremony, and all their neighbours - Catholic and Protestant - would know that they were married.

But if you were a landowner, even in a minor way, or any kind of businessman with a business premises or anything you would want a son to inherit, then it was oppressive. And members of this class (if not Anglican) could be either Catholic or Presbyterian.

PAnglican

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was a marriage service according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, exactly like the service two Anglicans would have. You didn't have to join the Church of Ireland to marry in this way; anyone living in the parish was entitled to be married in the parish church, by the parish minister. (It's still the case that the CofI will marry a couple, neither of whom are members of the CofI.)

The problem for Catholics (and of course Dissenters) was that they might be reluctant to participate in Anglican ceremonies, and/or resentful of having to do so.

While you are correct that according to the State Anglican clergy can marry anyone regardless of religion or none, our own internal discipline was altered when new marriage legislation came in and our own church law insists that one party to the marriage must be Anglican or a Church in full Communion with us so effectively we can't or if we do would be subject to internal discipline. (I know my facts on this as I am an Anglican priest in the Church of Ireland)
Stephen www.paddyanglican.com

Peregrinus

PAnglican wrote: »

While you are correct that according to the State Anglican clergy can marry anyone regardless of religion or none, our own internal discipline was altered when new marriage legislation came in and our own church law insists that one party to the marriage must be Anglican or a Church in full Communion with us so effectively we can't or if we do would be subject to internal discipline. (I know my facts on this as I am an Anglican priest in the Church of Ireland)
Stephen www.paddyanglican.com

Thanks for the correction, Paddy. As a matter of interest, can you tell me if this was a relatively recent change, or was it something done at disestablishment?

PAnglican

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thanks for the correction, Paddy. As a matter of interest, can you tell me if this was a relatively recent change, or was it something done at disestablishment?

Recent - In response to the new Act in 2004 - I was at the meeting of Standing Committee of General Synod where it was introduced by the Bishops and ratified by Standing Committee

CDfm

PAnglican wrote: »

(I know my facts on this as I am an Anglican priest in the Church of Ireland)

I gotta ask Paddy, but in a former life was your church catholic.

Are there any graveyards etc with ruins etc ?