« Fences, Mended | Main | Blogging around... »
August 27, 2005
Winner take all?
Judge rules that parish assets are available:
A federal bankruptcy judge yesterday ruled that churches and schools in the Catholic Diocese of Spokane are owned by the diocese and can be sold to pay settlements to sex-abuse victims, a decision that evoked both triumph and disappointment.
The decision — the first of its kind in the nation — is considered a victory for victims and a loss for the diocese and its 80-plus parishes, which had argued that the properties belong to individual parishes, not to the diocese, and therefore were not subject to liquidation.
The ruling likely will be watched closely by other dioceses around the country as they, too, resolve claims of people who were sexually abused by priests.
"This is a big victory," said attorney Michael Pfau, who represents many of the plaintiffs in Spokane, where one in five residents is Catholic. "It's simply a devastating ruling for the diocese."
The diocese plans to appeal by the end of next week.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342aa29c53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Winner take all?:
» The Trap of Unaccountability from Sunny Days in Heaven
Spokane churches can be sold to pay debt, judge rules [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 27, 2005 1:17:28 PM
Comments
Didn't Rome recently come out with a document/statement reiterating canon law which states that parish assets belong to the parish and not the diocese. I believe the statement was regarding the Archdiocese of Boston.
If civil law contradicts canon law which one will the diocese follow, and what will be the consequences of such actions?
Posted by: Fr. Christensen at Aug 27, 2005 10:24:20 AM
Didn't Rome recently come out with a document/statement reiterating canon law which states that parish assets belong to the parish and not the diocese? I believe the statement was regarding the Archdiocese of Boston.
If civil law contradicts canon law which one will the diocese follow, and what will be the consequences of such actions?
Posted by: Fr. Christensen at Aug 27, 2005 10:25:11 AM
You had to know this would come sooner or later, which explains why some dioceses have scrambled in the past few years to incorporate their parishes separately. I don’t know if this was the case with the Spokane parishes, but let’s see if this ruling stands first… If it does stand, then it will be a field day for lawyers… this is the next break they have been fighting for.
And all of this is not meant to discredit the victims, who have endured horror. My prayers remain for their healing and also for the healing and strengthening of the Church.
Posted by: bill howard at Aug 27, 2005 10:32:11 AM
The Vatican (Congregation for the Clergy) did state in a reply to the Archdiocese of Boston, so the Globe reports, that the assets of a parish belong to the parish, not to the diocese - and so if a bishop closes a parish, the assets of that closed parish should go to the parish into which that parish is merged - just as canon law requires. It's a shame that the US bishops, in what was essentially a power grab that skirted the requirements of canon law, went for the corporation sole model over the last 100 years. Now so many of them seem to be trying to walk on both sides of the fence: claiming the property is theirs when it benefits them and the property belongs to the parishes when that view benefits them.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Aug 27, 2005 10:56:11 AM
Now, it was commonly understood that what the Vatican did in Boston was specifically with a view towards avoiding the result that just transpired in Spokane and may likely elsewhere.
I suspect the Vatican may have played that card far too late in the game to be credible in the eyes of the civil judiciary.
Control and liability generally go hand in hand in the eyes of the civil law in this country. If you don't want liability, you generally must forfeit a significant amount of control to avoid it.
Hence the Scylla and Charybdis of trusteeism versus episcopal monarchy. You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.
Posted by: Liam at Aug 27, 2005 11:04:16 AM
And, of course, the reason the US Bishops went to the Corporation sole model was because that's how Rome wanted it in the 1800's.
Posted by: Papabile at Aug 27, 2005 11:10:05 AM
Is it in Spokane that a judge has ruled that all *parishioners* are defendants as well? If not Spokane, then the other one that is going out in the Northwest.
Posted by: Ben at Aug 27, 2005 11:43:08 AM
Not Spokane, Portland.
Posted by: Krikor at Aug 27, 2005 11:54:49 AM
Up until two years ago we lived in Spokane and just visited relatives and friends there a few weeks ago. The Immaculate Heart of Mary Retreat Center was one of my favorite places to attend daily Mass. They were having daily Adoration after Mass about this issue, as the retreat property (which is owned by the diocese) would be affected.
I just wonder if this case will go on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Posted by: PegofMar1 at Aug 27, 2005 12:09:54 PM
There are several interesting points in the 57 page opinion. The Spokane Diocese argued in two recent legal procedings that the Bishop alone owned the parish properties in question, not the parishes themselves. And the deeds and titles of all the properities are in the name of the Bishop alone, and have been for years... I'm not a lawyer, but the Diocese arguments seem like weak grasping at straws. I think it's gonna lose.
Posted by: Finn McCool at Aug 27, 2005 12:56:51 PM
Again, you are all missing the greater point...
The greed of the episcopal Establishment in opposing lay trusteeship so it can control parochial properties -- as part of the desire to protect itself from any sort of accountability and transparency from below (especially when confronted by its own misdeeds) -- these are the chickens (or, should I say, vultures?) coming home to roost.
A Catholic Church devoid of all pretentions to earthly power, even legitimate ownership of property, just might be the kind of divine scourging necessary to bring it back into proper focus.
Remember when Augustine confronted one of the Popes of his day when the Church came into untold wealth:
Pope: The Church can no longer say, "Silver and gold have we none!"
Augustine: Neither can the Church say, "Rise and walk!"
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at Aug 27, 2005 2:12:52 PM
One more thing: Please don't tell me that special structures are absolutely necessary for the sacramental life of the Church. The earliest Christians met rather informally and they had a sacramental life.
Besides, Evangelicals do rather well with converted storefronts, warehouses and office buildings, and they don't have a sacramental theology.
Boy, da fur is really gonna fly now....
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at Aug 27, 2005 2:16:00 PM
I agree with the judge, When it comes to Parishes, bishops want to have it both ways: complete control but sheltered real estate. If nothing else, this decision, if it holds and spreads, should make it clear to parishioners what they and their ancestors have financed. No more: "Oh, the insurance pays for it all, or the investments, or other real estate we've bought and rented out, etc". As to "innocent parishioners", I suppose there are some; I doubt there are many at least not amongst the vocal and leadership elements. Too many lay folk have looked the other way too long.
Posted by: Caroline at Aug 27, 2005 2:20:49 PM
Can someone explain, on a practical level, what this will mean for the affected parishes and parish schools? Will the buildings be sold and folks thrown out into the street? Its hard to see how this furthers, in any way, healing.
Posted by: ac at Aug 27, 2005 2:31:21 PM
One more thing: Please don't tell me that special structures are absolutely necessary for the sacramental life of the Church. The earliest Christians met rather informally and they had a sacramental life.
You sound like Lear's Daughters. "Reason not the need..."
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Aug 27, 2005 2:58:58 PM
Maybe this will prompt all those self-immolating bishops to actually start defending the Church from its attackers. Confessing actual sins is one thing, but placing the entire Church on the executioner's block because of your own guilty consciences and merely upon unsupported claims can no longer be countenanced.
Posted by: Umbriel at Aug 27, 2005 3:02:05 PM
I do not see this standing up. If they follow, as they should, a trust model, then it is clear that the assets of a trust are not subject to the debts or payment for wrongdoing of the trustee. The assets of innocent beneficiaries (parishioners, recipients of church aid, hospital patients, students, etc.) cannot be seized and used to pay the debts of the trustees (bishops, priests, etc.).
Posted by: Umbriel at Aug 27, 2005 3:07:54 PM
Of course, I would have no objection to seizure of the Taj Mahony if they want it.
Posted by: Umbriel at Aug 27, 2005 3:09:39 PM
Finn McCool,
Is the full opinion online somewhere?
Posted by: Meaghan at Aug 27, 2005 3:18:55 PM
I can only imagine the sort of sit-ins, civil disobedience and eventual political repercussions if a parish were seized by civil authorities for the purpose of paying an abuse settlement. Public sympathy could easily turn the other way.
Posted by: Al DelG at Aug 27, 2005 3:32:54 PM
Caroline, I don't think you can blame the laity for the scandal. The blame rests squarely on the abusing priests and the bishops who enabled them.
Posted by: Sr. Lorraine at Aug 27, 2005 3:47:07 PM
The link to the full decision is online at:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/
It's the top story right now.
Posted by: Finn McCool at Aug 27, 2005 4:39:28 PM
Umbriel, the point is that the Bishop has NOT followed a trust model. He is trying to change the rules after the fact to a trust model, because it is to his advantage in a particular case. If the Diocese ultimately wins, and there is a different legal action down the road, I have no doubt that Bishop Skylstad would again assert that he owns the parish property, just as he did in the two cases that preceded the bankruptcy filing.
Posted by: Finn McCool at Aug 27, 2005 4:46:54 PM
The blame rests squarely on the abusing priests and the bishops who enabled them.
I would add a slight qualification in those (surprisingly, not so rare) cases in which the laity decided to rally around the priest in the face of accusations. The bishops still have the responsibility of dealing with the matter, but in those cases some of the parishioners could be said to share some of the blame (assuming the bishop didn't withhold the full story from them about the priest's past).
There's obviously a flipside to consider, i.e., those cases where the priest is in fact innocent, where the parishioners share the credit for making sure that justice is done. In any case, I agree in general with Sr. Lorraine's statement.
Posted by: HA at Aug 27, 2005 5:13:17 PM
HA - my former parish has a situation like that right now in fact; priest removed, parish shocked and upset and generally taking his side. Of course, it's exacerbated by the fact that getting any substantial information out of the bishop and archdiocese is like pulling teeth; all they'd tell us is that the accusation was considered "credible" (no details, and refusing to explain what standards of credibility they use) and mentioning that on the review board that judges these things they always make sure to include a sex-abuse survivor or a survivor's parent, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the impartiality of the review process. (There's a reason lawyers don't let mugging victims onto the jury if someone is being tried for mugging).
So I don't see exactly how these parishioners can "share the blame" when they're not even being allowed to know what on earth the blame is *for* outside of very vague and sketchy details. I don't know if it was just this particular archdiocese or what, but when your priest is taken away and they *will not tell you what for, or what standards of evidence are being used* blaming the laity is kind of harsh, even if he does turn out to be guilty.
Oh, one specific thing we do know about the incident? It was a one-time thing which supposedly happened twenty-five years ago. Good luck proving that one definitively one way or the other.
Posted by: Sonetka at Aug 27, 2005 5:36:58 PM
