Posted on 01/07/2006 4:50:01 PM PST by narses
Portland, Ore. -- The leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland says the church will follow its own law on ownership of its property.
This, despite a recent ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge who says property belonging to parishes throughout Western Oregon could be subject to sale, to satisfy claims against the Archdiocese by victims of alleged priest sex abuse.
Archbishop John Vlazny told the Catholic Sentinel that he considers church buildings and land the property of individual parishes, NOT the archdiocese.
The Portland archdiocese was the first Catholic diocese in the nation to declare bankruptcy when it sought protection from creditors in July 2004.
Vlazny says the church will follow its internal law on property ownership -- quote -- "no matter what obstacles confront it."
Attorneys on both sides of the case are involved in settlement talks.
They have declined to comment on details.
+
Should he talk to Archibishop Burke of St. Louis for his opinion on the matter of property?
LOL, yeah he should.
Salvation, aren't you in Portland? what is your pastor saying about this mess?
LOL. He certainly should. Not consistent with Burke.
http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/kmov_localnews_060106_ststansuppression.4f56832d.html
I don't know how it is elsewhere but in the Diocese of Richmond every deed and title is in the bishop's name and is considered the property of the diocese.
Actually Vlazny and Burke entirely agree on this issue. They are not in disagreement at all about the relationship between parish and diocese in regard to property. The problem is that idiots -- including some here at FreeRepublic and many in the MSM -- have entirely mischaracterized the St. Stan issue as if it were a fight over property when it is a question about proper authority. Parishes are essentially independent in their control of their own property -- both Vlazny and Burke agree on this. What St. Stan would not do is allow the proper parish authority -- THE PARISH PRIEST -- to control the parish INCLUDING THE PARISH'S property.
Vlazny is trying to protect innocent parishes from being robbed of their property just because they happen to be Catholic parishes in a diocese which may lose a series of civil suits against it. Burke is trying to assert proper ecclesiastical authority over a parish in HIS ARCHDIOCESE. HE HAS THE PROPER AUTHORITY TO DO SO. He has already said many times -- and Burke's word is good -- that he would do whatever it takes to convince them their assets would remain part of the parish patrimony.
That's pretty clueless. Read the news on St. Satnislaus and enlighten yourself if you wish to take part in the discussion, it's available now all over the Internet.
There is no excuse for what Burke did to the 130-year old Roman Catholic parish.
You are pretty clueless. You're the one who was saying that the Archbishop wanted the property, that all the parish was doing was preserving their 19th century structure, blah, blah. Here are some of your "informed" pontifications from previous threads (Exhibits 1, 2, 3):
1. "On the other hand the people at St. Stanislaus are perfectly correct in not giving up their property"2. "Things were set 120 years ago for perpetuity and were running healthily - that is until Burke came along and fixed them with his 'authority'."
3. "Instead of fighting for their property Burke could follow the good example and turn all his parishes into financially semi-independent 'corporations' retaining his power in appointment of the pastors."
4. "The parish is 125 years old and so is its system of management; that is older than Burke and older than the, so frequently mentioned, 1983 Code of Canon Law."
The facts:
1. Archbishop Burke was not asking that the property be given up,
2. Actually, the parish board rewrote the bylaws (contrary to an explicit provision in them preventing their amendment against any rule of the St. Louis diocese) to remove the authority of the Archbishop,
3. Burke was not fighting for their property, and shortly after his arrival in St. Louis, he had all the parishes restructured as non-profit corporations,
4. The parish's system of management (lay rule) is not 125 years old, but is a result of the above-mentioned amendments to the bylaws made by the board of directors.
There is no excuse for spreading easily checkable falsehoods about Archbishop Burke (according to you a "faithless villian") and St. Stanislaus Parish.
Anyone wishing to check on the validity of IBINB's statements can check the St. Louis Archdiocese website, where they have all the documents showing that he just doesn't have a clue, and clearly doesn't want one (it's so much easier to go around calling a Catholic Archbishop a "faithless villain"). A simple introduction is the following document: Progression of the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation.
Regarding parish funds, no bishop may confiscate the funds of any parish. Such action is directly forbidden by the Code of Canon Law. The ownership of goods acquired by a parish belongs to the parish and is governed by Church discipline (cf. Can. 1255-1257).The bishop has the responsibility to supervise carefully the administration of the funds and other temporal goods of the parish, so that they serve the mission of the Church in the parish, but he may not take the temporal goods from the Parish (cf. Can. 1276). If a parish is closed — and I repeat that I have no idea of closing St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish — the funds of the parish are directed to the parishes in which the parishioners of the closed parish are then registered. ...
The administration of temporal goods requires that the Church observe the local civil law and adopt the appropriate civil structures to make possible the fulfillment of her mission (cf. Can. 1284, §2, 2º-3º). The Church respects the civil law and provides for the civil incorporation of parishes and dioceses and other Church institutions and associations in order that the civil law be observed and the fitting protections of the civil law be assured. The parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, with the exception of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, are presently structured in the form of unincorporated associations. At present, the archdiocese is studying a proposed revision of the form of civil law structure of parishes to nonprofit corporations that it may serve even better and more securely the work of the Church. Since my arrival as Archbishop, I have been studying the proposal and hope to finalize it, with the help of archdiocesan legal counsel and canonical counsel, within the coming weeks.
Actually, the problem is that Canon Law supports the bishop's contention, but it's not at all sure whether canon law trumps whatever legal arrangements the diocese has made in the past. It's awkward to cite canon law when you or your predecessor have signed a bunch of legal documents that say something different.
Because of the trusteeship controversy in the 19th century, most American dioceses put all property under the sole control of the bishop, as a sole person or corporation. That has proven to be a mistake, and it runs counter to current canon law. But many dioceses failed to implement the necessary changes, either because they were lazy, or foolish, or because their bishops liked the idea of exerting total control with no arguments.
It remains to be seen how this case will be settled. But the problems wouldn't arise if the previous bishop had taken the legal steps recommended earlier by the vatican at the time the Church's canon laws were revised.
Incidentally, the latest issue of the St. Joseph Institute's newsletter has a very good article on the jurisdictional boundaries of parishes and dioceses, and on the history of the parish within the Church.
Everyone interested in these questions should read it.
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2005/23-6
You are entirely misinformed on the subject of St Stanislaus. Perhaps you should study the "entire" history of the situation which the St Stan's website conveniently omits.
I know we are getting a letter in our bulletins this week from the Archbishop. I will let you know what it says.
Pastors don't say much, but we are getting a letter from the Archbishop. Give me a chance tomorrow and I will see if it is online yet -- or else I will transcribe it for all of you.
No -- not Portland. I am in the Salem-Keizer area in the mid-Willamette Valley area.
Thank you. How much of the problem dates back to Abp. Levada's reign?
Thank you.
Arrogance. Of course they should have followed canon law.
You wrote: "That's pretty clueless. Read the news on St. Satnislaus and enlighten yourself if you wish to take part in the discussion, it's available now all over the Internet."
I, unlike you, am not dependent upon the MSM or even the internet for my understanding of what is going on in St. Louis. I clearly understand the situation better than you do. Notice how you did not actually dispute any of the points I made?
"There is no excuse for what Burke did to the 130-year old Roman Catholic parish." Burke needs no excuse. He is the proper authority in the diocese. The parish lay leaders are violating canon law. There is no excuse for that. They have also been thoroughly dishonest and have repeatedly tried to make this an issue about money when the money isn't leaving the parish. The layboard is in a state of rebellion. They refused to obey canon law. They refused to follow tradition. They refused to be obedient. When they didn't like what they were told they created a new sect. They are in a state of schism. There's no excuse for that -- EVER.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.