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.
You wrote: "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."
Incorrect. Within the Church CANON LAW TRUMPS ALL STATE LAWS. This was a Catholic parish. Canon law wins. Period. Whatever legal documents were signed by anyone are essentially meaningless if the Church demands a change in that legal structure to comply with canon law. Whatever changes the Diocese demanded, in accordance with canon law, the lay board could have easily made if they chose to do so. What was stopping them? Their pride. ONLY their pride.
"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."
Irrelevant. No matter what the past is the past is not the present. The lay board was told to comply with canon law. It has been told that for some time. It refused to do so. There was nothing stopping them from doing so other than their own PRIDE.
"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."
Incorrect. The problem would not have arisen if the lay people at St. Stan's were orthodox and obedient. The whole problem stems from their actions and not the actions or inaction of any bishop. Woulda, coulda, shoulda just doesn't cut it. They were given a chance. They blew it. They wanted it that way. That sect will now be the collection spot for every malcontent, dissenter, pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-divorce and remarry "once Catholic" in the city. One only has to know that Fr. Gerald Kleba congratulated the new priest at St. Stan's to know that the parish is headed toward heresy and schism at an alarming rate.
The new priest may lead the way in that regard: ""We thought he was homosexual. We had several problems with him. He said he wasn't homosexual, but we had certain proof that this wasn't true." Asked what proof, Guzowski said that other seminarians told him so." He may not be gay, but it is interesting that controversy and suspicion have followed this guy wherever he has gone. Yeah, he and St. Stan's were made for each other.