New Cases Loom in Priest Scandal

[William_Pitts]

nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05church.html?_r=1&hp

 

[1sicht]

“at least a few people who have said, ‘I’m not going to be giving to the church’ ” and that some were not fulfilling their pledges to give to the church’s capital campaign. He said money for the capital campaign goes specifically to help the church fulfill its charitable mission; it cannot go toward the defense of priests or legal fees, he said, and so only the poor, the sick and the needy would suffer if those donations dried up.

Um, how do the donors KNOW that the funds won’t be misused? If there was one kind of cover-up, who’s to say there aren’t others?

 

[CMatt25]

These words from the article say it all to me:

“The thing that is significant about Philadelphia is the assumption that the authorities had made changes and the system had been fixed,” said Terence McKiernan, the president of BishopAccountability.org, which archives documents from the abuse scandal in dioceses across the country. “But the headline is that in Philadelphia, the system is still broke.”

Brings to my mind Matthew 7:15-20.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Um, how do the donors KNOW that the funds won’t be misused? If there was one kind of cover-up, who’s to say there aren’t others?

There’s legal and corporation issues at stake. The bishop/diocese can’t just swoop in and take a parish’s money. Nor would they want to given the legal/civil precedent it would establish when it comes to lawsuits.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Father, I understand about how precedence could be problematic. But isn’t the bishop Corporation Sole, or has that financial/legal structure changed now?

It is indeed confusing that despite “changes made,” this is still going on. So one has to ask, “What changes?” (were not effective?)

On a hopeful note, Catholics and non-Catholics should take comfort in the access the archdiocese is providing to the civil legal authorities, as well as the extension in the statute of limitations.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Father, I understand about how precedence could be problematic. But isn’t the bishop Corporation Sole, or has that financial/legal structure changed now?

Corporation sole is not advisable legally and many diocese are changing out of that and individually incorporating each parish. The Archdiocese of Detroit is currently undergoing that process: Question and Answers Regarding Parish Incorporations

Canonically speaking, what belongs to the parish does not belong to the dioesee since each are seperate “juridic persons.” So corporation sole does not accurately reflect the reality of the parish/diocese relationship.

Even under the civil arrangement of corporation sole the bishop does not have canonical rights to parish assets. However some people may not be comforted that Church law forbids it since they’d ask, “well, who’s going to enforce it?”

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK. Apparently I may be assuming an outdated model? I ask because some Catholics have pointed to the (bishop’s) Corporation Sole status as problematic for breaking past the clerical abuse scandal, in that it allows the bishop to use funds for litigation payouts, despite what original intention parishioners had in donating their money. (And by extension, availability of payouts reduces episocopal motivation to get radical about the problem.) I’m just reporting what I’ve heard.

But it sounds as if episcopal control of all diocesan funds is not necessarily the rule any longer.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

OK. Apparently I may be assuming an outdated model?

Well, technically, they should have stopped using it in 1911 but many diocese didn’t start incorporating each individual parish until relatively recently.

The new bishop in Vermont in the last few years began changing his diocese from corporation sole to individual parish corporations. The press accused him of trying to shield diocesan assets. He asserted that corporation sole was actually a violation of the Church’s canon law.

Can. 1267 §1. Unless the contrary is established, offerings given to superiors or administrators of any ecclesiastical juridic person, even a private one, are presumed given to the juridic person itself.

§3. Offerings given by the faithful for a certain purpose can be applied only for that same purpose.

I ask because some Catholics have pointed to the (bishop’s) Corporation Sole status as problematic for breaking past the clerical abuse scandal, in that it allows the bishop to use funds for litigation payouts, despite what original intention parishioners had in donating their money. (And by extension, availability of payouts reduces episocopal motivation to get radical about the problem.) I’m just reporting what I’ve heard.

Civilly a bishop in a corporation sole would be perfectly within his rights to seize parish assets to pay judgments but canonically bishops have always been forbidden from seizing parish assets. The only way around it would be to close a parish, but even that is highly complicated and can be appealed to the Holy See by the parishioners.

However, overall, its just a really bad idea to dip into parish funds for the bishop’s use. The biggest reason being that if a lawyer could prove that the bishop treats parish assets as his own to do with as he pleases then every parish’s assets could be taken into consideration for judgment purposes or even seized by civil authorities in brankruptcy settlements.

But it sounds as if episcopal control of all diocesan funds is not necessarily the rule any longer

The bishop does indeed control all diocesan funds. Its parish funds that he doesn’t directly control.