Oregon archbishop says no one has authority to seize parishes

[WanderAimlessly]

**Oregon archbishop says no one has authority to seize parishes

**By Catholic News Service

PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) – Archbishop John G. Vlazny of Portland reiterated Jan. 20 that “no one in the archdiocese had the authority to seize parish property or assets” to satisfy clergy sexual abuse claims.

Full Story​

PF

 

[Ortho]

**Oregon archbishop says no one has authority to seize parishes

**By Catholic News Service

PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) – Archbishop John G. Vlazny of Portland reiterated Jan. 20 that “no one in the archdiocese had the authority to seize parish property or assets” to satisfy clergy sexual abuse claims.

Full Story​

PF

Vlazny said, “Archbishop Vlazny has repeatedly asserted that under church law parishes own their own property and the local bishop or archbishop only holds it in trust for their benefit.”

Why does the bishop hold title if it doesn’t belong to the diocese?

How is this different from the St Louis situatin where the bishop says parish assets belong to the diocese?

 

[Nohome]

Ortho:

How is this different from the St Louis situatin where the bishop says parish assets belong to the diocese?

Simple, in St. Louis, it is to the Church’s advantage to own the property and in Oregon it is to the Church’s advantage that the parish own the property. They want it both ways.

Nohome

 

[threej_lc]

Ortho:

Archbishop Vlazny has repeatedly asserted that under church law parishes own their own property and the local bishop or archbishop only holds it in trust for their benefit."

Why does the bishop hold title if it doesn’t belong to the diocese?

How is this different from the St Louis situatin where the bishop says parish assets belong to the diocese?

You quoted the answer even before you aasked the question. He holds the title in trust for the parishes.

This is done because A. Canon Law requires it, B. It provides financial security to parishes (when the diocese itself isn’t bankrupt), and C. avoids the situation where parishoners try to have full authority over their parish because they posess the title, and try to demand how the priest is to meet their needs.

This last situation is why Archbishop Burke is now requiring the parish in St. Louis to give control to the diocese. It wasn’t until the parish started demanding that the parish had final say in pastoral decisions that the diocese stepped in.

Josh

 

[rlg94086]

What I recall from when I lived in Oregon is that the parishes take a loan from the Archdiocese in order to build their church. It is paid back with interest.
I think the Archbishop is right that the assets should not be seized.

threej_lc:

You quoted the answer even before you aasked the question. He holds the title in trust for the parishes.

This is done because A. Canon Law requires it, B. It provides financial security to parishes (when the diocese itself isn’t bankrupt), and C. avoids the situation where parishoners try to have full authority over their parish because they posess the title, and try to demand how the priest is to meet their needs.

This last situation is why Archbishop Burke is now requiring the parish in St. Louis to give control to the diocese. It wasn’t until the parish started demanding that the parish had final say in pastoral decisions that the diocese stepped in.

Josh

 

[Ortho]

threej_lc:

You quoted the answer even before you aasked the question. He holds the title in trust for the parishes.

This is done because A. Canon Law requires it, B. It provides financial security to parishes (when the diocese itself isn’t bankrupt), and C. avoids the situation where parishoners try to have full authority over their parish because they posess the title, and try to demand how the priest is to meet their needs.

This last situation is why Archbishop Burke is now requiring the parish in St. Louis to give control to the diocese. It wasn’t until the parish started demanding that the parish had final say in pastoral decisions that the diocese stepped in.

Josh

A. What is the rationale for the Canon law?

B. How does it provide financial security?

C. If the bishop is holding title to keep the parish from exercising property rights, then the assets really are diocese assets.

But in St Louis doesn’t the parish council hold legal title to the assets? Sounds like the bishop wants to transfer the legal title to the diocese.

I haven’t read the judge’s opinion, but it sounds like the Vlazny doesn’t want to live up to the responsibility that comes with holding title.

 

[Ortho]

rlg94086:

What I recall from when I lived in Oregon is that the parishes take a loan from the Archdiocese in order to build their church. It is paid back with interest.
I think the Archbishop is right that the assets should not be seized.

If the parish pays back the loan, then why doesn’t the parish have legal title?

 

[Evangel]

Nohome:

Simple, in St. Louis, it is to the Church’s advantage to own the property and in Oregon it is to the Church’s advantage that the parish own the property. They want it both ways.

I think this comment assumes that there is some grand conspiracy. LOL.

In reality, parishes are often established organically. One can easily imagine that in some dioceses the parish assets are “owned” locally (Oregon), in others they are owned by the bishop (Boston), and in still others they have mixed ownership (St. Louis).

The only thing that the bishop “wants” is to have a parish where it is needed. And if some odd form of title and liability assignment is used to establish a parish, it wouldn’t surprise me if the bishop, relying on “experts,” went along.

 

[Ortho]

Evangel:

I think this comment assumes that there is some grand conspiracy. LOL.

In reality, parishes are often established organically. One can easily imagine that in some dioceses the parish assets are “owned” locally (Oregon), in others they are owned by the bishop (Boston), and in still others they have mixed ownership (St. Louis).

The only thing that the bishop “wants” is to have a parish where it is needed. And if some odd form of title and liability assignment is used to establish a parish, it wouldn’t surprise me if the bishop, relying on “experts,” went along.

I would not call it a grand conspiracy, but I do question the bishop’s hesitancy to live up to the obligations he and his predecessors have undertaken. Understanding who has legal title, and what that means, does not take much. That’s the responsibility of a manager, and he cannot hide behind experts. That excuse simply says he was not up to the job when title was issued.

 

[Illini]

rlg94086:

What I recall from when I lived in Oregon is that the parishes take a loan from the Archdiocese in order to build their church. It is paid back with interest.

 If so, it's the same thing in the Diocese of Joliet. Our parish had to borrow from the Diocese to complete its Parish Life Center, and is paying it back with interest.

 A trustee may hold title but that does not make it the owner. It holds title in trust for the beneficiaries.  If anyone here has his home in a land trust, I don't think he or she would be happy if the trustee went bankrupt and its creditors take your house to pay the trustee's debts. But because the trustee is not the real owner of the asset, a creditor cannot seize it.

 It may also be the case that the diocese, not as trustee but as the leader of area parishes, has oversight over how a parish handles its assets, just as a land trustee can also be a mortgage holder on the same property. In neither situation does the trustee actually "own" or even "control" the asset, and in neither situation can a creditor of the trustee seize the asset. I have not read the Portland decision, but perhaps the court found that the oversight component was sufficient to override the beneficial interest component. If so, that's an appealable issue.

 As for St. Louis, that is completely different case with different issues and should not be compared with Portland. And if I remember correctly, the Archdiocese of St. Louis is not demanding that St. Stanislaus turn over its assets to the Archdiocese; it is merely requesting the same oversight that any diocese is entitled to over any parish.

-Illini

 

[Nohome]

Evangel:

I think this comment assumes that there is some grand conspiracy. LOL.

Heavens no. One should never assume that stealth and guile is the motive when it can be explained by simple incompetance and poor management.

My point is that the leadership of the RCC has always taken the easy way out in disputes such as this. There are school and church closings in Portland and Washington where the RCC claimed the opposite of what they claim now.

Of course all of this is moot. When they Church ran for protection under civil bankruptcy laws, it threw canon law out the window. This will all be decided in a civil court and early results suggest that the RCC made some foolish choices.

Nohome

 

[Ortho]

Illini:

If so, it’s the same thing in the Diocese of Joliet. Our parish had to borrow from the Diocese to complete its Parish Life Center, and is paying it back with interest.

 A trustee may hold title but that does not make it the owner. It holds title in trust for the beneficiaries.  If anyone here has his home in a land trust, I don't think he or she would be happy if the trustee went bankrupt and its creditors take your house to pay the trustee's debts. But because the trustee is not the real owner of the asset, a creditor cannot seize it.

 It may also be the case that the diocese, not as trustee but as the leader of area parishes, has oversight over how a parish handles its assets, just as a land trustee can also be a mortgage holder on the same property. In neither situation does the trustee actually "own" or even "control" the asset, and in neither situation can a creditor of the trustee seize the asset. I have not read the Portland decision, but perhaps the court found that the oversight component was sufficient to override the beneficial interest component. If so, that's an appealable issue.

 As for St. Louis, that is completely different case with different issues and should not be compared with Portland. And if I remember correctly, the Archdiocese of St. Louis is not demanding that St. Stanislaus turn over its assets to the Archdiocese; it is merely requesting the same oversight that any diocese is entitled to over any parish.

-Illini

Were the assets held in a registered legal trust?

 

[Illini]

Ortho:

Were the assets held in a registered legal trust?

I don't know, but a trust need not be "registered" with the government, except for taxation purposes.

-Illini

 

[rlg94086]

Another angle on the issue…
Religious-Freedom Law May Save Churches in Bankruptcy Case

news.findlaw.com/andrews/bf/bnk/20060112/20060112portland.html

Still, a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, may allow the archdiocese to protect some parish assets if it can show at an upcoming trial that their loss would put a “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion, Judge Perris said.

“If [bankruptcy] leaves the parishioners and schoolchildren with no place to worship and study, because no facilities are available, and if they establish that worship and study are central to religious doctrine, the burden could be substantial,” the judge said.

She said the archdiocese could be forced to dispose of at least one of its three high schools and nine of the 124 parishes without running afoul of the RFRA, adding that having to attend a different parish church or school, though inconvenient, would not be enough of a burden.

 

[Ortho]

Illini:

I don’t know, but a trust need not be “registered” with the government, except for taxation purposes.

-Illini

If a registered legal trust had been set up, then the bishop might have a case. Under out law a trust doesn’t exist unless it is properly initainted and maintained. Again, I haven’t read the opinion so I don’t know.

 

[KathyT]

In Oregon the Archdiocese of Portland owns 3 high schools. Everything else was built by and for the parishioners of each church. I myself have contributed to 3 church building funds over the years. All the money is held in trust by the Archdiocese until enough has been collected to build the church or school it was intended for.

 

[otm]

Nohome:

Simple, in St. Louis, it is to the Church’s advantage to own the property and in Oregon it is to the Church’s advantage that the parish own the property. They want it both ways.

Nohome

Go back to law school. You flunk.

 

[Illini]

I have now read the Portland decision, which is quite interesting. It can be found on the website of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon.

The court rejected the Archdiocese’s argument that canon law controls, and that under canon law, parishes are separate entities from the Archdiocese. This seems appropriate: the Archdiocese is seeking relief under the Bankruptcy Code, not the Code of Canon Law. The Church may be governed by canon law, but its relationship with third parties (i.e., creditors) is governed by civil law. I probably would not go as far as the judge, who seemed to reject any application of canon law. By contrast, canon law should be evidence, though not conclusive, of what the Archdiocese intended.

As for the issue of whether parishes are separate from the Archdiocese, the court found that decision easy. According to the ruling, the Archdiocese did not organize its parishes as separate entities from the Archdiocese. None of the parishes were created with a separate corporate standing. Thus the parishes are really part of the whole. The one exception was St. Elizabeth, which was a separate corporation. Even the plaintiffs agreed that St. Elizabeth Parish would not be part of the bankruptcy estate.

The lesson of all this? Despite all of the Archdiocese’s arguments that canon law means the parishes are separate, it lost because the parishes were not really formed under Oregon law as separate entities. In other words, the Archdiocese failed to make into reality what was supposed to happen under the Church’s own canons. Other dioceses should take note and, if they want their parishes to be separate, they should organize them separately instead of relying on canon law that they fail to implement. If parishes are really their own “juridic persons” (can. 515) they should be organized just like St. Elizabeth. This can probably be done without surrendering the diocese’s oversight over how a parish obtains and spends assets or conducts religious affairs.

Indeed, some dioceses and parishes elsewhere in the country may have done it this way and so the result would be different than in Oregon.

-Illini

 

[bellesjoy]

Illini, good analysis of the situation in the Portland Archdiocese. Here in the Diocese of Baker (Oregon) our Bishop did have the parishes separately hold title to their church and school buildings, etc. It seems that we are protected, but unforunately, Portland (west side of the state) is not.

From what I can tell, the courts are happy to use Cannon Law to find that a bishop (even one without knowledge of criminal acts and in many cases not even a bishop or priest when some acts took place), is responsible for the criminal actions of priests in the diocese. This application of Cannon Law is used even in cases from many years in the past involving priests and or bishops now dead.

While Bishop Vlazny(who came to the diocese after the abuses occured) has offered very generous settlements to anyone injured in cases already heard, the forces seeking to have churches and schools sold are relentless. Even if bishops in the past were not good managers, the innocent parishoners in Portland should not be made new victims in this mess.

Real estate in Portland is very expensive and the cost of replacement will be prohibitive for many poor parishes. I would not want to be the person or corporation that sells/buys a local church or school to have a row of townhouses or offices built in it’s place.
Catholics in the pews will only sit still for so long.

 

[bellesjoy]

I haven’t read the judge’s opinion, but it sounds like the Vlazny doesn’t want to live up to the responsibility that comes with holding title.

The proper title is Bishop or Archbishop Vlazny.

Having met this man on several occasion and heard him speak on this topic, your remark is far off the mark. Responsibility is what he is dealing with everyday in a very humble way, always seeking God’s grace and guidance in how to best serve those souls that he has vowed to serve. He acknowledges the need to provide both financial and spirtiual support to victims of abuse, some from years long past that he himself had nothing to do with.

He also has responsibility to the Catholics in the diocese today(who had nothing to do with the abuses either). That includes children who need good Catholic schools and adults who have worked for years to build and support their parishes.