Oregon archbishop says no one has authority to seize parishes

[Nohome]

bellesjoy:

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.

Protected? Surely you use the term lightly. If an abuse case (or any other criminal liability) ever comes up in your Parish, it will be sued right along with the Diocese. An individual Parish would fold and the Diocese would be left severly crippled, unable to serve those that remain.

Do not rest easy that your Parish is protected. Be ever vigilent, hold your leadership accountable and turn criminal Priests over to the authorities. Failure to do so can only lead to history repeating itself.

Nohome

 

[Ortho]

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.

Who holds legal title to the assets you mention?

 

[Ortho]

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.

It’s unfortunate the parishoners of Portland will feel the pinch. That is a simple message to all other parishoners to make sure the bishop is dong things properly. If the parishoners don’t want future surprises, they may have to take some responsibility away from bishops.

 

[Ortho]

bellesjoy:

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.

Vlazny is faced with the same situation any other organization faces. He and his organization are responsible for the past actions of the organization. He tried to avoid that by using civil law to declare bankrupcy. He made that decision. Now that he doesn’t like the outcome, he is complaining in the press.

 

[bellesjoy]

Nohome:

Protected? Surely you use the term lightly. If an abuse case (or any other criminal liability) ever comes up in your Parish, it will be sued right along with the Diocese. An individual Parish would fold and the Diocese would be left severly crippled, unable to serve those that remain.

Do not rest easy that your Parish is protected. Be ever vigilent, hold your leadership accountable and turn criminal Priests over to the authorities. Failure to do so can only lead to history repeating itself.

Nohome

We have lawsuits in our diocese, and have been protected by the steps taken by our bishop already. He has dealt with many cases, (some that happened before he was in the seminary) and are now settled. He is also very vigilant and asks the same of us. He is doing the job many bishops have not. I have followed the Portland cases, ours and many across the nation very closely. I am not foolish or taking any of this “lightly”. Our present leadership is accountable. Would that all diocese could say the same.

 

[bellesjoy]

Ortho:

It’s unfortunate the parishoners of Portland will feel the pinch. That is a simple message to all other parishoners to make sure the bishop is dong things properly. If the parishoners don’t want future surprises, they may have to take some responsibility away from bishops.

Surprises are not the problem. It is the double standard by which the church is being judged in our courts. They use canon law to convict, but ignor it when it comes time to award settelments. I am in full support of the bishops who have exercised their responsibilities as delegated to them by the Holy Father. What we are dealing with now are those who did not do so in the past.

What would you have done in Archbishop Vlazny’s place?

I would not be so bold as to second guess the Holy Father in how he delegates to our bishops. Just what do you propose to “take away” from our bishops? Do you plan to rewrite canon law?

 

[cameron_lansing]

Illini:

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.

Very perceptive. Amen.

Just as a brief and sketchy background related to ownership from the civil and canonical perspectives if it’s helpful to anyone else.

The ownership of the temporal goods of the Church (properties, bank accounts, other assets, etc.) is confused in a number of situations because the way that ownership is structured civilly does not neatly correspond to canon law. This is behind part of the problem.

The parish under canon law is a public juridic person (canon 113 §2). This is somewhat akin to a secular corporation.

The parish becomes a public juridic person when it is created by a decree of the diocesan bishop. A legitimately erected parish possesses juridic personality by the law itself (canon 515 §3.)

Consequently, it is “capable of acquiring, retaining, administering and alienating temporal goods according to the norm of law.” (canon 1255)

Under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, ownership over goods (dominium bonorum) belongs to that juridic person which has acquired them legitimately (canon 1256 ).

Canon 1276 §1 gives the ordinary (here, the diocesan bishop) the role of vigilance or oversight “over the administration of all the goods which belong to the public juridic persons subject to him, without prejudice to legitimate titles which attribute even more significant rights to him.”

Read both carefully. Neither canon gives ownership to the superior.

Yet in a number of U.S. states, civil ownership and control belongs to the office (not the physical person) of the diocesan bishop. This arrangement is often called the “corporation sole” or the “ecclesiastical corporation.”

In other cases, the parish is civilly controlled by a board, comprised of the pastor, some parishioners, the bishop, and other of his appointees. Through his appointees, the bishop would then have a controlling interest. This is called “corporations aggregate.”

(There are other methods of structuring ownership civilly and other variations on these kinds of methods of ownership and control but the ones I mention are more relevant)

In both forms of ownership and control, civil law would allow the bishop to dispose of the parish properties and asserts pretty much unilaterally.

However, canon law would not permit him to do so.

That is the perplexity. A bishop violating canon law this way could face some action from the Holy See. A bishop violating a civil enforcement could face some action from the secular entity.

 

[Ortho]

bellesjoy:

Surprises are not the problem. It is the double standard by which the church is being judged in our courts. They use canon law to convict, but ignor it when it comes time to award settelments. I am in full support of the bishops who have exercised their responsibilities as delegated to them by the Holy Father. What we are dealing with now are those who did not do so in the past.

What would you have done in Archbishop Vlazny’s place?

I would not be so bold as to second guess the Holy Father in how he delegates to our bishops. Just what do you propose to “take away” from our bishops? Do you plan to rewrite canon law?

The courts use the best available evidence. In some cases it is Church rules. That tells them the relations between various levels of authority. It is not a function of the legal system, but is a profile of the organization.

In other cases, property law is the best evidence since it sets out explicit rules of ownership. The diocese used this property law in setting up their organization.

The diocese could also have set up asset ownership using our property law in a fashion that also met canon law. Someone made a decision not to do that. I presume it was a previous bishop.

Someone noted here that one parish, St. Elizabeth, was set up under a different scheme and was not subject to the suit because of that scheme. Was St. Elizabeth set up contrary to canon law? If not, then the diocese could have organized its property under our law in a way that met canon law.

What would I have done in Vlazny’s place? I don’t have the particulars, so I will just take a guess. I would have tried to negotiate the best deal without bankrupcy, then work out some form of payment over time. During that negotiation I would have been able to threaten bankrupcy, and the plaintifs couldn’t be sure what the bankrupcy court would have said.

What would I take away from the bishops? I would take away the money since it looks like it is all targetable in a law suit and the Church still has huge exposure. Set up non-profit corporatins for each parish and have folks contribute to them instead of the local church. The non-profit could donate to both the local church and the diocese as they please.

I definitely second guess the pope and his selection of bishops. He chose a bunch that put the reputation and image of the Church before the welfare of the kids. If that is Church policy, then he got what he wanted, and I criticize him for that. If it is not Church policy, then he appointed incompetents, and I criticize him for that.

What parts of canon law need to be rewritten?

 

[bellesjoy]

Ortho:

The courts use the best available evidence. In some cases it is Church rules. That tells them the relations between various levels of authority. It is not a function of the legal system, but is a profile of the organization.

In other cases, property law is the best evidence since it sets out explicit rules of ownership. The diocese used this property law in setting up their organization.

The diocese could also have set up asset ownership using our property law in a fashion that also met canon law. Someone made a decision not to do that. I presume it was a previous bishop.

Someone noted here that one parish, St. Elizabeth, was set up under a different scheme and was not subject to the suit because of that scheme. Was St. Elizabeth set up contrary to canon law? If not, then the diocese could have organized its property under our law in a way that met canon law.

What would I have done in Vlazny’s place? I don’t have the particulars, so I will just take a guess. I would have tried to negotiate the best deal without bankrupcy, then work out some form of payment over time. During that negotiation I would have been able to threaten bankrupcy, and the plaintifs couldn’t be sure what the bankrupcy court would have said.

What would I take away from the bishops? I would take away the money since it looks like it is all targetable in a law suit and the Church still has huge exposure. Set up non-profit corporatins for each parish and have folks contribute to them instead of the local church. The non-profit could donate to both the local church and the diocese as they please.

I definitely second guess the pope and his selection of bishops. He chose a bunch that put the reputation and image of the Church before the welfare of the kids. If that is Church policy, then he got what he wanted, and I criticize him for that. If it is not Church policy, then he appointed incompetents, and I criticize him for that.

What parts of canon law need to be rewritten?

You do show a lack of knowledge of the Portland cases. Bishop Vlazny has spent years making honest offers for settlement, lengthy negotiations, and only resorting to bankrupcy when millions had been paid out and demands continued. What you are seeing is a deep pocket in the form of schools and churches. Accepting reasonable settlements went out the window long ago.

If anything, your remarks confirm that the courts have picked when to value canon law and when to ignor it as extraneous. It is either worthless in a court of law or it isn’t. Pick one.

I do not accept the criticism of the Holy Father. Never did JPII do anything that would put reputation before the welfare of chiildren. I do not accept your premise. To say that he got what he wanted in the sexual abuse of children is beyond the pale. I will not debate the late Holy Father’s intentions with anyone.

Personal responsibility is what I advocate and that means those who abused and allowed abuse are the ones who should be in jail. That does not include the Holy Father or the vast majority of bishops and priests or the laity. And it sure doesn’t mean the innocent Catholics in those parishes.

In order to accomodate your suggestions, canon law would have to be changed. I do not advocate such, but by your statements you do.

 

[Ortho]

bellesjoy:

You do show a lack of knowledge of the Portland cases. Bishop Vlazny has spent years making honest offers for settlement, lengthy negotiations, and only resorting to bankrupcy when millions had been paid out and demands continued. What you are seeing is a deep pocket in the form of schools and churches. Accepting reasonable settlements went out the window long ago.

If anything, your remarks confirm that the courts have picked when to value canon law and when to ignor it as extraneous. It is either worthless in a court of law or it isn’t. Pick one.

I do not accept the criticism of the Holy Father. Never did JPII do anything that would put reputation before the welfare of chiildren. I do not accept your premise. To say that he got what he wanted in the sexual abuse of children is beyond the pale. I will not debate the late Holy Father’s intentions with anyone.

Personal responsibility is what I advocate and that means those who abused and allowed abuse are the ones who should be in jail. That does not include the Holy Father or the vast majority of bishops and priests or the laity. And it sure doesn’t mean the innocent Catholics in those parishes.

In order to accomodate your suggestions, canon law would have to be changed. I do not advocate such, but by your statements you do.

You are right that I don’t know much about the Portland case. Never said I did. You asked what I would have done. I told you I had a guess and made it. Sorry you don’t like it.

To become familiar, I would have to read the opinion, transcript, depositions, and history.

Courts have no rquirement to pick between canon law and state law. They referenced canon law to determine the internal workings of the organization. There was no civil law to reveal that. They used civil law to determine property ownership since property has titles.

Good strategy not to defend the appointments of JPII. He appointed people who allowed child molesters to operate under their management, then gave them cushy jobs when they got caught. You don’t want to debate the pope’s intentions? OK. Maybe someone else will stand up for the guy.

If St. Elizabeth in Portland is not contrary to canon law, then why would canon law have to be changed to accomodate my suggetsions? Sounds like someone at Elizabeth had their head screwed on right.

 

[bellesjoy]

Ortho:

Good strategy not to defend the appointments of JPII. He appointed people who allowed child molesters to operate under their management, then gave them cushy jobs when they got caught. You don’t want to debate the pope’s intentions? OK. Maybe someone else will stand up for the guy.
QUOTE]

For those who know John Paul II, no defense is necessary. For those who don’t know him, no defense would be enough. I and millions of others would gladly take his part in any debate, but I think the second sentance applies to your viewpoint.
It is very disrespectful to refer to the late Holy Father as “the guy”. That is beneath the dignity that usually is found on this forum.

 

[estesbob]

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

He can assert all he wants-when it goes to court he will lose. its well settled law

 

[bellesjoy]

estesbob:

He can assert all he wants-when it goes to court he will lose. its well settled law

What the Archbishop is asserting is that no one in the Archdiocese
has the authority to seize parish property. He is correct in that.
What the court seizes is a separate issue, but Bishop Vlazny will not go about on his own to dismantle parishes to satisfy claims. The courts will have be the ones to do so if that is what they rule.

 

[Ortho]

bellesjoy:

Ortho:

Good strategy not to defend the appointments of JPII. He appointed people who allowed child molesters to operate under their management, then gave them cushy jobs when they got caught. You don’t want to debate the pope’s intentions? OK. Maybe someone else will stand up for the guy.
QUOTE]

For those who know John Paul II, no defense is necessary. For those who don’t know him, no defense would be enough. I and millions of others would gladly take his part in any debate, but I think the second sentance applies to your viewpoint.
It is very disrespectful to refer to the late Holy Father as “the guy”. That is beneath the dignity that usually is found on this forum.

Why not? He sure seemed like one of the guys. Athlete, actor, mountain climber. He seemed to be a guy you could sit down and have a beer with…as opposed to say…John Kerry?

Just a few posts ago you said you wouldn’t debate the pope’s intentions.Now you say you and a cast of thousands will debate.

 

[Pacbox]

Did anyone really read the article? Being a parishioner of this Archdiocese I’ve been well aware of the events that surrounded the courts decision.

Under Oregon law, claimants who sue ‘non-profit organizations’ and ‘religious institutions’ are entitled, if granted, to a settlement. So many claims were settled and the Archdiocese’s insurance providers paid out so much that they did not want to deal with the Archdiocese anymore. It was bad for business, according to the insurance companies.

Archbishop Vlazny, after much painful consideration and consultation with Canon lawyers, chose that the Archdioces would go into Bankrupcy so that the Archdiocese could continue to pay claims. This was partly based on two major claims that totaled over several millions dollars. (I have forgotten the exact total but it was quite steep.)

Claims continued to pour in and several of these claims put forth that the property of the Archdiocese, if it was determined to be so, should be used to pay claims. That was what this decision was part of.

Now this does not mean money that is given directly to specific parish will be used to pay claims. That is restricted funds. Also, actually buildings such as parishes and schools cannot be used. But property that is not these things, such as our parish hold property on a baseball field across the street from our church building, could be used to settle claims.

I believe the Archbishop intends to appeal the decision.

He is paying for crimes and sins that were not his fault and that had happened in the past but he did not bury or deny them either. He took on this responsibilty of his own free will to help those that had been hurt.

 

[bellesjoy]

Ortho:

bellesjoy:

Why not? He sure seemed like one of the guys. Athlete, actor, mountain climber. He seemed to be a guy you could sit down and have a beer with…as opposed to say…John Kerry?
.

I find your constant and offensive remarks not worth further response. I stated why in my last post.

 

[bellesjoy]

Pacbox:

He is paying for crimes and sins that were not his fault and that had happened in the past but he did not bury or deny them either. He took on this responsibilty of his own free will to help those that had been hurt.

Thank you for such an informed and genuine post. Finally someone who can see the forrest for the trees!

 

[Ortho]

bellesjoy:

Ortho:

I find your constant and offensive remarks not worth further response. I stated why in my last post.

If you find them not worthy of response, why do you keep responding?

Do I take it you don’t think one could sit down with JPII and have a beer? I wonder what he would answer?

 

[Pacbox]

Thanks bellesjoy. I felt that I had to say something rather than ignore the poor insight and misinformation that I kept reading.

 

[otm]

Ortho:

Vlazny is faced with the same situation any other organization faces. He and his organization are responsible for the past actions of the organization. He tried to avoid that by using civil law to declare bankrupcy. He made that decision. Now that he doesn’t like the outcome, he is complaining in the press.

You might want to actually study what has been going on before issuing such an opinion.

He did not run to the bankruptcy court to avoid anything so much as to try to gain some semblance of balance. Two of the lawsuits combined were in excess of $80,000,000. That is, as in, eighty million dollars. They were coming up for trial, and had either been tried or both been tried and verdicts rendered anywhere near the amount asked for, the Archdiocese would have had little in the way of assets to pay even a few of the rest of the victims, who by the way were filing their own lawsuits.

The bankruptcy court was the only means of stopping a “first to judgement wins all” result. He had the advice of some of the best attorneys in the state, and was trying to find a way to have justice for all of the victims, not just one or two.

Further, the issue of how the judgements were going to be paid needed to be litigatee because the issues in the bankruptcy court were the same ones that would have been litigated, piece by piece and lawsuit by lawsuit, had he not filed for bankruptcy.

As to your remark about complainging to the press, you might want to read what he has actually said before clling it “complaining”. I have found his statements to be factual to the case. He was advised by attorneys as to how the case might be resolved. The judge did not agree. He didn’t whine or complain; what he did is report the facts to us, the parishoners.

and as a point, had he not filed for bankruptcy, it is entirely possible that would have occured by someone else filing.

Canon law says that he holds the various parishes in trust, and he is bound by Canon law. However, the legal set up in the world of civil law was not as a trust, even though it was treated as a trust in the day to day workings of the parish and Archdiocese. Evidence was entered by both sides as to what the legal status was of the parishes and the judge found that civil law held it as one legal entity. That could possibly be reversed on appeal.

He has in no way even remotely suggested that the Archdiocese is not responsible for past occurances; he has openly admitted that we are. What he did by the filing was try to come to a dtermination for all of the victims as to what assets were Archdioces assets and what were parish assets, so a determination could then be made to fairly compensate all the victims, rather than having a few make a lotto out of it and grab all.