Scary headline

  • Thread starter Thread starter LtTony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep that greeted me this morning! What they are TRYING to do is to name the parishioners so they can get to ALL of the property. Individual parishioners would not be parties to the case but as a class action suit against us, would supposedly allow the greedy #%^(&%(#& to take all of our church buildings, schools, retreat houses, etc.

The Archdiocese has maintained that ITS assets do not include individual parishes and that they own about 19Million in assets. The claims are now $400Million and apparently if you throw in every single property owned by every parish in the diocese there is $500Million in assets.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Yep that greeted me this morning! What they are TRYING to do is to name the parishioners so they can get to ALL of the property. Individual parishioners would not be parties to the case but as a class action suit against us, would supposedly allow the greedy #%^(&%(#& to take all of our church buildings, schools, retreat houses, etc.

The Archdiocese has maintained that ITS assets do not include individual parishes and that they own about 19Million in assets. The claims are now $400Million and apparently if you throw in every single property owned by every parish in the diocese there is $500Million in assets.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Screwtape thinks it is quite genius, actually.
 
**Class action possible in church case **

**A bankruptcy judge considers the move to decide who owns cash and property that could go toward sex-abuse settlements **
Thursday, May 26, 2005 STEVE WOODWARD

All 389,000 Roman Catholic parishioners in Western Oregon soon may find themselves defendants in their archdiocese’s legal fight to keep parish property from being used to pay sexual-abuse settlements.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris said in a Wednesday hearing that she was leaning toward converting the property litigation into a rare class action at the end of July.

“I’ve never had a class action before in my 21 years as a bankruptcy judge,” Perris said, as she and several bankruptcy lawyers thumbed through their copies of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, puzzling over the class-action rules.

Rather than name every parishioner individually, a class action would enable the committee representing sex-abuse plaintiffs to sue the volunteer parishioners on behalf of all parishioners. The so-called adversary proceeding, which is similar to a lawsuit, would be meant strictly to answer the question of who owns the property in the archdiocese’s 124 parishes and three high schools: the archdiocese or the parishes.

Who owns $600 million in real estate, investments and cash has been a central issue since the Archdiocese of Portland became the nation’s first to file for bankruptcy in the wake of lawsuits alleging clergy sexual abuse.

If the archdiocese prevails, parishioners should be able to keep church buildings and schools. In case of a loss, parishioners would not be personally liable but could face losing or borrowing against their places of worship.

Since the property litigation was initiated in August, it has stalled over several issues, including who is a “necessary party” to the litigation.

A proposed class of defendants would legally answer that question. They could be parishes, parishioners, donors and anyone else, known or unknown, who can claim an interest in real estate, investments and cash held by the archdiocese.

The sex-abuse plaintiffs, archdiocese, parishes and parishioners currently involved in the case all agree on the need for a class action.

Steven M. Hedberg, a lawyer for the Committee of Parishioners, which represents about half of the affected parishes, asked Perris for time to arrange meetings with parishioners and explain the class action.
 
Page 2 of 2

“We’re talking about 390,000 people here who aren’t intimately familiar with bankruptcy proceedings,” he said.

Hedberg, whose firm, Perkins Coie, likely will represent the proposed defendant class, said he also needs time to recruit volunteers to represent the class.

If the sex-abuse plaintiffs succeed in arguing that the roughly $500 million in real estate and $100 million in investments belong to the archdiocese, those assets will become available to pay off more than $400 million in abuse claims. In other words, an individual parishioner would not be financially liable, but his or her church building could be sold to raise money for settlements.

If the archdiocese and the proposed new class of parishioners and others succeed in arguing that the property belongs to parishes, $19 million – the amount of real estate and money the archdiocese says it really holds – would be available for claims.

Individual parishioners, donors and other members of the class could decline to be part of the class but would give up representation by the class’s lawyers. Details of opting out of the class are still being worked out.

In a related matter, Perris also indicated she would seek the help of an independent settlement judge who would help mediate seemingly intractable differences between the lawyers representing the archdiocese and the committee representing sex-abuse plaintiffs. During a Tuesday bankruptcy hearing, Perris scolded lawyers on both sides for the hostile, accusatory tone of their legal filings.

She scheduled a June 6 hearing to get names of candidates for a settlement judge and to hear further information on the proposed class action.

Steve Woodward: 503-294-5134; stevewoodward@news.oregonian.com
 
Man, if that is not an attempt to erase an entire diocese, then I don’t know what is! Amazing, and people try to claim the faith is not under attack–390,000 people lose their place to worship, many of them will cease being Catholic, if that is not an attack, then I don’t know what is.
 
As an Oregon Catholic…

I’d chain myself to the tabernacle before I let any greedy lawyer steal my parish from me…

My parish is listed as one of the top 10 most valuable in the archdiocese. We built the church on our own, got the property on our own, donated all the supplies and money on our own. The diocese has no claim on the physical assets whatsoever.

I’ve been very impressed with the fairness displayed by the bankruptcy judge. I have faith in her and in God that it will all work out.

“I’ve been abused as a child. I therefore have the right to steal property from 300,000 people, obliterate their places of worship, take away their funding for thier children to attend school, shut down homeless shelters and soup kitchens and adoption agencies and foster family agencies. I’m not being unreasonable, I just want an apology from the church.”

shakes head in disgust

Josh
 
The victims are not seeking justice, but are seeking money. I’m very suspicious with the priest abuse lawsuits from the beginning. Their eyes are greened-greed, destruction, and hatred for the Church are taking over the victims’ minds.
 
Josh when the time comes leave enough extra chain to add me to the pile. I am beyond disgusted with the whole thing. It certainly started with some very legitimate actions in response to really heinous acts committed by a tiny percentage of priests. It’s now being run by greedy attorneys who are trolling for ‘victims.’ I know as a co-worker of my hairdresser (no she is female and heterosexual) was contacted by several attorneys who hoped he could “remember” incidents. Apparently some of these trolls were searching data bases of all young males who served at various parishes around the state. Now that many of the supposed perpetrators are dead it’s hard to defend the cases. Further as you said, it’s now simply greed and the desire for retribution. Taking away Catholic schools, churches and other facilities is only punishing the innocent for the actions of a few.

Lisa N (who shouldn’t even get started on this subject it really makes me mad)
 
jlw said:
Class action possible in church case

**A bankruptcy judge considers the move to decide who owns cash and property that could go toward sex-abuse settlements **
Thursday, May 26, 2005 STEVE WOODWARD

All 389,000 Roman Catholic parishioners in Western Oregon soon may find themselves defendants in their archdiocese’s legal fight to keep parish property from being used to pay sexual-abuse settlements…
Click to expand...

:bigyikes: how horrible!
 
**There’s something I don’t understand here. Either the (arch) dioceses own the properties or they don’t. There is another case in the Northeast where the exact opposite is being claimed. Does church ownership vary by diocese? If a diocese wants to close a church and sell the property, the diocese claims awnership and tells the parishoners who built and paid for the church that they’re out of luck. In this case, where outsiders are trying to get their hands on church assets, the diocese is trying to claim that the property is owned by the individual parishes. I agree that the whole thing is disgusting, but I am confused. Who owns what? The church can’t have it both ways. Somebody enlighten me, please. **
 
If “we” and our ancestors are now responsible for these financial claims on our churches, then we need to be able to have a say in who our priests and bishops are so we can be more sure that they will not engage in actions that could do alot of harm to both our repuations and our financial investments in our churches and schools.
 
geezerbob said:
**There’s something I don’t understand here. Either the (arch) dioceses own the properties or they don’t. There is another case in the Northeast where the exact opposite is being claimed. Does church ownership vary by diocese? If a diocese wants to close a church and sell the property, the diocese claims awnership and tells the parishoners who built and paid for the church that they’re out of luck. In this case, where outsiders are trying to get their hands on church assets, the diocese is trying to claim that the property is owned by the individual parishes. I agree that the whole thing is disgusting, but I am confused. Who owns what? The church can’t have it both ways. Somebody enlighten me, please. **
Click to expand...

I think you may be refering to the St. Louis debacle. Check out www.saveststans.com
 
Has anyone else noticed that God is not stopping these actions, or least appears to not be stopping them?
 
geezerbob said:
**There’s something I don’t understand here. Either the (arch) dioceses own the properties or they don’t. There is another case in the Northeast where the exact opposite is being claimed. Does church ownership vary by diocese? If a diocese wants to close a church and sell the property, the diocese claims awnership and tells the parishoners who built and paid for the church that they’re out of luck. In this case, where outsiders are trying to get their hands on church assets, the diocese is trying to claim that the property is owned by the individual parishes. I agree that the whole thing is disgusting, but I am confused. Who owns what? The church can’t have it both ways. Somebody enlighten me, please. **
Click to expand...

Bob, I think the Church does want it both ways. They are trying to protect the assets of our diocese by saying the parishes are not owned by the Archdiocese itself. Similarly in the case of closing the churches, they want to have th power to do so. It’s going to be a bumpy ride! I suspect though that the Archdiocese here will not prevail in limiting the claims to its own assets. As you said, the opposite has been used in other cases.

I do think there ARE Catholic churches in the area that are clearly not under the Archdiocese. But most of them are unfortunately. I drive by a big Catholic school affiliated with a huge parish. Seeing the kids out there playing ball makes me wonder if this will be taken away from them in the coming years.

Lisa N
 
Has anyone else noticed that God is not stopping these actions, or least appears to not be stopping them?
Click to expand...
“The loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation” - The Bishop of Fatima.

Is it Gods chastisement for a faithless people?

Expect more to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top