Who "owns" church property: bishop or pope?

[TradCat82]

Since in the United States most parish and diocesan property (including real estate) is vested in the person of the local ordinary as a “corporation sole” who can really lay claim to the ownership and control of a church building?

This is a stretch but… if an American bishop were deposed by the Holy See yet denied or ignored his deposition and refused to hand-over church property what recourse would Rome have?

We hear stories of Episcopal parishes (who actually own their own church buildings) locked in legal battles with their oridnaries when they attempt to withdraw from the diocese. Could such a thing happen between a bishop and the Pope who is, after all, Supreme Pontiff and Supreme Legislator but who probably doesn’t have legal standing in an American court?

 

[wcknight]

Locally, I think it is each pastor, so neither the Pope nor the Bishops owns the parish properties…

 

[Karin]

The church’s canon law draws the lines clearly. While diocesan bishops hold parish property “in trust,” for purposes of civil law canon law holds that a construct called a “juridic person” is the owner of parish property. Bishops exercise supervisory roles over a parish’s property for the sake of the proper administration, but the parish is considered a separate legal entity.

As an example, if a parish is closed, because of a valid reason such as a demographic shift, the assets of the suppressed parish do not go to the diocesan bishop, they go to the successor parish. The bishop does not acquire ownership of the parish by being the trustee in civil law. He acquires oversight and obligation but not control. It is church law that dictates where the assets go.

This distinction can be seen whenever a parish undertakes a major change in its property, such as building or closing a church or school. While the diocesan bishop grants permission to the parish to make an alteration, for the sake of good order, the responsibility for carrying out the alteration rests with the pastor of the parish, the person who is responsible for everything that goes on at the parish level.
As a result, even if the diocese were faced with a large debt, canon law would hold that the parishes and their property would be safe.
pittsburghcatholic.org/columnists_storys.phtml?id=767

 

[TradCat82]

That’s really helpful, thanks!

 

[Timidity]

Karin:
…As a result, even if the diocese were faced with a large debt, canon law would hold that the parishes and their property would be safe.This is exactly the issue at hand in the sex abuse settlement bankruptcy cases.

 

[Nohome]

Karin:

As an example, if a parish is closed, because of a valid reason such as a demographic shift, the assets of the suppressed parish do not go to the diocesan bishop, they go to the successor parish.

Makes sense, but that isn’t what happened here in the midwest. A few parishes were closed and the archdiocese took all the proceeds from the sale. To add insult, the bishop demanded that the successor parish raise their own funds to build a bigger church.

Karin:

As a result, even if the diocese were faced with a large debt, canon law would hold that the parishes and their property would be safe.

Ah yes, but the Church is being sued in CIVIL court according to CIVIL law. As I understand it, most dioceses report themselves as the owner of all parish properties for tax purposes. This sort puts the Church is a tight position in civil law.

Nohome

 

[JOHNYJ]

Oh please, the parish belongs to the diocese,i.e. the bishop. Canon law is a joke /It has no standing in a secular Republic. Also the church fought a major fight in the 19th century over " Trusteemism " to make sure the diocese was the owner of the parishes.

 

[m134e5]

The LAITY should own church property- they pay for it. If this were the case, I doubt there would have been near as many churches gutted during the 60’s and 70’s. I haven’t talked to an old lay Catholic yet (liberal or conservative) who said they just loved that the bishops and priests had the altars and communion rails ripped out with no discretion for what they were put there for in the first place- or, by the looks of many parishes, simple aesthetics.

 

[Nohome]

m134e5:

The LAITY should own church property- they pay for it.

Laity do not “pay” for the church, they “give” freely and unconditionally.

Laity ownership would jepardize the 503 status of the Church. You may only deduct your contributions if you receive nothing tangible in exchange. If the laity owned the Church, you would have to give back the proceeds to the individual contributors when a parish closes and the laity would be taxed on their investment.

This type of “giving” in contrary to bibical, canon and civil law.

Nohome

 

[m134e5]

Nohome:

Laity do not “pay” for the church, they “give” freely and unconditionally.

Laity ownership would jepardize the 503 status of the Church. You may only deduct your contributions if you receive nothing tangible in exchange. If the laity owned the Church, you would have to give back the proceeds to the individual contributors when a parish closes and the laity would be taxed on their investment.

This type of “giving” in contrary to bibical, canon and civil law.

Nohome

The money they give pays for the upkeep of the Church- they most certainly do pay for the church building. I’m sure some sort of contract can be worked out so that nothing can be done to the church building without a majority of the parishioners’ consent- or at least that certain things cannot be done. That would not jeopardize the 503 status of the Church, yet it wouldn’t allow a bishop or financial advisor of a diocese to do whatever they wants with a church building that they may rarely (if ever) see.

 

[twf]

m134e5: You forget, my friend, that Christ’s Holy Church is not a democracy. It is a Kingdom with authority going from top down, not down up. We do not ‘delegate’ our authority as the ‘collective church’ to the bishop, as happens in democracy when electing civil leaders. The bishop’s authority comes from Christ through the apostles. We are called by Christ, for our own spiritual good, to offer direction and order to the Church for her mission of saving souls, to submit to Church leadership, and this includes matters of church property use.

 

[Digitonomy]

m134e5:

The LAITY should own church property- they pay for it.

You may want to read up on this case. Through a historical quirk, the church is owned/managed within the parish, rather than by the diocese. Can’t remember exactly how it happened. I think the parish was established independently of any formal Church heirarchy, but was later granted the status of a formal parish within the diocese like any other. However, they never regularized the management/ownership issue to bring it under the bishop’s control. Which is what the current bishop is attempting to correct.