Question:

I have noticed that, in many church renovation and new construction projects, the parishioners often receive information that later turns out to be untrue. That is, the parishioners may be told that the project will be a traditional restoration, but, once they have given their money, they learn that in fact the project will drastically change their church’s appearance. Is there anything that a parishioner can do once he learns that he has been deceived in this way?

Answer:

 Yes. Canon law respects the intentions of donors who contribute their money to the Church. As a result, in appropriate circumstances, the faithful can at least obtain a refund of their money. The following is the most important canon that addresses this subject:

Canon 1267—§3. “Offerings given by the faithful for a certain purpose can be applied only for that same purpose.”

Last year the St. Joseph Foundation handled a case from Ohio in which the pastor had raised a great deal of money by promising “to restore the interior of the church to its past splendor.” However, once he had his parishioners’ money in hand, the pastor announced that he would make major changes to the church.

Although the pastor had been raising money for the project for several years, he waited until the last minute to disclose to the parishioners his plans for the following significant changes to their church:

·        removal of the marble altar rail and altar steps,

·        removal of two of the church’s four confessionals,

·        removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary,

·        extension of the sanctuary into the nave of the church,

·        re-orientation of the front section of pews into a semi-circle, and

·        construction of a large baptismal font for full immersion baptisms.

The Foundation took the case to Rome and, within a short time, the pastor was required to return the money to the parishioners who complained about the new plan.

Evidence

This type of case requires two very specific types of evidence. First, the donors must show what their specific intention was at the time that they made their contributions. In the Ohio case, the pastor’s own fundraising materials showed that it was a true restoration, rather than a radical renovation, that the parishioners originally intended to support. Second, the donors must show that the pastor intends to spend the money in a way that will violate these intentions. In the Ohio case, the pastor’s disclosure of his revised plan was so different from the plan that he had promised that it was clear that the new plan violated the donors’ intentions.

Evidence of the donors’ specific intent is crucial. One cannot take advantage of canon 1267 merely by showing that one disagrees with the pastor’s decision as to how to spend the money. One must either have proof that he gave his money for a certain purpose, or else he must be able to prove that he relied on the pastor’s own specific statements about how the money would be spent.

Precautions

As the question indicates, these cases are becoming more common throughout the United States. As a result, parishioners should make sure that they understand what will be involved in a church construction project before they contribute any money to it. It would be prudent to decline to contribute to such a project until specific plans are put forward in writing. Parishioners might even seek written assurances that the specific plans put forward to them will in fact be honored. A parishioner should also include a statement on his check or in a separate letter that his donation is made with the understanding that these plans will indeed be followed.

Other Remedies

A refund is better than no remedy at all, but the language of canon 1267 actually supports an even stronger remedy. That is, the canon itself does not speak merely of refunds when pastors are caught deceiving their parishioners. Rather, it says that the money that has been solicited and accepted for a certain type of project must be applied “for that same purpose.” Thus, a pastor who promises a certain type of restoration or construction project should be required to honor his own word, rather than merely to refund the money of the minority who complains about the deceit. The Foundation currently has a case on appeal to Rome in which it is attempting to test this interpretation of canon 1267.

One additional type of case deserves mention. Parishioners are often misled into believing that Vatican II demanded removal of altar rails and tabernacles. These parishioners become angry when they learn that there are in fact no such requirements in Vatican II, in canon law, or in liturgical law.

As regular readers of Christifidelis are aware, the most notorious vehicle for deceiving parishioners in this way has been the infamous 1978 document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. For 22 years, liturgists and liturgical design consultants have been representing EACW as a document that requires drastic and unsightly changes to parish churches, when in fact EACW has no legal force whatsoever. If a pastor or liturgist misrepresents the requirements of Church law to obtain support for a renovation project, then a donor who later learns that these requirements were fabricated might seek a refund under canon 1267.