|
THE PARISH:
WHERE THE SAVING WORK OF
THE CHURCH GETS DONE
By Charles M. Wilson*
Nothing can be more sacred to a devout man than his church. It is an implementation of and almost a synonym with
parental attachment; it is more than a house of prayer, it is a ship on which he books passage for the eternal voyage which
will reunite him with all the beloved ones who have gone before. When he has practically been born into a church, when he
has striven with full heart to maintain it over the years and decades, when he glories in its immaculate beauty and accepts
it as his guardian angel, it is an almost unbearable shock to him to contemplate that it might cease to exist.
Justice Michael A. Musmanno1
These words, written fifty years ago in the graceful
language of another time, referred to St. Peter’s church,
near downtown Pittsburgh. But they could apply equally
as well to parish communities everywhere. Our parishes
are the focus of our Catholic lives. It is there that
we are baptized, formed in the faith and receive the spiritual
goods of the Church. The bodies of our loved ones
have been borne up their aisles, just as our own bodies
eventually will be. Whether we remain in one parish or
circumstances require that we belong to several during
the course of our lives,
the quality of parish life
has a critical effect on the
state of our souls. Moreover,
since the Council of
Trent the parish has been
the official instrument
ordained by the canons
for the delivery of the
ordinary pastoral care of
the Church.
Today, the many difficulties
that beset the
Church have caused the
quality of parish life to
suffer. According to the
law of the Church (canon
213): The Christian faithful
have the right to receive
assistance from the sacred
pastors out of the spiritual
goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.Day in and day out, the parish is the principal
place where these goods are provided; for if the faithful are not receiving them there, then it is highly unlikely
that they will receive them anywhere else.
The problems that parishes face are temporal as well
as spiritual. Parishes have been closed with what many
parishioners believe is insufficient justification. Others
have been closed so that their assets can be used to relieve
financial pressures on the diocese while some that
remain open struggle to stay afloat.
There is even confusion over the ownership and control
of parishes. In the course of actual or threatened
bankruptcy proceedings,
some bishops have
claimed that canon law
does not permit them to
“own” parishes in spite
of the fact that they have
required the deeds to
parish properties to show
them as the legal owners
according to civil law.
In response to the requests
of more than a
few CHRISTIFIDELIS
readers as well as some
Foundation clients, this
article will discuss the
relationship between the
parish and the diocese,
provide some examples
of how that relationship
has become distorted,
and suggest some steps to improve the situation. With a
request for the indulgence of our readers in other countries,
we will concentrate on the situation as it exists in the United States. First, it might be useful to note a few
details of the historical development of parishes and the
evolution of ecclesiastical law relating to them.
TWO THOUSAND YEARS IN FIVE
PARAGRAPHS2
We begin by taking a glance at what we might call the
“Constitution” of the Church as described by the Italian
canonist, Count Neri Capponi.
Briefly these are the fundamental points of the Church’s
constitution as given by her Founder. In the first place,
the Church is not a democracy, i.e., power in the Church
is received from God, not from the people. Second, the
power centers as instituted by Christ are two (perhaps
three): the Pope at the center, the bishops locally. All other
power centers are a product of history, not instituted
by Christ, although certain theologians maintain that
other power centers exist (like metropolitan archbishops
and local councils) which are, so to speak, between pope
and bishops. They could be regarded as belonging to the
divine constitution of the Church because they go back
to the immediate post apostolic age and therefore could
claim a generic apostolic institution. Third, in the divinely
instituted power centers there is no division of
powers: the pope and bishops are administrators, judges
and law-givers in their respective areas of competence.
Fourth, because of the Roman primacy the pope is by
divine law the judge of the universal Church and final
court of appeal for all cases.3
As important as they may be to us, parishes were
not included in the power centers of the early Church
mentioned by Count Capponi. Thus, at least in theory,
the Church could exist without parishes, although what
the structure would look like and how it might work in
practice is difficult to imagine.
Parishes developed as a practical way of caring for the
Christian faithful who lived outside of the cities where
the earliest particular churches or dioceses were founded
by the Apostles and their successors. At first these
faithful gathered for worship with their fellow Catholics
in the cities and were served by clerics who traveled
from the see city. Eventually, as the Christian population
increased over time, provisions were made for resident
clergy. The earliest parishes were probably founded in
the third or fourth century in the East and later spread
to the West. In fact, the very word is derived from the
Greek words para oikia, meaning “near the houses.”
After the final collapse of the Roman Empire in the
West in 476, followed by the so-called Dark Ages and
the gradual conversion of Western Europe to Christianity
over the last half of the first millennium, a considerable
portion of Church property, including that of parishes,
became encumbered by feudal obligations. Thus,
Church officials, including bishops and religious superiors,
became vassals of lay overlords. In sum, the situation
bore no resemblance to the ecclesiastical polity that
we see today and canon law, as we know it, did not exist.
Clearly, the state of subservience of the Church to
civil authorities and the lack of an effective legal system
could not continue. The beginnings of reform began
with the founding of the Abbey of Cluny in Burgundy
in 910. Cluny was explicitly exempted from feudal ties
and answerable only to Rome, as were its daughter abbeys
that were founded throughout Western Europe in
the succeeding centuries. Further critical steps in effecting
the freedom of the Church from direct rule by secular
authorities were taken in the eleventh century by the
saintly reforming Pope, Gregory VII.
With the work of the medieval canonists, including St.
Ivo of Chartres and Gratian of Bologna, canon law developed
as an academic science in the mid-twelfth century.
The process of transforming legal textbooks into actual
legislation, including laws pertaining to parishes, began
with the Decretals of Gregory IX in 1234, which, with the
addition of later collections, became known as the Corpus
Iuris Canonici, or Body of Canon Law, and remained
in force until the first Code of Canon Law was promulgated
in 1917. In the Corpus Iuris Canonici the parish was
viewed as a benefice to which the care of souls was attached.
This notion remained in the 1917 Code and did
not change until the present Code of Canon Law came
into force in 1983.
PARISHES IN THE UNITED STATES
For historical reasons that we learned in school, for
some five hundred years the English-speaking world has
been largely a Protestant world, which obviously included
the English colonies established in North America in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the time
the United States achieved its independence, Catholics
comprised no more than one percent of the population,
with most of them concentrated in Maryland, Pennsylvania
and New York.
As local congregations came into existence, their
members thought of these communities as their parishes,
although in fact they were not canonical parishes
like those in Europe. Until the codification of canon
law turned them into canonical parishes in 1917, most
parishes in this country, except for those that had been
under Spanish or French rule at the time of their formation,
e.g. St. Augusting and New Orleans, actually were
missions. Thus, the priests in charge were not canonical
pastors but rectors of missions and did not enjoy the
same legal protection that they would have enjoyed as
pastors.
Another difference between the American and European
structures concerned the civil ownership of property.
Between the post-revolutionary period and the midnineteenth
century, the prevailing method of ownership
in the United States was for “parish” property to be held
by lay trustees. In a manner of speaking, this was a replay
of the scenario of a thousand years before, where
the lord of the manor enjoyed the “right of patronage“
and could within six months present to the bishop a suitable
cleric to fill the vacant church. The bishop then was required by the canons to induct and institute the cleric,
unless he could prove the cleric unsuitable. Once instituted,
the cleric had a right to enjoy the benefice for an
indefinite period — in practice till death or resignation
— unless judicially deprived of his benefice for cause
duly shown. During the late Middle Ages and partly
as a result of the Black Death, pluralism (the holding of
two or more benefices), and clerical non-residence, the
canonical institute of the vestry also developed. The
vestry consisted of local lay notables who oversaw the
maintenance of the church fabric, and parish poor relief.
Besides managing parish poor relief the vestry were also
required to make a report to the bishop if the incumbent
failed to do his duty and see to the upkeep of the church
and its furnishing. They would also come to have the
duty of reporting the occult (or publicly known) sins of
their neighbors who would then be hailed before the
court of the bishop or archdeacon and, if found guilty,
ordered to do penance and mend their lives. The difference
between medieval England and the United States
was that this time the civil owners of Church property
were boards of lay trustees instead of feudal lords.
Beginning with the First Plenary Council of Baltimore
in 1829, which declared that the right of presentation did
not exist in the United States, the American bishops took
steps to establish their ownership of parish property
according to state law and, over the course of the nineteenth
century, succeeded in doing so. In some states
there would be separate parish civil corporations controlled
by clerics. In others all church property would
be civilly owned by the bishop, who had been created in
state law as a corporation sole or one-man corporation.
However, as events over a century later were to show, in
some cases they may have succeeded too well.
THE PARISH IN THE 1983 CODE OF
CANON LAW
The chapter of the 1983 Code entitled Parishes, Parish
Priests and Assistant Priests consists of canons 515-552.
Eleven of these canons are printed on a separate insert in
this issue of CHRISTIFIDELIS for the convenience of our
readers. The definition and the key juridical concepts of
the parish are contained in the text of canon 515.
§1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian
faithful stably established within a particular
Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of
the diocesan Bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest
as its proper pastor.
§2. The diocesan Bishop alone can establish, suppress
or alter parishes. He is not to establish, suppress
or notably alter them unless he has consulted the
council of priests.
§3. A lawfully established parish has juridical personality
by virtue of the law itself.
In the previous Code, a parish was both an office and
a benefice, the latter being defined by canon 1409 (1917
Code of Canon Law) as a juridic entity constituted or erected
in perpetuity by competent ecclesiastical authority consisting
of a sacred office and the right of receiving income from
the assets attached to that office.4 No express mention was
made of the parish as a community of the faithful; but
this does not mean that parishes under the 1917 Code
and under the Corpus Iuris Canonici before that were not
communities in every sense of the word. Today, some
Catholics worship in those remaining beautiful, historic
churches that have escaped the demolition crews and
the “wreckovators.” These churches, which were the
fruit of the sacrifices of many who had little to give but
their labor and their prayers, stand as witnesses to the
communities that built them and it is fitting that the canonical
definition of a parish now recognizes that reality.
The other provisions mentioned in paragraphs one and
two of canon 515 are self-explanatory and do not differ
in any significant way from the previous Code.
The term juridical personality might need further explanation.
In general, legal systems deal with natural
persons and with other entities that are creatures of the
law and have certain rights and obligations. Lawyers
call such an entity a legal fiction. The creature of secular
law probably most familiar to us is the corporation. In
canon law, individual humans are called physical persons
while other recognized entities are called moral or
juridical persons. In the 1983 Code, the latter term has
largely replaced the former. Juridical personality can be
acquired by the decree of the competent authority or, as
in the case of parishes, by the law itself. As juridical persons,
parishes are separate legal entities with rights and
obligations.
Just as there are different kinds of legal persons in
secular law, there are different kinds of juridical persons
in canon law. For example, they can be public or
private, aggregates of things or aggregates of persons;
but the two that concern us here are collegial and noncollegial.
Canon 115, §2 states that a juridical person is:
“collegial if the members decide its conduct by participating
together in making its decisions, whether by equal right or
not, in accordance with the law and the statutes; otherwise
it is non-collegial.” Thus, a parish is a public, non-collegial
juridical person. As one commentary states: “This is
why one cannot apply, much less enforce, the criteria of equal
rights of members, nor can decisions be subject to the vote of
parishioners.”5 Moreover, there is nothing in the Code
that requires that parishioners be kept informed about
the legal or financial affairs of the parish. While it is true
that a parish can have a parish council and must have
a finance council, neither body has a deliberative voice.
The pastor acts in the person of the parish in all juridical
matters (canon 532).
The key canonical elements of a parish are that it is
(1) a stable community of the faithful, (2) lawfully erected
as such under the authority of a diocesan bishop, (3)
under the care of a priest as its proper pastor and (4) a
separate, but not independent, juridical person. Under
the law of the 1917 Code and traditional canon law since
1234 at least, there also needed to be a benefice and a
church building. The benefice was an aggregate of property, real or personal, erected as a juridical person
and the income from which was devoted to the maintenance
of the church fabric and the incumbent priest.
The church building in canon law was an aggregate of
things, bricks, mortar or wood, constructed into an edifice
and set apart by the blessing of the bishop for divine
worship. The notion that „things“ in canon law can
be erected into a juridical “person“ may seem strange.
But Anglo-American law simply creates a trust to do the
same job. Authorities also argued that the parish, once
set off by the bishop, was a juridical person. Other canonists
denied that the parish was a juridical person, arguing
that the presence of the benefice and the church as
juridical persons sufficed. Today this argument is academic,
for the 1983 code makes it clear that the parish is
now a juridical person.
Some questions have arisen over the proper relationship
of the parish to the diocese. For example, it is the
pastor rather than the bishop who is the administrator
of the parish. The bishop’s role is more that of an overseer
or protector. If the pastor fails in his responsibilities,
the bishop can intervene and, if necessary, remove him;
but he cannot arbitrarily substitute his judgment for that
of the pastor. It must be remembered that parishes are
distinct and stable communities of the faithful. They are
more than mere administrative subdivisions of the diocese
and should not be treated as if they were filling stations
or fast food outlets.6
The bishop also has a second role. The pastor’s powers
of administration in a parish are those of ordinary
administration. Basically he is to administer the property
for the intended purpose but he cannot change the
purpose or appropriate the property to other uses. His
powers are similar to those of one with a life estate in
Anglo-American common law. In the language of the
Roman or civil law he has the enjoyment of the use and
the fruits of the property. He lacks, however, the third
classic right, the right to consume the substance of the
property by giving it away, mortgaging it, or selling it.
In short, the pastor cannot by himself do acts of extraordinary
administration. To accomplish these he needs a
faculty or power from the bishop, whose action completes
the canonical requirements. Clearly, the distinct
canonical roles of pastor and bishop are not easily translated
into American civil law structures for holding civil
title to property.
Typically, the Church also agrees that canonical juridical
persons will act in accordance with the general state
law applicable to legal entities and that she will report
the existence or creation of juridical persons to the state
register of legal entities.
PARISHES AND DIOCESES IN CIVIL LAW
Canon 1284, § 2, 2° of the 1983 Code requires that all
administrators protect the ownership of ecclesiastical
property by means that are valid in civil law. This obligation
was expressed in similar terms in previous law
and is an area where civil and canon laws have interacted
now and in the past. For the most part, this is of
limited interest to lay members of the faithful; but recent
events have focused increased attention on the issue.
As we have seen, parishes and dioceses in the United
States have, over time, been structured in various ways
under the laws of the several states. Today, in most states,
the title to parish property is held in one way or another
by the diocese. In others, each parish is a separate civil
corporation and holds title in its own name. In 1911, the
Holy See recommended that that latter structure be adopted
with the same safeguards as contained in the New
York state law, which provided that the parish corporation
be governed by five trustees; the diocesan bishop,
the vicar general, the pastor and two lay trustees chosen
by the first three.7 This system is in use today in New
York, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and perhaps
a few others. The corporation sole prevails in nineteen
states, while various structures, including unincorporated
associations, are used in the others.
After the lay trustee system passed out of existence
well over a century ago, the way parishes have been
structured legally has generally made little difference to
rank and file Catholics. Since the clerical sexual abuse
catastrophe erupted into the open in 2002, things have
changed. So far, two dioceses (Tucson and Spokane)
and one archdiocese (Portland, OR) have filed for bankruptcy.
All three are in states where the title to parish
property is in the name of the diocese; yet the bishops
have argued that according to canon law they do not really
“own” parishes and that, therefore, their property
must be excluded from the bankruptcy estate. The Tucson
case has been settled without addressing that issue;
the Oregon case is pending; and the only ruling made so
far was in the Spokane case. In the latter, Judge Patricia
Williams of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern
District of Washington, ruled that the diocese of Spokane
does indeed own the parishes.8 If the ruling is upheld, it
could have grave consequences for parishes in Spokane,
Portland and perhaps beyond. In a worst case scenario,
we could see the property of Catholic parishes seized
and sold to satisfy diocesan liabilities. If all the dioceses
in the United States had followed the suggestion of the
Holy See back in 1911, things might have been different.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
As we have seen, the parish is the principle context
in which the Church proclaims the word of God and
administers the sacraments to the faithful. Surely, since
the time when the first parishes came into existence almost
two thousand years ago, some have provided the
faithful with these spiritual goods more effectively than
others. Now, arguably, the Church is in the midst of the
worst internal crisis since the Arian heresy of the fourth
century and there are many who say that this one will
prove to be even worse. At least during the Arian crisis
the parish clergy and their flocks remained for the most
part orthodox. Most such parishes were outside the cities
and the Arians contemptuously referred to the Cath olics who found refuge in them as “country Christians;”
but what the urban sophisticates viewed as motley collections
of hicks and bumpkins kept the faith alive.
It is not at all obvious, however, that the Catholics of
today in Europe and North America believe and live by
their faith as conscientiously as did their fellow Catholic
“country Christians” in the fourth century. I do not
know whether this is the cause or the effect of the sad
state of teaching and worship in many parishes; but my
opinion is that it is the latter. In any case, with a few exceptions
here and there, the quality of Catholic life in the
parishes is awful and there are very few signs that it will
improve anytime soon.
The Saint Joseph Foundation has no authority to
judge how well a parish is performing. This is not our
function. In the event that parishioners believe that their
rights to the spiritual goods of the Church have been
violated, it is our job to assist them in using the system
provided by the Church to find a remedy.
As we have been discussing the relationship between
secular and canon law, perhaps we might sum up our
situation by recalling the words of the late Justice Felix
Frankfurter: [T]here is not under our Constitution a judicial
remedy for every political mischief, for every undesirable
exercise of legislative power.9 Similarly, there is not in the
Church’s system a canonical remedy for every theological
mischief, for every undesirable exercise of ecclesiastical
governance. As a matter of fact, in the Church’s
system there are hardly any judicial remedies at all for
acts of governance that appear to be unfair or harmful.
This is not to say that there are no other remedies. It is
simply that recourse to Church tribunals, except in rare
instances, is not one of them.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Over the course of twenty centuries the Church has
faced many crises. Like the others, the crisis facing the
Church now is spiritual in nature and will therefore
have to be addressed primarily by spiritual means. The
catastrophic effects that it has produced on thousands
of parishes can still be alleviated to some extent by using
the system that the Church herself has established.
We can and should turn to this system to vindicate our
rights to receive the word of God in its fullness, to receive
the sacraments rightly administered and to worship
according to the norms established by the competent
authority.
Before taking any approach, however, we always suggest
spending time in prayer and reflection so that you
can draw two vital distinctions. The first is between what
you don’t like and what’s wrong. The second is between
the rightness of your position and good of the Church.
Even when a real abuse exists, we may be called to bear
with it in Christ.
Once a decision is made to seek a remedy, the Saint
Joseph Foundation considers two possibilities. The first
is to make use of appeal procedures, both formal and
informal. The second is to take advantage of provisions
in canon law that not only permit but sometimes even
encourage the faithful to act on their own initiative. Depending
upon the circumstances, we may recommend
one or both.
Over the past twenty-one years, the Saint Joseph
Foundation has processed 2,757 requests for assistance,
of which approximately 70 percent were prompted by
abuses of one kind or another that adversely affected
the rights and interests of parishioners. The following
observations are based upon that experience and the expertise
of the members of our staff who tried to bring
some measure of relief.
Appeals
For much of our national history, bishops in the United
States encountered few restraints in their exercise of
discretion. In his own diocese a bishop was very much
a “little pope” and he could act as arbitrarily as Providence
and nature permitted him. By contrast, in more
traditional parts of the world, his power to do certain
things such as encumber or alienate church property
was circumscribed by the need to gain the consent of the
chapter of cathedral canons, a fixed number of priestcounselors
who held their canonry for life.
Following the Second Vatican Council, there was talk
among canonists about the old “power pyramid” ecclesiology
being superseded by one based upon service.
This was reinforced in 1967 by the Apostolic Constitution
Regimini Ecclesiae Universae, by which Pope Paul VI
created the Second Section (Sectio Altera) of the Apostolic
Signatura, the Church’s first administrative appellate
tribunal, to enforce the rights of the faithful even against
public ecclesiastical authorities. Sixteen years after Regimini,
the revised Code was promulgated and, in striking
contrast to the 1917 Code, it codified the rights and duties
of Christ’s faithful. But perhaps most important of
all, in that it renders efficacious the rights and remedies
created in the post-Vatican II era, is canon 128, which
states succinctly: Whoever unlawfully causes harm to another
by a juridical act, or indeed any other act which is malicious
or culpable, is obliged to repair the damage done. From
this, many concluded that the arbitrary and capricious
use of discretionary power is no longer acceptable and a
bishop who acts in such a manner can be overturned by
an appeal to the Holy See.10 More hope was generated by
the appearance, in the 1983 Code, of canons 1732-1739,
which established procedures for the appeal of administrative
decrees, and the Apostolic Constitution Pastor
Bonus in 1988. In the latter (Article 123, §2), Pope John
Paul II gave the Sectio Altera competence to adjudicate
damages in conjunction with administrative appeals.11
Only in rare instances does a case begin with an appeal
to Rome. It is almost always best to resolve an issue
at the parish or diocesan level and, indeed, canon 1733
strongly urges that the available means be taken to reach
an equitable solution. Only when these means have been
exhausted is the process of administrative recourse in
order. There are two issues related to parish life that often result in the use of this process; parish suppressions
and the renovation of parish church buildings.
Over the last twenty years hundreds of American
parishes have closed. During that period, the Catholic
population of the United States increased by 15,534,790
(52,286,043 to 67,820,833), while the number of parishes
remained relatively constant (19,313 to 19,297). In parts
of the Midwest and Northeast, things were different.
From 1985 to 2005, the combined total of parishes in
the archdioceses of Boston, Chicago and Detroit along
with the dioceses of Buffalo, Davenport and Harrisburg
declined by 428 (2,116 to 1,698). There are indeed times
when there is no practical alternative to closing a parish
and perhaps the majority of the closures are justified.
Nonetheless, we have received many complaints that
some were unjustified and were done without the painstaking
consideration that ought to take place before such
important decisions are made. As Justice Musmanno
noted more than a half century ago, there is nothing that
is quite so devastating as the needless suppression of a
parish.
Since 1984, the Foundation has assisted in challenging 80
parish closures, of which 22 were appealed — or soon
will be appealed — to the Holy See. The results show
that our hopes that flowed from Regimini Ecclesiae Universaeand the 1983 Code have yet to be realized. Time
after time, the authorities in Rome, both at the Congregation
for Clergy, which is competent to decide recourses
against parish suppressions, and the Second
Section of the Apostolic Signatura, to which decisions of
the Congregation may be appealed, base their decisions
solely upon the strict legality of the suppression. In other
words, if the bishop follows the minimal requirements
of canon 515, he will be upheld regardless of the merits
of the case.12
Renovations of parish churches and the design of new
buildings, frequently called “worship centers,” usually
generate more controversy, and thus more requests for
our assistance, than do suppressions. There are times
when major physical alterations to church buildings
have to be made and it sometimes makes good sense to
take advantage of the occasion to make needed alterations
to the décor and appointments; few would quarrel
with that. What we do quarrel with is the substitution
of the ugly or the everyday for the beautiful and inspiring.
We also quarrel with such innovations as hiding the
tabernacle and placing the altar in the middle of the congregation,
neither of which is required by liturgical law.
The negative effects on the parish community of these
“wreckovations” can be severe and long-lasting.
Since 1984, the Foundation has received 208 requests
for assistance in situations involving renovations of existing
churches or replacing them with new buildings,
only eight of which have been appealed to Rome. The
dynamics of the controversy are different in renovations,
which may account for the lower percentage of
recourses. In most cases, a relatively small but influential
group supports the renovation; another relatively
small group opposes it and the majority of the parishioners
do not care one way or the other. They just want the
controversy to go away. When suppression is the issue,
those parishioners who accept the closure of their parish
will quietly depart and go elsewhere. Besides, there are
no highly paid consultants and designers who stand to
benefit from a closure.
A very important difference between suppressions
and renovations is that the former require a decree by
the bishop. This makes the preparation of the petition
for recourse and determination of the time limits comparatively
straightforward. In the case of renovations, it
is sometimes extremely difficult to obtain a copy of the
decree or its equivalent, if indeed it exists at all. Another
difficulty with renovations is that the objections are usually
based upon issues of esthetics and liturgical expression,
so the formulation of canonical arguments can be a
challenge.
Contesting renovations is no easy task and few things
are more heartbreaking than to see the ruination or the
demolition of a sacred place that was built and maintained
over the years by the sacrifices of many good and
faithful Catholics.
Other Problems — Other Approaches
If suppressions and renovations were all we had to
worry about, the situation in the Church would not be
all that bad. As we all know from countless painful experiences,
the present crisis is much broader and deeper
than that. The wreckage made of church buildings pales
in comparison to the wreckage made of parish religious
education programs and public worship. And the damage
done to our buildings, bad as it is, will be easier to repair.
What about the harm that has been done to souls?
During the same period that we received a total of 288
requests for assistance in matters relating to suppressions
and renovations, the Foundation has received 725
requests in situations having to do with liturgy and the
sacraments and 319 that involved problematic religious
education programs. In addition, there were 295 requests
that were based on allegations of inadequate or harmful
acts of pastoral governance arising from other issues.
These other problems usually do not lend themselves
very well to administrative recourse. Commenting on
one such case, Duane Galles observed that “the canonical
tools that we have at our disposal are too dull to be
of much use until the theological issues are sorted out.”
One form of appeal that can be used is called a denunciation,
which in a broad sense is a petition to higher authority
to intervene. It is akin to a criminal complaint in
secular law. To have any effect, a denunciation must be
precise both as to the facts and to the law. It must also
contain as much supporting evidence as can be gathered.
This would include documents and affidavits of
witnesses. It is also necessary to keep in mind the fact
that the recipient of the denunciation is under no obligation
to inform the complainant of what action, if any,
is taken. If the problem continues, then a denunciation original was directed. In sum, if the evidence is there,
a denunciation is worth the effort even if the results are
not always apparent.
Another way to survive when the spiritual or intellectual
life of your parish looks bleak is to take advantage
of every opportunity that the law allows to reduce
your exposure. For example, in my view there is nothing
wrong with the time-honored practice of “parish shopping.”
However, I would recommend that you make
sure that you remain registered in your “home” parish
and make some financial contributions. You can also
join with others to form prayer groups, devotional societies,
study groups and the like. None of these are ideal
substitutes for a good parish; but they do provide some
comfort and fellowship. There are even some groups
that meet on the Internet.
There are instances where members of the lay faithful
have taken the initiative to promote and protect the
financial stability of a parish. In one case, some thirty
years ago a charitable trust was formed to support a
struggling parish school. The trust was a separate nonprofit
corporation not connected to the parish or the diocese;
but it enjoyed the blessing and moral support of the
pastor and the bishop. After twenty-five years, the trust
had accumulated assets of approximately $2,000,000 and
it was supplying the school with $50,000 in unrestricted
annual income in addition to supporting special projects.
It was at this point that the bishop insisted that canon
law required the trust to change its statutes so that,
in the event the school was closed, its assets would go to
the parish. The directors of the trust felt that this would
violate its commitments to the donors and turned to the
Foundation for assistance. I am pleased to say that the
trust still exists with its statutes unchanged and continues
to support the parish school. The comprehensive
opinion we prepared, which has been edited to protect
the identity of the parties, can be seen on our web site.13
If you do not have access to the Internet and would like
a copy of the 26 page opinion, please let me know and I
will be happy to send one to you.
In another case, members of a parish formed a charitable
trust to insure that their contributions to the parish
were spent for the intended purposes. The Foundation
did not participate in the formation of this trust: but we
did assist when the parishioners were falsely accused of
violating canon law. After the trust served its purpose, it
was voluntarily dissolved.
I mentioned these two cases to illustrate what resourceful
parishioners can accomplish. The Foundation
cannot give legal advice or assist in any way in the formation
of such entities. We can, however, provide comments
and assistance on canonical issues if any should
arise.
Parishes are part of the hierarchic structure of the
Church and we, as lay members of the faithful, do not
own or control them. Even so, there are times when we
can cooperate with one another on our own initiative to
achieve goals that are consistent with our rights in the
Church and the salvation of our souls; provided that we
are always mindful of the rights and duties of the competent
ecclesiastical authorities.
CONCLUSION
Until 1957, the state of Maine held its general elections
in September instead of November. This and the
fact that the presidential candidate who carried the state
often was the eventual winner gave rise to the phrase,
“As Maine goes, so goes the nation.“ Now that is no
longer the case and the old political saying has fallen
into disuse.
In politics, good citizens may favor various issues and
candidates. To some extent, this is true of our lives in the
Church. Faithful Catholics may concentrate their energies
on life issues, the Traditional Mass, liturgical matters,
catechetics and so on. Whatever our interests might
be, we depend on our parishes to provide the spiritual
care that nourishes our efforts. Some of us are fortunate
enough to receive this care in abundance; sad to say,
many are not. Parishes are so fundamental to the state
of souls that we can rephrase the political maxim and
give it new meaning: “As the parish goes, so goes the
Church.”
(Endnotes)
1 Justice Michael A. Musmanno (1897-1968) was one of
Pennsylvania’s most distinguished jurists. He served on the state
Supreme Court, presided at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials and
rose to the rank of Rear Admiral in the United States Navy Reserve.
I was unable to find the name of the case; but I am confident that
the quotation is accurate.
2 Since this is not an academic paper, I will keep citations to a
minimum. For general references on parishes see James A. Coriden,
The Parish in Catholic Tradition, New York/Mahwah, Paulist Press,
1997 and the Online Edition of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11499b.htm).
3 “Roman Appeals,” by Avv. Count Neri Capponi, CHRISTIFIDELIS,
Vol. 12, No. 2, April 1994. (Emphases added.) http://www.st-josephfoundation.
org/ci-romanappeals.htm.
4 Edward Peters, The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon
Law in English Translation with extensive scholarly apparatus, San
Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2000
5 E. Caparros, ed., Code of Canon Law Annotated, Montreal,
Wilson & Lafleur, 1993, p. 429
6 Coriden, Rights of Parishes
7 “Methods of Holding Title to and Administering Church Property
in the United States,” (S.C. Conc., 29 July, 1911) T. Bouscaren, ed.,
The Canon Law Digest, Vol. II, pp. 443-445.
8 Committee of Tort Litigants vs. The Catholic Diocese of Spokane,
et al.
9 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
10 From a 1989 comment by Duane Galles in Emerson et alii/
Archbishop of Seattle, SJF Case No. 90-0825.
11 Paul Hayward, Administrative Justice According to the Apostolic
Constitution “Pastor Bonus”, Athenaeum Romanum Sanctae Crucis,
Rome, 1993, p. 225.
12 Hayward, op. cit., pp. 224-227.
13 http://www.st-joseph foundation.org/newsletter/canonical_
issues.php?document=ci/3-31-2000.
|
Memorare toSt. Joseph
Remember, most pure spouse of Mary ever Virgin, my loving protector St. Joseph, that never has it been heard that anyone invoked your protection or besought your aid without being consoled.
In this confidence I come before you; I fervently recommend myself to you. Despise not my prayer, foster father
of the Redeemer, but graciously deign to hear it. Amen.
|
|
