Posted on 08/27/2005 6:05:27 AM PDT by NYer
SPOKANE, Wash. — A federal bankruptcy judge ruled today that all the parish churches, parochial schools and other property of the Catholic Diocese of Spokane can be liquidated to pay victims of sexual abuse by priests.
The decision, expected to have ramifications for dioceses across the nation, was a defeat for Spokane Bishop William Skylstad, who had argued that he did not control individual parishes and thus they were not available to cover settlement costs.
"It is not a violation of the First Amendment to apply federal bankruptcy law to identify and define property of the bankruptcy estate even though the Chapter 11 debtor is a religious organization," U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Patricia Williams wrote in a 50-page decision.
It is also proper to use state law, rather than church law, to determine the size of the estate, Williams said.
The bishop holds legal title to church property in trust for the diocese, and "the disputed real property constitutes property of the estate," she wrote.
Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said from Chicago that she hoped the ruling would prompt leaders of other dioceses to stop fighting victims.
"I'm grateful the church legal hardball and hairsplitting legal maneuvers didn't work," Blaine said.
She said church leaders "have not been pastoral and it would take so little to really help the victims. They spend more energy fighting victims ... rather than embracing them."
Leaders of the Spokane Diocese did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.
Skylstad, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, had argued that only about $10 million in assets directly under his control was available to settle lawsuits brought by 58 victims of sexual abuse. The cases forced the Spokane Diocese to declare bankruptcy last year.
But attorneys for the victims argued that the bishop holds title to and controls more than 82 parish churches, 16 parochial schools, Catholic cemeteries and other property throughout 13 counties of Eastern Washington. Victims contended the diocese's financial assets totaled more than $80 million.
The Spokane case is the first in which the issue of parish ownership has been decided by a judge.
Last month, in the bankruptcy case of the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., lawyers for members of 124 parishes argued that they, and not the archdiocese, owned $600 million in church assets and property. More than 240 abuse claims are pending against the Archdiocese of Portland, seeking at least $400 million in damages. The archdiocese has said it has only about $19 million in assets.
In the only other bankruptcy case involving a diocese, a federal judge last month approved a reorganization plan for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, paving the way for it to become the first in the nation to emerge from bankruptcy.
The Spokane Diocese filed for Chapter 11 protection in December, listing assets of $11.1 million and liabilities of $81.3 million. Most of the liabilities are sexual abuse claims.
Williams listened to a full day of arguments on the assets question in late June.
Lawyers for victims said church leaders must be punished for allowing pedophile priests to prey on children for so long. Advocates for parishioners argued that they should not be punished for the depredations of a few deviant priests.
The Spokane Diocese serves about 90,000 Catholics in 13 Eastern Washington counties, from Metaline Falls on the Canadian border to Walla Walla on the Washington-Oregon line.
The nationwide sex-abuse scandal was sparked by revelations that many Catholic bishops had moved guilty priests among parish assignments without warning parents or police. Hundreds of accused clergy have been removed in the past three years. Abuse cases so far have cost the church about $1 billion.
A new legal precedent has been set.
Why do you consider the ruling to be despicable?
It would appear to be correct because the bishop holds all the real property and the parishes hold none. If the asset in question is deeded to the diocese and the diocese is liable, the assets should be available to be applied to the plaintiff's juggement against the diocese.
I mean, why don't they just pursue criminal charges against the offending cleric, and the bishop too, if he was an enabler or accomplice or obstructor of justice? Why punish the whole community? --- thousand of people who had nothing to do with the offense?
Is there something wrong with my analogy?
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, from a secular society's pov. However, society hates the Catholic Church and what better way to diminish it than with such a ruling.
Now that this precedent has been set (no doubt the diocese will appeal and lose), Mahony must be shaking in his tassled loafers.
It seems like a valid decision.
The dioceses/bishops are definitely in control of the parish properties in their sees. Here in Pittsburgh, several parish churches have been sold voluntarily, the diocese certainly acts like they own the parish properties, so it seems a bit ingenuous for a diocese now to say that the parishes own the property.
Also, earlier this year, in St. Louis, the Vatican ecclesiatic courts ruled that a parish (St. Stanislaus) didn't even have the right to own real property according to church law.
I ain't a lawyer, but the decision of this bankruptcy judge seems very consistant with the facts. Now, whether or not a diocese ought to be held civilly responsible for the torts of its priests is another question, but apparently one which has been settled.
I suspect that somehow, Mahony will always get by. He's a darling of the press down there, being their favorite heretic and so cute, to boot, that I'd be really surprised if the diocese suffers much as long as he's in charge. Which may be the reason he's being left there.
good.
this pathetic socialization and liberal political experiment by the Catholic since the 60's has finally done what all socialist experiments have done...failed because of the lack of discipline and general moral decay that it allows.
I was hoping that the Bishops and Cardinals in the Boston, New York, Texas, Florida and California areas that allowed this pederasts homosexual network to develop are placed in leg irons and sent to prison... but if it hurts them in the pocketbook, so be it.
Thank God!
Now these good people can decide for themselves what kind of church they want and get a good traditional priest who presents the Traditional Latin Mass and take the church back from these liberal Bishops who think they are God
Previously posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1471666/posts
I am shocked, shocked! A judge rewrites the rules.
Dear NYer,
"Lawyers for victims said church leaders must be punished for allowing pedophile priests to prey on children for so long."
I fail to see how this punishes the bishops, to sell Catholic schools and force Catholic schooldhildren into government schools that teach sodomy and worship of the dollar.
Those who were victimized have, in many cases, become vultures and other animals of prey, killing and destroying the innocent to slake their own vampiristic appetites.
sitetest
Dear bert,
Well, not quite.
"It would appear to be correct because the bishop holds all the real property and the parishes hold none. If the asset in question is deeded to the diocese and the diocese is liable, the assets should be available to be applied to the plaintiff's juggement against the diocese."
The assets of the parish actually belong, in Canon Law, to the parish. The bishop holds them in trust for the benefit of the parish. The parish is a separate juridical person under Canon Law. In fact, ideally, Canon Law doesn't envisage the bishop as the sole trustee of parish property. However, civil law from state to state varies considerably, and the civil legal forms that would best conform to Canon Law don't exist in every jurisdiction. Thus, Catholics do the best we can with the laws as they are written.
Another way to look at is if the bishop were an attorney who acted as trustee for a serious of charities. That he was at fault in the handling of one charity would not make the next charity liable.
The analogy, admittedly, goes only so far, as each parish, although its own juridical person, is nonetheless organically incorporated into the diocese.
Nonetheless, under Canon Law, the bishop is obligated to act in the interest of the parish when disposing of its assets, not to compromise those interests for other diocesan interests. This recently came up in the Boston re-organization, in that the Vatican actually told the archbishop that he had to make adjustments to his plan to close and consolidate parishes.
It is true that ultimate control and authority for every parish lies with the bishop, but under Canon Law, the bishop is not permitted to use that control and authority for any worthwhile purpose, and in financial actions beyond a certain level, the bishop cannot even act unilaterally, even when acting for the benefit of the parish.
Of course, civil law may not permit the Catholic Church to organize and run Her affairs according to Her own law, and we Catholics have little direct recourse in that. Thus, it may be that civil law permits stealing the assets of one parish, given by parishioners over the course of years, decades, or even a century or more, to satisfy the lust for revenge of the victim of some deviant priest from another place altogether.
sitetest
Your description of parish/diocese setup is valid according to canon law. Unfortunately, in the US, very few, if any, dioceses are set up according to Canon Law. The reality in the vast majority of dioceses is that all diocesan assets are held directly by the person of the Ordinary. This is an old holdover from the US Bishops' defense against the so-called national parish movement of 90 years ago.
The irony in Spokane is that even though the diocese was NOT setup according to Canon Law, the Ordinary pretended that it was. Most dioceses, therefore, are vulnerable not because of some aggressive stance of prosecutors but because Ordinaries have refused to conform to the mandates of Canon Law. Big surprise.
We all received a letter about 10 days ago telling us that we were going to be put into this class of defendants (separate from the Archdiocese of Portland) unless we wanted to opt out individually. We were told that if we did exercise our right to opt out, we stood a good chance of being named and sued as individuals, by the plaintiffs attorneys, representing all these individuals who are suing the Archdiocese.
The Archdiocese of Portland has been in bankruptcy for a little less than a year now, so the judicial proceedings are going through bankruptcy court, not an ordinary civil court. Is that the case for the Archdiocese of Spokane?
We are in the position now of deciding whether we want to opt out of being class defendants (on behalf of our parishes, NOT the Archdiocese of Portland) and risk being individual defendants.
The circular sent to all of us specifically said that none of us will be at risk of losing any of our personal money should there be an adverse outcome - provided we stay in the "parish" class of defendants.
It seems to me that this ruling has de facto separated the Archdiocese of Portland's assets, as named, from the 290 parishes' assets. So the plaintiffs are going to have to prove that all the parishes, and individuals if they opt out, are culpable and responsible in the claims.
Sounds like a good deal to me. My wife and I, and our parish, didn't have a bit to do with it.
That is not to say we're not sorry for the plaintiffs, but we have no legal responsibility for any damages they may stress may have coming to them. One of these plaintiffs is asking for $135 million. Seems like a bit much.
To coin an old EastCoast phrase "So sue me"
The Catholic Church has to clean up its act on this homosexual stuff. It is doing so. It needs to make some equitable and just monetary settlements with innocent people who were abused. It is under no obligation to let greedy dishonest plaintiffs and their greedy dishonest lawyers loot the Catholic Church.
Answering my own question....yes, Spokane is in bankruptcy also. Seems like a totally different approach has been taken here though. Worthy plaintiffs are going to get what's coming to them, and conversely. The Catholic authorities are going to have to shape up or ship out. We in the parishes are in control of our own financial destiny, it seems to say.
Just like Prod individual churches.
"So Sue Me"
Certainly the Bishops controlled the priests. They control the priest in so far as what direction they face when saying the Mass, they control all liturgical, moral, catechetical issues,architecture...everything. They ordain homosexuals and move them around when the homos rape little boys. Why shouldn't victims get compensation from the assets which the Bishops control?
Because the Bishop holds parish assets (churches, schools) in trust for the benefit of the parish. Whatever Canon Law and civil law says (and I'm no lawyer) that's the truth of the matter.
The Bishops doesn't control parish properties to his own profit and pleasure. These things were paid for by parishioners over the years, decades, sometimes centuries, and are for their use and benefit. Unquestionably, these are unoffending people who had nothing to do with the crimes of homosexual clerics and their bishop-protectors.
I ask you this: why should innocent people suffer the penalty and loss, while the guilty bishop gets off scot-free?
That's right. All those who have legitimate stress legitimate claims are going to be compensated here in Portland, by the Bishop's assets. In other words, they can seize the Cathedral Church and the two Catholic high schools. By the bankruptcy court ruling, these worthies won't be able to seize any of the 290 parishes' assets. That's what the ruling means. You wouldn't be a plaintiff's attorney, would you?
"So Sue Me"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.