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.
Thanks ever so much for your informative post. It clarifies the position of the Church.
The question at issue then must have to do with ownership of the real property and improvements. The ownership of the real property should be recorded in the county courthouse with a deed describing the boundries of the property and indicating the current owner. It would seem to me that Canon law aside, the registered deed is the supreme indication of ownership.
The question then becomes one of asking did the Judge look at the deed? If so, what entity is indicated as the owner?
Please excuse my confusion because in recent FR postings discussing a split in congregations in the Episcopal Church, congregations are being thrown out on the street because they won't conform to the rulings of church governing bodies that hold title to all real property.
I believe that the civil courts have held against the local congregations.
In both cases, homosexual behavior by the clergy is provoking severe distress in congregations and is pitting the formal church against the civil governmnet.
When compared with other historical processes, the outing and criminal activity of the gay population is proving to be a disruptive and negative historical force.