The following comes from a Sept. 9 story on Catholic World News.
A California court has upheld a decision by the state’s government to refuse to recognize the articles of incorporation of a California parish, because the documents stipulated that if the parish was dissolved its assets would go to the local bishop.
“The dissolution provision in the articles does not comply with the requirement of California law that in case of dissolution any remaining assets be distributed to the religious organization governed by the corporation sole,” explained Howard Friedman of the Religion Clause blog.
“The articles submitted called for assets on dissolution to go to the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose instead of to the Santee Catholic Mission Parish,” he added. “The Church had argued that the dissolution provisions in the articles were designed to assure that assets remain with the Catholic community if the parish is suppressed.”
To read the entire story, click here.
The chickens have come home to roost. Basically, the bishops would not preach against liberalism, and most of their flock, including the clergy, voted democrat. As a result this insane and immoral act came about. When you plant bad seed, do not be surprised when weeds begin to sprout and take over your garden. Going against God brings horrible results.
The irony is these ‘incorporations’ only become necessary to protect aganist sodomite priests molesting children. If you have no sodomites in your diocese mascarading as holy men, you do not need this sort of legal structure and if you do end up having to shut down your parishes due to sodomites, perhaps that is better than having a parish with sodomites preying on children, if you ask me, I love these chickens coming home to roost.
So what’s the story here? Your link to the “entire story” states nothing additional to your article.
First, I’m not a lawyer.
But I do recall that while incorporating two charitable organizations under IRS code 501 (c) (3), the organizations had to include specific language that individuals could not benefit should the organizations be dissolved. Assets had to go to other organizations with similar purposes. Only with this language would the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board grant charitable status.
Sounds like some good orthodox lawyer needs to clarify the language. The Mission’s assets would not go to the Bishop personally, but to the Church itself.
That is not a mission. I would reject it too. Build a proper mission and come back.
Thank you Fr. Karl, you are quite right. With your reasoning in mind, I agree with the state. I don’t contribute to anything that puts money in my Bishop’s coffers. He, and other Bishops, have spent my money to advance political agendas that I strongly disagree with, and, in my humble opinion, are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a result of the actions – and in-actions – of our Popes and Bishops , the world is in the mess it’s in now. Besides, whatever the world does, or whatever my opinions or beliefs are, the Pope and Bishops must accept them because, “Who are they to judge?”
Interesting. The CA dioceses have been busy reorganizing themselves so that the parish’s independent status under canon law (“juridic person”) is matched by the analogous status under civil law. I hadn’t heard of any trouble with other dioceses reorganizing themselves. Any knowledgeable lawyers here regarding this subject?
I don’t know how all this church money stuff works, but I thought it was “natural” that the land and such of a diocese would always revert back to the bishop of the place — it’s not like we’re Congregationalists or something.
Of course, the zany Episcopal church is going through a nightmare with this very issue now, when traditional, biblical Episcopalians ‘separate’ from the main American body of the Episcopalian Church (led by Mrs. Jefferts Schori), and they can’t take their land and buildings with them…