iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

St. Stanislaus Kostka: Judge Rules For A Breakaway Catholic Church In St. Louis

Posted: 03/20/2012 8:24 am Updated: 03/20/2012 8:24 am

St Stanislaus Kostka

By Tim Townsend
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

ST. LOUIS (RNS) Wading into sensitive church-state territory, a Missouri judge has ruled in favor of an independent-minded Catholic church that claims ownership of its property and autonomy from the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

Judge Bryan Hettenbach's 50-page ruling in favor of St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church is unusual for the strong interjection of a civil court into internal church matters.

In a statement, St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson promised to appeal the judge's opinion "all the way to the Supreme Court."

Hettenbach was careful to point out in his ruling that civil courts have no business wading into theological or ecclesiastical issues, or interpreting church law.

But he also acknowledged that the case brought by the archdiocese had given him no choice but to grapple with the Catholic Church's internal canon laws.

St. Stanislaus' lawyers believe Hettenbach succeeded. On Thursday (March 15), Richard Scherrer, one of the church's attorneys called the judge's opinion "unassailable," and a "correct finding of law."

"I don't see any way that a court of appeals is going to disturb this brilliant job by a fine jurist," Scherrer said.

The ruling upholds St. Stanislaus' ownership of its property and its right to craft bylaws that limit the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over its governance.

Hettenbach relied on so-called "neutral principles of law" -- secular documents like deeds, constitutions and bylaws that govern individual churches as organizations. In using the neutral principles approach, Hettenbach rejected the traditional approach of civil courts deferring to the internal legal mechanisms of a church.

In 1891, the members of St. Stanislaus formed a corporation under Missouri law in order to secure a loan for a new church building. The civil corporation, called Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish, existed alongside the parish itself. The lay board overseeing the corporation would be allowed to control the property and assets while the archbishop would appoint the board members and pastor.

The corporation's original articles of agreement, signed by the pastor and five parishioners, said the "purpose" of the corporation was, in part, "to maintain a Polish Roman Catholic Church."

Hettenbach's decision rested on his interpretation of whether St. Stanislaus has remained true to that purpose. Specifically, the judge needed to decide if the church's original mission had been undermined by recent revisions to its bylaws.

Those changes stemmed largely from a request in 2003 by then-Archbishop Justin Rigali that the church undergo a legal restructuring. When Rigali sent a vicar general to carry that message, his methods served only to deepen the church's resolve to be independent.

The next year, the board rewrote its bylaws, eliminating the archbishop's authority. Then-Archbishop Raymond Burke responded by pulling the parish pastors, declaring several board members excommunicated and announcing that the church was no longer Roman Catholic.

Ignoring the archbishop's authority, the board hired its own pastor, who was, in turn, suspended, excommunicated and eventually defrocked. In the archdiocese's view, St. Stanislaus was no longer a Catholic church.

That position was central to its argument before Hettenbach. Using the neutral principles of law approach, the archdiocese argued that the St. Stanislaus corporation had cast away the church's Catholic status, ignoring Vatican directives, and had broken its original agreement to "maintain a Polish Roman Catholic Church."

Or as the archbishop said in a press conference after the ruling, the corporation had "transformed St. Stanislaus into an entity which has no resemblance to a Roman Catholic parish."

Hettenbach, however, interpreted things differently.

In his ruling, the judge proceeded methodically through each bylaw change that the archdiocese argued violated canon law. If those bylaw changes didn't "expressly contradict the 'purpose' of maintaining a Roman Catholic Church," Hettenbach determined it was not in conflict with the corporation's originating documents.

But he steered clear of determining whether St. Stanislaus has actually fulfilled its chartered mission of maintaining a Catholic church to the satisfaction of higher church authorities. To do so, he said, would inappropriately insert the court into church disputes over which it has no jurisdiction.

"Whether or not Defendants are adhering to the standards required by the Catholic Church is clearly a theological controversy," the judge wrote.

In the end, Carlson said, the judge "has substituted his own analysis of church law."

Frank Ravitch, law professor at Michigan State University, said Hettenbach's ruling "might be the unique, rare case" that shows that even in the face of voluminous canon law, an individual church may have sufficient legal documentation to exert its independence.

And that should put centralized religious organizations like the Catholic Church on notice. "If you're a hierarchical church, make sure your titles are clear," Ravitch said.

(Tim Townsend writes for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in St. Louis.)

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW RELIGION

Filed by Jahnabi Barooah  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 53
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:36 PM on 03/23/2012
Is professor Ravitch acquainted with RC canon law? How did Tim Townsend happen to get him to weigh in?

rmk/akron
photo
Indigo1941
Time traveler.
09:03 AM on 03/22/2012
Behold how they love one another. Not at all, apparently.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ttsgw
Atheist and secular humanist
02:51 AM on 03/22/2012
What's the big deal, Americas goal and biggest dream is to become a theocratic state as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MoMick
A voting male slut
11:52 PM on 03/21/2012
St. Stanislaus Kostka Church sits in the middle of a "less desirable" section of north St. Louis, an area lacking any viable neighborhood businesses and that is sparsely populated, seeing as most houses have been turned to vacant lots. The parishioners of teh church have been valiantly fighting the heavy-handed archdiocesan overlords, all of whom live in the tony West End, for years. All remaining parishioners and their priest have been excommunicated for not bowing to Rigali's demands.
The parishioners stood their ground and won. Good for them.
I don't have a dog in the fight but root for these spunky people standing up for what is theirs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:26 PM on 03/21/2012
And now you know the real reason priests don't marry.
It can cause all kinds of estate issues for the church.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andres64
Religion is a sectually transmitted disease.
06:31 PM on 03/21/2012
Absolutely. It's all about money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pedestrian101
05:13 PM on 03/21/2012
The Catholic Church runs St.louis. They are the Godfather of the Greater STlL area. Double cross them and you get "iced". Thank God for St. Stanislaus for sticking up for their legal rights and not letting the catholic bully them into "making an offer they can't refuse". Born and raised in St.Louis Irish Cathloic.
06:39 PM on 03/23/2012
So the Polish guys and the Irish guys are now in cahoots. Somebody ought to ICE that Irish guy.

rmk
10:25 AM on 03/21/2012
I wish more churches could do this. Congratulations and God bless!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wrongway62
Good night Mrs Calabash wherever you are
01:27 AM on 03/21/2012
Good legal work judge.
cwaged1002
There is hope but not for us
07:24 PM on 03/20/2012
The archdiocese owns the property that the church was built on, unless they sold it to the corporation . Not unlike those who own a condo. They own the air space of the condo, but not
the land it stands on.
03:53 PM on 03/21/2012
Nope. Check this out.
Take the Los Angeles Archdiocese for instance. When Roger Mahoney was dictator there.
If you were to walk into the Building, on the wall as required by law, is a business license that clearly states
"Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Sole Proprietorship, Roger Mahoney"

The Cardinals of the Diocese' own everything outright.

All Catholic property is owned by a single person.

Go on, walk yourself into a Diocese office and check it out.

These poor parishioners think the church is theirs, wrong!

Dirty, dirty, dirty!
12:47 PM on 06/04/2012
I am lost how you think that the property was owned by the Archdiocese when the corporation held a contract from the Archdiocese stating that the property was owned by the corporation and they legally held the deed. Dirty, dirty on you for not researching the facts.
06:50 PM on 03/20/2012
In a civil court a judge can only rule who owns the property of a religious institution. Apparently, Hettenbach did.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
charlesrfd2003
Proud American who believes in the Bill of Rights
05:20 PM on 03/20/2012
This is an important case. At present each diocese is a corporation sole so that the bishop has dictatorial power over all property including money. He can fire employees at his whim. Some bishops are benevolent but the next one may not be so inclined. The bishops do no like being challenged as we have seen with the contraception issue. Thus, the bishop can crush dissent. However, if the bishop loses control of property the laity can hire an independent priest.

Some hospital corporations have split from the Church. The most notable is Catholic Healthcare West that is now Dignity Medical.

For those who say the Catholic Church is not a democracy should research the history closer because the people had say in who became their pastors and bishops.
03:54 PM on 03/20/2012
If my understanding of this situation is wrong, I invite someone with local knowledge to correct me. But, from what I have been told, long ago St. Stanislaus church was just a poor Polish parish and was granted independence in supporting itself without financial assistance from the diocese. But years pass and it is realized by the Big Boys in Red that St. Stanislaus has amassed money and property from the generosity of the parishioners. That is when the trouble began, hierarchy staked a claim. Corrections anyone?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hoochie-coochie
Was an atheist until I discovered that I'm God.
05:01 PM on 03/20/2012
Sounds about right to me.
cwaged1002
There is hope but not for us
07:39 PM on 03/20/2012
Gecota - The archdiocese owns the property that the church was built on unless they sold it to the corporation, the Parish created. The archdiocese does not support the church. It is just the opposite, the church supports the archdiocese with a monthly contribution from the weekly collection plate. If St. Stanislaus Corp. did not purchase the property, they can not just say it is theirs, anymore than condo owners can claim the property their condo was built on. That issue does seem to have been addressed in the
article..
photo
Muirwoods
My Micro-bio is empty........meh
10:14 PM on 03/20/2012
Wrong, the deed to the property belongs to the parish corporation. It is a civil corporation and the lay board was supposed to control the property and assets.
10:45 PM on 03/20/2012
Plz refer to Muirwoods reply below. While your scenario is how I thought the way things were generally run, the St. Stanislaus parish was always run in a different manner. BTW....speaking as a non-member, non-catholic, there are great people in that parish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ManuOB1
A voice crying in the wilderness
03:31 PM on 03/20/2012
Following the abuse scandal, the Vatican attempted to argue that parish is independent and therefore Rome cannot be held accountable, although priests ate assigned by bishops who owe their positions to Rome. Now the bishop wants to reclaim property which, my guess, was paid for by the parishioners. Not even Rome can have it both ways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nlightenup
Retired psychologist, responds to open minds.
01:29 PM on 03/20/2012
This is interesting in light of the recent opposite decision regarding breakaway Episcopal churches in Virginia. The Episcopal Church maintained consistent boundaries about the ownership of its properties, however, which was certainly not the situation in this Missouri case.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gregory57
Micro-bio, was one of my favorite classes.
11:53 PM on 03/20/2012
The Episcopal church is much better respected by the political elites in this country than the RCC.
06:43 PM on 03/23/2012
this sounds like a remark of a Muslim
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nadohawk
Let's bring love back to liberalism
12:34 PM on 03/20/2012
Doesn't the Bible speak against believers having to turn to secular courts to settle their internal issues?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bergen2
03:38 PM on 03/20/2012
Never read anything like that in the Bible, but do recall that Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's." Meaning that He didn't have a problem with secular law. Also, He didn't say anything about giving anything to a 'church' or religious institution, except maybe tithing, which is a different discussion. The Quran might have something about that with respects to Sharia law, but it's interpretation is as diverse as is the interpretations of the Bible. It's been a while since I've read the Quran, so don't remember any specific verses.
cwaged1002
There is hope but not for us
07:40 PM on 03/20/2012
No, meaning that one should pay their taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nadohawk
Let's bring love back to liberalism
10:34 PM on 03/20/2012
1 Corinthians 6

"1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. "
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jkevinm80
09:03 AM on 03/21/2012
What???? I would appreciate it if you could provide ANY scripture that confers power on ANY organized church or religious institution. The bible I read is silent on such issues.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
parrishable
Igitur ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.
07:42 PM on 03/22/2012
Matt. xvi, 13 ff:
And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? (14) But they said: Some John the Baptist, and ohter some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (15) Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? (16) Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) And Jesus answered, saying to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. (18) And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever tho shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.