www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Eparchy Ownership of Parish Property

Hal and Amado,

The concept of a Corporation Sole traces to English Common Law which is the basis for US federal law, as well as all state law, other than that of Louisiana (which has its basis in French Civil Law). Except where law has been codified or statutes enacted to achieve a different effect - or court decisions have held provisions of Common Law to be incompatible with constitutional provisions, etc, Common Law continues to dictate much of the way things are done legally.

At English Common Law, only the monarch and church officials were able to claim the status of a Corporation Sole. Such an entity has, as its unique nature, the right of succession vested in the sole officer of the corporation acting in that particular capacity - a right which otherwise is unavailable to a corporation. It does require that the term "succession" appear in the rights enumerated as residing in the person of the corporation in the filings establishing its existence.

The concept does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is equally applicable to all religious bodies; it is not limited to the Catholic Church, by any means. In New England, for instance, in many of the older Protestant congregations, the pastor is seized of the parish, and the lands and parsonage thereof, as a Corporation Sole.

It is separate and apart from the provisions that protect charitable institutions in some states as to the size of awards that may be had against them in suits; the two are not mutually exclusive, as the right of any institution to a charitable exemption is determined on the basis of IRS tax-exempt status. All Corporations Sole are tax exempt and, therefore entitled to such charitable protection, to the extent that it is available under state law.

That said, the strongest argument for diocesan/ eparchial ownership of church properties continues to be the potential for parishoners to depart, with the church's buildings and land, on the instigation of some part of its congregation, leaving other unhappy fellow parishoners behind. The Byzantine church history of the early 20th century with Archbishop Ireland, and the number of ACROD churches bearing cornerstones that mark them as "Greek Catholic", are some of the legacies from such battles. Interestingly, the unwillingness of some parishes to turn their properties over to the Latin hierarchs was also a sometimes contributing factor in the decision to break communion with the Catholic Church.

Many years,

Neil

Regards the Establishment Clause, one reason the courts feel favorably disposed toward the Common Law concept of a Corporation Sole is the belief that the existence of such status reduces the instances in which civil courts are required to enter into and make determinations of disputes among the members of religious congregations as to the title and ownership of church property.

Many years,

Neil

Non-profic Corps can still own Church property and Temples. Detailed information may not, and probably should not be out for all to see.

NWA,

The issue is not whether non-profit corporations can own such; the ownership of such property is always in the nature of a non-profit; the corporation sole is a non-profit entity. If you are suggesting a non-profit corporate entity comprised of a pastor and parish trustees/ officers, you are correct; such a corporation can be formed and hold title to the church structures and property.

The question, though, is which is the better choice, a centralized (e.g., diocesan) or decentralized (e.g., parish) corporate structure and ownership model. There are arguments in favor of each; most of those have been addressed already in this thread.

As discussed on another thread within the last couple days, in the 1920s, a splinter group, purportedly acting on behalf of and with authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, was able to obtain legal title to the RO's Cathedral of St Nicholas in NYC. This resulted in a hasty effort by the US Russian Orthodox jurisdiction to return church properties to local parish ownership, so as to mitigate the risk of further takings. (This was not long after a successful effort to bring all such property titles under the corporate ownership of the same US canonical jurisdiction).

On the other hand, as already discussed, locally-vested ownership has had ugly consequences when factions within a parish have exerted ownership in ways that have caused eviction of fellow church-goers during denominational splits, etc.

If you're proposing the establishment of non-profit corporations (at the diocesan level) as an alternative to the corporation sole model, some such certainly already exist in jurisdictions where the corporation sole has been codified out of existence or lacks the protection/advantages historically afforded to it.

Articles of incorporation, by-laws, charters, and many associated materials are public documents, readily available for review in the Office of the State Secretary. Non-profit corporations are also generally required to make annual filings with that same office; those are also public documents. Deeds, mortgages, and some other property ownership records are publically available in all civil jurisdictions. Given that, your suggestion is not viable; that aside, I can't imagine why you would even suggest it.

Many years,

Neil

The splinter group in the 1920s was not acting on behalf of the Moscow Patriarchate, nor did it have the support of the Patriarchate - it was acting on behalf of the so-called Living Church, which the Patriarchate thoroughly opposed. During the years when this weird group held Saint Nicholas Cathedral, the Moscow Patriarchate's pied a terre in New York was a metochion somewhere on the Lower East Side, I believe. Incognitus

Incognitus is right, the splinter group was neither authorized by nor had the support of the MP; I stand corrected.

Dear Friends,

Well, I remember when the UGC parish of St Volodymyr and Olha's in Chicago decided to take these in its own hands - and I understand it is still owned and directed by the parishioners.

Traditionalism was the precipitating factor and the way in which the bishop of the day was dealing with those people - anything but even-handedly.

For example, that parish wanted the Old Calendar, but the bishop said he did a poll where most said they wanted the new calendar.

A group of parishioners hired an independent pollster who found quite the opposite . . .

While my parish is not set up like the parish in Chicago, it acts as if it is - and the bishop knows well enough to leave it alone. When our last bishop was invited to come to it, he actually thanked the parishioners for the invitation - no bishop except Kyr Isidore Borecky was welcome there .

And I honestly think that sometimes our parishes know better than their bishops regarding maintaining and promoting their own traditions.

Alex

And thank God some have had the courage to act as such. Those forming V&O went directly to Patriarch Josyp who had a great deal of sympathy for them as well as his personal blessing for what they were trying to do.

Dear Diak,

Christ is Born!

The most effective instrument of dialogue between parishioners and bishops has always been the pocket-book . . .

It's just amazing how it brings disagreeing bishops to their senses . . .

Alex

Dear Alex, Diak, et al:

X.P.!

V&O's is indeed still "owned" by the parishioners - and our Nativity celebration yesterday was as glorious as ever!

As Diak's point about us having gone directly to Patriarch Joseph, we may have a similar situation brewing in Sacramento where recent immgrants were forbidden by the former UGCC Bishop of Chicago from establishing a new parish if it was to use the Julian calendar. We hope that our current bishop will be somewhat wiser on this issue - but an appeal to His Beatitiude Lubomyr may not be out of the question.

Yours,

hal

All of our Ukie Greek Catholic parishes celebrate "po novomo", just the Ukie Orthodox celebrate "po staromo".
Lauro

Hal, Sacramento may not be the only new mission or parish in this condition which may have to consider petitioning directly to Patriarch Lubomyr....

Since there are Julian Calendar parishes already existing in all three UGCC Eparchies outside of the Archeparchy in the USA, and exist also in Canada, it is ridiculous to take any other approach than letting the parish community decide. It is their call and should be theirs alone.

I regret that all the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes in Brazil use the Gregorian Calendar. But this consideration has no bearing on a congregation in Sacramento, California, which wishes to use the traditional calendar. Few if any visitors from Brazil are apt to be seriously inconvenienced. Incognitus

Dear Hal,

Slavimo Yoho!!

You guys set the standard!!

I understand that there was a schism in the Assyrian Church over the calendar, resulting in two Patriarchs for the two calendars (am I correct?).

The problem with the new calendar crowd is that they tend to play down "tradition" be it Eastern Christian spirituality, longer services, and, yes, ethnic identity.

Hal, whatever became of Mgr. Evhen Ivankiw in your church?

Alex

Dear Lauro,

Khristos Rozhdayetsia!

You should have went to the Orthodox parish for Nativity services then!

(Never mind what the mysterious Incognitus would have to say . . . )

Alex