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

Why does the Eparchy own the parish property? Are there instances where the parish owns its own?

This was an administrative decision. In nearly all cases, parishes and parish property are owned by the diocese, which is a non-for-profit corporation, vested in the person of the bishop and his lawful successors.

The reason for this, is so that the property can be safeguarded, insured, exempted from taxation, and protected from 'forclosure' or any other penalty which would be inappropriate for a consecrated building, and property set aside for God's purposes. It is a safeguard, so that in the case of faulty local administration (say for example an incompetent Parish Board, or a gambling pastor etc.), there is no danger to the future of the parish.

There are a few examples of property, with an old deed or title, which may have been purchased or set up before the establishment of the diocesan or eparchial administration, but this is increasingly rare.

Father Elias:

With today's state corporation acts, couldn't this be a subject that might be reconsidered?

Perhaps you are more informed about the law than I am (what are "state corporation acts"?), why would this be helpful?

Father Elias:
My thought is this, if a lawsuit is brought against the Eparchy and the plainiff wins a large judgement, all the parishes are at risk. However, if each parish is incorporated and not owned by the Eparchy the judgement against the Eparchy might not effect the parishes. Or in the case if a suit is brought against a parish the Eparchy might not be at risk.

Just a thought! I'm not a law professional.

I'm not a law professional by any means! So my instinct would be to seek suitable advice. (I presume our eparchial (diocesan) authorities have done this.)

My uniformed 'feeling' is that there is more risk running 70 corporations, than one. The security is with the group.

I wonder if sad experiences in the 20th century might have something to do with this matter. Historically, there were numerous legal battles between parishes, parishioners, etc. over ownership when groups were hopping from one jurisdiction to another. Also, at least one orthodox outside Rome parish I know is incorporated without hierarchical ownership, and derives local control over all things material from parishioners, not clergy. Even that did not prevent a diocesan fee to the parish to cover misdeeds elsewhere in the diocese. Lawyers seem to be the chief beneficiaries in considering such matters of ownership, not the Church or Its people. It is a sad topic.

Justinian,

Father Elias is very correct in that statement. Parish ownership also runs the risks of the legal battles that were commonplace in the early 20th century, when parishes (or some of their members) were making changes in communion between Catholicism and Orthodoxy or vice-versa. How the corporation's bylaws were phrased was often a deciding factor in who would ultimately be granted title. The acrimony that resulted from these battles often had a more devastating and long-term effect on the two resultant church communities than did the theological differences between the two.

Consider, also, that with changes in pastors and parish councils, the stability of decision-making and planning within the corporation would be less than optimal from an organizational point of view.

Look at some of the factionalized battles that occur and are reported in local papers, from time to time, in Orthodox and Protestant churches owned by the congregation as a corporation. Knowing the ease with which such "taking of sides" can occur in our own churches, would you care to see ownership issues interjected into what can already be an ugly scenario?

Yes, the current situation does result in the eparchy representing a "deeper pocket" for anyone litigating against a single parish - and risk being thereby spread across and to the other parishes - but it is a lesser risk, overall, than that posed by multiple entities, each incorporated separately.

Many years,

Neil

Many thanks to Father Elias, Jim, and Neil! Your good thoughts are appreciated.

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!
Scott

The Catholic Church in North America normally holds parish properties in the name of the diocesan corporation, over which the Bishop has near-absolute authority. Much of this is a historical development from the "lay trusteeship" controversies in the nineteenth century. Among Eastern Catholics, there is also a strong reaction against the notion of the priest being an "employee" of a a parish board. An important consequence is that if any number of parishioners at Saint Fiddle-Faddle's Church get huffy and wish to go elsewhere, they are free to do so, but they are not able to take the properties of the parish with them. Incognitus

Dear Justinian et al:

Under the law of most US states, corporations are an artificial person that has the right to hold property, conduct commerce and yes, sue or be sued. It also, as a "person" is subject to federal, state and local taxation.

Justinian's instinct is a good one. When an eparchy (or diosese) owns all of the real and personal property of the parishes under its jurisdiction, then presumably all of that property is subject to attachment in order to satisfy a judgment. There may be some restrictions on not-for-profits, but without researching the issue I cannot tell you how far they go and whether there is any variation from state to state.

There is also the practical concern in our Eastern Churches with multi-state eparchies of getting permission to "conduct business" in a state wherein the eparchy is not incorporated.

From a legal perspective, it may very well be that it would make sence to incorporate each parish separately, possibly as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the eparchy. If this is done, and certain formalities are followed, it would presumably be difficult to "pierce the corporate veil" and reach eparchial assets (if there are any - the eparchy could simply be a holding company). At the very least, it would be even more difficult to reach other parish properties that were not involved in the actions that resulted in a parish getting sued.


On a different subject: the UGCC has several parishes in the US that are their own separate coporations. These are mostly the traditionalist Julian Calendar parishes that did not want to give up financial control of their parish to an episcopate that was hostile to them. There was a fairly recent flap (past ten years, I think) between the (former) Metropolitan of Philadelphia and a tranditionalist parish in the Philly suburbs that would not sign over its assets to the eparchial corporation. Bascially, they told him :p

Yours,

hal

Hold on! They can't do so whether the parish is a corporation in and of itself of whether the eparchy owns all of the parish assets.

If they do, the articifical person that is either the parish corporation or the eparchial corporation has a cause of action against them for conversion of property.

Yours,

hal

Dear Friends:

On the Latin side, the office of the diocesan or archdiocesan bishop, as the case may be, is the unit that is incorporated into a "Corporation Sole" and in perpetuity. Accordingly, the assets and other properties of the Church is in the name of the current bishop for and in behalf of the diocese/archdiocese.

That juridical status as a "Corporation Sole" is legally passed on to the succeeding bishop upon the retirement/demise/replacement of the incumbent without any further legal proceedings.

The concept of a "Corporation Sole" dates back to antiquity and is/was granted to bishops of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world. I think it is only in the U.S. that some States in the Union have certain differing charateristics of what constitutes a "Corporation Sole."

A "Corporation Sole" differs from, and is not the same as, a "not-for-profit" corporation. Tax exemption is one feature that is enjoyed by a
"Corporation Sole."

The diocese/archdiocese is the "Particular Church" in the Roman Catholic Church and not the individual parishes.

AmdG

Dear Amado:

But would not the concept of a Corporation Sole for an ecclesiastical office possibly run afoul of the Establishment Clause?

Just thinking out loud.

hal

Dear Hal:

There have been cases in the U.S. precisely questioning the "favored" status of a
"Corporation Sole" based on that consitutional clause.

However, U.S. Federal Courts somehow afford recognition to the "antiquity" of this practice in the Roman Catholic Church, i.e., it predates even the U.S. Constitution itself.

This "ascendancy" of "Corporation Soles" was given its artificial/juridical life by kings and other monarchs, especially in pre-Medieval England and in Western European monarchies. (The Cardinals of old, who were acting as Papal Nuncios then, must have been that influential in the various royal courts!)

More than a third of the Roman Catholic dioceses/archdioceses in the U.S. are juridically organized as "Corporation Soles" in the strictest sense, the others as hybridized "Corporation Soles," depending on a particular State's laws.

I think this is one of the unwritten functions of the Papal Nuncio: to ensure that each diocese or archdiocese can subsists and functions without too much interference from the secular government of the host country.

AmdG