By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
6/2/2009
Mr. Paul F. Danello is an attorney with the Washington based law firm of Polsinelli Shughart PC and is representing the Church of the Good Shepherd parish and its rector The Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer in property litigation against it by the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. The parish recently filed its Preliminary Objections in the Montgomery County Orphans' Court in response to the Complaint by the Diocese.
Mr. Danello agreed to talk to VirtueOnline about the pending lawsuit.
VOL: You have taken up the cause of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA at a time when most parishes that come up against their diocese and The Episcopal Church lose in the property wars. What makes you think you can win in this case?
Danello: It is of primary importance to understand that church property disputes have arisen in a number of instances around the country either because a parish or group of parishes has withdrawn from an Episcopal diocese or because an Episcopal diocese has withdrawn from ECUSA.
The Good Shepherd case is fundamentally different. Good Shepherd has taken no actions to withdraw under either Pennsylvania civil law or the canons and constitutions of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, it has been the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania that has seen fit to become the aggressor and to attack Good Shepherd in civil court.
VOL: It seems that your major argument is that the Pa. Court lacks jurisdiction because the case turns on interpretation of church law, not state law and is thus outside of the court's control. How then can a court remove a "rebellious" priest?
Danello: The Diocese claims that Good Shepherd's rector has "abandoned communion" and that the parish has engaged in some sort of "de facto withdrawal". Good Shepherd's position is straightforward: civil courts have no jurisdiction over such disputes where the subject matter is strictly and purely ecclesiastical in character. Questions of religious doctrine as to which of two groups is a denomination's "true church" or whether a denomination's governing body has remained faithful to the views and practices of its founders are doctrinal disputes that the First Amendment forbids civil courts even to consider, much less decide.
VOL: Can you tell VOL readers what specific church law is at issue when the Diocese says it is their property because The Episcopal Church says it is and wants the courts to enforce their ownership rights? The diocese and the National Church will use the 1979 Dennis Canon which says all properties are held in trust for the diocese and the national church, how will you respond to this?
Danello: The Diocese seeks to confiscate Good Shepherd's parish property in reliance on the 1979 Dennis Canon, an ecclesiastical rule that it has unilaterally adopted stating that the local congregation holds parish property in trust for the national church. Good Shepherd's position is equally straightforward: the First Amendment does not exempt church hierarchies from the normal rules of civil law for creating and establishing property interests.
No principle of trust law states that a trust can be created by the declaration of a non-owner that the owner holds the property in trust for the non-owner. The pretext for the application of the Denis Canon is not that parish sought to alienate the property of The Good Shepherd or to remove it from the Diocese, and the Diocese does not allege that there were such actions. Rather, in a novel attempt at canonical legerdemain, the Diocese declares that the respondents are "ineligible" to serve in their positions.
VOL: It seems that the Vestry Members, as alleged by the diocese, have not performed their duties and thus are not outside immunity. The diocese alleges the Vestry members have violated the Church and are in effect trespassing on the property. Why would the immunity for "acts or omissions relating solely to the performance of his duties as an officer, director or trustee" apply?
Danello: Good Shepherd's rector, vestry, and congregation have been, and remain, strong and united in defending and propagating the Gospel and the Catholic religion that the Diocese ostensibly champions. The parish has behaved with great deliberation in maintaining the fundamental Christian tenets of the Diocese as well as the parish's civil obligations.
VOL: If you lose will you take this to the State Supreme Court?
Danello: While they have neither sought nor desired this litigation, they are prepared to defend themselves against the Diocese's unjust claims whether in the Orphans Court of Montgomery County, before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or the Supreme Court of the United States.
VOL: Thank you
No comments:
Post a Comment