There are three articles in today's Boston Globe that stood out in my mind. The first was this little gem entitled "suits argued churches owned by parishioners". It describes lawsuits filed by parishioners of parishes which are being closed in accordance with the archdiocesan reconfiguration plan. Here's the money quote:
Mary K. Ames and John M. Galvin — the lawyers representing the parishioners in Framingham, Scituate, and Weymouth — said they will try to convince the courts that the archbishop of Boston holds parishes in trust for a group of beneficiaries, local Catholics. They will argue that although O'Malley can terminate the standing of congregations as parishes, he cannot seize the land or buildings.
I wonder for whom I hold MY property in trust?
What a perverse idea and what utter contempt it shows for the property rights of an unpopular institution. Really, the contempt shown here for property rights is simply astounding. I guess to find someone who profoundly disrespects the law, one could not do much better than some plaintiff lawyers, with the possible exception of parts of the Massachusetts judiciary, who seem impatient with the obstacles to Utopia imposed by the laws of our elected representatives.
Second is a delightful column by Joan Vennochi documenting an interview held yesterday by John Kerry with Globe editorial writers and columnists. In the interview Kerry claimed to already signed the form SF 180 that he promised to file months ago. Of course this had to be clarified through numerous telephone calls and e-mails between the Boston Globe and Kerry’s aides during the rest of the day, and nobody could produce a copy of the document. But now they claim the process has started and we shall see. Joan is charitable to the former Democratic presidential nominee when she refers to his problem as a "candor gap". That reminds me of an old Down East story:
“What do you think of that new man out your way?"
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - miriam
Good stuff.
2 - JR
The first was this little gem entitled "suits argued churches owned by parishioners".
Wow, who would want to claim ownership of a Catholic church in this day and age? That's dumber than buying a tobacco company.
3 - bhw
I guess to find someone who profoundly disrespects the law, one could not do much better than some plaintiff lawyers, with the possible exception of parts of the Massachusetts judiciary, who seem impatient with the obstacles to Utopia imposed by the laws of our elected representatives.
Or the Catholic church in Boston, who covered up the crimes of pedophile priests and protected them from police scrutiny, which caused the lawsuits and multi-million dollar settlements, which in turn caused the closing of these parishes.
4 - Harry
Actually not, B.
I would argue that it was common practice for most organizations (high schools, for example) to handle inappropriate sexual contact with minors outside of the police and the courts until the late 1980s. That went double for the clergy, regardless of the denomination involved. On the other hand property rights, especially those pertaining to real estate, haven't changed much around here that I am aware.
As for the parish closings, they were really inevitable given the age demographic of the priests in practice. The need for greater liquidity due to the lawsuit settlements hastened the process, but it was largely inevitable that many parishes would have to close or continue without a priest in residence.
5 - alienboy
Harry, what do these 3 stories have in common or illuminate?
I have read your post 3 times, once for each story, and it seems to lack any unifying logic...or purpose.
Please explain