Difference between revisions of "Church Titles in Pennsylvania"
From WFG Wiki
(→Roman Catholic) |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
** "Nor can [an alleged independent organization within the Church], in opposition to church laws, set up a trust in property acquired through church contributions, donations, and gifts, unless it was specifically reserved in writing. The impulse or motive of the donors in giving was the spirit and love of the church generally, to promote the Catholic faith under its protection, not because of any so-called independent association or any of the members who composed it. It was given for the purpose of advancing the worship of God according to the faith and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church and for no other purpose." | ** "Nor can [an alleged independent organization within the Church], in opposition to church laws, set up a trust in property acquired through church contributions, donations, and gifts, unless it was specifically reserved in writing. The impulse or motive of the donors in giving was the spirit and love of the church generally, to promote the Catholic faith under its protection, not because of any so-called independent association or any of the members who composed it. It was given for the purpose of advancing the worship of God according to the faith and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church and for no other purpose." | ||
** "The inference that the property could be sold by the Ordinary of the Diocese without using the proceeds for religious and educational purposes is negatived by the record which shows that the Ordinary will make an equitable and just division of the property among the parishes with which the dismembered parish was merged. The Catholic canons provide for the disposition of the property of a dismembered parish by the Ordinary in aid of the purposes to which it has been dedicated. This is in accord with the provisions of the acts of 1855 and 1935 (10 P.S. § 81). Canons 1500 and 1501 regulating the disposition of property of dismembered and suppressed parishes and providing for ‘safeguarding always the wishes of those who made the donations or gifts' must be construed in the light of the purposes actuating the gifts unrestrained in any manner by the donors. The property under no circumstances becomes the property of any individual who may be empowered to divide it under the canons, but must be used in furtherance of the religious purposes for which it was donated." | ** "The inference that the property could be sold by the Ordinary of the Diocese without using the proceeds for religious and educational purposes is negatived by the record which shows that the Ordinary will make an equitable and just division of the property among the parishes with which the dismembered parish was merged. The Catholic canons provide for the disposition of the property of a dismembered parish by the Ordinary in aid of the purposes to which it has been dedicated. This is in accord with the provisions of the acts of 1855 and 1935 (10 P.S. § 81). Canons 1500 and 1501 regulating the disposition of property of dismembered and suppressed parishes and providing for ‘safeguarding always the wishes of those who made the donations or gifts' must be construed in the light of the purposes actuating the gifts unrestrained in any manner by the donors. The property under no circumstances becomes the property of any individual who may be empowered to divide it under the canons, but must be used in furtherance of the religious purposes for which it was donated." | ||
| + | * Post v. Dougherty, 326 Pa. 97, 191 A. 151 (1937) (property of suppressed parish passed to control of Archbishop under Church canon law) ("It is not necessary to petition for the appointment of a trustee under the act of 1921 [10 PS 103] where the church laws provide for the control and disposition of the property. . . While it was perfectly proper for Cardinal Dougherty to petition for his appointment as trustee under the act of 1921, his action in so doing was not compulsory and can only be considered in the light of a precautionary measure to procure judicial recognition of the rights vested in him under the church canons by the act of 1935 [10 P.S. 81].") | ||
| + | * Lamb v. Yencsik, 89 Pa. D. & C. 35 (Com. Pl. 1954) (Buyer refused deed from Bishop without Court approval - Court found pre-approval was not necessary and entered judgment in Bishop's favor) | ||
* St. Peter's Roman Cath. Par. v. Urb. Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 394 Pa. 194, 146 A.2d 724 (1958) (congregation could not assert rights because property is owned by the Church acting through Bishop who agreed to the disposition) | * St. Peter's Roman Cath. Par. v. Urb. Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 394 Pa. 194, 146 A.2d 724 (1958) (congregation could not assert rights because property is owned by the Church acting through Bishop who agreed to the disposition) | ||
* Croatian Roman Cath. Congregation of Holy Trinity Church, Ambridge, Beaver Cnty., Pa. By & Through Cvitkovic v. Wuerl, 447 Pa. Super. 208, 668 A.2d 1151 (1995) (members of dissolved ("suppressed") parishes lacked standing to pursue claims and the suppression itself is a matter of church canon law that could not be reviewed in a civil court) | * Croatian Roman Cath. Congregation of Holy Trinity Church, Ambridge, Beaver Cnty., Pa. By & Through Cvitkovic v. Wuerl, 447 Pa. Super. 208, 668 A.2d 1151 (1995) (members of dissolved ("suppressed") parishes lacked standing to pursue claims and the suppression itself is a matter of church canon law that could not be reviewed in a civil court) | ||
* St. Matthew's Slovak Roman Cath. Congregation v. Most Reverend Wuerl, 106 F. App'x 761 (3d Cir. 2004) (members of dissolved ("suppressed") parish could not assert rights of parish which no longer existed) | * St. Matthew's Slovak Roman Cath. Congregation v. Most Reverend Wuerl, 106 F. App'x 761 (3d Cir. 2004) (members of dissolved ("suppressed") parish could not assert rights of parish which no longer existed) | ||
Latest revision as of 08:33, 21 July 2022
Contents
Generally
- 10 P.S. § 81 (Church property to be subject to control of officers or authorities thereof; validation of certain charters)
Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations
- 15 Pa.C.S. 9114 (Entity status)
- 15 Pa.C.S. 9115 (Ownership and transfer of property)
- 15 Pa.C.S. 9136 (Subordination of chapter to canon law)
Nonprofit Corporations
- 15 Pa.C.S. 5501 (Corporate capacity)
- 15 Pa.C.S. 5107 (Subordination of subpart to canon law)
- 15 Pa.C.S. 5546 (Purchase, sale, mortgage and lease of real property)
- 15 Pa.C.S. 5547 (Authority to take and hold trust property)
Specific Denominations
Episcopal
- Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh v. Duncan, No. 293 C.D. 2010, 2011 WL 10841592 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 2, 2011) (also discusses property rights where congregation withdrew from national Episcopal organization and joined an Anglican organization)
- In re Church Of St. James The Less, 585 Pa. 428, 888 A.2d 795 (2005)
Presbyterian
- Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church v. Washington Presbytery of Pennsylvania, 90 A.3d 95 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014) (non-profit corporation) (majority voted to disaffiliate from one national church and join another national church) (interpretation of bylaws of national church and their incorporation by the local church)
- Footnote 6 for overview of hierarchy and organization of the "Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)"
Roman Catholic
- Canovaro v. Bros. of Ord. of Hermits of St. Augustine, 326 Pa. 76, 191 A. 140 (1937) (members of a dissolved parish lacked standing to complain of disposition of parish property)
- "Nor can [an alleged independent organization within the Church], in opposition to church laws, set up a trust in property acquired through church contributions, donations, and gifts, unless it was specifically reserved in writing. The impulse or motive of the donors in giving was the spirit and love of the church generally, to promote the Catholic faith under its protection, not because of any so-called independent association or any of the members who composed it. It was given for the purpose of advancing the worship of God according to the faith and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church and for no other purpose."
- "The inference that the property could be sold by the Ordinary of the Diocese without using the proceeds for religious and educational purposes is negatived by the record which shows that the Ordinary will make an equitable and just division of the property among the parishes with which the dismembered parish was merged. The Catholic canons provide for the disposition of the property of a dismembered parish by the Ordinary in aid of the purposes to which it has been dedicated. This is in accord with the provisions of the acts of 1855 and 1935 (10 P.S. § 81). Canons 1500 and 1501 regulating the disposition of property of dismembered and suppressed parishes and providing for ‘safeguarding always the wishes of those who made the donations or gifts' must be construed in the light of the purposes actuating the gifts unrestrained in any manner by the donors. The property under no circumstances becomes the property of any individual who may be empowered to divide it under the canons, but must be used in furtherance of the religious purposes for which it was donated."
- Post v. Dougherty, 326 Pa. 97, 191 A. 151 (1937) (property of suppressed parish passed to control of Archbishop under Church canon law) ("It is not necessary to petition for the appointment of a trustee under the act of 1921 [10 PS 103] where the church laws provide for the control and disposition of the property. . . While it was perfectly proper for Cardinal Dougherty to petition for his appointment as trustee under the act of 1921, his action in so doing was not compulsory and can only be considered in the light of a precautionary measure to procure judicial recognition of the rights vested in him under the church canons by the act of 1935 [10 P.S. 81].")
- Lamb v. Yencsik, 89 Pa. D. & C. 35 (Com. Pl. 1954) (Buyer refused deed from Bishop without Court approval - Court found pre-approval was not necessary and entered judgment in Bishop's favor)
- St. Peter's Roman Cath. Par. v. Urb. Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 394 Pa. 194, 146 A.2d 724 (1958) (congregation could not assert rights because property is owned by the Church acting through Bishop who agreed to the disposition)
- Croatian Roman Cath. Congregation of Holy Trinity Church, Ambridge, Beaver Cnty., Pa. By & Through Cvitkovic v. Wuerl, 447 Pa. Super. 208, 668 A.2d 1151 (1995) (members of dissolved ("suppressed") parishes lacked standing to pursue claims and the suppression itself is a matter of church canon law that could not be reviewed in a civil court)
- St. Matthew's Slovak Roman Cath. Congregation v. Most Reverend Wuerl, 106 F. App'x 761 (3d Cir. 2004) (members of dissolved ("suppressed") parish could not assert rights of parish which no longer existed)
