Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-12-05
THE CR-OHARA DECISION,

The case of Father Stack, of Williams
port against Bishop Ohara, of the do
cese OF Scranton, has attracted wide
attention from the fact that IL presents
the first instance in the history OF this
country in which Roman Catholic
bishop has been brought before civil
tribunal to answer for acts done in his
ecclesiastical capacity. The case has
been remarkable one in nearly all its
details. The priest, Father Stack,
was summarily removed from his
charge at Williamsport in November,
1871, by letter from the Bishop, and
he made complaint without much de.
lay raising two points |. Was the re-
moval OF the plaintiff, as pastor, from
the charge Of this congregation by the
defendant, as his bishop, warranted
under the circumstances OF the case by
the law of the Catholic Church. 2. IL
it was not warranted by tho law Of
the Church, will the law of the land
afford the relief asked for in the PLAN.
tfi's bill which was the restoration Of
the priest TO his pastorate
These are the points which Judge
Gamble reviews in his decision, and he
at once sweeps away the answer OF
the Bishop to the complaint, that he
had acted under his conscience and
the civil courts had no jurisdiction.
Judge Gamble insists, first, that the
removal without specific charge and
an opportunity for trial was in viola.
lation OF the laws of the Catholic
Church, and 10 sustain this he cites
the DEGREES OF the Plenary Council OF
Baltimore, which have been declared
the supreme laws Tor the government
of the Church IN this country.
Some Of these decrees are quoted by
the defendant and by the master, who
in his report denied civil jurisdiction,
but the Judge seems to satisfy himself
that they protect every subject in the
right TO know what he may be accused
of and the right to be heard upon the
accusation, which is such simple
point of justice that nobody will take
exception to it, the great difficulty oc.
curing, however at the point where
the tribunal before which the trial
may proceed is selected. II he was
suffering from violation of the Church
law at the hands Of the Bishop, Father
Stack must certainly have had his
right to appeal TO the Bishops SUPERIOR
bat he chose not to do this, and sought
the restoration Of the privileges of
which he had been deprived by the
Bishop even his priestly functions, in
civil court. Under the DEGREES of
the Plenary Council as quoted it
seems plain to the Court that the Bish-
op did not comply with the law OF the
Church; bis removal Of the priest was
under and implied grave charge, which,
however, has never been admitted by
the defendant; and in the decrees a
superior is directed TO cite his subject
against whom charges have been made,
give him the chief points of faccusauon,
and remove him after having proved a
grave charge Father Stack was re-
moved without formal charge, and con-
sequently had no hearing. Judge Gam.
Bile cites in behalf Of the jurisdiction OF
the civil court the acts of Assembly of
June l6, 1886, and April s, 1852, which
grant TO the courts of common pleas
0the jurisdiction and powers ofa court
of chancery, so far as relates TO the SUI
pervision and control of all corporations
other than those of q municipal char
acter--of unincorporated societies or
associations" for the prevention or the
restraint of the continuance OF acts
contrary TO law. And then the Judge
goes TO the reports for decisions in chan.
cery to sustain his point Of Jurisdiction
The conclusion which the honora-
bic Judge reaches is that the Bishop
had no business to turn Father Stack
out Of his pastorate, but the Court
decent seem to have my business to
order his restoration the priest gets
the moral benefit of decision in his
favor, while the Bishop has all the
material benefit. There does not ap-
pear to be anything left for the Bishop
TO complain Of, except the insignif-
cant matter of costs, which are charg-
cd against him. Judge Candles de-
+ cree does not require any other atten-
ton from him, and it will probably be
very little concern to him that a court,
whose jurisdiction over his acts he de-
mics, has declared something that he
has done unlawful. The decision seems
to be one without much stifiening, and
while it settles the question Of the
courts jurisdiction to the courts salts
faction, It doesn't seem to help the
plaintiff, and he will have to 60 some
where else II he still wants to get back
his pastorate. = Philadelphia Times.