Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1879-10-29
CIVIL RIGHTS OF PRIESTS.
THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE
CELEBRATED o'HARA-sTACK CASE.

THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE
CELEBRATED o'HARA-sTACK CASE
The decision of the Supreme Court
in the celebrated lawsuit between the
Right Rev. VIM. O'Hara, Bishop of
Scranton, and the Rev. p. M. Stack,
pastor of the Church of the Annuncia.
tion, Williamsport, is attracting a
great deal of attention throughout the
country, involving as the case does
the question of civil rights of Catholic
priests Rev. Father Stack is regu-
larly ordained priest of the Catholic
Church. In 1866 he was duly ap-
pointed by the Bishop to the charge
of this congregation. He continued
its pastor until November 5th, 1871.
By letter of that date Bishop O'Hara,
the appellant, wrote to Father Stack,
saying: 'Rev. Sir Your admins
tration of the affairs connected with
the Church of the Annunciation has
been such that feel compelled to re-
move you and leave the church vacant
And | now forbid you to exercise any
priestly function in Williamsport, even
to say mass This prohibition binds
sub, gravi. You may call on me at
Scranton and l will inform you of my
further intention in your regard"
On the same day the Bishop also
wrote to Rev. j. Keeper, pastor of the
Church of St. Bonifaclus, in Williams
port, informing him that the Sheriff
had an execution against the Church
of the Annunciation, so that it was
liable to be sold, and enclosed him
money to pay the execution. He fur
ther proceeded to say, "You will also
take charge of all things connected
with that church, such as vestments,
furniture, books, &C., and keep them
under your custody They can re-
main in the house and church, but you
will keep the key. You may baptize
and attend the sick, but nothing else.
| am much panied to adopt this severe
course, but the state of things in that
congregation is such that would con-
slider myself wanting in duty to allow
it to continue any longer" In pur-
suance of this direction Mr.. Keeper
took possession of the registers of bap-
tism and of marriage and a sacred
vessel of the church, and also of the
set of keys that were in the possession
of the sexton, but not of the set of
keys in the possession of the appellee.
Afterward the latter opened the church,
addressed the congregation and stated
his purpose to contest the legality of
the Bishops action. About one week
thereafter Father Stack applied to the
local Court of Common Pleas for an
injunction against Bishop O'Hara and
decree reinstating him in his pastor
ate. The Common Pleas Judge
decided that the action of the Bishop
was unlawful, but, acting in spirit of
compromise, declined to reinstate
Father Stack To mark it's sense Of
the illegality of the removal, the Court
decreed that the Bishop should pay his
own costs. Against this decision
Bishop O'IIara appealed to the Su-
preme Court of the State.
In the decision on the case Justice
Mercur says:
When rights of property are in
question civil Courts will inquire
whether the organic rules and forms of
procedure prescribed by the ecclesias-
tical body have been followed (Kopp
et al. VS.. St Marks Lutheran church,
Of Butler, Kerr's appeal, cases not yet
reported,) and if followed, whether
they are in conflict with the law of the
land Any rule or proceeding whereby
a mans property is swept away from
him without a hearing, trial or judg-
ment, or the opportunity for making
known his rights therein is not accord
ing to the law of the land within tho
meaning of the ninth section of the
declaration of rights Brown vs..
Hummel, 3 Barr, Sc; McAuley's
Appeal, 27 p f. Smith, 397.
Had the appellee such right of
property in the revenues of his church
and in his profession as to authorize a
Court of equity to inquire into the
} matter of his removal? A mans pro-
fession is his property The appellee
was not only deprived of his right of
property as pastor of that particular
church, but he was also prohibited
from exercising any priestly functions
as means of support elsewhere.
The literal reading of the order for
bade the exercise of such functions in
: Williamsport. Inasmuch, however,
as he had been assigned to no other
parish, the effect was to close the doors
of every parish against him. The
strong arm of the Church was laid
upon him. All means of support were
denied him, and stigma was cast on
his reputation. The sub grart of the
f prohibition was reminder that his
t administration was of so grave u char
, actcr that any disobedicnce to the
| order of prohibition would be griev-
/ Gus sin. The harshncss of the Bishops
conduct was all designated in his let
/ ter to Mr.. Keeper as "this severe
course" The act Of the 10th of June,
, 1886, and its supplement Of the l4th
) of February, 1857, expressly gives
| Courts of Common Pleas of the several
) counties of the Commonwealth the su-
r pervision and control Of unincorporated
, societies or associations. In granting
| injunctions, not only acts contrary to
| law may be enjoincd, but also those
contrary to equity. Stockdale vs. Ul-
lery, | Wright, 4S6. Then without
: reviewing the conflicting opinions as
to the ecclesiastical power given to
the Bishop to deny to a priest the ex-
ercise Of oil priestly functions without
) assigning any cause, we cannot assent
| to the doctrine that the PASTORS right
, of property may thus be stricken down,
: and he prohibited from following his
{ profession, without accusation and
: opportunity for hearing and trial. If
: it is not contrary to the laws of the
> Church, which we are not prepared to