The New York herald., 1879-10-15
BISHOP OHARA AND FATHER STACK.
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dis
MISSES THE APPEAL OF THE BISHOP AND
CONFIRMS THE DECREE OF THE LYCoMING
COUNT OF COMMON PLEAS.


coUEr OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA Oct. ii. 1870.
The celebrated lawsuit between the Right Rev.
William O'Hara. Bishop of Scranton. and the Rev.
p. NJ. Stack. pastor of the Church of the Annuncia
ton, williamsport. has been concluded by the fol-
lowing decision of the Supreme Court. dsmissing
the appeal of the Bshop:-
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania-In the
appeal of the Ri. Rev William O'Hara, Bishop Of
the Diocese of Scranton, from the decree OF the
Court of Common Pleas OF Lycoming County. i'll
O'Hara.--In Equity.-Opinion of the Supreme
Court-Delivered by Justice Mercur. October q.
This bill was fled by the pastor and eight mem-
bers of the congregation and pew holders OF tho
Church OF the Annunciaton, in Wlliamsport. II
prayed, substantially that the Bishop bo restrained
by injunction from removing or attempting to re-
move the appellee. as pastor OF said church. and
also against prohioMg nun from S exercising
asked that he be restored TO his rights and
emoluments as they had previously existed and
been enjoyed by him. Upon his own petition
and by leave of the Court, ali the complanarts
exceptthe appellee withdrew before answer fled
When the learned Judge to enter decree he
found the relations ana attachments OF the congre-
cation toward the appellee had changed, and tho
wise and prudent conduct of it's present pastor
so secured it's confidence and regard that he thought
it unwise to disturb the existing relations He there
fore refused restoration. He decreed that the re-
mova OF the appellee, pastor Of the church, and
also the prohibition aud acknowledgements forbid
ding him to exercise any priestly functions i'll Will
alton and compromise, he restricted the liability Of
the Bishop pay costs, far to exempt him from
the payment OF any bill Of the appellee. From that
decree, thus imposing part OF the costs on him.
the Bishop has taken this appeal The practical ques-
tion before us is so narrow that we deem it un-
necessary to discuss the numerous matters in-
volved IN the bill and answer. The single question
which will consider is whether the appellant has
just ground to complain OF the decree. The rules
aud discipline OF the Church. the of religion
and the good order of society justly authorize
bishop to remove priest from his charge for cause,
nd to
he may deem proper. In this case the appellee was
not transferred to another parish. Whether with
out any specific accusation against pastor
lor lat hearing or trial the Bishop eau remove
any other, and prohibit him from exercis-
ing all priesty functions. present grave questions.
The appellee is regularly ordained priest OF the
Roman Catholic Church. In 1866 he was duly ap-
pointed by the Bishop OF the diocese to the charge
of this congregation OF non-German Catholics. He
continued its pastor until the 9Th OF November.
1871. BY letter OF that date Bishop OIiara the
appellant wrote to the appellee, sayings "Rev Sir:
Your administration OF the affairs connected with
the Church of the Annunciarion has been such that
feel myself compelled to remove you and leave the
church vacant. Aud now forbid you to exercise
any priestly junction in Wiiliamsport, even to say
mass. This prohibition binds sub gravi. You may
cali at Scranton and will inform you of my
further intention III your regard.
FATHER STACK UNcEREMoNIoUsLY SHUT OUT.
On the day the Bishop also wrote to the Rev.
j. Keeper pastor of the Church of St Bonifacius in
Williamsport informing him that the Sheriff had an
execution against the Chsrch OF the Annunciation.
money to pay the execution. He further proceeded
say, 'You will also take charge OF all things
nected with that church. such as vestments furn-
ture, books. &C., and keep them under your GUS
tody. They can remain III the house and church.
but you will keep the key. You may baptize and
attend the sick. bnt nothing else. am much panied
to adopt this course. but the state of thugs
III that congregation is such that would consider
myself wanting i'll duty to allow it to continue any
longer" IL pursuance of this direction Mr.. Keeper
took possessi of the registers of baptism and Of
| marriaue and a sacred vessel OF the church. aud
| ais ooft he sat OF Ii O
the SEXTON but not of the set OF keys IN the posses
sion of the appellee. Afterward the latter opened
the cnurch, addressed the congregation and stated
his purpose to contest the legality Of the Bishops
action. About week thereafter he fled this bill,
| The lotter OF November complains i'll general
terms of his administration of AFFAIRS connected with
the church. but charges no specific uct, either of
omission or OF commission, showing III what PAL
tcular it not satisfactory. He is not Informed
whether the complaint refers spiritual to tompo
him to answer and refute the complaint. 1t neither
gives nor indicates any intention OF giving him per-
mission to inquire the reasons for his summary re-
moval. At one and the same moment vague charge
is made, the edict issued and the sentence pro-
nounced. The answer OF the appollent ayers
specific for the removal aud the evidence fails
to disclose any, Ia pursuance Of the Bishops per-
mission call on him ut Scranton, the appellee did
/ so The uncontradicted testimony of the latter in
regard to that interview is II saw Bishop O'Hara
in his residence on or about the 9th OF November,
1871; but he neither made definite his charge, nor
gave any trial, nor revoked his letter, bu: wished
me to resign my parish at Williamsport.
making vague promises and stating general condi-
y i u
maxim OF fundamental law that shall be
condemned without hearing. hearing assumes
notice of the specific ground of complaint and
reasonable opportunity for answering it. In all
matters OF faith and of doctrine churches left
to speak for themselves. When rights of property
ARE in question civil courts will inquire whether
the organic rules and forms of procedure prescribed
By the ecclesiastical body have been followed (Nopp
OF al. st. Marks Lutheran Church. OF Butler.
Kerrs Appeal. not yet reportcd). and If FOL.
lowed. whether they III conflict with the law OF
the land. Any rule proceeding whereby u mans
/ Is IN n mo
trial or judgment. or the opportunity for making
known his rights therein is not according to the
law OF the land within the meaning OF the ninth
tion OF the declaration OF rights. Brown W.. Hum
mel, Barr. SO; McAuley's Appeal. ~ p. Il.
Smith, 397.
FATHER STACKS cAsE UPHELD BY THE COURT
Had the appellee such right o. property in the
revenues of his church and in his profession rs to
authorize court OF equity to inquire into the mat
ter of his removal? He had specific salary. His
income was derived from rent OF the pews. Sunday
collections, subscriptions aud offerings. The Roman
Catholic Church makes the support OF it's pastors
one OF tho commandments o. the Church. Its pre-
cept requires the members of tho congregation to
contribute to the support OF their pastor. 1t is
declared to be sin of omission to omit anything
willingly which is commanded by God or HIS
Church. While the precise sum tho appellee might
could not lie ascertained in advance yet the
sum OF which he was in the actual receipt was so
large that it Is not alleged to have been inadequate
to bis proper support man profession IL his
property. The appellee was not only deprived Of
particular church, but ho also prohibited from
exercising any priestly function as means OF sup
port clsewh here. The literal reading Of the order
forbade the exercise OF such functions in Williams
port. Iuasmuch, however. as he had been assigned
TO no other parish tho effect TO close the doors
of every parish against him. The strong arm OF the
Church was laid upon him. All means OF support
denied him, and stigma was east on his repu
tation. The sub 0,ari OF the prohibition u
niindcr that his administration was of so grave q
character that any dsobedionce to the order OF pro-
hibi,ion would be u gricvous sim The harshness of
the Bishops conduct all designated in his letter
TO Ar. Keeper as ''this course" Tho act OF
the 10Th or June, 1886, and it's supplement oil the
18th OF February 1857, expressly gives courts OF
common pleas OF the several counties Of the COM
monwealth the supervision and control of unincor-
porated societies or associations. In granting in
functions, not only acts contrary to law may DO
enjoned, but also those contrary 10 equity. Stock
dale vs.. Ullcry Wright, 43G. Then without re-
viewing the conflicting opinions to the ccclcsias-
teal power given to the Bishop TO deny to priest
I the of all prcstly tunctions vithouf ns-