The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-02-22
SUITS OVER CHURCH PROPERTY
Reasons Given Why Bishops Should
Have Superior Administration.

Reasons Given Why Bishops Should
Have Superior Administration.
Western Watchman: The supreme
court of Nebraska has just decided {
controversy between the bishop of Lin,
coin and the trustees of a parish ovel
the possession of church held in theil
name in favor of the bishop, on the
ground that the bishop had right OF
possession under all circumstances tC
all properties held by Catholic par
ishes for religious purposes. In the
town of Tecumseh there is a brick
church which for years was used as
place of worship by the Catholics OF
that place. The bishop removed a pop
ular priest from the parish and ap-
pointed one that was not acceptable tc
the people. The people locked up the
church and refused to deliver the keys
TO the bishop on his demand. He forced
an entrance into the church and
priests house and was arrested, tried
for trespass and convicted. An appeal
to the supreme court resulted as above
stated. 1t comes as the last scene in
e very lamentable drama, one of the
least unfortunate acts OF which was the
closing of the church for four years
lit was a rebellion against Church au-
thority similar to that of East St.
Louis But in the latter case the in
surgent parish appealed to the proper
ecclesiastical authorities and were sus-
tanned. If the bishop of Belleville had
appealed to the civil courts there is
nothing surer than that he would have
been given possession of st. Patrick S
church and priests house. The par
ishioners were wisely advised and an
order from the propaganda put an end
to the rebellion by removing the pro-
voking cause. The Catholics of Te-
cumseh appealed to the civil courts
and they have lost their case.
The bishop has the superior admin
istration of all Church property in his
diocese. He has the right to assign
priests to parishes and to remove those
whom the law does not make ire
movable. If people want to lock out
their bishop frcm any church over
which he has jurisdiction they had bet
ter not appeal to the civil courts for
protection The ecclesiastical courts
may sustain them, but the civil courts,
never.
The bishop of Lincoln has been en-
joined from bringing any more suits
in the civil courts to disturb the priest
of a certain parish until his appeal
now pending in Rome shall have been
heard and determined. This involves
another question. If priest is re-
moved from his living under charges
and after a trial the civil courts Will
not review the judgment of the &C.
clesiastical courts, provided the forms
of law have been observed. If the
forms of law have not been observed
it viii decide that there was no trial,
and therefore no judgment which the
1-,fr ie 10
in this case il is unwise TO invoke the
protection of the civil courts. A priest
must not bring his bishop before the
civil tribunals. Ii is an aggravated
case Of the grievances Of st. Paul:
Have you not among you one who
can iudge?" The ecclesiastical courts
viii see that Justice is invoked. a
priest may have been unjuStly accused
to his bishop and tried without the op-
portunity Of making proper defense
The trial may have been traVesty OF
justice. Two alternatives are before
him. He may resist and appeal to
Rome He may surrender his beneiice
and appeal to Rome. In the first case
Rome may sustain him. as she has
very little respect for tribunals that
through ignorance or malice, or both,
make a mockery of her laws. in case
of irremovable rectors this course is
unobjectionable But to save scandal
il is better always to obey the orders
OF the bishop. The appellant to Rome
loses nothing by his obedience. Wher-
ever il has been shown to the prOPa-
eanda that an injustice has been done
by the local court, ample satisfaction
has always been awarded. Say what
YOU Will it is always safe 10 commit
your case 10 Rome. The excuse gen
too un.af,
to appeal case To- Rome. But civil
suits cost something. But il is fur
Their contended that bishops abuse
their poNers and even resist the man
dates Of the Holy See. That may have
been true in times gone by. when they
had "A very eXtravag giant idea of their
Importance but it is not true at pres
ent. and mas MOI been true since the
apostolic delegation was established.
We cannot see or imagine case where
priest would be justified in bringing
his biehop before the civil courts.