The Irish standard., 1911-07-29
CHURCH PROPERTY

- AVOA LILLY
HOW 1t Is, Held in the United States.
At the last meeting Of the council of
the Archbishops an interesting dis
cussion took place concerning the ten.
ure of church property in the United
States.
The first subject discussed was the
question of the tenure of church prop
erty in the United States and the re-
port thereon was read by the Arch
bishop of New York, chairman of the
committee appointed for that purp pose.
The report was made quite extensive,
classifying the various methods that
obtain of holding church property and
their relative values, a summary of
which might be as follows:
l. The method which obtains in the
state of New York, namely, an incor-
poration of each parish with the Arch
bishop or Bishop, the Vicar-General Of
the diocese, the Rector of the parish,
and their successors in Office, to con-
stitute three of the trustees, to which
two laymen, members of the parish
and selected by the aforementioned,
shall Jointly with them constitute a
Board of Trustees, but no act of the
trustees, according to the New York
state law, shalllsbe, valid :; without the
sanction OF the Archbishop of the
diocese, or in case of his absence or in
ability, without the sanction of the
Vicar General or Administrator of the
! diocese. (This is ithe method adopted
for the tenure of church property in
the diocese of winona.)
2. The second method is that of the
| corporation SOLE This corporation
consists of a single person, who by
law shall be vested with certain legal
capacities. Each corporation shall
endure by the succession in office of
the first constituted, in other words,
! the Archbishop or Bishop, as the case
may be, who holds the property as a
corporation sole.
3. The third form is that which is
commonly known as holding property
in fee simple and absolutely. The
properties under the last method are
held by the individual Bishop, not as
/ Bishop, but as an individual, and the
| properties are transmitted at WILL
The report of Archbishop Farley for
himself and the committee was in IA
vor of the first method, as being the
safest and most fitted to conditions
and present day attitude of the people
in general, and as protecting at once
the rights of the church, placing re-
sponsibility where it belongs, and max
ing impossible the mourning of liza
bilities. excepting in so far as each in.
dlvidual corporation may in it's need
have to incur
In the discussion of this report, fav.
orable comment of the second method,
namely the holding of property by
Corporation SOLE" was made by some
OF the Archbishops, they agreeing
especially with its more centralized
, and more effective form of tenure,
eliminating the dangers that are in
cident to lay trusteesship, etc.
| Others. however, notably the Arch
bishop of New Orleans, recited from
+; the experience of the Archbishop OF
New Orleans the dangers incident to
, corporate sole" when the same hap
pened to be prelate who lacked
! financial experience, there being
scarcely any limitation set upon his
power to contract debts. etc.
None We're found to commend the
third method, namely that of fee sim
pie, and all regretted the necessity Of
such a system, owing to the supposed
unwillingness of some legislatures to
concede to the church the power to
otherwise ordain. 1t was then pro-
posed and seconded that in the judg-
ment of the prelates assembled. the
manner of holding church property by
properly constituted and safeguarded
/ church corporations Gas, for instance,
in the state of New York; is best and
most to be commended; but that the
tenure of church property in the form
of corporation sole" may work we'll.
| Property held, however, in fee simple
cannot be commended s