Court Opinion

ID: 9763538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:48:42.07341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:45.693424
License: Public Domain

Concurring''Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I heartily concur with that part of Justice Musmanno’s opinion which expresses so beautifully and spiritiially our feelings about the Church of God: However, I wbuld go fürther.-
'■ P shall assume that the action of the City Planning Commission in certifying, and of the' Council of the City of Pittsburgh in ordaining that an area of over 90' acres in the center of Pittsburgh was a “blighted area”, was justified. However, the action of the Redevelopment Authority (1) in condemning and ordering the destruction and demolition of beautiful St. Peter’s Church was, in my opinion, outrageous and (2) when considered in connection with their further action in exempting from destruction the Epiphany Church, which was within the blighted area and less than two blocks away from St. Peter’s Church, was *200arbitrary, discriminatory and unjustifiable. In my judgment tbe action of tbe Redevelopment Authority was, for each of the foregoing reasons, a manifest abuse of discretion and consequently was reversible: Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing Authority, 379 Pa. 566, 109 A. 2d 331.
However, the act of the Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in accepting the Authority’s offer of damages, in the sum of $1,240,000 for the taking of St. Peter’s Church apparently bars plaintiffs’ remedy.
It is well settled that ecclesiastical matters are governed by church law and not by civil law except where property rights are involved. In Canovaro v. Brothers of The Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, 326 Pa. 76, 191 A. 140, the Court said (pages 88, 81, 84) : “The Act of 1935 recognizes the binding effect of the internal laws of religious societies regarding the power of control and disposition of church property . . . Under the canons of the church there can be no such thing as a separate and independent church organization within the Roman Catholic Church, whereby property may be acquired and held in opposition to its laws, canons, rules and regulations, and at the same time be subject to its supervision and control . . . Property control, as well as all other ecclesiastical matters, is now governed by church law, ...
“The canons empower the Ordinaries to divide or dismember parishes when canonical reasons exist, notwithstanding the unwillingness [and opposition] of the rectors and members . . . Division, dismemberment or suppression of parishes, and the effect thereof on membership are purely ecclesiastical matters, dependent upon the church law as administered by the appropriate authorities and tribunals.”
This case arose and was decided on preliminary objections. In Gardner v. Allegheny County, 382 Pa. 88, *201114 A. 2d 491, this Court said (page 94) : “Defendants by their ‘preliminary objections admit as true all facts which áre averred in the bill of complaint but not the pleaders’ conclusions or averments of law’: Narehood v. Pearson, 374 Pa. 299, 302, 96 A. 2d 895. Moreover, when the sustaining of defendants’ preliminary objections will result in a denial of plaintiffs’ claim, or a dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit, preliminary objections should be sustained only in cases which are clear and free from doubt: London v. Kingsley, 368 Pa. 109, 81 A. 2d 870; Waldman v. Shoemaker, 367 Pa. 587, 80 A. 2d 776.”
It is very difficult to determine from the record* exactly what the bishop’s authority is. The complaint merely averred “that the funds for the purchase of the lands and the erection of the church and appurtenant buildings of said parish were furnished exclusively by the parishioners and not by any contributions from the funds of the Diocese of Pittsburgh”; and further averred “that title to the lands, buildings and appurtenances of the aforesaid St. Peter’s Parish ... is now held by the Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh . . . a defendant herein as Trustee for the plaintiff parish and congregation”.
Unfortunately, the complaint did not go further .and aver that the bishop had no authority under the canons of the Roman Catholic Church to control or dismember or sell this church or to permit its destruction, even though such action was opposed by all the parishioners. Moreover, it does not appear whether the bishop would have accepted the Redevelopment Authority’s offer of damages in the sum of $1,240,000 for *202the taking of St. Peter’s Church, if he had realized that the Authority’s action was in this respect unjustifiable and void. However, since there is no allegation by plaintiffs that the bishop did not have the authority he exercised, nor any averment of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church, or that the canons had changed since the decision of this Court in Canovaro v. Brothers of The Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, supra, I must, in the absence of a curative amendment to plaintiffs’ complaint, concur in the dismissal of this appeal.

 In Canovaro v. Brothers of The Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, 326 Pa. 76, and in Post v. Dougherty, 326 Pa. 97, the authority of a Bishop and of the Holy See were proved by testimony.