In the ‘if you live by the sword you die by the sword’ category:

Catholic Church Is Dealt a Blow in Asset Dispute
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL – December 31, 2005; Page A3

A federal bankruptcy-court judge in Portland, Ore., ruled Friday that the Catholic archdiocese there can’t shield the sale of parish assets from compensation claims made by victims of sexual abuse by priests.

In a decision that could have national ramifications, Judge Elizabeth Perris found that sex-abuse victims, who have filed about 100 outstanding claims with potential damages of at least $300 million, may seek compensation from assets including parish churches and schools within the diocese.

While a victory for abuse victims, the decision represents a blow not only for the diocese but also for Catholic parishioners in Portland and across the country who are trying to protect church properties and bank accounts from liquidation.

Ruling in the bankruptcy case of the Portland archdiocese, the judge denied the diocese’s claim that its extensive real-estate holdings—”valued from $400 million to $600 million—”shouldn’t be available to pay creditors’ claims because they are held in trust for the parishes as beneficiaries. The diocese contended that victims should only be entitled to diocesan possessions, valued at around $19 million, including the bishop’s residence and chancery.

Although the diocese said that the question should properly be decided under canon, or church law, the judge wrote, “Who owns the property is, quite simply, not a theological or doctrinal matter.”

The judge is right and you’ve entered his realm.  The title to all church property in every diocese in the United States is held in the name of the Bishop Ordinary only.  He is the sole trustee for the diocese, the parish, and for any and all assets.  He can do what he sees fit with the assets as long as it is in keeping with Canon Law.  It’s been that way since the 3rd Council of Baltimore (1884).  From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

[The] Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), in its decrees on the subject of church property, urges the bishops to place all church property under the protection of legal incorporation, where it can be done safely, as in the State of New York; where such incorporation cannot be made it requests the bishop to have himself made a corporation sole and thus hold the property as any other corporation would; and where this cannot be done it permits him to hold the property in fee simple” (Rev. J. M. Farley, now Archbishop Farley, in “The Forum”, June, 1894).   

People just keep thinking, ‘hey, this is my church.’  No, sorry, it is not and never was.  It is one of the reasons that the PNCC broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.  It is why the Bishop can close your parish.  He doesn’t need that white-wash committee of laity and a few nuns.  They are there only as a faí§ade.  If the Bishop says so, it is so.  Only the Roman Pontiff or his delegated authority in the Curia can overrule your Bishop.

Back to the WSJ article:

The judge also rejected the argument of the Portland diocese’s 390,000 Catholics, who were named a separate defendant class, that civil law would bar the diocese from selling assets against parishioner wishes. “Under civil law, the parishes and high schools are not separate civil legal entities,” Judge Perris found.

A written statement issued by the diocese said: “We feel strongly that this decision is not supported by the facts or the law, and believe it infringes on Archdiocese’s right and the parishioners’ rights to freely exercise their religion. We will review our options to appeal.”

Sure, but the civil court will look at the documentary evidence.  Who holds title to the property?  It is the Bishop as CEO and trustee for the corporation —“ i.e., the diocese.

He is in effect ‘the diocese.’  The Church is certainly the body of Christ in all its constituent members.  However, the church (small ‘c’ meaning its physical belongings) has nothing to do with the members.

When the Church subjects itself to the civil courts you will get a civil court verdict.  Did you expect an ecclesiastical decision based on Canon Law from the United States Bankruptcy Court?  You are not dealing with the Rota.

As you appeal, the decision takes a higher level of precedence.  It goes from a decision applicable in the Federal District to one applicable in the Circuit and eventually, if taken to the Supreme Court, applicable nationwide.

Although Judge Perris’s decision and a similar ruling by a bankruptcy-court judge in Washington state in August aren’t binding on judges in other jurisdictions, they are expected to influence cases cropping up across the country that also deal with control over church assets.

Catholics in Boston, New York and elsewhere are fighting the closings of their parishes by contending that they, rather than the diocese, have control over churches, schools, bank accounts and other assets. These internal battles have become so heated that the St. Louis archdiocese recently excommunicated leaders of one parish who refused to turn over assets to the bishop, a subject of a page one Wall Street Journal article on Dec. 20.

Abp. Burke in St. Louis had to beg St. Stan’s for its $10 million because by act of a Bishop 125 years ago the property was deeded to the parish council, not the Bishop.  Thanfully these people saw what was coming and said no.  Abp. Burke wants it one way, Portland and Spokane want it another way.  The R.C. Church and its bishops look like keystone cops.  Where’s the USCCB?  Shouldn’t the bishops speak with unanimity on issues?  Not in the United States! 

Each is in charge of his personal fiefdom.  Each feels completely separated from the center.  Each proclaims the strength and unity of the Church and —Ex Ecclesia Nulla Salus— (Outside the [Roman Catholic] Church there is no salvation), all the while each chooses his own way.  Who may/may-not receive the Eucharist, will I follow the Church’s rules on homosexuality and seminary life, and whatever else (architecture, music, liturgy, inclusive language..).

The poor Roman Catholic faithful are faced with an episode of cognitive dissonance.  Their bishops say one thing, but do another.

Another federal bankruptcy judge sided against the Spokane, Wash., diocese in a similar bankruptcy ruling in August. The Spokane bishop has appealed.

David Skeel, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said that the Portland ruling hurts parishioners nationwide who contend that dioceses cannot close churches or take assets on their own. “What this opinion confirms is that the archdiocese is in charge, with respect to the property,” he said. He added that the decision is likely to unsettle parishioners by making clear that parishioners will ultimately pay for the abuse scandal. “Even if…the priest was never in their parish, they still pay the price,” he said.

Yep!

From the Associated Press

Two stations won’t air ‘Book of Daniel’

NEW YORK — Two television stations are refusing to broadcast a new NBC series about an Episcopal priest who abuses painkillers, has a gay son, a promiscuous straight son, a daughter who deals marijuana, and a wife who drinks too much.

Conservative Christian groups have condemned the depiction of Jesus as blasphemous, accusing the writers of portraying Christ as tolerant of sin in talks with the priest.

…

The series stars Aidan Quinn as the Rev. Daniel Webster, who discusses his many troubles in regular chats with a robe-wearing, bearded Jesus. The American Family Association, in Tupelo, Miss., and Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs group led by James Dobson, are asking supporters to lobby their local NBC affiliate to drop the show.

…

But the American Family Association said the series was another sign of NBC’s “anti-Christian bigotry.” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, an anti-defamation group, called the series the “work of an embittered ex-Catholic homosexual.”

The show’s creator and executive producer, Jack Kenny, said he drew on the emotionally guarded family of his male partner for the series. He said his goal was to depict how “humor and grace” help a flawed man struggle with his faith and family. He said the writers never meant to mock religion or Jesus.

However, Bob Waliszewski, of Focus on the Family’s teen ministries, said the show portrayed Christ as a “namby-pamby frat boy who basically winks at every sin and perversity under the sun.”

Just the kind of Jesus it would appear that many in the ECUSA advocate for?  Listen to this:

James Naughton, a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C., said a California Episcopal church is advising the series.

Naughton has read scripts for eight episodes and acknowledged that viewers could take away a troubling message about people of faith, instead of a positive one about overcoming temptation. Still, he said it was “a tremendous opportunity for evangelism for Episcopalians.” The Washington Diocese has started a blog to comment on the show and invite discussion.

“To me, this is good for us no matter how it comes out because if people are talking about what Episcopalians are like, it creates tremendous opportunities for us to say, `Here’s what we actually are like,'” Naughton said.

And the answer would be —“ yes. 

I think Mr. Naughton has become trapped in a Machiavellian milieu.  Unfortunately for him the ends do not justify the means.  A good intention cannot sanctify, or make right, an action which is wrong.

Now, I will leave to my readers who are better versed in the Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae to argue whether ‘double effect’ allows bad actions for good causes.  However, in this case the point would be moot.

If I am correct, a bad act is morally allowable only when the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. The agent is aiming only at the good effect; the evil effect is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends; and
2. the consequences of the act are good on balance; that is, the goodness of the good effect outweighs the evil of the evil effect.

As I said, act and cause are a good theological discussion, but moot here because I suspect the agent (writers, director, producer) of not seeking to portray the Jesus of the Gospels, but the phony Jesus of man’s basest instincts.  In addition, there is no good consequence to the show (especially in supporting the ECUSA drive to remake historic Christianity into a modernist playground).  Further, the consequences of continually making Jesus into the kind, dead, philosopher only support man’s denial of God.  It destroys the human imperative to repentance and reform.