http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10952155/detail.html

 

SJC To Decide Who Owns Church Assets

Families Claim They Were Misled By Archdiocese

 BOSTON -- When the Maffei family agreed tosell eight acres of land in Wellesley to the Roman Catholic Archdioceseof Boston in 1946, they believed the property would always be used as achurch to be named after their father. Nearly 60 years later,when the pastor of St. James the Great Church -- named after JamesMaffei -- asked parishioners for donations to refurbish the church,Eileen Hanafin gave $35,000. In a legal challenge that will gobefore the state's highest court Thursday, both the Maffeis and Hanafinclaim they were misled by the archdiocese, which announced plans toclose St. James in 2004 as part of a reconfiguration that would shutterabout 60 parishes in the archdiocese. Both believe the archdioceseviolated terms of their original agreements by deciding to close theparish.

 

Although the arguments made by St. James parishioners focus on thelimited issues of the land sale and cash gift, the case is beingclosely watched by parishioners at other closed churches. They hope theSupreme Judicial Court will decide a larger question: Who owns parishassets, the parishioners or the archdiocese? Parishioners at theshuttered churches argue the archdiocese, through Cardinal SeanO'Malley - the archbishop of Boston - merely holds church assets intrust, but that the parishioners are the true owners. They believeO'Malley is not entitled to use the assets of the closed churches, evenif they are distributed to other churches within the archdiocese."We are saying that O'Malley does not have the right to appropriate theassets of these parishes, even if it's for the worthiest of causes,"said Peter Borre, co-chairman of the Council of Parishes, a groupformed to oppose the parish closings. "The bishop is only atrustee of his parishes. They are not his ATMs and he cannot convertthem to his personal advantage," Borre said. When he announcedthe reconfiguration plan in 2004, O'Malley cited declining churchattendance, a shortage of priests and financial problems caused in partby the clergy sex abuse scandal. Some parishioners rebelled,occupying their churches in around-the-clock vigils. At the peak of theprotests, nine churches were occupied by parishioners. Five closedchurches still have protesting parishioners in their buildings, 24hours a day, including St. James, which has been in vigil since October2004. In a friend of the court brief filed in the St. Jamescase, a lawyer for the Council of Parishes uses strong language todescribe O'Malley's use of church assets to pay archdiocese debt,calling his "confiscation" of property belonging to parishes "theft,plain and simple." Terrence Donilon, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said the council's argument is wrong."It's unfortunate they seek only to criticize the church when countlesspeople have come to the table to help the Church rebuild," Donilon said.St. James is one of five parishes who have challenged the closings incourt. Three cases have been dismissed by Superior Court judges,including the St. James case. No rulings have been issued in two othercases. Attorney Paul Hughes, a St. James parishioner who willargue the case before the SJC, said the Maffei family relied on theword of a pastor who said the land they sold the archdiocese in 1946for $12,000 would always be used for a church. "Trust was never an issue as far as they were concerned. They were dealing with their church," Hughes said.Attorneys for the archdiocese did not return calls seeking comment. Intheir legal brief, they say the transfer of the property to thearchdiocese was in a charitable trust, to use the property as a churchfor the benefit of the public and for the advancement of religion. Theyargue that only the state Attorney General has legal standing to filelawsuits over alleged breaches of trust by a charity. Thearchdiocese's attorneys also note there is no claim that the moneyHanafin donated was not used for renovations and refurbishing St. James.