Save St. Paul's?

Why?

The source of all this trouble were the members of a defunct corporation known as "Save St. Pauls, Inc." Its registered Agent was Ken Austin, 300 Davis Avenue, Suite 101, Pass Christian, MS 39571, and its attorney was Eric D Wooten, 2300 20th Street, Gulfport MS 39501. Mr. Wooten's law offices of Vaughn, Bowden & Wooten, PA were identified as having telephone number 228-863-5656.

On May 1st, 2007, Mr. Wooten filed Cause No. 07-00978(1) in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, First Judicial District, against the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, Most Reverend Thomas J. Rodi, Bishop of Biloxi, and Reverend Dennis Carver. Father Carver was identified as "Pastor of St. Paul Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi," not the former pastor, in an apparent effort to obfuscate the fact that he was actually the pastor of Holy Family Parish, and not of St. Paul's Parish, which no longer existed after Hurricane Katrina made the St. Paul's parish church unusable.

Notwithstanding the fact that there was at a time no "congregation of St. Paul's Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi," the plaintiffs were referred to in the complaint as "members of the congregation of St. Paul Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi," collectively referred to as the "members." What they probably should have said was "former members of the the congregation of St. Paul Catholic Church," but that's not what they said. The term "members" was used in several places in the complaint to suggest that they collectively constituted a body solely to whom Bishop Rodi and Father Carver were accountable and, moreover, that they represented at least part of the congregation of Holy Family Parish, which they did not. The plaintiffs appeared to have cunningly established themselves as the exclusive members of a new congregation of a currently non-existent Catholic parish in an attempt to coerce the bishop to reestablish a parish and refurbish a church just for them. In a news report shortly after the suit was filed, Mr. Wooten was quoted as stating that those who filed the lawsuit wanted assurance from the court that the diocese "was holding the St. Paul's property and money in trust" for the congregation, so the property can't be sold to a developer." In reality, the complaint said nothing about selling the property to a developer. Also, Mr. Wooten did not clarify to what "congregation" he was referring.

The Mississippi Supreme Court had affirmed a lower court decision that the petitioners had no standing or interest in the matter. The loyal previous "members of the congregation of St. Paul Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi" were incorporated into the congregation of Holy Family Parish, along with members of the congregation of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, and were now supporting their bishop and his ministry as members of the combined congregation of Holy Family Parish. Some of the plaintiffs attended services as Our Lady of Lourdes Church, as they did not have a priest (or a parish, or a church) of their own. They also did not represent the members or the views of the congregation of the loyal Catholic members of Holy Family Parish.

As a member of Holy Family Parish, whose church, pastor, bishop, diocese and contributions were all involved in this controversy, I felt that I was very definitely affected by it. Yet no one asked me what I wanted or what I thought. The complaint simply did not take into account the welfare of the former members of St. Paul's Parish who had remained loyal to our pastor and bishop and were trying to work together for the benefit of all. It suggested that the plaintiffs represented us or our views, but exactly the opposite was true. Their actions and views were a liability to us all! Nobody elected them, appointed them, or died and left them in charge!

In the subsequent hearing held on the matter, I was the only person, other than the attorneys on both sides, who testified about this. I pointed out that, although I was not on the side either of the plaintiff or defendant, the funds they were talking about were my money and the money of other parishioners like myself who had donated to the support of the bishop's ministry, and what was now being sought by the plaintiffs as "punitive damages in the maximimum amount permitted by Mississippi law," as some kind of punishment of Bishop Rodi for not doing what the plaintiffs wanted. The court subsequently ruled essentially in agreement with my testimony.

Curiously, Save St. Pauls, Inc. was not named as a plaintiff. I can't guess why. I do note that our Mexican and Vietnamese parishioners had more sense than to get mixed up in this despicable foolishness. Good for them!

The complaint alleged, without any evidence, precedent, explanation or justification, that the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties thereto. In view of the fact that the subject matter intimately and irreparably entangled the State of Mississippi with the management and administration of the Roman Catholic Church and the ecclesiastical authority of its bishops, this was hardly a foregone conclusion. Indeed, Bishop Rodi's main point of rebuttal was that "this lawsuit attacks both the unity and the liberty of the Church." Whether the Chancery Court, or indeed, any civil court had jurisdiction in this matter involved the most basic of Constitutional issues. The case was dismissed on the grounds that it was a church matter into which a civil court was not allowed to intrude, which was one of the points I made in my testimony. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that civil courts have jurisdiction only over over Plaintiffs' claim of intentional misrepresentation. On the other hand, the Biblical viewpoint is pretty clear cut.

"I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren." (I Corinthians 6:5-8)

First of all, the complaint didn't even attempt to identify any precedent for any accountability of the bishop and pastor to the plaintiffs. It did say that the Diocese was conveyed one or more parcels of real property situated within the church site for the benefit of the members as "trustee", but did not define the word "trustee" at all. It did not suggest why the "members" (who were identified previously as only the "plaintiffs") should benefit, and not the parish or diocese (or community of believers) as a whole. It's a moot point, because the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had "no legally enforceable interest in the St. Paul property." In point of fact, "trustee" is a term under canon law, and identifies property belonging to the bishop with respect to his episcopal office (the cathedral, for example), and not to him personally (such as his underwear and socks). The complaint also did not indicate what was meant by "benefit," or how the "members" (the plaintiffs) failed to benefit by the bishop's and pastor's wise decision not to use valuable funds expensively to reconstitute a church that would have no liturgical function.

The complaint alleged, correctly, that Bishop Rodi was "entrusted with the care of the Diocese and its properties." and was "charged with managing and operating the Diocese in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi." It failed to point out that "entrust" in this case refered to canon law, with respect to his commission from Almighty God, not the plaintiffs, and "operating in accordance with the laws of Mississippi" means basically that the Diocese was not permitted to operate a bordello.

Whatever "trustee" means in Mississippi law, the bishop in fact owns the church property in the Diocese. It's his, under both Mississippi and canon law. He didn't hold it "in trust" for anyone. This was clear by the fact that the title transfer from Bishop Howze to Bishop Rodi involved only Bishop Howze and Bishop Rodi, nobody else. (See Pages 389 390 and 391 of Deed Book 1548, which records the transfer, attached as Exhibit "F" to the complaint.) There was never any elected or appointed agent, representative, or body of persons to whom the bishop was accountable under Mississippi (or any other legitimate) law for his decisions regarding church property or his disposition of it. The complaint did not even attempt to suggest otherwise except by omission and innuendo.

The fact is, a trust, in Mississippi law, is created by a certificate filed with the clerk of the chancery court. It does not take effect unless and until such a certificate defining the terms of the trust and identifying the trustee is filed, as Mr. Wooten should have known full well. Absent such a certificate, neither the trust nor a trustee exist. Furthermore, even if a trust had been created, Bishop Rodi would not have been the trustee under Mississippi law, because a trustee's office is not transferable

A great deal of discussion was devoted to Father Carver's solicitation of funds immediately after Hurricane Katrina to "rebuild St. Paul's Church." The complaint suggested that Bishop Rodi and Father Carver actively collaborated in a vile conspiracy to bilk the congregation (and particularly the plaintiffs) out of their hard-earned money to finance Father Carver's pet project, a brand new church in another (Our Lady of Lourdes) parish (This was ultimately done to make the new church more hurricane resistant on land that had never been inundated.) The fact was that Father Carver had always maintained that he intended to repair the St. Paul's church building in due course. Originally, he stated his (and the bishop's) intention to fully restore it as a parish church. Subsequent events made it impossible to staff it, so he made the interim decision to restore the building to usefulness for other legitimate purposes. Making those kinds of decisions was part of the job of a Catholic pastor, and didn't require (or, in fact, allow) ratification by the congregation. As far as the donors who felt that they were misled into believing that their donations would be used to rebuild the building as a church, Father Carver has freely agreed to give their money back. Well over 900 letters were sent to identifiable donors offering to return their donations. Four accepted! Four! Next case!

The decision to renovate St. Paul's Church as a general purpose building simply made good sense at the time. It would have preserveed its intrinsic value, made it available for parish and civic functions, and left open the option to convert it back into a church at some future time in the event that a priest became available to be its pastor. All of the "unharmed sacred articles" associated with the damaged church would therefore have been preserved not only for future Catholics, but also for those of other faiths who would have made use of the building in whatever capacity it survived.

This was not the first time that disgruntled members of a Catholic congregation had taken it upon themselves to challenge ecclesiastical authority as self-appointed representatives of their faithful brethren. Indeed, the entire Reformation involved questions of duties of the clergy vis-a-vis rights of the laity. But the Catholic Church is not in the least bit a democratic institution, as the members, and particularly their attorney, should have recognized. For all their money, power, notoriety, popularity or influence, Catholic laity are always subordinate to the authority of the Catholic clergy. Nobody put a gun to the plaintiffs' heads to force them to go to a Catholic church. If they had wanted to start their own parish, they would have done well to purchase the St. Paul's Church building from the Diocese, appoint a pastor, hammer out their tenets of faith, develop a liturgy, take their place in the community as fellow Christians, and leave us loyal Catholics in peace.

The complaint listed several issues before the court that I believe could have been answered as follows:

A. Was St. Paul's Church (or any other Diocesan property) held in trust for the plaintiffs? - No. The bishop owns the property, as clearly indicated by the title deed.

B. Did the bishop and the pastor as his agent have the legal right to determine the disposition of Diocesan property? - Yes, because the bishop owns it.

C. Did the bishop or pastor have a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs? - No, the property belongs to the bishop, not the plaintiffs, and no instrument establishing such a duty has been shown to exist.

D. Was pastor's decision a breach of fiduciary duty? - No, since he has no such fiduciary duty.

E. Did Mississippi law require donations for the rebuilding of St. Paul's Church to be used for that purpose? - Yes. A donor can, of course, enter into a contract, agreed to by both parties, to assure that his donation is used for only a specific purpose. Canon law requires that the provisions of such a contract must be rigidly respected, presumably as does Mississippi law. Absent such a contract, contributions are made to the church for any purpose the church authority chooses.

F. Do the bishop and pastor have to turn over money donated "for the repairing/rebuilding of St. Paul's Church" to the civil court? - Possibly, if the court found that a law or contract had been violated and such action would constitute appropriate relief. In this case, such funds were at the time in the custody of the one (and only) agency that had declared its intention to repair and rebuild the church building, namely the Diocese of Biloxi. Would anyone really expect a civil court to rebuild a Catholic Church in opposition to the decision of its own bishop??

G. Do the bishop and pastor have to account to the plaintiffs for funds donated to the Diocese? - No. The plaintiffs have no interest not shared by the other former parishioners of St. Paul's Parish. If such a duty ever existed, in the entire history of the State of Mississippi, someone should have noticed it. There is no Mississippi law that requires any such accounting to anyone.

H. Did Father Carver lie about what he was going to do with the donations he solicited? - Conceivably (though unlikely), but that would have been extremely hard to prove, given the circumstances of hurricane recovery. Making an unexpected decision based upon unforeseen circumstances does not make a lie of previously stated intentions.

I. Would disposition of the church property be in the plaintiff's best interests? - Possibly, or not. The point was moot, because the bishop was under no obligation to dispose of his property to benefit special interest groups such as the plaintiffs.

J. Should the court order the bishop to dispose of his property only as approved by the plaintiffs? - No. The court has no such authority, and the plaintiffs have no special interest not shared by the other former members of the parish. In any case, the property belongs personally to the bishop, and he can legally do with it what he wants.

K. Should the court order the bishop to reconstitute the St. Paul's Church building as a church? - No. First of all, the court has no such authority. Second, nobody would benefit by using valuable recovery funds for a church that could not have been adequately staffed. Not even the plaintiffs have suggested that the court had the authority subsequently to assign a pastor or compel liturgical services to have been held there.

The complaint identifies in minute detail the real property at issue in this matter, and notes that when the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi was created, Bishop Joseph Lawson Howze, the first Bishop of Biloxi, received this property "as trustee for the use and benefit of the members of each such Catholic Parish or Congregation." This is a requirement of canon law, not Mississippi law. The purpose of this wording was made clear, as the transfer further states: "Should at any time another person succeed to the active administration of the catholic diocese in which said property is then located whether under the title of Bishop of the Diocese, Apostolic Administrator, Administrator, or any other title, that person shall succeed to this trust." In short, the property could lawfully have been further transferred (under canon law) to anyone who is not a bishop who would logically have been the person expected to administer it. Nothing in the title deed suggests that the transfer created a fiduciary duty with respect to the alleged rights of a minority (or even all) of the members of the former congregation any more than buying a house for the use of a family creates a fiduciary duty of the title holders with respect to the alleged rights of the children who live in it. The house still belongs to whoever's name is on the title deed.

Furthermore, in Mississippi law, a trustee cannot transfer his office to another. The complaint cites two cases as evidence otherwise, Kelly v. Wilson, 36 So. 2d 817 (Miss. 1948) and Turney v. Marion County Bd. of Educ., 481 So. 2d 770, 777-778 (Miss. 1985), but neither of these cases has anything to do with a church, the responsibilities of a bishop, or duties to members of a religious congregation. They certainly have nothing to do with this matter, and the law itself is pretty clear.

The complaint also presented several opinions that it incorrectly (and, in my view, perjuriously) called "pertinent facts." Some of these were:

A. St. Paul's Church was capable of being repaired as a church at a reasonable expense of less than $2,500,000.00. No estimate, list of expenses or repair plan was incorporated to substantiate this figure. Even if it were correct, it was likely to have been substantially more than what would have been required to refurbish the building for some legitimate purpose to which it could reasonably have been expected to have been put. There was simply no one available to serve as pastor to justify the additional expense of reconstituting it as a church.

B. Reverend Carver did not take adequate care of the St. Paul's Church site. On the face of it, this was a bald faced lie! Unlike the officers of Save St. Pauls, Inc. Father Carver's home and personal belongings were washed away by the storm surge that gutted St. Paul's Church. But he didn't sit around complaining about it! He worked tirelessly, certainly more than any other member of the parish, to preserve, protect, and clean up the church property. In view of the unholy mess that was left by the Katrina, the state of restoration of the church and grounds at the time the complaint was filed was little less than a miracle! The church building was conspicuous in Pass Christian for being one of the first buildings to have been repaired to prevent further deterioration, unlike some structures that were still standing open to the elements. Perhaps if his time, effort and money were not diverted to defending himself against mean and frivolous lawsuits, he could have more efficiently continued his exemplary work. Save St. Paul's church? It was already saved, thanks to Father Carver.

C. Reverend Carver has breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs. Another bald faced lie. He has no such fiduciary duty, and even if he did, it would have been to the congregation of Holy Family Parish he serves at the pleasure of Bishop Rodi, not the plaintiffs' special interest group.

D. Plaintiffs were damaged by Bishop Rodi's decision to reestablish two churches and then changing his mind. Even if true, the plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence to support this allegation, or to show that Bishop Rodi or Father Carver incurred any liability as a result.

E. Reverend Carver acted irresponsibly or in bad faith in his decisions regarding the disposition of funds to repair St. Paul's Church. Even if this were true, which it was not, no evidence was submitted by the plaintiffs that he acted outside his authority under Mississippi law, or that he committed a crime, or that Mississippi law required him to act other than a manner in which he in fact acted. The fact that a minority of the members of a now defunct parish do not agree with decisions that he made in his capacity as a duly constituted pastor of a church did not in any way imply that they were bad decisions or that a civil court should, or, indeed, had the authority, to reverse them.

The "legal analysis" of the complaint consists of little more than unsupported allegations, most of which were irrelevant, even if true. There was no evidence that Bishop holds the property in question in "trust," as defined by Mississippi law for anyone, certainly not a minority of disgruntled former parishioners of a former parish. There was no evidence given that the bishop was compelled in law to act in the best interests of this special group, so whether or not he had done so was simply not an issue. Neither was whether or not the bishop had acted, or was acting, in a fiscally responsible manner, although it is difficult to imagine a less responsible decision than to spend precious hurricane recovery assets to reestablish a Catholic Church in which no Catholic services would likely have been held. All of the conclusions arise logically from the premise that the Bishop of Biloxi was somehow accountable to the plaintiffs to act in a manner approved by them and by no one else. Since the premise is false, so were the conclusions.

Notwithstanding the above, the plaintiffs were requesting the court to do several things. Among them were:

A. Render findings, without evidence or precedent, that the allegations made by the plaintiffs were all true.

B. Order Bishop Rodi and Father Carver to accede to all their demands, and,

C. Pay the plaintiffs money donated to the Catholic Church - lots of money! To quote, "the maximum amount allowed under Mississippi law; and ... all of their costs, expenses and attorney's fees incurred in the prosecution of the complaint." Don't take my word for it, folks; take a look at the complaint, page 35, items 10 and 11.

Far from assuring that "the property can't be sold to a developer," the complaint as written would, if so ordered by the court (and upheld upon appeal, which was not likely either), take funds already allocated by the bishop and pastor specifically for the rebuilding of St. Paul's Church and leave Holy Family Parish so bankrupt that they might well have to sell the property to a developer to make the court-ordered payments. What did Jesus say about hypocrites?

The plaintiffs may have started out with good intentions and high ideals, but somewhere along the way they lost their sense of proportion. These people were not even pretending that they wanted the court to rule that "the property can't be sold to a developer." They were not asking for only a change in plans. They were not asking only for compensatory damages. They wanted punitive damages! They wanted to punish their pastor and bishop by taking from their loyal fellow parishioners' contributions money that would otherwise have been used for the benefit of all!

Hurricane Katrina wasn't bad enough! These people wanted money! filthy lucre! the maximum amount allowed under Mississippi law, from the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi and Holy Family Parish, money contributed by people like me, money desperately needed to rebuild schools for our children and young people. How did they allow this to happen? When did they become opponents of their own clergy? The plaintiffs were asking for this money for themselves, and they were willing to dishonor the religion they professed and to sue their own bishop and their own pastor in civil court to get it!

I agree with St. Paul of Tarsus. For SHAME people! For SHAME!

"For the love of money is the root of all evils." [1 Timothy 6:10]

PS: On February 27, 2008, Judge Thomas L. Zebert, Specially Appointed Chancery Court Judge, dismissed the suit with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs immediately appealed this decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which supported the chancellor's decision with respect to all items, except that it found that the Chancery Court did have subject matter jurisdiction over allegations of improper diversion of designated funds. Given that the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi has already offered to return funds as noted above, it is unlikely that the court will find for the plaintiffs. We'll see.

PPS: On Election Day in Long Beach, May 5th, 2009, I encountered a lady at the United Methodist Church polling place who directed my attention to a half-page ad in the Gulfport/Biloxi Sun-Herald the day before. This lady couldn't understand why the "Catholic Church" was "discriminating" against these "nice people."

The following is the text of the letter, and my comments.

SAVE ST. PAUL CHURCH

A LETTER FROM PARISHIONERS

We are a group of 150 parishioners of St. Paul Church in Pass Christian who call on Father Dennis Carver and Bishop Roger Morin to reconsider the decision to abandon St. Paul Catholic Church in downtown Pass Christian in favor of building a new facility north of the city in the unincorporated area of Pineville.

In light of the news of the rebuilding of all of the other churches in the city of Pass Christian and the Catholic beachfront churches of St. Thomas in Long beach and St. Michael in Biloxi, and considering the harsh economic times that we are facing, we believe that the time is right for you to re-examine the decision to not restore St. Paul Church.

St. Paul Church can be completely restored to its previous condition for less than two and a half million dollars which we have pledged to raise for this project. The new church that you are proposing in Pineville will cost no less than eight million dollars, and we suggest that to spend that much money on a facility that will be no larger than the existing church makes no sense as our parishioners are dealing with economic hardships. The new church has also been staunchly opposed by its neighbors.

All of the churches of other faiths have recognized a commitment to the City of Pass Christian and are in the process of rebuilding their former structures.

We implore you not to abandon the town where we have worshipped for over 150 years. It is time to come together and reconsider the decision for our town, our community, and our parishioners. Please find it your heart to take a new look at this issue.

Save St. Pauls, Inc.

One cannot help but wonder why these people published their letter in a newspaper instead of sending it to the people to whom it was supposedly addressed. Were they appealing to Bishop Morin or to Mississippi public opinion? Did they really believe that this action was going to achieve any good purpose?

This shows how these people twist meaning to serve their own purposes. Nobody decided to abandon the church. It was one of the first buildings to have been secured and cleaned up after Hurricane Katrina. Archbishop Rodi's expressed intention, subject to change, of course, was to refurbish it as a community center when funds and circumstances permitted. Funds that might otherwise have been available for this purpose were being spent to defend the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi against frivolous lawsuits which the plaintiffs have already lost, both in civil court and church courts.

It should perhaps be noted that none of the other churches that were being rebuilt had to deal with civil complaints from people who were trying to get the money donated for rebuilding for themselves.

Given the duplicity of these people so far, I would not depend on any "pledges." Even if the "pledge" was in good faith, there was no indication that it would also include the money these people had sucked out of the generosity of their fellow parishioners in legal fees. There was no indication that these people had actually raised a single dime for this purpose! On the other hand, reconstruction money for a new church was available at the time from proceeds of insurance paid for by generations of other parishioners. Construction could have started immediately if the plaintiffs had quit opposing it! (Note: A new Church, dedicated to the Holy Family, was built next to Our Lady of Lourdes Church, to accommodate both their congregation and that of St. Paul's. In addition, a small chapel, essentially a clone of the original St. Paul's Church in Pass Christian, was built on the St. Paul's site as a gesture of good will on the part of Bishop Rodi.)

One of the economic hardships the former parishioners of St. Paul's Church had to face was that money they had donated for rebuilding had been sucked up in attorney's fees by this nonsense!

The chief opposition has come from plaintiffs.

Catholics have always recognized that their commitment to God comes first. One has to wonder where these people's priorities were.

If these people's "worship" includes trying to line their own pockets with the donations of fellow parishioners, the City of Pass Christian can do without them, and so can the Catholic Church.

It was difficult to see how filing a lawsuit against one's own church and its leaders helped any attempt to "come together."

Remember what these people asked the civil court to do. They specifically wanted the court to:

1. Find that defendants were holding the contributions of other people for the plaintiffs' benefit, (See the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion on this item, below.)

2. Make the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi responsible to the plaintiffs instead of to the bishop for expenditure of diocese funds (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction),

3. Determine the standards to be applied to the way the Catholic Church spends money donated to it by anyone (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction),

4. Find that the plaintiffs were damaged by the bishop's decision to build a new church rather than refurbish St. Paul's (See the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion on this item, below.),

5. Award plaintiffs compensatory damages (See the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion on this item, below.),

6. Dictate to the Bishop of Biloxi what he was allowed to do with his own property (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction),

7. Require the Bishop of Biloxi to spend funds only as approved by plaintiffs (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction),

8. Require the Bishop of Biloxi to provide an accounting to plaintiffs (only) for all funds related in any way to the rebuilding of St. Paul's church and school (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction),

9. Compensate the plaintiffs for any funds which the donors themselves freely agreed to divert to purposes other than those for which they originally had been donated (See the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion on this item, below.),

10. Award the plaintiffs (only) "punitive damages against such Defendants in the maximum amount allowed under Mississippi law (See the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion on this item, below.), and

11. Award plaintiffs all of their costs, expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution of this complaint.

As I have already said, if these people don't feel like accepting the decisions of their own bishop, they could have simply bought St. Paul's Church building from the Diocese with the money they spent on stupid lawsuits (or what they intended to get in "pledges,") appoint a pastor, hammer out their tenets of faith, develop a liturgy, take their place as fellow Christians in whatever community they choose, and leave us loyal Catholics in peace.

Of course, then they wouldn't get any of our MONEY!

PPPS: On September 17, 2008, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued its findings and ruling on this case. The Court found in part:

The extent of Plaintiffs' property or beneficial interest in the St. Paul property, if any, was inextricably tied to their status as members of St. Paul Church or Parish. Because such church or parish no longer existed, Plaintiffs had no standing to assert a claim for any interest they may or may not have had in church property.

Plaintiffs ... had no legally enforceable interest in the St. Paul property and lacked standing to assert a resulting trust, as well ... Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert that the St. Paul property was held in trust for their benefit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the chancellor's finding that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist over this particular claim.

The chancellor correctly determined that our (Mississippi) courts may not consider whether Church Defendants' management or administrative decisions were fiscally irresponsible, or whether those decisions were in the best interests of parishioners.

The Court did not in any way suggest that Church Defendants had improperly diverted designated funds. The only issue before it was whether Mississippi courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The Court simply found that a religious entity was not exempt from these types of suits in a court of law.

The Court found that subject matter jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs' claim of intentional misrepresentation; therefore, it reversed the chancellor on this matter alone, and remanded this issue for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. By doing so, It did not suggest that Father Carver did, in fact, act fraudulently; only that a facial motion to dismiss must take the allegations in the complaint as true.

The Diocese of Biloxi subsequently issued the following statement about the court decision:

"The Diocese of Biloxi is pleased that the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that the land, buildings and insurance settlement proceeds related to the former St. Paul Parish belong to Holy Family parish. With regard to the remaining issues that have been remanded to the Chancery Court, we are confident that after the court considers all of the evidence, that the church defendants will prevail. We are hopeful that this unfortunate litigation will soon be favorably concluded."

PPPPS: On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, the Board of Aldermen of the City of Pass Christian voted unanimously to allow the St. Paul church building to be razed, notwithstanding protests and a previous decision by the city's Historical Preservation Commission. The Catholic Diocese of Biloxi had asked for permission to demolish the church because structural problems prevented economically refurbishing the damaged building. The SSP coalition disagreed, claiming that the building was a historical landmark, but did not present compelling evidence of their claim or offer to restore the building to permit occupancy. Pass Christian mayor Chipper McDermott, one of the "Save St. Paul's" plaintiffs, promptly vetoed the Board's decision, but the Board subsequently overrode the veto on November 16th.

Perhaps predictably, members of "Save St. Paul's" appealed the board's decision to the Harrison County circuit court. Their suit alleged that aldermen violated the open meetings statute, and that their action was thus without legal effect. However, demolition of the church began on December 20th, and the site now stands as a grassy vacant lot, and is currently up for sale.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves... Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15, 16)

"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4)