SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
#39
(04-20-2012, 01:08 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: So you're telling me you could take away the SSPX's property, because back then it worked different. Because you took away their property, they changed the way they handle property. Because of that, the pope can now take away their property.
But now they can't change it back why exactly? Because another Fr. Cekada might come along and take it away again?
It seems the SSPX will be losing their property no matter what.

I'm trying very hard to believe that you are of good will, but you're making it difficult to do so.

Yes, the legal situation different then because Abp Lefevbre and SSPX HAD NO CONSISTENT POLICY ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WHEN I WAS IN SSPX.

When the break occurred, SSPX tried to argue the "deference to hierarchy" approach, but there was no specific language they could point to in either (a) SSPX's internal rules, or (b) any of the civil corporation documents that clearly established their claim. As a result, the litigation dragged on and SSPX had to fight an uphill battle against us.

To avoid a repeat of this, SSPX most probably incorporated the "deference to hierarchy" language in all their corporate documents.

And yes, this change would indeed allow Benedict XVI and his successors the ultimate say-so over who controls SSPX chapel, seminary, school, college and institutional properties, and thus also the activities that go on in them.

The second scenario you added to your post wouldn't stand what lawyers call "the red face test," and would be barred by various obscure legal principles (estoppel and laches, I think) that prevent someone from waiting too long to make a claim.

And hey — what's wrong with having another Fr. Cekada or two?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada - by FatherCekada - 04-20-2012, 01:38 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)