 |
|
| The following is from The Allegan Gazette November 19, 1898
MAY BUILD A CHURCH North Dorr Catholic Church Case Decided in Favor of the Defendents -- Some of the Facts Brought Out in the Testimony -- Judge Padgham's Opinion Last Saturday (Nov. 12, 1898), Judge Padgham filed his opionion in the North Dorr Catholic church case, John S. Foley vs. Matthias Kielbusch, etal., which was tried at the October term of circuit court. The opinion is in favor of the defendents, and they can go ahead with the building of their church, unless the complainant, Bishop Foley, appeals to the supreme court. The defendants were appointed to constitute a building committee to build a church in St. Mary's parish, North Dorr, to replace the one struck by lightning and burned April 24, 1896. After they had begun the work, Bishop Foley, in whose diocese the parish is located, secured an injunction, last July, and stopped it, claiming that the ground upon which the people proposed to build was his and that they were interfering with his rights and injuring his property. In the evidence introduced at the hearing of the case, a number of interesting facts were brought out. The congregation, acting under the advice of their priest, had collected money by subscription: material had been donated and drawn; plans and specifications had been prepared and accepted, the debris cleared away and the foundation for the new church laid, and the contract for building the church had been let. All these things the people and committee supposed and understrood to have been done with the knowledge and consent of Bishop Foley. The first trouble occurred several years ago. In 1882, a new diocese was created in the state, the dividing line of which ran along the northern boundery of this county, St. Mary's parish was composed of parts of Dorr, Jamestown, in Ottawa county, and Byron, in Kent county and the division placed the people of the parish living outside this county under the Grand Rapids diocese, of which Bishop Richter had charge. Not wishing to separate in church and school matters, the congregation petitioned the Pope at Rome to be allowed to worship together, as they had build the church, school-house, and priest house, and used the cemetery together, and their reuest was granted. Matters went along as usual until 1891, when Bishop Foley, soon after his appointment as bishop, visited the parish and told the congregation that if they did not build a better priest house he would take their priest away. They at once began raising money and built the priest house now standing there, which cost nearly $3000. The ground in question is about two acres, and it has been used for church purposes since 1858. March 12th of that year, it was given for such by Mathias Herrig and wife, who deeded it to Peter Paul LeFever without conditions. In his will, Father LeFever transferred the land to Rev. John B. Purcell, Roman Catholic bishop of Cincinnatti, and Rev. Peter Richard Keurick, bishop of St. Louis, Mo., and to their survivors, and their heirs and assign forever. The will was dated Dec. 31, 1863, and was probated in Wayne county June 7, 1870. The above-named bishops deeded land to Casper H. Borgess of Detroit, and the deed was executed in Rome, June 27, 1870. Rev. Borgess deeded it to Bishop Foley, Nov. 16, 1888, and the letter therefore claimed title in free simple. The defendants asserted that he held it in trust only for the congregation of St. Mary's church of North Dorr, as under the canons of the church the title of all such property in the diocese is vested in the bishop. At the time of the fire, the church was insured for $3000 in the name of Bishop Foley, to whom the insurance was paid. The bishop turned the money over to the priest of the parish to be used to rebuild the church. After this the bishop sought to have the parish separated and the members of the congregation living in Jamestown and Byron placed under the jurisdiction of Bishop Richter of the Grand Rapids diocese, but the plan did not meet with favor. The residents of Jamestown and Byron who had been worshiping in the parish petitioned Bishop Richter to be allowed to continue worshiping there but their request was denied. They appealed to the apostolic delegate at Washington and he sustained the bishop. They then appealed to the Pope, who sustained the delegate. This caused trouble between the congregation and Bihop Foley, and the question arose whether the congregation could build a church without the written consent of the bihop. The rules of the Roman Catholic church ustained the bishop, who claimed such written consent had not been submitted to him, nor had been given, and that the plans and specifications had not been submitted to him, nor had he been informed of the amount of the subscriptions. The people claimed that written consent to build had been granted. The testimony on this was somewhat conflicting up to a certain point, when it showed that the bishop had withdrawn any consent to build, if such had been given by him, and that he directed that they should not build unless they complied with the conditions he demanded of that portion of the congregation living in North Dorr. These conditions appeared to be, aide from the submitting of the plans, etc. to him, the pasage of resolutions in substance a follows: That they sincerely regretted the misunderstanding between themselves and the bihop over the building of a church; that they had separated from the parish of Byron, in the diocese of Grand Rapids, duly established as a separate parish established in the diocese of Detroit; that the families or individuals residing in the parish of Byron can have no parochial rights in the parish of St. Mary's, Dorr. These resolutions were submitted to the congregation by Rev. Benjamine Schmittdiel on June 29, 1897, upon order of the bishop, and the congregation refused to adopt them, except the one concerning the alleged misunderstanding. On March 16, 1898, another priest, Rev. John P. Heiton, was sent to St. Mary's parish with similar resolutions, which he submitted, with the same result. Hi instructions were to recognize no committee or so-called trustees claiming to have charge of the property, as no such committee existed; that "No action is to be taken in regard to the building of the church until there is complete submission to the demands made through the Rev. Benjamine Schmittdiel on June 29, 1897, by the right reverend bishop": that the rejection of the conditions assigned would "necessitate interdice upon the parish of Dorr and the establishment of a church at some other place." Three priests gave testimony to the effect that if the congregation had signed the conditions imposed they would have been allowed to build the church. In his opinion, Judge Padgham says: "It unmistakedly appears from all the evidence in the case that the objection of Bishop Foley to the
congregation going and putting up thi church on the premises in question was not because some rule of the
church forbade it, or that any injury to or destruction of property would result from such action on the
part of the congregation to these defendants, but it appears that this suit in equity was begun by
complainant to compel the congregation to accede to certain conditions which rested entirely with the bishop
and were purely matters of discipline and not required by any law, canon, or rule of the Roman Catholic
church. It appears to have been an arbitray demand on the part of the compainant which defendants were
not called upon by any rule of the church to obey; and, as one of the witnesses on the part of the defendants
testified, when he went to interced with the bishop for a new building, the bishop said he would either
subdue or ruin the congregation. I am of the opinion that the complaint John S. Foley, as bishop, holds the
legal estate in this land as trustee, and the said Roman Catholic church of North Dorr is a ceitui que
trust or beneficiary and has the equitable estate. That the said trustee holds the same upon a confidence
reposed in him, that he will do or permit concerning the property whatever is required by the nature of the
beneficiaries' interest. Dated: 1898 . |
Return
to Home Page
All rights reserved.
This site may be freely
linked to but not duplicated
in any fashion without my consent.
The information
on these pages is meant for personal genealogical
research only and is not
for commercial use of any type.
Last
Updated on 10/16/2019
By Lynn Matt