Save St. Paul's?

Why?

The source of all this trouble seems to be the members of an organization known as Save St. Pauls, Inc, a Mississippi corporation created on April 24th, 2007. Its officers were listed as Frank Schmidt, president; Ken Austin, treasurer; and Joanne Kinney, secretary. Its initial Board of Directors consists of Bill Andry, Jane Dennis, Gayle Parker*, Tom Phares, Linda Wittmann, and Marjorie Schroeder. Its registered Agent is Ken Austin, 300 Davis Avenue, Suite 101, Pass Christian, MS 39571, and its attorney is Eric D Wooten, 2300 20th Street, Gulfport MS 39501. Mr. Wooten's law offices of Vaughn, Bowden & Wooten, PA are identified as having telephone number 228-863-5656.

On May 1st, 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 is identified as "Pastor of St. Paul Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi," in an apparent effort to obfuscate the fact that he is actually the pastor of Holy Family Parish, and not of St. Paul's Parish, which no longer exists after Hurricane Katrina made the parish church, St. Paul's, unusable.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is currently no "congregation of St. Paul's Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi," the plaintiffs are referred to in the complaint as "members of the congregation of St. Paul Catholic Church, Pass Christian, Mississippi," collectively referred to as the "members." The term "members" is used in several places in the complaint to suggest that they collectively constitute a body solely to whom Bishop Rodi and Father Carver are accountable and, moreover, that they represent the congregation of Holy Family Parish, which they do not. The plaintiffs appear 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. Mr. Wooten is quoted as stating that those who filed the lawsuit want assurance from the court that the diocese is 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 says nothing about selling the property to a developer, and there has never been the slightest indication that such is anyone's intention. Also, Mr. Wooten did not clarify to what "congregation" he was referring.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court decision that the petitioners have 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 are now supporting their bishop and his ministry as members of the congregation of Holy Family Parish. One sees some of the plaintiffs at Our Lady of Lourdes Church, as they do not have a priest (or a parish, or a church) of their own. They also do 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 are all involved in this controversy, I feel that I am very definitely affected by it. Yet no one has asked me what I want or what I think. The complaint simply does not take into account the welfare of the former members of St. Paul's Parish who have remained loyal to our pastor and bishop and are trying to work together for the benefit of all. It suggests that the plaintiffs represent us or our views, but exactly the opposite is true. Their actions and views are a liability to us all! Nobody elected them, appointed them, or died and left them in charge!

The plaintiffs are, however, generally well known in Holy Family Parish. They are:

*Chipper McDermott is currently the mayor of Pass Christian. Gayle Parker is currently the Circuit Clerk of Harrison County. The others noted, are lay ministers of various kinds in Holy Family Parish.

Curiously, Save St. Pauls, Inc. is 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 alleges, without any evidence, precedent, explanation or justification, that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties thereto. In view of the fact that the subject matter intimately and irreparably entangles the State of Mississippi with the management and administration of the Roman Catholic Church and the ecclesiastical authority of its bishops, this is 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 has jurisdiction in this matter involves the most basic of Constitutional issues. The case was dismissed on the grounds that it is a church matter into which a civil court is not allowed to intrude. 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 say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers? But rather brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers? Now indeed (then) it is, in any case, a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers." [1 Corinthians 6:5-8]

First of all, the complaint doesn't even attempt to identify any precedent for any accountability of the bishop and pastor to the plaintiffs. It does 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 does not define the word "trustee" at all. It does not suggest why the "members" (who are identified previously as only the "plaintiffs") should benefit, and not the parish or diocese (or community of believers) as a whole. 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). The complaint also does not indicate what is meant by "benefit," or how the "members" (the plaintiffs) fail 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 alleges, correctly, that Bishop Rodi is "entrusted with the care of the Diocese and its properties." and is "charged with managing and operating the Diocese in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi." It fails to point out that "entrust" in this case refers 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 is 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 doesn't hold it "in trust" for anyone. This is 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 is not, and never was, any elected or appointed agent, representative, or body of persons to whom the bishop is or was accountable under Mississippi (or any other legitimate) law for his decisions regarding church property or his disposition of it. The complaint does 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 is filed, as Mr. Wooten should know 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 be the trustee under Mississippi law, because a trustee's office is not transferable

A great deal of discussion is devoted to Father Carver's solicitation of funds immediately after Hurricane Katrina to "rebuild St. Paul's Church." The complaint suggests 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. The fact is that Father Carver has always maintained that he intends 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 decision to restore the building to usefulness for other legitimate purposes. Making those kinds of decisions is part of the job of a Catholic pastor, and doesn't require (or, in fact, allow) ratification by the congregation. As far as the donors who feel 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 makes good sense. It preserves its intrinsic value, makes it available for parish and civic functions, and leaves open the option to convert it back into a church at some future time in the event that a priest becomes available to be its pastor. All of the "unharmed sacred articles" associated with the damaged church will therefore be preserved not only for future Catholics, but also for those of other faiths who make use of the building in whatever capacity it survives.

This is not the first time that disgruntled members of a Catholic congregation have 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 recognize. 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 want to start their own parish, they would do 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 lists several issues before the court that I believe can be answered as follows. You can read or download a more detailed discussion in my amicus curiae brief.

A. Is 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. Does 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. Does 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. Is pastor's decision a breach of fiduciary duty? - No, since he has no such fiduciary duty.

E. Does Mississippi law require donations for the rebuilding of St. Paul's Church to be used for that purpose? - 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. 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 are now in the custody of the one (and only) agency that has 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 be 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 is moot, because the bishop is 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.

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 be adequately staffed. Not even the plaintiffs have suggested that the court had the authority subsequently to assign a pastor or compel liturgical services to be 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 is 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 can lawfully be further transferred (under canon law) to anyone who is not a bishop who would logically be 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 of the members of the former congregation any more than buying a house for the use of a family creates a fiduciary duty with respect to the alleged rights of a minority of the children. 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 presents several opinions that it incorrectly (and, in my view, perjuriously) calls "pertinent facts." Some of these are:

A. St. Paul's Church is 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 is incorporated to substantiate this figure. Even if this figure is correct, it is likely to be substantially more than what would be required to refurbish the building for some legitimate purpose to which it could reasonably be expected to be put. There is simply no one available to serve as pastor to justify the additional expense of reconstituting it as a church.

B. Reverend Carver does not take adequate care of the St. Paul's Church site. On the face of it, this is 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 present state of restoration of the church and grounds is little less than a miracle! The church building was and is conspicuous in Pass Christian for being one of the first buildings to be repaired to prevent further deterioration, unlike some structures that are 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 more efficiently continue his exemplary work. Save St. Paul's church? It's 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 be 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 is true, which it is not, no evidence has been submitted by the plaintiffs that he acted outside his authority under Mississippi law, or that he committed a crime, or that Mississippi law requires him to act other than a manner in which he has acted. The fact that a minority of the members of a now defunct parish do not agree with decisions that he has made in his capacity as a duly constituted pastor of a church does not in any way imply that they were bad decisions or that a civil court should, or, indeed, has the authority, to reverse them.

The "legal analysis" of the complaint consists of little more than unsupported allegations, most of which are irrelevant, even if true. There is 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 is no evidence given that the bishop is compelled in law to act in the best interests of this special group, so whether or not he has done so is simply not an issue. Neither is whether or not the bishop has acted, or is 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 be held. All of the conclusions arise logically from the premise that the Bishop of Biloxi is somehow accountable to the plaintiffs to act in a manner approved by them and by no one else. Since the premise is false, so are the conclusions.

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

A. Render findings, without evidence or precedent, that the allegations made by the plaintiffs are 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 is not likely), 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 are not even pretending that they want the court to rule that "the property can't be sold to a developer." They are not asking for only a change in plans. They're not asking only for compensatory damages. They want punitive damages! They want to punish their pastor and bishop by taking from their loyal fellow parishioners' contributions money that would otherwise be used for the benefit of all!

Hurricane Katrina wasn't bad enough! These people want 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 are asking for this money for themselves, and they are willing to dishonor the religion they profess and to sue their own bishop and their own pastor 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]

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. Are they appealing to Bishop Morin or to Mississippi public opinion? Do they really believe that this action is 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 be 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 permit. Funds that might otherwise be available for this purpose are 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 are being rebuilt has had to deal with civil complaints from people who are 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" is in good faith, there is no indication that it would also include the money these people have sucked out of the generosity of their fellow parishioners in legal fees. There is no indication that these people have actually raised a single dime for this purpose! On the other hand, reconstruction money for any new church is available now from proceeds of insurance paid for by generations of other parishioners. Construction could start immediately if the plaintiffs would quit opposing it!

One of the economic hardships the former parishioners of St. Paul's Church have had to face is that money they have donated for rebuilding has 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 lie.

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 is difficult to see how filing a lawsuit against one's own church and its leaders helps 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 are 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 is 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 can simply buy St. Paul's Church building from the Diocese with the money they're now spending on stupid lawsuits (or what they intend 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 exists, Plaintiffs have no standing to assert a claim for any interest they may or may not have had in church property.

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

The chancellor correctly determined that our 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 have improperly diverted designated funds. The only issue before it was whether our courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The Court simply found that a religious entity is 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.

You can read the full text of the Court's decision at: http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/20090917/0800416.html

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."

"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 )