TRANSLATOR'S NOTE:
111is is a translation of the Definitive Sentence of the College o/Judges of the supreme
'l i'ibunal o/Apostolic S ignatura, written in Latin, dated August II , 2011 .
The College o/Judges of the Signatura '.I' /iIll bench of the Signatura (th e "Plenaty'') was
appointed by the prefect, Archbishop Raymond Burke to review the appeal made against
the previous decisions o/the Congregation/or the Clergy and the bishop of Syracuse,
suppressing the parish of St. Maty in Jamesville, NY, and relegating the parochial church
to profane use. These decisions were challenged by the appellants.
There is no fi.lrther canonical appeal possible in the context
0/ canon law.
The items in the text below il/. square brackets are the translator '.I' comments or
clarifica tions.
The items below ill roulld brackets are ./i'om the original..
All bolded items are ./i·om the decree.
Boston, MA
September 4, 2011
Supreme Tribunal of the Signatura Apostolica
August 12,20 11
Protocol no. 41719/08 CA
Syracuse
Suppressioll of the parish of St. Mary ill "Jamesville" alld reduction of the church to
profane use
(Mrs. C. K. LaTray et alii - Congregation for the Clergy)
Dear Ms. LaTray,
[in English] Please find enclosed, for yo ur information, a copy of the definite [sic]
sentence iss ued in the above-titled case by the Coll ege of Judges of the Apostolic
Signatura on 2 1 May 20 II.
With every good wish, [ remain
Sincerely yours,
Frans DANEELS, o. praem. , Secre/my [of the Signatural
Ms. Colleen LaTray
Post Office Box 441
Jamesville, New York 13078
USA
(with enclosure)
2
Protocol no. 41719/08 CA
Syracnse
Suppression of the parish of St. Mary ill "Jamesville" and reduction of the church to
profane use
(Mrs. c. K. LaTray et alii - Congregation for the C lergy)
DEFINITrVE SENTENCE
IN THE NAME OF THE LORD. AMEN
I n the VIlth year of the Pontificate of Pope Benedict's fortunate reign, on May 21 , 20 II
the Supreme Tribunal of the Aposto li c Signatura, in the presence of their Eminences
Rev . Raymond Leo Card. Burke, Prefect, Carlo Card. Caffarra , recorder, Giovanni Card .
Lajolo, their Excellencies Rev. Xav ier Echevarria Rodriguez and Fi lippo Iannone, O.
Carm ., and with the distinguished Advocate Carlo Gu llo, being the patron [lawyer] for
the appellants [parishioners], with the di stingui shed Advocate Martha Wegan being the
patron for the Congregation for t he Clergy and Hi s Exce llency Rev. Marco Graulich ,
S.D.B. , Assistant Promoter of Justi ce, in the case reference above, brought forward thi s
definitive sentence.
1. Facts of the Case
l. On November 1, 200 I, the Bishop of Syracuse published pastoral letters " [in
Engli sh] Eq uipping the Saints for the Work of the Min istry" which explained the
necess ity for examining and reordering the pastoral structures [churches] in the diocese,
because of changing ecclesiastical and social conditions.
In these same letters, Hi s Exce ll ency the Bishop asked every parish to reflect on
this reordering within the context of its respecti ve pastoral region . A particular region
consisted of the pastoral grouping including the parish of Holy Cross in the local e known
as " DeWitt" and SI. Mary in the loca le known as "Jamesv ille," as well as the chapel of
the university for studies known as "Syracuse University. "
By letters of May 25, 2006, the Rev. Mons. 1. Lang, the Episcopal vicar for
pari shes, informed Rev. Baranski, parochial administrator ofSt Mary, that His
Excell ency the Bishop in accordance with canon 515
~2
had heard the Presbyteral
3
Council which had recommended the changing of said parish into a so-called miss ion or a
quas i-pari sh, joined with the parish of Holy Trinity in the local e known as "De Witt," and
that Hi s Excellency the Bishop had accepted this recommendation and had established
October I, 2006 as the effective date.
Thi s decision, made known to all parishioners, was not challenged at that time.
Beforehand however the reassessment of the reordering of ecclesiastical life in
that pastoral region had already started, but without a general consensus.
2. In the meantime thirty -four pastoral regions, into which the diocese had been
divided, sent their first reports, which then the Rev. Mons. episcopal Vicar [Lang]
together with the College of Consultors weighed carefully. O n April 11 , 2007, the
defi nitive recommendation was presented to His Excellency the Bishop.
On April 20 and 27, 2007, His Excell ency the Bishop presented the matter to the
Presbyteral Council in accordance with canon 515
'2.
With regard to the parish, on
Apri l 27, 2007 the [presbyteral] Coun cil unan imously approved the proposition that " [in
Eng li sh] St Mary Mission in Jamesvi lle would close on August 16, 2007 entrusting the
ca re for its area and peopl e to Holy Cross in DeWitt."
On the same day April 27, 2007, His Excelle ncy the Bishop made known hi s
deci sion to each family [of the parish], stating that "[in E ngli sh] its mini stries will be
consolidated with Holy Cross Parish in DeWitt," effective from July 1,2007.
However on May 1,2007, Mrs. LaTray, together with three other parishioners
petitioned His Excellency the Bishop of Syracuse for " [in Engli sh] reconsideration
of. .. decision to close St Mary ' s parish and the church," indicating that additional news
and the naming ofa canon advocate wo uld be transmitted [to the bishop]' In fact at the
same time, i.e. on the same day, they [the appellants] went to the Congregation for the
Clergy itself
A petition was sent on May 5, 2007, from 88 faithful including Mrs. LaTray ,
aski ng whether Hi s Excell ency the Bishop would wish to revoke hi s decision.
On June 4, 2007, the Congregation for the Clergy replied to Mrs. LaTray, stating
that the aforesaid petition co uld not be considered a hi erarchi ca l appeal.
4
However in the meantime, on May 26, 2007, Mrs. LaTray et alii sent a second
petition on the merits of the case to His Excellency the Bishop as well as to the
Congregation for the Clergy.
Thereafter by letter on June 12, 2007, the Rev. Mons. episcopal Vicar for
Syracuse answered the petitions sent to His Excellency the Bishop, explaining the entire
matter of the merger and the reasons set out in the decision. I-Ie him self distinguished
between two administrative acts, of course the change of St. Mary from a parish to a
quasi-parish, whose change of status was not contested by anyone, and its extincti ve
merger [suppression and then merger] with the parish of Holy Cross in accordance with
"[in English action of amalgamation i.e. consolidation, merger]" Finally he indicated
that His Excellency the Bishop had confirmed hi s [the bishop's] decision.
Thereafter on June 20, 2007, Mrs. LaTray and the other appellants communicated
with the Congregation for the Clergy, confirming their hi erarchical recourse, and on June
27, 2007, infonnedHis Exce llency the B ishop of their appeal.
However on August 5, 2008, the Congregation by decree (protocol no. 20082142 )
rejected the recourse and confirmed the decision ofl-lis Exce ll ency the Bishop "in
procedendo et in decernendo" [on the legal procedure and on the legal merits].
3. Against thi s adverse decision Mrs. LaTray together with Mr. Mark A.
Donnelly presented an appeal to the H.S.T. [the Signatural on August 26, 2008.
On December 4, 2009, the Signatura Aposto lica established that the recourse had
"fim1O boni iuris" [technical Signatura term meaning - essentially - valid cause for
rev iew by the Signatura, i.e. to be accepted for review ; something like a writ of certiorari
by the U.S. Supreme Court], and therefore should be admitted for discussion among
Thei r Eminences and Their Excellencies the Fathers [the judges of the Signatural and on
December 22, 2009, by decree ruled that it [admission for review] should be granted and
in fact conceded a suspension with regard to the closing of the church, only however with
the understanding that I-lis Excellency the Bis hop during the appeal should safeguard it
[the church] and the goods of the suppressed parish ofSt. Mary.
Finally, on January 16, 20 10 the issue to be reso lved [by the judges] was agreed
upon by the follow formula: Whether there is a violation of [canonllaw procedurally
5
or on the merits relating to the decision of the Co ngregation for the Clergy of
August 5, 2008.
U. In Law and In Fact
4. First to be considered is the claim about the hierarchical recourse [having been
presented] beyond the mandatory dead Iine. I n fact the Congregation rejected the
reco urse because of the fai lure to comply with the norm s concerning a hi erarchical
recourse insofar as they concern either the change of the parish of S1. Mary into a quasiparish or a mi ss ion, or concerning the extinctive union [suppression followed by merger]
with the parish of Holy Cross. Next it is necessary to distinguish accurately between two
acts by His Excell ency the Bishop of Sy racuse, obviously between the extincti ve union of
the quasi-parish ofSt. Mary with the parish of Holy Cross, and the closing of the church
of the quasi-pari sh and its reduction to profane use.
A. Concerning the asserted/ailure a/the appel/ants to observe the norms a/a
hierarchical recourse
5. First it should be sa id that the Congregation for the Clergy correctly rejected
the hierarchical recourse against the change of the parish of St. Mary into a mi ss ion or a
quasi-parish, for: " [in Engli sh] thi s cannot be questioned a year after the fact," hav ing
omitted in the petition [referred to] above what is in canon 1734, there or all the more
what can be seen from the documentation of the parishioners who had already been
informed long before of the effecti ve date of the decision, v.g. [please see] in accordance
with the news of the same given on September 16-17, 2006.
6. On the other hand, one other mat1er relating to the suppression of the mi ssion
or the quasi-pari sh of St. Mary.
On May 1,2007, Mrs. LaTray et alii as members of the form er parish ofSt. Mary
or of its financial or pastoral council , and agai n with 88 parishioners, among whom Mrs.
LaTray, put forward a remonslratio [appeal to the diocesan bishop] against this
[suppression] based on Canon 1734.
6
Mrs. LaTray et a lii , as above already on May 1,2007 and again on May 26 of the
same year issued a challenge by placing [an appeal] before the Congregation for the
Clergy.
Consequently the Congregation for the Clergy on June 4, 2007 responded to the
petition of May 1,2007, to the effect that it could not be taking under consideration and
like\vise [responded a year later] about the decree of August 5, 2008, under cha llenge,
that: " [in English] the recourse regarding the disposition of the O rdinary in closing the
M ission ofSt Mary 's has not respected the time limits imposed by the law for the
Bishop 's response." The recourses of May 1 and May 27, 2007, in fact, had been
presented before the running out of the time limits, about which more [can be found] in
canon 1735.
Mrs. LaTray et alii nonetheless put forward another appeal to the Congregation
for the Clergy.
In fact on June 12, 2007, the Rev. Mons. episcopal Vicar responded to the
I'emonslral io before His Exce llency the Bishop, asserting that in the case the time limit of
thirty days before His Excell ency the Bishop had not been observed as is granted by
Canon 1735, before making an appeal to the Congregation [comment: pari shi oners must
allow 30 days to run, and if there is no response from the bishop they may invoke 'silence
is denial ' as a reason to fil e an appeal to the Congregation] . But the Rev. Mons.
epi scopal Vicar, besides, advised [the parishioners] that Hi s Excell ency the Bishop had
confirmed the decision and also gave an an1ple explanation as to the reasoned
motivations. Therefore on June 12,2007, one [i .e. the appellants] had the rejection of the
petition (in accordance with canon 1735) on the part of His Excellency the Bishop.
Against this rejection Mrs. LaTray et alii sent to the Congregation the response of
the Rev. Mons. episcopal Vicar together with hi s observations of June 20, 2007,
confirming their hierarchical recourse. Indeed this recourse has been introduced within
the mandatory time limits of the Jaw (cr canon 1737 '12), and therefore it is a genuine
recourse against confirmation ofa decis ion [by the bi shop].
What is therefore sai d by the Congregation as to the recourse of May 26, 2007, is
not valid as to the recourse of June 20, 2007. Thus as to what bears upon this procedure,
the response of the Congregation does not have foundation . Against this stands what is
7
said by Mrs. LaTray in the recourse to the H.S.T. i.e., that "[in Engli sh] there has been a
gross miscarriage of justice to dismi ss this appea l for untimeliness," insofar as regards the
[parishioners] recourse of the June 20, 2007 against confirmation of the deci sion ofl-lis
Exce llency the Bishop of Syracuse.
B. Concerning the extinctive merger of the quasi-parish ofSt. Mary with the parish of
Holy Cross
7. As to what pertains to thi s matter, it is not brought out in the decree formall y
promulgated, but at least from the letter sent to the faithful of the quas i-parish ofSt. Mary
of April 27, 2007, without any doubt there appears the decision of Hi s Exce ll ency the
Bishop, confirmed then by the Congregation for the Clergy. Consequentl y, on April 27,
2007 His Excellency the Bishop of Syracuse suppressed through an extinctive merger the
quasi-parish of St. Mary.
On its part the Congregation for the Clergy rej ected the reco urse against thi s
decision not on ly because of the not-observed norms for hierarchical recourse [time
limits], but also because Hi s Exce ll ency the Ordinary [bishop of Syracuse] actually acted
correctly procedurally and on the merits.
And in fact no doubt may be given that the Presbyteral Co uncil was not consulted
on the matter. The reasons for the motives of the decision have been explained
summarily above in the letter of April 27, 2007 from His Excell ency the Bishop sent to
every fami ly of the quasi-parish of St. Mary. Next the Rev. Mons. episcopal Vicar
presented more broadly the reasons in a response of June 12,2007 to the remonslralio,
providing also notice of the decision on the part of His Excellency the Bishop. Similarly
the assertion that His Excellency the Bishop did not present reasoned motivations
accordingly lacks any foundation.
Next the law of the Church requires that the reasoned motivations [for mergers
and suppressions] are to be just, not on the other hand grave. However the judgment as
to the reasons and their objective basis is brought together and must be especially and
necessarily on behalf of the di scretion of the Bishop. Since in the case it is not proven in
8
any manner that he has acted arbitrarily, his decision confirmed by the Congregation is
upheld.
C. Concerning the reduction of the church ofSt MalY to profane use
8. The documentation from the diocese [of Sy racuse] and the decree of the
Congregation [for the Clergy] contain extensive language about the closing of the church.
However, the jurisprudence of the H.S.T. always equates the closing of the church with
its reduction to profane use. Besides, the proposed al ienation [sale] of the church appears
clear from the documentation.
In the exchange of letters with Hi s Excellency the Bishop as well as with the
Congregation , the party bringing the appeal [M s. LaTray et alii] claims that the estate of
Mr. Quinlan had declared its intention regarding the building of the church, that if
perhaps the church were to be put up for sale, it should revert to the heirs of the estate.
But having inspected carefully the will, thi s assertion of Mrs. LaTray is not confirmed.
In fact it may be read in the will: " [in English] That the said premises are free from
encumbrances that the sa id party of the first part will forever warrant the title to said
premises. "
This assertion of the appellants therefore lacks a basis. Nor do the heirs [ofMr.
Quinlan] undertake any legal action.
The matter [of church reduction to profane use, or ' deconsecration ' ] is nevertheless to
be examined more in depth.
All the same in accordance with the provi sions of canon 1222 ~ 1 ["If a church cannot
in any way be used for divine worship, and there is no possibility of its being restored,
the diocesan Bishop may allow it to be used for some secular but not unbecoming
purpose."], the Bishop may without doubt reduce the church to profane but not sordid
use, if there is the absolute and objective impossibility of using the church for divine
worship in the future or of restoring it. But excepting this circumstance, for the Bishop to
reduce the church to profane use, in general it is necessary that there be present grave
reasons , not only just reasons, and that bes ides the presbyteral council [diocesan council
of priests] should be heard on the matter (cf Canon 1222
~
2).
9
In this case, from the documentation one may take note of the excellent state of
conservation of the church, provided that the faithful are prepared to support the
necessary costs for the church. Moreover reasons of a general character cannot be
sufficient such as for example the reduction in the number of priests, the high number of
sacred buildings. Actually, it is necessary in each case to prove that there are grave
reasons. In fact from the documentation it is ev ident that the determination of the
reduction of the church of St. Mary to profane use rests purely and simply upon a
proposed genera l pastoral restructuring. However it was necessary to differentiate
carefully between the process of restructuring [the parishes of the diocese] and the
detennination concerning the canonical status of the sacred buildings.
Therefore the decision of His Excellency the Bishop of Syracuse upheld by the
Congregation for the Clergy , is invalidated [nullified], because on the legal merits [de
decernendo] it violated the provisions of canon [222
~
2.
Additionally from another part of the docllmentation it is proven that the presbyteral
counci l was consulted on this matter, and therefore that which concerns the asserted
procedural violation of tile law [in procedendo] for the reduction of the church to profane
use is not upheld.
m.
Conclusion
9. For all examinations whether in law or on the facts, the undersigned Judges,
having invoked the name of Christ, sitting for the Tribunal and having eyes only for God,
have decided in response to the issue and respond in fact:
[N
THE NEGATIVE, whether or not to agree about a violation of the law
procedurally or on the merits relating to the decision of the Congregation for
the Clergy of August 5, 2008, as to the change of status of the parish of St.
Mary and the extinctive merge!' with the parish of Holy Cross;
[N
THE AFFJRMA nvu:, about a violation of the law on the legal merits
relating to the decision of the Congregation for the Clergy of August 5, 2008,
10
as to the reduction ofthe church of St. Mary to profane use hecause of the
defect of a grave cause;
IN THE NEGATIVE, about a violat ion of the law procedurally ,·elating to
the decision of the Cong regation for the Clergy of Angust S, 2008, as to the
reductiou of the church of St. Mary to profane use because of the defect of a
grave canse.
For the expenses the security deposited in the moneybox of the H.S.T. [by the
appellant] is retained. The parties are to pay to an appropriate honorarium to each one' s
own Patron [advocate].
Thus we declare and establish, to those with a mandate [advocates] for those with
an interest [the parties to the case], so that O ur definitive sentence may be entrusted for
execution, to all effects of the law.
All those who are at interest are to be noti tied to all effects of the law.
G iven in Rome, from the see of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,
on May 2 1, 20 II.
(Signers)
Raymond Leo Card. BURKE, PreJecl [chi ef justice]
Carlo Card. CAFFARRA , Recorder [archbi shop of Bologna]
Giovanni Card. LAJOLO [president of the Pontifical Co uncil for the
Vatican City]
Xaverio ECHEV ARR.IA RODRIGUEZ [prelate of Opus Dei]
Filippo IANNONE [bishop of Sora-A qui no-Pontecorvo]
And to be notified.
August 11 ,20 11
II
Franciscus DANEELS, o. praem., Secrelwy
Paulus MALECHA , Coordinator o/Chancel/elY
12