mater dolorosa answer to lawsuit by catholic diocese of springfield, massachusetts

8/3/2019 Mater Dolorosa Answer to Lawsuit by Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mater-dolorosa-answer-to-lawsuit-by-catholic-diocese-of-springfield-massachusetts 1/9

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Hampden, ss. Superior Court Department

Civil Action No. 11-831

Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, A Corporation Sole,

Plaintiff

v. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

& COUNTERCLAIM Victor Anop, Peter Stasz, Halina SulewskiHelen Domurat, Shirley Anop, Eva Boruch,Iwana Boruch, Friends of Mater DolorosaChurch, John Doe#1,John Doe#2, Mary Roe#1,

Mary Roe#2, and other John Does and Mary Roes,Defendants

Now come the Defendants, by counsel(s), and answer thecomplaint as follows:

1. Defendants admit to action brought, but denythat there is a “continuing trespass” to Mater Dolorosa.

2. Denied. Defendants are paid members and volunteers ofthe church, and continue a prayer vigil to protect their

religious freedom (right to pray), and their chosen church.

3. Defendants admit that Diocese is bringing an actionagainst them for relief, but deny that “RCB” is doing sofor anyone’s safety.

4. Denied. This allegation is blatantly untrue.

5. Denied. Defendant’s comprehensive engineering reportrefutes allegation.

6. Denied. This is a speculative conclusion not based upon valid and certified engineering data.

7. Denied.

8. Denied. The building and steeple are sound structures.



9. Denied. The steeple does not need to be removed.

10. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegationscontained in 10th paragraph of complaint, and call upon

“RCB” to prove same.

11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegationcontained in 11th paragraph of complaint, and call upon“RCB” to prove same.

12. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same.

13. Denied. Defendants continue as members of the church.

14. Admit.

15. Admit.

16. Admit.

17. Admit.

18. Admit.

19. Admit.

20. Denied.Iwana Boruch unknown.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.

23. Denied.

24. Denied.

25. Denied. Defendants say there are no “representative”capacities.

26. Denied. Speculation, not verifiable allegation.

27. Denied. While the goals of the Diocese planning arenoteworthy, the process is undemocratic and actions weredetermined by a “chosen few” without adequate input from

parishioners.-2-




29. Defendants neither admit nor deny as Defendants lacksufficient data to determine the truth or falsity thereof.

30. Denied. The “RCB” was not a corporate body in 1896.

31. Denied.

32. Denied. Defendants calls upon “RCB” to prove same.

33. Denied. Defendants say that ratio indicates little.

34. Denied. M.D. Church had better 2008 attendance numbersthan the church the Diocese selected to remain open.

35. Denied. The seating capacity was arbitrarily computed,and has no relevance to those attending several different

masses over a weekend.

36. Denied. Defendants say that “RCB” decisions are, infact, all about money and the Pastor and “RCB” have notappeared to be candid about the church finances for severalyears; it also appears that monies have been mismanaged and not properly accounted for, and records are held “secretly”

by “RCB”, and its various corporate and clergy agents.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Admit.


41. Denied.

42. Denied.

43-61. Denied. Defendants say this information isirrelevant, and immaterial to this action.

62. Denied.

63. Defendants neither admit nor deny 63rd paragraph ofcomplaint as they are without sufficient data to answer.

-3-



64. Defendants neither admit nor deny 64th paragraph ofcomplaint as they are without sufficient data to answer.

65-68. Defendants neither admit nor deny 65th through 68th

paragraph of complaint as they are without sufficient data

to answer.

69. Denied. Defendants say that if this is therecommendations of EDA that the conclusions are definitelyinaccurate in view of the more comprehensive investigations

by Defendants engineer.

70-72. Defendants neither admit nor deny 70th through 72nd

paragraph of complaint as they are without sufficient datato answer.

73. Denied. Defendants say that a cursory examinationwithout computational support is not valid.

74-80. Denied. Defendants say that a cursory engineeringexamination without computational support is not valid, and since the steeple doesn’t have to be removed there is noimminent risk to the public or parishioners.

81. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation asthey are without sufficient data to answer.

82. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation as

they are without sufficient data to answer speculation.

83. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation asthey are without sufficient data to answer speculation.

84. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation asthey are without sufficient data to answer speculation,

but assert that there is no need to remove steepleaccording to Defendant’s documented engineering reports.

85. Defendants admit that Pavlica made statements

regarding safety during removal/demolition of steeple, but deny that such a procedure is necessary requiringabandonment of the building for religious uses.

-4-



86. Defendants admit that Mr.Hunt made statementsregarding safety during removal/demolition of steeple, butdeny that such procedure is necessary requiring abandonmentof the building for religious uses.

87. Defendants admit that Mr. Mirkin, a “building wrecker” made statements regarding safety during removal/demolitionof steeple, but deny that such a procedure is necessaryrequiring abandonment of the building for religious uses.

88. Defendants admit that some of them entered Mater Dolorosa Church on 6/30/11, and some of the church members came thereafter.

89. Defendants admit that some of the church membersremained inside.

90. Defendants admit that some of the church membersremain in inside for prayer and care and protection ofthe church.

91. Defendants deny the allegation (P.91), and call upon“RCB” to prove same.




95. Defendants deny that they were given valid oral and written notices to leave the church, but admit that someDefendant church members continue prayer vigil in the MaterDolorosa Church.

96. Defendants reassert their previous admissions and denials to this complaint, and hereby reassert and and re-incorporate those previous answers here.

97. Admit.

-5-



98. Defendants, paid members of the church, admit thatsome have remained (rightfully) in the church, from time to

time, but deny they do so after being told to leave.

99. Defendants, paid church members, deny that they arewrongfully praying and staying in the church, admit thatsome church members continue staying from time to time inthe church, but deny that praying and staying in the churchconstitutes a trespass.

100. Defendants reassert their previous admissions and denials to this complaint, and hereby reassert and re-incorporate their previous answers to the complaint here.

101. Defendants, church members, admit, as a matter ofright, to intentionally being in the Mater Dolorosa Church

praying and doing other religious community endeavors.

102. Denied. Defendants continue a prayer vigil as paid members of the Mater Dolorosa Church exercisingtheir protected freedom of religion in the Catholic Church

built and paid for by their Polish predecessors and now being paid by them, not constituting a trespass.

-6-



FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that this court lacks jurisdictionregarding the subject matter and collateral church issues

of this complaint as the controversy is an ecclesiastical,Canon Law “internal dispute” of a hierarchical church-TheCatholic Church, currently before an Ecclesiastical Court,Congregation for Clergy (Protocol No.20112390)notreviewable by Massachusetts civil courts.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that Plaintiff(“RCB”)and its Ordinary’sclaim is not “ripe” for adjudication as they have failed toexhaust all of their church administrative remedies and failed to satisfy all administrative prerequisitesaccording to the procedures of Roman Catholic Church CanonLaw before bringing an “enforcement action and claims”against their own diocese parishioners in this Civil Court.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that Plaintiff (“RCB”) and its agentsat Mater Dolorosa Church have failed to fulfill its trust,duties and responsibilities, under both Canon Law and CivilLaw, to the Defendant Catholic Church members byunreasonably refusing to allow them real input into the

pastoral process regarding closing their vibrant and viable parish, and withholding detailed financial and otherinformation which was essential to a fair and just process;The actions of “RCB” precipitated this “internal dispute”.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that they are “equitable owners”, paid church members, and tenants paying utilities and rightfully

praying and staying in Mater Dolorosa conducting a prayer vigil exercising protected first amendment religious

rights, freely associating with other members as well ascaring for and protecting the church premises from damageand destruction. Therefore, Defendants assert that as suchequitable owners, licensees and tenants they are notwrongfully on the premises.

-7-



FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert Plaintiff (“RCB) is wrongfullyattempting, in a Massachusetts Court, under color of law,to restrain the right of paid church members to Prayer and

Vigil,a protected free exercise of religion at MaterDolorosa under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutionand the Massachusetts Constitution. (Declaration of Rights)

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert the equitable defense of “laches” againstPlaintiff as Defendants have conducted an open prayer vigil24 hours a day, known to Plaintiff for over 100 days;duringthat time, Defendants position changed by the expending ofsubstantial labor and financial commitment to saving and

protecting their place of worship. The Plaintiff knowinglysat on his alleged legal and equitable rights, and delayed

bringing an action much to the detriment of Defendants.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert the equitable defense of “soiled” and “unclean hands” as Plaintiff comes into this action asa result of the “bad faith” exclusion of Defendants from anundemocratic, unrepresentative,& unfair pastoral planning

process, misrepresenting an opportunity for Defendants tosave their church from closing/merger and “bad faith”

dealings with Defendants by withholding essential parishengineering data, substantial financial accounting, and all essential facts leading to decision made at the outsetto close Mater Dolorosa. All of which provoked this churchdispute.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants hereby assert that they reserve their right toclaim other affirmative defenses that may be obtained as aresult of the discovery process,examining limited and

sparse financial reports from Mater Dolorosa Church, and the result of a full and complete title search of the MaterDolorosa church real estate.

-8-



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Defendants hereby respectfully request that:

1. The Complaint, including all requests for injunctive

relief, be dismissed with prejudice, and

2. This Honorable Court order such other further reliefas it may deem just, equitable, and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________ ________________________ VICTOR M. ANOP, ESQ. PETER STASZ, ESQ.103 Bridle Path Rd. 62 Richard Eger Dr.Chicopee, Ma.;BBO#019880 Holyoke, Ma.;BBO#447440Tel.(413)536-4181(&FAX) Tel.(413)532-1511

mater dolorosa answer to lawsuit by catholic diocese of springfield, massachusetts

Documents