Basic HTML Version
The Worldwide Church case. he s; :d. is "one of the
gravest examples of uate encroachment m church ma!ter5.
Whether any
of
the allegations
may
uilirr.,Hely be prover.
re be true is not the question. What 1:.; important 1;: wheth
er the state has the right to entangle itself in the affairs of
a church as they've done m this case. . .
·
Boothby argued that tl)e 1mpos1ttor: of a rece:vership
poses "ar. almost unbelievable threat" to First Amendment
rights.
"Basically. we feel that when a state seeks to exercise
this type of power. they should do it ontv after they'
Vl
'
made a searching exammat1on and Witr. great reluctance.
34
Parl
I-Sun.• Feb. 11. 1979
CHURCH-STATE
Continued from 32nd Page
ed for the poor and concealed records of almost $15 million
in secret bank accounts.
While only 3% of the funds raised by the order went to
the poor, it was alleged, Carcich lived a lavish !ife with se
cret trips to Las Vegas, real-estate investments in Florida
and loans to powerful politicians.
When the scandal broke in
1976,
Carcich was removed
from his position, the Baltimore archdiocese conducted an
audit, and Carcich was formally charged with misappropri
ation of charitable funds.
There was no court-ordered receivership and no ques
tion of church-state conflict arose.
But, observers point out, the Pallottine case differs from
the Worldwide Church affair in at least one significant
way.
Overseeing the Pallottine order was the Catholic Church
hierarchy, and it removed Carcich. Power in the World
wide Church emanates downward from Herbert W. Arm
strong. Only Herbert W. Armstrong, it seems, can remove
Herbert W. Armstrong.
Besides
that,
there are
no criminal charges. A spokes·
man for the Los Angeles
County
district attorney said lasl
week no investigation was under way. The matter is being
left in the hands of the attorney general who has sought
ciVil, not criminal charges.
Why no criminal charges?
Rader and his lawyers say that is because there is no
proof
of criminal activity.
A spokesman for the attorney general puts it somewhat
differently.
Placing criminal charges against Armstrong, Rader and
other
church officials "doesn't solve the problem," Warren
Abbott. assistant attorney general in charge of overseeing
charitable trusts, said.
"That doesn't get the money back for the church," Ab
bott added. "Our job is to protect those (remaining church)
assets, and criminal proceedings won't
do
that. The cri
minal courts are not
a
collection agency."
Defenders of Armstrong and the Worldwide Church
point to a flaw in Abbott's argument. The expenses of the
,receiver, the tremendous cost of a long, drawn-out legal
battle, the drop in the church tithing since the suit was
filed-all these factors indicate that by the time the case is
finally decided, there may be few
if
any assets worth
protecting.
Abbott admits that is a possibility.
"If our court system doesn't work very well in this case,
ii la going to eat up the assets," he said. But if that happens
it
will
be the fault of the church leaders and their lawyers,
not the state, he claimed.
"They have it within their own power to resolve this
thing.'' Abbott said. "They could end it immediately" by
cooperating with the receiver and dropping their pretrial
legal maneuvers, he said.
That is something the church shows no inclination to do.
That is fine as far as Abbott is concerned .
"Let's find out what the law is," he says, "We'd like a
Wr rhmk !hr ccurts �hould char1 i.l course Lhat as much a8
possiblt• retains the autoncmy and freedom of religious
bodies.
A betler sci ution than a court· imposed receivership.
Boothby said. i:: criminal c1ct1on again�t church leaders aC·
cw,rd of wror.gdomg Tr.at way. he and others argue:. the
state can avoid brcomi!,g entangled m church maueri;.
Proponents of
tr.i,
approach point to th<: ca.::e of the Pal
!ottme Father;;. a B�it,rr.ore based Catholic order
tinder th(· d1rcrt,on of the Rev Guido John ca'rcich. the
order alleged1y m1sappropnated nearly $1.4 million donc1t
Please Turo to Page 34.
Col. l
decision on whether 9505 (the section of
the
state Corpor
ations Code that empowers the attorney general lo oversee
charitable trusts) does apply to churches."
The Worldwide Church battle may provide that, but Ab
boUand other legal observers think it is just as likely that
a test case will come from elsewhere.
Some
are guessing it will be W.
Eugene Scott's Faith
Center Church.
Scott,
the Glendale-based television
preacher, is fighting an attempt by the attorne� general to
force him to answer questions about church fmances and
produce financial
documents.
Three weeks ago. lawyers for Scott opted to drop their
countersuits in federal court that charged attorney general
lawyers with violating Scott's civil rights under a post-Ci
vil War statute that held government officials directly ac
countable for rights violations.
In return, the attorney general's office agreed to hold up
on their push for
Scott's
appearance pending what one
church lawyer called "an exhaustive appeal."
This appeal, some lawyers say, may result in a final de
cision by the California Supreme Court and the U.S.
Su
preme Court on whether the state attorney general can in-
tervene to protect
a
church's treasury.
Even then, the Faith Center controversy may be Just
part of a largermosaic of church-state legal confrontations:
-The U.S. Supreme Court has before it an appeal b7 the
Chicago Catholic archdiocese in which the church tries to
exempt itself from National Labor Relations Board mles
that would seem to allow lay teachers union organization
rights.
-Similiar appeals, alt on First Amendme�t �ro�nds, �re
under way in lower federal courts after ongmatmg with
archdioceses in Gary, Ind. , Philadelphia and Scranton, Pa.
-Court battles are continuing in Kentucky, North Car�
lina, Vermont and Ohio over whether state school authori-
ties can regulate parochial schools in those states.
-In federal district court here, three fundamentalist
churches are trying to remain exempt from state and fed
eral unemployment compensation laws.
-A legal battlr is almost certain when the Internal
Revenue Service puts
into
effect new regulations that
would increase the amount of disclosure and reporting ne
cessary for churches and other charitable groups that soli
cit funds.
-And
lawyers
for Hare
Khrishna
are
in Los Angeles
Superior Court defending the sect against a civil suit
brought by the city attorney that, in effect, charges me1:1-
bers with using deceptive practices and aggressive
tactics
to obtain donations from travelers at Los Angeles Interna
tional
Airport.
The list goes on and on, and
the
debate is likely to con
tmue, the experts say.
Theydisagree on who is to blame.
'fhe problem, Boothby says, is "the repeated attempt of
the state to define what is secular and what is religious.''
'lhe problem, Abbott says,,is "every time we (govern
ment authorities) start talking to a church, they yell First
Amendment."
The problem, Crossley says, "remains unresolved as
ev-tr."
And the problem is, everyone agrees, what exactly does
that almost 200-year-old amendment mean when
it
says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting
an
establish
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''