I’m not sure who Katy Perry is, though I have heard the name. I think she may be a pop tart. In any event, here is a strange story about her and some nuns in a property dispute. And it involves Latin translation!
From Fox 411:
Nuns roar back at Katy Perry, claiming mistranslation of Vatican decree allowing purchase of convent
Katy Perry will hear an order of LA-area nuns “Roar” after the sisters this week accused local church officials of misquoting the Vatican to smooth the singer’s $14.5 million purchase of a contested convent.
Perry had seemingly won the right to purchase the 22,000-square-foot Mediterranean mansion that once housed the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary order after a judge ruled for Perry and the LA archdiocese and against the nuns. But on Monday, lawyers for Sisters Rita Callanan and Catherine Rose Holzman asked the state Superior Court judge to consider new evidence – a translation they say shows a Vatican decree regarding the case was misrepresented.
“In fact, and completely contrary to what [LA archdiocese] represented to the Court, the Decree, when properly translated from its original Latin into English, stated in no uncertain terms that the dispute” was still being decided in Rome, the motion states.
Time out. You might not know this. When it comes to alienation (sale) of Church property, if the value is over a certain amount, permission from the Holy See is required. Civil courts generally respect the Church’s internal law in these matters… generally, not always. I was at a Canon Law conference (now annual, sponsored by Card. Burke at the Guadalupe Shrine in LaCrosse, WI) which had presentations on civil law and property. At that time it was reported that the trend in civil law seems to be more and more not to respect the Church’s internal law. This swings back and forth, apparently, over the decades. But I digress.
Court documents obtained by FoxNews.com allege that the “false translation” implying that the Vatican had not approved the Sisters’ sale and it was no longer under consideration was provided by the representatives for the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Archdiocese.
None of the five nuns remaining from the order, which once numbered 52, live on the property, which has belonged to the order since it was bequeathed to it some 40 years ago. They claim the right to sell it, and had already struck a $15.5 million deal with local developer and restaurateur Dana Hollister.
After striking a deal with the nuns nearly a year ago, Hollister registered the deed and moved into the property. But the archdiocese moved to nullify that sale and, two weeks ago, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Stephanie Bowick ruled that church officials, not the nuns, had the right to sell the eight-acre convent on Waverly Place in the Los Feliz section.
Bowick’s ruling, according to the motion, rested heavily on a translation of the decree from the Vatican, which was provided by the archdiocese’s legal team.
“The Court’s ruling was substantially based on its belief that all proceedings in the Vatican had been terminated,” the motion states.
In her ruling, Bowick declared that the resolution “involves matters of church doctrine” and to avoid interfering with religious governance, state courts “generally defer to the decisions of ecclesiastical courts or tribunals that touch and concern matters or religious doctrine.” [As I was saying.] In this case, she determined that there was no evidence the sale to Perry was still under consideration in Rome.
Given that all sales of church property require Vatican approval, Sister Callanan last June submitted a petition to the Roman Rota Tribunal – the highest appellate tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church – to approve the Hollister transaction. The Tribunal responded in December, and that response – in Latin – is the subject of the dueling translations, with the archdiocese saying the issue had been decided and the nuns saying it was passed to a different division of the Vatican – the Dicastery – and is pending. The motion also claims that the LA archdiocese knew that the petition had been moved to the Dicastery, but “failed to inform the Court of that crucial fact. [The Archdiocese of LA failed to report a “crucial fact”? Say it ain’t so!]
Okay… read the rest there. Meanwhile, there is a photo of Katy Perry in that article. I must admit that I couldn’t have picked her out of a line up. I’m probably not in her target audience.
I, for none, would like to see that Latin. H==