The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit in which a Catholic claims the Church has made misleading representations of what ancient Popes have offered.
In January, lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) asked the Supreme Court to consider the case, which was originally brought against the bishops at the instigation of Peter Pence by Rhode Island resident David O’Connell.
Peter’s Pence, variations of which date back centuries to at least the early Middle Ages, is an annual charity USCCB describes it as “A sign of solidarity” with the Pope’s charitable undertakings.
According to the bishop, the donations have been made for “humanitarian initiatives and social promotion projects as well as the support of the Holy See”.
O’Connell filed a class action lawsuit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the bishops had misled Catholics about the nature of the donations. He claimed that he was led to believe that the offering was solely for emergency aid to victims of war and poverty, but he later learned that it was partly used to “defray the administrative expenses of the Vatican”.
The US bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed based on the “church autonomy principle”, a long-standing principle in US case law that prevents the government from exercising control over internal church decisions.
Yet both a district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops, leading lawyers with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the bishops, to appeal the case to the Supreme Court in January.
Daniel Blomberg, Beckett’s vice president and a senior lawyer there, told EWTN News on April 30 that popes have been using the Peter’s Pence fund for centuries to “advance the ministry of the church in a variety of ways.”
However, the plaintiff in the lawsuit argues that he “heard something during the Mass” that “made him think that his offering of Peter’s Pence would be for one purpose only and no other,” Blomberg said.
“He not only wants his offering back, he wants the offering back for millions of other Catholics across the country,” he said.
Blomberg said both lower courts ruled against the bishops on the grounds that the case could be decided under “neutral principles of law” that do not affect the First Amendment. But he called the demands sought in the lawsuit “wildly unconstitutional.”
The plaintiffs “want the courts to tell the Catholic Church how to talk about Peter’s Pence and how to preach about Peter’s Pence,” he said.
Many religious lawyers have come forward in favor of the bishops in this dispute. A coalition of organizations, including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and several other groups, filed An amicus brief to the Supreme Court in January Arguing that their respective religious beliefs “involve matters of internal governance that should be protected from government interference.”
In Another amicus filing in Supreme Court In March, University of Notre Dame Law School law professor John Garvey said the lawsuit “requires courts to resolve inherently theological questions about church politics, doctrine, and governance.”
The lawsuit would force the court “to decide for itself who controls (or who can control) the content of sermons within the Church, whether a particular sermon is inconsistent with Catholic teaching about the Penance of Peter, what a reasonable parishioner should believe about Catholic doctrine, and – most importantly – how money donated by the Pope should be administered,” Garvey argued.
“The lawsuit effectively invites the civil court to direct Peter’s Pence to the Pope – St. Peter’s successor – to keep the lights on at St. Peter’s,” Garvey wrote.
Meanwhile, Blomberg said the bishops expect to hear from the Supreme Court in the next month or so.
He said, “We are before the US Supreme Court to ask them to put the First Amendment first, not last, and to treat this as the threshold limit of the case.”
He said, “We want the court not to force the church to litigate for years just to determine whether the First Amendment applies here.”
