Who Upholds Catholic Values?

Atty. Victor M. Anop, a spokesman for the Polish-American Mater Dolorosa Parishioners, Holyoke, Mass. released the following statement:
 “The civil law suit filed by Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell (Hamp. Co. Sup. Ct. #11-831) to stop a Prayer Vigil at Mater Dolorosa Church ended Friday [Feb. 4] with dismissal of the entire matter. This dismissal included two counts of trespass leveled against paid parishioners peacefully praying at the church 24/7 for the last 222 days. In October, 2011, another Hampden Co. Sup. Court Judge rejected restraining orders sought by the Bishop claiming that the church steeple was in imminent danger of falling.
The court ruling said the civil suit had no jurisdictional basis to decide the case because it is an 'internal church dispute' involving inquiry into Church Law. The decision cited Canon 1214, which provides: ‘By term church is understood a sacred building designated for divine worship, to which the faithful have the right of entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise of divine worship.’ 
We  successfully argued that we, the faithful of Mater Dolorosa, had right of entry to remain at church for Prayer Vigil, are not 'trespassers' as alleged, and that the ‘internal dispute’ must be resolved between the church and us, not civil courts."
Canon 1214, which proved to be so pivotal in the hearing, had a rough road. The affidavit of Helen Domurat is very instructive on this point; it shows to what lengths the Bishop and his men will go:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Hampden, SS.               Superior Court Department
        Civil Action NO. 11-831
Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield             )
A Corporation Sole,                                           )
                      Plaintiff                                        )
Vs.                                                                      )  
Victor Anop, Peter Stasz, Halina Sulewski,      )  
Helen Domurat, Shirley Anop, Eva Boruch,    )  
Iwana Boruch, Friends of Mater Dolorosa      )  
Church, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Mary      )
Roe #1, Mary Roe #2, and other John Does    )
and Mary Roes,                                                  )
                     Defendants                                    )

Affidavit of Helen Domurat Hamp.Sup Ct. # 11-831
I, Helen Domurat, do hereby depose and state as follows:

1. I am over 21, a retired school teacher and reside at 241 Pearl Street in South Hadley, Mass.
2. I am a long-time parishioner of Mater Dolorosa Parish in the city of Holyoke where I have served on the Parish Council and currently serve on the Mater Dolorosa School Board.
3. I am a named defendant in the above-entitled matter.
4.     I was present in the courtroom on January 4, 2012 during Summary Judgment Motion hearing of the above entitled matter.
5.     I clearly heard Judge Moriarty ask attorney Egan to show Msgr. Bonzagni an Exhibit regarding Canon Law, and I saw attorney Egan bring the Exhibit to Msgr. Bonzagni.
6.     I was seated only a few feet from Msgr. Bonzagni and I clearly heard attorney Egan tell Msgr. Bonzagni: "You can’t read that, can you?” as he showed him the exhibit.
7.     I clearly heard Attorney Egan then add: “No you can’t.”
8.     I did not hear Msgr. Bonzagni say any such thing, in fact Msgr. Bonzagni did not say anything at the time.
9.     I took notes while attending the hearing and hereby attached to this affidavit is a true and complete copy of my handwritten notes which I took during the hearing.
Signed Under Pains & Penalties of Perjury this 19th Day of January, 2012.
                       Helen Domurat
Church, let me tell you something. That is exactly the way that it happened. I was there, on the 2nd floor of the Hampden County Hall of Justice. I heard the words but didn't put them together at the time; it was one of those minor courtroom dramas that was over as soon as it began (and that often leave laymen scratching their heads).
The significance of the scene is brought out by the rest of the story: when Anop & Co. tried to introduce Canon 1214 into evidence, Egan & Co. refused to "stipulate" (allow it). Judge Moriarty probed Egan on this point, asking him what the problem was. Egan said "Well, your honor, anyone can bring in a page out of any book. I don't know if it's genuine.  I'm not an expert on canon law." The judge said, "Maybe not, but you have one at your table" (meaning, Msgr. Bonzagni). At this, Egans face got a slightly deeper shade of his customary pink. That sets up the encounter that Helen Domurat describes above.

I hardly know what to think of this spectacle.  A canon lawyer with what — perhaps 3 to 4 years of training at Catholic University in Washington, DC? — who is unable, or, unwilling, to stand up for the integrity of canon law in a civil courtroom.  Bonzagni acted as if he had never laid eyes on Canon 1214.
The outcome, nevertheless, was good.  Anop & Co. found a canon lawyer outside Diocesan territory who was willing to certify that the Canon was genuine, and his affidavit was entered into evidence. This little example tells us worlds about how confused the officials of the Diocese of Springfield have become. Tell me this: when they are not even willing to recognize and accept and stand up for canon law, what is left? Is there any integrity at all? What are they all about, really? What are their values? 
There are four remarkable things here: 
1. that parishioners had to fight hard against civil authorities to win the right to argue their case. 
2. that parishioners had to fight hard against civil authorities to win the right to pray. 
3. that the civil entities they fought, and defeated, included the corporation of the Bishop of Springfield, and 
4.  that this same corporation (in its canonical manifestation) claims to be the safeguard of Catholic values. 
Are they?