Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bok,We are asked to pass upon preliminary objections, sustained by the court below, to a complaint in equity. The suit was brought by the parishioners, patrons, and members of St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church in Pittsburgh, as plaintiff, against the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, the City of Pittsburgh, and the Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The complaint refers to various documents in order to establish the plaintiff’s claim but contains only one of them as an exhibit. The preliminary objections attach the others. Ordinarily the court may not, on demurrer, consider matters beyond the pleading opposed, but under the circumstances above mentioned the instruments may be referred to: Detweiler v. Hatfield Borough School District, 376 Pa. 555 (1954).
From these documents and the complaint, twice amended, the following facts appear:
In 1950 and 1951 an area of over ninety acres in the center of Pittsburgh was certified by the City Planning Commission to the Authority for redevelopment as a blighted area. The Authority submitted the proposal, with plan, to the Council of the City, which fixed Jiily 6, 1955, as the time for a public hearing. This having been held, Council approved the project by ordinance. Plaintiff’s church is located in the area, and so is. another known as Epiphany Church.
The Authority took proper corporate action on October 2, 1957, to condemn plaintiff’s land. Believing that execution of the redevelopment plan would require the razing of both churches, the members of the *197plaintiff parish did not attend the publie hearing, alleging that they did not wish to interfere with progress. The Authority then exempted Epiphany Church from the project and entered into a bond and later an.agreement with the bishop, dated February 25 and 27, 1958. By this agreement the bishop accepted as damages the sum of $1,240,000 in compromise settlement of the taking and destruction of St. Peter’s Church. The bond and agreement were neither reported to the plaintiff parish by the bishop nor approved by it. This suit followed.
The complaint charges abuse of the Authority’s discretion, discrimination, and capricious and arbitrary action. The reasons given have to do with the nature and purpose of the improvements contemplated by the plan of redevelopment.
The preliminary objections are: (1) that the complaint does not state a cause of action; (2) that the plaintiff lacked capacity to sue; (3) that the court below lacked jurisdiction; and (4) that the plaintiff was barred by laches. Jurisdiction was upheld by the court below and was not argued before us.
It need be noted only in passing that the purpose of the Authority is to deal with an area rather than with individual properties: Oliver v. Clairton, 374 Pa. 333 (1953). And it is generally settled that unless bad faith, arbitrary action, or failure to follow a statutory requirement are shown, the certification by an Authority that an area is blighted and the plan for improving it are not subject to judicial review: Schenck v. Pittsburgh, 364 Pa. 31 (1950); Oliver v. Clairton, supra, 374 Pa. 333 (1953); Lazrow v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 375 Pa. 586 (1954); Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing Authority, 379 Pa. 566 (1954). Plaintiff’s criticisms of the Authority’s action fall within this rule.
*198The dispositive rule is. .that plaintiff/, as a parish or congregation, has no standing .to sue. . The bishop, owns the property, in trust for the parish, and alone' may dispose of it in accordance with the canons of the Roman Catholic Church.
■ His ownership, as trustee is settled by the Act of June 20, 1935,- P. L. 353; 10 P.S. §81, which reads, .in-part': “Whensoever any property . ... has .:. . been, conveyed to any . . . bishop . . . for the use of any, church, congregation, or religious society, for .or in trust for religious worship . . . the same shall be taken and held subject to the control and disposition of,: such officers or authorities . . . having a controlling power according to the rules, regulations, usages;' or corporate requirement of such church '. . ., which control ánd disposition shall be exercised in accordance-with .-; -. , the rules and regulations* usages,. canons, discipline and requirements of the religious body . . . to which such church, congregation, or’.religious’ society shall belong . . . .” .
The cases of Canovaro v. Brothers of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, 326 Pa. 76 (1937) and Past v. Dougherty, 326 Pa. 97 (1937), hold deafly .that a member of. a parish has no property-right in his membership or any property right in church. property save as a member; that his-rights are governed by the laws of his denomination; and that the Roman Catholic canons and- the decisions of the appropriate tribunals and officials of the Church control the issues. raised in. the case, unless those canons and decisions should contravene the law of the land. Both cases involved extinction of a parish by proceedings in accordance with church regulations. If a parish -can be extinguished, a church building can be razed.
The members of the plaintiff parish are bound by the Act of 1935 and by these cases. They have- not al*199leged that the action of the defendant bishop contravenes the canons of the Chnrch or the law of the land. The power to dispose of this church property is therefore exclusively in him. Nor has plaintiff in any way .impugned the action of the bishop as being against the prescribed process of the Church or as being in bad faith, but rather in its answer to the preliminary objections has expressly excepted him from any imputation of fraud. Hence plaintiff may not have the advantage of the familiar rule that the beneficiaries of a recalcitrant or evil trustee may step into his place and. sue.
. For the same reason complaints about the conduct .of the Authority are irrelevant and it is unnecessary to discuss the. question of laches.
¡The order of the court below, sustaining preliminary objections (1) and (2) and dismissing the complaint, is affirmed. •