Posted on 04/26/2007 11:58:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Because they think thay the world’s major problem is too many people. Baby poo causes global warming.
I propose to send Sheryl all my unused 1-ply that I refuse to use as my TP offset so I can wipe my ass guilt free.
Let’s all do this...
Ten tons of 1-ply would be fun to deal with!
God bless him. We need more Bishops to stand up for the Church. Maybe this will move some of them.
looks like the archbishop just ensured sheryl crow will be winning grammy awards for the foreseeable future
if she films a movie, she’s a shoe-in for an oscar
hell, maybe even the nobel peace prize
Good to see Archbishop Burke do something useful with his time, like fighting poo-flingers like Sheryl Crow, instead of trying to shake down St. Stanislaus for money.
About time an RC official showed some guts.
Agreed!
I hope he washed with a good antibacterial soap when he was done.
Archbishop Burke never tried to shake down St. Stan’s and even told them SPECIFICALLY their money would stay their money. The parish was operating against canon law, now it is simply schismatic. Case closed.
Just as an added question, how in the world can it be anything but hypocritical to promote protecting the environment, and all the “endangered animals” (who aren’t endangered) and at the same time, slaughter innocent babies???
Well, as I live and breathe. Finally a cleric who stands firm for something. Nice surprise.
Why is it that the same people who are so concerned about global warming are also in favor of abortion, stem cell research using embyronic cells
My theory is that they somehow think THEY are going to beat the system and live forever. I honestly don’t think it ever occurs to them that they ARE going to die, probably within the same average life expectancy range, as everyone else.
ya know, as it turns out Sheryl Crow is just another horse head
A clergyman of honor, courage, character and principle - in short, the kind of cleric the Catholic Church and “mainstream” Protestant churches need more of.
Oh their assets would stay there, in the hands of a priest appointed by Burke himself. While that is the canonical norm, no Archbishop since Ritter has pressed St. Stanislaus Kostka on the issue. Burke’s reorganization plan for the churches in south city, the permanent transferrence of the Polish mission from St. Stanislaus to St. Agatha, and the 8 acres and $9 million in property in dispute lead me to believe, and I could be entirely wrong about it, that Raymond Burke’s motives are not entirely based in enforcing ecclesiastical orthodoxy.
You wrote:
“Oh their assets would stay there, in the hands of a priest appointed by Burke himself.”
Yeah, that’s called C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C-I-S-M. That’s how Catholics do it: the bishop is appointed, and he appoints those in his diocese who run parishes.
“While that is the canonical norm, no Archbishop since Ritter has pressed St. Stanislaus Kostka on the issue.”
Just because every other archbishop turned out to not want to follow canon law doesn’t mean Burke should be attacked as if he wanted to steal St. Stan’s money. That’s basically your argument here. No other archbishop pressed St. Stan’s to do the right thing, so, because Burke did, he must actually be a thief. Sorry, but that makes no sense.
“Burke’s reorganization plan for the churches in south city, the permanent transferrence of the Polish mission from St. Stanislaus to St. Agatha, and the 8 acres and $9 million in property in dispute lead me to believe, and I could be entirely wrong about it, that Raymond Burke’s motives are not entirely based in enforcing ecclesiastical orthodoxy.”
One thing you are right: You are entirely wrong about this.
I have had the pleasure of knowing Archbishop Burke personally. The man is one of the most humble and devout Catholics I have ever met.
No other Archbishop ever went after St. Stanislaus because no Archbishop paid them much attention. For roughly 100 years, St. Stan has been left to its own devices, when the church burned in the 20s, when it was falling apart, and when the parishoners on their own money renovated the place and acquired the land around it. Only after nearly a century of hands off policy, and only 9 million dollars and 8 acres later does the Archdiocese decide that St. Stanislaus needs to be brought under control. If you think my argument is that because no other Archbishop "enforced" canon law on St. Stanislaus makes Raymond Burke a thief, then you are sorely mistaken. What I find objectionable is Raymond Burke, and the Archdioscese of St. Louis, after nearly a century of neglect, come waving canon law at St. Stanislaus Kostka and demanding their due and proper in a manner worthy of an absentee landlord.
From the historical perspective, what Burke has done thus far isn't that different from George III and Parliament, who had British law on their side in demanding the American colonists submission the matter of taxation, who had since around 1600, been left to their own devices.
Raymond Burke can be as righteous, saintly and humble as he wants to be, but at the end of the day, essentially seizing the fruits of others labor and depriving them of self-determination, whether it is the "right" of a King or the authority of the leader of the Archodioscese in communion with Rome, doesn't make it any more righteous or acceptable than what it is. A power grab on people who have prospered in spite of the Archdioscese, not because of it.
You wrote:
“Interesting. I thought Catholicism was about the profession of faith, the liturgy, the commandments, and the Lord’s prayer. But thanks for clearing that up, as it’s really about who gets to wear the big pants. Or the big hat in the case of the RCC.”
Wow, you really are poorly catechized aren’t you? The profession of faith is made in union with the BISHOP as the visible sign of unity withing the Church, the liturgy is celebrated with the permission of the BISHOP, the commandments are taught by the BISHOP, and discipline for those who violate them starts at the BISHOP’S office.
“No other Archbishop ever went after St. Stanislaus because no Archbishop paid them much attention.”
So Burke pays attention to details? How is that bad?
“For roughly 100 years, St. Stan has been left to its own devices, when the church burned in the 20s, when it was falling apart, and when the parishoners on their own money renovated the place and acquired the land around it.”
Gee, pretty story. Tell another. It’s irrelevant in any case. It doesn’t matter what St, Stan’s 70 years ago. If it wants to be Catholic it has to be in accordance with canon law NOW not a hundred years ago. Is that really that hard to understand?
“Only after nearly a century of hands off policy, and only 9 million dollars and 8 acres later does the Archdiocese decide that St. Stanislaus needs to be brought under control.”
That’s not true. Several Archbishops already knew the problem, but did nothing. Burke is not the kind of man to ignore the elephant in the room.
“If you think my argument is that because no other Archbishop “enforced” canon law on St. Stanislaus makes Raymond Burke a thief, then you are sorely mistaken.”
No, I am not only not mistaken, but you just made essentially the same argument.
“What I find objectionable is Raymond Burke, and the Archdioscese of St. Louis, after nearly a century of neglect, come waving canon law at St. Stanislaus Kostka and demanding their due and proper in a manner worthy of an absentee landlord.”
What you object to is meaningless. Are your feelings hurt over this? How about focusing on doing the right thing? Burke was right to enforce canon law. It’s just taht simple.
“From the historical perspective, what Burke has done thus far isn’t that different from George III and Parliament, who had British law on their side in demanding the American colonists submission the matter of taxation, who had since around 1600, been left to their own devices.”
Nonsense. First, stop pretending that St. Stan’s was left to its own devices. Who sent it its priests? The Archbishop of St. Louis - or didn’t you realize that?
“Raymond Burke can be as righteous, saintly and humble as he wants to be, but at the end of the day, essentially seizing the fruits of others labor and depriving them of self-determination, whether it is the “right” of a King or the authority of the leader of the Archodioscese in communion with Rome, doesn’t make it any more righteous or acceptable than what it is.”
Nonsense. No Catholic parish has a right of self-determination. Next you’ll be claiming that Christians actually have a right to sin rather than simply free will. All Catholic parishes in a diocese are under the auspices of the diocesan bishop. Don’t like it? It doesn’t matter.
“A power grab on people who have prospered in spite of the Archdioscese, not because of it.”
Because of it. There would be no parish there at all for the last 100 years if not for the archdiocese. No sacraments, no parish life, nothing. A parish without a priest is all but dead. A parish without the communion of a Catholic bishop is Protestant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.