Speaking of things that have nothing to do with canon law, St. Stanislaus' property has nothing to do with canon law considering that the church was signed over to the St. Stanislaus Parish, Inc by Archbishop Peter Kendrick. So the property stopped being a matter of canon law about 120 years ago and became a matter of civil law when the corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Inc. acquired the property from Archbishop Kendrick. This is also why Raymond Burke hasn't seen fit to pursue action in the court.
So they knew there was a "problem" and did nothing. Why? Because at the time, St. Stanislaus had no assets to liquidate. Seems like he's not only the type of man not to ignore an elephant, he's not the kind of man to pass up an opportunity to fill the Archdioscese's coffers.
Why would my feelings be hurt? I'm neither Catholic, nor Polish. Apparently that canon law is very important, so important in fact that every Archbishop of St. Louis but two since the founding and incorporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka has been elevated to the Cardinalate in spite of the "apostasy" of St. Stanislaus. Raymond Burke's claim of being "bound" by canon law is as flimsy as the notion that St. Stanislaus and it's property belong to the Archdioscese.
Wow, the Archbishop remembered to send them a priest. And when the roof was falling in in the 70s, where was the Archbishop then? How about when people were shooting at the church from Pruitt-Igoe? St. Stanislaus had nothing liquid, so the Archdioscese wasn't interested. So, pretty much left to their own devices.
Again, not really. Theft only takes place when one intends to deprive someone else of their property and succeeds in the act. Besides, it's not so much theft as it is extortion. Sign over your property or I'll take your priests. Sign over your property or I'll excommunicate you. Sign over your property or I'll shoot this dog. At least Jesse Jackson has a more realistic angle when he works his extortion rackets.
Of course you have a right to sin, just like you have the right to go to hell, if such is your wish. Even the great Augustine had trouble nailing down precisely where God's beautitude ends and Man's free will begins. But that's something altogether different. According to the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, laymen can administer church funds, with the bishop's approval, which they got when the church property was incorporated.
There would be no parish without the parishoners, just as a shepard isn't a shepard without a flock. St. Stanislaus was all but dead until the parishoners took it on themselves to bring it back to life. I will, however, concede one thing. One priest was helpful in St. Stanislaus' revival. Father Jakle who registered St. Stanislaus as a National Historic Site.
You wrote:
“Apparently he pays very good attention to details when it comes claiming assets for the Archdioscese.”
Burke pays attention to every detail, but didn’t do anything that by law should not have been done.
“Speaking of things that have nothing to do with canon law, St. Stanislaus’ property has nothing to do with canon law considering that the church was signed over to the St. Stanislaus Parish, Inc by Archbishop Peter Kendrick.”
Wrong again. St. Stan’s was a Catholic parish and was therefore ALWAYS subject to canon law no matter who owned the deed.
“So the property stopped being a matter of canon law about 120 years ago and became a matter of civil law when the corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Inc. acquired the property from Archbishop Kendrick.”
Incorrect again. You really have no idea of what you’re talking about. St. Stan’s was a Catholic parish and subject to canon law. There is no such thing as a Catholic parish that is NOT subject to Catholic canon law. Are you next going to claim that the parish was not subject to Catholic theology because it was incorporated?
“This is also why Raymond Burke hasn’t seen fit to pursue action in the court.”
Wrong again. St. Stan’s violated canon law and not civil law. That’s why Burke hasn’t pursued it in court. No matter what St. Stan’s standing in civil law was, however, it still had obligations to meet in regard to canon law.
“So they knew there was a “problem” and did nothing. Why? Because at the time, St. Stanislaus had no assets to liquidate. Seems like he’s not only the type of man not to ignore an elephant, he’s not the kind of man to pass up an opportunity to fill the Archdioscese’s coffers.”
Wrong again. Burke doesn’t need St. Stan’s money, and made clear promises that their money would be protected. Burke is known to be a man of his word. What poorly educated people like yourself don’t know, and don’t care to educate yourselves about is that Burke was the highest ranking American canon lawyer in history. He knows canon law inside and out, and felt obligated to bring St. Stan’s into compliance with the law. He had every right to do so. He was right to do it and no one was going to lose anything by it of any consequence if they value their faith.
“Why would my feelings be hurt? I’m neither Catholic, nor Polish.”
Nor very knowledgeable, nor very good at seeing the difference between one thing and another.
“Apparently that canon law is very important, so important in fact that every Archbishop of St. Louis but two since the founding and incorporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka has been elevated to the Cardinalate in spite of the “apostasy” of St. Stanislaus.”
Wrong again. There has been no apostasy at St. Stan’s. St. Stan’s is in an act of schism. Also, St. Louis’ archbishop being made a cardinal had nothing to do with St. Stan’s, little or nothing to do with the Archbishop and everything to do with what St. Louis once was as a Catholic city.
“Raymond Burke’s claim of being “bound” by canon law is as flimsy as the notion that St. Stanislaus and it’s property belong to the Archdioscese.”
Wrong again. As I just told you, Burke is the highest ranking American canon lawyer in history. As such he certainly does feel bound to follow the law.
“Wow, the Archbishop remembered to send them a priest. And when the roof was falling in in the 70s, where was the Archbishop then?”
Working as an archbishop and sending them their pastors. It is up to the people of the parish to upkeep the parish. It is up to the bishop to staff the parish church with a priest.
“How about when people were shooting at the church from Pruitt-Igoe?”
It is up to the police to police the streets, not the archbishop.
“St. Stanislaus had nothing liquid, so the Archdioscese wasn’t interested. So, pretty much left to their own devices.”
ST. Stan’s is in violation of canon law. It’s just that simple. It’s assets were not an issue as Burke attested to.
“Again, not really. Theft only takes place when one intends to deprive someone else of their property and succeeds in the act. Besides, it’s not so much theft as it is extortion. Sign over your property or I’ll take your priests. Sign over your property or I’ll excommunicate you. Sign over your property or I’ll shoot this dog. At least Jesse Jackson has a more realistic angle when he works his extortion rackets.”
There is no extortion. A parish that is openly disobedient to the shepherd of the diocese deserves no pastor. Your sanctimoniousness is laughable. Would you send someone to work in a place that was openly violating the laws that you yourself had to enforce? Of course you wouldn’t. That would be irrational wouldn’t it? So why would Burke continue to send a priest to a parish that was flouting canon laws that Burke was bound to enforce at the archbishop of the diocese?
“Of course you have a right to sin, just like you have the right to go to hell, if such is your wish.”
Wrong again. No one has a right to do evil. If you have a right to do evil then evil is right to do. We have free will. We have no right, whatsoever, to commit sinful actions. If we had a right to commit sinful actions then it wouldn’t be sinful, wouldn’t result in punishment and would need no redemption.
You seem to have great difficulty in thinking clearly.
“Even the great Augustine had trouble nailing down precisely where God’s beautitude ends and Man’s free will begins.”
He never had any difficulty is drawing the line against allowing free will to be interpreted as a license to commit evil actions. We simply have no right to commit evil.
“But that’s something altogether different. According to the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, laymen can administer church funds, with the bishop’s approval, which they got when the church property was incorporated.”
Irrelevant. The First Plenary Council of Baltimore is not the final say in canon law. St. Stan’s claimed to be a Catholic parish in the diocese of St. Louis. It is, therefore, subject to the archbishop of St. Louis and canon law. Again, you really have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“There would be no parish without the parishoners, just as a shepard isn’t a shepard without a flock. St. Stanislaus was all but dead until the parishoners took it on themselves to bring it back to life. I will, however, concede one thing. One priest was helpful in St. Stanislaus’ revival. Father Jakle who registered St. Stanislaus as a National Historic Site.”
And St. Stan’s was subject to canon law as a Catholic parish. Case closed. Burke is right. And you have no idea of what you’re talking about.