As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that you don't know what "canon law" St. Stanislaus supposedly violated. St. Stanislaus neither defied his ecclesiastic authority nor did they incite "hatred" against the Holy See or the Ordinary (Burke). Burke's command was no more legitimate than if he had stopped a random Catholic in the street and demanded the deed to their house or be denied the sacraments. Not to mention any good American would frown on Ex Post Facto law, whether it came from Jefferson City, Washington D.C., or Rome.
I'm not to going to run through the rest because you repeat the same thing like a mantra. Canon law, canon law, and what's that, more canon law. No citation, reference, or proof. "Raymond Burke is a 'good man' and "it's canon law."
Burke doesn't need St. Stanislaus' money? That's funny in light of the Archdioscese of St. Louis spending roughly $9 million defending itself from case claims of sex abuse and legal costs. And who should happen to be worth at least $9 million dollars easily? St. Stanislaus Kostka church.
So please, by all means, repeat that mantra that has no definitive meaning to you except as a cudgel and to the Archbishop except as leverage, ("canon law", "canon law", "canon law"). Canon law is neither infalliable, like any other law devised by man, is neither infalliable nor unchanging (if 1917 and 1983 are any indications). Along with your canon law mantra, repeat this one too. "Unjust laws are, properly speaking, no laws." - St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church.
I would have tango-tangled with her...until I learned that she doesn’t clean her muffin after using it.
You wrote:
“I see from your sorry attempts to refute my argument throwing out the rather general and ambiguous “canon law” that none of your dear associate’s humility and Christian devotion rubbed off on you.”
You never made an argument. You posted points that couldn’t amount to an argument no matter how long you played with them. Also, I never claimed to be as good a Christian as Archbishop Burke, nor would I.
“As a matter of fact, I’d be willing to bet that you don’t know what “canon law” St. Stanislaus supposedly violated.”
Can. 1255, 1257, 1273, 1276, 1280, 1281, 1284 and 1287 immediately come to mind.
“St. Stanislaus neither defied his ecclesiastic authority nor did they incite “hatred” against the Holy See or the Ordinary (Burke).”
Actually, St. Stan’s did both. 1) They defied his authority by ignoring his orders. How much more plain could it be? If St. Stan’s DID NOT defy his authority then it wouldn’t be in schism NOW!!!! That’s essentially what the Vatican said when it ruled that Burke had acted appropriately against St. Stan’s rebels. 2) St. Stan’s has consistently lied and said that this was about Burke trying to steal their property. To lie about a man and claim his actions were of the basest character when they were not is clearly an act of hatred.
“Burke’s command was no more legitimate than if he had stopped a random Catholic in the street and demanded the deed to their house or be denied the sacraments.”
Wrong. Your analogy completely fails you. Again, you forget that we are talking about a Catholic parish here. If it claims to be a Catholic parish then it should act as one and respect the canon law it comes under as a Catholic parish. You keep avoiding this point because you know it destroys your “argument”. You don’t have any argument whatsoever until you acknowledge that this was a functioning Catholic parish and not a Protestant’s personal backyard chapel.
“Not to mention any good American would frown on Ex Post Facto law, whether it came from Jefferson City, Washington D.C., or Rome.”
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what Americans think about this or any other Church action. The Church is here for Christians no matter what country they are from.
“I’m not to going to run through the rest because you repeat the same thing like a mantra. Canon law, canon law, and what’s that, more canon law. No citation, reference, or proof. “Raymond Burke is a ‘good man’ and “it’s canon law.””
You can’t do any better going through the “rest” than you did not presenting an “argument” for anything so far. Again, you dismiss canon law when canon law is the key since the parish claimed to be a Catholic parish and was staffed for the last 100 years by Catholic priests. You can ignore that huge canon law elephant in the room all you like. You won’t be able to argue rationally by doing so, but that won’t be anything new now would it?
“Burke doesn’t need St. Stanislaus’ money? That’s funny in light of the Archdioscese of St. Louis spending roughly $9 million defending itself from case claims of sex abuse and legal costs. And who should happen to be worth at least $9 million dollars easily? St. Stanislaus Kostka church.”
Again, irrelevant. St. Louis is a BIG archdiocese. It will be able to cover the costs of those cases. Burke doesn’t need St. Stan’s money. Wherever Burke goes, donations follow. Burke is orthodox and attracts orthodox Catholics. Those Catholics donate to his diocese and causes. St. Louis will not need St. Stan’s money, said it didn’t want it, and Burke is banned by canon law from taking it anyway as he has emphatically pointed out more than once! Burke wrote in his own newspaper column on May 14, 2004: “Regarding parish funds, no bishop may confiscate the funds of any parish. Such action is directly forbidden by the Code of Canon Law. The ownership of goods acquired by a parish belongs to the parish and is governed by Church discipline (cf. Can. 1255-1257).” Clearly Burke is not interested in St. Stan’s money and knows it is forbidden him anyway.
“So please, by all means, repeat that mantra that has no definitive meaning to you except as a cudgel and to the Archbishop except as leverage, (”canon law”, “canon law”, “canon law”).”
In other words, you don’t know canon law, can’t argue about canon law, and still are making the same stupid mistake in assuming a canon law issue isn’t a canon law issue. It was a Catholic parish. It therefore was bound by canon law. Period.
“Canon law is neither infalliable, like any other law devised by man, is neither infalliable nor unchanging (if 1917 and 1983 are any indications).”
It doesn’t matter that you think the code isn’t infallible. It is the code of canon law and all Catholics are bound by it. Are you going to claim that Americans are not bound by American law because it’s fallible? Your “argument” is simply nuts then isn’t it? Also, if you’re going to squeal like a little girl over the fact that canon law has changed then why not at least admit there might be a problem with the fact that St. Stan’s unilaterally changed their bylaws several times in just the last few decades. But no, you say nothing.
“Along with your canon law mantra, repeat this one too. “Unjust laws are, properly speaking, no laws.” - St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church.”
St. Stan’s was not hurt by any “unjust” law. St. Stan’s is alone in the world really isn’t it? How is it that every other Catholic parish on the planet lived just fine with the law except St. Stan’s? And how do you think Cardinal Bellarmine would regard schismatic St. Stan’s?