Posted on 01/05/2005 5:49:28 AM PST by netmilsmom
Could someone explain what the issue is here? Thanks.
I'd like some more details, too. The article, except for the above comment, was pretty vague on the reasons for the board's action.
Here is a link to the original FR thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1282986/posts
The Vatican has ruled that St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish must comply with the governance structure of all other parishes in the St. Louis Archdiocese. The lay board of directors was allowed by Archbishop Peter Kenrick in 1891. The Vatican ruled that the board had since then amended the incorporation document so that it no longer complied with Church law. The Congregation for the Clergy — the Vatican office that handles all parish matters — sided with St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who objected to St. Stanislaus Kostka being run by a lay board of directors. The parish vigorously had challenged Burke's demand to relinquish control of $9 million in assets and a lay board's leadership, calling that an unlawful takeover.
I'm sure glad I have a personal relationship with Christ so I don't have to be concerned with all these fallible mortals and their squabbles.
>>I'm sure glad I have a personal relationship with Christ so I don't have to be concerned with all these fallible mortals and their squabbles.<<
I'm glad that you do! Life in Our Lord's Light is wonderful, but,are you saying that the people of this parish do not?
Apparently the church has more than 10 commandments.
Apparently the church has more than 10 commandments.
For Catholics who are dying for prelates to start cracking heads, Burke is a hero.
For the rest of us, these heavy-handed tactics do nothing but cause resentment. Threatening to throw people out of the Church over a building will simply cause them to dig in their heels, and will likely spur a lawsuit, costing the archdiocese of St. Louis money it doesn't have.
Burke's position is unassailable. His actions, however, are not those of a shepherd. There are no wolves here.
I realize that Burke is very orthodox and conservative AND that this is the correct interpretation of canon law. The problem is that given the homosexual infiltration of the church and the catastrophic costs of the sex abuses cases, this is far too much money from one Catholic community to be under the control of any diocesan bureaucracy. What you have had going on for years is faithful lay Catholics handing over their assets to be controlled (unfortunately) by mostly homosexual liberal clergy who are themselves NOT loyal, faithful, or orthodox Catholics.
Burke may be exercising a correct understanding of Catholic authority, but the entire way that the Catholic Church in America is being funded and administered needs to be reexamined. You simply cannot have faithful Catholic laymen PAYING for the misbehavior of homosexuals who have infiltrated the Catholic Church. There is a need to restructure the financial operations of the church so that homosexuals are NEVER in control of the funds ever again. In fact, it ought to be a principle in canon law that a homosexual CANNOT be in charge of administering church funds. Any other bondable profession in American society which controls assets of this size would exercise prudence in such matters.
>>For the rest of us, these heavy-handed tactics do nothing but cause resentment. <<
Yes!
Thank you. I went and read the other post, but the issue is still pretty obscure to me, and seems to do solely with control. Although since the deed giving them control was signed in 1891, I guess it's been limping along just fine for quite some time, and I wonder what impelled Abp. Burke to do this now.
My prediction? Burke is opening a Pandora's box. You can bet this board has legally shielded the $9 million, and, no matter what Church law says, Burke will never see a dime of this money.
Nine million semolians.
Yes, I definitely agree with you there. It's an issue that hasn't gotten much attention, that I know of, but I think it's one that people should start to consider. I know it will make the heirarchy quake in their loafers. MOre financial control at the parish level would probably mean more control over the clergy on other levels, too. As you say, nobody wants to pay for Father Fruitbat's pecadilloes or those of his boyfriends.
That's enough to light a fire under any bishop...
Actually...maybe I should rephrase that comment...it's open to all sorts of intepretations, some of them downright rude!
Of course he is. For a born-again Christian, nmh shows a strange interest in trolling Catholic threads to pick fights that most people would have outgrown by the 5th grade. I expect he has a pile of Jack Chick comics ready at hand to back up his points.
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.