Skip to comments.St. Stan (St. Stanislaus Kostka)board cuts ties to Archdiocese
Posted on 02/24/2005 12:43:27 PM PST by NYer
In a letter to parishioners, the chairman of the six-member lay board of St. Stanislaus Kostka church said its relationship with the archdiocese "is finished" and that the board had voted to "seek interim religious guidance...from an order of priests or an individual priest outside the authority of the Archbishop of St. Louis" for the Easter season.
Archbishop Raymond Burke removed the St. Stanislaus pastors in August, but the parishioners disobeyed Burke in December when they brought an unidentified priest in from Poland to celebrate Christmas Mass.
"The BOD, with advice from many, has agreed that it is time to grasp the obvious that there is no hope for a timely mutual resolution," wrote William Bialczak, 55, of Town and Country. He said the negotiations with the archdiocese would resume "only as you direct...If in the near future, a permanent move outside the Archdiocese is decided in the best interests of the parish, a parishioner vote will be required."
In a separate statement, the board said Wednesday it would not appeal to the Vatican the penalty imposed on them by Burke that denies them access to the Roman Catholic sacraments, saying the board members "pray that a Man of God steps forward and rights this wrong."
The board said today it reached its decision after consulting with a canon law expert and the board's attorney.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
For further study - an extra credit assignment:
Once a non-profit corporation is moribund, its assets are dispersed. Now what do we do with a donor-restricted gift........or a restricted endowment fund? Depending upon the particulars, the board either passes this asset on to a succesor corporation.........or, were it necessary to keep the church corporation active to retain control of the funds, the parish corporation could be kept active - on paper, and the funds could ultimately & legally be transferred (all at once, or gradually) to the Archdiocese.
Here endeth the lesson.
Canon 1373 (one of the canons which Archbishop Burke states is applicable in the St. Stanislaus matter) of the 1983 Code of Canon Law reads as follows:
Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites his or her subjects to hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical authority or ministry, or who provokes the subjects to disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.Two canons of the 1917 Code are included in or are incorporated in Canon 1373. One of them is canon 2331 §2 on conspiracy against lawful authority and the other is canon 2344 on offenses against significant hierarchical authorities.
It it important to protect the exercise of Church authority; it is essential for the Church and community to function in an healthy atmosphere.
Regarding canon 2331: Disobedience becomes schism when it implies rejection of the Pope's authority and separation from the center of unit. But without going that far, it may be a sufficiently grave disorder to call for a special sanction. Two forms of it are dealt with in this canon (No. 2331).
#1. Simple disobedience. Obstinate disregard for the legitimate commands or prohibitions of the Sovereign Pontiff or of the Ordinary is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence. The nature of the penalty is not determined, but it is explicitly stated that even censures may be used if the case demands.
There must be obstinacy, which supposes previous warnings; and the orders which have been disobeyed are legitimate. Papal commands are always presumed to be so. Should they seem to hard to comply with or perhaps based on insufficient information, explanations may be offered, but if they are maintained, implicit submission remains the only course to follow.
If the Ordinary's enactments appeared objectionable, appeal or recourse to higher authority would be permitted; but in most matters, obedience would meanwhile be obligatory.
#2. Conspiracy. Disobedience is more criminal, more dangerous to common order, when to it is added conspiracy and several persons encourage one another, support one another, in the insubordination. Then those who conspire against the Roman Pontiff or of his legate or of their Ordinary, who strive to place obstacles to the legitimate exercise of that authority or to spread the spirit of rebellion among the subjects, are to be placed under censures or otherwise punished.
The commentary regarding canon 2344 states: Attacks on the neighbor's reputation, honor, or character, i.e., personal as distinct from real injuries, are also delinquencies often and severely punished in ancient canons...The Decretals have two distinct titles on the subject (De Maledicis, De Injuriis, v, 26, 36).
Much of this legislation was merely local or had fallen into desuetude with the change of social conditions adapting them to present needs.
#1. The persons to whom this is intended to protect belong to the highest ranks of the hierarchy: the Pope, the Cardinals, Apostolic legates, the Sacred Congregations, the Roman tribunals and their major Official, and the Ordinary of the possible offenders.
#2. The abuses at which the law strikes here consist in injurious attacks, direct or indirect, against the prelates, in the public press or speeches or libels; or in denunciations calculated to excite animosity against their acts, decrees, decisions, or sentences.
#3. The penalties are ferendae sententiae and left to the judgement of the Ordinary. He is to proceed ex officio against the delinquents, when the offended parties do not sue them, and oblige them to make proper reparation, making use even of censures or other punishments and penances, as the gravity of the fault and the scandal may demand.
Source: Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (Book 5)
by Very Rev. H.A.Ayrinhac, S.S., D.D., D.C.L Copyright 1920
To which I refer you back to replies 116 & 117 in the other posting http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1351909/posts?q=1&&page=117#117
Here is also a good read I found many months past http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v34-issue1/coughlin.pdf
And the purpose of this is what? Are you disputing my post on Canon 1373 (#142 above)?
Just providing some background on the Archbishop's works. While I have your attention though, and I'm not being sarcastic, can you explain this to me http://www.canonsregular.com/index.html ? I don't understand why or why move them to St. Louis if they were established in Lacrosse. I'm being serious, I figure you have an in that would be able to better educate me in this new order.
Knowing that Archbishop Burke was generous in providing a means for people to attend the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962, several people contacted him and expressed their desire for him to provide some means by which another Tridentine Mass might be established in the St Charles or West County area.
In early April 2004, the Prior of the Canons, Fr. Oppenheimer, petitioned Archbishop Burke, the juridical founder of the Canons, to transfer to St. Louis. There were several reasons, as I understand it. The primary reason seemed to be a general lack of interest by the faithful of La Crosse for the work in which the Canons are devoted.
As it turned out, there was a request by the faithful here which could be met by the Canons. The rest is history. Archbishop Burke approved the transfer request and the Canons are in the process of more fully establishing their community here. I understand that it is another community which will strive to help increase priestly vocations, as well. I have attended Mass with the Canons when I am able. Hopefully, I will be able to do so more regularly in the future.
Fr. Oppenheimer explained some of this during a visit last year when a special Mass was celebrated. I hope this answers your question to some degree.
Thank you for the information. Yes, it helps. But, what are the differences between them and the Institute of Christ the King. Do they have a different mission/purpose?
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.