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 ...
"Those people don't have any authority over the Archdiocese of St. Louis," Reese said. "I think that's a dead end. The church is like any other institution -- it has procedures and laws, and you have to follow those procedures if you want to appeal."
This whole situation has brought much sadness to the community here.
Sad. Archbishop Burke is one of a few good ones.
I believe he instructed his flock that pro-death politicians are not to receive communion, then lead a march to the doors of an abortuary.
Ping for later
I'm sure it has. It's brought much sadness to those even outside the archdiocese who are following the story. I wonder if they'll align with the Polish Catholic Church?
Let me be the bad guy here - to me, this is good news. I am glad to hear that the board of the church had the guts to stand up to Burke, and his mad grab for the material assets of this parish.
Burke's action - which had the very obvious motivation of being in control of the parishes nearly 10 million $ in assets - was painfully obvious. There had been no problem with the status of the parish for a century, prior to Burke. Yes, the corporate status was unusual, rare - but it was allowed by Burke's predecessors.
If Burke was actually as orthodox as he is claimed to be, he would be more concerend with liturgical and catechetical orthodoxy in all of his parishes, rather then material assets. Those of us who are truly spiritually aware know that God will give you whatever you need - Christ told us not to worry for material things; they will be given to us, as needed.
The apostate Jesuit Thomas Reese does make a good point: it is unlikely that any appeal to Rome wil be sucessful, as the unfaithful clerics at the key chokepoints of power are at one with men like Burke.
Yes, the situation is sad. but it is one cause by Burke himself because he forced an issue which he need not have done. It is HIS fault.
So, now the good Catholics of this parish are under interdict? They knew the possible consequences, nad are prepared to deal with it. They may well wind up either becoming an independant chapel. They will still have valid sacraments - but illicitly, from the Bishop's point of view. But, if they have a validly ordained priest saying mass - it will be a valid mass, nonetheless.
I am not in general favor of anarchy, but tough times call for tough decisions. I honestly wish that more parishes would stand up to their errent Bishops, and symbolicly give them "the finger" when they act in an arrogant manner. According to Canon Law, a bishop does not have the right nor the priviledge to ride roughshod over the laity.
It seems that Burke learned his lessons well from the likes of Egan.
This kind of activity will lead only to anarchy, and anarchy once established by precedent will not respect any rite, Tridentine, Novus Ordo, Byzantine, Anglican Use, it doesn't matter.
The Church should put a stop to this in no uncertain terms. And then move on to other infractions. It's too bad, not just for this situation but many others, that a bit of that old Medieval ethos isn't up and working.
It's a good thing I'm in charge of nothing because in some cases, I'd make certain certain heads rolled.
I thought the open letter from the parishoners that support the diocesan position was interesting in that they quoted primary sources.
It appears that the multiple revisions of the by-laws by the lay board is a usurpation of the authority structure created in the original incorporation articles.
They are lucky the diocese is treating them gently. They could be personally liable under Missouri law for their actions.
Whoa! Hold the horses! Before you go off on your usual rant, please take into consideration the position of Archbishop Burke. This is not a unique situation but one that requires some clarification, assuming you are open to the position of the Magisterium on matters of this nature.
One additional comment. For those of you who carry the burden of disappointment, angst and bitterness towards the Catholic Church for these changes, I would remind you of our liturgy where the priest proclaims "Peace be with you!". I listened to those words throughout my life but never 'felt' that peace. It wasn't until I shifted 'east' that those words took on a whole new meaning. If you are so bothered and upset with the actions within the Roman Rite, move 'east'. Search for an Eastern Catholic Church in your community, learn about its liturgy and attend a service there.
At the risk of sounding redundant, I will once again reinstate this message. Since joining a Maronite Catholic parish, all of that bitterness has been swept away. When the priest proclaims "Peace be with you!", it is indeed the Peace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that fills my heart and accompanies me throughout each week. These words are not symbolic, but real! You truly need to overcome this anger and reconcile yourselves with your faith.
February 11, 2005
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I write to you, once again, about St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, our historic personal parish for the faithful of Polish descent, and the issue of its control by a board which, in the last few years, has completely removed itself from the authority of the Catholic Church. I regret that my request and that of my predecessor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, that the parish conform to the Catholic Church’s requirements relating to the authority of the diocesan bishop and the pastor has been met with adamant resistance, even to the point of defiance. I also deeply regret that the board, having asked the intervention of the Holy See in the matter and having received the direction to comply with Church discipline, is now adamant in its resistance to the direction of the Holy See.
| Abp. describes interdict When a member of the Church has knowingly, deliberately and publicly damaged seriously the unity of the Church, his or her bishop has the pastoral responsibility to impose a sanction, in order to call the offending person to repentance and to restore the unity of the Church. If Church authority were not to address a public violation of Church unity, then scandal would be caused by those who present themselves as devout Catholics, when, in fact, they are not in full communion with the Church. In the case of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, the offense committed by the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of the parish is the public refusal to obey legitimate Church authority, namely the Holy Father’s Congregation for the Clergy and the archbishop of St. Louis, and the incitement of others to such disobedience. The applicable canons of the Code of Canon Law are canon 1371, paragraph 2, and canon 1373. The sanction of interdict, as defined in canon 1332, prohibits the member of the faithful: 1) from any ministerial part in the celebration of the Mass or any other ceremonies of worship; and 2) from celebrating the sacraments and sacramentals, and from receiving the sacraments. Interdict does not prohibit the offending party from assisting at Mass or other sacred rites. Receiving the sacraments, above all the Holy Eucharist, requires that a person be in full communion with the Church. For that reason, the sanction prohibits the reception of the sacraments. The censure binds the member of the faithful everywhere and until the offending person has been reconciled with the Church. The censure is lifted when the offending party has repented of his or her disobedience and has submitted to Church authority. In the case of the interdict imposed upon the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka, the archbishop of St. Louis has the authority to lift the censure and must lift the censure, as soon as the offending party has made known his or her repentance to the archbishop. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke |
For this I will certainly pray.
That explains a lot. Town and Country people are used to getting their way. Normally, all it takes is money and a little attitude and mere mortals bow and scrape.
They can throw all the fits they want. That doesn't make Burke wrong and he was and is not wrong.
They're St. Louis Poles. Common sense is NOT their strong suit.
Highly unlikely. The board has the guidance of property attorneys who know the law in Missouri.
This was entirely predictable, and entirely precipitated by Burke's pedal-to-the-metal mentality of dealing with these people.
It pains me, but I must agree with you. There was absolutely no reason for this.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. The property has not belonged to the archdiocese for 114 years.
What Glennon tried to prevent, Burke has accomplished.
As one of Slavic extraction, I resent your racist remark
Tell me, do you presume to imply that Archbishop Burke is not spiritually aware? And you have the gumption to throw around the word "arrogant" about others in your little rant?
Burke's action - which had the very obvious motivation of being in control of the parishes nearly 10 million $ in assets - was painfully obvious.
To whom? Many other articles posted on this situation here at FR have made have shown reasonable insights as to why this isn't the case. This includes explicit statements by the good Archbishop himself.
... but it was allowed by Burke's predecessors.
Including Justin Cardinal Rigali? As I recall, this situation derives directly from his tenure as Archbishop of St. Louis.
The apostate Jesuit Thomas Reese does make a good point: it is unlikely that any appeal to Rome wil be sucessful,...
I don't find Fr. Reese to be the most orthodox of Priests, but 'apostate' is out of bounds. Besides, if even he sees through the board members of this parish and knows that they are walking a tightrope without rope, shouldn't that cause you to ponder?
as the unfaithful clerics at the key chokepoints of power are at one with men like Burke.
Care to name names? We can only hope that at "key choke points of power" in the Church there are FAITHFUL men like Archbishop Burke.
So, now the good Catholics of this parish are under interdict?
No, the board members are under interdict because of their non-repented actions against unity of Christ's mystical body and bride, the Church.
They may well wind up either becoming an independant chapel.
And therefore outside the unity of the Church. A mere human institution as opposed to the Divinely established Church of Christ.
They will still have valid sacraments - but illicitly, from the Bishop's point of view.
Make that, "from the Church's point of view". The point of view that counts. Remember? "He who hears you, hears me ...". You have no problem with illicit sacraments and consider yourself a spiritually aware good Catholic?
But, if they have a validly ordained priest saying mass - it will be a valid mass, nonetheless.
But will this Priest have Christ's authority to perform His sacred actions? Authority which comes by him being united to Christ through His Bishops, all in unity with Rome.
According to Canon Law,...
You would have us listen to your version of Canon Law? Archbishop Burke is the Canon Lawyer I'll trust!
It's Lent thor. Use this holy season to strip yourself of pride.
.....and you would do equally well to shed yourself of your narcissistic self-righteousness.
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.