Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

St. Stan (St. Stanislaus Kostka)board cuts ties to Archdiocese
STL Today ^ | February 23, 2005 | Tim Townsend

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 ...


TOPICS: Activism; Catholic; Current Events; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Worship
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-148 next last
To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Bump!


21 posted on 02/24/2005 6:28:47 PM PST by Robert Drobot (God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus

What has Burke gained?


22 posted on 02/24/2005 6:29:47 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; thor76

I'm in full agreement with thor76. IMO, you have crossed a threshold from which there is no exit.


23 posted on 02/24/2005 6:32:40 PM PST by Robert Drobot (God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot
.....and you would do equally well to shed yourself of your narcissistic self-righteousness.

Narcissistic? As in egomaniac? Self-righteous? Me?

Read 'thor 76's rant again and see if you haven't posted to the wrong individual here.

24 posted on 02/24/2005 6:43:40 PM PST by TotusTuus (I'm not the one promulgating schism in the Church!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Gerard.P; Viva Christo Rey; Canticle_of_Deborah; broadsword

"......to the position of the Magisterium on matters of this nature."

Pssst.......this situation in now way has anything to do with the Magisterium. This is a matter of church discipline, and of Canon Law......all of which has nothing to do with the teaching authority of the Church.

And, in reagrd to Canon Law, while Burke might claim to be desirous of wanting to bring the ownership of this parishes property in conformity with Canon Law, he is clearly using it to suit his purpose - which rides roughshod over the people.

In regard to the interdict over the parish and its membership......Burke has some pair of cahones. He should try disciplining his errent clergy and religious - and rigorouly enforcing the rubrics of the mass & sacraments, and punishing those who preach/teach heresy.

Instead, he picks an easy target: a Polish parish with lots of $$$. Easy pickings!


25 posted on 02/24/2005 6:46:28 PM PST by thor76 (Vade retro, Draco! Crux sacra sit mihi lux !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
What has Burke gained?

Look at your own tagline. He, like all other Bishops, is to preach the gospel in and out of season. It is his mandate from Christ to teach, rule, and sanctify the faithful under his charge. All indications suggest that he is trying to bring about a peaceful and amicable solution to a problem involving a parish Church run by a disobedient board of directors. A board which is defying the Holy See as well as him.

Through the years, on these FR poster boards as well, we have discussed time and time again how many of the Bishops have been weak at fulfilling their sacred duties regarding a variety of issues. Here, we have a Bishop trying to bring to a close through proper Canon Law and mediation a situation which can only cause more problems down the road without proper intervention now - problems of breaking apart the mystical Body of Christ.

Among other things, he gains my respect and admiration and I hope that of others.

26 posted on 02/24/2005 6:58:12 PM PST by TotusTuus (I'm not the one promulgating schism in the Church!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus

This is one subject upon which Sinkspur and I agree: what has Burke gained by all this?

Nothing!

He has the laity upo in arms against him, and has lost a good Cathlic parish as a result of his hunger for filthy lucre.

I have seen Burke on EWTN. I was not impressed with him as a "pious man", or one of persnal charity. Rather I saw a beaurocrat who knew "all the right answers", who giveth the appearance of conservativism. But not a man of substance.

There was absolutely no reason for him to wage war with the people of St. Stan's.

Oh, yea - he knows all the ways to sound like a conservative. But without charity, he is nothing - a whitened sepulchre.

If he had charity in his heart, he would simply have left St. Stan's alone. The irregularity of theircorporate board was truly unimportant.

All Burke did is prove that he is the biggest bully in the school yard........nd that he (literally)owns the schoolyard.


27 posted on 02/24/2005 6:58:53 PM PST by thor76 (Vade retro, Draco! Crux sacra sit mihi lux !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus; thor76

Forgot to ping you to # 24


28 posted on 02/24/2005 7:00:35 PM PST by TotusTuus (I'm not the one promulgating schism in the Church!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot; Desdemona; thor76
I'm in full agreement with thor76. IMO, you have crossed a threshold from which there is no exit.

Hey, I'm Slavic too!

The lady may have a point ...;)

29 posted on 02/24/2005 7:04:31 PM PST by TotusTuus (I'm not the one promulgating schism in the Church!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus
All indications suggest that he is trying to bring about a peaceful and amicable solution to a problem involving a parish Church run by a disobedient board of directors.

Peaceful? Amicable? Is imposing an interdict, and thus keeping Catholic people away from the sacraments, the Christ-like thing to do over a piece of property?

There's no violation of dogma or doctrine here. Nobody's threatening to ordain bishops or priests outside of Burke's jurisdiction.

It's just a piece of property, which Burke has now lost anyway and he's angered the majority of a community of Catholic people.

Burke's been in St. Louis a little over a year, and he's already broken the Catholic community. There'll be more of this stuff with this guy.

30 posted on 02/24/2005 7:10:54 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

We are in accord on this. There was nothing to be gained by Burke's action.

There had been no heresy - no unauthorized ordination, or anything which would ordinarliy indicate schism.

You are right - its all over property, which Burke has now lost.......and with it perhaps a good number of people.


31 posted on 02/24/2005 7:24:53 PM PST by thor76 (Vade retro, Draco! Crux sacra sit mihi lux !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Common sense is NOT their strong suit.

I guess that explains why they are having a "Candlelight Vigil" at the Cathedral on March 6 at 11:00AM

32 posted on 02/24/2005 7:25:16 PM PST by lrslattery (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam - http://slatts.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: thor76
I do think Burke would have eventually prevailed, because Canon Law IS on his side.

But, what's the hurry? Work with these people. Give a little, take some time. Visit them. Say Mass for them. Go to a Polish picnic. Eat some kielbasa. Pick up some children and play with them.

Burke says the money can stay with the parishioners. If that's the case, then all this is really about is Burke forcing a parish that's functioned well for over a hundred years to bend to his will in a matter of months.

Over a piece of property.

33 posted on 02/24/2005 7:34:51 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
because Canon Law IS on his side

Does that have relevance in a civil court proceeding over property?

34 posted on 02/24/2005 7:46:06 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
I guess that explains why they are having a "Candlelight Vigil" at the Cathedral on March 6 at 11:00AM

Uh-huh

35 posted on 02/24/2005 7:47:30 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: thor76
As one of Slavic extraction, I resent your racist remark

My apologies to you, but, seriously, to understand a lot of this you have to live here.

36 posted on 02/24/2005 7:48:58 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

The tarbaby has you firmly in its grasp, methinks.


37 posted on 02/24/2005 7:50:57 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

There is more to the story that what is known publicly, according to sources who should know. It is not about the money - only fools take that bait.

There are others reasons than those publicly stated why the board will not appeal the censure of interdict to the Vatican. While it make time, evidence must be submitted - evidence better left buried, is how I read it.

The parish leaders recently compared themselves to Lech Walesa and the Archbishop to a communist dictator, even though Walesa's very own former secretary, Eva Dyk, is a member of the New Polonia, a group that left St.
Stanislaus and the Board in disgust.

The board apparently decided about a year ago that they would separate from the Church. This is documented on their website.

The facts have been posted many times. Archbishop Burke exercised more patience than most. These people, by and large, are in schism...

Those who continue to lay the blame for this fiasco at the feet of Archbishop Burke are, objectively, being uncharitable. He has gone the distance and they refuse to cooperate. Nearly half of the parishioners have been "exiled" because of their support for Archbishop Burke...


38 posted on 02/24/2005 7:52:13 PM PST by lrslattery (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam - http://slatts.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TotusTuus; thor76
... 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.

Correct. Rigali was in negotiations to remedy the situation when he was sent to Philadelphia. Under the previous three archbishops, there were other pressing matters on the front burner.

Truth be told, the people from St. Stans are being awfully rebellious. The rest of us have to live by the rules. Why can't they? They are the ones who have made it a devisive event, not the archbishop. He couldn't even finish a sentence any time he tried to talk.

I'm sorry, but the behavior of the people at St. Stans is simply not Christian. And most certainly not what we would expect from St. Louisans. We're supposed to have more class than to shout down a man of the cloth.

39 posted on 02/24/2005 7:54:28 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lrslattery
The board apparently decided about a year ago that they would separate from the Church.

Nope. I read what was posted. They said they would if push came to shove, and wished to avoid it if possible, without turning over the keys to Burke. The board apprarently decided that time is now.

40 posted on 02/24/2005 7:54:53 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-148 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson