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 ...
The courts ordinarily defer to denominational "law" in disputes over Church property. That's why this whole interdict business was so unnecessary.
Yes, Burke would have had to go to court. But he would have likely won there.
"Bull in a china closet" comes to mind for Burke.
believe it or not, grudging respect from a fair number of people.
He's not riding anything. The people of St. Stans are the ones who called the press and have been calling names. From the very beginning, before any negotiations took place.
There's a lot of people around here who do not like Burke because he is a conservative and they are going to use ANYTHING to make him look bad. This is just one topic of many.
That quite suprises me actually, if title is vested in one name versus the other. I do know of a case when the "Bagwans" (whatever their name is or was) joined and took over the congregation of a Christian Scientist Church, holding very valuable acreage in Laguna Beach California; the CSC sued, and lost. It became a commune, and the Bagwans with their pink robes became much in evidence on the beach.
LOL!! A year?
There are others reasons than those publicly stated why the board will not appeal the censure of interdict to the Vatican.
The Vatican will side with Burke. Appealing is a waste of time.
Whatever else is behind this story, one thing is certain: Burke's precipitous actions forced the hand of the parishioners.
It was simply not necessary.
Uh....no. I don't know where you're getting that information, but it's not true. There are those who are not happy, but there were a lot of moves that needed to happen.
Rigali wasn't liked any better around here. People are longing for another John May.
By the way, if you are right, then one would assume Burke would sue no?
What tarbaby? If you live I St. Louis, as I do, you would know that there is a whole lot that is not being reported and that the media here makes an art of ridiculing the church.
The rest of us live by these rules. Why can't they? The people of St. Stans won't listen.
Then you read it wrong. They knew a year ago that they were not going to cooperate with the Archdiocese and they stated so. At the smae time they stated that a viable option was to :
"Join another (non Roman) Catholic Church"
They also said about this (non Roman Catholic):
"Religious celebrations are nearly identical to what we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.
"These religious organizations broke away from the Roman Catholic Church due to the same demands we are seeing today. Religion was not the issue. It was, as it is today, about power and control."
It is not difficult to see that their understanding of the Church is manifestly deficient.
And contempt from a fair number of others.
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.
I'm sorry, Desi, but I don't believe that for a minute. Four decades of archbishops decided a property dispute wasn't worth pursuing? They decided properly.
Meanwhile, Burke shows up, with the American Church in the throes of a sexual abuse crisis, and decides to deny the sacraments to a group of Catholics over a piece of property.
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.
Well, then, Burke should act like a man of the cloth.
I gathered you thought that Poles in St Louis were terminally stupid and dumb. See, I interpreted your remarks narrowly, and as not meaning to apply to Polish Americans in general. I am so fair sometimes, that it amazes me.
He can. But if the board has taken legal steps to take St. Stanislaus out of the Catholic Church, then Burke has no claim.
Read some of the other text, elsewhere. The board viewed it as an option of last resort, which they did not relish. This dispute was some put up job to effect a pre-planned exit. That is simply unfair and false. The board simply wanted to retain the keys while adhering to the Catholic faith, under a priest selected by the Church. They simply felt that if money became tight, their property would become expendable, down the road.
Four? Try ten decades. The property thing took place under Archbishop Kain, not matter what you read, if it really happened in the 1890's. In the 1960's, Ritter was archbishop and he had other fish to fry. Literally.
Well, then, Burke should act like a man of the cloth.
The sad thing is, if you watch the video of the town hall meetings, Burke was very mild. He couldn't even get a sentence out.
The Poles around here aren't dumb. They're just like people everywhere else. Some are more hard headed than others.
Sad? He announced that it was his intention to take the property. Everyone knew Burke would not bend, in any way. Hell, the board presented a proposal that was accepted by lawyers on both sides in December.
Burke vetoed it.
Raymond Burke is a throwback to a time of bullying prelates, like John Francis McIntyre of Los Angeles and Francis Spellman of New York. They treated their priests like serfs, and the people of their dioceses like children.
Fabian Bruskewitz Peter-principled himself out in Lincoln. I predict that Burke, if he continues to act arbitrarily, will never get the red hat, nor will he ever be moved to an archdiocese where he could get it.
BUt, see, by Canon Law they are not allowed to do that.
What they did not want is the church property being sold for re-development as that part of town is in the middle of a re-building boom.
I don't know civil law. But, civil law would support Canon Law in this case, if St. Stan's were still under the dominion of Canon Law.
Once the board decides to break with Church, Canon Law goes out the window, and possession is nine-tenths of the law.
I thought Burke has said that all the assets would be used to serve St. Stanislaus parish.
If it was Burke's intention to sell the property, then he was lying through his teeth.
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.