Posted on 02/24/2005 12:43:27 PM PST by NYer
There is an old saying: "if it ain't broke, it don't need fixing".
There was in reality no problem with St. Stan's.....none whatsoever. There was no good reason to "upset the apple cart' as Burke did.
Who really cares who has title to the assets of a parish, as long as it is Catholic in faith and practice? Does it really matter?
It Rigali had the intention to do what Burke did - then fie upon him too! There simply no point in this excercise of power.........merely flexing Burke's muscles to prove (to himself)that he can!
Burke gained respect? Yea - the way a whipped dog respects its master. Cowering in fear and feigning respect is not true respect.
You have to be kidding. What other evidence do you have of this? When the South Deanery (not where St. Stans is) announced the parish closings chosen by Burke, an uproar started and a completely different plan (and more sensible) was announced in December. Frankly, not all of those parishes can be sustained, but Burke bent on which were to be closed. Nobody is happy when THEIR parish is chosen to be closed, but the same thing happened under Rigali, who was far more authoritarian, as far as I can tell. Burke hasn't ordered all parished to have Adoration like Rigali did.
And I would recommend NOT getting information from the Post-Dispatch. They haven't gotten a Catholic story right in 20 years.
As a matter of fact, I have posts going back to last February or March, in which this was mentioned. I will see what further quotes and links I can dig up. Since I live here, I have followed this pretty closely for a year now. The board is out of control.
Probably not with all the rebuilding, but that was the original assumption by just about everybody. At least that was a motivation put forth early on. About a year ago from people who don't care for the Archbishop.
Yes. Again you don't live here. You would not believe the number of people who now feel sorry for Burke because no one will let him finish a sentence before retorting some accusation.
You can say that again. I mean St. Francis Xavier and St. Cronin aren't that bad.
Personally I will give Archbishop Burke the benefit of the doubt on this issue. I'm not saying he's right, but I do not know Canon Law enough to really know which side is right. I did hear previously that most of the Parish's assets (like over 75%) were property and not liquid assets that Burke could use.
I don't know why you don't think Burke is not conservative, unless it is just your gut feeling. Well at least he was one of only 10 Bishops to stand up to the pro-abortion politicians with regards to giving them Communion, and he marched at the head of a pro-life rally. Well that's all I really have to say on this because I don't know everything.
The problem was that Burke wanted to control who was on the Board, and once that happened, prior arrangements could be changed by the reconstituted Board. That is why the proposal of Burke was rejected out of hand. I still don't get the canon law being determinative, unless it was incorporated into the bylaws of the entity which owned the Church, but I guess the issue in your view will soon be moot in any event.
Well, I don't see where this would be detrimental, but this usurps the authority of a pastor to determine the spiritual needs of his parishioners.
As I remember, Rigali did not demand that only the feet of men be washed on Holy Thursday, as some other bishops did.
Ack!! That whole fiasco is about to rear its ugly head again!!
There's the rub. Who is not working with whom? From those on this board who live there and are close to the situation, the evidence suggests that it is the board that refuses to work with the Archbishop.
The "evidence" suggests no such thing. Those on this board who are close to the situation happen to also like the archbishop, so naturally they'll favor Burke.
I just think Burke forced a confrontation prematurely, for no good reason. But, in fairness, I'm not one who appreciates Burke's style of leadership.
Oh Lord!! I remember last year I left work and attended the Holy Thursday 7 PM Mass... the pastor washed the hands of every single parishioner while the altar boys stood alongside them with towels (tons of them) like waiters or something. It was the silliest thing I've ever seen. In our archdiocese, Bishop O'Malley washed the feet of men which angered the women and Bishop O issued a very public (all the Boston papers) 'it won't happen again' statement.
I had to keep telling myself that Lent is about suffering, so suck it up!
It seems that it was errant to allow a parish to be "independent" of any bishop. Burke is fixing the error. Think about it: if one conservatie parish is allowed to be independent, what is the argument against a liberal parish doing the same thing?
Funny that you mention charity - I had not noticed any charity in your posts on this thread.
"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."
How patronising! Interesting to know Poles are not high up in the racial hierarchy in US. But there is something big happening here as far as the laity is now prepared to tolerate diocesan manipulations in the post-Vatican II era. Decades of destruction and corruption have finally impacted on the paying public and enough is now enough. There are alternative routes to maintaining the faith and good men to lead the faithful in the right direction.
Um, well, he didn't demand it, but it was strongly recommended. And the Tabernacles were ordered to the foot of each Crucifix.
These aren't bad things at all, just authoritarian.
It's been tried before. Those men were all excommunicated.
Oh, I don't doubt that. Now, however, Burke has ruptured the relationship with the parish, and will have to take them to court anyway.
He may "win," but what will he have won?
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.