Posted on 02/24/2005 12:43:27 PM PST by NYer
To give credit where it is due, the Poles here do make outstanding sausage.
What's very odd is that the "progressives" around here who are normally quite vocal are muted, in a way. Not one of those parishes is being this disruptive, nor have they in quite some time. They don't have boards, either. Just parish councils like the rest of us.
Something is very strange about all this. The south deanery closing/consolidation list came out today and frankly, the Catholics have moved out of the city. Monster churches are being built in the next counties south and west. It's a reality that's just not going down very easily.
I wonder what the end game is if St. Stanislaus hires priests not on the payroll of the St. Louis archdiocese, say retired priests or priests of some independent order. What happens then? That is the announced intention of the Board.
Blindness afflicts many people.
It's especially troublesome that some, who do not even know this humble, prayerful and generous man who is Archbishop Burke, are so quick to jump to conclusions concerning his intentions or attributing scurrilious motives for his actions. Last time I checked, this was called "rash judgment", an offense against justice and the 8th Commandment.
The nearly half of the parishioners of St. Stanislaus who have been "exiled" by the board will now have a parish of their own. This move by the Archbishop seems, to a certain degree, confirm that the board of St. Stans is going into schism.
It will become a matter for the parishioners to decide if they want to remain Catholics or become protestants (no offense is intended to our Protestant brothers and sisters here).
I don't know if these people truly understand the ramifications of their actions.
No they want to retain RC priests independent of the authority of Burke. The issue is can such priests serve, and who has the authority to stop them?
Yes, that is what they want, but what they want and what they get are two different things. They discussed using RentAPriest some time back...
Any priest who would come in, choosing to deliberately bypass seeking permission from the Archbishop, would be penalized at some point (my guess) based upon his incardination.
I'm not certain, at this point, what options exist for a religious order to become involved, however, that would seem to present a situation most would want to avoid, I believe.
The timing is most suspicious and indicting. This is a wealthy parish by comparison with others and it comes on the heels of the abuse settlement, which has profoundly effected the Appeal levels in the past two years.
If it was such an issue of obedience, etc., why didn't Rigali do this years ago?
Unfortunately, unless civil courts step in (and there's no indication that they can), I don't think that this congregation has a snowball's chance in Hades.
Uh...no.
There are plenty of parishes more wealthy than this, including mine. I can name some pretty wealthy ones that no one would expect. There are a few parishes in the red, yes, but mostly that has to do with living beyond means. In my parish, I would imagine that comes with running a school, but since I belong to the Cathedral, I doubt we're in any danger.
This year's appeals for the high schools beat the goals - and where that money goes was investigated by a private firm. Not one dime goes to the people suing. The archdiocese last year was in the red due to health insurance payouts for employees who fell sick and can no longer work. That whole situation is a mess and no, the cash just isn't there. That's more where money is needed if that's the motivation for closing and consolidating parishes. I doubt seriously that that is the case, though.
Yes. That is correct. Negotiations had been underway for some months before Rigali was moved. It would have started about two years ago. The difference is/was that Rigali is a diplomat by training and knew how to play the press. That was my problem with the choice of Burke for us from the begining. He has no town bronze, no finesse.
A very ignorant statement indeed
"Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
I paraphrased St. Ignatius of Antioch. I'll leave you to take up the discussion with him.
Or was he perhaps not a spiritually aware Bishop?
I stand corrected. I never knew that Rigali was the initiator of the actions against the church, having heard none of it through the St. Louis media (before recently) or from any people affiliated with the church.
From what I have heard from parish board members in the county, the sexual abuse claims,etc., have resulted in a drop in the contribution level from county parishes to the general appeal drive. Similarly, the Episcopal churches have had trouble achieving their previous level of donation following the approval of the gay bishop in New Hampshire (up to a 30% drop in one church alone from the announcement in October to the end of the year). Given the number of school closings that were announced last week, I cannot help but believe that with the "big bucket" accounting method, more of those schools might have stayed open had the archdiocese more money to help them along. Some of them were quite old and well-established. Demographics and teacher problems alone could have not created this situation.
Have you met the man? Or are you just going off of media coverage of his various actions? Just curious.
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.
You've spoken to a large number of the priests of the St. Louis Archdiocese, and you know they feel like they're "treated like serfs"? All the archdiocesan priests I know certainly don't feel that way. From what I know of him, I would wager a guess that Archbishop Burke doesn't care about the red hat--you'd have to admit that, too, if you think it's obvious that his actions will keep him from becoming a cardinal.
How would that have occurred if the money had been placed into a trust, as Burke offered to do?
Gee.....we keep going round & round the mulberry bush with this........
For those with no knowledge of corporations and their boards of directors - Burke wanted control of the Board; control of appointments. De facto, this means filling the board with puppets and syncophants.
Once that is accomplished, it really does not matter what trust fund has been established, nor how it is managed.
Because if Burke then wishes to suppress the parish, pulling the plug on it, it means a motion & vote to dissove the corporation. When the board of directors of ANY corporation votes to dissovle the corporation, the debts are paid off, and the balance of all funds/assets is then disposed of according to the decision of the board, which may decide to cede the assets to another corporation.........
......right into the hands of the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
Class dismissed!
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.