Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Desdemona
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 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.

60 posted on 02/24/2005 8:25:04 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur
If it was Burke's intention to sell the property, then he was lying through his teeth.

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.

64 posted on 02/24/2005 8:29:27 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur

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.


68 posted on 02/24/2005 8:37:13 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

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