Dear Torie,
I read the article that you cited.
It seems a pretty fair job of reporting for someone who really isn't well-informed about the Catholic Church.
The difficulty is that the reporter doesn't place into context this comment:
"But St. Stanislaus leaders believe they are on firm canonical footing. 'We have talked to canon lawyers, and they don't believe there is anything we have done that isn't within the bounds of canon law,' said Krasnicki."
At the time the quote was given, this individual could hold out hope that this was, indeed the case. However, as this was a quote from a previous article attached to the current article, it's out of date, and if I'd been the editor, I'd have made a small editor's note alerting the reader to that fact.
That fact is that the Vatican has turned down the parishioner's interpretation of Canon Law, and fully endorsed Archbishop Burke and all his actions. Thus, these folks are bit like petitioners who, before their case is heard by the Supreme Court, are confident of victory, but after the fact, turn out to have lost before the Court.
"This puzzle palace is good enough to be a law school exam question."
The ecclesiastical questions are not complicated. The corporation is no longer in possession of the property that attaches to a Catholic parish. The parish has been moved. The corporation has some money and some real estate, but these are no longer the assets of a Catholic parish.
The only complicated questions that remain are whether the corporation any longer has any legal claim to the property. No longer constituting the assets of a Catholic parish, I think it's a reasonable reading of the Articles of Incorporation that the corporation must forfeit its assets to the archdiocese.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave that question to the lawyers.
sitetest