Yep. I missed that. What interests me is if the church can manage to get an RC priest to serve under the nose of Burke, without him being able to do anything about it. Burke's biggest mistake was doing the interdict thing over a property dispute. That made him look ludicrous, and he won't ever live it down.
A Catholic priest who would publicly provide sacraments against the wishes of the ordinary of the see would be subject to greater penalties than interdict. Archbishop Burke would have options available to him.
If the priest doesn't mind being separated from communion with the Catholic Church, I suppose it's no big deal, but at that point, it becomes difficult to keep up the pretense that the organization involved is any longer a Catholic parish.
Archbishop Burke didn't interdict the board members over a property dispute. Archbishop Burke did what he did because the lay board wants to have final control over the PARISH, and a Catholic PARISH cannot be controlled by laypeople. That's all.
You cite the problem with the previous pastor who may have poorly administered parish funds. I've seen the "Save St. Stan's" site, and read the board's version. Seeing how they have distorted other facts, I'm not sure I'm willing to take their version at face value.
However, even if I were to fully credit their version, I've heard of Catholic parishes with poor pastors. I once belonged to a parish that had $50,000 in the bank when the pastor came in, and was in hock when he left. What happened? Well, the paid staff went from three to ten during a time of declining registration (numbers of families belonging to the parish). He spent money liberally on re-doing the church. Then the roof on the school needed to be replaced, so-on and so-forth.
I've seen more than one pastor do a poor job of administering parish assets.
What I've NEVER seen is the laity of a parish seizing total control of parish assets in response!
The "Save St. Stan's" site complains, in part:
"When he arrived there was over $60,000 in addition to weekly donations, etc. This account was under his sole control. [bold in original]"
Well, whoop-de-do! That's how Catholic parishes are run. Laity may have, at most, the power to prevent the pastor from spending really large amounts without their knowledge (not consent). If the laity don't like how money is being spent, they can go to the ordinary of the diocese. The bishop is the pastor's boss. The bishop can prevent the pastor from making large expenditures.
But the laity cannot. Not on their own. The folks at St. Stan's don't like it? Well, too bad. That's how the Catholic Church runs. That's Canon Law. If they don't want to have their parish run according to the law of the Church, they can go join another religion.
Although the violations are in the context of money and property control, Torie, the real problem for the archbishop, and lots of Catholics, is that these folks don't want a parish that is run according to the rules governing how Catholic parishes are run.
They can retain lay control over what was once a Catholic parish (it no longer is), or they can continue to be Catholic.
They can't do both.
sitetest
I'm certain he would have liked to have resolved this in some other manner, however, based upon the acts and public speech of the board, he was left with few, if any, other options. For some of the reasons why, see this.