1. There was a parish that had been healthy for over a hundred years.
2. Burke arrived, and couldn't leave well enough alone. "
A lack of detail unfairly paints Archbishop Raymond Burke in a bad light.
Here is a brief summary for St Stanislaus Kostka Parish posted in Jan 2005.
"A lack of detail unfairly paints Archbishop Raymond Burke in a bad light."
I don't want to be unfair, but surely we need *all* the details.
"Through these illegal changes of the original by-laws"
I wish someone would correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but my recollection is that the changes to the by-laws were a *reaction* to Burke's intention to close the parish and seize their assets.
So, Burke has a legal right to do this?
Lex mala, lex nulla.
"On August 11, 2004, Archbishop Burke stated, "With respect to the assets of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, Church law safeguards and protects all such funds, buildings and grounds. I state yet again that neither I, nor my successors as Archbishop of St. Louis, will, or, for that matter, can, access or redirect the funds on deposit in the Archdiocesan Trust of any of our parishes."
So, he's willing to see people excommunicated over a pettifogging legality when he's not going to seek control over the money? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.
As I read Burke's proposal, all he has to do is get a few ringers onto the parish council, and bada bing! Or rather, cha-ching.