"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.
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.
Your recollection is incorrect. First, there was never any such intention. Second, the bylaws were changed in 2001 before Burke became the Archbishop (Cardinal Rigali was then the local Ordinary). They were against changed in 2004 to entirely lock the parish priest out from the governance of the Church.
So, he's willing to see people excommunicated over a pettifogging legality when he's not going to seek control over the money?
He wants control over the Church, not over the money or the property ... it is totally un-Catholic to have a lay board dictating to the parish priest, as the Congregation for the Clergy notes in rejecting the appeal of the Parish Board. What do you suppose Sts. Augustine or John Chrysostom would do?
Why not blame the board, who chose schism and excommunication rather than agree to the "pettifogging legality"?
As I read Burke's proposal, all he has to do is get a few ringers onto the parish council, and bada bing
You mean the Board of Directors for the residuary corporation? But the setup is the same as the current St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation. He could just as easily get "ringers" onto that.
Nevermind that Catholics aren't supposed to worry about their bishop sending "ringers" to take control of their Churches...LOL.
***that doesn't pass the smell test***
Some think that being "Catholic" means to lose the sense of smell.