.... St. Stanislaus has had a long-running property dispute with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese....Greensfelder orchestrated the once-secret use of St. Stanislaus' own secretary as a mole - the 'Greensfelder spy' - who worked behind the scenes at St. Stanislaus, listening in on conversations between the parish's board and its attorneys, and passing along what she heard to Greensfelder for use against St. Stanislaus in litigation, and Greensfelder simultaneously arranged for Greensfelder's client, the Archdiocese, to provide a supposed 'part time job' to the spy to compensate her for her covert espionage on their behalf."
...a Vatican decree in May said holding a seat on the St. Stanislaus board "constitutes an 'evident' act of schism" .... "You are in danger of losing the eternal salvation of your soul, jeopardizing the salvation of other innocent faithful and inflicting a most severe wound to the communion of the Roman Catholic church"...Other related threads:
from the thread Two more face excommunication at St. Stan
If this is true, the whole damned law firm should be in prison.
Okay Catholics, help me out here. The fight is over ownership of the actual property, so from the archdiocese's POV, St Stanislaus (as property) can be said to be "Catholic". The parish as people is quite a different story, though.
Since the governing board of St Stanislaus and it's members are formally held to be in schism, does that mean that any and all parishioners are, too? Is there any appreciable difference between being "in schism" and being "excommunicated" (not including latae sententiae)?
Legal Eagle ping