An Appeal from a Group of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parishioners

Since March 2004 Catholics in the St. Louis area have been affected by a dispute between the Archdiocese of St. Louis, and the lay board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish which illegally took away control of the parish corporation from the Roman Catholic Church. The conflict escalated after the board refused to bring the parish civil structure into conformity with Church law that clearly states that the pastor appointed by the Archbishop, not a group of laymen who assign the pastor the role of an employee, has ultimate authority regarding parish life. As a result of the board’s defiance, manifested by offensive behavior of board members towards our priests, in August 2004 Archbishop Burke transferred the parish center to St. John, Apostle and Evangelist Church in downtown St. Louis. Parishioners who support Archbishop Burke continue to celebrate the Mass in Polish there and the parish continues to thrive.

Many Catholics in the St. Louis Archdiocese have initially expressed support for the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Parish. This was a result of an intensive media campaign conducted by the board of directors and their supporters. The main objective of the board seems to be to discredit Archbishop Burke, damage his reputation, and portray the parish community as a victim of his demands. Secular media not only disregarded the existence of parishioners supporting Archbishop Burke, but also distorted the truth about the background of the conflict. One such distortion relates to the fact that St. Stanislaus Kostka parishioners supporting Archbishop Burke refused to participate in January 9th voting which was orchestrated as another publicity exploit by the board of directors and its media advisers. Although the board and their spokesmen loudly attempt to portray themselves as representatives of St. Stanislaus parish community, in reality they represent only a group of supporters who choose to affirm them. This critical distinction was never made by the media.

Support for the “Save St. Stan’s” campaign mounted by the board of directors is provided from many sources interested in destroying the unity of the Roman Catholic Church. The campaign slogan became even a City of St. Louis mayoral race issue, when one of the candidates publicly expressed support for the board of directors, while acknowledging no affiliation with the Catholic Church. The public scandal caused by the board, which has been instrumental in swaying the opinions of many of its supporters, and of the general public, has created much pain in the Archdiocese of St. Louis and in the community at large.

Unfortunately, the campaign proved to be very persuasive in deflecting the attention of many parishioners, as well as the public, from fundamental principles of operating a faith-based community. These include the structure and authority of the Church, respect for law, and accountability to parishioners and the public at large. Over the last several years members of the board fostered a culture of blatant disrespect for the Church as well as for many members of the parish community. There is ongoing speculation about the reasons the board of directors changed corporate by-laws and assumed control over the parish finances. It is apparent that this situation exempted the board from the strict accountability required of all other parishes of the Roman Catholic Church. Contrary to public declarations, the board refused to conduct an independent financial audit by a certified public accountant, and to disclose details of parish operations, including procedures for awarding contracts and service agreements. The change of corporate bylaws was done with premeditation through amendments in 2001 and 2004. This itself is a clear violation of the original 1891 corporate bylaws, which explicitly state that corporation bylaws must be in conformance with diocesan rules, regulations and requirements.

A few months ago, members of our congregation published an “Open Letter to Parishioners and Supporters of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish”. The letter outlined details of the parish conflict, and expressed support for Archbishop Burke in his efforts to bring the parish structure into conformity with the governance model that is followed by all parishes in St. Louis diocese. These efforts were subsequently affirmed, and mandated, by the Vatican in its decree of November 11, 2004, rejecting the appeal against the Archbishop made on behalf of the board of directors. The full text of the open letter, as well as other documents related to this conflict, is available at the website of the Archdiocese of St. Louis: http://www.archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html. Please contact us if you would like to receive a copy of our letter.

We are deeply concerned that the actions taken by the board of directors are clearly intended to weaken the authority of the Holy See and of Archbishop Burke. We reject the board’s rhetoric comparing their role to that of Solidarity in the fight for the freedom of Poland. This comparison is simply insulting to many of us who are parishioners, and who personally participated in the fight for the freedom of Poland, and drew our strength and inspiration from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Resolution of this conflict will have a profound impact not only on the future of the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish but on the entire Catholic community in the United States. We reject the notion of separating St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish from the Roman Catholic Church. We call on the board of directors of the parish civil corporation to stop the campaign of hostility and animosity towards the Catholic Church, and its leaders in Rome and in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, a campaign that knowingly, deliberately, and publicly has damaged seriously the unity of the Roman Catholic community.

None of us – Roman Catholics in St. Louis Archdiocese – should remain disinterested in this matter. This conflict is a test of our judgment as Catholics, a test of our ability to clearly comprehend the complexity of the situation, and of our courage to make a conscientious choice.

We appeal to all Catholics the in St. Louis Archdiocese to express strong support for Archbishop Burke in his efforts to resolve this matter. On the second Sunday of each month we invite you all to attend our monthly bi-lingual Mass of Solidarity with Archbishop Burke during which we will pray for the strength of our spiritual leaders, unity of the Catholic Church, and the future of our congregation. The first Mass of Solidarity will be celebrated on March 13th, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. at St. John, Apostle and Evangelist Church in Plaza Square in downtown St. Louis. We kindly ask for your support.

Your #10 is nonsense.

Saint Burke isn't being martyred because his hand is forced by canon law. The same canon existed for the 100 plus years when nobody had yet gotten a hair and decided to annex what they had no hand in sowing.

The diocese needs the assets, either as padding to their net worth or to sell off to cover debt. Most likely the latter being that Burke refuses to agree that the parish won't be sold outright.

Stewardship of this parish was legally given in good faith to this community, now the "good" bishop wants it back and is causing spiritual harm to these people because of his financial troubles caused by the rot within the Church.

I suggested on another thread that all of you supporters of the Board go up to St. Louis and attend one of their "polka" masses and then go over to the social hall and have some good stiff drinks and sausages and discuss this. I am sure you all will just love the "polka" mass.

In case you don't get my drift,you really need to read up on this situation,you would not be too impressed with the particulars. I have been keeping up with this for quite some time and this Board fancies themselves akin to the Board of the country club at the end of my street.

I believe they run a country club for second and third generation Poles,or in other words,it's a totally social thing and has little to do with the Roman Catholic Church. The mass is just some entertainment that precedes a social "do". Almost all of them live in the suburbs. The first generation Poles ,who do live in the neighborhood are the ones whose votes were rejected,see Irslattery's previous post.

Despite the allusions you're hearing to the contrary, Burke doesn't walk on water - this is simply about power and money.

You don't walk on water, either. And reviling is a sin, so I think you ought to be sure about His Excellency's character, for better or worse, before you speak to it. I know I am. All of these proceedings began before Archbishop Burke arrived here in St. Louis, and he is only following the Vatican's ruling that the parish must come into conformity with Canon Law.

Just curious--are you from St. Louis?

While these folks operate at a profit, Raymond Burke is shutting his parishes down because the American church has forgotten how to bring and keep faithful Catholics.

More like they moved to south county. There are several parishes there which are bursting at the seams. Jefferson County, St. Charles county, west county - all of them have parishes that can't handle the influx of people moving in from closer in. Assumption just built a new, bigger church.

Dear Torie,

"That being said, the BOD has unanimously voted that during this most holy Easter season, to seek interim religious guidance and celebrations from an order of priests or an individual priest outside the authority of the Archbishop of St. Louis. We will do our best to obtain a Roman Catholic Priest with Polish Heritage and who speaks the Polish language."

Well, you know the whole thing about words meaning just what the speaker says they mean, and all.

A real, live priest in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but outside the authority of Archbishop Burke who came to publicly provide the sacraments in his see would automatically come under his authority, that is, until the time the Archbishop Burke brought about his dismissal from the clerical state and the Catholic Church.

However, there are plenty of folks wandering the countryside calling themselves Catholic, and even Roman Catholic, priests who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome over whom Archbishop Burke has no authority, and, in that they are no longer in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, will not come under that authority.

sitetest

A large contingent of folks from St. Louis here in SWMO (Springfield)seem to think Archbishop Burke is the bad guy here...each of them go blank when asked about the history regarding this argument..slats, you had a great concise background of this about a month ago, could you provide us with a link??
God bless Archbishop Burke...has SLU Theology dept ever signed the Mandatum???

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

I distinctly remember that when one of the first threads on this sad situation was posted on FR, someone posted a story about the parish life and that there really wasn't one... average Sunday Mass was attended by @129 people and there were no weekday Masses or ccd classes or anything. Almost all of the parishioners belong to other parishes in the 'burbs (where they live) and quite a few don't even live in the state anymore although they still contribute financially.

lrslattery: thank you for posting this letter, how many people does it represent?

I can understand this, particularly if the source of "knowledge" is the secular media. The link to the Brief Synopsis was here.

...has SLU Theology dept ever signed the Mandatum???

To my knowledge, no...but they do continue to allow the V-----Monologues to be presented each year...All for the glory of God, I imagine.

I'm not certain how divided things are here right now. From what I see and gather anecdotely, it seems to be split pretty much, although not entirely, along the lines of fidelity to the Church, if you understand what I mean.

Faithful Catholics, who understand the virtue of humility and obedience, seem to follow Abp. Burke. Others seem to rejoice in the rebellion of St. Stans.

You may witness a different reaction. I'm not certain what the outcome would be if a poll were to be taken.

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.

It just occurred to me after reading this and lrslattery's synopsis brief linked in post 32, that there is a wider history to this particular case. History, that is, here in America and even parts of 18th-19th Century Europe. I would have to indulge those who are more knowledgeable about the history of the Church in America, but this seems to me to be the last smoldering coal of the lay trusteeship controversies of the Church in America beginning in the 1780's up through the 19th Century. I would suspect that the 1917 Code of Canon Law reflected corrective aims of what was going on in the Church in America during this period.

The image of newly discovered (during the 70's) Japanese soldiers still fighting WWII alone on small islands comes to mind for some reason;-)

St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish has been given the Archbishop's assurance that as long as the parishioners continue to worship at St. Stanislaus Church and continue to support the parish, it will not be closed.

From your synop. I wonder if this wording is what is of so much concern to the board? I have no way of knowing, but it seems that if the parish is really just a heritage/cultural type thing, and the board sees less and less people in the future ....

?Who knows? Either way, if they are going to be Catholic, they need to be under the Bishop!

I concur with your post, and the opinion which you express.

Some have posted here and made it sound like it is a "good thing" if the assets of a parish are totally at the whim of hte pastor and/or bishop....and that the people who supply the money should have no say in what is spent for what or how much!

The contention was raised at the same time that there is "strict accountability" in parish/diocesan finance. Now that I have stopped laughing - that is simply not true. Without lay control.....the type with real "teeth", it is still business as usual for "Fr. Sticky Fingers".

It seesm that some posters to this thread want to have iot both ways.........as long as it is in support of AB Burke, and against the Board of St. Stan's.

There is this to consider: Canon Law can be wrong. It is not divine in origen. It is not part of the Magisterium - the teaching authority of the Church. It is not protected from error. All it is is a man-made proceedural document regarding church discipline.

The Church has the right to make and enforce Church discipline......but that alone does not mean that it is "right".

As I have stated before - numerous times - Christ did not promise His Church earthly riches, nor even comfortable material sufficiency. He did not promise endowment funds, cushy rectories, episcopal mansion, and private condos in the flesh pots of the world.

All Christ promised to His Popes, Bishops, priests, and to his Church in general was spiritual authority and power. Raw authority and power. That is all.

Christ said: "do not concern yourself for what you are to eat, nor to wear"........God would provide for the needs of his shepherds, and for his flock.

God alone would provide.........not Citibank.

A Brief Primer for the Board Members of St. Stanislaus, for all who have questions regarding Obedience, and for those who are confused about Obedience to Church Authority.

Christ repeatedly stressed the duty of obedience to the authority of the Church He was establishing. In His closing discourse to the disciples, He told them to teach all nations to observe all that He had commanded. This commission summarized the whole of the Savior’s public ministry. He determined as certain that, when He left the earth in visible form, He would leave the apostles and their successors with the right to command others in His name.
Everything that we associate with the Fourth Commandment about children honoring and obeying their parents, can be applied, in principle, to the honor and obedience that the faithful owe to those who hold legitimate authority in the Catholic Church. Yet, as in the case of parents and children, this is a mutual responsibility of the faithful toward those in ecclesiastical authority and of those in authority toward the faithful. The Church’s law is unqualified about the duty of the faithful.
Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church (Canon 212).
At the same time, those holding authority to teach and govern the faithful also have their duties. There are at least a dozen provisions in Canon Law for bishops alone, legislating how they are to provide for the doctrinal, moral, and liturgical needs of the people under their care. This means that, “Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments” (Canon 213).

Archbishop Burke is the legitimate authority in the Archdiocese in all matters requiring his governance. The duty of all of the faithful is clear when it comes to the lawful commands of the Church. Source.

Archbishop Burke is the legitimate authority in the Archdiocese in all matters requiring his governance.

And Cardinal Mahony is the legitimate authority in his Archdiocese in all matters requiring his governance, as was Reggie Cawcutt the legitimate authority of the Diocese of Capetown.

Collegiality, ain't it great!

Without lay control.....the type with real "teeth", it is still business as usual for "Fr. Sticky Fingers".

I personally have never known a priest who stole from the parish. I resent you painting with such a broad brush.

It also depends on exactly who is doing the 'lay control' -- lots of parishes have good people at the helm who are practicing Catholics living their faith as best they can and lots of parishes have people at the helm who want to wrest loose of the bonds they feel the Church has tied them up with.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.