Posted on 02/26/2005 7:55:08 PM PST by lrslattery
AN APPEAL THAT WILL NEVER MAKE THE NEWS
FROM A GROUP OF ST. STANISLAUS KOSTKA PARISHIONERS
February 21, 2005
Dear Friends in the Archdiocese of St. Louis:
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.
God Bless, ST. STANISLAUS KOSTKA PARISH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
I'm not analylizing you. I'm just going by your posts on Freerepublic. You are not being consistant on this subject.
like in freepmail?
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. Was there a problem with the parish finances or did people just think there must have been because the priest was socially active?
Please point out where I have strayed from my position on the errors of "blind obedience".
The priest never allowed anyone to know how much money the parish took in. He never published an operating budget or accounting as the previous pastor did. He also overlooked certain irregular situations such as remarriage without annulment, baptism of those children, Holy Communion, etc as long as those individuals made significant financial contributions. He refused to give Anointing of the Sick to people dying in the hospitals because he couldn't be bothered to show up.
There are many more stories of his personal corruption. He was a friend of Mahony.
Nothing to do with blind obedience. Just this: on the one hand, you continually decry the state of the Novus Ordo and have mentioned Polka Masses as blaspheming the Mass. So, here we have a parish who performs 'Polka Masses' and you are defending them.
I know a monsignor here who takes fairly frequent trips (fishing, camping, international stuff) but he has family money... the only son of a fairly well to do family and his mother left it all to him. Glad he doesn't gamble like your guy though.
Both.
Just curious if any parishioner ever asked him about the finances and if he refused.
Many people protested his corruptions. Many complained higher up. Nothing ever changed.
That's a lie and I call you on it.
The term "blind obedience", properly understood, is not an obedience of errors as suggested in your post. St. Ignatius taught, in his Letter on Obedience, a "blind obedience", which almost resulted in a condemnation by Pope Sixtus V.
-------
At this critical moment, St. Robert Bellarmine was appointed to write a defense of St. Ignatius' Letter, which he did in such masterly fashion that it remains to this day a "theological epitome of religious obedience." Since the center of attack was on blind obedience, Bellarmine limited himself to this concept, proving in a series of five chapters that obedientia caeca is as old as Christianity and perfectly consonant with the Catholic Faith. Several points in the apologia are specially worth noting: the clear definition of "blind obedience," the Patristic evidence in its defense, and Bellarmine's favorite “argument from analogy.”
At the outset, St. Robert explains that “the name ‘blind obedience’ means nothing else than obedience which is pure, perfect, and simple, with no discussion of what is commanded or why, but remaining satisfied that a command had been given.”
In Patristic support of this virtue, Bellarmine traces the exact places where St. Ignatius found his arguments, illustrations and examples. The term "blind obedience" was explicitly used by at least two great leaders of Christian monasticism, John Climacus and St. Bernard. Climacus says that, "The Lord gives His light to the blindly obedient, to see the virtue of their superior, and mercifully hides from them his faults." And St. Bernard describes perfect obedience as “a blessed blindness, by which the eyes of those who once were sinners, are now happily shielded from the dazzling glare of sin.”
But even without using the expression caeca obedientia, the Fathers of monasticism from the earliest centuries described its equivalent whenever they spoke of the perfection of this virtue. Thus St. Augustine:
For religious obedience to be pleasing to God, it must be prompt without delay, faithful without servility, willing without complaint, simple without discussion, constant without cessation, orderly with no deviation, joyous without perturbance, strenuous without scrupulosity, and universal with no exception. For in the measure that we listen to our superiors, God will also listen to our prayers.Bellarmine concludes in typical controversial style by answering the most serious objection which even Catholics sometimes make to the blind obedience of religious. "It is dangerous," the argument runs, "for religious to trust their superiors so blindly, because the latter as fallible men are often mistaken, and therefore what began as obedience may end as a widely propagated error, or even as heresy."
You are right, and I apologize. I got you mixed up with another poster on something (I post a partial of it below) that I scanned here the other day. Again, I apologize, obviously you disagree with the poster.
The saddest part is that the few priests who are inclined towards financial mismanagement and the few priests who are inclined towards sexual sin have absolutely no idea how much scandal they cause. It is a perfect illustration of sin... like a pebble (or a rock in some cases) thrown into the ocean and the ripples go on forever. It's a blessing that most of us can go on and not question our faith in the Church - are able to separate the man from the Church Christ founded. I don't know how some do go on and some aren't able to..... it must be a grace from God.
It is precisely because this interdict is over a property dispute that Burke does indeed look silly.
It would be quite another thing if the interdict was over a matter of heresy....a faith & morals issue. But that is not he case here.
And whatever milage Burke may have in re the pro-abort polticos, he has lost in this very stupid decision.
The laity were given the deed to the parish in 1891 by the Archbishop. How is refusing to give up something which was legally given to them an act of apostasy or dissent? Granted, the situation is irregular, but God did not give bishops the authority to take what does not belong to them. That is stealing, and using sacraments as leverage could be considered a form of simony.
If Burke and Rigali before him were so concerned about the laity, why didn't they crack down on the liturgical abuse of the polka Mass?
This interdict was NOT sanctioned over a property dispute. One who states otherwise fails to understand the proper nature of the issue. The Board members exalted themselves by defiantly opposing a lawful directive of legitimate ecclesiastical authority (the Archbishop) and even refused the directives of the Church of which they claim to be members. Further, they encouraged others to participate and engage in acts of disobedience and rebellion. This is the reason for the interdict.
Archbishop Burke described the interdict:
When a member of the Church has knowingly, deliberately and publicly damaged seriously the unity of the Church, his or her bishop has the pastoral responsibility to impose a sanction, in order to call the offending person to repentance and to restore the unity of the Church.SourceIf Church authority were not to address a public violation of Church unity, then scandal would be caused by those who present themselves as devout Catholics, when, in fact, they are not in full communion with the Church.
In the case of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, the offense committed by the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of the parish is the public refusal to obey legitimate Church authority, namely the Holy Father’s Congregation for the Clergy and the archbishop of St. Louis, and the incitement of others to such disobedience. The applicable canons of the Code of Canon Law are canon 1371, paragraph 2, and canon 1373.
The sanction of interdict, as defined in canon 1332, prohibits the member of the faithful: 1) from any ministerial part in the celebration of the Mass or any other ceremonies of worship; and 2) from celebrating the sacraments and sacramentals, and from receiving the sacraments. Interdict does not prohibit the offending party from assisting at Mass or other sacred rites. Receiving the sacraments, above all the Holy Eucharist, requires that a person be in full communion with the Church. For that reason, the sanction prohibits the reception of the sacraments.
The censure binds the member of the faithful everywhere and until the offending person has been reconciled with the Church. The censure is lifted when the offending party has repented of his or her disobedience and has submitted to Church authority. In the case of the interdict imposed upon the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka, the archbishop of St. Louis has the authority to lift the censure and must lift the censure, as soon as the offending party has made known his or her repentance to the archbishop.
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.