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
So.........it was over a property dispute, which showed Burke to be a feckless fool. This was not over a matter od doctrine - nor even of church disciline (although you, Burke, and other are using that very tired excuse to justify Burke's illicit interdict).
By a similar line of reasoning - such as what Burke wrote - a local Bishop may place under interdict traditionalist Catholics......be it over property, doctrine, liturgics or whatever.
Memory recalls excatly the above described scenario when the local ordinary in Alabama threatened Mother Angelica and her order & ministry over liturgical matter. It matters little that Mother was correct in what she was doing......in hte current ultra-obendient mode of thinking: "it's my Bishop - right or wrong"!!!!
Similar was threatened by Cardinal Mahoney - after his heretical writings on the mass were righteously criticized by Mother Angelica, with allegations of possible heresy, he could - and would - have used his power to get her silenced, with the generous cooperation of her Ordinary.
Of course, you and those with a similar view......that absolute, total, and mindless obedience is demanded of Catholics.......will continue upon your merry way.
But what happens when its YOUR parish which is in jeopardy of being closed/merged.....its assets seized by your Bishop. Will you still sing the same song?
Or will you rejoice in this, as a sign of your obendience? Better yet......will you stick the IV needle of electronic funds transfer from your bank account to the local pastor.........so you can remain mindless and numb as priest and bishop alike continue to bleed you dry.....spiritually & financially?
Have fun!
It was more than a property dispute about which the board members chose to engage in rebellion and incite others to the same rebellion and disobedience. Sufficient information has been made available, both to the issue of the dispute and to the issue of obedience. Those who state that the matter is not a doctrinal one are correct - up to a point. Those, such as yourself, who state that the issue is not a disciplinary one, are incorrect, and seem to be relying on personal opinion rather than the laws of the Church. Whether this reliance on one's one personal opinion is due to ignorance or a deep seated disdain for Church authority, I cannot tell. We can rest assured, however, that a continued reliance and decision of the matter based on one's own personal opinion to the exclusion of the truth and rights of the Church and the hierarchy to make judgments in these matters, basically makes one a protestant (lowercase "p" - it is not intended as a derogatory statement of Protestants - capital "P")
I have no horse in this race. I have provided information so that others may come to see the truth in the matter and avoid making "rash judgments", engaging in "calumny" against Archbishop Burke, or repeating "lies" or distortions of the truth - all of which are, objectively, grave violations of the 8th Commandment. Furthermore, information has been provided, explaining the necessity of obedience in lawful ecclesiastical matters. This has particular relevance in keeping the 4th Commandment.
By a similar line of reasoning - such as what Burke wrote - a local Bishop may place under interdict traditionalist Catholics......be it over property, doctrine, liturgics or whatever.
A bishop, as a successor of the Apostles, does, indeed, possess a tremendous amount of power for governing the flock. In addition, he bears even greater responsibilities to his flock. It is Christ, Himself, who gave this power to the Church and to the leaders of the Church. The bishop, indeed, has power over the temporal goods of a diocese, over liturgy and doctrine-to the extent granted by the Church, but not over "whatever." This is a "red herring", an attempt to divert attention away from the crux of an argument by the introduction of an irrelevant detail or supposition.
The process for placing one under the penalty of interdict requires certain steps be taken. It does not happen arbitrarily, contrary to certain individuals' opinions.
Memory recalls excatly the above described scenario when the local ordinary in Alabama threatened Mother Angelica and her order & ministry over liturgical matter. It matters little that Mother was correct in what she was doing......in hte current ultra-obendient mode of thinking: "it's my Bishop - right or wrong"!!!!
Again, this is an irrelevant issue, entirely...except to say that, Mother Angelica "obeyed" her bishop.
Similar was threatened by Cardinal Mahoney - after his heretical writings on the mass were righteously criticized by Mother Angelica, with allegations of possible heresy, he could - and would - have used his power to get her silenced, with the generous cooperation of her Ordinary.
Again, irrelevant. And she was not silenced. Had she been so, such a penalty or decision may have been worthy of an appeal to the Holy See.
Of course, you and those with a similar view......that absolute, total, and mindless obedience is demanded of Catholics.......will continue upon your merry way.
Hopefully, "on my merry way" to eternal beatitude! One wonders where St Pio would be mow, if he had followed your advice and disobeyed his superiors, even granting that his silencing may have been inappropriate or illicit? One must wonder what would have happened had St. Thomas More and St. John Fischer, disobeyed Christ and the Church, and for the convenience of saving their lives joined with Henry? Obedience is impossible for those who reject the graces of humility. Christ, whom we should follow, provided the utmost example of what we are to do - He was obedient unto death. True and proper obedience is not mindless. One's intellect, after having been enlightened with the truth, is to conform one's will to that of Christ.
But what happens when its YOUR parish which is in jeopardy of being closed/merged.....its assets seized by your Bishop. Will you still sing the same song? Or will you rejoice in this, as a sign of your obendience? Better yet......will you stick the IV needle of electronic funds transfer from your bank account to the local pastor.........so you can remain mindless and numb as priest and bishop alike continue to bleed you dry.....spiritually & financially?
For me? I will obey the lawful commands of the spiritual shepherd whom Christ has appointed. Why, because, by the grace of God, I am a Catholic and I have Faith, Hope, and Charity - And I want to follow and obey our Lord so that I might get to heaven!
It did when the Archbishop signed over the deed in 1891.
Since the entire planet belongs to God, he has no need of deeds or property rights.
The rest of us mere mortals do, including the physical structure of the Church. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
A deed to a piece of property is part of civil law which the Church needs to respect. Unless it was specifically stated in the 1891 agreement, the property belongs to the laity.
Uh, no. From your outlined perspective that would be acceptable since the priest has every right to do with the money as he sees fit.
From the logical perspective in this incident, which has nothing to do with the civil property dispute we are discussing, a collection taken for the Church goes to the Church, not to fund the particular priest's indiscretions. The collection plate is not his personal property. If you produce a deed, signed agreement, or stated intent before the collection then the situation would be otherwise.
It is not property ownership, nor parish corporate structure which makes a person or a parish "Protestant" - it is matters of doctrine which deviate from what the Catholic CHurch teaches.
This strict obedience is nonesense! St. Thomas More & St. John Fisher were martyrs preciesly because they were disobedient to a lawful, but immoral authority. So much for your knowledge of the lives of the saints!
The "Mother Angelica" example is hardly irrelvant - it is crucial, but of course it suit you to wave it away. She "obeyed" as she had no choice, lest she and her entire ministry be silenced by apostate bishops.
In terms of the situation which I posited - where your local ordinary suppresses YOUR parish, seizes its assets, and demands your immediate and total silence and meek obedience - I would contend that anyone who would obey such a Bishop is a fool! There is nothing - not even Canon Law - which gives a Bishop the right to act in such a premptory, greedy, and uncharitable manner. Yet they are doing just that......right now......in many dioceses as I write this.
And - as I said - just because something is in Canon Law does not make it "right". After all, Canon Law is entirely man-made. It did not descend from heaven out of whole cloth. It is merely a proceedural document. That does not mean that pastor and bishops should not be obeyed. But it does not do away with the intelligent excercise of right reason, and human logic.
Again I say: Christ walked this earth for 33 years and owned nothing but the clothes upon his back. He had no money or material goods......neither did his apostles. They were given food to eat by the common people, bathed in the river like them, and wore what they wore. If they had any little money for food, it was becuase of the random generousity of people.
Christ gave to Peter.....and hence to all future popes, bishops, and priests........nothing.....but raw spiritual power. He did not promise them money, much less great buildings, and countless riches. He did say that the Father would provide for all their needs.
That, in the final analysis is ALL that the Church has: spiritual authority and power. It has always been at its greatest when, like its Master, it was poor, and had to depend solely on that power.
Soon, what is left of the infrastructure of the NO church will be stripped bare. This is now happening before our eyes. It is a mimicing of the stripping of Christ prior to His crucixion.
Left bare and abandoned by apostate priest, power mad apostate bishop, and layman alike, the remnant of the Church will learn again how to weild that raw spiritual power again. This was what made the church great - and will make it great again.
And for an epilogue........Judas was perhaps the most learned of the 12. He spoke multiple languages, and was literate.
He also was the one who kept the books........and held the purse for the group.
With apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan: "Judas is the very model of a modern Vicar General"
.........or bishop.
No, because the pastor under normal circumstances is not the owner of the property. His name is not on the deed. The deed would belong to the diocese with the pastor managing the property. The pastor does not own the property as the laity do in this case.
Evidently, you did not notice that I proposed said behavior as "protestant" (lowercase P), yet you proceeded to respond with a rather inadequate definition of "Protestant" - but more on that later...Maybe I was wrong in using "protestant" to refer to those who continually "protest", whine, and bellyache about the authority of the Church because their own malformed consciences delude them into thinking they are correct. As you seem to be quite familiar with this attitude which infects the Church, perhaps you could do us a favor and offer another noun which would adequately reflect a proper understanding.
With respect to St Thomas More and St John Fisher, they were martyrs precisely because they refused obedience, not to lawful authority, but to one who had become a renegade and disobedient to lawful Church authority while forcing others to submit to him even though he was a usurper of authority which he did not have. Fisher and More saw their obedience to God and the Church first. I suspected beforehand that you would jump on this, that's why it was phrased as it was.
It seems that your disdain for the Church, which by the way is indefectible, appears to have clouded your ability to think rationally and clearly. We have witnessed in recent years - even decades, it seems, a greater degree of efforts aimed at disrupting the unity of the Church. Unity means that the members of the Church are united in belief of the same doctrines of revelation, and in the acknowledgment of the authority of the pastors of the Church.
St. Paul ranked schism and heresy with the crimes of murder and idolatry and he stated that these would not possess the kingdom of God (Gal 5:20, 21).
In his epistle to the Ephesians, he called for unity by exhorting, "Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in us all." (Eph 4:3-6).
Despite your opinions, unity in the governance of the Church is no less essential to the Church than that of doctrines, despite what you and others have been saying. Our Lord speaks of one Church - His Church. There is but one kingdom not many kingdoms.
Our Lord speaks of one fold and one shepherd (John 10:16).
St. Paul compares the Church to a human body: "For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Rom 12: 4-5)
The Church is compared to a vine, in which all the branches are connected to the main stem. All of the branches so connected, therefore, obtain their life and nourishment from it.
As God is one, so, too is the Church. Anyone who would knowingly and willfully withdraw from the communion of the Church, or from communion with her legitimate pastors, becomes like the withered branch and is cut off from the main vine.
The hierarchical structure of the Church has been established to maintain unity just as the body is united to the head. The faithful should be subject to their immediate Pastor, the Priests should be subordinate to the Bishop, and each Bishop should acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.
There is no 'lrslattery' on the parish roles & tell the truth as to who wrote the letter. The, at most, 60 (not 150-200) could not write such a letter without intervention or assistance. In adition, 150-200 signatures contains a large gap of 50! The 10-11 families were not exiled, they left with the ADMINISTRATOR after no explainations for questionable expendatures caused him to lose signatory rights to the operating account. Annulments, jobs, and other monetary considerations have been provided to those 60 in exchange for their WORK against the parishioners of St. Stanislaus. THERE HAS BEEN A 3RD PARTY AUDIT CONDUCTED AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE!!! (FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME). The individuals that left are NO LONGER parishioners of St. Stan's or St. John's. They are parishioners of St. Agatha's.
R BACH
Incorrect. The diocese of St. Louis started re-incorporating the individual parishes. The pastor, dean, and vicar are the officers and the director is the bishop. In this way, they insulate the entire diocese from whatever lawsuits are brought at the church/priest level ... the parishioners bear he brunt of the lawsuits then, not the diocese.
The signatories to the Appeal Letter above are: Andrzej Blek, Danuta Krol, Teresa Blek, Basia Najarro, Jarek Czernikiewicz, Joe Skudrsyk, Ewa Dyk, and Bozena Skudrzyk.
You state: The, at most, 60 (not 150-200) could not write such a letter without intervention or assistance.
What is the insinuation here? Do you mean to say that they are incapable of writing an eloquent letter? Do they lack the mental prowess for such an undertaking? Do they not have a sufficient grasp of the English language? Please clarify yourself - tell us what you mean.
You further state: Annulments, jobs, and other monetary considerations have been provided to those 60 in exchange for their WORK against the parishioners of St. Stanislaus.
One would assume that you have proof of these charges, or is it similar to your other remarks - baseless and without foundation? Are you resorting to calumny, detraction, or means to distort the truth and cause confusion? I have been told by one of the signatories above that about 150 parishioners are attending St. John's currently and that more are coming each week. Am I to assume that this person is lying to me because you state something which is contrary?
The individuals that left are NO LONGER parishioners of St. Stan's or St. John's. They are parishioners of St. Agatha's.
You're being a little impatient here. The implementation has not taken place yet, so the 'exiled' parishioners of St. Stanislaus are stilling attending Mass as St. John's.
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.