[Falconspeed]

From the Save St. Stan's web site (Thanks Par35): The parish operates without the financial support of the Archdiocese and has done so for its entire existence.

Getting excommunicated for doing "business as usual" seems harsh.

[solitas]

Also from St. Stan's website, this Burke creature appears to be a real piece of work:

http://www.saveststans.org/burkeWi.html

http://www.saveststans.org/FAQ.html

[dangus]

Don't let Solitas fool anyone; he's a bitter anti-Catholic who prefers sodomites to papists. The only reason he has to post on these Catholic threads is to sew misunderstanding and bitterness.

Saint Stanislaus was incorporated with an advisory financial board to be appointed by and directed by the pastor. As church rules permitted independence of such boards, no-one at the diocese realized that such independence would give the advisory board legal control of the church building. Such a cicummstance is illegal under church law, and had been illegal at the time of the founding of the church. After hundreds of Polish families left the church over controversial actions taken by the advisory board, the diocese instructed the board to obey the pastor; the board replied by insisting the pastor had no authority over them.

Essentially what the diocese did is say, "OK, you want to say you are subject to civil law but not church law fine. YOu can be an independent church, but you won't be a Catholic Church." That's Why the church did not send any priests there for the last two years... the board insisted that any priest recognize THEIR authority, as opposed to the bishop's. Any priest who would serve their under such condition would be breaking his vows to the church.

The argument that the diocese has not given them any funds wouldn't hold any water even outside the Church. Those who gave to the parish had a moral obligation to support the Catholic Church with their tithing. This is different than the break-away Anglican churched because those churches are arguing that their actions are done to remain faithful to the Anglican Communion and to Christianity; they argue that Griswold, Robinson and the Ecusa leadership are the ones in schism, not they. Hence, any funding given to such parishes was given under a moral obligation to the Anglican Communion, not to a renegade diocese.

[It's me]

Getting excommunicated for doing "business as usual" seems harsh.

They are excommunicated for disobedience. Or maybe that is business as usual for them.