Portland Archdiocese Will Resist Judge’s Ruling Archbishop Says Church Will Follow Its Own Law

Portland, Ore. -- The leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland says the church will follow its own law on ownership of its property.

This, despite a recent ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge who says property belonging to parishes throughout Western Oregon could be subject to sale, to satisfy claims against the Archdiocese by victims of alleged priest sex abuse.

Archbishop John Vlazny told the Catholic Sentinel that he considers church buildings and land the property of individual parishes, NOT the archdiocese.

The Portland archdiocese was the first Catholic diocese in the nation to declare bankruptcy when it sought protection from creditors in July 2004.

Vlazny says the church will follow its internal law on property ownership -- quote -- "no matter what obstacles confront it."

Since the "Canon Law" gets mentioned a lot, without a shred of a quote, some simple facts need to be spelled out.

Year 1917 AD is the year when the Code of Canon Law is put together and published for the Roman Catholic Church for the very first time. Year 1983 AD is the year when the said Code gets revised, changed and translated into vernacular languages. The 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici is the "Canon Law" mentioned by Burke and others.

The book of the Law ends with a sentence that puts the hair on the tough ruler's back stand up. The last sentence of the book of Canon Law brings the whole thing to a proper, Christian and Roman Catholic perspective. It is the sentence that the emperor dreads and avoids like a plague. It is the line that is blanked and erased in the monarch's copy of the book. Those are the words that he will not dare to harbor in his thoughts or utter with his lips. The few magic words have the power to turn the supreme hegemon into a Bishop of Christ and a Shepherd of His flock. Brrrrr!!!

How can he freely interdict, excommunicate, suppress, send to hell or plainly jerk his sheep around when the Canon Law ends with these dreadful words:

The salvation of souls must always be the supreme law in the Church?

There are two important "ifs" and two "buts" for your consideration.

* If the parishioners committed some acts of liturgical, theological or moral abuses at St. Stanislaus, Burke would have definitely gained ethical grounds for his actions against the parish. But it didn't happen.

* If the torrents of lawsuits against St. Louis Archdiocese and all dioceses across the USA didn't start in 2001 resulting in closures and sales of many parishes, St. Stanislaus board would have no business protecting it by the said change of bylaws. But the lawsuits did happen.

Roman Catholic Bishop is not a "property manager", or a "corporation sole". Bishop is a religious leader and shepherd of Christ's flock.

Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.

Your post is filled with misdirections and irrelevancies:

You wrote: "Since the "Canon Law" gets mentioned a lot, without a shred of a quote, some simple facts need to be spelled out. Year 1917 AD is the year when the Code of Canon Law is put together and published for the Roman Catholic Church for the very first time. Year 1983 AD is the year when the said Code gets revised, changed and translated into vernacular languages. The 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici is the "Canon Law" mentioned by Burke and others.

IBINB: I know the history of canon law as well, if not better, than you. Why post this then?

"The book of the Law ends with a sentence that puts the hair on the tough ruler's back stand up. The last sentence of the book of Canon Law brings the whole thing to a proper, Christian and Roman Catholic perspective. It is the sentence that the emperor dreads and avoids like a plague. It is the line that is blanked and erased in the monarch's copy of the book. Those are the words that he will not dare to harbor in his thoughts or utter with his lips. The few magic words have the power to turn the supreme hegemon into a Bishop of Christ and a Shepherd of His flock. Brrrrr!!!
How can he freely interdict, excommunicate, suppress, send to hell or plainly jerk his sheep around when the Canon Law ends with these dreadful words: The salvation of souls must always be the supreme law in the Church?"

They are not dreadful words at all. And they are exactly why Burke is doing what he is doing. Again, I know Burke personally. I know how he thinks. He knows that obedience is important. He knows proper exercise of authority is important. St. Stan's flouted that. That cannot be allowed to stand when it comes to defying the proper authority over an issue like the ecclesiastical control of a parish taht claims to be Catholic.

You wrote: "There are two important "ifs" and two "buts" for your consideration."

Save your "ifs" and "buts". Stick to reality and not your silly ideas.

"If the parishioners committed some acts of liturgical, theological or moral abuses at St. Stanislaus, Burke would have definitely gained ethical grounds for his actions against the parish. But it didn't happen."

Who are you to create categories in which St. Stan's disobedient members can legitimately be disobedient? Where did you ever get that nutty idea? That's how a liberal thinks. That's not how a Catholic thinks. You conveniently left out the incredibly important category (in your scheme) of authority. St. Stan's acted out of the bounds of its authority. Burke has not.

"If the torrents of lawsuits against St. Louis Archdiocese and all dioceses across the USA didn't start in 2001 resulting in closures and sales of many parishes, St. Stanislaus board would have no business protecting it by the said change of bylaws. But the lawsuits did happen."

And that is irrelevant. St. Stan's was part of the same diocese as everyone else in St. Louis. Deal with it. No matter what lawsuits were filed by whoever, over whatever, St. Stan's had exactly NO authority to change an agreement with the diocese, and ignore canon law. Deal with it.

"Roman Catholic Bishop is not a "property manager", or a "corporation sole". Bishop is a religious leader and shepherd of Christ's flock."

What planet are you from? Do shepherds have an obligation to manage their flocks, maintain their folds, feed their sheep, guide them to pasture, protect them from dangers, etc.? Do you think those are simply "spiritual" metaphors? They have a physical component since we are PHYSICAL BEINGS. You brought up the 1983 Code. Ever read the section on property? I remember when I had to write a paper on the section on property alienation some time ago. Do you think bishops have nothing to do with that? You are not well informed on these issues.

"Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money."

And Burke is all of those things. His sole bride is the Archdiocese of St. Louis. He is not a lover of money either. This isn't about money. He made that clear enough. This is about liberals pretending to be Catholics, who will soon be supporting gay marriages, contraception, abortion, and every other sickening thing that rebels like them always end up supporting. Deal with it. I think Burke was incredibly patient with them. He's getting to be a vertible softy in his fifties.

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.