www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Question about excommunicated priest situation in Prayer forum

1500 in attendance yesterday...
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2005/12/26/news/00lead.txt

That about says it all. Forget sterile art, architecture, music, etc. This mentality epitomizes the terrible effect of the dominant Protestant culture on the Catholic Church in America.

How can a bishop who is just a mortal man condemn people like this? Since when is an administrative matter a reason for condemning beelievers to hell? What's next - mutual excommunications? These believers need the intervention of a leader of the church in Poland or the Polish National Church.

The Bishop is not making an arbitrary judgment, as you really ought to know. He is just making clear, as he should, that the people who are engaging in these actions, are making themselves, by their own acts, liable to judgment.

...

Bergschlawiner,

It is heartening to hear an American bishop speak about the reality of mortal sin as a blanket penalty, what with the subjectivity that has run rampant in moral theology, especially in the American episcopacy.

That said, one may disagree with Archbishop +Burke about the prudence of his decision, but in the end a faithful Catholic owes allegiance to his bishop in matters such as these.

Logos Teen

Bergschlawiner,

You ask, "How can a bishop who is just a mortal man condemn people like this?"

By the power of the Keys given to St. Peter and to the other Apostles who pass their authority to the members of the College of Bishops up to the present day.

You also ask, "Since when is an administrative matter a reason for condemning beelievers (sic) to hell?"

The Catholic Catechism gives us the answer in Paragraph 1549: "Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops . . . the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers."

Paragraph 1550: This presence of Christ . . . does not guarantee all acts of ministers . . . (but) extends to the sacraments . . .

The actions of the people in this parish are NOT administrative, but directly go to the whole reason that the Church exists: to make present the Saving Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, His Glorious Resurrection, and anticipated His Second Coming. The Liturgy which they try to serve in schism from the lawful authority of the bishop of the diocese places them in spiritual danger. It is the bishop's obligation to call their attention to what they have already done themselves.

Beyond that, there is no authority that they can appeal to outside their own diocese except to the Holy Father. And it seems from the story that Rome has already told them to make their situation what canon law demands in relation to their particular bishop. No other bishop in the world has a right to go to the Archbishop and demand or ask him to do anything outside canon law and I'm sure that there are none that would do so.

The Polish National Catholic Church cannot intervene either. They have no standing to do so.

Times change and the special situation which they enjoyed is no longer something that fits into the Catholic Church's canon law. Nothing is engraved in stone except the Gospel and the authority Christ has given His Church.

In Christ,

BOB

I am glad I do not live in the diocese of St Louis. because if I did, I would be excommunicated.
This brings back all of the memories of the founding of the Polish National Catholic Church, in the USA.
Actually I thougth that according to the pleanary council of Baltimore Md, I think the year was 1919. that ethnic parishes founded before a certain year (sorry I forget the year) could only be desolved from Rome. After that year. the parish could be desolved by the Bishop.

TP:

Christ is Born!!! Glorify Him!!!

I think the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church takes care of that past situation and anything else that went on before. What I am seeing here from the posts--and I have no first-hand info here--is that Rome has told the parish council to get into line with the new Code and their bishop. It seems that whatever they were told in the past (or think that their ancestors were told) no longer applies.

So they essentially have a choice: do you want to be part of the Catholic Church or not? If so, the new situation does not include what you have had before; if not . . .

In any event, the bishop of the diocese sends a priest to stand in his place. No parish has the right or authority to hire its own priest. so even if the property issue were not there, they're over the line with trying to hire their own priest.

On a related note, this sounds similar to the closings of Byzantine Catholic parishes. What does the Eastern Code of Canon Law say about property? If the situation is the same--that the bishop has an absolute right to hold and control the opening and closing of parishes--there is no real way to get around the closing of a parish. It occured to me that the suggestion that I made earlier on another thread about forming a corporation to raise, hold, and control funds outside the parish might not fly either. Don't want to get anyone excommunicated by taking my advice and following through with such a scheme.

In Christ,

BOB

Hi,

I am trying to understand the issue here.

1. The pastoral council of a pastor-less parish decides to bypass their Archbishop and get themselves a pastor.

2. They do this in a building which is legally the property of the Archbishop.

3. The pastor they "hire" was not incardindated to their Archdiocese, but rather, they "hijack" a priest from another diocese and this priest willingly leaves his post, without permission of either hierarch, starts functioning as pastor of this parish.

Are these the facts?

If so, what is the question, then? Isn't it OBVIOUS we have a case of schism here?

And yes, the church was packed for Christmas services, but how many of those people were there truly to celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord, and how many were there just to witness the local freak show?

Really? Schism as entertainment? Really?

And people really want this NOT to be considered a mortal sin?

Come on! Get real!

Shalom,
Memo

Don't worry Bob...As much as I liked your suggestion on the other thread I knew it wouldn't fly.

I think both the Latin Code and the CCEO are at one on this score: the Bishop/Eparch has the paramount authority in his Diocese/Eparchy, including the assignment of parish priests and the disposition/preservation of Church properties.

Even the parish priest has only management prerogatives over Church properties, which is delegated by the Bishop/Eparch. The attributes of ownership remain in, and are exercised only by, the Bishop/Eparch.

Lay parish councils or parish boards exist as advisory panels and do not share in the attributes of ownership.

I could be wrong though and I will stand corrected by our canon lawyers.

Amado

When I was in St. Louis last year this whole saga was beginning to come to a head. Apparently the church and property belong solely to a corporate board run by the laity of the parish. The archdiocese does not provide any funds, nor have archdiocesan funds been used to buy the land around the original church, or the $2.5 million building adjacent to the church.

The archdiocese is insistent that the property be turned over from the corporate board to the archdiocese. When the board refused, the archbishop transferred the pastor and did not assign a new one.

Clearly the parishioners of this church have crossed the line in hiring their own priest from another diocese. But, by the same token, I can see their objection to having raised millions of dollars for the upkeep and growth of the physical plant only to have the archdiocese insist that the assets be turned over, especially since the request came at a time when many of the parishes in the city were being closed.

I had sympathy for the members of the parish. I saw it as little different than extortion. The situation seemed little different than a scenario in which the bishop would ask each parishioner for a percentage of their individual bank accounts to a diocesan fundraising effort "... or else". But now that they have gone and hired their own outside priests....

Bah to both of them.

-- Ed

PS I wonder what would have ensued if the parish board, convinced that they were going to lose their church in any case, had sold it to the highest bidder and donated the proceeds to charity.

The priest has fled to Poland.

People might like to read the documents here [archstl.org] , to find out what accomodations have been made by the archdiocese, how the appeals to Rome have been answered, how the authority of the board was recently changed, and a variety of other interesting facts.