|
2 members (melkman2, 1 invisible),
201
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Administrator Member
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 |
DJS, Definitely some interesting reading here. Like Theophan, I was under the assumption that lay ownership of church propertieds was counter to canon law. The documents give an interesting read, and in documents some from the parishioners that are faithful to the archdiocese they make it clear that their appeals would never see the light of the secular press. Imagine that, the secular press in our country having an anti-church bias  . Christ is born! In IC XC, Father Anthony+
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
DJS:
Thank you for the linked documentary resources!
They affirm our perception of the respective roles of the diocese and of the parish.
The prospective amendments of the By-laws to conform to the interests of the lay Parish Board were against the pre-existing provisions of their By-laws, against the provisions of secular Corporation laws (of the State of Missouri), and against the Code of Canons.
Every act done thereafter by the Board was unlawful and, therefore, null and void.
Amado
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Imagine that, the secular press in our country having an anti-church bias That's the easy part. But our being played by it, now that boggles the imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Archbishop Burke's predecessor, now Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, began negotiating with the parish in 2002 to reorganize it in compliance with church law. Archbishop Burke became head of the archdiocese in December 2003 and tried to complete the job, but the parish board and most parishioners resisted, expressing fears that the transfer of authority was a ploy for the archdiocese to close the parish and take control of its assets.
As the dispute escalated, in August 2004 Archbishop Burke reassigned the parish's priest-administrator and moved the pastoral care of the city's Polish-heritage community temporarily to St. Agatha Parish in South St. Louis. He later made that move permanent and in January 2005 placed the St. Stanislaus board of directors under interdict, a church penalty that denies them access to the sacraments. Here's what I don't understand. Archbishop Burke's objective was for St. Stanislaus to come into conformity with canon law, right? Well then, once they had declined to turn over their assets, why didn't he simply change their status so they would no longer be a parish ("St. Stanislaus Kostka Association" perhaps?) and then inform them that they could only become a parish again if they conformed to the law? Then, there shouldn�t have been any need for an interdict, since there would no longer be any violation of church law. -Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,293 Likes: 17
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,293 Likes: 17 |
Seems like an engraved ibvitation to join the PNCC to me.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576 |
if they conformed to the law Sounds like the LAW is being confused with the FAITH - isin't this just what Jesus faced in the Sanhedron with the scribes and pharasees?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Sounds like the LAW is being confused with the FAITH - isin't this just what Jesus faced in the Sanhedron with the scribes and pharasees Hardly. :rolleyes: The facts of the situation in the documentation is pretty clear. The Archbishop exhibited flexibility in his guarantees to earmark the assets of the parish for the Polish Catholic community. But that ultimately he could not allow the board, rather than his priest, to be the governor of the parish - an innovation that was undertaken only recently by unilateral action of the board in violation of the early charter of the church. This pattern of governance led to some clear abuses - such as the board's deciding, over the priest's opposition, to sell liquor during the coffee hours after services. Not to mention their hiring an interesting, suspended priest. There was no aspect of faith being defended by the parish. None. So the comparison to Christ before the Sanhendrin is particularly outrageous. The directors had clearly stepped out of bounds. No Bishop - Catholic or Orthodox - would accept such an arrangement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Has anyone heard any new developements in this story in the past couple weeks?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
Latest official statement of St. Louis Archdiocese re suppression of parish, considered in schism, made public on 06 Janauary 2006 can be accessed here [ archstl.org] Amado
|
|
|
|
|
