Archbishop Burke excommunicates leaders of a defiant parish

[mikew262]

TPJCatholic:

mike,

I disagree, I think Archbishop Burke has shown incredible patience and love towards the people of St. Stan’s. He was forced to take action after many, many attempts at reconciliation.

I’m certainly not an expert on this case; I just go on what I hear in the media. However, maybe just leaving it be and doing nothing (like the previous bishops) would’ve been the better course of action. At the risk of sounding gross, if you pick at a scab long enough, it’s going to bleed. Maybe the good bishop should’ve left this “scab” alone. In the end, what good has come from all of this?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

mikew262:

I’m certainly not an expert on this case; I just go on what I hear in the media. However, maybe just leaving it be and doing nothing (like the previous bishops) would’ve been the better course of action. At the risk of sounding gross, if you pick at a scab long enough, it’s going to bleed. Maybe the good bishop should’ve left this “scab” alone. In the end, what good has come from all of this?

I think a clear message that one can’t disobey the Church simply because one threatens to leave otherwise is a good that has come from all this. That message shows that being disobedient in order to get one’s way (I know they’re also traditionalist prerogatives, but communion in the hand and girl altar servers were two areas in which this strategy worked) is not an acceptable course of action and not every bishop is going to let disobedient Catholics walk all over him.

Tell me, just how devout can a Catholic be who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff? Not only has their own ordinary spoken, but the Vatican has backed him up. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. You’ll most always find at least one area in which a heretic or schismatic is sincere and devout. But “otherwise devout” still doesn’t stop someone from being a bad Catholic. The truly “otherwise devout” are now worshiping at the Polish apostolate erected at St. John’s - the obedient Catholics refuse to leave the Church.

PS - I know most of us are constrained to rely on the media for information, but I think we both know that the media has repeatedly demonstrated its ignorance of Catholicism and its lack of sympathy for Catholic teaching. Hardly a good source for objective information and commentary.

 

[mikew262]

Andreas Hofer:

I think a clear message that one can’t disobey the Church simply because one threatens to leave otherwise is a good that has come from all this. That message shows that being disobedient in order to get one’s way (I know they’re also traditionalist prerogatives, but communion in the hand and girl altar servers were two areas in which this strategy worked) is not an acceptable course of action and not every bishop is going to let disobedient Catholics walk all over him.

Tell me, just how devout can a Catholic be who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff? Not only has their own ordinary spoken, but the Vatican has backed him up. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. You’ll most always find at least one area in which a heretic or schismatic is sincere and devout. But “otherwise devout” still doesn’t stop someone from being a bad Catholic. The truly “otherwise devout” are now worshiping at the Polish apostolate erected at St. John’s - the obedient Catholics refuse to leave the Church.

PS - I know most of us are constrained to rely on the media for information, but I think we both know that the media has repeatedly demonstrated its ignorance of Catholicism and its lack of sympathy for Catholic teaching. Hardly a good source for objective information and commentary.

I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[joshua_b]

I posted pretty much the same reply on the other thread too. St. Stanislaus parish refuses to be in submission to the bishop of the diocese and is therefore not in communion with the diocese. This in turn means they are not in communion with the diocese of Rome. Without that communion, by definition, they can not be catholic. The concept of submission to church authority is the thing that separates us from Protestantism. That is simply fact. We are called to submit to the authority of the bishop even if we dont understand it, like it, or agree with it. Jesus himself said, in regard to the Pharisees that the Jewish people should “do as they say, just not as they do”. That seems to say alot to me about the role of the authority of the church.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Mike,

The previous Bishop made the start towards this, so it was not just Archbishop Burke. The problme is, the Church in America has for far too long allowed Catholics to stray from the Church/faith/teachings without ever doing anything to tell them they are placing themselves at great eternal risk. Bishops are called to do these things, what makes this case so unusual is that we finally have a Bishop that is doing his job. Catholics need to be reminded that the faith is not a democracy and that we are called to obedience, even when that obedience is sometimes painful.

Pick up our cross daily…Jesus demands it.

 

[MLehde]

TPJCatholic:

Mike,

The previous Bishop made the start towards this, so it was not just Archbishop Burke. The problme is, the Church in America has for far too long allowed Catholics to stray from the Church/faith/teachings without ever doing anything to tell them they are placing themselves at great eternal risk. Bishops are called to do these things, what makes this case so unusual is that we finally have a Bishop that is doing his job. Catholics need to be reminded that the faith is not a democracy and that we are called to obedience, even when that obedience is sometimes painful.

Pick up our cross daily…Jesus demands it.

I am sorry but I must disagree with you. The former archbishop only made inquiries if the parish would be willing to change their operating agreement that the archdioscese had with the parish, and had been in place for over one hundred years. When they respectfully declined the offer, as the original was made by Cardinal Kendrick in perpetuity, the archbishop did nothing else and never once threatened excommunication or schizm. The former archbishop, who is now Cardinal Rigali of Philidelphia, apperently did briefly consider pursuing a legal suit and was informed by the archdioscese lawyers that there wasn’t a ghost of a chance of success. After that he dropped the matter. This current situation can be totally placed, either in the form of praise or blame as you like, at Archbishop Burke’s feet. Some seem to view this situation is a bright spot as they see the church finally flexing it’s muscle and setting a rebelious parish in it’s place. Others see it as a shameful episode that is causing nothing but harm. We are indeed called to obedience but also as witnesses to the truth. Archbishop Burke has compelled folks hereabouts to choose sides and in doing so reach their own conclusions, the archbishop’s credibility being presently at something of a low ebb, about what that truth might be.

 

[MaryB23]

MLehde:

I am sorry but I must disagree with you. The former archbishop only made inquiries if the parish would be willing to change their operating agreement that the archdioscese had with the parish, and had been in place for over one hundred years. When they respectfully declined the offer, as the original was made by Cardinal Kendrick in perpetuity, the archbishop did nothing else and never once threatened excommunication or schizm.

Was this before or after the lay board changed the rules?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It is interesting to compare this to the case of pro-abortion politicians. It appears that interfering with Church finances is much more serious than rejecting Church teaching.

 

[johnq]

Joe :tiphat:

Are you aware that Arch-bishop Burke did address the pro-choice politians issue? This issue is not about finances. It is about rejecting Church teaching.

 

[HagiaSophia]

MLehde:

The former archbishop only made inquiries if the parish would be willing to change their operating agreement that the archdioscese had with the parish, and had been in place for over one hundred years. When they respectfully declined the offer, as the original was made by Cardinal Kendrick in perpetuity, the archbishop did nothing else and never once threatened excommunication or schizm. .

Quotes from various sources:

"…The question is frequently raised about my reason for addressing the civil corporate structure of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish at the present time, especially so soon after beginning my service in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. First of all, my predecessor, Cardinal Rigali, had been working with the board of directors and the parishioners at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish to correct its civil structure, in accord with Church discipline. He met with the board of directors of the present civil corporation on Sept. 30, 2003, to explain the steps necessary to bring the corporate structure of the parish into compliance with Church law.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1282986/posts

The previous archbishop, Justin Rigali, took canonical steps to deal with the parish before his transfer to Philadelphia. The unwelcome task of having to deal with the parish then fell to his successor, Archbishop Raymond Burke.

jimmyakin.org/2005/12/the_schism_of_s.html

Several of Burke’s predecessors, including Archbishop Justin Rigali - now the cardinal of Philadelphia - had attempted and failed to bring St. Stanislaus back in line with the rest of St. Louis’ Catholic churches. Burke has said that by altering their bylaws, the board members of St. Stanislaus illegally removed him and the parish priests from the board.

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/0FBBB145B49D6022862570E30026B1E0?OpenDocument

 

[MLehde]

johnq:

Joe :tiphat:

Are you aware that Arch-bishop Burke did address the pro-choice politians issue? This issue is not about finances. It is about rejecting Church teaching.

In a very strict sense you are correct but saying that rejecting church teaching is the issue and not finances is like saying that Moby Dick is a story about the catch that got away. It might be technically correct but there is still something, rather critical being left out. You might want to consider that, at the outset, all that Archbishop Burke demanded for him to consider St. Stanislaus to be observing church teachings was that the board turn over total control of all parish assets to him. Despite what those of you who consider yourself to be traditional catholics and myself something else, I really don’t lose too much sleep over labels, might think of me I honestly wish this were not happening and that the St. Louis Archdioscese was not suffering the way it is. In some ways it is only getting worse and the media is having a field day with the story. Both the St. Stanislaus Board of Directors and Archbishop Burke’s office have gotten very adept at playing the press and the dueling media releases that they both kep issuing are only making things worse. Just today St. Louis Auxilary Bishop Hermann made a statement that was probably the most sensible I have heard so far and almost sure to get both sides angry with him. He said that the parish board was wrong to try to make this appear to be an ethnic issue and that the archdiosces was wrong to claim that the funds and assets of the parish belonged to anyone other than the parish. I’m inclined to agree with the bishop but I don’t know if either side is going to be pleased with his comment.

 

[MLehde]

MaryB23:

Was this before or after the lay board changed the rules?

Just out of curiosity I was wondering if you had any idea what rules were changed and what prompted the change? Fr. Bene, the parish priest at the time, withdrew $60,000 from the parish account and refused to account for where it went or what it was spent on. When the archdiosces refused to intercede in the matter the parish board moved access to the parish assets away from the pastor. Today Archbishop Burke announced that the entire parish of St. Stanislaus is “suppressed” and suggested that as they are no longer members of the Catholic Church perhaps the Attorney General of Missouri should consider investigating them, I suppose to see if they warrent a tax exempt status. Enough! It is time for all concerned to act like adults, for a change, and walk away from this before any more damage is done.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

johnq:

Joe :tiphat:

Are you aware that Arch-bishop Burke did address the pro-choice politians issue? This issue is not about finances. It is about rejecting Church teaching.

How many did he excommunicate?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Joe Kelley:

How many did he excommunicate?

The diocese (both Lacrosse and St. Louis) was instructed to deny communion to pro-choice politicians. I’m not sure if the instruction applied only to those from the diocese, or all known offenders. Given the need for jurisdiction to impose a penalty, though, I presume it meant all pro-choice politicians from the diocese. I don’t believe there were any challengers to the policy, so there would not be any need for stricter sanctions.

In the case of St. Stan’s, though, the parish was already under interdict, at which point they induced a suspended priest to illicitly administer the sacraments to them (thus defying the interdict in addition to the already existent irregularity), at which point there was only one penalty left in the bag: excommunication. The problem seems to be that exommunication can only achieve its remedial end if the punished party WANTS union with the Church. That doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

[mom2boyz]

FYI St. Stan’s has now been suppressed. My understanding is that they are no longer part of the archdiocese and no longer Roman Catholic. They are appealing to the Vatican on both the excommunication and the suppression. If you want to read the media report go to www.stltoday.com.

 

[EtienneGilson]

With the current talks of reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church…perhaps St. Stan’s should join the PNCC, the in a couple of months (God willing) if the talks go well, rejoin the RCC under the PNCC umbrella and become their own sui juris, rite, church or prelature…depending on what status the PNCC is given after the much hoped for reunion.

And furthermore, it is a far cry from heresy to disobey canon law, especially since canon law hadn’t been codified when St. Stan’s arrangement was hashed out 100 and some years ago. One would have thought that logic would prevail and all arrangements predating the codification of canon law in 1918 would be reviewed independantly.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

The fact of the matter is that Archbishop Burke had no choice. Contrary to popular belief, the board was not excommunicated by Burke, the board excommunicated themselves in getting that priest to come and say mass, in direct violation of the Bishop’s orders. By those very actions, the lay board and the priest placed themselves outside of the Church. They are no longer Catholic.

I have the honor to have talked with Archbishop Burke several times, and I can personally vouch for his humility and his commitment to the Truth. Also, he was trained as a canon lawyer, and most people agree that he’s probably the foremost expert in canon law in the country.

I’m amused that some people on this site critical of Burke are relying on what “the media” are reporting, ignoring the fact that the media has been opposed to His Excellency right from the very beginning. For example, when St. Stan’s had a “vote” to determine whether Burke was right or not in demanding that the lay board hand over the parish, the Post-Dispatch reported that 90% of the parish voted to oppose it. What they did NOT report, however, was that in actuallity, 90% of the parish REFUSED TO TAKE THE POLL BECAUSE THEY SAW IT AS A PUBLICITY STUNT TO EMBARASS BURKE. Also, the media have done nothing but feed the false claims of St. Stan’s lay board that Burke wants all the money for himself, and that he wants to close the parish. That is a blatant falsehood, and it is a testimony to how anti-Catholic the media is today that they published such claims that had no basis in fact.

I have no sympathy for those comments that say, “oh, everything was happy and hunkey-dorey beforehand, so let’s just keep it that way!” That is the exact kind of attitude that many Bishops in this country have taken over the last 40 years, with disasterous results. It’s like refusing to discipline a child because the parent is afraid that the child will get angry. The fact of the matter is that St. Stan’s was not in line with canon law, and were ordered by the Successor to the Apostles in St. Louis to obey. They refused. The blame is solely on them. To blame Burke is to blame him for doing his job, his vocation. Perhpas the attitude of “don’t rattle the cage” is appropriate for cowardly and dissenting bishops who are more concerned with their public image than they are with their duty to problaim the Truth, but it is not appropriate for those Bishops striving, with the help of God’s grace, to shepherd their flocks regardless of the cost.

And anybody who claims that the Archbishop is more concerned with “legalisms” than with more important “moral” issues has obviously never read much about Raymond L. Burke. He is one of only a few Bishops who have publicly refused communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, and has been very vocal about it. The media have harped on him, he has been slandered by numerous editorials, and many other things. The media saw the St. Stan’s mess as an opportunity to further damage his reputation, and that is what they have done. He is one of the few courageous, saintly Bishops that we have today in this country, and we should all pray for him that he continues to serve Christ and His Church.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

And by the way, if anyone actually wants to read the truth of what this is all about, just go to the following link to find every single official document ever published in connection with the St. Stan’s controversey:

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html

The Archdiocese has no problem publishing these documents online because it shows the truth of the matter, contrary to what the media claims.

In particular, to show just how disobedient St. Stan’s has been, I recommend viewing the following letter from the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome in response to St. Stan’s appeal to them after Burke issued the indirect. It is one of the harshest, most critical Vatican letters to a group of dissenters I have ever read. This alone should show just how disobedient the lay board became:

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st-stanislaus_CPC-letter.pdf

 

[emsvetich]

ThomasMore1535:

And by the way, if anyone actually wants to read the truth of what this is all about, just go to the following link to find every single official document ever published in connection with the St. Stan’s controversey:

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html

The Archdiocese has no problem publishing these documents online because it shows the truth of the matter, contrary to what the media claims.

In particular, to show just how disobedient St. Stan’s has been, I recommend viewing the following letter from the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome in response to St. Stan’s appeal to them after Burke issued the indirect. It is one of the harshest, most critical Vatican letters to a group of dissenters I have ever read. This alone should show just how disobedient the lay board became:

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st-stanislaus_CPC-letter.pdf

Thank you for a well formed response. Your two posts have stated again what has been shared repeatedly and yet Archbishop Burke continues to be attacked. Unfortunately, the truth seems to have been pushed to the side in this discussion. Many in the American Catholic Church ( my description) have been too long under the mistaken understanding that conscience trumps everything-Canon Law, dogma, vows, Tradition, Magisterium, etc.

This is but the first volley as the Church, under the astute leadership of orthodox clergy, gathers the faithful and reaffirms the truth. The real challenge will not be to the Church, for it will survive. The challenge will be to those who demand a democratic Catholic Church and eventually will have to make a choice whether they belong.

 

[TheRaiders]

Well said, both of you. I agree completely. Those who blindly trust today’s media, have not studied it closely. I am a journalism major and have seen how it works and studied its bias. It is subtle sometimes, but I think it is blatant here. By the way, Thomas Moore, where did you get that 90% of the people refused to take the poll?