Archbishop Burke excommunicates leaders of a defiant parish

[ThomasMore1535]

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?

I believe it was reported in the St. Louis Review, the Catholic paper of the Archdiocese. In all honesty, I cannot remember who I got the info from specifically, but I can personally vouch that it is accurate. If it wasn’t 90%, it was something very close to it. I may have gotten the info from the Archbishop’s secretary. I honestly can’t remember, and my apologies for not being able to provide you with a specific reference. But I can state with certainty that the vast majority of the parishoners at St. Stan’s refused to do the poll.

I go to the Tridentine Mass here in St. Louis, and before Burke gave us our present parish of St. Francis de Sales, we were at St. Agatha’s, which is now the Polish Catholic parish in St. Louis. The vast majority of parishoners obeyed Burke and left St. Stan’s and went there. They were comming to St. Agatha’s just as us Latin Mass people were leaving, so we got to talk to them a lot. I may have heard it from one of them. If you’re interested, here’s their website, 100% loyal to Burke:

polishchurchstl.org/

Oh, and you might be interested to know that St. Agatha’s is right next to the Anheuser-Busch Brewery!

 

[ThomasMore1535]

emsvetich:

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.

Well, conscience, properly understood, CANNOT trump Canon Law, dogma, etc., because, contrary to popular belief (and contrary to what everyone seems to think Vatican II said), conscience does NOT mean inventing your own personal morality, or going by your own personal preferences. Rather, as Vatican II actually said, conscience means SEEKING OUT AND OBEYING OBJECTIVE TRUTH. The Church has the fulness of the Truth. Therefore, you have to develop your conscience to make it in line with the Truth. The purpose of one’s conscience is to seek out and obey objective moral truths, NOT to make up whatever one feels like. St. Stan’s seem to think that they can disobey the Church in good conscience, when in fact such an assertion is an oxymoron. Because the gate’s of hell will never prevail against the Church, one can NEVER be justified in disobeying her.

When will these modernist dissenters learn? :banghead:

 

[jaz1976]

Bottom line is this, the priest whom they hired was on suspension from Bishop Leibrecht in Diocese of Springfield/Cape Girardeau. So it was a slap in the face to two bishops to hire this guy.

Also, I urge everyone to go to the website of St Stanislaus. The paranoia is running rampant with these people. I have never seen such ridiculous conspiracy theories. saveststans.org/

What seals the deal is the dissident groups such as VOTF that they are attracting. That tells you who is right and who is wrong in this.

 

[MLehde]

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

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.

I really had decided to just let this go and not take up the issue any further but some of these claims have got to be addressed. For starters it is curious to claim that Archbishop Burke was right to do as he did, excommunication, in one breath and then in the next to make the observation that he didn’t really do anything in his own right but that it was the board of St. Stanisalus who were responsible for the the actual excommunication. Only one person was responsible for the action of excommunicating those people and that was Archbishop Burke, you can’t have it both ways. The archbishop didn’t even have the tact to notify the board members directly but instead simply released the notice of excommunication to the media. Then there is the question of whether 90% of the parish voted against the archbishop or wasn’t allowed to vote on the matter. Archbishop Burke’s defenders claim that the vast majority of St. Stanislaus families actually supported the archbishop but weren’t allowed to voice their stance. The archbishop’s defenders can believe as they like but a glance at mass attendance betwen the new Polish parish set aside by the archbishop and St. Stanislaus tells the actual story. The 90% plus majority did not support the archbishop but again it is another curious attempt to have things both ways by saying that numbers don’t matter on the one hand and then adding that the numbers are really on the archbishop’s side. Finally the simple truth of the issue is that Archbishop Burke’s actions seem to go a long way towards confirming the suspicion by most that his intent all along was to close the parish and aquire the parish funds for the archdioscese use. Was that his right to do so? As a question of cannon law it appears that it is indeed his right if he so chooses but there is a world of distinction between having a right and doing what is right. The Post Dispatch, the local St. Louis newspaper, really does have an rabid anti Catholic bias (betcha didn’t think that the previous poster and I had anything that we could agree on did you) and is milking this story for all that they can in order to give the church a black eye but Archbishop Burke has played into their hands time and time again by his actions and statements. The St. Louis Review, the archdioscese newspaper, is little more than the archbishop’s opinion rendered in print and so the folk of the archdioscese are left with no reliable and unslanted reporting source from which they can follow this story. The result is a jungle telegraph of sorts and along the line, as the story makes the rounds from parish to parish, the archbishop has developed as the clear loser. Let us be very clear about this. The archbishop’s authority is being seriously erroded by his own actions at a time when the church can least afford the injury. I believe that is the very reason that media outlets like the Post Dispatch have been so gleeful in their coverage of this. There is a hard core knot of supporters of the archbishop who are very sincere in their admiration of the man, which is their right, but the best thing that any of us can hope for now is that this story will just go away. If both sides,both sides, will let it go and stop releasing new press statements claiming either conspiracy or satan’s involvment the sane people of the archdioscese can begin damage control. If not it will fester like an open wound and spread like an infection. In event that nobody has noticed, just across the river in the Bellville Dioscese a majority,a majority no less, of the dioscese priests held a meeting and publicly expressed a lack of confidence in their bishop. While their problems are not directly related to the situation here in St. Louis the whole St. Stanislaus affair has created an atmosphere where there is always the smell of smoke on the breeze and that bodes ill for all of us. St. Stanislaus parish, and yes, the great majority of its members, is no longer a part of the St. Louis Archdioscese. Whether they left of their own accord or were diven out let us let them go in peace with no further recriminations.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

MLehde:

I really had decided to just let this go and not take up the issue any further but some of these claims have got to be addressed. For starters it is curious to claim that Archbishop Burke was right to do as he did, excommunication, in one breath and then in the next to make the observation that he didn’t really do anything in his own right but that it was the board of St. Stanisalus who were responsible for the the actual excommunication.

That’s it. I can hardly control my temper anymore. You are willing to slander and blaspheme one of the few holy men that we have running the Church in this country simply for doing his job. You say that he suddenly notified them without warning that they were excommunicated? That is a blatant, flat-out lie. They KNEW FULLY WELL WHAT THEY WERE DOING BEFOREHAND. HIS EXCELLENCY BENT OVER BACKWARDS IN TRYING TO TALK TO THEM, AND THEY DID NOT LISTEN TO HIM. IT IS SPECIFICALLY AGAINST CHURCH LAW FOR A BISHOP TO CONFISCATE A PARISH’S TEMPORAL GOODS. IT WAS NOT A SHOCK TO THEM THAT THEY WERE EXCOMMUNICATED. Don’t believe me? Then why don’t you read why His Excellency himself said?

archstl.org/commoffice/2005/articles/12-16-05-column.pdf

You seem to claim to be a devout Catholic, but your words betray you. His Excellency did what was necessary. Unlike your conception of things, he was not concerned overall with everyone being “happy, holding hands, etc.” but with obeying Christ and the Truth. The Truth, it seems, is not pleasant for some people, including youself.

What the lay board of a parish SPECIFICALLY CHANGES ITS LAWS TO REMOVE ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A BISHOP’S AUTHORITY, THAT MATTER CANNOT STAND. THEY REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO HIS AUTHORITY AS THEIR FAITH REQUIRES IT. But you, despite your lip service to the fact that the media are anti-Catholic, seem more willing to believe what the media report–that the Archbishop wants the money and the building–than the Truth. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Read his letter. I dare you to respond. This good, humble Servant of Christ has been slandered enough by people like you.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

And by the way, MLehde, I cannot believe that you are unwilling to trust what Archbishop Burke has to say, arguing that the St. Louis Review is basically his own propeganda organ. You cannot be Catholic and not adhere to His Excellency. You seem to adopt that attitude. You aren’t willing to look at the facts and realize that this has nothing to do with money, but you are willing to believe what you yourself describe as the “anti-Catholic media” when they say that it is about money? Hmmmm…

Even though you may claim not to like the Post-Dispatch, your comments reveal that you have more sympathy for them than you have for the Truth. Are you aware that Archbishop Burke was trained as a Canon Lawyer, and most canon law experts agree that he’s one of the foremost authorities on canon law in this country?

But no…you seem to adopt the attitude that the Archbishop should not have done this, because it has created “strife and division when the Church least needs it.” Right. Just like Our Lord, in condemning the Pharisees as hyppocrites, created “strife and division” among the Jews at the time when they least needed it. After all, look what his condemnations brought? They crucified him! So, under your attiude, it was wrong for Our Lord to speak so boldly about the Truth, since that created so much “division and hatred” at a time when it was least needed.

By the way, in case you weren’t aware of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, his actions do not weaken his authority. Nothing can. He has been bestowed with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As a successor to the Apostles, he will always have the authority to shepherd the Church in union with the Holy Father. When the early Bishops were persecuted for teaching the Truth, that did not weaken their authority, no matter how many of them were marytered. Of course, you seem to view “authority” as the same thing as “popularity.” If anyone wants to disobey him, fine. They are the one’s disobeying Christ then, and they will receive their reward in due time (though I pray for them, of course).

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Finally, MLede, your comments of the Belleville situation seem to suggest that you view all of this as a popularity contest. Bishops are not supposed to take actions that are popular, they are supposed to do what is right. Do you really think that the Church won’t survive? Do you really think that an institution that has suffered countless maryters, that has been persecuted left and right for 2000 years won’t survive? You seem, as I have said, to be content with everything appearing “hunkey-dorey,” that nobody should discipline anyone else. Your attitude is like that of a parent afraid to discipline his child because he’s afraid that in doing so the child will go into a temper tantrum and he doesn’t want to hurt the child’s feelings.

Your comments about me wanting to “have it both ways” clearly reveal your ignorance of Canon Law. Archbishop Burke PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THE EXCOMMUNICATION. THAT IS HIS SOLEMN DUTY AS ARCHBISHOP. The duty of a Bishop, among other things, is to alert the faithful to when schism has taken place. He has a duty to publicly confirm that they have entered into excommunication. Under your outlook, he should have just let it go, ignored it, swept it under the rug, given into pressure. He should have acted like a parent who, instead of disciplining his child, as I said, simply lets the child go on behaving like a spoiled brat. I am amazed that you can adopt such an attitude. You are basically saying that rather than call the parish on what it has done, he should act like a coward and pretend that nothing has happened. This is not the way of Our Lord.

Such an attitude of “live and let live” may be popular among liberal dissenters like yourselves, and it may have been the cry of the dissenters over the last 40 years, but it is not the way of Christ. You take the attitude of, “me, me, me, me, don’t interfere with my rights” when in fact you should be humbly submitting yourself to Christ’s authority.

 

[TheRaiders]

claim that the vast majority of St. Stanislaus families actually supported the archbishop but weren’t allowed to voice their stance. The archbishop’s defenders can believe as they like but a glance at mass attendance betwen the new Polish parish set aside by the archbishop and St. Stanislaus tells the actual story. The 90% plus majority did not support the archbishop but again it is another curious attempt to have things both ways by saying that numbers don’t matter on the one hand and then adding that the numbers are really on the archbishop’s side. Finally the simple truth of the issue is that Archbishop Burke’s actions seem to go a long way towards confirming the suspicion by most that his intent all along was to close the parish and aquire the parish funds for the archdioscese use. Was that his right to do so? As a question of cannon law it appears that it is indeed his right if he so chooses but there is a world of distinction between having a right and doing what is right. The Post Dispatch, the local St. Louis newspaper, really does have an rabid anti Catholic bias (betcha didn’t think that the previous poster and I had anything that we could agree on did you) and is milking this story for all that they can in order to give the church a black eye but Archbishop Burke has played into their hands time and time again by his actions and statements. The St. Louis Review, the archdioscese newspaper, is little more than the archbishop’s opinion rendered in print and so the folk of the archdioscese are left with no reliable and unslanted reporting source from which they can follow this story. The result is a jungle telegraph of sorts and along the line, as the story makes the rounds from parish to parish, the archbishop has developed as the clear loser. Let us be very clear about this. The archbishop’s authority is being seriously erroded by his own actions at a time when the church can least afford the injury. I believe that is the very reason that media outlets like the Post Dispatch have been so gleeful in their coverage of this. There is a hard core knot of supporters of the archbishop who are very sincere in their admiration of the man, which is their right, but the best thing that any of us can hope for now is that this story will just go away. If both sides,both sides, will let it go and stop releasing new press statements claiming either conspiracy or satan’s involvment the sane people of the archdioscese can begin damage control. If not it will fester like an open wound and spread like an infection. In event that nobody has noticed, just across the river in the Bellville Dioscese a majority,a majority no less, of the dioscese priests held a meeting and publicly expressed a lack of confidence in their bishop. While their problems are not directly related to the situation here in St. Louis the whole St. Stanislaus affair has created an atmosphere where there is always the smell of smoke on the breeze and that bodes ill for all of us. St. Stanislaus parish, and yes, the great majority of its members, is no longer a part of the St. Louis Archdioscese. Whether they left of their own accord or were diven out let us let them go in peace with no further recriminations.

I’ll take this in small pieces because you haven’t demonstrated an ability or a desire to grasp more than a couple things of what we’ve said in this long, long forum where people have time and time again proved why you as a Catholic should be on the side of the Archbishop.
First one:
Well, Archbishop Burke had to excomunicate them. But many Bishops don’t do what they have to do. That is why, even though he had to, we applaud him for doing it. Why can’t you see that?
Patrick

 

[MLehde]

ThomasMore1535:

And by the way, MLehde, I cannot believe that you are unwilling to trust what Archbishop Burke has to say, arguing that the St. Louis Review is basically his own propeganda organ. You cannot be Catholic and not adhere to His Excellency. You seem to adopt that attitude. You aren’t willing to look at the facts and realize that this has nothing to do with money, but you are willing to believe what you yourself describe as the “anti-Catholic media” when they say that it is about money? Hmmmm…

Even though you may claim not to like the Post-Dispatch, your comments reveal that you have more sympathy for them than you have for the Truth. Are you aware that Archbishop Burke was trained as a Canon Lawyer, and most canon law experts agree that he’s one of the foremost authorities on canon law in this country?

But no…you seem to adopt the attitude that the Archbishop should not have done this, because it has created “strife and division when the Church least needs it.” Right. Just like Our Lord, in condemning the Pharisees as hyppocrites, created “strife and division” among the Jews at the time when they least needed it. After all, look what his condemnations brought? They crucified him! So, under your attiude, it was wrong for Our Lord to speak so boldly about the Truth, since that created so much “division and hatred” at a time when it was least needed.

By the way, in case you weren’t aware of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, his actions do not weaken his authority. Nothing can. He has been bestowed with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As a successor to the Apostles, he will always have the authority to shepherd the Church in union with the Holy Father. When the early Bishops were persecuted for teaching the Truth, that did not weaken their authority, no matter how many of them were marytered. Of course, you seem to view “authority” as the same thing as “popularity.” If anyone wants to disobey him, fine. They are the one’s disobeying Christ then, and they will receive their reward in due time (though I pray for them, of course).

 

[MLehde]

ThomasMore1535:

And by the way, MLehde, I cannot believe that you are unwilling to trust what Archbishop Burke has to say, arguing that the St. Louis Review is basically his own propeganda organ. You cannot be Catholic and not adhere to His Excellency. You seem to adopt that attitude. You aren’t willing to look at the facts and realize that this has nothing to do with money, but you are willing to believe what you yourself describe as the “anti-Catholic media” when they say that it is about money? Hmmmm…

Even though you may claim not to like the Post-Dispatch, your comments reveal that you have more sympathy for them than you have for the Truth. Are you aware that Archbishop Burke was trained as a Canon Lawyer, and most canon law experts agree that he’s one of the foremost authorities on canon law in this country?

But no…you seem to adopt the attitude that the Archbishop should not have done this, because it has created “strife and division when the Church least needs it.” Right. Just like Our Lord, in condemning the Pharisees as hyppocrites, created “strife and division” among the Jews at the time when they least needed it. After all, look what his condemnations brought? They crucified him! So, under your attiude, it was wrong for Our Lord to speak so boldly about the Truth, since that created so much “division and hatred” at a time when it was least needed.

By the way, in case you weren’t aware of what the Catholic Church actually teaches, his actions do not weaken his authority. Nothing can. He has been bestowed with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As a successor to the Apostles, he will always have the authority to shepherd the Church in union with the Holy Father. When the early Bishops were persecuted for teaching the Truth, that did not weaken their authority, no matter how many of them were marytered. Of course, you seem to view “authority” as the same thing as “popularity.” If anyone wants to disobey him, fine. They are the one’s disobeying Christ then, and they will receive their reward in due time (though I pray for them, of course).

If this weren’t all about money then you might have a point. You might well say that it isn’t the place of anyone to question Archbishop Burke’s actions or intent but there is little that he has done or said during the course of this affair that suggests his veracity. I don’t doubt that he is an outstanding cannon lawyer but comparing him to the martyered early bishops is akin to comparing Donald Trump with the builders of the great cathedrals of Europe. In the most general sense there might be a similarity, property development, but otherwise the match is a poor one. The members of St. Stanisalus aren’t disobeying Christ when they refuse to give in to extortion and only time will tell whom the Lord rewards and it won’t be for us to know. Good of you to pray for the members of St. Stanisalus and lest there be any confusion I pray for the archishop in a like manner. It is a handy thing that you say that nothing a bishop can do might errode his authority. I suppose that would also apply to Cadinal Bernard Law, when he was archbishop of the Boston Archdioscese, and he knowingly protected child molesters and then set them back upon the community. To suggest that the bishop, any bishop, can never be in the wrong is how we came to this dark place in church history. No one can take away the authority of a bishop but they can fritter it away themselves, as did Law and as is Burke. You are welcome to repeat falsehoods as facts to your hearts content but the truth will out and that is the last thing that the archbishop, or his supporters, desire or can afford.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

WARNING

---

The last few posts include jabs at each other, questioning the faith of others, and quite a few intemperate remarks about the people involved in this dispute. FYI, I actually read all these posts, and a one-liner in the middle of a long paragraph is NOT going to escape my attention.

---

Do yourselves and me a favor and keep your posting privileges active by stepping away from your computer after typing a post. Then come back and read it with an eye toward truth and charity, and with opinion clearly stated as such, before hitting the “Submit” button.

---

Walt

 

[johnq]

1Tim.5

17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
18] for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
19] Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
20]** As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear**.

Arch-bishop Burke gave them his word in writing that as long as St. Stanislaus was a viable parish they would remain open. No other parish was given such a promise. He also gave them his word that if the parish would close the Arch-diocese would set up an exculusive trust fund for the Polish people.

Is Arch-bishop Burke a liar?

OR

Is Arch-bishop Burke doing his job?

---

Are we giving him “double honor?”

OR

Are we supporting the sins of those refusing to obey?

 

[LHM]

Quote:
Arch-bishop Burke gave them his word in writing that as long as St. Stanislaus was a viable parish they would remain open. No other parish was given such a promise. He also gave them his word that if the parish would close the Arch-diocese would set up an exculusive trust fund for the Polish people.

Am I mistaken, or did he not also agree to sign something to the effect of that any of their assets would only be used for their parish.
If that were true then it seems to me the money issue is taken away, and its just a matter of who oversees the parish?

 

[ThomasMore1535]

MLehde:

If this weren’t all about money then you might have a point. You might well say that it isn’t the place of anyone to question Archbishop Burke’s actions or intent but there is little that he has done or said during the course of this affair that suggests his veracity. I don’t doubt that he is an outstanding cannon lawyer but comparing him to the martyered early bishops is akin to comparing Donald Trump with the builders of the great cathedrals of Europe. In the most general sense there might be a similarity, property development, but otherwise the match is a poor one. The members of St. Stanisalus aren’t disobeying Christ when they refuse to give in to extortion and only time will tell whom the Lord rewards and it won’t be for us to know. Good of you to pray for the members of St. Stanisalus and lest there be any confusion I pray for the archishop in a like manner. It is a handy thing that you say that nothing a bishop can do might errode his authority. I suppose that would also apply to Cadinal Bernard Law, when he was archbishop of the Boston Archdioscese, and he knowingly protected child molesters and then set them back upon the community. To suggest that the bishop, any bishop, can never be in the wrong is how we came to this dark place in church history. No one can take away the authority of a bishop but they can fritter it away themselves, as did Law and as is Burke. You are welcome to repeat falsehoods as facts to your hearts content but the truth will out and that is the last thing that the archbishop, or his supporters, desire or can afford.

Without judging the state of your soul, I have to say that you clearly do not understand Catholic theology. The Church clearly teaches that you have to do as the Bishop teaches, not as he does. His personal holiness/lack thereof does not affect his teaching office. Read St. Augustine. The Church defined this long ago.

It is quite clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have not offered a single, solitary piece of evidence that I have stated “falsehoods.” You just say, “oh, it’s all about the money,” and leave it at that. And how exactly do you know this? What concrete evidence can you produce?

How about this? Why don’t you go to the following website:

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html

Before you dismiss this as nothing more than a “propaganda site” for Burke, you might be interested to know that it contains EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DOCUMENT RELATING TO THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSEY. You see, the Archdiocese has nothing to hide. It is happy to provide all documentation to the public because it knows that it is on the right side. Unlike people like yourself, who seem to be relying on conspiracy theories and some vague notion that he “wants the money” without any documented evidence for it.

In particular, I refer you to the following letter to the Board from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy:

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

As this document clearly shows, Burke is not alone in this matter, but the Vatican itself is fully behind him. They strongly rebuke the Board for their actions, and make it clear that what they are doing is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Doesn’t exactly sound like it’s about the money, does it?

I would like to know how you can respond to this letter from the Vatican. How, may I ask, do you reconcile your view that it’s “all about the money” with the Vatican’s severe rebuke of the Board?

But in the end, it really doesn’t matter, because it’s obvious you don’t understand the nature of the Church, or what she teaches in this area. And I say this with the utmost charity, but your words and arguments make your ignorance quite evident.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

MLehde:

If this weren’t all about money then you might have a point. You might well say that it isn’t the place of anyone to question Archbishop Burke’s actions or intent but there is little that he has done or said during the course of this affair that suggests his veracity. I don’t doubt that he is an outstanding cannon lawyer but comparing him to the martyered early bishops is akin to comparing Donald Trump with the builders of the great cathedrals of Europe. In the most general sense there might be a similarity, property development, but otherwise the match is a poor one. The members of St. Stanisalus aren’t disobeying Christ when they refuse to give in to extortion and only time will tell whom the Lord rewards and it won’t be for us to know. Good of you to pray for the members of St. Stanisalus and lest there be any confusion I pray for the archishop in a like manner. It is a handy thing that you say that nothing a bishop can do might errode his authority. I suppose that would also apply to Cadinal Bernard Law, when he was archbishop of the Boston Archdioscese, and he knowingly protected child molesters and then set them back upon the community. To suggest that the bishop, any bishop, can never be in the wrong is how we came to this dark place in church history. No one can take away the authority of a bishop but they can fritter it away themselves, as did Law and as is Burke. You are welcome to repeat falsehoods as facts to your hearts content but the truth will out and that is the last thing that the archbishop, or his supporters, desire or can afford.

And I seriously challenge you to produce the slightest bit of concrete evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Burke “wants the money,” as you are so fond of claiming. I have provided you with OVERWHELMING evidence that he is obeying Canon Law. The Vatican agrees with him. He has repeatidly noted that he is forbidden from taking their assets. So how do you respond to this evidence? Where is your proof that he “wants the money”?

If you cannot produce any evidence, then I must insist, MLehde, that you humbly apologize for slandering this humble man, espeically for comparing him to Donald Trump. Because that is what you are doing: slander is by definition the spreading of falsehoods, or rumors that have no foundation in fact. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, that is what you are doing.

He is like one of the early maryters, because of people like you who are willing to slander his reputation and drag it through the mud when he has done nothing wrong. So I ask: where is the proof that it is “all about the money”?

I have provided you with ample documentation proving his case and supporting his actions. Where is your proof, other than rumor? If you cannot produce anything, I must insist that you apologize for slandering the Archbishop.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Sent the following PM to ThomasMore 1535:

Without judging the state of your soul, I have to say that you clearly do not understand Catholic theology…
It is quite clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I invite you to refer to post #50 in this thread, made just yesterday morning, in which I warned about the lack of charity and personal attacks being made. The two statements quoted above clearly indicate that you have decided to ignore my advice and force me to suspend your posting privileges for one week.

Your posts are well written, all your statements of fact are properly documented, you have contributed tremendously to the thread, and we look forward to your continued participation. However, maintaining a civil discussion of a topic which evokes such intense emotions precludes the allowing of statements such as the ones made in your post. I again request that you read your posts and edit such remarks before submitting them when you return next week.

Thank you for your cooperation and God bless.

Walt

 

[longhawk]

ThomasMore1535:

And I seriously challenge you to produce the slightest bit of concrete evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Burke “wants the money,”

–I’m sorry that I’ve entered this discussion so late. Don’t know if it’s been brought up or not, but my $.02…

Why wasn’t the Archdiocese interested in brining this parish into compliance for all those decades when it sat in the middle of a dump, with housing projects all around?

The timing looks bad, that’s all I’m saying. Arch strapped for cash, Stan’s market value at an all-time high, etc.

Not good PR.