Archdiocese Sues St. Stanislaus

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will be very interested in hearing the details of this suit. On the face of things, it doesn’t sound especially strong. After all, if it were as simple as filing a suit, the Archdiocese would have done so and put this behind it years ago. However, I suspect there are some points that aren’t immediately obvious, which is why the Archdiocese has decided to go ahead with this.
 
Digitonomy said:
I will be very interested in hearing the details of this suit. On the face of things, it doesn’t sound especially strong. After all, if it were as simple as filing a suit, the Archdiocese would have done so and put this behind it years ago. However, I suspect there are some points that aren’t immediately obvious, which is why the Archdiocese has decided to go ahead with this.
Click to expand...
I too am interested in learning more details. This is an evolving story, so I offer yet another link, which briefly addresses why the suit wasn’t filed before.

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/EAF608A243AE6D8D8625749000105325?OpenDocument
 
Sad, sad, sad. Shame on those rebellious board members.

“All is vanity”.
 
SwizzleStick said:
I too am interested in learning more details. This is an evolving story, so I offer yet another link, which briefly addresses why the suit wasn’t filed before.
Click to expand...
Essentially the claim is that strategic reasons underlie the timing.

This is all well and good, but there’s no hint of what grounds the court would use to invalidate changes to the parish structure since 2001. Hopefully we’ll get some more meat on this topic in coming days.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
There is enough blame to go around on both sides.
Click to expand...
Don’t really see what Archbishop Burke did wrong.

Seems to be a runaway parish board.

First they convert the parish hall to a bar and start serving beer, wine and hard liquor during Mass times. Both the pastor and the archbishop ask them to stop and they refuse.

Then they start grabbing all the collections and refuse to report their collections to the either the rest of the parish or the archdiocese. On several occasions, they refuse to allow an auditor review their finances as is required both by the archdiocese and Missouri law.

They refuse to meet with the archbishop on several occasions and refuse to state what their grievances with the archdiocese are. Without this, there is no way anyone can actually solve the problem as no one knows what it is.

At this point (2004), the Church board is interdicted.

Then they lock out the pastor and get a suspended priest from another diocese who does not have permission to leave his diocese, and has not been granted faculties by the archbishop to be their pastor.

Certain members of the board when to St. Louis county records and attempted (illegally) to change the deed for the parish property to add the names of individuals on the parish board, as well as the suspended priest.

After repeated warnings, the entire parish (or rather what few people remain) is placed under interdict.

Later the suspended priest participates in an unauthorized attempt to ordain women as priests.

After much individual counseling, the pastor and Church board are all excommunicated. The Vatican uphold the excommunications.

Two of the members of the board have reconciled with the archbishop and have returned to communion with the Church.

I do not see you basis to claim there is blame on both sides. From my perspective, as well as that of the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County who is considering criminal charges against certain members of the parish board, I see nothing but fraud on the part of those few people on the parish board and that whacked-out suspended priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top