Go Arch-bishop Burke

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
Regardless of the competence of the management and the historical facts, the archbishop has deemed it necessary for that parish to be under his control. That’s the way the Catholic Church works. Unless he is requesting something contrary to faith or morals or something open to prudential judgement, they are bound to obey him. My parish has a lay parish council that was established by the pastor. It exists to provide him with feedback in the operation of the parish and is totally at his service. If he decides one day to dissolve it, that’s his perogative. I don’t see how this situation is any different.

The parishioners are free to open up a Polish cultural center or social club or some other entity to celebrate their heritage.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is my problem with the affair - I don’t understand WHY the archbishop needs the parish and its finances under his control, again when it has been operating and flourishing semi-independently for >100 years. If something bad is happening as a result of the historical arrangement, what is it?

And I think there is a Polish cultural center attached to the church, btw.

A lot of these old, pretty churches in downtown St. Louis -many with historically ethnic ties - are either not doing well at all or have closed because of poor management and because of suburban flight of former parishioners. With St. Stanislaus flourishing as it is, why mess with things now? Why risk alienating the people who bring that church alive and turning it into another empty derelict in the ghetto?
 
sbcoral,

The Archbishop must have control so that he can insure that the parish truly Catholic. It has nothing to do with money. Too many parishes stray from the truth, and when you have a parish that run entirely by lay Catholics, then all bets are off as to whether it will remain Catholic. It is the Archbishop’s job/duty/responsibility to make sure his flock receive the fullness of truth, and not watered-dwon “Catholic-lite” that many lay people would like us to have.
 
shades of gray:
St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said Tuesday he would withhold the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church, including Holy Communion, from board members of St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church.

The announcement came in the form of a one-sentence press release Tuesday morning, stating that Burke’s “extraordinary patience in dealing with the board of St. Stanislaus Kostka has officially evaporated.”

I can not believe this is coming from the Archdiocese. How on Earth could this statement help the situation???!!!

The perfect description of Burke: Autocrat and Technocrat!!! No one could ever accuse Burke of being a shepherd!
Click to expand...
God bless the good Archbishop for standing up to congregationalists masquerading as Catholics.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
Maybe this is my problem with the affair - I don’t understand WHY the archbishop needs the parish and its finances under his control, again when it has been operating and flourishing semi-independently for >100 years. If something bad is happening as a result of the historical arrangement, what is it?

And I think there is a Polish cultural center attached to the church, btw.

A lot of these old, pretty churches in downtown St. Louis -many with historically ethnic ties - are either not doing well at all or have closed because of poor management and because of suburban flight of former parishioners. With St. Stanislaus flourishing as it is, why mess with things now? Why risk alienating the people who bring that church alive and turning it into another empty derelict in the ghetto?
Click to expand...
Actually, I wish I could answer your question, but I don’t know why either. I guess I’m predisposed to trust the motives of an archbishop, especially one as universally respected as this one. I also trust that he explained his reasons to the trustees. Who knows–it may be something as simple as a cannon law.
 
Well, I’m no expert in canon law or the particulars of this case but it seems to me that the dispute is primarily over the financial structure of the parish–it is independent of the diocese. However, the pastor is supposed to be the administrator of the temporal goods of the parish, not a lay council. Every parish is required to have a finance council which, as someone has said, serves the pastor and advises him. The pastor, in turn, submits to the bishop. That required structure is absent here.

On a different note, I would like to see the pertinent canons which say that “immemorial custom” would trump the other canons which explicitly say that the bishop is the administrator of all the goods of the local Church. According to my understanding of canon law, immemorial customs are illegitimate when the new canon law makes contrary provisions. (see canon #5, i think).

So, why is the archbishop doing this? Because he sees the law as requiring him to do so. While I am no expert in canon law, he is. Furthermore, as someone who knows him, he is also certainly a shepherd. I have heard no one “accuse him of being a shepherd” (as someone said before) but there is good reason for that–an accusation is unnecessary when the facts are so clear. His episcopal motto is “secundum cor tuum” which is from Jeremiah 3:15: “I will appoint over you shepherds after my own heart, who will shepherd you wisely and prudently.” To be such a shepherd is his daily and life-long goal.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Why not? The principle of immemorial custom remains…
Click to expand...
Will you please send a memo stating that to all Liturgy Directors, All Music Directors, and in particular to Richard McBrien and Harry Flynn?
 
Br. Dan:
Well, I’m no expert in canon law or the particulars of this case but it seems to me that the dispute is primarily over the financial structure of the parish–it is independent of the diocese. However, the pastor is supposed to be the administrator of the temporal goods of the parish, not a lay council. Every parish is required to have a finance council which, as someone has said, serves the pastor and advises him. The pastor, in turn, submits to the bishop. That required structure is absent here.

On a different note, I would like to see the pertinent canons which say that “immemorial custom” would trump the other canons which explicitly say that the bishop is the administrator of all the goods of the local Church. According to my understanding of canon law, immemorial customs are illegitimate when the new canon law makes contrary provisions. (see canon #5, i think).

So, why is the archbishop doing this? Because he sees the law as requiring him to do so. While I am no expert in canon law, he is. Furthermore, as someone who knows him, he is also certainly a shepherd. I have heard no one “accuse him of being a shepherd” (as someone said before) but there is good reason for that–an accusation is unnecessary when the facts are so clear. His episcopal motto is “secundum cor tuum” which is from Jeremiah 3:15: “I will appoint over you shepherds after my own heart, who will shepherd you wisely and prudently.” To be such a shepherd is his daily and life-long goal.
Click to expand...
Additionally, before even using the word “interdict” the good bishop convened with his canonist I can assure you - good for Burke and as the pope once said to Bruskewitz, you are “multo bravo”. I know Rigali had to go toe to toe with the Jesuits over the shennanigans they tried to pull at the University there and I hope Burke proceeds.
 
40.png
Lance:
I hope we can get someone like Arch-bishop Burke in Chicago some day. Man, he would have a field day with the cafateria Catholics in northern Illinois.
Click to expand...
Cardinal George is, by all accounts, a holy and orthodox bishop. However, he has a HUGE train to try to turn around and he seems not to be quite as brave as Archbishop Burke.

What is needed is a critical mass of Bishops taking a stand for the faith, even when it is tough. When that happens, the other Bishops will feel emboldened to enact needed reforms to rein in the dissenters and heretics. It is already starting to happen. Archbishop Burke started the ball rolling with refusing communion to pro-abortion politicians. Others followed suit. He is controversial only because he is one of the few Bishops who is actually taking a stand.

May we be blessed with many more Archbishop Burkes.
 
inri,

I think it also a matter of Chicago being deeply democrat country. There are a ton “John Kerry” Catholics (several million) in the area. Cardinal George is not on friendly turf.
 
40.png
INRI:
Cardinal George is, by all accounts, a holy and orthodox bishop. However, he has a HUGE train to try to turn around and he seems not to be quite as brave as Archbishop Burke.

What is needed is a critical mass of Bishops taking a stand for the faith, even when it is tough. When that happens, the other Bishops will feel emboldened to enact needed reforms to rein in the dissenters and heretics. It is already starting to happen. Archbishop Burke started the ball rolling with refusing communion to pro-abortion politicians. Others followed suit. He is controversial only because he is one of the few Bishops who is actually taking a stand.

May we be blessed with many more Archbishop Burkes.
Click to expand...
Cardinal George is a very good man and is liked by almost everyone. His wanting to be liked is part of the problem. The dissenters would not like having to toe the line. You are correct in that the Chicago arch-diocese is a huge run away train and the man who stops it is not going to be liked by ‘da mayor’, the governor, many of the priests and auxiliary bishops, some of the other Illinois bishops and even a large portion of the laity. I think Cardinal George has slowed the train enough for his successor to turn it around, but I am not sure he is up to it. I hope he is and he is in my prayers.
 
Officials filed a misdemeanor harassment charge Wednesday against a man they said left a phone message threatening to shoot St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, apparently over the controversy about St. Stanislaus Kostka Church.

Police said they tracked James Eggers, 38, of Maplewood, through Caller ID and took him to the Metropolitan St. Louis Psychiatric Center, 5351 Delmar Boulevard, where he was admitted for evaluation. …Jamie Allman, spokesman for the archdiocese, confirmed the threat and said Wednesday, “The archbishop continues to pray for the suspect.”

A man police identified as Eggers phoned the archdiocese Tuesday and left a message lasting several minutes, in which he curses Burke and says that no matter how much police protection Burke has, that he will get a gun and kill him.

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/76A8B64D4539A1BE86256FA40017943B?OpenDocument&Headline=Archbishop+gets+phone+threat
 
I am very torn on this issue. I understand that the Bishop must control the parish, but I also think the parish is justified in their concern.
  1. The previous pastor raided the coffers of more than $60,000.
  2. The Bishop has a history of closing ethnic parishes.
  3. The parish is self sufficient and when there was need, the diocese had refused to contribute.
  4. The Bishop is currently closing parishes in his diocese.
  5. Although the parish has secured a Polish order of priests willing to serve the parish, the Bishop has refused to allow them to come into his diocese.
As far as his Orthodoxy, I have read that he accepted someone who underwent a sex change operation as a nun. He is also accused of protecting rapist/pedophile priests and not respecting those who were abused/raped.

Granted, these issues from www.saveststans.com may be biased, but if that is the preception of the parish, it is reasonable that they are concerned.

I think this is a sad matter for all parties involved. We can only pray.
 
Lurch,

When you say the coffers were raided for $60,000, what exactly does that mean and how was the money used?
 
40.png
Lurch104:
  1. The Bishop has a history of closing ethnic parishes.
  2. The Bishop is currently closing parishes in his diocese.
As far as his Orthodoxy, I have read that he accepted someone who underwent a sex change operation as a nun. He is also accused of protecting rapist/pedophile priests and not respecting those who were abused/raped.
Click to expand...
All the numbered issues are questionable or suspect but those above are, if true, quite meaningless. All bishops are closing parishes, practically. Of necessity, some of the parishes which are closed will be “ethnic” in their history. Are they saying the archbishop has a prejudice against Poles?

Regarding his “accepting” the nun–he might *allow * a community to accept such a person because it is out of his jurisdiction. If the community is directly under his authority (which is rather rare…i can’t think of any such communities in La Crosse–not sure about St. Louis) he would still have to take into consideration the desires of the community. Not to mention the fact that such an operation doesn’t disqualify a conversion/vocation. If we were speaking of marriage, then it would be a bit different.

The “accusations” are without merit. I’d like to hear of particular priests and victims before I even entertain the notion that the archbishop had some role in “protecting” perpetrators and “disrespecting” victims.

Anyway, it isn’t a matter of the archbishop wanting to “control” the parish as if he is a puppet master. The parish, as a Catholic parish, needs to be part of the diocesan structure. Being part of the structure doesn’t mean no independence or no ability to make decisions with finances.
 
I seriously doubt that the Bishops allowed someone who had a sex-change operation to become a nun (if I understand that correctly). That is likely an urban myth.
 
He is also accused of protecting rapist/pedophile priests and not respecting those who were abused/raped.
Click to expand...
This just means he’s Catholic. I have been accused of the same two charges by co-workers. The reasoning is that since I am still Catholic and still contribute to my parish that I am part of the cover-up and insenitive. :eek: Short of public drawing and quartering (retroactively) any priest who is accused (don’t bother with proof, it means nothing to these detractors), nothing is going to please some people.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Lurch,

When you say the coffers were raided for $60,000, what exactly does that mean and how was the money used?
Click to expand...
First, let me say that I do not agree with what the lay people of the parish are doing, only that I can understand how some would be concerned given the information that is presented to them.

That said, on the parish’s website it alludes that the money was squandered, but does not say on what. Only that the account was exhausted. I have no knowledge other than from the parish’s (biased) website.
 
Lurch,

It would be very interesting to find out exactly how much (if any) money was taken and how it was used. If the money was taken to run a soup kitchen, that might be something to know…
 
Br. Dan:
All the numbered issues are questionable or suspect but those above are, if true, quite meaningless. All bishops are closing parishes, practically. Of necessity, some of the parishes which are closed will be “ethnic” in their history. Are they saying the archbishop has a prejudice against Poles?
Click to expand...
Questionable? Maybe, my only point is those statements are what the parishoners believe, and are making their decisions based upon those assertions. As far as necessity, they can supply their own ethnic priest (Conventual Franciscans, from Poland), and they are and have been financially self sufficient. Therefore, there should never be a necessity to break apart this community. The bishop did indeed close three ethnic Polish parishes in Wisconsin. Again, it is the perception of the parishoners I am talking/concerned about.
Br. Dan:
Anyway, it isn’t a matter of the archbishop wanting to “control” the parish as if he is a puppet master. The parish, as a Catholic parish, needs to be part of the diocesan structure. Being part of the structure doesn’t mean no independence or no ability to make decisions with finances.
Click to expand...
This is where I must respectfully disagree. As an accountant, I can assure you that the parishoners will have no legal control of their property if they agree to the bishop’s demands. If they sign over the deed and cash, he could close the parish the next day…(legal) trust or no, it is very doubtful that the civil authorities would get involved. Cannonically, there is ABSOLUTELY NO independence or ability to make decisions with finances. I believe that the Bishop would allow the parish to advise the pastor and bishop, but to the best of my (very limited canonical knowledge) if the parish and bishop were to disagree, the parish always losses.

That said, I would trust the Bishop to keep his word and I hope the parish does submit to his authority. I also hope that he would make great strides to allow this apparently vibrant parish to retain its Polish heritage. If the diocese can not supply Polish speaking Priests, then allow the Conventual Franciscans into the diocese to tend to the portion of his flock that the Bishop cannot.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Lurch,

It would be very interesting to find out exactly how much (if any) money was taken and how it was used. If the money was taken to run a soup kitchen, that might be something to know…
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. However, I would only hope that the Bishop would consider the feelings of the parishoners when acting so harshly.

From reading their website, for the better part of 100 years, they have been marginalized by the diocese (their assertion, not mine). In the wake of the sex abuse scandal and huge payouts, the laity are expected to pay for the evil commited by a few priests and bishops (I still cannot for the life of me understand how Cardinal Law of Boston got a promotion for protecting rapists). He should understand their apprehension when demanding the assets of a parish be relinquished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top