Go Arch-bishop Burke

[A_Chaoidh]

From His Grace:

stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=7853

My Opinion: This lay board is on their way to excommunication if they don’t comply.

I pray for Archbishop Burke and his efforts in Defense of the Faith to cleanse the Church of heresy, anathema and all Evil.

If only there were more Princes of the Church like him in the US

 

[rayne89]

I certainly agree that this parish is showing prideful disobedience to the bishop that needs immediate correction. One of the articles disparaging Archbishop Burke on their website gives a vulgar explicite discription of sexual abuse that was alleged against a priest.Taken from shadesofgray link
saveststans.org/index.html
One thing that can’t be accuse off is “stripping” the beauty of the old church. Check out the photo gallery.
http://saveststans.org/12_26_04/110_1042.jpg

 

[WhatIf]

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!

I believe it was Jamie Allman who made that statement. He is on local tv and radio and I think he is now a spokesperson for the Archdiocese. I used to listen to him on 97.1 talk radio.

 

[WhatIf]

I am researching this topic right now. I live in the St. Louis Archdiocese.

If you go to the archdiocese website there is a link to the St. Stanislaus situation. Go to www.archstl.org

You will be surprised at what you learn. I’ll summarize it briefly.
In the late 1800, Archbishop Kenrick did set things up where the laity owned the property etc., but if you look at the original by-laws, it says that the Pastor must be appointed by the Archbishop and it also says that the Pastor must be the President. It also said the President must PRESIDE at the meetings and that the Pastor is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors. So, you see, the Archbishop that set this up had the Priest as the Pastor, President and Chairman of the board. The Original By Laws also stated that no amendments shall be made at any time which shall in anywise be in conflict with any law of the State of MO or with any rule, regulation or requirement of the said Diocese of St. Louis at the time of such proposed change.

This is where the big problem is. This Board of Directors has made terrible changes. They still have the Pastor listed as President, but when you look at duties, there are none to speak of and he is not the Chairman. The Chairman now is the CEO. They made so many changes in their by-laws that they have left out the Archidiocese all together. In places of the By-laws that used to say Archdiocese, it now says ecclesiastical authority! They changed the by-laws also in areas where it said approval must be given by the Archbishop and it also used to say that disputes that aren’t settled by the Board itself would be settled by the Archbishop and all must abide by his decision, but of course, they removed that as well. They made lots of changes lately that brought on the current situation even though their basic structure has been wrong for a long time.

Another thing that stirred it up is when Archbishop Rigali told the Archdioces of St. Louis (June 2003) to implement the recommendation of the Finance Coucil to reorganize the holiding of real estate and to change the form of legal entity for the archdiocese and its parishes. The Archdiocese wants to do as most have and set up separate charitable trusts for each of the 10 counties to hold the real estate. The Board of Directors is refusing this as well even though every other parish in the Archdiocese is complying. They are doing so many things wrong, that it is unbelievable.

They even applied for a liquor license and are selling alcohol after Sunday Mass in a classroom of the Parish School!

The Vatican has ruled on it too and told them basically that they are wrong and will not hear any appeals.

So, Archbishop may not be popular but he knows Canon Law, I think based on his study in Rome on Canon Law. He was named Moderator of the Curia and then later he became the first American to hold the position of Defender of the Bond of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the Church’s HIghest Court - if I’m understanding the material correctly - I don’t know what Apostolic Signatura is!)

I think some people are acting like rebellious teenagers thinking that Archbishop Burke is just trying to be bossy and force people to obey, but he is doing his job. He is shepherding the flock instead of letting them run astray. Those people who are going againt the VATICAN ruling need to know they are in a state of mortal sin and are causing scandal for many in the St. Louis Archdiocese and maybe the nation. You can’t take all power away from a Priest! You can’t be entirely separate from the Archdiocese. It is ridiculous.

Archbishop Burke has agreed to the 3 requests they made and they still turned him down to get in compliance.

Anyway, all the documents are on the www.archstl.org website if you go to the St. Stanislaus link. I bet if your reading this, you’ve heard rumors, so why not research this and separate fact from fiction.

Go Archbishop Burke, Go! He is protecting us well. At least he clarifies right from wrong!

 

[WhatIf]

Here is the first paragragh of the Original By Laws signed in 1891. You can see from the start, that they changed a lot. Here it is;

The corporate powers of the corporation shall, under the laws of the State of Missouri be exercised in conformity with the principles and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church and in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be established from time to time for the government of said church by the Roman Catholic Archbishop in the Diocese of St. Louis, or by his authority.

The new by laws are nothing like this. They started changing things a lot in 2004, but even 2001 changed some key wording. They even set it up where the Pastor didn’t need to counter sign the checks. They just took over for some reason and I’ve heard many of the Parishioners are not in agreement with the Board of Director that are causing these problems.

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

Lurch104:

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.

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.

Well, their perceptions are faulty and should be corrected. I believe I know each of the three Polish parishes you speak of. One, as the website says, still exists–the building was torn down and a new church was built (a new church which was necessary as that parish–St. Bronislava–is the largest in the diocese and has grown a lot in recent years). The other two are part of a consolidation process where four rural parishes were merged into one. There’s nothing secretive or prejudicial or irrational about any of it.

Regarding finances, etc.,–the archdiocesan webiste provides many answers regarding what the archbishop has promised to do or not do.

Frankly, the information and objectivity which is present at the archdiocesan website makes the saveststans.org site look childish. Thanks, WhatIf.

 

[Lurch104]

Br. Dan:

Regarding finances, etc.,–the archdiocesan webiste provides many answers regarding what the archbishop has promised to do or not do.

Frankly, the information and objectivity which is present at the archdiocesan website makes the saveststans.org site look childish. Thanks, WhatIf.

I agree that the information posted is less than reliable. I also agree that they should submit to the Archbishop. I only wish that he would act in a more pastoral way. After reading the diocesan website, and all of the documents, I see that the Bishop’s offer is hollow legally. He appoints the trustees which oversee the trust. The parish will have no control over its assets.

However, I think the parishoners should take the Archbishop at his word and trust that he will do as he promised. This is a church matter and not a business deal. If we as the faithful have to start questioning the motives of the heirachy, we are in the wrong church.

 

[JaneDC]

Lurch104:

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.

Lurch,
I know that this information was printed in an “alternative” publication in St. Louis called the Riverfront Times. I will not link to it because of the large amounts of pornagraphy printed in it. God forbid, I actually read the article and the other pot-shots they took at him prior to the presidential election. I wouldn’t consider it a credible source.
Live Jesus!
JaneDC

 

[Br.Dan_OCD]

Lurch104:

I agree that the information posted is less than reliable. I also agree that they should submit to the Archbishop. I only wish that he would act in a more pastoral way. After reading the diocesan website, and all of the documents, I see that the Bishop’s offer is hollow legally. He appoints the trustees which oversee the trust. The parish will have no control over its assets.

There may have been a better way to go about all of this. I guess, since I know the archbishop (well, like I said in another post a long time ago, we aren’t buddies but I think I know him well enough to make some assumptions about his actions), I trust his judgment almost without question. I’ve always found him to be wonderful… So, I give him a wide latitude and the benefit of the doubt, big time.

Regarding the parish’s control over assets–the arrangement seems to be the same as that for every other parish. This whole question of who is in control of assets…I never bothered to wonder “How much do I own as a member of this parish?” I always assume it is the Church’s property (i.e., the Bishop is in charge and will use it for the benefit of the whole diocese). I’ve never expected any monetary return or control because I was a parishoner.???

 

[katherine2]

Br. Dan:

There may have been a better way to go about all of this.

I think so too. St. Stans has a form of possession of the temporal goods that is not doctrinally incompatable with the Catholic faith. Thousands of good Catholic parishes have been incorporated this way or by other ways of lay trusteeship. In fact, St. Stan was perfectly in order with canon law at the time of its establishment.

However, what is doctrinally permissable may not always be pastorally best in a given time and place. The horrid “LIBERALS” objected to lay trusteeship in the American Church. Liberals felt that lay trustees almost always tended to be biased towards the wealthy and conservative elements of a parish. Liberals (like Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, who many accused of the heresies of “Modernism” and “Americanism”) led the effort to move the church away from trusteeism so that the church would not be overly influenced by the rich and comfortable.

This was a gradual process, and often left alone were parishes with a particular ethnic character, for various reasons.

Trusteeism is still permitted by way of exception and Archbishop Burke certain has the authority to leave this church alone, if he wishes. He chooses not to.

He also could both bring St. Stans info comformity with existing canon laws and not upset the trustees by simply making St. Stan’s a private oratory rather than a parish church. Private oratories can have their temporal goods held by a lay board of directors or trustees.

But in end, a good bishop will be known as a pastoral man, not one that insists on excerizing every bit of authority he has the ability to use or not use.

 

[WhatIf]

I think this whole situation seems to highlight GREED as a sin and it is making it very obvious that sin (GREED) is very damaging.

People may argue on either side, but I do not know how any group of Catholics would be willing to become a church other than being a Roman Catholic Church under the guidance of the Archdiocese over material things such as property, especially considering they aren’t losing the property it is just going to be included in a trust.

Pride is also rearing its head. Why would the Board throw away everything? How do they put a price on it?

 

[katherine2]

WhatIf:

I think this whole situation seems to highlight GREED as a sin and it is making it very obvious that sin (GREED) is very damaging.

Pride is also rearing its head.

I think Archbishop Burke’s pride doesn’t rise to the point of a grave sin. Certainly, we would hope that he would be more pastoral in his approach to this community. And, in turn, we wish the Trustees would be a little more concilatory as well.

I still beleive the option of making St. Stan’s a private oratory would be a best solution.

 

[johnq]

*February 11, 2005

*Archbishop clarifies St. Stanislaus situation
‘You need to know and have a right to know,’ he writes to archdiocesan faithful

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I write to you, once again, about St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, our historic personal parish for the faithful of Polish descent, and the issue of its control by a board which, in the last few years, has completely removed itself from the authority of the Catholic Church. I regret that my request and that of my predecessor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, that the parish conform to the Catholic Church’s requirements relating to the authority of the diocesan bishop and the pastor has been met with adamant resistance, even to the point of defiance. I also deeply regret that the board, having asked the intervention of the Holy See in the matter and having received the direction to comply with Church discipline, is now adamant in its resistance to the direction of the Holy See.

I further regret that the resistance of the board has, at present, divided the parishioners and the community between those who resist the requested changes and those who support them. It is my fervent desire that the matter be amicably resolved, so that the parish may again be united at its home in St. Stanislaus Kostka Church.

Because much misinformation has appeared in the public media, I am now writing to all the faithful in the Archdiocese and am including, with my letter, the accompanying questions and answers, as well as other pertinent information. You need to know and have the right to know that I have no desire to take the assets of the parish or to close the parish, contrary to what has been repeatedly said by members of the board of directors of the parish corporation and some other parishioners. Such statements are simply and completely untrue.

To allay the fears of the board of directors and some other parishioners, I and those assisting me have listened to each of the concerns expressed. In January 2005, I approved for presentation to the board a proposal which completely addressed each and every concern which had been expressed. I had the proposal drawn up in such a way that the commitment to use the parish property and assets only for the parish and the Catholic faithful of Polish descent would be permanent and legally enforceable in civil law.

The information which accompanies this letter in its publication in the St. Louis Review details what I have written above. For the full documentation of the proposal made to the board of directors in January 2005, I refer you to the Archdiocesan Web site, www.archstl.org.

Please continue to pray with me, through the intercession of Our Lady of Czestochowa and St. Stanislaus Kostka, for the reconciliation of the conflict between the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish and the archdiocesan and universal Church.

Asking God’s blessing upon you and your homes, I am

Yours devotedly in Christ,

(Most Rev.) Raymond L. Burke

Archbishop of St. Louis

 

[johnq]

stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=7377

November 19, 2004

Vatican denies St. Stanislaus appeal

by James Rygelski, Review Editor

Leaders of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish must comply with the governance structure of all other parishes in the St. Louis Archdiocese, the Vatican has ruled.

The decision was sent to the archdiocese and a representative of the Polish parish Nov. 15. It denies the parish’s appeal of the archdiocese’s request that the parish’s lay board of directors be dissolved and that the pastor govern the parish and oversee its finances for the archdiocese.

The Vatican ruled that the parish’s board of directors had amended the original 1891 incorporation document so that it no longer complied with Church law.

The decision of the Congregation of the Clergy is final, with no further appeals possible.

Text of Vatican decree

This is the text of the Decree from the Congregation for the Clergy on Protest No. 20041975, filed by the board of directors of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish in North St. Louis:

Whereas, the Saint Stanislaus Kostka Parish (the “parish”) was founded in 1880 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis by the Most Reverend Peter R. Kenrick, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese, and organized as a civil corporation in 1891 bearing the name “Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish” (the “civil corporation”);

Whereas, the board of directors of the civil corporation was intended to function as an advisory board to the pastor in accordance with the norms of the law of the Roman Catholic Church in force at the time of the formation of the civil corporation;

Whereas, in light of the Response from the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts, dated 29 April 1987, which received Papal approval on 20 June 1987, promulgated on 12 December 1988 (cf. AAS 80 [1988] 1818), in which the following question was posed and answered:

Editor’s note: the next two paragraphs in the decree are in Latin, translated as follows:

D. Whether a group of faithful, lacking juridical personality and even recognition envisaged in canon 299, No. 3, can legitimately make hierarchical recourse against a decreer of its own diocesan bishop?

R. Negative as a group, affirmative as individual members of the faithful acting either singly or together, provided that they really have a grievance. However, in estimating the grievance, the judge must be allowed suitable discretion.

Editor’s note: the decree from this point resumes in English:

Whereas, the board of directors of a civil corporation lacks the aforementioned “juridic personality” to proceed in hierarchical recourse;

Whereas, the current board of directors of the civil corporation, in cooperation with the members of the corporation, have amended the By-Laws of the civil corporation in such a way as to deny the authority of the parochus (editor’s note: Latin for pastor) and the canonically provided oversight of the Archdiocese of St. Louis;

Whereas, the current board of directors and members of the civil corporation have amended the corporate documents of the civil corporation so that the parish is not in conformity with the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, namely cann. 209, 519, 532, 536, 537, 1257, and 1276;

Whereas, on 19 March 2004, the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, wrote to all of the faithful of the parish insisting that the parish structure comply with the norm of Church law, or it would be declared to be no longer a Roman Catholic Parish;

Whereas, the current board of directors and members of the civil corporation, through their duly appointed representative Roger C. Krasnicki, have made recourse to the Congregation for the Clergy against the dispositions of the Most Reverend Ordinary as set forth in the letter of 19 March 2004;

and Whereas, considering that the current board of directors lacks the juridic personality to proceed in this hierarchical recourse, this Congregation accepts the petition for recourse as being made by Roger C. Krasnicki in his individual capacity.

Now, therefore, the Congregation for the Clergy hereby decrees that the petition for recourse against the Most Rev. Ordinary’s dispositions of 19 March 2004 is rejected both de decernendo and de procedendo and judged to have no basis in law or in fact.

(Signed Dario Cardinal Castrillon)

Given at the Seat of the Congregation for the Clergy, 11 November, 2004.

 

[katherine2]

the canonical solution remains making it a private oratory, whereby they will be in full accord with current canon law AND be able to keep the property they currently own.

 

[VFA]

I thank God and pray everyday for our beloved Arch Bishop Burke. He is a holy man of deep prayer, and has followed all the rules set down by Holy Mother Church. The Vatican has backed him completely. Read The St. Louis Review (stlouisreview.com or org) for this week, 2/11/05, it has both sides printed for all to see, due to all the local media which has truly distored the whole picture and made the Archbishop look like the villan, the terrible things the board members say about him, it is a hugh scandal, it has caused a sick man to call in and threaten the Bishop’s life over this, the authorities traced the call and the man was placed in a hospital. This is on top of church and school closings, all started long before Bishop Burke arrived in St. Louis, The enemy is truly at work here. Obedience is prized very highly in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[WhatIf]

katherine2:

I think Archbishop Burke’s pride doesn’t rise to the point of a grave sin. Certainly, we would hope that he would be more pastoral in his approach to this community. And, in turn, we wish the Trustees would be a little more concilatory as well.

I still beleive the option of making St. Stan’s a private oratory would be a best solution.

Just to clarify my point, I was not saying the Archbishop was committing the sin of Pride. The Parish seems to be saying that they are too proud to become a Parish that is no longer unique in its structure, but in conformity to current Archdiocesan Financial Coucil rules. So, the title won’t be held by the Parish anymore. Big deal. How does that jeopardize the Parish? ON the other hand, look at the damage caused by trying to remain a uniquely structured Parish! Lets all keep praying for all members of the Parish including the board, so they may see the value and importance of giving up any and all material gain for the treasures they will store up in heaven. Especially since it appears they will lose no material things either!

 

[WhatIf]

I wonder if the Archbishop could just wait until they elect Board of Director Chairman again to make a final decision on this. His decision almost has to be to no longer let them operate as a Roman Catholic parish, but if the people elected someone different in their next election, we may hear a different voice of the Parish and maybe they will do what is in the best interest of the Parish (complying with the Archdiocesan rules as the Original By laws instruct).

 

[katherine2]

WhatIf:

Just to clarify my point, I was not saying the Archbishop was committing the sin of Pride. The Parish seems to be saying that they are too proud to become a Parish that is no longer unique in its structure, but in conformity to current Archdiocesan Financial Coucil rules. So, the title won’t be held by the Parish anymore. Big deal. How does that jeopardize the Parish? ON the other hand, look at the damage caused by trying to remain a uniquely structured Parish! Lets all keep praying for all members of the Parish including the board, so they may see the value and importance of giving up any and all material gain for the treasures they will store up in heaven. Especially since it appears they will lose no material things either!

I’m not posting during the days of Lent, except to respond to technical points, so I will limit my post to that.

1. the parish structure might be unique within the Archdiocese of St. Louis, but thousands of canonical Catholic parishes are currently structured this way.
2. What is the damage being caused by the status quo? One of the unsaid issues is that the structure has seemed to cause no problems. We read here people posting all sorts of real and imagined issues of liturgical and theological abuses, yet St. Stan’s has never suffered an accusation of any liturgical abuse or theological error – no liturgical dancers, no Call to Action chapters, no defense of contraception. Not even a Clown Mass.
3. Archbishop Burke’s proposal for a special trust as also a departure from the canonical norm, though admittedly a less severe one. Why does he not make the parish a private oratory, which will put St. Stan’s in FULL conformity to canon law AND allow the Trustees to continue to hold title?

 

[shades_of_gray]

This has been an enlightening thread and I appreciate everyone’s point of view. I certainly have learned much about canon law and church history.

I believe the Archbishop has every right to do what he is doing according to canon law. It is terrible that he has not better controlled the PR part of this thing. When Archbishop Rigali was negotiating with St. Stan’s none of this was in the media. It is my understanding that during one of the first meetings between the parish and Archbishop Burke last summer the threat of excommunication (not interdict) was used. When he removed the priest from St. Stan’s he also took church owned assets like the car. St. Stan’s owns 7 acres in the heart of St. Louis next to the Mississippi River. This is near the corridor of a proposed Interstate bridge over the Mississippi. While the property has been relatively worthless over the last 30 years, if the bridge is built that would change. I think the Archbishop certainly miscalculated the parishes response to his heavy hand. I was shocked by the one sentence press release from the archdiocese last week. I was shocked by the St. Stan’s response to the one sentence press release.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Burke’s heavy hand has been felt throughout the Archdiocese and his shepherding has not felt like shepherding. He has been closing dozens of parishes here even if they are financially viable. Some catholic school students have been forced to be sent to 3 different schools in 3 successive years. He shut down parishes in the middle of capital campaigns for expanding facilities and parishioners do not know where the capital money raised went. He admonished a parish that wrote a letter of concern over the Archbishop’s response to a pastor with 2 DUIs. I was at a trivia night recently at a catholic high school and “Archbishop Burke” was the answer for one of the the questions and when the answer was announced there was a chorus of “boos”. This was at a gathering of 500-600 staunch conservative, middle class catholics, most of whom are not directly involved with the issued I discussed above. The PR person for the archdiocese is a person recently hired directly from the media and his appointment has been highly controversial. I know he has every right to be doing what he is doing according to canon law, but a lot of fences are in need of mending.

I do have one question, though. Does anyone know how parishes are set up if they are served by an order instead of archdiocesan priests. Does or can the order control the assets of the parish?