F
fix
Guest
Mending fences? What happended to cheerful obedience?
- Status
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
“Unfortunately, Archbishop Burke’s heavy hand has been felt throughout the Archdiocese and his shepherding has not felt like shepherding.”
A sheperd is not always going to have pleasant tasks set on his table. Obedience is a word that Americans have a great deal of trouble with.
The parish has now ignore the directives of two Bishops and the Holy See’. That is called disobedience!
A sheperd is not always going to have pleasant tasks set on his table. Obedience is a word that Americans have a great deal of trouble with.
The parish has now ignore the directives of two Bishops and the Holy See’. That is called disobedience!
F
fix
Guest
TPJCatholic said:
Right. It is a clear case of disobedience. Who was it who first said …I will not serve?
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
fix,
I agree.
We have a case where two Bishops worked quietly with the parish and the parish would not obey. The parish then thought they would raise the issue to another level by going to the Vatican for their formal take on the issue. The Vatican has spoken loud and clear. We now have a parish that has had their direct Sheperds (two Bishops) try to bring them back into the fold, and the Vatican itself has now done so–yet it seems the parish wants to keep seeking opinions until they get the opinion they desire. Clear disobedience. Two Bishops and the Holy See’, how much more do they need?
I agree.
We have a case where two Bishops worked quietly with the parish and the parish would not obey. The parish then thought they would raise the issue to another level by going to the Vatican for their formal take on the issue. The Vatican has spoken loud and clear. We now have a parish that has had their direct Sheperds (two Bishops) try to bring them back into the fold, and the Vatican itself has now done so–yet it seems the parish wants to keep seeking opinions until they get the opinion they desire. Clear disobedience. Two Bishops and the Holy See’, how much more do they need?
B
Br.Dan_OCD
Guest
shades of gray:
On a somewhat related note, as I said before, the thought of “who owns my parish” has never crossed my mind until this issue came up. Has anybody out there ever thought they had any financial stake in their parish? Now that I’m in an order that does staff a few parishes, should I be upset that we friars do not own any of those assets? I don’t think so.
No. A “parish” is always part of the diocesan structure no matter who the priests are. So, for example, if the church in question is staffed by an order, and is on land owned by an order, the diocese owns not only the building but the land it is on.
On a somewhat related note, as I said before, the thought of “who owns my parish” has never crossed my mind until this issue came up. Has anybody out there ever thought they had any financial stake in their parish? Now that I’m in an order that does staff a few parishes, should I be upset that we friars do not own any of those assets? I don’t think so.
W
WhatIf
Guest
Maybe you have not read the info. on www.archstl.org
There is a Summary and also a Q&A on the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish link that I hope you read and then let me know what you think about the current structure and the status quo. Being incorporated is not the big deal, but the way the Board of Directors has changed the by-laws has caused serious problems. ONe thing pointed out on the Summary is that in 1981, the Board revised the bylaws and removed the power of the Archbishop to remove them from office. It says they went against the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (whatever that is - I haven’t read it). I have read the original bylaws though that says in the last sentence “Nor shall any amendment be made at any time which shall in anywise be in conflict with any law of the State of Missour, or with any rule, regulation or requirement of the said Diocese of St. Louis in force at the time of such proposed change”.
The harm in allowing them to operate this way is that it is a scandal. It could cause others to think that it is acceptable to change their bylaws and “write out” all archdiocesan authority as well as interfere with the relationship between Priest and Bishop. You should read their newer by laws. Especially the 2004 bylaws, but even the change in 2001 says that checks shall be signed by the Treasurer with no mention of counter signature by the Priest (President). I can understand have two signatures, one being the Priest, but it is against the original by laws to not have the Presidents signature (which is the Priest) and to not have books open the the Archdiocese. These changes in 2001 were significant and they should not be tolerated or many other parishes my try to follow. They are totally disrespecting their Priest. IF there was any problem with the Priests decisions on expenditures, they could and should have a Treasurer signature required and can also prove the Priest has done something wrong with the money, but they should not have changed their bylaws in a manner that excluded both the Priest and the Archdiocese from all financial matters. Someone is on a real power trip and it AINT the Archbishop in my view.
They seem to desire to be totally independent and I’m afraid that is exactly what they are going to get! Myself, I would rather be in communion with the Bishop, not independent of him.
They’ve pushed out the Archdiocese which was never the intent and the original bylaws say just the opposite. The Pastor, appointed by the Archbishop, was supposed to be both the President and the Chairman and they were supposed to be in compliance with the Archdiocese and the Archbishop was supposed to have authority to remove them. Also, in a dispute, the decision of the Archbishop was supposed to be binding for all and any director not abiding by it, after being notified in writing, was to be removed as Director and the decision declared vacant and to be filled by the Archbishop.
This is not a case of a Bishop coming in and trying to take Parish Property. This is a case of an incorporated Parish making changes to the agreement that are not allowed, but since the changes that they made, take away authority from the Archdiocese, it has become an issue of whether or not this Parish Board of Directors is independent of the Diocese or not. If they want to be independent, fine, but then your not Roman Catholic.
Those other Parishes that are incorporated across the U.S. probably do not have bylaws that do not allow their Priest to sign check and do not allow the Archdioces to have any say so about whether or not they are in compliance with their Archdiocese rules, regulations etc. Let me know if you find out that other Parishes are set up with bylaws that leave out the authority of the Priest and Bishop as well. I know you may need to wait until after Lent, but I’m thinking the others are still in compliance because this one didn’t make these ridiculous until relatively recently. Beginning in 1981 and especially in 2001 and 2004.
Can you tell me more about the Private Oratory thing? I don’t think they’ve asked for this as a solution and I’m guessing wouldn’t be satisfied either.
S
shades_of_gray
Guest
Br. Dan:
You know I never thought about that question, either until all this talk of St. Stan’s and parish closings.
So do I understand you? Both the order and the archdiocese together hold title to the assets of a parish when it is served by the order? Does the order have any say when a parish is closed or is that a decision entirely made by the archdiocese? When assets are liquidated on shared assets does both the order and the archdiocese split them? Or does it get assigned to the new parish taking on the parishioners of the closed parish?
The St. Louis Archdiocese is going through its first major consolidation of parishes. The perception is that assets from closed parishes are being held by the Archdiocese at large. I don’t think that is the way it is done-at least that is my understanding-that is not the way it should be done. Again-I think there could be better communication from the Archdiocese on these issues.
Concerning the question of financial stake in my parish: Yes I do feel I have a financial stake in my parish. When my pastor says our parish is not meeting its financial obligations after a pretty large facilities expansion and that another capital campaign is at hand-I certainly do feel like a stakeholder.
Thanks Br. Dan:
You know I never thought about that question, either until all this talk of St. Stan’s and parish closings.
So do I understand you? Both the order and the archdiocese together hold title to the assets of a parish when it is served by the order? Does the order have any say when a parish is closed or is that a decision entirely made by the archdiocese? When assets are liquidated on shared assets does both the order and the archdiocese split them? Or does it get assigned to the new parish taking on the parishioners of the closed parish?
The St. Louis Archdiocese is going through its first major consolidation of parishes. The perception is that assets from closed parishes are being held by the Archdiocese at large. I don’t think that is the way it is done-at least that is my understanding-that is not the way it should be done. Again-I think there could be better communication from the Archdiocese on these issues.
Concerning the question of financial stake in my parish: Yes I do feel I have a financial stake in my parish. When my pastor says our parish is not meeting its financial obligations after a pretty large facilities expansion and that another capital campaign is at hand-I certainly do feel like a stakeholder.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
shades,
Would you feel the same if you moved to another town?
Would you feel the same if you moved to another town?
S
shades_of_gray
Guest
Do you mean feel like a financial stakehoder? I dunno-I have never lived anywhere else.
I grew up in the parish I am at now and have been for most of my life. I know how hard it would be to have my parish closed. I feel like a stakeholder in many many more ways than just financial!
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
shades,
Yes, as a financial stakeholder? If you moved, would you still be a stakeholder in your old parish? Or, would you become a spiritual stakeholder in your new parish?
Considering everything comes from God, even our money, can we ever claim to be a stakeholder in something that already belongs to God? When we contribute to the Church (for capital improvements, etc.), aren’t we just giving back to God what already belongs to Him? Do we really have a “right” to feel like a stakeholder upon something that belongs to God?
Yes, as a financial stakeholder? If you moved, would you still be a stakeholder in your old parish? Or, would you become a spiritual stakeholder in your new parish?
Considering everything comes from God, even our money, can we ever claim to be a stakeholder in something that already belongs to God? When we contribute to the Church (for capital improvements, etc.), aren’t we just giving back to God what already belongs to Him? Do we really have a “right” to feel like a stakeholder upon something that belongs to God?
W
WhatIf
Guest
shades of gray:
I don’t understand that mentality. They are not being closed. Property will not be sold. They simply need to get in line with the rest of the Archdiocesan Parshes and set up the Trust and correct their bylaws so they no longer exclude all Church authority, rules and regulations. I know I am assuming things, but I bet you would never risk what the St. Stanislaus Board has risked. I fear they will lose their treasure in heaven for their material possessions on earth.:tsktsk:
I’m sure you would have resolved this issue a long time ago, if you were Chairman of this Board too. Can you imagine letting your entire Parish “fall away” from the Church over these financial structure type of things?
I don’t understand that mentality. They are not being closed. Property will not be sold. They simply need to get in line with the rest of the Archdiocesan Parshes and set up the Trust and correct their bylaws so they no longer exclude all Church authority, rules and regulations. I know I am assuming things, but I bet you would never risk what the St. Stanislaus Board has risked. I fear they will lose their treasure in heaven for their material possessions on earth.:tsktsk:
S
shades_of_gray
Guest
TPJ:
I see what you are saying…
But I guess I would have to say that I would feel like a stakeholder in my new parish. But even after I left my old parish I would still feel like a stakeholder in it. I would want to stay in touch-know it was doing well…thriving…carrying on even after I left. Doesn’t part of being a stakeholder mean belonging to something larger than yourself that you helped to build and make better for the community? Can’t you say that about belonging to a parish?
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
shades,
I feel that as members of the Body of Christ we all have a deep interest in what happens to any parish. I suppose I would not call it being a “stakeholder” because that implies ownership. The Church belongs to Christ, which He gave the world for the sake of our salvation. Ultimately, once we pass the veil of death, everything we have will pass into someone else’s control anyway. We are pilgrims in a foreign land.
I think the idea of being a “stakeholder” is the very thing that has gotten the St. Louis parish in hot water with Bishop Burke…the parishioners feel like they own the parish and they do not want to release control of their ownership.
I feel that as members of the Body of Christ we all have a deep interest in what happens to any parish. I suppose I would not call it being a “stakeholder” because that implies ownership. The Church belongs to Christ, which He gave the world for the sake of our salvation. Ultimately, once we pass the veil of death, everything we have will pass into someone else’s control anyway. We are pilgrims in a foreign land.
I think the idea of being a “stakeholder” is the very thing that has gotten the St. Louis parish in hot water with Bishop Burke…the parishioners feel like they own the parish and they do not want to release control of their ownership.
B
Br.Dan_OCD
Guest
shades of gray:
We (the friars) have no claim to the assets of the parish or any title to the assets. We have no authority as to whether or not the parish is closed. If the parish was closed, I imagine we would be given the first chance to buy the property but I assume it would be sold at regular, market prices. If the diocese wanted to move assets to another parish, it could. Everything associated with the parish is at the disposal of the diocese.
For instance, my community owns several hundred acres of land northwest of Milwaukee. On this land is our monastery, a large shrine (which is not a parish so we own it entirely), an old monastery, etc. Also, on our property, there is a parish church building. The archdiocese owns that building as well as the land it is on (maybe an acre of land or so). The only authority we have over the parish is we, as a community, suggest to the archdiocese a particular friar who could be pastor. They either approve or deny that suggestion.
On another topic, the idea of making St. Stanislaus a private oratory has been put forward. That might solve some problems but then it would leave the actual parishoners out in the cold. Everyone should belong to a parish and only parishes (in the normal course of events) offer some of the Sacraments–Baptism, Marriage, First Communion & Confession, Confirmation…Christian Burial. Oratories or Shrines are not parishes so they do not supply these Sacramental needs nor keep records of such things. St. Stanislaus parishoners, then, would need to find another parish to belong to. They could attend Mass and Confession and other extra-Sacramental functions at St. Stanialaus but would need (technically…not everyone does belong to a parish, I know) to officially belong to a parish.
Well, don’t bet your life on what I say here because I’m not privy to all the details. Nevertheless, the arrangement, as I understand it, is that the diocese (in this case, Milwaukee) has complete control over the parish staffed by an order just like in the case of a diocesan-priest-staffed parish.
We (the friars) have no claim to the assets of the parish or any title to the assets. We have no authority as to whether or not the parish is closed. If the parish was closed, I imagine we would be given the first chance to buy the property but I assume it would be sold at regular, market prices. If the diocese wanted to move assets to another parish, it could. Everything associated with the parish is at the disposal of the diocese.
For instance, my community owns several hundred acres of land northwest of Milwaukee. On this land is our monastery, a large shrine (which is not a parish so we own it entirely), an old monastery, etc. Also, on our property, there is a parish church building. The archdiocese owns that building as well as the land it is on (maybe an acre of land or so). The only authority we have over the parish is we, as a community, suggest to the archdiocese a particular friar who could be pastor. They either approve or deny that suggestion.
On another topic, the idea of making St. Stanislaus a private oratory has been put forward. That might solve some problems but then it would leave the actual parishoners out in the cold. Everyone should belong to a parish and only parishes (in the normal course of events) offer some of the Sacraments–Baptism, Marriage, First Communion & Confession, Confirmation…Christian Burial. Oratories or Shrines are not parishes so they do not supply these Sacramental needs nor keep records of such things. St. Stanislaus parishoners, then, would need to find another parish to belong to. They could attend Mass and Confession and other extra-Sacramental functions at St. Stanialaus but would need (technically…not everyone does belong to a parish, I know) to officially belong to a parish.
S
shades_of_gray
Guest
Thanks Br. Dan;
I have done a little more investigating and apparently there are 3 parishes here in St. Louis that the Archdiocese does not control the assets. There are three parishes staffed by order of priests and the order has control of the church property. St. Anselm is controlled by the Benediction Monks(Priory High School); St. Vincent de Paul in Soulard is controlled by the Vincentians: and St. Francis(College church) is controlled by the Jesuits on the St. Louis University grounds. The way I understand it is St. Stan’s is pushing for a resolution where they would be set up similar to those parishes.
I guess an “oratory” makes sense. Many of the parishoioners belong to 2 parishes anyway. Since it is an ethnic parish it draws in from the entire metropolitan area. I wonder why that has not been brought up already by the two parties?
I have done a little more investigating and apparently there are 3 parishes here in St. Louis that the Archdiocese does not control the assets. There are three parishes staffed by order of priests and the order has control of the church property. St. Anselm is controlled by the Benediction Monks(Priory High School); St. Vincent de Paul in Soulard is controlled by the Vincentians: and St. Francis(College church) is controlled by the Jesuits on the St. Louis University grounds. The way I understand it is St. Stan’s is pushing for a resolution where they would be set up similar to those parishes.
I guess an “oratory” makes sense. Many of the parishoioners belong to 2 parishes anyway. Since it is an ethnic parish it draws in from the entire metropolitan area. I wonder why that has not been brought up already by the two parties?
J
Jarek
Guest
The real issue at St. Stanislaus is that the Board of Directors CHANGED corporate-by-laws and when confronted they initated campaign of hostility against archdiocese and Archbishop Burke. There is a large but less vocal group of active St. Stanislaus parishioners who do support Archbishop Burke, and who now attend at Polish Apostolate at St. John’s church downtown St. Louis where St. Stanislaus Parish Center was transferred by Archbishop Burke in August 2004.
Few months ago we wrote an Open Letter which presented THE REAL SIDE of the conflict. Learning about the truth takes time and effort, and is not as easy as absorbing misleading sound bytes such as “Save St. Stans” This letter will help forum participants to better understand the issue. For full version of the letter as well as other documents related to the St. Stanislaus Kostka, please visit Archdiocese of St. Louis web site archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html
Few months ago we wrote an Open Letter which presented THE REAL SIDE of the conflict. Learning about the truth takes time and effort, and is not as easy as absorbing misleading sound bytes such as “Save St. Stans” This letter will help forum participants to better understand the issue. For full version of the letter as well as other documents related to the St. Stanislaus Kostka, please visit Archdiocese of St. Louis web site archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html
W
WhatIf
Guest
I wonder if anyone from St. Stanislaus Parish is willing to comment on this thread.
I just thought of another possibility for the defiant behavior of this Board. An election year. Before Archbishop Burke came to St. Louis, our local news had been reporting that he refused Communion to politicians that did not vote properly on the abortion issues.
I wonder if we could be dealing with disgruntled Democrats. Does anyone know?
I just thought of another possibility for the defiant behavior of this Board. An election year. Before Archbishop Burke came to St. Louis, our local news had been reporting that he refused Communion to politicians that did not vote properly on the abortion issues.
I wonder if we could be dealing with disgruntled Democrats. Does anyone know?
L
lrslattery
Guest
A couple of things first:
I have followed this since it began appearing in the media nearly a year ago…I have posted the following in several other places on the net:
A brief synopsis of the St. Stanislaus problem…
The St Stanislaus Kostka Parish was founded in 1880 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis by the Most Reverend Peter R. Kenrick, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese.
In 1891, Archbishop Kenrick conveyed the property to the civil corporation of the parish, but he did not transfer control of the parish. When the property was conveyed, the parish corporation was structured so that all directors, including the pastor, were appointed by the Archbishop. The Archbishop also had final decision-making authority for any disagreement among the directors.
Article 1 of the original by-laws states, “The corporate power 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.”
However, by this time, the Pope had declared that parishes should not be under the control of civil corporations with lay boards of directors. This declaration of the Holy Father was not uniformly applied until the adoption of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. By 1951, all parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis which had this structure were brought into conformity with Church law, except for St. Stanislaus.
In 1943, then-Archbishop John Glennon requested changes be made to the parish structure to conform to Church law.
Then-Archbishop Joseph Ritter in 1954 and again in the mid-1960s requested the necessary steps be taken to change the structure to conform with Church law.
In the fall of 2003 then-Archbishop Justin Rigali met with the board of directors and began the current process of bringing the parish into conformity with the more than 200 other parishes of the archdiocese.
Changes to the civil corporation’s bylaws were made by the lay board in 1981 and 2004. These changes eliminated all relationship of the archbishop of St. Louis to the corporation and were made without the approval of the archbishop.
Article 12 of the original bylaws states, in part, that “Those by-laws cannot be changed or modified, nor …] shall any amendment be made at any time which shall in anywise be in conflict with any law of the State of Missouri, or with any rule , regulation or requirement of the said Diocese of St. Louis in force at the time of such proposed change”.
Through these illegal changes of the original by-laws, the lay Board of Directors took away the authority of the Archbishop over the parish corporation. Through these revisions, the Board of Directors secured its own autonomy by removing the power of the Archbishop to remove them from office. By revising the by-laws in this manner, the members of the Board violated the original purpose of the St. Stanislaus Corporation and its relationship to Saint Stanislaus Kostka Parish and thus the Roman Catholic Church.
Continued…
- It must be understood that this has been played up in the media at the instigation of the board members…the preliminary letters to the board members were private and confidential, yet they informed the media.
- Prudence would dictate that information from the saveststans.org web site would not be a reliable source of information, except perhaps, where it indicates their intention to not work with the Archbishop (See the FAQ, “What are the Options” section). One who even considers joining a breakaway schismatic group demonstrates a flawed understanding on Catholicism.
- Archbishop Burke began working on this problem immediately after he arrived here. It was one of the problems given to him by Cardinal Rigali.
I have followed this since it began appearing in the media nearly a year ago…I have posted the following in several other places on the net:
A brief synopsis of the St. Stanislaus problem…
The St Stanislaus Kostka Parish was founded in 1880 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis by the Most Reverend Peter R. Kenrick, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese.
In 1891, Archbishop Kenrick conveyed the property to the civil corporation of the parish, but he did not transfer control of the parish. When the property was conveyed, the parish corporation was structured so that all directors, including the pastor, were appointed by the Archbishop. The Archbishop also had final decision-making authority for any disagreement among the directors.
Article 1 of the original by-laws states, “The corporate power 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.”
However, by this time, the Pope had declared that parishes should not be under the control of civil corporations with lay boards of directors. This declaration of the Holy Father was not uniformly applied until the adoption of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. By 1951, all parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis which had this structure were brought into conformity with Church law, except for St. Stanislaus.
In 1943, then-Archbishop John Glennon requested changes be made to the parish structure to conform to Church law.
Then-Archbishop Joseph Ritter in 1954 and again in the mid-1960s requested the necessary steps be taken to change the structure to conform with Church law.
In the fall of 2003 then-Archbishop Justin Rigali met with the board of directors and began the current process of bringing the parish into conformity with the more than 200 other parishes of the archdiocese.
Changes to the civil corporation’s bylaws were made by the lay board in 1981 and 2004. These changes eliminated all relationship of the archbishop of St. Louis to the corporation and were made without the approval of the archbishop.
Article 12 of the original bylaws states, in part, that “Those by-laws cannot be changed or modified, nor …] shall any amendment be made at any time which shall in anywise be in conflict with any law of the State of Missouri, or with any rule , regulation or requirement of the said Diocese of St. Louis in force at the time of such proposed change”.
Through these illegal changes of the original by-laws, the lay Board of Directors took away the authority of the Archbishop over the parish corporation. Through these revisions, the Board of Directors secured its own autonomy by removing the power of the Archbishop to remove them from office. By revising the by-laws in this manner, the members of the Board violated the original purpose of the St. Stanislaus Corporation and its relationship to Saint Stanislaus Kostka Parish and thus the Roman Catholic Church.
Continued…
L
lrslattery
Guest
A Brief Synopsis…Continued…
The current conflict between the Archdiocese and the Board of Directors clearly demonstrates that the Board is defending its own position of power, which was attained through illegal modifications of the original corporate by-laws and which for the first time is being seriously challenged.
The changes the Archdiocese is requiring in the structure of the St. Stanislaus Corporation will allow St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish to be faithful to its original mission. These changes will also ensure that parish assets will be managed in accordance with both the spirit and the law of the Roman Catholic Church. In this way the required changes will benefit the entire parish community.
On August 11, 2004, Archbishop Burke stated, "With respect to the assets of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, Church law safeguards and protects all such funds, buildings and grounds. I state yet again that neither I, nor my successors as Archbishop of St. Louis, will, or, for that matter, can, access or redirect the funds on deposit in the Archdiocesan Trust of any of our parishes.
In a two-page ruling signed by Cardinal Castillon of the Congregation for the Clergy on November 11, 2004, the Vatican ruled that " … the current board of directors of the civil corporation (St. Stanislaus) … have amended the by-laws of the civil corporation in such a way as to deny the authority of the parochus (pastor) and the canonically provided oversight of the Archdiocese of St. Louis."
The current conflict between the Archdiocese and the Board of Directors clearly demonstrates that the Board is defending its own position of power, which was attained through illegal modifications of the original corporate by-laws and which for the first time is being seriously challenged.
The changes the Archdiocese is requiring in the structure of the St. Stanislaus Corporation will allow St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish to be faithful to its original mission. These changes will also ensure that parish assets will be managed in accordance with both the spirit and the law of the Roman Catholic Church. In this way the required changes will benefit the entire parish community.
On August 11, 2004, Archbishop Burke stated, "With respect to the assets of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, Church law safeguards and protects all such funds, buildings and grounds. I state yet again that neither I, nor my successors as Archbishop of St. Louis, will, or, for that matter, can, access or redirect the funds on deposit in the Archdiocesan Trust of any of our parishes.
“I again ask that your parish priests be accorded the same respect and cooperation which are given to the parish priests in each of the 212 other parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The legitimate exercise of the pastoral office cannot be impeded, if a parish is truly to be Catholic in name and in fact.”
St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish has been given the Archbishop’s assurance that as long as the parishioners continue to worship at St. Stanislaus Church and continue to support the parish , it will not be closed. This is a unique commitment that no other parish in the archdiocese has been given.In a two-page ruling signed by Cardinal Castillon of the Congregation for the Clergy on November 11, 2004, the Vatican ruled that " … the current board of directors of the civil corporation (St. Stanislaus) … have amended the by-laws of the civil corporation in such a way as to deny the authority of the parochus (pastor) and the canonically provided oversight of the Archdiocese of St. Louis."
The Congregation also stated that, “…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.”
A parishioner, Jarek Czernikiewicz, said the bylaws, beginning with the original ones adopted in 1891 and ending with those adopted in 2001, “expressly stipulate an unconditional obligation of the board of directors to exercise the powers of the corporation” in accordance with the Archdiocese of St. Louis.“The directors of the St. Stanislaus civil corporation should accept the Vatican’s decision with dignity, obedience and respect for the Roman Catholic Church and faithful parishioners.”
The information above was excerpted from various sources and compiled here for ease of understanding (I hope). If anything stated above is in error, please notify me so that any necessary corrections can be made.
L
lrslattery
Guest
As Jarek recommends above, the Archdiocese has listed many of the pertinent documents of the case. To understand more fully what is going on, one must start, at least from that point.
Undoubtedly, there are things about which the public does not know. There are many who are condemning this good man, Archbishop Burke, for his stance on this issue. They are doing this, with insufficient evidence, gleaned from a newspaper which hardly hides its disdain for the Church and from a group of men who openly defy the Holy See and the Archbishop.
The public scandal caused by the board, which has been instrumental in swaying the opinions of some parishioners and of the general public, has caused untold problems in the Archdiocese among the faithful.
For those who are prone to condemn the Archbishop, please pause and consider what you are doing.
Above all, keep Archbishop Burke and those involved in this troublesome issue in your prayers.
Undoubtedly, there are things about which the public does not know. There are many who are condemning this good man, Archbishop Burke, for his stance on this issue. They are doing this, with insufficient evidence, gleaned from a newspaper which hardly hides its disdain for the Church and from a group of men who openly defy the Holy See and the Archbishop.
The public scandal caused by the board, which has been instrumental in swaying the opinions of some parishioners and of the general public, has caused untold problems in the Archdiocese among the faithful.
For those who are prone to condemn the Archbishop, please pause and consider what you are doing.
Above all, keep Archbishop Burke and those involved in this troublesome issue in your prayers.
- Status