Go Arch-bishop Burke

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shades of gray:
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?
Click to expand...
Where did you find information about those three parishes? I don’t think it is possible for an order to “control” assets independently of the diocese since a parish is, by definition, a diocesan entity and not that of an order/religious institute. I’d be very surprised to see contrary structures.

Regarding the oratory–a person can not belong to more than one parish, officially. As it is, St. Stanislaus is a “personal parish” which means it is not based on territory but on “persons”, in this case, those of Polish ancestry. So, people living anywhere can be enrolled there. Still, though, a person belongs to one parish at a time. As an oratory, St. Stanislaus would not be a parish so everyone would have to enroll at a different parish. To make the parish into an oratory, in practice, is the same as closing it.
 
Br. Dan:
As an oratory, St. Stanislaus would not be a parish so everyone would have to enroll at a different parish. To make the parish into an oratory, in practice, is the same as closing it.
Click to expand...
But if the people who now attend St. Stan’s are content with the status of an oratory, is there any imaginable objection from Burke?
 
40.png
katherine2:
But if the people who now attend St. Stan’s are content with the status of an oratory, is there any imaginable objection from Burke?
Click to expand...
Probably not…but what these people seem content with is disobedience. The things I am hearing on this board just shock me, and points to a deep-seated disrespect for authority. People booing the Archbishop! God will be the judge of those sorts, and I don’t want to be there to see that.
**We might not agree with everything our bishops do (try living in this Archdiocese), but we are bound to obey our shepherds in the Church. We must trust that in God’s Grand Plan, he is using the shepherds he has placed over us to guide us to the ultimate end he would have us go to. **
Archbishop Burke is not asking to sell St. Stan’s parish assets. He does not want to close the parish. He merely wants to bring the parish under the same ecclesiastical jurisdiction of every other parish in the Archdiocese. He is well within his Canonical Rights. In choosing to disrespect and disobey the Archbishop, the members of the “board” at St. Stan’s have incurred the penalty of interdict justly…Anyone else who would disrespect their bishop in the way some people in St. Louis are disrespecting Archbishop Burke deserves an interdict, whether they get one or not.
 
In studying the relevant documents relating to the St. Stanislas case, I have learned that among other things:
1. The St. Stan’s board of directors obtained a liquor license over the objections of both the pastor and parents of children undergoing religious education. The purpose was so that drinks could be sold on Sunday after the 10:00AM Mass when children of the parish were being given religious instruction. Both pastor and parents objected, but the board applied for and received a liquor license from the City of St. Louis and continue to operate a bar on church grounds after Mass over the objections of many parishioners.
2. Archbishop Burke has removed priests from the parish because the “board of directors” has made life intolerable for priests there, and for the ecclesiastical order of the Church.
3. Bishops have been trying to bring St. Stan’s into line with the Church since 1917. The latest conflict actually began when Justin Cardinal Rigali was Archbishop of St. Louis, and it has merely carried over to Archbishop Burke’s tenure. Considering the hardness of head and heart of these people, I think the Church has been unusually lenient and very merciful with them.
These people have GOT to be brought into line.
Check out some of the relevant documents here.
 
40.png
katherine2:
But if the people who now attend St. Stan’s are content with the status of an oratory, is there any imaginable objection from Burke?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. As Bishop, though, he can’t be only concerned with those who are there now but with those who will be there in the future. Also, what is best for the entire diocese is his concern. I am frankly surprised that the people there now say they are content with the status of an oratory…I wonder if they realize what that means for their parish (it’s cessation as a parish) and that, for the sake of the people served now at St. Stanislaus, the Bishop would have to establish (or maintain the current arrangement with the other parish serving the Polish people) a new personal parish. It doesn’t matter if most people might get the proper delegation to have their Sacramental needs met at St. Stanislaus church–there would still need to be a *parish * which gives the delegation, keeps the records, and serves the people who do not want to use the St. Stanislaus church/oratory.

I think I’ve said all I can on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top