If this is true then why are dioceses in Bankruptcy Court arguing that parishes are NOT property of the diocese and why is the diocese in some northwestern cities set up distinctly different than in St. Louis? There each parish owns title to their property.
Isn’t that the same attitude that got St. Stan’s and Fr. Bozek excommunicated?
Maybe, but I’m not in that position. Personally, I probably would’ve accepted the Archbishop’s action and changed churchs vs. risk excommunication. I would not have liked it, but I would’ve gone along with it. However, I also understand and sympathize with the St. Stan’s folks. I think they’ve been wronged.
I am not judging you. I am merely commenting on what you posted to a public forum. A lot of people visit these forums and it is important that they understand that what you have stated is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Our Church. You falsely assserted that it is OK for Catholics to reject Catholic Doctrines. You have falsely set yourself up as being superior to the Church in determining matters of Faith and Morals. It is unfortunate that you have decided to do so but it unconscionable for you to assert to other Catholics that it is acceptable to do so.
TheDallas Diocese tried the same thing and lost. It has been tried in other diocese and the result is always the same-the Court rules the Property belongs to the Diocese. The Parish may have title to the property but legally the Diocese and the Parish are one and the same. And just to make sure everyone knows why this is an issue the Courts are hearing so much about it because many Dioceses are trying to duck their responsibilty for the Homosexual Priest Scandal.
Well, I will take your response as a half hearted endorsement of Canon Law and the right of the Catholic Church to expect it’s followers to respect Church authority. If the folks at St. Stan’s have been wronged, it has been by their parish leadership who backed them into a corner and are too bullheaded to admit their grave error.
That is a succinct description of what happened. They have put their Parish ahead of the Church and everbody loses.
estesbob:
I believe that technically the parish still owns the church and assets because they were never conveyed to the Bishop.
Canon Law doesn’t really apply about the ownership in the eyes of the civil authorities.
As for charity, did anybody actually read the bishops letter? Pretty hatefull in tone. But like the parishoners right under US law to property, the Bishop has his right to express his opinion even if the tone and tenor contradict how and what Jesus taught.
Neither party seems to be listening to the “higher authority”.
Peace
monina:
You could be right. It is an unusual sitaution. It is a tragedt for sure.
My point is which way is right? How can the Church argue in court that the parish assets are not part of the diocese and in another breath say the parish property MUST be part of the diocese. Obviously both ways must be acceptable according to Canon Law, otherwise one would be wrong. How could the Church that requires obedience be wrong in one of these cases?
Lets be carful here. Court arguments about who owns what have nothing whatsoever to do with the requirement we obey the Church. The Courts will determine if The Bishop can seize the property. The courts will not, howver, get involved at all with the Bishops right to excommunicate everyone involved on the St Stans side. They have disobeyed the Church. That is grounds for excommunication…
I’m not encouraging anybody to go against Catholic Doctrine. I would never do that. However, if somebody feels strongly against a particular piece of doctrine, its a personal decision on their part whether to follow or not follow it. We are not sheep. The decision they make, they will have to live with it and justify it to God at the appropriate time. Its up to God whether he buys that decision or not.
SydLake:
Yep!!
Did you mean to say goats?
But here the point you are missing-once you have made that decision to reject a doctrine of the Church you have seperated yourself from the Church. Its not a matter of being sheep-its a matter of adhering to the teachings of the One True Church. If one believes that even ONE of the Doctrines of the Church is wrong then all doctrines are suspect. If all Doctrines are suspect why be a member of the Church?
When one rejects doctrines/teachings of the Church they are asserting that their intepertations of doctrines are superior to the Church’s. . What other conclusion can one come to?
Very clever. However, I think you know what I mean’t. We all have a brain and God gave us the free will to make our own decisions. Hopefully with from guidance from God, you make the right one; thats goes for any situation. In the Middle Ages, many people acted as sheep and obeyed questionable decisions from the church whiched resulted in the deaths and suffering of thousands. Inquistion, Crusades, witch burnings ring a bell? They were all following “church doctrine”. Granted, the times have changed, the church has matured, but I think I made my point.
You can always tell when a discussion about the Authority of the Church has reached the absurdity stage. Thats when those who question its authority start playing the Crusades /inqusition/etc cards.I could engage you a discussion of these topics that would probably show you are as ignorant about them as you are of the importance of obeying the Church. But it would be a waste of time. You have decided to disobey the Church and are now trying to rationalize it.
Well, I disagree with you on both of these points and you are not budging and neither am I. Obviously you are a conservative catholic, I’m somewhat more progressive (but not overly so). Discussion is good and disagreement is ok too. Even theologians and clergy within our own catholic church disagree on things. No harm, no foul.
My point is the Church is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and the idea that who owns the parish assets in a diocese is apparently NOT clear cut, back and white. Yet it is clear cut in the eyes of Archbishop Burke and St. Stanislaus, albeit opposing views. I say both sides have been tinged with several of the capital sins: pride, greed, maybe anger come to mind? I am not saying I wholeheartedly understand what St. Stanislaus has resorted to the last few weeks, but the way the whole feud started really dumbfounds me and I can not believe what a PR mess this is. Archbishop Burke has called the parishioners of St. Stanislaus “satan”. How can Archbishop honestly say he prays for a reconcilliation when he publicly calls them “satan”?