The St. Louis parish fighting Archbishop Raymond Burke over control of the parish has voted to not to comply with the archbishop’s order. I have to wonder: is the archbishop actually demanding the parish turn over $9.5 million or are the reporters playing fast and loose with what the archbishop actually wants? Is the archdiocese really just demanding that the parish fall under the authority of the archbishop and his appointed pastor?
In any case, the effect of the vote is schism. These people have placed themselves and their parish outside of the bounds of the Church by rejecting the lawful and legitimate authority of their bishop. Witness the ignorance of Catholic teaching:
“I’m still going to be a Catholic, like it or not,” said board member Stan Novak, a retired electrical safety coordinator. “The archbishop and the other officials need to understand that they’re working for us. They have to get along with us, because we’re the ones supporting them.”
You write:
The parish voted noted to turn over all property, funds, and control of the parish, but Burke says he wasn. He claims(!) that his only concern is to enforce uniformity, a claim that is only more hollow and hypocritical than it is obviously fraudulent. If His Excellency were so passionately interested in “uniformity”, he might well start by insisting that the priests of his archdiocese conform themselves to the officially prescribed liturgical norms recently published by the Holy Office.
They’re thinking of joining the Polish National Church (a schismatic group) and rejecting the archbishop’s authority. If that isn’t schism, it’s well on the road to it.
The fallacy in your premise is that it is an unjust order. It is not. Canon law dictates that a parish cannot be independent, that it must come under the authority of the bishop. And no “right” given by a bishop in perpetuity can supersede canon law currently in effect.
And, once again, no one has said that the archbishop is seizing this money. In fact, the archbishop has promised that the parish will remain in place, in violate, for as long as there is a Polish community to minister to.
You’re remark about liturgical uniformity is a red herring. It is a completely different situation. And who’s to say that the archbishop isn’t doing that quietly or planning on doing it publicly soon.
That’s a leap. Maybe they concluded that the result wasn’t worth the effort?
This didn’t start with Abp Burke. John Cardinal Glennon when he was Archbishop of St. Louis, and Joseph Cardinal Ritter made some efforts to regularize (if that’s the right term) St Stanislaus Kostka. I have no idea whether either of them took the case to Rome.
Justin Cardinal Rigali started the process which Abp Burke inherited and continued.
Note that Glennon was made Archbishop of St. Louis in 1903, and this parish was erected around 1880, IIRC. I have no idea when they built their church.
I am not a canon lawyer, so I haven’t the foggiest idea whether what Abp Burke and the various organs did, was proper.
OTOH, an interdict seems a little … disproportionate. And on the other other hand, that it’s quaint appeals to me.
I generally agree that the archbishop here – a ham-handed fellow who is very confused over the difference between authority and authoritarianism – has the right to act as he is.
The arrangement with St. Stanislaus appears to be a vestige of the trusteeship controversy of the pre-Civil War period, which had been settled in most places by the creation of the “corporation sole,” a corporation with a single trustee, the bishop, that owned all church property.
However, when I read this …
Theyad ‘community’ to walk with them in their faith journey.
That would be ham-fisted.
[grandpa and grandma were Poles, from before the country’s resurrection, and yes, they do call it that, you don’t think it was?]
If you’ve read this far, I hope you realize I’m joking.
Not only was an appeal made to Rome, but along with the appeal, was a nice donation to the Holy See. (wink, wink)
The board members and those who support them are clearly in the wrong and are defiant in their opposition to Archbishop Burke and the Vatican.
Some of the board members have openly stated that if the Archbishop pursues a canonical interdict as a medicinal intervention, it will be a “badge of honor”. Another has stated that it would be an “heinous act”.
Humility and obedience do not enter the picture for them – it’s not part of their vocabulary. I was personally asked, “Would you hand over your house to the archbishop if he knocked on your door and demanded it?”
What a freaking loaded and irrelevant question is that? We’re not talking about an individual’s home but a public church. Secondly such a request/command may not require obedience because it may not be a lawful command – but – any attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion of facts seems to be an effort in futility.
It has been proffered that, “The property has never belonged to the church. The people of the parish paid for the land and the construction. “
This must be incorrect because if the archdiocese did not own it to begin with, it could not have been deeded to the civil corporation.
And secondly, parishioners usually do pay for land, construction projects, and renovations, and repairs. The attempted point is a useless distraction from the facts.
My 2 cents…
Whether or not a board of trustees or the local ordinary owns whatever, might depend on the way incorporation laws are applied in Missouri. I understand the dioceses in this country are subject to differing laws depending on the state. New Jersey, for example, has some sort of lay trusteeship for parish property. The “aberration” of ownership to which some refer, may have its origins in that.
I’m told Missouri is known as the “Show Me” State. Any lawyers from Missouri out there? I’m not from Missouri; show me anyway.
DLA
Here is a brief summary as I understand it:
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 but nothing was done, evidently to see that something was done.
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. Again, there does nots seem to be any follow through on the request.
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. ….(cont)
—-(cont)…
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.
But what those of us on the “keep the kids out” side believe, based on the current temper of the times on the morality of homosexuality and Church teaching, is that the whole thing is a Trojan horse. A plant. A setup for a court case to increase the power of Caesar over Church schools and what they can teach. And that the school will knuckle under preemptively, or be forced to close. Either outcome would be satisfactory to the gay rights people.
This entire controversy is a big advertisement for home schooling. The parents who rightly object to attending Catholic PTA meetings with ” Jimmy and his two Daddies” should clearly consider Catholic homeschooling if they have not already made the switch. Formal Catholic education in this country collapsed years ago. It is nothing but a big rip off. Why pay to have your children lose their Catholic Faith when you can get the same results for free in public school. In my experience, modern Catholic education is the kiss of death for one’s Faith. I don’t want my children exposed to a child whose “parents” are clearly militant homosexuals. There is enough confusion in the world without introducing this gravely disordered situation into our schools and innocent children. The issue is not that the “parents” are sinful. All parents are sinful and at one time or another fail to live out their Faith authentically; however, this is a situation of scandal and obstinate, persistent, and publicly unrepentant sin. No Catholic school should allow this scenario through their doors to spread acceptance of such a lifestyle among their students. I think the pastoral response is to offer discreet Catholic home tutoring options to the “parents” but kindly rule out the scandal that accompanies publicly educating the children of these disordered “unions”.
Can someone explain to me how the school and the homosexual “parents” can co-operate in the education of the child in any meaningful way without either the school compromising its Catholic character or the “parents” dissolving their household?
This issue does not apply in the case of an invalid marriage where the Pope urges such couples to participate fully in church life outside receiving communion and where an invalid marriage as far as the children are concerned is not an obvious, concrete reality but an invisible abstraction.
Restoration,
Fr Peter Stravinskas recently stated (I wish I had the link handy, but do not) that home schooling was not valid for Catholics unless parochial schools were not available. He cited Vatican II documents in support of that position. His, and apparently the Church’s, point makes perfect sense in a perfect world where parochial schools function as advertised. But my godson recently wasted second grade in an inner city school where a majority of the faculty was not even Catholic. His religious education that year consisted of right-on-bruthuh monologues on the immorality of the Iraq war—admittedly a debatable point, but one not suitable for seven year olds. In an environment where such malarkey is allowed to pass as Catholic schooling, home schooling is certainly legitimate, and parents with enough faith and fortitude to attempt it ought to receive praise, not censure, from ivory tower beat cops like Fr Stravinskas.
peterdamian,
The article to which you refer by Fr. Peter Stravinskas can be found at Catholic Answers in an article titled “Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up.” It is a worthwhile article to read for those who wish to know what Vatican II really taught as opposed to what some “reformers” would have us believe.
The link is as follows:
[url=http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea1asp-ssk]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea1asp-ssk[/url]
Monica
peterdamian,
P.S. I do agree with what you said about the Church’s and Fr. Stravinskas’ position regarding parochial schools being valid “in a perfect world where parochial schools function as advertised” and when that is not the case, “homeschooling is certainly legitimate.” However, the children would probably be required to attend some Church sponsored formal religious education in order to be considered “properly prepared” to receive the Sacraments of First Reconciliation, First Holy Eucharist and Confirmation.
Monica
peterdamian,
Sorry, that link seems to be incorrect.
Try:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307/fea1.asp
peterdamian,
I am going to try one more time to direct you to the Article “Will the Real Vatican II Please stand up. Go to:
[url=http://www.catholic.com]http://www.catholic.com[/url] and click on the link at the top “This Rock.” Then click on 2003 and you should get a display of all the covers of This Rock for 2003. Click on the cover of the one that has the title “Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up” on the front. That should take you to the article by Fr. Stravinskas that speaks to parocial schools versus home schooling.
Monica
peterdamian,
I am going to try one last time to direct you to the link that has Fr. Peter Stravinskas’ article that speaks to parochial schools as opposed to home schooling. Please go to [url=http://www.catholic.com]http://www.catholic.com[/url] Click on the bar at the top titled “This Rock.” Click on 2003. You will get the covers of all of the “This Rock” magazine for the year.
Click on the cover that has the featured article on the cover titled “Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up.” I believe it is the July issue.
Monica
A serious consideration is how does the mind of a 7 year old digest two women or two men at a function or EVEN at MASS (1st Holy Communion prior 1st Penance)when the child’ parents are manifestly different than other children? The ground is very fertile for Scandal here. I dont see how homosex. parents can be allowed to participate with other parents in a public fashion and the fact is I dont think young children(atleast 1 to 6 grade)should be put in a position to see a blatant dichotomy and blatant violation of Church Teaching that this would definitely involve. “Why does Johnny have two mommies”….would just be the tip of the iceberg. As Mr. Williams succinctly put you’re going to either have pseudo-catholic teaching or a dissolving, dismantling of the home. There is NO way the parents can support what the child is supposed to be learning at school(partic. later grades). In this case there is no “abstraction” here.