Posted on 02/12/2005 10:01:13 AM PST by 7thOF7th
Burke formally denies sacraments to defiant board By Tim Townsend Of the Post-Dispatch 02/11/2005 St. Stanislaus Church (KEVIN MANNING /P-D) John Baras' first grandson arrived in the world Thursday just five hours after a decree of interdict, written on St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke's own stationery and sealed with a rubber stamp, arrived at Baras' home, delivered by a courier. The interdict means Baras and the other five members of the church's board have fallen out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church and will no longer be able to participate in the sacraments of the church. p>
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
If the archbishop can use the interdict against these laicists, then he can use it against pro-abortion pols. Many pro-abortion "Catholics" see any intervention by bishops as "worldly."
Since you've exercised your free will and left the Catholic Church then what Archbishop Burke, or any other Bishop for that matter, does regarding Canonical sanctions is none of your business.
This is the same Archbishop who refused communion to Kerry.
I think it's really a different thing. This is a constitutional issue -- these people are in open defiance of the authority of the church, so the church is going to do the one thing to them that it can do, to bring them back into compliance.
People who are in a mortal state of sin such as the priests involved in the scandals are in need of the sacraments more than anyone else, and it would really be illogical to deny them to them. They should be receiving the sacraments in their prison cells for the rest of their lives, in my opinion.
If you left the Church because its members are supposed to follow the teachings and decisions of the Church, so be it. Having done so, I can hardly see how decisions made within a Church to which you do not belong, are any of your concern. Perhaps your attention should be turned to whatever religion you now practice.
This is a huge mistake.
Who's giving scandal here? It seems to me it's the Archbishop--by trying to extort what doesn't belong to him legally. The board is perfectly within its rights to tell him to go fly a kite.
Yes, and why would anyone think that because a bishop insists that a congregation adhere to rules enacted by the diocese, the same bishop is failing to condemn the molestation of a child? There is no connection except to an anti-Catholic.
I don't recall saying anything about leaving the church.
Except it won't bring them back into compliance. Burke now has no leverage; the parishioners still hold all the cards.
The congregation may have the right and the power to withhold its property from the church hierarchy. The church hierarchy likewise has a right/ capability to discipline the congregation. hard to get worked up over this. Each side makes its decisions and lives with them.
It's not my faith I am recovering from, it is the policies of the church.
These people are not in open defiance of the authority of the Church because the authority of the Church is not unlimited. The attempt by the Archbishop to wrest property from its legal owners is STEALING. To threaten the owners by means of such an interdict is unjust and a form of EXTORTION.
You are wrong. The hierarchy has NO right to punish innocent people. Morally it hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Dude, get over your pseudo legal analysis. No one stole anything because the congregation hasn't given up its property or had it taken away. The Church hierarchy told them to do something. They refused. They are part of the Catholic Church so one might naturally assume they are supposed to follow Church rules, but this is an obvious squabble over property and $$. Hardly an admirable fight on either side. It is supposed to be a Church, after all. But there hasn't been any theft or any extortion. Each side is doing their thing. Most Church property belongs to the Church and this situation is an anomoly.
Last month, 299 members of St. Stanislaus (out of 510 eligible) voted against a proposal that read "Should we turn over all property, funds and parish control to the Archdiocese of St. Louis?" Only five members voted in favor.
Seems like an 'odd' thing for the church to 'deny sacraments' over ....
Bialczak said the board members would consider their options at a meeting Friday night and would make an announcement to parishioners and the public after their weekly prayer service at the church Sunday.
Some St. Stanislaus parishioners have portrayed Burke's actions as an effort to gain control of the parish's $1.2 million in assets and eight acres, which the parish has said is worth $8 million. In an article in this week's Review, the archdiocese questioned the veracity of the parishioners' assessment of the value of the property, saying "based on the known value of other parish properties, (it is) likely to be significantly less."
Board members have said they would ignore the interdict and take part in whatever sacraments they wanted to, including receiving Communion. Shamleffer said such action would not make the sacrament invalid, but, rather, illicit. If the board members were to accept Communion, the interdict "would not negate the validity of the sacrament," he said.
Interesting ... I'm an ex-catholic so my opinion on this is not as important I guess than if I was a catholic. But this seems as if the church could easily correct this via some sort of accounting or purchase, or long term transfer or some other method.
Does the church care more about the 'assets' or the parishioners is something I would wonder about this whole 'affair' that could turn into a bad PR item for the church. If the latter, simply ask for the immediate grounds around the church on some sort of 'bargain' tranfer .. the the rest be on a long term lease arrangement or something ... that over time might be given to the church in increments. The church needs to show more care and feeding of the flock and NOT show greed and desire for real estate acquisitions.
I suspect this interdict won't mean much to these folks. They'll just go right on receiving the sacraments and doing what they were doing. Burke still has to come to them if he wants legal title to the parish.
Well, he is entitled to his opinion and to express it here, but we are also free to judge his opinion based on this "act of free will" in abandoning the Church (of which I am NOT a member). You can't accurately say that it's none of his business or that he can't voice his opinion on the matter, just that he has no right to expect his opinion to carry any weight with committed Catholics.
The only thing he can't be allowed to say with any sort of respect is that he's right and the Pope is wrong. He can't be "more Catholic than the Pope" and still be a Catholic. You buy the premise you buy the bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.