Posted on 02/12/2005 10:01:13 AM PST by 7thOF7th
I concur ... the church 'by appearance' cares more about property than saving souls .. the big looser here is the RCC, mainly in this 'image' that it is giving itself. Shame on them for their putting greed over their 'charter' by God to save souls.
How did you decide who is innocent and who is moral? I haven't been out there myself. How moral is it to be part of a major religion and not want to have your particular Church property be part of the bigger group? It all sounds rather petty and greedy to me. I side slightly with the Church because it is normal for them to own and control the local congregation's property. The congregation is putting their local church assets above their devotion to the main Church. That's their decision to make, but then they are likely to end up leaving the Church. You have to decide whether it's more important to be part of the Catholic Church, or to keep and run your local assets. For most congregations this is never even an issue.
This kind of ridiculous opinion statement belongs on a 'Catholics only' website friend, and this ain't it. As long as you post on Freepers, all people interested in the topic are 'welcome' to express their opinion on same.
There's nearly $2 million in cash, in addition to the property, that's at stake.
As for PR, Burke has botched this from the beginning. He hasn't even been in St. Louis a year, and he's already bulldogging these people, who have been involved in this Polish parish for generations.
But, Burke decided to put his office on the line, instead of patiently negotiating, and now he has to threaten to keep Catholic people away from the source of their spiritual life in order to save face.
If they call his bluff, he's basically going to have to wait them out, which is what he should have done in the first place.
The Catholic Church normally owns all church property. This situation is unusual. I can understand why the congregation wants to control the property, and why the Church wants it on the Church ledger. The Church gets my slight nod on this because they are the overarching organization and the local church has decided to thumb its nose at the hierarchy. That conflicts with the notion the congregation is part of the greater Church.
For your benefit, pal--the attempt to steal, whether successful or not, is still covered by the eighth commandment as well as by the secular legal code. Ditto the attempt to extort.
As for morality, neither side is looking to sell this property and donate the proceeds to the poor. Some early Christians sold themselves into slavery to relieve the suffering of the poor. Get back to me when either side here takes the moral high ground, rather than wanting to control $8 million in assets and property.
If this parish were a dead-broke inner city church, do you think Burke would be in such a hurry to assume title?
Burke's predecessor, Justin Rigali, was patiently negotiating with these folks. Burke decided to bring things to a head quickly. He's no better off than he was, plus he looks either like an ogre for witholding sacraments over a monetary dispute, or will look like a fool if the parishioners just ignore him.
"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."
The issue is a public dispute so you are way out of line. I wouldn't blame anyone for "leaving the Church", if I were you. For too many Catholics, the Church left THEM the past forty years. Only God can sort out the ensuing mess.
Won't really disagree. My point is that if the diocese looks greedy so does the congregation. On the moral level both sides should renew vows of poverty.
Similar to the dispute in the story. The congregation wants to be part of the Catholic Church, but tell the Church hierarchy where to go on decisions. There is an internal illogic there.
I tend to agree Burke decided to get overly aggressive here, but then I admire his guts when I read the quote of one of those punished: "I never thought Burke would go through with it." Guess he was wrong, eh?
Try getting off your high horse. The parishioners were given ownership a century ago IN PERPETUITY. They peacefully exerted ownership these many years and received not a dime from the diocese all during this time, not even during hard times when they struggled to survive. Now that property values have increased, they've become a coveted target.
There is no danger of excommunication as you suggest because any attempt to unjustly excommunicate them would be morally improper. Even if a decree of excommunication were actually pronounced, it would be a moral nullity since it would be based on an injustice. It could therefore be ignored with complete impunity. This is because divine law prohibits any act of injustice on the part of ecclesiastical superiors--something too few lay persons appreciate sufficiently.
"Well, friend, the Catholic Church cannot 'steal' its own church. The idea that the cathoilic Church is trying to steal a church because the churches are supposed to be under the charter of the overrall organization is quite a stretch."
You're mixing apples and oranges, confusing a small-cap "church" with the big-cap "Church". We're talking about a building and the land it is on and who owns what in the eyes of the law, not about the Catholic faith.
"My point is that if the diocese looks greedy so does the congregation."
If somebody wants to steal your house, do you "look greedy" for not letting him?
"The congregation wants to be part of the Catholic Church, but tell the Church hierarchy where to go on decisions. There is an internal illogic there."
Not at all. There's no illogic in telling the hierarchy it has no right to something you yourself own. Your mistake is to believe bishops have absolute authority to do as they choose. They do not. They must act within the bounds of justice otherwise they abuse their authority.
Okay, spit-balling here: What moral obligation does the diocese have to provide any service to the members of the parish as long as they remain members of the parish? Would a good question be what obligations the diocese assumed when it granted whatever it granted back then?
Let me say it another way: The diocese can properly decide to close parishes when it deems fit. The people then join or are assigned to some other parish. Can't the diocese say,"Fine. You keep the buildings and the land. But no priest is coming to celebrate Mass." If we're talking about "stealing" and "extortion" can't we add something like "involuntary servitude" to the mix?
Yet one more attempt: Does the congregation have a perpetual, unconditional, and binding claim on diocesan ministrations, so that the bishop must provide for sacraments no matter what the parish's response to his request is?
And really this time finally, the article says the interdict can be appealed. Isn't the practical near-term outcome likely to be that the interdict is appealed to the next level until the Vatican rules on their mutual obligations? I don't think anyone can be accused of "stealing", "extortion", or "involuntary servitude" (whether attempted or accomplished) quite yet.
Point taken. I'm assuming that they are trying to make themselves right with God again, and if they're really doing that, then the church shouldn't as a matter of rule make it so they never have access to the sacraments again for the rest of their lives by definition. They may well have a lifetime's worth of penance to do.
"But within this discussion it seems odd to say you left the Church and still concern yourself with internal Church disputes."
It is not at all odd. There are issues going on here that are much larger than the surface dispute. They involve matters of justice and morality, and whether the faith itself may be used to coerce obedience, and the limits of hierarchical power vis a vis the rights of subordinates to resist. These are weighty issues and of interest to all thinking people.
The parish would be within its rights to hire an independent priest or turn to the SSPX for assistance.
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.