Burke formally denies sacraments to defiant board

St. Louis Post Dispatch ^ | 2/11/2005 | Tim Townsend

[Mad Dawg]

The parish would be within its rights to hire an independent priest or turn to the SSPX for assistance.

Factual question (or legal question -- either one): May a priest celebrate sacraments in the territory of a bishop or other superior not his own w/o permission from the bishop (Other than emergencies, of course)? It wasn't allowed (as far as I recall) in the Episcopal Church when I was a priest (or they said I was, I have my doubts) in that outfit.

[7thOF7th]

Bingo! Finally someone has recognized the point I was trying to make. Thanks for the participation.

[adiaireton8]

It comes down to authority. Does the archbishop have the authority to withold sacraments from those under his authority whom he thinks deserve such discipline? Yes. Don't like it? Think its unfair? Write a letter to the Cardinal or the Pope. The Church is not a democracy. Either live under the discipline of the Church, or leave the Church.

-A8

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

So, has St. Stanislaus contacted the SSPX yet? :-)

[AgThorn]

...at some point they risk not beiing part of this particular organized religion because they don't want to sacrifice their assets to this religion's hierarchy.

Now THAT's a sad summary of the situation. What sort of church DEMANDS that a congregation sacrifice its assets or be excommunicated? Is that the new 'offering' ? Sad, but I don't see the 'both sides are being greedy' here at all. I see a church that has lost its mission.

[marajade]

No wonder the Church is failing.

[marajade]

That's what wrong with the church... different sanctions against followers vs. clergy.

[AgThorn]

First, I am not any apologist for the Church. But, it's obvious both sides here want the property and in that sense both are squabbling over control of money. The idea that the diocese looks greedy is silly. They are each being "greedy and materialistic" depending on your point of view.

Hmmm ... I have a house and my church says its mine so if I don't give it up, we are BOTH being greedy??? Just can't see how you are arriving at that.

Accounting is accounting. The church can gain 'control' of property with a long term fixed lease, thereby gaining benefits of future appreciation, perpetual use, etc. while letting the current landowners own it and do some sort of lease back or whatever. I am not saying what is the final on this discussion or even knowledgeable of what conversations were had so far but in my read on this, the church is simply 'demanding' and threatening if its demands are not met. Sad example of the alledged 'church of Christ'.

The Catholic Church normally owns all church property. This situation is unusual.

Key word here is 'normally'.

I can understand why the congregation wants to control the property, and why the Church wants it on the Church ledger.

Having 'control' and 'owning' are not the same thing.

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.

How so? because they own the assets that the church normally own is a 'thumb of their nose'? I think the 'greater church' has to learn a better way of getting its way than threatening excommunication for real estate. Sad and very 'un-Jesus' like!

[SaltyJoe]

It's a badly written article:

If the bishop is addressing what has been given freely to the Church, then he may and must be in charge of what is given. The bishop is not taking or manipulating what is in the parishioners' wallets, he's taking what is given to him and what is given only of free will. So, why are the parishioners trying to hold onto what they let go?

As I recall from the Gospels, when it was put to a vote, it was 12 against the One that Jesus would have to die on the Cross. "Democracy" didn't work in that case, and it doesn't work in this case either.

Denying dinner to a naughty child or the Sacraments to a rebellious sinner isn't going to kill that child or damn that sinner. It's a non-permanent and non-physical wound to the disobedient's pride. When it comes to everlasting Judgment, it's still the soul that decides obedience or rebellion against God's Will.

Many Catholics, especially secular Catholics, have forgotten how to be and remain obedient. Many forget that the Church Clergy is in charge of the Church and not the congregation.

[RobbyS]

That is only your opinion.

[vox_freedom]

The parish would be within its rights to hire an independent priest or turn to the SSPX for assistance.

Yep, and they shouldn't waste any time in doing so...

[ultima ratio]

"The Church is not a democracy. Either live under the discipline of the Church, or leave the Church."

The early Church was pretty democratic. And the discipline of the Church doesn't mean bishops have the right to act unjustly. If they do, they abuse authority and should be resisted politely.

[ultima ratio]

"Many Catholics, especially secular Catholics, have forgotten how to be and remain obedient."

False obedience is a besetting sin of contemporary Catholicism. Bishops count on it. But if the contemporary Church needed anything, it's exactly the opposite--lay people with a little backbone to tell the bishops where to get off when they step out of line.

When the sex abuse scandals broke, for instance, the laity should have put away their checkbooks until some heads rolled. Instead they continued to fill the collection baskets. That's not behaving like good Catholics, that's allowing yourselves to be doormats.

[RobbyS]

The sex scandals were caused by disobedience by clergy and laity. It was part of the revolt that followed Vatican II.

[Williams]

If the Church wants a house you own....?? The Church is not taking anyone's house away, we are talking here about a Catholic church. It makes all the sense in the world that church property belong to the Church.

[SaltyJoe]

Funny you mention that, but I have mailed checks to parishes that remain faithful to the Church's teaching. I do this when my work takes me to other less disciplined parishes that are somehow confused over issues like "sin is really really bad for the soul...homosexuality is a sin, ya know." When political priests get confused with word games like "social justice" and "seamless garment", then one can usually smell his intellectual toaster has been burning their brain bread too long...cause fire alarms are going off in mine.

Also, it's good that Church property is sold off when the pews go empty. I'm in an area where a Catholic "community" has 3 very old churches yet can't fill any of them even when all of the schedules are coordinated to (I guess) spread the dough. I'm thinking that it's probably a good time to knock two of them over (after decommissioning them, of course, remove the Sacrament), make a killing on the real estate value, and beef up the remaining. Boston has already done this. It seems that at the rate New England Catholic politicians are diminishing in morals, there will probably be only one or two Churches left there for the sake of an underground safe haven transportation system to move real Catholics to areas that still believe in protecting unborn children.

If "Catholic" politicians can't recognize human life in pregnant woman's belly, then how can they have faith in the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

[ultima ratio]

"The sex scandals were caused by disobedience by clergy and laity. It was part of the revolt that followed Vatican II."

No. The laity had nothing to do causing with the sex scandals. The bishops and the sick priests were to blame, but the bishops primarily--they were in charge of the sickos, they knew what was happening, they covered-up for it, they enabled it, they handed our children over on a silver platter.

The only thing the laity was guilty of was lacking the cajones to do anything but wring their hands and cluck their tongues. When the Pope responded with his own brand of coverup, they gave him a pass. They wanted nothing more than to continue as before, oblivious to the systemic corruption.

[ultima ratio]

A church is a building, a piece of property, it is not the Catholic faith. In fact, these buildings are being routinely turned into cash by bishops selling them. Bishops have no problem thinking of these places as property. Neither should we.

St. Stanislau belongs to the people who own the deed, who paid for it, who were granted this right in perpetuity by the Church herself. If a bishop comes along a hundred years later and wishes to wrest away its ownership, that is stealing.