Posted on 04/26/2007 11:58:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Speaking of things that have nothing to do with canon law, St. Stanislaus' property has nothing to do with canon law considering that the church was signed over to the St. Stanislaus Parish, Inc by Archbishop Peter Kendrick. So the property stopped being a matter of canon law about 120 years ago and became a matter of civil law when the corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Inc. acquired the property from Archbishop Kendrick. This is also why Raymond Burke hasn't seen fit to pursue action in the court.
So they knew there was a "problem" and did nothing. Why? Because at the time, St. Stanislaus had no assets to liquidate. Seems like he's not only the type of man not to ignore an elephant, he's not the kind of man to pass up an opportunity to fill the Archdioscese's coffers.
Why would my feelings be hurt? I'm neither Catholic, nor Polish. Apparently that canon law is very important, so important in fact that every Archbishop of St. Louis but two since the founding and incorporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka has been elevated to the Cardinalate in spite of the "apostasy" of St. Stanislaus. Raymond Burke's claim of being "bound" by canon law is as flimsy as the notion that St. Stanislaus and it's property belong to the Archdioscese.
Wow, the Archbishop remembered to send them a priest. And when the roof was falling in in the 70s, where was the Archbishop then? How about when people were shooting at the church from Pruitt-Igoe? St. Stanislaus had nothing liquid, so the Archdioscese wasn't interested. So, pretty much left to their own devices.
Again, not really. Theft only takes place when one intends to deprive someone else of their property and succeeds in the act. Besides, it's not so much theft as it is extortion. Sign over your property or I'll take your priests. Sign over your property or I'll excommunicate you. Sign over your property or I'll shoot this dog. At least Jesse Jackson has a more realistic angle when he works his extortion rackets.
Of course you have a right to sin, just like you have the right to go to hell, if such is your wish. Even the great Augustine had trouble nailing down precisely where God's beautitude ends and Man's free will begins. But that's something altogether different. According to the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, laymen can administer church funds, with the bishop's approval, which they got when the church property was incorporated.
There would be no parish without the parishoners, just as a shepard isn't a shepard without a flock. St. Stanislaus was all but dead until the parishoners took it on themselves to bring it back to life. I will, however, concede one thing. One priest was helpful in St. Stanislaus' revival. Father Jakle who registered St. Stanislaus as a National Historic Site.
because the darkside is giving them false priorities.
You wrote:
“Apparently he pays very good attention to details when it comes claiming assets for the Archdioscese.”
Burke pays attention to every detail, but didn’t do anything that by law should not have been done.
“Speaking of things that have nothing to do with canon law, St. Stanislaus’ property has nothing to do with canon law considering that the church was signed over to the St. Stanislaus Parish, Inc by Archbishop Peter Kendrick.”
Wrong again. St. Stan’s was a Catholic parish and was therefore ALWAYS subject to canon law no matter who owned the deed.
“So the property stopped being a matter of canon law about 120 years ago and became a matter of civil law when the corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Inc. acquired the property from Archbishop Kendrick.”
Incorrect again. You really have no idea of what you’re talking about. St. Stan’s was a Catholic parish and subject to canon law. There is no such thing as a Catholic parish that is NOT subject to Catholic canon law. Are you next going to claim that the parish was not subject to Catholic theology because it was incorporated?
“This is also why Raymond Burke hasn’t seen fit to pursue action in the court.”
Wrong again. St. Stan’s violated canon law and not civil law. That’s why Burke hasn’t pursued it in court. No matter what St. Stan’s standing in civil law was, however, it still had obligations to meet in regard to canon law.
“So they knew there was a “problem” and did nothing. Why? Because at the time, St. Stanislaus had no assets to liquidate. Seems like he’s not only the type of man not to ignore an elephant, he’s not the kind of man to pass up an opportunity to fill the Archdioscese’s coffers.”
Wrong again. Burke doesn’t need St. Stan’s money, and made clear promises that their money would be protected. Burke is known to be a man of his word. What poorly educated people like yourself don’t know, and don’t care to educate yourselves about is that Burke was the highest ranking American canon lawyer in history. He knows canon law inside and out, and felt obligated to bring St. Stan’s into compliance with the law. He had every right to do so. He was right to do it and no one was going to lose anything by it of any consequence if they value their faith.
“Why would my feelings be hurt? I’m neither Catholic, nor Polish.”
Nor very knowledgeable, nor very good at seeing the difference between one thing and another.
“Apparently that canon law is very important, so important in fact that every Archbishop of St. Louis but two since the founding and incorporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka has been elevated to the Cardinalate in spite of the “apostasy” of St. Stanislaus.”
Wrong again. There has been no apostasy at St. Stan’s. St. Stan’s is in an act of schism. Also, St. Louis’ archbishop being made a cardinal had nothing to do with St. Stan’s, little or nothing to do with the Archbishop and everything to do with what St. Louis once was as a Catholic city.
“Raymond Burke’s claim of being “bound” by canon law is as flimsy as the notion that St. Stanislaus and it’s property belong to the Archdioscese.”
Wrong again. As I just told you, Burke is the highest ranking American canon lawyer in history. As such he certainly does feel bound to follow the law.
“Wow, the Archbishop remembered to send them a priest. And when the roof was falling in in the 70s, where was the Archbishop then?”
Working as an archbishop and sending them their pastors. It is up to the people of the parish to upkeep the parish. It is up to the bishop to staff the parish church with a priest.
“How about when people were shooting at the church from Pruitt-Igoe?”
It is up to the police to police the streets, not the archbishop.
“St. Stanislaus had nothing liquid, so the Archdioscese wasn’t interested. So, pretty much left to their own devices.”
ST. Stan’s is in violation of canon law. It’s just that simple. It’s assets were not an issue as Burke attested to.
“Again, not really. Theft only takes place when one intends to deprive someone else of their property and succeeds in the act. Besides, it’s not so much theft as it is extortion. Sign over your property or I’ll take your priests. Sign over your property or I’ll excommunicate you. Sign over your property or I’ll shoot this dog. At least Jesse Jackson has a more realistic angle when he works his extortion rackets.”
There is no extortion. A parish that is openly disobedient to the shepherd of the diocese deserves no pastor. Your sanctimoniousness is laughable. Would you send someone to work in a place that was openly violating the laws that you yourself had to enforce? Of course you wouldn’t. That would be irrational wouldn’t it? So why would Burke continue to send a priest to a parish that was flouting canon laws that Burke was bound to enforce at the archbishop of the diocese?
“Of course you have a right to sin, just like you have the right to go to hell, if such is your wish.”
Wrong again. No one has a right to do evil. If you have a right to do evil then evil is right to do. We have free will. We have no right, whatsoever, to commit sinful actions. If we had a right to commit sinful actions then it wouldn’t be sinful, wouldn’t result in punishment and would need no redemption.
You seem to have great difficulty in thinking clearly.
“Even the great Augustine had trouble nailing down precisely where God’s beautitude ends and Man’s free will begins.”
He never had any difficulty is drawing the line against allowing free will to be interpreted as a license to commit evil actions. We simply have no right to commit evil.
“But that’s something altogether different. According to the First Plenary Council of Baltimore, laymen can administer church funds, with the bishop’s approval, which they got when the church property was incorporated.”
Irrelevant. The First Plenary Council of Baltimore is not the final say in canon law. St. Stan’s claimed to be a Catholic parish in the diocese of St. Louis. It is, therefore, subject to the archbishop of St. Louis and canon law. Again, you really have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“There would be no parish without the parishoners, just as a shepard isn’t a shepard without a flock. St. Stanislaus was all but dead until the parishoners took it on themselves to bring it back to life. I will, however, concede one thing. One priest was helpful in St. Stanislaus’ revival. Father Jakle who registered St. Stanislaus as a National Historic Site.”
And St. Stan’s was subject to canon law as a Catholic parish. Case closed. Burke is right. And you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that you don't know what "canon law" St. Stanislaus supposedly violated. St. Stanislaus neither defied his ecclesiastic authority nor did they incite "hatred" against the Holy See or the Ordinary (Burke). Burke's command was no more legitimate than if he had stopped a random Catholic in the street and demanded the deed to their house or be denied the sacraments. Not to mention any good American would frown on Ex Post Facto law, whether it came from Jefferson City, Washington D.C., or Rome.
I'm not to going to run through the rest because you repeat the same thing like a mantra. Canon law, canon law, and what's that, more canon law. No citation, reference, or proof. "Raymond Burke is a 'good man' and "it's canon law."
Burke doesn't need St. Stanislaus' money? That's funny in light of the Archdioscese of St. Louis spending roughly $9 million defending itself from case claims of sex abuse and legal costs. And who should happen to be worth at least $9 million dollars easily? St. Stanislaus Kostka church.
So please, by all means, repeat that mantra that has no definitive meaning to you except as a cudgel and to the Archbishop except as leverage, ("canon law", "canon law", "canon law"). Canon law is neither infalliable, like any other law devised by man, is neither infalliable nor unchanging (if 1917 and 1983 are any indications). Along with your canon law mantra, repeat this one too. "Unjust laws are, properly speaking, no laws." - St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church.
I would have tango-tangled with her...until I learned that she doesn’t clean her muffin after using it.
You wrote:
“I see from your sorry attempts to refute my argument throwing out the rather general and ambiguous “canon law” that none of your dear associate’s humility and Christian devotion rubbed off on you.”
You never made an argument. You posted points that couldn’t amount to an argument no matter how long you played with them. Also, I never claimed to be as good a Christian as Archbishop Burke, nor would I.
“As a matter of fact, I’d be willing to bet that you don’t know what “canon law” St. Stanislaus supposedly violated.”
Can. 1255, 1257, 1273, 1276, 1280, 1281, 1284 and 1287 immediately come to mind.
“St. Stanislaus neither defied his ecclesiastic authority nor did they incite “hatred” against the Holy See or the Ordinary (Burke).”
Actually, St. Stan’s did both. 1) They defied his authority by ignoring his orders. How much more plain could it be? If St. Stan’s DID NOT defy his authority then it wouldn’t be in schism NOW!!!! That’s essentially what the Vatican said when it ruled that Burke had acted appropriately against St. Stan’s rebels. 2) St. Stan’s has consistently lied and said that this was about Burke trying to steal their property. To lie about a man and claim his actions were of the basest character when they were not is clearly an act of hatred.
“Burke’s command was no more legitimate than if he had stopped a random Catholic in the street and demanded the deed to their house or be denied the sacraments.”
Wrong. Your analogy completely fails you. Again, you forget that we are talking about a Catholic parish here. If it claims to be a Catholic parish then it should act as one and respect the canon law it comes under as a Catholic parish. You keep avoiding this point because you know it destroys your “argument”. You don’t have any argument whatsoever until you acknowledge that this was a functioning Catholic parish and not a Protestant’s personal backyard chapel.
“Not to mention any good American would frown on Ex Post Facto law, whether it came from Jefferson City, Washington D.C., or Rome.”
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what Americans think about this or any other Church action. The Church is here for Christians no matter what country they are from.
“I’m not to going to run through the rest because you repeat the same thing like a mantra. Canon law, canon law, and what’s that, more canon law. No citation, reference, or proof. “Raymond Burke is a ‘good man’ and “it’s canon law.””
You can’t do any better going through the “rest” than you did not presenting an “argument” for anything so far. Again, you dismiss canon law when canon law is the key since the parish claimed to be a Catholic parish and was staffed for the last 100 years by Catholic priests. You can ignore that huge canon law elephant in the room all you like. You won’t be able to argue rationally by doing so, but that won’t be anything new now would it?
“Burke doesn’t need St. Stanislaus’ money? That’s funny in light of the Archdioscese of St. Louis spending roughly $9 million defending itself from case claims of sex abuse and legal costs. And who should happen to be worth at least $9 million dollars easily? St. Stanislaus Kostka church.”
Again, irrelevant. St. Louis is a BIG archdiocese. It will be able to cover the costs of those cases. Burke doesn’t need St. Stan’s money. Wherever Burke goes, donations follow. Burke is orthodox and attracts orthodox Catholics. Those Catholics donate to his diocese and causes. St. Louis will not need St. Stan’s money, said it didn’t want it, and Burke is banned by canon law from taking it anyway as he has emphatically pointed out more than once! Burke wrote in his own newspaper column on May 14, 2004: “Regarding parish funds, no bishop may confiscate the funds of any parish. Such action is directly forbidden by the Code of Canon Law. The ownership of goods acquired by a parish belongs to the parish and is governed by Church discipline (cf. Can. 1255-1257).” Clearly Burke is not interested in St. Stan’s money and knows it is forbidden him anyway.
“So please, by all means, repeat that mantra that has no definitive meaning to you except as a cudgel and to the Archbishop except as leverage, (”canon law”, “canon law”, “canon law”).”
In other words, you don’t know canon law, can’t argue about canon law, and still are making the same stupid mistake in assuming a canon law issue isn’t a canon law issue. It was a Catholic parish. It therefore was bound by canon law. Period.
“Canon law is neither infalliable, like any other law devised by man, is neither infalliable nor unchanging (if 1917 and 1983 are any indications).”
It doesn’t matter that you think the code isn’t infallible. It is the code of canon law and all Catholics are bound by it. Are you going to claim that Americans are not bound by American law because it’s fallible? Your “argument” is simply nuts then isn’t it? Also, if you’re going to squeal like a little girl over the fact that canon law has changed then why not at least admit there might be a problem with the fact that St. Stan’s unilaterally changed their bylaws several times in just the last few decades. But no, you say nothing.
“Along with your canon law mantra, repeat this one too. “Unjust laws are, properly speaking, no laws.” - St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church.”
St. Stan’s was not hurt by any “unjust” law. St. Stan’s is alone in the world really isn’t it? How is it that every other Catholic parish on the planet lived just fine with the law except St. Stan’s? And how do you think Cardinal Bellarmine would regard schismatic St. Stan’s?
Then you have spent more time thinking up a reply than reading.
Can. 1255, 1257, 1273, 1276, 1280, 1281, 1284 and 1287 immediately come to mind.
Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant.
Actually, St. Stan’s did both. 1) They defied his authority by ignoring his orders. How much more plain could it be? If St. Stan’s DID NOT defy his authority then it wouldn’t be in schism NOW!!!! That’s essentially what the Vatican said when it ruled that Burke had acted appropriately against St. Stan’s rebels. 2) St. Stan’s has consistently lied and said that this was about Burke trying to steal their property. To lie about a man and claim his actions were of the basest character when they were not is clearly an act of hatred.
The actual act of "schism" came after the conflict started, which was hiring their own priest from Ste. Genevieve, which resulted in automatic excommunication. Not before.
Wrong. Your analogy completely fails you. Again, you forget that we are talking about a Catholic parish here. If it claims to be a Catholic parish then it should act as one and respect the canon law it comes under as a Catholic parish. You keep avoiding this point because you know it destroys your “argument”. You don’t have any argument whatsoever until you acknowledge that this was a functioning Catholic parish and not a Protestant’s personal backyard chapel.
They did respect canon law, right up until Raymond Burke yanked their priest. After which, according to Catholic hierarchy, they were no longer a parish. Considering that the administration of a parish can be handled by a priest, a deacon, even a layman, your protest is pointless because administration is the ultimate issue.
Again, irrelevant. St. Louis is a BIG archdiocese. It will be able to cover the costs of those cases. Burke doesn’t need St. Stan’s money. Wherever Burke goes, donations follow. Burke is orthodox and attracts orthodox Catholics. Those Catholics donate to his diocese and causes. St. Louis will not need St. Stan’s money, said it didn’t want it, and Burke is banned by canon law from taking it anyway as he has emphatically pointed out more than once! Burke wrote in his own newspaper column on May 14, 2004: “Regarding parish funds, no bishop may confiscate the funds of any parish. Such action is directly forbidden by the Code of Canon Law. The ownership of goods acquired by a parish belongs to the parish and is governed by Church discipline (cf. Can. 1255-1257).” Clearly Burke is not interested in St. Stan’s money and knows it is forbidden him anyway.
A bishop can shut down a church and liquidate its assets. Given the number of churches and schools closing down in the Archdioscese, I am apt to believe that there is either a financial problem, or the Archdioscese is shoring up its funds and at least $9 million would be helpful in either regard.
In other words, you don’t know canon law, can’t argue about canon law, and still are making the same stupid mistake in assuming a canon law issue isn’t a canon law issue. It was a Catholic parish. It therefore was bound by canon law. Period.
Until the previous post, you didn't present any specific canon law for scrutiny, so...kind of hard to argue over generalities.
It doesn’t matter that you think the code isn’t infallible. It is the code of canon law and all Catholics are bound by it. Are you going to claim that Americans are not bound by American law because it’s fallible? Your “argument” is simply nuts then isn’t it? Also, if you’re going to squeal like a little girl over the fact that canon law has changed then why not at least admit there might be a problem with the fact that St. Stan’s unilaterally changed their bylaws several times in just the last few decades. But no, you say nothing.
American law does not claim to be backed by the will of divinity. Canon law does. Apples and oranges. Squeal like a little girl? Your friend Burke needs to work on you.
St. Stan’s was not hurt by any “unjust” law. St. Stan’s is alone in the world really isn’t it? How is it that every other Catholic parish on the planet lived just fine with the law except St. Stan’s? And how do you think Cardinal Bellarmine would regard schismatic St. Stan’s?
Most parishes are owned by their Dioscese or Archdioscese so the question is irrelevant. As to what St. Robert Bellarime would say as to the situation with St. Stanislaus Kostka, I can't say. Maybe something about both parties allowing wealth and material goods coming between both parties and veneration of God.
I'm just going to shut this down now, because it's really getting boring. Someone else brought it to my attention that my position is incorrect for the following reason. St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Inc., in their original agreement with the Archdioscese of St. Louis that put the property in the hands of the board, had bylaws that stated the board would be comprised of laymen and the president and treasurer of the board would be the priest, all of whom would be appointed by the Archbishop. The corporation owned the property and could act, but the Archbishop gets to pick the people. Anyway, the board decided to change the bylaws and effectively cut the Archbishop out of the process, essentially saying that the board would appoint its own members, save for the priest. They tried to rewrite a legal agreement without the approval of the first party.
Oh well. I was wrong on this one. Life will go on.
You wrote:
“Then you have spent more time thinking up a reply than reading.”
There wasn’t much to read. And what there was to read, written by you, contained NO argument.
“Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant.”
You asked what canon laws were involved. I listed some that come to mind. If the answer is irrelevant when it directly answered your question, then the question must have been irrelevant to begin with.
“The actual act of “schism” came after the conflict started, which was hiring their own priest from Ste. Genevieve, which resulted in automatic excommunication. Not before.”
I didn’t say otherwise. I wrote: “If St. Stan’s DID NOT defy his authority then it wouldn’t be in schism NOW!!!!”
Clearly St. Stan’s was in formal schism only the excommunications, but it was deep in the spirit of schism beforehand. The spirit of schism has to be there before the act.
“They did respect canon law, right up until Raymond Burke yanked their priest.”
Nonsense. If the parish respected canon law then it wouldn’t have lost its pastor in the first place! St. Stan’s REFUSED to reform its recently amended bylaws to bring them into conformity with canon law. How you can say otherwise when it is KNOWN BY EVERYONE that that is exactly what happened is beyond me.
“After which, according to Catholic hierarchy, they were no longer a parish. Considering that the administration of a parish can be handled by a priest, a deacon, even a layman, your protest is pointless because administration is the ultimate issue.”
That’s EXACTLY what I have been saying. The appointed pastor of a Catholic parish is THE ADMINISTRATOR of that parish as established by canon law. He is the administrator of Church property at a Catholic parish. St. Stan’s schismatic board was deliberately refusing to accept that canonical authority. That’s the whole point.
“A bishop can shut down a church and liquidate its assets. Given the number of churches and schools closing down in the Archdioscese, I am apt to believe that there is either a financial problem, or the Archdioscese is shoring up its funds and at least $9 million would be helpful in either regard.”
Can you show any evidence at all that Burke was after the parish’s money? Any at all? Can you show any evidence at all that Burke had any plans to close St. Stan’s any time in the future? No such evidence has come to light and Burke has specifically denied having any such intentions. Only a man with a sick mind would insinuate Burke would do something that is not in his nature, and that he specifically and publicly denied. You have consistently insinuated that Burke had some sort of nefarious purpose without a single shred of evidence. Why would you do that? Why would you do that especially when you don’t know him, are clearly not familiar with what’s happened with St. Stan’s, and have no idea about the issues involved? What kind of hubris would allow you to slander this man in such a way?
“Until the previous post, you didn’t present any specific canon law for scrutiny, so...kind of hard to argue over generalities.”
So you didn’t know what canons were even involved. No surprise there. Of course, not knowing anything about the subject didn’t actually stop you from posting about time and time again. But why let a serious lack of knowledge get in the way of making a really poor attempt at an argument right?
“American law does not claim to be backed by the will of divinity. Canon law does.”
No, it doesn’t. Again, we see that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. Read the code and you’ll see that God isn’t even mentioned in it (except for the constitution at the beginning issued by John Paul II). No one believes that canon law is infallible or inspired.
“Apples and oranges. Squeal like a little girl? Your friend Burke needs to work on you.”
He probably should, but who then would work on you? You need to read, and maybe start thinking too!!!
“Most parishes are owned by their Dioscese or Archdioscese so the question is irrelevant.”
ALL parishes are supposed to be administered by the local diocese. ALL. That’s exactly what the problem was with St. Stan’s.
“As to what St. Robert Bellarime would say as to the situation with St. Stanislaus Kostka, I can’t say. Maybe something about both parties allowing wealth and material goods coming between both parties and veneration of God.”
Nope. St. Robert Bellarmine, one of the greatest enemies of schism in the history of the Church, would have denounced St. Stan’s BOARD for materialism. No materialism has been shown whatsoever by Burke or the Archdiocese. Burke just wants the parish to be disobedient. St. Stan’s, on the other hand, puts their private ecclesiastical empire before obedience to the Catholic Church, Church law, communion with the archbishop, or even being in communion with the Church. It is only a matter of time before they slide into heresy – as happens with all schismatics.
“I’m just going to shut this down now, because it’s really getting boring. Someone else brought it to my attention that my position is incorrect for the following reason. St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish Inc., in their original agreement with the Archdioscese of St. Louis that put the property in the hands of the board, had bylaws that stated the board would be comprised of laymen and the president and treasurer of the board would be the priest, all of whom would be appointed by the Archbishop. The corporation owned the property and could act, but the Archbishop gets to pick the people. Anyway, the board decided to change the bylaws and effectively cut the Archbishop out of the process, essentially saying that the board would appoint its own members, save for the priest. They tried to rewrite a legal agreement without the approval of the first party. Oh well. I was wrong on this one. Life will go on.”
Life will go on. Will you learn from it? You insisted, in post after post, with no argument in sight, and completely dismissing canon law even though you know nothing about it and it is at the heart of the matter, that you were right. Now you know better. Will you learn from it?
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.