Posted on 01/10/2011 7:27:02 AM PST by Alex Murphy
In 1891, Archbishop Peter Kenrick agreed to allow the laity of the St. Louis Polish Catholic community to form a corporation that would govern the church's finances. Kenrick's move was not unusual at a time when immigrants often formed their own Catholic communities to buy land and build a church. By the 20th century, bishops had assumed control of most of those parishes around the country.
St. Louis archbishops through the decades made half-hearted attempts to get St. Stanislaus to fall in line, but it was the clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted in Boston in 2002 that ultimately prompted the archdiocese to make a hard charge at regaining control.
In the wake of the abuse scandal, many dioceses around the country began changing their legal structures. The traditional "corporation sole" structure put all diocesan and parish assets in the bishop's name, which, in civil courts, made all of a diocese's funds liable in legal settlements.
In the corporation sole structure, parishes are considered unincorporated associations without identities separate from the diocese. By incorporating individual parishes, dioceses could protect their property and assets from lawsuits naming the bishop.
In June 2003, Archbishop Justin Rigali, now a cardinal and the archbishop of Philadelphia, announced a massive legal restructuring of the Archdiocese of St. Louis that would transform each parish from an unincorporated association to a nonprofit corporation. Rigali hoped St. Stanislaus, like every other parish, would go along with the changes, but parishioners were unwilling to give up the deal it made with Kenrick.
Rigali was transferred to Philadelphia soon after announcing the legal changes, and it fell to Archbishop Raymond Burke, Rigali's successor, to deal with St. Stanislaus.
In the church's original bylaws, its lay board controlled the property and assets while the archbishop appointed its board members and a
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
In the corporation sole structure, parishes are considered unincorporated associations without identities separate from the diocese. By incorporating individual parishes, dioceses could protect their property and assets from lawsuits naming the bishop.
In June 2003, Archbishop Justin Rigali, now a cardinal and the archbishop of Philadelphia, announced a massive legal restructuring of the Archdiocese of St. Louis that would transform each parish from an unincorporated association to a nonprofit corporation. Rigali hoped St. Stanislaus, like every other parish, would go along with the changes, but parishioners were unwilling to give up the deal it made [in 1891, wherein the church's lay board controlled the property and assets] with [then-Archbishop Peter Kenrick].
Related threads re St. Stan:
Attorneys for Archdiocese Demanded Recusal of Gay Judge, Records Show
Church Fires Blast at Illinois Law Firm [lawsuit filed against Catholic "St. Stanislaus Corp"]
Rebellious Priests and their followers (Catholic Caucus)
Excommunicated Priest Marek Bozek Joined Group Tied to the Moonies
Two more face excommunication at St. Stan
An Archdiocesan Synopsis of the St. Stanislaus Issue
Response to Archbishop's Interdict
An Appeal from a Group of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parishioners
Burke formally denies sacraments to defiant board
1 Corinthians 6:1-11 (Douay-Rheims)
(1)DARE any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? (2)Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (3)Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world? (4)If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church. (5)I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man, that is able to judge between his brethren? (6)But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers.
(7)Already indeed there is plainly a fault among you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? (8)But you do wrong and defraud, and that to your brethren.
(9)Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, (10)Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (11)And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.
St. Stan’s UNfaithful have been defying the diocese for over a century. They have embraced heresy as well.
Amen and Amen!
“All scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof; for correction,for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
bump 4 l8r
More than a century?
They had a contract, from 1891, giving them control over the church building they had built --- with their own funds & labor. They were NOT "defying" the Diocese. If they were, where's the record, going back a century indicating such?
It wasn't until Burke came along and tried to force them into surrendering to the Archdiocese the extent of control they had always enjoyed, that the lawsuits & excommunications followed.
The Vatican (through the various Diocese's) succeeded in taking control of pretty much all the other older congregations in the U.S.'s, property & monetary affairs (who had arrangements similar to St. Stans in that the control of the property and finances were in the hands of the laity) which they had an interest in taking control of, with the last major round being in 1987, according to reports.
St. Stans in St. Louis squeaked by somehow, even at that late date, but not much was mentioned about it, as far as I can tell. If it was, where's the record?
To be charitable towards your claim, perhaps at that point, one could say they were in defiance of some sort after 1987, but before? Why exaggerate?
Can you show me a single thing, stipulating the St. Stans's in St. Louis in particular, that indicates in any way they were in open "defiance", prior to say, 1994?
If not, then please retract and/or modify your statement, your choice...
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.