* If the parishioners committed some acts of liturgical, theological or moral abuses at St. Stanislaus, Burke would have definitely gained ethical grounds for his actions against the parish. But it didn't happen.
* If the torrents of lawsuits against St. Louis Archdiocese and all dioceses across the USA didn't start in 2001 resulting in closures and sales of many parishes, St. Stanislaus board would have no business protecting it by the said change of bylaws. But the lawsuits did happen.
Roman Catholic Bishop is not a "property manager", or a "corporation sole". Bishop is a religious leader and shepherd of Christ's flock.
Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
You wrote: "There are two important "ifs" and two "buts" for your consideration."
Save your "ifs" and "buts". Stick to reality and not your silly ideas.
"If the parishioners committed some acts of liturgical, theological or moral abuses at St. Stanislaus, Burke would have definitely gained ethical grounds for his actions against the parish. But it didn't happen."
Who are you to create categories in which St. Stan's disobedient members can legitimately be disobedient? Where did you ever get that nutty idea? That's how a liberal thinks. That's not how a Catholic thinks. You conveniently left out the incredibly important category (in your scheme) of authority. St. Stan's acted out of the bounds of its authority. Burke has not.
"If the torrents of lawsuits against St. Louis Archdiocese and all dioceses across the USA didn't start in 2001 resulting in closures and sales of many parishes, St. Stanislaus board would have no business protecting it by the said change of bylaws. But the lawsuits did happen."
And that is irrelevant. St. Stan's was part of the same diocese as everyone else in St. Louis. Deal with it. No matter what lawsuits were filed by whoever, over whatever, St. Stan's had exactly NO authority to change an agreement with the diocese, and ignore canon law. Deal with it.
"Roman Catholic Bishop is not a "property manager", or a "corporation sole". Bishop is a religious leader and shepherd of Christ's flock."
What planet are you from? Do shepherds have an obligation to manage their flocks, maintain their folds, feed their sheep, guide them to pasture, protect them from dangers, etc.? Do you think those are simply "spiritual" metaphors? They have a physical component since we are PHYSICAL BEINGS. You brought up the 1983 Code. Ever read the section on property? I remember when I had to write a paper on the section on property alienation some time ago. Do you think bishops have nothing to do with that? You are not well informed on these issues.
"Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money."
And Burke is all of those things. His sole bride is the Archdiocese of St. Louis. He is not a lover of money either. This isn't about money. He made that clear enough. This is about liberals pretending to be Catholics, who will soon be supporting gay marriages, contraception, abortion, and every other sickening thing that rebels like them always end up supporting. Deal with it. I think Burke was incredibly patient with them. He's getting to be a vertible softy in his fifties.