That's pretty clueless. Read the news on St. Satnislaus and enlighten yourself if you wish to take part in the discussion, it's available now all over the Internet.
There is no excuse for what Burke did to the 130-year old Roman Catholic parish.
You are pretty clueless. You're the one who was saying that the Archbishop wanted the property, that all the parish was doing was preserving their 19th century structure, blah, blah. Here are some of your "informed" pontifications from previous threads (Exhibits 1, 2, 3):
1. "On the other hand the people at St. Stanislaus are perfectly correct in not giving up their property"2. "Things were set 120 years ago for perpetuity and were running healthily - that is until Burke came along and fixed them with his 'authority'."
3. "Instead of fighting for their property Burke could follow the good example and turn all his parishes into financially semi-independent 'corporations' retaining his power in appointment of the pastors."
4. "The parish is 125 years old and so is its system of management; that is older than Burke and older than the, so frequently mentioned, 1983 Code of Canon Law."
The facts:
1. Archbishop Burke was not asking that the property be given up,
2. Actually, the parish board rewrote the bylaws (contrary to an explicit provision in them preventing their amendment against any rule of the St. Louis diocese) to remove the authority of the Archbishop,
3. Burke was not fighting for their property, and shortly after his arrival in St. Louis, he had all the parishes restructured as non-profit corporations,
4. The parish's system of management (lay rule) is not 125 years old, but is a result of the above-mentioned amendments to the bylaws made by the board of directors.
There is no excuse for spreading easily checkable falsehoods about Archbishop Burke (according to you a "faithless villian") and St. Stanislaus Parish.
Anyone wishing to check on the validity of IBINB's statements can check the St. Louis Archdiocese website, where they have all the documents showing that he just doesn't have a clue, and clearly doesn't want one (it's so much easier to go around calling a Catholic Archbishop a "faithless villain"). A simple introduction is the following document: Progression of the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation.
You are entirely misinformed on the subject of St Stanislaus. Perhaps you should study the "entire" history of the situation which the St Stan's website conveniently omits.
You wrote: "That's pretty clueless. Read the news on St. Satnislaus and enlighten yourself if you wish to take part in the discussion, it's available now all over the Internet."
I, unlike you, am not dependent upon the MSM or even the internet for my understanding of what is going on in St. Louis. I clearly understand the situation better than you do. Notice how you did not actually dispute any of the points I made?
"There is no excuse for what Burke did to the 130-year old Roman Catholic parish." Burke needs no excuse. He is the proper authority in the diocese. The parish lay leaders are violating canon law. There is no excuse for that. They have also been thoroughly dishonest and have repeatedly tried to make this an issue about money when the money isn't leaving the parish. The layboard is in a state of rebellion. They refused to obey canon law. They refused to follow tradition. They refused to be obedient. When they didn't like what they were told they created a new sect. They are in a state of schism. There's no excuse for that -- EVER.