St Louis - local diocese excommunicating catholic leaders

[DJPoopypants]

Is this more inline with what the board is to be about? It's not intended as anti-catholic.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/209216.html

...Archbishop Burke decided that no matter what past Archbishops have done, he wasn't going to put up with this flouting of church authority. One of his first acts was to order St. Stanislaus Kostka Church's board of directors to deed the church over to the diocese, and gave them a fairly short deadline to comply or risk excommunication. They called his bluff, betting that no Catholic official would have the guts to excommunicate an entire congregation over an administrative issue, not a doctrinal one. So he fired a warning shot by firing their priest, forcing him to retire. They responded by hiring their own Catholic priest, which shocked him to the core. Individual congregations don't do that. Worse, to accept the job, to move between parishes, the priest they hired need permission from his own superiors, which he was denied. He moved anyway, calling their bluff, betting that no Catholic official would get away with excommunicating a church over an administrative issue, not a doctrinal issue.

Burke responded by excommunicating him and the entire board of directors. The new priest and the board decided to go ahead and hold Sunday mass anyway. Roughly 2000 people showed up, far more than St. Stanislaus has drawn in decades. This so shocked Burke, and enraged him, that the other day he went the final step, and evicted the church from the diocese altogether, in essence declaring that any Catholic who so much as attended a rebel congregation and accepted the sacraments from a rebel priest working for a rebel board was, themselves, excommunicate.

Very interesting, don't ya think? If I was there, I'd show up, just for the bragging rights of saying 'yeah, I was excommunicated once'.

Somehow I doubt the church would like to see much attention paid to this...but I also think the author is deluded in visualizing a schism and a new reformation of american catholics. Or is there pro-schism feeling among a lot of american catholics, kinda like the problems the episcopalians are having?

Or we could always go back to talking about homosexuality and buggering young boys if that's more interesting.

[The Blind Pig]

cool

wish i still lived there

i'd be up for getting excommunicated... be one of those things i could mark off before i go


i'd say they should stick to their guns... f the bishop

[DevilDave]

And here I thought in this day and age that excommunication was a rare thing. What a seemingly petty thing to do just because the diocese doesn't control the finances and the property. I have to wonder as well, does the diocese have someone posted outside the church taking names of people who take communion there as well?

This is the bit in Hicks' blog entry that I, as a practicing (but liberal-minded) American Catholic find most striking:


Ever since the current pope, who was Chief Inquisitor at the time, began spearheading a counter-revolution against the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, he has been powerfully unpopular here in St. Louis, and in many places in the United States. One of the things I've been seeing a lot for the last 20 years, and more and more as the years go by, is American and European Catholics who describe themselves as "Catholic, but ...." Catholic, but evangelical. Catholic, but Pentacostal. Catholic, but gay or lesbian. Catholic, but not practicing. Catholic, but not observant. Catholic, but also Pagan. Catholic, but not strict. Catholic, but in disagreement with one or more recent doctrinal pronouncements. Catholic, but pro-choice. Catholic, but OK with artificial birth control. In other words, what they all boil down to is one variation or another on, "Catholic, but not willing to accept the authority of the Pope and his designated surrogates." Or, to be blunt, Catholic, but disobedient.

For those of you who've missed the significance of this, they fought a several hundred year war in Europe over this. It was called the Reformation, and Catholic or ex-Catholic theologians so firmly and consistently insisted on the right of each believer, or at least of each local church and priest, to interpret God's word and will for themselves, despite intense opposition from the Vatican and legal opposition from Vatican-obedient civil governments, that vast seas of blood were shed on both sides. To the extent the war was ever concluded, the conclusion was this: you don't get to say that and still call yourself Catholic.

But what else are you going to call someone who is obedient in general to a thousand years of Catholic doctrine, including many specific doctrines that are unique to Catholicism? Who also reveres the Virgin Mary and many other Catholic saints, and celebrates them on their Catholic-designated holy days? Who thoroughly believes in, and seeks, all seven of the Catholic sacraments according to long-held Catholic traditional doctrine and the practices long-prescribed by church law? And who self-identifies as a Catholic? That's what's really going on with all of the hedging of "Catholic, but."

Could there be a schism in the church? I can't rule out the possibility, but I think the initial push for change will come from within first. The church has tried to suppress movements like Liberation Theology (with its focus on social justice and neo-Marxist flavor) without much success.

I don't think the Church is in a position to excommunicate all dissenters, but if it does... it will be the end of the church (at least in America) as we know it.

[DoctorD]

I did some internet searching of this. Is this what is happening?

St. SK is one of or the only parish in the whole US where the parish buildings are not owned by the diocese.

St. SK is well maintained and in good shape although most of its parishoners do not live anywhere near it.

St. SK parishoners fear that if the diocese gets title to the buildings they will close the parish.

St. SK hired its own priest to run things dispite the disapproval of that priest's superior.

If indeed the parish would be closed by the bishop, it would be a painful thing: they always are. What I would like to know is the kind of outreach this parish makes to blacks and Hispanics, who are its true neighbors and might be considered the "oppressed" of today just as the Polish considered themselves oppressed before. The parishoners seem overly proud if they are the only parish in the country to be self owned and want to keep it that way.

I would imagine the practical value of excommunicating the entire parish is that the parishoners would be treated as if they were non-Catholic by the rest of the Church - like for marriages and the like. Or for enrolling their kids at another parochial school. Plus, I wonder if the parish, despite being self-owned, got any kind of group rates on health and property insurance from the diocese.

[The Blind Pig]

i do believe there are others... started under the same ideas


needed a church, so the members paid for it... diocese never assumed control... although, i believe they have been getting back most of them... this parish has been sought after for years...

and so far, the excommunication hasn't worked... and i don't think it will... i think it will rally area catholics behind it... hell, i want to drive 3+ hours just to do this

[JBigjake]

Even if the Archbishop is correct in his theology, he certainly is not handling this in a diplomatic manner & has a lot to learn. The RC Church is a hierarchy; each bishop is supposed to control his diocese. However, there are always churches and even parishes run by religous orders, who usually own & control their own buildings. (IIRC, schools are a different matter, orders of nuns were usually recruited and did not even own their convents.) The history of the church in America includes the establishment of many parishes/churches dedicated to various ethnic or national groups. The mainsteam parishes were for the most part controlled by Irish or Germans, while Italian & Eastern Europeans often built their own churches & schools, generally importing their own priests as well. In many cities, such as St. Louis, any sizable ethnic group did this. The divide between these churches was great. People did & do identify strongly with their ethnic church. As demographics changed, these ethnic churches have often become stranded deep in urban areas, reached only on Sundays by most of the faithful. Still, a viable church should be permitted to thrive & change should be gradual & non-confrontational. Perhaps this church can locate an order of Polish priests willing to staff the church. although there are some canon law requirements to enter the geographical diocese. That would be the best solution. (Even better might be a couple of Polish-speaking Nigerians, educated in a Polish seminary!)

[Roel]

If you are ex-communicated, doesn't that mean you think you are going to hell?

Heavy punishment, even for people carrying around supersititions and living their lives trying to impress invisible super-heroes in the sky.

[The Blind Pig]

i'm all for being excommunicated over this


how freaking ridiculous is it go to hell so a bishop can control more money


if only baby jesus would show up and beat the parishoners

[christopher d]

Very similar to a situation ongoing in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. Three parishes have decided that the Diocese is too far left for their spiritual comfort -- to the point of calling Diocesan and Church-wide happenings heterodoxical -- and have broken away from the Diocese of Los Angeles. They are being tended to by a sympathetic African bishop (The African churches in the Anglican Communion are notoriously anti-gay), and consider themselves part of that Diocese.

Problem arises when considering the material value of the real estate in question. Long Beach (nice neighborhood therein), Santa Ana, and Laguna Beach are nothing to sneeze at. The Diocese wants what it believes is its property back (ie: don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, but the buildings are ours), while the parishes believe the real estate belongs to them.

As of now, the parishes are winning: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-ocbriefs13jan13,0,1369726.story?coll=la-commun-los_angeles_metro

I imagine this will go farther in the court system, though.

[DJPoopypants]

Very similar to a situation ongoing in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. Three parishes have decided that the Diocese is too far left for their spiritual comfort -- to the point of calling Diocesan and Church-wide happenings heterodoxical -- and have broken away from the Diocese of Los Angeles. They are being tended to by a sympathetic African bishop (The African churches in the Anglican Communion are notoriously anti-gay), and consider themselves part of that Diocese.

Problem arises when considering the material value of the real estate in question. Long Beach (nice neighborhood therein), Santa Ana, and Laguna Beach are nothing to sneeze at. The Diocese wants what it believes is its property back (ie: don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, but the buildings are ours), while the parishes believe the real estate belongs to them.

As of now, the parishes are winning: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-ocbriefs13jan13,0,1369726.story?coll=la-commun-los_angeles_metro

I imagine this will go farther in the court system, though.

Yeah, but that's all lawyer stuff. The catholics bring hell and eternal damnation into the equation, which makes for better tv.

Actually - can anyone educate me on the practical application of excommunication/interdict here? Its been awhile...

Interdict means that the church is closed, excommunication means a person cannot receive the sacrament, right?

So I can see the bishop excommunicating the local leaders and new priest. That means they cannot receive communion, ergo them giving out communion cannot occur. I guess without the grace of god, the bread and wine don't transform or something.

But the overall congregation of the church - they can still go to the next church and get communion that is valid, right? But if they take communion from an excommunicated priest, its just plain bread and wine.

So somebody going to the church just because of this is really not meaningful as they are not excommunicated, just willfully skipping a valid communion - right?

[Riz]

Interdict means that the church is closed, excommunication means a person cannot receive the sacrament, right?

Actually, interdict is like excommunication light - you are denied some or all of the sacraments and you are unable to participate in the ritual/rites, however you are still "in communion" with the church.

And it is all sacraments - not just the sacrament of communion - that you are denied when you are excommunicated. Which then poses the question that if the priests are excommunicated do their holy orders still "count" (ie is the excommunication retroactive?), or do they also have to have their vows dispensed?

[DJPoopypants]

Actually, interdict is like excommunication light - you are denied some or all of the sacraments and you are unable to participate in the ritual/rites, however you are still "in communion" with the church.

Really? That makes no sense, does it? A person "in communion", but unable to take the sacrament, or get last rites, baptism, etc...well, you're going to hell. There's no big stick there for the people to rebel against the leader who sparked the interdict..

And it is all sacraments - not just the sacrament of communion - that you are denied when you are excommunicated. Which then poses the question that if the priests are excommunicated do their holy orders still "count" (ie is the excommunication retroactive?), or do they also have to have their vows dispensed?

I'd guess the logical answer would be a priest who is excommunicated has no power to bestow god's blessing during any rites. Any performance of communion would be plain bread and wine, not God's body/blood.

A person would be unable to receive god's blessing if they were excommunicated - again - god's body/blood turns back to nothing in the mouth.

I'm no catholic scholar tho. Weird stuff, huh?

[Samarkand]

A person "in communion", but unable to take the sacrament, or get last rites, baptism, etc...well, you're going to hell.
I think you'll find that how most Catholics live. Go to Mass but not communion, confession and so on. And when/if they need anything further - baptism, wedding - then they make a special effort and then fade back into the crowd. The difference being that they don't have the option for the other stuff.

[dmar]

Where do I sign to be excommunicated?

I tried to apostatise and the archbishop of Madrid tried to keep me going in circles.

[The Blind Pig]

Really? That makes no sense, does it? A person "in communion", but unable to take the sacrament, or get last rites, baptism, etc...well, you're going to hell. There's no big stick there for the people to rebel against the leader who sparked the interdict..

its' not called last rites and they aren't imperative to have in order to make it to heaven... i think it's more closely called anointing of the sick


i'd wager that the catholic church is so far up themselves, 90% or more of their followers deem them exactly the same as americans deem our politicians... corrupt, evil, completely worthless, but someone's got to be the head of something, and occassionally they *might* do a good deed