« Peace is flowing | Main | Trying to Help »
January 04, 2005
Interdict!
Archbishop Burke makes a point
St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke has threatened each of the six members of the board of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish with the canon law penalty of interdict.
Monsignor Thomas J. Green, professor of canon law at Catholic University described interdict as a “mini excommunication.”
“I warn you that your refusal to comply with the legitimate directives of the Holy See and me, your Archbishop, carries with it, the punishment of ‘interdict or other just penalties,’” wrote Burke in a letter to the board members that was obtained by the Post-Dispatch today. The archbishop set a date of Feb. 4 for the board to comply with his directives.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345a015f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interdict!:
» Archbishop Threatens to Withold Sacraments from Extreme Catholic
As I learned more details about this controversy I moved from my initial position supporting the parish board to supporting Abp Burke.
Supporters of the board have mentioned the by-laws of their corporation were signed by Apb Kenrick and that it's... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 6, 2005 1:46:19 AM
Comments
The archbishop makes his point indeed. Without disputing his authority to do as he threatens, one might certainly question the potential effectiveness of this act. The legal status of the parish is set by previous decree. The archbishop is basically asking for a renegotiation of an existing "contract," isn't he? If the secular courts cannot turn over the parish to him, he can withhold clergy and excommunicate anybody he wants, but if the people dig in their heels, he's not going to get their assets. He's played out his canonical hand, and the laity wear the standoff as a "badge of honor." Where does that leave Archbishop Burke on the credibility meter?
Posted by: Todd at Jan 5, 2005 12:26:16 AM
Where on the Catholic meter does that leave parishioners who are willing to wear a "mini-excommunication" as a "badge of honor"?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2005 6:54:09 AM
Rich, as heroes to people still simmering from clergy sex abuse.
I'm not saying their cause is just at St Stanislaus; I'm just intrigued as to exactly what Burke thinks he can accomplish.
Posted by: Todd at Jan 5, 2005 7:06:50 AM
This is the kind of hard-headed, by the book response by a bishop that created the Polish National Church in the first place and which drove thousands of Eastern Catholics back to the Orthodox Church in the early 20th Century.
Burke is a canonist, I believe, and is going to play this thing out by the book. He'd rather cut his arm off than appear to be negotiating with mere lay people. So he will attempt to resolve the dispute by unilateral canonical declarations of interdict and excommunication.
His problem, of course, is not canonical, but legal. He doesn't have legal title to the assets he wants under his control. If his "how dare you disagree with me" attitude persists, he will drive these Polish Catholics out of the Church.....and the only point he will have proved is that he can read the canons strictly.
The situation needs a pastor, not a dictator.
Posted by: Jim at Jan 5, 2005 7:40:44 AM
Uh, that's kind of silly. It was the "Americanist" bishops like John Ireland who played the key role in driving Eastern Catholics into the Orthodox communion, not the ones (like Burke today) who were fighting Americanist proposals. (Ireland is only half-jokingly referred to as the founder of the Orthodox Church in America - he snubbed some Eastern Rite priests by saying they weren't real Catholic priests, and the priests took his word for it and took off. Please note that he was working with American prejudices and against canon law, not vice versa as Burke is.)
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jan 5, 2005 7:45:12 AM
Kevin raises an excellent point.
Burke is a good man and a good bishop. Give him the benefit of doubt - he appears to know what he is doing and the consequences of his actions.
This church is either going to come back into the fold or be completely outside of the Church. This in-between stuff they've been playing simply confuses parishoners who may think they are in union with Rome.
Posted by: cathy at Jan 5, 2005 8:24:31 AM
Isn't Bp Burke just trying to bring this parish into the same organizational structure as all the other parishes in his archdiocese? And everyone should know that some parishoners simply refuse to be pastored, even if it were by Jesus himself. Jim (above) thinks Bp Burke "will drive these Polish Catholics out of the Church." Then they aren't very committed Catholics to begin with. If they want to remain independent, why don't they seek canonical sanction as a lay movement....everyone else is these days! Or do you need the approval of the local ordinary to get that?
Posted by: Juan at Jan 5, 2005 8:32:52 AM
I like Kevin Miller's take on this.
Todd's question on "the potential effectiveness of this act" and Jim's worrying about a "hard-headed, by the book response" reveals their agenda toward Burke. Their advocacy for negotiation and dialogue has reduced the word "pastoral" to the equivalent of syrup of Ipecac. Be certain that whenever you hear the word "pastoral" used in the current day, heterodoxy lurks nearby.
Jim said "The situation needs a pastor, not a dictator." It needs neither. It needs a bishop and, in Burke, they've got one. If the US bishops would have been less concerned about being "pastoral," we would not have had the Situation.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Jan 5, 2005 8:51:33 AM
Burke here may be in one of those situations where he may be both right and wrong at the same time.
Note also the comment about the effect of the pedophilia scandal. The performance of bishops in that situation damages their authority in all areas.
Further, Burke appears to be confusing authority with authoritarianism -- a bad mistake.
This said, the matter of trusteeship was settled long, long ago.
Posted by: RP Burke at Jan 5, 2005 8:52:39 AM
Well, the practical efficacy of interdict died on 21 April 1607 when the interdict that had been laid on the Most Serene Republic of St. Mark (aka the Republic of Venice) was revoked after it proved utterly ineffective and without practical force. It will be interesting to see if its effectiveness can be revived after such a long repose. I wouldn't hold my breath betting on it....
Posted by: Liam at Jan 5, 2005 8:54:01 AM
The woeful performance of the bishops in the pedophilia scandal was hardly due to the exercise of authority, much less authoritarianism (yes, one of those awful -isms).
It was the combination of their "pastoral" inclinations towards their fellow clergy suffering from human frailties, alongside their refusal to meet the obligations of their authority that caused the Situation.
I recommend that we try to overcome our fear of authority, otherwise known as authoritophobia. A few bishops seem to have conquered this paralyzing horror. Several Catholic converts have assured me that, although it can be difficult to finally admit that I myself am not the source of all wisdom and truth, it can be overcome.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Jan 5, 2005 9:07:49 AM
Wow. Great historic example, Liam. Here I was about to write that the parishioners are almost finished playing We're Bigger Than The Church. And no, Todd, it has nothing to do with the priestly sexual abuse scandal. And Jim, Archbishop Burke is being a pastor. Pastors must make tough decisions. We'll call it Rumsfeld Syndrome for our purposes. To the parishioners, might remind them of Apostle Paul's admonition, 'you do not support the root. The root supports you.' Might be a test case for people in dioceses like Boston and Philly facing the closing of their own ethnic churches, built in the 19th century. Some might have a legitimate case. Others are clearly holding onto real estate and facing battles that they'll win, but wars that will be lost.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Jan 5, 2005 9:11:32 AM
Since 'interdict' involves being banned from the sacraments, I wonder how it differs from outright 'excommunication.'
In any event, it's nice to see a Bishop with some backbone. Though I'm of Irish descent, I've never thought much of these ethnic churches - they always seemed to me to place their ethnicity before their faith - and in this case, they've clearly placed their ethnicity before their obedience.
Posted by: Cornelius at Jan 5, 2005 9:22:04 AM
It is amazing that, given what else is happening in the Church, this is the front in which Archbishop Burke decides to invest his capital. But Pius VI was battling over his nephew's will as 1789 approached; and Leo X was brokering the succession to the archbishopric of Magdeburg as Luther strode up to the Church door....
Posted by: stuart chessman at Jan 5, 2005 9:22:43 AM
Even more amazing is the idea that Burke would be more successful in tackling the US abortion industry, solving poverty, and achieving world peace.
If Catholic bishops cannot exercise their obligation of authority in small things, is it reasonable to expect that they can influence national matters of a colossal scale?
St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish won't listen to or obey their Bishop. The Catholic Lawyers Guild of Colorado won't listen to their Bishop. And we think that Burke and Chaput would have better luck instructing Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, et al. to obey Catholic doctrine?
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Jan 5, 2005 9:38:23 AM
I think the bishop is in the right here. He cannot allow parishioners to blatantly ignore his authority. The attitude of some of the board members, it seems to me, has been one of thumbing one's nose at the local ordinary.
It is time for our bishops to take action in a number of ways, for a truly pastoral way of sheperding.
Posted by: B Knotts at Jan 5, 2005 9:56:32 AM
It is not the job of Burke
to shut down the US abortion industry; solve poverty or achieve world peace
It is his job to ensure that in his archdiocese catholics understand their faith and its obligations: that the liturgy and the sacraments are celebrated and that the gospel is preached by word and deed to all others
Posted by: stuqrt at Jan 5, 2005 9:59:59 AM
Nice try by Kevin Miller to make us think that Abp. Ireland was some kind of liberal, working against Rome. His views on the married Eastern clergy in the U.S. were adopted by the Vatican and backed up by papal pronouncement.
The issue isn't liberal or conservative: it's authoritarian vs. pastoral. The symbol of the bishop's authority is his shepherd's crozier, not a royal mace.
Posted by: Desert Chatter at Jan 5, 2005 10:54:39 AM
Interdict didn't die in the 17th C. It was used against a Louisiana parish a generation ago when the people there refused to accept a black pastor. I don't know the outcome.
Medieval popes liked to throw around long-term interdicts against whole countries when locked in disputes with their rulers. Just caused a lot of spiritual misery.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Jan 5, 2005 11:05:42 AM
Re: Archbishop Ireland.
His goal was to create a single American Catholic church rather than the crazy quilt of ethnic churches. In Minnesota there were horrible fights between bishops of Irish descent and German descent; a symbolic battle was between beer-drinking Germans and Ireland, who was a follower of Theobald Mathew's Total Abstinence program.
Calling him an "Americanist" (as in the pseudo-heresy condemned by Rome) is an error.
This comes from the definitive biography of Ireland, written by Fr. Marvin O'Connell of Notre Dame.
Posted by: RP Burke at Jan 5, 2005 11:11:40 AM
I find the use of interdict to be not at all in keeping with the times. The Archbishop should give these parishioners a hug and a flower and then maybe he could hold hands with some Muslims and give a shout out to Allah. Of course, that won't solve the problem of disobedient lay folk, but it would at least show that he's fashionable.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool at Jan 5, 2005 11:18:11 AM
A reply to Mark Kasper.
Distinction between Chaput's attempted exercise of authority and Burke's.
Burke's approval is required by church law for the operation of a parish, or oratory, or anything else that involves the celebration of Mass or the sacraments. So he does have the authority to act on this.
Chaput, on the other hand, is claiming authority over an association that has apparently been established only in civil law, and not canon law, thus canons 321-325 may not apply. A far more tenuous exercise of putative authority.
Posted by: RP Burke at Jan 5, 2005 11:30:14 AM
DC: I didn't say "liberal." I'm not sure how well the liberal-conservative paradigm fits the Americanist controversy. And yes, I'm aware that Rome took the position that Eastern Rite priests in the US shouldn't marry. That's not the same thing as not acknowledging that married Eastern Rite priests are priests. It's reductionistic to say that Rome's position was Abp. Ireland's.
RPB: He may not have been a full-fledged "Americanist." That doesn't mean he didn't take positions that were borderline at best.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jan 5, 2005 11:36:03 AM
Note also the comment about the effect of the pedophilia scandal. The performance of bishops in that situation damages their authority in all areas.
Note that it's now achieved cliche status perhaps.
Thankfully, Burke and handful of bishops weren't cowered by the scandals when prominent self-identified Catholics took turns spitting on the Faith last year.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2005 11:50:05 AM
Note:
Shepherds use their crooks to grab sheep by the neck and pull them back. Being pastoral is a rather vigorous thing that also involves fighting off wolves. It is not playing canned muszac while the sheep wonder off.
Posted by: john hearn at Jan 5, 2005 12:57:16 PM
