Sheltiedave Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 It was bound to happen, and Archbishop Burke had his lawyers serve an injunction against New Line Theater tonight to halt their opening play, (Sex, Drugs, and Rock'n'Roll) at the reformed Ivory Theater, nee St. Boniface. Always a headline seeker, Burke ensured he would both generate the highest level of publicity, and cause significant economic hardship, to the fledgling theater company. The parish grounds and church were purchased by Peter Rothchild as a speculative venture in 2005. I am no friend of Rothchild, but Burke does love to do grandstanding positions where the noteriety is greatest. Will hit the 9 and 10 pm news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I am not kidding when I say this; Burke makes me embarrassed to be Catholic. My wife, who is not Catholic, is hesitant to have our son baptized because of Burke and his iron-fisted tactics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 so how does Burke have standing to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 so how does Burke have standing to do this?The archdiocese had a number of stipulations in the sales contract regarding appropriate uses. Had anyone from Burke's office bothered to investigate the song selections in the play anytime during practices in the last month, they would have realized the content doesn't reflect the title. It will be some embarrassing egg on his office. No due diligence exercised before this stupid action... I wonder if Burke has a constitutional capacity to do a publicity event helping the poor or needy in a true sense, ie be a priest of the people. It does disturb me to witness his more grandstanding ploys en route to the desired cardinal's cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 But how in the world does a judge agree to an injunction without evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 It was bound to happen, and Archbishop Burke had his lawyers serve an injunction against New Line Theater tonight to halt their opening play, (Sex, Drugs, and Rock'n'Roll) at the reformed Ivory Theater, nee St. Boniface. Will hit the 9 and 10 pm news... I'm just wondering why he thinks it is a prudent use of money on lawyers for such a fruitless endeavour. Pass the plate folks, give bundles, next week the archbishop is going after the democrats again! Screw the poor, needy, homeless, hungry, parched, sick, dying, and broke college students! We need to stop the nonbelievers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I'm just wondering why he thinks it is a prudent use of money on lawyers for such a fruitless endeavour. Pass the plate folks, give bundles, next week the archbishop is going after the democrats again! Screw the poor, needy, homeless, hungry, parched, sick, dying, and broke college students! We need to stop the nonbelievers!In an article on stltoday it says "One of the conditions of that sale prohibits shows aimed at an adult audience rather than the general public. The archdiocese took action, in part, after seeing advertisements for the show." The article goes on the to say "Gardin said the advertisements noted that adult language is used in the show and also advised parents to leave their children at home". If in fact the advertisement of the show stated "advised parents to leave their children at home" you would think the theater company would know that would raise a red flag. If in fact, the theater company ran advertisements like that clearly they knew of the conditions of the sale of the Church. Right? I would assume so. So, why didn't the theater company do their due diligence in finding out if this show would raise any red flags. If you're going to invest money into something why walk the fine line if it can be avoided with a simple phone call? Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 In an article on stltoday it says "One of the conditions of that sale prohibits shows aimed at an adult audience rather than the general public. The archdiocese took action, in part, after seeing advertisements for the show." The article goes on the to say "Gardin said the advertisements noted that adult language is used in the show and also advised parents to leave their children at home". If in fact the advertisement of the show stated "advised parents to leave their children at home" you would think the theater company would know that would raise a red flag. If in fact, the theater company ran advertisements like that clearly they knew of the conditions of the sale of the Church. Right? I would assume so. So, why didn't the theater company do their due diligence in finding out if this show would raise any red flags. If you're going to invest money into something why walk the fine line if it can be avoided with a simple phone call? Just my thoughts. An injunction is often given at first when requested to stop the activity until the hearing can be held. It does not mean the judge agrees with the request. He is simply calling time out until a final decision can be reached. Not knowing what is in the contract, it is hard to speculate who is right or wrong. Burke was so glad to get rid of any of the church property resulting from the closings that he did not care to wonder what was going on but he should have know that a theater in today's world puts on all kinds of entertainment. This is just another needless uproar that blackens the eye of Burke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 But how in the world does a judge agree to an injunction without evidence? To add to what Cheese said, this probably is a TRO (temporary restraining order) of limited duration, a few days. These can be obtained ex parte meaning Burke's lawyers go present their evidence to the judge alone without the other party being allowed to present any evidence or argument. It is supposed to be an emergency situation where the moving party shall suffer irreparable harm should the TRO not be granted. I suppose Burke said animal sacrifices and orgies shall occur upon previously consecrated holy ground. I can't imagine what facts they alleged to show irreparable harm. Catholic judge issued the order? Shall be interesting to see. ... Edit: On further reflection, the case may be this: the contract under which the church was purchased states that any breach is deemed by the parties to constitute irreparable harm thus serving as grounds for an injunction. The church lawyers walked in with the contract, some info about the play, and argued the play was a violation of the contract. This is probably the case and, if so, I have overstated the case against Burke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 An injunction is often given at first when requested to stop the activity until the hearing can be held. It does not mean the judge agrees with the request. He is simply calling time out until a final decision can be reached. Not knowing what is in the contract, it is hard to speculate who is right or wrong. Burke was so glad to get rid of any of the church property resulting from the closings that he did not care to wonder what was going on but he should have know that a theater in today's world puts on all kinds of entertainment. This is just another needless uproar that blackens the eye of Burke.Cheese, I am being completely prejudice based upon what we know now. The facts may indeed later show who is right or wrong although I doubt it will be that cut and dry. The facts will only show what people believe is right or wrong. It will be subjective opinions just as mine is. Theaters do put on all kinds of entertainment and I think that's why a contingency was written about not putting on any adult only productions. This theater company themselves advertised to leave the children at home. That being said, not sure why the theater company would test the contingency if ultimately it could affect their revenue or cost them money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 That being said, not sure why the theater company would test the contingency if ultimately it could affect their revenue or cost them money.You can't beat the free publicity they are now getting. It was probably the goal from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJK Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Burke is a freakin nazi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Burke is a freakin nazi! When Larry Hughes and Spoonball were popular I think Rothchild was a season ticket holder-is that the reason this thread was allowed? Or do we allow any OT thread on Fidays or OT threads about the Catholic Church as a general category? I can not follow every rule in the church but I won't be listed as a church basher because it is popular. This is just gossip. Burke may be fair game because he is all too willing to have a public presence on most any church issue. As a layman I see no fault in the head of the church in our area speaking out to stand moral or legal ground. Nazi is a pretty strong statement considering that Rothchilds have been associated with the Jewish faith for centuries. Your statement implies that Burke was targeting Rothchild because he might be jewish. I have no idea of Pete Rothchild's church of choice or if he practises. He may be Catholic for all I know. But protecting St. Boniface church may be a cause for Burke if many people assume it is still a Catholic Church. From the question of property rights and how much was transferred in the sale: does give you an idea that turning probperty over to a developer/speculator for money does play into the hands of those who do what they want after the papers are signed. I've heard that in real estate only what is written in the contract is honored. We should ask Mr. Rothchild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Brian, it is interesting to watch this situation unfold. Burke closed our parish and decided the property would be sold to the highest bidder. He did not have a concern in the world that the parish was self sustaining, breaking even for the short term, and had significant reserves in the parish accounts. He also was not concerned about who the grounds and church were sold to, nor about the dramatic stabilizing force St. Boniface provided to the Patch and Carondolet area. It was about generating money for an untouchable trust, and reducing assets that could be encumbered in sexual misconduct lawsuits. Rothchild develeoped the church as a theater because it was impratical to convert to apartments, or any other multi-use venue. It is a slap in the face to the local populance to deny the theater a chance to actually make money, attract a client base, and build a viable business enterprise by the best means the theater management has at hand. If the good archbishop wants to see Pollyanna plays, he could hit the Muny, where he would feel right at home. The area is fairly hardscrabble - we are not talking Town and Country around St. Boniface. The archdiocese has done very little in the area to promote stabilization, and both churches left south of Soulard and east of Grand in south city have been shuttered. Redlining the area, and then redlining the business that actually buys St. Boniface, is not the way to go. There was a way to appear humble, have the theater group amend their approach if needed, and shepherd the flock. Unfortunately, Burke managed to do none of the above, and looked stupid doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Brian, it is interesting to watch this situation unfold. Burke closed our parish and decided the property would be sold to the highest bidder. He did not have a concern in the world that the parish was self sustaining, breaking even for the short term, and had significant reserves in the parish accounts. He also was not concerned about who the grounds and church were sold to, nor about the dramatic stabilizing force St. Boniface provided to the Patch and Carondolet area. It was about generating money for an untouchable trust, and reducing assets that could be encumbered in sexual misconduct lawsuits. Rothchild develeoped the church as a theater because it was impratical to convert to apartments, or any other multi-use venue. It is a slap in the face to the local populance to deny the theater a chance to actually make money, attract a client base, and build a viable business enterprise by the best means the theater management has at hand. If the good archbishop wants to see Pollyanna plays, he could hit the Muny, where he would feel right at home. The area is fairly hardscrabble - we are not talking Town and Country around St. Boniface. The archdiocese has done very little in the area to promote stabilization, and both churches left south of Soulard and east of Grand in south city have been shuttered. Redlining the area, and then redlining the business that actually buys St. Boniface, is not the way to go. There was a way to appear humble, have the theater group amend their approach if needed, and shepherd the flock. Unfortunately, Burke managed to do none of the above, and looked stupid doing nothing. I wasn't trying to defend Burke. I have some problems with Burke when it comes to the closings. I was just saying that Rothchild has a history of finding ways to generate pub for his ventures. I think this is just another example. He knew what the deed stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 What does this have to do with men's basketball at SLU? Next you'll be publishing vendetta against your clearners for their ironng technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 What does this have to do with men's basketball at SLU? Next you'll be publishing vendetta against your clearners for their ironng technique. cleaners sorry for spelling-it should be obvious to all by now I don't see or spell well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 SLU68, why shouldn't we have a thread discussing this issue? It does reflect on my Catholic faith, SLU is a Catholic university, and it also hits redevelopment, neighborhood stabilization, censorship, leadership, city demographics, analytical thinking, civil discourse(hopefully,) all facets of a well rounded Saint Louis University education. It may seem trivial to many, but St. Boniface was the church my in-laws were married at, the church my wife had all her sacraments at, the church we were married at, and were our son was baptized before Burke shuttered it. For these reasons St. Boniface has had an enormous impact in my life; I for one won't be trivializing what has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 GOSLU68 thinks this topic belong on a post dispatch blog-or better a letter to the Archbishop. My own church was closed by the Belleville docese; I believe 12 of 13 are closed in E. ST. Louis and I can't go home either. However, this is not men's basketball you are discussing-if we allow this then we will have endless discussion of pedafiles and what the church has done with its money relative to the need of the poor since its inception. I don't miss your points- I am in sympathy with those who think the pulpit should be lowered to street level so all coversations are two-way. Can we get back to how we get better Radio and TV coverage for the Bills? Where are the moderators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 GOSLU68 thinks this topic belong on a post dispatch blog-or better a letter to the Archbishop. My own church was closed by the Belleville docese; I believe 12 of 13 are closed in E. ST. Louis and I can't go home either. However, this is not men's basketball you are discussing-if we allow this then we will have endless discussion of pedafiles and what the church has done with its money relative to the need of the poor since its inception. I don't miss your points- I am in sympathy with those who think the pulpit should be lowered to street level so all coversations are two-way. Can we get back to how we get better Radio and TV coverage for the Bills? Where are the moderators? There's no one whose job is to monitor every post 24 hours per day. This topic is clearly marked as off topic (OT), and it hasn't violated any board policies. No one is making you read it; you can't assume that if this topic weren't here that there would be a topic about basketball (or media coverage) in it's place. Even so, I will close it out of "fairness." Don't expect me to censor every off-topic post (unless I deem it offensive); I typically do so only if it goes on too long or if it degrades into bickering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts