Guess they're going to try to get Bp. Sklystad to get Cdl. O'Malley et al to stop twisting Canon law in the public square?
A parish is more than a public juridical person. Canon 369 defines the diocese as a "portion of the people of God which is entrusted to the bishop to be nurtured by him". Similarly, "A parish is a certain community of Christ's faithful, stably established within a particular Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest as its proper pastor (cf. can. 515)."
In this light, then, only with great difficulty, can one say that a parish becomes extinct. A parish is extinguished by the law itself only if no Catholic community any longer exists in its territory, or if no pastoral activity has taken place for a hundred years (can. 120 #1).
Wellborn highlighted the following:
Thus the goods and liabilities should go with the amalgamated juridic person, and not to the diocese. This would also seem to be more consonant with the requirement that the wishes of the founders, benefactors and those who have acquired rights be safeguarded, In most cases "suppressions" are in reality a "unio extinctiva" or "amalgamation" or "merger" and as such the goods and obligations do not pass to the higher juridic person, but should pertain to the public juridic person which remains or emerges from the extinctive union. The goods and liabilities should go to the surviving public juridic person, that is the enlarged parish community.
As everyone in the Boston diocese knows, they came home from the Vatican after getting their hands slapped and told everyone they can have the goods of the merged parish if they ask the pastor of the new parish nicely.
What is the pastor to do then? Openly defy the Cardinal? Lose his job? When push comes to shove, of they're scardy cats. They'll do exactly as they're told to do so as not to be in the bad graces of the Cardinal - even if it's wrongful.