Renegade Priest Leads a Split St. Louis Parish

[AnotherVoice]

They people own some land and a building but don’t have a religion to follow; it all seems rather pointless.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Please elaborate on the similarities.

A priest not following the dictates of his bishop and basically setting up a different religion.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m familiar with another parish like that, where the people, not the diocese actually bought the land and built the church and they are the owners, not the diocese. The diocese can close the parish but they can’t take the assets.

And I think that is part of the reason why the parish voted to reject the archdiocese offer. Although they were guaranteed continued ownership of the properties, they were not guaranteed that the parish would continue to stay open. And fear of closure has been a primary motivator of resistance.

I’m not sure why the archdiocese would not guarantee that the parish would stay open, at least for a certain number of years. From the article, it sounds as if such an offer might have swung the vote in its favor.

Yes, as others have noted, the priest and some of his followers are creating their own religion. But my sense is that a significant portion of the parish simply are attached to their “home.” We seen similar such attachment in Massachusetts, where at a two or three churches, parishioners have been holding round the clock vigils for several years, even though the diocese pulled the priests and officially closed the parish. Even though the diocese owns the church and its land, it has chosen not to evict the parishioners.

 

[Ecoclimber]

This may be off the topic but was brought up in some threads here. My understanding for those concerned about money being used by the archdiocese for sex abuse claims. If you write on your check “One time bequest” on your parish contribution check, that money has to stay within the parish. Any legal scholars out their know if this correct as this was stated by an appellate court judge. I don’t know if it varies from state to state. Anyway this would address concerns from people having your parish contributions go to pay out sex abuse claims.

 

[scipio337]

The problem is, in 200x the board changed the charter to omit the necessity of the Archbishop’s approval on who gets voted onto the board. They put themselves into schism. So Archbishop Burke moved the Polish parish to St. Agatha’s and proved a Polish priest for them. St Stan’s then “hired” Marek Bozek, who disobeyed his bishop in Springfield MO. This bishop had brought Marek Bozek from Poland and helped pay for his studies to become a priest.

Bozek has open Communion, participated in a Womenpriest ordination at a Jewish Synagogue in St Louis, and was defrocked by the Pope. The parish now consists of dissident Catholics such as openly homosexual unions, remarried Catholics, etc. The original Polish parishioners who stayed true to the Archbishop were disenfranchized and not allowed to vote.

Bozek also reshuffled the board to be stocked full of his supporters. Most of the former board has joined in the lawsuit to bring St. Stans back into the fold. Kicking and screaming, if need be.

St. Louis is a heavily Catholic city. I’ve not met a single one who supports Bozek. It truly boggles the mind.

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

I’m new to this forum, at least as a poster. I’ve been visiting this site from time to time over the last few years. Since I just signed up to post today, I found it timely that my aunt who is a nun called to comment on my cousin who is a priest in St. Louis. She called to tell me of his health but I asked what she knew of this controversy. From reading the posting the last couple of days, I thought it was a slam-dunk case of obstinence. She told me of the history of the parish and church and how the Poles built this parish board by board. She did emphasize it was constructed of beautiful wood. She contends it’s all about money. This parish did not bend to diocesan wishes to close the parish. Instead of thinking these people are rogue, could it be that they are trying to cling to their faith?
I did notice another parish in Ohio is setting up a store front church to keep their community together ( another thread in this forum)

 

[Feanor2]

I’m new to this forum, at least as a poster. I’ve been visiting this site from time to time over the last few years. Since I just signed up to post today, I found it timely that my aunt who is a nun called to comment on my cousin who is a priest in St. Louis. She called to tell me of his health but I asked what she knew of this controversy. From reading the posting the last couple of days, I thought it was a slam-dunk case of obstinence. She told me of the history of the parish and church and how the Poles built this parish board by board. She did emphasize it was constructed of beautiful wood. She contends it’s all about money. This parish did not bend to diocesan wishes to close the parish. Instead of thinking these people are rogue, could it be that they are trying to cling to their faith?
I did notice another parish in Ohio is setting up a store front church to keep their community together ( another thread in this forum)

I guess in clinging to their faith they stopped following Catholicism and started following “St.Stanislausism.”

You HAVE to follow what the Bishop says. I’m sure parishes have a grievance procedure but in the end it’s up to the Bishop. I’m not aware of any weird breakaway Churches from the big Boston parish showdowns a few years ago. Certainly, folks were heartbroken, even angry, but no one founded a new religion.

 

[SunnaB16]

…my aunt who is a nun… … told me of the history of the parish and church… She contends it’s all about money. This parish did not bend to diocesan wishes to close the parish.

What the nun must have have told you sounds more than a bit suspect. Does she support this priests erroneous beliefs? Considering the solid orthodoxy of Archbishop Burke, i cant help but wonder.
He must have made a lot of enemies among the “progressive” “Catholics”.

Instead of thinking these people are rogue, could it be that they are trying to cling to their faith?

Following a defrocked renegade priest who supports “priestesses” etc is an odd way of “trying to cling to their faith”.
It`s certainly not THE Faith!

 

[estesbob]

I’m new to this forum, at least as a poster. I’ve been visiting this site from time to time over the last few years. Since I just signed up to post today, I found it timely that my aunt who is a nun called to comment on my cousin who is a priest in St. Louis. She called to tell me of his health but I asked what she knew of this controversy. From reading the posting the last couple of days, I thought it was a slam-dunk case of obstinence. She told me of the history of the parish and church and how the Poles built this parish board by board. She did emphasize it was constructed of beautiful wood. She contends it’s all about money. This parish did not bend to diocesan wishes to close the parish. Instead of thinking these people are rogue, could it be that they are trying to cling to their faith?
I did notice another parish in Ohio is setting up a store front church to keep their community together ( another thread in this forum)

It was all about money they would’ve accepted the compromise the new bishop offered them. But this parish has went much farther than just arguing with the diocese about their facilities-they now have a defrocked priest as their pastor, a priest who preaches homosexual marriage and female ordination

 

[qui_est_ce]

Bozek also reshuffled the board to be stocked full of his supporters. Most of the former board has joined in the lawsuit to bring St. Stans back into the fold. Kicking and screaming, if need be.

St. Louis is a heavily Catholic city. I’ve not met a single one who supports Bozek. It truly boggles the mind.

Bozek is an admitted homosexual. He lives in a loft in the sexy loft area of St. Louis

“Hero or Heretic? A parish divided” by Tim Townsend

St. Stan’s Fr. Bozek elicits strong emotions

It was just before midnight on Christmas Eve 2005, and the Rev. Marek Bozek was the focus of 2,000 souls crammed in pews or standing on tiptoe in the aisles, straining to see him.

They came to St. Stanislaus Kostka church to be a part of Bozek’s first Mass as pastor. He had arrived in St. Louis from Springfield, Mo., thumbing his nose at the Roman Catholic hierarchy and riding to the rescue of fellow Polish countrymen deprived of the Eucharist for more than a year by their archbishop.

For many St. Stanislaus parishioners whose ancestors had built the church just north of downtown, Bozek became a hero. But more than two years later, Bozek has reshaped the church into a community that would be unrecognizable to those 19th-century founders.

His vision for a reformed Roman Catholic faith calls for supporting female ordination, allowing priests to get married and accepting gay relationships. Bozek’s stands have attracted hundreds of new St. Stanislaus parishioners who share the priest’s reform-minded vision.

But they have also divided the church, pitting newer members against traditional parishioners unhappy with how far the priest has gone in condemning the Roman Catholic church.

There have also been questions about the priest’s trappings. He has negotiated a 143 percent salary hike, moved into a $157,000 Washington Avenue loft and leased a 2008 BMW for $450 per month.

Some parishioners point to another sign that alarmed them: Bozek, while in Poland last year, bought a silver ring custom-made for a bishop there. When he returned, he showed the ring to his parish at a Sunday Mass and spoke about it from the pulpit.

Because it’s a bishop’s ring and he is only a priest, Bozek says, he has not worn it. But he won’t say he never will – he does not rule out the possibility of becoming the leader of what he calls an “underground Roman Catholic” movement.

The three parish leaders who recruited Bozek say they now regret it. St. Stanislaus “is now home to anyone who has a gripe with the (Catholic) church,” said Stan Rozanksi, one of the men who vetted Bozek and a former board member.

Bozek says the people who hired him knew about his vision for St. Stanislaus. He dismisses critics who accuse him of shifting his priorities as having “selective hearing.”

“I came because I saw injustice being done here,” he said. “There are red-button issues, and I’m daring enough to touch them. If you’re sexist or homophobic, you will passionately hate my vision.”

Bozek’s vision ultimately led his divided parish to court. The archdiocese recently filed a lawsuit that, if successful, would allow it to regain the power to assign the church’s pastor and approve its board members. Since 2001, the board has twice amended its bylaws to cement its control of church matters.

 

[qui_est_ce]

continued:

19th-century pact

In 1891, St. Louis Archbishop Peter Kenrick agreed to a parish structure in which the laity, in the form of a corporation, would help govern St. Stanislaus’ finances. That setup was not unusual in the 19th century, as the Roman Catholic church, along with the rest of American society, continued to push west, and parishes organized on their own.

An autonomous system lasted at St. Stanislaus for more than 100 years. A lay board oversaw the property and assets, while the archbishop appointed those board members and a pastor.

After Burke was installed as the archbishop of St. Louis in 2004, he took up the cause of changing the structure of St. Stanislaus more seriously than any of his predecessors. That summer, the board members eliminated their pastor’s authority over church property and assets. Burke responded by removing the pastor, leaving the church without a spiritual leader.

A year later, board members approached Bozek, then a 30-year-old priest and Polish national working in the Springfield-Cape Girardeau diocese, to lead the church.

From 2004 to 2006, the image of a feisty Polish church standing up to the Roman Catholic hierarchy struck a chord. And St. Stanislaus gained a national reputation – the front page of the Wall Street Journal, a segment on CBS’s “Early Show.”

For many area Catholics, the church became a proud example of the laity standing up to church authorities – with red “St. Stan’s Lives!” and “Save St. Stan’s!” stickers adorning car bumpers.

Burke’s declarations of nine St. Stanislaus-related excommunications only enhanced the image of the church’s leaders as countercultural Catholic heroes, and of St. Stanislaus as an oasis for disenchanted Catholics. Bozek seized on that momentum and used the church’s new-found fame to double its membership, to what he says is now 500 families.

Going too far?

As the membership has grown, so has tension among some parishioners, as Bozek continues to take stands that clash with Roman Catholic teaching. He has welcomed gays and divorced people into the church. In November 2006, he invited an openly gay pastor – the leader of a Catholic community separate from the Vatican – to celebrate Mass.

This past November, Bozek took part in a ceremony in which two women were ordained as priests of an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests. The event was on the same day as St. Stanislaus’s Polka Mass and church picnic. Bozek stayed for the beginning of the picnic but left to attend the ordination, taking two dozen parishioners with him.

Bozek has also taken repeated shots at the Roman Catholic hierarchy. In a sermon earlier this year, Bozek set out his vision for the Roman Catholic church, while denouncing its leaders.

“The Roman Catholic family can be described today as dysfunctional, toxic or abusive,” Bozek said. “For decades we have allowed the men who claim to be our shepherds to abuse us.”

Richard Bach, who heads a group called the Concerned Parishioners of St. Stanislaus, said a large number of older members – about 100 families – had gradually come to oppose Bozek’s leadership and the new members.

“They’re concerned about the path of the church and where he’s leading them,” Bach said. “A lot of the old parishioners don’t consider the new ones parishioners at all.”

Grzegorz Koltuniak, a longtime parishioner, calls Bozek’s tenure at St. Stanislaus “a disaster.”

“Before Bozek, we were all together,” he said. “Our fight was about property, but never about religion. The people who have come here since then are here for different reasons. … Where are they taking this church?”

 

[qui_est_ce]

continued:

Marybeth McBryan, one of the church’s newer members, said she came to St. Stanislaus because it was more inclusive and accepting than her previous parish.

“There’s a group of parishioners who have been there a long time and who don’t like change,” McBryan said. “They are not very fond of us who are not Polish.”

Timothy Kyle, who joined the church about six months ago, says longtime members want Bozek “to break the rules important to them, but not stand up for the ideals and beliefs he has himself.”

“If you hire someone who doesn’t follow along the dotted line,” Kyle said, “you can’t expect him to follow it when you want him to.”

Footing the bill

Church board members still loyal to Bozek credit him for bringing in the new parishioners, saying he has kept the church afloat financially.

They also feel he remains critical to St. Stanislaus’ future. So when Bozek had to return to Poland last year to reapply for a work visa, the board paid an immigration lawyer $80,000 to help with the process, according to some church leaders. Bozek said it was more like $55,000.

“I think it’s worth it to keep him there, because who else are we going to get as a priest?” asked William Bialczak, chairman of the St. Stanislaus board. “We don’t have six other priests knocking on our door asking to get in there.”

But longtime parishioners were further put off when Bozek negotiated a new contract with the board. Bozek’s contract was up last December, and he had several demands. He wanted to move out of the rectory. He wanted a big salary bump. And he wanted a new car. He got what he wanted.

He moved into a downtown loft; he started driving a new BMW; and his salary jumped to $56,000 from $24,000.

The average income for diocesan priests in Missouri is $40,670, which includes everything from Mass stipends to food and housing allowances, according to a report by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a nonprofit research institute at Georgetown University.

Bozek said he was paying for the car himself. And, he said, the $31,400 down payment for the loft came from his savings. Bozek said he needed to move out because it was “exhausting mentally” for him to live in a busy rectory, where he rarely had time to himself.

“It was not good for my physical health,” he said. “My blood pressure was up.”

People also need to understand that “ministers are normal people,” he said. “We need food to eat, cars to drive, places to live.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

St. Louis is a heavily Catholic city. I’ve not met a single one who supports Bozek. It truly boggles the mind.

hoo- Our organist had a “Save St. Stan’s” sticker on the organ!

 

[qui_est_ce]

It was all about money they would’ve accepted the compromise the new bishop offered them. But this parish has went much farther than just arguing with the diocese about their facilities-they now have a defrocked priest as their pastor, a priest who preaches homosexual marriage and female ordination

Oh yea, it was about money. St Stan’s supposedly had $9 million in a trust fund. They refused to allow an archdiocesan audit. All parishes have to be audited. Their computers, everything. What were they afraid of? What happened to the $9 million?

Every parish has to pay a “tax” to the archdiocese to fund operations and charitable outreach. What makes St. Stan’s think they don’t have to participate in the greater church? We are Catholic - universal. Our parishes are part of the universal Church, not ends in and of themselves.

 

[Dale_M]

"St. Louis-Post Dispatch:

Because it’s a bishop’s ring and he is only a priest, Bozek says, he has not worn it. But he won’t say he never will – he does not rule out the possibility of becoming the leader of what he calls an “underground Roman Catholic” movement.

The guy seems to have a high opinion of himself. But there is no need to lead an “underground Roman Catholic movement.” Multiple splinter denominations already claim the Catholic label. His views would fit right into those established organizations. Granted, they don’t call themselves “Roman Catholic”, but any organization he would create wouldn’t be Roman Catholic either. He is already excommunicated and laicized. And his views are in defiance of Church teaching. You can’t be Roman Catholic if you are not in alignment with Rome.

hoo- Our organist had a “Save St. Stan’s” sticker on the organ!

But what does the sticker mean? Save the parish from the archdiocese or save it from Bozek?

 

[scipio337]

“No one has an ambition to create a new denomination,” Bozek said. “My vision is to be Roman Catholic and wait for the regime to collapse.”

 

[estesbob]

Oh yea, it was about money. St Stan’s supposedly had $9 million in a trust fund. They refused to allow an archdiocesan audit. All parishes have to be audited. Their computers, everything. What were they afraid of? What happened to the $9 million?

Every parish has to pay a “tax” to the archdiocese to fund operations and charitable outreach. What makes St. Stan’s think they don’t have to participate in the greater church? We are Catholic - universal. Our parishes are part of the universal Church, not ends in and of themselves.

The curse of my profession is I’ve been on the finance Council of every parish I’ve ever belonged to, you are correct that a parish has to pay a tax to the diocese and undergo audits. We just had our audit last year and it resulted in our our business manager moving on. I have also never been in a diocese where the diocese ever demanded anything of a parish other than it pay the tax. The idea that the diocese was going to raid their trust fund to pay for settling lawsuits as ludicrous.

As others have noted this parish has moved far beyond a property /money dispute and now stands in direct schism from the church. In there is zeal to preserve their parish they hired a priest who has since seized the parish to advance his own agenda .

 

[qui_est_ce]

But what does the sticker mean? Save the parish from the archdiocese or save it from Bozek?

Save St. Stan’s from that mean old bully Archbishop Burke, who is only after their money.

St Louis had a very vocal anti-Burke crowd. They seemed to think everybody agreed with them. Whenever somebody bashed him, I would say, “I pray for him.” The answer inevitably would be “He needs it.” " I would say, yes, I love him." Then they would make a sign of the cross over me as though I were a vampire.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Pretty bold, isn’t it?

The curse of my profession is I’ve been on the finance Council of every parish I’ve ever belonged to, you are correct that a parish has to pay a tax to the diocese and undergo audits. We just had our audit last year and it resulted in our our business manager moving on. I have also never been in a diocese where the diocese ever demanded anything of a parish other than it pay the tax. The idea that the diocese was going to raid their trust fund to pay for settling lawsuits as ludicrous.

I, too, have been on finance. Sadly, an audit a few years ago, when the priest retired, found us in the red for over $50,000.00. Bills were unpaid, health insurance and withholding taxes had not been paid, and the savings account of $500,000.00 had been depleted. If only they had started auditing parishes sooner.

As others have noted this parish has moved far beyond a property /money dispute and now stands in direct schism from the church. In there is zeal to preserve their parish they hired a priest who has since seized the parish to advance his own agenda .

The original parishioners who chose to stay orthodox and went to St. Agatha’s had no vote in St. Stan’s decision whether or not to accept Archbishop Carlson’s proposal. The parish was essentially high-jacked.

 

[Kearney]

I don’t like this crazy Bozek guy, but I also sympathize with the parishioners of St Stans who were forced to turn to him, either out of confusion or disgust with the policies of the SL archdiocese in trying to supress their parish. Why couldn’t the SL archdiocese just leave these poor Polish people alone and let things be as they were for 90 some years with the parish owning the property? Why did archbishop Burke just have to flex his muscle at them at this one moment, for what purpose were they made an example of for?

I am an ethnic Catholic who feels great sympathy and sorrow for the plight of the many ethnic parishes that have been closed down across the country in recent years by bishops who just want money to pay off the many lawsuits that their diocese are embroiled in. These churches are a treasure to our American Church and should be preserved at all cost. They were built with the sweat and blood of poor immigrants and maintaind for many decades by devouted parishioners, only to be axed in hurry when the bishop needed to come up with some quick cash.

Instead of closing down the old, ethnic churches, the bishops should sell off the ugly, modern looking suburban ones they build these days and find some way to move these old churches from their decaying urban areas out to the suburbs so the present generation of Catholics can attend them (Its possible to move a building and would probably cost the same as to build a new church).

Another sad thing with this case is how many so called “conservative” Catholics will defend then archbishop Burke’s actions against this Polish church simply because he is considered orthodox by them. If this had been Cardinal Mahoney who was causing trouble for an ethnic church, I’m sure that the internet would be a buzz with support for the parishioners. Burke gets a pass though and is even vigorously defended by some for needlesly picking a fight with people where none needed to exist. I like the fact that Burke stands with the Church on issues of doctrine, but not at the expense of defending him when his actions caused a scandal.