St. Louis Archdiocese statement regarding Fr. Marek Bozek and St. Stanislaus Parish

[mikew262]

TheRaiders:

The part where Mike leaves Catholic and I, is codling people who always threaten to leave. We need to tell them to study and pray, but do not reject.

Tell them to study and pray? I have no problem with that advice. However, I’d rather keep a otherwise good catholic who maybe doesn’t agree with everything little thing the church preaches versus losing them altogether. Alot of folks on this forum take a all or nothing approach, accept everything or leave the church. I think that is pretty inflexible and narrow minded. Should every catholic strive to accept everything? Certainly!! In reality this isn’t happening, so should the church turn their backs on these folks? No, I don’t think so, and I don’t think God thinks so either. IMO, this applies to the St. Stan. folks too. The church has developed a big PR problem over the last several years. This situation certainly didn’t help any.

 

[estesbob]

mikew262:

Tell them to study and pray? I have no problem with that advice. However, I’d rather keep a otherwise good catholic who maybe doesn’t agree with everything little thing the church preaches versus losing them altogether. .

Mike:

St Stans is a perfect example of what happens when we reject the authority of the Church. What started as a spat over who owns a Parish’s property has now escalated into excommunication and threats to take a whole congregation out of the Church. A young Priest has had his priesthood destroyed over his puting his allegiance to his ehthnicity over his allegiance to the Church. I think the “leaders” at St Stans have to ask themselves whether a building of brick and mortar is more important than their memberhsipo in the One True Church. The Stone Church they are fighting over away will pass away someday-the Holy Catholic Church will only pass away when its founder returns.

As for those who question the Auhtority of the Church by reject ing some of its doctrines - we’ve lost them already. We can’t water down our teachings to gain or keep members. The best I heard it put was that it is one thing to say you have a hard time understading a docrine or a hard time accepting it. It is quite another to say you reject them. The former we can work with-the latter have already seperated themsleves from the Church whether they admit it or not. Perhaps Archbidhop Chaptut is correct -maybe the Church does need to get smaller.

Please note we are talking about Doctrines here-not minor stuff like should we hold hands at The Our Father or can we stand during the Eucharistic prayer.

 

[mikew262]

estesbob:

Please note we are talking about Doctrines here-not minor stuff like should we hold hands at The Our Father or can we stand during the Eucharistic prayer.

I agree in part with you. If we are talking basic doctrines like Christ’s divinity, Pope being a successor to Peter, etc. then yes, if a catholic is going to be a catholic then there are certain doctrines you have to adhere too and believe. However, I’m not sure the St. Stan’s situation falls into this. I know we totallly disagree on this, so there is probably no point in rehashing it.

 

[cainem]

mikew262 wrote

The church has developed a big PR problem over the last several years. This situation certainly didn’t help any.
you can’t claim that mike with this logic you can also include homosexuality and contraception as a pr problem, disobedience is just that sinful and disobedient, i shall post no more about this problem/parish as nothing will change their arrogant stance, they are wilfully ignoring gods church, satan must be laughing all the way with them to the bank,

 

[irenaeus1]

mikew262:

I’m not encouraging anybody to go against Catholic Doctrine. I would never do that. However, if somebody feels strongly against a particular piece of doctrine, its a personal decision on their part whether to follow or not follow it. We are not sheep. The decision they make, they will have to live with it and justify it to God at the appropriate time. Its up to God whether he buys that decision or not.

BTW, not once have I ever said or asserted that I was superior to the Church. Never. Your words, not mine.

The size of the Church is not the issue here. The issue is why you would want to belong to an ‘organization’ that is either intentionally deceitful to you (i.e., falsely claiming infallibility with regard to faith and morals when the Church has full knowledge that she is not) or unintentionally deceitful to you (i.e., falsely claiming infallibility with regard to faith and morals when the Church doesn’t know that she is not). If the Church is not truly infallible, then these are the only choices you have. You are either willfully joined to an organization that is intentionally deceiving you, or you belong to an organization that is so deluded and confused as to not be a sure guide to faith and morals since it could always have the possibility of being in error.

If we are not like sheep, then why are bishops considered shepherds.

Also, for someone to claim that you may be ignorant as a Catholic is not necessarily an insult. If you don’t know something, you don’t know something. What may be more insulting is if you did know better, but refused to submit to the obedience of faith.

And yes, you are claiming to be superior to the Church – at least in regard to the particular doctrine with which you disagree. How are you ‘nuancing’ this away? For example, if you do not believe that abortion is immoral and an intrinsic evil, and the Church does, then you are at least implying that you know better; that you somehow have more insight and hold a correct belief on this issue. Sounds awfully superior to me.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

P.S. True progressives are still faithful to the Magisterium.

 

[irenaeus1]

mikew262:

I probably lean more towards conservative, but I also don’t have blinders on, within the next 20 yrs some things better change or our church is going to continue to shrink. I don’t know about your church or area, but there are alot of empty seats in the churches around here.

If it’s all about numbers, then we should soften on our doctrinal and moral teachings. Then maybe, just maybe, our church will be as big as Lakewood Church in Houston.

How about changing our teachings on abortion, homosexual behavior, allowing homosexual marriages, ordaining women to the priesthood, etc. Oh wait, the Episcopal Church has already done that, and as we can see, their membership is bursting at the seams.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[TPJCatholic]

mike,

We are NOT sheep?

Then who exactly did Jeus tell Peter to feed?

 

[estesbob]

mikew262:

I agree in part with you. If we are talking basic doctrines like Christ’s divinity, Pope being a successor to Peter, etc. then yes, if a catholic is going to be a catholic then there are certain doctrines you have to adhere too and believe. However, I’m not sure the St. Stan’s situation falls into this. I know we totallly disagree on this, so there is probably no point in rehashing it.

But the Sticky ones are the Teachings on Homosexuality, female ordination, Contraception and Abortion . Many reject those teachings and yet claim to be Catholic. And rejecting these is just as egregious as St Stans rejecting the authorioty of the Church And as with St Stans we cant just ignore it becuase they accpet some of the other Doctrines.

 

[mikew262]

cainem:

mikew262 wrote

The church has developed a big PR problem over the last several years. This situation certainly didn’t help any.
you can’t claim that mike with this logic you can also include homosexuality and contraception as a pr problem, disobedience is just that sinful and disobedient, i shall post no more about this problem/parish as nothing will change their arrogant stance, they are wilfully ignoring gods church, satan must be laughing all the way with them to the bank,

I didn’t claim homosexuality and contraception is a PR problem and I won’t get into that. There are threads going on about those issues already.

BTW, I’m sure Satan is laughing alright.

 

[mikew262]

irenaeus1:

The size of the Church is not the issue here. The issue is why you would want to belong to an ‘organization’ that is either intentionally deceitful to you (i.e., falsely claiming infallibility with regard to faith and morals when the Church has full knowledge that she is not) or unintentionally deceitful to you (i.e., falsely claiming infallibility with regard to faith and morals when the Church doesn’t know that she is not). If the Church is not truly infallible, then these are the only choices you have. You are either willfully joined to an organization that is intentionally deceiving you, or you belong to an organization that is so deluded and confused as to not be a sure guide to faith and morals since it could always have the possibility of being in error.

You might want to belong because you feel most comfortable in the catholic faith. You may believe in 95% of the doctrine, but maybe have a problem with 5%. I would think the church would still welcome those folks and maybe through time, they would agree with the other 5%. The Protestant ranks and atheist ranks are growing and we are shrinking. What are we doing to reverse that?

If we are not like sheep, then why are bishops considered shepherds.

You are just playing with words here.

Also, for someone to claim that you may be ignorant as a Catholic is not necessarily an insult. If you don’t know something, you don’t know something. What may be more insulting is if you did know better, but refused to submit to the obedience of faith.

There are more respectful ways of inferring somebody doesn’t know something than calling them ignorant. I know I can come up with better ways. To me, it’s insulting and being talked down too.

And yes, you are claiming to be superior to the Church – at least in regard to the particular doctrine with which you disagree. How are you ‘nuancing’ this away? For example, if you do not believe that abortion is immoral and an intrinsic evil, and the Church does, then you are at least implying that you know better; that you somehow have more insight and hold a correct belief on this issue. Sounds awfully superior to me.

Disagreeing with a particular position or issue is not the same as feeling superior. I happen to disagree with some of what you are saying. However because we may disagree doesn’t mean I at all feel superior to you.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

P.S. True progressives are still faithful to the Magisterium.

 

[mikew262]

irenaeus1:

If it’s all about numbers, then we should soften on our doctrinal and moral teachings. Then maybe, just maybe, our church will be as big as Lakewood Church in Houston.

How about changing our teachings on abortion, homosexual behavior, allowing homosexual marriages, ordaining women to the priesthood, etc. Oh wait, the Episcopal Church has already done that, and as we can see, their membership is bursting at the seams.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

You are being extreme here, however, this is exactly the inflexible close-minded attitude thats causing us to lose members. If you prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend their isn’t a problem, thats your perogative.

Some of the above issues I agree probably ought to be left alone, however others I think need to be reviewed with an open mind considering both Christ’s teachings and today’s environment. I think “tweaks” are possible without seriously underminding our basic roots.

 

[mikew262]

estesbob:

But the Sticky ones are the Teachings on Homosexuality, female ordination, Contraception and Abortion . Many reject those teachings and yet claim to be Catholic. And rejecting these is just as egregious as St Stans rejecting the authorioty of the Church And as with St Stans we cant just ignore it becuase they accpet some of the other Doctrines.

Yes, those are the “hot issues”, I agree. However, we will get way off subject here if dig into those. Plenty of other threads talking about those subjects.

 

[irenaeus1]

mikew262:

You might want to belong because you feel most comfortable in the catholic faith. You may believe in 95% of the doctrine, but maybe have a problem with 5%. I would think the church would still welcome those folks and maybe through time, they would agree with the other 5%. The Protestant ranks and atheist ranks are growing and we are shrinking. What are we doing to reverse that?

My comfort with the Catholic Church does not have anything to do with belonging to it. In fact, many times in my faith journey I would have been more comfortable outside the Catholic Church. When 18 years old, it was not comfortable adhering to the Church’s teaching on pre-marital sex. When I first married, I did not understand the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception, but I submitted in obedience nonetheless. It would have been more comfortable not to. So comfort is irrelevant.

What’s your cutoff for acceptance of Church doctrine? 95/5? 80/20? 60/40? BTW, I am not saying that the Church should not welcome people wherever they are in their faith journey. But it should never be the prerogative of the Church to leave them there. They should always be challenged with the truth.

With regard to growth, actually, I believe that only the Pentecostal and Evangelical ranks are growing. Most mainline Protestant groups are shrinking. Also, are you accounting for population growth or just % of population when you say that certain groups are on the decline? I thought that, although the Catholic Church loses many members, the Catholic Church is actually growing – perhaps not.

If we are not like sheep, then why are bishops considered shepherds.

You are just playing with words here.

I suppose Jesus is playing with words also since he is the one who authorized the apostles to function as shepherds.

There are more respectful ways of inferring somebody doesn’t know something than calling them ignorant. I know I can come up with better ways. To me, it’s insulting and being talked down too.

Kind of like the respect you demonstrated by saying that I have my head stuck in the sand in a subsequent post.

Disagreeing with a particular position or issue is not the same as feeling superior. I happen to disagree with some of what you are saying. However because we may disagree doesn’t mean I at all feel superior to you.

You’re correct that if you are disagreeing with me, then you may not be claiming superiority, but you’re comparing apples and oranges. Superiority is not an issue in that case because we are talking about a difference of opinion between two fallible individuals. But if you claim that you disagree with an entity or person that claims infallibility, then superiority is now an issue.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

mikew262:

You are being extreme here, however, this is exactly the inflexible close-minded attitude thats causing us to lose members. If you prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend their isn’t a problem, thats your perogative.

Some of the above issues I agree probably ought to be left alone, however others I think need to be reviewed with an open mind considering both Christ’s teachings and today’s environment. I think “tweaks” are possible without seriously underminding our basic roots.

Mike, if you think that what you have proposed is the reason for losing members from the Catholic Church, you have got to be kidding. It’s quite the opposite. The Catholic Church has lost members primarily due to the ‘watered-down’ version of the faith that has been taught over the past few decades. Just look at the poor catechesis over the last 40 years or so, and much of the publications for religious education in the Catholic Church during this period was primarily in the hands of the dissenters. We have lost many Catholics - both nominal and those of deeper conviction. Many nominal Catholics left because it seemed not to matter as much as it use to, and many of deeper conviction left for fundamentalist or evangelical groups because those groups did not appear to water down the gospel message. Either way, one could hardly make the argument you are putting forth that we are losing members because the Catholic Church is too ‘orthodox’ in her teaching or that she’s teaching with too much conviction.

Also Mike, I’m not sure with what you disagree. The arguments that I have put forward are completely independent of whether I am a solidly orthodox Catholic or a dissenter, whether I am even Christian at all or an agnostic. I could be a secular historian with an interest in philosophy and logic for all you know, and my statements would still stand. But let me simplify since you did not actually answer why you are Catholic.

1. The Catholic Church is either infallible with regard to faith and morals (as the Church clearly claims) or she is not. These are the only two possibilityies. Agree?
2. If the Catholic Church is infallible, then if one disagrees with a particular doctrine, then by definition, the individual is in error. Agree?
3. If the Catholic Church is not infallible, then there are only two options. Either the Catholic Church knows that she is not infallible or she does not know. Agree? If you do not agree, please let me know what the third option is.
4. If the Catholic Church knows that she is not infallible, then she is a deceiver and a liar. Agree? If not, what is she?
5. If the Catholic Church does not know that she is not infallible, then she is deluded and confused and cannot possibly be relied upon with any certitude as a moral guide. In fact, she is no better off than any Protestant group since any position regarding faith and morals is reduced to mere opinion and conjecture. Agree? If not, explain how your belief that the Catholic Church is the best choice without it sounding as if that is merely an opinion. Upon what authority is your opinion more correct than one who believes that their Protestant denomination is the best choice?

Mike, since I am assuming that you are not knowingly and willfully rejecting an article of faith when you say that you don’t agree with a certain doctrine, then by default, you must belong to an organization that falls under either number 4 or 5. Which is it?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Catholic29]

Irenaeus, it appears to me everything you said is well put. And is in my judgement a fair and very concise assessment of the issues at hand.

I have nothing more to add.

God Bless,
Catholic29

 

[shades_of_gray]

johnq:

Quote your source. Please no slander.

“As I wrote at the beginning, my heart is heavy in writing to you about the break of communion with the Church by our brothers and sisters at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, most especially at the Holy Seasons of Advent and Christmas. We must not, however, permit Satan to steal our joy at the preparation for Christmas and the celebration of the Birth of Our Lord Jesus.”

stlouisreview.com/abpcolumn.php?abpid=9772

 

[emsvetich]

mikew262:

You are being extreme here, however, this is exactly the inflexible close-minded attitude thats causing us to lose members. If you prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend their isn’t a problem, thats your perogative.

Some of the above issues I agree probably ought to be left alone, however others I think need to be reviewed with an open mind considering both Christ’s teachings and today’s environment. I think “tweaks” are possible without seriously underminding our basic roots.

Your progressive side keeps tripping you up. Today’s environment has nothing to do with it. If the Church were to “tweak” every time the environment changed or was challenged, we would have no Tradition. I guess that I am extreme also. Look at what is happening to other denominations who have continued to “tweak” since the Reformation. How many are there now, 30,000 plus? I would rather stick to what has made our Church the one true faith. There may be more empty seats in the future, but those filling them will be secure in the knowledge that they have kept THE FAITH, not the most recent version depending on how the current environment evolved. In my apparently extreme view, you are either Catholic or you are something else. The cafeteria line starts outside if you want to choose.

 

[johnq]

shades of gray:

Archbishop Burke has called the parishioners of St. Stanislaus “satan”. How can Archbishop honestly say he prays for a reconcilliation when he publicly calls them “satan”?

Thank you for the reporting your source.

“As I wrote at the beginning, my heart is heavy in writing to you about the break of communion with the Church by our brothers and sisters at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, most especially at the Holy Seasons of Advent and Christmas. We must not, however, permit Satan to steal our joy at the preparation for Christmas and the celebration of the Birth of Our Lord Jesus.”

I am still confused. How does this quote show that Arch-bishop Burke called the parishoners Satan? If he was referring to the the parishoners as satan then why did he say “we?”

 

[TPJCatholic]

Important news item:

Legal Setback for Diocese in US Bankrupcty Case
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:00:00 AM GMT

In a ruling that severely damages the strategy of some American Church leaders, a federal judge in Oregon has ruled that parish properties legally belong to the Portland archdiocese.

The ruling means that the Portland archdiocese could be forced to sell parish rectories, schools, and even church buildings to settle the financial claims of victims of clerical abuse.

catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?category_id=10

 

[ernesto]

Wow, I’ve missed a lot of discussion…

I want to reiterate a point regarding Fr. Bozek and the board members of St. Stan which was never really addressed and I think should be…

Fr. Bozek & the board have been excommunicated, and I think this is out of proportion… We have priests who openly support abortion, who have quietly sexually preyed on children of our parishes, and others who, if I’m correct, have denied that Christ actually died and was raised from the dead. None of these other priests have been publicly called out nor been excommunicated, though what they have done is far worse than what Bozek and the board are guilty of. I think this needs to be addressed.

Also-

There ARE worse things than being excommunicated from the Catholic church- like denying Christ himself and going to Hell. (It can’t hurt to recall that, even though we may be in good standing and communion with the Catholic church- it does NOT mean that we are neccessarily in Christ and destined for Heaven.)

There are good Protestant churches where Christ is glorified and souls are being saved.

(I know this will be controversial for some, but I think there are perhaps some elements of perpsective lacking in this discussion…)