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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TPJCatholic:
flame,

Very thoughtful analysis…thank you. I respectfully disagree.

Bishop Burke will not “negotiate” with the parish. He is a faithful Bishop who is simply following Canon Law. I know in our modern world it seems as if agreements can always be reached through compromise. Yet, the problem really lies with the fact that the parishioners seem to think they “own” their parish. That is simply not the case. In actual face the Church and its properties are truly the Lord’s property through His Church…it cannot belong to the lay Catholics as if we followed some form of democratic faith. As I stated before, that is the Protestant model…not the Catholic model. One of the mistakes in this mess is that the parishioners should never have been allowed to “believe” they own the parish. Whatever a Catholic gives to the Church, in time, talent or tressure, is given freely to the Lord, and not part of a means to wrestle control away from the Church.

Bishop Burke has made his poistion clear and the Holy See’ backed him up when they chose not to get involved. If Bishop Burke caves, then that will become a model across the country…it would shock me beyond words if he compromised on this issue.
Click to expand...
Good point, TPJ, I agree with you, the issue here is more of Catholic model vs. Protestant model.

Diocesan priests makes vows of Obedience to their Bishops. Vows *mean something * in the Catholic “model” and this priest is in serious trouble spiritually if he does not humble himself, detach himself from the “issue,” and, reconcile himself with God and his Bishop.

We* pray * the people involved will understand the seriousness of the Bishop’s warning to them.
 
ernesto,

If a Catholic is truly in communion with the Church, then that person is in communion with Christ and will go to Heaven if they do not fall into mortal sin. Of course if they do fall into mortal sin, all that is needed is confession. The problem is that there are many Catholics today who do not even try to be in full communion with the Church.

I think we can all agree that there are Protestants being saved. Yet, the point is not that it is possible for Protestants to be saved, because it clearly is possible. The point is the Protestant model is considerably more difficult in which to receive salvation.
 
40.png
johnq:
Thank you for the reporting your source.

I am still confused. :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?”
Click to expand...
This is from his weekly letter in the St. Louis Review to the Archdiocese at large. I read the “we” to mean the Archdiocese at large and that “we” should not permit what the parishioners at St. Stan’s, “satan”, are doing to affect our (Archdiocese at large) celebration of the Christmas season.

I think the letter was ill-timed and ill-conceived and further enlarges the divide between St. Stan’s and the Archbishop. He can not possibly in earnest say he wishes and prays for a reconciliation with a letter like this.
 
It is now upon the lay board and Father Bozek for reconciliation.
While it is not the end of the world turning Protestant, it is very much a horrible sin to lead people away from the Church. They are doing this, and for no good reasons. At a time when there are way more important things to be worrying about, they created a schizm over money, and their secular Polish Heritage Center.
They value this center, which the lay board poured parishioners money into, and also raised money from secular donors, way more than they value the Sacraments, or the Church in general. It did not affect them, they write on the lay board’s Web site, when the Archbishop took away their priests as a punitive measure. Wow. It would affect me, and every other Catholic I know. What they consider a strength of theirs (to be able to endure life without the Sacraments for a political cause), I consider a horrible weakness. It is nothing new either. They are not heroes. They are not standing up for anything worthwhile. They are giving in to a temptation many have felt over the last 2000 years: puting one’s own ideas, desires, and pride over the greater good of the one true Church.
 
I must respectfully disagree with those who have written in regard to Archbishop Burke being a faithful steward of the church who is in the right where the issue of St. Stanislaus is concerned. Rather than leading people away from the church many in the St. Louis area are begining to feel that the parish of St. Stanisaus is providing a refuge from a archbishop who is out of control. The St. Louis area has been hard hit by the pedophile priest tragedy, not to the extent of Boston or L.A. but still than Chicago, and not a single pedophile priest has faced excommunication. Archbishop Burke has made it very clear that the schizm will be at an end when St. Stanislaus hands control of the church and its assets. Until that time he has made it very clear that those in a state of excommunication are unable to achive salvation. Please consider how this sounds, especially to the non Catholic who are following this story. I have read some who say that Archbishop Burke is a hero to “true” Catholics and he does have his supporters. They are in the minority, not that numbers alone should have any bearing on right and wrong, and his supporters are also not to be found among his own clergy. You’ll have to trust me on this but the man is reviled, and perhaps more importantly,ignored, by his own priests. The church in the St. Louis area has suffered one disaster after another in the past few years, declining attendance, pedophile priests, large court settlements and even larger out of court settlements. The entire business concerning St. Stanislaus is giving the church a black eye that it cannot afford. It began with one man, Archbishop Burke. He is the one man that can end it. If memory serves something not unlike this is what helped start things rolling in Whittenburg hundreds of years ago and even the Holy Father once said, in as many words, that Martin Luthor had a point.
 
40.png
MLehde:
…You’ll have to trust me on this but the man is reviled, and perhaps more importantly,ignored, by his own priests.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I don’t automatically trust you on this, but if it is true, we (the Church) have a much bigger problem than the St. Stanislaus situation. And I’m not quite sure what you mean about priests ignoring the Archbishop. If this is true, aren’t they breaking their vow of obedience? Or do you mean they ignore his opinion, not his orders?
 
40.png
MLehde:
I must respectfully disagree with those who have written in regard to Archbishop Burke being a faithful steward of the church who is in the right where the issue of St. Stanislaus is concerned. Rather than leading people away from the church many in the St. Louis area are begining to feel that the parish of St. Stanisaus is providing a refuge from a archbishop who is out of control. The St. Louis area has been hard hit by the pedophile priest tragedy, not to the extent of Boston or L.A. but still than Chicago, and not a single pedophile priest has faced excommunication. Archbishop Burke has made it very clear that the schizm will be at an end when St. Stanislaus hands control of the church and its assets. Until that time he has made it very clear that those in a state of excommunication are unable to achive salvation. Please consider how this sounds, especially to the non Catholic who are following this story. I have read some who say that Archbishop Burke is a hero to “true” Catholics and he does have his supporters. They are in the minority, not that numbers alone should have any bearing on right and wrong, and his supporters are also not to be found among his own clergy. You’ll have to trust me on this but the man is reviled, and perhaps more importantly,ignored, by his own priests. The church in the St. Louis area has suffered one disaster after another in the past few years, declining attendance, pedophile priests, large court settlements and even larger out of court settlements. The entire business concerning St. Stanislaus is giving the church a black eye that it cannot afford. It began with one man, Archbishop Burke. He is the one man that can end it. If memory serves something not unlike this is what helped start things rolling in Whittenburg hundreds of years ago and even the Holy Father once said, in as many words, that Martin Luthor had a point.
Click to expand...
I took time in my last post to point out that the lay board and Father Bozek are not heroes for a reason: just as you say, they are considered heroes over there in St. Louis.
But, like you also said, numbers do not determine right or wrong, so lets not assume these hoards supporting this schizm are right. In fact, every faithful Catholic knows they are wrong because they went against the Archbishop and the Holy Father without even dire reasons. Their reasons were political, and about money and power. Don’t think so? Ask me why and I can tell you. I have researched this before I made my opinion, and posted on it many times. You need to read this whole post, so you can see that many of us agree that the lay board and Father Boezek are wrong regardless of whether we like the Archbishop or even if he is wrong on his stance.
It is not a question any more of whether or not the Archbishop is right (which he is), it is whether or not the lay board or the fallen priest value the Church Jesus and the Apostles founded, or not. I think its a question of whether they ever did. Please read the lay Board’s site. They prove my point for me.
 
You are welcome to believe what I wrote regarding the attitudes of the priests of the archdioscese here in St. Louis as you like or not. In my profession I have occassion to deal with a considerable number of them, not a majority by any means but I would consider it a reasonable sample, and the comments I have heard them make about Archbishop Burke are this side of shocking. As I make it a point not to express any opinions of my own in this matter aloud, I think it better to remain professional, I can’ t think that any of them would be simply saying what they think that I want, or expect, to hear. Usually the opposite as they often end up saying that they hope that they haven’t said anything that I find offensive. I even asked one, after a paticularly harsh remark he made and his outlining some plans he had made that would put him in conflict with the archbishop if he wasn’t worried that he was going to be getting himself in trouble and shouldn’t he consider what happened to Father Bozek. This was not too many days ago and he actually laughed aloud at my question. According to him there were more than a few priests in attendance at the illicit mass that was a mortal sin to attend. I can’t vouch that his statement was true but you must conceed that even a few attending is a grim situation.
I should, in all fairness, mention that my wife feels that if the archbishop says it then it is so and is never a subject for debate. According to her, and she knows cannon law far better than I,point of fact I don’t claim to understand it in the slightest, the archbishop is in the right in this case simply because, unless told otherwise by the holy father, he is incapable of being in the wrong. While I respect her opinion, along with those of you who agree with her, and accept that your position is sincere I still find myself unable to embrace that philosphy.
I agree that the issue is really one of money and that is probably the saddest element to this whole story. So much damage is being done over nothing more than filthy coin of the realm. Our local newspaper, the Post Dispatch, is no friend of the Catholic Church and has been eating this story up and running with it on an almost daily basis. If the board of St. Stanislaus would surrender their asssets to Archbishop Burke this story would be over and done with and the Post Dispatch would have one less stone to sling, after first trumpeting that Goliath had slain David, but by the same token it would end just as easily, and with far less harm to all involved, if the archbishop would honor the agreement made with the parish over a hundred years ago and respected by all the cardinals and archbishops of St. Louis since.
 
40.png
ernesto:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that dissenting/heretical priests need to be disciplined. I disagree, though, that excommunication is out of proportion for the St. Stan’s situation. Beyond their simple disobedience to the bishop, the board at St. Stan’s induced a priest to desert his flock and break his solemn promise of obedience so that they could frequent his illicit sacraments. That’s very serious stuff.

I recently read an article from the Belleville News-Democrat (Belleville is about 30 minutes from St. Louis and is the seat of the neighboring diocese) about a local county that came under interdict in the 50s. A priest (who happens to write the column on the Scripture readings for the diocesan newspaper) claimed in that article that excommunication is not a Christ-like action. What that Scripture scholar seemed to have forgotten is that the procedure was commanded by Christ Himself. Christ’s institution of the practice does not necessarily make it proportionate in this instance, but I sometimes get the impression that people work off a presumption against excommunication simply because the word leaves a bad taste in their mouths and not based on the particular merits of a case. I don’t know why you specifically feel excommunication is not warranted at St. Stan’s, but given the grave nature of the actions I listed above, I feel the censure is entirely appropriate.
 
40.png
MLehde:
You are welcome to believe what I wrote regarding the attitudes of the priests of the archdioscese here in St. Louis as you like or not. In my profession I have occassion to deal with a considerable number of them, not a majority by any means but I would consider it a reasonable sample, and the comments I have heard them make about Archbishop Burke are this side of shocking.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that your claim about the priests of the archdiocese is probably true. I base that on my familiarity with the priests of the neighboring diocese, who are also ‘in conflict’ with their bishop. I think the difference may be that my association with these priests has led me to believe that if they are in the right on any particular subject it’s probably by accident. Obedience might as well be a synonym for leprosy based on its value among the presbyterate of my diocese, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the priests just a hop, skip, and a jump away were of the same mind. The point is, I suppose, that the opposition of a large number of priests does not always reflect poorly on the bishop. Sometimes it may reflect poorly on the priests.
 
40.png
MLehde:
You are welcome to believe what I wrote regarding the attitudes of the priests of the archdioscese here in St. Louis as you like or not. In my profession I have occassion to deal with a considerable number of them, not a majority by any means but I would consider it a reasonable sample, and the comments I have heard them make about Archbishop Burke are this side of shocking. As I make it a point not to express any opinions of my own in this matter aloud, I think it better to remain professional, I can’ t think that any of them would be simply saying what they think that I want, or expect, to hear. Usually the opposite as they often end up saying that they hope that they haven’t said anything that I find offensive. I even asked one, after a paticularly harsh remark he made and his outlining some plans he had made that would put him in conflict with the archbishop if he wasn’t worried that he was going to be getting himself in trouble and shouldn’t he consider what happened to Father Bozek. This was not too many days ago and he actually laughed aloud at my question. According to him there were more than a few priests in attendance at the illicit mass that was a mortal sin to attend. I can’t vouch that his statement was true but you must conceed that even a few attending is a grim situation.
I should, in all fairness, mention that my wife feels that if the archbishop says it then it is so and is never a subject for debate. According to her, and she knows cannon law far better than I,point of fact I don’t claim to understand it in the slightest, the archbishop is in the right in this case simply because, unless told otherwise by the holy father, he is incapable of being in the wrong. While I respect her opinion, along with those of you who agree with her, and accept that your position is sincere I still find myself unable to embrace that philosphy.
I agree that the issue is really one of money and that is probably the saddest element to this whole story. So much damage is being done over nothing more than filthy coin of the realm. Our local newspaper, the Post Dispatch, is no friend of the Catholic Church and has been eating this story up and running with it on an almost daily basis. If the board of St. Stanislaus would surrender their asssets to Archbishop Burke this story would be over and done with and the Post Dispatch would have one less stone to sling, after first trumpeting that Goliath had slain David, but by the same token it would end just as easily, and with far less harm to all involved, if the archbishop would honor the agreement made with the parish over a hundred years ago and respected by all the cardinals and archbishops of St. Louis since.
Click to expand...
Your justification for your position based on unhappy priests is weak at best. Your inside information is suspect as is your erroneous implication that Archbishop Burke is the first to not honor the agreement with St. Stan’s. A simple reading of the facts will show that the previous Bishop began this process and that St. Stan’s board changed the by laws. Using information not publically known as well as ommiting known facts is a devious way to justify your own issues with the Church. Are you aware of Archbishop Burke’s stature as a leading Canon Law expert? Is it just possible that someone higher up than the laity was and is aware of what has been going on and assigned the good archbishop to St. Louis for a specific reason?
 
40.png
emsvetich:
Your justification for your position based on unhappy priests is weak at best. Your inside information is suspect as is your erroneous implication that Archbishop Burke is the first to not honor the agreement with St. Stan’s. A simple reading of the facts will show that the previous Bishop began this process and that St. Stan’s board changed the by laws. Using information not publically known as well as ommiting known facts is a devious way to justify your own issues with the Church. Are you aware of Archbishop Burke’s stature as a leading Canon Law expert? Is it just possible that someone higher up than the laity was and is aware of what has been going on and assigned the good archbishop to St. Louis for a specific reason?
Click to expand...
I do not base my opinion of the archbishop upon the position of unhappy priests and your assertion that my information is suspect concerns me not in the least. Archbishop Burke has claimed, as have his supporters, that former former Archbishop, now Cardinal, Rigali actually began this process is an oft repeated flashood. Archbishop Rigali did not threaten excommunication or wave the banner of schizm but only inquired if the parish would be willing to, of their own accord, alter the operating argreement. Their answer was that they would prefer to keep thigs as they are and as the agreement was made by Cardinal Kendrick in perpetuity they were within their right to do so. Archbishop Rigali’s staff examined the chances for success in pressing a suit and were informed that they were nill and so nothing more was done with the matter. Cardinal Rigali even presided at the opening of the Polish Heritage Center. The chief concern of the parish has always been that they be allowed to remain an active church and that the property not be sold off to developers. It might well be that Archbishop Burke was sent to St. Louis for the very reason that you suggest as a very similar situation developed during his tenure in LaCross as bishop. In that instance a Polish parish, operating under the same agreement as St. Stanislaus, was closed and the property sold off after recieving assurances from Archbishop Burke that if they surrendered their assets and control to him they would not be closed. As it can’t be said that Archbishop Burke doesn’t have a track record in these matters his being sent to St. Louis seems akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull. The Polish community in America is a tight one word of what happened in LaCross made it to St. Louis before he could pack his bags. It must have been realized that if anyone could resolve this without people being hurt Archbishop Burke was not that man. It might well be that you are correct in that this is the reason that the archbishop was sent here but then that begs the question of whether a fight was desired all along.
 
40.png
MLehde:
II have read some who say that Archbishop Burke is a hero to “true” Catholics and he does have his supporters. They are in the minority, not that numbers alone should have any bearing on right and wrong, and his supporters are also not to be found among his own clergy. You’ll have to trust me on this but the man is reviled, and perhaps more importantly,ignored, by his own priests.
Click to expand...
I agree! Several months ago I was at a trivia night sponsored by a St. Louis Catholic (not Archdiocesan and not in any way related to St. Stan) organization with several hundred attending. One of the answers to a trivia question was “Archbishop Burke”. When the answer was announced there was a loud, resounding chorus of “boos”. I was very surprised by such a negative and open response! But it just shows what a negative effect the Archbishop has had on the Catholic community in St. Louis.
 
40.png
emsvetich:
Are you aware of Archbishop Burke’s stature as a leading Canon Law expert?
Click to expand...
Most catholics don’t know anything about Canon Law. If Burke was talking with a bunch of other Canon lawyers they would understand him. The parishioners of St. Stan’s are not Canon lawyers and do not understand where he is coming from. All they know is the resources, efforts, hard work they have put into their parish at a time when the Archdiocese is busy closing a lot of other parishes. Both parties are obviously operating in completely different worlds and neither is budging to understand the other!
 
shades of gray:
Most catholics don’t know anything about Canon Law. If Burke was talking with a bunch of other Canon lawyers they would understand him. The parishioners of St. Stan’s are not Canon lawyers and do not understand where he is coming from. All they know is the resources, efforts, hard work they have put into their parish at a time when the Archdiocese is busy closing a lot of other parishes. Both parties are obviously operating in completely different worlds and neither is budging to understand the other!
Click to expand...
Thank you ! I find it interesting that this thread has gone on this long before someone finally said that “Most catholics don’t know anything about Canon Law”. Unfortunately, you state this fact as if it can be used as a defense for the schismatic activities of those affiliated with St. Stan’s. By those affiliated I mean those board members, parishoners , wayward priests and recent defenders of the the now excommunicated parish. The process leading up to the excommunication has been festering for years. Most of us who have commented on the actions of the Catholic Church versus St. Stan’s do not have the entire chronology available. I know that I do not. I will venture a guess that the board members and their attorneys do know about Canon Law. They did not go into this ignorant of the appropriate Canon Law(s) that they were in violation of and the eventual outcome should they push it. It may be true that the parishoners do not know anything about Canon Law. In that case, the question is where are they to go to to find out? The logical answer to me would be the Catholic Church. If they depended on their own board members, they chose poorly.

The virilent attacks on Archbishop Burke and Canon Law are indicative of what has taken place over the past 40 years in the US. Respect for anything, anyone or any institution who dares to tell ME that I cannot do something is immediately decried as a tyrant. Who are they to tell me what to do!

Ignorance of the law and irreverence for institutions has become the American way. For those old enough, how would your parents have reacted to the way today’s teens act. How dare a parent try to control their child! The Catholic Church in America is no different. I will pick and choose what traditions, doctrines and social mores are relevent to me and anyone who tells me otherwise can go to h—. They are too traditional, too dogmatic, too old fashioned. Everyone is entitled to their belief. To do otherwise is to be called sheep. Relativism is the only law that anyone needs to understand.

So here some are defending a schismatic group. There is no question that they are in schism-even Rome agrees.We can rationalize that it was the Archbishop’s fault that this all happened. The next thing that you know, some violent murderer will be held up as a role model and his innocent victims will be forgotten.

Isn’t it interesting how these things get twisted around? Excuse me for being a traditional Catholic. If the Archbishop, Canon Law and those to whom this was appealed in the Vatican all agree, it does not take a legal scholar to know which is the correct action to take-unless of course, it is all relative!
 
When Jesus wants us to follow him, He usually makes it pretty easy to see what side He is on. The lay board think they can fool people into thinking this is about freedom. They have misled many. They are power hungry, and stubborn. They are too caught up in their cause to think about Jesus.
Some things to sum it up for all of you. It is probably too late for St. Stanislaus and those who still attend there. But it isn’t too late for anyone who might feel they are being tempted to think the lay board and Father Bozek are heroes.
Here’s a quote from one Polish woman on why she voted to hand over her Churches “assets”.
"You can’t have a bunch of lay people running a Catholic church," she said.
That’s a minority point of view in St. Stanislaus parish, board members say.
The board, caught up in the moment and fervor of their cause, betray how erroneos their thinking is, and how it realy is about power. They are reveling in the support they are getting from misled parishioners, and non-Catholics. I guess, if what MHLede says is indicative of many priests, then they are also reveling in the support of Holy men.
Lets, for a second, ignore the fact that the Archbishop, and the Vatican both dissagree with the lay board. For those who have not put their faith in Jesus enough to trust His Church, then how about other more subtle signs?
Let us, as Christians, know how powerful the media is to influence. Who’s side has overwhelmingly been represented as heroes for the past few years? That’s right, the lay board of the corporation of St. Stanislaus parish (yes, they are considered a c corporation). This should make any person of faith a little wary, even without knowing any of the story.
Next, let us look at the lay board’s reaction to the Archbishop taking away their priests, after they repeatedly treated their priests with no respect (after all, the article I quoted shows they want to run the Church), and refused to give the diocese any say over financial matters.
Any rightiousness of the agreement of 1891, is now null for many reasons. First, they changed their by laws and removed all mention of the Roman Catholic Church, only 5 years ago. THey do not mention this, and neither does the media of course. Also, use logic. The same authority that gave them control of their own finances, should also have the authority to take it away. The Vatican and the Archbishop tried to do so, and the lay board laughed at them.
The lay board compares themselves to the freedom leaders in communist Poland. This shows their pride, which is the root of all evil. Even so, the pride is misplpaced.
Here is a letter from Polish Parishioners who began attending Polish Mass at St. Johns with all the other faithful, after the board got out of control. www.archstl.org/parishes/documents/st-stanislaus_appeal-letter.pdf
Many of the most faithful to the Catholic Church are those who remember how Jesus and His Church inspired them through the Comunist occupation. They are insulted at how these young Polish (They are mostly at least 2nd generation American citizens) are using that same heritage to attack and tear apart that same Church here in America.
Still not convinced at who’s side Jesus is on (and that is all that matters)? Well, consider that He gave us the Eucharist as a solemn gift and He gave it to the Apostles to perform the prayers and break the bread for us. It is our biggest spiritual gift, available daily for us. It is Jesus himself. The lay board laughed at Archbishop Burke when he rightly took this away from them temporarily after many warnings. Anyone who would laugh at that, and convince the Parish to “persevere” without Jesus Himself for months, are only on the side of themselves.
It may be hard to see, but open your eyes and see the true nature of Jesus. He didn’t want blind conformity. He wanted us to see and conform to His will. He wanted us to know what we are conforming to. Unless you look at the beauty of the Church He founded, you don’t know why you must conform. That is the problem the lay board has. That is why the Polish Heritage Center is more important to them than the Catholic Christ center in their souls.
 
emsvetich:
The next thing that you know, some violent murderer will be held up as a role model and his innocent victims will be forgotten.

This has happened, very recently. Stanley “tookie” Williams was propped up by the media as a hero for a long time untill his victims finaly came out and said “wait a minute” remember this? (and then they showed pictures of their loved one’s that he killed). He also started the Crips, which has tempted many young boys to think violence is more powerful than love and Jesus. Well, the media was exposed, as was all of William’s supporters.
 
40.png
TheRaiders:
emsvetich:
The next thing that you know, some violent murderer will be held up as a role model and his innocent victims will be forgotten.

This has happened, very recently. Stanley “tookie” Williams was propped up by the media as a hero for a long time untill his victims finaly came out and said “wait a minute” remember this? (and then they showed pictures of their loved one’s that he killed). He also started the Crips, which has tempted many young boys to think violence is more powerful than love and Jesus. Well, the media was exposed, as was all of William’s supporters.
Click to expand...
Thank you,
I was being facetious to make a point. It is scary how society rationalizes these things, isn’t it. I am glad that my point was made.
 
40.png
emsvetich:
Thank you,
I was being facetious to make a point. It is scary how society rationalizes these things, isn’t it. I am glad that my point was made.
Click to expand...
and made quite well:thumbsup:
 
40.png
emsvetich:
Isn’t it interesting how these things get twisted around? Excuse me for being a traditional Catholic. If the Archbishop, Canon Law and those to whom this was appealed in the Vatican all agree, it does not take a legal scholar to know which is the correct action to take-unless of course, it is all relative!
Click to expand...
Amen! emsvetich! You said it! Faithful Catholics agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top