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:
Ernesto,

BTW, no-one that I have ever read has stated that the parish or chrcuh was “going away” after the diocese took control. All Bishop Burke wanted was conformity to Canon Law…he is an actualy faithful Roman Catholic Bishop…rare, yet that is still what he is. I seriously doubt that he plans to close the Church and Parish, yet even if he does, that is HIS call, not the parish.
Click to expand...
I have to concur with much here. Burke has said repeatedly in the press that he is NOT making plans to close St. Stanislaus. The concern of the Board is that this will change over time and that future events will lead the Diocese to close the parish. St. Stanislaus was in terrible financial shape at one point in the 1970’s (???) and apparently brought itself back from the brink, to the point that it now has considerable assets. The parishioners feel hurt that all of their work and devotion might lead to naught if the Diocese lands on hard times–or if the parish itself hits a bit of a rough spot. They feel they saved the parish once and could do it again if needed–IF they were given the chance. Keep in mind that the local RCC has restructured several times in the past several years, closing and consolidating numerous parishes, to the heartbreak of many. St. Stan’s is in a unique position to resist such actions and to register what I suspect is the collective dissatisfaction of many others in the St. Louis area. Indeed, they may pick up members from recently-shuttered parishes, now that they have a priest.

This in turn weaken’s Burke’s hand. With a priest able to perform valid-but-illicit sacraments at St. Stanislaus, it is possible that there will be a hemhorage of parishioners from newly-consituted parishes to St. Stanislaus–along with the pocketbooks of said parishioners. This potentially harms the surrounding re-designed parishes, and perpetuates the rebellion of the St. Stanislaus folk for awhile to come. It MAY serve over time to motivate both Burke and the Board to negotiate more sincerely–especially since anyone attending St. Stan’s can presume they will incur excommunication. Burke won’t get everything he wants if such negotiations take place, but neither would the parish of St. Stanislaus. This is why I for one think the arrival of Bozek COULD BE a positive move, even though many of the RCC posters here of course decry the tweaking of a reigning Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal’s nose. (No one yet has clarified Burke’s title. Mean no disrespect in using only his last name–just dunno what his title is).
 
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.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
That is not a valid question. Pointing to someone else and their sins does not negate the sin or harm committed by that parish and the dissenters. Pointing to other evils never negates the evil at hand.
Click to expand...
Right. I don’t know enough about this case to comment, but pointing to worse priests is the same when one complains to the hightway cop that there were alot of people going way faster.

Scott
 
This in turn weaken’s Burke’s hand. With a priest able to perform valid-but-illicit sacraments at St. Stanislaus, it is possible that there will be a hemhorage of parishioners from newly-consituted parishes to St. Stanislaus–along with the pocketbooks of said parishioners.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t this priest be in the same situation as a SSPX priest? They can confect the Eucharist but not validly perform weddings or absolve people of sin in Confession (except when dying) since these Sacraments require permission of the local ordinary. It sounds like the Archdiocese is making sure that everyone understand that this run-away priest is not operating legitimately and therefore saving some people from big problems later.
 
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...
If Burke is as inflexible as you suggest . . . then the upshot will be that St. Stanislaus will eventually unite with the Old Catholics or the Polish National Catholic Church. My guess is that if this is what the parishioners really wanted–there would be a PNCC or Old Catholic priest presiding over services at St. Stan’s already. It’s been over a year. I am relatively confident that offers of this sort have already been extended and politely declined at least for the time being. So there is every reason to think that the parish itself hopes to keep dialogue open. A lot depends upon how interested Burke is in doing likewise. And all indications are that Burke HAS BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS with St. Stanislaus throughout the affair. Those negotiations have broken down of course, with the penalty of interdict imposed upon the board by Burke. But there is every reason to hope that, after some initial ugliness, including a likely public excommunication of Marek Bozek, there will once again be some behind-the-scenes conversations which will have the hope of restoring the parish to good favor with the Diocese.

(IS Burke a Bishop? Or an Archbishop? Seems as though his predecessor was a Cardinal–Regalia or some such name. I am totally befuddled as to what to call the current occupant of the Cathedral of St. Louis).

In any case–Burke won’t be Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal/whatever forever–he’ll move on sooner or later. There’ve been three folks in his place since I came to St. Louis in '83–one fellow died and the other got promoted to another role, I think. (I don’t actually keep close tabs on what the RCC hierarchy is doing, just as I don’t pay much attention to what the baseball team or the football team do–sports, like the comings-and-goings of the RCC are just in the headlines often enough that I can’t always ignore it).

So St. Stan’s has every reason to hope that the next guy up to bat will take a softer line and let them retain the status quo which was grandfathered in for them in 1917. It’s really a bad show that Burke unilaterally chose to change the rules agreed upon for lo these many decades. As noted earlier, it’s really bad press for the local RCC. You can tell this from all the negative comments on local talk shows whenever the issue pops up–not just on KMOX (our local “Voice of the Liberal Left”), but virtually every other radio station which takes callers sees a three-to-one or greater ratio of critics of Burke’s move over supporters of the same. I realise this isn’t pleasant for the Catholics on CA to hear–most of you are ‘organization Catholics’, very conservative and unwilling to see a conservative and orthodox Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal take a hit. But I really think that Burke has done much more harm than any good he thought he could reap over this whole affair.
 
I am a little bit uncomfortable with both sides of this story. However, can anyone explain to me why in Spokane, Washington, when the diocese is sued the assets belong to the parishoners, but here the (substantial)assets belong to the Bishop? I was recently discussing this question with my diocesan Judicial Vicar who has intimate knowledge of the situation, when I brought up the Spokane analogy, he had no response. I honestly do not believe he had ever considered the hypocracy before.

That said, from the stories I had heard (he went to seminary with one of the priests removed from the parish and kept in touch) the board was acting in a reprehinsible manner. His opinion is that Apb Burke is just sticking up for his priests (rightly so).

In my opinion, the church should go the extra step in assuring the faithful after it has abused our trust so profoundly in recent years. I pray that the parish will submit to the will of the Apb., but if he does go back on his word, It will be a very long time before people ever trust a bishop again. It is sad that after recent events I would even consider the possibility that a bishop would mislead his flock, but I still can’t help but wonder if there is some gotcha loophole in the offer that the apb has made.
 
flame,

Okay, so let’s break this down using some of your points.

Bishop Burke (he is Bishop, not Archbishop) will not be there forever, yet he is not likely to go anywhere anytime soon.

By the time another Bishop is appointed the entire parish will either have come back or will be permanently outside the Church, unless at that future date they repented and turned back to Holy Mother Church (yes, that is what the Church is no matter what the modern world thinks).

Whenever a new Bishops is appointed, he will likely not be a liberal Bishop who will let the parish do what they want. Nearly all of the up-and-coming Priests are very faithful and they will take as hard a line or even harder then Bishop Burke has.

You stated that in 1917 the praish was grandfathered in…that is false. The parish was simply allowed a free ride by the Bishop at that time, despite the fact that the new Canon Law released in 1917 prohibited the arrangement the parish had. The parish stand against all Canon Law since 1917, and it stands against nearly all of the parish administration pratices theoughout history.

Bishop Burke might very well have done harm with the marginal Catholics and non-Catholics, yet he is rapdily becoming a hero among faithful Catholics (people who think obedience is something God demands, not wants). He is doing the right thing, he knows he is, and the Vatican is supporting him. As I said before, I would be shocked beyond words if he let them have their way.

In order to understand this situation you need to accept the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic faith and Church, without that this entire mess just seems like something that can be negotiated.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Bishop Burke (he is Bishop, not Archbishop)
Click to expand...
Actually, he is an Archbishop. And Cardinal Rigali became a Cardinal after he left St. Louis. He was Archbishop Rigali while he was here. IIRC, then-Archbishop Rigali actually started this process but it really came to a head when Archbishop Burke came to town. I think timing is also an issue in that this whole St. Stanislaus matter got rolling at the same time the Archdiocese was closing parishes throughout the city. There has been a definite population shift and the city is losing people quite rapidly. Many old parishes were closed and consolidated with other parishes and I think St. Stanislaus’s parish was rumored to have the same fate if Archbishop Burke was successful. Even though he repeatedly said it wouldn’t happen. I think that even though St. Stanislaus is in a dying area of the city, it could have been saved from the closings b/c it is an ethnic parish, not a parish set up by geographical boundaries - which is what most of the parishes are here in the St. Louis area.

Quite honestly, my opinion is that TPJCatholic hit the nail on the head when he mentions that the board at St. Stanislaus thinks the Church is a Democracy. I feel very sad for the parishoners who have chosen to remain faithful to the Church and Archbishop Burke and have lost their parish to the (IMO) power hungry lay board.

I am not a member of St. Stanislaus and I don’t know anyone personally from the parish. My opinions have been formed by what I have heard in the mainstream press and from the Archdiocese. BTW, here’s a link to the Archdiocese’s website which has some info about the situation.

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html
 
I don’t actually have a dog in this fight but let me respond to one or two things here:
TPJ:
You stated that in 1917 the praish was grandfathered in…that is false. The parish was simply allowed a free ride by the Bishop at that time, despite the fact that the new Canon Law released in 1917 prohibited the arrangement the parish had. The parish stand against all Canon Law since 1917, and it stands against nearly all of the parish administration pratices theoughout history.
Click to expand...
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran some articles on the history of this sort of arrangement. It was not common but was not unprecedented, apparently, and contrary to your understanding, St. Stanislaus WAS grandfathered-in, along with other parishes which had similar agreements elsewhere. St. Stan’s is, so far as I understand it, simply the sole surviving vestige of the practice. I will see if I can track down the article by the St. Louis P-D and provide a link. I may be misremembering, may have misunderstood, or the paper itself could be in error.
TPJ:
Bishop Burke might very well have done harm with the marginal Catholics and non-Catholics, yet he is rapdily becoming a hero among faithful Catholics (people who think obedience is something God demands, not wants). He is doing the right thing, he knows he is, and the Vatican is supporting him. As I said before, I would be shocked beyond words if he let them have their way.
Click to expand...
After posting last evening I was bothered by the way you and I each seem to have characterised this matter as some sort of contest or test of wills. I think the biggest problem with the direction of the discussion you and I are having is that it presupposes that there must be either a ‘win/lose’ solution to this problem, or else it must end as a ‘lose/lose’ situation. Compromise SHOULD NOT be about both sides losing something they value to get something else they value, nor should confrontations necesarily end in either a victor or a draw. This isn’t even an especially Christianly approach to the problem: Bishop Burke is servant to the members of his diocese, not their lord, and his approach to the whole matter should reflect this sort of Christly humility and concern. Likewise the parishioners of St. Stanislaus need to keep in mind their own call to humility. One would hope these aspects of the quarrel are being brought into play. If the players on the field recollect their duty to excercise Christian virtue in this conflict, it is very possible that a win/win solution can be arrived at.

As I pointed out in an earlier post to this thread, I really only happen to know where the St. Stanislaus Church building is because I drove past it once out of curiosity. Aside from being a St. Louisan, I don’t really have much stake in the whole affair. The only thing I have really tried to do in this thread was posit some reason for optimism that Fr. Marek Bozek’s defection to St. Stanislaus may not be so great a negative as many here believe it to be. Hope, by the way, is also a Christianly virtue.
 
We all know the church government is not a democracy-

however-

…laypeople have played crucial roles in resolving issues.

Priestly abuse of children would continue to plague unsuspecting parishes nationwide- if not for laypeople asking questions and demanding badly needed reforms. The laity were absolutely indispensible regarding those reforms. We can all agree on that, I presume.

Of course, this situation is not as bad as that… But I don’t see the harm in raising some questions…

My understanding is that St. Stan’s arrangement way back in the day pretty much left them on their own financially. (Hardly a 'Free Ride".) Polish immigrants started this parish on their own, and the parishoners have had to save it on their own over the years- with no financial assistance from the diocese. Is that accurate?

Why does the diocese now want to take charge of the money St. Stan has raised?

No one questions the the Archbishop’s right to seize control of St. Stan’s assets.

The question is- Is it morally right to do so?

That’s the question that I would like to see addressed. To me, just repeating that it’s his perogative over and over again doesn’t satisfy the issue for me.
 
flame,

I have already posted material earlier in this thread reflecting that the parish was NOT grandfathered in…that is a claim the parish is trying to make to sway public opinion. The truth is the previous Bishops allowed the arrangement to stand over the years (which they should not have done) despite the fact that the arrangement stood against the 1917 Canon Law. Archbishop Burke has simply properly applied Canon Law. This nation is in for lots of troubling issues if our Bishops start doing their jobs as they should because it seems Catholics have begun to think they own their parishes.

Respectfully, you seem to think the Chuirch is a democracy no matter how many times I say it is not. I say this because our discussion continues and yet if you would simply get it straight that the Church is not democratic, then you would see we really have nothing to discuss. Just as the parish would conclude the same thing. The Archbishop has spoken, The Holy See’ has supported him, it is over.

Beyond those obvious facts, there cannot be compromise in a situation where an entire parish is standing against Canon Law. You can accept that or reject it, but your constant ignoring of the fact that the Church is not democratic is not going to help you understand the Archbishop’s position. You already have a sympathetic mind towards the parishsioners. Now try to see things on the other side. Archbishop Burke has two choices: (1) Ignore Canon Law as many Bishops and clergy before him did; or (2) Apply Canon Law as his office mandates him to do. He has chosen number 2 as he should. He is being faithful to his office.

You incorrectly approach the service that the Archbishop owes. His first and always primary service is to Jesus Christ, not to the parishioners. His second level of service is to God’s children, which in this case are the parishioners. He is a servant of the Lord, not of the parish…he serves the Lord when he serves the people (he serves the parish because that is the Lord calls him to do–it flows from Jesus Christ, not from the people). His primary call is to be faithful to the Lord. Proper service to the Lord’s children can only happen when one is first properly focused on the Lord.

As for Father Bozek, my prayers are with him because he truly has placed himself in eternal risk. He cannot do the parish any good if he is excommunicated, with that event he will place all the souls he serves at grreat risk. I think you suffer from a Protestant mentality, or perhaps from a secularized attitude (no insult intended), because you do not want to acknowledge that the Archbishop has ABSOLUTE say in these matters. When I say it is not a democracy, I am being blunt and accurate, it is a very strict form of Theocracy and no amount of disagreeing will change that. We live in a modern world that thinks such arrangements are old fashioned and wrong, you appear to share those feelings, yet no amount of disagreeing will change how the Lord setup His Church.

Think of it this way, a person cannot tell God what God will or will not do about souls after they have died (they can ask for favors and requests, but they cannot tell God to do anything). Likewise, the parish cannot tell the Church what to do…it just does not work like that. Archbishop Burke can try to mend some fences by letting some extra lay Catholics be on boards and do other “stuff” to make them feel like they have control, yet in the end the control must go to the diocese or else the parish stands outside of the Lord’s Church…never a wise thing when considering eternity to be standing outside hoping the door will be opened.

I pray for those parishioners. I pray for Father Bozek. I pray that they all come to their senses and realize that they are placing their souls at great risk and all they need to do is repent and turn back to Holy Mother Church, anything less is very bad for them.
 
ernesto,

I agree to a point on the abuse stuff being helped by lay Catholics…yet not to the extent you think. There is a very profoundly important reason why there have been so few abuses over the last 10-15 years. It is because the Vatican knew about what was happening and had started to quietly work on the matter a very long time ago. All the lay Catholics have really done is to bring the matter to the public’s attention to get them boiling so that a bunch of greedy lawyers can rape the Church for hundreds of millions of dollars…most of those claims are for abuse cases that are 30-50 years old! Entire parishes are threatened with closing and how that helps victims I will never know. Yet, none of that would have happened if not for the lay groups and there Catholic hating lawyers. Nice impact lay Catholic had there. I have yet to see anyone report responsibily on this situation, they do not let the public know how old most of the cases of abuse are, they do not tell the publci the nature of the abuse, they do not tell the public that in the last 10 years abuse has droped to very low numbers (far from perfect, yet people sin and we cannot expect the Church to be free of sin). The lay groups helped to some degree, yet I truly believe that between the horrors commited by the abusing Priests, and now the lay groups going after the Church in a global sense, the Church has been hurt deeply by all of these activities and it comes after the Church had already substantially cleaned its own house (with the sole exception of the Cardinal Law mess). The lay groups are ding everything they can to leave a destroyed Church in their wake and all for abuse cases that in some cases have Priests who have already died.

Is it moral for the Archbishop to do this? Yes, it most definitely is. All Churches in a diocese falls under the Archbishops control and they are all part of the global Church. They are not stand lone. If that parish was poor, would anyone care if the Archbishop took the same action (I seriously soubt it)? Yet, since the parish has done well over the last 15-20 years, they seem to think they are no longer part of the Lord’s Church…they are just flat wrong.
 
flame,

It strikes me that we have talked this topic through to a point where we are repeating statements and themes. Thank you very much for the chat, I sincerely appreciate it, I am withdrawing from this talk, over time we will see how this matter is resolved. God Bless and thanks again. 🙂
 
Thanks for the link, John. The text of the Vatican decree answers a lot of the questions that were raised in this thread and is copied below:

Text of Vatican decree

This is the text of the Decree from the Congregation for the Clergy on Protest No. 20041975, filed by the board of directors of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish in North St. Louis:

Whereas, the Saint Stanislaus Kostka Parish (the “parish”) was founded in 1880 in the Archdiocese of St. Louis by the Most Reverend Peter R. Kenrick, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese, and organized as a civil corporation in 1891 bearing the name “Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish” (the “civil corporation”);

Whereas, the board of directors of the civil corporation was intended to function as an advisory board to the pastor in accordance with the norms of the law of the Roman Catholic Church in force at the time of the formation of the civil corporation;

Whereas, in light of the Response from the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts, dated 29 April 1987, which received Papal approval on 20 June 1987, promulgated on 12 December 1988 (cf. AAS 80 [1988] 1818), in which the following question was posed and answered:

Editor’s note: the next two paragraphs in the decree are in Latin, translated as follows:

D. Whether a group of faithful, lacking juridical personality and even recognition envisaged in canon 299, No. 3, can legitimately make hierarchical recourse against a decreer of its own diocesan bishop?

R. Negative as a group, affirmative as individual members of the faithful acting either singly or together, provided that they really have a grievance. However, in estimating the grievance, the judge must be allowed suitable discretion.

Editor’s note: the decree from this point resumes in English:

Whereas, the board of directors of a civil corporation lacks the aforementioned “juridic personality” to proceed in hierarchical recourse;

Whereas, the current board of directors of the civil corporation, in cooperation with the members of the corporation, have amended the By-Laws of the civil corporation in such a way as to deny the authority of the parochus (editor’s note: Latin for pastor) and the canonically provided oversight of the Archdiocese of St. Louis;

Whereas, the current board of directors and members of the civil corporation have amended the corporate documents of the civil corporation so that the parish is not in conformity with the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, namely cann. 209, 519, 532, 536, 537, 1257, and 1276;

Whereas, on 19 March 2004, the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, wrote to all of the faithful of the parish insisting that the parish structure comply with the norm of Church law, or it would be declared to be no longer a Roman Catholic Parish;

Whereas, the current board of directors and members of the civil corporation, through their duly appointed representative Roger C. Krasnicki, have made recourse to the Congregation for the Clergy against the dispositions of the Most Reverend Ordinary as set forth in the letter of 19 March 2004;

and Whereas, considering that the current board of directors lacks the juridic personality to proceed in this hierarchical recourse, this Congregation accepts the petition for recourse as being made by Roger C. Krasnicki in his individual capacity.

Now, therefore, the Congregation for the Clergy hereby decrees that the petition for recourse against the Most Rev. Ordinary’s dispositions of 19 March 2004 is rejected both de decernendo and de procedendo and judged to have no basis in law or in fact.

(Signed Dario Cardinal Castrillon)

Given at the Seat of the Congregation for the Clergy, 11 November, 2004.
 
I sense we’re at an impasse TPJ.

A couple quick comments…

I believe that our church government is capable of making mistakes. And there’s nothing wrong with pointing them out.

I don’t see how lawyers- Catholic or non-Catholic- filing lawsuits is something to be blamed on the laity. I don’t understand your rationale. Further, I believe that the light of day desperately needed to be shed on the shuffling of predatory priests, and the laity owe no apologies for helping in that effort.

You’ve again explained that the archbishop has the right to confiscate St. Stan’s hard earned financial assets. No one disagrees. But is it right? That question, to me, is still unanswered.

Our bishops here in MO are doing great things- among them, a serious effort to educate the public on the tragedy of embryonic stem cell research. This seizure of St. Stan’s assets, I believe, diminishes the constructive impact of such church teachings to people who may otherwise give ear.

Thanks for your time. May God’s peace be on us…!
 
It seems that everyone is missing an important point. Why do the assets of a parish/diocese belong to the people in the Spokane Washington case (protection from lawsuits) but not in St. Louis (substantial assets that the diocese needs)?
 
40.png
Lurch104:
It seems that everyone is missing an important point. Why do the assets of a parish/diocese belong to the people in the Spokane Washington case (protection from lawsuits) but not in St. Louis (substantial assets that the diocese needs)?
Click to expand...
This point is not lost on me. The RCC can’t have its cake and eat it too. She needs to follow the law of the land.

Nohome
 
Well, Lurch & Nohome…

I think the official response, unfortunately, for the differing responses in the Spokane & St. Louis cases is as follows, in effect-

“Because the Church says so.”

I agree that that’s not good enough of an answer.
 
This sounds like the Polish National Catholic Church crisis of the early 20th century. I do know that JP II made some movement toward reconciliation with that group, but I do not know the history of their “breaking” away, nor the status of attempts at reconciliation.

What is the background of all this? Was a parish going to be shut down? Are the major players Polish immigrants?

Someone, please fill-in the blanks.

AJC:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top