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.
Joshua, you mentioned that St. Stan would retain the financial assets they earned to save their parish…

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the archbishop would not sign a secularly legally binding document which would establish just that…
You mentioned submission… the key ingredient to the christian life. For me, the question is-
Submission to the invisible enthroned Christ or to the Church’s government leaders?
Christ’s directive to do as the pharisees say but not as they do came to my mind, as well.

Are you saying that St. Stan should pay the money to undo the excommunication- but that the lay folks shouldn’t renig on agreements as the Church leaders have here done?
Thanks for the food for thought…
 
ernesto,

I say this with all due respect, yet what you think, or what the ST. Stan’s parishioners thing, means very little at this point. The bottom line is two Bishops, the Vatican and Canon Law have made it very clear that the parish must obey the directives. They have chosen to ignore those two Bishops, the Vatican and Canon Law and as a result people have been excommunicated and ANYONE who attends Mass at St. Stan’s, and anyone receiving sacraments at St. Stan’s is commiting a mortal sin and they will not have a means to receive forgiveness for their mortal sins because the Priest they hired no longer has faculties to absolve. This means that a ton of people are very much in eternal jeopardy.

Jesus gave the Church the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, and the Church has now bound the parish’s sins as being mortal. All discussions about this are moot, because the parishioners have no choice but to repent if they desire to have eternity in heaven.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
ernesto,

The faith is not a democray. It is really that simple. The Bishops is merely implementing Canon Law, which is shocking to some people because for the last 30 years or more most Bishops have NOT done that. The Priest is in grave danger, and so are the people who follow him and so are the people leading that parish. I disagree with your three options, there is really only one option: The dissenting Priest and the dissneting Parish must immediately repent of their horrible actions against the Bips, the Church and God. Anything short of that places their souls in grave danger.
Click to expand...
You are making the assumption that the Archbishop is in the right here. Many folks think he is abusing his authority. This could’ve had a better ending, if more effort would’ve been spent on compromise. We have now lost a priest and a group of otherwise devout catholics to this issue. We are losing enough members as it is due to a variety of other reasons without adding another one.
 
40.png
ernesto:
Joshua, you mentioned that St. Stan would retain the financial assets they earned to save their parish…

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the archbishop would not sign a secularly legally binding document which would establish just that…
You mentioned submission… the key ingredient to the christian life. For me, the question is-
Submission to the invisible enthroned Christ or to the Church’s government leaders?
Christ’s directive to do as the pharisees say but not as they do came to my mind, as well.

Are you saying that St. Stan should pay the money to undo the excommunication- but that the lay folks shouldn’t renig on agreements as the Church leaders have here done?
Thanks for the food for thought…
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting that the bishop IS Christ to his diocese. Ignatius of Antioch said to do nothing apart from the bishop and obey him as we would Christ. Currently, the bishop is commanding that they do a good, obey a legitimate law of the Church. Only an improperly formed conscience could possibly feel the right thing to do is disobey the bishop. There is no gray area. The only question that remains is to what extent each individual is responsible for his poorly formed conscience.
 
Andreas Hofer:
You’re forgetting that the bishop IS Christ to his diocese. Ignatius of Antioch said to do nothing apart from the bishop and obey him as we would Christ. Currently, the bishop is commanding that they do a good, obey a legitimate law of the Church. Only an improperly formed conscience could possibly feel the right thing to do is disobey the bishop. There is no gray area. The only question that remains is to what extent each individual is responsible for his poorly formed conscience.
Click to expand...
Think Jesus would’ve handled it this way? I rather think he would do what he could to keep these folks within the flock, not get hung up on some obscure man-made rule.
 
40.png
Lurch104:
Many in the parish speak only Polish. The priest that the Abp assigned was not polish and did not speak Polish. How can a priest minister to his flock if he does not speak the language? A polish religious order in full communion with Rome has offered to minister to the parish…the Abp. has refused. From reading his diocesan website, he has Vietnamese parishes and Spanish parishes, but he will not support a Polish parish.

Let me clarify, he will allow a Polish speaking parish, but not a Polish speaking priest. For what it is worth, after he removed the Polish parish designation from St. Stans, he assigned a polish speaking priest to the “New Polish parish”.

Tell me again about Gospel charity.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the circumstances here, but if I were a bishop, “problem” groups would get their requests AFTER they had demonstrated their willingness to obey. It’s good for a Polish-speaking parish to have a Polish-speaking priest, but not if they demand one as a condition of their obedience. So even if there were priests available, I wouldn’t concede that to them until I was sure that they were already committed to remaining loyal.

The same goes for traditionalist groups. Some indult communities badmouth the current Mass and Magisterium just as much as schismatics. If I were a bishop, I wouldn’t maintain their indult just to keep them in the Church. I would ask to them to choose where their loyalties lie - first, by asking them to stop disparaging the Magisterium and its teachings, then by telling them they will lose their privilege if they can’t be loyal children of the Church. A Tridentine Mass is a privelege. Priveleges shouldn’t be granted just so that schismatically-minded people can still claim membership in the Church. The same pretty much goes for those who insist on having a same-language priest (even though there is the slight difference that in rare cases the language might be necessary for confessions).

If a group demonstrated commitment to obedience over personal preference, I would do a whole lot to accomodate them. If they choose personal preference over obedience, they need to be told perfectly clearly that such a choice is unacceptable and will place them outside the Church.
 
I agree. Remember, the people of the Church have not been excomunicated. It is the lay board and the priest. The rest of the people have a choice on their hands. Follow pridefull men and women, like Protestants, or obediently follow the Church and go to another mass. Do they value the one true church enough? God is testing them. Or do they think staying true to their Polish heritage (most of these people probably speak English) is going to be more important to God when they die. It is telling when you read the Web site of the Saint Stan’s lay board, it seems the Polish Heritage building, which costed a couple million and has nothing to do with Catholicism is a major contention in this whole thing. They are afraid that if they give over their assets, the Bishop will not support this secular building, and that secular donors to this building will get angry. So the secular world is getting in the way of union with God’s Church? These people, after reading their statements, laugh at the Bishop for thinking he was punishing them by taking away their priests. It shows how little they value the Sacraments. I support celebrating heritage in the Catholic Church. I just got back from World Youth Day in Germany where we did a lot of that. But should it get in the way with unity? No way! The lay board is a bunch of horrible Catholics who don’t appreciate or understand that they inherited a perfect Church and they are throwing it away. They worry more about pleasing secular Polish people with this Heritage building than anything. They don’t want to relinquish power. Its the same old story. How likely is a Protestant minister, who presides over thousands, to relinquish hs pos and lead his flock to the Church, even if he discovers the truth? Not likely. Same here. This lay board was never going to relinquish power. God cleaned house. Good ridance. I hope they come back to the Church, but are content to sit in the pews like the rest of us.
 
Mike,

Yes, of course I think Archbishop is correct. He is the second Bishop to begin the process, Canon Law demands the action and the Vatican supports his decision. That certainly is enough for me.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Mike,

Yes, of course I think Archbishop is correct. He is the second Bishop to begin the process, Canon Law demands the action and the Vatican supports his decision. That certainly is enough for me.
Click to expand...
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. I don’t think this was handled properly by the Archbishop.
 
mike,

It makes no difference what you or I think (no insult intended, so please do not take any). Two Bishops, the Vatican and the Holy See’ are on the side of Archbishop Burke and people have now been formely and publicly excommunicated as a result of their schism from Holy Mother Church. What St. Stan’s parish did is not much different then Martin Luther, they have intentionally, willfully and with full knowledge walked away from the Church. If they value their souls they have no choice but to repent.

Recall that Jesus said “What you bind or loose on earth, will be bound and loosed in heaven.” Binding and loosing were legal terms for actions taken by the Church. Archbishop Burke has made declarations as an Apostolic Bishop and his word is binding here on earth and in heaven. Those people are in grave danger and need our prayers…this is no game…it has grave an eternal consequences.
 
Let us please remember, as has been stated several times, that what we think is irrelevant. On a personal level, I’m not entirely certain what to think of Abp. Burke myself…I am a cradle catholic and have never seen a bishop in the diocese seem to alienate so many people so fast. However, my personal opinions of the man, or of his motives for his decision are in no way relevant to the fact that as catholics we are bound to be in submission to the bishop.

I pray for an end to this scandal. Surely you must all know what it is like to have to try to defend this mess in front of the ever critical eye of evangelical fundamentalist protestant coworkers. And in response to Ernesto, no I do not know for fact all of the details of the reported concessions offered to St Stanislaus, so maybe someone could bring me up to speed by answering a few questions.
  1. Under what circumstances was it decided to grant permission to the parish to operate in this manner to start with ?
  2. Do these circumstances still exist now ?
  3. What is the majority opinion of the parishoners of St Stanislaus on the situation (its been reported that its not an overwhelming majority that objects to submitting to Abp. Burke and Rome) ?
  4. What (if any) compromise has the representatives proclaimed would be acceptable to them ?
 
I’m a member of a parish in St. Louis and I’ve been following the St. Stanislas story. About half the Catholics I’ve talked to believe Archbishop Burke has turned a land grab into a religious issue. Despite frequent denials from the diocese, we’re convinced they need the $9 million and the property for settling sexual abuse lawsuits. Now it’s turned into a ‘power’ issue. If the Archbishop REALLY wanted those parishioners to fall into line, he would have taken the money issue out of the situation by letting the St. Stanislas Board give away the money. We all regret the actions of the Archbishops in excommunicating these devout Catholics, and denying them the Eucharist for such a secular power struggle. Perhaps both the Bishop and the St. Stanislas Board need to pray for forgiveness for the sin of pride.
 
Father Bozek was not excommunicated because of money, but because he left his archdiocese and his postion without permission of his bishop.
 
Morning Glory said:
Father Bozek was not excommunicated because of money, but because he left his archdiocese and his postion without permission of his bishop.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the cover story.
 
40.png
palmas85:
First time on this one. I’ve read the posts and links but I’m a little confused. maybe somebody could point me in the right direction.
  1. What exactly was going on? Was the parish being shut down completely and why were the assests being seized? Lack of attendance, poor management, no need for a Polish Language Church, what?
The church was not being shut down for any reason, it’s a viable parish. The Archbisop has stated that the assests were not going to be seized, and offered a written guarantee stating so. Good management (so to speak, seeing how far this has gone), is in place with the board of directors for the church. The need, or lack thereof, for a Polish language church is not the issue here.
  1. Is this church the only one in it’s situation, being governed as it were not by the Diocese but by the Board of Trustees?
The only one in this particular Diocese that is in this situation. This particular church was started (as were many Polish language churches) because of intolerance of the Polish people. The people themselves came up with the money to build and operate the church and set a board to run the physical and financial working of their church. The archdiocese provided the spiritual aspect for them, assigning priests to the parish.
3. Why was the Bishop so interested in it?

This is basically where the debate begins. Bishops through the years have been trying to get the parish to put their physical/financial assest under the diocese control for years. Archbishop Burke has done the most so far, by recalling the priest from the parish and leaving the parish with no spriitual guidance. With no priest, there hasn’t been a Mass at the parish since the recall of the archdiocese priest. Farther Bozek was approached by the board to come and be the parish priest. He left his position and archdiocese without permission of his bishop which has led to the current excommunication of the board as well as Father Bozek.
  1. Why was the Board so opposed to the Diocese having control? Pride, greed, what?
**The board is opposed because it wants to retain control of the assests of the church, which can be as much as 9 milllion dollars. They believe the diocese wants the money and the assests of the church, then to shut down the church. Though, if it is anything like diocese, if the church has an active, large congregation and can cover the expenses of the physical plant of the church, as well as contribute to the diocese, the church wouldn’t be closed or merged with another chruch.**I’m just trying to understand how this thing escalated to where it is and why it happened in the first place.

Thanks for any info anyone cam give me. fascinating times we live in.
Click to expand...
I have been following this on and off for a little bit, and may have gotten some things wrong, but this is what I have gathered from various threads so far. If you want more info, try the St Stan website too. It is interesting as well.
 
**A big issue that doesn’t seem to be coming up in this discussion is that the lay board changed the charter to take power away from the Archbishop (and the Catholic Church as well). The changes started in 2001 which is why then-Archbishop Rigali tried to set St. Stanislaus right. Here’s a summary of the changes from the original bylaws and the amended bylaws.

**
Click to expand...
**
Structure of the Parish Corporation in 1891when Archbishop Kenrick Deeded Parish Property:

~A Missouri benevolent corporation formed 1891
~Archbishop appoints six directors and successor directors; the Pastor is also a director
~Any dispute or controversy among the directors is referred to the Archbishop whose decision final and binding
~The powers of the corporation must be exercised in accordance with Church law and any amendment to the Bylaws must not conflict with Church law
~Upon dissolution of the corporation, all assets become the property of the Archbishop

Structure of the Parish Corporation as Amended in 2004 without the Approval of the Archbishop:

•A Missouri benevolent corporation formed in 1891
•Directors are elected by the parishioners; the Pastor is also a director
•The Archbishop has no authority with respect to the corporation and all references to the Archbishop or the Archdiocese have been removed from the Bylaws
•Upon dissolution of the corporation, the parish assets are to be transferred to a Roman Catholic religious organization promoting Polish language and heritage, selected by the Board

archstl.org/parishes/documents/st-stanislaus_progression.pdf

Even the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in doing a timeline overview of this dispute, left out the changes made by the Board. Doesn’t surprise me much, though. :rolleyes:

ETA that I’m not sure why my stuff is in bold. Sorry about that. :o
**
 
It escalated because Burke didn’t use good human relations. This may not have gotten so hot except it was one of the first things he did when he got to St. Louis. He didn’t spend time getting to know the people at St. Stan’s or the Archdiocese.

As it stands I don’t think the people have any better feel for who Burke is. The impression he has left is that he is strong handed and that he is unavailable to the people of St. Louis. Now in some areas being strong handed is admirable, but I think he made a mistake by being strong handed so early.

I don’t think this point was lost on the Archdiocese because for a while they hired a media person to help with this issue. This media person seemed to stand in for Burke and answer the hard questions. It appeared that his job was to make Burke look better. He didn’t last very long.

This also has come on the heels of many parishes closing and the sex abuse scandal. These issues certainly raise the concern of the people about how money is being handled to pay settlements.

Jesus understood human relations. He ate with sinners before He started preaching to them.

It is a very sad situation where both parties have made some mistakes. Hopefully, it can be resolved and the people of St. Stan’s will return.
 
mom2,

I do not think Archbishop Burke made any mistakes, he simply did his job, which is a rare thing in our cafeteria Catholic culture. Beyond that, the only way this can turn out good is if lay board and Father Bozek repent turn from their schism/mortal sin. Absent that, St. Stan’s will just be another Protestant Church–sadly.
 
It’s a land / money grab pure and simple. God Bless Father Bozek for standing up against “Archbishop” Burke. I may just travel to attend services there this Christmas.

Baldwin
 
TJP

From you previous posts I can understand your point of view.

My question is are you in this Archdiocese? Because this isn’t the only incident that has occurred where the Archbishop hasn’t used good human relations in dealing with issues. This is the only one that is out in front of our faces.

Does the Archbishop have every right to have this problem rectified? Of course he does. I don’t argue with you on that point. Do the people at St. Stans. need to conform to what is required of them? Yes they do.

Sometimes it is better to use other methods than a big club to bring people around to doing the right thing. I disagree with the method. Before Burke got here, most of us didn’t even know that there was a problem with St. Stan or that their structure was any different than any other parish and this has been going on a long time.

You and I will have to respectfully disagree. I won’t change my mind regarding what I see as mistakes made by both parties, and I do not believe that you will see things different from your point of view either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top