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.
Even if you are right, and it is a land grab so what? They choose land over union with the Church? They think their cultural heritage center is that important? Those Christmas services aren’t Catholic. If you attend them, you are forsaking your Catholic faith. Nobody will notice but God though.
If you are so quick to jump off the Catholic boat on to whatever yachts abnd cruise ships float by, I’d hate to see how fervently you would have forsaken the faith during the Gnostic movements of the first few centuries, or during the Protestant Reformation. Greater men and women than this lay board and Father Mark, have lain aside even rightious indignation to remain with the Church. Think Mother Theresa. Think Saint Francis, Saint Joan of Arc. Think about the men and women who have been hurt by abuse scandals but have remained Catholic. $9 million? It’s God’s anyways, even if it was still in the hands of the people who donated it. All the money we have is God’s, and everything we own is His and He only asks for 10% of our money. Once we give it, it is even more rediculous to think we have more control over it than our presiding Archbishop. But if you read the lay board’s Web site, they laugh at the idea that the Archbishop has any control over them. After all, they say, the only thing he can do is take away priests and the Blessed Sacraments. They showed right there they valued it so little, that it didn’t affect them. They failed God’s test as to whether their heart lies in pride, power and money or in the Church Jesus founded and the gifts she gives those who stay true. Its not just them being tested, it’s you too.
Patrick Brown
 
40.png
BaldwinIV:
I may just travel to attend services there this Christmas.
Click to expand...
Best of luck with that! :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, we will pray that you are not serious. It will do neither them nor yourself any good to attend an excommunicated schismatic’s illicit Mass.
 
I suppose it’s very easy to “Monday Morning Quarterback” this situation. We are all on the outside looking in. I’d like to actually hear the viewpoint of an ex (or still current) member of that church to see what their take on it is. Hopefully, some are members of this forum.
 
mom2,

I respect your view, yet strongly disagree. *IMO, *Arhcbishop Burke bent over backwards to help the parish come back to the fold, yet they refused his call, then they went to the Vatican over his head and then refused the Vatican’s as well, and now they have immorally drawn a Priest away from his vocation and placed that Priests eternal soul at risk (though the Priest takes the blame because he should not have left his vocation). What is amazing is that if the parish repented today, Archbishop Burke would welcome them back with complete joy…just as the father did when he through a for the prodigal son.

I think many people have tainted views of this situation because Bishops in this nation have not been strong in defending things as they should for the last thirty years or more.

Let me ask you this:

If St. Stan’s was bankrupt, would anyone care if AB called them back to a right relationship? It seems since St. Stan’s has a healthy financial situation, they no longer think they MUST obey, yet I honestly wonder if that lay board would care if AB took properl Canonical control if the parish was about to close under bankruptcy. It seems to me this is all about serving money, and St. Stan’s is the entity serving money, not God. They have lost sight of the fact that their eternal souls are in grave jeopardy, money has blinded their eyes of faith. It is quite sad.
 
Baldwin,

Please do not attend “services” at St. Stan’s, you will be in mortal sin if you do so.
 
If St. Stans were financially unable to support itself, it would be closed. There was a time when the parish was in financial trouble, but the Archbishop at that time did nothing. Why not come in and right the situation then. Because then it would have cost the Archdiocese money. The operative word here is MONEY. It keeps coming up regardless of which side you are on.

The board doesn’t trust what it is told. Do they have cause for this mistrust? I personally don’t know.

As for the priest, he is an adult and as an adult he made the decision to be disobedient.

Sometimes it takes eating with tax collectors, before you can show them the error of their ways.
 
mom2,

Well at least you are admitting that the parish is sinning gravely with their actions. That is a step in the right direction, imo.

If Archbishop Burke wanted St. Stan’s for its money, then he would not have closed the book on them by publicly excommunicating the lay board and by publicly stating that anyone who attends “services” there will be commiting mortal sin by doing so. Excommunication is the most severe discipline he could take and it can only be lifted if the parish lay board repents fully. If he wanted money, he would have continued to communicate with the parish and he would have sought a compromise that would have given him some of their money…yet he did not do any of that because for AB it is not about money, it is obedience and souls.

Again, answer this question: Would anyone care about St. Stan’s being roled into a proper relationship if they were bankrupt? It is only because they are well off financially that the lay board and parish have fought so hard to remain independent. If they were near bankruptcy they would be begging AB to help them, even if it meant releasing control to the diocese according to Canon Law. IMO, the only side that is focused on money is the parish, not AB.
 
IMO AB could have saved souls these souls by using other tactics at the beginning of the disagreement. Now it is too late for those methods. I have always agreed that AB is in the right. I disagree with his methods.

As I previously stated you and I will not agree.
 
40.png
mom2boyz:
IMO AB could have saved souls these souls by using other tactics at the beginning of the disagreement. Now it is too late for those methods. I have always agreed that AB is in the right. I disagree with his methods.

As I previously stated you and I will not agree.
Click to expand...
I have been following this situation before it was a thread here. Since when do any of us have the right to criticize canon law? What methods do you disagree with? The fact that he finally said enough is enough? He inherited this situation and it has been going on for years before he came to St. Louis! I can’t believe what some have said on this thread. Someone even suggested that they would go down to mass even after they have been told that it would be a mortal sin to participate! Read the background before you speak. Rome has been involved ( the parish appealed to them). Rome agreed that they were in error. They did not like Rome’s answer. The parish changed the by-laws. It is documented. They have exhausted all appeals. They are no longer Catholic. The priest that they hired has also misdirected and has been told so by his Bishop. They all made choices and they evidently chose to leave the Church. Why is anyone defending them and challenging the Archbishop and others who are standing up for canon law. Have we become so jaded at authority in the US that we feel that we have the right to challenge canon law and Rome? Evidently so.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
mom2,

If Archbishop Burke wanted St. Stan’s for its money, then he would not have closed the book on them by publicly excommunicating the lay board and by publicly stating that anyone who attends “services” there will be commiting mortal sin by doing so. Excommunication is the most severe discipline he could take and it can only be lifted if the parish lay board repents fully. If he wanted money, he would have continued to communicate with the parish and he would have sought a compromise that would have given him some of their money…yet he did not do any of that because for AB it is not about money, it is obedience and souls.
Click to expand...
Two Comments:
  1. Isn’t obedience what got us in the mess of the priest sex abuse scandal in the first place? Obedience assumes all priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals are always right all the time. Aren’t they human, too?
  2. I agree this is not about the money. This is about Archbishop Burke being a canon lawyer and how he esteems being right in the eyes of Canon Law. He has lost many other PR battles because it is important to him that every Catholic understands the exact letter of Canon Law. I even read an interview with Fr. Marek who stated he thought that Archbishop Burke is right under Canon Law. Apparently, this is not about Canon Law for Fr. Marek.
Just my 2 cents
 
shades of gray:
Two Comments:
  1. Isn’t obedience what got us in the mess of the priest sex abuse scandal in the first place? Obedience assumes all priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals are always right all the time. Aren’t they human, too?
Click to expand...
A good and valid point. Too many catholics are caught up in this “they can do no wrong” argument. Of course members of the clergy can be wrong. They are human, susceptable to the same temptations and faults as the rest of us.
 
shades,

You make my point. If the abusing Priests and their Bishops were obedient to the teachings of the Church, then there would not have been a sexual abuse crisis. It is about obedience for every person.

Thanks for the assist. 🙂
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Baldwin,

Please do not attend “services” at St. Stan’s, you will be in mortal sin if you do so.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the warning, but I’ll attend sevices where I please. I get the feeling that St. Stan’s will end up with the PNCC, which will allow them to maintain ownership of their own property.

Baldwin IV
 
At the risk of annoying those of you so intimately involved with the St. Stan’s case, could we possibly just follow up (at least for a minute or two), on the question that Lurch asked (and others commented on), some time ago?

Is or is NOT the property of the parish, at least in most cases, owned by the diocese? In a legal case, CAN all the assets be, I think the word is, “attached?”

And: Even though the situations at St. Stan’s and the situation in Spokane differ, doesn’t this bring up future possible problems that will make St. Stan’s look like the proverbial “wallk in the park?”

Would it be better for each parish in the country to publicly claim ownership of its property, now, before they all get wiped out?

Or am I imagining things? :confused:

Anna
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
shades,

You make my point. If the abusing Priests and their Bishops were obedient to the teachings of the Church, then there would not have been a sexual abuse crisis. It is about obedience for every person.

Thanks for the assist. 🙂
Click to expand...
I think you partially missed his point. Although not stated very clearly, I think his point was that all clergy are expected to be obedient to the church 100% of the time and thus in most folk’s eyes cannot error in regard to church matters. He is saying, wait a second, they are human too and thus can make mistakes (i.e. Archbishop, Vatican, etc.in this situation).
 
40.png
BaldwinIV:
Thanks for the warning, but I’ll attend sevices where I please. I get the feeling that St. Stan’s will end up with the PNCC, which will allow them to maintain ownership of their own property.

Baldwin IV
Click to expand...
PNCC?
 
Anna Elizabeth:
At the risk of annoying those of you so intimately involved with the St. Stan’s case, could we possibly just follow up (at least for a minute or two), on the question that Lurch asked (and others commented on), some time ago?

Is or is NOT the property of the parish, at least in most cases, owned by the diocese? In a legal case, CAN all the assets be, I think the word is, “attached?”

And: Even though the situations at St. Stan’s and the situation in Spokane differ, doesn’t this bring up future possible problems that will make St. Stan’s look like the proverbial “wallk in the park?”

Would it be better for each parish in the country to publicly claim ownership of its property, now, before they all get wiped out?

Or am I imagining things? :confused:

Anna
Click to expand...
Anna,

This has been discussed on other threads and other boards. You are correct that the RCC can’t “have it both ways” in American courts. Either the property is owned and controlled by the Parish or it is owned and controlled by the Diocese. In local spats, the Church could lose a Parish. In larger issues, the Church could (in theory) lose every asset of a Diocese.

Your second question, “Would it be better for each parish in the country to publicly claim ownership of its property, now, before they all get wiped out?” is a tougher decision. The RCC would live or die by this and I am certain there are many little St. Stan’s out there that would become a real thorn in the side of Bishops across the country.

My guess, is that the courts will eventually rule that Parishes are protected from most Diocesisan liability. This will be good for protecting assets, but it will pave the way for independant parishes everywhere. Either way the Bishops will lose some control and with it some authority.

Nohome
 
40.png
Nohome:
Anna,

My guess, is that the courts will eventually rule that Parishes are protected from most Diocesisan liability. This will be good for protecting assets, but it will pave the way for independant parishes everywhere. Either way the Bishops will lose some control and with it some authority.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I disagree. I believe that the Courts will follow the lead of the Bankruptcy Court in Spokane, and hold that parish assets can be sold off to settle judgments against a diocese. Of course, that decision is being appealed, so we’ll see what happens.

With the current state of the so-called “bishops” in America, I don’t blame St. Stan’s for wanting to hold on to their own money and property. At least they can rest assured they won’t have to foot the bill to pay for the arrogance and stupidity of their “bishop” when the next million dollar settlement comes calling.

Baldwin
 
40.png
BaldwinIV:
I disagree. I believe that the Courts will follow the lead of the Bankruptcy Court in Spokane, and hold that parish assets can be sold off to settle judgments against a diocese.Baldwin
Click to expand...
Time will tell, that is why I used the words “my guess”, it is the best I can offer at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top