St. Stanislaus/St. Louis is now debating keeping it's renegade priest

[flameburns623]

See the following article:

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/4637C202DB177D868625740100167DFE?OpenDocument

To bring folks up to speed: Several years ago, the head of the St. Louis Catholic Church, Raymond Burke, (don’t know his title–he’s either a bishop, archbishop, or cardinal), tried to bring the governance of St. Stanislaus in line with the way most other parishes are governed. This was seen by the parishioners of St. Stanislaus as an attempt by the Church to divest them of their property, in response to the great financial strain that has been placed on Catholic churches due to the priest sex-abuse scandal. The folks at St. Stan’s found a renegade priest, Marek Bozek, who was willing to serve them, and St. Stan’s essentially left the RCC, although they have a continuing appeal to the Vatican to try to overturn Burke’s decision. Many of the parishioners of St. Stan’s see themselves as obedient Catholics simply at odds with an oppressive and avaricious local prelate. They do not want to do anything which might close the door to reunion with the RCC if the Vatican were to find in their favor.

Recently their priest has begun doing things that are out of line with the RCC in significant ways: he now allows ‘open communion’ for any baptised person, Roman Catholic or not. He also has attended the ordination of some female priests in St. Louis. I think the news article implies he is being supportive of homosexuals as well.

As a consequence, several of the older members of St. Stan’s are unhappy with Bozek, including the fellow who was apparently instrumental in bringing him to St. Stan’s.

I have never attended this church, and at this point am no longer interested in doing so. I’m a traditionalist Anglican, fighting within the Anglican communion against the very sorts of things Bozek is introducing into St. Stan’s. If I wanted to attend a church with women priests and homosexuals, I could attend a mainstream Episcopal Church service. I did think that Burke’s initial actions against St. Stan’s were impolitic and heavy-handed, even if he were technically ‘in the right’ for his actions. On the other hand, Bozek’s drift since leading St. Stan’s our of the RCC is revolting to me. Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[kwitz]

Why anyone would be surprised that Fr. Bozak continued his slippery slope of defiance of Church authority is what surprised me when I read the article.

Kris

 

[stbruno]

My guess is that this renegade priest should be stripped of his faculties and not allowed to practice his ministry in this diocese period.

 

[MaryB23]

Why anyone would be surprised that Fr. Bozak continued his slippery slope of defiance of Church authority is what surprised me when I read the article.

Kris

I agree wholeheartedly. When I heard this story on the news the other day I remarked to my DH that “you get what you pay for” so to speak.

My guess is that this renegade priest should be stripped of his faculties and not allowed to practice his ministry in this diocese period.

Both the priest and the Board of Directors excommunicated themselves when they split from the RCC a couple of years ago.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Archbishop Burke is one of the Saints of today’s American Catholic Church. I trust his actions in this case and many others, and thank the Lord that he can serve as a role model for other prelates. I can only pray that many other Bishops will be appointed that follow his lead - in this matter and many others.

 

[flameburns623]

I am wondering: what good is it going to do for Archbishop Burke (is that really his title? one of the previous posters addressed him as such), to strip Fr. Bozek of his faculties? Isn’t he already excommunicated?

If I understand rightly, Fr. Bozek is a priest forever, and he would continue to be able to consecrate the Eucharist validly-but-illicitly, hear confessions validly-but-illicitly, etcetera. He could even give Viaticum to Archbishop Burke himself, in cases of extreme emergency, if no other priest were available to do so.

And the fact of the matter is that if Fr. Bozek is now stripped of his faculties but repents say, in ten or eleven years–there will almost certainly be someone, somewhere, who will restore him to his position as a priest. He probably will never aspire to any higher position within the RCC–no one would ever make him a bishop or even a Monsignor, given his record of recalcitrance, but he would certainly be given a chance to serve as priest if he so chose to repent. So isn’t this whole thing just basically a symbolic gesture, lacking any substance or power?

It’s y’alls Church and you can do as you deem right, but the laicization process doesn’t seem like an effective gesture to pursue.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

I am wondering: what good is it going to do for Archbishop Burke (is that really his title? one of the previous posters addressed him as such), to strip Fr. Bozek of his faculties? Isn’t he already excommunicated?

If I understand rightly, Fr. Bozek is a priest forever, and he would continue to be able to consecrate the Eucharist validly-but-illicitly, hear confessions validly-but-illicitly, etcetera. He could even give Viaticum to Archbishop Burke himself, in cases of extreme emergency, if no other priest were available to do so.

The laicization procedure - as I understand it - reduces Fr-soon-to-be-Mr Bozek to the status of a layman. It is consequential since only a priest may consecrate the bread and wine, making them the body and blood of Our Lord. Each time he does this, he defames Our Lord, however, given his condition and the condition of those for whom the consecration is done. He needs to be stripped of his ability to defame our most Holy God.
flameburns:

And the fact of the matter is that if Fr. Bozek is now stripped of his faculties but repents say, in ten or eleven years–there will almost certainly be someone, somewhere, who will restore him to his position as a priest. He probably will never aspire to any higher position within the RCC–no one would ever make him a bishop or even a Monsignor, given his record of recalcitrance, but he would certainly be given a chance to serve as priest if he so chose to repent. So isn’t this whole thing just basically a symbolic gesture, lacking any substance or power?

It’s y’alls Church and you can do as you deem right, but the laicization process doesn’t seem like an effective gesture to pursue.

His coming back into the Church is inconsequential - he’s defaming the Lord NOW and needs to be stopped. If he comes back in later and does not repeat his actions, there are no problems at all. Repentance is a wonderful thing.

 

[flameburns623]

He needs to be stripped of his ability to defame our most Holy God.

You’re missing the point of my question: as a validly-ordained priest in the Western tradition, Fr. Bozek can never be ‘stripped’ of his priestly faculties. Laicization, as I understand it, does NOT do this. I have known at least one laicized priest who confirmed this for me in a different context: in extreme emergency, if no other priest were available, even a laicized priest can administer any needful sacraments. In practice this would usually imply administering the Last Rites to a dying person, where no other priest might be available.

(The context of our discussion, by the way, involved what if anything my acquaintance could do in the event the New Madrid Fault became abruptly active–that fault-line is believed capable of producing a midwestern earthquake of incredible destructive force, and would likely produce many tens of thousands of casualties in St. Louis. In such an event, my acquaintance indicated he would endeavor to get in touch with the highest-available Catholic authority, gain whatever permissions were needful and render himself available for whatever emergency priestly services he might be needed for. He would NOT have to be re-ordained to do all this–in fact, even if he were unable to reach any other Catholic authority, he could licitly and validly do whatever were needful–confect the Eucharist, etcetera–to allow him to render spiritual aid and comfort to Catholics in need. Obviously, once the emergency were past, or once he were directed by legitimate authority that his services were no longer needed, he would return to the role of a layperson.)

But once validly-ordained, a priest NEVER becomes fully reduced again to the ‘status’ of layperson, in the sense of being stripped of his faculties. He simply cannot legally exercise those faculties
without incurring excommunication upon himself, and those who, without dire necessity, present themselves to him as communicants, each and every time he illicitly exercises his faculties. Since Fr. Bozek is already behaving illicitly and has already been excommunicated, and already incurs penalties upon himself and his communicants each time he behaves illicitly, I again fail to see what purpose laicization serves.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

This only goes to show never to trust the media to get Catholicism right - I was misinformed about what laicization does. You are right that he does, indeed, retain the capacity to administer sacraments. However, laicization is the harshest penalty the Church can enforce against a wayward priest. I am not fully aware what practical differences that amounts to, over and above what has already happened to him. I can only think that being defrocked like this may wake the guy up, more so than anything else, and hopefully get him to repent for the sake of his salvation.

 

[rwoehmke]

Is it not so that a priest like this can still validly say Mass, but cannot perform a valid marriage or except in emergencies hear a valid confession? For a marriage he would no longer be a witness of the Church. For confession he would no longer have any more than emergency powers. Confirmation would of course be out of the question.

 

[LilyM]

This only goes to show never to trust the media to get Catholicism right - I was misinformed about what laicization does. You are right that he does, indeed, retain the capacity to administer sacraments. However, laicization is the harshest penalty the Church can enforce against a wayward priest. I am not fully aware what practical differences that amounts to, over and above what has already happened to him. I can only think that being defrocked like this may wake the guy up, more so than anything else, and hopefully get him to repent for the sake of his salvation.

It may also serve as a warning to his parishioners who may deludedly think that what Fr Bozek is doing is OK by the Vatican - since I can’t imagine His Holiness would lift a finger or say a word protesting against his laicization.

 

[flameburns623]

Is it not so that a priest like this can still validly say Mass, but cannot perform a valid marriage or except in emergencies hear a valid confession? For a marriage he would no longer be a witness of the Church. For confession he would no longer have any more than emergency powers. Confirmation would of course be out of the question.

My understanding is that he could do whatever a priest normally does, validly but illicitly. Obviously that does not include confirmation, which is ordinarily reserved to bishops, except I think in peculiar exceptions which rarely arise. If a couple from out-of-town came to St. Louis and presented themselves to him for marriage in ignorance, their marriage would be validly sacramental, and they would not incur the penalty of excommunication upon themselves. Obviously, anyone knowingly receiving sacraments from this priest already automatically incurs the penalty of excommunication. I think the act of laicization would tend to underscore that for folks, which might drive a wedge between Bozek and some of the more-influential members of his congregation.

That may be Archbishop Burke’s goal. Unfortunately, this action could also drive a wedge between those congregants and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, forcing them into the arms of the PNCC or some similar autocephalous communion. I would think that maintaining dialogue on a limited basis and waiting until Burke moves on to other places in either the Church of the next life, in hopes that his successor could find a way to restore the wayward whom Burke has deliberately provoked and driven away, would be a better way.

Obviously I disapprove of how Archbishop Burke conducted himself throughout the entire course of events. He has the technical right to do everything he has done and is doing, but IMHO–and admittedly speaking as in outsider–he ought NOT to have done it. His actions marked him, in my eyes, not as saintly but as avaricious and oppressive to the point of being dastardly. Understand that I approve of much of what Burke has done and stands for: his refusal to give communion, for example, to politicians who are publicly out-of-step with RCC teachings on important social issues. His general refusal to allow the local Catholic facilities to be used as an open forum by critics and those whose presentations are likely to be offensive to the faith and/or morals of ordinary Roman Catholics. I even approve of the harsh exchanges that occurred between St. Louis University sports coach Rick Majeurus and His Eminence, when that coach–a professing and practicing Roman Catholic-- declared himself opposed to the Church’s teachings on abortion. (Frankly–if Archbishop Burke were slavering to exercise his powers of excommunication and of interdict, it would have been far better to have done so against Majeurus and SLU than against St. Stanislaus, IMHO). Burke’s actions vis-a-vis St. Stands simply look like a money-grab, a land-grab.

Again: it’s not my church so I’m just commenting as an interested outsider, but there’s my half-penny’s worth.

Oh! before this message moves beyond my ability to edit: I disdain Fr. Bozek’s faithless activities oft he past sevreral months_ advocating for immoral lifestyles, open communion for unrepentant people, attending the ‘consecration’ of women priests, etcetera. For those action, Bozek does deserve to be disciplined. But I dislike how St. Stan’s, a faithful and obedient parish until Archbishop Burke tried to take away their parish, was manhandled.

 

[LRThunder]

My understanding is that he could do whatever a priest normally does, validly but illicitly. Obviously that does not include confirmation, which is ordinarily reserved to bishops, except I think in peculiar exceptions which rarely arise. If a couple from out-of-town came to St. Louis and presented themselves to him for marriage in ignorance, their marriage would be validly sacramental, and they would not incur the penalty of excommunication upon themselves. Obviously, anyone knowingly receiving sacraments from this priest already automatically incurs the penalty of excommunication. I think the act of laicization would tend to underscore that for folks, which might drive a wedge between Bozek and some of the more-influential members of his congregation.

That may be Archbishop Burke’s goal. Unfortunately, this action could also drive a wedge between those congregants and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, forcing them into the arms of the PNCC or some similar autocephalous communion. I would think that maintaining dialogue on a limited basis and waiting until Burke moves on to other places in either the Church of the next life, in hopes that his successor could find a way to restore the wayward whom Burke has deliberately provoked and driven away, would be a better way.

Obviously I disapprove of how Archbishop Burke conducted himself throughout the entire course of events. He has the technical right to do everything he has done and is doing, but IMHO–and admittedly speaking as in outsider–he ought NOT to have done it. His actions marked him, in my eyes, not as saintly but as avaricious and oppressive to the point of being dastardly. Understand that I approve of much of what Burke has done and stands for: his refusal to give communion, for example, to politicians who are publicly out-of-step with RCC teachings on important social issues. His general refusal to allow the local Catholic facilities to be used as an open forum by critics and those whose presentations are likely to be offensive to the faith and/or morals of ordinary Roman Catholics. I even approve of the harsh exchanges that occurred between St. Louis University sports coach Rick Majeurus and His Eminence, when that coach–a professing and practicing Roman Catholic-- declared himself opposed to the Church’s teachings on abortion. (Frankly–if Archbishop Burke were slavering to exercise his powers of excommunication and of interdict, it would have been far better to have done so against Majeurus and SLU than against St. Stanislaus, IMHO). Burke’s actions vis-a-vis St. Stands simply look like a money-grab, a land-grab.

Again: it’s not my church so I’m just commenting as an interested outsider, but there’s my half-penny’s worth.

Oh! before this message moves beyond my ability to edit: I disdain Fr. Bozek’s faithless activities oft he past sevreral months_ advocating for immoral lifestyles, open communion for unrepentant people, attending the ‘consecration’ of women priests, etcetera. For those action, Bozek does deserve to be disciplined. But I dislike how St. Stan’s, a faithful and obedient parish until Archbishop Burke tried to take away their parish, was manhandled.

With all due respect, what Archbishop Burke has done is completely necessary. Sometimes the discipliner might seem cruel, but I bet children sometimes think their parents are hateful when they have to be disciplined by them.

What else is he supposed to do? Standby and let this priest do what he wants?

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I personally lost all respect for St. Stan’s when they showed massive disrespect to Archbishop Burke (for the record, that’s his title-St. Louis is an Archdiocese, but, for some reason, we haven’t had a Cardinal since Cardinal Carberry in the late 70’s, then we had Archbishops May, Rigali, and Burke). When he went to speak w/ them, assuring them that he was simply trying to bring the parish in line w/ all the other parishes, and he promised that he was not going to close the church and take their money, the parishioners yelled, booed, and called him (to his face) a liar. No one has to like their bishop, but one of the tenets of Catholicism is that we must be obedient to and respectful of them. If I lived in L.A., you can bet I’d be terribly unhappy w/ Archbishop Mahony, but if he was speaking at my parish (even about something I disagreed with-like why a pro-choice presidential was being allowed to speak at a Catholic school, for instance), I wouldn’t dare yell at him and call him names. You just don’t do that. I mean, look what happened w/ Mother Angelica in her little fray w/ Mahoney. He didn’t stand for it, but Burke was supposed to let St. Stan’s parishioners yell at him and call him a liar? I don’t think so. Plus, what Burke was doing was no surprise to St. Stan’s. Every Archbishop for nearly 100 years was trying to bring that parish back into conformity w/ the archdiocese, but the board ignored the orders, and the other bishops just never followed through (scared of bad publicity, probably. I’m glad Burke doesn’t have that problem!). If I remember correctly, then Archbishop (now Cardinal) Rigali was about to do just what Burke did, when he was transferred to Philadelphia. It’s just MHO, but I don’t believe there is any excuse for the behavior of those parishioners, especially the “board of directors” (what Catholic parish has a board of directors!?), they are way more power hungry than Burke.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[flameburns623]

With all due respect, what Archbishop Burke has done is completely necessary. Sometimes the discipliner might seem cruel, but I bet children sometimes think their parents are hateful when they have to be disciplined by them.

What else is he supposed to do? Standby and let this priest do what he wants?

For the record, the priest was brought in AFTER the rift between Burke and this parish. Had this rift not been provoked, Fr. Bozek would still presumably be serving in Cape Girardeau or Springfield, wherever he came from.

Allgirls:

When he went to speak w/ them, assuring them that he was simply trying to bring the parish in line w/ all the other parishes, and he promised that he was not going to close the church and take their money, the parishioners yelled, booed, and called him (to his face) a liar. No one has to like their bishop, but one of the tenets of Catholicism is that we must be obedient to and respectful of them. If I lived in L.A., you can bet I’d be terribly unhappy w/ Archbishop Mahony, but if he was speaking at my parish (even about something I disagreed with-like why a pro-choice presidential was being allowed to speak at a Catholic school, for instance), I wouldn’t dare yell at him and call him names. You just don’t do that.

Yeah, no one’s hands are completely clean in all of this, I suppose. The folks at St. Stanislaus deny the reports being disrespectful, as I recollect, but the whole mess remains yucky.

Actually, though, St. Stan’s offered to do exactly what Archbishop Burke wanted to do, way back in the 1970’s, when it’s property was nigh unto worthless, and when the Archdiocese was still flush with cash. The archdiocese did not want the albatross around it’s neck, and so declined. Somehow, the parishioners saved their own parish, and built up a good legacy to maintain it. Now that downtown St. Louis has begun to experience a renaissance, and the Archdiocese is strapped thanks to ‘white flight’ and the sex-abuse scandals, they want the property. Promises not to take control and then sell off the parish in the end ring pretty hollow in light of those facts.

 

[qui_est_ce]

For the record, the priest was brought in AFTER the rift between Burke and this parish. Had this rift not been provoked, Fr. Bozek would still presumably be serving in Cape Girardeau or Springfield, wherever he came from.

That is speculative. Springfield brough Bozek in from Poland, where he was about to be expelled amid homosexual allegations. Springfield paid for his seminary. Then Bozek defied the Bishop in Springfield and went to St. Stan’s. A Polish Parish with Polish mass had already been set up at St. Agath’s in St. Louis.

Yeah, no one’s hands are completely clean in all of this, I suppose. The folks at St. Stanislaus deny the reports being disrespectful, as I recollect, but the whole mess remains yucky.

If you read any news at all at the time, you will see they were completely disrespectful and yelled and booed the Archbishop

Actually, though, St. Stan’s offered to do exactly what Archbishop Burke wanted to do, way back in the 1970’s, when it’s property was nigh unto worthless, and when the Archdiocese was still flush with cash. The archdiocese did not want the albatross around it’s neck, and so declined. Somehow, the parishioners saved their own parish, and built up a good legacy to maintain it. Now that downtown St. Louis has begun to experience a renaissance, and the Archdiocese is strapped thanks to ‘white flight’ and the sex-abuse scandals, they want the property. Promises not to take control and then sell off the parish in the end ring pretty hollow in light of those facts.

Please quote your source. The area where St. Stan’s is looks like a bombed city. Please tie the whole affair to the sex abuse scandals. St. Stan’s changed their charter illegally. They are not operating under the original one.

Why should EVERY OTHER Parish in the STL Archdiocese follow the guidelines, and St. Stan’s be exempt?

*Father Marek Bozek was suspended in December 2005 by the bishop of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau for abandoning his assignment and his diocese. The St. Stanislaus Kostka Corp. hired him for the position of pastor of their church, which had served people of Polish heritage but is no longer a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Archbishop Burke said he has been hearing from Catholics who are concerned about the sacraments they are receiving from Father Bozek. Because of the priest’s status, any sacraments of Penance and Confirmation he performed or any marriages he has witnessed are considered invalid. *

stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14734

 

[qui_est_ce]

Actually, though, St. Stan’s offered to do exactly what Archbishop Burke wanted to do, way back in the 1970’s, when it’s property was nigh unto worthless, and when the Archdiocese was still flush with cash. The archdiocese did not want the albatross around it’s neck, and so declined. Somehow, the parishioners saved their own parish, and built up a good legacy to maintain it. Now that downtown St. Louis has begun to experience a renaissance, and the Archdiocese is strapped thanks to ‘white flight’ and the sex-abuse scandals, they want the property. Promises not to take control and then sell off the parish in the end ring pretty hollow in light of those facts.

*Regarding money, there has never been a question that the money and all the other temporal goods of the parish belong to the parish, as is the case with every other parish in the archdiocese. I have no authority to seize the funds of any parish for any purpose, no matter how noble. My interest in the right ordering of parish life at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish involves money only to the extent that it includes the stewardship of the goods of the parish, according to ecclesiastical and civil law, and the vigilance over the administration of the temporal goods of the parish, so that they are used for the good of the parish. For that reason, from the beginning, I have insisted that a public audit of the parish’s goods be conducted, so that there could be no question of any misappropriation of the parish’s goods.
*
stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14734

If you know how the system works, parishes are “taxed” on weekly collections. It is up to the Pastor to honestly report the collections. Why is St. Stan’s afraid of an audit?

 

[aurora77]

Why anyone would be surprised that Fr. Bozak continued his slippery slope of defiance of Church authority is what surprised me when I read the article.

This is exactly what I was thinking while reading the article. Why are they surprised?? They intentionally sought out a priest who was willing to disobey his bishop and thus his Church and now they’re amazed that he would go further down that road. I feel bad for the parish and I hope that others will learn from this.

 

[flameburns623]

That is speculative. Springfield brought Bozek in from Poland, where he was about to be expelled amid homosexual allegations. Springfield paid for his seminary. Then Bozek defied the Bishop in Springfield and went to St. Stan’s. A Polish Parish with Polish mass had already been set up at St. Agatha’s in St. Louis.

At the time those allegations were reported in the press, I took a wait-and-see attitude. It seemed unlikely that a relatively-poor diocese would pay the freight for a failed foreign seminarian to come to the USA, so I allowed for the possibility this was simply a smear, encouraged and perhaps even instigated by some RC’s after Bozek had joined himself to the cause of St. Stanislaus.

If you read any news at all at the time, you will see they were completely disrespectful and yelled and booed the Archbishop.

Some news organizations in St. Louis, notably the Post-Dispatch, claimed this. Some parishioners in attendance denied it or at least claimed the reports of such behavior were exaggerated.

Please quote your source. The area where St. Stan’s is looks like a bombed city.

Yeah, it’s a pretty nasty area, but it IS within the zone where the downtown urban renewal efforts are being focused. Any number of news sources speculated that the land values of St. Stan’s property were in the millions. Of course, it is likely that anyone buying the property would face stiff battles trying to tear down what is presumably a historic church, in order to put in high-rise condominiums. They’d have to blight a pretty sizable area around the St. Stan property, too. But the church IS within blocks of downtown St. Louis. Of course the value of the property these days is not so much as it was even three years ago, given the mortgage crises.

Please tie the whole affair to the sex abuse scandals.

St. Stan’s parishioners and the popular press have done so incessantly over the years.

St. Stan’s changed their charter illegally. They are not operating under the original one.

First I’ve ever heard of this. Basically, what I have heard is that St. Stan’s was given a charter similar to one offered to many small immigrant mission-churches in the mid 1800’s. Most of those churches no longer survive, for much the same reason that St. Stanislaus nearly expired in the 1970’s: their parish base shifted, neighborhoods declined, and financial difficulties made it difficult to survive. St. Stan’s managed to preserve itself, and now that it is prosperous and well-off, the Archdiocese is communicating the impression that it wants greater access to St. Stan’s coffers.

Why should EVERY OTHER Parish in the STL Archdiocese follow the guidelines, and St. Stan’s be exempt?

Because St. Stan’s is operating under a special charter, unique at present, but which reportedly was normative at the time St. Stan’s was established.

. . . .Because of the priest’s status, any sacraments of Penance and Confirmation he performed or any marriages he has witnessed are considered invalid.

stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14734

The article cited is inaccurate, in that Fr. Bozek’s sacraments are ‘illicit’ rather than ‘invalid’. He is fully capable of confecting the Eucharist, for example, but anyone knowingly receiving Eucharist at his hand would be committing what the RCC considers a ‘mortal’ sin. With the following caveats: People receiving sacraments from Fr. Bozek in ignorance of his status, and people receiving sacraments from him in case of dire emergency, with no other priest available, would not commit sin.

*Regarding money, there has never been a question that the money and all the other temporal goods of the parish belong to the parish, as is the case with every other parish in the archdiocese. I have no authority to seize the funds of any parish for any purpose, no matter how noble. My interest in the right ordering of parish life at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish involves money only to the extent that it includes the stewardship of the goods of the parish, according to ecclesiastical and civil law, and the vigilance over the administration of the temporal goods of the parish, so that they are used for the good of the parish. For that reason, from the beginning, I have insisted that a public audit of the parish’s goods be conducted, so that there could be no question of any misappropriation of the parish’s goods. *

stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14734

This is disingenuous of the Archbishop, and of the newspaper which tows his line. There are properties for sale all over the St. Louis Archdiocese which were once parishes. Moreover, no promise made by His Eminence would necessarily bind his successors; nor would such promises be meaningful in the event that a court-ordered seizure of property occur, as has taken place in other dioceses beset by sex-abuse scandals.

Let me be clear however, since I’ve been a bit harsh about Archbishop Burke in some of my prior posts. I actually like a lot of what he is doing, and wish there were Anglican prelates of his stature willing to be as courageous as he has been in so many cases. I happen just to disagree with his handling of this particular stickety wicket. For whatever that is worth, considering it’s HIS church and not MINE.

 

[agapewolf]

There is a HUGE puzzle piece missing in everyone’s account here…

This polish church was not handling things in line with canon law.

NOT JUST MONEY!!! The “elders” were the ones signing the checks…this is not in line with canon law. This is how their by-laws were set up.

But the elders also were the “boss” instead of the pastor. The poor pastor was being abused in his parish. He asked Burke to help him out…this is why it came to a head when Burke came here.

The elders lied to the parish about the things Burke said and did.
So many people think they are getting accurate accounts of what happened because they listen to the parishioners, when the parishioners have been lied to.

Burke actually offered to keep the money in trusts that he couldnt’ touch.

Another thing that was mentioned about the basketball fiasco. It is the media that is playing him up. The coach made comments. It wasn’t until the media recorded the comments then went to Burke and asked for a reaction. Burke is put on the spot to stay consistent with the faith.

God bless our ArchBishop!!!