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

[CathFaith1]

The issue of Sacraments being illicit or made invalid seems a bit more complex? It does appear some important Sacraments become ‘‘invalid’’?

The article cited is inaccurate, in that Fr. Bozek’s sacraments are ‘illicit’ rather than ‘invalid’. .

“When a sacrament is invalid, it means nothing happened,” Father Gray said. “A sacrament that’s valid but illicit means the sacrament occurred, but it was against canon law. In general, baptism by a suspended or excommunicated priest would be valid, but illicit.

Marriage would be invalid. Last rites would be valid, but illicit. Confession would be invalid. Mass would be valid, but totally, completely illicit and absolutely should not take place.”

Rent-a-Priest

 

[peregrinus_WA]

                                             . . . .***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.

The Mass may be “valid” but illicit, but many of the other sacraments are invalid.

The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with this priest, these sacraments are invalid. I believe the same is true about confirmation.

In fact, I believe the only ones that are valid and licit are Baptism and maybe Anointing of the Sick (but only in extreme cases for the latter).

 

[childofmary1143]

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.

Let me state a few facts:

A Priest who is excommunicated can administer most Sacraments **validly **, but illicitly. Some Sacraments could be invalid (
Confession needs jurisdiction from the Archbishop which Father Stan would not get and Marriage possibly).

If a Priest is laicised then he is reduced to layman and can’t perform any Sacraments validly.

The Archbishop is well within his rights to remove the faculties of a Priest in his diocese. Years back a Priest one time called for the murder of abortionists. The Bishop subsequently removed his faculties for obvious reasons. Now if a Priest feels that his Bishop acted improperly then he can appeal it but I doubt Father Stan would do that. The Pope/Vatican can certain laicize a Priest to the status of layman. Its rare but legal.

 

[flameburns623]

Let me state a few facts:

A Priest who is excommunicated can administer most Sacraments **validly **, but illicitly. Some Sacraments could be invalid (
Confession needs jurisdiction from the Archbishop which Father Stan would not get and Marriage possibly).

If a Priest is laicised then he is reduced to layman and can’t perform any Sacraments validly.

Hm mm. I am almost certain that is incorrect. My understanding is that an ordained Roman Catholic priest is a priest forever. Any sources for such an assertion? If Bozek ‘trumps’ the Archbishop by submitting himself to the authority of another bishop–say a bishop of an autocephalous communion like the PNCC, does that affect the issue? If laicization can actually remove the faculties of a priest and not simply suspend them, then a lot of what I have written here is in error.

But it’s my understanding that it is actually impossible in the Western tradition to remove priestly faculties once given: a bishop can only remove the privilege of exercising those faculties. In the Eastern Church it is different: in Orthodox understanding, priestly and even Episcopal faculties are forfeit under any number of circumstances. Please correct me if you have the sources to verify this. Thanks!

peregrinus_WA:

The Mass may be “valid” but illicit, but many of the other sacraments are invalid.

The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with this priest, these sacraments are invalid. I believe the same is true about confirmation.

In fact, I believe the only ones that are valid and licit are Baptism and maybe Anointing of the Sick (but only in extreme cases for the latter).

This more-closely approaches what I understood to be the case, though I was unaware until reviewing some things over the past couple of days that a priest had to have the faculties of a diocese to perform marriages AND Penance.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

This more-closely approaches what I understood to be the case, though I was unaware until reviewing some things over the past couple of days that a priest had to have the faculties of a diocese to perform marriages AND Penance.

The only reason I know this is because it was mentioned on another thread pertaining to another group of priests that are suspended.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Progression of the St. Stanislaus Parish corporation

Structure of the parish corporation in 1891when Archbishop Kenrick deeded the parish property

A Missouri benevolent corporation formed in 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 is 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.

**Parish structure proposed by the Archbishop to the board of directors in January 2005 **New parish corporation:

Create a new nonprofit corporation based on the model for all parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis Irrevocable parish trust:

Create a new irrevocable charitable trust whose trustees are appointed by the Archbishop; the pastor is also a trustee;

Holds title to the parish real estate which is leased to the new parish corporation and invests cash and securities for the parish;

If the Parish closes, all parish assets are transferred to the Residuary Corporation;

Residuary corporation:

The present parish corporation will be the residuary corporation. If the parish closes, it will receive the parish assets and will administer these assets for religious, educational and charitable activities for Catholics of Polish descent in the Archdiocese;

The present directors, except for the pastor, remain as directors with parishioners electing successor directors.

 

[qui_est_ce]

"qui:

*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. *

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.

The facts speak for themselves. A priest makes a VOW of obedience to his bishop. Bozek broke that vow, and now St. Stan’s is shocked that Bozek broke his promise to keep St. Stan’s Catholic.

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.

This is exactly what infuriates me. It is St. Stan’s that are making an issue of money. They don’t want to be audited by the Archdiocese. The real issue is about being obedient to the Bishop.

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.

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

I guess having a disobedient priest and an excommunicated lay corporation running this parish offers immunity to sex and other scandals.

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.

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.

Which they modified in 2004:

stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=7873February 11, 2005

*"Q&A about St. Stanislaus Parish

---

1. If the corporate structure of St. Stanislaus was acceptable to Archbishop Kenrick in 1891, why is Archbishop Burke requiring a change now?

When the parish corporation was formed in 1891, the archbishop and his successors had significant and necessary authority over the parish corporation. The 1891 charter and bylaws provided that the archbishop appoint the directors and resolve disputes among the directors (which includes disputes between the pastor and the other directors because the pastor is a member of the board) and, if the parish ever closed, that all of the property and assets became the “absolute property” of the archbishop. The corporate documents further provided that any amendments must not be in conflict with Church law. Without consulting the archbishop, the board has eliminated all of his authority which he had in the 1891 corporate documents. If the bylaws had not been in this way illegally modified, there would not be a controversy today because the changes which are now being made for all other parishes could also have been made for St. Stanislaus had the original bylaws been in place. " *
"qui:

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

The article cited is inaccurate

The quote is from the St. Louis Review, Archdiocesan newspaper of St. Louis.

Moreover, no promise made by His Eminence would necessarily bind his successors;

Is that fact or opinion?

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.

I have personally met the Archbishop on several occasions. He makes the rounds of the parish fish fries on Fridays. He Confirmed my daughter. Archbishop Burke is a an extremely humble and pastoral person. His is also an extremely intelligent canon lawyer - educated in Rome. He is not afraid of the truth. The St Louis Post-Dispatch is openly biased against him and the Catholic Church, embarassingly so. Any other story, they would check their facts, but for articles on the Catholic Church, they misconstrue facts, and always on the front page. This week’s article said that St Stan’s parishioners were worried that Father Bozek was leading the parish away from the Catholic Church because, among other things, he approved of giving Communion to divorcees and lesbians. It is not against Canon Law to give Communion to gays or divorced people.

 

[qui_est_ce]

*February 11, 2005

Q&A about St. Stanislaus Parish

1. Are the assets of St. Stanislaus really $9 million, as the directors have reported in the media?

The directors have publicly said that they have between $1 million and $1.4 million in cash and securities. We do not know if this is an accurate figure because the corporation has not been audited by an independent accountant. The directors believe that the parish real estate is valued at another $8 million. While we have not had the property appraised, the $8 million value repeatedly voiced by the board and reported in the media is, based on the known value of other parish properties, likely to be significantly less.

1. What is the Vatican’s response to this situation?

In August 2004, Roger Krasnicki, a representative of the board, petitioned the Vatican. In response, the Congregation of the Clergy issued a decree rejecting the petition and wrote: “[a]fter reviewing the documentation relating to the foundation and organization of the Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus parish, as well as its more than 100 year history, this Congregation is greatly troubled by the current situation … The actions of the Board of Directors in attempting to take control of the Parish represents a clear affront to the authority of the Church and the intentions of the Parish founder. Through careful and premeditated revisions of the By-laws of the civil corporation, you have attempted to make the role of the pastor impotent, attempted to wrest control from the local Ordinary, and attempted to transform St. Stanislaus Parish into an entity which has no resemblance to a parish as envisioned by either the tradition or current law of the Roman Catholic Church. The Congregation strongly urges you and the parishioners of St. Stanislaus Parish to work in cooperation with your local Ordinary to restore St. Stanislaus parish to the status envisioned by its founder.” *
stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=7873

 

[qui_est_ce]

*"6. Can you give an example of how the board of directors and the pastor have been in conflict over the daily operations of the parish?

Yes. Not long ago, parents and the pastor voiced their concern about the directors operating a bar in a parish classroom after 10 a.m. Sunday Mass while religion classes for children were being conducted. The board ignored the parents and pastor’s concerns and applied for a liquor license. When the pastor opposed the board’s application for the liquor license, the licensing office of the City of St. Louis said it could not listen to the pastor but had to act on the request of the board of the parish corporation since it owned and controlled the parish buildings. Over the objections of parents and the pastor, the board has operated a bar in a classroom in the parish school building and has sold drinks to parishioners after the 10 a.m. Mass."*
stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=7873

 

[flameburns623]

I have personally met the Archbishop on several occasions. He makes the rounds of the parish fish fries on Fridays. He Confirmed my daughter. Archbishop Burke is a an extremely humble and pastoral person. His is also an extremely intelligent canon lawyer - educated in Rome. He is not afraid of the truth. The St Louis Post-Dispatch is openly biased against him and the Catholic Church, embarassingly so. Any other story, they would check their facts, but for articles on the Catholic Church, they misconstrue facts, and always on the front page. This week’s article said that St Stan’s parishioners were worried that Father Bozek was leading the parish away from the Catholic Church because, among other things, he approved of giving Communion to divorcees and lesbians. It is not against Canon Law to give Communion to gays or divorced people.

I’m not going to quibble over the details of your past several posts, Christine. Basically I’ve never met either Archbishop Burke or Fr. Bozek. I know of both of them via the popular media and from this forum. As I indicated, I have at least a conserable degree of admiration for His Eminence; I think this particular issue was mishandled, but for the most part the Archbishop is doing a fine job for St. Louis Catholics. MUCH better than the Catholic bishop who runs the diocese on my side of the river, (I’m in Illinois); and light-years better than the Episcopal Diocese of St. Louis, or virtually any other diocese of the TEC.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m not going to quibble over the details of your past several posts, Christine. Basically I’ve never met either Archbishop Burke or Fr. Bozek. I know of both of them via the popular media and from this forum. As I indicated, I have at least a conserable degree of admiration for His Eminence; I think this particular issue was mishandled, but for the most part the Archbishop is doing a fine job for St. Louis Catholics. MUCH better than the Catholic bishop who runs the diocese on my side of the river, (I’m in Illinois); and light-years better than the Episcopal Diocese of St. Louis, or virtually any other diocese of the TEC.

I wanted to put the facts out there because there has been so much misinformation. If the St. Stan’s situation was mishandled, it was because St. Stan’s Kraznicki and Bialczak turned a private matter into a media circus. Now Kranicki wants Bozek out. Bialczak and most of the board are ok with Fr. Bozek’s participation in the Womenpriests ordination. Fr Bozek didn’t just attend, he participated.

I get particularly riled at attacks against the Archbishop, most are based on false understanding of the CC. IMHO Satan is working very hard on the CC in St. Louis. Archbishop Burke has had to face more public dissention than any other. And the media loves it.

IMHO Satan is working very hard on the CC in St. Louis. And it’s working. People in my own parish have no qualms second guessing the Archbishop and his motives. It’s disgusting.

 

[rien]

Bottom line the new priest has like 80% support from the parishionners who will vote. Even removing the doubling of registetred parishonners since he took over, he has more than 50% support from the oiriginal parishionners if you read the article. Perhaps the Spirit has been moving this congregation on things beyond even the specific control of the parish??

I think they should seek affiliation with an OLd Catholic church to get a more “official” footing.

 

[uther]

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.

It was more than a promise. Archbishop Burke offerred to sign an agreement with the parish that would protect their property. They declined because the agreement maintained a diocesan priest at the head of “administering” the property, exactly like every other parish.

Follow the money. Seems that applies as much to the parish here as it does to the diocese.