St. Stanislaus (St. Louis) Loses Appeal to CDF

[kwitz]

The television news last night had a story about the fact that the board reached an impasse in voting whether or not to continue to “hire” Fr. Bozak. I looked in the Post this morning but didn’t see any written stories to reference here. At least a few remaining members are starting to see the path they headed down is away from the Church.

If they don’t reconcile soon as a parish, I don’t think it ever will. They’ll point to the fact that the parish has “grown” since this took place but most of the new members are “out there” in terms of true Catholicism and absoluely don’t want to be under the control of the archdiocese. I truly believe that most of the older parishners expected their parish to be the exact same as it was but they’d have financial control. It hasn’t worked out that way at all.

I thought the most interesting quote from the reconciled board member was (paraphrased) “we worried about the financial, not the spiritual”.

Kris

 

[kwitz]

Here’s the link for the latest news story about Fr. Bozek and the vote to “fire” him or not and then disbanding. It’ll be interesting to see who wins the next board elections.

ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=147693&catid=3

 

[reganq]

Here’s the link for the latest news story about Fr. Bozek and the vote to “fire” him or not and then disbanding. It’ll be interesting to see who wins the next board elections.

ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=147693&catid=3

I watched this video with Fr. Bozek. Talk about a disturbing interview. :banghead:

His line to the effect of the Church telling them to pack their bags and leave… DH and I discussed it and how do they not see that it’s more the case of they packed their bags and left; now the Church is saying, “Come Home!”

He also mentioned something about the Church splitting away from St. Stanislaus. Last time I checked, Christ established one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not St. Stanislaus.

All that I can think of is “I will not serve…” St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle! :knight2:

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I watched this video with Fr. Bozek. Talk about a disturbing interview. :banghead:

His line to the effect of the Church telling them to pack their bags and leave… DH and I discussed it and how do they not see that it’s more the case of they packed their bags and left; now the Church is saying, “Come Home!”

He also mentioned something about the Church splitting away from St. Stanislaus. Last time I checked, Christ established one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not St. Stanislaus.

All that I can think of is “I will not serve…” St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle! :knight2:

“Come Home”? They never really left. This was never an issue about the Church spirituality, it was about temporal money control issues. It was about allowing local control of their own finances for one parish. Before Burke pushed this “issue” it was never an issue in the St Louis Archdiocese. To have this get to this level is beyond inane. The office of Archbishop went to Burke’s head to push it to this level and excommunicate everyone. It is not good pastoral leadership at all. It shows poor inter-personal and public relations ability. Burke has hurt his overall credibility by doing this black and white interpretation and try to make it into a spiritual rebellion of some type.

 

[pnewton]

“Come Home”? They never really left.

If one is excommunicated, then one needs to humble themselves and come home, even if it means letting go of temporal wealth.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

If one is excommunicated, then one needs to humble themselves and come home, even if it means letting go of temporal wealth.

I was referring to the start of this whole mess, in that they were excommunicated in the end over money control, nothing else. This was something that was not excommunication worthy at all. It was a petty move on by Archbishop Burke. There were no spiritual divisions at all, this excommunication feels like a hard line power play for temporal money control, not the stuff of excommunication, which usually comes down to some spiritual issue of this or that.

 

[reganq]

%between%I suggest that you check out this thread. It has much of the history of the whole St. Stanislaus situation that has been hashed out before. The actual history relating to how Archbishop Kenrick allowed the corporation to be established is visited there. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the PDF documents which used to be on the Archdiocese website.

Before attacking a man for doing his job, it would be most beneficial to research the entire case and the person you are attacking. DH and I have met Archbishop Burke on several occasions. Never has he come across as the ogre the secular media portrays him to be. He is a most humble servant, obedient to his vows and concerned for the souls of everyone under his care.

As far as the money thing goes, research the older threads regarding this subject. The parishioners of this corporation decided to hire a renegade priest who was disobedient to his own bishop and has done nothing but lead them farther down the road of schism.

Take a look at one the things he is supporting, ordination of women as priests. Gee, another ground for excommunication (latae sentenciae if memory serves). You can tell a tree by its fruit. The only fruit that I have seen is disobedience.

 

[PerryJ]

Archbishop Burke he did not start this process. It was started by bishops before him. The focus though is why the Archdiocese took such action. It was the parish board removing the parish priest from the governing board that controls the funds. This action caused Archbishop Burke to remove the priest from the parish. Do you know of any parish in which the priest is not involved in financials matters? Note also the funds from the parish were not being taken away from the Church. As member of a finance team within this Archdiocese one does not lose their funds or the control of their funds. They are merely held in Archdiocese’s bank accounts and a certain portion is tithed to the archdiocese. One does not lose their funds. Even if a parish is closed the funds are forwarded to the new parish for their use. Note the rules outlined by the Archbishop are the same rules that all parishes follow. This church put their money, which they would still have control over, before their obedience to the Catholic Faith and Christ. Now they have non-Catholics joining the church and changing it to a very liberal church. What did they expect when they accept a parish priest that abandoned his duties at another archdiocese? I am very sympathetic to this parish as the lay people are confused; however, to make charges against Archbishop Burke for following the rules that every other parish follows is wrong. This parish chose to remove the parish priest from the finance team. This parish chose money over God.

Please pray for all involved.

 

[spbonner]

I was referring to the start of this whole mess, in that they were excommunicated in the end over money control, nothing else. This was something that was not excommunication worthy at all. It was a petty move on by Archbishop Burke. There were no spiritual divisions at all, this excommunication feels like a hard line power play for temporal money control, not the stuff of excommunication, which usually comes down to some spiritual issue of this or that.

“For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.” 1Tim 6:10

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

%between%I suggest that you check out this thread. It has much of the history of the whole St. Stanislaus situation that has been hashed out before. The actual history relating to how Archbishop Kenrick allowed the corporation to be established is visited there. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the PDF documents which used to be on the Archdiocese website.

Before attacking a man for doing his job, it would be most beneficial to research the entire case and the person you are attacking. DH and I have met Archbishop Burke on several occasions. Never has he come across as the ogre the secular media portrays him to be. He is a most humble servant, obedient to his vows and concerned for the souls of everyone under his care.

As far as the money thing goes, research the older threads regarding this subject. The parishioners of this corporation decided to hire a renegade priest who was disobedient to his own bishop and has done nothing but lead them farther down the road of schism.

Take a look at one the things he is supporting, ordination of women as priests. Gee, another ground for excommunication (latae sentenciae if memory serves). You can tell a tree by its fruit. The only fruit that I have seen is disobedience.

Yet the root cause is a power trip over money that the parish controls. The later issues are separate from what started all of this. Excommunication is still a radical move and should not have been done in this case.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Archbishop Burke he did not start this process. It was started by bishops before him. The focus though is why the Archdiocese took such action. It was the parish board removing the parish priest from the governing board that controls the funds. This action caused Archbishop Burke to remove the priest from the parish. Do you know of any parish in which the priest is not involved in financials matters? Note also the funds from the parish were not being taken away from the Church. As member of a finance team within this Archdiocese one does not lose their funds or the control of their funds. They are merely held in Archdiocese’s bank accounts and a certain portion is tithed to the archdiocese. One does not lose their funds. Even if a parish is closed the funds are forwarded to the new parish for their use. Note the rules outlined by the Archbishop are the same rules that all parishes follow. This church put their money, which they would still have control over, before their obedience to the Catholic Faith and Christ. Now they have non-Catholics joining the church and changing it to a very liberal church. What did they expect when they accept a parish priest that abandoned his duties at another archdiocese? I am very sympathetic to this parish as the lay people are confused; however, to make charges against Archbishop Burke for following the rules that every other parish follows is wrong. This parish chose to remove the parish priest from the finance team. This parish chose money over God.

Please pray for all involved.

What is missing is why the board decided to remove the priest from the financial matters. There is something crucial there that is missing. Was it embezzlement, mis-allocation? What is the inside story? That is what I am guessing right now. It would be sad if it was true. I understand how close priests are with the finances with the parish and finance councils. I was on my local parish council not too long ago.

What I see is things spun way out of control from what the original offense was. Excommunication is still going to far. What both sides need to do is to sit down and come to a fair compromise like from a mediator to resolve matters. We need heels that have been dug in to be pulled out. To start that road the excommunication needs to be lifted as a forward sign of trust. It would be a sign of compassion by Burke towards the Church, a spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law matter.

 

[LilyM]

What is missing is why the board decided to remove the priest from the financial matters. There is something crucial there that is missing. Was it embezzlement, mis-allocation? What is the inside story? That is what I am guessing right now. It would be sad if it was true. I understand how close priests are with the finances with the parish and finance councils. I was on my local parish council not too long ago.

What I see is things spun way out of control from what the original offense was. Excommunication is still going to far. What both sides need to do is to sit down and come to a fair compromise like from a mediator to resolve matters. We need heels that have been dug in to be pulled out. To start that road the excommunication needs to be lifted as a forward sign of trust. It would be a sign of compassion by Burke towards the Church, a spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law matter.

I am sure that if the priest was removed for a legitimate reason such as you state, the board would’ve as a matter of course told the then Archbishop. Who, surely, would have no problem with a priest being let go for a legitimate reason. That he DID have problems indicates that there wasn’t a legitimate reason for the priest’s removal.

Hunger for money goes both ways y’know. The board is just as likely to have removed the priest simply out of greed and desire on the part of the board to have complete control over the funds and how they were used.

And it appears from the article that at least a year, if not more, elapsed between the incident with the priest and Burke’s excommunication. So only after the problem had been going on for a year, doubtless with other means of resolution being tried and having failed during that time, did Burke act in this manner.

Now a year is more than long enough to sit and talk on such an issue, and probably more than long enough for it to become clear whether a negotiated resolution is possible or not. So it wouldn’t appear to be a premature or overbearing use of the power.