Posted on 12/16/2005 6:39:40 PM PST by Petrosius
Introduction
I write, with heavy heart, about a situation which I, as bishop, had hoped that I would never have to address. I refer to the recent break with the communion of the Roman Catholic Church on the part of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish in the City of St. Louis, and on the part of the priest from the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, whom they have hired to serve them.
It saddens me, in particular, to address such a deep wound to the Church in our archdiocese in these days of our final preparation for the celebration of the Birth of Our Lord on Christmas. The fact of the schism, however, must be addressed by me now, because it has immediate effects in the whole Church, especially the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The priest in question has informed me that he will begin his service at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church on Christmas Eve.
As archbishop, it is my responsibility to explain the situation to all of the faithful of the archdiocese, who are so deeply affected by what has happened, in order that they not be subjected to further confusion and division, that they not be deceived about the lawfulness and validity of sacraments celebrated by the schismatic priest and that they pray for the reconciliation of those who gone into schism.
Schism
Schism is "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (can. 751). It is the repudiation of the authority which Christ conferred upon St. Peter and the other Apostles in communion with him, and their successors. It, therefore, involves not only a premeditated and most grave act of disobedience to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in the communion with him, but also a certain denial of an integral part of the Catholic faith, that is, the apostolic mark of the Church. In other words, those who choose to go into schism believe that they can be the Church without the pastoral teaching, ministration of the sacraments and governance of the Apostles and their successors.
In the case of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, the act of disobedience involves directly not only the archbishop of St. Louis but also the Apostolic See. They have rejected both my direction and the direction of the Apostolic See.
At the beginning of my service as archbishop of St. Louis on Jan. 26, 2004, I was obliged to address the structure of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, in order that it be in conformity with universal Church law which demands that the form of civil corporation respect the office of the archbishop and pastor of the parish. Because the bylaws of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish had been altered to eliminate any recognition of the authority of the archbishop and pastor, my predecessor, then-Archbishop Justin Rigali, had taken the proper steps to rectify the matter. In the meantime, he was transferred to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and, therefore, it was my responsibility, as his successor, to complete the necessary work which he had begun for the good of the faithful of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish and of the whole archdiocese.
From the very beginning of my service, the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation have refused to obey my directives and, in fact, made appeal to the Apostolic See against my directives to them. The appeal was made to the Holy Father?s Congregation for the Clergy, which is competent in such matters. The Congregation for the Clergy responded to the board of directors, strongly directing them to comply with my directives. When the board of directors refused to obey either my directives or the directives of the Apostolic See, I was obliged to impose the penalty of interdict, in the hope that the members of the board would recognize the error of their way and repent. I have insisted with the members of the board of directors that the way to unity and, therefore, peace is obedience to our lawful superiors in the Church, that is, the Holy Father?s Congregation for the Clergy.
Conflict with the Roman Catholic Church
Some have understood that the conflict of the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish and of those who follow them is with me personally. Such is clearly not the case, as the decision of the Congregation for the Clergy indicated. Their conflict is with the Roman Catholic Church. It is a conflict which several of my predecessors addressed in their time. The members of the board of directors refuse to accept the governance of the parish by the Roman Catholic Church, insisting that they remain devout Roman Catholics by governing the parish themselves. They have, thereby, broken the bond of communion with the Apostolic See and the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
Some have understood the object of the conflict to be power and money. Such is also clearly not the case. The object of the conflict is obedience, the obedience we all owe to the Apostolic teaching and discipline of the Church.
The power in question belongs to Christ alone, who continues to guide the Church through those who act in His person as shepherd and head of the flock, in virtue of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the jurisdiction conferred by the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the bishops in communion with the Holy Father. It is precisely when we place ourselves above Christ and His authority in the Church that we introduce division into the Body of Christ.
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.
Act of schism
The act of schism, committed by the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, was the hiring of a suspended priest, that is a priest who is not in good standing in the Church, for the purpose of attempting to celebrate the sacraments and sacramentals at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church. The priest in question, Father Marek B. Bozek, a priest of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, has left his priestly office of assistant pastor of St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield against the explicit direction of his bishop, the Most Reverend John J. Leibrecht, and after Bishop Leibrecht had explained to him more than once the gravity of his action and its consequences.
The fact of the matter is that only a priest who is not in good standing would agree to employment by a group of parishioners without the appointment of the diocesan bishop, that is, a group of parishioners who are breaking communion with the Church. All priests serve in communion with the diocesan bishop who serves in communion with the Roman Pontiff. When Father Bozek left his assignment without his bishop?s permission, he was rightly suspended. The penalty of suspension prohibits him from the exercise of his priestly office (cf. can. 1333, §1).
A priest, who knowingly and willingly chooses to attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church and, thereby, assists and encourages others in breaking communion with the Church, clearly also commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism. To be clear, it is not only the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish who are in schism, but also the priest whom they have presumed to hire and who has agreed to be hired.
In the secular media, it has been suggested that Bishop Leibrecht, more than once, asked me to accept Father Bozek for assignment to St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, but that I stubbornly refused. The suggestion is totally false. Bishop Leibrecht informed me immediately when he learned from Father Bozek about his intention to accept employment by the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish. Bishop Leibrecht assured me that he had not given Father Bozek any permission to pursue a position at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish and that, on the contrary, he was insisting that Father Bozek remain faithful to the exercise of his priestly office at St. Agnes Cathedral.
Father Bozek remains a priest of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau. Bishop Leibrecht as bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau has made it abundantly clear that he desires Father Bozek to return to his diocese immediately, in order to be reconciled. It is my prayer that Father Bozek will respond to Bishop Leibrecht?s direction, in accord with the promise of obedience, which he made, in Bishop Leibrecht?s hands, to Bishop Leibrecht and his successors on the day of his ordination. Please pray for the same intention.
Consequences of schism
Those who commit the ecclesiastical crime of schism incur automatically the penalty of excommunication (cf. can. 1364, §1; and 1314). The excommunicated person is forbidden "to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever" (can. 1331, §1, 1º); "to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals, and to receive the sacraments" (can. 1331, §1, 2º); and "to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance" (can. 1331, §1, 3º). The various elements of the penalty underline the fact that the party in question has broken communion with the Church. The prohibition of receiving the sacraments or sacramentals is suspended when the party under sanction is in danger of death, given that he is otherwise properly disposed (cf. can. 1352, §1).
Although the excommunication is incurred automatically, it is my duty as the diocesan bishop in whose jurisdiction the act of schism has taken place to declare the excommunication, after I have made certain that the parties in question have understood the gravity of their act and its most serious consequences (cf. cann. 1717-1719). It has been made clear to me for some time that the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish have understood that the action of hiring a priest who is not in good standing in the Church to serve them carried with it the penalty of excommunication. Over the months since the imposition of the penalty of interdict, it has been my hope that the members of the board of directors would seek reconciliation. Also, I have renewed several times my offer to execute civil legal documents to guarantee what is already guaranteed by Church discipline, namely, the ownership of the temporal goods of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish as a personal parish for faithful of Polish language or heritage. The members of the board of directors, however, have insisted on their governance of the parish, even if, at the same time, they have asserted their desire to be part of the Roman Catholic Church. Having attempted to address the situation through fraternal correction and other means of pastoral solicitude, including the pastoral visit of the Most Reverend Ryszard Karpinski, auxiliary bishop of Lublin in Poland and the delegate of the Polish Conference of Bishops for Polish faithful living outside their homeland, now I must declare that the latest action of the members of the board of directors constitutes schism, carrying with it the automatic penalty of excommunication (cf. can. 1341).
The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions, is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2º). In other words, he may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1).
The celebration of the Sacrament of Confirmation by a schismatic priest is invalid because he no longer has any faculty to do so, either by universal Church law or the granting of the faculty by the diocesan bishop (cf. can. 882). Baptism and the Anointing of the Sick are conferred validly but not licitly (cf. cann. 862; and 1003, §§1-2).
The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin. All of the faithful of the archdiocese should guard against any participation in the attempt to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church. Also, they should caution visitors and others who are unaware of the status of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, lest they unknowingly participate in the schismatic acts.
Finally, since the civil legal control of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish belongs exclusively to the members of the board of directors of the civil corporation and they have chosen to lead the members of the parish into schism, I will be obliged to suppress St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish. It is not possible for St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish to remain a parish of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and, at the same time, to operate completely independently of the Apostolic See and the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
Conclusion
As I wrote at the beginning, my heart is heavy in writing to you about the break of communion with the Church by our brothers and sisters at St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, most especially at the Holy Seasons of Advent and Christmas. We must not, however, permit Satan to steal our joy at the preparation for Christmas and the celebration of the Birth of Our Lord Jesus. Let, rather, the mystery of the Incarnation, which we will celebrate with deepest joy on Christmas Day and throughout the Christmas Season be the source of our renewed prayers for the reconciliation of the members of the board of directors, of those who support them, and of Father Marek Bozek.
On Dec. 17, we will begin the final days of our preparation for the Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On each day, from Dec. 17 to Dec. 24, we will salute Christ our Savior by one of the ancient and beautiful titles given to the long-awaited Messiah. The last of the titles is Emmanuel. It contains all the other titles, for it means: God with us. Let us, through the intercession of Our Lady of Czestochowa, implore our Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Mercy, on behalf of the reconciliation of those who have gone into schism. Christ, Divine Mercy Incarnate, accomplishes all things. Let us place the dolorous situation of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish into all-merciful and loving heart.
These are days of strong grace in the Church. May we keep them with deepest faith and so obtain the grace of being fittingly prepared for the great celebration of the Birth of our Savior. Through the observance of these final days of Advent, may many graces come to our homes and our archdiocese, uniting us in the peace which Christ brought to the world at His Birth.
My knowledge of the matter is that Archbishop Rigali had been approached by parishioners of St. Stanislaus desirous of an accounting by the lay board whom had been functioning in a rather heavy-handed fashion when it came to the parish funds. Our local secular-humanist fish wrap, the Post-Dispatch, is virulently anti-Catholic and has taken the part of the board in a trumped up cause celebre which largely ignores the position of the Archdiocese as well as the fact that the majority of the parish families have left to attend Polish services at another church designated for this purpose. Archbishop Burke is acting totally within his prerogatives and has displayed remarkable patience with the recalcitrant board that seems to be using the church and its considerable wealth as its own private preserve. They appear to be more fearful of oversight than of the peril to their souls. This is the root cause of the schism, not anything that can be placed on the archbishops plate.
I don't know. I just thought that the folks on FR who hadn't been following the story should hear both sides.
I don't keep a scorecard, so I don't know who the good Bishops are or who, in most cases, who the pro - homosexual and/or pro - abortion bishops are. Is this one of the good guys or one of the others?
Wha? Where'd that come from? The sentence read: Time will tell and the evidence will be whether He allows this Congregation to prosper or wane. And no where in there is there anything singling-out "material wealth". God has already Blessed them with the title to their own building and possessions and I have no doubt that if they are proceeding in accordance with His Will for them that He will continue to support them both Spiritually and materially. My statement did not single-out one over the other.
Correct - they, at the withdrawal of support from the organization and its apparent lack of dialogue and any presentation of cooperation or desire to dialogue (viz. posting #6 - the 5 lines starting with 'June 2004'), have decided to hire their own Pastor (with apparent due consideration and polling from their members - posting #6 - Aug 2005 and following) and it seems to me you maybe use a pretty broad brush to immediately paint them as homophiles.
I seem to remember in some vatican missives there being words to the effect of forgiveness of past actions as long as those identified individuals didn't further persist in their sin by action. Shouldn't that also apply to this man? Indeed, I see nothing in the material on the church's website that in any way implies a pro-homo stance by the congregation.
Given the strong nationalism, orthodoxy, conservatism, and sense-of-Family of Slavic ethnic groups I firmly believe that the AB-SO-LUTE LAST thing you'd find in such an ethnic-Polish congregation would be a tolerance for pro-homo activities (I speak from a Slovak/Polish heritage). And even less-so the idea that such an independent congregation would interview and hire a man who had any intent of promulgating such activities. He's hired as their spiritual Shepherd - not placed there by a diocese wherein the congregation has no say in his staying or going (i.e. "we put him there: like it or lump it") - have any of you honestly never known of congregations not happy with a priest assigned to them, for whatever reason, that the diocese would not reassign? That can be a sure-fire cause for division, schism, and separation especially if there's a "we can't hear you"/"we won't listen to you"-position taken by the diocese.
I'm sure the congregation is spiritually and theologically mature enough to realize if his actions ever deviate from Scripture and will make the proper remedies for any such situations. rome may be more liberal in their limits to "forgive and forget and reassign" but these people are at-the-scene and have more at stake regarding their spiritual welfare and the welfare of their families, and are apparently dissatisfied with the performance of that diocese regard their needs that they've sought God's Will and feel that It is to take that responsibility upon themselves.
Many other congregations are independent and God has Willed them to either prosper or fail, and this one is no different. Again: time will tell.
I may be mistaken, but it was my understanding that the Bishop removed the old priest, and never assigned a new one. The new priest is one that they found on their own.
It would be so if that is what I did. My point was that when an individual or congregation separates itself from apostolic teaching authority, as this one has done, it soon falls into error. That is what happened with the reformers and their congregations since the 1500s. That was my point. Mainline Protestantism is today irrefutably evidencing the effects of separation from apostolic authority and succession in acceptance of homosexual acts as being morally acceptable. Some sort of serious error will soon rise from this separation as well: when those who have no teaching authority (teaching authority is not a vote!) make theological decisions, error soon follows from those same persons, even if those errors are ratified by a vote!
Also, as soon as you denied asserting using material prosperity as a sign of Divine approval, you asserted it again. I did not isolate material from spiritual prosperity. Schismatics may prosper apparently in many ways, but the fruits of the spirit moving them will soon evidence theological and corruption. When Scripture interpreted by individuals is the final authority, you soon end fissioning into thousand of sects (see contemporary Protestantism for an example of this phenomenon).
Best regards.
They are excommunicated for disobedience. Or maybe that is business as usual for them.
On a side note, Bishop Leibrecht celebrated his 75th birthday on Aug 8, 2005 source
He is close to retirement.
The 'other side of the story' didn't seem to shed much light on the subject. Why have they separated themselves from the Diocese? What brought them to this decision?
That's better...
St. Stanislaus Kostka Chuch was built by Polish immigrants in the 1880's. It is currently the last Polish Roman Catholic parish remaining in St. Louis. St. Stanislaus Kostka Church is presently maintained and run as a not-for-profit corporation by the church parishioners and is recognized as such under the laws of the State of Missouri. Under a land deed signed by Cardinal Kenrick in 1891, the parish property was assigned to a parishioner-run corporation in perpetuity. Since that time, the parishioners of St. Stanislaus have grown the parish to include the eight (8) acres of land immediately surrounding the Church. The parishioners recently raised money for the construction of a $2.5 million dollar state of the art Polish Heritage Center. The total value of St. Stanislaus Church the land, buildings and financial assets - is estimated at approximately $9.5 million dollars.
St. Stanislaus is completely self-sustaining. The parish operates without the financial support of the Archdiocese and has done so for its entire existence. The parishioners pay for and are responsible for the upkeep, development, restoration and improvement of the church and the church grounds. The pastor is appointed by the Archdiocese and is responsible for the religious affairs of the parish. The parish has always been in good standing with the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
In July 2003 Archbishop Rigali notified the Board of Directors that the Archdiocese wanted to take control of the financial assets and property of St. Stanislaus. As a result of Archbishop Rigali, and now Archbishop Burke's actions of trying to gain control of all the assets, the Board of Directors and Parishioners are in a struggle to preserve not only St. Stanislaus, but also our Polish Heritage. Until the priest was taken away on August 4, 2004 he maintained complete spiritual control over the parish and parish operating funds. However, the Board of Directors oversees financial stability of the parish, and became alarmed after Fr. Bene spent thousands of dollars in his short time at the parish and depleted for the first time in parish history the funds he was responsible for administering. It is very difficult for the parishioners to understand the current attempts by Archbishop Burke since for over 100 years the Archdiocese never offered financial assistance, even during the difficult periods and the priest maintained complete spiritual control. Knowing the financial difficulties of the Archdiocese and the timing of the attempted takeover, clearly leads to the only explanation possible, this is all about Archbishop Burke trying to gain control of St. Stanislaus's assets.
http://www.saveststans.org/page2.html
The authority of the apostles came from Christ through "handshake familiarity" - meaning that THEY were THERE with Him at the time and were in intimate contact - but how about the authority of Paul? He never met Christ in the presence of the 12 but Christ came to him individually and privately. He then went to the 12 and they (guess what) essentially 'ratified him by vote'(!). :) Not, of course, that it would have made a difference; he'd already gotten his 'marching orders' from the Boss Himself.
So, then, God doesn't speak to individuals any more? But only to the self-perpetuating 'management class' who then disseminates everything to the congregants?
_I_ don't see that. If anything, God's desire is for _all_ to attain their highest possible level of spiritual maturity and that there isn't any more of a "feeder vs. fed" hierarchy than is necessary: some will always need to be ministered-to, but it _should_ be the aim of every Christian to be able to 'feed' others and not remain at a level of abject dependence - which is what I see more of in the 'mainline' churches of every denomination and less of in the 'independent' congregations of which I am familiar (or of whose members I am acquainted).
Yes, I _did_ say it, but I did not assert material prosperity ALONE: I coupled it with Spiritual prosperity, as it should be. God's Gifts are spiritual as well as material: a place to worship (with the means to keep it going) and the individual physical wherewithal to worship (transportation, health, and so forth) AS WELL AS the spiritual/mental/cognitive abilities (being able to learn, and teach, and support others) to worship Him.
You assert that: "When Scripture interpreted by individuals is the final authority, you soon end fissioning into thousand of sects (see contemporary Protestantism for an example of this phenomenon)". And I take that to mean that you don't believe God is capable of raising people (those outside of the 'umbrella' of Rome) to the same level of theological understand and maturity and competence as these others.
All the theological seminaries and colleges and universities not affiliated with Rome are a waste of time? No. No; twice. No; three times. It is the caliber of the individuals that come OUT of these institutions that must be examined; not the institutions as a whole - there are the Good as well as the bad (and the same holds true for those out of the institutions of Rome). The institution provides the environment; God provides the tools and His resources, and it's the individual who ultimately decides whether to properly use or waste what's been provided.
Closing a parish is NEVER "plain and simple."
If any among them are willing to put aside their sins of pride, disobedience, defiance and scandal and come groveling back in abject humiliation, certainly Archbishop Burke will consider entertaining individual pleadings. The rebellious priest, Mark Bozek, should be defrocked, never to be restored, as an example to others in other schisms of recent note.
Solitas: When Catholics need your opinion as to how OUR Catholic Church should be governed, we will be sure to ask.
One of the very best guys.
Do you mean "the other side of the story" as being the press release in posting #6?
Have you gone to their website and read the FAQ there (as well as the other documents)?
I see lots of stuff there that appears to me to adequately explain and reinforce their decision and their actions.
Individuals are free to accept or refuse the opinions of others; to deny them their right to express them is listed as one of the definitions of another word.
I've not implied that other's arguments are not wanted here, or told anyone to shut up, or go away, or keep quiet.
Now it is time to go finish stacking wood. Merry Christmas; even to you. :)
He is close to retirement.
Wow, good find. Wonder if he has sent his resignation yet?
Yeah, all right: "ecclesiastical". I didn't hit the spellcheck… :\
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.