Posted on 03/10/2009 6:12:58 AM PDT by NYer
The “Reformed Catholic Bishop” referred to in the article is, of course, a gay rights activist:
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=207
Your comment is right on the mark - how about a survey of the track records of the many Polish priests imported in the past few years. How many took off for who knows where after receiving an American education. - the priests of JPII.
some priests have stated that it's harder to follow the vow of obedience than it is to adhere to the vow of chastity.
Bozek was apparently incardinated in the Sprinfield-Cape Girardeau diocese in Missouri, was assigned to a parish by the bishop there and then abandoned his assignment to waltz over to the utterly scandalous St. Stanislaus Parish in St. Louis. There are some grave idiosycracies as to civil law due to mistakes made by a 19th century bishop of St. Louis in allowing this parish an inexcusable degree of independence from the bishop's control unique to St. Stanislaus. Nonetheless, the assignment of priests to parishes is a prerogative of the diocesan bishop and Bozek has no license to revolt against that standard. His behavior is abominable as is that of many St. Stanislaus parishioners.
The next archbishop of St. Louis would do well to suppress the parish, make every effort to reclaim the real estate and assets, publicly renounce any responsibility for debts incurred by the rebellious, evict those who attend St. Stanislaus from setting foot upon its premises for now, remove Mr. Bozek from the rectory as now being a stranger to the clerical state, obtain an injunction to keep Mr. Bozek from setting foot upon any property of the Archdiocese of St. Louis unless and until the archbishop says otherwise and formally excommunicate any persistent resisters or other revolutionaries in that congregation.
Some burnings at the stake would also be nice but would probably be resisted by ignorant buttinski civil authorities. God will likely forgive the failure to burn those deserving at the stake but no effort ought be spared in applying the other aforementioned remedies.
You have a problem with JPII??? Do you have a problem with dead and rightfully excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre, another ecclesiastical revolutionary who made a late career of massacring his vows of obedience not unlike Mr. Bozek??? You should.
“To incred Joe, who mentioned a ‘third vow -obedience’, while I do not know for sure, since Bozek is not a ‘religious’, it is highly unlikely that he ever took any vows, much less a third one of obedience.”
Although diocesan priests don't take vows, they do promise obedience to their bishops. Mr. Bozek has violated his promise of obedience.
Even though the Church distinguishes between vows and promises, most ordinary folks don't, and thus, incredulous joe's remarks were on-target, even if he didn't use a particular word in its most technical ecclesiastical sense.
“To Venturer, who said ‘the priest is no longer a priest’ -”...
While it's true that ontologically, once ordained a priest, a man is a priest forever, it's also true that a priest removed from the clerical state may no longer licitly present himself as a priest or function as a priest (with some narrow exceptions). As well, in dismissal from the clerical state, he no longer holds the ecclesiastical office of "priest." Thus, it isn't unreasonable to say colloquially “the priest is no longer a priest.”
Although not entirely correct, it certainly doesn't merit the remark:
“the Council of Trent in effect said ‘go to hell’ - ‘Si quis dixerit, eum qui semel sacerdos fuit, laicum rursus fieri posse, anathema sit’ - Den. 964”
What an uncharitable post.
sitetest
To your first question - No it is not true. The church makes a careful distinction between a vow and a promise, though some would like to equate the two. The simple promise is for the obvious purpose of order in the service to the people of God, whereas a vow is a promise made to God and is seen as a good end in and of itself.
As to Lefebvre - big problem, but he did not do as much damage to the Church as did JPII. Loss of Europe, south America,etc.
Words “anathema sit” are Trent’s not mine. Charity does not mean be untruthful.
This story makes me sad. Maybe it’s the picture, he does look lonely.
I wish they’d get rid of the leftiesas fast as they do the conservatives.
Deacon Greg needs to use correct terminology. Bozek has been dismissed. The word laicized is a secular term not found in canon law.
Thanks - that sentence makes sense.
“Words ‘anathema sit’ are Trents not mine.”
But they only apply to those who formally deny the doctrine of the Church, not those who use words in a colloquial manner on an Internet chat forum.
“Charity does not mean be untruthful.”
If the post had dealt truthfully with the matter, that would be a different story.
sitetest
Yours is a remarkable and uniquely creative (however inaccurate) imagination for one who does not claim allegiance to dead excommunicated Marcel. I may have been born at night but it was not last night.
If Mr. Bozek is lonely, he made his own bed and now wallows in it. Bear in mind that his rebellion was against Archbishop Raymond Burke who, as Archbishop of St. Louis, was one of the outstanding conservatives in the Roman Catholic Church. Archbishop Burke has been promoted to the post of Chief judge of the Church's supreme court, the Apostolic Signatura.
What are Mr. Bozek's "conservative" credentials??? Rank disobedience? Violating his vow of obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors? Collaborating with and encouraging other revolutionaries?
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.