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.
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.