You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Archbishop Raymond Burke, da do da do…
From STLToday: Rev. Marek Bozek, 32 and a native of Poland, said Monday that he received a letter from Burke last week, informing him that he should present himself before the archbishop for “canonical admonition.”
In the letter, Burke said he’s begun the process of laicization, or being “dismissed from the clerical state,” for Bozek. The letter cited Bozek’s participation in schism at the church that has been locked in a battle with the archdiocese over control of its assets and his public support for, and participation in, an ordination ceremony of two Catholic women last year.
Bozek was one of the clerical celebrants at a ceremony at Central Reform Congregation in the Central West End in November when two women were ordained as priests of an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests.
In all honesty, Archbishop Burke has been tremendously patient with Bozek and has repeatedly admonished him to turn from his idiotic ways. Even today, the Archbishop is trying to bring Bozek to repentance.
In the letter to Bozek, Burke said the priest must repent, apologize, do public penance and return to his own diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau.
But Bozek still doesn’t get it. The Archbishop is not doing this because he likes it or based on some discretionary whim. He is doing this because he has to.
Bozek said his canon lawyer was “looking for options,” but said he was “very open to conversation and dialogue with the archbishop. I’m willing to hear what he has to say.”
“My definition of compromise is that I move two steps and he move two steps and we meet in the middle,” Bozek said. “But his definition is that I move four steps and he stands immovable like a rock.”
A rock…hmmm? Where have I heard that before?
January 16, 2008 at 5:33 am
I’ll flaunt my naivete and ask if Fr. Bozek expects “compromise” when he stands in judgment before God’s throne.
January 16, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Pat, you’ve got to work a little on your iambic pentameter, or whatever it’s called.
January 16, 2008 at 5:34 pm
David,
I was too tired to think up a nice rhyme!
January 16, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Thank God for the Rock!
January 16, 2008 at 5:54 pm
it says a lot about today’s education of priests that they can come away with such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the relationship between a priest and his bishop.
January 17, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I believe that St. Stanislaus Kostka Church is independent of the St. Louis Diocese, and has been for well over 100 years. It has it’s own board of trustees which administers the parish. Bishop Burke has been trying to sieze parish assets so that he can use them to pay off sex abuse lawsuits. He has excommunicated the parish’s board of trustees in an attempt to intimidate them.
Rev. Bozek’s participation in the ordination of women priests should be condemned, but I don’t think that Bishop Burke is a bastion of Catholic conservatism as he has done things in the past like consecrate a transgendered man as a nun. He’s threatening Rev. Bozek for financial reasons; the rest is smoke screen.
January 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm
anonymous, those are serious accustaions. Have you one iota of proof outside of calmuny and heresay to back it up? Otherwise you are puprosely defaming which is sinful behavior.
January 17, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The board of St Stan’s actually altered the terms of their bylaws in recent years, to gradually diminish the authority of the archbishop, which was originally what it would have been anywhere else. A review of any relevant documentation would show this, so forget the old he-said-she-said schtick. Having ownership of temporal goods does not automatically confer the same for spiritual goods. At the height of the “lay ownership” phenomenon in the USA, it never did. In fact, lay trusteeship of parish property is common in some states, such as New Jersey, where Catholic parishes each have two lay trustees who, I believe, served staggered two year terms.
January 19, 2008 at 5:24 am
Anonymous should be carefull about the “facts”. Archbishop Burke never “consecrated” a transgendered man as a nun. If you new the facts (I do) you’d recognize that the Archbishop, as he always does, aplied the law faithfully to the situation. He’s as faithful and Catholic as they come!
March 7, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I totally agree with all of this, anonymous should watch out!! Were did “Father” Bozek get his rediculous claim that male priests and who can recieve communion is not dogmatic!!! He is causing a huge uproar in the st. louis diocese. You can tell who the faithful catholics are!! what angers me the most is that the parish and excommunicated priest still go under the title as Roman Catholic!
March 7, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Take a look at STL Catholic blogger who has numerous posts today of Abp. Burke’s Decree of Extra-Juridical Adjudication (a mouthful!) against soon-to-be-former Fr. Bozek. Talk about Maxwell’s silver hammer! I hope the laity who are frequenting St. Stan’s read this and REALLY, REALLY think and pray about what their next steps should be. I pray for the many souls that have been led astray. The list of canonical delicts (ecclesiastical crimes) of which Bozek is found guilty:
–Pertinacious rejection (after admonition by the Ordinary) of infallible Church doctrine that women cannot be validly ordained (cann. 750, s. 2; 1371, para 1);
–Simony (the exchange of spiritual goods for temporal benefits) (can. 1380; see Acts 8:18);
–Prohibited participation in sacred rites (can. 1365);
–Simulation of the administration of a sacrament (can. 1379);
–Usurpation of an ecclesiastical office (can. 1381, s.1);
–Illegitimate exercise of the priestly ministry (can. 1384);
–The external violation of Divine or Canon Law, which because of its special gravity demands punishment, and which is coupled with the urgent need to prevent and repair scandal (can. 1399);
–Public incitement of subjects to animosity or hatred towards, and provoking disobedience of, the Apostolic See and the Ordinary (can. 1373).
Upon finding Bozek guilty of the above delicts, the Archbishop made several pronouncements: Because Bozek has been found guilty of simony, the Archbishop has decreed that “any convention, lease, contract, quasi-contract, hiring, loan, or other agreement, even if only tacit or evidenced from circumstances, by which any monetary increase, benefit, assumption of debt, pension, insurance, legal service or temporal advantage has been or will be provided in compensation for or in recognition of the celebration of a Sacrament” by Bozek “is hereby declared to be null, utterly void, and unenforceable because it is contrary to Divine Law and the sacred canons”.
Furthermore, the Archbishop decreed, “Any baptized Catholic who is party to, directs, engages in, votes for, or authorizes the creation or execution of any of the aforementioned simoniacal conduct commits that most abhorrent sin against the Holy Spirit and is, thereby deprived of good standing in the Catholic Church and imperils the salvation of his soul.”
Moreover, because the simoniacal conventions claimed to exist between Fr. Bozek and the Board or other persons are null and void, the Archbishop has imposed the ferendae sententiae penalty of restitution “of all monies and material benefits, received by the Reverend Bozek, to their baptized and non-baptized contributors alike”.
Also, His Grace imposed upon Bozek the penalty of ferendae sententiae interdict by reason of having committed all eight delicts above.
Since Bozek attempted to concelebrate the Eucharist with “individuals not possessing valid Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession”, His Grace also took the step of denouncing Bozek to the Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith so they may exercise their reserved jurisdiction over the apparent commission of this crime.
Finally, as anticipated in recent days, His Grace has remanded an accusation of protracted contumacy in schism (can. 1364, s. 2) for a judicial penal process so that the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state can be considered. Contrary to Bozek’s public accusations, this is a judicial process wherein he has the right to legal counsel and to present evidence in his favor before a panel of three judges.