A Transcript of McGraw Milhaven Interview of Richard Bach

This is a transcript that I made of McGraw Milhaven's interview with Richard Bach before Ash Wednesday. I made this transcript to verify my understanding, based upon Richard Bach's own words, that he has been deeply involved in the St. Stanislaus Parish for the past 40 some years, yet a 22+ year parishioner of the same Church says Mr. Bach did not regularly attend Mass there. Considering that there was only one Polish Mass on Sunday, and that between 100-120 people normally attended, it certainly would not be difficult to know who was going to Mass with you...

I found the part of the interview which led me to the conclusion that Mr. Bach was an integral and regular member of St. Stanislaus...The segment is located at about 4 minutes, 50 seconds into the interview and is so marked below.

McGraw Milhaven's comments/questions are in italics.

Richard Bach's comments are in normal type.

My comments will be enclosed in [brackets].
***********************************************
[Some preliminaries skipped]

Richard Bach, your official position is that you are the spokesperson for the
six member board, is that not correct?

I'm the spokesperson for St. Stanislaus Kostka.

You're the spokesperson for the whole church?

Correct.

Not just the board?

Correct.

Alright, well, for those just joining us, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke
released a statement today saying that his extraordinary patience in dealing with the board has officially evaporated and that he is beginning the process to lead, to impose, an interdict on the sex member board. What are your thoughts, starting off?

Well, you can't help but feel anger, remorse, disillusionment, in this whole process. I mean, let me ask you, how would you feel, being bullied, in the bathroom, having your head bashed in, and then having a PR person tell you you're supposed to feel good about giving that bully your money. And then, you're paying that guy's salary on top of it.

[The insinuation that the Archbishop is "bashing your head in" is beyond contempt - the only plausible reason for such wording is to foster hostility or hatred toward the Archbishop, in violation of Canon 1373 and the the Eighth Commandement of the Decalogue]

Well, le...let's...

That's what we're dealing with here. They're telling you a story that is not true. And what is happening here, is that you're getting half-truths, you're getting misinformation, and, you know, like for instance, we proposed, we gave them four proposals - they received four proposals. When those things happen, we don't receive a proposal. Yet, just a few moments ago, he referred to those proposals, and this one, as the same thing.

Gee, I thought they didn't get those proposals.

Alright, he said, Jamie Allman said last segment that there was a proposal that Roger Krasnicki said, boy, this looks really good, I'll bring it to the board...He said that proposal was there and it sounded like you guys had some type of agreement. Speak to that comment.

That's not true. The closest agreement that we have come to, from a step away from what they had was something that occurred a couple of months ago. And that was a step closer. And so they had made an inch. Now we are no longer, no further along now than we were back in March. Our...our concerns have never, ever, been addressed by the Archbishop. What he's telling you as far as wresting control, or taking authority away, doing something illegal, those aren't true. We have never done anything illegal. They have never wrested control away from anything.

The Board of Directors are answering to the parishioners. The corporation has always had control of that property. We did not get it from the Archdiocese. It was a parish that was started for the purpose of the Polish community here in St. Louis and there's nothing to be returned. That money that's there that they want is a separate fund from the operating fund. That money was designed for the purpose of keeping and maintaining the property of the church and everything else when people aren't around. When there's only one person coming into church and they need the money in order to maintain it. It was left there by our predecessors and by current people for that purpose.

[If the corporation has always had control of the property, then how is it possible that Archbishop Kenrick deeded the property to the corporation in 1891 if the corporation already owned it?]

The operating fund has always been under the control of the person which was a pastor and lately an administrator, not a pastor but an administrator and he wrote the checks. His control wasn't taken away from any of that money until the end of July when we, as the parishioners, did not receive answer with regard to questionable expenses which did not have invoices, statements, or bills, or anything else that correspond with money that was spent by Fr. Bene and we wanted those answers. And instead of getting an independent audit as we requested, we were told "Just deal with it", and then we decided, and the board of directors with their fiduciary responsibility, pulled his signature off the account.

Then he was taken away in retaliation of that. The question lies here, why can't we get an independent audit of that operation fund?

Jamie Allman says they have made assurances to you that they don't want to take your land -do you agree with that?

NO!

Jamie Allman says they have made assurances that they don't want to close the church...

It's, you know, we have never gotten anything in writing from the Archbishop that specifies the word "church". What we have received is the word parish. Parish is the group of individuals that can move from location to location as is now being done with the consolidations and the closures - so you can move the parish of St. Stanislaus over to St. Joseph's in Clayton and still have the parish of St. Stanislaus in existence but the church itself can be closed. So, you know, that's the whole point of what we're saying with these half-truths and this misinterpretation and misinformation. You have to, and, and, by doing that you're intentionally lying because you're not telling the whole truth.

[And the insinuation is that the Archbishop is LYING?]

[At approx 4:50 minutes into the interview]

I've been involved in this for 40 years, McGraw, that was the parish I was born in. I'm not stepping into this now just as a job two months ago. I can tell you what's happened in the parish for the last 40 years, FIRSTHAND!

[This statement is contradicted by a letter written by a 20+year parishioner]

Jamie Allman also says they have made assurances that they don't want your money

That's not true, either, because that's the first they they do, they take control of the money, they put it in to trusts and into funds that only the Archbishop, the dean, the Vicar General or the pastor or administrator would have control of. So what response do we have? And let me tell you, there is a document that they are surprised that we can read, I guess, because they want to know where we got it, but it's in their own book. It's titled "Closure of Parishes". What happens is the diocese takes a loan against your property or takes a loan against those monies.

Gee, there's a debt. So then, what happens is, when a parish is closed, when they decide to liquidate those assets, the first thing to get paid off is those loans. The second thing to get paid off is any expenses the diocese has for running your property. The third thing that gets paid off are any expenses that the diocese incurs in having this whole process disseminated. Then the last thing that they can do is move no more than a half a million dollars to the location wherever they move the parishioners. That is in black and white - in their book - in their processes.

[And the point is what?]

Jamie Allman also says that it is not just Archbishop Burke, it is also the Vatican that is telling you and the board and the church to come back into compliance with the Catholic Church.

Again, there are people who have been misinformed at the Vatican - cardinals, bishops, we have been speaking to them. In fact we had a meeting with a bishop just this past weekend and they are misinformed with the way this entire process has been established with this church. They did not know, in fact this bishop, in particular did not know that the archdiocese did not own the property prior to. They NEVER owned the property. There are many churches in Europe, in Canada, in the US, all over the world that are configured this way - that are owned by the lay people.

[Who are these cardinals and bishops at the Vatican with whom you have spoken and who are those who have been misinformed? How about some facts which can be verified? And again, how was the deed transferred by Archbishop Kenrick?]

That's the way it was in the older days. You had villages where the people controlled the church. The priest came in, gave you the spiritual benefit that he had and you were providing the facility. And that's exactly what we were here anticipating this entire time, that's what we had - the priest has always had the spiritual guidance of, of the people. He has always been in control of that spiritual guidance - we never wrested control of that, we have never taken that away.

This question all arose over money and property and nothing else. And as far as the Vatican directive, it was - it stated in there specifically that Roger's appeal could not be heard and it was denied because he didn't have proper authority to file the appeal. That is what that directive says. And then, on top of that, we're supposed to communicate and deal with the archbishop. Well, how are we allowed to communicate and deal with the archbishop if there's been a lack of communication, a lack of interest in compromise? His attitude has always been, "It's my way or no way." I mean, we've never been in violation of any doctrinal law or practice. And it's just a shame that egos are replacing the morals and true leadership in this case.

[Whose egos are getting in the way? Who is blinded by his pride?]

The six member board is facing an interdict which means that they are not allowed to received any of the Roman Catholic Sacraments - we are headed into Lent. Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. What are they saying inside St. Stanislaus?

What's changed? We've been without a priest and we've been denied the Sacraments since this entire thing started...

[No Sacraments were denied. This is an outright lie! McGraw seems to know this because he states:]

You could get Sacraments somewhere else...

Hhhhhuh...OK, Do they have a mug shot book? How do they know? These people will go ahead and deny to honor this. They have this ???? process...They can do this, they can say, "I don't honor this". This goes into a cold, huge drawn-out process of appeal where there have been many of these that have been overturned on the basis of doctrine and faith and this is not doctrine and faith. This is property and money.

Are you saying...

So obviously and ultimately, we have faith that this will be corrected. But, in the meantime, we're tired of getting our head bashed in by a person standing there with a bat in his hand because he has the authority to do so.

[Here again, for the second time, the allusion to an horrendous act of physical violence being perpetrated on you and others is despicable. I implore you to publicly recant these malicious and inflammatory statements!]

Are you saying that they will receive Communion somewhere else and defy the interdict?

You know, those individuals will have to answer for their conscience but in the meantime, they can't continue on the way they are now and if this entire appeal process, it follows through, however, however it goes through, they can go ahead until it is formalized, until there is an end to it, until it is deemed by the Vatican or by whoever through the Congregation for the Clergy that this is legitimate, they can go on with their processes as they are now...

If the interdict is imposed and while they are fighting this through the appeals, one of the six members dies, they will nor be allowed a Catholic funeral?

I guess that's what he's saying. Isn't that something? Here we have the shepherd of the Catholic Church telling you that you are not allowed to do this because you won't turn over your property and give him your money.

[Mr. Bach speaks often of distortions and lies. Here is a perfect example of another of his.]

Well, now...

It's just amazing.

They say that they have given you all those assurances, you either don't believe them....

I just told you! What assurances! If they put their people, clergymen that answer directly to the bishop, in charge, we have no way to touch that money or control it. What assurance is there? We've asked for them to give us control that will stand up in civil court. They refuse. This last proposal wanted the operating of the church to - we were willing to rent it out to them, lease it out to them, just as St. Anselm's does and, for zero cost and they refused to do that. Now you've got a corporation here, St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church that continues to operate that way.

[St. Anselm's is run by the Benedictines and St. Francis Xavier, by the Jesuits...they are not diocesan priests. The example given by Mr. Bach is flawed and without any foundation. But then, should we expect anything else?]

You know, we're not the only ones here. This is a matter of, because, ya know, why are we so attractive all of a sudden? This just has to be brought under the fold? Well, it just happens to coincide with the redevelopment and growth in that area and the values there. And let's not fool anybody here, you know, he says there's money set aside to handle pedophile cases. Where's that money come from? And how do we know that's legit? You know, we have never seen a full accounting of any of these monies. You know, people sit there and donate money to the Archdiocese and they're getting tired of this whole process with the sex abuse cases and everything else. Where's this money go?

[Another distraction from the issues, Mr. Bach?]

Richard? Richard, I'm short on time, I have to take a break, I'll let you go, but one last question for you. Is there any talk inside St. Stanislaus of them leaving the affiliation of the Roman Catholic Church?

St Stanislaus Kostka has been a Roman Catholic Church since the beginning. The people are Roman Catholic faith, they want to stay Roman Catholic faith, and that is the intention.

Alright. Richard Bach, spokesperson for the church, St. Stanislaus. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. McGraw.