Who Are You? asks PolishSTL

**** Updated ****
As noted in a previous post, "PolishSTL" claims to be "R. Bach". Now, Richard Bach is the spokesman for the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish - the first group, so to speak - the group which has demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the directives of the Archbishop or the Holy See. I have no reason to doubt that "PolishSTL" is Mr. Bach. I am not comfortable at this point stating that "R Bach" is "Richard Bach". Below, "RB" means "PolishSTL"...LRS is I - the unknown one.

I apologize in advance if I have made any typos, or have misspoken...This post was a test of charity, and I'm afraid I may not have passed the test. I reserve the right to make corrections as I become aware of them.

Additionally, much of the conversation seems to be intentionally redirected to other issues rather than to the primary issue of obedience to the lawful directives of the Archbishop. Be that as it may, there is always a path which allows us to return to this issue of obedience - since humility is so fundamental and obedience is the exercise of humility.

**********
Source of material.
RB: Why do you make assumption and presumptions to attack what I speak and present?

LRS: I attacked nothing. I asked you some very simple questions and I asked about the relevance of pointing to the crimes of one priest with respect to the Institute of Christ the King?

RB: I provide you with documents concerning issues that I address because you have constantly requested proof ... so I give it and you spit at it.

LRS: You have provided nothing but a handful of primarily irrelevant links, and you claim that this is satisfactory? You have given nothing of any substance, therefore, there is nothing at which to spit. I have only witnessed confirmation of a rather inept attempt to sidestep direct questions.

Shall we review this "proof" which you so generously provide?

1. I asked for proof of charges that the "Appeal Letter" was not written by the signatories. You replied, "Please understand that this letter was written for them...not stating negatives, stating a fact." Based upon your word alone, you expect me to believe this unsubstantiated charge that someone else wrote the letter? Ewa Dyk, one of the signatories to the Appeal Letter, has already refuted this here.

2. Your proof regarding the total number of "exiled" parishioners is nothing less than a picture from KSDK's web site. Are you really serious? This is your "proof"? I have confirmation from one of the signatories of the letter that the number is about 150 and growing each week. Whom do you think one is prone to believe?

3. Your proof of archdiocesan intentions of keeping bank accounts 'fat' by relying on a story from WB11 demonstrates a mistake, possibly caused by looking for "ammunition" or an apparent inability to read. The report states that "there were many priests that came to us and said we're having trouble running our schools, we're having trouble keeping our bank accounts fat and we're having trouble with parishioners who are moving out." Did you catch that? Let's try and make it simple - it was the priests, the pastors of the parishes who said that, not the archdiocese. Your attempt to attribute fault where none exists is sadly, quite pathetic, and it reveals a great deal about a person.

4. You provide as "proof" of Archbishop Burke's character, two web links relating to a pervert in the Diocese of La Crosse. Your failure to provide all the details, whether intentional or not, could be construed as nothing less than character assassination - the grave, mortal sin of calumny. I have previously refuted your "proof" by providing sufficient information to indicate that the Archbishop acted swiftly and decisively - facts which you seemed to ignore.

And with respect to the Institute of Christ the King coming to St. Louis:
I was only curious about your motives, as you seemed to implicitly indict the Institute of Christ the King in your post by stating, "they have been hit by the abuse scandals in Wisconsin by their leader's actions." As stated above, the Institute and Archbishop Burke quickly addressed the crime.

Some of the questions I asked you about the Institute, etc., are quite relevant to the situation as to why additional priests were brought in to say the Latin Mass. Since you have tacitly admitted that you do not know why, I can give you another reason, although there are, I suspect, a number others.

The physical ailments of the priests saying the Latin Mass were becoming so problematic and troublesome that they were nearly unable to distribute Holy Communion. This would have been readily apparent to someone who had been there, hence my reason for asking.

Lastly, in what appears to be an attempt to garner support for your cause from the SSPX crowd at FreeRepublic, you bring up Archbishop Burke along with Cardinal Hoyos and his difficulties experienced with reaching a reconciliation with the SSPX. What is your implication by stating that Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Hoyos are friends? Is it not permissible that the two men are friends? Is there something sinister about this as it relates to St. Stanislaus? Is this, then, Archbishop Burke's friendship with Cardinal Hoyos, the missing link which explains the Archbishop's policy regarding St. Stanislaus? Evidently, you see Archbishop Burke's policy so inextricably linked with Cardinal Hoyos' policy with the SSPX that you "suspect" a pattern here - a conspiracy, if you will. I will admit that you seem to have an active imagination!

I regret you feel the way you do about my questions. Perhaps the questions are too painful to answer? Perhaps, you are much too sensitive these days with all the turmoil at St. Stanislaus?


On to the next Post...
**************************
Source for this response.

RB: You still have not told me WHO YOU ARE.

LRS: Is my identity important to the discussion? I have not chosen to hide behind a "handle". My ID is my name.

RB: I have another concern with what you are posting.

LRS: Why is that? Because it is the truth, because it is factual?

RB: ...we are in the same calamity [as Jesus and the Pharisees] now with the 'selective' application of Canon Law.

LRS: You continually whine and complain about the 'selective' application of Canon Law. Would you refuse to submit to the authority of a police officer who would stop only you for speeding when all of the others around you were going just as fast as you? Would you refuse to accept the speeding ticket because it was issued 'selectively'? Will that be your defense before the judge?

There is little difference between the rights of the State and the rights of the Church in this regard. Just as the State has laws to protect society and the authority to compel obedience to its authority, so does the Church possess similar powers and authority, and this power extends to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, chosen by Christ. This is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not. It applies to disciplinary matters as well as doctrinal matters, regardless of one's misguided opinions to the contrary.

It seems that many, if not most, impositions of canonical requirements or penalties, are, of necessity, 'selective'. Your many complaints ring false. It reminds me of the whining we did as children, when only one of us was caught fighting or doing something contrary to the wishes of our parents. This happened despite the fact that, many times, all of us were involved. It's time to grow up, to mature, to accept the consequences of one's actions. Repentance works wonders to repair the soul. I will need to seek repentance after this post, I suspect.

RB: Now, taking another perspective, we have a newsletter in the St. Louis diocese called The Review. NOTHING concerning St. Stanislaus is allowed in that print without the bishop's permission. Why?

LRS: Probably for the same reason I do not allow you or certain others to post comments on my blog. The goal of ascertaining the truth, of learning what it means to be humble, of promoting the Christian virtues, of repairing the disunity and scandal in the Church, is not accomplished by personal, unsubstantiated, or vindictive attacks on the Archbishop or the Church.

As the ultimate responsibility of the content of the St. Louis Review falls to the Archbishop, he, of necessity, has the final say about its content. Considering that you already have a mechanism for promoting propaganda, (actually 2 - the web site and the Post Dispatch) why would you seek another?

RB: He has stated that his word is the only Truth.

LRS: Oh, really? Is this taken out of context? Prove that he has said this! I'm all ears!

RB: Back to the infallibility question ... the Archbishop is not infallible.

LRS: And your point is what? Is this meant to 'prove' something? Lumen Gentium 25 tells us that:

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely....

As I (and others) have stated before and as you and others are so loath to admit, the Archbishop has the power to govern the archdiocese, irrespective of the issue of infallibility. You waste a tremendous amount of energy by "beating this dead horse" of an issue.

A rational and reasonable person can only wonder, based on the responses you and others have given during the past few months, "What is the real issue here?"

In closing, do you think it might be time that you resign as spokesman as you seem to have severely and irreparably damaged your credibility?