Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Local Opinions

From the editorial commentaries sections of the Post Pispatch, we read these recent letters under the title, Church and priest should be left in peace.

Spiritual link

Regarding "Lines drawn in meeting between Burke, priest" (Feb. 6): I find it laughable that Archbishop Raymond Burke claims his goal is to "safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and protect the souls of the faithful." In fact, it is Archbishop Burke and the Catholic Church that should "seek reconciliation" with the "souls of the faithful."

If Archbishop Burke truly were concerned with the souls of the members of St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church, there would be no issue. The original issue was one of finances. The Archdiocese was not profiting from St. Stanislaus. This is typical of the Catholic Church's antiquated attitudes in the modern world.

It is telling that Archbishop Burke claims "responsibility to safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church." It apparently is not his responsibility to lead by the example of Christ. I guess Catholic operational policy now supersedes that of the message of its purported founder, which was about the spiritual inclusion of anyone who wanted to attain salvation. From my understanding, the members of St. Stanislaus simply wish to continue to worship according to the Catholic beliefs with which they've faithfully lived their lives.

Unfortunately, they are concerned about the validity of their worship under the guidance of the Rev. Marek Bozek, who has been most Christ-like in his willingness to stand against the hypocrisy of the institutional status quo.

My advice to the parishioners of St. Stanislaus is to continue practicing their faith with Rev. Bozek because "what God has enjoined ... let no man tear asunder."

Rev. Bozek, I imagine, is a priest because he felt God call him. No overblown bureaucrat can remove that spiritual link.

Dan McVey | Poplar Bluff, Mo.

After reading the first paragraph, it becomes painfully obvious that Mr McVey's understanding of the situation is terribly flawed for the facts of the case clearly show that the rebellion began, not with Archbishop Burke, but this responsibility rests solely with the Board of St Stanislaus and, more recently, with the hired, sans-faculties, priest, Marek Bozek.

Mr. McVey errs again by claiming that the "original issue was one of finances." The orginal issue stems from the fact that proper safeguards were not put in place at the time of the civil incorporation of the parish which would have prevented lay members of the Board from appropriating to themselves the final authority in financial matters, and relegating the Pastor to act only in an advisory capacity.

Nor were proper safeguards put in place which would prevent the revision of the bylaws so that they would in any way be in conflict with the norms of the Roman Catholic Church.

Steps had been attempted thoughout the years to bring the situation under control and bring the parish in conformity with the norms of the Church. Financial irregularities began to surface as early as 1943 when Cardinal John Glennon was Archbishop and he addressed the issue. Then again, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Cardinal Joseph Ritter addressed other aspects of the irregular situation at the parish. The attitude of the Board became oprogreessively more adversarial in subsequent years.

For Mr. McVey to claim otherwise is inaccurate, to say the least. He also attempts to "school" the Archbishop on how to follow the example of Christ while urging him to abdicate his responsibility to follow the mandates of Christ's Church. Apparently, McVey is claiming that ecclesiastical leaders should sanctify but not govern, and teach what's easy and while foregoing that which is difficult.

McVey also claims that "the members of St. Stanislaus simply wish to continue to worship according to the Catholic beliefs with which they've faithfully lived their lives." The use of the adjective "faithfully" comes across as sad and laughable, since the actions of rebellion and schism can hardly be considered as "faithful."

McVey also unwittingly, it appears, tenders another joke when he claims that Marek Bozek "has been most Christ-like in his willingness to stand against the hypocrisy of the institutional status quo." The example of Marek Bozek is far from that of Jesus Christ - Our Lord gave us an exemplary, indeed perfect, example of humility and obedience - virtues which escape Bozek. Christ never called a press conference to rally His supporters to rebel against lawful authority. He did, however, throw the money changers, et al, from the temple for debasing His Father's house - an example worthy of following, especially as it regards local heretics and schismatics.

McVey's advice to the parishioners of St Stanislaus is ill-suited for the good of their souls. Why would any professed Catholic choose to follow the lead of a media-hungry, disobedient, excommunicated priest whose sacraments are either invalid of gravely illicit? It's truly mind boggling.

Next comes two more letters, equally demonstrating similar confusion, ignorance or willful disinformation. One can't help but wonder if any of these first three letter writers is Catholic, and if any one of them is, why?

The last letter shows a Christian understanding of the matter and demonstrates the truly patient and charitable efforts Archbishop Burke has undertaken to encourage the lost sheep back into the fold of Christ's Church.

No authority
In 2005, Archbishop Raymond Burke excommunicated the Rev. Marek Bozek. That expelled Rev. Bozek from the Catholic Church. How does the archbishop presume to exact further punishment upon a priest who, according to Archbishop Burke, no longer is a member of the church, and therefore, no longer under the authority of the archbishop?

This effort at on-going punishment smacks of revenge. The archbishop said that Rev. Bozek "recognizes he needs to repent" because he has "offended God." Rev. Bozek's "offense" is to minister to devout Catholics who have been rejected by their archbishop for not surrendering their property to him. God is not offended by someone ministering to those in need. The only one offended by this act of compassion and justice is Archbishop Burke. By claiming that God is offended, it appears that Archbishop Burke, who is angry and offended, is confusing himself with God. Archbishop Burke has expended endless hours and energy to subjugate a small group of the faithful and their shepherd. Where is his outrage against the real evils of our world: war, poverty and the abuse of children by pedophile priests? God surely must be offended by his refusal to take action.

Connie Doty | Arnold

Fulfilling a purpose
Now Archbishop Raymond Burke presumes to know the mind of God? The Rev. Marek Bozek has not offended God; he has offended Archbishop Burke, and Archbishop Burke can't tolerate someone who does not recognize his power or submit to his control. Instead of worrying about who controls St. Stanislaus, why not recognize that the church is thriving and people are coming to know Christ? I thought that was the purpose of the church.

Jim Holstein | St. Peters
I suppose one of four (following) isn't bad for the times in which we live. I'm grateful that such a good letter actually made it into the Post.

Act of charity
Are people aware of the vow of obedience to the bishop that every priest makes at his ordination? Are people unaware that the Rev. Marek Bozek went absent without leave from his former parish? Are people unaware Rev. Bozek was appointed pastor of St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church by a board of directors, not by Archbishop Raymond Burke, as required by canon law?

These are clear-cut cases of disobedience. Why support a renagade instead of a bishop who is obeying canon law? Absolutely nothing can condone the mutinous behavior of the St. Stanislaus board of directors. If you use the analogy of this behavior to the military code of conduct, Rev. Bozek and this board of directors deserve to be court martialed for insubordination and mutiny. God bless Archbishop Burke for giving Rev. Bozek an opportunity to repent. It is an act of charity to discipline him for breaking his vow.

Betty Gravlin | Florissant
Letters here.

No comments: