I really wish that "Pastor" Bozek would take his cue and exit stage left. I post this for the record and to correct one more attempt at deception. Remember, this is a man with a canon lawyer advising him, yet he misstates basic concepts of canon law.
Bozek agreed to have the following plaintive letter posted on a dissenter-website:
_______________________________
Dear Parishioners and Friends!
I do encourage you to read a document that definitely will not be entertaining, but it is necessary that we all know what Archbishop Burke is saying and how he is saying those things. Please read the Decree of Extra-Judicial Adjudication In the matter of the Reverend Marek Boguslaw Bozek - http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14938
What a reading! I doubt that an average Catholic person will be able to understand half of the vocabulary that is being used in the Decree of Extra-Judicial Adjucation issued by Archbishop Burke. Of course, I have been assured by my canon lawyer, Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, that none of those crimes/delicts would stand in a fair and just process. However, since it is the very much involved Archbishop Burke who issues the sentence, one cannot expect anything fair nor just. He writes, ”with only God before my eyes, I, by this my definitive sentence, consigned to writing, declare and pronounce, by reason of my lawful exercise of jurisdiction, the quality and preponderance of the proofs, which are extant in the acts of the case, and with moral certitude that the Reverend Marek Boguslaw Bozek is guilty of having committed all of the delicts.” With sadness I have to say again - I was right refusing to subject myself to this parody of a legal process where the involved party finds himself issuing judgments “with only God” before his eyes. Heavens, you see that and yet there is no strike? (Hold on, the Catholic Center actually was struck by a lightning on the day of my first hearing, Feb. 5, 2008.)
Remember the Boston Tea Party a long time ago? Back then, we the people who defined ourselves as born free and equal, decided that we shall not be “subjects” of any King or Queen anymore. Well, it seems to me that we need another Tea Party these days! Did you notice that the Archbishop refers to the faithful Catholics as “subjects of the Apostolic See or an Ordinary?” Speaking of ideas of grandeur! His majesty, the Ordinary Archbishop, seems to believe that every Catholic in the St. Louis Archdiocese is indeed His Majesty’s “subject!” I do not know about you, but I do not consider myself a “subject”.
Another interesting point is his usage of the really old laws of the Church. In the paragraph describing my “grievous crime of simony” he is citing the rules from the “Codex Iuris Canonici Pio-Benedictinus” - which means from the Code of Canon Law that was published in 1917 and was replaced by the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. I guess that we should not bother with the present law, let’s go back to those “good old days!” Just in case you think it means going back only to 1917, the Archbishop makes sure that you will know it is not the case - in the same paragraph, he is using the Decree of the Holy Office (the Inquisition) from March 2, 1679! Now we all know why the language of this document is so hard to understand, it is based on the language and theology that was used back in the 17th century!
What a sad day it is indeed for us Catholics in the Saint Louis Archdiocese. For some reason we are faced with a man in the position of authority, but no credibility, a man with an overgrown ego, but with no compassion or pastoral experience, a man with many strange words, but nothing relevant to say. What a sad day indeed.
Marek
PS. For those of you not familiar yet with the Vision that I presented to my Parishioners – you can read it on our Parish website at http://stanislauskostka.com/newenglish/pastorsmessage.html Attached you will find a copy of my Press Release and Letter to the Archbishop dated March 5, 2008. If you got them before, just ignore them.
PS. 2 – Please, distribute this message and share your feelings with as many people as possible!
Rev. Marek B. Bozek M.Div.
Pastor
I do encourage you to read a document that definitely will not be entertaining, but it is necessary that we all know what Archbishop Burke is saying and how he is saying those things. Please read the Decree of Extra-Judicial Adjudication In the matter of the Reverend Marek Boguslaw Bozek - http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=14938
What a reading! I doubt that an average Catholic person will be able to understand half of the vocabulary that is being used in the Decree of Extra-Judicial Adjucation issued by Archbishop Burke. Of course, I have been assured by my canon lawyer, Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, that none of those crimes/delicts would stand in a fair and just process. However, since it is the very much involved Archbishop Burke who issues the sentence, one cannot expect anything fair nor just. He writes, ”with only God before my eyes, I, by this my definitive sentence, consigned to writing, declare and pronounce, by reason of my lawful exercise of jurisdiction, the quality and preponderance of the proofs, which are extant in the acts of the case, and with moral certitude that the Reverend Marek Boguslaw Bozek is guilty of having committed all of the delicts.” With sadness I have to say again - I was right refusing to subject myself to this parody of a legal process where the involved party finds himself issuing judgments “with only God” before his eyes. Heavens, you see that and yet there is no strike? (Hold on, the Catholic Center actually was struck by a lightning on the day of my first hearing, Feb. 5, 2008.)
Remember the Boston Tea Party a long time ago? Back then, we the people who defined ourselves as born free and equal, decided that we shall not be “subjects” of any King or Queen anymore. Well, it seems to me that we need another Tea Party these days! Did you notice that the Archbishop refers to the faithful Catholics as “subjects of the Apostolic See or an Ordinary?” Speaking of ideas of grandeur! His majesty, the Ordinary Archbishop, seems to believe that every Catholic in the St. Louis Archdiocese is indeed His Majesty’s “subject!” I do not know about you, but I do not consider myself a “subject”.
Another interesting point is his usage of the really old laws of the Church. In the paragraph describing my “grievous crime of simony” he is citing the rules from the “Codex Iuris Canonici Pio-Benedictinus” - which means from the Code of Canon Law that was published in 1917 and was replaced by the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. I guess that we should not bother with the present law, let’s go back to those “good old days!” Just in case you think it means going back only to 1917, the Archbishop makes sure that you will know it is not the case - in the same paragraph, he is using the Decree of the Holy Office (the Inquisition) from March 2, 1679! Now we all know why the language of this document is so hard to understand, it is based on the language and theology that was used back in the 17th century!
What a sad day it is indeed for us Catholics in the Saint Louis Archdiocese. For some reason we are faced with a man in the position of authority, but no credibility, a man with an overgrown ego, but with no compassion or pastoral experience, a man with many strange words, but nothing relevant to say. What a sad day indeed.
Marek
PS. For those of you not familiar yet with the Vision that I presented to my Parishioners – you can read it on our Parish website at http://stanislauskostka.com/newenglish/pastorsmessage.html Attached you will find a copy of my Press Release and Letter to the Archbishop dated March 5, 2008. If you got them before, just ignore them.
PS. 2 – Please, distribute this message and share your feelings with as many people as possible!
Rev. Marek B. Bozek M.Div.
Pastor
______________________________
I had the great privilege on Saturday to hear Archbishop Burke give a very informative, and moving, conference on the grave sin of scandal. The name Bozek did not need to be mentioned, but was on the minds of the faithful who heard it. This man is an embarrassment. He does not hesitate to heap scorn on the Archbishop to whomever he can.
He has the temerity to call the Archbishop a man without credibility and an overgrown ego! Look in the mirror, pal.
He is like Mr. Wickham in Pride and Prejudice, very insinuating and willing to spread any sort of calumny about a man who was wronged by him, and who treated him with compassion and restraint.
Bozek, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You need to learn how to be ashamed. As I heard on Saturday, God help us when we are no longer able to blush.
Now, to correct the record. A man who claims to be a Catholic priest now tries to foist on us the notion that if a teaching dates before 1965, it is somehow expired. You know, Father, the teaching that Christ rose from the dead is approximately 2,000 years old--should we chuck it? Does it fit with your nifty "vision"?
I will pass over the fun our friend Bozek has with the technical language of the decree-- obviously he does not act like a subject to his Bishop in Springfield, for instance. But gee, what fun he has in pointing that out! Hee hee! I would propose that his comment that the average Catholic would not understand half of the vocabulary used in the decree to be an indictment of the catechesis given to them by priests like him.
His point about the 1917 Code of Canon law is easily corrected. The 1983 Code supersedes the 1917 Code where it covers the same material. But the 1917 Code does not lose its vitality when, as here, the 1983 Code uses words that are not defined in the 1983 Code itself, but are in the 1917 Code or in other sources of Canon Law, like, in this case again, the decree from the Holy Office (oh, no, it existed in 1670!). The 1983 Code punishes Simony, but does not define it, so recourse to the source from whence the definition comes is quite proper. Again, Bozek claims to have a canon lawyer. How much is he charging for this advice?
I think that any Catholic who reads the letter above ought to be outraged. The letter is a more scathing indictment of Bozek the clown than anything I could write.
One more thing: see this video from Fox 2 that has Bozek spouting more inanities, repeating the line that we are all "born free" (cue the music) and we are not subject to any king or queen. How about Christ the King? Eh, Father?
Posts
34 comments:
Is this man's middle name really "Boguslaw" ? As in Bogus Law?
That is just too rich.
I wonder how long it's going to take the Vatican to weigh in on this? We could be stuck w/this character about town for quite some time to come.
I attend a fairly traditional and conservative Catholic Church in St. Louis. I must be honest here with you, the Archbishop will continue to lose this argument and support by the people in the pews with his squabble on technicalities with Bozak and the parishioners of St. Stans. I may not agree with them but want to describe for you the lay of the land.
Since the 70's the Church as tried to connect with the people by lowering the alters, involving the people by asking them to volunteer more of their time in the absence of religious, making them active participant in the Mass and educating them on the tenants of the religion. Now, you have a man that does not demonstrate his respect to the laity while not connecting spiritually to their needs as a leader either. Bozek, is not the issue, the issue is with the laity who is backing the man and providing with support and power. In the end, any action taken against Bozak will be an act against the people who are the Church since they see themselves as praying and looking towards spiritual salvation while trying to seek temporal justice. Archbishop Burke’s actions are against the laity and not the “rouge priest”. The action against the priest will only make the parishioners stronger and divide between the St. Louis Catholics greater.
Your words on the blog are only creating the rift to be wider and strengthen the groups of people you call heretics. If you have read the bible, I can believe what you think you are doing on the website is aligned with the words of Jesus Christ but in spite. I pray that everyone will back away from this position rift and work towards conciliation.
I haven't even finished the letter. Can we remind "Fr." Bozek that he is a Polish citizen and there is no "we" at the Boston Tea Party in relation to him...???
Just had to get that off my chest. Maybe more commentary later. Thanks for posting and staYing doggedly on the case!
Anon,
Thanks for being honest with me. I'll be honest with you, too.
Archbishop Burke is not losing the argument, because what he is saying is absolutely true and backed up by the natural moral law, the Church's constant teaching, and the Church's law.
He may fail to convince people not to follow Bozek, but that is because people become attached to their sins, and support the sins of another to justify their own. That's really the issue, isn't it? The argument is already won, and easily so.
I won't respond in depth to your opinion that the Church since the 1970s has made them "active participant" in the Mass (they were before), or that it just decided to teach them the tenets of the faith (you REALLY believe this?), because this whole blog is pretty much devoted to exposing the inauthentic "spirit" of Vatican II, that acts as though church teaching could, or did, change. The Holy Father has made this a cornerstone of his pontificate. You may want to read his two encyclicals and the motu proprio on the Mass.
Tell me, how does Bozek ridiculing the Bishop and the teaching of the Church further our "spiritual salvation"? How does pretending to ordain women further our spiritual salvation? How does giving communion to people in mortal sin further our spiritual salvation? How does leading people into mortal sin further our spiritual salvation? And so on...
Any clue here? I would like to know how.
Bozek's letter is a pretty vivid indication that he is starting to come unglued. Pride comes before a fall...
As for the rhetoric about "the laity" offered by the 2nd "Anonymous" above, this phrase is especially revealing: "any action taken against Bozak will be an act against the people who are the Church"...there it is: It's All About Us. Wrong, it's all about God and God will not be mocked by the counterfeit theology being pushed by Bozek and the people who are using him.
Well, on the positive side (if there is one), on the video Bozek did admit that Archbishop Burke will "probably" win this one!
The Holy Spirit does not live in just the Pontiff of the Archbishop but we the community, the body of Christ. There were heretic popes, anti-popes and many evil leaders of church. What survived was the community that maintained its focus on Jesus’ word in the face of adversity. As a modern church existing in a democratic society cannot allow one person to pull us away from the prize, Christ’s everlasting life. I am not sue the current Pope has what is in the best interest of the salvation of the people in mind but to try and replay a record that was broken long ago. I say, carry on the vision of the true Catholics as written during the Second Vatican Council. Those that are opposed to the Christ direction during the council should look elsewhere to burn heretics. The Laity is the body of the Church not the false prophets.
I am certainly glad we have the Jesuits to keep the religion focused. The Jesuits continue to educate the intellects in the Church while other rely on undereducated women teaching creationism in the home to their children. I hope we do not see a new breed of fanatics like the Taliban.
Fr. Bozek, you can use your name; you don't have to post anonymously!
Seriously, your comments betray a lack of education so profound that you should immediately report to an "uneducated" woman teaching creationism in the home. You don't have the foggiest notion of what the Church teaches, and your ignorance is manifest.
Follow your own advice-- don't let one person (Bozek) pull you away from the prize. If you can seriously believe that the Vicar of Christ does not have the "best interest of the salvation of the people in mind" then you have serious issues.
First, I am definitely outraged by this letter. No subjection to authority??? I wonder how many (if any) of his followers realize that this is an entirely Protestant notion.
Secondly, I would like to say that even though I support Archbishop Burke in this decision, I think the anonymous comment above also raises a n issue worthy of discussion: the extent to which the rift between more liberal and more conservative Catholic in St. Louis is deepening. I definitely wouldn't say that the Archbishop is "losing" the battle; however, I think it is important to recognize that hundreds of faithful Catholics are supporting Bozek simply because they aren't sure what to believe (NOT because they intend harm to the Church)...and in this sense, it does make the battle much more difficult. Unfortunately, since the secular media tends to portray the Archbishop in the most negative manner and the general Catholic population is very poorly catechized in the first place, many innocent believers are easily misled.
I do agree with "Anon" in his/her statement that: "words on the blog are only creating the rift to be wider and strengthen the groups of people you call heretics" (not this post specifically, but the general rhetoric used in your posts concerning Bozek's followers). But I mean this only as a constructive criticism. I believe that Catholic blogs in general should show more sensitivity toward those who fall into dissent simply because they have not been taught any better. Not saying that people shouldn't be held accountable for understanding their own faith, but Catholic blogs should strive to educate the ignorant rather than belittle them.
Having that said, I do appreciate the fact that this blog exposes the misunderstandings that the media propagates concerning our Catholic faith. I look forward to reading future updates.
God Bless.
Most recent anon,
As Archbishop Burke said on Saturday, after referring to the fact that he is often called divisive-- we are already divided. The Archbishop is speaking the truth, because only when the truth is known and defended is there a chance for reunion. Unity can only exist in the truth. To paraphrase St. Paul, preach the Gospel, in season and out of season. Rebuke and entreat in patience, for there will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, will gather teachers to themselves and will turn from truth and unto fables.
Undoubtedly, my sense of humor is sometimes a little brash, and sometimes, as with this latest outrage from Bozek, I get a little strident. For that I am sorry.
But as for waiting for the media to fairly report the Archbishop's actions or intentions, forget it. And, as you said, if this or other blogs get the Catholic position out there, then at least they do some good.
You are truly a fool if you believe the comments by anonymous are coming from Bozek since 99% of the laity in the Archdiocese would have a similiar response. Conservative Catholics are fring sect of Catholicism in St. Louis. Worship as you may in expensive vestments and chapel veils but for the love of Christ do not burn those want the Mass said in English and want to touch the Body of Christ.
God be with you,
Define truth to me. Is truth that someone must tell to you to believe or something that you must rationally educate yourself on?
Even the most stalwart supporters of Fr. Bozek must be getting a little worried. This bright package from Poland seems, on inspection, not very tightly wrapped.
I would ask our Bozek supporters to ask themselves this.
Doesn't it bother you a just a
little bit that Fr. Bozek is so very disengenuous when he says...
1.) ...he has already found Bishops in good standing who will take him in.
Most people hear that and they think he means another RC bishop. He actually means some schismatic weirdo from some little sect. He's not telling you that. He'd rather let you think he's about to be sheltered by Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney. He won't be.
2.) ....when he says he is giving you valid sacraments he is not.
Penance requires juristiction. Confirmation requires connection to a Bishop. He has neither. he's hoping you won't care.
3.) ....when he says he is dogmatic.
He may be dogmatic. But in saying this he defines his own version of dogma.
Again he's betting you really don't care about dogma. Still doesn't it bother you that instead of saying "I'm not dogmatic" he'd rather say he is.
4.) ....when Bozke says Archb. Burke is using outdated canon law.
Bozek knows better. He knows darn well that Archb. BUrke can cite the 1917 Codex just as a Supreme Court Judge can cite the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The fact that it' old makes it venerable, not obsolete. The 1917 Codex isn't anymore superceded than the 14th Amendment.
Look, guys, doesn't Bozek's basic lack of integrity bother you? Forget about the issues. All the things Bozek claims about the theology and history of the Church his training has taught him are untrue. Why does he keep making things up?
Forget about his opinions. What about the facts in evidence?
He's making a sucker out of you guys. Unless you really want to be hooked up with some weird little sect that exists on a web page and hardly anywhere else Bozek is taking you to the First Church of Boguslaw Bozek.
And it looks like a cult to me.
Just one more thing.
Watch out when he asks you to give your kids the Kool-Aid.
To the two most recent anonymous posters:
#1-- The Bozek authorship comment was intended to be humorous, but I find that many on the left lack a sense or humor, so I will play it straight from now on. Of course, it wouldn't matter if 99.9% of the laity had a similar response, because the truth is an objective reality and not subject to democratic vote. Of course, your 99% claim is untrue, as you know, or would know if you were open to the truth.
And why is disagreement with people on the left invariably construed as an attack, or a call to "burn" them? Get real. Far from being persecuted, the compromisers with the world are celebrated by the press, the media and the "intellectual elite". If you want persecution, try being Catholic-- or as you would call it, a fring[e] sect.
#2-- You know who else asked that question? Pontius Pilate. John 18:37-38. Quid est veritas? Do you really want to know? Chirst is the Truth. And he said he was a King. Sounds a little hierarchical to me. Maybe we should put it up to a vote. Wait, there was a vote, and the result of democracy was that Barabbas the murderer was released and Jesus Christ was crucified.
#2 You must have forgotten that Jesus was pre-destined to died for our sins therefore the democratic vote was stacked by the Father, not the Jews, not the English worshipers and not Bozek.
So, no one who voted for Jesus' crucifixion bears any blame? Is that your point? Or that makes it right? What did Christ say to Judas-- better that he never have been born! Even though Judas was "pre-destined" to betray Christ and so, in a certain sense, bring about our salvation.
You aren't helping your case with this one.
You missed the point of my comment. No one bears the responsibility of Christ death but the Father since his death was a part of "the plan." He had to die for our salvation. Judas, Peter and the rest were a part of the passion, which teaches us believers’ specific lessons about what it means to be a believer in Christ's resurrection and as the Savior.
Please, do not tell me that you believe the Jews killed Christ and therefore should be held accountable. If so, this places you and your website on a whole different plain.
I didn't miss the point of your comment. I disagree with the point of your comment. We ALL bear responsibility for the death of Christ--gentiles & Jews, poor and rich, Catholics and non-Catholics, all human beings together and individually. We all need redemption and salvation.
You believe in a Christ Who teaches nothing, demands nothing, and Who died for no reason for men who didn't need Him. No thanks.
Who are you to define what or what I do not believe. I find your comments rather righteous an arrogant and not very intellectually based. Either the Archbishop is telling you how to respond ( you are parroting his answers) or this is your best defense from the truth.
Anon, thanks for your comments. My wife told me that when she read your penultimate comment out loud, our seven year old daughter refuted it immediately by saying, "It's not God's fault that Jesus died on the cross, it's ours because we sinned." I guess that isn't intellectually based, though.
She probably talked to the Archbishop first, who told her what to say. My apologies, and God bless you.
Ladies and gentlemen, TheTimMan is housin'! *applause from the peanut gallery*
To the previous Anonymous who wrote:
>I do agree with "Anon" in his/her statement that: "words on the blog are only creating the rift to be wider and strengthen the groups of people you call heretics" (not this post specifically, but the general rhetoric used in your posts concerning Bozek's followers). But I mean this only as a constructive criticism. I believe that Catholic blogs in general should show more sensitivity toward those who fall into dissent simply because they have not been taught any better.
I went back through posts on this blog that referred to Bozek and his followers, and not once did I find any reference to them as heretics or that was in any way uncharitable. They were differentiated from the original St. Stan's parishioners (who were always referred to as being misled or confused or something similar), and were just described as they are, meaning they are public sinners (those in public homosexual relationships, those who publicly support women priests, etc.).
And, in addition to pointing out the conflict between their beliefs/actions and Church teaching, the blogger always offered his prayers for them or asked readers to pray for them. I believe this shows true charity.
So I don't understand how you or the other anonymous commenter can say that the blogger is creating a rift. Obviously, Bozek, his followers, and his uninformed supporters who listen to only the media are the ones who are making a rift within the Church.
I agree that this blog can be divisive. I read it occasionally, and it always seems so negative. There never seems to be much talk of what brings you joy, what brings you peace, or, in more traditional language, what brings you an increase of faith, hope, and love. Where you find God in your life.
Maybe you find all of this in Latin liturgy or in historical theology. that's fine, I think. The Church is a big place.
But please allow others to find their own way. Let them find God in their lives, in their own experiences, and through their own lenses.
What bothers me about this blog is that you seem to always say that there is only one road of faith. I.e. that there is only one way to interpret mysteries of our faith. That there is only way to celebrate the eucharist together. That there is only one spirituality. etc.
But, I think one of the beauties of Catholicism is that there are many traditions and thus lenses to view our world and our lives.
I don't mean to say that anything and everything goes. I'm not espousing relativism. But I think there is a little more room to move around than you seem to allow.
And I don't mean to say that we should ignore what the leaders of our Church call us to do. But I think we should be able to listen critically. We are an educated people, generally, in this day and age. We can think and pray and listen to our hearts. And if we raise questions (or even objections), it isn't always because we are "dissidents." In fact, in my experience, most of these people truly love the Church, have been formed in a truly positive way by the people and traditions of the Church, but wish it to grow and evolve so either they can serve more fully or in a more specific way and/or so more people can have similarly salvific and healing experiences of God in their lives.
What I'm getting at is that the Church is a lot bigger than you make it out to be. There are many paths within Catholicism.
I write this to ask you to stop dragging people through the mud, damning them to hell based on not-quite-koscher truth claims, and then sugar-coating it all with a nice condescending and patronizing "Let us pray for them."
Maybe you don't mean it this way, but that's how it comes across. And it sucks. It's divisive.
Maybe throw in some stuff about what it means for you to be Catholic (maybe you already do that). Or what brings you joy and peace in your life. Put a human face on all of this, and I guarantee this will speak to people on the left. It will speak to me.
Anon,
You read the blog, and it always seems to be negative? Is that because you are only reading it when there is a story about a person who is under canonical admonition or penalty for leading people away from the faith, and I report and comment on that? I know there are "many ways" in Catholicism, and I ask you to be tolerant of my way-- because in my "historical theology" it is a spiritual act of mercy to admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, or to pray for the living and the dead.
Father Bozek defies his Bishops, violates a solemn oath he took before God to obey his Bishop, announces a radical departure from the faith, even going so far as to announce he is looking for a non-Catholic bishop with whom to affiliate. He publicly lies about the Bishop, calls him names, and ridicules him. He drives away Polish Catholics from the church where he is supposed to be pastor of souls, and I am divisive? Praying for a just resolution is condescending?
Susan Talve ignores the polite request in charity by Archbishop Burke not to aid and host the invalid and illicit pretend ordinations of women that are contrary to the Catholic faith and which confuse the faithful about Catholic teaching, ignores the request of a fellow religious leader with whom she has received assistance and collaboration in the past in matters of common concern, and further publicly causes scandal and confusion by leading a Catholic vespers service after the Archbishop announced that Catholics will no longer participate with her in joint endeavors due to her actions, and I am divisive?
Sr. Lears publicly advocates teachings contrary to the teaching of the faith, affirms activities contrary to the natural moral law and the teachings of Christ, publicly defies the Archbishop and brings ridicule on him by inviting Talve to lead a vespers service, so soon after the invalid and illicit women's ordinations, even participating in this service in a leadership capacity with the two excommunicated so-called womenpriests, and I am divisive? Praying for them to convert and believe the faith is condescending?
Pray tell, what is divisive? That I report it and let people know not to be deceived? That I shine a light on the activity that they obviously prefer to conceal? And that "sucks"? Wow, I hope you are writing letters to all those people asking them not to be divisive. That there are many ways in the big Catholic Church, and that Archbishop Burke's "historical theology", where he acts like he has authority just because he was made Bishop and appointed as the shepherd of the Archdiocese by the Holy Father, who thinks he is the Vicar of Christ just because Christ gave the Keys to Peter, who established his See in Rome and whose successors have reigned in unbroken succession for nearly 2,000 years-- you know the "historical" way, also has some place in the big Church. And that it is divisive to burst his bubble like our brave friends in the news have done.
You know what brings me joy? I mean other than the many, many posts I have posted about these things in the more than a year I have published this blog? That so many people who think that I am divisive and that I'm out of touch seem to keep reading this blog despite all of that. And for that, you are quite welcome. I feel joy.
I think there needs to be a moment of radically honesty among the many people reading this blog and commenting here. There are those in the Church now that have wanted and continue to desire a radical overhaul of the way the Church leadership is structured and the way the leaders are chosen. This isn't going to change soon, and I believe healthy discussion is good and differing opinions will bring about new insight.
That being said, I think it is absolutely ignorant, stupid, blind, sad and frightening (do you get my point?) that many here are hitching their wagons to the Bozek star. You need to jump ship ASAP if you desire to have a relevant voice in ecclesiastical matters. Speaking as a religious who only professes one vow-obedience-I find it insulting to Our Lord and to all who make the same vow in imitation of Jesus Christ who was obedient unto death... FOR US!
I will not recount the many crimes he has clearly committed (simony is no small thing!) but I will remind all that this was completely avoidable if the board of St. Stan's had decided that money was not as important as being obedient just as all other parishes in this Archdiocese are in regards to fiscal matters and governance. If you truly believe Bozek and St. Stan's board are in the right in this matter, you have taken a big gulp of the Kool-aid. Defending the indefensible is the death of dialog. No one will listen. Dominicans love to argue about such things, but it is the rare one who will not be able to pick out the dead-end facts in this case. To me, first and foremost is his utter disregard for obedience to his Ordinary. I am alone on this point?
Andrew, OP
You need to explain to your children that God gave up his only begotten son, the event was prophesized. The event begins with Abraham’s placement of his only son on the alter and concludes with Christ execution. I hope you can see the parallelism in the two stories and what it might mean to give up your son for the benefit that others might live. As a parent of four children, I couldn’t do it. What is even more spectacular is the resurrection. It wasn't the Jews who should be responsible for his death. As a parent you should not be telling your children this since it only create hatred against people who were not responsible. I can only look back a few years to see how this twisted interpretation of the Holy Gospel was used against a whole race of people. The Father did this action for our sins and we in return are made guests at his cannibalistic feast were we nourish our souls in communion to be made part of his everlasting life. Maybe you should reconsider your kids learning experience and the quality of education you are providing to them. Find a nice Catholic School where the truth is taught.
As far as the respect for the "many ways" of Catholicism goes I offer this.
Dorothy Day, the Catholic Anarchist, pacifist and founder of the Catholic Worker Movment, once was asked, "If your Archbishop asked you to close the newspaper and end your movement what would you do?"
She said, "I would obey him instantly."
This is a woman who was jailed hundreds of times for resisting authority. But she was a Roman Catholic and she understood the role of legitimate, religious authority. Bozek, Lears, Kleba and company do not.
Um, anon second above, you sure have a way of desperately wanting to accuse someone of blaming the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion. Did you not read my answer above? We all are guilty. You say God alone is responsible. That isn't Catholic teaching. That isn't the teaching of any Christian sect that I know of. I don't think that even the Catholic schools of today would teach that.
As you will not even acknowledge what I actually wrote on this subject your advice for the education of my children does not seem very helpful. Thanks anyway.
P.S. there was one anonymous comment that I did not post, because of abusive language towards the Archbishop. For all of you who desire to insult and libel him, you will not get a forum to do so here. Try the usual outlet for your irrational spewings-- the local media. Or perhaps the personals section of the RFT. Or maybe even, start your own blog. It's free.
Which reminds me that for a divisive and closed-minded blog such as this, it is only because I approve all of these comments that your accusations against the Bishop, or this blog, even appear. Seems pretty tolerant to me.
Isn't that ironic?
To write it more clear:
Sure, God's plan was to give up his only begotten Son BECAUSE OF ALL OF OUR SINS. He was crucified and died on the cross because of ALL OF US. Jesus even pleaded with his Father towards the end (Agony in the Garden) "Father let this cup pass by me".
I'm glad we homeschool if what you are saying is taught in the Catholic Schools. All of my children (I hope) know that Jesus died for US and not just because it was "in God's plan".
It is ironic, don'cha think?
I am a personal friend of the Archbishop and I have always seen him as the kindest and most pastoral person I have ever met. His life is truly dedicated to the salvation of the people in this Archdiocese. Many realize this and still so many do not. I hope in the future all many truly learn from the wisdom and love of our beloved Archbishop.
Post a Comment