Some Observations about the Decree

First, the necessary judicial process of laicization (“dismissal from the clerical state,” or “degradation” as it used to be called, military style) has begun. As mentioned above, this is a full-fledged canonical trial where Bozek will have the right to even more due process and canonical counsel (he never was denied it, despite what Bozek rails, as is clear from facts stated in the Decree). He will have the right to examine evidence against him. He will have the right to present evidence before a panel of three judges. He has the right to seek recourse from an adverse decision in that case, as he does for the extra-judicial adjudication against him published today. This is the process that Bozek has complained does not even "pretend" to be fair. On the one hand he complains, on the other, he fails even to appear in Court in order to defend himself! I guess it doesn't pretend to be fair, because it is fair.

Second, Bozek is guilty of rejection of an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church-- the definitive teaching that women cannot be validly ordained. He cannot credibly maintain his position that this teaching is not infallible. A finding of denial of a second paragraph truth under canon 750 requires that he be admonished to retract his position. He was so admonished, presumably at the February hearing where the media circus gathered.

Third, simony is an ugly word for an ugly crime. In the Acts of the Apostles, Simon Magus was struck dead for seeking to buy spiritual goods for money. It is highly ironic that a person who plays the predictable "I'm the new Martin Luther" card is found guilty of simony.

Note the language of the decree that any convention (any agreement) lease (BMW?, apartment?), contract (negotiations with the Board for a new one?), hiring (rent-a-priest) and other such things that give him a monetary increase (big raise coming?), that involves assumption of debt (lease again, note on house?) pension, insurance, retirement (perquisites),legal services (big fee for hurried visas?) or any other temporal benefit to Bozek (pretty broad language here) are null and utterly void.

Note, also, that the Archbishop has imposed a penalty of restitution to all those who have given money to Bozek, the Board, the corporation, including donors and, seemingly, third parties to contracts. OUCH. I wonder who will be seeking money from the Board first, and where it will end. There may be some members of the former parish who will want to get back some of the money they feel was given by them under false pretenses.

Archbishop Burke lets baptized Catholics know that anyone who temporally (money, gifts, anything material in exchange for his celebration of sacraments) supports Bozek in the criminal conduct of his sacramental "ministry" commits mortal sin and endangers his soul. It is time to awake from sleep, people.

Fourth, a word is necessary regarding the finding that Bozek usurped an ecclesiastical office. He was hired by the Board in 2005 before the parish was suppressed. At the time of hire, St. Stan's was still a Catholic parish. Bozek usurped the office of pastor; he was not duly appointed by the Archbishop, and thus this charge is established.

Fifth, the external violation of Divine or Canon Law that is especially grave and demands punishment, in and of itself, and also because of the need to address scandal, refers to the women's ordination thing, no doubt, but could it also have other bases? It requires more information, I think, so I won't hazard any guesses.

Sixth, as for inciting hatred for the Apostolic See and the Ordinary, and for provoking disobedience of them, well that seems as evident a charge as can be.

Finally, the penalty of interdict is a mandatory one for the offenses cited; it is noteworthy that the interdict is imposed ferendae sententiae, by positive order. Bozek has already incurred excommunication latae sententiae, or automatically, for schism.

In a perfect world, this decree would finally make Bozek realize what he has done and spur him to repentance. In a reasonably decent world, it would completely discredit him in the eyes of the general public, especially among Catholics. We shall see. I'll monitor the fallout.

Catholics in St. Louis and across the country should be very grateful to God for an Archbishop who shows such zealous care for the flock entrusted to his care. Pray for His Grace, that he will receive the protection and guidance of Our Lady and all the angels and saints.

____________
Two more observations: 1) now we know why Bozek has hidden the nature of charges against him, even from the St. Stan's congregation. You'll remember that in the many, many, many press conferences and interviews, he never related the most serious allegations. The women's ordination matter only came out after he was caught with laying his hands on the cookie jar, so to speak.

Which leads again to the conclusion that the media have given him a completely free pass, electing instead to engage in good old-fashioned Archbishop bashing.