
Yes, it's true. Yet another decree of excommunication was published in the St. Louis Review today. This time it is a decree against Stanley Rozanski and Bronsalaa (Bernice) Krauze, members of the Board of the Polish St. Stanislaus Kostka Corporation. For some reason that I cannot fathom, it does not yet appear on the Review's website.
Therefore, I will try to summarize and publish excerpts from the decree for the benefit of readers. In censure and content, it is similar to the decree issued concerning the "womenpriests" as it relates to the schism finding.
The Archbishop begins by recalling that the members of the Board of Directors other than Rozanski and Krauze had incurred excommunication, latae sententiae, "by reason of having committed the canonical crime of schism on December 15, 2005" (this was after the hiring of Fr. Bozek and before the suppression of the parish on December 29, 2005).
Echoing his findings with regard to the "Roman Catholic Womenpriest" organization, the Archbishop finds that since the date of suppression as a Catholic parish in 2005, "the entity of the Polish St. Stanislaus Kostka Corporation has never been and is not now a part of the Roman Catholic Church but instead is a sect and will remain so for as long as it willfully exists separated from full communion with the Vicar of Christ and the fold of the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, loyally subject to him."
The Archbishop further noted that Rozanski received a canonical admonition on July 31, 2007, warning him of his obligation to resign from the Board, and not to present himself as a candidate for further election.
Despite this, Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze presented themselves for election, and were elected to the Board on August 12, 2007. According to the decree, "Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze took sacrilegious oaths of office to be directors of said sect", and have continued to act as directors since that time.
The Archbishop further noted that the two had received three canonical admonitions and summonses since September 2007, and have three times failed to appear as directed.
Therefore, the Archbishop found that both Rozanski and Krauze are guilty of the canonical crime of schism (can. 751), and he has declared them to have incurred the censure of excommunication, latae sententiae (can 1364, sec. 1); they are no longer Catholics in good standing and they are forbidden, as in the case of the womenpriests, to receive Holy Communion and the other sacraments, including absolution, until they have publicly repented and made amends for their crime.
I will try to get a link to the decree as soon as I can.
Archbishop Burke has issued the following statement:
Statement Regarding New Members of Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation Board
As Archbishop of St. Louis, it is my responsibility to safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and protect the souls of the faithful.
I have communicated with both Mr. Rozanski and Ms. Krauze that the Board of Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation is in schism, the parish had been suppressed, and that if they joined the board, they would be knowingly joining a sect that held and professed views outside the communion of the Catholic Church. Because they joined the board knowing this information, they excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. Church law requires me to publicly declare the excommunication.
The situation of Mr. Rozanski and Ms. Krause is sad for the whole Church. It is cause of great concern for me as archbishop. Please join me in praying that both will be reconciled with the Church and that the great harm which has been caused to the Church, with the help of God’s grace, will be healed.
___________________________
Questions and Answers Regarding New Members of Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation Board
Q. What is the latest development?
Q. What is the latest development?
A. Archbishop Burke has declared excommunicated the most recent Board members of Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation, Mr. Rozanski and Ms. Krauze.
Q. What does it mean to be excommunicated?
A. Excommunication is knowingly and willingly placing oneself outside the full communion of the Catholic Church. A person excommunicates himself/herself. When the archbishop declares an excommunication, its purpose is meant to be healing, and a call for the person to reconsider the action and reconcile with the Catholic Church.
Q. Were the new Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation Board members given any warning by the archbishop, and, if so, what kind of warning?
A. The archbishop wrote to each party three times asking them to refrain from joining the Board at Saint Stanislaus because: the Board was in schism, the parish had been suppressed, and they would be knowingly joining a church that held and professed views outside the communion of the Catholic Church.
Q. What is schism?
A. Schism occurs when a baptized Catholic withdraws from unity with the pope or the local bishop and the faithful under him. They will not be allowed to go to Confession.
Q. How does a priest prevent them from obtaining absolution in the confessional if the priest doesn't know it is they who are confessing?
A. They should refrain from presenting themselves in Confession. A priest is only to deny them absolution if he is certain that they have been excommunicated and have not sought repentance.
Q. What happens to a priest if he unknowingly administers Holy Communion to them?
A. Nothing; no one can be held liable if an excommunicated person attempts to receive the Eucharist, and the status of the person is unknown to the minister.
Q. What happens to a priest if he knowing administers Holy Communion?
A. He is liable to just penalties for his offense, as Church law forbids giving Communion to one who is under the penalty of excommunication or interdict.
Q. How is the Archdiocese of St. Louis going to monitor this?
A. No one is monitoring this. It is simply expected of a priest or minister of the Church.
Q. Should they be in grave danger of death, can Last Rites be administered to them by a priest in good standing? If so, are they then allowed to be buried as a Catholic in good standing?
A. If they truly are contrite about their offense and wish to be reconciled, then after the reconciliation, the priest could administer the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. If they are not contrite, then he can not, because they remain obstinate in their offense. The same option would hold true concerning a request for a Funeral Mass and burial in sacred ground.
Q. If one is excommunicated, does that mean the person is going to hell?
A. We believe that is not a question for us, but for God.
Q. Why doesn't the archbishop look the other way?
A. The archbishop, as the chief shepherd of the Church in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, has the responsibility to make sure that people are not mislead by false teachings. He is to protect the people and make sure that scandal does not lead them astray. He also has to uphold the true teachings and practices of the Catholic Faith.
Q. Why does the Archdiocese of St. Louis have to make this public?
A. Because the persons involved have committed the canonical crime of schism. At three separate times, Archbishop Burke formally called them to withdraw from their schism, but they have refused to do so. They have lost membership in the Roman Catholic Church and have become members of a sect. The Church is obliged to make public the fact of their status, lest the faithful be confused and even led into the error of joining them in schism.
Q. Aren't excommunications more divisive than uniting?
A. Excommunication is more than a penalty for past actions; it's really an urgent call to reform one's conduct in the future. Excommunication is classified as a "medicinal penalty" by the Church precisely because its main purpose is to bring about reform in the individual. Having certain actions punished by excommunication demonstrates that certain actions are gravely wrong in themselves and cause deep harm both to their perpetrators and to others. The hope of this excommunication, and all excommunications, is that the parties will be awakened to their offenses and seek to return to full communion in the Church.
23 comments:
Wow, His Grace is on a roll! Can anyone confirm if Fr. Kleba from St. Cronan's was, in fact, called to meet with Abp. Burke? I heard a rumor ...
I am astonished to see that we have evidently got ourselves a Catholic bishop.
No, really!
Over there in St. Louis, I promise, go check and see!
St. Athanasius pray for us.
Rick DeLano
Please, PLEASE can we have Archbishop Burke over here in Scotland - PLEASE!!
And if you can see your wait to including our humble newsletter on your links list, we would be delighted.
Patricia, Editor, Catholic Truth
www.catholictruthscotland.com
I have two words:
Episcopal Smackdown.
I suspect that the archstl.org site is out of .pdf server space with all of these decrees! :)
Are there any catholics left in the Archdiocese?
God bless His Excellency...
Finally a real Catholic bishop...
Ad multos annos...
What a brave and awesome prelate! Glad he's not like most of the American bishops, a pathetic politician who accomplishes nothing but talk the talk that the listening group wants to hear.
it's all about the 9 mil st stans has in its possession.
Excommunications are no testimony that a bishop is Catholic or superior to others. What these sentences are is an admission that the Bishop has failed thus far to arouse repentance and contrition in the hearts of those excommunicated. It is a sad and shameful thing for all who name the Name of Jesus that this has come to pass.
To Patricia from Scotland, hello friend, it sounds as though the Church has its challenges on your shores as well. Sometimes it is easy for us to forget that this is a not just a local struggle. Hang in there and Coraggio!
:-)
Sorry Scotland, Canada is closer. We get him first. (;
To the last two anons,
1. If St. Stan's has $9 million, I have $8.8 million. Wait a minute-- I just decided my house was worth $20 million!
2. Jesus was perfect; He was God. Yet His apostle, Judas, betrayed Him. Was it Jesus' fault, then?
Bravo, We have a Bishop who has not been striped of his manhood!!!
No fair, we over here in LA really need him. But nonetheless God Bless a real Bishop actually showing up in a diocese.
thetimman wrote:
"2. Jesus was perfect; He was God. Yet
His apostle, Judas, betrayed Him. Was
it Jesus' fault, then?"
in response to (I think) what is in
quotations below, written by
'anonymous':
"Excommunications are no testimony that a bishop is Catholic or superior to others. What these sentences are is an admission that the Bishop has failed thus far to arouse repentance and contrition in the hearts of those excommunicated. It is a sad and shameful thing for all who name the Name of Jesus that this has come to pass."
Maybe I'm up too late at night to think clearly, or maybe I've cited the wrong
'anonymous''s quotation that thetimman
is referring to here; but at this point
the thetimman's question isn't making a
whole lot of sense to me as a response
to what I think it was written as a
response to.
So, if I've got the references and the responses in order correctly, anonymous'
statement is the correct way (in my
opinion) to view the excommunications
that have happened in the St. Louis
Diocese.
They don't -- to paraphrase anonymous
here -- make Archbishop Burke 'better'
or 'superior' to any other bishop.
They are, in fact, an admission that
Archbishop Burke has failed to arouse
repentance and contrition in the hearts
of those excommunicated. This isn't a
slight against Archbishop Burke; as
Archbishop Burke's #1 job, at all times,
is to save souls. It is also every
Catholic's #1 job, too.
And, the excommunications are, in fact,
a sad and shameful thing to come to pass
for all who call Jesus the Christ their
Lord and Savior. The folks who were
excommunicated were fellow Catholics;
and they -- in a very egregious and
very shameful way -- have greatly
fallen away from the Church. We are
less in number because of this.
So, I do not in any way condone the
actions, agendas, or political
persuasions of those who have been
excommunicated; and those who support
any sort of 'woman-priest' movement.
I am, however, sad that this has come
to pass -- especially right before Holy
Week. And whoever wrote that this was
an "Episcopal Smackdown" is not, in my
opinion, correctly oriented in their
thinking.
So timman -- could you expand on your
point here a little more?
Thanks,
Erick
Erick, email makes understanding tone and inflection difficult. I responded to what I perceived the commenter's tone to be, that the Archbishop is to blame, or first or primarily to blame, and so my response. It reminds me of Henry V, the night before Agincourt, with Henry's soliloquy about his soldier's guilt "upon the king". It is worth reading, just for the fun of it, but I think relevant here.
No one disputes that having to excommunicate someone is unfortunate and sad. It is. The reason you see the outpouring of "support" to use that term, is that sometimes excommunication is absolutely necessary for the good of the sinners themselves and the flock in general, and so few bishops seem willing to do their jobs.
We need such a bishop in Springfield, Illinois. We in Illinois think Burke is doing an outstanding job for Holy Mother Church.
i have followed this st. stans thing from the beginning. i think the priest is over the top but the archbishop definitely wants to get that money from the parish and will stop at nothing to get it.
Burke needs to be viewed from both sides not just a myopic one. He has pushed st stans into a stance which was totally unnecessary.
while Burke has good intentions his methodology is not the best
Last anon: You contradict yourself. So feeble. First, you say that the Archbishop will stop at nothing to St. Stan's "money". Then, you say the Archbishop has good intentions. Well, which is it? I ask this because the two are mutually exclusive.
Another thing, if you consider yourself to be a Roman Catholic, it is highly improper to refer to His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond Burke, as Burke. His Grace is a devout and holy man who has made the preservation of our Church, along with the edification of the Catholics in the pews, his life's mission. A little respect, please.
Lastly, compared to the finances that the Archdiocese controls, do you really think that St. Stan's "money" really amounts to more than a drop in the bucket. The Archbishop was merely asking, the same as his predecessors, for St. Stan's to have the grace and humility to submit to Archdiocesan authority, which, in turn, is submission to the Holy See. See?
I am grateful that you all are so right and I am so wrong. Taliban Catholics.
anonymous,
The Taliban Catholics line is of course pure ad hominem, and certainly not analogous. But seriously, let's try to reason with each other. You may have your feelings hurt, and perhaps you sincerely don't understand why the Archbishop decided to make the parish conform to proper parish governance. Fine. Obedience is not a bad word; in fact, obedience to lawful authority in a non-sinful matter, especially when we don't understand or agree with the reasons, is a sure path to holiness. But no matter.
What I want to urge you to do is to seriously think about the state of the souls of those persons who are supporting the way things are going there. Bozek is bad news, and is leading people out of the Church. Try to realize that. Pray. Outside of the Church there is no salvation. Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Yet even if the $9 million claim has any relationship to reality, it isn't nearly the whole world. Come back. Ask God to grace you with understanding, and in time He will.
I will pray for you and all those who have been duped by Bozek or misled by short-term passions.
God bless you.
We Taliban Catholics, as you call us, aren't right. Jesus Christ the King and His Church are right. We traditional Catholics are inconvenient to those, duped by modernist moral relativism and the "spirit" of V2, because we correctly deny that the Roman Catholic Church is a democracy.
If you want to participate in democracy, please engage in local, state and federal political issues. Perhaps you could fight against the holocaust, legally sanctioned by the Roe v. Wade decision, which has claimed the lives of millions of unborn children. Or, maybe you could fight the scourge of the militant homosexual agenda.
Please, for the sake of your own soul, stop rebelling against the Kingship of Christ and His Holy Church. If you want to feel a sense of true participation in the sublime, study the restored Rite and then visit your local traditional chapel for a true Mass. If you approach it with an open mind and love in your heart, you will realize that the Mass that our ancestors celebrated equals true participation. This Mass contrasts greatly with the NO mass which is a solipsist, distracting square dance.
I completely understand your fondness for the Tridentine rite. It reminds us of our innocence and youth before the sordidness of what has occurred in our nation, culture, and Church.
I, however, just don't have an appreciation for the heavyhanded, Teutonic way of handling this divorce. You can either divorce with acrimony and hate or you can handle it with more finesse.
As for respect--how about earning it? After the selling of annulments, the pedophile scandal and trashing of those who came forward, the mere title just doesn't do it. Why doesn't the Archbishop end that ridiculously phony Fleur de Lis ball and organization? That would be far more meaningful than just excommunicating (in my humble opinion)
Post a Comment