28 May 2008

Revealed by Archbishop Burke's Statement: A Second CDF Decree Concerning Fr. Bozek

I have posted the Archbishop's statement in my most recent post.  However, contained therein is the news that the CDF has found that Fr. Bozek has committed the canonical delict of communatio in sacris.  The CDF has asked His Grace to inform Bozek to cease and desist within thirty days or else the CDF will ask the Holy Father to dismiss the excommunicated priest from the clerical state.

The relevant portion:

Regarding Reverend Marek Bozek

Some months ago, I was obliged to take further canonical actions in the matter of Reverend Bozek, the suspended and excommunicated priest who has been serving the Saint Stanislaus Kostka Corporation, since December of 2005. Among those actions was the referral of his commissions of the delict of prohibited communicatio in sacris to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has the competence to handle such matters.

Prohibited communicatio in sacris is the concelebration of "the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesialcommunities which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church" (can. 908). Regarding such activity, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council taught: "Worship in common which is detrimental to the unity of the Church or implies a formal assent to error or the danger of erring in Faith, of scandal, and of indifferentism is forbidden by Divine Law" (Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, "On the Catholic Eastern Churches," November 21, 1964, no. 26).

By a separate letter, also dated May 15 last, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has informed me of its decision in the matter. Referring to Reverend Bozek's delicts of disobedience to his bishop by abandoning his priestly assignment and of persistence in schism, by which he has incurred the penalties of suspension and excommunication, the Congregation declared: "After a careful and attentive study of the material submitted this Dicastery has concluded that Reverend Bozek has also committed the delict of prohibitedcommunicatio in sacris."

As a result of its decision, the Congregation has asked me to impose a penal precept upon Reverend Bozek, namely, ordering him, with the time limit of thirty useful days, "to recede from his perseverance in contumacious schism and promise to refrain from any further violation of prohibited communicatio in sacris." The Congregation has also asked me to inform Reverend Bozek that, if he refuses to comply with the terms of the penal precept, the Congregation intends "to present his case to the Holy Father for his dismissal ex officio from the clerical state."

The Congregation has further requested that "every effort be made to communicate to Reverend Bozek the seriousness of this matter and the harm his behavior has caused to the faithful," and that ReverendBozek be encouraged to reconciliation and repentance. I have provided a copy of the Congregation's letter to Father Bozek and have assured him of my continued commitment to assist him in being reconciled with the Church and offering repentance for the harm which he has inflicted upon the Church.


Anonymous said...


I am a little confused. With what sect did this priest Rev. Bozek commit "Communicatio in Sacris"?

I am confused how people in the Post-Conciliar Church justify communion with the so-called Eastern Orthodox, but restrict that communion with other sects.

It sounds like Cafeteria Catholicism.

I recently read from Fr. Z's Blog that is ok for an non-Catholic schismatic Bishop to receive Communion in a Divine Liturgy, is that true?

Here is the link to the blog of Fr. Z (who says the Latin Mass):


A certain Scholarly Fellow John Enright on Fr. Z's Blog said, as quoted:

The idea that the Orthodox Bishop “is forbidden by Divine Law” to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Divine Liturgy is completely inconsistent with Canon 844.3 which states:

Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

Do you mean to imply that the Pope John Paul II, in promulgating this provision, was in error?

[end of quote]

I ADMIT - Mr. Enbridge - brings forth a VALID point! At the same time, (it seems a contradiction), we read from your article:

Prohibited communicatio in sacris is the concelebration of "the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesialcommunities which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church" (can. 908). Regarding such activity, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council taught: "Worship in common which is detrimental to the unity of the Church or implies a formal assent to error or the danger of erring in Faith, of scandal, and of indifferentism is forbidden by Divine Law" (Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, "On the Catholic Eastern Churches," November 21, 1964, no. 26).

[end of quote]

So - what are we to think?

I am still studying the topic of Intercommunion with non-Catholics, and thank God, I find articles like this from Saint Louis Catholic, Fr. Z, Angelus Press, and also from the The Latin Mass Magazine. Bp. Burke may be onto something, I am not sure if he has reviewed the new top shelf book on the topic? It's entitled "Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion with non-Catholics."

You can get this book at Barnes and Noble:


Anyhow - keep up the Dialogues on the controversies of CIC. I think we will see good fruits in discussion.


Anonymous said...

A delict of "comunicatio in sacris". In plain English His Grace is busting him for saying Mass with Milingo's men, Old Catholics, or Elsie and Ree. In other words what's new here is that he's been confecting the sacrament in odd little places among odder men and perhaps women.

Do I gotz it right Tim?

Mick said...

I'm sure glad Father Bozek and the brave Christian Catholics of Saint Stanislaus Parish are getting so much air time on this website. Keep up the great work, Tin Man.

thetimman said...

"mick", is that short for Marek?

Anonymous said...

Here's the truth: Actual heresies rage at several parishes in this Archdiocese. Monsignor Pins admitted to me that he knows about these rebel parishes. St. Francis Xavier parish is one of them. I hear that St. Cronan is another. Yet nothing is done about them. The only fault (and it is significant) of the Polish-Americans at St. Stanislaus is that they demanded 100% assurance that the Archdiocese would not sell of their beloved, beautiful Polish-themed Catholic church building, and when they were denied that assurance, they went into schism. The TRUTH is, the archdiocese could have given them that guarantee, though it was not required to. Such exceptional arrangements exist with parishes and religious orders all across the world. It is good for a bishop to be firm. We've had too many "anything goes" bishops in the last 40 years in the U.S. But why isn't Archbishop tough on actual heretics, who do so much damage to souls? The people at St. Stan's who too much loved their building were not harming souls in any substantial manner. But now the injudicious, unnecssary strict enforcement against St. Stan's HAS harmed many souls. The people of St. Stan's are partly at fault, but they are lay people, probably not all that well educated in the Faith and canon law. Bishops have so much greater education, and therefore so much greater responsiblity to use their authority prudently, and for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Amen.

Joe of St. Thérèse said...

I can not say St. Stanislaus Corporation with a straight face.

His Grace was correct, just as many of us have thought

Anonymous said...

If I understand you correctly, you define bravery as disobedience, no?

The local authority rebuked you. With great petulance you then made your appeal to Rome, they said NO! Where is the bravery?

Now that you've exhausted all of your options, what's next? 'Bishop Freisen'?

What you call bravery, looks an awful lot like cowardice to me.

Anonymous said...

In the print news article Mr. Bozek concedes that he has been taking communion from protestant ministers. He treats it as a matter of simple hosptitality saying that one should not go to another's house and refuse a meal.

The heart of the "communio in sacris" problem is creating confusion among Catholics by sharing the sacrament with folks who just don't see the bread and wine as the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, the theory goes, one degrades the sacrament of Holy Communion by taking it or sharing it, promiscuously, with folks who think it is just a symbol.

Guys, is this really strange?
Guys, when you really think about it Marek is as American as Elmer Gantry, Jimmy Swaggert and Pat Robinson. You'll note that the fastest growing religion in America today is the Christian sect with no name: the mega-church movement. ALl those bible churches set up in former car lots with a charismatic preacher and lots and lots of comfort have one thing in common. No real doctrine or affiliation with any organized protestant body.

Of course Marek is committing a delict of communio in sacris. That's the least of it. He is trying to boost the membership of St. Stanislaus by tearing down every possible barrier to membership. His goal is to fill the place with as many money contributors as possible and sitll keep some RC feel using rubrics and architecture.

What you need to look for next is Marek on T.V. like the guys on Trinity Network. He's the golden Pole. He's going for it all. I expect to see him with a big house in Chesterfield before this thing is over.

The most important comment of this recent development is from Mr. Bozek's co-conspirator William Bozek, who said that basically the folks at St. Stan's just don't care. They want the good feeling and Marek will give it to them.

The guy is running just another version of the old "Jim and Tammy" show. It's not that weird when you think about it. Protestants have been dealing with guys like this for a long time.

What's unusual is to find this type on Catholic soil so to speak.

Anonymous said...


At which parishes do "Actual heresies rage" in St. Louie? Aren't you exaggerating a bit?

Mick said...

No, Tim Man. Mick is short for Michael. Isn't Tin Man a wizard of oz character? What was it the Tin Man didn't have? Hmmm.

Anonymous said...

Catholic Men and Women,

Go to the page in this weeks St. Louis Review which covers these recent decisions of the CDF.

In the lower right hand corner paragraph two or three a revealing parenthetical remark is made.

It says that the "consacratio in sacris crime" of M. Bozek was for PARTICIPATING in the so-called ordination of Elsie and Ree AND for attempting to concelebrate Mass with OTHER so-called women priests.

WHOOMP there it is! Now how many darned priestesses are there in this town? I thought we just had Elsie and Ree. Or has Marek been going from town to town hiring his chalice out to lonely women priests everywhere. Who knows how much this guy has going on we haven't even started to hear about?

thetimman said...


I saw that, too. I wonder who those ladies were in that homestyle Mass (?) captured in photos on the St. Stan's website. The one where Bozek and an unidentified lady are wearing rainbow stoles.

Anonymous said...

TO: TheTimman,

From: The Anon who noticed the remark about "other women priests".

I don't know either who those women were in that "homestyle" Mass on the Stan's website. But the craziness has obviously spread.

Where the heck is Marek going with all this? Anywhere and everywhere he can find a reporter or a crowd.

The guy has better P.R. sense than P.T. Barnum who once said, "I don't care what they say about me in the newspaper as long as they spell my name right."

Thie guy must have a business card which reads "Have Chalice Will Travel".

But with respect to the paranthetical remark, I think it's interesting because it shows His Grace has waited until now to indicate just how far Marek has really gone.

He could have made a public fuss out of this aspect of the problem, but he let Rome calmly look at the facts and make their decision before going public with it.

In a way I think he did this out of consideration for Bozek who obviously has embarrassed himself and is in a state of mind where he doesn't even realize it.

Here's the part I love. The Archbishop had the Review buried the lead!!! Why? Out of charity and pity for Bozek and his lost priesthood.

We must pray for Bozek. It may well be the man is bi-polar. I'm serious. People with the affliction sometimes behave this way.