11 March 2009

Interpreting Bozek-speak for Catholics

Not surprisingly, Mr. Marek Boguslaw Bozek, the former Catholic priest and now just some excommunicated layman hungry for media attention, has issued a statement. This is published over at the so-called Local Catholic Reporter blog, which hearkens after the equally heterodox National Catholic Reporter.

Bozek's statement below, with my comments in green:
Dear Parishioners and Friends (well, not really Parishioners, since the parish was long ago suppressed, and as far as Friends, let's just call them dupes and fellow travelers, shall we?),

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by today's news of my laicization. (Because this will somewhat hamper my ability to fool people into thinking that I in any way represent Catholicism, the Catholic Church, the Priesthood, or even the routine exercise of logic). I will continue my ministry (of deceit) and I will continue (not) to offer valid (not) Catholic (not) sacraments (not) at St. Stanislaus Kostka Polish Roman Catholic Parish (not). In fact, all of the attempts at sacraments he would offer are fatally tainted. Confirmations, confessions and attempted absolutions, and marriages are absolutely INVALID. I am not a trained moral theologian, so I will not venture into the strict validity of the Eucharistic consecration. If it is, like baptism would be, valid, it would necessarily involve anyone who knowingly partakes of it, assists it, enables it or in any way furthers it in MORTAL SIN that would kill the life of God in their souls. No thanks.

When I came to St. Stanislaus in December 2005, the people had been denied the sacraments by Archbishop Burke (wrong) in a manner that I, as a priest, could not tolerate. Archbishop Burke than began a campaign to laicize me (or, stated accurately, I behaved in such as fashion as to merit degradation from the clerical state) because I stood up for St. Stanislaus (or, stated accurately, for publicly espousing heretical beliefs, committed and encouraged contumely against the Church, the Pope and the Bishops, and was generally bringing the priesthood into disrepute) and because I wanted to make sure the sacraments were available to all its Parishioners (Catholic or not, in mortal sin or not). Anticipating this unjust (or, stated more accurately, less than I deserve) penalty of laicization, I received temporary priestly faculties (not) from Archbishop Philip Zimmerman, a validly ordained (maybe) Catholic (not Catholic) bishop, over a year ago, which allow me (not) to continue (not) offering valid (not) Catholic (not) sacraments (not).

In the face of all that Archbishop Burke and the hierarchy have done (I still won't repent), St. Stanislaus lives and continues to grow (er, not so much). I will continue serving (leading astray) the People of God at this Parish (well, not really a parish, remember) and I will continue (not) to offer valid (not) Catholic (not) sacraments (not) at St. Stanislaus. I hope to see you all at Mass this weekend (as I continue to defy the Church).

Peace and blessings,
Fr. (MISTER) Marek


Anonymous said...

I think it's better for you to pray for him and his followers. You sound like Father "Z". Ridicule is not very attractive nor productive. As a matter of fact, some of your comments could be made about priests in "good standing."

Also, he is a priest forever. You can't make him not one any more than I can unbaptize you.

Anonymous said...

I enjoy your comments to his letter, I was saying aloud some of the same things as I heard this recited on the radio yesterday. I just wish he would call himself what he is..make up a name, but the New Catholic Church or the Bozek Church of Christ..whatever, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why can't the people of St Stan's see that? Is there some brain washing going on?

thetimman said...

Anon, fair enough. I do pray for him and his followers. And the ridicule was a little over the top; I edited the original post somewhat.

However, I believe it is important to continue to point out the falsehoods and mischaracterizations he is spinning, because he is leading unknowledgeable people, including Catholics, into error. And much of the ridicule is self-inflicted.

Furthermore, I understand from Canon law that an excommunicate is not in possession of a "good name" to protect, even in matters of what would be detraction.

Still, the Fr. Z comment hit me where I live. Thank you for your comment.

StGuyFawkes said...


It's time to get out your secret Canon lawyer again.

Here is the pressing question.

Mr. Boguslaw is now incardinated with the Reformed Catholic Church and his Bishop is Metropolitan Phillip Zimmerman.

Now, if putative Roman Catholics take "valid" sacraments from Mr. Bozek are they not either,

a.) In mortal sin for taking communion from another sect,

b.) members of that sect, or

c.) both.

This is the real dishonesty of Marek Boguslaw. He's telling people they are Catholic when they are in effect becoming through his incardination members of another faith if only because they accept his priesthood.

Am I wrong?

What is the canonical status of a Roman Catholic who -- with full knowledge of Marek's incardination -- receives Eucharist from him?

thetimman said...

St. Guy,

It depends somewhat--

If a person took communion from Bozek with knowledge of his canonical impediments, they would commit mortal sin. They would not necessarily be subject to excommunication as a schismatic, because that would require either intent to commit schism or a canonical admonition from the Ordinary.

For a canonical discussion, search this blog for some of the in-depth discussions about the canonical issues involved in the original dispute.

StGuyFawkes said...


You wrote,

"If a person took communion from Bozek with knowledge of his canonical impediments, they would commit mortal sin."

I'd say that covers the entire Board of Directors at St. Stan's probably.

My point is simple. Catholics of whatever variety, schismatic, R.C. or Greek Orthodox, don't commit mortal sin casually.

Practically speaking, if people are willing to take sacraments from him, they probably DON'T think it is a mortal sin. At least some of them have already made a decision to join the Reformed Catholic Church, or some vague Church in their minds.

THey have more or less taken themselves out of Roman Catholicism.

Now, can our Bishop impose an interdict on the whole parish? I know this sort of thing hasn't happened in a long time but it's starting to look like what has to be done.

For the sake of their souls I'd say those families who go to mass there need to be told that they are not Roman Catholic any more.

These folks need to be told that if Bozek baptises their little girls don't ask to have that same girl married at the old Cathedral 20 years from now. She won't be in Church records.

The St. Stan's folks need to be told.

Gregory Thaumaturgas said...

I've got a question:

True, Mr. Bozek is no longer, strictly speaking, supposed to offer the Mass, but suppose he does:

Would the bread be consecrated into the Body of Christ, or would it remain a piece of bread.

I totally understand it would be mortal sin, sacrilige, etc to either participate in "masses" said by Mr. Bozek, but what I'm trying to understand is: can he consecrate bread into Jesus Body, or has he been--so to speak made an un-priest. What sparks my curiousity is the fact that similar priests to him still have the faculty to hear peoples Confessions. Is the same true with the Eucharist for Mr. Bozek?

Thanks for helping me understand this.

Anonymous said...


In Connecticut, a law is pending that would give every parish local control of its finances.

If that occurs, we will, I predict, see hundreds of St. Stan-like doctrinal rebellions in Catholic parishes across that state.

That's just the state of things, we should admit.

"Rev." Bozek is really the norm among Catholic priests ordained in the U.S. in the period of about 1968-1988.

Let us pray.


Fenian said...

To answer Gregory's question, it is my understanding that Mr. Bozek can perform a consecration. It is valid, but illicit.

Once ordained, you cannot "un-ordain" an individual. However, he can be prohibited from performing the sacraments.

I wonder if his followers know or care that they are engaging in mortal sin.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I loved your comments and don't think they go too far. I think that what this man has done in the way of scandal deserves to be treated in this manner so people will realize how terrible his actions are.

Anonymous said...

TinMan - You refuse to use the title "Father" when referring to Marek Bozek. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church no longer considers him as one of their clergy, but he has now placed himself under the authority of the Metropolitan of the Reformed Catholic Church, a church which also uses the title "Father". It is proper, therefore, to refer to him as "Fr. Bozek", just as if we were referring to a priest in the Episcopal/Anglican Church, one of the various orthodox churches, or the Polish National Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church does not hold a copyright on the use of the title "Father".

thetimman said...

Anon, when he publicly states that he does not claim to be a Catholic priest, but is instead a member of that other sect, then mention his title to me again. Mr. Bozek is not entitled to act as, or identify himself as, a Catholic priest.

Anonymous said...

But he is a Catholic priest - No longer a Roman Catholic priest but now a Reformed Catholic priest.

Anonymous said...

Wow! To be compared with Fr Z. I am jealous!

thetimman said...

Anon, the Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.

There is another phrase for "Reformed Catholic" and it is "not Catholic".

thetimman said...

Peggy, aw shucks.

StGuyFawkes said...

I think "Fr." Marek Boguslaw Bozek should just go ahead and get himself annointed Bishop Boguslaw Bozek. Then he should go into schism against the "Reformed Catholic Church" and self-annoint himself Cardinal Boguslaw Bozek of the newly reformed Boguslaw Catholic Church.

And then at long length he should convene a college of Cardinals with himself and elect himself Pope Boguslaw I.

That is pretty much where this is going anyway.

Anonymous said...

I see a lot of hatred being expressed in some of these posts.

Ken said...

Referring to Rev. Bozek as "Fr." Bozek on a Catholic website would be confusing and scandalous for the faithful.

Gregory Thaumaturgas said...

On http://www.archstl.org/ It says that the guy is now "Mr. Marek Bozek"

de Brantigny........................ said...

Very Good. I almost laughted out of my chair.

BTW your are direct to me surged my hits for that day. I appreciate that.

I wrote an article on St Louis...





thetimman said...

Anon, really? Hatred?

Come on. Pointing out that someone is lying to people for selfish gain is hardly hatred, unless "hating" lying is wrong.

Truth and charity are twins.

Anonymous said...

Don't be so quick to accept "once a priest alwayas a priest" as spouted by Mr. Bozek. From his history in the seminaries he may have never intended to be a "regular" RC priest. See Canon 1708 -1711. Nullification has been used in the US and elsawhere. This looks like a good case for it.

StGuyFawkes said...

Dear Ken,

Sorry about the confusion regarding "Fr" in reference to Bozek.

I was under the impression that "Fr." is short for Fraulein in German.

He does endorse women priests after all.

Anonymous said...

I guess this priest and the parish are in the same position as the SSPX (ie not quite in schism)!

thetimman said...

Anon, that would be incorrect. Bozek was specifically judged by Archbishop Burke to have committed the ecclesiastical crime of schism. His Grace suppressed the parish-- there is no Catholic parish at St. Stan's. Those who go there are going to a non-Catholic sect. They are committing schism, as they do not obey the authority of the Bishop. Mr. Bozek claims membership in a non-Catholic sect. Those who go there go to that sect's meeting house.

On the contrary, the SSPX Bishops were not found guilty of schism, nor were their priests or faithful excommunicated for anything. They did not hold any teaching contrary to the Catholic faith.

So, in short, it is entirely different. To state it in other words-- quite, quite in schism.

Anonymous said...

You may wish to review today's broadcast on KMOX http://www.kmox.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=3572129