27 March 2009

Invalidity for All, Courtesy of Mr. Bozek

"Hey, I haven't been disciplined by the Church I love to hate so much in at least a week--what puerile and ineffective gesture can I make today?"

That is not an actual quote, of course, but perhaps it really captures the essence of the daily reflections of Mr. Marek Bozek.  This time, as Christopher at Lost Lambs was kind enough to point out, our favorite lay excommunicate will host an invalid "communal penance service". 

Continuing to pretend to be a Catholic priest is evil and puerile enough, but in addition to invalid individual (attempted) absolutions in the confessionals, he will also offer an invalid (attempted) general absolution-- get this-- "according to the book of rites of the Roman Catholic Church".

April 3: Communal Penance Service
We encourage all Parishioners to prepare themselves spiritually for Easter by celebrating the Sacrament of Penance. Every Saturday there is an opportunity for  confession from 3:00 p.m. until 3:45 p.m. Additionally on Friday, 
April 3rdthere will be several priests listening to confessions from 6:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. At 7:00 p.m. a Communal Penance Service will be celebrated during which, as an alternative to individual confession, General Absolution will be offered according to the Book of Rites of the Roman Catholic Church.

Apparently, because we know Marek is a stickler for adhering to Catholic practice, he believes all four people likely to attend this event on April 3 will be in danger of death.   Are they going skydiving and the ceremony will be on the plane?  Do they think Archbishop Burke is sending in troops of Swiss Guards to break up the ceremony by force?  Hard to say.

Of course, because he is degraded from the clerical state and further because he does not have faculties to hear confessions in this or any Catholic Diocese, his absolutions except in danger of death are absolutely invalid in any event.  But as you can see the notice doesn't state that he himself will be hearing confessions.  But even if he were a real priest, or even if in the very unlikely event that real Catholic priests with faculties to hear confessions in this Archdiocese are called in to do the job, the general absolution offered under the probable circumstances on April 3 are invalid.  Ineffective.  They don't work.  Just one more way the Bozek is leading these people astray.

In case schism and heresy have dimmed his memory, I offer for Mr. Bozek the relevant Canons of the Law of the Church that ruled he cannot exercise priestly functions anyway.  I even took the liberty of italicizing the important bits:

Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

§2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required according to the norm of §1, n. 2 are present. He can determine the cases of such necessity, attentive to the criteria agreed upon with the other members of the conference of bishops.

Can. 962 §1. For a member of the Christian faithful validly to receive sacramental absolution given to many at one time, it is required not only that the person is properly disposed but also at the same time intends to confess within a suitable period of time each grave sin which at the present time cannot be so confessed.

§2. Insofar as it can be done even on the occasion of the reception of general absolution, the Christian faithful are to be instructed about the requirements of the norm of §1. An exhortation that each person take care to make an act of contrition is to precede general absolution even in the case of danger of death, if there is time.


Patrick Kinsale said...

It really only makes sense in their theology because there is no such thing as personal sin, only social sin. Individuals have nothing to confess.

smessner735 said...

The bulletin announcement states: "...there will be several priests LISTENING to confessions..." I don't remember ever seeing the term "listen to confessions" used in the context of the Sacrament of Penance. I can LISTEN to confessions till the cows come home, but, along with Mr. Bozek, there ain't a dang thing I can do about them.
As a nurse, I feel compassion for Mr. Bozek because I really believe that he is ill and out of touch with reality. This doesn't excuse his actions. At one time, his antics made me angry. Now they just make me sad.
From what I understand, his problems have been manifest for quite a long time, even before his fiasco at St. Stan's. My prayer is that he will be healed spiritually, mentally, psychologically, and emotionally.
Jesus seemed pretty clear about the whole 'leading My little ones astray' issue. I've seen a millstone and I sure wouldn't want one around my neck. May God have mercy on his soul.

Anonymous said...

You have made your point, Mr./Mrs. Tinman. You do not like Fr. Bozek and you somehow feel that referring to him as "Mr." will show dishonor to him. I want to remind you that Fr. Bozek is a valid priest of the Reformed Catholic Church and like our Anglican and Orthodox clergy brethren is entitled to the titles "Rev." and "Fr.". Some folks are slow to catch on to this.

thetimman said...

Anonymous, I grant that my coverage of Bozek's continuing schismatic activity may be approaching beating the dead horse, so to speak. If he were to publicly admit he is no longer Catholic, not a Catholic priest, and adheres to a different sect such as the "Reformed" Catholic Church I will promise to quit paying attention and posting on him. However, he still tries to tell Catholics he is a Catholic priest with jurisdiction and faculties.

As for being recognized by the RCC, this doesn't make him a priest, and it certainly doesn't make him a Catholic priest. He is not entitled to the appellation "Father"--even as a customary or polite expression-- until he publicly admits he is not a Catholic priest. One may call Rowan Williamson the "Archbishop" of Canterbury, though of course he really isn't, because there is nearly zero danger of confusing him with a legitimate Catholic Bishop. So, we make nice.

Not so with Bozek. Calling him Father has great potential for confusion and scandal.

There's my take. I am sure you don't agree with it, but that is my mind on the issue.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you sure know how to insult the Anglican Communion !

Patrick Kinsale said...

Good point, Tim. If he is a Reformed Catholic, why does he insist on confusing the laity by using the Roman rite and calling St. Stan's a Roman Catholic parish?

And someone needs to see who these assisting priests are.

StGuyFawkes said...

I think that if Bozek has jurisdiction in the Rev. Archbishop Phillip Zimmerman's schismatic sect then his "hearing" confessions may be valid.

This just underlines the larger point. If Fr. Boguslaw Bozek is with Zimmmerman why doesn't he just say so and stop all the deliberately confusing talk about his being a Catholic priest?

The answer lies with theologian Rosemary Ruether.

"Catholic" progressives like Reuther really don't believe there is one Univereral Catholic Church. They believe that the Catholic Church is an archipelago of sects existing wherever there are nice people who "Love one another" and wish to call their behavior "Catholic".

Using that definition then I guess some will say they are Catholic no matter what. Thus Bozek is Catholic.

And the horsefly is a horse and lightning a lightning bug.

thetimman said...


Having "jurisdiction" from a Bishop who is not an ordinary of a Catholic diocese or who has some other papally mandated position with ordinary-like authority does not give him jurisdiction or faculties to absolve sins, witness marriages, or confirm anyone. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman or Milongo have apostolic succession. Jurisdiction and faculties are disciplinary concepts with ontological consequences.

StGuyFawkes said...


I'm fearing we're about to go into a long, long discussion which may result from my failure to come to grips with the basics of sacramental theology.

However, if what you say is true about Zimmerman's not being able to grant "jurisdiction" and thereby validity to the sacraments of marriage and confession, then, I ask, wouldn't the same logic apply to the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox communions?

Are their confessions and weddings "invalid"?

Bozek is Boguslaw or Boguslaw is Bozek or some other obvious tautology all of which means that anything he does may be invalid based on the idea that he is not "intending" what the Church intends when he confects.

But I don't know if his actions, prima facie, make his confections of the sacraments invalid.

School me on this.

thetimman said...


You are not the only one who doesn't know everything.

I am going to consult Unknown Canon Lawyer X on this and then comment, or perhaps start a new post on same.

StGuyFawkes said...


I think it's a great idea to get Canon Lawyer X involved.

I'm especially interested in a bit of Canon Law I heard of years ago that validity may be presumed or abrogated by "intending or not intending what the Church intends" at the moment of confection.

As far as I'm concerned Rev. Bozek may be mis-confecting sacraments by not intending what the Church (and I mean any Church) has ever intended, and that includes the Church of Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, Utrecht, or Indiana where I hear the "Reformed" Catholic Church has her little capital.

Anonymous said...

Whether you like it or not Mr. Bozek IS a priest and will be one for all eternity. Three Sacraments leave an indelible mark upon the soul of the recipient: Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. Once they are received the mark can NEVER be refused. Yes a priest can be reduced to the lay state but it doesn't remove the mark of Holy Orders. A priest is a priest FOREVER even if that priest goes to hell. This fact makes it even more urgent for us to pray for Mr. Bozek so that he can have the courage and strength and will to repent and return to the
Church. Satan revels in the chance to get those consecrated to God to choose to turn to him over God.

Anonymous said...

Too many faithful are being deceived by Mr. Bozek's ridiculous ramblings.

For him to argue that he has jurisdiction or faculties to absolve the baptized of their sins (outside of the danger of death), based upon the assertion that he is under a pseudo-bishop of the "Reformed Catholic Church," is absurd.

This is because the Roman Catholic Church, officially, as spelled out in the Directory of Ecumenism promulgated by the Holy See in the 1990's, explicitly teaches that no new sect or ecclesial community is recognized at all by the Holy See. Thus, an analogy being made by Bozek supporters that because the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, so does the Reformed Catholic Church, is absurd: the Reformed Catholic Church is not recognized as having valid sacraments by the Catholic Church. Whether Mr. Bozek subjects himself hierarchically to the pseudo-bishop of the RCC does nothing to eliminate the obstacle of the RCC being outside of the one Catholic Church by reason of heresy, schism, and lack of conferral of jurisdiction either ordinarily by the Roman Pontiff, or extraordinarily by reason of canon 144 of the Code of Canon Law becoming operative: as there is no common error or doubt officially about how the RCC is considered by the Roman Catholic Church, there is no supplying of faculties or jurisdiction empowering Bozek or other RCC clergy to absolve, witness marriage, or confirm validly.

As for the correctness of using the prefix "Mr.," it is entirely accurate: "laicization" used to be called "reduction to the lay state," in order to emphasize to the faithful that ordained clergy no longer have any right before God or Holy Mother Church, whatsoever, to be called "Father" or "Reverend." As Bozek has been punished by degradation to the lay state, it is even questionably as to whether he has a just title to the prefix, "Mr.".