27 January 2011

That's a Wrap

The great legal battle of our times-- er, the St. Stan's trial, that is, now is in the hands of Judge Hettenbach.

I won't be so bold as to make a prediction publicly. If you see me at lunch, I'll give you my take. If the Archdiocese loses, I doubt it'll simply ignore the judge and do whatever it wants. In other words, after any legal recourse on appeal is complete, I doubt they will flout the decision in the same way St. Stan's has flouted every single negative decision they have received in ecclesiastical proceedings. Different standards, perhaps.

I get a kick out of this article for one reason. Now-- now-- after six years, after several excommunications, after the Vatican has confirmed the Archbishop's decisions, after all of the slander and contumely printed and spoken against a saintly man (hint: not Bozek), now, the newspaper of record publishes the fact that the St. Stan's board changed the bylaws FIRST, in 2001 and again in 2004, to remove the lawful authority of the Archbishop. This violated the very bylaws they always claimed they wanted to follow. Only after this change did the Archdiocese announce the restructuring effort.

It might have been nice to have this fact published early on. Even the lawyer for the schism admits this "is now a test of wills and an issue of obedience." OH. I thought it was "about the money".

The grim specter of Bozek hangs over the whole affair, as he assures us he will stick it out to help keep the flock outside the Church for the duration of any appeal. If that was meant to be reassuring, I don't know. It creeps me out.

From STLToday:

St. Stanislaus decision now in hands of St. Louis judge


ST. LOUIS • A decision on who should control St. Stanislaus Kostka Church is in the hands of a judge who is not expected to rule until at least late next month.

Lawyers presented their closing arguments in St. Louis Circuit Court on Wednesday after a trial of more than two weeks on a 2008 lawsuit by the Archdiocese of St. Louis and six former members to assert some authority over the Polish heritage church.

Judge Bryan Hettenbach provided no indication of when he will rule, although he gave lawyers until Feb. 21 to submit written briefs.

The archdiocese seeks to restore the unique structure of the church put in place at its founding 120 years ago: governance by a lay board, with a pastor appointed by the archbishop.

In 2001 and 2004, the St. Stanislaus board of directors changed the original bylaws, eliminating the authority of the archbishop. The archdiocese announced a massive legal restructuring that would transform each parish from an unincorporated association to a nonprofit corporation. St. Stanislaus parishioners were unwilling to yield control.

Ed Goldenhersh, an attorney for the archdiocese, argued Wednesday that the board had no authority to change its bylaws and that the court has the jurisdiction to enforce the 1891 agreement. "If members want to be members of a club, they have to play by the club's rules," he said.

The St. Stanislaus attorney, Richard Scherrer, said the church deserves independence from the archdiocese. He complained that it was the archdiocese that breached its agreement with the parish when it threatened to excommunicate board members to enforce its way.

"What it's become is a test of wills and an issue of obedience," Scherrer said.

Much of the evidence focused on the nonprofit structure, articles of incorporation and bylaws. But it also included emotional testimony about how the people of St. Stanislaus continue to gather under the leadership of the Rev. Marek Bozek. In 2005, the lay board named the Polish-born Bozek, then a priest in the Springfield-Cape Girardeau Diocese, usurping the archbishop's role. Bozek was excommunicated and laicized by Pope Benedict XVI.

After court adjourned Wednesday, Bozek appeared relaxed. "Whoever loses will appeal," he said with a smile, noting that process could take two or three years. "I will be there in the interim."


Anonymous said...

Wait, can you translate this first into Latin, and then have someone else translate this into 18th century olde English? It would sound much more reverent then...

thetimman said...

Comedy is tough.

Spoonbill said...

It troubles me to see so many people responding to blogs and emails that do not know the difference between the use of the words "then" and "than." They must have slept htrough 3rd grade English class.