Daily Archives: August 10, 2008

St. Stanislaus in St Louis: microcosm of AmChurch

When St. Stanislaus Kostka Church was established in St. Louis in the 19th Century, its parish council was given authority unusual for a Catholic Church, but (at least according to this article) standard in the ethnic American parishes of its day, and more like that of an Orthodox or Protestant Church.

Of course, that arrangement violates the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and, when Archbishop Burke came to St. Louis in 2004, he tried to normalize the parish. The parish council resisted. He removed the pastor. They hired their own pastor. He excommunicated them. The Vatican upheld the excommunication.

The whole thing started because of some laity who were insisting on preserving their parish’s “traditional” identity.

But the priest they hired, Fr. Marek Bozek, is a full-fledged radical. So, these parishioners made a deal with the Devil. And now, because of their fight with Archbishop Burke, their parish has become a lightning rod for radicals of all shapes and sizes.

Meanwhile, Fr. Bozek, typical of liberal priests, has been appropriating to himself all sorts of financial privileges that are ticking off the parish council (ironically, the whole debate started about the parish council’s control of finances, rather than the pastor!)

So, the parish council goes against the bishop and the Pope just to get control over parish finances, but, to do so, they hire a priest who’s taking over the finances anyway, and then abusing that authority!

They resist the bishop and the Pope in the name of a man-made “tradition,” but they hire a priest who’s now promoting homosexuality and women’s ordination from the pulpit!

So, now, some of the original people who fought Archbishop Burke are talking about leaving the parish. It’s so ironic it’s almost hilarious.

Interesting article on fertile abstinence from 1948

http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm

It’s hosted by the SSPX website, but don’t let that deter you. (I was checking their website for articles such as this, since no one else publishes them).

One thing that’s amazed me since studying _Casti Connubii_ the past few months is that the Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians are much more open and honest when discussing NFP than post-Vatican II ones.

Bai MacFarlane, a tragic example of John Paul II’s idealized view of the modern Catholic family, has said that JPII often comes off as too positive, ignoring the challenges of marriage. _Humanae Vitae_ talks in general social terms but really doesn’t get to the heart of the average couple. _Casti Connubii_ does, and this article by Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M., does.

He is not being “anti-Rhythm,” per se. And he is not, strictly speaking, being “providentialist” (though he does condemn the exaggeration of “prudence” by many Catholics). But he *is* advocating the clear teaching of Rome at the time that selective abstinence was not to be publicly taught or advocated, but was to be cautiously suggested by confessors to individual couples. And while NFP is an option for those who may have “grave reason,” that does not mean every couple with “grave reason” is obligated to use it (as Fr. Calkins puts it, the Church “tolerates” NFP).