The Schism Of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish

51 thoughts on “The Schism Of St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish”

1. Tragic story, great post. As a St. Louis resident and active Catholic I’ve followed this story with growing, sickening interest – almost like watching a train wreck develop in geological time.
   Two observations:
   1. Archbishop Burke is a “real bishop”. He has a pastoral heart, thinks very clearly, and acts from a deep foundation of charity. While some may (perhaps legitimately) criticize his seeming indifference to the secular media, I think he can grow into that. What I am ecstatic about is his willingness to call his flock to orthodoxy, and to do so with the best chance that they’ll actually come around.
   2. With regards to the secular media (at least locally), most have taken an at-times prurient, at other times just gleeful interest in the story—yet another example of the Catholic Church crumbling before our eyes. Even the WSJ story from yesterday spent half its time trying to tie this into the priest sex-abuse scandals. What they have all generally missed is the central point—this is a story about obedience. And having a strong bishop act in a loving yet firm manner to call his flock to obedience and holiness is the sign of strong roots, of a Church that continues to build off the foundation of the Word himself.
   3. Usually when I hear folks complaining (again at least locally) they are either 1) not Catholic or 2) not practicing Catholics. This becomes a proxy for all that they’ve used to convince themselves that should either never be Catholic, or are somehow justified in the laxity in the “practice” of their faith. And please, DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS.
   4. Speaking of facts the Archdiocese of St. Louis has done a great service to all by posting all germane documents (pdfs) at http://archstl.org/parishes/documents/st_stanislaus.html . It’s very informative to look at the original by-laws from 1891 that defined the rather unusual governance structure for St. Stanislaus. In the last clause, paragraph 12, all parties agreed that no future changes could be made that would ever go against “any rule, regulation or requirement of the said Diocese of St. Louis in force at the time of such proposed change”.
   That was unilaterally changed by the board of the parish in 2001 to, among other things, eliminate the need to obey the diocesan rules (and therefore the Archbishop himself, of course).
   A few years ago I didn’t really know what to think of this. Perusing these documents made it abundantly clear just how patient the Archbishop(s) have been with these increasingly bellicose people.
   5. As you read this, please (at least) offer a prayer for changed hearts, obedience, and reconciliation. Thx.

2. Good post Jimmy. And thanks for the kind words. If people want to read my blog, they can find it at: http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.htm

3. I was going to bring up Edward Peters excellent blog on the subject, but he beat me to it.
   Though the subject does make me wonder about what is the canonical status of the Chinese Patriotic churches as to whether they are officially in schism or in some other gray area. I wonder this especially considering that Cardinal Mahony recently celebrated Mass in one of the patriotic churches and his own diocesan magazine says
   “This is significant because St. Peter’s parish church, where the cardinal celebrated Mass, belongs to the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, which since 1949 has been in at least de facto schism from the Holy See.”
   http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2005/0512rg.htm

4. Ed! My apologies! The “Get the story” link was supposed to be to your blog, but I see I pasted in the wrong link.
   It’s fixed now.

5. Not a problem, Jimmy … did you notice the new domain name? We are getting a better site host, and I’ll also be taking your advice (from long ago) about revamping the structure of the blog, too.

6. Speaking of facts the Archdiocese of St. Louis has done a great service to all by posting all germane documents (pdfs) at
   Will the wonders of the PDF file format ever cease?

7. Fr. Bozek’s mistake is being organized and made readily available to others at Rent a Priest. Here’s a link to the bizarre story:
   http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/108150

8. There are lots of Catholics who think its perfectly alright to attend an SSPX liturgy and receive holy communion, yet Archbishop Burke points out that to knowingly approach a priest in schism is a mortal sin.
   Jimmy, any clarification you can provide on that subject would be great!

9. I’ve got a question Jimmy. It appears to me that even under the old pre-2001 bylaws this parish seemed to have a great deal of autonomy vis-a-vis the diocese. Was this a normal arrangement?
   I grew up in Cleveland where there were many ethnic parishes (usually for people of various east and central European nationalities) that on the face of it were not unlike St. Stanislaus. However I don’t know where they stand in canon law and was wondering if this was a common situation.
   Thanks
   –arthur

10. Jason, it is perfectly fine to attend an SSPX mass if you do not embrace a schismatic attitude.
    Also, the Vatican has made this clear clear over and over again. Most recently Cardinal Hoyos of the holy office has said that the SSPX are neither heretics nor in schism.

11. Lorenz,
    That’s just his opinon? That isn’t proclaimed offical from the Vatican right?

12. The matter of a Roman Rite Catholic attending a SSPX service has been settled. It is permitted.
    Cardinal Hoyos has noted this. The matter of a Roman Rite Catholic receiving absolution or getting married in a SSPX is a different matter.
    Prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law it would not be a issue. It would be prohibited, period.
    the 1983 code really expanded the boundaries of many laws and also introduced what some might call loopholes or many exceptions.
    Therefore, SSPX promoters claim marriage and confession are allowed based on “supplied jurisdiction”.
    The claim is that the Salvation of souls is the most imprtant issue, and SSPX parishioners are spiritually endangered, if they are forced to attend a Novus Ordo parish for the 9 months prior to a marriage.
    Many SSPx supporters also claim attending confession at a Novus Ordo parish will harm the soul since the advice is likely to be poor spiritual direction.
    The big problem today within the SSPX community is they have established a Marriage Tribunal.
    In conclusion, It is OK for Catholic to attend a SSPX Mass ( to fulfill their Sunday Obligation) and receive communion. Beyond that, the matter is less clear.

13. Re SSPX:
    Only in the diocese of Bp. Bruskewicz am I familiar with a local canon explicity automatically excommunicating members of SSPX. I don’t know to what extent this has been appealed or any formal resolution by Rome regarding Bp Bruskewicz’s local canon. The same local canon automatically excommunicated members of Planned Parenthood, Catholics for Choice, and other organizations.

14. The SSPX are currently involved in high level negociations to reconcilewhat is best described
    as a irregular status.
    The vatican wants the SSPX to fully accept the Novelties of Vatican II, while the SSPX wants nothing to so with the New Mass or the modernism
    that has followed in its wake.
    Things like altar girls, communion in the hand,
    lay folks distributing communion, guitars in Church and a host of other novelties that were never mandated and which SSPX supporters claim is a protestantization of the Catholic Mass.
    It seems a fairly wide river to cross since Vatican II, although not infallible, does contradict many previous church documents and condemned practices.

15. The ex-communication by Bishop Brushewicz of SSPX memebers is not valid for one key reason.
    A bishop in Hawaii ex-communicated memebers of a SSPX chapel, calling it schismatic. It was overruled by Rome, and they were decelared not in schism and not excommunicated.
    Therefore if another Bishop rules the SSPX are ex-communicated due to their schism, the previous ruling from Rome takes precedence and the order is null and void.
    Rome has spoken, and a Bishop cannot nullify that ruling.

16. CD,
    Rome has also spoken about the documents and teachings of Vatican II and the SSPX cannot nullify that ruling either.
    Take care and God bless.
    J+M+J

17. Vatican II has no infallible documents attached to it. No definitions or condemnations.
    The documents of vatican II contain more information than the previous 20 councils, combined !
    Yet not one definition or condemnation?
    Much of what the council wrote is what I would term mundane writing that add nothing to the Catholic faith.
    The original schemas ( outlines) were destoyed by the ( mostly German ) advisors to the council and in 1962, the plans of Pope John XXIII were reworked from scratch. In other words , the Papal intentions were hijacked and as Pope John XXII lay dying from cancer on his bed in June 1963 , he pleaded for the council to be ended. Paul VI promised the college of Cardinals it would go on, and he became pope.
    Vatican II did not and cannot abbrogagate 1900 years of Catholic teaching, and if it seems that way in some document, they are best seen in light of the Traditional Catholic understanding, and ignored.

18. CD,
    JP II and Pope Benedict have a very different perspective on Vatican II than you. Please forgive me if I seek to understand their thoughts and not yours on the matter.
    And my thought was that each council was approved by a pope. We either accept all the councils based on the authority of the Church or none of them.
    And even though you CATHOICDEFENDER call it mundane it doesn’t add to or take away from the teaching of the council.
    Take care and God bless.
    J+M+J

19. CD, this is why I was asking for Jimmy to clarify the matter.
    Seeing as how what i’ve read on the matter from Pope JP II, they are in fact in schism, and all adherents are in schism, and they are excommunicated. I’d like Jimmy to weigh in on the matter, as there is alot of disinformation on the net, including perhaps what you’ve written here.

20. ratzinger in his July 13,1988 adress to the Chilean bishops, Santiago Chile:
    The truth is that this particular Council DEFINED NO DOGMA at all,
    and deliberately chose to remain on a MODEST level, as a merely pastoral council”,
    This statment trumps all those who believe the novelty of Vatican II must be embraced under penalty of sin. nothing could be further from the truth.
    The oly sin would be denying Vatican II was a valid council. It was. Anything beyond that which offers a contradictory approach to Traditional Catholic teaching can be ignored,
    without any sin incurred.
    Think of it this way.
    a dogma is like a RED light. You must stop or risk a ticket( sin )
    Vatican II was like a yellow caution sign.
    You can stop if you want, but if yu do not , there is no ticket.
    Some slow down at such signs, some do not.
    That is how to read Vatican II.
    Is the yellow Caution sign a ” valid traffic sign “? YES.

21. And even though you CATHOICDEFENDER call it mundane it doesn’t add to or take away from the teaching of the council.
    I don’t think Catholic Defender is saying it adds or takes away any teaching of the council.
    From my understanding, the Vatican II documents contain mostly banal truisms. They don’t add anything to the faith nor do they contradict anything the church previously taught. Much of the upheavel that followed the council were performed my dissenters who did so in the spirit of Vatican II and in some cases directly missleading the laity on what the council actually taught.

22. Lorenz,
    May I ask what documents of Vatican II you have read? Are you commenting from having read the documents or having read someone else’s comments about them.
    Cardinal Ratzinger said “I repeat: the Catholic who clearly and, consquently, painfully perceives the damage that has been wrought in his Church by the misinterpretations of Vatican II must find the possiblity of revival in Vatican II itself.” The Ratzinger Report page 40
    So I am trying to do that by reading all the documents (which I have not yet completed).
    Take care and God bless.
    J+M+J

23. CD,
    You seem to be confused as to the difference between the necessity of religious assent to teaching and to the necessity of obedience to ecclesiastical authorities. It doesn’t matter if the Second Vatican Council defined no dogmas. You are still bound by the authority of Christ Himself to accept the teaching of the council and to obey its directives.
    Besides, the novelties that you mention have nothing to do with the teachings and directives of the Council. Am I free to practice the liturgy from the Gelasian or Leonine Sacramentary because I reject the “novelties” of the Council of Trent? No liturgical rite is dogmatic. Yet ALL must be followed.. The actual Rite of Pius V wasn’t created by the Council of Trent any more than the current Rite was created by the Vatican Council. Yet, both must be followed because both are directives whose authority flows from the pope and ultimately from Christ Himself.
    NO ONE has a right to participate in whatever sort of liturgy he wishes. Even if the novelties which you distain (and rightfully distain, in many cases) were actually parts of the official Rite of the Church (and most of them aren’t), you would still be bound to participate in them as part of the Rite.
    An ecumenical council IS infallible, but more importantly, it must be followed, as must the liturgical directives of the Church. Do deny this is to cease to be Catholic.
    Actually, the Second Vatican Council clarified and ruled on a lot of important theological issues. The fact that you see theology prior to the Council through the teachings and assumptions of the Council speaks much to its effect. Yes, the teachings of the Council were not new at the time, but theologians were divided as to what many things meant and things which you consider to be clear and settled were not so before the council. It is just like any other council in this respect, although obviously different in other respects.

24. Inocencio, no I have not read the documents. However, to my understanding there is nothing radical nor anything that contradicts what the church previously taught. It is a valid council and must be accepted by all Catholics.
    I work fulltime and have three kids 4 and under and two more on the way this spring. As a result my reading is limited and will have to trust that the Vatican II documents do not contain error.
    My biggest concern, is raising my children in the fullness of the Catholic faith. With all the turmoil in the church and the sad fact that the average Catholic is indestiguishable from the average amiable pagan, this will be a big challenge.

25. Lorenz,
    I fully understand the limited reading time you have and the primary concern of raising your children in the fullness of the Catholic faith. I have 6 children so far and we homeschool.
    I posted the quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger because he said we “must find the possiblity of revival in Vatican II itself.”
    http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
    This link is for the text of the 16 documents, if you ever have time to read them for yourself.
    I have 3 boys age five and under so I understand how busy your life can be. Your family is in our prayers please keep us in yours.
    Take care and God bless.
    J+M+J

26. Based on my limited understanding of the Vatican II documents, they were declared infallible, but I don’t know if they enjoy Magisterial status. But I could be wrong.

27. Inocencio –
    I think the actual URL (link) you wanted was:
    http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/vatican_ii_docs.htm
    The link you posted is for the general frame, not the specific FAQ

28. Mike,
    Thank you so much!
    Take care and God bless.
    J+M+J

29. Dear J. Baumgartner:
    You Said : ” It doesn’t matter if the Second Vatican Council defined no dogmas. You are still bound by the authority of Christ Himself to accept the teaching of the council and to obey its directives. ”
    Can you clearly explain one directive issued forth from this council that had not been clearly explained or taught by the church in the past ? I have read these 16 documents. What stikes me is how poorly they are written, and how confusing their message. Are you saying we should honor the folks who are practicing a pagan religion, as one of those 16 documents suggests, because there is some kernal of truth in them.
    If Larry Flint or Rod Jeremy established a church, would the average Catholic be asked to repect it ? Forget the religious practices they performed because the idol they worship matters not, as the bible tells us, the gods of the gentiles ( pagans )are devils.
    You said: ” No liturgical rite is dogmatic. Yet ALL must be followed.. ”
    I beg to differ. If the words of consecration are not said, there is no MASS.
    You said: ” An ecumenical council IS infallible, but more importantly, it must be followed ”
    This is not the case. Vatican I was infallible, while vatican II was termed ” not infallible “, by the Pope himself.
    You said: ” NO ONE has a right to participate in whatever sort of liturgy he wishes “.
    As a Latin Rite Catholic, I am free each Sunday or any other day to attend a Tridentine Liturgy, the Ukrainian Divine Liturgy, the Maronite Liturgy or any approved Liturgy I would like.
    If the only option a Latin Rite Catholic is offered in the Novus Ordo is to listen to heresy or to be subjected to a repetition of peace and justice sermons each week, with priests who use their own words in the Eucharistic prayers, then they have every right to attend a different Liturgy for the good of their soul.

30. CD,
    I recommend that you spend time in deep prayerful reflection on the gravity of the sin that you are committing by supporting a schismatic organization. Consider seeking spiritual direction from a non SSPX priest. The true Catholic Church will always have her arms open to accept you back into her fold.

31. Dear Matt,
    I do not attend a SSPX chapel. I do give their priests advice at times.
    My parish priest delivers more orthodoxy in his Sunday sermons that most Catholics likely hear in a year, or lifetime. He condemns homosexuality, bogus annulments, priests who are afraid to condemn contraception, calling them wolves in sheep clothing, he condemns all religions outside of the Catholic faith as false sects.
    One great Priest.
    Far from being Americanized , this is a Catholic Priest in full communion with Rome.

32. FWIW, Bishop Bruskewitz’s excommunications were challenged, and the Vatican declared that they were valid.

33. The folks in Lincoln were not SSPX memebers.
    It is a entirely different set of circumstances.

34. This article from EWTN quotes the Southern Nebraska Register, March 22, 1996.
    Presumably, there are few if any Christifidelis readers who are unaware that the bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, the Most Rev. Fabian W. Bruskewitz, on March 19, 1996, using his legitimate authority to make laws which bind members of his flock, published a legislative pronouncement naming twelve organizations, membership in which was defined to be “always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.” (Southern Nebraska Register, March 22, 1996.)
    The list of organizations contained in the law includes: the Society of St. Pius X and a chapel served by its priests; three non-Catholic organizations which are openly opposed to and contemptuous of the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life; the Freemasons and four subsidiary groups. Also named are two organizations whose inclusion is sure to cause the most controversy: Call to Action (CTA) and its Nebraska chapter, Call to Action Nebraska. The legislation went on to state: “Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact () under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on [the] part of any such Catholics will by that very fact () cause them to be excommunicated…”
    and this news article says Rome rejected their appeal:
    AP Wire
    Star News Online
    Last updated: March 10. 2005 12:04PM
    Religion News in Brief
    The Associated Press
    The Vatican has let stand a 1996 order from Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz that his parishioners must sever ties with 12 groups or face possible excommunication, the Lincoln Diocese said.
    Among the groups are the lay reform organization Call to Action, abortion-rights advocates Planned Parenthood and Catholics for a Free Choice, and several Masonic organizations. Bruskewitz said the groups contradict Roman Catholic teaching.
    An appeal was filed with the Vatican, but the Holy See notified the bishop that the appeal was rejected, said the Rev. Mark Huber, a spokesman for the diocese.
    Huber said last week that Catholics who affiliate with the groups have two months to sever ties with them. Bruskewitz has said that parishioners must search their consciences to decide whether the warning applies to them.
    Excommunication is a severe penalty under which Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion, or be married or buried in the church. They can, however, restore their communion with the church through confession.
    

35. Such a directive does not pertain to SSPX’ers outside of Lincoln. It does not attach to a Catholic who attends a SSPX Mass to fulfill a Sunday obligation.
    It pertains to SSPX’ers in Lincoln who actively support the group.
    Mere attendance does not constitute support.

36. “Mere attendance does not constitute support”
    If I attended a gay bar I’ll bet you would have a different view.

37. Hippo354,
    He would have a different view if you watched TV!
    Take care and God bless.
    J+M+J

38. Inocencio,
    HA! Good thing I don’t watch TV. (where we live we get nothing but the spanish home shopping network without cable which is WAY too ‘spensive for us).
    God bless you back, and Merry Christmas to all.

39. “Mere attendance does not constitute support”
    If I attended a gay bar I’ll bet you would have a different view.
    A gay bar is a place that is sinful for anyone to ever set foot in. Attending Mass cannot campare. There is no evil in attending Mass.
    There is great evil in visiting a gay bar.

40. “A gay bar is a place that is sinful for ANYONE to EVER set foot in.” As a police officer, I sometimes have to answer calls at gay bars; did’t know it was sinful for ANYONE, EVER.

41. Attending Mass cannot campare. There is no evil in attending Mass.
    If a Mass is illicit, it is certainly evil to attend it, if only in that you are causing scandal by encouraging illicit masses.

42. Amen, Mary.

43. Tim beat me to it, Mary. Amen, indeed!

44. The actions of the SSPX priest are illicit in that he is performing a Mass without permission.
    A Catholics who attends such a Mass to fulfill their Sunday obligation does not sin.
    The Catholic crosses the threshold of sin when he donates to their collection.
    If a investigator goes into a bar that caters to homosexuals, in the line of duty, that would not be a sin, just a like a firefighter who entered to put out a fire.
    I refer to people who voluntarily go to such places.

45. Here is a question for the Catholics on the board.
    If a postal carrier delivers a one handed pornographic magazine to a person on her mail route, knowing full well it is pornographic, does she sin ?

46. People who are interested in the proper interpretation of V2 should read the Pope’s 12/22 address to the Roman curia.
    I think Benedict is starting to lay the ground for a resolution of the SSPX schism.
    To say that V2 is a pastoral council and must be interpreted in the light of tradition does not preclude the council addressing open theological questions in a way that adds to tradition.
    It simply means that the bulk of the council’s work was to set a course for the Church in the modern world.
    We do not have to agree with this course but we do have to cooperate in its implementation – at least until our pastors change course again.
    Nothing prevents Pope Benedict from waking up tomorrow morning and announcing that the council was a terrible mistake. He is far more likely to guide the Church in more prudent directions in the interpretion of the council under contemporary circumstances.

47. Here is one of the fruits of the “fullness of the catholic faith http://youtube.com/watch?v=lcSOMEPFuTo

48. Here is another fruit of the “fullness of the catholic faith”http://youtube.com/watch?v=UEHGkLsp7TA&mode=related&search=

49. BUMP! – this comes up again today as Burke releases a statement regarding the status of the priest that the St Stanislaus Kostka Corp installed as their pastor (against canon law of course.)
    http://www.archstl.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=310&Itemid=1

50. To Jimmy:
    This is one of the best early summaries of the St. Stanislaus Kostka / Archdiocese of St. Louis conflict, and it is objective (opposed to the media in st. Louis, which often throws gasoline on the fire by lending a sypathetic tone and coverage toward the schismatic parish. I understand that many former parishioners of St. Stanislaus called for an independent audit by a CPA concerning the parish finances, but were shouted down in parish meetings or otherwise rejected in this quest. I am a lawyer. A not-for-profit organization under Missouri state law is required to maintain detailed records and is acountable for any improprieties. The accusations by the Board of Directors that the Archbishop is setting things up to appropriate parish funds or close the church as a land grab are not only specious, but are a smokescreen to cover up the parish’s refusal to account for expenditures or reveal how contracts are granted.
    There are more developments in the St. Stanislaus story in 2007-08. A member of the Board of Directors has filed an application to have Father Bozek removed as their pastor, because (surprise!) this renegade priest has strayed farther away from Catholic Doctrine (including his attendance and approval of the rogue “ordination” of two “women priests.” Check out the following editorial by Colleen Carroll Campbell, a noted Catholic writer, which appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on March 13, 2008. http://www.colleen-campbell.com/P-D_Columns/PD080313Stanislaus.htm

51. ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
    Thursday, March 13 2008
    Divisions at St. Stanislaus follow a predictable pattern
    By Colleen Carroll Campbell
    There was a strong helping of irony surrounding the proceedings at St.
    Stanislaus Kostka church last week when a group of parishioners called for the
    ouster of the renegade priest they had recruited just three years ago to lead
    their defiant flock.
    Given Rev. Marek Bozek’s rocky history — his dismissal from a Polish seminary
    on charges of sexual impropriety, his decision to skip out on his assignment in
    another diocese to join the media circus as pastor of St. Stanislaus and his
    participation in the faux ordination of two Catholic priestesses — it is not
    surprising that Bozek has generated controversy, even at the rebel Polish
    church.
    What is noteworthy about the movement to oust Bozek is that its leaders seem
    genuinely shocked by his dissident streak. Did they really think that a priest
    drawn to a breakaway church, a man who had flouted the authority of two bishops
    by accepting a job offer from excommunicated Catholics to shepherd a parish
    that had been officially suppressed, would respect the Catholic Church’s
    authority to decide doctrine? Did they think that a parish defined by its
    refusal to remain united to its larger church body would itself remain
    uncontaminated by the virus of division?
    Apparently they did, but had they studied church history, they might have known
    better.
    Despite breathless media coverage, this controversy is, after all, merely
    another chapter in a very old story. At its heart is a centuries-old clash
    between Catholicism’s hierarchical structure and America’s democratic impulses.
    Generations of anti-Catholics and more than a few Catholics have scorned the
    Catholic hierarchy for its refusal to remake itself in the image of American
    democracy and for clinging to the millennia-old belief that the pope and
    bishops are successors to the apostles with authority that derives from God,
    not from the consent of the governed.
    Disputes over parishes such as St. Stanislaus also are not new. They are the
    last gasp of the controversy over trusteeism, a short-lived system that found
    American laymen controlling Catholic parishes in the late 18th and early 19th
    centuries. Although initially seen as a way to smooth tensions between Catholic
    and American sensibilities in an anti-Catholic climate, trustee-controlled
    parishes became breeding grounds for infighting, factions, rebellion, scandal
    and schism — problems familiar to St. Stanislaus parishioners today.
    After Pope Pius VII denied in 1822 the right of America’s lay trustees to
    appoint and remove pastors and declared that church properties are subject to a
    bishop’s control, America’s trustee-controlled parishes gradually shifted to
    the universal Catholic model that gives bishops authority over parishes.
    But St. Stanislaus, built in 1880, has remained an anomaly. Beginning with
    Cardinal John Glennon, St. Louis bishops have labored for six decades to bring
    the parish into full compliance with the laws of the Catholic Church. Efforts
    by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke to make St. Stanislaus conform to the
    same legal and financial structure as all other parishes in St. Louis merely
    mark a new phase in a long-simmering dispute.
    As they rebuff Burke’s attempts and bask in the media attention, the St.
    Stanislaus rebels imagine that their grassroots revolt is breaking new ground.
    Yet schism is nothing new — as the scores of Christian denominations that trace
    their lineage to a break with Catholicism can attest. Nor is there anything new
    about a church that calls itself Catholic, even though its doctrine, sacraments
    and structure deviate from official Catholicism. Websites of such sects crowd
    the Internet, where pseudo-popes and breakaway groups spawned from other
    breakaway groups abound.
    The domino effect of church division is a well-established historical pattern.
    If the members of St. Stanislaus want to address the root cause of division in
    their ranks and make church history, they should drop the rebellion against
    authority and try something truly radical: reconciliation.
    Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television and radio host, and St.
    Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is
    http://www.colleen-campbell.com.

Comments are closed.