St. Louis Archdiocese and St. Stanislaus Parish Reach Settlement That Makes St. Stanislaus Independent

There has been a ten-years-long dispute between this parish and the Catholic archdiocese as the parish increasingly made itself independent of the Catholic Church. This has involved high-profile contention reported in Catholic media over the years. Following after a defeat in court as the archdiocese sought to continue its ownership of the property of St. Stanislaus Koska church, the archdiocese and St. Stanislaus have finally come to a legal agreement, by which St. Stanislaus becomes independent of the Catholic Church and cannot say it is affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Just another non-denominatonal
Found on any storefront
The difference they erroneously believe they are part of the one true church
Sorry for them and their hereticál leaders.

So essentially they agreeing to disagree and going their own separate ways?

I guess that at least resolves this whole sorry conflict, although the sad story will continue.

We’ve had many discussion threads concerning the situation at St. Stanislaus. Here is a brief recap, which I posted a few years ago.

In 2003, the parishioners had a very public break with Archbishop Burke, who they feared wanted to close the parish. Because the church had an unusual incorporation, it was legally and financially independent of the archdiocese. Archbishop Burke wanted to change that, the parishioners refused.

Burke pulled the diocesan priests from the parish, and forbid any to say mass there. A few priests, secretly and episodically, did so anyways. Finally, a diocesan priest from the other side of the state abandoned his parish without approval of his bishop, and set up residence at St. Stanislaus, in defiance of Archbishop Burke.

Burke declared the parish and the priest to be in schism, and thus excommunicated. The Vatican eventually upheld the declaration of excommunication, and [in 2009] Pope Benedict formally laicized the priest.

If anyone is interested in the back story, do a search of this forum for the word “Bozek.”

That is the name of the former Catholic priest who has headed St. Stanislaus for many years now. He introduced many non-traditional practices, some at variance with Catholic teaching. This caused a split within parish, with many feeling betrayed by Bozek. Those persons eventually left, reconciling with the Catholic Church. However some parishioners remained, and their numbers were increased by non-Catholics who began attending.

Sad and unfortunate. Praying God helps us all

Well, I’m new to this story and so, don’t understand what all the issues are, but from my quick overview, my concern is: what happens when their present Pastor retires or dies?

I’m not sure I understand what the parishioners think they have accomplished or what their goal was? It seems to me to revolve around a personality and then what? God bless them all abundantly, I think they will have some tough times ahead.

Laurel and Hardy…summarize this fiasco better than those St. Stanislaus Parish parishioners can…especially in the years ahead…and into eternity.

Pax Christi

I see Cardinal Burke was instrumental in the backstory. Lately, I’m liking what i’m hearing from Cardinal Burke (talk of refusing communion to pro-choice politicians, etc). It sounds like he is a man of action.

I wonder what his chances are for being Pope.

None at all from what I’m reading. Besides, he just lost a whole Parish, so I’m thinking they are unlikely to elect him to lead the worldwide Church.

I had a lot to say when this issue was percolating. I hadn’t yet returned to the Church and felt Burke was rather heavy-handed and lacked finesse in how he handled the affair. Initially, what the parishioners wanted was enough independence and control of their parish to ensure it woulf survive, and especially to ensure that the property (a fairly valuable piece of real estate adjacent to downtown St. Louis) would not be sold off.

I liked Burke’s orthodoxy back then, and now that I’m back in the Church I like his traditionalism even more. And I do get the felt concerns about allowing St. Stan’s to maintain an irregular status under canon law.

But I still think Burke handled this badly. It’s an irregularity that a certain progressive newspaper in Kansas City dubs itself "CATHOLIC’ over the objections of the local Bishop. But Finn is not charging in to that situation with anathemas and excommunications and interdictions. Actually I wish Finn WOULD use a bit more episcopal clout in that situation, but I still wish Burke would’ve used a tad les over here in St. Lou.

Instead, he was rather aggressive, leading the board of directors to go out and find a priest of questionable character, who then used his position to move St. Stan’s away from the Church. Last I heard, the parish was trying to affiliate with the Polish National Catholics or some similar autocephalous body, and Burke left town amid jokes about his failed “land grab”.

Which wasn’t ever what the fight was about, but perception is reality, too often.

And unless his years in the Vatican have tempered his reputation, and his skills in handling delicate situations, this sad episode probably hurts Burke’s chances to be nominated to the Papacy, if any American had any real chance in my lifetime to achieve such.

Shame. Never met the fellow, but his defenders here on this forum left me with a positve impression.

BTW–I intended no disrespect in omiting his title. He was an archbishop during the St. Stanislaus affair–can’t believe I actually spelled that! and he’s a cardinal now. No idea which title should be used since I was speaking mostly past tense. Called the bishop of KC by his last name sans title to be even-handed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit