The disputes between St. Stanislaus Parish and St. Louis Archdiocese are all about money, property, asset protection, control, and a belief by one man that he had absolute power to do as he wanted in his position as Archbishop. From 1891 to early 2004, the parishioners of St. Stanislaus lived in relative harmony with past Cardinals and Archbishops, who lead the Archdiocese of St. Louis. For example, on October 18, 1969, then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, later to be Pope John Paul II, visited St. Louis and spent many hours at the rectory of St. Stanislaus and celebrated Mass later that evening, in 1991 Archbishop May celebrated the historic Centennial event of the deeding of the church property by Archbishop Kenrick to St. Stanislaus, in 2003, Cardinal Rigali blessed the newly completed Polish Heritage Center.
What then happened thereafter to impact these harmonious relationships between St. Stanislaus and the past leaders of the Archdiocese? In 2004 the then-Archbishop of the Archdiocese, Raymond L. Burke, determined to put into place a plan that would shield the assets of the Archdiocese from claims asserted by victims of what has become known as the priest scandals. Thousands of persons had filed lawsuits and continue to file lawsuits, claiming that they were victims of sexual abuse by priests of various Roman Catholic dioceses throughout the United States, including the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Roman Catholic Church and its insurers have paid millions of dollars in redress to these claimants. The threat to the solvency of these archdioceses was so compelling that some took the extraordinary step of filing for bankruptcy. Archbishop Burke's Plan in his words would be a "…revision of the form of civil law structure of parishes [of the Archdiocese, but not St. Stanislaus, a civil corporation, which unlike these other parishes owned its assets outright] to nonprofit corporations…." Because these parishes were associations, with assets owned by the Archdiocese, the assets were at risk to be used to pay the claims of the victims. By using the civil law structure of nonprofit corporations, only the assets of the particular parish where the accused priest served would be at risk to pay claims. The assets of the other parishes in the Archdiocese would not or so the reasoning went. Prior to the Plan being instituted, Archbishop Burke observed that "The parishes of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, with the exception of St. Stanislaus…are presently structured in the form of unincorporated associations." With ominously chilling candor, Archbishop Burke, confident that all of his decisions and actions would never be questioned, promised: Once the final form has been given to the proposed revision of the civil law structure of the [other] parishes, St. Stanislaus…will be asked to accept the same civil structure as every other parish in the Archdiocese. If the board of director [of St. Stanislaus] refuses to revise the present structure of civil incorporation I will be left with no other choice than to declare that the parish is no longer part of the archdiocese [sometimes referred to herein as "suppression"]. In addition, in a letter to the parishioners of St. Stanislaus the Archbishop further defined what he would demand of St. Stanislaus, stating: I must insist that [St. Stanislaus] comply with the norm of Church law, as does every other parish in the Archdiocese, in what pertains to its structure….[St. Stanislaus] will continue to hold all of its [assets], but the administration of the [assets] will be carried out under the direction of the [Pope], [myself] and the priest [whom I appoint]…."
What Archbishop Burke did not clearly disclose in his communication with the members of St. Stanislaus is what he meant when he used the word "administration" as defined by the Church. The term "administration" in "Burkespeak" would allow the Archbishop to sell, change, and control parish property, so that while title might technically remain with St. Stanislaus the power to manage and fully control that power would be conveyed to Archbishop Burke. He backed up his demand with the threat that if St. Stanislaus did not obey he would remove it from the Archdiocese. In issuing this ultimatum Archbishop Burke ignored the covenants and provisions of the 1891 documents – documents that the Archdiocese claims govern and define the legal relationship between the Archdiocese and St. Stanislaus. Article III of the Charter expressly contradicts the power that Archbishop Burke claimed he had to compel St. Stanislaus to give him "administrative" control over its assets with these words: "The property, business, and affairs of [St. Stanislaus] shall be managed and fully controlled by a Board of Six directors . . . ."
In rightful reliance on secular law and promises guaranteed to it in the 1891 Charter, St. Stanislaus did not "conform" to "the Plan" and true to his word that he would "…be left with no other choice than to declare that the parish is no longer part of the archdiocese" Archbishop Burke decreed that St. Stanislaus was suppressed, a Canon Law term that describes the process by which a local parish is banished from an archdiocese. Before Archbishop Burke took this final action, he ordered the priests serving St. Stanislaus to cease serving it, later excommunicated the board of directors, and excommunicated a young Polish priest who courageously answered the call of the parishioners of St. Stanislaus to minister to their religious needs and lead them in worship, the first time on the eve of the day of the birth of Christ, 2005 before over 2000 joyful parishioners. The young Polish priest was named Father Marek Bozek. Before accepting the call to become the priest at St. Stanislaus, Father Bozek met at the Vatican with Pope John Paul II. Speaking together in Polish, Father Bozek asked the Pope to pray for him as he worked to decide whether he should accept the call from St. Stanislaus. The Pope replied that he had already been praying for Father Bozek and would continue to pray that God would bless Father Bozek's decisions and future ministry.
When it was a parish of the Archdiocese, St. Stanislaus was legitimately unique, both in terms of its Polish ethnic heritage, as well as its more secular status as a parish that owned the real property, improvements, and personal property that comprised the St. Stanislaus parish – a status that has existed for over 115 years. Archbishop Burke, as did his predecessors, understood this unique status. In an article in the Archdiocese controlled newspaper several months after he was installed as the ordinary of St. Louis, Archbishop Burke made these telling acknowledgements and admissions as to the special and unique status of St. Stanislaus, a status that he subsequently failed to respect and honor, based on his belief, albeit contrary to secular law, that he had the power to undue what Archbishop Kenrick and St. Stanislaus had agreed to more than one hundred years before Archbishop Burke moved into the mansion on Lindell Blvd. Archbishop Burke wrote in the May 14, 2004 edition of the St. Louis Review: I take great pride in St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish as a personal parish for Polish speaking Catholics and Catholics of Polish Heritage in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. . . . The present form of civil incorporation of St. Stanislaus . . . places complete authority for the administration of the parish in the hands of the board of directors, which operates according to its own bylaws. In summary the Archbishop recognized and acknowledged the unique status of St. Stanislaus as "a personal parish" and a form of civil incorporation that "places complete authority for the administration of the parish in the hands of the board of directors, which operates according to its own bylaws." These statements, made by a person, who is now on his way to the Vatican to, according to Archdiocese publicity, become someone akin to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, unequivocally confirm that the Archbishop knew, understood, and recognized what St. Stanislaus has always correctly contended was its status prior to the date Archbishop suppressed St. Stanislaus. He ends his article with a threat – that in spite of St. Stanislaus being a personal parish vested with complete authority for its administration in its board of directors – he would suppress or banish St. Stanislaus from the Archdiocese if it did not agree to his demand that it no longer be a personal parish and no longer have authority for the "administration" of its assets vested in its board of directors, presumably because he believed, as the Archbishop, that he had the power to do so regardless of the legal status confirmed on St. Stanislaus in 1891. In the article the Archbishop did not assert that the Archdiocese and/or he had certain legal rights to control St. Stanislaus. In fact Archbishop Burke wrote to the contrary, acknowledging the unique status of St. Stanislaus. Nor did he accuse St. Stanislaus of any violations of Church Canon Law, question the faith of its members, nor indicate that it was not Roman Catholic. At the time that the Archbishop made the startling admissions and in substance said, "I don't care what the relationship is legally, if St. Stanislaus does not obey me they will be punished," the Archdiocese had placed a young priest and canon lawyer in the parish as Parochial Administrator named Father Philip Bene. Father Bene did not speak Polish and was not an effective administrator, much less a competent pastor for the spiritual and pastoral needs of the members of St. Stanislaus. But for the furtherance of the Archbishop's agenda he was obedient, compliant and loyal to his superior the Archbishop. In his article in the St. Louis Review, Archbishop Burke wrote: Regarding parish funds, no bishop [and presumably no priest either] may confiscate the funds of any parish. Such action is directly forbidden by the Code of Canon Law.
The Archdiocese and some ill-intentioned individuals allege that in 2004, an unresolved dispute arose among the directors of St. Stanislaus regarding the operation of the Parish. There was such a dispute, but the Archdiocese in bad faith fails to provide any background on the nature of the dispute. In fact the St. Stanislaus Board of Directors had notified Father Bene that the Parish operating funds and a never before touched emergency fund (approximately $60,000) had been exhausted by him and asked him to account for the missing funds. He refused to do. This was "the unresolved dispute" - a serious dispute that touched upon whether there had been "a confiscation" of St. Stanislaus funds, an act that if true was "directly forbidden by the Code of Cannon Law." Archbishop Burke did nothing to resolve the dispute. He did nothing to investigate whether there was confiscation and misappropriation of parish funds by Father Bene. The Archbishop could not objectively resolve the dispute because Father Bene was his loyalist. Instead, Father Bene who to be an effective pastor had to have the trust and respect of the parishioners of St. Stanislaus breached what little trust and respect he had by arrogantly telling the Board he would not account for the shortfall in parish funds. By failing to hold Father Bene accountable, Archbishop Burke condoned a violation of Canon Law. In the same St. Louis Review article, Archbishop Burke wrote: And I have confirmed publicly my intention to help [St. Stanislaus] in every way possible, pledging that it will enjoy my fullest support. For example, even though the archdiocese anticipates having fewer priests to assign in the coming year, I have promised to St. Stanislaus . . . the service of both a priest of the archdiocese and a native Polish priest. After pledging that St. Stanislaus would "enjoy my fullest support" and promising "the service of both a priest of the archdiocese and a native Polish priest," Archbishop Burke ordered Father Bene to vacate St. Stanislaus overnight without notice in August of 2004, not as a rebuke to Father Bene, but as punishment directed to St. Stanislaus because it had not shown a willingness to implement "the Plan." Thereafter, Archbishop Burke refused to assign a new priest to St. Stanislaus and, as already plead, continued his campaign of coercion and punishment for "disobedience" by excommunication and suppression. He also forbade the holding of baptisms and marriages in the St. Stanislaus owned church. And not surprisingly he never resolved the "dispute." Moreover, Father Bene, when he packed and left St. Stanislaus suddenly without a priest, took property of the parish without permission, including books and records, furniture, sacred objects for worship, and Polish hymnals, which are now being used at another archdiocesan parish and have stamped on the inside cover "Property of St. Stanislaus." The property that disappeared in the night, when Father Bene followed the orders of Archbishop Burke, was as noted the property of St. Stanislaus, paid for by the members of the parish. Because it was a "personal parish" as Archbishop Burke described it, virtually no monies were given to St. Stanislaus by the Archdiocese over the years.
Stunned that the actions of Archbishop Burke did not crush and coerce St. Stanislaus to submit to "the Plan," and dismayed that St. Stanislaus, post suppression, is a growing, flourishing, and vibrant Roman Catholic parish, the Archdiocese along with six individuals turned to the secular courts for relief, constructing a disingenuous Verified Petition that attempts to support the actions of the Archbishop based upon equity and the rule of law, when those actions instead were based upon the unilateral edict of the Archbishop, grounded in a scheme to protect the assets of the Archdiocese from civil claimants victimized by its priests, some of whom have gone to jail. Hence, the contentions of the Archdiocese that St. Stanislaus is no longer a Roman Catholic Church are circular and beg the question because it was Archbishop Burke who broke the promises and covenants granted to St. Stanislaus by Archbishop Kenrick and, under secular law, it is elementary that once one party materially breaches an agreement the other party is released from its obligations. Archbishop Burke's massively miscalculated the will of the people of St. Stanislaus, believing they would "crack" and accede to his demands, making an affront to the dignity of the proud parishioners and a material violation of the legally binding transaction by and between St. Stanislaus and Archbishop Kenrick and his successors. Only after filing a civil lawsuit and realizing that St. Stanislaus would not only not collapse and cave in to the Archbishop and adopt the Plan, has the Archdiocese offered in a press release to place a parish priest at St. Stanislaus. That person, a man named Father Marchlewski, is 75 years old, does not speak Polish, and has a full time position as a teacher at St. Louis University High School. With amazing audacity and failing to disclose the background of Father Marchlewski, the Archdiocese disingenuously suggests that its candidate is capable of serving a growing parish with over 500 families, minimum three Masses every weekend (one in Polish, which is vital to the vibrant heritage of St. Stanislaus), and a myriad of other church and mission programs.
Priestless as of August, 2004, St. Stanislaus held prayer meetings on Sundays and limped along until members of the board reached out and found Father Marek Bozek. When Father Bozek agreed to serve St. Stanislaus, filling a need for a parish priest that the Archdiocese had caused, Archbishop Burke, contrary to his promise in the St. Louis Review article to provide two priests, including one who could speak Polish, took these actions against Father Bozek: excommunicated him, convinced Father Bozek's Bishop from the diocese where he served before he came to St. Stanislaus to change his mind and not grant him the leave of absence, tried to convince federal immigration officials to deport Father Bozek, brought charges to have Father Bozek laicized (defrocked as a priest). Ironically, since Father Bozek was called to St. Stanislaus, the membership rolls have increased substantially, along with attendance at Mass, baptisms, marriages, and participation in church activities. Father Bozek is a great and charismatic pastor. His skills as a leader of worship are incredible; his homilies inspiring. Consequently, many people have joined St. Stanislaus and worship there because of his presence as the parish pastor.
On March 15, 2012 St. Louis Circuit Judge Bryan Hettenbach, affirmed St. Stanislaus' ownership of its property and its right to craft bylaws that limit the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over our congregation. The case came to trial after 18 months of legal wrangling, and it took Hettenbach more than a year from the end of the trial last February to rule. found for that board in 10 of the case's 12 counts. In the 50-page decision, the judge ruled that "the Archbishop may own the souls of wayward St. Stanislaus parishioners, but the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation owns its own property." In reading the ruling, one phrase repeatedly jumps out, in count after count: "Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish."
On February 13, 2013 St. Stanislaus Parish and the Archdiocese of St. Louis issued the following joint statement: "The Archdiocese of St. Louis and St. Stanislaus have resolved their legal dispute. The Archdiocese will dismiss its appeal and the judgment of the trial court is now final. St. Stanislaus has agreed that it will not hold itself out as affiliated in any way with the Archdiocese of St. Louis or the Roman Catholic Church. By bringing this legal dispute to an end, we pray that this will help to initiate a process of healing.”
After 120 years of independence, the people of St. Stanislaus now have a court decision acknowledging their freedom to chart their own course. Now that this long dispute has finally come to end, it is time to move on. ST. STANISLAUS LIVES!!!