On Schism

With the recent goings on concerning schism from the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps you would be interested in a primer on schism.

First of all, schism is defined in Roman Catholic Canon Law #751 as:

Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

For an in depth analyses from the Roman Catholic point-of-view see Definition of Schism.

Much of the information and additional discussion that is available in regard to formally leaving the Roman Catholic Church centers around the sacrament of marriage and annulments. Canon #1117 covers it rather well.

The form prescribed above is to be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1127.2 (dispensation from form by the local ordinary)

From the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fargo (emphasis mine):

If a Catholic has formally left the Catholic Church, he or she is not bound by Canonical Form. The law has not defined what constitutes a formal act of defection. If there is the possibility of this having happened, in each individual case this will have to be determined by a Tribunal. Items that would lead to suspicion of having formally left would be an open declaration of abandonment of the Catholic faith, a formal enrolling in another religion, a public affiliation to an atheistic ideology or movement manifestly opposed to the Catholic faith or being involved in an established heresy, apostasy or schism. Merely ceasing to practice the faith even over a considerable length of time, regular attendance at the religious services of another religion or similar actions would not prove the formal act of leaving the Catholic Church. (The Canon Law Letter and Spirit, p.603).

I found an excellent write-up (can’t exactly remember where) that discusses joining an Orthodox Church and the implications of Dominus Iesus:

Dominus Iesus clarifies that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are sister churches, but that the constituent sui juris Churches of Catholicism are sisters to the particular Orthodox Churches, who are, despite being fully “churches” (and not “ecclesial communities”, as are the Protestant Christians), nevertheless lacking in full communion because of the refusal to acknowledge the role of the Bishop of Rome. So from the Catholic perspective, someone who leaves Catholicism for Orthodoxy has (1) broken communion with Rome, which of course is a sin in itself and (2) joined a church which, despite its ‘churchiness’, does not have the same degree of fullness as the Catholic sui juris churches do. The person has embraced schism from the Catholic Church by rejecting communion with it, from the Catholic perspective: breaking communion with Rome is, per Catholicism, a personal act of schism, and hence an act which makes one a schismatic in the eyes of Catholicism, regardless of how Catholicism may view other people who are members of the Orthodox Church.

 

On Point of View

Now having been raised a Roman Catholic, and having a fairly good idea of the rules, my having left the Roman Catholic Church, having officially joined the PNCC, and having received Holy Orders in the PNCC is a blatant act of schism. So accused, so guilty.

However, one would have to believe that the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church is binding upon them. If I fly over to Poland and break the laws there (or God forbid Singapore or Saudi Arabia) I am by my act of going there making myself subject to their law. By manifestly removing myself from the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church (yes and I know that there is some reasoning that the Roman Catholic Church has universal jurisdiction over all humanity, including me, whether I like it or not) I make myself not subject to its laws.

In my mind, and in accordance with Dominus Iesus, para. 17, I am still part of a particular Church (why —“ because I need the sacraments and a Church in valid Apostolic succession).

Dominus Iesus states:

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. .Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

As a member of a —true particular Church— (cf. Canon 844) i.e., the Polish National Catholic Church along with members of the Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East, I have exercised my ability to choose to honor the Roman pontiff as first among equals, but not the administrative head of the Church, to belong to a Church with valid Holy Orders, and that is in Apostolic succession.

So to me, it is the point-of-view that determines. That all should be one, I agree. That all should be part of the one, holy catholic and apostolic faith, I agree. That all are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and are required to cooperate in that salvation, I agree. In Catholicism there are many houses and means to come unto Christ.

For those who wish to comment, I welcome your perspective. I also respect your right to follow the law you have subjected yourself to, and to follow it thoroughly, as you should. However, I also expect you to respect my right to be unbound from your laws.

An interesting story today, recapping the Christmas Eve story from St. Stanislaus Kostka church in St. Louis and Fr. Bozek’s homily for Christmas Day.

Fr. Bozek’s Christmas morning homily was a revelation as to his character. It is the speaking of truth in the face of those who resort to blackmail to get what they want. Blackmail cannot stand if the accused has no fear. Those who have no fear or do not let themselves be ruled by fear are those that have the Lord as their shield.

It would appear that the lavender mafia of the American Roman Catholic church is at work again.

For those not familiar with the lavender mafia, there are tons of internet resources about it. Just do a Google Search or check out The Gay Question by Rod Dreher from the National Review Online. To wit:

THE LAVENDER MAFIA

The raw numbers are less important, though, if homosexual priests occupy positions of influence in the vast Catholic bureaucracy; and there seems little doubt that this is the case in the American Church. Lest this be dismissed as right-wing paranoia, it bears noting that psychotherapist Sipe is no conservative —” indeed, he is disliked by many on the Catholic Right for his vigorous dissent from Church teaching on sexual morality —” yet he is convinced that the sexual abuse of minors is facilitated by a secret, powerful network of gay priests. Sipe has a great deal of clinical and research experience in this field; he has reviewed thousands of case histories of sexually active priests and abuse victims. He is convinced of the existence of what the Rev. Andrew Greeley, the left-wing clerical gadfly, has called a “lavender Mafia.”

“This is a system. This is a whole community. You have many good people covering it up,” Sipe says. “There is a network of power. A lot of seminary rectors and teachers are part of it, and they move to chancery-office positions, and on to bishoprics. It’s part of the ladder of success. It breaks your heart to see the people who suffer because of this.”

In his new book, Goodbye! Good Men, Michael S. Rose documents in shocking detail how pervasive militant homosexuality is in many seminaries, how much gay sex is taking place among seminarians and priest-professors, and how gay power cliques exclude and punish heterosexuals who oppose them. “It’s not just a few guys in a few seminaries that have an ax to grind. It is a pattern,” says Rose. “The protective network [of homosexual priests] begins in the seminaries.”

The stories related in Rose’s book will strike many as incredible, but they track closely with the stories that priests have told me about open gay sex and gay politicking in seminaries. The current scandal is opening Catholic eyes: As one ex-seminarian says, “People thought I was crazy when I told them what it was like there, so I finally quit talking about it. They’re starting to see now that I wasn’t.”

Goodbye! Good Men links homosexuality among priests with theological dissent, a connection commonly made by conservative Catholics who wonder why their parish priests have practically abandoned teaching and explaining Catholic sexual morality. But one veteran vocations-team member for a conservative diocese cautions that Catholics should not assume that theological orthodoxy guarantees heterosexuality or chastity. “You find [active homosexuality] among some pretty conservative orders, and in places you’d not expect it,” he says. “That’s what makes this so depressing. You don’t know where to turn.”

So it would seem that those who do not like Fr. Bozek’s decision have decided to attack his call by labeling him (excerpts from the St. Louis Dispatch):

It wasn’t until Christmas morning, in a different homily, that Bozek told his new parishioners about a prior episode in his life that helped prepare him for this latest challenge to authority. “God tries us with fire to make our faith stronger,” he told them.

Five years ago, Bozek and Catholic church leaders in Poland were at odds about something more personal than the St. Stanislaus dispute. It was an accusation that forced him to flee his homeland, landing in Missouri, and, finally, in the pulpit at St. Stanislaus parish.

…

The next morning, Bozek returned to the pulpit, this time with a different homily. “It seems so many things happen by accident, that paths cross by accident,” he said. “But that is the mystery of our faith – nothing happens without a reason.”

With a startling revelation, he signaled to his parishioners on Christmas morning that he had been through controversy with church authority before. And he believed it had made him stronger.

Bozek told his new parishioners the story of his struggle five years ago at a seminary in Poland with an accusation made against him – “a witch hunt” he called it. “Some people accused me of being a promiscuous homosexual,” he said. He told the rector of the seminary to provide proof, and said the rector couldn’t, but persisted in the
accusations.

Bozek said he went to his Warmia Archbishop Edmund Michal Piszcz, and told him to call off the rector. He threatened to sue the archdiocese. “They have no proof,” he told Piszcz. Bozek said Piszcz agreed. Nevertheless the priest left the seminary and Poland, landing in Springfield, Mo.

“What would have happened had I not been accused?” he asked the congregation. “I probably would still be in Poland living happily near my parents. I probably never would have heard of St. Stanislaus Kostka church.”

Jan Guzowski, the rector at the Hosianum seminary in Olsztyn when Bozek was there, said in a telephone interview from Poland that Bozek had been told to leave because of suspected homosexuality.

“We thought he was homosexual. We had several problems with him. He said he wasn’t homosexual, but we had certain proof that this wasn’t true.” Asked what proof, Guzowski said that other seminarians told him so.

Oh yes, —we thought—, how convenient. We thought therefore it must be so. The rector and some students wishing to paint seminarian Bozek as a ‘promiscuous homosexual’. Perhaps they had only wished it to be true? See I can draw innuendo as well as the next person. Being in the profession I am in during my regular 9 —“ 5 I should know what having evidence is all about. Dr. Guzowski has the luxury of making ‘evidence’ be anything he wishes it to be. Read on…

Guzowski, who left the seminary two years ago, is now professor of moral theology at a state-run university in Olsztyn.

Do I even have to point out the irony?

In an interview after his second Christmas Mass on Sunday, Bozek denied Guzowski’s charges. “Of course the rector is going to say I was kicked out; that’s his side of the story,” Bozek said. “But I have a recommendation from Archbishop Piszcz which says I left by my own request.”

Bozek said he then decided to be “a missionary” resulting in his acceptance to study as a priest for the diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, his arrival there in 2000, his studies at St. Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana, and his eventual ordination three years ago.

…

Bozek said he brought up his flight from Hosianum in his Christmas homily because he had received phone calls threatening to leak the accusations to the press. “I wanted to tell this to my new parishioners in my own words,” he said.

…

So what will the new priest say when his parishioners ask him the inevitable question: Are you a homosexual? “When people ask me that, I just say, I am a celibate and chaste priest, so it doesn’t matter,” Bozek said.

Fr. Bozek makes an important note here that the press often misses. Celibacy and chastity are not the same thing. Now celibacy by rights would presume chastity. You cannot be married and as such you should not be having sexual relations with anyone. Chastity is the key. Fr. Bozek is neither married (therefore celibate) and is not engaging in sexual relations (therefore chaste).

An excellent well researched article about the situation in St. Louis, the penalty of excommunication, and the tie-in to clergy sex abuse is found at Flying Down to Rio.

Read – Christmas Rant

The best line (for humor) I thought was:

And the situation of Cardinal Bevilacqua is not unique. No Catholic prelate has been sanctioned, to my knowledge, in connection with the recent scandals involving sexual abuse of children. In this context of indulgence of serious abuse by church leaders, it can be argued that the actions of Archbishop Burke in excommunicating the leadership of a parish in a dispute over church property and clergy appointments is for a “slight cause” and therefore “works more evil than good.”

I like the term ‘indulgence’ for its double entendre. I think I shall hasten to call Martin Luther, reformation is needed.

More on the subject of Fr. Marek Bozek and St. Staislaus Kostka Church. The folks at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam have been going on about the goings on in the St. Louis Archdiocese for quite a long time.

In their post, Bishop Leibrecht defends suspension of AWOL priest; they enumerate all the ways in which they feel Fr. Bozek is Satan incarnate. Among the reasons cited is a beautiful homily he delivered on the salvation of souls.

In the homily (click here to read it for as long as St. Agnes Cathedral keeps it on-line) he states:

How many times have you heard some Christians and Catholics say things like, “take it or leave it” or “go somewhere else if you don’t like it” or “you know the teachings, you cannot be Catholic and do what you are doing at the same time”. There are many smart virgins nowadays who make everybody else feel so unwelcome in the Christian community. As a priest I often meet so called “fallen away” Catholics [w]ho were told to “go to hell” and they listened. They were and are struggling with one or another point of our Catholic faith or moral teachings; they were and are asking questions, admitting honestly that they are not 100% ready to meet the Bridegroom. They thought [t]hey have to fulfill all religious requirements in order to be invited, and so they left. And this is true foolishness.

The Ad Majoriam writers are exactly those people who tell everyone else to ‘go to hell’. That’s why they do not like the homily. Truth preached too close to home is dangerous.

They probably firmly believe in —Ex Ecclesia Nulla Salus— (Outside the [Roman Catholic] Church there is no salvation). Of course they believe what they wish, but since they are such sticklers for absolutes, now that Abp. Burke has excommunicated these people and has suppressed the parish, it is in effect, according to their laws, no longer —Roman— Catholic.

So I ask, why rail against the wind? These poor folks are now, to you, nothing more than abject mortal sinners in a schismatic church destined for hell. Why not rail against the Orthodox or any Protestant Church, whom, according to you are equally schismatic and destined for hell.

$9.5 million for your Abp makes you want to break out the broad axe of innuendo, detraction and calumny (also mortal sins as they are done with full knowledge) me thinks.

So it goes. I need not defend the St. Stan’s faithful. They do very well on their own. I simply point out what is obvious from Fr. Bozek’s homily.

We all sin, we all are imperfect, but continue to strive, continue to work, continue to hold people to the church. But we must not kill the seed that has been planted in each individual. We are not predestined to fall on rocky soil or among thorns. We are all intended for good soil. Woe to those who uproot and kill —“ for that is not our job.