Talk:St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (St. Louis, Missouri)

Bias / Controversy
I understand that this is a controversy topic and that there are strongly held views on both sides. Will all parties involved please refrain from adding blatantly biased text to the article page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is supposed to have a neutral point of view. Adding your personal view (however valid it may be) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have a desire to express your views regarding (choose one: the Archbishop's land grab / the prideful board refusing to obey church authority) this is not the forum for it. I suggest you create a blog to express your personal views, and refrain from making blatantly biased edits on Wikipedia. Kenj0418 05:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the entry for St. Stanislaus Kostka Church, a parish with nearly 125 years of history. Unfortunately someone is trying to make this a pro-Archbishop Burke page with Burke's name appearing 8 times and St. Stanislaus only twice.  While individuals may hold different views on the current situation, the founding of the church in the 1800s, the original agreement and other facts our mutual agreed upon and should be kept that way in the St. Stanislaus entry.

NO attempt is being made to present a "pro-Archbishop Burke page." The ISSUE is between the Vatican and the lay board of directors it is NOT between Archbishop Burke and St. Stanislaus Kostka Church. The lay board of directors appealed the interdict to the Vatican and the Vatican agreed with Archbishop Burke. Archbishop Burke's name appears 8 times in this entry while the lay board of directors are mentioned 9 times. That is fair.

I'm new to wikipedia and understand that neutral sources are necessary for the citations in writing or adding onto an article. However on an issue like this it seems near impossible to find anything bias free. The following link seems to have a very accurate, bone dry account of the complete history. However it is from an obviously biased source so I'm not sure how it can be incorporated, although it seems obvious the information is necessary and pertinent to the improvement of the article. http://slatts.blogspot.com/2005/03/st-stanislaus-official-archdiocesan.html

Sluhser589 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Requested
I have requested informal mediation for the disputes regarding this page (my request), see Mediation_Cabal for more information on the informal mediation process.

I also support the request for informal mediation on the page St._Stanislaus_Kostka_ Church_%28Saint_Louis%29 and the page Raymond Leo Burke. Please see my comments in the of Comments section of Kenj0418 mediation (my request) cited above. Thank you     BNA-WTTWA 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias / Controversy (www.saveststans.com link)
The saveststans and supporter's websites should be removed as links because they contain non-factual information which is clearly intended to deceive the reader.

For example, the websites do not recognize:

1. That Archbishop Kenrick was not a Cardinal.

2. That in 1891 the parish property was not assigned to a parishioner-run corporation, but a diocesan bishop and pastor run corporation with the consultation of a lay board (cf. original 1891 bylaws and plenary councils of Baltimore).

3. That St. Stanislaus Kostka Church has not always been in good standing with the Archdiocese going all the way back to Archbishop Glennon, who in the 1940s was the first to seek regularization of the problem of the lay board attempting to assert exclusive control—this is documented.

4. That the Code of Canon Law was not revised in 1943.

5. That the percentage of parishioners who disagreed with the lay board is not 3-5% but at least 35%--a conservative estimate--representing as many as 90% of the recent (those who arrived after the fall of the Berlin wall) Polish immigrants.

6. That St. Stanislaus Kostka Church is not the only Polish Roman Catholic church in St. Louis, since St. Agatha Parish is also.

7. At maximum, St. Stanislaus Kostka Church can only accomodate approx. 600 and the hall approx. 500 people. Therefore, it is an over exaggeration to say that more than 1000 total were present that evening, in light of the fact that the hall was less than half full.

There is other non-factual information as well. Therefore, because of the nature of the content of the information contained therein which is deceptive these links should be removed as they threaten the integrity of Wikipedia.

(preceeding points left by 70.130.193.255 on 10 January 2006 @ 00:42)


 * The driving reason for leaving this link is: from External_links
 * "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."
 * and
 * "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."
 * As St. Stanislaus is no longer part of the Catholic Church, and is de-facto controlled by the lay board, their website would be the 'official site' for St. Stanislaus. It's inclusion in wikipedia does not imply that Wikipedia endorses or agrees with any views expressed there.


 * I do beleive that text more clearly labeling the link as expressing the views of the Lay Board currently in control of St. Stanislaus is appropriate. I also think the second link to the sabrestlouis site needs to be relabeled to describe the site in more neutral terms. (I haven't personally made this change because of the on-going dispute regarding these pages, please see the links in the preceeding section for information on the mediation that is going on).


 * Regarding your points above:
 * #1 - While this is an obvious factual error, we are not responsible for the content or correctness of information on an external site. I suggest you email the saveststans people to have that point corrected.
 * #2-5, and #7: These are clearly points of dispute between different sides in the conflict. Regardless of whether they are true, false, or neither, it is not a reason to remove the link.  If the disputed information is found in the wikipedia article, then the article should clearly state that this is the view of the particular party in the dispute.
 * #6 - St. Agatha's is mentioned in the article. As stated above the fact that an external link has information that is erroneous or out-of-date is not a reason for removing it.
 * kenj0418 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

-
 * Regarding points above:

kenj0418 I am in agreement with your posting to 70.130.193.255 comment. In some ways the particular posting represents the challenge we have in coming to a NPOV irrespective of position of any commentator I am sorry that I have not been posting very much due to other considerations. I will try to remedy that. I continue to be impressed by your understanding of Wikipedia,its goal and objectives.--BNA-WTTWA 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

since 2005?
Any subsequent developments in the last 2 years? DGG (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Archdiocese of St. Louis issued the following statement on July 23, 2008:

Mrs. Bernice Krauze, Mr. Stanley Rozanski, and Mr. Robert Zabielski, members of the Board of Directors of Saint Stanislaus Parish Corporation, met last month (June 10) with Archbishop Raymond L. Burke to be reconciled fully with the Catholic Church. They are once again in full communion with the Catholic Church and are no longer under any censure.

Since then, the three have joined other parishioners of the former Saint Stanislaus Kostka parish in filing a lawsuit against the Saint Stanislaus Parish Corporation. The lawsuit is asking for the corporation to adhere to the 1891 Bylaws, to which the parish and the Archdiocese of St. Louis had agreed. If the lawsuit is successful, the Archdiocese of St. Louis is prepared to appoint a Catholic priest, Rev. Michael Marchlewski, S.J., to Saint Stanislaus as administrator.

THE INFORMATION ABOVE HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY. http://www.archstl.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=557&Itemid=150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.65.24 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the following additions to this section:


 * "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."


 * These sentences are blatantly POV. The author uses words like "amazing audacity" and "disingeuous", not even attempting to hide his or her bias.  The material does not belong in an encyclopedia entry.  If you have a problem with the archdiocese's decision, blog about it.


 * I have also replaced the wordy and POV title with "Recent Developments". Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents
What started out as an attempt to save a Polish Catholic church, has ended up with a church that is now neither Catholic nor Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.137.228 (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on St. Stanislaus Kostka Church (St. Louis, Missouri). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303191345/http://stanislauskostka.com:80/history.html to http://www.stanislauskostka.com/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis template
Hi-I added the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis template to the article. The parish is listed in the template in the former parishes section. This is the reason I added the template to the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Missed a successor?
I find "The controversy began under Cardinal John J. Glennon and continued under the late Cardinal Joseph Ritter and his successors, Archbishop John May, Cardinal Justin Rigali, and Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke." OK, you don't have the current Archbishop (he's in the next sentence); HOWEVER, the list I just quoted left out Cardinal John Carberry. Carlm0404 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)