Here we go again! The anger and rage on the part of pro-lifers who support Father Pavone is palpable. Here is the text of Bishop Zurek’s letter to his brother bishops on the matter. Then I’ll just throw in a few remarks at the end.
I have decided to suspend Father Frank A. Pavone from public ministry outside of the Diocese of Amarillo to take effect on September 13, 2011. For an indefinite period, I am withdrawing my permission to him to minister outside our diocese and am calling him back to spend time in prayer and reflection. My decision is the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priest For Life (PFL) organization. The PFL has become a business that is quite lucrative which provides Father Pavone with financial independence from all legitimate ecclesiastical oversight. There have been persistent question and concerns by clergy and laity regarding the transactions of millions of dollars of donations to the PFL from whom the donors have a rightful expectation that the monies are being used prudently. These financial questions and concerns have persisted with no clear and adequate answers since the time when Father Pavone was under two previous bishop ordinaries. Since he has consistently refused to subject the PFL to a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures, I have reasons to be alarmed at the potential financial scandal that might arise if it were the result of my failure to correct Father Pavone’s incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority as his Bishop. Additionally, the PFL financial resources have afforded Father Pavone with a formidable civil and canonical counsel which he utilized to rebuff my every attempt at calling for financial transparency. Thus, my decision to intervene and to call him to accountability is meant to express the dire need to safeguard his priestly ministry to which I am obligated as his father and to help the Church avoid any scandal due to the national scope of the PFL’s work. At a certain point, for me to hold all this knowledge about the PFL and to turn a blind eye would increase my culpability and quote possibly amount to material cooperation.
In his relationship to his bishop ordinaries, Father Pavone has gradually lost his need to show appropriate obedience to his Bishop. It seems that his fame has caused him to see priestly obedience as an inconvenience to his unique status and an obstacle to the possible international scope of his ministry. I would venture to say that the supreme importance that he has attributed to his PFL ministry and the reductionist attitude toward the diocesan priesthood has inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance and self-determination. This attitude has strained his relationship with me and has give me the impression that I cannot invoke obedience with him because he is famous. It is my desire to help him readjust his priestly bearing through spiritual and theological renewal in order to recapture that essential priestly hallmark of respect and obedience. It is also my desire to strengthen Father Pavone’s sense of communio sacramentalis with me so that he may be fortified with a healthy zeal to live in an authentic way his sacramental gift and mystery as a priest of Jesus Christ.
If you judged it to be prudent, I would like to ask that you would inform the Christian faithful under your care to consider withholding donations to the PFL until the issues and concerns are settled.
Taking this opportunity to express my esteem and to ask for your prayers, I am,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Patrick J. Zurek, STL, DD
Bishop of Amarillo
While I am no Vatican insider, my guts tell me that things will be resolved in a manner favorable to Father Pavone and Priests for Life. We can’t go wrong if we are dealing in the truth and seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, there is an unhealthy dose of anger at Bishop Zurek that needs to be addressed.
In the wake of the Father Corapi implosion, many were outraged that he could have been given such independence to amass a Montana ranch, boat dock, boats (yes, plural), luxury vehicles, etc. People rightly asked where his superiors were, where his bishop was.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we don’t like that either. The latter half of Bishop Zurek’s letter addresses a concern for Father Pavone falling into the same abyss that claimed Father Corapi. Love for Father Pavone should dictate that we give his bishop the benefit of the doubt, and allow this corrective course his bishop has taken to proceed toward the stated goal. Love for Father Pavone must admit some level of oversight, which always entails the possibility of the type of letter we see here.
For those of us who are Catholics, we need to avoid lashing out at Bishop Zurek. Sit in his chair and look at us through his eyes. Do we wish to convey the impression that the pro-life movement is a bunch of radical firebrands who are too enlightened to deal patiently and charitably with the men who are the Successors of the Apostles?
On the first Easter Sunday, Mary Magdalene announced the resurrection to the apostles. John and Peter raced to the tomb, and the younger and more fleet afoot John reached the tomb first, while plodding Peter had to catch up. But John didn’t enter the tomb!
He waited for Peter, and deferred to the one who was given the Keys to the Kingdom!
When they entered, John saw and believed. Peter was confused, and took longer to process what he was seeing.
There is a lesson in that for us. We in the pro-life movement may be more fleet afoot than many of the bishops where the life issues are concerned, and we may even get ahead of them in the race to the tomb. Like John, we have a duty to respect authority.
To wait patiently.
To defer.
And to not lose heart.
That’s a tall order, but the Easter narrative is our only way out of the anger trap.
Agreed. And we all need to take a deep breath, still our emotions and let the Holy Spirit guide the outcome. Have some faith!
Amen and again AMEN!
Gerry, I wonder if we who call ourselves “orthodox” and “in line with the Church” give ourselves permission to act on our own and outside the authority of the Bishops because, after all, we are following the teachings of the Church and doing good things. THOSE who aren’t SHOULD be under the authority but we who are good-why do WE have to be under that authority, esp when we don’t like that authority?
I wonder if our distrust of Bishop’s theology and practices in our diocese has made us suspicious to be under their authority. However, they are the legitimate authority and we are ALL under obedience by God to obey these authorities. Even we think what we are doing is good and holy and under the heading “orthodox”.
This was a great letter of care and concern for Fr. Pavone. I would think he would welcome the protection of his Bishop so that he doesn’t run into trouble. You know, I think about several of the TOR Priests, esp Fr. Mike Scanlan and priests like Fr. Benedict, CFR. All of their money goes to the order. They don’t see what they make-AND they choose to place themselves under obedience to the authority, even if they don’t like it. Fr. Mike recently was told to go back to the motherhouse in Loretto. He didn’t want to, and certainly his health is fine and he didn’t really need to go, but he went. Why? Because his superior said so and Fr Mike chose obedience. And Fr Mike, with all of his travels and popularity has never been embroiled in such scandals.
I think we should all take a lesson from the quiet ones who are living lives of obedience. Call our priests to be obedient to their Bishops AND call ourselves to be obedient to the legitimate authority God has placed over us in our pastors and Bishops, no matter what we do for the Lord.
I have read too many of the lives of the saints to become angry or disheartened by the Church’s authority. Saint Faustina was told NO repeatedly by her superiors about the Feast of Divine Mercy being implemented. Jesus told her on many occasions to always obey her superiors and that He would take care of the details. Many of the ministries that Father Frank shepherds have sprung up from the ground, as Jesus said, ‘If you tell these to be quiet the stones will cry out.” Well, the stones are crying out. Many of which will never be silent again. A time of testing and trial has preceeded every powerful movment for good. Father Frank told us once to be sure that the devil knows your name..Well he knows Father Frank’s and has him on speed dial.
I e-mailed, benedict.xvi@vatican.va
the following:
Dear Pope Benedict,
I am deeply disappointed that Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, has ordered Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life, to return to the diocese of Amarillo and remain there. Stopping this necessary and vital pro-life work is a black mark for our Catholic Church in America.
Please issue a statement immediately affirming that canon law of the Catholic Church, because Fr. Pavone has begun a process of appeal to the Vatican, the Bishop’s order that he return to Amarillo has been effectively suspended. Any delay damages respect for our Catholic Church.
May the Holy Spirit guide you!
Please e-mail Pope Benedict:
benedict.xvi@vatican.va
It could have been better to settle the matter first among the people concern before putting it on the web. These
actions destroy the enthusiasm of the faithfuls.
Protestant pro-lifer here who has met Father Pavone on many occasions. For what it’s worth, I think the Bishop’s actions would have more credibility if the overall position of the Bishops for the last 38 years of legal abortion had not been one of nominal opposition. Here we have one small group of priests who take the task as a vocation and they have to be shut down?
Of course as a Protestant I don’t have many great examples of courage to point to on my side either.
Amen Doctor, you’re right on target with this one.
If it were not for Priests For Life, abortion would not be on the list of social justice issues. Rarely, do I hear from the Bishops concerning the gravity and urgency of the evil of taking the lives of four thousand babies daily. Poverty, however urgent this matter might be ,should never be equated to abortion.As Cardinal O’Conner said,”You can be poor and be alive, you can be homeless and be alive, but, you cannot be aborted and be alive.” I think the bishops have been very remiss in not telling Parishoner’s that politicians ,who promote abortion , should not be called Catholic in the strict sense of the word.This is very confusing for lay people who then think it is okay to vote for a pro abortion candidate.My greatest concern is that without Father Pavone, abortion will be even further put on the back burner. What a political and cowardly society we have become.Let us remember where the money the Bishops spend is sometimes going, and, how much, to defeat pro life Congress people—How about Acorn, and other pro abortion organizations.
I would feel better about the whole matter, if the above were not the case , and, knowing that without Priests like Father Pavone, this will end the Bishop’s belief that all we activists in the movement will lay get off their backs and stop being “one issue people”.
Thank you for your calm article Dr Nadal. Good will come of this, we can count on God for that. He is pruning His Church. We have His full attention so we better act like it, each and every one of us.
Priests for Life is a registered charity operating under the laws that govern tax exempt charitable organizations. The actual Executive Director of Priests for Life is a lay woman, Janet Morana. (who is also the co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, a national campaign to support women and men who want to share their personal experience of abortion with others.)
Money donated to Priests for Life does not go to Fr. Pavone personally but supports a number of important ministries, one of them being a major international ministry of compassion to women and men who are suffering from the effects of abortion: Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries, one of the many ministries of Priests for Life.
The founders of Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries are counseling psychologist Dr. Theresa Burke, PhD, and Kevin Burke, a licensed social worker, who worked for many long years as volunteers for Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries while supporting themselves at other work, while they raised their five children. Now, with at least one child in college and others still at home, the Burkes earn a very modest salary through Priests for Life while donations also provide for an actual office and two office assistants to help manage this ministry of compassion which has now spread to every continent with more than 1000 weekend retreats being offered every year. Retreat locations include Germany, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Taiwan, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand, Cameroon, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, several Latin American nations, and almost every state in the United States. If you look at http://www.rachelsvineyard.org you will probably find other countries I’ve missed, and I know that teams in two Asian nations are making plans to begin offering the retreat within the next six months.
According the Project Rachel Manual published by the USCCB, Rachel’s Vineyard is listed as a “recommended resource” and the manual is explicit that many diocesan Project Rachel offices now offer healing retreats including the Rachel’s VIneyard retreat, stating that Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries has been “effective in working in collaboration with, or as part of, diocesan Project Rachel offices.
However, the USCCB has never given any direct funding to Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries–for years, the Burkes paid many ministry expsenses themselves and worked at no salary to spread this fruitful ministry. I can assure you that no one in Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries leadership has any boats, boat docks, or private jets, or anything of that sort. In fact, the paid staff live very simply, and the volunteers are usually required to pay their own way when they travel internationally to provide training to new teams. Usually, when we have our international leader’s conferences, we use budget facilities with no air conditioning. Donations that find their way to Rachel’s VIneyard Ministries go for things like printing new retreat manuals or brochures and curriculum to share hope and healing with those all over the world who have been victimized by abortion.
Many Catholic women who have had abortions mistakenly believe that they are permanently excommunicated, and as shown by a recent meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal, women who have had abortions are at increased risk for mental health problems including suicide. Many of these women may not have made an actual “choice” to have abortion, but may have been pressured or even forced to have the abortion by parents or a partner. Rachel’s Vineyard is a powerful means of healing the resulting emotional and spiritual wounds.
It would be extremely sad if an appeal to shut down donations to Priests for Life were to have the effect of disrupting the activities of Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries or of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign.
With one thousand retreats taking place every year at locations on every continent, there are thousands of volunteers who serve in Rachel’s Vineyard, many of them post-abortive indivduals who want to “give back” and help others as they have been helped. As stated by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, those who have learned by their painful, shattering experiences, now have become eloquent witnesses to life. But what message would be sent to these post-abortive individuals if, to punish Fr. Pavone, donations are shut down to the many ministries of Priests for Life?
Another important ministry which operates as a division of Priests for Life if the ministry of Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. She had a painful personal experience with abortion in her own life, and now works tirelessly to try to raise awareness of what is sometimes referred to as “black genocide,” since black women have a higher percentage of abortions than white women, though blacks are a minority–the percentage of abortions in the black community is disproportionate, and eventually if this rate continues there will be no black community.
So–should the ministry of Alveda King be shut down because of unresolved questions involving one priest. Donations to Priests for Life do not go to Fr. Pavone personally, but go to an organization that is registered as a non-profit with the U.S. government, which operates under a board of directors, under the management of a lay executive director. It is an international ministry with an advisory board of more than 20 bishops and cardinals.
I hope that the problems between Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zurek are soon resolved, but I would be very sad to see the numerous important ministries of Priests for Life shut down due to lack of donations. While there may be issues to be resolved between Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zurek, donations do not go to Fr. Pavone personally and in fact, he receives no salary from Priests for Life, only expenses.
No one ever recommends that people cease their parish support while a priest is investigated for criminal activiaties–a replacement priest is sent in and the important ministries of the parish continue to operate. Likewise, in a diocese where I lived in the past, a bishop ended up being convicted of criminal activity, but no one suggested that anyone should cease contributing to the Diocese–a new bishop was sent, and the work of the Diocese went on. That would include the offices that supervise and provide guidance to Catholic schools and to religious education programs; the tribunal; the Catholic newspaper; Catholic Charities; programs for ministry to the Spanish speaking community. The many things that legitimately go on within a given diocese are to important to disrupt even when a bishop is accused or even convicted of criminal activity as has happened in some places. In these circustances, one hopes and prays that donations will continue to support these vital ministries despite the failings of one man.
Likewise, it is crucially important to realize that Priests for Life is by no means one man, and it is not about one man. These vitally important ministries must continue.
No evidence has thus far been presented to demonstrate any wrondoing at Priests for Life. However, even if one person had done something requiring correction, it is important to recognize that this is a large ministry providing vital services throughout the world. It’s much, much bigger than one man. Cutting off donations to Priests for Life would hurt the people who are served much, much more than it could ever impact Fr. Pavone and would be unfiair to the dedicated employees who serve in various Priests for Life ministries.
If you look at the Priests for Life website, you will see how many different ministries operate as part of Priests for Life, and you may also notice–Fr. Pavone is not the only priest. There are an army of lay people who work very hard for the modest salary they earn from Priests for Life, and there are a number of very dedicated priests who volunteer their time with Priests for Life. This is by no means a one man show.
I invite all to pray for the ministries of Priests for Life, as you pray for wisdom and guidance for both Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zuzek at this difficult time.
The Bishop’s action was not directed to curtail the work of PFL but to protect that organization, its work and all involved in it. Included in those involved is the most involved, Fr Pavone who, if his apostolate is to continue effectively and as a priest must submit his will to rightful authority in obedience to Divine Will. Without that the great work of PFL will dissolve into another scandal ridden failure. There is no judgement here on the issues of financial oversight. Rather we (Catholics) must be on guard against the wily ways of the evil one who often uses good to turn confuse and obfiscate the real issues. I am glad Fr Pavone is cooperating and hope he continues. To do otherwise would destroy all that has been built up. I am grateful to both Fr Pavone and Bishop Zurek for their faithful witness to Christ and Holy Mother Church.
When the bishop’s original attack on the finances of Priest for Life was so quickly proven to be false, he quickly turned his guns against Rachel’s Vineyard and the Gospel of LIfe. He’s doing this for his own reasons, whatever they are, and compared to those reasons the pro-life movement means nothing to him.
I just read the letter again. Even Bishop Zurek does not claim that he wants to “protect” Priests for Life.
I am sorry, but I find the Bishop’s letter to be devoid of charity. I have read it and re-read and am astounded that anyone who is supposed to be a Shepherd would spread innuendo and rumor, “There have been persistent question and concerns by clergy and laity regarding the transactions of millions of dollars of donations to the PFL from whom the donors have a rightful expectation that the monies are being used prudently.” in such a public document. Then the Bishop, rather than having the courtesy to meet with Fr. Pavone face to face, leaves the Archdiocese for 2 weeks and leaves him to talk to his Vicar. This strikes me as bullying.
Thank you so much for this article. This is an extremely important lesson to remember, especially now.
ah *#%%@*!^@
Sorry, Jasper. I needed to edit the expletive. Luv ya, man! God Bless.
What this writer does not seem to understand is Father was ordained by John Cardinal O’Connor who allowed Father PAvone this work. His only mistake was not casting in in stone. Father Pavone was at one point on loan to Rome for a time. He has been overseen over the years by many. After cardinal O’Connor died Edward M. Egan pulled him back, as he did other priests that Cardinal O’Connor had given permision to do other wise. It might have appeared at the time that these were bad guy priests. they were not. through his contacts in Rome Father Pavone was able to expedite his case. Perhaps that will happen again. I too will contact the Holy Father and tell him that it is time to put PFL under his own directive.
Any one who complains about PFL or any other Life protecting org. are attacking Life and unfortunately some of our bishops have done so.
Look at Father Pavone’s past bishops. John Cardinal O’Connor, Edward M. Egan, the former bishop of Amaillo and now the current one. the comparison is stark.
As for Father Pavone’s obediance. He obeyed in NY and he is obeying in Amrillo. what the author of this artical and also another by Edward N. Peters, J.D. that Father Pavone was at EWTN the week before he was to retuen to the diocese. He spoke about our bishops and said to pray for them. I am sure he knew some watching already knew of the order. He said nothing, but he did not in any way show any disrespect.
I would suggest the two writers of the two articles and all who read this to go to EWTN.com and pick up the sermons for of the Mass for Mon. or tue. of this week. I know he had to be in the diocese, I think Tue. but the Mass is at 7 A.M. central time so he would have had plenty of time to get back when he was supposed to.
PFL is not the first Pro-Life group I would support. HLI and ALL would be on my list first, but justice is justice and injustice. there are too many bishops abusing their authority.
Thank you for a calm and reasoned article.
Recently Fr. Euteneuer of Human Life International and Fr. Corapi have both had public falls from grace. It’s funny, but I kept mixing up Fr. Pavone with those two, and when I saw his face on a Priests For Life mailing a month or so ago I thought, “Why are they still using his face? Wasn’t he replaced for some scandal?” I was wrong, but my confusion occurred because Fr. Pavone is a public figure, like Fr. Corapi and Fr. Euteneuer (and, going back a couple of years, Fr. Cutie and Fr. Francis Mary Stone). I felt that any priest who starts by promoting himself to get his message across will end by losing balance, becoming self-centered, and falling into a sin that will harm his message.
I am NOT accusing Fr. Pavone of wrongdoing. My point is this: it’s dangerous for a priest to be promoted as a public personality. The focus should be on the message, not the messenger. “But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.”
Patricia,
I must say that your accusation of me not understanding is not only shrill, it’s baseless. Father Pavone and I know one another personally.
This article is a call to charity and unity. I realize that many in the pro-life movement are frustrated with the bishops, as am I. But if I’ve learned anything in half a century on this planet is that there is no life apart from them. Those who break away suffer enormous disintegration personally and spiritually.
Are the bishops too tame or mute for my taste? Sure. But then, they have to keep the big picture in mind and administer the million different facets of the Church and keep it all together. I don’t have any easy answers for all of this.
That said, the bishops get my respect, and if on occasion I groan a little, I’m sure they’re big enough to see past that at the love I have for them and my gratitude for their sacrificial lives of service to the Church. They sacrificed all that I have: Loving wife, children, career, etc. It’s rather distasteful to me to sit here and bitch that they still aren’t doing enough for me. I’d rather pray for them and gently nudge them, as my son does to me when he wants to overcome my inertia.
Well put, Gerard. Yes, the Bishops seem to move at glacier speed sometimes, when actions would speak louder than words, but they do have a lot on their plate. I’m certain that Fr. Pavone and the Priests for Life will come out of this stronger than ever. I suspect he is offering up his suffering right know for an end to abortion.
There is a kind of “busyness” that is very seductive and dangerous. I will assume the Amarillo bishop is trying to do what he said: avoid scandal and harm to the pro-life ministry of PFL. I withdrew financial support from PFL some time ago when it aligned with Glenn Beck, David Barton, The WallBuilders, etc. and failed to respond to my several requests for an explanation.
There is a serious conflict between the kind of libertarian ideology Beck/Barton preaches and the Catholic concept of the common good. That PFL wasn’t troubled, troubled me.
Sorry, Roger. Your posts were sitting in the spam folder😦
Roger,
“When the bishop’s original attack on the finances of Priest for Life was so quickly proven to be false”
Where have you proved this? Please cite your references. Running around and posting this stuff all over the place is ridiculous.
So far I tend to agree with Ed Peters take. It is within the right of the Bishop to pull Fr. Pavone back to his diocese. Father Pavone has appealed to Rome. He should let this process take its course, believing that God will do what is right for His church and for Fr. Pavone.
“I withdrew financial support from PFL some time ago when it aligned with Glenn Beck, David Barton”
Should I withdrawn my money from the collection at Mass because the Catholic Campaign for Human Development gave Acorn $7.3 million for 10 years?
that should be ‘$7.3 million over 10 years?’
If you swear obedience, you obey.
Andrew
If you swear obedience, you should obey.
Everyone ought to be prying for both Fr. Pavone AND Bishop Zurek. Whatever the Bishop’s reason, we are to remember that God is sovereign. If we really believe, then we know that God works all for good for those who love Our Lord. So just as the Scriptures are replete with stories of how God used difficult situations to advance His will, so we all should pray God’ will be done. I know Fr. Frank. He is my friend. His duty is to be obedient and to follow his conscience. If that means appealing to Rome, then we should all respect him for that. I have a strong hope that good counsel will prevail upon the parties and a resolution will come to pass. For the rest of us, charity must be our watchword. Further we must stay focused on the real enemy devouring our children. Focus the energy on contacting the Congress to call for hearings to stop tax dollars from funding Planned Parenthood.
I meant to say PRAYING …boy is it late or what!
I will pray for both Father Pavone and Bishop Zurek, however I will not stop my donations to PFL. We need every cent to fight the scourge of abortion. This organization is a charitable organization and as such books are open to the public. What I see here is a control issue. John I agree that we should stop tax dollars to Planned Parenthood but how do we fight these things without people like Father Pavone. I think that it is time to make the priests their own order to fight this scourge and all manner of our culture of death and to put them under the direct jurisdiction of Pope Benedict XVI.
On another note we have allowed our bishops to be under the impression that we are their servants. They are servants of the people. There are many good bishops however we need to understand that they are human beings and make errors. They need to speak out more about the way this world is going and about morality. It is time we take the world back from Satan and his fellow demons.
Thank you.
BRAVO ZUREK !!!!!! In 1951, in her seventh month, my mother attempted to abort me unsuccessfully. In 1951, unwanted babies had the Sisters of Charity and dedicated Bishops and priests. NOW, I would DEFINITELY prefer DEATH in the WOMB than DELIVERANCE to you prolife LUNATICS. This is little more than BIG BUSINESS and we babes are NOT buying into it. Perhaps the wolf CAN come in sheep’s clothing, but little lambs can SMELL a wolf a mile away despite what he happens to be wearing. I, personally, offered my Communion up today for Bishop Zurek and PRAY that more Bishops TAKE this money maker OUT of the hands of egomanical priests, self agendaed politicians and a laity which is WAY too naive. Three cheers for ZUREK !!!!!! And, in charity, do “RIP peacock, Pavone !”
I note one sentence at the end of one of the paragraphs….that Bishop Zurek never acknowledged the financial reports (that Fr. Pavone sent to him)…..can a supervisor NOT acknowledge his priest’s reports?
I do not know how that can be…hmmm
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
JosephW, Two facts: 1) The letter of the Vicar and Moderator saying that everything they’ve said against Father Pavone “does not mean that Father Pavone is being charged with any malfeasance or being accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters of Priests for Life” (Makes you wonder how they much they would publicly insult a priest who was accused of wrongdoing.); 2) the long, long list of financial information in one of Father Pavone’s letters sent to the diocese and never acknowledged. You can keep waiting for facts showing guilt, but it looks like the VIcar and Moderator has given up.
Penelope,
Thank you for striking a blow to pro-life. If you believe what you are saying you are defending pro-choice. I will pray for you.
Wonderful response Gerard. I don’t know how many commentors are engaged in pro life work but the 40 Days for Life Campaign begins on Sept. 28th and we could all get out there in defense of the unborn as a way of prayer and solidarity with all who are trying to witness to life –
Below is one of three emails I made to the Diocese of Amarillo. Let’s provided for your review.
E-mailed to “Bishop” @ Diocese of Amarillo, TX on 09-14-2011
Dear Bishop Zurek,
I e-mailed you yesterday and since then I have had an opportunity to read Father Frank Pavone’s response to your action of suspension. I am deeply perplexed by your public action. Did you attempt to work this out upon a less public basis? Whether you grasp it or not the enemies of life will pounce on your action and twist it and spin it until whatever good you were attempting to do will almost certainly be lost. The fight for life is this day’s civil rights effort par excel lance. Any detrimental action undermining the fight for life is itself questionable. I can only hope that the appeal by Pavone to the Vatican is heard promptly. Perhaps Pavone is in need of assistance with respect to financial management. Perhaps you could provide him or Priests For Life’s Board of Directors with a recommended person(s) to help. Going public was wrong-headed and may lead to unnecessary ‘scandal’. Exactly why you did this (publicly) needs investigation itself. I truly hope that no negligence is involved. You are well educated, scholarly and some immediate reflection may be appropriate on your part as well as by Pavone. This is said in the hope that a prompt resolution may be had.
With respect,
John Scanlon, Kent, WA (Archdiocese of Seattle)
At first I thought John Scanlon’s post was from an Attorney acquaintance in Kent, Washington – then I thought he might be one of Mr. Comerford’s associates. Perhaps not. I am grateful that Mr. Scanlon signed his e-mail ‘with respect’ despite the fact that some of his comments are less than respectful. First of all, e-mails do not always get read right away and the Bishop is deeply involved in trying to work through this situation. He is away on a pre-planned trip. Mr. Scanlon says to the Bishop: “Wheher you grasp it or not…” Really, the Bishop may not have the intelligence to grasp Mr. Scanlon’s inquiry – interesting. “Any detrimental action undermining the fight for life is itself questionable.” So Mr. Scanlon is accusing the Bishop of ‘detrimental action’? Interesting. Then Mr. Scanlon goes on to tell the Bishop that: “Going public was wrong-headed and may lead to unnecessary scandal.” But Mr. Scanlon’s public questioning of the Bishop will, of course, only lead to peace and a just resolution? Interesting. Then he dares more: “Exactly why you did this publicly NEEDS INVESTIGATION itself. I truly hope that no negligence is involved.” Or what, Mr. Scanlon? You make inferences about a situation about which you know very little. Yet, you counsel the Bishop: “You are well educated, scholarly and some immediate reflection may be appropriate on your part…” How utterly condescending…not that Bishops don’t need to reflect about their actions, even as we do…but the tone of these counsels/suggestions is so condescending that they don’t merit a response on the part of the Bishop. I am sure the Bishop is receiving good counsel from many and hopefully, so is Father Pavone. We do not know what is going on, or what happened or why it happened so we can offer prayers and support in the dialogue that will surely take place, but how to tell a Bishop that his action needs investigation is to infer a motive that is sinister, to say the least.
[…] In my first posting on the plight of Father Frank Pavone, I drew the analogy, which gained little traction with fellow pro-lifers, between the Apostle John’s deference to Peter on the first Easter Morning, and the relationship between the pro-life movement and the bishops. […]
I saw a headline of yet another attack piece against Father Frank and Priests for Life. It read:
“Priests for Life in financial trouble.” I went on to read the article because I wanted to learn more. But there was nothing in it. No facts. No corroborating evidence. Nothing. Oh, the “reporter” did mention that Priests for Life “lost $1.4 million” in donations in 2010. Duh! So did every other non-profit. WE’RE ON THE BRINK OF A DEPRESSION, you idiot “reporter”! Every non-profit in the country lost money last year. Oddly enough, the “reporter” disclosed how Priests for Life had grown in the three previous years as more and more Americans stepped forward to offer their support to the pro-life ministry. But due to the fact that it suffered a loss in 2010 during one of the country’s most horrendous economic downturns, he now makes the false claim that Priests for Life is in financial trouble. Give me a break. THE WHOLE D— COUNTRY IS IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE!!!
Oh my goodness! Priests for Life has been helping other pro-life organizations! Stop the presses! If ever there was a hanging charge, that’s gotta be it. C’mon folks. Is that the best you’ve got? Father Frank is one of the few pro-life leaders in the country who goes out of his way to help other pro-life organizations. He could care less who grabs the headlines or who gets credit for a pro-life victory. For him the one and only things that matters is fighting to end abortion. It’s comical to watch self-proclaimed “Catholic” bloggers attack him and Priests for Life for having the audacity to help groups like Rachel’s Vineyard and Gospel of Life Ministries. One has to question the motives of those who continue with these attacks on Father Frank and Priests for Life and ask: Which side are they on?