I’m getting inundated with emails and comments, including a new website to “Free Father Pavone!” Then there was the letter people wanted me to circulate that was so crass and vulgar in its invective against Bishop Zurek that I actually blushed reading it. I guess my last post hasn’t penetrated the din, so I’ll be a bit less diplomatic and a bit more direct.
Please stop sending me attacks on Bishop Zurek. No, I don’t approve of the public circulation of his letter. Not one bit. But that doesn’t give me the right to trash him in return.
“An eye for an eye, leaving the whole world blind,” as Ghandi put it.
This shrill “Free Father Pavone” rhetoric is entirely over the top. He’s not an Orca. He’s a priest in good standing, still celebrating the sacraments in his diocese. It is a dim view of the diocesan priesthood that views it as some sort of prison. Really!!!
I love the energy and focus that Father Pavone has brought to the pro-life movement. I love that he has embraced Silent No More, Rachel’s Vineyard, Gospel of Life Ministries, the training of fellow priests, Alveda King and the National Black Pro-life Coalition, Bryan Kemper, Abby Johnson, etc. The man has done great good, and nobody can ever take that away from him.
Bishop Zurek has also supported his being in this ministry, and nobody should take that from him either.
This lashing out at the bishop is being watched by all of his brother bishops. I sincerely hope the shrill don’t really think that Father Pavone is worth the alienation, the impression that we’re a shadow church and that Father Pavone is our Pope. That’s a mighty big alienation of the bishops for one man.
It doesn’t do Father Pavone’s reputation a damned bit of good with the bishops, either. He looks like he has a rabid rabble for a following. It reflects poorly on him and on all of us.
The truth of the matter is that a leader inspires others to act. A good leader inspires others to act passionately. A great leader inspires others to act sacrificially, death to self.
What sort of leader does this invective make Father Pavone look like? If I were a bishop, looking at this invective, I’d be inclined to put him on ice for a few years.
The greatest testimony to a general is the ability of the army he has built to win the battle if he goes down in the line of fire. A great general builds an army that can act on its own in the heat of battle, adapt and overcome in the face of great challenge.
I think that’s the sort of movement that Father Pavone has created, one that can weather his absence as he tends to the relationship with his bishop.
To those filled with anger, I ask, Where is your faith in God? We supplement with rage and hate-filled words that which we lack in faith. If we can’t hear the Holy Spirit, perhaps we need to be still. So let us come together in prayer for all involved. Let’s breathe easy and ask for the Holy Spirit to come upon us and show us His perfect will.
Take a few moments, close our eyes, and pray along with this beautiful prayer of the ancient Church.
Coming Home 
“It is a dim view of the diocesan priesthood that views it as some sort of prison.” Hear, hear. Thanks for your post.
Dr. Nadal, I really really appreciated reading this post. It helped me a lot. I’m not one to be overzealous about any one priest or another, but I do love Fr. Pavone and have been so thankful to God for his work these many years. One of the best things we can do for him right now is to support him by focusing our energy on the Cause for Life which he has given his life to and for. “A great general builds an army that can act on its own in the heat of battle, adapt and overcome in the face of great challenge.” Love that. We can all take that to heart.
The truth is that our response now is either going to make it harder or easier for Bishop Z to deal justly with Fr. Pavone. With our prayers and support, I’m sure this will be sorted out. We just have to be patient, wait, and let Our Lady come to the rescue. She always does.
Everyone ought to be praying 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.
Although I thoroughly agree with your incisive analysis, I understand how the faithful must be fed up with the Bishops in general and their absolute failure to shepherd the flock properly over the last 50 years or so.
Beautifully said. I respect Fr. Pavone for being obedient to his bishop. Praying for all involved.
Given that Fr pavone is such a public figure, Bishop Z’ must have anticipated a strong public response. In not making it clear why Fr Pavone’s withdrwal was necassary, the bishop has brought much of the comment on himself. i certainly don’t wish to condone the somehwhat childish and ill considered comments that have been thrown around, however I do believe greater consideration could have been given to how such actions would have been likely to play out in the media. It’s not as if the Church’s public image is riding high right now.
Thank you, Dr. Nadal, for this post. I am not a Catholic, I know of Father Pavone through Silent No More. I see many pro-lifers who seem to hate the post-abortive woman, but I have been impressed by his genuine heart for post-abortive women as he has fought the pro-life battle. I am also impressed by his demonstration of his respect for his earthly authority – his bishop – as he faces painful accusations. I pray Father Pavone quickly returns to the ministry he has served so well.
Anger can be a tool used by Satan to generate hate and division. God is in control, God knows the truth, and God will work all things for His glory.
Gerard… we may have been separated at birth! I am “relying” to all the emails with a message I composed right after the emails started… and it mentions WHALES! We are aging ourselves! Not a single response to:
Just a casual observation from a common Catholic who has supported Priests For Life for years…
If Father Frank had DIED… would that bring Priests For Life to a halt? Would we waste time, money, and effort petitioning Heaven? Or, would we band together, act like adults, and show the world that the PEOPLE, collectively, are Priests For Life… and carry on to honor all the work Father Frank did? After all… there are many Priests involved with Priests For Life, yes?
Please stop the nonsense for just a minute… and put yourself in Father Frank’s shoes. Would you prefer that everyone keep PFL running smoothly, as if you were THERE… or would you prefer everyone freak out, and spend their time emailing, talking, and concentrating on your situation? The sign of a GOOD MANAGER is someone whose team works even BETTER when the manager is ABSENT! Your actions are announcing to the world that Father was a lousy manager. Is this true? How do you think he would feel about this? Please let him feel perfectly at peace while he remains obedient to his Bishop. Everyone has enough to do without encouraging others to slam email boxes with complaints.
We are not in college, trying to save the whales. We are ADULTS… on a LONG mission to help women and men around the world who are victims of the lies of abortion. One day, Father will die. Can he depend on you to continue his vision? This is a great time to show him you CAN. There is a time to react… and a time to respond.
Please respond, and get on with the WORK… and make Father proud!!
Sincerely yours… Elizabeth Mills
I got the same and will not publish it.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions about which side released that letter from Bishop Zurek to his brother bishops, ponder for a minute which side benefits from such a leak.
Any time a high profile priest has a dispute with his bishop, it would be best to handle it quietly, rather than in the court of public opinion, as has happened here again in this case. We cannot know the motive of whomever first leaked that letter, but it opened the door for a whole lot of public responses and campaigns such as the one spoken of here by Dr. Nadal.
I really like Fr. Pavone, but the dispute between him and Bishop Zurek needs to be handled through proper ecclesiastical channels, not in the court of public opinion. I really hope he will just take some time off and let the canon lawyers for both sides work through it and see where it leads.
There seems to be imprudence on both sides of this matter. Even if Fr. Pavone is on the receiving end of injustice, it is not happening without God’s knowledge or permission. In such cases we take recourse in the means available to us (in this case seeking canonical intervention) and if it does not work out as we would like, then the will of God has come forth through the system. There is no megaphone big enough, no petition voluminous enough, and no army large enough to stand in the way of the will of God, even if the outcome is contrary to what we believe to be well and good. All that is left is abandonment to God’s will as it comes through the Church.
I meant to mention that blogging canonist, Ed Peters has been looking over all that is publicly available and gives some balanced insight. He updated his original post numerous times, then created this post to collect it all. I’d watch for updates.
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/summary-of-my-posts-on-zurek-pavone.html
Gerry,
For those of us who have been financial supporters of PFL, do you believe we are being disobedient if we continue to make donations?
Gerry,
Since Bishop Zurek has requested that financial donations to PFL be withheld pending his investigation, do you think those of us who have been financial supporters are being disobedient if we continue to send money to PFL?
Written like a Marine can understand. I’ve always wondered why our priests aren’t moved around more often among these high profile ministries, like officers in the military are. It helps them become well-rounded to be exposed and developed in new ways by these types of assignments. But they are never left there long enough to become homesteaded in them. 3-4 years max, then move on to another assignment or command, richer for the experience and able to bring more to bear to the organization.
People forget that Father Pavone is a priest first and foremost AND answerable to God and his bishop. He is responsible for being obedient to his bishop even and especially in times when it is difficult. His bishop is not asking him to do something that is immoral.
There will always be another priest to take over the reins of PFL. The organization will go on. It will take what gifts Father Pavone brought to it and build upon it.
The adolescent over-reaction of certain people in the Catholic church is dismaying.
[…] are stalking off into the woods in search of Fr. Frank Pavone’s superior, Bishop Zurek. Dr. Gerard Nadal is trying to call them back:I love the energy and focus that Father Pavone has brought to the […]
Spot on. Thank you. It’s going to be okay…pray for both Father and his Bishop.
Tom,
I don’t think this is an issue of obedience for donors. Obedience applies in matters of faith and morals, in church discipline and law. The issue is one of prudential judgment and the bishops attempting to guide the donors in their stewardship.
Well stated, Mary Catherine and Gerard!
In a homily in Latin Mass, the priest called the “Cult of the celebrity priest” a “Protestant phenomenon”. Think of the plunge taken by other prominent conservative priests, and what they have in common with the demise of televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker. All of those men thought they were singular, above any accountability because of the adulation and the money. Its poison to the soul, drying up humility and dependence on God.
No one is accusing Fr Pavone of sin, yet we must remember that he is a priest and not a bishop. He must obey, and God will vindicate him. Not the public.
Are we building a mere man up to the point where the pro-life movement can’t go on without him? I pray for Bishop Zureck and Fr Pavone to make good decisions and come to an agreement, and for those who love Fr Pavone NOT to burn all the bridges for pro-life activists with their local bishops. We fought for decades to form such relationships, will we now jettison them in a fit of revenge?
Agreed Gerard. I think the “Free Fr. Frank” page is over the top – while the “I support Fr. Frank” page is a more suitable outlet for people’s frustration.
This is excellent, Gerry. The hysteria over this whole situation is simply overwhelming. In fact, I would say that let us suppose that Fr Pavone is being totally smeared and the Bishop is acting evil and Fr Pavone is being unjustly persecuted. In that worst case scenario, shouldn’t we be rejoicing over the fact that Fr Pavone is suffering for the kingdom? Shouldn’t we be ecstatic that he has been graced to suffer false persecution, in imitation of Our Lord? I have no idea who is in teh wrong or if this is all a misunderstanding or what, but I think that this is a time for everyone involved to grow in holiness and come closer to Our Lord.
“I sincerely hope the shrill don’t really think that Father Pavone is worth the alienation, the impression that we’re a shadow church and that Father Pavone is our Pope. That’s a mighty big alienation of the bishops for one man.”
Why the constant, offensive straw man? Our pope? It ruins your otherwise decent post.
Beautifully said, Gerry. Thank you for your reasonable post. I cringed when I heard some folks want to picket the churches in Amarillo against the bishop because of Father Frank. How horrible! I hope these people listen to you and think again about what they’re doing.
Ann
For what it’s worth, has anyone thought that just maybe someone else is involved in the alleged financial discrepancies. I am sure Fr. Pavone did not do the book-keeping himself and probably had very little interest in the financial matters. The Bishop did not accuse Father of anything but there may indeed be some discrepancy in the books that needs investigated. I applaud Father Pavone for his obedience to his Bishop and am praying that God’s will be done.
Remember. We are probably in the “End Times” and Satan is getting desperate to gain control. Don’t play along with him. I can immagine him rubbing his hands with glee at some of the vicious comments I have seen in regards to the Bishops, Fr. Pavone, Fr. Corapi and Fr. Euteneur. He is following a pattern. Who’s next?
Bravo!
Gerard, thank you for your comments, yet I think they require some additional balance. I agree that the diocesan priesthood is nothing to disregard, and that pro-lifers absolutely should not act in a shrill or vicious manner. However, I think that it is very legitimate for lay people to publicly disagree with what Bishop Zurek has done in these circumstances. Due to the absence of any accusation of wrongdoing and any hiding-the-ball about financing, it seems clear from this situation that the Bishop has halted Fr. Pavone’s work based on a subtle disagreement with his attitude. By attitude it should be further clarified that there is nothing dismissive of the diocesan priesthood for someone to believe that it is legitimate for a priest to be dedicated to a full time apostolate in the way that PFL has done so, in total and complete obedience and alignment with the Church and its bishops. Such activities in other areas are ubiquitous: for the poor, the sick, the homeless, the displaced, etc., we have entire orders of priests. Now, how many priests in the world are dedicated to full time service of the unborn and their defenders? The five at PFL? And how many of those being served are being harmed because of Bishop Zurek’s decision to essentially and publicly halt that work by confining Fr. Pavone to Amarillo? Is it proportionate for a bishop to cause that harm, to a large fraction of the priests in the world who are doing this work (20%, by my numbers), in a public fashion and such a near total fashion (for confining to Amarillo does have that massive effect)? What about the pro-life activities that fall apart in the next few months alone because Fr. Pavone has been removed from them for little or no cause? Sure if there were some wrongdoing involved this would be a sad but necessary side effect. However it seems to me that pro-lifers are quite reasonable in being very, very upset–during the largest holocaust in world history against the most fundamental human value the Church has identified, a bishop takes the most prominent among a tiny tiny handful of priests dedicated to stopping it and who has done so in complete magisterial obedience, and stops it completely and indefinitely because of, what exactly, a conflict of two “strong personalities” as the diocesan spokesman has iterated? You might say that if PFL has always obeyed the Church it should do so now. Of course it should, and it is. The point isnt that the Bishop isn’t within his rights–he is–the point is that his own explanations show that he is abusing those rights. If he thought Fr. Pavone had a bad attitude, he could have called him back for discussions, a retreat, spiritual direction. But the bishop went nuclear, and he did so over an apparent personality clash. That doesn’t justify pro-lifers in going nuclear. It does justify them in being very upset and CHARITABLY but publicly opposing it. As you note, the bishop’s nuclear request that the faithful not donate to PFL is not binding under obedience. Obedience likewise does not counsel against lay people opposing this harmful blow to Fr. Pavone’s OBEDIENT pro-life apostolate and to the thousands of people who rely heavily thereupon.
In response to Bobby, a Christian’s attitude towards suffering for the Kingdom is paradoxical. We do rejoice over the aspect of it that unites the victims to Christ. But we also don’t revel in the infliction of the suffering itself. Otherwise we would join the persecuting authorities so as to inflict more rejoice-worthy suffering. Christians would pick up stones along with the mob so as to send Stephen to his glory. God OPPOSED and stopped Paul’s persecuting. The persecution itself is sinful. Christians likewise oppose the infliction of persecution for the Kingdom, even if they rejoice in the faithful suffering of it they can’t succeed in stopping it.
Good advice. Watch and pray…the spirit is willing but flesh is weak..
Thanks for this very sensible view.
Thank you for this post Dr. Nadal – much needed in this entire matter. God help us all, may we find charity for one another. I always think of these matters that grow so vitriolic, even with the best of intentions, is how we dismember and not literally re-member the Body of Christ.
Fr. Frank and his bishop, indeed ALL the bishops need our prayers. I thank God for our good bishops and we should pray to God for mercy especially for those bishops who have failed us. More than a few bishops have failed us. That seems to have been forgotten. If the laity react with anger at certain bishops, it is NOT because of “following” this celebrity priest or that celebrity priest, but because more than a few of the bishops have done so much to incur our anger and squander away our trust .They failed us by failing to adequately support Humanae Vitae these past 40 years, they failed us when they collaborated in the wholesale vandalism of the Church in the name of the “Spirit of Vatican Two”, instead of applying what the Church Fathers really asked, they failed us by their hostility to the Latin Mass, they failed us by hiding the Tabarnacle, removing the kneelers, by closing down vibrant parishes in consolidations, by imposing female altar servers, by allowing a mockery of the anullment process, by exiling orthodox priests, by allowing the blocking countless fine young men from the seminaries due to rigidity (ie obedience of Church law) on sexuality, they failed us by refusing to apply the same energy to the abortion horror, as they did for say health care and illegal immigration, they failed us by not showing the moral courage to take on pro-abort “Catholic” politicians and denying them Communion, they failed us by letting dissenters run wild all over the Church apparatus, they failed us monsterously in abuse scandals. It is not for the laity to fear what the bishops may think of us, but rather they should be concerned what we think of them. Yes they are our shepherds, but remember they are there to serve the people of God.
Ah, a jolt of common sense and ecclesial sanity. Thanks for that!
Gerry, seriously? You say, “the letter people wanted me to circulate that was so crass and vulgar in its invective against Bishop Zurek that I actually blushed reading it”
Seriously?
Perhaps you should be a little more outraged at the violent act of abortion.
Your friend,
Troy Newman
Thank you for yet another clear-cut insight into this issue. I have personally been spammed by this “movement” (if you can call it that). I replied to their e-mail with a link to this and the “Anger Trap” articles. I hope they will stop their harmful behaviors…
That’s a good clarification, Bonaventure, thanks!
After watching Fr. Pavone “ramp up” over the past several months, it seems that his rhetoric is becoming less “priestly” and more of an unhealthy, patronizing, and obsessive nature. When his bishop in reference to his suspension stated “My decision is the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests 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,” I had to think that there may be good grounds for the bishop’s actions. I would hate to see a parallel to a Fr. Corapi or Fr. Bourgeois story coming out of this, but it seems that this taste of independence, fame, and/or money can turn a man toward his ego and away from God. Good that Fr. Pavone is being given a “cooling off” period by his bishop.
[…] The truth of the matter is that a leader inspires others to act. A good leader inspires others to act passionately. A great leader inspires others to act sacrificially, death to self. Continue reading…. […]
Free Fr. Frank Pavone For Pro-life Ministry
Why when a priest is falsely accused of wrongful activity do people automatically insist on accepting it as truth? Christ would not/did not. This is what the Lord thought of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that we so often see among bishops (Matthew 15:3-9):
“And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the Commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said . . .You hypocrites! Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. For in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men’”
This din that you (Gerard Nadal) refer to (in the article “Freeing Fr. Pavone”) is not “journalistic rhetoric” we are done with that–the din (that you dismissively refer to) is an entirely reasonable response to unreasonable circumstances. Yes Fr. Frank Pavone is in peril. His bishop attempted to suspend his pro-life ministerial activity. Matt 20:25 ” Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.'”
Calling a spade a spade is something that the institutional Church has avoided doing for the past decade (lest they should lose the contributions of the 49% (down a mere 2% in twenty years time) pro-abort consituency. In response to Christ’s command to become servants: Matt 20:26 ” . . .whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,” many of our Bishops grossly abuse this and engage in authoritarian premature attacks on their subordinate priests. The incidence rate is at an all-time high today. Why must our beleaguered, over-worked priests, be made to pay the price for our under-financed diocesan budgets.
PFL is not guilty of any fiscal impropriety. The Bishop is doing some old-time gold-digging here and will be now subject to the response of Pro-life’s poor, but free-time abundant, membership. If the Church were not in such peril to begin with, by willing compliance with federalized abortion programs, we would not be in the economic situation we are in today, and we would have no need of “Priests For Life”. There is a need–the need is being quashed, and pro-life is up in arms about it. Good for them! God Bless Fr. Frank! Free him to return to pro-life ministry! Woe to the bishop or bishops who get in the way.
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
–St. Athanasius
If Fr. Pavone is a priest in good standing and his bishop merely wants to look over the books, which may in fact be in order, to clear things up, why did the good bishop write to all the other bishops in the country and ask them to warn all American Catholics, indeed all Americans, not to contribute any money to Fr. Pavone’s effective, and apparently not blatantly doing anything wrong, pro-life movement? Do you have a comment on this move? The bishop’s spokesman (or someone in the diocese whom the Catholic press interviewed) admitted that the bishop “has a strong personality.” Care to comment on that or on what bearing it might have on the story?
[…] "Free Father Pavone"? Free him from what, exactly? He's not an orca. Perhaps we should all… Diocese says Fr. Pavone is ‘not being accused of any wrongdoing' __________________ Your socks stink. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Sarcasm is an old concept; the English word was first recorded as early as 1579, and societies as far back as Ancient Greece acknowledged it as a rhetorical device. Sarcasm is lazy, being cordial is the difficult task. […]
Well said. Thank you! I will be linking this blog post on my Facebook page, to be sure.
Great post. I agree. Thanks.
I can imagine (no, actually I cannot) what it must be like to be the recipient of so many e-mails, some of which are crass and vulgar. All of us must “reel in” our collective need to lash out. It is very clear that Fr. Pavone’s mission is not in dispute. He is very well respected and he has done much for the unborn. If there are financial issues that require clarification they should be handled privately. I do believe, however, a full disclosure on finances needs to be forthcoming. This will benefit all concerned.
I agree with your assessment of Fr. Pavone’s following. A little too ready to attack — however, in defense of those getting so excited, I can’t help but offer a little insight as to what may be happening, even if they are misguided in their efforts.
Me thinks most of the faithful are so tired of our “good” and faithful priests (or at least that is what we believe) falling from grace, there is a tendency to protect them at all costs. In the last few years we have suffered greatly with priests who have found themselves involved in scandal – from Fr. Francis Mary on EWTN to Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of HLI, not withstanding the recent heartache of Fr. John Corapi. Does that give the faithful the excuse to rush to judgment, no, however, it does give us just a little insight on how fragile our sensitivities are at this point.
Of course, prayer is the only way we will triumph through the trials, and of course, keeping our eyes on Jesus…who is the prize.
We all need to work on patience, and of course trust that our good and merciful Lord will again see us through this. Amen.
Re: On Love & Obedience
The only course of action to take for a priest in this situation is complete obedience. For a priest obedience to one’s Bishop is obedience to Christ. However in these matters it is the Bishop who must act as the adult.
The relationship between a Bishop and his priest is the same as a father to his son. What loving father would publicize the sins (real or imagined) of his son? This is a particularly bad time for a successor to the Apostles to forget that he must be a as a father to all of his priests even to a priest who may be a prodigal son.
For the past 50-years the Great Scandal has been kept alive not by celebrity priests but by Bishops (with certain heroic exceptions) and their bureaucrats. The only way for a stake to be driven through the heart of the Great Scandal is for all of our Bishops to abandon the role model of a business CEO and to embrace the model of Christ as Shepherd to their flocks and father to their priests.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
“It doesn’t do Father Pavone’s reputation a damned bit of good with the bishops, either. ”
Who cares.
Notice how the Bishops never said a peep when millions of Catholic dollars were being poured into Obama’s Acorn until they got exposed in the 2008 election for campaigning for democrats. Thats right, Acorn, the Saul Alinsky organization.
On Love & Obedience
The only course of action to take for a priest in this situation is complete obedience. For a priest obedience to one’s Bishop is obedience to Christ. However in these matters it is the Bishop who must act as the adult.
The relationship between a Bishop and his priest is the same as a father to his son. What loving father would publicize the sins (real or imagined) of his son? This is a particularly bad time for a successor to the Apostles to forget that he must be a as a father to all of his priests even to a priest who may be a prodigal son.
For the past 50-years the Great Scandal has been kept alive not by celebrity priests but by Bishops (with certain heroic exceptions) and their bureaucrats. The only way for a stake to be driven through the heart of the Great Scandal is for all of our Bishops to abandon the role model of a business CEO and to embrace the model of Christ as Shepherd to their flocks and father to their priests.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I am deeply engaged in pro life activities and Fr. Pavone has done a great deal of good. I worked with Mother Theresa in Calcutta and there is not question that Mother Theresa worked heroically for the poor but in other areas of Calcutta, there were holy, selfless Priests and Nuns doing just as much, but they were unknown to the world and so never received the supplies they so desperately needed for their people as Mother Teresa did. Fr. Pavone has done good but so have many others. No one – no-one – is indispensable to any work, to any mission. Fame, like power, can corrupt so we have to be careful. A safeguard is humility and obedience. If one’s Bishop calls him home, you don’t say you’ll find another place to be incardinated – it’s like searching for a confessor who will let us do what we want. The Holy Spirit is working in all this for the good and for the purification of all involved. No one is above or beyond temptation so we have to really pray for our Bishops, our Priests and for each other. By the way, I wonder why Bishops don’t have this kind of courage when it comes to pro-abortion politicians. Joe Biden was seen receiving Holy Communion at the Funeral Mass of Arch. Sambi – Joe Biden is a rabid supporter of abortion, not only in our own country but he goes abroad to try to get other governments who do not want abortion to permit abortions if they want to receive financial aid from the United States.
Priests for Life
BBB Wise Giving Alliance Comment
Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability. While participation in the Alliance’s charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that failure to participate may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency. Without the requested information, the Alliance cannot determine if this charity adheres to the Standards for Charity Accountability. A charity’s willing disclosure of information beyond that typically included in its financial statements and government filings is, in the Alliance’s view, an expression of openness that strengthens public trust in the charitable sector.
The BBB Wise Giving Alliance reports on national charities and determines if they meet 20 voluntary standards on matters such as charity finances, appeals, and governance. The Alliance does not evaluate the worthiness of the charitable program.
Back To Top
Tax Status
This organization is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.
Troy,
It wasn’t the letter you and the others are a part of.
Gerry
[…] Gerard Nadal makes the right point: This shrill “Free Father Pavone” rhetoric is entirely over the top. He’s not an Orca. He’s […]
We are all one Body and this is why there is so much hurt. The Bishop and Fr Frank are both obviously hurting, and so we love and pray for them both, and both will be healed, and so will we. We’re learning how to love each other more and more with each trial our Church goes through.
I generally agree with your comment.
However I think part of the problem is the disparity in action of the majority of Catholic Bishops in America.
Not a single rabid pro-abortion catholic politician has been publicly excommunicated for supporting the mass slaughter of the innocent. Yet we see a pro-life champion being accused of malfeasance with no evidence–while the Bishops letter did not explicitly say that Fr. Pavone had done anything criminal the wording is such that it clearly cast a very serious shadow on Fr. Pavone.
I don’t think it’s surprising ,nor does it really reflect ill on them, that people are upset about the Bishops having two sets of rules. One for faithful catholics who can be publicly humiliated without concern and another for unfaithful catholics who are treated with the utmost respect and concern.
If the unfaithful in positions of power were treated as Fr. Pavone is being treated I don’t think you’d hear the sounds of protest.
We can’t condemn the Bishop because for all we know this is another Fr. Corapi case. But if that’s the case we should be seeing some evidence ASAP.
As it stands to those of a conspiratorial bent it seems that a Bishop is working hard to cripple one of the key pro-life political agents in America today just as the country is starting the far too long 2012 electoral season.
I will assume that the Bishop had valid reasons for his actions. But he needs to end the ambiguity and lay his cards on the table if he expects Catholics to support him.
The bishops have wasted a lot of trust by not standing as firmly against abortion as they could have. They can no longer count on Catholics to give them the benefit of the doubt indefinitely as they could when Bishops were more outspoken on matters of public morality.
“I wonder why Bishops don’t have this kind of courage when it comes to pro-abortion politicians.”
Because, they have their lackeys, puedo intellectuals like Mark Shea and the rest of the obnoxious bunch covering for them.
wimps.
The pro-aborts are winning big time. hundreds of millions murdered by abortion and all this Bishop has to add to this is to strike down one of the best leaders in saving women and children from abortion.
The church fails again…………
This is what shocks me:
“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.”
Why do bishops feel the need to engage in personal attacks? We were taught in graduate school that personal attacks were off-limits. He should just stick to the facts and not his unprofessional opinion.
Should we try the bishop for practicing medicine without a license? Ego is a Psychological term, seems the bishop might be trying to practice Psychiatry.
Father Pavone said:
“In 2005, I made a public promise in a Church ceremony in Amarillo, presided over by a Vatican Cardinal, that this full-time pro-life work would be a lifetime commitment.”
Seems the Vatican trumps a bishop.
“they have their lackeys, puedo intellectuals like Mark Shea”
A “puedo” intellectual like Mr. Shea should be water boarded forthwith; and without mercy, until he agrees to become a real pseudo intellectual!
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Good perspective in this article about leadership and grace. It brought to mind Saint Jeanne Jugan, the Foundress of the LIttle Sisters of the Poor. She was deprived of her leadership and sent to an obscure corner of the Motherhouse for years. Only many years later after her death was she named true Foundress. All in all. while she was incognito the Order flourished everywhere by the grace of God. With the huge sucess of PFL is there any reason why the work shouldn’t grow and continue even with Fr P in his diocese?
I also agree with Jasper about bishops having this courage with pro-abortion politicans. Is this just all about money anyway?
Thank you for your comments. By being obedient, Father Pavone will come out stronger, the bishop’s essential role in the Church will be respected and our mother the Church will not be torn apart.
I think much of the invective against the Bishop has less to do with the following of Father Pavone and more to do with the absolute frustration of the Prolife movement with the anemic support it receives from the Bishops in the US. Very few will put themselves on the line as so many Prolifers do on a daily basis. If the hierarchy of the Church was more concerned and proactive about abortion, including holding Catholic politicians to account for supporting abortion, I think it would go a long way towards limiting or eliminating abortion in this country. In this case, perception is reality. Many prolifers see this as another case of a Bishop betraying the prolife cause. Don’t blame Father Pavone for the frustration of prolifers. He’s just the proverbial straw that broker the camel’s back.
Thank goodness for “pseudo” intellectuals like Mark Shea! His multiple books, good wit and, if you’re lucky enough to meet him, charming personality have helped make many a convert to Catholicism, myself included. He took the time to meet with me for a marathon conversation when I was on my into the Church, and for that I’ll always be grateful. God bless him!
Puedo means “I can” or “I am able” in Spanish. I’m not sure what a puedo intellectual is, but I am sure that Jasper ably represents the bizarre paranoia that infects the “Brave Folk Hero vs. Evil Modernist Bishop” conspiracy mindset that has served guys like him so well in tackling questions like the guilt or innocence of Maciel, Euteneuer and Corapi. Always, always, always assume that in questions involving factual, verifiable questions concerning your Favorite Folk Hero, the issue is not the facts, but a Vast Shadowy Conspiracy of Bishops to destroy the Catholic faith. For added measure, persuade yourself that some fat guy with a website is able to somehow persuade millions of American Catholics to ignore the Vast Conspiracy that you see with perfect clarity, despite the total lack of evidence. Never address the question of whether the bishop might have reason for his concerns. Always assume the worst and always assume a conspiratorial malicious bishop, no matter what.
I won’t be hiding by Pro-Life bumper stickers because Fr. Pavone’s bishop called him back. In fact, I get more.
Well said and well appreciated Dr. Nadal.
I am not sure why there is such a compulsion to tell people who have been strongly affected by Fr. Pavone to “sit down and shut up” while he is subjected to a terrible and useless thrashing by the man who should be a father to him. It’s the very antithesis of everything Fr. Pavone himself has taught. Some of the biggest agitators in the movement have advised us this case is somehow different.
We should all remember the sad Fr. Corapi saga and his loud lamentations that he would not get a fair hearing and that the system was stacked against the accused Priests. Many prominent clergy echoed this lamentation and were ashamed at the state of the Church in this regard.
If lay people who love and support Fr. Pavone cannot speak up for him, then who will? Does anyone really believe that his Bishop has his best interests at heart? The Bishop’s own clergy have admitted that it is all about control of the money. How is this not a situation that cries out to Heaven for a strong response?
Re: Bishops and Conspiracy
During the Passion of Our Lord and Savior all of His Bishops. except for one, conspired to abandon him.
When Pope Leo XIII warned the American Bishops of the dangers of the heresy he titled “Americanism” all but a few heroic souls conspired to ignore the Vicar of Christ.
When Pope Benedict XV begged the American Bishops to do everything in their power to keep American out of the war he described as the “suicide of Europe” many, with a few heroic exceptions, conspired to form the National Catholic War Board (forerunner of the USCCB) which facilitated America’s entry into WW I.
When the leadership of America’s Catholic Colleges decided to abandon the Faith during the Land O’ Lakes conference many of the American Bishops. with the exception of a heroic few, conspired to ignore the defection of almost all of America’s Catholic higher institutions of learning.
When Pope Paul VI warned of the dangers of, among other things, artificial contraception many of the American Bishops. with the exception of a heroic few, conspired to ignore the Papal warning.
When predatory priests and religious exploited innocents in their charge many of the American Bishops. with the exception of a heroic few, conspired to protect the predators.
I believe that it was Saint Athanasias who said that the floor of Hell is covered with the skulls of Bishops. Bishops are all too human. Conspiracy and Bishops sometimes go hand in hand.
However God in His Wisdom has given us the successors to His Apostles for the good of our own salvation. We owe our own Bishop love and obedience. And part of that love includes an obligation to remind our Bishop when he has failed to act as our Shepherd.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Vulgar, vicious attacks on the bishop are unseemly and counterproductive. However, IF it does turn out that Fr. Pavone is completely innocent and that he was always 100% cooperative with his bishop, I have to wonder why the bishop wrote such an accusatory letter in the first place. It is, at the very least, uncharitable. And because of how the letter was written, even if Fr. Pavone is eventually vindicated, he will forever have this cloud of accusation over his head, and the enemies of both the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement will use it against him as a means of discrediting both the Church and pro-lifers in general. In other words, if the bishop doesn’t have strong evidence that Fr. Pavone is guilty of some kind of wrongdoing, then he acted in extremely poor judgement in writing that letter.
As for the notion that donations to Priests for Life belong to the Church to do whatever it wants with them, that is patently absurd. If that were true, then the various envelopes designated for various different collections at Catholic Masses – eg, collections for Missionary work or “Peter’s Pence” – are all a complete fraud and we are fools to believe that we may donate to specific causes via those envelopes. That is to say, if I put money in a envelope that states that donations will go to feed hungry people, that money had better not be used to patch up a hole in the roof of the church. Let them have a separate envelope for that.
And in the case of Priests for Life, I am sure that there are plenty of non-Catholics who make donations to them for the purpose of saving unborn children. Obviously they are not interested in making a general donation to the Catholic Church.
How many histrionic defenders calling to “free” Fr Pavone took the same position and used similar rhetoric to defend “Father” Corapi against the “demonic” attacks of his legitimate canonical superiors? Those who drank Corapi’s Kool Aid now look ridiculous, but few have apologized for slandering his canonical superiors.
And by the way, here is the latest on Corapi who seems to have vanished, to live off the contributions of his devotees:
Bobbi Ruffato defects from Corapi
Santa Cruz Media muckety muck who acted as sock puppet in trashing Fr. Corapi’s accuser now writes the woman and her husband:
I want you both to know that I resigned from Santa Cruz Media around the beginning of last month, as I could not support the direction John Corapi was taking. He is leading good Catholics away from the Church and is causing them to fight and bicker amongst themselves….not to mention his personal lifestyle choices.
I spoke with the attorney investigator for SOLT. I was able to provide him some information, as I was constrained only by the terms of my employment contract that prevented me from disclosing business information. Thus, I could provide information not related to the business of Santa Cruz Media. He said he has not been able to get in touch with you and asked me to please reach out to you and let you know that it is very important that you contact him. I believe what you say, and I think he does too.
After seeing what people are doing online to the two of you, I am very frightened about my name getting out there. However, if it does, so be it. The truth is the truth, and I am deeply concerned for Fr. Corapi’s eternal soul. I pray that he returns home to his order. The two of you remain in my prayers as well.
I will forward the last email I received from Mr. X, as it contains his contact information. Also, I hope it will help set your minds at ease regarding my sincerity.
Shortly thereafter, the Black Sheepdog FB page vanished. Dunno what it means, but I’m glad to see Ms. Ruffato do the right thing. I’m praying that God will speak to Fr. Corapi through the failure of his scam and that he will repent, return to obedience to Holy Church and find abundant pardon for the grave evil he has done. God is mighty to forgive.
Follow Christ, follow His Church, trust in the Holy Spirit. Pray in trust and humility. This is a lesson for all of us.
What marvelous article and comments! My little contribution pays tribute to Fr. Gerry, to Bonaventure, Pawel Palen among others. “free Fr Pavone” is over the top–but: 1. Bishop Zurek did himself no good by an arrogant letter that made him sound greedy, power-driven, and envious and by his running off to Rio for 2 weeks (!) before even speaking to the priest he is supposedly so concerned about (FP’s humility). 2. Pawel Palen spoke for me (a convert) and I suspect, vast numbers of unhappy Catholics, for all or most of the reasons he gives in his post. We love the pope and the Church. The outpouring of support for FP is most likely the channel through which our dissatisfaction (to put it mildly) has erupted. Fr. FP is a zealous, dedicated priest and Pro-life is gifted to have him. He is not irreplaceable as God can raise up warriors as He will. Fr.Peyton was allowed an extraordinary ministry–though I have to say humility radiated from his very face. What I see in Fr FP is zeal. God needs that but if Fr. FP needs some time off to balance his spirit, God will provide for him. If this incident stirs up many to speak of our deep frustration with many bishops and priests, good! We need to call out shepherds who are failing us. And we must do it NOW. The Catholic Church must stand up for the time and the coming election. 3. Such bishops as Spokane’s, forbidding his priest from Pro-Life activism, are a disgrace to his calling and I hope he is called to the Vatican and corrected in no uncertain terms. If bishops pay no heed to their flocks and need not answer to the pope himself, there is little hope to reverse the wrongs they are committing. Ireland is undergoing purification, Austria is in great need of it, etc. As the pope put Cardinal O’Malley in place to lift up Boston, so let us have true adherents to the gospel of Christ and the doctrines of the Magisterium to shepherd us. Priests like Archbishop Chaput (who is sure to be a cardinal one day) are what we want. May the good Lord pour them out in a stream and the Church recognize them.
In response to the above post, let me say that Fr Corapi had a real gift of preaching but it was plain to see, if you paid attention, that he had really gone off the rails. I pray the Black Sheepdog washes his fleece in the blood of the lamb and returns in complete submission and humility to the Church. every Catholic must fast and pray for our priests who are in the front lines of the battle. Also, would that the Vatican would remove the name of Catholic from every college, hospital, university that does not practice the faith. It is a scandal for them to deceive people who are unaware of their heretical/disobedient practices.
That many pro-lifers seem to have a knee jerk reaction is only due to the many years of being seriously blind-sided by those one would think should be in support of our efforts. Nothing however would excuse a lack of charity in this or any situation. At the same time asking serious questions (as do many of the posts) is not at all out of bounds.
We have a couple of possible explanations for why this all happened. But it is most important that the matter be resolved in a manner that respects the office of the bishop while at the same time allowing for the continued ministry of Fr, Pavone in the pro-life vineyards.
After all a good manager does not pull a clutch player during the critical part of the game.
The latest letter from the Amarillo Diocese states that Fr. Frank has his full faculties and that there is not allegation of improper handling of funds. I would appear therefore that the main part of the letter by Bishop Zurek will have to be modified.
Now truth be told, there would not be a need for Fr. Pavone’s ministry if the bishops and priests in this country took the issue of abortion seriously. If every diocese put the defense of innocent unborn children as a priority and directed the laity to consider the need for their active participation, perhaps we would not have pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholics in good standing. Perhaps the CHA would not be in bed with the Obama administration, Perhaps our Faithful would have shepherds who are truly caring for their flocks.
But I digress. Now is the time for all of us to pray that God’s will be done and that a great good will come from all of this.
I have sincere respect for Father Pavone’s pro-life work. I would love to see a united Catholic clergy heroically leading and educating Catholic lay people into fighting the good fight against the killing of the pre-born. I wonder however, if that were being done in practice, if so many people who identify themselves as Catholic would rationalize abortion? Regarding Father Pavone’s actions/response, he has apparently appealed to Rome. He has a right to do this under the canons. Obedience to one’s ordinary does not preclude a priest from canonical protection; he does have rights. Ad hominum attacks on either the bishop or Father Pavone by observers who are not directly involved and are speaking/writing attack pieces are problematic. I would recommend that Catholics cool the nastiness and let Rome decide. Then, those who have been demeaning the reputation of either of the parties verbally or in print should beg forgiveness for damaging the victim’s reputation. Words and actions have consequences; reputations are very easy to sully with careless opinions and the victim carries the scars forever.
Pavone needs to cool his jets. OBEDIENCE. To remain in Christ is to OBEY. He has one and only one option, obey. Submission to the BIshop is submission to the Church is submission to Christ. Fr. Pavone’s obedience and submission is his refuge and hope. God can use a jackass to tell us what to do (that’s a biblical reference to Balaam in Num. 22 for those who went to Catholic school all their lives) if He needs too, but we better listen and obey. Right now Father Pavone sounds like the 4 year old that after sitting in “obedience” to his mother said I may be sitting on the outside but I’m standing on the inside.
Oops! I may have just got caught in the anger trap.
For all that I cannot and will not support the various supposed efforts to “free” Fr Pavone, neither can I willingly support this move by the bishop. If I may be perfectly blunt, I’d say this is a VERY foolish approach for the bishop to take.
If he truthfully has concerns with what Fr Pavone has been doing or wishes to see Fr Pavone conduct his priestly ministry in a different manner, he could done so very easily. He could’ve made reasonable arrangements for Fr Pavone to come visit him in Amarillo to hear about what His Excellency wishes to see changed without causing a major ruckus.
This looks to me more like the bishop simply wants to pull rank and never mind about the impact his decision might have.
Hmmm… From Scripture the work of the Holy Spirit is to unite people in the love of Christ. The work of the devil is to create divisions. Let’s all take a deep breath and a wait-and-see posture. The bishops are not interested in destroying a movement that has done so much good. They want the truth and eventually the truth will be proclaimed. The also want to protect the Church and their priests. Let’s pray that the Holy Spirit guide the investigation and the actions of all concerned parties. Amen
There is a significant misunderstanding going on here regarding what Bishop Zurek has alleged. He has NOT alleged any illegality or malfeasance on the part of Father Pavone. He has spoken to the issue of the “prudent” use of the money. That throws the issue into a more nebulous realm.
There is a relational context for this entire eruption that has yet to be elucidated by both sides. Having thus played itself out so publicly and with such acrimony, I wonder if any sane or just resolution can ever be reached at this point.
Thank you Gerry for this excelent page. He will have mercy on us all
I believe the bishop also said the money belonged to the Church, its patrimony. I think thevdonors were giving to a particular apostulate, not into the general coffers. It IS the donors money, after all, to be given to the particular purpose they intended it to serve. perhaps the bishop feels his diocese would receive more donations to it if some money were not given to PFL. This is something we do not know at present. If Cardinal O’Conner approved PFL’s ministry I would have to respect that man who will likely be canonized.
Dear Mark Shea:
You seem to step into the role of a pseudo-intellectual quite well. The word “pseudo” comes from the Greek for “pretend” or “unreal” (therefore, your definition of “I am able” is mistaken). You can draw the conclusion from this as you wish. Unfortunately, in this public forum, you can not simply delete the comments that you find disagreeable, statements that a true intellectual welcomes and with which he is happy to debate (I suppose I need not remind you that you delete most comments on your website–and other sites over which you have control–with which you disagree). Your editing makes a farce of your website’s subtitle “So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!” Those of us who are not ready to support the bishop at all costs, apparently like you, are not simply assuming “a conspiratorial malicious bishop,” as you state, but judging the facts as they are evident so far.
Many good and thoughtful posts– I especially appreciate Bonaventure, who points out that “…If he thought Fr. Pavone had a bad attitude, he could have called him back for discussions, a retreat, spiritual direction. But the bishop went nuclear, and he did so over an apparent personality clash. That doesn’t justify pro-lifers in going nuclear. It does justify them in being very upset and CHARITABLY but publicly opposing it. As you note, the bishop’s nuclear request that the faithful not donate to PFL is not binding under obedience. Obedience likewise does not counsel against lay people opposing this harmful blow to Fr. Pavone’s OBEDIENT pro-life apostolate and to the thousands of people who rely heavily thereupon.”
I respect our bishops, but I believe that Bishop Zurek has caused damage to the pro-life cause, when he should instead have been grateful for the good and holy work of PFL.
As I read many of these comments this morning, I felt heartened. I notice that many comments are asking why our Bishops are allowing ‘Catholic’ politicians who aggressively promote and support abortion, the slaughter of millions upon millions of human babies to continue to receive the Eucharist, signaling they are Catholics in good standing. If the Bishops are reading these comments, perhaps their souls will be touched and enable them to realize fully that they are failing in their responsibility while denying the catalyst for conversion for these pro-abortion Catholic politicians. If this happens, then much good will come from this trial, both for Fr. Pavone and for the Church but primarily for the preborn babies and their mothers. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and other ‘Catholic’ politicians are actively advancing the pro abortion agenda – let’s hope the Bishops will see this advancing the mass murder of preborn babies and bring those pro-abortion Catholic politicians in for counsel and if they refuse to publicly reject abortion, they should be denied the Eucharist. A child who does wrong but gets no confidence, continues to do wrong believing, since there are no consequences, that he must be doing right. So let us pray that great good will come out of this difficult situation. God can and does bring good even out of evil. Let us trust Him and pray.
What do we know thus far? That Fr. Pavone is in Amarillo in compliance with the directive of his ordinary. What we do not know are the whereabouts of Bishop Zurek. It is rumored that he is on vacation in Rio, though this may simply be libelous. In any case, we do have the “leaked” text of the Bishop’s letter to his brother bishops in which he implies in highly charged language that Fr. Pavone has been guilty of very serious offenses. There are no specific instances provided, and the reports of vague unnamed sources seem to have been given uncritical credence. The letter states that Fr. Pavone has been reluctant to provide an adequate financial accounting for Priests for Life, a statement subsequently invalidated by documentary evidence to the contrary. Very strange, to say the least. Now the spokesman for the Diocese of Amarillo has issued a statement indicating that Fr. Pavone is a priest in good standing and has not been accused of misconduct. It has even been suggested, in absolute contradiction to Bishop Zurek’s letter, that Fr. Pavone has been called home simply to fill pastoral needs within the Diocese. In his presumably “confidential” letter to the bishops, Bishop Zurek indicated that “fame” had gone to Fr. Pavone’s head. He needed to show his Bishop more deference and thus his recall to Amarillo was disciplinary, an act of paternal correction for his spiritual good. Given all this confusion and no definitive word from Bishop Zurek, what are we to believe? Whom are we to trust? This much I can say: As a professional reader of texts, I find Bishop Zurek’s letter, after multiple rereadings, a profoundly disturbing document. The author is never quite in control of his language or his emotions. A personal animus is unmistakable, and at times the tone is embarrassingly petulant. I suspect Bishop Zurek wishes he had acted and written with greater circumspection, but the wound to the Body of Christ is out there and continues to fester. At the very least, Bishop Zurek owes Fr. Pavone, the Diocese of Amarillo, and Christ’s Church some word of explanation, sooner rather than later. I am not suggesting an apology is due, simply clarification. At the same time, would anyone argue that being a bishop means never having to say you’re sorry?
Folks,
No food fights at my table!!!
Stick to the issues and drop the name-calling. Thank you!
“If I were a bishop, looking at this invective, I’d be inclined to put him on ice for a few years”.
Sir, you have clearly lost the sense of urgency confronting the unborn.
After all, you have already been born; your mother chose life. So, it’s easy for you to sit back and metaphorically put Father Pavone “on ice”.
Imagine yourself, instead, in the warm, dark, comfort of your mother’s womb, totally dependent on her solicitous care. A product of her generation and a silent and indifferent Church, she decides that the best option at this time in her life is to abort you, to suck you out of her nurturing womb and let you die. Perhaps, the only person between you and abortuary is Father Frank Pavone and the tireless efforts of those at Priests for Life. Would you would develop a sense of urgency?
I think that you would. Indeed, if you knew the horror that awaits you, you would scream like a “stuck pig”, and so would I.
tjp,
Lost my sense of urgency? You must not be a regular here. Don’t presume on my motives, or anyone else’s. It’s one of the hallmarks of a nasty self-righteousness that suggests that others are not as enlightened as oneself. In truth, the current tactical fight over Father Pavone will cost the pro-life movement a strategic defeat in losing the bishops for a generation.
Rolf notes that PFL is not evaluated by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. Well, for example, neither are Planned Parenthood nor the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform evaluated either, whereas Catholic Relief Services does meet the Alliance’s 20 standards.
Responding to Alliance requests for information and adapting a charitable organization to meet its standards can involve considerable effort. Perhaps some organizatons simply decide that it’s not worth the effort.
See http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national and http://www.bbb.org/us/Charity-Evaluation
Re: On pseudo & puedo intellectuals
“Dear Mark Shea:
You seem to step into the role of a pseudo-intellectual quite well. The word “pseudo” comes from the Greek for “pretend” or “unreal” (therefore, your definition of “I am able” is mistaken)”
One of Mr. Shea’s admirer’s had titled him above as a “peudo” intellectual. Mr. Shea (the very able and heroic defender of innocents) in his reply post had translated “peudo” from the Spanish as “I am able”.
Personally, I would normally describe Mr. Shea as a big, fat, left coast hobbit in need of a hair cut.( May the hair on his feet never fall out.) But as our host has ruled: “No food fights at my table!!!” I shall refrain from doing so.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
“It’s one of the hallmarks of a nasty self-righteousness that suggests that others are not as enlightened as oneself.”
Now who is being self-righteous?
“In truth, the current tactical fight over Father Pavone will cost the pro-life movement a strategic defeat in losing the bishops for a generation.”
When did we ever have the bishops?
“You must not be a regular here.”
That is true. If you have supported the unborn in the past, God bless you, Dr. Nadal.
‘The greatest testimony to a general is the ability of the army he has built to win the battle if he goes down in the line of fire. ‘
Powerful truth that in one sentence gives the call of hope for the future of pro life work. God is perfectly capable of bringing him out of Texas …. The Lord is always on time. +
I used the word “pseudo” in a tongue in cheek way with respect to Mark Shea, whom I truly like (and is quite hobbit-like), after that surprising, unprovoked, and completely off topic attack on him.
And thank you, Dr. Nadal, for reminding everyone to mind their manners!
I think it’s important to keep in mind and heart what is at stake here: the lives of millions of preborn human babies…not Bishop Zurek or Fr. Pavone. God has perhaps permitted this misunderstanding in order to bring to the attention of our Bishops the crucial issue at stake – abortion. And perhaps also to urge them to give consequences for those who publicly and consistently stand for the slaughter of innocent babies in the womb: pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ politicians. I’m not talking about consequences just as punishment, but as a catalyst for conversion. It sounds so noble when our politicians say they are personally opposed to abortion but do not want to impose their religious views so they are ‘pro-choice’ – which means they are in fact pro-abortion. It has been brought up before that if these same politicians had said they would not oppose slavery though they were personally opposed to slavery, they would have been run out of office. Actually, it was the democrats who did oppose integration of blacks for a long time. Now prominent ‘Catholic’ democrats are supporting what is, in effect, black genocide because Planned Parent deliberately places abortion facilities in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Let us really try to speak and act with love and charity – the devil divides while Christ’s love unites…if we can be divided by this situation, the satan wins and more innocent human lives will be lost. We don’t know the whole truth – only God does. So let’s pray with all our hearts while striving to love as Christ loves…and pray that our Bishops will act with courage and conviction – and that we will speak and act in charity.
Aimee,
You’re welcome. I just want to know who’s the fat blogger Mark was referencing? Me? Him? Both?
Mark, you’ve got some ‘splainin to do! 😉
Witnesstolife,
Amen!
This is the way things look to me: Some people are celebrating Father Pavone’s problems. Father Pavone is being viciously attacked. People who like him are looking for news. Apparently there can’t be news because the bishop is on vacation out of the country. So we wind up reading people talking about Father Pavone’s situation, which we probably shouldn’t, but we come across people we don’t know writing about him. Now this next sentence probably applies to me more than anybody else, but I think other people have somewhat similar reactions. The tone of much of the writing seems to indicate that the people who are on Bishop Zurek’s side think that Father Pavone should give up his silly pro-life hobby to live the life that Cardinal Mahony was selling in “Gather Faithfully Together.” The injury to the pro-life movement is counted as nothing. (Now maybe you’ve counted it as something somewhere else, but we don’t know that. We’re not usually here, LIke I said, maybe we shouldn’t be here now. I think I shouldn’t be here and I think I am now promising myself never to google “pavone” again. )
When I read “But that doesn’t give me the right to trash him in return” I first think, wrongly I’m sure, that why is it OK to trash priests but not bishops? Why does being a bishop insulate a person from criticism of his actions, but years working for the babies count for nothing? I know you don’t actually think that, but what would Father Pavone have to do to get into that “no trashing” categoy. Bishop Zurek can sure throw insults around, but bishops can live in glass houses. It’s confusing to me. I can understand neutrality, but I can’t understand this “Let’s put Bishop Zurek’s actions aside, and see what Father Pavone has done wrong. Let’s see what we can diagnose as wrong with him while we’re waiting for the bishop to get back from vacation.”
Now, again, I know I’m wrong, but my first thought on reading ““If I were a bishop, looking at this invective, I’d be inclined to put him on ice for a few years” was that it means a bishop’s hurt feelings are important. He’s a high ranking person. A few years of pro-life work counts as nothing in comparison to that. This is even though when it comes to invective Bishop Zurek is the master, Father Pavone can’t hold a candle to him. I can quote from Bishop Zurek’s letter here if you want. I’ve done it in plenty of comment threads, but I think we all know that the bishop fit a lot of vicious personal invective into a pretty small space.
You know that “Bishop Zurek has also supported his being in this ministry.” I don’t know that. You have more facts about him than I do. Where would I get that information? If you want to build trust in Bishop Zurek you should write a post writing about Bishop Zurek’s pro-life actions, things having nothing to do with Father Pavone. The only Bishop Zurek I know is the guy who wrote the letter that said he was going to “suspend” Father Pavone, then a lot of invective and innuendo. (And, by the way, it’s Bishop Zurek’s supporters who say he really didn’t suspend Father Pavone. He just said he did, but Father Pavone’s not suspended.) The bishop used the words people use when they’re calling somebody a theif, but now we hear he meant something else entirely. Then he went on vacation. If there’s another Bishop Zurek show him to us. I think we really, really want to read facts about this situation. I know I do. I don’t necessarily want to know Bishop Zurek’s motives, but I would like to feel better about him as a person. When somebody thinks I’ve been unfair to Bishop Zurek they respond with shots at Father Pavone, not praise of Bishop Zurek. I’m certainly willing to pray for Bishop Zurek, but I don’t think I can like him without knowing more about him.
You’re right. Writing in anger is bad. I’m going to try to stay away from it, and away from this part of the internet world. We saw somebody we liked and admired in serious, serious trouble. We wanted to find out about him. We thought other Catholics thought highly of him too. Just when we want to find out more about him, and we’re anxious about him, we find out that he is not a generally respected figure in the Church, and that lots of people have no more than an intellectual interest in what’s going on, and , in fact, seem to enjoy saying bad things about Father Pavone, now that he was in trouble. Just trying to let you know why we were mad. First anxiety, then an unleasant surprise.
Well, with any luck at all, I will be avoiding that particular occassion of sin.
[I made the punctuation corrections you mentioned in the second post. ~G.N.]
“…the current tactical fight over Father Pavone will cost the pro-life movement a strategic defeat in losing the bishops for a generation.”
With all due respect, just who has lost whom for a generation? Just who bears much responsibility for the “strategic defeat” and loss of many Catholics in this generation, many in the previous generation and the loss of many more for generations to come? The pro-life movement? I think not.
May Our Lady-Queen of Angels comfort Fr. Frank-the unborn await his return to ministry-he is being crucified as they are every day and are longing for the time when the faithful will do as much for them as this loyal servant of Our Lord. GodsMercy on us all.
Personally, I would normally describe Mr. Shea as a big, fat, left coast hobbit in need of a hair cut.
Actually, I just got a haircut yesterday. I forget which one. 🙂 Thanks for clarifying the joke for Mr. Seaman.
Gerard: I take second place to no one in the fat blogger department. As founder of the Jolly Pride movement, I bear upon my shoulders the sufferings of Our Kind.
On the other hand, I’m closing in on a loss of 60 pounds (I could stand to lose 60 more). So I may drummed out of the Jolly Corps if this keeps up.
“Father Pavone is being viciously attacked.”
Where? When? By whom? I have seen *one* person on FB say some nasty things about him. Overwhelmingly, the vicious attacks I have seen have all been directed at the allegedly “fag” bishop who is part of a Vast Conspiracy to destroy Conservative Folk Hero priests as part of a coordinated attack by the sinister USCCB, in order to pave the way for the re-election of Obama. These and other psychotic paranoid conspiracy theories I have seen multiple times. I have seen nothing of these supposed “vicious attacks” on Fr. Pavone.
Mr. Shea: I don’t know what “FB” means, and I’m trying to stay away from googling, but how is this?: “Corrupt Christians: Leader of “Priests For Life” Group That Once Compared Fetuses to Slaves is Suspended Over Financial Mismanagement Accusations.” That’s Alternet. I don’t think Huffington Post was nice, either, but I don’t want to look at it. I might go through the comments on that Catholic Vote site, I think that there were some bad ones in there, but I really don’t want to. My point was that I’m coming into this world where I’m not usually, and really shouldn’t be, and it’s all a blur to me. I don’t know you guys, and I shouldn’t. I was trying to explain my experience subjectively.
I really don’t have any information that’s not really, really readily available. I don’t go four pages in on Google, I have a few Catholic blogs I check, ThePulp.it, good as it is, is not good for me, because I don’t know the context of the destinations, I think I should give that up, too. Before ThePulp.it my exposure to Catholic websites was really sporatic and occassional, and I’m sure I was only ever on the most popular sites. (I always remembered yours, though, I think it might have been the Bugs Bunny.),
I don’t know anything about “fag” bishops or who’s distributing what about whom. (I don’t know if this makes you feel any betterI but for my entire life people who use the word “fag” make me uncomfortable..) I was trying to explain the way things looked to me, subjectively/ Sort of a “good-bye to all that” thing.. When I said he was being attacked I meant 1) he’s attacked in Bishop Zurek’s letter; 2) he’s attacked in the secular sources that have picked this up (although I think that Amarillo paper has gotten better) ; 3) he’s attacked in comment threads that I have wrongly opened. I can’t promise you that he was attacked in the NCR comment threads, because I knew better than to open them, but I was probably thinking about them, too. In the comment threads the attacks often come from people who don’t bother me because the author seems to have some other agenda. Probably the comments that bothered me the most were from people who were obviously Catholic, but didn’t seem to think that any damage to efforts to fight abortion were worth discussing.
You don’t like me. You really, really don’t like me, and fortunately for us both it’s highly unlikely that we will ever have contact again. On the things we sidagree about, I think I have facts and examples, and you have labels, but maybe I’m wrong. WE’ll find out in the next life.
So if you interpret my “attack” comment as applying to stuff in FP (whatever that is) then I’m wrong. Do I have any other facts wrong in this post?
Thanks for the correction, G.N.!
Perhaps our dear Lord wants Fr. Pavone to sit with Him and be silent for awhile – after all, it is His permissive Will that allowed this to happen. Our Lord allows this sometimes, as He did with Mother Angelica, to test us. Will we continue to be faithful and attentive even without Fr. Pavone in the picture? Will we still support the pro-life movement in our country or fall away? Please pray for Fr. Pavone and all Priests.
Agreeing with Gerard’s reply where he says:
Lost my sense of urgency? You must not be a regular here. Don’t presume on my motives, or anyone else’s. It’s one of the hallmarks of a nasty self-righteousness that suggests that others are not as enlightened as oneself. In truth, the current tactical fight over Father Pavone will cost the pro-life movement a strategic defeat in losing the bishops for a generation.
That’s my fear. I have never seen a problem with bishops wanting to get involved with the Helper’s of God’s Precious Infants (HGPI). We have prayer vigils here with full support of the bishops and other leaders of the diocese, but because it is a prayer vigil and not a protest, there are no signs of aborted babies for small children to inadvertenly see before they can be shielded, there is no taunting or anger seen, and things held up are a banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Crucifix. You can see my photostories at my blog, the latest of which was posted just last week when Archbishop Vigneron led the vigil. http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2011/09/archbishop-vigneron-leads-pro-life.html. In fact, I was glad that Archbishop Vigneron made the point he did about “pro-life trash talk” and how we, “don’t do that”.
I think the USCCB, and other bishops, should tap Msgr. Reilly, the founder of HGPI, for their pro-life efforts and they will find HGPI in no way controversial. Here in Detroit, the HGPI core will take someone aside, respectfully, if they show up with a sign.
I’d like to say also, that I find it disturbing that if you do not condone the behavior of a true pro-life champion like Fr. Pavone on a matter, even if it is a prudential or pastoral matter, you are considered something less than pro-life by some.
Some feel that it was wrong for Bishop Zurek to leave town on the day Fr. Frank was due back. Did it occur to anyone, including Fr. Pavone, that he was being given a good amount of rope? Sadly, he is displaying for a good many Catholics who get it, that among other things, there are some pastoral issues that indeed seem to need resolution.
I voiced my disappointment with Fr. Pavone in my own post today. I hope you don’t mind me plugging it Gerard.
http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2011/09/disappointment-with-fr-pavone.html
Roger: If you are saying that Fr. Pavone is being viciously attacked by the Usual Suspects who viciously attack prolifers for the crime of having a pulse, then of course. They would attack him for breathing. But it is not the case that serious prolife Catholics are “attacking him” by counseling to let the bishop do his job. They are being properly deferential to the bishop’s judgment.
I just read this and wanted to share it; I haven’t really had enough time to reflect about it but others might want to read it – :
Friday, September 16, 2011
Some non-canonical reactions to Fr. Pavone’s latest statement
Fr. Pavone has issued another statement. It’s pretty clear that he is not getting, or is not heeding, advice to step out of the limelight. Whatever, I find his latest remarks troubling, not so much canonically this time (although there are worrisome signs there), but more for what they indicate about Pavone’s person and direction.
I write here, then, not as a canonist, but as a reasonably intelligent Catholic man, about the same age as Fr. Pavone, sharing the same Creed and sacraments and pope, familiar with pro-life work, who has worked with clergy and seminarians most of his adult life.
Pavone writes, I think, from the heart. I will too. Excerpts from Pavone’s text in italics, my reactions in regular type.
Well, friends, here in Amarillo I am working hard at my computer on various pro-life projects as I await further instructions from the diocese. Nothing yet…
Nothing? What’s that mean? Does a young, healthy priest, in his home diocese, with full faculties for ordained ministry therein, really need to be told what to do with a large, unexpected block of time? If so, I have some suggestions.
Besides engaging in the “period of prayer and reflection” to which you were directed, how about offering to cover some masses for your over-stretched diocesan brothers who are saying two, three (and, shhh!, sometimes four) masses a day for the local faithful? Or how about slipping, a la John Paul II, into a parish confessional for a few extra hours each day to tend whatever souls God might send you? If the liturgical or sacramental work of a secular priest is not your forte, maybe you could visit your elderly and infirm brothers, or fill relief boxes at a community shelter and share some moments with people in need. Would the daily grind of tending souls ransomed by Christ, but at such grave risk in this world, be such a poor use of your time?
Sure, it’s distressing to have to endure false suspicions, inaccurate media reports…
False suspicions are a great cross, and in that respect, Father, you have my sympathy and, weak as they are, my prayers. Truly. But as for inaccurate media reports, while those are certainly a pain, at least some of that inaccuracy has been generated by you.
[It’s distressing to have to endure] disruption to a mission which is at the core of my life.
Stop. Something is seriously askew here. Nothing, not even the most visible (and arguably the most effective) pro-life work in the world, is at the “core” of any priest’s life; nothing is there, besides the High Priest Jesus Christ. That is no pious platitude. For any priest, religious or diocesan, to assert before the world that anything is at the core of his life besides the Son of God is very disturbing.
Tears, sleepless nights, anger, righteous indignation – this and more come to me each day because something is happening to the youngest members of the human family.
Forgive my impatience, Father, but I don’t see anything in this litany of woes that can’t be claimed by virtually every conscientious Christian parent trying to raise children in this wicked age. And nothing in this list has not been endured by every normal adult who, in his or her own way, is trying to make the world a better place, often in the face of appalling injustices (one of which, to be sure, is abortion, and most of which aren’t) but with much less freedom and far fewer resources than you have been blessed with. The vast majority of such folks, however, don’t go around blogging about it. They just quietly do the best they can with what they have.
The images of their mangled bodies accompany me to sleep and greet me when I awake; the cries of their silent voices mingle in my ears with the voices of those who speak to me; their aggrieved rights come to the forefront of my mind when anyone’s “rights” are discussed.
Well, if that’s true, Father, then you need some time off. I mean it. If the last thoughts through your mind each night are not ones of gratitude that the Lord gave you another day on this earth, but only mangled bodies, and if the first thing you think of each morning is not His assured triumph over every evil, but more mangled bodies, then, you need some time off. If you can’t hear the voices of the people that God sends into your life without hearing the cries of dying babies, and if you can’t see anyone’s suffering except in terms of suffering babies, then, in all seriousness, you need some time off. Thank Bp. Zurek for imposing it, however ham-handedly, on you.
The consolation is that there are things I can do to stop this holocaust…
Noooo, the consolation of a priest (well, of every Christian, but especially of every priest) is God. One can’t just continue, as you seem to do time after time, blowing past such key points.
I’m sitting here in Amarillo right now because I’m a faithful and obedient priest, as I promised to be long ago.
Golly, is that supposed to make Amarillo Catholics feel more loved? Seriously, your remarks about the Church in Amarillo have never been very gracious, and now their parishes face offensive picketing by a group that you advise and endorse. I don’t see what Amarillo Catholics have done to deserve such mean treatment. I hope you will disavow that action proposed in your behalf very soon.
But there’s a more fundamental reason I’m sitting here … [it’s] because cooperating with Church authority at this moment is the best way to preserve the mission I lead to save these children.
Cooperating “at this moment”? What does that mean? That “conditional obedience” which I mentioned a day or two ago is back. If “sitting here in Amarillo” gets in the way of the “mission you lead”, are you outta there? Regardless of what you might mean, do you realize what you are saying? Do you realize the kind of example you are setting for seminarians and young priests who, I assure you, feel just as strongly about injustice, including the injustice of abortion, as you do, and who are watching to see how this awful mess resolves? They want to know, is the priesthood (and all of its obligations) a vocation, or is it a devout context in which to carry on a life-long service project?
But let’s be clear. Nobody needs anybody else’s permission to save a human life, to rescue a child from dismemberment and decapitation.
Okay, fine, let’s do set aside the righteous rhetoric and be very clear here: a secular priest like you needs permission from his bishop to take on just about any significant public activity, especially full-time work outside of his home diocese, and a diocesan priest most certainly may not carry out such activities in the face of lawful directives against his undertaking them. I promised not to talk as a canonist, here, so I’ll skip the list of relevant canons. But they aren’t hard to find.
In fact, to fail to do so is to fail miserably as a priest, as a Catholic, as a Christian, and as a human being. God deliver us from that fate.
That remark shows a startling contempt for the lives, work, and witness of tens of thousands of holy priests, hundreds of thousands of holy religious, and millions of holy Catholics and human beings who have never saved a baby from an abortion or taken a single step in prayer outside an aboratorium. And I say that to you as a Catholic man who has done both, many times.
The daily, unseen strivings of the People of God—even those whom you label as miserable failures for never having saved a human life or rescued a child from dismemberment—contribute mightily to the holiness of the Mystical Body of Christ, a holiness on which we all, including you, draw daily. Such people deserve your respect and even gratitude, not words of disdain and disparagement.
I offer a final suggestion with, I hope, with your good, the good of the pro-life movement, and the good of the Church, in mind: stop airing your angst about your situation in public, and let cooler heads on both sides, guided by law, resolve this conflict.
For the rest, this too shall pass.
posted by Dr. Edward Peters at This Permanent Link
<< Home
I am dropping in a live link to the post which “witnesstolife” included in full within the combox.
Here is Dr. Peters’ post – a very worthy read. http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/some-non-canonical-reactions-to-fr.html
Does anyone actually have proof that the Bishop of Amarillo posted his letter to US Bishops on line? It seems to me that someone else has made this letter public, since letters BTWN the worlds bishops are not for public consumption. When they are for public consumption, they are so addressed. Thus the question – who “leaked this information”? And who had the most to gain from it being publicized? Indeed if it had not been made public and Fr. Pavone simply complied w/the Bishops request (as he says he is doing) why would it be made public at all until there was a resolution? Think it through? It seems to be that the Bishop is not the one making public statements but Fr. Pavone and he indeed “protests too much”. Further there seems Fr. Pavone has a track record of changing dioceses when a dispute arises w/his Ordinary, i.e, now a 3rd step toward the same (fr. NY to Amarillo to ?);also Fr. Pavone’s record of appealing to Rome when he disputes his Ordinary’s authority, i.e. now for a 3rd time (the 1st 2 w/his his former Amarillo Bishop which were flatly rejected by the Vatican). I concur that PPFL will survive w/o Fr. Pavone if that is God’s will yet, at this point all the Bishop has asked is for Fr. Pavone take a perhaps much needed rest for reflection and prayer in his own diocese, while some things get resolved, which the Bishop has not only the right to request but also the duty and responsibility to oversee.
I rather like this balanced analysis of the Father Pavone and Bishop Zurek discussions.
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/some-non-canonical-reactions-to-fr.html
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
Diane,
You’re always welcome to plug here 😉
God Bless
Mr. Shea: As you no doubt expect, I don’t see the situation in just that way (see sam’s comment, e.g., not quite a vicious attack, but less than I would do for you if Alternet were after you). I don’t think the bishop is doing his job, I think the bishop is abusing his authority. But I hope everything goes well with you, and that we’re both in a place in the next life where we can communicate about this with complete knowledge of the relevant facts and perfect charity.
Roger:
I heartily hope that in the next life such matters need never be the topic of conversation again. 🙂 Here’s hoping we all meet merrily there.
It appears that I quoted the same website comments of Dr. Peters’ as did
Diane Korzeniewski, OCDS see few comments just above…….!!!
Great minds think alike? Patricia in St. Louis, MO
Re: Obedience and Silence
Recently a noted Canon Law posted a critique of Father P.’s latest public statement. The Canon Lawyer apparently believes that Father P should be silent. Now certainly a priest in this type of situation must first be obedient to his Bishop. However the Catholic Church is not the Waffen SS. There are always moral limits as to what any just superior can demand of his lawful subordinate.(And based on the last public statement made by the Diocese Father P is a priest in good standing without any accusation of wrongdoing made against him.)
And in this day and age where we find our Church still mired in the Great Scandal there may be a need for an innocent priest to speak out and let people know where he is and what he is doing.
I worked (in an unimportant way) two cases during the height of the Great Scandal wherein two falsely accused priests who were clearly innocent of the accusations made against them, remained silent. One has already passed away without his name ever being cleared; and the other exists in a limbo state, year after year, awaiting resolution. In the 21st Century an innocent priest must maintain a high public profile.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Is there any real reason why we shouldn’t believe Bishop Zurek? I see accusations, but no evidence, about him. Don’t know much about him myself, and searching around can’t find much, but I don’t see anything bad. Here’s what I did find:
He was trained as a moral theologian in Rome, which explains his worry about possible “material cooperation” (stated in the letter) if he has concerns about, but fails to investigate, the financial management of PFL (material cooperation is serious business in moral theology).
He was ordained a priest by Pope Paul VI in the same class as Abps. Raymond Burke and Michael Miller, both of whom are good. He was picked to be a bishop by Pope JPII, to take over from retiring Bishop Yanta (who incardinated Fr. Pavone in Amarillo), who was by all accounts a solid bishop, and who in turn replaced a “social justice” and apparently pro-gay/lesbian bishop under whom it appears quite a sex abuse crisis had taken place that was devastating to the Diocese of Amarillo.
I found all this on an old 2008 post from Whispers in the Loggia, just prior to Zurek’s installation as bishop of Amarillo. The post states: “The Amarillo church was among the US dioceses hardest hit by the sex-abuse crisis. According to published reports, the Dallas Norms forced the removal of a quarter of its 32 active priests, leaving 16 of its 35 parishes without a resident pastor.” That’s huge for a small diocese. Here’s the post:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/01/handover-in-panhandle.html
So, I repeat, is there any reason why we should not take Bishop Zurek at his word – especially given the same allegations (bad bishop trying to destroy good priest) were leveled at the bishops over Euteneuer and Corapi?
Frankly, no matter how popular a priest is, or how good his work is perceived to be, if there’s something “off” about what he’s doing, I’d rather it be found out and corrected, than allowed to fester and maybe get worse. Or exonerate him, if there’s nothing there. Some think Bishop Zurek’s letter is harsh, but maybe he’s just trying to communicate his seriousness about Fr. Pavone to the other bishops, in light of his concern for the nature of the priesthood and the responsibility of a bishop for a priest. And I doubt very much it was intended for public consumption.
Just my thoughts, as I don’t have *any* of the actual facts in the case, other than the letters we’ve all seen. Will be interesting to see how it plays out, for sure. But I trust that the Lord is in control, and am not scared about the prolife movement, as there are plenty of dedicated workers out there who’s place it IS to be at the fore. And the Lord will always raise up new ones, if the old ones go down. Prayers for Bishop Zurek, and for Fr. Pavone. May God’s will be done.
“So, I repeat, is there any reason why we should not take Bishop Zurek at his word”
Well, we do not know what his current word on this matter is. The good Bishop’s Chancellor has issued a public statement which, essentially, contradicts the claims made against Father P. in the good Bishop’s previews mass communication to all of his brother American Bishops.
At the least this indicates a break down in communication between the good Bishop and his principal subordinate. It also raises the question as to what supervisory responsibility the good Bishop has over Priest for Life (as opposed to his authority as spiritual father to Father P) and other pro-life organizations that Father P. is a part of.
As in the Corapi case it is the Bishop who must act as the adult and adhere to both charity and Canon Law. This is especially important in light of the Great Scandal where so many Bishops not only failed as Shepherds but enabled the wolves which tore at their flocks.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I saw the vicar’s letter, and it doesn’t contradict anything the bishop said. It simply states that Fr. Pavone is a priest in good standing (i.e., his faculties haven’t been suspended, that’s not what the bishop meant by “suspend”), and clarifies that he hasn’t been accused of actual financial wrongdoing, though there is an auditing dispute. It leaves other issues unaddressed, which really aren’t our business anyway.
To me it seems like a reasonable thing to say, and doesn’t construe a breakdown in communication – the bishop probably directed him to write it. Rather I see it as an effort to calm people down.
So, my question remains. And I’m hesitant to cast blame on a bishop without good cause. What if he’s a good bishop, just trying to do his job? If that’s the case, then I’m grateful.
Yes, there was an abuse scandal, and half the bishops were at fault. But the other half were not, did their jobs well from the beginning – and I don’t assume guilt by association. That would be very unjust. This bishop may have perfectly good reasons for doing this, but even if not I trust that the Lord is allowing it for His own reasons. And I’m willing to let the process work.
I wrote a Part I to this that I neglected to link back to. I think it addresses many of the concerns under discussion:
https://gerardnadal.com/2011/09/14/john-peter-father-pavone-bishop-zurek-and-the-anger-trap/
Gerry,
You are right to a point. I guess I am a cynic though. I wonder if this is the work of the Spirit. I will continue to pray for both Father Pavone and Bishop Zureck but I have to tell you something is not sitting right with this whole affair. I also am stating my opinion that it is alright to donate to PFL. I am not donating to Fr. Pavone but to save the life of unborn children who are in danger of being murdered. I only hope you are right but there is something smacking of control in this affair.
Thanks for the link, Dr. Nadal, good post. I hadn’t seen it – actually this is my first time visiting your blog. Looks great, I’ll have to explore it more!
Not mentioned but a related organization is Gospel of Life Ministries. It is the ecumenical branch that is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. It also appears on the IRS list of organizations that have had their tax-exempt status revoked for a failure to file returns for three or more years.
Missionaries of the Gospel of Life was to be the religious order that Fr. Pavone was invited to be the founder of in the Diocese of Amarillo. It is the reason that he went there after Cardinal Egan ordered him to return to parish work. It was briefly established as a Society of Apostolic Life by Bishop Yanta (Zurek’s predecessor) and the diocese even donated land for a seminary to be built on (apparently deeded back to the diocese since). I believe the diocese encouraged donations for the MGL. Within two years Bishop Yanta decided to suppress the society. It seems finances for it were mixed in with PFL. Fr. Pavone first appealed to the appropriate Congregation at the Vatican and lost, and then he appealed to the Apostolic Signatura which was rejected. PFL still refers to the MGL but as a lay association that is the same entity as PFL.
Using the non-profit service guidestar.org, it would appear that the last information returns filed with the IRS for both PFL and Rachel’s Vineyard were for the year 2008. Unless they have just recently filed, both organizations may be two years behind in filing. At 2008 yearend, Rachel’s Vineyard showed on their balance sheet a negative $28,918 for net assets. There seem some serious stewardship issues that should cause donors some concern.
Re: On Law Suits
“I saw the vicar’s letter, and it doesn’t contradict anything the bishop said”
If there is a civil action claiming defamation by either Father P. or PFL then there are a number of points in the Bishop’s letter that they can hang their case on: Among other things he Bishop stated that Father P was suspended outside of his Diocese. In the American Catholic Church suspension is normally reserved for a priest who has done a Bad Thing. The Bishop in his letter also infers, by questioning Father P’s stewardship, that Father P. is a liar, a cheat and a thief regarding his stewardship of Priests for Life. The Bishop further infers that he has financial oversight of PFL and that he is properly exercising said oversight. Finally the Bishop’s letter was sent to 800 Chanceries in the USA thus holding both Father P and PFL to public contempt and humiliation.
In the USA case law makes it very difficult to sue a Bishop regarding internal Church matters. However the Bishop by publicly questioning Father P’s integrity regarding what is essentially a business over which he as Bishop has questionable oversight exposes the good Bishop to action in the civil courts.
The chancellor, who is empowered under Canon Law to speak for his vacationing Bishop, in his letter defuses the situation by claiming that the auditing problem is not with PFL but with associated organizations (such as Rachel’s Vineyard which in a separate statement he alleges are the “patrimony of the Church”)) which he alleges have not been audited. He also emphasizes that Father P. has not been accused of wrongdoing; and further states that Father P. is a priest in good standing. In so doing the chancellor not only removes or greatly reduces the threat of law suit by Father P. PFL or an employee of PFL; but removes his Bishop as a target by any possible, future plaintiff that is going after PFL on other matters. (Not to mention the federal government which might go after PFL regarding a criminal matter such as allegedly limiting a woman’s right to access health care.)
All in all the good Bishop’s vacation is well times.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
All in all Richare W. Comerford, you might want to omit ‘God bless’ following statements that are so divisive and inflammatory. Are you a canon lawyer? Even so, you were not, I don’t think, asked to try this case/situation in a public arena. None of us except those involved and God know the truth about the situation–do we even know how the Bishop’s letter went public? But that’s beside the point…and for all you know, the Bishop’s vacation may have been scheduled before all this broke out so it’s not well time as you state…be careful of what you are doing.
“All in all Richare W. Comerford, you might want to omit ‘God bless’ following statements that are so divisive and inflammatory.”
Well, Christianity is divisive and inflammatory. If a person wishes to stand in a circle, holding hands while chanting a calming tune as the sun comes up perhaps he or should try a nice pagan religion?
“Are you a canon lawyer?”
Thank God no. During the entire 50-years of the Great Scandal I do not know of a single Canon Lawyer who publicly told his Bishop: It is wrong to protect predatory priests. It is time to stop.”
“Even so, you were not, I don’t think, asked to try this case/situation in a public arena.”
We are all asked to. Christ told us to uphold justice. You know.The Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy?
“None of us except those involved and God know the truth about the situation”
No one ever knows the perfect and entire truth of any situation.
“do we even know how the Bishop’s letter went public?”
Yes we do. If I send a letter to 195 headquarters of corporate bureaucracies accusing one of my underlings, who in his own right is a famous person, of alleged theft; and asking said bureaucracies to advise the local population not to do business with my underling then, yes indeed; I can expect that my letter will go public pretty quick.
“for all you know, the Bishop’s vacation may have been scheduled before all this broke”
It may have been. Which, if true, raises the question as to why The good Bishop allegedly ordered Father P. to report to his Diocese on the day he knew his vacation began?
“so it’s not well time as you state”
On the contrary. The fortuitously planned vacation allowed the good Bishop’s chancellor to issue what amounts to a public retraction thus insulating the good Bishop from possible legal action.
“be careful of what you are doing”
Thank you. We try to be. My associates and I always go armed pursuant to law; and we have yet to fail to prevail in either a civil or criminal matter. But we all expect to get X’d out sooner or later. No one lives on this earth forever. It is only our final destination that counts.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
The strongly expressed concern about Fr. Frank is driven by tension of those who see abortion after abortion being done in our communities. They see the women being hurt and sometimes killed. They also see some Catholic leadership that completely ignores the life issues: nothing in homilies, nothing in Church bulletins, no prolife signs on church property. Some even are against public witness at the abortion facilities or will not have masses said for the success of 40 Days for Life. When is the last time you heard a homily or prayer on the life issues?
This tension should cause one not to attack the bishop or the Catholic Church but to lead people to pray, fast, educate (themselves and others) and to live holy lives.
There are many dangers lurking in the effort to protect unborn children. One of them is to forget that the primary concern is not the prolife issues but love of God. He must always come first, Then comes love of neighbor which includes the abortionist, the people that assist at the abortion facilities, prohoice people etc. It is a trap to just focus on the horrible nature of abortion and forget that our concern is a reflection of our love of God. Being prolife can become a “ego trip” especially when we see women change their minds about aborting their children.
I know Fr. Fank. He has been at my home and parish and at the abortion facility in Pensacola. He is a wonderful leader and has a way of organizing and focusing energy to solve problems of communication. I hope he can resolve the financial and ego problems existing between him and his bishop.
As to the vicar claiming that PFL money should go to the church, I believe this is misguided because people donated specifically to PFL and its prolife work and not to go into a general fund of the church. The donor’s wilshes should be honored.
Finally, there is bunker mentality in the prolife movement. Hollywood, the AMA, the ABA, the APA, the media, many mainline Protestant Churhes, 500+ prochoice Catholic politicians, 78% of the US population, and the Democratic Party all support legalized slaughter of unborn children to some degree, the opposition to the prolife movement is very strong and widespread, so when those who should be helping are against us, the feeling is one of being abandoned while in the middle of a battle..
]
We must do what Jesus commanded the 11 apostles before his Ascension: Preach the Gospel. We must preach the Gospel of Life in our lives and at abortion facilities by our Christlike witness for life and the offering of assistance to women about to have their unborn children killed by the abortionist..
Mr Comerford, I find your posts to be extremely well thought-out, succinct, and unbiased. Furthermore, I can’t imagine why you should not have “God bless” as your signature. I fear emotion has left some people a bit off balance from what must be their usual objectivity. Thank you for your discernment.
For any who may be withholding funds for awhile from PFL, you might want to consider giving to American Life League (ALL) a fine pro-life org. Which called out CCHD for their donations to pro-choice and pro-LGBT (or however it goes) orgs.
Ms. M:
Thank you. It is my prayer that all I come into contact with in this life (even New York Yankees) spend eternity in heaven.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mr. Comerford – How condescending of you to picture anyone who might disagree with your approach as standing in a circle, holding hands while chanting a calming tune, etc (which brings to mind an image of the courageous Monks in “Of Gods and Men” as they faced death holding each other and chanting)…but I digress..you go further to state that such as these should try a nice pagan religion – who do you think you are to suggest such a thing?! You might have been being sarcastic but that would indicate to me that you are not taking this situation seriously but rather using it as a platform to show your superiority…perhaps. And you do not know of a single canon lawyer who publicly told his Bishop to stop protecting predatory priests. Maybe there are canon lawyers who ‘privately’ counseled their Bishops in this matter. Not everyone feels the need to publicly admonish someone. Yes, Christ asked us to help our brothers and sisters out if they are in sin…and how are we to do that? Well, first we go to our brother in private – in private – and show him how he is wrong and gently urge him to do the right thing. If that does not work, then we go with a few righteous brothers/sisters and explain again to the brother/sister how what they are doing is harmful. If all this fails to work, only then do we call for a public rebuke. Since this situation is only just being made known and since I do not believe you have gone privately to the Bishop, I don’t see how you can justify making a case against him. And no matter your insight as to how the letter might have gone public, you do not know how it went public. Nor do you know that the Bishop is on vacation…he might be meeting with other Bishops or have important business elsewhere. And it might well be that the Bishop himself told his cancellor to make a statement. I don’t know who your ‘associates’ are or what your agenda is – I do know that you defended Father Corapi and made statements against SOLT and the Bishop involved…so I wonder if you and your associates are just out and about looking for ‘scandals’ to attack – just wondering. I privately contacted Cardinals and Bishops urging them to stop transferring Priests suspected of or known to have been involved in scandal. “My associates and I always go armed pursuant to law; and we have yet to fail to prevail in either a civil or criminal matter.” So you go around armed with the law? Against whom? And you have always prevailed? In court? Where? “But we all expect to get X’d out sooner or later.” Martyrdom? I think not. Just be careful where you tread. We are all flawed – Popes, Bishops, Religious, lay people…some more than others. And yes, we should stand up for the truth and for the innocent…but again I repeat – we do not know the truth in this situation. I received an e-mail from Father Pavone – looks like it was sent out around 1:30a.m. In it Fr. Pavone declares himself innocent of any wrong doings – he says that misinformation is being sent out about him and his Bishop. It is the longest e-mail I have had to date. Right at the top, third paragraph, there is this: “…send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today. Not an hour from now. Not later this evening. Not tomorrow. But right now!” He repeats this 3 times throughtout the e-mail with a link for sending the money. At the end he tells where a check can be sent…he also states that his Bishop is on a trip that had been planned before all this happened…at any rate, Mr. Comerford, I wish you well. I won’t reply to any more of your comments because this issue is about the unborn baby and not about us…God bless us all.
Re: On Bishops and Celebrity and Non-Celebrity Priests
The Faith can survive in our beloved country with or without celebrity priest. It cannot survive without the successors to the Apostles: our Bishops. During the last 50-years of the Great Scandal our Bishops, in the main, have often failed to be good shepherds to their flocks and good spiritual fathers to their priests. The model for wayward priests is the parable of the prodigal son. What loving father would broadcast the sins of his son to the world?
The Corapi and Pavone and the Philadelphia cases demonstrate that for at least these three ordinaries the Good Shepherd, Spiritual Father and Prodigal Son models are still being rejected for the model of the successful, corporate CEO. The Great Scandal will continue until all of our Bishops take as their ultimate role model Christ and reject the Harvard Business School idea of management.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Thank you so much for your ‘to the point’ point of view. I am weary of these very public arguments between priests and people they vowed obedience to!
This takes away from those of us who pray each day to be good Catholics.
This nonsense cheapens my Faith and reflects badly on all clergy.
Elleblue
“This nonsense cheapens my Faith and reflects badly on all clergy.”
Obedience must walk hand in hand with justice and charity; or it becomes the obedience of the Waffen SS and not the obedience of Christ..
These “public arguments” are the norm in a Church composed of fallen men. Judas betrayed. Peter denied. Thomas doubted. Paul rebuked Peter. And in the end (or was it teh beginning?) only John of the Twelve stood faithfully at the foot of the Cross.
Yet our Divine Savior reacted with mercy, divine mercy, and the remaining ten became great Saints. Can we do no less? To my mind the saddest thing about this whole kerfuffle is that there can still be, among others, a Saint John Corapi; but sadly that is a possibility which is apparently dismissed by the Imperial Catholic Blogdom.
During the height of the Great Scandal more than a few faithful priests, Church employees and laity came to their Bishops, to whom they owed obedience, and blew the whistle on predatory priests. The whistle blowers were at best mocked and ignored. They were often accused of disobedience. Some were publicly humiliated, punished and sued in the Secular Courts (See Archbishop Weakland). Our Bishops are not Angels but all too human.
Burying our heads in the sand (or in prayer) and wishing that this would all just go away is what led to the Great Scandal in the first place.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
What is the agenda of Mr. Comerford and his associates who seem to search for any scandals while mentioning dramatically the ‘GREAT SCANDAL” -are they trolling for clients, for devotees? Mr. Comerford says our Church cannot survive without our Bishops – true. But then he goes on to declare that during the “GREAT SCANDAL” our Bishops, IN THE MAIN, failed often to be good shepherds and spiritual fathers – so, I presume that Mr. Comerford and his associates have followed closely and intimately all Bishops during the “GREAT SCANDAL” and have zeroed in on their flaws and failings while acknowledging that some Bishops did a good job and then he talks about ‘charity’ – charity? “What loving father would broadcast his son’s sins to the world?”, he asks, in charity, I am sure. Well, then I would ask: “What son would broadcast his father’s sins to the world?” Then he goes on to declare that the “GREAT SCANDAL” will continue until all of our Bishops takes as their ultimate role model Christ and reject the Harvard Business School idea of management.” In other words, the GREAT SCANDAL will until Bishops humbly submit to the advice and opinions of Mr. Richard W. Comerford and associates. How arrogant! He also states in response to another blogger: “Obedience must walk hand in hand with justice and charity.” I would add humility – follow your own guidelines mr. Comerford and associates. Mr. Comerford accuses all those who do not follow his way of public condemnation of burying their heads in the sand…this is his concept of charity. We know some -some- of our Bishops have been and are flawed and lax in their duties. I have, as I said, gone to an Archbishop to speak to him about something he had permitted which was not in line with the teachings of the church…after much dialogue, the Archbishop withdrew his permission for that issue. (I wasn’t the only one who confronted him about this…however, we all had the courtesy to address this issue with him respectfully and in private.) Mr. Comerford and his associates comment on other Catholic blogs, all making public the flaws of Bishops while defending, even when they don’t know the truth, Priests like Fr. Corapi. Mr. Comerford and his associates keep emphasizing the GREAT SCANDAL, while omitting all the good the majority of Bishops and Priests have done. The Church is the Bride of Christ – perfect and unflawed. The MEMBERS of the Church are flawed and imperfect. Christ prophesied that there would be scandal – and woe to those by whom these scandals come about. Pope Benedict has often said that we should try to highlight the beauty and goodness of the Church – let’s not focus on the flaws. We should not be silent but let us approach those who sin privately. Mr. Comerford and his associates have no idea whatever of the truth of the situation between Fr. Pavone and his Bishop yet he goes on and on and on about the GREAT SCANDAL – let’s just pray and fast that good will come out of all of this. Let’s pray for our Bishops and Priests – if there is wrong, let us approach the wrong doer in private, with humility and love, while putting straight what is off center in our own lives.
Re: Benedict and the Great Scandal
Our Holy Father has been very blunt about the Great Scandal declaring that this “filth must be thrown out of the Church”. He has also told us:
* Bishops must develop a close relationship with their priests treating them as their “sons”.
* Priests must strive to be Saints.
* Echoing JP II Benedict has stressed the importance of the family developing into a “domestic church”.
* Also echoing JP II he has urged transparency in these affairs; and adherence to Canon as well as secular law.
* Benedict has further warned of the development and danger of what he describes as “professional Catholics”; or folks who make their living from the Church, dominate its bureaucracy; but do not fully embrace the faith.
It is interesting to note that before he became Pope then Cardinal Ratzinger said that what the Church needs now is “more of the Holy Spirit and less bureaucratic structure”. A stake cannot be driven through the heart of the Great Scandal until all of our Bishops and their bureaucrats stop operating cloaked in the darkness of bureaucratic secrecy; and instead work in the light of the Holy Spirit.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Gerard and Mark suggest that Fr. Pavone is not the subject of any attacks. It seems to me this is not accurate with respect to the following statements from Bishop Zurek’s public letter to the other bishops:
“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.”
Dr. Peters has made it clear, and the diocese has had to concede (but not apologize for), that “suspend” was a canonically false and improper statement to make. It’s a mistake you and I could naturally make, not being canonists. In a letter from one bishop to other bishops and the world, it is not excusable. It is legitimately seen as an attack, albiet a high brow one.
“he has consistently refused to subject the PFL to a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures”
Fr. Pavone has been very specific about the volumes he has turned over to the diocese and to his board of many many bishops, and the diocesan spokesman has even said Fr. Pavone has always been cooperative and responsive. The bishop’s statement here therefore appears, by a firm factual foundation, to be false. Making accusations about money, however politely they are framed, in a public way and to all bishops, is confrontational.
“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. 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 . . .”
These are diplolatic, political ways of leveling EXTREMELY SERIOUS, open ended charges about financial mismanagement, made, again, in a public letter and to all bishops. They are an attack–speak plainly and admit it. And the diocese has had to admit there are no financial improprieties alleged. But the above language insinuates far far more, definitely to the level of wrongdoing. It is not a “gee I just need to take a peek.”
“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.”
This is quite simply an attack for all the same reasons I just explained.
This is NOT a situation where MERELY what has happened is the bishop called a priest to take a break. Fr. Pavone’s statements are responding to, call them what you will, attacks in conjunction with the call back to the diocese. He has been fully obedient to requests made, and he has not been told not to talk publicly. His statements aren’t dismissive of his priesthood or obedience, but respond to attacks and to emphasize that he, Cardinal O’Connor, Cardinal Egan, Bishop Yanta, and the bishops on his board believe it IS legitimate to LIVE OUT a priestly vocation in fulltime service to the preborn.
Okay, I’m jumping in here. My blog is not a megaphone for trumpeting the abuse issue. That’s been beaten to death elsewhere. No more pedophilia, or the posts will be deleted.
Back on point.
Dr. N:
The Great Scandal is not a matter of abuse or pedophilia (See the John Jay Report) but rather it is, in the words of our Holy Father, a matter of “faithfulness” or lack thereof. For more than 50-years now this crisis of faith has plagued the American, and indeed the Western Church, and at the heart of this plague is the lack of faithfulness between both Bishop and Priest and Bishop and flock – very much a two way street type of problem. Probably the height of this problem of faithfulness was the mass rejection of Pope Paul’s encyclical letter Humanae Vitae.
The Corapi and Pavone cases are very much part of the Great Scandal or crisis of faithfulness. There is a distinct breakdown between the Bishops and their celebrity priests, made worse by an apparent ignorance of Canon Law, as well as a failure on the part of the Bishops to heed the Holy Father’s call to treat their Priests as sons.
The Faith can survive without celebrity priests. It cannot survive without Bishops. Simply put we need our Shepherds back.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
“On the other hand, I’m closing in on a loss of 60 pounds”
nice job, good luck…
“On the other hand, I’m closing in on a loss of 60 pounds”
nice job Mark…
I got it. Close your eyes, ignore the plight of Father Pavone. Drink some coffee and let injustice reign! Gotcha.
I think the general idea is: ” Sure he’s not guilty of this, but maybe he’s guilty of something else.”
Re: The Advantage of being a celebrity priest
“Close your eyes, ignore the plight of Father Pavone”.
The most famous and celebrated celebrity priest in American history is undoubtedly AB Fulton Sheen. Sheen got into quite the public kerfuffle with his own Bishop who just happened to also be the Cardinal of New York.
Sheen had collected a very respectable sum for the missions. (these things are ALWAYS centered on money.) Quite simply the Cardinal wanted it. Sheen failed to comply with his Cardinal’s order to surrender the money. The cardinal accused Sheen of disobedience.
Sheen refusal to obey was based on, among other things, Canon Law. Sheen being a celebrity could not be quietly quashed. The case went to Rome where both Sheen and his Cardinal appeared before the Holy Father who decided in Sheen’s favor.
Father P. is very media savvy. If he is innocent of the alleged wrong doing (and his Diocese has already back tracked and stated that he is not accused of any wrong doing) then I suspect that he will prevail.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mr. Comerford and his associates seem to be trolling about seeking flaws in Bishops and authority figures in the Church and then proclaiming their judgements upon them! How utterly arrogant! Yes, we have flawed Shepherds and they need to be urged to become the Shepherd Christ wants them to be. Some have even been known to have been involved in scandalous activity. This is nothing new. These things have been present throughout the history of the Church and were predicted by Christ Himself. Mr. Comerford and his associates who go about armed with the law now bring Our Holy Father Pope Benedict into the discussion in defense of their statements. Yes, Our Holy Father has spoken about the need for ‘transparency’ – and there is such a need. However, as I have already pointed out to Mr. Comerford and his associates who go about armed with the law, there is very little transparency in the present situation. Our Holy Father waits and prays and receives counsel from many before he makes a decision. Our Holy Father speaks privately and personally and patiently and charitably to those involved in sin…Mr. Comerford and his associates can learn from Our Holy Father. To presume to be acting in a manner like unto the manner of Our Holy Father is presumptious to say the least. “A stake cannot be driven throught the heart of the GREAT SCANDAL until ALL of our Bishops and their bureaucrats stop operating in the darkness of bureaucratic secrecy…” so, Mr. Comerford and associates, you know for a fact after careful research that ALL of our Bishops are operating in the darkness of bureaucratic secrecy. What a pitifully small and negative world Mr. Comerford and his associates seem to be living in. I pray that the Light of Christ will brighten their actions and their agenda…again I urge Mr. Comerford and his associates to not pass judgement until all facts are made known. And even then, try to remember that judgement is not yours but the Lord’s.
Mr. Conley:
“I think the general idea is: ” Sure he’s not guilty of this, but maybe he’s guilty of something else”.”
I pray that you are wrong; but this is a danger. I have watched DA’s and US Attorney’s go after a target quite confident that even if they do not find evidence of wrong doing they will at least catch the target in a lie and prosecute him on those grounds (See the Scooter Libby Case). Although the good Bishop thought it important enough to contact 195 chanceries and advise them of alleged and unspecified financial mismanagement at PFL he choose not to be specific. The vagueness of the good Bishop’s accusations left the door open to a fishing expedition. Let us pray that the good Bishops enjoys a pleasant and restful vacation and comes home eager to pursue this matter with justice and charity.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
witnesstolife,
I think you might have as much need as Mr. Comerford to be concerned about transparency and so forth. I haven’t cast any decision either way yet, but I must comment that His Excellency’s actions..look relatively fishy.
His Excellency first announced the possibility of a problem because of alleged financial improprieties; it made sense until we learned how much financial information the Priest’s For Life organization has offered over the past 10 years.
Then he (Bishop Zureck) implied that, well maybe he had a problem with Fr Pavone’s activities outside Amarillo. Again, it would’ve made sense, except that Fr Pavone’s activities outside Amarillo have been anything except secret.
Then there’s the little fact that, while His Excellency DOES have the authority to call his priests home, sure, publicly even, But common sense would normally dictate that he do so ONLY if he either has a serious, even desperate need for priests for some purpose, if the priest is noticeably preaching something or acting in a manner contrary to faith, or if some other serious problem has arisen.
In such a case, I would think a bishop would DEFINITELY be setting aside time in his calendar to meet with such a priest, so as to solve the problem QUICKLY.
Thus far, the only rationale I’ve seen for His Excellency’s move is..he’s displeased that Fr Pavone is well known, his organization earns lots of money, he seems to be reasonably effective at encouraging pro-life efforts, and he spends little time in Amarillo. ..And, to the best of my knowledge, the priest and the bishop have NOT met, nor has the bishop even made time for such a meeting. THIS is the reason to call a man back to your diocese??
I can understand being nervous about a public scandal occurring, but it seems to me that he’s being quite foolish in his approach here. If he’s attempting to demonstrate to Fr Pavone that Fr Pavone’s ministry is simply a big fish in a small pond, he’s doing quite poorly. He–Bishop Zureck–has proven to me that he can invoke his authority as bishop, but little else. He doesn’t appear to have any particular cause of his efforts outside of being a fairly adept bully.
For His Excellency’s sake, I can hope I’m dead wrong, but this doesn’t precisely look as though Fr Pavone has committed any misdeeds to warrant such treatment.
[…] Coming Home asks readers to allow the Catholic Church to work out its own issues in regards to Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life, rather than allow bitterness to reign. […]
Re: Chain of Command
Back in the Dark Ages when I was a young paratrooper we had something called the “chain of command”which for me was my Fire Team Leader, Squad Leader and Platoon Leader. For most Catholics our “chain of command” is our Pastor, Bishop and Pope. We owe our “chain of command” both love and obedience.
However what makes the Father P;. case both interesting and frustrating is that his good Bishop wrote to every Ordinary in the USA, all 195 of them, and asked them to advise their flocks not to contribute to PFL. And in so doing the good Bishop involved every American Catholic in this Kerfuffle.
Neither my Pastor nor my Bishop has spoken on this matter. But some interesting questions are raised. Does the good Bishop have just authority over PFL and its associated works? Are said works truly (in the words of the good Bishop’s chancellor) the “patrimony of the Church”? If they are in fact and law the “patrimony of the Church” do they belong to the good Bishop or the Universal Church?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
[…] Then, I wrote in response to some ugly, ugly letters and sentiments out there directed at Bishop Zurek, as well as the “Free Father Pavone” website that has been established. Not much luck in the persuasiveness department regarding my belief that we should allow Father Pavone and his bishop a quiet space to work out this situation. […]
I’m closing comments on this thread and moving the discussion to the new post on the subject:
https://gerardnadal.com/2011/09/20/father-pavone-and-authentic-freedom/
See you there.
[…] arms of the Church Triumphant.Over at Dr. Gerard Nadel’s blog, where he has lead the charge with sensible commentary on this latest cause célèbre, I commented that I’ve always wondered why our priests aren’t […]