{Click to enlarge}
I’ve said pretty much all that needs to be said in four posts and a Novena to Saint John Vianney. There isn’t very much more to say except this:
The Church is not a democracy.
Some years ago I read a commentary by the brilliant Dr. Janet Smith about how the media reports on the Catholic Church. Essentially, Dr Smith observes, the media try to apply the template of the majority party in power (conservative Popes) and the minority opposition (liberal theologians). It doesn’t work with the media, because they fail to grasp the ecclesiastical realities of the Church. Again, it’s not a democracy.
There really is no such thing as liberal and conservative. There is orthodoxy and fidelity vs. heterodox rebellion. They aren’t competing goods.
Many of Father Pavone’s more vocal supporters are non-Catholics who see him in terms of a fellow warrior in the cause for life, and there is a great deal to be said for having been foxhole buddies who have come through major battles together. It is truly a band of brothers in the pro-life movement, and I understand and applaud their fidelity to Father Pavone. However…
If they (and the very vocal Catholics protesting against Bishop Zurek) truly understood what a bishop is and what a priest is, they wouldn’t have taken the course of action that they have. This terse clarification from Bishop Zurek translates: I’m the one who wears the Mitre, and I’ll decide what is best for one of my priests (That’s what was meant by, “At my discretion and solicitude, he has faculties for ministry in the Diocese of Amarillo.”).
It’s time to back off. Flying banners of butchered babies, trucks with similar grisly images circling the Cathedral school, are pretty thuggish tactics from Father’s supporters, as are some of the letters people sent me in hopes of my signature. I have signed no letters. I have made no phone calls to the bishop. I have instead been hosting a novena. I have also written to Father Pavone to convey my support of him, and my prayers that God’s perfect will be done.
The thought that the pro-life movement simply cannot survive without Father Pavone is reflective of a serious spiritual cramp. I love all that Father Pavone has done, but one day he and I and this entire generation will be dead and interceding from Heaven. It will fall to today’s young to assume the mantle of leadership.
The one whom we cannot survive without is the Holy Spirit.
To remove all doubt:
A priest has no priesthood of his own to exercise at will. He is merely an extension of his bishop, who being an Apostolic Successor, has the fullness of priesthood. Having a share in the Apostles’ company, bishops are free to act as they see fit regarding governance of their priests, so long as that governance is in accord with the moral and juridical norms of the Church. This bishop has underscored that he has restricted Father Pavone’s activities in order to provide a space for reflection.
I’ve been urging that all simply give these two men the time and space to work this out. Our getting into a power struggle with Bishop Zurek will only reinforce his belief that Father needs some time away in order to reorient his priestly bearing. The thuggishness and wild accusations against Bishop Zurek have backfired, badly I’m afraid.
Consider the wisdom of Rabon Gamaliel in Acts 5:
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
It’s time that those making war on the bishops ask themselves if they are not fighting against God Himself by fighting His will being expressed through His Apostle’s Successors. They are redefining ugly.
I’m praying for God’s perfect will in all of this, and I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to make that will known with crystal clarity. Again, if we can’t hear the Holy Spirit, perhaps we need to be still. Street activism has failed in this case. Perhaps now we should try faith.
This bishop has started the war in my opinion especially with his releasing the public letter as well as other bishops who refuse to stop public scandals. (Edited. No gratuitous sex abuse stuff. That’s over. GN) Not a fan of bishops who who are authoritarian and make decisions which hurt the public and the Church just to fill their egos. That is one reason I’m glad for the change in the Liturgy, too.
I find it interesting that Jesus on the Cross started His Church and left the continuation of the Church in the hands of people who did not really measure up to his standards many times. He asked alot of him. He died and rose and left them the Eucharist and the Holy Spirit as aids.
His Father called Him to heaven…His prayers in the garden pled with God to spare Him the Cross…but not My will by Thy will be done. In the NT, he at least once said.. paraphrase: My will is to do the Will of the Father.
Is not a priest, any priest in the same boat when his bishop calls and asks him to do something. Shound not the priest respond appropriately to his father. If we are to truly imitate Christ, then the answer is probably that the priest will do what the bishop tells him to do…reign in on his own desires and lean more and more to the bishop’s wishes. A gradual shift in his thinking/acting. Other priests have done likewise. Or did I miss something IMHO.
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
I’m all for obedience, but the Bishop is being irresponsible in his actions. The charges against Fr. Pavone and PFL are nebulous at best, and considering he is a public figure, more han 4 sentences of clarifcation are needed. Now that it’s public, if the Bishop’s got a beef, he should lay it on the table for all to see and for Fr. to give his side. He is purposly causing emotional harm to Fr., who has taken a vow to do pro-life ministry, and damaging an organization without providing a sufficient reason.
Just another bishop without any regard for the unborn. What else is new?
Thanks Bishop Zurek, that clears everything up for me.
Teresa and Lucille, please reread this very moderate and instructive post. Bishops are not “authoritarian”–they are the competent authority and successors of the Apostles. Bp Zurek is being responsible, not irresponsible, for a priest under obedience, and is not obligated to lay anything on any table. I do believe that many Catholics are as unaware of the Spirit-guided structure of the Catholic Church as are their non-Catholic sisters and brothers. If nothing else, this can be a teachable moment. Prayers for all.
Hmmm…board swarm?
There is a moral code that applies to both the Church and public square. And in the case of Fr. Pavone, those paths intersect. If you make accusations against, someone, anyone, if it is the CEO of an Fortune 500 company, a priest, a politician, or the drunk on the corner, you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to back up those accusations with facts. To do anything less is an affront to human dignity. We cannot just hide behind Church law here. Fr. Pavone is first and foremost a person, whose reputation derseves to be respected, unless clear evidence of wrongdoing is given. The Bishops have a duty to be obedient to Church teaching. Slandering someone’s good name without just cause and reason is against Church teaching.
The Bishop also has an obligation to the public. As a supporter of PFL, I WANT to know if there is any mishandling of monies. But I would want to know specifically, is there just a disagreement in management style here, or clear wrongdoing? The public has a right to know where exactly the accusations lie.
Lucille,
I think you need to stand down. Seriously.
If Bishop Zurek airs all his issues with Father Pavone publicly, then he’s putting him on trial publicly, which fails Father Pavone in charity.
If Bishop Zurek recalls him without comment, then he’s condemning him silently and publicly, leaving him wide open to the most base speculation.
If he recalls him and writes the letters he has, it’s not specific enough, and fails Father Pavone in charity.
So, in other words, there can be no acceptable oversight or intervention other than Bishop Zurek being told to shut up and do what he’s told by the prolifers who support Father Pavone.
Sorry, that’s not how the Church functions. Beyond ultimately being damaging to Father Pavone, it should make every bishop’s blood run cold at the thought that this could befall him should he assign a priest to a high visibility pro-life ministry and need to step in should troubles arise.
I don’t insinuate myself between spouses who are having a major falling out. It’s disrespectful of the boundaries of their marriage. Likewise, the public circus unfolding is disrespectful of the boundaries surrounding a bishop and his sons.
I’m a national leader in the pro-life movement who prays for Father Pavone’s swift restoration to PFL, but I’m not willing to burn all of our bridges to accomplish that. I also know that if it’s God’s will, it will happen, and if it is not God’s will, it won’t; and that the circus will only do irreparable harm to the relationship between the pro-life movement and the bishops.
“If Bishop Zurek airs all his issues with Father Pavone publicly, then he’s putting him on trial publicly”
Zurek already has.
Right on Lucille.
“The Church is not a democracy”.
I spent a lot of time thinking about this. In fact, as a Catholic you might say I spent years thinking about it because as humans we tend to rationalize our actions in order to make them seem right. I think I lived a taste of that for 20 years as a law to myself.
Today, I no longer believe that I know better than the thousands of saints, hundreds of popes, and all the successors of the Apostles, who have helped articulate church doctrine. Imagine one such mediocre intelligence as myself believing that in the spare moments of my life, I could come up with a better determination of God’s will than all these people who have devoted their lives and long hours of prayer to the task.
That I could ever have done this was reason enough to accept the ecclesiastical realities of the Church and that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. And for this I am truly grateful.
The Bishops first have a duty to obey the teachings of the Church. I could go on and on about how they have openly disregarded Church teaching but I won’t do that right now The first obligation we all have is to be charitable to our neighbors. Priests have to be obedient, but Bishops have to treat their priests with human respect. Their priests are not little army men they can move around at their whim. First and foremost, priests are human persons that have human rights under God. Bishop Z has made strong statements. He called the PFL ministry a “lucrative business” under what basis is that claim made? I’m sorry but he just can’t spout out things like that w/o backing it up, How long does take to audit an organization? Fr. Pavone is already on trial. What did he do wrong specifically? What did PFL do wrong specifically? If no one can answer that question, his reputation should not be run through the mud like this.
The American legal system is based on right reason and the rights of the individual. Maybe the Bishops should take a cue from it, since the process is divinely inspired.
To all the defenders of Father Pavone:
When the superiors of former Father Corapi reigned him in, did you instinctively respect their legitimate authority or did you defend Corapi as a victim? Now that Corapi has been exposed, and his superiors vindicated, have you admitted your mistake?
I never took a side with Corapi,until I witnessed Fr. Corapi’s own actions and knew something was not right him. I defended Bishop Mulvey, actually. Fr. Pavone and Corapi should not be compared. Fr. Corapi had some serious moral issues going on and his lifestyle was way too lavish for a priest. With Fr. Pavone, it seems to be more of a managerial disagreement.
Bill,
I agree with Lucille that Fathers Corapi and Pavone are simply not related categories. I genuinely like Father Pavone and think he’s a good guy. They are only related in the sense that they are both celebrity priests whose followings became enraged when they were placed under restrictions.
In the case of Father Corapi, I was one of his most vocal defenders in the blogosphere, regarding the way he was being dealt with. Now we know the extent of his failings, which makes me double-down on my defense of his treatment with one exception.
Corapi’s superiors should have made known from the outset the magnitude of the case against him and not have given Corapi the opportunity to whip up the masses as he did. They were wrong to curtail his ministry and remain silent. The case against him was overwhelming. So, I regret having been drawn into something that was entirely avoidable.
As regards Father Pavone, this is a matter of discretionary use of money, which makes the differences between him and his bishop a complete mess. There’s no good answer to this other than Father Pavone furnishing all requested documents and then making the best case he can for his priorities within the strategic vision he has for the direction of the pro-life movement.
His defenders need to give that process the time and respectful space it needs to play itself out.
“The thought that the pro-life movement simply cannot survive without Father Pavone is reflective of a serious spiritual cramp.”
Amen. One monkey don’t stop no show.
@Subvet…I don’t think Fr. Pavone IS the pro-life movement, but I do fear governmental or ecclesiastical authorities that may be trying to silence our voice. I never got the feeling from Fr. Pavone that it was about “him.” It was always about the cause. I’m not sure if you could call Fr. Pavone a celebrity priest. He has 5000 FB fans, Fr. JC had 55,000 and did world tours. Fr. Pavone is an activist priest…he’s known for his activism, but I wouldn’t consider him a “celebrity.”
Lucille,
This narrative of the bishops trying to silence Father Pavone is a malignant lie spawned in the pit of Hell. Since ordination, Father Pavone has had four bishops.
1. Cardinal O’Connor appointed him to six years at PFL
2. Cardinal Egan needed him in a parish, but finally consented to allow Father Pavone to go to Bishop Yanta in order to continue his ministry.
3. Bishop Yanta welcomed Father Pavone and encouraged his PFL ministry.
4. Bishop Zurek similarly kept Father Pavone in PFL, and only acted after receiving several complaints that demanded an investigation. He called him home when he didn’t like the answers he was getting.
I count 4 Bishops out of four whose actions facilitated Father Pavone’s nearly 20 years at PFL. To suggest otherwise is a lie.
Is there an investigation going on? Because Bishop Z. had not indicated there once, and instead maligned the character of Fr. Frank and the intergrity of PFL. I think we can “read between the lines” that something was going on with Fr. Egan….why can’t he be in NY under his own diocese doing this important work? There are several priests running leftist organziations, teaching heresey, and no one recalls them. The Bishops have not shown good judgement or followed teaching of the Church in many instances, and it is common knowledge that many are affiliated closely with this administration. They meddle with and take stance on specific legislation (deathcare, illegal immigration), without simply teaching the faithful Catholic PRINCIPLES and let us apply them to our civic life. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and say that pro-life priests have not been persecuted. I can give examples from my own diocese. I’m not saying definitively that Fr. Pavone is being persecuted, but we can’t say it is not happening either.
If there is an investigation going on Bishop Z. should state that, and give us an update as to how far a long they are in the process, instead of saying the Fr. Frank is suspended indefinately.
Gerry, I think we can safely say two Bishops supported Fr. Pavone’s mission.
Lucille,
Unless you are the Pope, Bishop Zurek doesn’t answer to you, or me for that matter. A dispassionate reading of his letter to his brother bishops lays the case out from his perspective with crystal clarity. He is under no obligation to issue periodic updates. As I said in this post, the Church is NOT a democracy!
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I think there are a great many folks who think that being a pro-life activist makes one a superior species to a bishop. That’s upside-down, backward, and inside-out reasoning. I have long-loathed the condescension of pro-lifers in their regard of the bishops. I think any man who accepts that job needs to have his head checked. The mitre is really a crown of thorns. They simply cannot win.
So to get the relationship straight, Fasther Pavone owes bishop Zurek his respect and obedience, and Bishop Zurek owes Father Pavone fair and respectful treatment in accord with the moral and juridical norms of the Church.
I don’t see periodic press releases in there. This is a father-son issue.
Gerry, I think we can safely say two Bishops supported Fr. Pavone’s mission.
Lucille,
Are you Catholic?
Father Pavone’s mission is whatever his bishop tells him it is. Period.
That’s the nature of priesthood. That’s why they take vows of respect and obedience.
Bishop Z’s first letter was very nebulous ….I don’t see how anyone can read it and think it was clear or charitable. Given that we $$ support the Church, I think we do have a right to updates about our priests as well as the political dealings of our Bishops. There is also such a thing magesterium of the laity that Bishops must give ear to, not that they have to obedient to per se, but the Holy Spirit works through all members of the Church. Someone from the outside looking in would think the Church is some scary totalitarian regime the way it is being described. The Bishops are the servants of the servants of God, they must act in humility. I don’t see that coming from Bishop Z.
Fr. Pavone took a vow to do full time pro-life ministry. There are authority issues, but he also has to be faithful to his call and Bishop Z has to respect and understand his life’s mission. As a priest, if he sees a need in his children, he needs to addrss it. I’m obedient to my boss, but if she told me to sin, or even to commit a willful omission, I would not, I could not be obedient to that.
Think about it, it was the cry of the laity that forced the Bishops to get serious about clerical sex abuse. So we did play a role….was moving around abusive priests to harm other children part of God’s plan for obedience?
And yes, I am Catholic.
I think the problem lies in the fact that the Church tries to compartmentalize the pro-life ministry, giving us an office in the diocese, and that’s it. But really, the pro-life message is about the dignity of the human person, and that should encompass every ministry, every decision we make. A priest can never be too pro-life, because God is life itself.
Lucille,
Father’s vow to do pro-life ministry is not sacramental, and does not rise to the level of, or eclipse his sacramental vows of respect and obedience to his bishop and all of his successors. The ordination vows trump any others.
That having been said, the vow to do pro-life work can be honored in ways great and small, and must be done so within a framework where Father is honoring his sacramental vows. It doesn’t mean that he must head any particular ministry, and the more the laity spout this, the worse hey make Father Pavone look. As a Catholic, you know that wherever there is a bishop, there is the Church.
I think we do Father Pavone the greater service by cooling it and giving him and his bishop some breathing room.
I am all for airing out the problem and the investigation. Believe me, if there is any wrongdoing, I want to know about it. I would like more clairity and transparency to this case. But I do take offense when someone tells me it is none of my business the way a priest that I support is handled. If the affairs of the diocese is “none of our business” then the Bishop should not come knocking on our door when the annual appeal time roles around. We all share in Christ’s priesthood.
Is the “proof” you are talking about with regards to Father Corapi the letter/statement which was released to the public by his Order’s superior? If not, what is the proof? His superior’s uncharitable words and accusations don’t add up. Most, if not all, of the information in the letter was known before the investigation had begun. There are so called investigations and then there are true investigations and I am suspect just because of my experience with investigations which are stacked against the innocent for the sake of saving reputations.
Lucille, we do not all share in Christ’s priesthood in the same way.
You may wish to review the Catechism on this and other aspects of Church structure on which could use some clarification, such as the relationship between a bishop and the priest’s under his authority, the practice of stewardship, and the difference between the divinely ordained and Spirit-sustained structure of the universal Church and the US system of government.
The priesthood of the laity is best exercised, in this as in all cases, by our conscious and prayerful participation in the Eucharist, entrusting all concerned to the will of God, which will be done.
I was making a distinction between the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the laity. The faithful have every right to voice their opinions on procedural issues such as this.
Teresa, I’ve spilled about ten gallons of ink on Corapi. It’s all there in the archives on the blog. I simply don’t have the energy to get into it all again. As it is, this Pavone situation has set back my agenda for the blog by a couple of weeks. God Bless.
Lucille,
If I had 10,000 well-meaning noses stuck in my marriage, I’d explode.
No, we don’t have the right to demand that a bishop answer to us directly for his relationship with a priest who serves at his “discretion and solicitude”.
The chain of command goes up the ladder, not down. If Father believes he is being dealt with unjustly (and he does), he has the right to hire a Canon Lawyer (which he has), and appeal his case up the chain of command to the Pope (which he is doing). Bishop Zurek then answers to his Archbishop, the Rota, and the Pope. That’s just the way it is. I don’t indulge the way we would want things, but restrict myself to the way things are.
When the Bishop is making public accusations, he should as a decent human being, regardless of title, back them up. I guess that is where we can agree to disagree.
. It is so confusing to try and keep it in perpective about what was said and who said what..And Thank you for allowing us to see the documents of the Bishop’s Comments.
Priests take vows and Bishops give orders..The higher you go up the Magisterium Ladder the more responsibilities. It is not a democratic society. Father Corapi and Father Pavone knew this.before they took their vows. They are highly intelligent men. Their rights are determined by a closed set of rules and when you violate those rules the patriarch pulls the plug. Plain and simple.
Pax
Patricia Eileen.
With regards to discussion on the four bishops over Fr. Pavone, it should be noted that while Bishop Yanta erected the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life in December of 2005, and incardinated Fr. Pavone in it the following year, it was Bishop Yanta who suppressed the fledgling community. That was appealed by Fr. Pavone up to the Congregation for Clergy and when that was rejected, his case went up to the Apostolic Signatura (the Church’s highest court) and the appeal was rejected there, I believe in June of 2008. Bishop Zurek was installed just four months prior. I think many mistakenly believe that Bishop Zurek put an end to MEV, when it was actually Bishop Yanta.
One more note about the hierarchy…. I do not believe that a bishop is answerable to his metropolitan (archbishop). I believe all bishops are directly answerable to the Pope. I could be wrong.
Correction: Fr. Pavone did not take the MEV case up to the Congregation for Clergy; he took it up to the Congregation for Consecrated Life and the appeal was rejected there, I believe in 2007.
Interesting how the bishops flaunt the responsibility of “obedience” when it suits them… would love to see the rest of the priests in this country called into obedience as well, maybe just to the simple things like adherence to the rubrics of the mass, Church teaching on contraception, Church teaching on abortion…. need I go on?
I will eat my words if it is proven that every single priest in the Diocese of Amarillo is obedient on these elements.
Father Pavone was targeted – pure and simple. He is a threat to the bishops because he does the job that they refuse to do. He is a voice for the innocent.
Totally agree, Anne.
I don’t think this can be compared to a husband wife relationship. These are public people, Fr. Pavone represents a public issue, and runs a PUBLIC organization at PFL. There are public reprecussions to the actions of the Bishop. It’s not that we derserve to know every word exchanged between the Bishop and Fr. Pavone, but there does need to be than 4 sentences of the Bishop’s clarification regarding the suspension of Fr. Pavone. Is an investigation being conducted? We have a right to know that? and to suspend Fr. Pavone outside of his diocese does ring of house arrest…how would any of us like to be told
that w
we can’t leave the confines of our diocese or risk public censure by our superior? Priests have to obedient their Bishops but their bishops need to act with charity, humility, and treat their priests with respect. What they are doing to Fr. Pavone is boders with abuse. He is not a danger to anyone, there is no need to confine him to a convent.
I would love to know how the bishop making this complaint public against Father Pavone could possibly bring any good to the Church or be good for the Church? He is the one who made this public and is making accusations against Father Pavone and PFL so it is only right that Father Pavone defend himself against those accusations. How do we know that Bishop Zurek did try and work this out with Father Pavone prior to these events taking place, before this was made public? It seems to me that if the bishop wanted to protect the Church and the laity from such chaos and perceived scandal he could have handled this whole situation much more discreetly than he did.
It is apparent that Fr Pavone has touched a very deep need among many pro-life people. I think all of us in the movement would love to see more priests and Bishops speak boldly and more often about the state of affairs regarding attacks on innocent human life in America and elsewhere. I am grateful to many who do all over the country and a pray for them daily.
What is sad about this situation to me is that what Bishop Zurek didn’t say was that he was worried about the cult of personality that appears to be a big part of the problem here. I think he’s very right. I have had occasion to personally hear Fr P. say himself that he is different from other priests, because he is the only priest dedicated to the pro-life fight, That others do it as a sort of “hobby”! (his words)
That has always rubbed me the wrong way because I know several priests as friends who have always and daily stand up for life in the work they do in their parishes and their schools. It’s no hobby for them, it’s personal too!
It takes courage to help a friend that has gone off course in their life. I Hope the Bishop can take the heat. He is more than Father’s friend he is his sacramental father and boss!! Did he handle everything smoothly? Maybe not, but maybe stirring the pot has brought the bottom to the top. Perhaps it points out what needs to be addressed.
My plea is this. If you care about Fr Frank, stop all the shouting on his behalf. I fear it points out the problem all too well to all the Bishops!
I think, as I have said before, that all good pro-life people need to stop, think, and look around to see that w/ or without Fr Frank or even PPL the Movement can and will remain strong. We make it work. Our commitment has to be to do what is asked of all of us all the time and change our culture.
Join your local Right to Life group, they have all the tools you need to get active and to stay active. Go help out at a Mother Helping Center. They are the boots on the ground all over America They need you and your time, and talents. They are quietly steadily getting things done and saving lives.
Fr Frank is one man, a man with a vocation that is governed by Church law. Maybe all of this will help others, even bishops see that one man shouldn’t be doing it all. Who knows the mind of God!? Be still and hear Him in the stillness!
John,
You are not making blanket condemnations of the bishops here on my blog. Period. No debate.
Take it elsewhere.
Comment taken down.
I definitely see a great deal of pride among some of the commenters here. As much as I dislike the bishop’s actions, I know in my heart that I must be obedient to the authority of the Church hierarchy. I do not know all the facts or details of this case. If Bishop Zurek is guilty of wrongdoing, God will take care of that, in His own good time. We must not get ahead of God.
I appreciate Gerard Nadal’s wise advice. By the way, I am a member of Silent No More Awareness, so this is very difficult for me. But I also trust in the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit in all things. Praying, with tears and a heavy heart….
Alot of what I am reading here is that the Bishop is wrong and Father Pavone is a public figure.. NO!.. We have no CLUE if the Bishop is wrong and Father Pavone is NOT a public figure, he IS a priest of Jesus Christ.. As this blog posts states, the Church is NOT a democracy. It never has been it never will be… GOD will sort things out in His church if they are incorrect.. You all need to put your faith in God and the Holy Spirit and stop fighting each other.. This is not a war nor is it the place of the lay people to get involved. This is between Father Pavone, Bishop Zurek and God..period, end.
I also truly believe that prayer is required in the conversations between these two clergymen. Otherwise, I kind of see where some judging can rear its ugly head….I handcraft icon art.
I have one print of Jesus Christ, 16th century, Russian. He has such a strong and loving look about him. The words written in a non-English language are from the New Testament….”Judge not that ye be not judged…” or better yet, see John 7:24 and Matthew 7:2.
If Jesus Christ settled His concerns in the Garden of Gesatheme (sp) and on the Cross, two modern men can also follow their lead and make peace.
IMHO, both men are intelligent enough to find a true and peaceful solution to the issues at hand.
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
My only question is this: If this were a judge, we would be outraged. If this were a court of appeals we would be outraged, or a jury, or any other secular institution. But because it is a Bishop, who is human and subject to the same ills of the rest of humanity and is not God, his actions are tolerated.
So are Bishops above any and all public scrutiny and criticism?
I’m not trying to be mean or start an argument here, but I have to say, this is the reason I left the church — and the reason I refuse to come back.
are you seriously blocking me from posting?seriously?
Troy,
I’m at a medical conference and just found your comments in the spam folder where about 1/3 go for reasons known only to God.
Troy,
Regarding the bishops, I don’t think you want that discussion with me in a public forum. Let me know if you want to talk on the phone.
I’m away at a medical conference and not chasing down comments that bash the bishops. Read all of my posts on the Father Pavone controversy, and if you are so inclined to bash the bishops, you may go to the 3,549,234 websites that do so. I’m not interested in that stuff.
For those who post their disgust under pseudonyms, write directly to Bishop Zurek and tell him of your great disgust, signing your real name, so he knows who to pray for.
Comments Closed.