Bishop’s harsh letter against Fr. Pavone
4:40p: Here is a copy of the response letter Fr. Pavone sent to all U.S. bishops after Bishop Zurek sent his letter (below). Salient points:
Bishop Zurek is my Ordinary, but he is not the bishop of Priests for Life. Many of you know our ministry much better than he does….
Beyond annual independent audits, we have provided the diocese of Amarillo with an extraordinary number of documents, and yet, we have never once received so much as an acknowledgement….
We have mailed, emailed, and fedexed such documentation, in some cases—three, four and five times. We have also made several offers for our accountants and legal representatives to speak with the accountants of the diocese, in order to better answer any questions they might have. To date, we have received no response….
Moreover, in my meeting Bishop Zurek this past Holy Week, in the presence of the Vicar for Clergy of the diocese, I asked the Bishop more than once and very explicitly if he had any further unanswered questions about any of these financial matters. He indicated none whatsoever….
The Bishop of Amarillo has stated in his letter that my “fame” has caused me to become gradually more disobedient to him and that I now have a “reductionist attitude towards diocesan priesthood” and give “supreme importance” to my ministry with Priests for Life.
I would respectfully make the observation that the reason I excardinated from the Archdiocese of New York in the first place was precisely because the previous Bishop of Amarillo was committed to allowing me to exercise full-time ministry within the pro-life movement, and, in fact, to form a community to allow others to live that same commitment. If it were not for his willingness to allow me to do full-time work in the pro-life movement, I would not have incardinated into the Diocese of Amarillo in the first place….
One of the reasons Priests for Life began and continues to grow is that there is a profound desire among the faithful to see the leadership of their priests in the pro-life ministry of the Church….
Moreover, it is impossible for me to believe that there would be no place in the Church for priests to exercise full-time ministry in the service of the unborn. We do it for the sick, the poor, the hungry, and the imprisoned. But where in the Church is the place where a priest can exercise the same kind of full-time ministry for the children in the womb? That is the question that is at the heart of my own calling, and I welcome your help in answering it.
Fr. Pavone in his letter itemizes the extraordinary number of financial documents he has provided Bishop Zurek.
4:26p: Just received a response letter to the bishops from Fr. Pavone’s “formidable… canonical counsel,” to which Bishop Zurek referred. The letter takes his accusations apart, bluntly calling them “untrue” and “an outright and unjustified attack,” also providing substantiation of Fr. Pavone’s position.
[HT: Troy Newman at Operation Rescue]
4:07p: Read backstory here. I just read the letter Bishop Patrick Zurek sent to his fellow bishops re: Fr. Frank Pavone, which was subsequently leaked to the Catholic News Service. (Read jpg here.) His version of events is pretty much the opposite of Fr. Pavone’s.
Whereas Fr. Pavone wrote in his statement…
Priests for Life has consistently provided every financial document requested by Bishop Zurek, including annual financial audits, quarterly reports, management documents—even entire check registers! Priests for Life has been completely transparent with Bishop Zurek and any other bishops who have requested information regarding our management and finances.
… Bishop Zurek wrote in his letter to fellow bishops…
… [H]e has consistently refused to subject the PFL to a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures….
[T]he PFL financial resources have afforded Father Pavone with a formidable civil and canonical counsel which he utilized to rebuff my every attempt at calling for financial transparency.
But Bishop Zurek’s order for Fr. Pavone to begin serving in the Amarillo diocese is also about a perceived ego problem. Bishop Zurek apparently wants to remind Fr. Pavone who’s the boss:
In his relationship to his bishop ordinaries, Father Pavone has gradually lost his need to show appropriate obedience to his Bishop. It seems that his fame has caused him to see priestly obedience as an inconvenience to his unique status and an obstacle to the possible international scope of his ministry. I would venture to say that the supreme importance that he has attributed to his PFL ministry and the reductionist attitude toward the diocesan priesthood has inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance and self-determination. This attitude has strained his relationship with me and has give me the impression that I cannot invoke obedience with him because he is famous. It is my desire to help him readjust his priestly bearing through spiritual and theological renewal in order to recapture that essential priestly hallmark of respect and obedience. It is also my desire to strengthen Father Pavone’s sense of communio sacramentalis with me so that he may be fortified with a healthy zeal to live in an authentic way his sacramental gift and mystery as a priest of Jesus Christ.
Then Bishop Zurek suggests that flocks around the country be encouraged not to give to PFL?
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 all quite bizarre. Somehow FP has really gotten under this bishop’s skin.
[HT: The Anchoress]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What a childish creep. (sorry I know he’s a bishop but really)
I think I’m going to withhold judgment until more facts come out.
Lord, may Your truth prevail and may Your people refrain from gossip, taking sides and backbiting, feeding into what would delight the enemy. Let us pray, knowing God is not throwing His hands up in the air, exclaiming “Oh, no, I had no idea!” upon seeing this unfold. He is STILL on the throne, and He works all things together for good!
I’ll bide my time on this… but I’ll be honest: this smells like fish… especially the lack of anything substantial (and which sounds uncomfortably like raw gossip and “what-if-ing”), and especially the bit about the bishop “recommending that donations be withheld from Priests for Life”. This is simply gratuitous, and it’s making the bishop (whatever his motives) look childish, petulant, retaliatory (though I can’t imagine what would be the provocation for the retaliation) and heedless of scandal.
“…we do not impugn in any way Bishop Zurek’s
motives, but instead fervently desire a peaceful and amicable resolution to the whole
matter.”
What an INCREDIBLY charitable statement.
Planned Parenthood must be salivating right about now.
Make no mistake about it – this is about money. The bishop is covetous of the funds that Priests for Life receive from faithful donors. But it won’t work to suspend, fire or anything else Fr. Pavone because if he continued his work somewhere else, the donors would just follow him. And, as well they should since he is the backbone of the organization. My prayers go out to him and his staff in this time of attack. Satan is really laughing right now.
Sad. None of these letters should have been made public. Shame on those responsible for leaking them.
And the editorializing in the blog post = Ick
I’m glad these were made public. That is what “transparency” is all about. It truly sounds like this bishop has become envious of Fr. Pavone. Just because he’s a bishop does not mean he is not human.
I once called the rectory where I used to live and asked for a priest who was in residence there and was so kindly that he had become very popular with the people. The pastor, who was not so popular, told me, “I am not Fr.C——‘s secretary!” and hung up on me!
-So just being a bishop does not make him necessarily the one in the right on this!
It actually sounds like this bishop is being “inspired” by something other than the Holy Spirit…especially since he is advocating that people stop giving to this Pro-Life organization. If I had the funds, I would give more, instead!
You cannot use lawyers to keep your boss from seeing your financial records and what you are doing under their brand without being fired. I wonder what he is hiding that he does not want his boss to see?
If Fr. Pavone is so wonderful and innocent then why is he hiding his records from his own church? Why is he using lawyers he paid for with donation money from his organization to fend off the Catholic Church?
To me it sounds like someone is more concerned with his political movement than his commitment to the Vatican. Notice I did not say God, as this seems to be an organization problem and not a spiritual problem. I am sure his commitment to his faith is not being stepped on here, just his handling of private donation money within his organization.
I do think clergy should stay out of politics. From a believer point of view it diminishes the notion of all spiritual issues being judged by a higher authority and can seem to diminish the very power of god. After all why argue with politicians when you can just go above their heads to ask for change. I guess what I am saying is if you are a man who communicates with god himself why would you even bother arguing with a greedy politician only concerned with his own career and ego? And if you are a believer why would you look to a man who argues with politicians for spiritual guidance or teaching.
My heart breaks for Fr. Pavone and I will pray for him even harder now. I will also be sending more money to PFL. How dare any Bishop tell the followers of PFL to suspend all donations! WHY???? Just because he is pitchin a fit won’t stop those women from having abortions or needing post-abortion support. This is clearly the devil’s work because of all the success PFL has had along with how hard of a hit PP has taken this year.
On Sep. 13, Biggz said: “You cannot use lawyers to keep your boss from seeing your financial records and what you are doing under their brand without being fired. I wonder what he is hiding that he does not want his boss to see?
If Fr. Pavone is so wonderful and innocent then why is he hiding his records from his own church? Why is he using lawyers he paid for with donation money from his organization to fend off the Catholic Church?
To me it sounds like someone is more concerned with his political movement than his commitment to the Vatican. Notice I did not say God, as this seems to be an organization problem and not a spiritual problem. I am sure his commitment to his faith is not being stepped on here, just his handling of private donation money within his organization.
I do think clergy should stay out of politics. From a believer point of view it diminishes the notion of all spiritual issues being judged by a higher authority and can seem to diminish the very power of god. After all why argue with politicians when you can just go above their heads to ask for change. I guess what I am saying is if you are a man who communicates with god himself why would you even bother arguing with a greedy politician only concerned with his own career and ego? And if you are a believer why would you look to a man who argues with politicians for spiritual guidance or teaching.”
I find it curious that you completely ignore the fact that Rev. Pavone has, indeed, provided transparency, vis-a-vis the Priest For Life finances, documentation he has made readily clear and available. As stated, Rev. Pavone has supplied numerous copies of the documents. He has also talked to this bishop directly, and the bishop indicated that he had no questions as to the handling of Priests For Life finances. I’m curious why your statement would ignore the documented evidence, yet defend what appear to be baseless allegations. It makes me curious as to what your true agenda might be. It should make any other intelligent reader wonder about the same thing.
Bishop Zurek says, “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.”
Withhold donations until “issues and concerns are settled”? Gee! Does that mean that the bishops will urge the same for the chequered Catholic Campaign for Human Development? Just wondering….
I will pray for all involved. I will wait to make judgement for I was burned when I rushed to Fr. Corapi’s defense. In the meantime, don’t let this deter our commitment to protect the unborn. Thank you Fr. Pavone for all that you have done to protect life!
Patrick J. Zurek is a careerist clergyman, a climber, in other words. Ordained to the priesthood for the Diocese of Austin by Pope Paul VI in 1975, Fr. Zurek rose to prominence when Bishop John McCarthy appointed him Director of Vocations in 1987. Over the next 11 years, Zurek was the gatekeeper for who got into the seminary, who continued, and who was ordained to the priesthood. He served three years as president of the national association of diocesan vocations directors and networked with priests and bishops across the country. In 1998, he was ordained to the episcopacy and made Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio. In 2007, he was installed as Bishop of Amarillo.
The disparity in tone and content between Bishop Zurek’s letter to the bishops of the United States and those of Fr. Frank Pavone and Fr. David Deibel as chief canonist indicate that Pat Zurek is still using the same passive-aggressive style from the playbook he learned from Bishop McCarthy. Demand repeated accountings. Receive those accountings but do not acknowledge receiving them. Say No when asked if you have more questions. Wait a while. Lower the full weight of your office, accusing the one you want to discipline or expel of non-compliance, adding words publicly that could discredit the targeted individual.
In Austin, Fr. Zurek (with the compliance of Bishop McCarthy) used that game plan against seminarians he wanted to get rid of. Seminarians have neither the standing to challenge that kind of approach. I know. In August 1988, Pat Zurek told me — over the phone — that I would never be a priest. He seemed taken aback when I concluded the phone call with “God bless you, Father.” I wrote him a detailed letter stating the reasons for my confusion over his unilateral decision against positive recommendations of me from people he sought for input. He did not reply. I wrote to Bishop McCarthy, stating the same concerns. The Bishop’s reply rubber-stamped Fr. Zurek’s decision. I attempted to meet with both Fr. Zurek and the Bishop, to no avail. I appealed to both of them that I at least wanted to attempt to understand the reasoning for my categorical dismissal from formation, so that no matter what the future held, I could learn from what he observed. Again to no avail.
I have been a priest of another diocese for 15 years.
As a climber, Patrick Zurek is never satisfied, and now in his early 60s, he feels the tick of the biological clock. With every passing birthday, with every appointment of someone else as Ordinary of a more cosmopolitan diocese or archdiocese, Bishop Zurek’s fear that he has climbed his last ecclesiastical rung increases. That fear is magnified by the fact that the head of Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone, is one of Zurek’s own priests. How Bishop Zurek must fume while he is chief shepherd of the the highly rural Texas Panhandle while one of his presbyters is jet-setting to preaching assignments and parish missions and to tape TV series and programs. Zurek’s personality cannot tolerate a Pavone. And since Zurek is the Bishop and Pavone is one of his priests under obedience, the Bishop will, by golly, show Frankie boy who’s boss.
Notice, too, that Fr. Pavone indicates that upon arrival in Amarillo he will meet with diocesan Vicar for Clergy, not Bishop Zurek himself. To this I would ask my former Vocations Director one question, “Bishop, are you really that busy in the Diocese of Amarillo that you cannot make time to meet MAN TO MAN with one of your own priests in good standing that you publicly excoriated to your brother bishops?”
My prediction: Bishop Zurek will get what he really wants, deep down, and that’s to be rid of a “famous” priest whose very attachment to Amarillo reminds the Bishop of the incompleteness of his climb up the ecclesiastical ladder. And it won’t take long. Another bishop will snap up Fr. Frank Pavone in a heartbeat.
Praised be Jesus Christ now and forevermore!
Fr. Pavone’s statement is a rock solid explanation of the finances and the oversight structure of the Priests for Life. As a business owner and as the vice-chairman and director of a financial services corporation I am more than familiar with the types of rigorous auditing and oversight that have been conducted on the Priests for Life’s books referred to in Fr. Pavone’s statement.
I am confident that Fr. Pavone and the Priests for Life will be cleared of any suggestion of improprieties. That said the sad fact remains we cannot do anything to remove the stain on Fr. Pavone’s and the Priests for Life’s reputation that has already occured and will continue to mount until this matter has been resolved. If this goes according to form it will be months before a final resolution is arrived at and by then incalculable damage will have been done. Hopefully the Vatican will take up the appeal and act quickly in order to minimize the devastating effect this is certain to have upon the important work of the Priests for Life.
Fr. Pavone is a brilliant and tireless advocate for life. He is a wonderful and deeply spiritual Catholic Priest. In this crazy world these two things put him in the crosshairs of those who wish to undermine both the pro-life movement and the role the Church has in the movement. Any whiff of scandal will be vastly overplayed because of who is involved.
It appears this is a territorial dispute over the matter of authoritative oversight the organization. In other words…who exactly is in charge? Is it the diocese or the autonomous corporation that has it’s own legal structure and a board of directors? The dispute has blossomed needlessly into something that is in the mode of the classic “making a mountain out of a molehill”.
I’m reminded of Fulton Sheen. He was very articulate and spoke out about immorality and things that today would be considered “intolerant”. These days, it’s hard for a priest to stick his neck out on any issue. The Church needs to be stronger for life. (That’s an understatement.)
As for the facts in this case, I hope it all works out for the best.
Father Pavone, originally a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, contradicted his vow of obedience to Cardinal Egan by refusing his local Ordinary’s assignment to a parish. He relocated to another diocese, where the Vatican rejected his attempt to set up a separate canonical entity, and now he manifests disobedience again. He will manipulate the heartstrings of his followers, as “Father” Corpai did. And significant numbers of his followers (“generous contrbiutors”) will succumb to the Stockholm Syndrome and defend him against all reason , and defame his bishop, rather than admit that they were duped. First of all, Priests for LIfe should publish a full accounting of their finances, including salaries for all their staff. (any salaries in six figures?) - The Church needs tighter regulations for ad hoc “ministries” run by loose cannons who think they are superior to ordinary parish priests who take seriously their vows to their bishop
Biggz,
You assert that Fr. Pavone is withholding information about PFL’s finances from Bishop Zurek. PFL’s 2010 audit which, of course, contains the organization’s financial statements, is available on their website. You can view it at: http://www.priestsforlife.org/2010-pfl-audit.pdf
If Bishop Zurek has concerns that go beyond those examined by the reputable auditing firm Brooks and Associates, he should have specified them before encouraging people to withhold money from an effective ministry.
Furthermore, PFL is a Private Association of the Faithful under the Code of Canon Law. It is established under Canon 215 which specifically recognizes that the faithful fundamentally have the liberty to associate for a common purpose. Many of those involved in PFL are not priests of the Amarillo Diocese. Whatever issues Bishop Zurek may have with Fr. Pavone, it seems inappropriate for Bishop Zurek to deliberately hinder such an association without concrete evidence of wrongdoing which despite his insinuations about the organization, he implicitly admits he does not have.
I have no basis to make any judgements about Fr. Pavone’s Priesthood and Bishop Zurek has every right, as Pavone’s ordinary, to take action if he believes that Fr. Pavone is out of line as an individual. It is even, I suppose, possible that there is some sort of financial impropriety in the PFL organization, though I see no evidence of it and a number of other bishops sit on its board and have not mentioned any concerns. While I don’t doubt that Bishop Zurek is well intentioned and believes that he is looking out for the faithful and for Fr. Pavone’s spiritual wellbeing, it seems clear to me that he has mishandled this. At the very least, he should not have threatened PFLs fundraising efforts until such point as he actually discovered something wrong with their finances. The vague insinuations he made is only causing confusion and, if he’s wrong, could do serious unjust harm to a good organization.
Father Pavone – we love you and know you are fighting the good fight for babies!!
Can we call this Bishop and express respectfully our concerns that you have been removed (at least for now) from a Ministry you have pledged before God to devote your entire life to??
Can we get a petition?
Can we set up a FB group?
Can we email the Bishop?
Jill & Lila Rose – maybe you wonderful Ladies of God can straighten out this Bishop, someone is obviously telling him falsehoods – I know Fr. Pavone has done as he says. he is a HERO for the UNBORN!!
I did like Fr Corapi but this is a totally different situation and I do not see this dedication to a ministry which truly is for good as disobedience. I believe that Fr Pavone has sent all asked for documentation.
Aren’t there enough people bashing Catholics and Christians in general? THis should not be happening in our church. THis public torture of Priests is wrong.
I encourage all to read what I found. On the home page, the PFL’s auditors and independent auditors gave the PFL and they said this
“present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Priests for Life, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/audit.htm
It’s not hidden.
The canonical identity was the headquarters for the MEVs (Missionaries of Evangelium Vitae). They’re in existence and up and running actually, and it was just the headquarters that didn’t pan out. I don’t see any sly or manipulative agenda. But that’s just me. Can anyone else find something wrong with any of this? Seeing as everything is transparent and available?
But let’s focus on the Bishop. So somewhere on the web, I saw that Fr. Pavone traveled to Amarillo at the Bishop’s request and when Fr. Pavone landed, Bishop Zurek was in Rio de Janeiro. If something like this happens, does Fr. Pavone spend “the PFL”s money to pursue obedience past the realm of reason, in which case, one could accuse Fr. Pavone of spending beyond the realm of reason. If Fr. Pavone doesn’t see it as a prudent expenditure, then one could argue disobedience. The Church needs tighter regulations for ad hoc ”travel arrangements” taken by Bishops who do not take seriously the vows of obedience their ordinary parish priests take to their bishops.
@James Cramer
The incident you cited, from the Priests for Life website, whereby Fr. Pavone traveled to Amarillo after being summoned there by Bishop Zurek, only to find upon arrival that the Bishop was in Rio de Janeiro is consistent with Bishop Zurek’s passive-aggressive MO. On at least two occasions when he was my Vocations Director, I had an appointment him and traveled the two hours from my hometown to his office, only to be told by the staff that “Father Zurek is out of town.” Each time, when I mentioned this to him on the phone a few days later when I called to re-schedule, he showed no remorse and the second time attempted to turn it around on me when I simply, respectfully, mentioned the FACT that I had put 240 miles on my car for what turned out to be a non-appointment.
I have shared here some of my personal, first-hand experiences I’ve had with the man who is now the Bishop of Amarillo. Over the years, I have heard, in conversation, from other Austin seminarians who had similar or even more disconcerting experiences with him.
The Bishop’s letter is abhorrent and labored. How many references to pride and obedience and ‘too big for your britches-style’ slapping does the Bishop really need to get a point across?
What happened to priestly refinement, well-applied firmness, and discretion? Absolutely no reserve apparent. Embarrassing.
I expect more from Bishops. A good one can get a lot across in a few well chosen words. The Bishop’s letter went on and on and on. There wasn’t a hint of charity and wisdom.
I actually hope he didn’t write it, and he simply asked one of his heavy handed minions to do it.
Mary, mother of all priests, pray for us.
@Bill
Sadly, the letter reads like Bishop Zurek’s style of writing, namely lacking in crispness and loaded with overkill.
I would like to know more about this Bishop Zurek.
What has he done against abortion lately, if at all?
I thank commentor, Famifoly, for some excellent insight.
Or should I say Father Famijoly? What you exposed here, on this blog,
everyone should read & know. This is vital to understanding who this bishop really is. One more question; who are all these people the bishop claims are demanding a financial accounting of Priests For Life? Can we get some names bishop? PFL clearly gave you full accounting of everything, now it is your turn to reciprocate, otherwise your accusations are without merit. One has a right to face their accusers. This is a fair question.
A TRUE statement from Fr. Pavone. Partly due to what sparked the bishop’s action?
“Simply put, there are too many leaders in the Church who are more concerned about controlling God’s work than about doing God’s work. The control freaks want everything done at their command and according to their specifications-or not at all.”
I do think clergy should stay out of politics. From a believer point of view it diminishes the notion of all spiritual issues being judged by a higher authority and can seem to diminish the very power of god.
So Martin Luther King Jr. should have stayed out of politics?
Father Pavone promised obedience to his bishop. He should honor his promise. The fact that he refuses to do so is highly troubling. Padre Pio was obedient when he was silenced for 10 years – trusting God that the truth would come out, but even if it didn’t, he still trusted God to get him through the suffering as a test. Turns out, he was right and reinstated, later becoming canonized. That is the humility, trust, and obedience of saints. Father Pavone and Corapi do not have that.
elle, that is how Christ set up His Church. There is a hierarchy and Pavone must answer to it. When they’re good, things are easy. When they’re not, it is a trial. But either way, that is how it works. This world is not perfect, for that is for the next.
@Bruce
Please list for us the specific disobediences? What has he refused to do, actually? Contrasted with the heavy handed innuendo from the Bishop?
Just actual facts.
Sorry, Bill, but what the bishop says goes. That is how Christ’s Church works. If Father Pavone has any sense and any holiness, he will be obedient to his bishop, trust in God, and be completely honest and transparent. That is what we, who are called to be saints, are to do.
@Bruce.
But you don’t read too well. What are the actual facts that the Bishop has laid out and what’s the evidence that accompanies those facts. Do you even understand what Canon law calls for?
The Bishop isn’t a church to himself, for goodness sake.
Bruce, Fr. Pavone has is flying to Amarillo and is going to remain in the diocese in obedience to his bishop until the canonical issues are settled The bishop has not listed any specific acts of disobedience by Fr. Pavone in the past.
However reading between the lines of what both Fr. Pavone and the bishop have said, the real roots of this matter lie in the complicated history of Fr. Pavone with the diocese of Amarillo. He came there in 2005 (I think) on the invitation of the previous ordinary, Bishop Yanta, who supported the idea that he would do full-time pro-life work. He made a vow to do so, with the intention of founding s society of full-time pro-life priests. Well, since that society or congregation has so far not worked out, he is still incardinated in the diocese. Along comes a new Bishop, Bishop Zurek, with different ideas, who does not want Fr. Pavone to do full-time pro-life work and wants to insert him in parish work. He doesn’t like the idea that a priest should be independent (though being independent was not exactly Fr. Pavone’s idea). Should Fr. Pavone obey his vow or his bishop? I presume this is what Rome will decide.
While waiting for Rome to decide, I say Fr. Pavone should obey his bishop, which is what he is doing.
There are a few similarities between the situations of Fr. Corapi and Fr. Pavone, but I would say the men re very different. Fr. Pavone has nothing remotely like Fr. Corapi’s rich lifestyle and numerous homes, not to mention his grave sins. In the attitude of Fr. Corapi pride was very evident, but I don’t see it with Fr. Pavone. His bishop implies that Fr. Pavone has a big ego and resists parish work because he’s a famous person. I put it down to his zeal for the pro-life cause. Maybe his zeal has lead him to an excess of stubbornness. If so, we should just pray for him and hope it works out. We should pray for him in any case. Fr. Pavone is a very faithful priest and the pro-life cause needs him.
Bill, the bishop is Father Pavone’s bishop. What he has done is perfectly correct. The fact that Father Pavone has not been obedient is Father Pavone’s own fault. He can either do what his bishop (and thus the Church) says, or not.
@Bruce,
It’s even worse than I remembered. I went back and re-read the Bishop’s letter and it’s full of unsupported suppositions. “It seems that his fame caused him to…” Oh brother.
http://www.catholicnews.com/images/letter.jpg
Every line and assertion is weak and equivocal, and crafted to use his authority vs. data. This is not how “Christ’s Church” works.
How do you know what is perfectly correct? We’ll let the Vatican determine what was done correctly or not. That’s how “Christ’s Church works”.
You say “the fact that Father Pavone has not been obedient” is actually an assertion, not yet backed up with evidence.
Your assertion or the Bishop’s doesn’t make something a fact.
This is rich. If the bishop had excomunicated a pro-choice Catholic politican, you’d be chanting Te Deums. But he’s gone after Pavone, a shamelss publicity hound, and now you’re all upset. So Pavone didn’t take a salary. If he had access to the account, he could have rewarded himself as much as he wanted. Wonder how much money he got for the so called daring “rescue” of Baby Joseph as he certainly, thanks to Fox News and Christian media, got lots of free PR for that stunt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/anti-abortion-priest-activist-pavone-disciplined-by-catholic-bishop-over-financial-issues/2011/09/13/gIQARBKEQK_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments
4unborn
I have e-mailed ( benedict.xvi@vatican.va ) the following letter:
Dear Pope Benedict,
I am deeply disappointed that Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, has ordered Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life, to return to the diocese of Amarillo and remain there. Stopping this necessary and vital pro-life work is a black mark for our Catholic Church in America.
Please issue a statement immediately affirming that canon law of the Catholic Church, because Fr. Pavone has begun a process of appeal to the Vatican, the Bishop’s order that he return to Amarillo has been effectively suspended. Any delay damages respect for our Cathlic Church.
May the Holy Spirit guide you!
PLEASE CONTACT POPE BENEDICT
Today 9/14/2011 9:53:28 AM EDT
P.S.
Holy Father, I do sincerely believe that now that this issue is public, it does not matter who is in the right as this will mar the Church, but the pro-life movement does not need to also suffer from the loss of one of its most dedicated and selfless voices. Please do not allow the innocent to suffer.
Your holiness, my prayers are with you in this dark hour.
LOL. You folks think that sending a letter to the Pope will solve the problem. As you Catholics are fond of saying, the Catholic Church is not a democracy.
@CC
Could have…would have…should of..
You offer nothing but more empty assertions. Let’s wait for the real facts. On balance, Fr Pavone has put forward names, dates, details on the order of 10x the Bishop’s.
@ Bruce
In attempting to be charitable toward Bishop Zurek, I would say what we have here is a misunderstanding about one particular priest’s ministry. Bishop Zurek, as Bishop of Amarillo, rightly expects obedience to him from every priest incardinated with the Diocese of Amarillo. Fr. Pavone maintains he has been obedient, based on his ministry.
Context must always be considered. Frank Pavone was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of New York. With the permission of his archbishop, Cardinal John O’Connor, he entered into fulltime pro-life ministry as head of Priests for Life in 1993. When a succeeding Archbishop of New York assigned him Pastor of a parish within the archdiocese, Fr. Pavone complied. Cardinal Edward Egan then gave permission to Fr. Pavone to return to Priests for Life fulltime. When Fr. Pavone and others felt the call to start a new order, he found a welcome sponsor in Bishop John Yanta of Amarillo. Cardinal Egan freely released — excardinated — Fr. Pavone from attachment to the Archdiocese of New York, and Bishop Yanta incardinated him as a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo in 2005.
It was in this context that Fr. Pavone became incardinated with the Diocese of Amarillo, to continue fulltime pro-life ministry. This is not unusual. When a group of priests attempts to start a new community, they submit themselves to the Ordinary of the diocese in which they are located to provide ecclesiastical supervision and support while they are getting established. Fr. Pavone did not incardinate with Amarillo to become subsumed into the local presbyterate but as a stepping stone toward members of the new community making solemn vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
In 2008, when Bishop Zurek became the Ordinary in Amarillo, as is stated in the letters to the U.S. bishops from Fr. Pavone and his canonist, Fr. Deibel, Bishop Zurek gave his blessing to Fr. Pavone’s ministry with Priests for Life. That then remains Fr. Pavone’s “assignment” as a priest. Canon Law holds that whatever is put in place by one bishop remains in place when there is a change of bishop in the diocese until the suceeding bishop specifically states a change in policy, assignments, etc.
Bishop Zurek gave his blessing to Fr. Pavone’s arrangement with Priests for Life. To then, 3 1/2 years later, turn around and publicly refer to Fr. Pavone as “disobedient” because of his “fame” is, at best, disengenious on the part of the Bishop. It is a “fame” that Bishop Zurek himself blessed in 2008. As Fr. Pavone and Fr. Deibel have so intricately spelled out, Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life have provided Bishop Zurek every piece of information requested by the Bishop. As Fr. Pavone pointed out, even though his formal appeal of Bishop Zurek’s decision suspends, by law, the effects of the Bishop’s decision regarding the priest, Fr. Pavone has been compliant in reporting to Amarillo on the date stated by the Bishop.
As a diocesan priest who takes his solemn promises of celibacy and obedience seriously, I truly do not see a failure by Fr. Frank Pavone to obey his ordinaries in either the Archdiocese of New York or the Diocese of Amarillo.
We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.
@JCramer
Kudos to your post! Instead of us simply trying to get thru to closed minded people and keep repeating ourselves over and over again, you took the direct and most logical approach which was to go to the very head of who can and should make this right.
Sending the letter directly to the Pope is the way to go.
Thanks for posting his email address as you can rest assured, I will be sending the Pope a similar letter just like what you sent.
This goes beyond petty jealousies and insecurities of Bishop Zurek.
What he did hurts and is still hurting and will forever put a black mark on the Catholic Church itself.
Hope this misunderstanding is ironed out, and, if God wills, Fr. Pavone can continue his duties as his Bishop sees fit.
Father is being obedient, and the Bishop can call back to his diocese anyone in his care. Let’s hope that the two men can deal charitably with each other and heed what God wants. For the sake of souls, let’s hope and pray.
Yes CC, in some regards you are correct – but a disobedient Catholic, regardless if a priest or lay-person as a politician, should always heed the Teachings. And at the request or direction, his or her Bishop. Wayward Catholics, whether in the laity or priestly class, owe duty to the church in an honorable and proper way. The bottom line is that we all are supposed to work for Christ if we are Christian – and work for Him in our Sunday obligation, our family life, our work life and indeed at every moment. It’s called Unity of Life.
In all things, charity.
Thank you, Familjoly, for such a clear, succinct statement. You stated the situation very well, including a couple of details I was unaware of.
What the bishops says, goes. CC is right. This is not a democracy.
What Canon Law says is what goes. Hundreds of cases of this.
That’s why we have Canon Law to obviate fiefdoms and “rocks and shoals” type discipline
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Bishop wouldn’t have written what he did if he had known it was to go public. What does that say? I called the Diocesan office. No intention of the letter going public. That’s not good.
@ Bruce
You said: “That is the humility, trust, and obedience of saints. Father Pavone and Corapi do not have that.”
Interesting that you who are the most vocal on this thread (there are others) are painting Fr. Pavone with the broad brush of “disobedience” are the first to link Pavone and Corapi.
Folks, there is a connection here, but not as Broad Brush Bruce would have you believe. Fr. John Corapi of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity has been excommunicated precisely for what appears to be a well-founded case of disobedience. Corapi was invited back to SOLT’s home base in Robstown, Texas, but repeatedly refused. He was asked for an accounting of his for-profit corporation but repeatedly refused. He refused to cooperate in an investigation of allegations of impropriety against him. In short, John Corapi was and is disobedient to legitimate Church authority. But Corapi and Pavone claim the authority figure has a misunderstanding of the priest’s assignment. Corapi refused cooperation. Pavone has cooperated fully in attempting to sort out the situation.
But here is where the Zurek-Pavone situation shows up as one overhead projector transparency laid upon another with loads of similarities to the SOLT-Corapi situation showing up (with major differences as well).
When Broad Brush Bruce introduced the name “Corapi” to be attached to “Pavone” as “disobedient” priests in contrast to St. Pio of Pietrelcina, a whistle sounded in my head. At first my thought was, “What does Corapi have to do with anything in this situation?” But then it occurred to me: SOLT’s headquarters is in Robstown, Texas, which is in the Diocese of Corpus Christi, which also put together an investigative team for the Corapi case. The Bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Michael Mulvey, was ordained to the priesthood on June 29, 1975, at St. Peter’s in Rome by Pope Paul VI for …. wait for it… the Diocese of Austin.
In other words, Mulvey and Zurek were seminary classmates, ordained to the priesthood in the same ceremony by Paul VI, and served as fellow presbyters in the Diocese of Austin for 23 years (until Zurek was ordained to the episcopacy). Since March 2010, when Mulvey was ordained and installed as Bishop of Corpus Christi, the two have been brother bishops in the state of Texas.
Having known both men, they are very different. Where Pat Zurek is manipulative and controlling, Mike Mulvey is collaborative and delegating. Where Zurek is narcisistic, Mulvey is modest. Then-Fr. Mulvey was the temporary administrator of the Diocese of Austin in late 2009 and early 2010 before he was made Bishop of Corpus Christi and a new bishop was assigned to Austin. From my remaining connections in the Austin Diocese, I heard nothing but positive things about the way Mulvey administered the diocese after Archbishop Gregory Aymond went to New Orleans.
What I sense here is another of Patrick Zurek’s unoriginal passive-aggressive moves. At get-togethers of the Texas bishops or other avenues, Zurek and the other bishops probably heard Bishop Mulvey share the difficulties associated with the Corapi case that had its investigative genesis in Mulvey’s Corpus Christi Diocese. Bishop Zurek, true to form when he himself has his own agenda in mind, would have probed Mulvey for details, and his old classmate would have complied, innocently enough. All the while, however, the Bishop of Amarillo was absorbing from Mulvey what Zurek would, later in the same year 2011, implement as his own game plan to be rid of his own high-profile priest. For Bishop Zurek, then, the Corapi scenario with SOLT and the Corpus Christi Diocese, would be his own way of dealing with Pavone in the Diocese of Amarillo.
That’s where the overhead-projector transparencies for SOLT-Mulvey-Corapi and Zurek-Pavone coincide. The glaring difference is that, in Corpus Christi and Robstown, Church authorities had a thorough case against a non-compliant priest while in Amarillo, the Bishop’s flimsy case for non-specific charges has been blown out of the water by a long and easily connected paper trail and thorough compliance in the process by the priest in question.
In following the Corapi case and its connection with his seminary classmate and former diocesan presbyteral brother, and now brother bishop in the same state,
Bishop Zurek must have salivated over how his plan for getting rid of Fr. Pavone had fallen into his lap; he would more than tighten the leash on Pavone, by golly, he would crush the uppity “yankee” so-and-so who is supposed to say “How high?” when the boss says, “Jump!” This uppity puppy would be consigned permanently to Zurek’s doghouse in a remote outpost of the Texas Panhandle, or better yet for Zurek, give up and quit. But the Bishop overplayed his hand this time, with an overkill public letter “accidentally’ released to the press that actually exposes his own careerist agenda more than any “scandalous behavior” about Fr. Pavone.
The blowback against the Bishop of Amarillo will be tremendous. Patrick J. Zurek will find the higher rungs on the ecclesiastical ladder he so desparately covets will be out of his reach. He has reached his plateau.
We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.
PS: @ Lori Pieper, thank you very much.
Thank you Father for your insight and history.
This is a classic ! It will be very interesting to watch it unravel. So, the letter from the Bishop was made public by Fr. Pavone? Has that tidbit been authenticated yet? I do not like the Bishops use of innuendo and judgmental opinion apart from hard facts in making his case against Fr. Pavone. But we mustn’t run to judge either. It does certainly seem Fr. Pavone wants to work exclusively for the unborn. Almost like Don Bosco wanted to set up homes for street kids….Round ONE: goes to Pavone 10-9.
Why did hear about homosexual Bishop Cupich?
Bishop Cupich has informed all of his priests and seminarians that they cannot:
– pray outside of Planned Parenthood
– promote or organize peaceful protest outside Planned Parenthood in their parishes (naming 40 Days for Life specifically)
– or allow pro-life material to be distributed in their parishes unless it is published by the Washington State Conference of Catholic Bishops or the USCCB–
Now comes the slippy backslide…and oh by the way the Bishop will be out of town for 2 weeks.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103637.htm
Remove him and his cronies.
I too would like to know, if possible from anyone who knows Bishop Zurek personally, what he has written, spoken, and done to stop this insane evil of abortion. Anything?
What the bishop says, goes. This is not a democracy.
Fr. Pavone, you may be doing all you need to do in all sincerity and in good faith. This is the time for you to trust in your God. They may put you in the deepest valley, but if God has ordained that you will be great, you will surely be. Do not waste your time and energy to explain yourself. Let us pray: God grant us the serenity to accept what we cannot change, the courage to change what we can, and the wisdom to know the difference, Amen. Fr. Pavone God wants you to do something different. Pray for God to direct you.
I also wrote an email to the Pope, I was a little milder in wording but stuck to the same format… If he has in fact already sent this to the Vatican to be decided. I want to be a little voice if I can help our Priest for Life hero!!
to: benedict.xvi@vatican.va
Your Holiness – Dear Pope Benedict,
We are deeply disappointed that Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, has ordered Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life, to return to the diocese of Amarillo and remain there. Stopping this necessary and vital pro-life work is a black mark for our Catholic Church in America. Fr Pavone pledged to spend his whole life defending the unborn. Please know that this is causing so many problems in this country and the world, he is a light in the darkness!!
Please consider issuing a statement affirming that canon law of the Catholic Church, because Fr. Pavone has begun a process of appeal to the Vatican, the Bishop’s order that he return to Amarillo has been effectively suspended. Any delay damages Fr Pavone’s heart and his work for the unborn.
We love and pray for you every day!!
Humbly,
Name here
Town (belong to XX Parish in xx)
Today begins the novena to Padre Pio who had restrictions placed on him and could not say public mass etc for years..seems like a great novena to pray for Fr Frank, the Bishop and for the Church in general..Padre Pio, pray for us!
http://www.wmcm.org/padrepionovena.html
While one can perhaps make the case that Fr. Pavone is not being treated as properly as he should be in these present-day circumstances, I must say as one who has supported a number of Catholic pro-life organizations for years, that I ended all my support for PFL in 2004, in response to Fr. Pavone’s terrible comments as to how one should vote in a presidential election.
Fr. Pavone’s statement on the eve of the 2004 presidential election regarding considerations that Catholics should utilize in voting for a candidate in effect said that any vote for a strong pro-life candidate that was considered to have little chance of winning would help a pro-legalized-abortion candidate in the race, by depriving a moderate pro-life candidate who could win of a much-needed vote. He went on to further claim that since we know this ahead of time, any vote for the zealous pro-life candidate with little prospect of victory would leave such voters culpable for the anti-life wrongdoing of the pro-legalized-abortion candidate if he should win.
Well, no, it doesn’t. Fr. Pavone had no business making such a claim, and showed a poor understanding of the Catholic idea of double effect. If he wanted to vote for President Bush, who spoke in favor of civil unions and had a vice presidential running mate who appeared to all but support homosexual marriage, that’s his business. He had no right to tell those of us who wanted to vote for somebody who actually took a Culture of Life and Family seriously that we would share in the anti-life guilt if we had been saddled with a President John Kerry.
My attempts to discuss this with a PFL staffer went nowhere, as the person effectively ignored and stonewalled my concerns and points and failed to address them other than with irrelevant boilerplate material.
Regardless of what the present-day facts are in this clash going on between the bishop and Fr. Pavone, I do not think PFL is worthy of support in comparison to a number of other Catholic pro-life organizations.
That’s fair. Some people make large decisions based single points, events, mistakes, and others don’t. That’s what our freedom allows.
Whether Fr Pavone’s single point comment is sufficient to downgrade PFL’s work and mission is highly questionable if not immediately dismissable
The bishops will win out on this, as they should. Pavone is being an ego-maniac here and dividing the Church. Now there are protests of Catholic parishes in Amarillo because of his ego tactics. The parallels to Corapi are glaring. No more priest celebrities, please!
Bill,
Assuming your post was directed at mine, the fact remains that for Fr. Pavone to publicly speak on behalf of PFL to tell those of us who were choosing not to vote the way he apparently planned to [and we were being more principled and high-minded, frankly] would leave us sharing in culpability for any anti-life measures enacted by a President Kerry is insulting, inexcusable and could not help but raise questions as to what PFL’s overall mission does and does not entail.
Judy Brown, in contrast, appears to have always stressed voting for a solid, impeccable, pro-life candidate, regardless of the person, party affiliation, or prospect of winning.
So why should any of my pro-life dollars go to PFL when they can go to ALL instead?
@Rodger Exactly. Your use of freedom.
@Bruce. I shy away from words like egomaniac…I don’t have the data to draw those conclusions. I also wouldn’t lump all Bishops together. They are not a monolith. Neither are Frs Pavnoe and John Corapi. Some people are hasty lumpers, and some aren’t. I tend to sharpen and differentiate when I can.
God’s will is what will win out. Bishops are just struggling souls like you and like me, and Fr Pavone.
@ Bruce
You seem especially eager to link the cases of Fr. John Corapi and Fr. Frank Pavone. You seem annoyed that a priest initiated a canonical process to resolve a disagreement between himself and his bishop, as is the priest’s right under the Code of Canon Law. It is all part of the same Church. Fr. Deibel, the canonist for Priests for Life, cited the canons that are the basis for Fr. Pavone’s appeal.
In his letter to the other U.S. bishops, Bishop Zurek said he is taking this action as Fr. Pavone’s “father.” Good enough. The Scripture says there is no father that does not discipline his sons. Yet, as his Ordinary, as his spiritual father, Bishop Zurek has the responsibility to protect the reputation of his spiritual son, Fr. Frank Pavone. That, too, is covered in the Code of Canon Law. As you and others have put it, the Bishop is the Bishop, the boss. His decision is his decision. Yet this letter was not addressed TO his “spiritual son,” but to his brothers in the episcopacy ABOUT his “spiritual son.” And in this letter, Bishop Zurek neglected his responsibility to protect those in his care. A succinct statement saying he is recalling Fr. Pavone to Amarillo and, while Fr. Pavone remains a priest in good standing, he will not be allowed to exercise ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo. He could have added, briefly, that he has had “growing concerns” over Fr. Pavone’s relationship with the Diocese and with the financial structure of Priests for Life. He could have enlisted the assistance of his brother bishops (since Fr. Pavone is so well-traveled) in providing information in the process of resolving the questions. And he could have asked for prayers from his brothers for himself, for Fr. Pavone, for the people of the Diocese of Amarillo, and for those who are connected with Priests for Life.
But Bishop Zurek did not take that approach. Instead he seemed to be whipping up emotional support for himself and against Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life.
In the course of receiving memos and communiques sent from my Bishop to the priests of the diocese, ever so often, there is a notice of a certain priest from another diocese who no longer has faculties and because the priest has given missions and talks and performed sacramental ministry in our diocese previously, our bishop is telling us this priest is not to be used in our parishes. The Bishop includes a copy of that priest’s Ordinary’s communique with brother bishops about the status of the priest. The communique from the suspended priest’s Bishop to the other bishops of the U.S. has never, to my recollection, been longer than one full paragraph.
Bishop Zurek’s letter went on for a full page and used perjorative terms like “formidable canonist” and “lucrative” and diagnostic phrases (about a person he, of his admission, has had little contact with) like “His fame has caused him to…”
Bishop Zurek seemed to lose sight of the fact that he was writing to his brother bishops who are also “spiritual fathers” to their priests and who therefore need no labored explanation for his decision that is well within his authority as the legitimate Bishop of Amarillo.
Bruce, rest assured the OFFICE of Bishop as Successor of the Apostles will emerge unscathed from this canonical process. The Vatican’s ruling will in no way change the nature of who and what a Bishop is. The Vatican’s ruling will not weaken a Bishop’s authority.
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
Instead of “where’s Waldo”….where is Bishop Zurek…??
I’m praying for Fr. Pavone for this situation to be quickly rectified. I have personally met Fr. Pavone and found him to be very humble and willing to work with pro-life groups and organizations that are both ethical and moral.
As a Silent No More participant–a campaign awareness and a pro-life ministry umbrella with Priests for Life–I’ve personally received many obstacles in my diocese to at least provide a link or just to mention a follow up at Rachel’s Vineyard for letting women (after their healing) give their personal testimony on how men and women are affected by an abortion.
We should be all working together for an end to abortion.
According to the “Diary of Sister Faustina”, the Lord Jesus Christ told Sister, who was grieving at the great persecutions being suffered by her confessor, Father Sopocko, as he advocated the Divine Mercy image, the Divine Mercy chaplet, and the new community of prayer which Jesus called Sister Faustina to start — a prayer community which would be dedicated to calling the world to acknowledge and receive the gift of His Divine Mercy, before the world would have to face Jesus as its Judge on a day of great wrath… Jesus said, of Father Sopocko: “It is not for the success of a work, but for the suffering that I give reward.” (Notebook I, No. 90)
The Vatican ban on the teachings of Jesus through Sister Faustina lasted a full 20 years (1958-1978), and Father Sopocko was severely reprimanded and censured. The ban was lifted two years after he died in 1975, at the age of 87. Yes, Sister Faustina is now canonized. Padre Pio is now canonized. Father Sopocko was beatified in 2008. However, the sins committed by those who are guilty of working against the holy projects of these blessed individuals, in their obedience to God, are not insignificant.
The media has jumped on the fact that Father Pavone is the third high-profile Catholic priest to be involved in scandal this year. As for Father Corapi, his record now speaks for itself. But I would like to remind those here of the case of Father Thomas Euteneuer, former president of Human Life International. Father Euteneuer was unpopular in Church circles for his work in demonology, in addition to pro-life activism. In his own words, he expressed regret for “violations of chastity… due to human weakness… did not involve the sexual act…” In his situation, it is entirely possible that “violations of chastity” were entirely mental, and entirely to be understood in the realm of what is known as ‘spiritual warfare’. A priest with a tender conscience would certainly blame himself for these moral lapses. And yet, was his removal from ministry a result of those moral lapses, or a result of the unpopularity of his teachings in some official circles?
Personally, I find it highly questionable that all three men, regardless of the specifics of their very different cases, have come so prominently into public disfavor, one after another.
@Cheryl-Helene Thomson
Thank you for introducing the words of our Lord to St. Faustina into this discussion, especially those concerning the suffering of Blessed Michael Sopocko. There is very definitely spiritual warfare being manifested in the cases of these high-profile priests.
I’ve written extensively on this thread already, and readers can get a good sense of how I feel about Bishop Patrick Zurek. Yet I think of the Pope who ordained him to the priesthood, Paul VI, who commented that “through some fissure the smoke of Satan is within the Church.” I pray for Bishop Zurek’s conversion to be the man, priest, and bishop Christ intends him to be.
Because reading about this situation has caused the emotions of 1988 to be made fresh, I have had the opportunity to take this to prayer. Literally as I put my feet on the floor as I got out of bed on Friday morning, the thought hit me that as wrong as Bishop Zurek is in the way he is going about this, he cannot defeat Fr. Frank Pavone when Fr. Pavone makes himself “small,” that is supple to the Father’s will. As a diocesan priest myself, I would say to my brother, Fr. Frank, you fulfill your vocation every time you offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass, every time you say the words of absolution, every time you anoint the sick, every time you preach a Spirit-filled and orthodox homily, and you can do that in any parish that your ordinary assigns you, just as I do. I would say, Fr. Frank, you will NOT be cheated, if you accept a pastorate in the Texas Panhandle; on the contrary, the people will be blessed with your shepherding of them. You’re a diocesan priest. Can you not give YOUR diocese a few years of parochial service? I truly believe that if Fr. Frank surrenders in THAT aspect of the case (not the part about the finances and management of Priests for Life), many demons will be expelled from Fr. Frank’s ministry.
Another biography, teaching the same lesson, in terms of heartbreak after years of ministry, would be that of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. But really, although these comparisons are helpful spiritually and may in fact offer solace and strength to Fr. Pavone, there is a giant elephant-in-the-living-room of a difference. None of these suffering heroes of the faith (Padre Pio, Fr. Sopocko, Fr. Bosco, Fr. Liguori) were living at a time like the present, when the light of God shining in one particular individual priest can make a difference for the entire country.
Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life, well, they are the only ‘national’ presence of Catholic conscience we have left in North America. Consider the Mass which Fr. Pavone offered at Notre Dame University. This is not a political arena. It is a moral arena. So few will take up the sword of the Lord. The actions of Bishop Zurek, and the support he has been given by Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, affect more than the vocation of Fr. Pavone. Also, consider that these were deliberate, concerted actions in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) may well be complicit. Shame!
There is a far bigger picture here. I am certain that if a strong, stunning defense is not made immediately by Fr. Pavone and his supporters, it will be God’s people, and God’s Own Holy Name, that will be the losers here in the ongoing spiritual war for hearts and minds — and souls. The timing is paramount. We are at the juncture, the fulcrum, the crucible of the end of the civilizations and nation-states of men. If we lose now, there will be nothing, for a very, very long time, in a desert of our own making.
Homily 09-13-2011 – Fr Frank Pavone
May I link this, so we know where Fr. Pavone is coming from, just before he went down to Amarillo? He is preaching to priests, he says, as well as to the laity…….
For me, this is a benchmark moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQw2x3WIXE
Brand new perspective, folks. I’ve done some research.
Maybe the Fr. Pavone story is so obvious that we are all missing it. Politics. No, not Church Politics, National Politics.
In 2008, Fr. Pavone was outspokenly anti-Obama. In 2011, Fr. Pavone paticipated in the protest against Obama speaking at Notre Dame University. The Presidential election is next year. Right now, Obama’s poll numbers keep sinking. Obama needs every vote he can get to get re-elected. So how does this look to Obama and his people? Fr. Pavone needs to be taken out. This is National Politics, Chicago-Style.
Where does Bidhop Zurek come in? According to Huffington Post columnist Father Alberto Cutie (Episcopalian), Sept. 19: “His bishop in Amarillo is certainly much more progressive than he is, so there could be some ideological clashes there…” Okay, do these “ideological clashes” translate into the Bishop’s Democratic associations? Those associations include a relationship with former Mayor of San Antonio, Ed Garza. Garza appointed Bishop Zurek to serve on his Committee on Integrity ad Trust in Local Government for the city of San Antonio. Ed Garza, sharing the Democratic leanings of other Hispanics in Texas, endorsed Obama in 2008, saying: “Senator Obama’s unique ability to bring people together and bridge partisan divides make him the best candidate to bring change we can believe in.”
I don’t want to suggest that Bishop Zurek himself is being a party to a ‘dirty tricks campaign’ against Fr. Frank Pavone. but the possibility exists that circumstances around the Bishop have been manipulated, with an agenda in mind.
Obama and abortion: these are two tragedies, and they are linked. Fr. Pavone is being targetted by very powerful people, including multinationals. UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund) is an abortion provider in China which was found complicit in the coercive implementation of China’s One Child Policy, following an investigation headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2001. Coercive implementation includes fines, detentions, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, beatings,and home destructions. Obama stated that he “strongly opposes” forced bortion in China. Really? Then why did he restore funding of the UNFPA?
Now, sweetening up Obama’s class warfare strategy, Warren Buffett may claim to pay less taxes than his secretary (in fact, with the current level of sleght-of-hand accounting practices, perhaps he pays zero), but he is the director of Berkshire Hathaway, and that organization is one of the largest donors to abortion clinics in America.
There are people who are now advocating a One Child Policy worldwide. A One-World Government, put into place after the panic of a carefully planned worldwide financial meltdown, would institute many draconian regulations. Fr. Frank Pavone would be an encumbrance in this Brave New World, wouldn’t he?