Letter from Diocese of Amarillo exonerates Father Pavone
7:34p: Priests for Life has issued a statement entitled, “Diocese of Amarillo Issues Clarification Affirming Fr. Frank Pavone’s Good Standing and Character,” in conjunction with the letter below.
7:15p: A friend told me I’d soon eat the “I’ve got to move on” words in my previous post, because the Father Pavone issue is exploding.
But I didn’t know it would be so quickly.
The Diocese of Amarillo has released a letter attempting to exonerate Father Pavone of financial malfeasance and character flaws unbecoming a priest. Click to enlarge…
I’m thinking Monsignor Waldow is probably pretty ticked right about now at Bishop Zurek for conveniently timing the drop of his bombshell letter to the bishops with his vacation.
Monsignor Waldow has quite a mess to clean up. And although he tries valiantly in the aforementioned letter, he cannot undo the scorching words Bishop Zurek (pictured right) wrote, which stand in contradiction to Monsignor Waldow’s palliative attempt. To refresh…
“… deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of… PFL…”
“These financial questions and concerns have persisted with no clear and adequate answers…”
“I have reasons to be alarmed at the potential financial scandal…”
“… incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority…”
“…rebuff my every attempt at calling for financial transparency…”
“Father Pavone has gradually lost his need to show appropriate obedience to his Bishop…”
“… his fame has caused him to see priestly obedience as an inconvenience to his unique status…”
“… 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…”
It is becoming apparent that Bishop Zurek grossly blundered. IMO he felt threatened by FP and let his insecurity and ego get the best of him.
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.
It is sad that the “insecurity” and “ego” of a man who should, at this point in his journey, be above such pettiness, is further eroding the relevance of the Catholic Church. Surely he has heard of prudence.
Folks: we really need to get out of the way on this, and suspend judgement of all parties, from Fr. Pavone to the Bishop to the Vicar, until more info is known.
Jill – apologies, but your post is chock-full of speculation – which is, at this point, not helpful in this process, and can be a source of greater confusion to faithful Catholic laity.
Above all, please keep in mind that the first obligation and duty of any priest is obedience to the local ordinary. Please pray for all involved, and please suspend all speculation and judgment while this process works itself out. All we can do is pray. Thanks…
Nina, your assessment of Jill’s post is not correct. Monsignor Waldow’s letter substantially refutes Bishop Zurek’s letter. He would not have written such a public and direct letter unless the Bishop Zurek had made some major mistakes. Jill’s comments are spot on, and your defense of this wayward bishop, for all of its piety, is misguided. Bishop Zurek, in making his problems with Fr. Pavone public, has done harm to the Church, to the pro-life cause, to his own reputation, and to Fr. Pavone’s reputation.
Nina, I hear you but think the disparity between the two letters must be pointed out. IMO the Diocese was just forced to utterly repudiate Bishop Zurek’s letter.
As someone just tweeted, “The problem is the text of the letter the bishop sent out to all the U.S. Bishops. He has prove, or take back.”
Right. Either FP shows “incorrigible defiance,” has an “inflated ego,” and “sees priestly obedience as an inconvenience,” or he”is “a priest in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church.” Either PFL is in danger of “potential financial scandal” or there are no charges of “malfeasance” or “any wrong doing with the financial matters of Priests for Life.” The statements made in the two letters are contradictory.
About speculation, people read this blog in part because they’re interested in my thoughts. Those are my thoughts. Putting myself in Monsignor Waldow’s shoes I’m thinking, “Why am I left handling this mess?” – probably the most press/public attention the Diocese has ever seen. Bishop Zurek didn’t have to time his letter to coincide with his vacation. Isn’t it coincidental that he called FP back on September 13 – the very day he was leaving on vacation? He was in control of the all the dates here. He purposefully chose them.
Jill: understood and I appreciate the opportunity to comment and discuss on your blog. Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions. However, I caution against speculation on the various whys and wherefores of communications from a Bishop’s office, as we are not privy to all of the information. As this is not a matter of Faith, this can be seen as an administrative matter, and to avoid further confusion of ourselves and other faithful Catholics, I urge not contributing to the matter by further speculation. Believe me, I am usually the last one to advise caution…but in this case, we must permit the Bishop and Fr. Pavone to work through their issues. A priest’s first duty is obedience to the local ordinary — this can be seen in any of the Lives of the Saints, as well.
A friend and fellow pro-lifer posted this link, and b/c it sums up my views on the matter, I post it here as well. I urge prayer for all parties, not continued public side-taking. http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=20846 http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=20846
Sorry, just one more thing: Jill, I disagree with your statement in your earlier post that the Bishop and the Vicar are contradicting one another. This is b/c a priest can indeed be in good standing, but also be a defiant egotist…I have seen it many times…plenty of priests do their own thing in parishes and maintain their faculties…it happens…the Church is not filled with robots…and to say that Fr. Pavone is in danger of “potential financial scandal” while also saying there are no current charges of “malfeasance” seems perfectly logical to me: it is discussing present circumstance whilst commenting on concerns for the future should affairs carry on unchecked. It seems to me the Bishop is stating his concern. I do not disagree that the tone of the Bishop’s letter is a bit aggressive – but again, there is a lot we don’t know…
Commentary from a Canon Lawyer on the matter (this link is embedded in the link to the blog posted previously): http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/initial-remarks-on-zurek-pavone-dispute.html
“However, I caution against speculation on the various whys and wherefores of communications from a Bishop’s office, as we are not privy to all of the information”
Nina. I could not agree more. I absolutely stand behind you when you say not to speculate. So this is where I will tell you to stop your speculating. Right now you are speculating that Fr. Pavone has been delinquent and disobedient. But ask yourself this… Why do you believe that Fr. Pavone has been delinquent? Based on what? Your mounds of facts? Do you work at Priests For Life and know that he is not traveling to Amarillo? Because as a very frequent visitor to the PFL website, I see Amarillo visits all the time.
Let me ask you. I don’t presume to know what you were thinking about the financial issue but why were there so many people on the net thinking that PFL did not disclose their audits when it was available to the public the entire time.
The Bishop mis-worded his letter and caused a flock of people trample on Pavone’s name. That was irresponsible and surely imprudent. That is not a presumption. It is also not a presumption that the PFL audit is not “unchecked”. They have outside auditors all the time, present their audit to “some 21 Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals” who are on their advisory board. PFL’s finances are not even in Zurek’s jurisdiction. Pavone just sent Zurek and Yanta the audits every year that he was incardinated in Amarillo out of RESPECT. Hardly sounds like the acts of a disobedient and egotistical rogue priest.
If the Bishop’s letter painted the image of a financially irresponsible steward of PFL’s finances. Seeing that the Bishop has not proved the claim of “egotistical” and “disobedient”, is it unreasonable to assume that the Bishop mis-worded that part too? That he painted a picture of a disobedient priest?
The very least that I would like the Bishop to answer to for is his rampant irresponsibility and imprudence in handling this situation and not showing Pavone mutual respect when Pavone shows up at Zurek’s doorstep when Zurek called. Does he think that this is a game? A joke?
Now, I’ve been to events in which a Priests For Life speaker was invited to speak and the inviting group told me that Priests For Life does not charge or require a stipend. They pulled in 10.8 million in a year because of donations. That many people believe what they do is right. All that money is how PFL was able to charter a jet to bring Baby Joseph from Canada to America for proper treatment.
And Pavone doesn’t even pull in a paycheck. No paycheck = no vacation.
Zurek is in Rio de Janeiro… sounds luxurious in comparison doesn’t it?
And I know Pavone from the work he does. But I never heard of Zurek before this scandal… must be from the work he’s NOT doing…
Thank God for Msgr. Waldow, the Vicar of Clergy in Amarillo. He seems to be the only person in the diocese who’s got any sense. Looks like he’s at least trying to clean up the mess that Bishop Zurek left before skipping town. I’ve got a question—why doesn’t the Church make Msgr. Waldow the Bishop of Amarillo?
Nina…
Check out this website for facts.
http://www.freefrfrank.com
Hey, Bishop Zurek, after you destroy a person’s good name and reputation, it’s too late to ask for a re-do. Besides, you’ve done enough, thank you. Shame on you, Bishop Zurek. Shame on you
Show your support to this innocent priests. visit FreeFrFrank.com
Jill,
In the parlance of the Church, “Priest in good standing” means that there are no impediments to Father Pavone exercising his sacramental ministry. The rate at which this thing exploded suggests that there is some history involved here, pent up anger on both sides.
Whatever legitimate concerns Bishop Zurek might have, this was not the way to go. His communications director should have advised him to do otherwise.
From comments I made on my blog earlier in the week:
While I am no Vatican insider, my guts tell me that things will be resolved in a manner favorable to Father Pavone and Priests for Life. We can’t go wrong if we are dealing in the truth and seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, there is an unhealthy dose of anger at Bishop Zurek that needs to be addressed.
In the wake of the Father Corapi implosion, many were outraged that he could have been given such independence to amass a Montana ranch, boat dock, boats (yes, plural), luxury vehicles, etc. People rightly asked where his superiors were, where his bishop was.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we don’t like that either. The latter half of Bishop Zurek’s letter addresses a concern for Father Pavone falling into the same abyss that claimed Father Corapi. Love for Father Pavone should dictate that we give his bishop the benefit of the doubt, and allow this corrective course his bishop has taken to proceed toward the stated goal. Love for Father Pavone must admit some level of oversight, which always entails the possibility of the type of letter we see here.
For those of us who are Catholics, we need to avoid lashing out at Bishop Zurek. Sit in his chair and look at us through his eyes. Do we wish to convey the impression that the pro-life movement is a bunch of radical firebrands who are too enlightened to deal patiently and charitably with the men who are the Successors of the Apostles?
On the first Easter Sunday, Mary Magdalene announced the resurrection to the apostles. John and Peter raced to the tomb, and the younger and more fleet afoot John reached the tomb first, while plodding Peter had to catch up. But John didn’t enter the tomb!
He waited for Peter, and deferred to the one who was given the Keys to the Kingdom!
When they entered, John saw and believed. Peter was confused, and took longer to process what he was seeing.
There is a lesson in that for us. We in the pro-life movement may be more fleet afoot than many of the bishops where the life issues are concerned, and we may even get ahead of them in the race to the tomb. Like John, we have a duty to respect authority.
To wait patiently.
To defer.
And to not lose heart.
That’s a tall order, but the Easter narrative is our only way out of the anger trap.
Hi Nina,
Again, I hear you. I delve into the world of Catholic politics cautiously and rarely, because, as you likely know, I’m Protestant. The last time I recall doing so to this extent was for the Notre Dame/Obama scandal.
But Bishop Zurek’s letter attacking Fr. Pavone – and that’s what he did – was something I couldn’t ignore.
Furthermore, the letter was leaked to the public by either one of the bishops or one of their staff members, although these intermural bishop correspondences are supposed to be highly confidential. Someone(s) in a high position, or a trusted staff member, wanted to publicly destroy FP.
And Bishop Zurek did not discuss his concerns w FP before issuing the letter – which he never shared with FP. FP has publicly stated he was blind-sided by the bishop’s letter and concerns. “I am totally baffled,” he has stated. I’m told by a source the first FP learned of this letter was through a member of the Catholic media in San Francisco to whom the letter was leaked.
While I’ve not discussed the leak much, it plays a part in my rationale for devoting so many posts to this.
Also do not forget Bishop Zurek went so far as to recommend to all U.S. bishops that they tell their parish members not to donate to PFL, which could destroy PFL simultaneously with FP. Did he alert the 21 cardinals and bishops on PFL’s advisory board first? No.
This whole thing stinks. And it is only a public matter because Bishop Zurek made it a public matter, whether unintentionally or intentionally. And then he left the scene.
J. Cramer, I must respectfully disagree with you on one point, as I can personally attest that each and every time we have had a member of Priests for Life come to town we have been responsible for travel, meals. lodging, etc. It was made clear to us when we issued the invitation that we would be responsible for these expenses.
Nina is exactly right. I don’t think anyone doubts that egos are involved here, but we are fueling a lot of the fire with speculation. For example: “This whole thing stinks. And it is only a public matter because Bishop Zurek made it a public matter, whether unintentionally or intentionally. And then he left the scene.” Well if it was unintentionally leaked, then Bishop Zurek is not the one who made it public. Yet that whole statement fuels the anger being directed toward Bishop Zurek by people (not you) who believe he has no RIGHT to order Fr. Pavone to return. We have absolutely no idea what occurred prior to this. Did Fr. Pavone ignore other, less firmly worded, private requests? I’m not saying that the Bishop handled it well or that he was in the right, even. But I think it’s a little premature to be in any way involved with over emotional things like “Free Father Frank” – even tangentially.
The link Nina posted to Catholic Vote is excellent and itself links to some excellent analysis.
Pavone has made a number of faux pas statements about embryos and the unscientific “pre-embryo”, a term spawned and spun by the anti-life crowd. These were public just not scrutinized by star-struck pro-lifers. There are also a number of seminarian stories of those who had to leave that apostolate because of less than proper running and catechesis in Staten Island.
Beautiful post Gerard Nadal! And exactly right!
Unfortunately the blog post in incorrect and fuels the misinformation that is abounding about this situation. This letter does not “attempt to exonerate” Father Pavone.
Also, a private written communication between Bishops does not make this a “public” matter. Someone leaked that letter to the press. Shame on them.
I think it’s fair to say that, even if the letter from Msgr. Waldow does not “exonerate” Fr. Pavone in any strict canonical sense, it certainly seeks to correct the intemperate and belligerent tone of the bishop’s letter. Regardless of the back-story, the bishop should be thoroughly embarrassed by his own failure in charity and self-control, and I don’t think any sane person could defend it. He really should apologize, in the public forum, for that.
Re: the commentary of Dr. Ed Peters (canon lawyer): I admire Dr. Peters a great deal, but I’m left with a bad taste in my mouth after reading his commentary. Strictly speaking, he has good (tactical/canonical) points; but he specifically scolds Fr. Pavone for making comments which Dr. Peters calls “temerarious” and “unnecessarily inflammatory”. After double-checking, I found not a single criticism in Dr. Peters’ commentary of the intemperate language used by Bishop Zuric; the only reference to the Bishop’s language was an issue about canonical accuracy (re: “suspended”), along with a suggestion that public statements (in general) would be ill-advised for both parties; Dr. Peters’ position seems to boil down to this: “It matters not how, or in what manner, or why, or whether it’s wise that the Bishop did what he did; he has a canonical right to do it, so deal with it.”. It seems that Dr. Peters feels much safer criticizing the “tone” of a priest than of a bishop; if there’s any other explanation for his one-sided critique (and seeming colour-blindness to the fiery, insulting and even defamatory language used by the bishop), I’m all ears.
Note: I’m NOT suggesting that Dr. Peters has any obligation to criticize the bishop’s tone; rather, I am certainly suggesting that he was wrong to have criticized Fr. Pavone’s tone, and NOT also criticized the Bishop’s (far worse, IMHO) tone… and that he’d have done quite better to have held his tongue on that point (and stifled his urge to opine about “tone” from any quarter at all).
This priest is required to obey his bishop and should not be throwing a fit about it. Anyone picketing parishes in his diocese or encouraging this priest to violate his vows of obedience to his bishop is doing grave harm. We should support him in being obedient. The bishop has done nothing wrong and is acting within his power and to his best judgement.
it certainly seeks to correct the intemperate and belligerent tone of the bishop’s letter
I think it seeks to correct the massive amount of misunderstanding about exactly what Bishop Zurek’s letter meant regarding Father Pavone’s actions and status.
Same letter, two different interpretations. And that is the problem with everyone getting involved in a situation that should have been handled privately. Unless Father Pavone is charged with something, his relationship and dealings with the Bishop are none of our business. If this turns out to be a misunderstanding/miscommunication, it all could have been handled without harm to the reputation of either the Bishop or Father Pavone.
President Clinton, and 100 Bishops in jail: Imagine! by Peter Kreft…We love our Bishops…We love our Priests…We love the Church JESUS established.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw2u74wF2j4
FYI – the “joan” listed here is not the frequent pro-abortion commenter also known as “joan.”
FYI – the “joan” listed here is not the frequent pro-abortion commenter also known as “joan.”
Bummer. Here I was hoping it was a beautiful grand conversion… ;-)
I was soo confused for a minute there.
Jill,
Your pro-life work is a great inspiration to all Christians, and although I tend toward the wait and pray and decide on affirmed facts approach to the PFL issue, your thoughts are always interesting, which brings me to my question. You have certainly been in dialogue and collaboration with Catholics enough to correct the really very significant misunderstandings and distortions that form the basis of virtually all Protestant rejections of Catholic belief – I was Protestant until 2003. And so, if you will forgive my directness, have you thought about becoming Catholic?
Hil
(*GAK!*) Anticipating an explosion from non-Catholic quarters…
Hil… if I could gently ask: would you redirect questions like that to private e-mail? There are many Protestants on this board who feel very slighted by questions like that…
we eagerly await the return of the beloved bishop to the fray. Waldo’s letter in the meantime pre-conditions the bishop’s return. they can all walk away from it gracefully if the bishop doesn’t balk at the immediate reincardination of FP to another diocese – how about Philly?
Palidin, I don’t mind. I find it touching that so many of my Catholic friends would like to see me convert.
Hil: The short answer is: No. That said, I appreciate and respect the Catholic faith as part of my Christian ancestry and as *the* standard bearer on the Life issue. And I love how the Life issue brings Catholics and Protestants together. Thanks for your concern… :)
Well… all right. :) But we just finished something of a tense discussion about Protestant vs. Catholic Things (see the NFP thread from Sept. 10), and some non-Catholics were feeling rather “bruised” and patronized by suggestions that they “become Catholic”. I just wanted to keep any salt away from healing wounds…
I am hearing all and actually am thankful for all the comments. I am frustrated that all this went public. I do not believe that Fr. Pavone should ever have been treated so by his bishop. Does he not have a right to his good name, which is a canon law right? The statements by the bishop are inflammatory. They are accusatory. They are clearly angry at this priest. Anyone who tries to write this off is blinding themselves to this issue. I dont pretend to know how it will all turn out because I have seen many a good priest railroaded in the last many years. Oh, I know, this will come across as persecutory. But for those who have seen this as well, you will know what I mean. The Bishops are not held to the same standard of disclosure at the priests are and even laypeople who come in the cross hairs of the curia in any local diocese. I find this to be another example of how a priest is not given the same treatment and consideration as the bishops give to themselves. We then are asked to put all this in the past and cover it all with the blanket that these men (bishops) are the apostles’ successors. (which they are) Then please live up to what that means. Be holy first, not just empty corn husks and ABishop Chaput recently said in his installation mass. A bishop has a higher authority to live up to as welll. Somehow this has been forgotten. Prime example is that the bishops exempted themselves from the demands of the Dallas Charter. Interesting isn’t it?
The letter doesn’t “exonerate” Pavone at all. The bishop isn’t backing off anything. He never accused Pavone of misusing his funds to begin with, he said Pavone refused to show him his books after being ordered to do so. The bishop also never said or implied that Pavone was not in good standing. The premise of your article is completely wrong. Pavone needs to check his arrogance and disobedience at the door and obey his bishop, who has asked nothing unreasonable of Pavone. Why not show the bishop the books if there is nothing to hide, instead of saying he will find another diocese?
watch out Jill, a Catholic will throw you under the bus faster than you can blink.
Jasper, are you a professional troll, or were you just in a bad mood when you wrote that?