Bishop Zurek misleads?
Read backstory here.
This fiasco left off with Bishop Patrick Zurek (pictured right) publicly announcing on October 6 a private meeting he had invited Father Frank Pavone to attend on October 13.
When that meeting did not happen, Bishop Zurek appears to have misrepresented why it did not happen, quoting Amarillo Globe-News on October 14…
Embattled activist priest Frank Pavone did not respond to Bishop Patrick J. Zurek’s public invitation for a private meeting Thursday, the bishop said….
But by 5 p.m. Thursday – closing time at the diocese offices – Pavone had yet to appear.
“I would welcome a meeting with Father Pavone, face to face, a meeting as his bishop,” Zurek said. “I am still waiting for a favorable response to that.”
In fact, Father Pavone did respond, requesting – with good reason – that a mediator be present at that meeting, and Bishop Zurek never responded to Father Pavone’s request.
In fact, Father Pavone (pictured left) and Priest for Life’s Chief Canonist have “on numerous occasions” requested mediated meetings between the two men, to which the bishop has never responded. This entire matter could have been cleared up weeks ago had the bishop agreed to the help of mediators.
In addition, I am aware of a letter Bishop Zurek wrote on October 5, finally acknowledging for the first time that he indeed had in his possession PFL’s financial statements for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010, as well as “[i]ncomplete financial statements” for 2009 (about which he requested more information, which PFL promptly submitted).
In that letter Bishop Zurek also acknowledged having the 2010 financial statements for Rachel’s Vineyard and Gospel of Life.
To clarify, PFL submits all financial statements and audits to Father Pavone’s diocese and members of PFL’s board of directors as soon as they are completed.
Thus, Bishop Zurek was admitting that the Amarillo Diocese has had PFL’s up-to-date financial records in its possession from the time Father Pavone joined the diocese in 2005 – contrary to Bishop Zurek’s allusion in his September 9 letter to all U.S. bishops that Father Pavone had “rebuff[ed] my every attempt at calling for financial transparency.”
In addition, Bishop Zurek went on to say in that October 5 letter, “I shall submit these statements to my advisors for review. After I have been advised about these financial statements, I shall forward to you all their concerns and questions.”
In other words, Bishop Zurek was conceding that neither he nor his advisers have ever analyzed PFL’s financial statements, even though he wrote a scathing letter to all U.S. bishops on September 9 all but accusing Father Pavone of financial malfeasance and recommending that parishioners withhold donations to PFL.
[Top photo via Amarillo Globe-News]
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.
Why would Fr. Pavone need mediation? The meeting was supposed to be about his (Pavone’s) spiritual progress, not anything related to PFL finances. That being said, Bp. Zurek should have responded to the mediation request either way.
Is there a copy of the October 5 letter available online? I’m only aware of one that Bp. Zurek issued on October 6.
actually no JoAnna – the meeting had to do with Fr Frank’s future and not about his spiritual progress. Bp Zurek brought him back to Amarillo for lack of the above information.
Thanks Jill for keeping all posted on good Fr Pavone.
Jill….thank you for sharing the truth, and not conjecture, innuendo and outright lies as so many have about this. I know you have jumped into the frey because so many others have been completely dishonest about this entire situation. Once again, the Bishop is manipulating this situation publicly…and again I ask—-to what end Bishop Zurek? Fr. Pavone owes you obedience when you yourself are acting in an upright and honorable manner. We are accused of being disloyal to the Church when we question a Bishop’s motives…hmmm..think a reading of Teresa of Avila’s life, or Padre Pio’s life…hmmm…priests also don’t have all their due process rights stripped from them in the name of obedience, either.
“The meeting was supposed to be about his (Pavone’s) spiritual progress, not anything related to PFL finances.”
Really?? That was the first thing Bishop Zurek wrote on in the first letter that leaked!
@Marcella: I agree with(your words) Fr. Pavone owes you obedience when you yourself are acting in an upright and honorable manner. We are accused of being disloyal to the Church when we question a Bishop’s motives…hmmm..think a reading of Teresa of Avila’s life, or Padre Pio’s life…hmmm…priests also don’t have all their due process rights stripped from them in the name of obedience, either.
Additionally, I think the following statements go well in this horrible situation:
The Vatican’s Vision of a Bishop: Father, Brother and
Friend for the Common Good
In exercising his ministry, the Bishop relates to his priests not merely as a ruler towards his subjects, but rather as a father and a friend… The Bishop should encourage a spirit of initiative among his priests, avoiding anything that might lead them to understand obedience in a passive and irresponsible manner. He should ensure that each gives his best and does so generously, placing his own capacities in the service of God and of the Church, with the mature freedom of the sons of God.
Apostolorum Successores, 76:
The Bishop: Father, Brother and Friend of Diocesan Priests
Introduction
One of the most misunderstood realities of the Church, both historically and presently, is the Bishop’s relation to the priests and faithful he serves. The Congregation for Bishops in the Vatican has provided a document to clarify precisely this relationship: The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum Successores. To properly view the current situation between Bishop Patrick Zurek and Father Frank Pavone, this document is crucial to understand the role of the Bishop as the Vatican and the Church herself understand it and NOT as any particular individual – no matter how well known, scholarly, or powerful – desires that it be understood.
General Principles: Truth, Justice, Use Talents of Your Priests Wisely for the Common Good
The Vatican says that the Bishop must be guided by certain fundamental principles:
The Principle of Truth
The Bishop must have truth at the heart of his pastoral action. «Pastoral activity is
authentic when it is anchored in truth» and thus inauthentic when it is not. (57) A Bishop is not allowed to lie to his priests, lie about his priests, or ruin the good reputation of his priests. Restitution is required if this is done. Further, if a priest provides his bishop with information he requested, and then the bishop cannot claim that he does not have it.
The Principle of Communion
The Bishop must promote unity with legitimate diversity: The Bishop should «work constantly for the common good of the diocese, mindful that this is subordinated to the good of the universal Church» (58) Priests for Life is a worldwide catalyst for the healing of women and families affected by abortion throughout the world. Countless numbers of children are saved by their efforts everyday. A ministry which greatly benefits the most sensitive pastoral missions of the universal church today – hurting women and mothers, wounded fathers, and unborn children – exemplifies this greater good par excellance.
The Principle of Cooperation
The Bishop must involve all Christians in the one mission of the Church. «In fact all Christians, individually and collectively, have the right and the duty to cooperate in the mission which Christ entrusted to his Church, each according to his own particular vocation and gifts received from the Holy Spirit.» (59) Father Frank Pavone has been individually gifted with the ability to effectuate great good for salvation of souls and common good in a particular arena: the sanctity of life and the healing of women and men from abortion. Denying the Church and society this gift, by constraining him arbitrarily, does injustice to the Universal Church and especially the women and children who will suffer from this. One only has to ask Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey – whose conversion from the most vivid symbol of abortion in America to now outspoken Pro Life leader was due in a large part to Fr. Frank – to verify this.
I hope that those reading this post will continue to look at the statements at the following page http://www.freefrfrank.com
Veritas et Utilitas (Truth and usefulness) is what I say to that!!!
Claudia and Seth:
See Bp. Zurek’s letter of Oct. 6, linked above.
“Bishop Zurek announced on October 6 that he was inviting Father Pavone to meet with him on October 13, exactly one month after he recalled the pro-life leader to Amarillo. The bishop said that he had asked Father Pavone to spend some time in prayer and reflection on his priesthood, and would speak to him about his “spiritual progress” during that period.” (bold mine)
Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12055
I think some of the missing financial information might be the missing IRS information. As someone who has been responsible for awarding grants to non-profits in the past, I can promise you that I would never have recommended a group for funding if it had those same IRS problems.
Thanks Jill for keeping us up-to-date! Yours is my number one prolife blog and I don’t get a chance to look around at other places as much as I’d like to.
I did get a chance to see the list of prolife leaders who support Fr. Frank. Great group of prolife folks supporting him. Fr. Frank has my support and prayers too.
JoAnna, no, the letter is not available online as of yet.
Jill, you’re not providing all the details.
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-10-15/records-reveal-growing-tensions
As detailed in the link above, Father Pavone has not explained a $1.4 million revenue shortfall, and he failed to adequately fill out IRS-required line-items about a $170,000 loan to an unnamed employee, as well as an $80,000 loan simply categorized as to “Europe.”
Then there are the small matters of continuing to solicit tax-deductible donations through a charitable arm that lost tax-exempt status, and other financial details that don’t quite add up on the IRS forms.
Remember, when you run a charity in this country, you are REQUIRED to provide details about how the money is collected and spent. This goes for every charity, whether it’s Priests for Life or your local Red Cross.
There are legitimate questions about Priest for Life’s finances, and the issue here is about holding Father Pavone to the exact same standards as any other charitable director.
Any noise about interrupting the work of a pro-life leader just distracts from the central issues at hand, which are all financial.
Thanks.
Super Steve:
>>As detailed in the link above, Father Pavone has not explained a $1.4 million revenue shortfall, and he failed to adequately fill out IRS-required line-items about a $170,000 loan to an unnamed employee, as well as an $80,000 loan simply categorized as to “Europe.”
I love it how Father Pavone is presumed to be guilty and that these financial items are evidence of embezzlement and financial mismanagement and other shady and illegal financial activities.
So I’ll come to his defense here since he seems to have been convicted by many people over these items.
One has to wonder if Fr. Frank were doing anything wrong, would this information even be filed with the IRS? Certainly if he were up to no good, the statements would be squeaky clean and the money hidden in fake transactions.
And, why would the group continually get audited if they were up to no good?
Now, I don’t think Father Frank fills out these tax forms or audit statements. So to say that *he* failed to fill them is the first problem – he probably doesn’t fill anything out.
Come to think of it, I don’t know many priests who could fill out a 990 on their own – I would suspect, like most of us, they either have difficulties filling out tax forms or they pay an accountant to do it.
As for explaining the $1.4 revenue shortfall – what’s the problem? If this is related to funding affiliates is not a a crime, it’s not financial mismanagement, and if you look at the affiliates – they all have paid staff.
It’s not like Gospel of Life and Rachel’s Vineyard are Pavone’s simply personal checking accounts.. Rachel’s Vineyard and Gospel of Life ministries are legit. Maybe they couldn’t raise the funds necessary to pay the debt back in time, and maybe PFL wasn’t able to raise as much money as expected – who knows.. But to call this mismanagement is wrong..
As for GOL’s non-profit status - that seems to be a case of oversight – 300,000 nonprofits lost their status automatically, and apparently GOL was one of them - it’s being rectified.. Once again, it’s not like this is someone’s personal check book or embezzlement account.
$80K loan to Europe? Many possibilities .. ever think that maybe there are dealings with the Vatican or other Vatican officals that are kept private? But unless something is illegal here, what’s the issue? Once again, it’s not going into a swiss bank account for Father Pavone.
$170k loan to an employee? Despite what Chartity navigator says, it’s perfectly ok to give loans board members, executives, and employees. While non-profits or *for profits* are not in the business of giving loans to other charities and employees, it doesn’t mean they don’t or can’t or won’t – or that there is something wrong with doing so.
Charity navigator may not appreciate it, but hey, it’s not wrong.
Think of it this way, ever get a loan from your employer? I have, on many occassions, received loans from diffferent employers over the years, sometimes in excess of $5k. Remember Priests for Life is an employer to dozens of people, and has the ability – and right – to make such loans. No financial mismanagement here folks..
Again, no financial mismanagement nor crime has been committed - so give the man the benefit of the doubt and view him with innocence – until proven guilty. Or did you already convicted him in your mind?
I’e seen enough within the Catholic Church to come to a few firm and fixed positions that guide my response in matters such as this.
First, we are a Church governed by a substantial code of canon law, so substantial that seminarians must study four years of it in preparation for priesthood. Along with that law comes an entire justice system within the Church, complete with boards of appeal all the way up to the Pope.
Second, one cannot lobby their way past difficulties such as Father Pavone’s current difficulties. He believes that he is being treated unjustly and has hired a canon lawyer to represent him. All letters and public statements will be adjudicated fairly by the Church’s canonical system.
Third, God is in charge here, and as Paul says in Romans, “All things work together for good for those who love the Lord.” That includes not only Father Pavone, but Bishop Zurek.
Finally, the narrative that has grabbed hold in so very many quarters (and NOT by Jill) is that of “The Bishops” not being pro-life. Such an overreaction does a disservice to Father Pavone by exaggerating his role relative to the bishops. For all of the good done by Father Pavone, it bears noting that four bishops have facilitated that good by three of them assigning Father to PFL, and one allowing him to leave NY for Amarillo. He has been at PFL for 18 years because his bishops have directed him to be there.
Then there are all of the dioceses in the US whose bishops fund a Respect Life Office, and support myriad other pro-life initiatives, not only regarding abortion, but across the entire life spectrum. Nobody ever thinks the bishop does enough for their particular ministry, and one of the great afflictions of the Church is jealousy between groups, each of whom thinks their ministry is of paramount importance in the grand scheme of things.
Beating the snot out of the bishops isn’t the way to endear oneself or one’s ministry.
Justice will be served here. Of that much I am certain. When justice is served, it will not be the result of the bishop-bashing that has occurred in so many quarters, and it will come about in a climate that may well have alienated a good many bishops.
I’m willing to wait on the Lord without hurling invective around the Church.
Well said, Dr. Nadal.
I feel like I’m watching the pro-life movement commit suicide when I read things like this.
STOP FEEDING THE RUMOR MILL!
How is this information productive? How does it “help” anything?
Excellent post Dr. Nadal.
“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 1 Cor 1:10-12
Or I belong to Fr Pavone? Or I belong to Bishop Zurek? Fanning the flames of division is not what Christians are supposed to do.
“What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.” 1 Cor 3:5-7
Bishop Zurek and Father Pavone are ministers. Put your trust in God. The pro-life movement is in good hands.
Super Steve,
PFL/FP have indeed explained every single detail, including the questions asked in the Amarillo Globe, multiple times to the bishop, orally and in writing.
Just because the Amarillo Globe doesn’t have the details doesn’t mean PFL/FP are hiding them.
Moreover, the bishop has not indicated a single specific question that is outstanding. Not one. The questions you cite are from the Amarillo Globe, not from the bishop. He has not indicated a single specific financial concern.
Words of wisdom from the granddaddy of Christian Rock, Chuck Girard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wu4Ux6WpFg
This is Catholic Church business, If public opinion, right or wrong, affected Church business, then the Catholics would look like Episcopalians by now (abortion, homosexuality, etc.)
People need to stay out of the Church’s business. JUST PRAY. And keep your mouth shut.
Unfortunately, the info that was leaked was not done by people outside the Catholic Church – nor is the info that continues to be leaked.
So, saying “stay out of the Church’s business” sounds well and good, but is completely unrealistic since this issue is being tried in the larger, anti-Christian media, and it appears the only defense of Priests for Life as a pro-life organization is coming from Christian bloggers.
It is no doubt hard to stay silent when the reputation of the pro-life movement is at stake – not just that of the Catholic Church.
Dr Nadal – thank you.
Bull, Kel- It’s the pro-lifers that keep spreading information, true or not, everywhere and every chance they get. They are creating a scandal with their publicity that most people would otherwise NEVER KNOW ABOUT and need not know about. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. And yes, they need to shut up and stay out of it. That’s not a Catholic’s opinion- had this happened 4 years ago before I became Catholic and had faith in the Church’s ability to handle these matters, I would see that it’s counterproductive and immature to draw attention to this. Now that I am Catholic, I know it is not just counterproductive and juvenile to speak about this, but also, it’s morally wrong, as I am under their authority. You are not, but it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t see how stupid it is to create scandal by fueling the rumor mill.
P.S. And if people did catch wind of this, let the official voices do all the talking, not the opinions of bloggers reporting what they heard from whatever source. One priest wrote here about his personal experience with what a bad man the Bishop is. Right or wrong, it’s GOSSIP. It’s not for us to know. There is no call for all the gossip and speculation and we should have no influence in this resoluion- so why should we be privy to such information? It’s so infantile- especially with the hissy fits being held that draw attention to this more and create more division and bad press- like CBR and their graphic image pickets of the Diocese. Disgusting.
I won’t “diss” Fr. Pavone or the bishop. But I will double my monthly donation to PFL. By the way, Fr. Pavone is not the only priest who works for PFL.
Have I got this right? First Bishop Zurek trashes Fr. Pavone in a widely copied letter that suggests Fr. Pavone has not been forthcoming with financial info, along with several personal innuendos about Fr. Pavone’s character. Now the bishop acknowledges Fr. Pavone did indeed provide the financial info, but the good bishop apparently couldn’t be bothered to read it. Next the bishop misrepresents — AGAIN PUBLICLY — Fr. Pavone in his proposed meeting by suggesting Fr. Pavone didn’t show up, when in fact Fr. Pavone tried multiple times to meet with the bishop as long as he could have mediators present (on the sage advice of his canonical advisor, Fr. Deibel: http://www.priestsforlife.org/update/dave-deibel.htm).
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: Thi situation totally STINKS. BLIND obedience to bishops contributed to the molestation scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, but apparently the lesson never took. Even more egregious is that the church has utterly failed to produce ANY documentation to support Bishop Zurek’s verbal ASSAULT on Fr. Pavone. Shame on the whole bloody lot of them who are involved in trashing this good man’s name — and a PRIEST, no less! The church needs to come clean on what this is all about. The longer this goes on, the bigger the PR disaster this will become for the RCC. I would think that after so many other scandals, RCC leaders would understand this point, so the fact that they have not been forthcoming suggests they have something to hide.
Priests and bishops are mortal men, not God, not Jesus. Moreover, as best as I can tell, they do not walk on water. But in the case of this bishop, it appears he is now sinking quickly in a whopping big puddle of his own making.
Jacqueline, if you do a Google search, you will see that mainstream media was hot on this issue and continues to be. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not pro-lifers who wrote about it in Texas and Florida newspapers, and which was picked up by various others and liberal bloggers with an axe to grind.
To counter this, it appears pro-lifers are attempting to rally to the defense of the work of Priests for Life and Fr. Pavone.
“People need to stay out of the Church’s business. JUST PRAY. And keep your mouth shut. ”
yea, ok, whatever you say boss.
“Bull, Kel- It’s the pro-lifers that keep spreading information, true or not, everywhere and every chance they get. They are creating a scandal with their publicity that most people would otherwise NEVER KNOW ABOUT and need not know about. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.”
No misinformation has been spread. Zurek made this public. Zurek is at fault, he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He hasn’t even looked at PFL finacial statements yet.
Good for the protestors in Amarillo. Keep the heat on.
To counter this, it appears pro-lifers are attempting to rally to the defense of the work of Priests for Life and Fr. Pavone.
DUMB. They are just dignifying accusations that would be vindicated through the Church. And what does undermining the mechanisms of the Church accomplish? This is really, really foolish. Let the parties involved speak, not those without access to the information.
Jasper, if you think harassing clergy in order to coerce the Church into giving you your way, undermining a canonical system you lack the eduation/intellectual capacity to understand- and you don’t have the humility to acknowledge this nor the fact that lack the apostolic grace (ordination) to supervise these matters- and just the basic understand that you do not have access to all the information—on ANY of these grounds, you need to seek guidance from your spiritual director and go to confession, pronto. You are supposed to know better than this. You are a perfect example of why ordained, educated and obedient servants handle these matters and not the loud, ignorant and obnoxious laity.
Father Pavone has appealed to Rome; all the ‘he said/she said’ makes no differents to whatever the facts of this case might be under the canons. Bottom line: One side or the other has been sneaky and uncharitable: Let Rome decide and speak out.
I’m happy to see the headline of this blog article was changed. The prior one wasn’t supported by the information contained in the article. Too bad it’s all over the internet now, though.
I’ve been to Rome, but Avignon, France is nice too.
Kel, I don’t believe any of us know who actually leaked the first letter. While it is true that the Bishop wrote the letter, anyone with access to the letter could have leaked it. That includes all the Bishops in the US, many members of their staff, and anyone in the PFL office who had access to the letter.
It might be time to start seriously pondering the question “Who profited by the release of the letter?”
Jill/GetTheFacts:
When you run a charity, you are required to fill out IRS Form 990 documents detailing charitable revenue, expenses, program spending, and non-program spending. Transparency is a requirement, not an option.
It’s unacceptable to leave out required details in line-items, particularly when such large numbers are involved. This is not some guideline dreamed up by the folks at Charity Navigator, it’s required by the IRS.
Saying Father Pavone has provided all the details is disingenuous. He hasn’t. Aside from any explanations he may or may not owe the bishop, he is required by the IRS to provide a full accounting of the finances of non-profits he controls. In turn, those documents must be made available to the public.
Claiming Pavone doesn’t personally fill out the forms is a straw man argument. He is the director. The big cheese. The buck stops with him.
I know you’re inclined to raise a passionate defense of a pro-life leader who has, by every estimation, done a lot of good. But doing good for the cause and being potentially financially irresponsible are not mutually exclusive things.
Now, you may be inclined to dream up scenarios where Pavone makes theoretical loans to the Vatican or other possibilities, but the problem is we don’t know the real story because, again, Pavone did not do what he was required to do by law.
I think we need to realize here that the in-fighting and drama within Catholic circles is one thing, but outside of Catholic spheres is the real world — and Father Pavone will most certainly have to provide answers about those line items to the IRS. No amount of rallying on his behalf or blog comment bloviating will change that fact.
Finally, I’d like to note that I didn’t “convict” Pavone or even suggest any financial wrongdoing beyond failing to properly fill out 990 forms and possibly making inappropriate loans. I’m simply saying the transparency requirements that apply to all other non-profits in this country also apply to PFL and its associated charities.
If Pavone had filled out the forms and line items like he was supposed to, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We’d know where the money went.
If you really think that asking these questions equates to some sort of witch hunt, then we’re speaking two different languages here and I’m not sure anything I write can help you understand why it’s wrong to take people’s charitable donations and fail to account for how they’re spent. Thanks.
This is basic stuff, people, and we will find out where the money went sooner or later.
The issue isn’t who leaked the letter. It was written by Bishop Zurek to all of his brother Bishops. Reading it, it becomes apparent that Bishop Zurek is at wits end with his priest, the third to be so vexed. Now, either we concede that there is a great deal of history that went into the content, tone, and tenor of that letter, or we are left with the specter of a bishop who is stark-raving mad—utterly delusional.
The letter was not meant to be a courtroom bill of indictment, but a communication from a bishop to his brothers that there are serious and substantial issues between him and his priest. The Church’s justice system will thoroughly explore every dimension of this relationship and the events that led to such an acrimonious missive.
What many cannot accept is that Father Pavone is a priest FIRST, with all that his priestly office and vocation entail. That includes accountability not just to his Board of Directors at PFL, but first and last to his bishop and all of that bishop’s successors. Bishop Zurek didn’t need to write all that he did. He simply could have ordered Father Pavone back to the diocese for a period of ministry in some other arena. That he wrote what he did indicates one of the following:
1. Genuine problems at PFL, and with Bp. Zurek.
2. Perceived problems at PFL, and with Bp Zurek.
3. The bishop is delusional.
The matter is now in the very capable hands of canon lawyers and the Roman justice system. They will get to the bottom of it all, and the truth will prevail.
I don’t worry about what the truth will look like. I rest assured that God’s perfect will is going to shine forth like the dawn, and that’s all any of us needs. Father Pavone is a good man who has done good work. If God wants him to continue, a thousand bishops won’t be able to stop him.
Let’s drop the torches and pitchforks and trust in the Lord, that He will indeed send His Holy Spirit who will lead His bishops to all truth.
The issue isn’t who leaked the letter. It was written by Bishop Zurek to all of his brother Bishops.
The letter was not meant to be a courtroom bill of indictment, but a communication from a bishop to his brothers that there are serious and substantial issues between him and his priest.
That’s a very eloquent way of saying, “It’s none of our business.”
The matter is now in the very capable hands of canon lawyers and the Roman justice system. They will get to the bottom of it all, and the truth will prevail.
I don’t worry about what the truth will look like. I rest assured that God’s perfect will is going to shine forth like the dawn, and that’s all any of us needs.
That’s a very eloquent way of saying, “It’s none of our business. Let the Church handle it.” I say that, but without the diplomacy.
Trying to deduce something we can not know from a letter that wasn’t addressed to us with a history we know nothing about is fruitless- no, actually, it bears rotten fruit. It profits no one to guess who is delusional and who is not, even if our guess, with our limited frame of reference is completely correct, it is completely unnecessary. It’s like seeing a married couple fight and having each one come to your with their side. At the end of the day, the couple is still married. Most times, they reconcile and forgive eachother and other times, they split-but no matter what the dirty laundry that had no business being aired will always be remembered by people with no reason to know it. I have no reason to know what issues the Bishop and Fr. Frank have- I don’t want to know it. It does no one any good to know it. It’s not ever good to speculate on people’s potential bad deeds when proper authorities are handling the situation.
I agree that there will be vindication here, and that vindication will have real affect, affect that protesters and commenters couldn’t have. If people really cared, they’d wait for it. Unfortunately, all these despicable things they are doing “for” Fr. Frank reflect poorly on him and falsely paint him as insubordinate and troublesome. It’s certainly not helping- rather, it’s hurting.
“Jasper, if you think harassing clergy in order to coerce the Church into giving you your way, undermining a canonical system you lack the eduation/intellectual capacity to understand-”
“You are a perfect example of why ordained, educated and obedient servants handle these matters and not the loud, ignorant and obnoxious laity.”
You’re so full of yourself, you know that. This is not Catholic blog, stop telling us what we can comment on. Not everybody has the time and money to be a lifelong student like yourself.
I certainly agree that the three possibilities Gerry listed are possible. But they are by no means the only possibilities. Just as likely, based on the bishop’s comments, is that Bishop Zurek wanted some sort of access to, or control over the PFL funds. And regardless of the bishop’s motives for doing what he has done, his comments about Fr. Pavone are not only self-contradictory, but also outright uncharitable and certainly by no means pastoral.
This situation has become a major and very public embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church. The longer the Church takes to adjudicate this matter, the worse it will get because the media wins either way — either they get to take figurative shots at an alleged out-of-control pro-life activist, or they get to take those shots at yet another church cover-up / scandal.
3. The bishop is delusional.—> corrupt.
Tom, the only media I’ve seen give this any substantial attention are pro-lifers and their gossip- ironically, the same group that funds Priests for Life. That’s the damage- we’re doing it to ourselves. This is only a topic because people keep speculating on it and insinuating scandal- like the Bishop is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” or “Fr. Frank didn’t fill out line-items.” The “Free Fr. Frank” people with their sensationalism (a picture of a priest in handcuffs graces that homepage) are giving fodder to the media, especially when they picket Catholic Churches with graphic signs for the sole purpose of annoying/harassing the Bishop. Big pictures of dead children- Pro-lifers attacking Catholic Churches- that’s “man bites dog.” That sort of thing gets media attention!
Can you give me a good reason to speculate about either man of the cloth? I can’t find anything positive about people taking shots at clergy- no matter the Bishop or Fr. Frank. The slander/libel flying about is atrocious, like accusing the Bishop of wanting Fr. Frank’s money and that Fr. Frank is fraudulently hiding money. These accusations are disgusting. They need to stop, as we are not the ones who investigate this. Do you not see that throwing out horrible accusations of all the bad things the Bishop “could” be doing is absolutely malicious and evil? I could read personal communications not intended for me and use that information to accuse you publicly of horrible things- like a letter to your wife that was harshly written- and say, “All I can figure is that he is having an affair.” Even if I were right, the slander and gossip would still be wrong.
I, for one, am glad that such investigations aren’t done hastily simply to prevent liars from lying about a cover-up. Liars will lie and the only defense is vindication with evidence that must come through adjudication. And because people like yourself are throwing out your theories about evil things our clergy “might” be doing, all of THOSE accusations must also be refuted, too. This process would be faster if people weren’t bombarding the Bishop with letters and picketing the office.
Tom,
Listen to yourself.
“Just as likely, based on the bishop’s comments, is that Bishop Zurek wanted some sort of access to, or control over the PFL funds. ”
There would be no legal way for PFL to divert funds to Bishop Zurek, and no legal way for Bishop Zurek to access PFL monies. PFL is NOT a part of the Catholic Church. It is an independent charity. Your statement smacks of paranoia and does everything to Bishop Zurek that you believe he has done to Father Pavone~~~unfounded allegations.
This is the sort of vitriol on the part of disaffected Catholics and protestants that is splitting the pro-life community. Faithful Catholics are willing to trust the bishops within our courts to get it right, and detest the sort of vitriol you have engaged in here. PFL is losing a great many faithful Catholics over this, as they turn away in disgust at the characterization of the bishops as a body.
When issues like this arise, they become occasions for those with an axe to grind to vicariously get in their digs. This Church was founded by Jesus and His Apostles, shepherded by their successors, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her. In the broader ecclesial picture within the Catholic Church, this amounts to less than a tempest in a tea cup. Within the pro-life community, vital alliances are being corroded needlessly.
Jaqueline says it more bluntly, but also more accurately than I do. People need to clam up. In the Roman Catholic Church, the appeals go up the chain of command, not down. We are not Episcopalians or Congregationalists, and never will be. If an injustice has been done, then it will be rectified.
In the interim, every bishop in the nation is watching this case and taking stock. How many in their right minds would want to get more involved knowing what awaits them if they should dare to question one of their rock star priests?
Really, Tom. This calumny against Bishop Zurek, accusing him of having designs on PFL $$$ is as bad as anything I’ve heard to date.
Rock Star Preists? You have a lot of nerve.
Go read Zureks letter to FP, all it talks about is PFL money. So, enough of this lecturing to us about ‘vitriol’, ‘axes to grind’ and telling us to clam up. This is not a Catholic blog.
“Faithful Catholics are willing to trust the bishops within our courts to get it right, and detest the sort of vitriol you have engaged in here.”
[Edited by moderators]
Gerry,
This is the second time you have wrongly and ignorantly accused me of being a disaffected Catholic and then suggested that my alleged views are poisoning my evaluation of this situation. Apparently character assault is now considered a virtue in the RCC as it is being practiced not only by Bishop Zurek but by yourself as well.
As for any alleged corrosion of the unity among those in the pro-life community, your willingness to turn a blind eye to Bishop Zurek’s own words has done that quite well all on its own. The Church has a long and well-documented history of burying its misdeeds under the rug. Your complicity in such activity is shameful.
I didn’t consider that- when Bishop’s get their Diocese picketed with graphic photos, harassed with phone calls and slandered with horrible accusations, that might discourage them from acting in their authority. That is terrifying.
My biggest fear in all this is that the Church, in the world but not of it, will cave to public pressure. It’s happened before with sex education in 1967 and with advance directives in 1974. Some Bishop’s caved and made moral compromises that inevitably paved the way to immorality- If the U.S. Council held firm to sex being taught at home, Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be in our schools today. If the California Bishop’s had held firm on living wills in 1974, we wouldn’t be able to legally starve and dehydrate to death disabled people since 1990. Surrendering any ground whatsoever to the World, the Flesh of the Devil can have unspeakable consequences. Even people with good intentions can influence decisions that have bad consequences- and I deal with those consequences everyday. It’s why you can legally remove someone’s kidney dialysis or antibiotics in the state of Texas for the only purpose of killing them because doctors think their “quality of life” makes them better off dead. This is scary stuff- and happens when the clergy are bullied into pleasing man and not God.
[Edited by moderators]
I would laugh at the irony if it weren’t so sad. Someone is defending themselves as a faithful Catholic by damning another Catholic for insinuating that he’s not a faithful Catholic- all after he publicly slandered a Bishop and supported demonstrations against the Church- AND throwing a fit about how he can be as non-Catholic as he wants since this is not a Catholic blog even though the topic is the Catholic Church- it’s dizzying, even for me, a lifetime student.
It really is sad. I continue to maintain that these blog posts shouldn’t exist. Jill isn’t Catholic and hasn’t submitted herself to obedience under Church authority, but surely she sees how no good comes of gossip and malicious speculation (something universal to all believers- to all people really). Surely she sees that this isn’t helping anyone. If she were to protest the final outcome, that makes more sense- but not fueling rumors in an ongoing investigation.
Jill, regarding the comment @12:19, I would remove this filthy comment that is comparing pro-lifers in Amarillo to PP, Euthanasia and Sexual immorality. It matters what your protesting for. The lifelong student has studied herself stupid.
This is the second time you have wrongly and ignorantly accused me of being a disaffected Catholic and then suggested that my alleged views are poisoning my evaluation of this situation. Apparently character assault is now considered a virtue in the RCC as it is being practiced not only by Bishop Zurek but by yourself as well.
Actually, you are the one who waged a character assault when you claimed Zurek was out for PFL’s money. All you were accused of it making a horrible accusation- which you did. So there is a plank/splinter situation going on here.
As for any alleged corrosion of the unity among those in the pro-life community, your willingness to turn a blind eye to Bishop Zurek’s own words has done that quite well all on its own.
How is it turning a blind eye to let the Church investigate it as it is already doing? Rome is examining this. You, however, are hurling slanderous accusations at a Bishop based on your opinion of Zurek’s letter. You can think what you want, but you need a witness before you accuse someone of something so heinous- especially a Bishop.
The Church has a long and well-documented history of burying its misdeeds under the rug.
Sounds “disaffected” to me.
Your complicity in such activity is shameful.
Rome is investigating this, bringing any of the misdeeds you accuse the Bishop of into the light. Gossip (what you are doing) and protests inhibit that investigation. By the way, Satan is called “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev 12:10) for a reason. False accusations are the enemy’s trademark. You’ve so far accused the Bishop of being after money and Dr. Nadal in being complicit in a cover-up. You really need to repent of what you’re saying.
Jill isn’t Catholic and hasn’t submitted herself to obedience under Church authority
After reading all this, it’s not hard to imagine why she’d never consider it either (but I’m not giving up hope, Jill!) (: We are a group of dandies at times for sure.
rock star priests
IMO, not a nice comment at all
rock star priests- IMO, not a nice comment at all
You have to fill me in on why this is offensive. I really don’t get it. We’ve seen people defend charismatic priests with vigor no matter what the offense, even when the offense is not being contested. Look at Fr. Alberto Cutie. No false accusation there. He was caught making out with his hand down the back of his divorced parishoner’s bikini on a public beach and admitted having a 2-year affair with her. Clearly, clearly unacceptable on countless levels, and still, his adoring fans held protests when the Bishops had to rightly censure that behavior- and many of these supporters were led astray and followed Cutie out of the Church (which would alarm any Bishop concerned about their souls). And Fr. Pfleger- different scenario, same outcry of angry fans spewing venom at the Bishop for doing his job as a Bishop. I’ll neglect to discuss Corapi and Entrenuer- because I don’t know if they were guilty or not- but I do know the response from their fans was the same. It’s clear that those priests with loyal set of supporters with rally behind these priests and hurl accusations at the Bishops, even in cases were the Bishop is clearly correct. I am not saying that these priests might not be falsely accused, but that history shows how their supporters will come to their support no matter what- even if that means slandering the Bishops and the Church. When Bishops see the massive cost of investigating a popular priest, they might think twice about it even when it’s the right thing to do. That’s problematic.
FYI, Jacque, Fr Euteneuer has admitted his guilt, made public contrition, and asked for forgiveness. I know that is moot given teh point you are trying to make, but just in case anyone is curious.
Thanks, Bobby. I just read his statement and something timely and germaine stands out:
“While I would much prefer to allow this public act of contrition to stand alone, I regret having to address the malicious falsehoods that were published this past week on various internet sites. I can only say that I am shocked to the depths of my being at the malicious efforts by supposedly faithful Catholics to destroy a priest who has served the Church faithfully for 22 years. The campaigners have made intolerable attempts to contact my family, to defame innocent co-workers and even to solicit and to persuade others with whom I have prayed that they are victims despite their unequivocal statements to the contrary. Some have even claimed falsely and maliciously that there is a possessed person living in my family’s home. No one should have to endure such malevolence or such treatment of innocent family members. Despite the rhetoric of justice and truth-seeking, the sinful campaign has not made one single positive contribution to the resolution of this difficult situation that has already been handled appropriately by Church authorities for nearly six months.”
Once again, gossip profits no one and only makes things worse.
Jacque, Gerard,
I’m sorry for any low blows or insults last night-
Bruce, your comments are very uncharitable. Whatever mistakes Fr. Pavone may have made, he is still an ordained priest and should be treated (and spoken of) respectfully. You can disagree with some/all of Fr. Pavone’s actions while still giving him the respect that is warranted him due to the virtue of his ordination as a priest in the Catholic Church.
Comments referring to Fr. Pavone in a derogatory manner (such as Bruce’s) will be deleted.
The internet is a tremendous invention and a tribute to the ingenuity of man (Thank God, Al Gore invented it!) Sadly however as with most things in life, that which has the potential to do great good can also be manipulated to do great harm. Such is the case with the attack now underway against Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life. Self-proclaimed “faithful – conservative” Catholic bloggers are using the internet to make unsubstantiated accusations and false charges against the man who has almost single handedly brought the abortion issue to the forefront of American conversation. No political candidate dare dismiss the pro-life vote. And each year more and more Americans move over from the “pro-choice” category to the pro-life position. Fr Frank Pavone and Priests for Life have done more to bring about this change in attitude than anyone. That is an indisputable fact which even Fr. Frank’s enemies acknowledge. So why this concerted effort by those who call themselves obedient sons and daughters of the church to silence his voice and destroy Priests for Life?
Sorry, I have no time for dissident priests. They cause scandal and lead their followers straight to Hell.
Father Frank has turned aside Christ’s Church and turned to himself as the arbiter of right and wrong. Christ appointed Bishop Zurek over him, and whether Fr. Frank likes it or not, that is God’s will. What matters is how he responds, and thus far, he has responded incredibly poorly.
This will not end well, and it is all Father Frank’s fault. His faith and obedience is being tested, and so far, he is failing that test. I pray that he gets it right, and soon, for the world needs him.
This is disgusting. Any derogatory comments toward Fr. Frank will be deleted (and rightly so), but absolutely slaughtering the reputation of Bishop Zurek, another priest, a Bishop, calling him a money-grabber, a liar and a wolf in sheep’s clothing- THOSE remain?!?! I guess they have to, as the blog post itself is clearly making those accusations.
I guess I have simply been proven right, that people will line up behind a charismatic priest and villify anyone who dares suggest that they might need supervision. I am on neither side- because two priests are not enemies. I am for the side of good and beleive it will prevail.
The fact that you will allow comments that decimate one priest remain but promptly delete comments that accuse another priest- How is this okay? I won’t be around to here the answer, but just think about it.
Bruce – Fr. Pavone is not a dissident priest. Your characterization of him is unfair. He has acted in obedience to his bishop – not perfectly, but he’s so far shown a willingness (albeit grudgingly) to submit to Church authority and judgement in this regard (unlike, for example, Fr. Corapi).
Wow, lots of talk since I last looked at this blog. If you really believe in the pro-life movement, INCREASE your donations to the cause. That could be PFL, the American Life League, Birthright, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform or many others. Don’t let this latest controversy injure the pro-life movement. I believe the devil would love the pro-life movement weakened. THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE !!
rock star priests- IMO, not a nice comment at all
You have to fill me in on why this is offensive. I really don’t get it.
I personally find it offensive because I associate rock stars with drugs, abuse of alcohol, loud (sometimes violent) music, using underage girls, making tons of money and not doing much good with it and breaking guitars. I know there are the exceptions but this is my over perception.
Fr. Pavone is not a rock star nor has he ever behaved like one that I am aware of. He has brought much needed notice to the unborn in our country and that I support.
The heart of the Fr. Pavone story is so obvious and some seem to be missing it. Guess what it is?
Politics. No, not Church Politics, National Politics. In 2008, Fr. Pavone was outspokenly anti-Obama. In 2010, 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 Bishop 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 and 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.”
Guess who might be a puppet in all this? If you answered – Bs. Z, the answer is correct. Mind you I’m not stating all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church here “as some seem to think” this is NOT about Bishop bashing. It’s about bringing some some thoughts to light.
Alicia,
In all of these wild conspiracy theories about Bishop Zurek, how he is so “progressive” that he’s out to slit the throat of the pro-life movement by canning Fr. Pavone, I wonder why he didn’t recall him 5 years ago? He has allowed Fr. Pavone to do his thing for five years, but gets no credit for that.
Perhaps he really does have questions that he believes he’s not getting satisfactory answers to, questions that arise from a steady stream of complaints by clergy and laity alike.
Perhaps there’s no scandal here. Perhaps this is a legitimate dispute between two alpha males.
I’m with Jacqueline. People need to just shut up and let this work itself out. Long term damage is being done here that most won’t see for some time to come. Father Pavone doesn’t need the conspiracies, the hysterics, and the theatrics. He’s a priest and he has the Holy Spirit to guide both him and his bishop.
But that requires an end to the theater of the absurd. I trust in the Lord, so I don’t need to bash the bishop. This sounds like a classic dispute in vision and executive styles, and it will resolve best if everyone just leaves it alone. The more we hear of the greedy bishop trying to rape PFL’s coffers, or Father Cutie, etc…, the worse Fr. Pavone looks in the eyes of the bishops. It looks like he’s the ringleader of some unhinged individuals.
The pro-life movement is large, diverse, civilized, and sophisticated. You would never know it by much of the nonsense out there. Let’s get back to our normal, sane, rational, and professional bearing and demonstrate through mature example what Father Pavone has helped to build.
Gerry, it is precisely your attitude that Bishop Zurek can send out a defamatory letter, and later mouth off to the press about Fr. Pavone not showing up, but eveyone else should just “shut up” that is so offensive. Do you have any clue how brazenly arrogant and disconnected from reality you sound? Perhaps you could help this matter by telling Bishop Zurek to “shut up”?
Beautifully said Jill.
Perhaps this is a legitimate dispute between two alpha males.
I personally don’t see Fr. Pavone as an “alpha” male at all. (I don’t see Jesus as an “alpha” male either). I personally believe bishops and priests (and all Christian men) should be servants and Christ-like, i.e. not alpha male like. IMHO, the Alpha Male Syndrome is what legalized abortion in the first place.
I hope you will continue to keep us filled in, Jill.
This is the Church Christ established. Bishops are in charge of priests. Its really that simple. Father Pavone doesn’t like it, but it is reality.
Bruce. Actually Fr. Pavone DOES like it and that’s reality.
Can we get Phil Kline in as a mediator between Zurek and Pavone?