Fr. Frank Pavone in exile
It was four weeks ago today that someone with malicious intent leaked a scathing letter to the press written by Amarillo Bishop Patrick Zurek to all U.S. bishops announcing he had “decided to suspend” Priests for Life’s Fr. Frank Pavone “from public ministry outside of the Diocese.”
Bishop Zurek, pictured right, gave two reasons: “[F]inancial questions and concerns” about “a potential financial scandal” and “an inflated ego.” Citing no corroboration, BZ went so far as to suggest parish priests tell congregants not to donate to PFL.
Fr. Pavone was abruptly ordered to report to the diocese that day, September 13.
In the midst of traveling, FP was denied his request to return to New York for personal belongings and to say good-bye to his elderly parents, of particular importance since BZ wrote he was calling FP to Amarillo for “for an indefinite period.”
That same day, September 13, Bishop Zurek left for a two-week vacation in Brazil.
Msgr. Harold Waldow, vicar for clergy of the Amarillo diocese, attempted to clarify on September 14 that “Zurek only suspended Father Pavone’s ministry outside the diocese because the well-known pro-life priest is needed for work in Amarillo,” quoting the National Catholic Reporter.
Where was Fr. Pavone sent? To a convent of 29 nuns 50 miles outside of Amarillo in Prayer Town, TX. Since a priest was already assigned to the convent, FP offered to give daily Masses alternately. To date the diocese has given him no work to do and no spiritual guidance. The convent is only accessible by dirt road (pictured at the top of this post).
Not that FP is above such simple surroundings, but whether the Amarillo diocese “needed” Fr. Pavone more than the pro-life world did and does is certainly questionable.
And not that FP, or any of us, wouldn’t gain from solitude, reflection, and time alone with the Lord.
But that is not how Bishop Zurek prepared the way. BZ abruptly plucked FP from the middle of a trip, told him to cancel all foreseeable previously committed speaking engagements as well as leave the large pro-life organization he ran in the lurch, meanwhile writing a publicized letter calling FP’s integrity and personal character into question.
BZ then abandoned FP to deal alone with the BZ-created mass of chaos and confusion, including constant calls from reporters.
If Bishop Zurek’s intent was to indeed help FP “readjust his priestly bearing through spiritual and theological renewal,” he failed miserably to create an environment for peaceful reflection.
Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics has posted a video update on Fr. Pavone. I have confirmed the accuracy of Mark’s video, namely, that 1) Bishop Zurek did indeed call EWTN and tell the station not to air any of Fr. Pavone’s currently taped shows and to cancel reruns; 2) as of this morning Bishop Zurek had not spoken with or met with Father Pavone (Will the private meeting he publicized would happen October 13 actually happen?) ; and 3) Msgr. Waldow has been ordered not to speak to Fr. Pavone.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFlVhD5Npc[/youtube]
Furthermore, in the month that has elapsed since Bishop Zurek wrote his letter all but accusing Fr. Pavone of financial malfeasance, he has failed to make any specific concerns known to PFL, despite their repeated requests for clarification. You and I know as much about what “alarmed” Bishop Zurek as PFL does.
The diocese has also refused to answer PFL’s repeated requests to acknowledge receiving the 2010 audit PFL previously sent – before BZ issued his letter. In addition the diocese has failed to acknowledge receiving audits for Rachel’s Vineyard and Gospel of Life Ministry’s finances PFL sent subsequent to BZ’s letter. The diocese has even snubbed PFL attorneys, who have also made formal requests.
This is unresponsiveness to the extreme. It is bizarre behavior piled on top of bizarre behavior.
Which brings me to my final points.
There are those who say 1) the authority of a bishop over his priest should not be questioned, this is about obedience; and 2) I as a Protestant have no say in this matter.
Both are wrong.
First, FP has maintained obedience. Second, bishops are not infallible. The notion that bishops are above criticism even when hurting people is what leads to corruption and scandals. Just because someone is a bishop does not give him the right to unfairly treat a person, hurt that person’s reputation, flout transparency, and yes, lie.
Finally, this situation effects all pro-lifers, Catholic and Protestant. No person is indispensable, yet there is an important pro-life leader who is being almost literally imprisoned for no rational explanation. Lives are unnecessarily at risk.
[Top two photos via Mark Crutcher]
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.
Sounds like it’s time to tell the Pope.
This is about obedience. Fr. Pavone’s vocation is that of a priest, which he is still fully capable of. His public ministry is secondary. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. He is still to be obedient to his Bishop. Period.
A few thoughts:
1. If it’s good enough for St. Francis and St. Pio, it should be good enough for Fr. Pavone.
2. Given that the seemingly impossible accusations against Fr. E and Fr. Corapi turned out to be well-founded, Catholics shouldn’t exactly approach this with incredulity.
3. The call to Catholic priesthood is one of complete submission.
Generous obedience is one of the highest virtues to be exercised by a Catholic priest or religious. There are many examples of acknowledged saints, priests and religious, who were instructed by their bishop to do something that outsiders easily criticized. It is possible for bishops to make mistakes. Even if the bishop has made a mistake, it gives more glory to God for a priest or religious to generously obey his superior than to cause scandal against the bishop unnecessarily.
Christ spent 30 years of his life on earth hidden because it gave God the Father more glory for Christ to be obedient to his parents, Joseph and Mary, and hidden with them, than to begin public ministry. And note, it was at Mary’s beckoning at the Wedding in Cana that Christ began his public ministry.
So too, it gives God more glory for a priest or religious to be generous in obedience to their superior even if the reasoning can seem obscure. Also note, it will be when Fr. Frank’s bishop beckons him that he will give glory to God in returning to ministry.
That being said, a bishop still has to answer for his actions, but one should seek to question a minister of God in fairmindedness and, again, generosity.
This is the Catholic thought on the matter, at any rate.
The bishops are already deploying their smear merchants like Mark Shea and others to slam Mark Crutcher.
Jill, don’t let these hypocrites get away with it.
Okay, wow. That’s way out-of-hand and it makes no sense. What the heck?
FP has been utterly obedient. The bishop said jump and he jumped. BZ told FP to drop everything on September 13 and come to Amarillo, and FP dropped everything on September 13 and came to Amarillo. And FP is maintaining his obedience at a convent at the end of a dirt road. Are you questioning FP’s obedience? Because you shouldn’t be. He’s in Amarillo (well, 50 miles out) and is staying there. Obedience has been accomplished. It’s a topic that’s not on this table.
The real question of this post is where’s the beef? Bishop Zurek made strong public accusations against FP in a very strange, inappropriately worded letter and has failed to support them. And I’m calling him on that.
I get that life isn’t always fair. But God is. He’s righteous, just, and fair, and He calls us as His people to be righteous, just, and fair.
Sorry Pansy Moss, but this is about truth. There be the stench of a rat out there somewhere…..and yes, I am Roman Catholic. Father Pavone has been practicing his vocation within his work. Bishop Zurek should explain himself to the PFL movement that he is so harming with his removal of Fr. Pavone, who HAS, mind you, obeyed his Bishop.
I agree with Jill.
If there is merit to his smears Bishop Zurek should proclaim it. This is his duty as a Bishop now that he has insinuated such in the public domain. If there is even one innocent that has been slaughtered because Fr. Pavone has been silenced, then the Bishop has overseen a far worse injustice.
That being said, a bishop still has to answer for his actions, but one should seek to question a minister of God in fairmindedness and, again, generosity.
Bishop Zurek’s letter speaks volumes to those of us that have been around the block a time or two, Catholic or not.
Thank you Jill for questioning Bishop Zurek in fairmindedness and generosity.
There are “powerful” people hiding in the Catholic Church who support legalized abortion.
Catholics would do well to remember the example of St. John of the Cross who purposefully disobeyed his legitimate superiors in refusing an order to return to his community and was taken prisoner and treated shamefully by them for several months.
St. John escaped from his prison cell and eventually founded new monasteries which flourished.
Obedience is NOT the final word. St. John became a very famous Saint and a Doctor of the Church.
Thank you Jill for your kindness and concern. It is heartwarming and encouraging to see Christians of different denominations come together in support of Father Pavone. Yes, there are people at almost all levels of Catholic heirarchy that are not following the teaching of the Church and who put the approval of men ahead of the approval of God. We need to sweep up and clean out the relativists, the pro-choicers, and the unfaithful. It would be better to risk a smaller Church in order to have a better Church. Imagine what would happen to B. Fulton Sheen if he were alive today and speaking the way he did!! People would be shocked and consider him politically incorrect!
My prayers are with Father Pavone and I also pray for all Catholics to return with contrite hearts and obey the will of God, regardless of the approval of men.
Jill, I cannot thank you enough for posting this article.
After seeing the video of Mark Crutcher, I decided to contact the Amarillo diocese myself to do my own investigation and this is what I found out:
- I spoke with Deacon Floyd Ashley myself and he told me flat out that the video Mark Crutcher took was a fabrication and a lie because Fr. Frank was staying in a resthouse that was very close to the diocese.
- Fr. Frank and the bishop zurek has been constantly speaking with each other since Fr. Frank has been in Amarillo.
So I went to google earth and found out the exact location of the retreat house which was in fact OVER 50 miles outside of Amarillo and over 50 miles AWAY from the diocese.
Now … either someone from the diocese has lied to me … and perhaps other people who have called their diocese as well … or GOOGLE EARTH IS THE LIAR.
Secondly, I could not believe my ears that I was told by the Deacon Ashley that the bishop and Fr. Pavone was constantly talking and meeting each other because the bishop was on vacation in Rio de Janiero for the first 2 weeks of Fr. Pavone’s exile.
What I keep seeing on all other articles on this issue is people constantly saying Fr. Pavone should be obedient, but the thing is: Fr. Pavone IS BEING AND HAS BEEN OBEDIENT since September 13!
You are right, Jill, this is no longer the issue of obedience … it is the sneaky and devious manner of the bishop who is NOT INFALLIBLE and who is also susceptible to temptation!
I also went to the http://www.freefrfrank.com webpage and found a survey there that is quite interesting.
The bishop is correct.
Period.
I read somewhere that almost every major heresy has been instigated by a bishop. What a sad fact. I question Bs Zurek’s imprudent letter and decisions. His last Amarillo Diocese post mentioned a “private” meeting between Fr. Frank and himself. If the meeting were private why was it publicized? Fr. Frank is being obedient. There are so many other questions revolving in my mind. Hmm.Would Fr. Frank follow his bishop into error? I think not! Was St. Athanasius sinful in his refusal to give into the Arians, even when directed to do so by legitimate authority? Was St. John Damascene sinfully disobedient in his battles against iconoclasm? There is much history in the Catholic church that needs to be looked at in this situation. A Catholic’s obedience to his bishop is limited against commission of sin, if said is requested or demanded by his Ordinary, and also is limited in demands of acquiescence or commission of error. The Magisterium of the RCC consists of the Pope & the bishops in union with him. Thank God, there appears to be no major doctrinal issue in this sad confusing situation. Many are concerned at Bs Zurek’s “prudent” decisions and pastoral approach. Who died and made Bs Zurek God? Is a bishop so sacrosanct that there should never be a public word of criticism uttered against him? Ok maybe it’s true that a Bishop should be obeyed (if he has scruples that is). We have a duty and a right to ask questions, in public even, and yes we can put pressure on a Bishop who happens to be Fr. Frank’s ordinary. Why not? He is messing with a priest who is not only someone he “shepherds” but a priest who happens to be one of the top “PROLIFE” leaders in the US of A. Personally, it looks like this “ordinary” is heading in a direction contrary to sensus fidelium ‘sense of the faithful.’ Canon law 212. §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
The main question here is what is/are Bs. Zurek’s motive (s). Let us raise our voices in support of Fr. Frank and the work of PFL.I just finished participating in a very interesting survey at FREEFRFRANK.COM
Jasper, where has Mark Shea smeared Fr. Pavone? Please provide proof of this accusation.
Bearing false witness is a sin, you know.
Fr. Pavone seems to be keeping quite busy, judging from all the PFL e-mails begging for $$ that keep appearing in my inbox.
I recommend visiting Ed Peters’ blog – canonlaw.info – for the take of a reputable Catholic canon lawyer on this whole mess. Bottom line is that Bp. Zurek is acting within his authority as Fr. Pavone’s superior.
Also, I think the “Free Fr. Pavone” group’s actions in the Amarillo diocese are TERRIBLE. They are punishing Amarillo Catholics for something the laity have no control over. I’m appalled at Fr. Pavone for supporting their actions.
“If there is even one innocent that has been slaughtered because Fr. Pavone has been silenced, then the Bishop has overseen a far worse injustice.”
“Lives are unnecessarily at risk.”
Keep in mind that we as catholics believe in redemptive suffering.
That is (and I admit that I am stating this imperfectly) it’s reasonable to speculate that Fr. Pavone is suffering due to the fact that he is not out there saving lives.
He has the option to unite his suffering with that of Christ for the salvation of souls, or whatever intention the suffering will most benefit the body of Christ.
Put another way, his time is not being wasted if he is putting it to good spiritual use.
I get that the bishop’s public and faulty approach complicated matters and has thrown the pro-life public for a loop. I really get that, and that’s something that he will have to answer at some point.
But in the meantime, we cannot know how many more lives may be saved from abortion by the suffering Fr. Pavone is/may be enduring. Because this is on a spiritual level, we fail to grasp it on an earthly level. And none of us will probably never know while we remain here.
I agree that Fr. Pavone is being obedient. The challenge, as I see it, is that he needs to continue to remain obedient.
If Bishp Zurek is truly in the wrong, time will soon tell. If Father Pavone is in the wrong, ditto.
It’s hard, I know. Believe me, I’m just as anxious as everybody else to see this issue resolved STAT.
But in this I see a huge lesson for Bishop Zurek, Fr. Pavone, and the rest of us peeps.
One cannot blindly follow a leader when the leader does not have the sense or abilities nor the proper expertise NOR the heart when on a mission … particularly when this mission is saving lives.
BRUCE above said: THE BISHOP IS CORRECT. PERIOD.
Okay so if your boss tells you to go jump in a lake full of red bellied piranhas - would you?
If you are in the army and your commanding officer tells you to run in the middle of the dessert naked toward enemy camp without any weapons – would you?
if your father tells you to drive your car against oncoming traffic – would you?
There are just some things you cannot do blindly just because your boss or an authoritative figure tells you to. A certain common sense is needed here. This applies to what has happened and is happening to zurek and pavone.
I was leaning toward the bishop being right but then my own common sense kicked in.
Mark Crutcher is one of the prominent pro life leaders out there. He has nothing to gain by fabricating the pictures he showed on YouTube and in fact, he could possibly ruin his reputation and credibility if he did indeed make up the story of what has happened when he visited pavone. So it is obvious that the story he told was real. Thats a no brainer there.
I also checked the freefrfrank webpage and also answered the survey there.
Voices cannot and should not be kept silent.
Praxedes, I would respectfully caution you not to insinuate that Bishop Zurek is doing this because he supports abortion. That’s very unfair and slanderous.
“Pavone invokes the centrality of his “unwavering commitment to the mission at hand” but he obviously understands “the mission at hand” to be the one he has identified for himself, and not a mission as might be set before him by the Church through the ministry of his lawful bishop. The mission of every secular priest, however, is, first, last, and always, to bring Christ to his people; everything else flows from that.
Pavone’s reiteration of the “permanent, lifelong commitment I have to spend every moment of my time and every ounce of my energy defending the unborn from abortion” is stirring rhetoric, but it can’t be taken literally. No one is called to spend every moment and every ounce of energy defending anyone from a specific evil. It is certainly not the call of one who possesses the holy priesthood of Jesus Christ. A priest, especially a diocesan priest, must strive to be all things to all people, not just one thing to some people.”
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/summary-of-my-posts-on-zurek-pavone.html
I’d also caution everyone against this “Free Father Frank” stuff, as though he’s captured and unjustly imprisoned. He isn’t. I assure you, he is free. He is under obedience to his bishop, just like every priest in the world is, and he took those vows voluntarily. His pro-life work does not exempt him from that vow of obedience. His pro-life work, as good and needed as it is, is not more important than obedience and humility.
Some folks may not like that, but it’s true.
I’ve had difficulties with this issue from Day 1, and at this point, it 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!
Ignatius of Antioch, Church Father (which applies to ALL Christians):
Epistle to the Ephesians:
“It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience 1 Corinthians 1:10 and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.”
“For it is written, Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”
” It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.”
Letter to the Magnesians:
”
Chapter 4. Some wickedly act independently of the bishop
It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.”
CASE CLOSED. Pavone is wrong.
I know there should be some level of respect for Bishop Zurek but what I would like to know is if a bishop has the authority and power to do whatever he wants or pleases even if his actions harm the image and reputation of the church?
How many priests have disobeyed their bishops because they feel that what is being told of them goes against the full teaching of the catholic church? If a priest MUST OBEY his bishop what do the bishops have to do for their priests?
With what is happening to Fr. Frank Pavone and being left in the middle of nowhere, is bishop zurek allowed to mistreat Fr. Frank Pavone? Who watches over the bishop and to whom are his (bishop zurek) actions accountable to?
I know the church is not perfect but it seems like the camp of Bishop Zurek are spreading lies about the whereabouts and treatment of Fr. Pavone. Is the bishop allowed to even do this? Can he lie to his priests and CAN or is he allowed to lie ABOUT his priest?
For that matter, the letter that zurek sent out initially was very damaging to the reputation of Fr. Frank and Priests For Life. How can a bishop do this? How can he be allowed to ruin the good reputation of his priest, in this case Fr. Pavone AND Priests For Life with no evidence or absolute proof of any wrongdoing?
People always talk about Fr. Pavone’s obedience, so If a priest complies with his bishop’s request, can the bishop punish him for not complying?
Do bishops have to have good reasons to make the decisions they do, or is it enough to say “Because I said so”?
Should bishops explain to their priests the reasons why they may give them a new assignment? – I say that’s a definite YES!
Does obedience have to be blind? I THINK NOT!
Actions speak louder than words and the actions of bishop zurek is shouting that he is not acting on good faith toward Fr. Frank.
Just exactly how much more abuse, shame and denigration can the Catholic church stand because of the actions of a bishop?
I myself went on the http://www.freefrfrank.com and casted my vote there!
@ JEN who posted: Praxedes, I would respectfully caution you not to insinuate that Bishop Zurek is doing this because he supports abortion. That’s very unfair and slanderous.
Let me get this straight … so it’s okay for the bishop to be unfair and slanderous to Fr. Frank Pavone because he’s only just his priest?
That’s double standards lady!
The bishop released a very libelous, defaming and unfounded accusing letter about Fr. pavone to his brother bishops which casted a shadow of doubt over Fr. Frank Pavone’s reputation. Not just to the him but to the very organization that was hard at work and in the front lines of trying to fight abortion.
Also, here’s something for you to think about and perhaps do a little bit more research on:
Bishop Zurek swung votes for former mayor ed garza to boost obama’s campaign. In return, Ed garza made a very sizable “donation” to the diocese of zurek.
Don’t believe me? Look it up!
@JEN
“I’d also caution everyone against this “Free Father Frank” stuff, as though he’s captured and unjustly imprisoned. He isn’t. I assure you, he is free. He is under obedience to his bishop, just like every priest in the world is, and he took those vows voluntarily. His pro-life work does not exempt him from that vow of obedience. His pro-life work, as good and needed as it is, is not more important than obedience and humility. Some folks may not like that, but it’s true.”
JEN, just exactly HOW do you know he’s a free man?
“I assure you, he’s free.” This sounds like something you would say if you worked directly under the bishop or his diocese or you’re one of the nuns posting!
Fr. Frank is not a free man because the moment he leaves Amarillo, that is an act that shows DISOBEDIENCE to the bishop. The bishop can now point another long finger saying: “You see, he disobeyed me!”
Okay … let us go with you on the “HE’S FREE” comment of yours. Okay … since he made an appeal to Rome, he DOES NOT need to be in Amarillo BUT he is there because Fr. Pavone IS SHOWING obedience to his bishop.
Another thing: Kindly read the article of Jill Stanek again as she herself commented above that this article IS NOT ABOUT OBEDIENCE because Fr. Frank IS being obedient.
This article is about the very sneaky and dubious reasoning behind the bishop’s actions.
Ok – insomnia knocked on my door tonight and despite having a cup of chamomile tea I am up and the questioning continues . . . If clergy are mistreated by a bishop, do they have a right to defend themselves? Well – I would think so!!! The Church has a duty to protect the innocent, even if the innocent is a priest. What can an accused priest do to clear himself? If a priest finds out that a bishop has spread lies about him, is he allowed to defend his reputation? If so, how should he do so? Are bishops sinless? Are bishops infallible? Can bishops be punished, too? Why aren’t the penalties stipulated in canon law being imposed on the bishops who violate the rights of their priests? Aren’t canon lawyers aware of these abuses? I am sure they are. My thoughts: “it’s because this Bs Zurek who happens to be acting like a thug at the very moment is supposedly in “charge” or should I say an “ordinary”. I wonder is Bs Zurek a puppet in the hands of some politician(s) who happen to have given a large donation to his diocese to then ask for a favor in return. The favor being too quiet Fr. Frank because he stands for truth (veritas). I have heard horror stories about how priests have been “railroaded” by diocesan review boards. However, in canon law a person is innocent until proven guilty. Fr. Frank’s priesthood and pro-life vocation are worth fighting for. I hope that in due time this current hysteria from Bs Zurek’s end calms down and greater reason prevails. I don’t believe that the abuse of priests such as what is happening to Fr. Frank will change until all of us raise our voices to say that we will not tolerate “ABUSE” in any form . Bless ‘em all, let the Lord sort ‘em out (Oremus pro invicem).
One of the goals of “Voice of the Faithful” is to support the integrity of our priests. Incredible how some Catholics commenting on this article fail to see this! I believe you will agree that canon and civil law are being eroded to the detriment, and I think diminishment, not only of who we are as human beings, but of who we claim to be as Christians. Thank you Jill and Mark Crutcher for bringing this very fact to light at a time when darkness has clouded the minds and hearts of so many. It’s horrible how Bs Z accused Fr. Frank in public without evidence. Very Bizarre!!!
@JOANNA
Please! Do not TROLL here and tell people to go to Ed Peters as he has been, FROM DAY 1, practically glorifying bishop zurek and spouting cannon law straight off the books based on what he has observed and read only.
He did not speak with either the bishop zurek or fr. pavone to get to the heart of the matter. THAT would have been responsible journalism on his part.
You want to see exactly how people feel about this whole thing?
On freefrfrank.com, there is a poll there for you to see what people are voting on!
As I’ve re-read the various accounts to date, I am beginning to think Bishop Zurek tried to compel Fr. Pavone to turn over PFL funds to the diocese, but Fr. Pavone may have been unwilling to do so. If so, that would explain an awful lot of what has transpired and, in particular, the things that have been said.
Either way, 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.
Ashamed to say it as a catholic but my guess about this is that it is all about the money. Bishop Z wants some of the PFL money. :<(
.
Just out of curiosity since a lot of people seem to want to spout obedience over and over again and that Fr. Frank MUST be obedient at all times to the bishop zurek.
So here’s the thing, correct me if I’m wrong people but shouldnt there be some kind of limit to this obedience thing? I mean, what if the good old bishop tells the priest to do something unpriestly or uncatholic like ~ lets say ~ provide him with lip service of the henious kind that which is so unbefitting of a leader of the church and the diocese!
Do y’all think that pavone should still be obedient?
I mean c’mon now!
Somebody posted above that there should be some type of common sense here and I agree whole heartedly!
Oh and by the way, to Jen and Joanna, I think y’all should read the article again, Sugars!
What you posted has nothing to do with what Miss Jill wrote.
People: instead of going to Ed Peters posts which is a bunch of nonsensical cannonical posts from someone who seems to type straight out of the books instead of the brain, I do suggest y’all go and vote at the poll of http://www.freefrfrank.com.
That website’s got more sense than the ed peters and gerard nadal fellah!
@Tom Ambrose
Last time when I checked, Bishop Zurek has no right nor control over PFL funds. People who donate to Priests For Life are donating specifically to the pro-life movement and not to the Amarillo diocese.
If any other posters state otherwise, I strongly suggest they look into this more just like I have.
Bishop Zurek IS NOT the bishop of Priests For Life so actually, since the very beginning, HE HAD NO RIGHT tell people not to donate to Priests For Life.
I am a businessman and let me tell you, if I was part of the Priests For Life team, I can guarantee that Priests For Life will sue the backsides of not just zurek but his diocese and the church as well.
I think its about damn time the Pope and people at the vatican steps in before this gets ugly!
All this talk about the law . . . who’s right or wrong . . . has my brain wheels turning . Can a bishop simply “fire” one of his priests? It seems like all Bs Zurek wants to do is accuse Fr. Frank and make him go away. Thought bubble: ABANDONMENT in big letters. In my book a Bishop is - to have a “Father-Son relationship” with the priest that he shepherds. It seems like between Bs Z & Fr. Frank this relationship has turned into a ”master-slave relationship”! As I recall “slavery” ended a very long time ago. On to my next thought — I am wondering if Fr. Frank will be stood up again by Bs Zurek. Afterall this Bishop went off on a trip for 2 weeks after calling Fr. Frank to Amarillo for so called “guidance” and “reflective prayer”. It is a known fact that through ordination a priest becomes “incardinated” in a diocese or religious order. This is like being adopted into a family. The priest becomes like an adopted son in that particular church family. The bishop is a father to the priest. If a disciplinary problem later arises, the bishop or religious superior cannot “fire” the priest anymore than a parent can dismiss one of the family members. For better or worse, they are in this together. Unfortunately, most bishops do not talk to priests that have been accused. In this case Fr. Frank looks to be “wrongly” accused as he has provided all the documentation his “ordinary” has requested. Did Bs Z make some incorrect assumptions here. He may have some ghosts hiding in the far corner of his “ordinary” closet. Before sending out the accusation letter to all his brother bishops of the US, he should have read “the guide to the implementation of the US Bishops essential norms”. The guide would have probably done Bs Z some good and by doing so — he would have clearly kept this situation private and all matters would have been taken care of without causing suspicions that he (Bs Zurek) is really wrong in all this. Whenever an ordinary (such as Bs Zurek) has knowledge, which at least “seems” true [notitiam saltem veri similem], of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circumstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous. Did Bs Z do this? Apparently not! It happens that all of his brother bishops received all of the documentation Priests for Life sent them and Bs Z didn’t? Absolutely absurd! Something is not right here! Bs Z really made a big ole’ mistake — he wrote this letter as if to say that he was certain that Fr. Frank was guilty of wrong doing. I will say this . . . “Moral certitude” far exceeds “credible,” “probable” or “sufficient.” One is innocent until proven guilty. Think of this folks: if the proofs that have been gathered cannot establish with moral certitude – which is akin to but not exactly the same as “beyond a reasonable doubt” – that an offense has been committed or that the accused is gravely responsible by reason of his malice or culpability, then no penalty can be imposed; and there is no basis for the bishop even to pursue the process to impose a penalty. We must all resist the temptation to assume that because an allegation has been made, it is therefore true.
What is God’s will on this issue?
If Father Frank is being held from his ministry, is it not like Paul being imprisoned in Rome, and while imprisoned both good and bad proclaimers of Christ took his place? If many young priests step up to answer the call to defend life and in so doing, proclaim the Way, the Truth and the Life, doesn’t that also accomplish God’s will?
If this action is of God, then opposing it would be useless, but if it is of man, then it is complete foolishness and some will be humbled.
I don’t think Fr. Frank is concerned with this storm, but is likely praying the Lord would raise up more workers among his brothers and sisters in Christ to defend the innocent and helpless; nothing less than he would do every day.
Well this is confusing and painful and an affront to the pro life movement. I was raised Catholic but the last time I checked, the Bishops and priests were still humans.Fr. Pavone is one of my heroes and since one month has gone by with no further clarification after insinuating that FP has done something wrong, this is a disgrace.
I think it has something to do with a subordinate being successful…too successful.
I have read those that say a priest is to be obedient and that is the end of the story. This is what happened with the pedophile situation …bishops appeared to speak with an eye and the bottom line and sent offenders back out to parishes who were unsuspecting or told to be silent.
This is the kind of crap that sent me running away from the Catholic Church. Are you kidding me???
Blech. This situation is getting more foul by the day!
First, for the record: I am one of the staunchest advocates of holy obedience, especially of the clergy; it is the life-blood of the Church, and all authority becomes meaningless without it. That being said… I echo Jill’s question: wherein is any “disobedience” by Fr. Pavone to Bishop Zurek? If one cannot find any, then any complaints which insist that Fr. Pavone “be obedient” are silly, redundant, and obfuscatory.
Now, if those who are beating this particular (and rather esoteric and idiomatic) drum of obedience are, instead, suggesting that it is somehow “disobedient” for Fr. Pavone, or for US, to question the bishop’s actions and words (while remaining civil, of course), then I can only say that such a suggesting is sheer nonsense. Nowhere is it Catholic teaching that one is bound to obey any and every command from a superior, “no matter what the circumstances”–bishop, or no. A bishop cannot order a priest under his charge to sin (i.e. to violate his higher obedience to God), for example… nor can he order a priest under his charge to disobey the Pope… nor can he even order a subordinate to do that which violates sane reason and prudence (e.g. preach in the public square in one’s under-garments… if I might paraphrase an example from Garrett, above). I trust that’s quite clear.
I’ve seen the comments of Dr. Peters (the canon lawyer) on this issue, and I’ve commented on them, before; he brings up some salient points, but he certainly seems to be showing rather rash judgment and an unbalanced tendency to criticize Fr. Pavone for vague “offenses against propriety, prudence, and civil discourse”… while simultaneously giving the Bishop’s grossly inflammatory comments (especially the original reckless letter) and actions a “free pass”. If Dr. Peters is nervous about criticizing a bishop, well and good: but it would have behooved him to keep his mouth quite tightly shut about Fr. Pavone’s alleged “offenses” in the same vein. That is: he should have avoided any temptation to criticize the “combative and/or inflammatory tone” of either party. Dr. Peters really did little to help matters (aside from clarifying a few good points about Fr. Pavone’s canonical status–the only point to which Dr. Peters is quite qualified to speak in a professional capacity, btw: all other comments of his are quite plainly his personal opinion as a layman), and he really did (probably unintentionally) help to muddy the waters.
I’ll also add this: any insinuation that Catholics (much less Protestants!) are obliged to “keep silence about this issue” is simply misguided and wrong. This is not simply a personal matter of a priest, for example, losing his temper with a parishioner and being disciplined; this is a direct attack on Priests for Life as an institution, by a bishop who should (even if he lacked the self-restraint required in a successor to the Apostles) know that such a public attack on an institution which did him no apparent wrong, and such public damage must be repaired in a public forum… not behind closed doors (or neglected altogether).
Ignatius of Antioch, Church Father (which applies to ALL Christians):
Epistle to the Ephesians:
“It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience 1 Corinthians 1:10 and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.”
“For it is written, Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”
” It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.”
Letter to the Magnesians:
”
Chapter 4. Some wickedly act independently of the bishop
It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.”
CASE CLOSED. Pavone is wrong.
Whoops… the text-editor (or my brain… I’m not sure which!) left out a bit, at the end:
by a bishop who should (even if he lacked the self-restraint required in a successor to the Apostles) know that such a public attack on an institution which did him no apparent wrong, will likely cause significant public damage (and cause scandal), and such public damage must be repaired in a public forum… not behind closed doors (or neglected altogether).
Isn’t scandal a sin in itself, in the Catholic church? By that I always understood that scandal is not necessarily gossipy shameful stuff but actions that, though not necessarily wrong of themselves, incite others to sin. If disobedience to the church is a sin but a bishop’s actions are such that obedience becomes incredibly difficult, could those actions not be considered a sin?
Paladin, I, too, have wondered where Fr Pavone has been disobedient to earn the insistence that he *be* obedient. As well, the Bishop’s directives – which include ordering MSgr Waldow not to speak to Father Pavone and asking EWTN not to show Fr Pavone’s shows – are curious at best. While some correctly assert we are not called to judge, I do feel called to question on behalf of the unborn that may be harmed as a result of any harm to the Priests for Life organization.
Bruce, I can only wonder at your use of an isolated quote from a particular Father of the Church (who never intended for his quote to be used as universal law, binding on all Catholics, under pain of sin: see Acts 5:29, etc., for the absurdity of insisting that rightful authorities must be obeyed in all matters, regardless of circumstances–or do you deny that the Sanhedrin were the rightful religious authorities of the time? Cf. Matthew 23:2-3), over and above the crystal-clear and official teaching of the Church on the matter of obedience:
If you seek to represent Catholicism, Bruce, you must represent it as it truly is… not as you wish it would be, and not rearranged to suit your personal tastes. It is the Church Magisterium Who has authority to choose which quotes from the Church Fathers are to be taken as binding, universal law, and which are not.
Alexandra wrote:
Isn’t scandal a sin in itself, in the Catholic church?
Yes, it most certainly is.
By that I always understood that scandal is not necessarily gossipy shameful stuff but actions that, though not necessarily wrong of themselves, incite others to sin.
That is correct (though it’s rare for the original action which caused the scandal NOT to be sinful, in and of itself!); scandal is the sin by which one, through culpable neglect, imprudence, etc., makes it easier for others to sin. A Catholic politician who supports legalized abortion, for example, is a case of scandal, even if the politician does not actually procure one (or pay for one, etc.); since he/she heedlessly made it easier for others to think, “Well, if *they* do it, it must be okay for *me* to do it!” In such cases, the local bishop who refuses to deny that politician Holy Communion also causes scandal, since the onlookers will find it easier to think, “If even the bishop isn’t objecting, then it REALLY must be okay for me to do it!”
If disobedience to the church is a sin but a bishop’s actions are such that obedience becomes incredibly difficult, could those actions not be considered a sin?
The first phrase, “disobedience to the Church”, is a rather tricky phrase; if, hypothetically, a priest were to disobey a bishop’s command to commit adultery, and if that priest refused, he would not be “in disobedience to the Church” (Who condemns adultery utterly, in obedience to God). I’d add, though, that mere difficulty is not usually just cause for refusing obedience; there are some cases where even death itself would not be cause for disobedience. If (to use a wild example) a bishop in a military hospital bed ordered a priest onto the battlefield in order to baptize a dying man, and the priest refused (on the grounds that he would be likely to be killed in the attempt), then the priest would be disobedient… and he would very likely sin mortally, in so doing.
Paladin, I have yet to see any evidence that Pavone is in the right on this. In fact, he probably was not punished quick enough.
I was a member of the Covenant House Faith Community in NYC in 1989-1990 whe Father Bruce Ritter (anyone remember him?) was accused of sleeping with some of his favorite homeless boys. Everyone (especially the Faith Community) rallied around him, believing there could be no way this man could have done what they were accusing him of. We were picketed by Cher. Front page of the Village Voice. Inside Edition (with Bill O’Reilly (oh, the irony). I was in my early 20s and I remember saying one night to my co-community members, well maybe he did it.
The responses?? GASP! Don’t say that! How could you say that? OUTRAGE for the questioning. So I knew after raising my questions that toeing the Catholic hierarchal line is VERY IMPORTANT. Obedience is VERY IMPORTANT.
It gave me no pleasure when Ritter was found guilty of all he was accused of plus a lot more. But someone has to ask the questions, and not talking about things solves nothing. Someone’s got to be a hellraiser, and I applaud anyone who, in Fr. Pavpne’s sad case, refuses to buy the Church talking points and asks the tough things about why this man is stranded out in the desert.
Bruce,
Before we discuss that: you’d offered opinions (cf. your citation of St. Ignatius of Antioch) which, in your opinion, proved that utter and complete obedience to a bishop is a moral imperative, regardless of circumstances (especially since you offered no qualifiers)… and that (on the basis of the same quote) the bishop is “correct” by definition (i.e. by sheer virtue of the fact that he’s a bishop… not simply because facts are supposedly on his side). You were quite mistaken, friend. Do you see that, at least?
As to your point: if you say that Fr. Pavone is “wrong” (or “not right”, which I assume means the same thing in this case?), I’m afraid you’ll have to specify… especially since it sounds as if you’re retreating from your earlier insinuations that he was “disobedient”. How was/is he “wrong”, in your eyes, and why?
Courtnay – I’m flabbergasted as to how you can tell a story about a priest who did, in fact, commit wrongdoing despite everyone’s faith in his innocence, and then turn around and claim that Fr. Pavone is obviously innocent so we should all rally around him. As another poster mention, similar scenarios played out with Fr. Eutenauer and Fr. Corapi, both of whom turned out to be guilty.
The Church can’t win, apparently. If She attempts to investigate priests accused of wrongdoing, She’s unjustly condemning innocent men. If she ignores accusations of wrongdoing because the priest in question is popular, then she’s being negligent.
Right now, Bp. Zurek is acting within his authority to recall a diocesan priest to his diocese. Are his concerns justified? That is what we DON’T know, and we need to patiently wait and find out. If Fr. Pavone is innocent, and I hope he is, he will prevail. He has recourse to Rome to appeal Bp. Z’s decision and he’s already taken steps to that end. But frankly, a priest’s first duty is obedience to Christ, which in turn means obedience to his Bishop when said bishop is acting within his legitimate authority.
Fr. Pavone can still do work for the unborn where he is — and like I said, judging from the numerous appeals for money that have come to my inbox lately, he’s certainly doing so.
JoAnna–I don;t know whether or not Pavone is innocent or not. I have no idea. What I learned, though, with my experience of issues of dis/obedience in the Church is that raising questions is a REALLY bad idea: for your career, for the Church, for your soul.
But all this “don’t talk to this person,” “let’s have a secret meeting,” “here’s a letter to tell you to COME BACK THIS INSTANT”, and the best: “IF YOU HAVE THIS OPINION< YOU BETTER BE QUIET” seems really exhausting, silly and controlling.
Good thing I was never tapped for the priesthood. LOL! That obedience thing would’ve been the dealbreaker every time.
Courtnay – here’s the thing. Obedience to Christ means obedience to the Church that He established; i.e., the Catholic Church. Right now, Bp. Zurek is Fr. Pavone’s legitimate immediate superior within the Catholic Church. That means Fr. Pavone has promised obedience to him, regardless if the Bishop’s orders are, in his opinion, justified or not. Right now, on its face, Bp. Zurek has not ordered Fr. Pavone to do anything instrinsically sinful so Fr. Pavone does indeed have a duty to be obedient. Technically, he is being obedient, but it does NOT help that he is fanning the flames of dissent among his groupies. Nor does it help for him to tacitly agree with statements such as “Fr. Pavone is in exile!” As a diocesan priest, Fr. Pavone’s right and proper place is wherever his bishop legitimately tells him to be. If that is where Fr. Pavone is, then he is not in exile.
I met Fr. Pavone last fall at a pro-life event in Phoenix and I liked him very much. I admire his pro-life work. But it seems to me that his attitude is that pro-life work is his ONLY duty, and that’s not true. As a priest, his first and foremost duty is worshiping Christ Jesus and serving His Church. That takes precedence over everything else, even pro-life work.
Everything that Fr. Pavone is going through does seem unjust – of course, however innocent he may be, he is not innocent like our blessed Lord and look what He went through. The disciples did not understand God’s purposes in allowing the Lord to be crucified (but there was a MIGHTY PURPOSE) and although we cannot see a purpose for these (seemingly) unjust actions against Father Pavone, perhaps God has allowed them for reasons unknown to us and Father himself.
If people put the effort into uniting in prayer and sacrifice that they put into these internet commentaries – there’d probably be no abortion now.
Pray – Pray – Pray
To obey, is better than sacrifice
Father Pavone is no wishy washy priest who needs people fussing because he is “living in a convent – in a small room (good heavens!)” My impression of him through the years is that he is spiritually above fretting over these petty inconveniences. Pray for Him – comment if you must but don’t make him look like a immature unfaithful child who cannot stand rebuking – even if it is unfair –
Like a good Catholic he can “offer it up!” No sacrifice goes unnoticed….
He remains in my heartfelt daily prayers
He did take that vow of obedience, so he must obey. That’s what he signed up for. But for those of us who are not Catholic (I was born and raised, so I have a better understanding, at least, than some) find it CRAZY that “obedience to Christ is obedience to the Church.” To me, it is not the same, and I am sorry for those who know black is black, but when a bishop tells him it is white, he must say “Yes, Father.”
Courtnay – no offense, but in my experience as an adult convert to the Church, it’s those who were born and raised in the CC who seem to have the least amount of knowledge about it. (Again, no offense… just my personal experience.)
As for obedience to Christ being obedience to the Church, it’s absolutely Biblical. Jesus told the Apostles (including St. Peter, who became the first Pope), “He who hears you, hears Me” (Luke 10:16). In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus makes it clear that we are to listen to the Church, especially when having disputes with fellow Christians.
Think of it in the same way you’d think of the military. Soldiers have a duty to follow the orders of their commanding officer, even if they don’t necessarily understand the purpose of those orders. Now, if the commanding officer orders a soldier to do something that is against military regulations (e.g., harming an innocent civilian) then the soldier is, of course, expected to refuse or go up higher in the chain of command. But merely, “I don’t understand your order!” isn’t a legitimate reason to refuse to follow that order.
Joanna, no offense, but not was I just born and raised and was a Religion major, but I also lived in a Catholic lay community as well served as was lector, Sunday School teacher, and communer. I’m no spring chicken, so the CC was part of my life for a very long time. So I kinda do know what I’m talking about.
I have no Pope. You do, so I agree, that’s what you have to go with. But since Jesus didn’t really ever talk about the Pope a whole lot but he DID equip me with a conscience, that’s what I’m going to go with every time.
So Father Pavone should be obedient, because AGAIN, that’s what he agreed to do. But I have no such muzzle put upon me, and I, for one, am glad.
The Bishop down there actually told EWTN to CANCEL the pro life show that Father Frank is on? And to stop airing any reruns? Now that is HARSH…..I smell a rat! Defending Life is a great show…I watch it on occasion. last week’s episode was hosted by a different priest from Priests for Life and did not have the usual co host. And I love when Father Frank says Mass on EWTN.
p.s. I am a Cradle catholic. I know my Faith pretty well.
And Father Frank is not being accused of anything like what happened to Corapi….
His ministry is so important to the Church….its PART of his vocation!
Well… once again, Courtnay, I’ve met a lot of non-practicing Catholics with “credentials” who know diddly and squat about what the Church actually teaches. For example, your statement about Jesus not talking about the Papacy… um, Matt. 16:18? Moreover, I guess that gives you grounds to disbelieve the Trinity as well, given that Jesus never talked about that, either. For that matter, Jesus never specifically said the word “abortion,” so… can’t say I really buy the “well, Jesus never said X” argument overmuch. Jesus established a Church for that very reason.
I don’t understand your problem with obedience – didn’t you say that you follow Christ? If so, don’t you have a duty to be obedient to Him? What would you do if your conscience told you one thing, but Christ was telling you another? How would you decide what to do?
As for Fr. Pavone’s “muzzle” – he has every right to speak publicly about his situation, but having a right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it, to quote GK Chesterton.
” Bishop Zurek did indeed call EWTN and tell the station not to air any of Fr. Pavone’s currently taped shows and to cancel reruns; 2) as of this morning Bishop Zurek had not spoken with or met with Father Pavone”
All this obediance nonsense is BS. This chump BZ still hasn’t spoken with Father Pavone? and he asked EWTN to cancel his show?
No wonder Father Corapi packed his bags and left.
54% of catholics voted for Obama. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Joanna.
“The Bishop down there actually told EWTN to CANCEL the pro life show that Father Frank is on? And to stop airing any reruns? ”
I hadn’t heard this. Do you have a source?
JoAnna,
I’d offer one caution, in all this (which I referenced, briefly, above): it’s one thing to say that the Bishop is “within his rights” to recall Fr. Pavone, even if he does it for virtually any reason whatsoever; it’s another thing to scold people for questioning the bishop’s actions. As G.K. Chesterton once said: “To have the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it.” [Edit: I just noticed that you quoted this same aphorism, above, in the interim! Tres ironic… :)] Any suggestion that “the bishop is acting within his rights, so all complainers should be silent about it” is a gross overreaction, and moral law does not require it… especially in such a high-profile case such as this, where the bishop used both vague and utterly inflammatory (and arguably defamatory) language against Fr. Pavone, PFL, etc., and where such words and actions of the bishop, if left unchallenged, could constitute a grave injustice to a good institution (i.e. PFL) which did not deserve such treatment.
Now, if you mean to say that the Bishop is not doing anything unjust by recalling Fr. Pavone per se; I’ll agree with you… but only up to that point. That fact does not canonize the bishop’s decision, nor does it excuse his inflammatory and reckless comments against Fr. Pavone and PFL, nor does it explain his seemingly bizarre actions in the meantime (e.g. silencing Fr. Pavone’s messages through Relevant Radio and EWTN… again, within the bishop’s rights, but not beyond question or challenge).
Legitimately and civilly questioning the bishop’s actions are one thing, Paladin; outright accusations of him being pro-abortion, or greedy, or wanting to get his hands on PFL money, or doing it to stop Fr. Pavone’s pro-life work are another. It seems this thread and most of the commenters are doing the latter, not the former.
And the “Free Fr. Pavone” people go WAY too far. It’s not the fault of the Amarillo laity that Bp. Z acted as he did, so there’s no reason for them to be protesting in front of Amarillo schools and churches.
JoAnna,
Re: your last comment (12:33 PM), I agree absolutely and completely (though I’d hesitate to say that “most” of the commenters are leaping to such conclusions and/or supporting the abuses you cite). I have no idea why Bp. Zurek is doing what he’s doing, and I’d strongly urge all to avoid hasty conclusions and accusations (especially those not backed up by evidence!); but I do claim that he has done so very badly and inexplicably… in a situation where I think he’s morally obliged to be much more clear, self-controlled and humble.
Someone mentioned “scandal”, earlier; it is quite sensible to label as “scandal” any clear appearance of a bishop (who is called to be a servant of servants, and humble beyond the norm, and who will be judged severely for lapses in those requirements) believing himself to be “above the restrictions of Christian conduct–i.e. I’m in charge, so don’t dare question me!” (i.e. the behaviour of a petty tyrant… in contrast to Our Lord’s command that “It must not be that way with you” [cf. Mark 10:35-45]).
Joanna and Paladin,
Thank you for being so civil towards each other and for taking teh time to carefully flesh out your positions and explain where you are coming from. What both of you are saying makes a lot of sense and is illuminating.
Yea, be civil no matter what. While thousands of unborn babies are being killed each day. Just make sure were all civil to one another and don’t offend anybody.
Jasper: with all due respect, that sort of inflammatory nonsense doesn’t help anything. Screaming and yelling at each other will not save so much as a single baby, and it will sour any possible conduits of discussion in which someone *might* be convinced. I’d also caution you against any insinuation that either JoAnna or I (or anyone else on this board) is in any way neglectful or apathetic toward the murder of the unborn. Have some sense, man! I do hope your last comment was written out of ill temper, and nothing more…
If someone does nothing but demand civility (cf. the bishop of the Diocese where Terri Schiavo was murdered), and truly neglects (or even thwarts) pro-life efforts, then by all means: denounce what they do. But please don’t simply shoot first, and ask questions later (if at all)! Some of us truly can walk (fight abortion) and chew gum (restrain our tempers and tongues) at the same time, you know…
Praxedes, I would respectfully caution you not to insinuate that Bishop Zurek is doing this because he supports abortion. That’s very unfair and slanderous.
Jen, I would respectfully caution you not to read into my statements. That’s very unfair and slanderous to me. If I knew Bishop Zurek supported abortion, I would state so and not mince words. As it sits, I question the Bishop’s behavior in this matter which causes me further questions. I have not seen anything that causes me to question Fr. Pavone.
As far as the “powerful” people I was referring, I was thinking of a few people who support abortion that are closer to my own parish. They will remain nameless here.
I’m not sure how civility precludes saving unborn babies. Is this an inverse relation? Couldn’t one just as easily “argue” that “be uncivil while thousands of unborn babies are killed each day.” I’m just not sure how appreciating civility relates to the destruction of unborn children. Furthermore, civility brings clarity to issues without being jumbled up in rhetoric that does not illuminate any point, but is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. It’s annoying to try and read “arguments” while having to constantly assess “is this part of the argument? Or is it an insult, ad hominum, or simply something thrown in there to try and win debating points or insult the other person?” I also do not see the purpose of offending simply to offend, especially without attempting to make a substantive point. I don’t care if I offend someone, but my goodness, I don’t go out of my way to offend. If all I was interested in was being a part of a group that was the most offensive for the sake of being offensive, I’d be a member of the Westboro Baptists. But unless there is good reason to believe that the highest good is offense for the sake of offesne, I’d rather try and avoid it if possible.
I agree 100%, Bobby Bambino.
Jasper – still waiting for proof that Mark Shea has “smeared” Fr. Pavone. I’d really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but unless you can provide proof of your accusation, then you’re simply bearing false witness against your neighbor. Last time I checked, that was a sin.
Priests For Life, and his past failed ventures, are NOT part of his vocation. He is a priest. His call is to stand in personae Christi, provide the Sacraments, and be obedient to the Church.
Nowhere in seminary training does “pro-life work” enter in. It is not required. In fact, it is not actually necessary for a priest. The world is the jurisdiction of the laity.
So, Frank is wrong. So wrong in fact, here is just how wrong he is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
“Jasper – still waiting for proof that Mark Shea has “smeared” Fr. Pavone.”
Go read his posts. …he insults people who like Fr Pavone as groupies and refers to him as a ‘Conservative Folk Hero’. Much like you did above.
“Furthermore, civility brings clarity to issues without being jumbled up in rhetoric that does not illuminate any point, but is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.”
What more clarity do we need to know? What is not clear? Debating endlessly doesn’t save babies as well. As a matter of fact a call for civility at a certain point is an appeasment to evil. What is needed in this country is not civility when it comes to abortion, just as civility did nothing to end slavery or end the slaughter of jews. Just as Peter Keeft suggested -all US Bishops should protest with pictures of murdered babies in front of abortion clinics and get arrested.
“Bishop Zurek’s letter speaks volumes to those of us that have been around the block a time or two, Catholic or not.
Thank you Jill for questioning Bishop Zurek in fairmindedness and generosity.
There are “powerful” people hiding in the Catholic Church who support legalized abortion.”
Praxedes, that was your original comment. Sorry, but to me that sounds like a veiled insinuation regarding B. Zurek.
Jasper – fine, since you’re apparently unable, I’ll do the legwork for you so people can make their own judgments. Here’s the post, here’s the offending paragraph:
Speaking of which, Dr. Gerard Nadal is right, hear him! One of the strange phenomena to emerge on the “conservative” Catholic Right in the past few years has been the automatic assumption that in any dispute between an American bishop and a conservative folk hero, the bishop is always acting as a sinister agent of modernist evil bent on destroying the Faith from within and the folk hero is “under attack” *because* of his orthodoxy and not because there is something worth investigating.
Sorry, still not seeing how this “smears” Fr. Pavone?
This is why no “pro-chocie” Catholic will ever be ex-communicated. It’s rotten from the top. I’m done with Catholicism.
xalisae – do you know what excommunication is, and its purpose? (Hint: it’s not being “kicked out of the Church.”)
Thats not the post, but Father Pavone is not an ‘Conservative Folk hero’, that is a smear. He refers to Fr. Copapi as BS Dawg or slams Michael Voris, or how he berates pro-life mom’s like Palin or Bachmann with silly idiotic posts, or the endless ‘torture’ posts Bush/Cheney are evil and the both parties equally bad nonsense.
Really, I don’t want to discuss this with you any further.
Wouldn’t you say though that simply referring to John Corapi as BS Dawg or berating Palin isn’t so much “smearing” them as it is simply being uncivil? I’m not sure what the criteria is to distinguish smearing vs. being uncivil, nor am I clear as to why the latter is desirable but that there is something wrong with the former.
xalisae,
The Church is not rotten from the top down. It is both human and Divine. That will never change. If you’re looking for a flawless church you won’t find it as long as it’s made up of sinful human beings. If you want the fullness of the Truth, however, then the Catholic Church is it.
I’m getting more than a little fed-up with folks here bashing the Church and the bishops when they really have little to no idea what they’re talking about. Absolutely no one on this blog knows what’s truly happening with Fr. Frank and Bishop Zurek. Lots of people are making lots of speculative and critical remarks, convinced they know what’s going on, but the fact is they do not. None of us can know. Right now, it is between God and those two men, and it’s high time we began praying more and opining less.
The rightness or wrongness of this situation will certainly not be revealed by popular vote or opinion polls. God will take care of Fr. Frank and the Bishop. One is not automatically a hero and the other automatically a scoundrel. And the Church is not the great oppressive, controlling monster that so many are griping about.
Jasper – by all means, then, please provide the “correct” link. I’m really interested to see where Mark Shea has been smearing Fr. Pavone, because I’ve yet to see a post of his that does so.
wow Bruce… Isn’t loving our neighbor part of the priesthood? Isn’t fighting abortion loving our neighbor? Our vulnerable neighbor? What about helping women who regret abortions…isn’t that loving our neighbor?
We need more Priests like Father Frank that speak about the EVILS of abortion…..I think too many are afraid to speak up.
The conditions matter. Being uncivil towards someone who endores intrinsic evil is sometimes necessary, especially if they’ve been shown proof of the evil time after time after time. Smearing a preist that has fallen (especially from a catholic apologist), and a preist who has converted many souls because he tends to have conservative followers is cheap.
Liz, that is what all Christians are to do. But we do it according to our state in life. Frank is a priest. His job is to be a priest, not a director of various organizations that have gone belly up and/or cooked their books.
Frank is a priest. If he did not want to do what a priest does, he should not have become one.
May the Peace of the Lord Be With You!
I believe Fr.Pavone is to meet with Bishop Zurek tomorrow!
Read these wise thoughts from another priest, Fr. Rodriguez who was recently moved to another Parish:
http://www.colleenhammond.com/catholics/interview-with-fr-rodriguez-of-el-paso-texas
Bruce, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to read your comments with patience. Let me ask you, quite clearly: what clear and direct evidence do you have to show that Fr. Pavone and or anyone at PFL have “gone belly up and/or cooked their books”? Unless you can back this up with concrete evidence, you’ve just joined the ranks of the calumniators (i.e. insulting someone and hurling unsubstantiated accusations at them simply on the basis of your personal tastes), and no sane person will then be obligated to take you seriously at all. Care to explain?
And for at least the third time: the issue of Fr. Pavone being recalled to his diocese, and the issue of the Bishop’s reckless (and I’d even say “scurrilous”) letter about Fr. Pavone and PFL, are two entirely distinct issues. Would it be too much trouble to ask that they be kept quite straight? Criticism of one does not logically imply criticism of the other, and even criticism of both does not logically imply disobedience by anyone!
P.S. I assume your reference to Fr. Pavone as “Frank” was simply a slip, and not a deliberate slight meant to diminish him?
It isn’t that as a Protestant it’s none of your business, you just haven’t shown the familiarity with ecclesiology to be taken seriously.
Especially if you have no concern for his 29 fellow prisoners. See, Fr Pavone can walk right out. There are no Swiss guardsmen confining him.
Thank you for posting this, Jill. I’m a faithful Roman Catholic and am gald to see that others have posted thetruth about our faith – that Bishops and even the Pope are not infallible in every thing they say, do or write. They are only infallible when speaking in unison on matters of faith and morals, or the rare times when the Pope speaks “ex cathedra”. We are not obliged to obey orders that are immoral, and many good folks have already given the details on that. Obedience is a holy virtue and respect must always be given the offices of priest, bishop, Superior and Pope, but that does not mean if they order someone to do something unjust or immoral the person is obliged. This is the teaching of our Church.
Priests for Life does good work. I will continue to show my support for any organization that cares about the vulnerable unborn and those being threatened with Euthanasia. And Priests for Life has been around for TWENTY YEARS. if they were doing something wrong, they would have been shut down years ago.
A few years ago we had the privilege of having Father Frank in my hometown with a prayer vigil at the pro life house next to the killing center. It was in January, a day or two before our local local Walk for Life.
So, do you also say he should not have his program Defending Life on EWTN? Or care about a disabled person threatened with starvation and dehydration? No more preaching against abortion at a Daily Mass aired on EWTN? He should just be confined to being a Pastor or assistant pastor of a parish in Texas? No more speaking engagements?
I believe there was a man who lived in the late 19th century/early 20th century who suffered the stigmata and was falsely accused of many things…you may have heard of him…..Saint Padre Pio
Franklin: unless you can re-phrase that in non-sneering terms, and unless you can clarify your own (apparently deficient) understanding of Ecclesiology (do you seriously think that Fr. Pavone can depart, in disobedience, from his current location with no adverse effects at all? No suspensions, no other canonical penalties?), and perhaps offer an apology to Jill for your blatant rudeness, then I see no reason why anyone should take you to be anything but a troll.
“I’m getting more than a little fed-up with folks here bashing the Church and the bishops when they really have little to no idea what they’re talking about. Absolutely no one on this blog knows what’s truly happening with Fr. Frank and Bishop Zurek.”
No, you have no idea what your talking about. BZ made this public, told people to stop contributing to PFL, told EWTN to stop running his show and attacked FP personally. These are not opinions they are facts.
BZ… told people to stop contributing to PFL, told EWTN to stop running his show….
Here’s the thing. I can’t find any sources that confirm the above. Can you provide them, please?
JoAnna: I’m not sure about the cancel EWTN programs thing, but I think the stop giving money to Priests for Life came from that one letter that was somehow made public?
“Here’s the thing. I can’t find any sources that confirm the above. Can you provide them, please? ”
(witholding donations) The link to BZ’s letters is right in this current post by Jill.
(stop running Father Pavone’s shows) Mark Crutcher, vodeo right in this current post.
xalisae – please – a little patience here – Jen and Joanna are correct – we do not have all the actual facts. Not everything is completely public, or completely available. Let’s hope and trust in God’s will here and that goodness wins out.
Please do not believe that the Church is rotten. Individuals within the Church are free in the way that God made them – to either do as He wills or not – and those individuals hopefully will do the right thing. with all of our weaknesses, we need God’s grace to do the right thing …Even Jesus himself picked Judas.
We are here to help, to love, and to do His will. Some of the things that seem obvious to us may not in fact be. Patience, love, think positively. And some of the most amazing things are possible – within the Church, for sure. Jesus himself promises so. And I believe Him. Keep thinking positively, and please don’t base a whole group on an individual or set of individuals who are human, who fail and who have time to improve and love bigger.
love you, xalisae! Keep on keeping on…
Liz –
The last paragraph of Bp. Z’s initial letter (directed toward all US bishops) says (all bolding mine):
If you judged [sic] 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.
Note this does not say, “No member of the laity may donate to PFL, EVER” and to my knowledge no bishop has asked the laity to consider withholding donations (note the word “consider” – the laity may donate to whoever they chose. Bishops can recommend not donating to certain entities but they cannot REQUIRE the laity to withhold donations to any organization).
So it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that that Bp. Zurek “told people not to donate to PFL,” because he didn’t do that. He asked is brother bishops to consider asking the laity to consider withholding donations, but only if they (the bishops) judged it prudent (and, again, to my knowledge no bishop has judged such a move prudent… which tells you something about how other bishops may view this move by Bp. Z).
Jasper – is there a source other than Mark Cutcher that can confirm the EWTN bit? I’ve googled but am not finding any corroborating evidence.
Paladin,
Just now was the first time I read the Bishop’s letter. I have to say that if this letter was about me, I would be very, very, very concerned that my Bishop saw this in me and would do everything I could to either clear up his misconceptions or to do everything I could to have a docile spirit to ensure that I am open to the possibility of being guilty of what I was accused of and change my actions. So from that point of view, my question is (and I’m asking because I don’t know the answer- things are busy these days) is Fr Pavone humbly submitting himself to the requests of the Bishop, even if he is innocent of all this, and making a very serious effort to make sure that he is indeed not guilty of what he is accused of? Because these are very serious accusations, and even if I am doing life-saving work, if I am not on my way to sainthood, if I am deceiving myself in any way, I want to know about, stop whatever I am doing, and fix that problem. You know what I mean, right? This letter is very serious and it just seems to me that a very serious response is in order, especially given that it came from a Bishop. Again, I know nothing other than pretty much what I just read, which is why I am asking. God love you.
We’re getting alot of subjects mixed up here. Bishop Zurek can be acting within his rights as bishop, but still be open to criticism. Fr. Pavone can be obedient in letter, but not in spirit. I personally believe that the evidence presented thus far does not support the allegations made against Fr. Pavone. Bishop Zurek is guilty of calumny, a very serious sin, if it turns out the allegations were unfounded, or the result of an emotional fit of pique. I’m not saying that’s the case, but that he should have been far more circumspect in his language and his accusations. Irrespective of the evidence that emerges, if it ever does (and it likely won’t, so don’t hold your breath), I believe Bishop Zurek at least acted with great imprudence in his letter to his fellow bishops. While Bishop Zurek has a right to demand obedience from Fr. Pavone, does he have a right to recommend to his brother bishops that they try to get all support for PFL ended immediately? Is such a demand justified or prudent? Unless he has evidence of gross financial mismanagement, I don’t believe he does, and the data from PFL, including different bishops who sit on their board, is that they have done everything possible to comply. Does Bishop Zurek have a right to demand the EWTN stop showing any videos of Pavone? He is probably more in his rights here, but, again, is this action justifiable (is it just?) There is much more going on here than simply placing Fr. Pavone in a convent.
I’m not saying with any great certitude that either is right or wrong, about the only things I can say with certitude is that Bishop Zurek is acting within his rights but imprudently, possibly unjustly, and that Fr. Pavone may have some issues with the spirit of obedience, if not the letter. If being disobedient, perhaps somewhat passive-aggressive, sufficient cause to destroy or badly damage a pro-life apostolate? We’re unlikely to know that.
If I can say one more thing, I think alot of Catholics are in a post-Corapi hangover. I think many Catholics who were supporters of Corapi, and also pro-life, who may have had something of an inclination to “side with the priest” on an issue like this in the past, are now almost reflexively “siding with the bishop” because of that experience. It’s just a thought.
I’m a liar. Really one final thing! I have unfortunately known a number of priests who have been railroaded out of ministry, even out of the priesthood, because they were “too orthodox,” “too pro-life,” whatever. There is a situation right now in El Paso along these lines. I’ve also seen many bishops permit heresy and “dissent” in their dioceses, when they are made very aware of it. So I may have a tendency to have a skepticism of the actions of many bishops. I think many staunchly pro-life Catholics shared that skepticism – prior to the Corapi imbroglio. And can we please stop comparing priests to Saints, even Doctors of the Church! Good Lord, we’re not all given that kind of Grace! Stop implying that a priest is unfaithful or a cad because he doesn’t respond with the incredible dignity and humility of a great Saint! See your life’s work get destroyed, or at least be gravely threatened, and see how you react!
I’ve known how to count for awhile now. I’ve known how to add for almost just as long.
1 + 1 = 2
They won’t get rid of people who refuse to hold firm to the doctrines of the church. Allow “pro-choice” politicians to continue to claim Catholicism and organizations like “Pro-Choice Catholics” exist without any derision from the powers that be within the church.
Now a high ranking church official punishes members of his church who are active in the Pro-Life movement and derides high-standing members of the Pro-Life movement.
Durrrr-hurrrr….
It doesn’t take a genius to see what is happening here.
Don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining because of your Stockholm Syndrome.
I see this the same way I see everything else thanks to my involvement with Pro-Life. “If you are not with me, you are against me.”
Let go of dead weight. It only holds you back.
xalisae – Stockholm Syndrome? Seriously? Disagree with the CC all you like but insulting the intelligence and sanity of your fellow pro-lifers – many of whom disagree with Bp. Zurek’s actions while still recognizing his legitimate authority – really is uncalled for. I’m an adult convert to the Church, and I left the ELCA only after great study, deliberation, and soul-searching.
How would you propose that the Church “shut down” Catholics for a Free Choice? The last I checked, the Catholic Church did not have the power to stop secular organizations (and, despite the religious name, that’s exactly what CFC is) from forming or disbanding.
How has Bp. Zurek “punished members of his church” or “derided high-standing members of the Pro-Life movement”?
What about Bishops like Bp. Olmsted of AZ or Aquila of ND or Dolan of NY or Chaput of PA, all of whom are staunchly, avidly, actively pro-life? What are they, chopped liver? They are also “high-ranking Church officials.”
Seriously, your anti-Catholicism is scary.
While watching the YouTube video cited in the article, the thought that crept into my mind (and I can’t believe I’m gonna say this!) but is it possible that Bishop Zurek is working FOR the agenda of the abortion industry?? You take Fr. Frank out of the pro-life fight, then maybe Lila Rose & Live Action, etc., like they’re doing with Phill Kline, and all of a sudden the high-profile people trying to change the Culture of Death aren’t as much of an obstacle anymore. You really can’t say that through the ages of the RCC that there haven’t been agents within the Church working for the Enemy….
X,
I know it’s frusrating but the Catholic church does a ton of good. The church is about following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Men will fail, but that does not change the teachings of the church. The majority of bishops are good men you do call out pro-abortion politicians.
xalisae -what are you talking about? I can see that you are angry and disappointed – but to be anti-Catholic Church and throw away the baby with the bath-water (pardon the comparison here), is totally sad…
There has always been people within the Church who have not done what they should do – and God loves us SO MUCH that He allows people to turn their back on Him. Even those in the Church. Otherwise – we would be robots!
But there is always God’s Grace and Healing. There are the Sacraments. There is the revelation that we can become Holy – and that is a process that takes time. Thank goodness there is God’s Mercy and His wanting us to repent and turn back to Him. No matter the sin, no matter the persecution, no matter the difficulties, our loving Father is wanting us to choose Him and do better. There is the hope.
God is faithful – We just have to trust. We just have to meet Him at least part-way there – to grow in His love, to do His will, to reach high, and He will give us help every step of the way if we let Him.
God wants for us: peace. In all situations, including this one. There is more to this situation than any of us know. and no matter what …Peace be with you, now and always.
it was news to me that you are Protestant, but that does not mean you cannot comment on the treatment of this Catholic priest who has shown you respect. thank you for your usual wonderful writing. this situation is disturbing at best and downright criminal at worst. FP did as he was told – obedient, he was not told to stop communicating publicly. BZ has shown less than good judgement in his handling of this case.
And honestly – if the Church was just human (not also Divine), that institution would have disappeared a long time ago. God has promised to allow the Church to stand the test of time – and we know how it all ends! So we are to trust, trust, trust. We are to do our part. We are to respond to the Universal Call to Holiness and improve, do good and discern God’s will.
One of my friends – a pastor – actually says that these scandals and other messes confirms that the Church is divinely protected in the long run – because it would have folded a long time ago if it was a merely human institution! I chuckled when he said that – but I truly understand.
Good luck. Please don’t leave or throw out the idea of the Catholic Church. People in my own family stopped going to church because of a church renovation, putting their eternal selves at risk.
We have to be faithful, because God is. We have to trust, because God does. we have to love, because God is love itself. Jesus himself never left sinners to their own recourse – He was there to guide, teach, help and cure them of what held them from Him. He did not give up – on the prostitutes, the unlearned and even the learned. he was there – for everyone. And it was up to them if they turned away, or followed His teachings.
Jasper @2011/10/12 at 6:40 pm
Very well said.
There has always been people within the Church who have not done what they should do –
Me, Me, Me!!
People in my own family stopped going to church because of a church renovation, putting their eternal selves at risk.
People in my own family stopped going to church because the priest had dinner with people they didn’t like ):
God is working in all of this. Let’s all pray for the Bishop and Father and for each other.
Absolutely!
Jen: “Absolutely no one on this blog knows what’s truly happening with Fr. Frank and Bishop Zurek. Lots of people are making lots of speculative and critical remarks, convinced they know what’s going on, but the fact is they do not. None of us can know. Right now, it is between God and those two men, and it’s high time we began praying more and opining less.
The rightness or wrongness of this situation will certainly not be revealed by popular vote or opinion polls. God will take care of Fr. Frank and the Bishop. One is not automatically a hero and the other automatically a scoundrel. And the Church is not the great oppressive, controlling monster that so many are griping about.”
I wish I could like the above comments more than once. This whole thing resembles gossip much more than journalism. The Bishop is not necessarily wrong in writing a letter to his fellow Bishops. Perhaps we don’t like the tone of the letter, and we don’t know the truth behind the accusations, but it could be that the Bishop is exactly following the Biblical process for dealing with sin.
“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.”
The letter to fellow Bishops is telling the church. The scandal is that someone made this private letter public. Shame on whoever it was.
I am astonished at this event. The accusations levied and the” screaming silence” of the bishop are very puzzling to me. But, this is not the first time that a person of Fr. Pavone’s character has been ostracized by a bishop. Padre Pio was also treated in a very similar way by his bishop. I believe that powers and prinicpalities beyond our comprehension are at work here. Our church and Christians in general are constantly bombarded by the darkness of ignorance and malice. Our bishops are human and just as vulernable to these attacks. I will pray for a resolution to this matter that will keep this champion/warrior for the unborn, Fr. Pavone, on the battlefield of life for all. As our beloved Pope John Paul would say, “Couragio” Fr. Pavone. You do not stand alone in this fight.
@JOANNA
You keep asking for proof that BZ told EWTN to stop showing all of FFP shows.
How about you call EWTN just like I did at (205) 271-2900.
I asked why all of Fr. Pavone’s shows were not being aired and I was told flat out that the BZ told them TO STOP AIRING IT! So they did.
Is that PROOF enough for you?
Again, why are you constantly blabbering about FFP having to be obedient? HE IS!
It is the people of the pro life movement WHO ARE CLAMORING for him to come back to the movement because they know of his work and how passionate he is about saving lives.
Also think about this for a moment: You say FFP took a vow to be obedient to BZ and that vow is a higher calling than the pro-life movement.
I would think saving the lives of unborn babies take precedence over a bishop ANYDAY for this reason alone: THOU SHALL NOT KILL is one of God’s Ten Commandments and Fr. Pavone is doing his best and considers it his mission to end abortion.
I saw this today at freefrfrank.com : http://www.freefrfrank.com/chart.aspx
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas is a Latin phrase commonly translated as “unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things”, or, more literally, “in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion”.
Sounds like a bunch of conservative Catholics sitting on top of a fence waiting to see what happens with this situation:
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. Matthew 23:2-4
Another thing . . . maybe Bs Zurek should be reminded of the following following bible passage and really reflect on the scandal his letter caused . . . .
Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. James 3:12-14
Hi Arnold.
Back when Corapi-Gate was beginning to swirl, EWTN stopped airing his episodes. They were inundated with questions/criticisms, so they issued a statement saying something to the effect that as a general rule, when a priest is under scrutiny like that, EWTN ceases to air that priest until the issues are resolved.
I haven’t called EWTN like you did (good for you!), but my guess is that even if Bishop Zurek had not contqacted them, EWTN more than likely would have hit the pause button on the “Defending Life” series.
Just speculation on my part.
Juliet says:
Sounds like a bunch of conservative Catholics sitting on top of a fence waiting to see what happens with this situation:
Is it better to rush to judgment without all the facts?
We held a pro-life chain outside our church the first Sunday of October for pro-life month. The weekly bulleting and gospel and homilies are full of the pro-life message. The Catholic is liberal in many ways but NOT when it comes to pro-life. Xalisae and anybody else who says that the Catholic Church is complicit to ”pro-choice” infiltration is just plain ignorant of the church wether they can to two or not.
I’m Catholic but I completely agree with you, Jill.
I think this whole situation is very ridiculous. Fr. Frank is an incredible & humble man.
JoAnna: You’ve asked a few times for corroboration of the statement Crutcher made in his video that BZ told EWTN to hold any current airings of FP’s show as well as any reruns, and my statement in my post that I had verified that point.
My response to you: I verified that point with an impeccable source.
Could someone please tell me in 2-3 sentences who this Father Corapi is and what he did? Thanks.
I was a Catholic for 37 years. Never was I more horrified about the American Church as when Obama spoke at Notre Dame. How incredibly embarrassing and hurtful and confusing. That’s when I knew I was done. The American Church needs to get off the fence when it come down to abortion and its Catholic politicians.
A funeral Mass for Ted Kennedy. REALLY??????
(Sorry about the delay!)
Bobby wrote, in reply to my comment:
Just now was the first time I read the Bishop’s letter. I have to say that if this letter was about me, I would be very, very, very concerned that my Bishop saw this in me and would do everything I could to either clear up his misconceptions or to do everything I could to have a docile spirit to ensure that I am open to the possibility of being guilty of what I was accused of and change my actions.
That would be admirable, and altogether good. I’d offer a few distinctions about this particular situation, however:
1) I see a great deal of evidence that Fr. Pavone, along with the other workers at Priests for Life, HAS done everything he (and they) could do to try to clear up the bishop’s misconceptions, both on the point of financial malfeasance/misfeasance and on the point of Fr. Pavone’s character/obedience (and the latter accusations still leave me shaking my head in befuddlement, and in near-disgust).
2) Re: being “open and docile”: I’d offer the possibility that this situation is far too muddled for us to diagnose that, from afar (as we could do with, say, financial records and the like, cf. #1), for at least one key reason (among many possible others): Fr. Pavone is not the only one at stake, here. Fr. Pavone has a basic responsibility to safeguard the good name of Priests for Life (for its own sake, and for the sake of preventing impairment of its mission, among other reasons), and he is not morally free to “offer PFL up in pacifistic fashion” in the way that he’s free to offer his own life and reputation up; and since the two are intertwined, it becomes rather hard for him to safeguard the latter without at least addressing attacks against the former.
Example: I am morally free to “turn the other cheek” (literally) and offer no physical force against an aggressor (i.e. adopt strict pacifism), even at the cost of my own life; the Church recognizes (though does not at all mandate) strict pacifism as a morally legitimate option for oneself. I am NOT, however, morally free to adopt that attitude toward physical attacks against my wife; my freedom to offer myself up to persecution does not extend to any alleged “freedom” to offer up others. Take this principle, and apply it to Fr. Pavone (who’s free to offer no resistance to attacks against himself) and Priests for Life (which Fr. Pavone has an obligation to defend, and which he can’t simply “offer up” as he would offer up himself).
3) I’m well aware of the fact that the bishop’s original letter was not intended for general public consumption; however, it WAS intended for a rather wide audience (i.e. other bishops, and the members of each bishop’s staff), and the sorts of accusations levelled against Fr. Pavine (and rather painfully vague accusations, at times), with no apparent evidence and with significant evidence that the bishop was flatly in error (re: financial documentation) were the sorts of things that should have been written for the eyes of Fr. Pavone alone; by my best lights, the letter was gratuitous and characteristic of genuine ill-will and/or pique (and certainly of a lack of self-control, to say the least). Consider: assuming (just for the sake of argument) that the bishop HAD tried to challenge Fr. Pavone on these points, but (for the sake of argument) that Fr. Pavone had ignored or defied him: what would have been lost by the bishop issuing a quiet, direct and clear order for Fr. Pavone to return to the diocese immediately? No other bishop would have had any authority to question or rebuke him on that matter; and the gross display of vitriol which was made public in the bishop’s letter (which would have been shameful, even had it not gone public and scandalised a great many) would never have been an issue.
So from that point of view, my question is (and I’m asking because I don’t know the answer- things are busy these days) is Fr Pavone humbly submitting himself to the requests of the Bishop, even if he is innocent of all this, and making a very serious effort to make sure that he is indeed not guilty of what he is accused of?
Again, we’d have to distinguish at least three things.
1) Is Fr. Pavone humbly submitting to the order of the bishop? It’s rather difficult to tell, since Fr. Pavone’s moral obligation to defend PFL and its mission (which is, for better or for worse, intertwined with his own personal integrity/actions) would preclude what might otherwise have been a quiet and humble acceptance of the order. Given a near-complete lack of data on that point (i.e. a way to distinguish zeal for preventing tarnish to PFL, even by association with himself, from alleged pugnaciousness), I do think (especially given Fr. Pavone’s obedience to the letter of the bishop’s command) that we need to give him the benefit of the doubt, re: humility.
2) Is Fr. Pavone making an effort to be sure that he is not guilty of personal arrogance, belligerence, etc.? I’m not sure how to answer that, since the accusation itself can be somewhat self-sealing (i.e. any rejection of the premise could be taken as arrogance, combativeness, or a lack of humility); again, I do think we owe Fr. Pavone the benefit of the doubt, even given his public complaints on the matter (which can at least supposedly be attributed to his zeal to protect PFL and its mission, and its public esteem, on which its financial survival depends).
3) Is Fr. Pavone making an effort to be sure he is not guilty of financial mismanagement/malfeasance? I think the evidence is rather solid (if not overwhelming) on the side of “yes”; and the fact that the bishop’s office has not so much as hinted at a public acknowledgement of any receipt of documents provably sent to it by PFL is rather troubling.
Because these are very serious accusations, and even if I am doing life-saving work, if I am not on my way to sainthood, if I am deceiving myself in any way, I want to know about, stop whatever I am doing, and fix that problem.
Yes, that is so. I do not seek to analyze this according to my personal tastes or feelings, but by the facts and by logical principles, according to my best understanding. That being said, I’d ask at least one counter-question:
Why have we not heard so much as a miniscule indication of regret, by the bishop, for his letter’s tone and unsubstantiated accusations (leaving aside his accusations about Fr. Pavone’s character, just for the sake of ease of example)? If I were the bishop, and if I were in the right on every last point, I would still be falling all over myself to apologize, deeply and profusely, for the belligerent and uncharitable tone I used, and for my poor judgment in broadcasting my pique to the entire conference of bishops!
I agree that we must not rush to any judgments, either about Fr. Pavone or about the bishop; and I do not accuse the bishop of malice (though I think he may guilty of a lapse in temper-control), of complicity with the culture of death, with a desire for the money of PFL, or with any other such silly accusation. But I do think that the actions bishop, despite his position, can legitimately be questioned… especially since this matter extends far beyond the personal feelings and status of a single priest.
Does that clarify my thoughts on the matter, at least?
Sorry Courtnay, I tried to do 2-3 sentences, but at least this isn’t too long: Fr Corapi was a priest who had a television series on EWTN (the most popular and orthodox Catholic TV station). He was an AMAZING preacher. EWTN ran 1 hour long talks of his 2 times each week. They were on all topics ranging from sacraments, abortion, Jesus, Mary, the Church, marriage, etc. His personality, his orthodoxy, his love for Jesus, all of it were just amazing. Many people learned so much from him and really began to learn their faith, the reasons we held it, etc.
Earlier this year, a woman filed a lawsuit against him claiming that he had been engaged in some illicit behavior for many years. Corapi denied the claims, but within a couple months, left the priesthood and began calling himself the “Blacksheep Dog.” Corapi was part of a religious community, and his superiors investigated him. They found that he had very large sums of money, fancy cars, boats, and other luxuries that are not ordered towards a life of poverty. They found he was involved in illicit sexual activity like sexting. In short, it seems that many of the allegations against him were true. This was DEVASTATING for those of us who have looked to him as a teacher, bastion of orthodoxy, and someone who would rather be tortured and die than engage in any activity that offends our Lord. So this has been very very difficult for Catholics. Very difficult because quite honestly, Corapi was the kind of man who one would look at and say “if this man, knowing what he knows and preaching like he preaches, can fall into serious sin, then NONE OF US are safe.”
There is also recently the scandal of Fr Marcel Maciel as well as Fr Tom Euteneuer. All three of these men seemed impenetrable, unwavering for the faith, heroes and defenders of teh unborn. But they all fell. We all assumed that tehy were innocent and it turned out that they had done things in private that are very contrary to what they preached.
So unfortunately, with that in the background, you can hopefully sympathize a little more as to why some might be skeptical of Fr Pavone. There is no doubt that on the surface, Fr Coarpi was on the same level of great man as Fr Pavone. So if he can fall, Fr Pavone can fall. Again, not saying that this is reason to think Fr Pavone is guilty of anything, but its just that we’ve been burned 3 times now rushing to teh aid of men who it turns out WERE guilty of what they were accused of. So it is possible is all.
Yes, thanks Paladin. That helps a lot, especially this distinction between submitting oneself to an unjust accusation in obedience at a COST to ONLY oneself vs. another suffering for it. I also didn’t realize it until you pointed it out, but I guess it is a little odd that the Bishop thought that all teh bishops should be involved in this. Unfortunately I don’t know what the “resolution” for us laity should be. There is just so much here that we don’t know… I guess our job as the laity is to pray for all involved in this situation, that they may come to an understanding, and that those who are in the wrong will repent or be shown the error of their ways.
Bobby–thanks for the info. If you read what I posted earlier, I was working with Fr. Bruce Ritter at Covenant House when he/we fell. So I know how easily good men can fall.
Thanks for answering, Paladin. I am not Christian – much less Catholic – but I do try to understand.
A Catholic with a well-formed conscience can disagree with the Church, right? But a well-formed conscience should almost by definition always agree with the Church so it’s more just a theoretical stipulation? How does that play into obedience in situations like this? Is it disobedient to question the Church or is it exercising one’s well-formed conscience?
I know I seem incredibly legalistic about this but I have just always found it ultimately enlightening to look into the finer points of dogma and doctrine.
Jill – okay…. but… is this source in writing and viewable online? Was this a public request or a private request by Bp. Z? As previous posters have stated, given what happened with Fr. Corapi it’s not exactly an unfounded or even a wholly unreasonable request.
Someone – I think it was Courtnay? – talked about the scandal with Notre Dame and Obama’s visit. Again, what could the Church have done to stop it? They are a private university not under the control of the Church. The Bishop of the diocese in question condemned Obama’s visit! Many protesters — including a Catholic priest — were arrested for protesting! Hundreds of thousands of American Catholics all over the nation protested. Mary Ann Glendon declined her medal in protest. Thousands of former Notre Dame financial contributors stopped contributing. Etc., etc. So the insinuation that “American Catholics” were fine and dandy with that situation is disingenuous. Very few were, but Fr. Jenkins frankly didn’t care. (Oddly enough, he does seem to care about Obama’s insurance contraception mandate, and has spoken out against that… so he still has some tatters of a moral compass left.)
Alexandra: This is a good resource regarding your questions about conscience.
Yes, JoAnna, it was I who was outraged by Notre Dame’s actions. Didn’t the president of the school, who is a priest, have to be obedient to someone? Couldn’t he have been required to obey a directive from someone higher up than he that we, as Catholics, do not harbor child-killers, I don’t care if he IS the President?
By the way: Tantumblogo…. excellent post! (And good name! :) )
@JoAnna – seems to me like your trying to take over Jill’s blog.
For the inquiring minds wanting to know – read below:
“Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.” George Eliot (1819-1880)
The heart of the Fr. Pavone story is so obvious and we are all missing it. 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.
Source: http://bit.ly/rqdO09
Interesting, Alexa. Anyone in bed with Obama reeks of abortion assistance.
Alexandra wrote:
Thanks for answering, Paladin. I am not Christian – much less Catholic – but I do try to understand.
If only more people would have that desire! :)
A Catholic with a well-formed conscience can disagree with the Church, right?
That’s rather a delicate question, since the phrase “disagree with the Church” can mean so many different things to different people. For example, it’s possible to disagree with a given theologian, priest, bishop, cardinal, or even a pope, without necessarily “disagreeing with the Church”… since these particular individuals are not always talking about Church dogma (solemn teaching, handed on to us by Christ), but might be giving their personal (or even collective) opinions. To further the example: it’s possible for me (theoretically) to reject the idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared at Fatima, while still being a Catholic in good standing (and not sinning thereby), even though the apparition was formally approved by the Church and recommended by popes, bishops, priests, deacons and laity alike; but it is NOT possible for me to reject the idea that God is Three Divine Persons in One God (i.e. the Blessed Trinity), since that is a solemn teaching of the Church, and not mere opinion.
But a well-formed conscience should almost by definition always agree with the Church so it’s more just a theoretical stipulation?
A well-formed conscience will always agree with the actual teachings of the Church (i.e. not simply what some *claim* to be the teachings of the Church… which are often different matters, entirely!) and with the natural moral law; but again, a disagreement with any given official of the Church–even a pope, under the right circumstances–is not necessarily (though it might be) a disagreement with “the Church”, per se; it would depend on the topic at hand.
How does that play into obedience in situations like this? Is it disobedient to question the Church or is it exercising one’s well-formed conscience?
We’d have to distinguish the individual points of contention, and we’d need to distinguish obedience (which is owed to rightful authority, and which doesn’t have anything specifically to do with Church teaching, per se) from belief (which is owed to all true teachings, and which isn’t really “obedience”, as such). Let me explain:
1) “Solemn Doctrine” (a.k.a. “dogma”) is the teachings of the Church, which cannot possibly change, or be mistaken. All Catholics are obliged to assent to such teachings with full consent of will, though that’s distinct from being “obedient” to another human being. Belief in the Blessed Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Sinlessness of Mary, etc., are examples of that.
2) “Church Discipline” is the set of “rules or operating procedures” which the Church sets up for Her proper functioning, and these can, for serious and proportionate reason, be changed to suit certain circumstances. The general policy of forbidding married priests in the Latin (i.e. Western) Rite of the Church, and the policy of taking a vow of obedience to a religious superior, for instance, are two examples of that… and they involve direct obedience.
As such: questioning a solemn doctrine of the Faith would be a matter of belief, not of obedience (per se); whereas defying an order of one’s rightful religious superior (e.g. pope, bishop, abbott, etc.) would be a matter of obedience, not of belief (per se). Does that help?
I know I seem incredibly legalistic about this but I have just always found it ultimately enlightening to look into the finer points of dogma and doctrine.
:) If you hadn’t noticed, I’m one of the last people on earth to complain about anyone being logical and meticulous about the Faith (or about anything); no worries!
Courtnay – Fr. Jenkins is accountable to the Board of Notre Dame, who agreed with the decision to host Obama. But there were 77 U.S. Bishops who spoke out against him (including the Bishop of the Diocese in which ND is located, but who is not Fr. Jenkins’ superior).
Fr. Jenkin’s superior apparently felt that Fr. Jenkins was fulfilling his duties adequately, which is eminently frustrating, and any ecclesiastical punishment would have had to come from him. I know a lot of Catholics (including myself) were hoping the Pope might get involved, but sadly that wasn’t the case. B16 tends to take a “call to repentance” approach as opposed to a “forcibly smack down the offenders” approach.
JoAnna–thanks for the info. When murdered babies are involved, I would sometimes appreciate the smackdown.
You and me both, Courtnay. I’m just thankful my Church takes a definite, principled stand on the evils of abortion, unlike so many Christian churches (such as the ELCA, the church I left). The fact that an Anglican minister can call abortion a “blessing” with nary a peep from that church’s leadership… ugh.
“Fr. Jenkins is accountable to the Board of Notre Dame, who agreed with the decision to host Obama. ”
And as I understand it, THIS is where the main problem with our Catholic higher education is. No longer is teh school accountable to the order that founded it, but to a (usually very) secular board.
Politics, perhaps yes, but remember, our struggle is not against flesh and blood but with the principalities and powers of darkness, the wicked spirits(Ephesians 6:12)
The Church Jesus established is the Roman Catholic Church which is why it is so persecuted and it is also why so many wolves have entered to try to detroy Her. This has happened in every generation as Jesus and Saint Paul have warned the Church.
Please PRAY for Bishop Zurek and all Priests because the evil one hates them.
http://www.praytherosary.org TODAY, Fr. Pavone is suppose to be meeting with Bishop Zurek!
I was a protestant for about twenty years and am now Catholic.
I do believe salvation is found only in the Church because Jesus would only have one Church. It is the evil one who is the cause of all confusion and division, inspiring the sins of pride and rebellion.This is not the will of God.
“Salvation only in the Church” is also controversial today because so many Catholics have not been taught correctly and they to not care to educate themselves by reading the writings of all the Popes and Saints. Modernism especially after Vatican II and the enemies within(Judas Catholics) are a part of why we see the Church declining all over the world and when the Church is lacking, society also will be.
Please see this video to better understand: http://www.youtube.com/user/catholicpeter
Joan, I am not confused or divided or wolfish. I do love my Lutheran-Missouri Synod. We have a strong ethic for life and we do, do, do LOVE Jesus. There is room in my church for all those sold out to Jesus. All of them.
JoAnna–pray for the ELCA.
Hi, Joan!
I hate to ask this, but: would it be possible for you to add an extra word or initial (real or pseudonymous), or some such thing, to your log-in name? There’s a rabidly pro-abortion commenter with the name “joan” who also frequents this site, and I (for one) would like to avoid confusing you with her, if I can!
We’ve asked the pro-life “joan” to do this several times, but she doesn’t. So I’ve put in an initial for her. Hope this helps.
@JOANNA
THIS blog is about Fr. Frank Pavone … NOT Fr. Jenkins or anyone else.
You obviously and apparently have run out of things to say about Fr. Frank so do us all a favor and either go to the posts specifically for Fr. Jenkins and all others you’ve been spouting and advertising or stop commenting because its just a waste of all of our time as we would rather discuss Fr. Frank.
So long and goodbye!
Jordan – I haven’t received any chastisement from Jill or any of the moderators of this blog for my comments regarding Fr. Jenkins (which were part of a larger conversation regarding the pro-life credentials, or lack thereof, of the American Catholic hierarchy).
Until I receive any such request from Jill or the moderators, I’ll continue to post what I choose. If you don’t like it, feel free not to read my comments.
Um, Jordan, it was I who actually brought up the Notre Dame fiasco. This blog happens organically–if you’ve ever followed others, sometimes we start talking on other side topics and go down a side trail for awhile. I consider it a strength of of Jill’s blog that we have the freedom to do this.
With Father Frank, we talked for awhile about the role and nature of priestly obedience, so it’s not that far fetched that we got to Fr. Jenkins. Besides Nothing is preventing you from talking about Father Frank…what is it you feel like we’ve prevented you from saying?
We’ve not broken any rules right here. But you have. Quit being so rude.
@CARDER
I just called EWTN - AGAIN and spoke with 2 people because I said I didnt and couldnt believe the explanation the 1st person gave me.
I told them EXACTLY what you posted above:
Hi Arnold.
Back when Corapi-Gate was beginning to swirl, EWTN stopped airing his episodes. They were inundated with questions/criticisms, so they issued a statement saying something to the effect that as a general rule, when a priest is under scrutiny like that, EWTN ceases to air that priest until the issues are resolved.
I haven’t called EWTN like you did (good for you!), but my guess is that even if Bishop Zurek had not contqacted them, EWTN more than likely would have hit the pause button on the “Defending Life” series.
Call EWTN and get the answers straight from them!
Great article Jill!!! Jordan I have to agree with you – looks like Ms. Joann is going on off on a tangent though! We can choose to ignore her and just maybe she’ll get the drift.
As a matter of fact I want to address Joann: are you actually claiming to be more of an expert in all of this situation? In regards to the relevant subject area someone is going off on a tangent and taking this another route.
Think of it this way . . .
Trial lawyers are taught this rule:
If you have the facts, pound on the facts.
If you have the law, pound on the law.
If you don’t have either, pound on the table.
Does vehemence as an act of desperation ring a bell? Someone is desperate to get a story and a response from other bloggers. I say this is all BS! She happens to be using Jill’s article in this case. Is she attempting to seize control of some hidden agenda coming from Bs Zurek’s office? Seems like trying to intimidate the easily cowed is the tactic being used here. I say to you go build your platform elsewhere. Are you aiming to win a day in the blogosphere world? There is also an implied claim that “Ms. Expert” here has the need to be a catechisis and be the advocate for issues that have nothing to do with the article at hand. Claiming expertise in something hopelessly quack (like iridology) is actually an admission that the blogger is an idiot.
Simon/Arnold/Jordan/Alexva/Juliet,
Please pick one name to use. We like to try and get to know the commentators here, and using the same moniker consistently is helpful. Thanks.
Simon/Arnold/Jordan/Alexva/Juliet,
are you actually claiming to be more of an expert in all of this situation?
No, I never claimed to be an expert, so I don’t know where you’re getting that. I’m just offering my opinion as a Catholic laywoman who is, I hope, fairly educated about her faith (but still has a lot to learn and a long way to go…).
By the way, my name is JoAnna, not Joann.
http://www.youtube.com/user/realcatholictv
Great Truths today about Baptists, Lutherans,…etc.
Joanna/Bobby Bambino
I hope you realize that it is pretty obvious that YOU are one and the same person as well as each and every comment made by both your aliases are made within minutes of each other.
That’s okay, you provide entertainment here although try to keep it down as the serious posters here need the adult time to discuss matters maturely.
Wow … I didn’t know I had 3 other personalities! That is pretty cool!
Zane/Arnold,
Joanna and I are regulars here (I have been here for 5 years) and I am a moderator here, so you, having just shown up within the last couple of days, are not going to fool anyone. I have access to all the IP addresses that people (or a person) are posting from. Simon/Arnold/Jordan/Alexva and Juliet all posted from the same IP address. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are all the same person (you could all be using the same computer). But now I see that Zane and Arnold are using the same IP address (a different one from before), so I don’t know what I am supposed to think of that. In either case, all I did was politely ask you to respect our rules here and use one moniker.
Now if you read my comments carefully, you will notice that I am not sharing the same opinion as Joanna. I am sympathetic to her POV, but as I thought I made clear in my post to Paladin, I am simply not sure what to think about this whole situation and trying to learn. Please be more respectful of not only us, but also Jill’s rules.
I think I’m pretty much the only posting as me. FYI.
Yup. Courtnay is Courtnay. Really, most people stick with one moniker. It’s usually only pro-choicers who wish to make it seem like there are more people agreeing with them who do the multiple moniker trick, so it’s unfortunate that it was a pro-lifer this time, and it’s even more unfortunate that now they are trying to cover it up.
We happen to be on an open wifi and it is OUR RIGHT to post whatever we want to post since its a free country.
Is that covering it up?
I don’t know … you tell me … last I checked, Starbucks, McDonalds, Airlines, etc have open wifi’s for people to use as they please.
How about you focus on the story of Fr Frank Pavone and not the people posting …
I think the person who’s doing multiple monikers today has been (for a few days now) trying to route commenters to the Free Father Frank website. He/she only changed his IP when he had been found out. He’s using a web anonymizer.
Those who choose not to post as one person apparently feel their opinions aren’t strong enough to stand on their own, therefore the commenter tries to put forth the illusion of consensus.
Isn’t that interesting? An open wifi, first from Germany, and then when caught, from the United States (the latter of which happens to be the free country I assume you’re referencing??). Hmm.
We don’t have an issue with you posting here, Arnold/Jordan/whoever else. The rules of this comment board state that you must use one moniker. If you do not, your comments will be deleted from now on.
Thanks.
It’s SO MUCH EASIER being one person. Jus’ sayin.’
No, I’m not Bobby Bambino – I only aspire to express myself as well as he does!
:)
What was covering it up was pretending like you had no idea where I would have gotten that idea and then trying to convince others that Joanna and I were the same person. Had you simply said that there is a group here all posting in teh same place, fine, that is my mistake. But as a moderator, part of my job is to request that people obey the rules here, and if I am mistaken about someone using multiple names, then please correct me and I will admit my error and we can move on. The fact is, there was nothing mean spirited or rude in my initial request- I was simply mistaken.
But again, what am I supposed to think when your response to a mistake I made is to claim that Joanna and I are not “serious” posters, that we are only good for entertainment, and that we need to make time for mature posters?
“it is OUR RIGHT to post whatever we want to post since its a free country.”
And FYI, this is simply not correct. You cannot post whatever you want to post on this website. If it is against the rules, it will be taken down. I will believe you that there are several of you posting at an open wifi and say no more.
“An open wifi, first from Germany, and then when caught, from the United States”
Oh, I didn’t know this, Kel… this is really unfortunate… and it only reflects poorly on Fr Pavone because it makes his supporters look like they will go to any lengths (including deceit) to make his case, which then makes people skeptical of any “evidence” in support of him because they think that his supporters have tainted it or something. What a mess…
Remember the clarity and civility I mentioned having seen in Paladin and Joanna yesterday? More of that, less of this.
I also respectfully submit that I am, in fact, myself! :)
(Note to Bobby: given what Kel wrote, I don’t think our new commenter is being quite straight with you; he/she seems to have deceived on at least one point… unless there happens to be a 250-yottawatt WiFi transmitter somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, equidistant from Germany and the given location in the USA, from which both countries could get a free signal! If so, my lap-top has yet to detect it… alas!)
Thanks, Paladin! I really appreciate it. :)
——–
xalisae, what do you think the Church should do with regard to things like Catholics for Choice? Trademark the word “Catholic” and sue anyone who uses it without their consent? I don’t mean that to sound snarky at all. They are pretty vocal about opposing pro-choice candidates and have denied communion to some in the past but they can’t force those people to stop calling themselves Catholic. They can say what they stand for, but they can’t force anyone who doesn’t want to hear it to listen.
To the best of my knowledge, people excommunicate themselves. (…right? I am probably not the person to say any of this but oh well.) Provided they know the gravity of what they are doing (ie, have been properly catechized) then they excommunicate themselves by their actions. The Church can formally recognize the excommunication, and refuse to allow that person to take communion, but Catholics are not supposed to take communion if they know they have grave sins on their souls, and so unless the priest investigates the free-time activities and political beliefs of his congregation, he has a hard time knowing who is in communion and who isn’t. People are supposed to know that themselves, but lots of them don’t. Fine, okay, the church messed up back in the day and now lots of people are confused, but don’t even realize that they are. (And yes, the church should be making sure that everyone is informed – but what can they do when people don’t seek out the actual answers? Force anyone calling themselves Catholic to attend services or – what – sue them?)
When people are so ignorant of Catholic teaching that they are vocally, institutionally pro-choice (as opposed to your basic “personally pro-life” person, who is far harder to suss out) they may still not be excommunicated, because ignorance of the gravity of their actions can exempt them from punishment for their actions. The ignorance must be gross ignorance, or willful ignorance, either out of desire or out of fear of penalty, to my understanding. And so the Church needs to not only know that a person is pro-choice but make sure that he has been made aware of what’s what, and that he either understands it or chooses not to understand it, before they can reasonably excommunicate that person. (That person has already excommunicated himself by that point.) That’s a lot to go into one person. They have done it before with some politicians etc – but I don’t know that there are the resources, or that they would be best spent, to do it with all the pro-choice people in all the congregations. All they can do is say what they believe, for anyone who listens.
The Church is not in the business of punishing people – people punish themselves.
Amen Jill. Amen. Sanity. Reason. Truth. You have reported the facts perfectly without the speculation and innuendo embraced by so many others. Bishop’s motives are suspect; Fr. Frank has been transparent, obedient & patient while being smeared by one who is his superior and his spiritual father, in a sense. Keep it up girl!! Boldness & Veritas!!!!
Goodness, it hasn’t been that long since we had out last sock-puppet convention! I wonder if it’s cyclic, in some way (e.g. every 2 months, every full moon–which we have at the moment, by the way!–etc.)…
Padadin: Take this principle, and apply it to Fr. Pavone (who’s free to offer no resistance to attacks against himself) and Priests for Life (which Fr. Pavone has an obligation to defend, and which he can’t simply “offer up” as he would offer up himself).
Hmmm. I’m not sure we have the obligation to defend an organization in the same way we would a person. Can you point me to a source where I could read more about that?
xalisae, what do you think the Church should do with regard to things like Catholics for Choice?j
Come out vocally condemning them, and excommunicate all the listed members. Same thing with prominent “Catholic” politicians.
Come out vocally condemning them,
…which the USCCB (among others) have been doing since at least 1989. Here’s another, specific, condemnation from 2000: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1951/50/51506 Believe me, Church officials have been strongly condemning this group since their inception. The reason you don’t hear about it is because the mass media doesn’t report on it.
and excommunicate all the listed members.
Why do you think they’d care? They’d just keep going to Mass and taking Communion anyway, and there’d be no way for a priest or EMHC to know if the persons in question was a member of CFC (I doubt they wear uniforms!) and thus excommunicated. What purpose would this serve?
Same thing with prominent “Catholic” politicians.
Many have already automatically excommunicated themselves (Latæ Sententiæ excommunication) by their open and public support of abortion. Doesn’t seem to stop them from going to Mass, receiving Communion, and calling themselves “Catholic.” Since the Church can’t arrest anyone for doing so, or physically bar these people from Catholic churches, I’m not sure what else can be done. I do wish more clergy would show more backbone in refusing Communion to recognizable politicians (Biden, Pelosi, etc.).
I do wish more clergy would show more backbone in refusing Communion to recognizable politicians (Biden, Pelosi, etc.).
That would actually be good enough of a start for me.
“No, I’m not Bobby Bambino – I only aspire to express myself as well as he does!”
He’s a smart cookie. Humble and patient too. Very close to the kingdom of God.
xalisae, think about this for starters. Excommunication is a medicine of mercy, not a punishment per se. Its intended purpose is to bring the sinner to repentance. In the case of proud, hardened people like Pelosi, Biden et al, public excommunication very unlikely to have the intended effect, and will probably have several other very bad ones. The one most people probably will think about is the media outrage over the Church “interfering” in politics” and losing its tax-exempt status; some say, “fine, let them lose it.”
But think about this one. I think deep down the bishops are most afraid of is spurring the creation of a schismatic American Catholic Church. Don’t laugh, I think it’s been coming on for a while. Just let two or three prominent abortion supporting politicians be excommunicated, and they will announce that now they are their own Church.
Prominent priest-theologians at Catholic universities, will join them, along with the woman-priest movement, Catholics for Choice, the American Catholic Council, Voice of the Faithful, tons of other groups, most American sisters, and the whole of the mainstream media will be on their side. Nancy P will probably be elected Pope (shudder).
The result would be further weakening of the Church, more and more pernicious persecution of her members, and more free rein by the secular elites to finish shredding the moral fabric of society. . .
I guess the only bright spot is these people are generally rather elderly and being supporters of abortion, don’t reproduce much anyway.
If you think it sounds ridiculous, don’t forget we’ve had a near-schism on the right of the Church for the past 25 years or so with the late Abp Lefebvre’s gang. John Paul II excommunicated them back in ’88 or 89. Or if you will, they excommunicated themselves. They refused to repent, and apparently are still holding out, let’s hope Pope Benedict’s approach works.. . This near-schism have been debilitating to the Church. They haven’t been worse because they are relatively small and isolated and no one in the media cares about them. (Except when Bp Williamson starts yapping about there being no Holocaust, of course. Then they care).
I know that a number of bishops have approached these abortion-supporting politicians numerous times in private (e.g. Bishop Tobin and Patrick Kennedy), and denounced them in public, especially when like Pelosi, they stray into trying to expound theology. They are a real bind when it comes to excommunication, I think.
I am deeply thankful I am not a bishop today. . .
Well, so much for that!
Father No-Show Pavone a NO-SHOW for meeting with Bishop Zurek.
He didn’t even bother to show up. THAT is hubris.
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-10-13/despite-bishops-meeting-request-pavone-no-show
xalisae,
Then Cardinal Burke is the man for you.
I’m just going to go ahead and say Cardinal Burke is the man. Period.
Yes indeed, Bobby!
The bishop required his priest to make a spiritual retreat at a convent full of 29 devout nuns, in a convent in a rural setting in the diocese, one hour outside of the city. The bishop asked the priest to meet with him after one month of retreat to review his spiritual progress. Despite the attempts to spin these facts into a tale of draconian persecution, imprisonment, banishment, or worse, the fact remains that the bishop has provided the priest with an ideal setting for making a good retreat, and sufficient time to prepare seriously for a serious conversation.
The result would be further weakening of the Church, more and more pernicious persecution of her members, and more free rein by the secular elites to finish shredding the moral fabric of society. . .
See…I’m not the kind of person who sees it that way. I’d do the right thing regardless of whether or not it would “weaken the Church”, which I don’t think it would do. It would make the church stronger in its convictions and not so much watered-down mush. What good is it to uphold and protect an institution if the very fabric of what that institution is or is supposed to be is altered in so doing?
Maybe Phil Kline and Papa Pavone should have a few drinks together…
So, any thoughts on Father No-Show Pavone’s no-show with is scheduled meeting with Bishop Zurek?
Any?
*Crickets*
That’s what I thought. Father Franklin has done wonderful pro-life work, but he has not done wonderful priestly work. It is time to get his priorities straight.
Bruce–do we know why? Just asking. I mean, really, what do we know????
@bruce and Courtnay
Fr, Pavone didnt show up under the advisement of his canon lawyer, Fr. Deibel.
The official statement of Fr. Deibel is posted on the priests for life website at http://www.priestsforlife.org/update/dave-deibel.htm
It also explains there a few things:
1. Knowing the situation between Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zurek, it was wise to have a bishop mediator present. In fact, a few bishops have written bishop zurek letters stating they would like to be present for the meeting.
but bishop zurek once again did not acknowledge such letters.
2. Bishop zurek tells Fr. Pavone not to tell anyone that he would like to have a private meeting with him but then immediately posts in their (amarillo diocese) website that he is calling for a private meeting with Fr. Pavone.
If you are a bishop who would like to resolve matters, then to what purpose does it serve to announce publicly a private matter or in this case, private meeting?
Again, look at the official comment made by Fr. Deibel on the Priests For Life website.
The wheels of truth is now beginning to unfold.
Next move will be the Vatican’s.
I’m just going to come right out and say it: I think Bishop Zurek is out to destroy Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life. And I don’t believe a word he says when he claims that he doesn’t want to hurt the pro-life movement. He KNOWS he’s hurting the pro-life movement — at a crucial time when we should be gearing up for the presidential election! There are those in the Church who don’t want Catholics to vote pro-life. But Fr. Pavone is the leading priest who’s instructing the faithful that they HAVE TO vote pro-life. Materially, it’s a sin not to. Fr. Pavone is doing what so many bishops SHOULD be doing, but they don’t have the backbones to do. Those bishops have sold out the faith long ago and backed the baby-killing Deathocrat Party. They fear that if the Catholic faithful vote pro-life, they’ll lose their liberal fiefdoms and be called on the carpet for supporting and/or tolerating child-killing in America all these years!
Sorry for the delay, everyone… things are frantically busy at school, at the moment (good and somewhat amusing, but furiously busy); I’ll try to write when I get a moment (probably Saturday or Sunday)!
One quick note:
Bruce, is there anything I/we can say or do, to get you off the war-path on which you’re treading, re: Fr. Pavone? Your comments have ranged from rash to outright obnoxious, and you’re doing no one (least of all, those who agree with your position) any favours, in so doing.
See…I’m not the kind of person who sees it that way. I’d do the right thing regardless of whether or not it would “weaken the Church”, which I don’t think it would do. It would make the church stronger in its convictions and not so much watered-down mush. What good is it to uphold and protect an institution if the very fabric of what that institution is or is supposed to be is altered in so doing?
Of course, you’re right in a sense. I’m not saying I don’t want to see some people brought to account, and the Church really standing up for what it believes, and of course it will become stronger in doing so.
But at the same time the Church is simply not in the business of pruning out the imperfect so we can be completely pure. The Church is a hospital for sinners. The wheat and tares will grew together until the end of time. We have to recognize this is some way too. I would welcome a few more excommunications, believe me. But I certainly won’t leave the Church if they’re not forthcoming.
To Bruce, let me ask you:
If your boss – or “father” as Bishop Zurek likes to refer to himself – had a dispute with you, would you like him to release a letter that was filled with false and unproven accusations for all the world to read?
If your “father” wanted you to come home for a meeting, do you think he’d let you keep an important doctor’s appointment first, then come home?
If your “father” went out of his way to tell the whole world that he wanted to meet with you, and you sent your “father” a reply requesting that a third-party be present for the meeting, wouldn’t you expect your “father” to at least acknowledge your request?
Come on. No true Christian “father” would treat his “son” like that.
But that’s how Bishop Zurek has treated Fr. Pavone. In fact, according to Mark Crutcher – who went to visit Fr. Pavone a week or so ago – Bishop Zurek is engaged in “psychological warfare.”
What kind of “father” does that to his “son”?
WE WANT FR. FRANK BACK! WE WANT FR. FRANK BACK! WE WANT FR. FRANK BACK! I don’t care if you call yourself “Catholic,” if you are removing a great pro-life leader out of the battle against baby-killing you are part of the problem. I received a letter from Fr. Frank and WILL be sending him my donation!
Some excellent perspectives on the matter, in light of today’s developments:
http://bmonculture.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/fr-pavones-canon-lawyer-says-he-told-fr-pavone-not-to-attend-meeting-with-his-bishop/
and
http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2011/09/disappointment-with-fr-pavone.html
After reading through the links JoAnna provided, I support Fr. Pavone now more than ever.
I see pretty harsh judgement of a priest who has been vocal in support of the unborn while many religious have not said one word in support of the unborn for years (some even support abortion!). No wonder Catholics are confused about abortion. Until very recently, I have heard no mention of the prolife movement in a Catholic church for a very long time.
If the majority of bishops and priests had been as vocal as Fr. Pavone has been on abortion, it would be illegal by now.
As far as asking for donations, I get envelopes and notices in the mail and my bulletin all the time from my parish and diocese asking for money, and not for the prolife cause.
Bishop Zurek is engaged in “psychological warfare.” What kind of “father” does that to his “son”?
I agree Sebasian.
For the record, today/Oct. 15, I want to make note of a problem with Philip Lawler, noted Catholic writer, who commented early in this controversy in a column entitled “Fr. Pavone’s Last Stand”. Mr. Lawler made a very serious mistake in that article, and I emailed him personally asking him to make a retraction, which he has not done.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=841
Specifically, Lawler wrote on September 21st: “In a revealing Amarillo television interview, Father Pavone admitted that much of the money raised for the seminary had been spent on “the things we did”—the operating expenses of PFL.” The actual link to that Amarillo television interview is, in fact, given by Mr. Lawler in the article. I watched it, and immediately wrote to Mr. Lawler to point out that Fr. Pavone does not say at all in the video interview what Mr. Lawler says that he said. Mr. Lawler conveys the impression that Fr. Pavone is guilty of misappropriation of funds. It doesn’t get more serious than that. And he says Fr. Pavone implicates himself in the video. But Fr. Pavone does no such thing. Just the opposite, in fact. (You can watch it for yourself.)
Now what is also very interesting is that Mr. Lawler refers also, in his first paragraph in “Fr. Pavone’s Last Stand,” to an old comment made on his blog — a “comment by Diogenes from August 2008.” Now that is three years ago, and back then someone named “Diogenes” was making an extensive comment which was nothing but a character attack on Fr. Pavone and a vicious slander on Priests For Life.
Now am I supposed to believe that Mr. Lawler’s strange disregard for accuracy, and this anonymous commentator who calls himself “Diogenes”, whose undocumented rumors Mr. Lawler evidently is very comfortable repeating three years later — are these two individuals strangers to one another? Has the destruction of Fr. Pavone been on the back burner, simmering for three years? Or more? The title of Mr. Lawler’s article: “Fr. Pavone’s Last Stand” – well, that speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
Fairly speaking, Mr. Lawler is a genuinely respected pro-life advocate in Massachusetts. He is also the former editor of the newspaper for the Boston archdiocese. In 2000 he ran for the Senate for the Constitution Party, one of three independents in that race, and pro-life was the heart of his campaign. Perhaps he sees himself leading a pro-life organization in the future. Perhaps he thinks he would do a better job than Fr. Pavone. Perhaps he would like to see Priests For Life removed from the stage entirely. Perhaps it has been in his way. I really wonder, what is his motivation?
See through all the smoke and mirrors and I still say it’s all about control of the money PFL raises. I personally like being able to give funds directly to PFL or any f a number of other charities that are supported by the Catholic Church. . What is needed is for everybody to just face up to the real issue and come up with an equitable distribution of the funds and the rest is a non-issue. Fr. P has done nothing wrong and Bishop Z should not be going after a share of the funds in such an accusative manner. Like it or not the Bishop and the church have a right to weigh in on how those funds are being used because PFL is a ministry grown from within the Catholic Church. For this reason the only righteous thing Fr. P can do is to submit to the heirarchcical authority of the church and move on. However, Father P has every right to seek redress against the Bishops actions ‘within the heirarchical structure of the church’ including petitioning the Vatican and I am glad he is doing so.
I am saddened that the meeting between the Bishop and Father did not take place. Again we do not really know all the facts, but from what is being played out in the media,I wonder how the Bishop and Father have actually been communicating.
In practically all of Father’s items, he has stated that he gave the diocese information, and has heard nothing back. In the latest situation, he stated that he wanted a mediator present at the meeting with the bishop and heard nothing back. I am sure that there must be some way that these two men can come together – and i support a third party in the room to smooth over any difficulties.
The PR on this whole thing has been very bizarre, and it’s almost like a game of chicken – to see who will blink first. But honestly – this is no game and I wish both men would yield to come to the table. Too much is at stake.
Not to digress here at all – the attack on Fr. Pavone by Boston’s prominent Catholic blogger, Phil Lawler, which I mentioned above, is central to what has been happening in this whole affair.
I really don’t know Mr. Lawler’s motives. But in my heart I know there is a link between a Catholic hierarchy (some of whose highest officials protect the abortion industry, their public statements to the contrary), and the cover-up of clergy sex crimes.
The most obvious link is simple: moral turpitude.
Case in point is the Boston archdiocese, where Mr. Lawler is such a prominent lay spokesperson, and the former editor of the newsletter for the diocese, “The Pilot.” According to SNAP (The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) — in their January 20, 2011, news release — the announcements from the office of Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley strain credulity.
I quote from SNAP:
(Quote) “It’s outrageous for O’Malley’s spokeswoman to claim that ‘There is no organization in the Commonwealth that has done more in recent times to educate and empower children, parents and staff on the terrible and pervasive problem of sexual abuse in our society.’
“It’s more accurate for the archdiocese to admit that there is no organization in the Commonwealth that has done more for decades to endanger children.
“And it’s more honest for the archdiocese to admit: All we do regarding child sexual abuse is what the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ policy requires all dioceses to do – nothing more.
And: For at least five years, we didn’t even do this. Until very recently, for five years, we failed to meet even the vague, bare minimum standards that all of America’s bishops adopted in 2002.
That would be more honest and accurate.
It’s simply irresponsible to try to whitewash and minimize the sordid past history and troubling current practices of the Boston church hierarchy regarding children’s safety.
Most agencies and organizations that deal with kids adopted child-safeguards and education efforts decades ago starting in the late 70s. Finally, in 2002, some Catholic officials started to catch up, but largely as a public relations and legal defense strategy.
Many of the steps the hierarchy has taken – in Boston and elsewhere – are deliberate moves to shift attention to clerics who commit crimes and away from bishops who conceal crimes.
And in recent years, the four dioceses in the Commonwealth have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to work to stop reforms of archaic, arbitrary, predator-friendly state laws. That speaks volumes about the real intentions of the Massachusetts Catholic hierarchy. While the rest of society works to make exposing child predators easier, top church officials work to keep such disclosures difficult.”
(End of Quote from SNAP)
http://snaparch.com/snap_statements/2011_statements/012011_victims_challenge_bragging_by_boston_archdiocese.htm
So my question is this: Does the attack of Phil Lawler against Fr. Pavone in any way reflect any prejudices on the part of the head of the Catholic Church in Boston, i.e. Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley?
Lrning wrote, in reply to my comment:
Hmmm. I’m not sure we have the obligation to defend an organization in the same way we would a person.
I don’t see how it would be at all necessary to have the *same* obligation; I’d be rather stunned, in fact, if Fr. Pavone (or anyone else) were to fail to defend an actual person (in a similar situation) with even *greater* vehemence! All that’d be necessary for my point would be for any sort of obligation[to defend PFL, as distinct from himself] to exist at *all*, no matter how it compared “quantitatively” to any hypothetical obligation to defend an individual person. And I think that obligation [to defend PFL] is a matter of plain and sane reason (i.e. one cannot give what one does not possess; I cannot sell your car, nor can I legally bind you to a contract to which you do not consent, etc.): PFL involves more people than simply Fr. Pavone, and he knows that. Whether the bishop intended damage to the reputation/finances/working of PFL or not (and I do not, at present, assume he did), the damage was done… and the bishop has been remarkably quiet during the time when he should have been helping to clean up the subsequent mess. I’m more than a bit perplexed by the bishop’s apparent refusal to offer so much as an acknowledgement of: (1) the documents sent by PFL which seemingly refute his claim of “having no financial reports”, (2) his own intemperate tone and choice of audience for his letter (i.e. the entire USCCB, apparently), and (3) his own apparent desire to have only his side of the “battle” made public (cf. the publication of the time/place of the “secret” meeting with Fr. Pavone; see above for details)… and that, for better or for worse, is steadily and presently under-cutting his credibility. Certainly, he has not put forth a public display of a persona proper to a successor of the Apostles… and that fact seems, at least for the moment, to have escaped his notice, or his concern, or both.
Can you point me to a source where I could read more about that?
Not if you mean a source which insists that organisations and persons are to be defended identically; that is not true, and it is not necessary, and I didn’tean to suggest anything of the sort. Does that clarify? (My apologies if I was vague; this week’s frenzy has not been conducive to methodical comments on my part!)
As a side note, re: the non-appearance of Fr. Pavone at the meeting with his bishop (after being so advised by his canon lawyer), I’ll offer this as my view: I believe Fr. Pavone was ill-advised, at least in this instance, to avoid that meeting; I believe he should have attended (and brought his canon lawyer with him, if allowed at all). The bishop could hypothetically rant, rave, and make any wild accusations with no basis in fact that he might please, but he has no power to imprison Fr. Pavone, or to do anything to him that he could otherwise have done without the meeting, anyway. Fr. Pavone would have lost nothing of real tactical value by attending the meeting (and by keeping a tight rein on his own temper and tongue, letting the bishop say what he pleased), and his no-show could play into the hands of those who seek to discredit him as “a disobedient priest”. (In the court of public opinion, as well–though I’d regard that as a secondary concern, at very best–the [probably unintentional] parallel of Fr. Pavone “being advised not to cooperate” by a canon lawyer with the uncomfortably similar action/refusal of Fr. Corapi, was enough to disturb me… and it gave Fr. Pavone’s opponents another public rhetorical club with which to beat him: by linking him (mainly on the level of emotional perception) with Fr. Corapi’s public “self-destruction”. Fr. Pavone might or might not have been within his rights to do as he did, re: the meeting: but I personally think such an action was not only unnecessary, but very unwise.
Note to Cheryl-Helene: While I cannot speak to your comments re: Phil Lawler (I’ve not enough information to do so), I’m afraid I’ll have to caution you against relying too much on the commentary and/or views of “SNAP”; that organisation has, to a significant extent, “morphed” into something of a generally anti-Catholic group whose work (which had/has the potential to be very good) has gradually taken on the flavour of “trying to re-make the Catholic Church in its own image”. For one point, it leaves (by its very name/acronym, to say nothing of its public comments and actions) the impression (to its audience) that the Catholic Church (and specifically Catholic clergy) is the primary focus of child sexual abuse… which is provable nonsense.
As the mother of a priest, my interest in this story is more than academic. I have read the allegation over & over that Pavone was ‘disobedient’. Is there a specific, clear instance being referred to? My understanding was that the bishop summoned Pavone and Pavone immediately went back to the diocese. Further, my understanding is that Pavone has filed an appeal with the Vatican. Canon law is in place not only to make people/priests behave but also to protect their rights. If Pavone’s canon lawyer instructed him to take or not take an action only Rome can/will determine the efficacy of taking or not taking an action. As far as the financial side of it, even the CCHD’s books might be suspect in the eyes of some Catholics. Let’s let the accountants investigate and determine those facts. Cool heads are called for all around.
Sure its OKAY for Bishops to protect Child Molesters from Justice, then it is also Okay to for a Bishop to Support Baby Killers by silencing Father Pavone. Bishops are above reproach How dare anyone Question a Bishop. WHY? Because they are a Bishop!! The WORSHIP AT THE SHRINE OF ABORTION CROWD IS VERY PLEASED WITH THE BISHOP AND ALL OTHERS supporting the sequestering of Father Pavone. The Company you keep tells says much about yourself!
It is now reported on at least one website that Bishop Zurek was told “days earlier,” through channels, that Fr. Pavone would not attend the Thursday, October 13th meeting. And yet Bishop Zurek then allowed the Amarillo Diocese to tell the press that Fr. Pavone was a “No Show.” Yes, there the Bishop was in his office waiting for Fr. Pavone until 5 pm closing time. No, that is not what happened. This is yet another gambit played by Bishop Zurek to further demonize Fr. Pavone. Frankly, this behavior is beginning to look pathological.
And how effective – since everyone is saying how inconsiderate and disobedient Fr. Pavone must be, as if he really did ignore the summons of his Bishop that way… as if Fr. Pavone is some kind of a wayward teenager.
However, it is the issue of obedience which people find a stumbling block.
This evening I came across the blog of Mary Ann Kreitzer, and I would like to quote her on the subject of obedience to a Bishop: (http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/ )
Quote:
“…I take the virtue of obedience seriously. But there is virtuous obedience, blind obedience, and evil obedience. The wise and the prudent need to make distinctions between them.
“Clearly, obedience is evil when the order being obeyed involves committing sin. Soldiers who deliberately murder noncombatant civilians because they were “following orders” are guilty of wartime atrocities. No one may obey an evil order. That’s the basis for war crime tribunals. Additionally, no one has an obligation to obey evil laws so those who operated the Underground Railroad or ignored the Jim Crow laws or the Nuremburg laws were morally justified. The Chinese who defy the one-child policy are completely right to disobey their evil government. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, an evil law that defies the law of God is no law at all.
“Even lawful authority has limits. Children owe obedience to parents and those who serve in place of parents, like teachers, but a parent may not order a child to marry a particular person or follow a particular path in life, and teachers have no right to assign immoral books or films as required material. St. Clare certainly was not guilty of disobedience when she defied her parents and ran away to become a nun.
“Bishops have authority and the duty to teach, govern, and sanctify their flocks in the faith. Their authority is intrinsically linked to the authority of the Pope and the Church. When they teach according to the mind of the Church, the flock is bound to obey. But when a bishop steps outside the deposit of the faith to make up his own rules, the laity, and even his priests, do not owe him obedience. Certainly, the priests under Arian bishops had not only the right, but the duty to disobey. Every heresy in the Church that I can think of originated with a cleric. Nestorius was a bishop. Martin Luther was a priest/monk. Arius was a priest. Not much is known about Pelagius, but he is commonly referred to as a British monk. Should the flock have followed these men because they wore Roman collars?
“Of course not! And to suggest that blindly obeying clerics is virtuous is clericalism, the attitude that a Roman collar sets a man above all others and he should be obeyed in all matters both religious and secular. What nonsense when bishops throughout history have been responsible for so much evil. It was a bishop who conspired with the English to burn Joan of Arc at the stake. It was the entire bench of bishops in England minus one, John Fisher, who went along with Henry VIII’s evil plan to set aside Catherine, marry Ann Boleyn, and declare himself head of the Church. Bishops used clericalism when they browbeat parents of sexually abused children into silence assuring them the matter would be taken care of and then moving the abusers again and again. They accused parents of wanting to destroy the Church. Sadly, the parents’ silence enabled the evil to continue for decades. Failing to sound the alarm multiplied the problem exponentially.
“To suggest that bishops should be obeyed in all things is just plain absurd.”
This was taken from another website: If this is true the real question is where did all the money go? And was he skiming money to ETWN or some other TV network from one of his “shell” companies. I am also a financial supporter of Fr. Pavone. I contribute monthly and hope he is found innocent of any charges.
“But an audit for 2010 released this week by PFL shows the problems also stem from debatable management decisions, such as spending nearly all of its reserve funds.
…
The audit shows that Priests for Life’s income, which is based largely on donations from individuals, went from $9.3 million in 2007 to $10.8 million in 2008 and $12 million in 2009.
In 2010, income dropped to $10.7 million while expenses stayed the same, resulting in a $1.4 million deficit.
Still, Pavone and PFL’s loaned some $879,000 to Gospel of Life Ministries, an offshoot of PFL that Pavone established in 2006 at the headquarters of Priests for Life in Staten Island, N.Y.
Gospel of Life Ministries was intended to unite evangelical and Catholic anti-abortion activists and to be financially self-sustaining. Instead, it relied on funds channeled from PFL to subsidize two cable television programs.
The IRS has revoked Gospel of Life’s tax-exempt status because it failed to file any forms for three consecutive years, according to GuideStar, an online database that tracks nonprofits.
…
Earlier this month, Zurek told the rest of the bishops in the United States that he was recalling Pavone to Amarillo and restricting his ministry until the priest complied with demands to disclose financial records and ended his “incorrigible defiance of my legitimate authority as his bishop.”
Zurek portrayed Pavone, who spends almost all his time traveling for PFL, as driven by personal ambition. Pavone has appealed Zurek’s ruling to the Vatican and said he will look for another diocese to call home.”
Sorry, 747 Pilot, but repeating rumors about the financial affairs of Priests For Life, with your own commentary that Fr. Pavone was, as you say, ‘skimming’ money to pay EWTN – excuse me, what kind of a “supporter” are you anyway? Boy, that’s a new one. Why is it that you, or anyone else for that matter, is not responding to my report that the “No Show” accusation by Bishop Zurek, as I described above, was a blatant misstatement. As far as I am concerned, bloggers Ed Peters, Phil Lawler, and Shea, might as well be the three frogs in The Book of Revelation. The Catholic faithful deserve better. And let’s also consider that fact that Priests For Life has a Board of Directors, regular financial statements, and annual audits. It astonishes me that some people believe they are qualified, as armchair observers, without confirmed professional accounting experience, to analyze as if they are experts the affairs of a ministry which dispenses millions of dollars each year, to save the lives of the unborn… on secondhand information, yet.
@Cheryl same sentiments. . .
Seems like a couple of self proclaimed canon lawyers, “conservative catholic bloggers”, and “catholic editors” have it in for Fr. Frank. It would be hard to turn the other cheek knowing that our very own are turning their backs at a time when support and prayers are much needed.
Acta est fabula . . . the drama has been acted out between all of these writers. . .
A blogger that seems to be giving a fair shake on the situation – writes as follows:
Read more at http://publicvigil.blogspot.com/2011/10/bishop-zurek-finally-breaks-media.html