New Stanek poll: What are your thoughts on the situation between Bishop Zurek and Father Pavone?
I have a new poll question up:
Regarding the situation between Bishop Patrick Zurek and Father Frank Pavone, which also involves Priests for Life, complete the following sentence: “The evidence I have seen leads me to think…”
There are 10 options listed, three for Catholics, three for Protestants, three for secularists, and one for all.
Vote on the lower right side of the home page.
CatholicCulture.org conducted a poll along the same lines, but I didn’t think the options it gave logically flowed, or were even accurate, specifically questions 1 and 2:
- “Father Pavone is an effective pro-life leader; his bishop should not curtail his activities.”
- “Bishop Zurek has legitimate reason to exert control over Priests for Life; Father Pavone should not resist his authority.”
Both of those questions combine two issues that do not follow one another. Both try to make it seem there is a logical jump between the bishop having certain authority and the reasonableness of a particular decision. Furthermore, I don’t think it is accurate to state the bishop is trying to “exert control over Priests for Life.”
Interesting results on the previous poll, a bit unexpected. It appears Romney supporters piled on. With almost 5,400 votes, this poll probably got my highest response ever…
Click on the map to enlarge to find your own brightly colored flag…
As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the Vizu website.
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.
My mother always used to say that satan would not try to destroy the church from the outside in…but from the inside out. Good people making bad decisions sets us on a bad path. Pro-life is at the essence of what the Catholic church teaches and to have a bishop try to not only stop but sully the name of Father Pavone in my humble opinion is a bad decision.
The poll questions are slanted in that they only ask about whether Bp. Zurek is treating Fr. Pavone fairly — not whether Fr. Pavone is respecting Bp. Zurek’s authority. Many of us think that BOTH sides have made ample mistakes, as Dr. Ed Peters has astutely documented at his invaluable Canon Law blog.
So if I respond to your poll in a way critical of Bp. Zurek, it registers as support for Fr. Pavone, and while I am a longtime admirer of Fr. Pavone and am grateful for his long and honorable pro-life service, I think his behavior in recent weeks is deeply troubling.
This whole thing disturbs me. I don’t understand why Bishop Zurek took the approach he did in the original letter and its distribution, although I can understand his concerns, in light of what has happened recently with other well-known priests. I don’t understand all the frankly “me, me, me” emails I have been getting from Fr. Pavone and his supporters, though I do understand the need to keep Priests for Life going.
It’s a mess, and it’s hindering Pro-Life efforts. If I have an opinion that is warranted, it is this: There’s way more ego being exhibited in this dispute than there is justice, charity, or humility.
Thank you for posting this poll, Jill.
I myself saw the poll on Catholic Culture and I just shook my head that on their site, before you can comment or take the poll, you had to “DONATE” to them first.
Secondly, you were also correct that Catholic Culture did not have enough choices like yours did.
Again, thank you very much for posting this.
On another note, how can one be obedient when one is not treated fairly and with respect?
How is it possible to follow a bishop when that bishop has clearly done his outmost best to ruin a man’s reputation without not only substantial proof but has also admitted to not looking at the financial documents he “said he never received” but ACTUALLY DID.
People keep posting over and over and over again that this isnt about Financials of PFL but about Pavone’s obedience but when evidence clearly shows that Fr. Pavone IS being obedient, they jump to the financial issue. Now that the financial issue has been addressed: meaning, bishop zurek FINALLY admits to receiving the documents but has NEVER ONCE LOOKED AT THEM – the bishop supporters jump back to the obedience issue.
Cant things be seen for exactly what they are: The bishop is obviously not playing with a full deck of cards. He also has some OBVIOUS hidden agenda.
I really hope all this will be resolved very soon.
All it takes is for a mediator to be present because with the way the bishop is acting, he will more than likely tell the whole world another story about what he and Fr. Pavone met about and if Fr. Pavone as much as tries to clear himself and clarify what they met about, this will give the bishop the chance to point another finger (if there is any left) that Fr. Pavone is once again being disobedient.
Prayers move mountains.
Let us just pray for BOTH Fr. Frank and Bishop Zurek that this will all be resolved soon and that Fr. Frank can do what he does best and the bishop can do what he does best for the church.
Hey thanks for stopping by the blog, SGD.
Jordan McGregor: Many saints have demonstrated exactly how to be obedient regardless whether one is treated fairly and with respect.
Regarding whether Fr. Pavone’s behavior has truly been obedient and respectful, I refer you to Dr. Peters’ blog.
Bobby Bambino: FWIW, it’s not my first time here. :-) I appreciate Jill’s work.
Maybe “Other Christian” would have been a better choice than “Protestant”.
Gag. The poll is a new low for this blog. Continually fanning the flames of division is un-Christian behavior. Now you want to try to quantify the division? Disgusting.
“I refer you to Dr. Peters’ blog.”
No thanks.
I’d mentioned this before, but: while Dr. Peters makes some good and key individual points, his penchant for criticising the “inflammatory tone” of Fr. Pavone’s comments (i.e. not germane to canon law, meaning that Dr. Peters is offering his raw opinion in such cases), while downplaying, ignoring, and/or making excuses for Bishop Zurek’s inflammatory tone, makes me less than eager to follow his judgment on matters not specifically within his purview (i.e. precise matters of canon law). As such: since Dr. Peters’ conclusions about “rightness/wrongness” of Fr. Pavone’s actions are largely his raw non-canon-law opinions, he really has no significant claim to authority while saying them… and his opinions have no more or less weight than do those of virtually anyone on this blog, for that matter; so it really seems (to me, at least) that it makes little difference what Dr. Peters says, on those specific general points. One can agree or disagree with him quite freely on those general points, without fear of “ignorantly flouting a respected authority”.
@Paladin
I certainly agree. Why is Dr. Peters mentioned on this blog anyhow?
What comes to mind are the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ time in comparison to those of our time in 2011. Though I wonder who is playing what part. “Pharisee” means “separated ones.” “Pharisee” can also come from Hebrew meaning “specifier,” to specify the correct meaning of God’s law to the people. The Pharisees were primarily motivated by a performance mentality. They believed that God would be pleased with them if they performed up to a certain standard. In their drive to reach that standard, they made laws and edicts that went beyond the heart or purpose of the laws of Moses and in doing so ended up putting themselves and others into a type of religious bondage that was never supposed to be part of the plan of God. Modern day Pharisees are motivated by the same thing. Although the laws and edicts might have changed the drive behind those laws and edicts is the same. It is the belief that God will not bless, be pleased, or accept us unless we perform up to a certain standard that motivates modern day Pharisees. “Sadducee” comes from the Hebrew tsadiq, which means “righteous.” The Sadducees were the rationalists of the day. They did not believe in the power of God nor in the supernatural. They were the ones that always explained away the miraculous and relied instead on human reasoning and human wisdom. They were driven by the belief that human knowledge and intellect were a means to an end. Just as the Pharisees believed that performance was the way to please God, the Sadducees believed that human reasoning and human wisdom alone was the way to understand God. Modern day Sadducees believe that God must be totally understandable and fit into a rational understanding. That there is no place for the supernatural and many even deny the modern day presence of the supernatural in the church. They rely on their human reasoning and human wisdom to try to accomplish the works of God in the world today.
Just today I came across this poll and thought I should just go ahead and share my thoughts. . .and so I will.
Normally I am one of the ones who sits on the sidelines, reads, and then to prayer I go. . . well . . .
When this story originally broke and I first read the blogs about what’s happening with Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life down in Amarillo, Texas, I didn’t know what to think. I was being bombarded with emails about this and some very confusing thoughts crossed my mind. I also thought it a bit odd that faithful, pro-life Catholic bloggers and journalists would so hastily come to Bishop Zurek’s defense while criticizing Fr. Pavone. They all took Bishop Zurek’s accusations at face value, automatically assuming that there “must” be something wrong with the finances of PFL or else the bishop wouldn’t have written that letter.
Well, we know now that Bishop Zurek’s letter was full of hot air (Setting the Record Straight http://bit.ly/rw0QV20). So the shame is on Bishop Zurek now – NOT on Fr. Frank. And yet, the silence of the “sacrificial lamb” bloggers is deafening.
No word from Dr. Gerry “Abu” Nadal, Mark Shea, or Phil Lawler (and his “altar” ego, Diogenes). At least not yet. Perhaps they’re all on the Food Network website, busy looking up a decent recipe for how to prepare, cook, and eat crow.
Simonetta: I was being bombarded with emails about this…
Holy Moly, I don’t doubt it. Looks like the Zurek and Pavone factions have got the fervor of mouse-clicking fever. The last poll was up a long time, a month and a half (?), and 5398 votes.
This current one, two days, and over 2700 votes. This is a regular hootenanny!