Father Pavone begins fourth month in exile
Yesterday I checked in with Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life on the occasion of an auspicious anniversary.
It was three months ago that Father Pavone’s bishop, Patrick Zurek, abruptly ordered him to halt his pro-life work and report back to the Diocese of Amarillo for an unspecified length of time.
Since September 13 Father Pavone has been assigned to the small and isolated Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ convent in Prayer Town, Texas, 50 miles outside of Amarillo. (Dirt road to convent pictured below.)
Bishop Zurek has given Father Pavone no other priestly work to do other than serve the 29 sisters with homilies and teaching (which he is doing with gusto – they are now planning a pro-life seminar, he tells me).
There has been no contact between the two since Bishop Zurek refused to agree to allow a mediator to be present at the private October 13 meeting he publicly announced in advance.
Father Pavone tells me both are now awaiting a decision from the Vatican, which he anticipates “soon,” on whether he can resume his pro-life work.
Father Pavone remains in good spirits. He told me he enjoys the company of pro-lifers who come by when traveling in the area. He videotaped an update from Prayer Town on December 8:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYCD3GIKLDk[/youtube]
Points of value in the ongoing dispute, particularly in the aftermath of innuendo Bishop Zurek leveled against Father Pavone in a September 9 letter to all U.S. bishops:
- Father Pavone is and has been uninterruptedly a priest in good standing in his diocese and in the Catholic Church.
- Father Pavone has never been or is he now being accused of any wrongdoing, nor are any of those who work for him being accused.
- Father Pavone has been and remains obedient to his bishop and doing what he has asked him to do. He continues his work in pro-life leadership overseeing the various ministries he heads from Amarillo.
- Priests for Life and Father Pavone are using only appropriate means, approved by the Church, to address and resolve this situation. Appealing to the Vatican is not an act of rebellion, but rather a protocol provided by Church law itself to resolve disputes. What they are asking is simple: that priests like Father Pavone who want to devote their lives to defending the unborn be allowed to do so.
- Priests for Life is and always has been an approved Association of the Faithful under the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, and enjoys the support of bishops and Cardinals around the world, including the 20 bishops and Cardinals who comprise its Advisory Board, which recently met to reaffirm the work of the ministry.
- Father Pavone continues to enjoy the unanimous support of his Board of Directors and Pastoral Team.
Meanwhile, as I said, the work of Priests for Life continues on. Here are 2012 goals:
- Bryan Kemper as PFL’s Youth Outreach director will be coordinating a youth rally in conjunction with the March for Life. This year, he will be expanding his presence in Catholic schools across the nation. The Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity will be repeated, and monthly events will also be planned that mobilize youth worldwide in joint activities.
- The Silent No More Awareness Campaign is gearing up for the largest gathering of women and men who speak out about their abortion experiences; they will be at the March for Life in DC and the Walk for Life in San Francisco. Pregnancy centers and Churches are also partnering with the campaign, that is, committing to do their part in spreading the powerful testimonies of pain and healing.
- Priests for Life is activating its PoliticalResponsibility.com action center, and mobilizing the “Vote Pro-life Coalition” for the elections of 2012. Voter Registration Sundays have been designated and Churches will be urged to take part.
- Alveda King will be expanding her African-American Outreach with events targeted to Black leaders who will be able to bring more people out to pro-life events such as rallies at abortion mills, educational events, and media opportunities.
- Rachel’s Vineyard will expand its interdenominational outreach. There are close to 1,000 retreats a year now; most of them are in a Catholic setting, but Fr. Frank, Theresa, and Kevin Burke will expand the training and outreach to interdenominational pastors even more than it is now.
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.
Fr. Pavone’s “in exile”? LOL! That’s news to me. I was under the impression that he was exactly where he was supposed to be. He’d only be “in exile” if he left Texas against his bishop’s orders.
Amen JoAnna.
Jill- you clearly do not understand how the Catholic church works, the vows Father Pavrone has taken, or what his primary duties are. As JoAnna states, he is exactly where he is supposed to be right now.
Oh no, here we go again…
But on a different topic, this year, the Superbowl is being held here in Indianapolis, on February 5, just a week after the March for Life and with it being close in time, I was wondering if there were any pro-life outreaches, demonstrations, or displays planned in the Indianapolis area leading up to or during the Super Bowl, when we could be reaching out to a larger audience?
Clearly Jill has great respect for Fr Pavone, and is unhappy with the current situation. The same can be said for me and many many more of us. The degree to which this situation makes each of us unhappy with the actions of Bp Zurek and the Church (which he represents) vary tremendously. Generally, the Catholics are less angry at the Church and more understanding of Bp Zurek’s actions, although there are certainly a good number of us who are quite perturbed as well. Many Catholics want to say “you Protestants just don’t understand.” And many Protestants want to say “how can you stick up for that jerk in light of his obviously poor decisions and indefensible actions??”
Please please let us all remember that we want the same thing, and we are motivated by the same thing. We want to see unborn lives protected, and we hope that Fr Pavone can again be active in the fight as soon as possible. Please let us all stay on the same side. Our arguing and fighting will do nothing good for our cause or for Fr Pavone.
I appreciate the update from Jill. But I pray that this not descend into the same arguing between us that has been typical of prior threads about this topic. If you are considering a comment that is anything other than supportive and kind, take the time you would otherwise spend posting and spend it praying.
Please.
You think the Frankster is getting any good tacos or burritos out there?
So his vocation is beneath him, eh?
Some of these comments are stated quite unfairly in regards to Fr. Frank.
We don’t know Bs Zurek’s motives for attempting to isolate an innocent priest – surely there must be a hidden agenda here somewhere.
As Oscar Wilde once wrote “I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.”
How sad it is that some are far more ready to judge (and criticize) priests than they are to pray for them.
My hope is that those commenting don’t fall into criticizing Fr. Frank to feed their own pride as doing so might cause these persons to think they are superior to our Church leaders.
Let us remember we are preparing our hearts, minds and souls for Christmas.
Peace to all of you.
@ Lorena I very much agree with you.
As Jesus himself stated . . .
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 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. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. (Matt. 3:1-7)
And so we pray and intercede that Bs Zurek see the light sometime soon.
I believe the terminology “in exile” for Fr. Frank Pavone’s case is that he cannot minister outside of Amarillo.
To the posters who seem to delight in Fr. Frank Pavone’s situation that he cannot work full time in the pro-life ministry, please note that there is an ABUNDANCE of priests under the Amarillo diocese already. There IS NO shortage of priests in that area.
No, I will NOT provide you with that information. You can see that information quite blatantly in the Amarillo website so you can check it out yourselves.
Next, WHY is it such a problem for some of you that Fr. Frank is to be a full time priest in the pro-life movement? For all you “Fr. Frank Pavone Haters” – please note that the reason WHY he incardinated into the Amarillo diocese is because the bishop prior to bishop zurek GAVE Fr. Frank that permission.
THERE IS NO financial mismanagement. Anyone who says otherwise are just plain ignorant and should do more indepth research.
THERE IS NO disobedience so people are grasping at straws to crucify Fr. Frank Pavone with.
So WHY is Bishop Zurek still KEEPING Fr. Frank in Amarillo?
Have you Fr. Frank haters not seen Jill’s article that Bishop Zurek has FINALLY ADMITTED having the financial documents that Priests For Life has been giving him all these years and his excuse is that he never had the chance to look them thru? Excuse me but let me refresh your memories: Bp Zurek did state he had questions about PFL’s financial statements.
How can the bishop zurek question something he HAS ADMITTED TO NOT HAVING READ???????????????
I beg anyone to answer that ~ but please answer intelligently if any of you will! Please!
I am getting so sick to my stomach about how people “claim to know so much about canon law” when ignorance is oozing out of each and every single type written word.
I am getting so sick to my stomach of how crowd lynching is so blatantly being posted on any of Jill’s article’s on Fr. Frank.
I am getting so sick to my stomach of how people here keep saying: “Oh well, Fr. Frank should be obedient.” ~ Uuuhm HELLO! He IS being and HAS BEEN obedient to the Bishop since DAY 1.”
May all the IGNORANT please don’t humiliate yourselves any further and just … walk away … please … just … walk … away!
Lorena I’d like to add that . . . when one criticizes a priest there is a huge danger and we can become dour Catholics. The more we criticize and complain, the more we bring down the morale of the Church and the more gloomy we become. (St. Teresa of Avila said once, “God deliver me from gloomy saints!”) Many sincere, orthodox Catholics have become sour people because they continued to dwell on the faults of the clergy, so sour that they have been unable to contribute something positive to the Church, despite their many talents.
This is not to say we may not acknowledge the wrongs of priests and bishops, but we should do so reluctantly and with understatement. And then, we should move on to the positive, the things that will build up the Church and her morale. We should never dwell on the negative elements of priests and bishops—or anyone else, for that matter—because it will make us melancholy people, always ready to point out the negative aspect of any situation.
The devil is most clever in bringing down those who sincerely love God and the Church. He gets them to dwell on the negative elements of the Church and thereby destroys their joy. We mustn’t fall for this ruse. If we want to be holy, we must focus on the positive, and let nothing destroy our joy.
I appreciate the update from Jill. But I pray that this not descend into the same arguing between us that has been typical of prior threads about this topic.”
This is what I ment by “Oh no, here we go again” I wasn’t speaking against discussing this issue, rather I hope this thread does not descend into bickering between us pro-lifers again. The pro-life movement needs to be united, not dissension and bickering.
After reading the first few posts before and after the one I just posted, I want to apologize if I sound so harsh but I am just really frustrated at how people seem to relish throwing stones at a man who has publicly stated over and over again that the very reason he became a priest was so he could dedicate his life ending abortion.
Again, I apologize sincerely for sounding so harsh and yes, I do most heartfully agree that pro-lifers must band together and not go against each other.
@Caroline
Hope you can visit this page > http://bit.ly/rGelNd . The title is Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about “Bad” Bishops? .
“By “do something” people usually mean that they want the pope to discipline the bishop, to apply pressure on him to adhere more closely to Church teaching, or even to remove him. But most of us—while from time to time sharing such wishes or even voicing them—don’t know exactly what can be done about a bad bishop.”
I researched this information after I read somewhere on the blogosphere how Bs Zurek attempted to finish off with a seminarian who ended up being ordained a priest. Seems like Bs Zurek has a not so good spirited streak about him. Not trying to judge here just attempting to make a point.
Have seen some of the posts on FreeFrFrank.com ? I think they give much insight on this situation. It surely is time to go into deep prayer for Fr. Frank and Priests for Life.
May the Christ Child be with us all this Holy Season.
@Caroline – apology accepted. Peace be with you always.
My guess is his heart is in the right place…but it always makes me cringe when a pastor/priest/Christian says the “most important thing is…” and that thing is NOT preaching the good news about Christ. Even good things like support of life can become an idol if it becomes more important than Christ Himself.
Well, there is an election coming up, the Bishops wouldn’t want Father Pavone out of his cage at that time.
Some of the top movers and shakers in the Boston achdiosese are Obama fundraisers, see Jack Conners.
Well said, Ex-GOP.
Free Father Pavone!!!!
I would like to say that for us pro-lifers, wouldnt it be great if in the spirit of Christmas, Fr. Frank will be given back to us in the pro-life movement.
Fr. Frank is the least arrogant man I know. I have attended the masses he would hold during his trips to EWTN and have had to opportunity to speak with him briefly. Fr. Frank is a very humble man who is passionate about ending abortion.
I don’t have a problem with priests doing blogs and YouTube videos. Yet, Fr. Pavone’s online presence is unique in that he devotes a considerable about of time talking about …
himself.
Humility. Maybe Fr. Pavone will find some in Amarillo.
Fr. Pavone is quite active with social media (FB, Twitter, etc.); according to his FB feed he regularly participates in conference calls and etc. with members of the pro-life community. I fail to see how he’s “isolated.”
Confined would fit better than isolated JoAnna. But I wouldn’t imagine Fr. Pavone’s confinement will last much longer. The people will continue to be drawn Fr. Pavone by his deep passion for the cause and the church will continue her support of Fr. Pavone. Bishop Z, whatever his motives; will be unable to stop Fr. P’s mission for very long. It would be a sin to hold a man of Fr. Pavone’s talents from his work towards stopping the holocaust on the unborn.
Cranky,
Your jab at imagining Fr. P to be a conceited man show an error in judgement on your part. Fr. P would much rather spend his days filled with speaking to end abortionthan speaking about himself. Unfortunately for everybody involved Fr. P is having to repeatedly explain away what will turn out to be baseless allegations of financial impropriety.
Caroline…don’t know why you apologized, you were dead-on accurate.
Thanks Jill Stanek,
Truth is on the side of Fr.Pavone and you.
Fr. Pavone’s witness to the Cardinal virtues
of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance
is greater than even his pro-life work. I am
not a ‘groupie’ of any clergyman but he displays
heroic virtue.
For those of you caught up in the diabolical
disorientation and see this as “about the money”
or “an uppity disobedient Priest”, I’d suggest
you spend a few mornings outside an abortion clinic
in order to get a reality check.
“Let us never lose Christian joy and hope. We must never allow ourselves to become bitter. With confidence and trust in God, we must continue laboring and praying,come what may,conscious that it is all done for the honor and glory of God and the salvation of souls! Sursum corda. Lift up your hearts…”
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-1130-rodrigues-el-paso-bishop.htm
Watch Fulton Sheen, Fr. Pacwa, and Fr. Groeshcel. They don’t use “I, me, my” as much as Fr. Pavone does.
Other priests work full time for Priests for Life. Why do their bishops allow it ? And thank you Fr. Pavone for praying outside of abortion “clinics”. Priests for Life will continue with gusto even while you are “stationed” in Amarillo. But we’ll miss you. VOTE PRO-LIFE !!
I am a huge pro-lifer, but Fr. Pavone shocked me when he refused to meet with his bishop but continues to send me a LOTS of money requests. It makes me wonder more than a little. In fact, the pro-lifers arguing that he is a victim have made me wonder about their motivations and priorities.
Let’s pray for all involved and that we all seek Christ’s will – which is not always what we will. Seeking His will requires docility before activity.
Rob,
I have been following this closely and it was my understanding that it was the bishop who balked at the meeting because Fr. P insisted on a third party being present. For the sake of truth (which is always the will of Christ)can tou clarify with detail about your allegation that Fr. P refused to meet with his bishop.
Truthseeker:
The information is available via a quick search – it isn’t an allegation. He refused to meet and opted for a mediation process. I remember that day online when folks were waiting to see if he would meet with his bishop and it was very disappointing when he did not.
Here is a report on it:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-pavone-turns-down-meeting-with-bishop-zurek/
To understand his failure to meet with his bishop and opting for mediation, I found this very useful:
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-fr-pavones-failure-to-meet-with-bp.html
Rob,
With all due respect: I’m personally a bit wary of taking too much (other than raw canon-law-based facts) from the view of Dr. Peters (the “canonlawblog” you cite, in your second link), since he’s shown himself to be subtly, but rather unmistakeably, biased in favour of the bishop (and/or against Fr. Pavone–I’m not quite sure which).
Paladin,
He expressed well the clear common sense that most of us felt that day. We were praying for resolution. Fr. Pavone did not show. It was a disappointment. That isn’t bias, that is what many of us thought.
I can’t imagine refusing an invitation from my bishop, and I am not a priest who vowed obedience. He has done great work, but this situation is not as simple as Jill wants to present it.
In terms of Dr. Peters, I have watched him stand up and be attacked from all sides. I think his opinion is valuable and certainly represented in that post how I saw things when Fr. Frank just didn’t show.
Rob,
Prior to that meeting the bishop had already alleged financial impropriety on the part of Fr. Pavone and was encouraging others, like yourself, to stop donating to PFL. Having a mediator present sems prudent. Do you know why the bishop refused to meet with Fr. Pavone in the presence of a mediator?
Rob,
I’ve commented on this issue in some detail, before:
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/10/fr-frank-pavone-in-exile/comment-page-1/#comment-357577
…and I’ve also expressed my agreement with you, insofar as I think Fr. Pavone’s decision not to meet with the Bishop was unwise:
https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/10/fr-frank-pavone-in-exile/comment-page-1/#comment-358174
…but frankly, Dr. Peters has injected a good deal of his own opinion and bias into the fray, by excoriating Fr. Pavone for his “intemperate” language… while giving the Bishop a complete pass on his own inflammatory language (in his original letter, at very least). Had Dr. Peters stuck to the raw canonical facts, I would have no complaint… but I do wish he would have kept his non-canonical opinions to himself, in this regard, since they did nothing to advance any resolution of the case at all, and it showed his decided inclination to “take sides”, for no canonical or logical reason that I can discern.
Also Rob, as one goes through life you tend to learn many lessons in prudence. One such lesson is to NOT meet in private with people who have prior history of false accusations and unjust attacks on you as a person. It is a shame that the bishop did not request that private meeting prior to passing judgement on Fr. P.
Rob,
If somebody ever makes false allegations against you and has you confined based upon false allegations I would suggest that the next time you meet with the accuser you may rightly want the added protection of a third party being present at the meeting. Your statementthat: “Fr. Pavone shocked me when he refused to meet with his bishop” is a complete mischaracterization of the situation by intentionally leaving out thebishops lack of response to Fr. P’s request for a mediator to be present at the meeting. Like you said; we can all agree that we should want to speak the truth to one another whatever it is and we should all seek the presence of Holy Spirit to guide us on our way.
What do you do with a heretic priest?
Jacob,
You shine light on the heresy and dispell the darkness.
I would like to repeat the same question of Rob that you asked, truthseeker:
Do you know why the bishop refused to meet with Fr. Pavone in the presence of a mediator?
Do you know why the bishop refused to meet with Fr. Pavone in the presence of a mediator?
Because Frank brought really cheap wine the last time?