Vatican clears Father Pavone’s name but leaves him with his accuser
UPDATE 6/29, 11:21a: My friend within six degrees of separation of this controversy reminded me last night that the Vatican would not have declared Father Pavone unsuspended and a priest in good standing had it not examined Priest for Life’s financial records for itself. After all, this was the foremost reason Bishop Zurek gave for his suspension. I agree that the Vatican would take absolutely no chance of having its withdrawal of suspension come back to embarrass it, especially in this day and age of priest scandals. So I have removed “(sort of)” from my headline. I think the Vatican indeed exonerated FP by its nod in his favor.
My friend said his first take was that the Vatican’s clearance opens the door for Father Pavone to pursue incarnation in a pro-life friendly diocese.
6/28, 12:01p: On Tuesday night came good news on Priests for Life’s website:
We are happy to announce that the Vatican has upheld Father Frank Pavone’s appeal and has declared that Father Pavone is not now nor has ever been suspended. Father Pavone remains a priest in good standing all over the world.
We were confident all along that a just decision would be made by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy. While we fully agree that Bishop Zurek has rightful authority over the priests of his diocese, we also see the urgent need for Father Pavone to be allowed to conduct his priestly ministry outside the diocese of Amarillo for the good of the pro-life movement.
From the onset we have been closely following the curious situation between Priest for Life’s Father Frank Pavone and his bishop, Patrick Zurek, of the Amarillo Diocese.
Last September Bishop Zurek abruptly ordered Father Pavone to report back to his diocese from New York, on the heels of a letter the bishop sent to his colleagues (subsequently leaked to the press) all but accusing FP of insubordination and mishandling of PFL funds, beginning with the apocalyptic sentence, “I have decided to suspend Father Frank A. Pavone from public ministry….”
Now the Vatican has overruled Bishop Zurek. Father Pavone was not suspended.
But as CatholicCulture.org (read that entire editorial – it’s good) points out:
[A]nyone familiar with canon law knew from the outset that “suspension” was the wrong term for the bishop’s action. As canonist Edward Peters explained last September, Bishop Zurek “should not have used the term ‘suspend’ in regard to Pavone, for ‘suspension’ is a canonical penalty for crime (c. 1333), and Pavone has not been accused of any crime.”
So the Vatican agrees.
But Father Pavone has not been reassigned to an unhostile bishop or perhaps to answer directly to Rome.
Thus, questions remain. Perhaps Bishop Zurek can’t “suspend” FP, but can he still curtail his activities, or worse, ban him from working with PFL? It appears so. Here was Bishop Zurek’s statement on the Vatican’s decision:
In its decree of May 18, 2012, the Congregation for the Clergy has sustained Father Frank A. Pavone’s appeal of his suspension from ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo and his appointment from me on October 4, 2011 as Chaplain of the Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ in Channing, Texas. Father Pavone is to continue his ministry as chaplain until further notice. As a gesture of good will, I will grant permission to him in individual cases, based upon their merits, to participate in pro-life events with the provision that he and I must be in agreement beforehand as to his role and function.
Yes, that convoluted statement has to be read several times to understand. Bottom line: Father Pavone isn’t suspended but remains assigned as a chaplain to a tiny convent in the middle of the desert. And Bishop Zurek can call him back there for full time duty per his whim, when his sense of “good will” toward Father Pavone’s pro-life activities ceases and he is overcome by bad will.
And Bishop Zurek’s “good will” comes with a very short rope. Father Pavone must get his permission before doing any pro-life work. Bishop Zurek will decide whether each bit of pro-life work Father Pavone wants to do has “merit.”
The Amarillo Globe-News further quotes Bishop Zurek as stating the Vatican’s decision “makes it clear I am free to restore him to full religious ministry, if I wish. … But he must have my permission for anything in regard to work in pro-life, and in particular Priests for Life, because that is where the issue arose to begin with.”
So aside from maintaining the show of a pretty big ego. Bishop Zurek has purposefully left hanging his accusation that Father Pavone may have mismanaged PFL’s finances, which is inexcusable.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It has always been the case, since the time of the Apostles to the present day, that priestly ministry of any sort be done under the authority (whether implicit or explicit) of the Apostles (and their successors).
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, nothing automatically prevents successors to the Apostles (Bishops) from exercising their rightful authority over priestly ministry in an imprudent, ill-advised, ham-handed way. But, this does nothing to change the reality that they have this authority. The authority of a Bishop over the ministerial priesthood does not have exceptions. There are no priests exercising their priestly ministry in a public fashion who do not stand under the authority of a bishop (or the canonical equivalent, an “ordinary”–generic term for a priest with a position of bishop-like authority–in a religious order).
It’s important for folks to understand in considering all this, that formal suspension from priestly ministry altogether is in a canonically different category–it’s an action of a different legal character in the law of the Catholic church–than some sort of particular restriction (limiting qualifications) placed upon the active public ministry of a priest by his bishop. The former is very radical and serious and quite rare. The latter is not especially rare and is part of the ordinary and routine exercise of a bishop’s authority.
To get more of a feel for how this works, here are a few examples of the routine exercise of a Catholic bishop’s authority over the priests in his diocese (these occur often and routinely):
— From ordination until death, every diocesan priest is assigned to a particular priestly ministry within the Church by his bishop; no priest in good standing ever assigns himself to his particular ministry as a priest; in other words, priests are “sent” to their particular mission in the Church by their bishop; this happens many times every year in any diocese (at the time of being ordained a priest every newly ordained priest receives a formal appointment in writing by his bishop to his particular priestly assignment; and then throughout his entire priesthood, a priest remains at a particular ministry until he is assigned to a new one by his bishop; every year in every diocese, there is typically a certain date of the year at which new priestly assignments are given out by the bishop. Every priest in a diocese, each year, either continues to remain at his given ministry, or, is assigned to a different one, by his bishop. e.g. a priest is made a pastor; a priest is changed from one parish to another; a priest is sent to teach at the seminary, etc. But these ministerial assignments of the priests are entirely under the pleasure of the bishop. Every priest in every diocese could be assigned by his bishop at any time to a different ministry than he currently has. This is ordinary and routine use of a bishop’s authority, as happens every year with new ordinations and with new assignments of priests being moved from one ministry to another.)
–In keeping with the above, a bishop is entirely free to restrict in certain ways as he sees fit the public priestly ministry of any priest in his diocese. This includes a priest’s geographic location. This is totally apart and different from canonical “suspension.” In fact, every priest in good standing in a diocese is always operating with certain types of restrictions on his particular ministry. (e.g., a parish priest may not celebrate a marriage in a parish not his own without permission from the pastor of that other parish, etc. There are lots of examples like this). Restricting a particular priest’s ministry in some way because of the needs of the diocese is in fact something operative all the time for every diocesan priest. Every particular assignment to a particular mission in a diocese necessarily involves also, certain restrictions that come with it automatically. No priest is a lone ranger; no priest has total autonomy over his own public exercise of his priesthood. This has never been otherwise since the time of Christ.
–Every priest, when going beyond certain limits (in duration of time or in distance), needs the permission of his bishop to travel outside his diocese. This is normal. Every priest. No diocesan priest (who is not retired from active ministry), for example, can just decide he wants to spend a year in Europe. He could probably go for a couple weeks without explicit permission. But not for a longer time such as a year. Such restrictions are normal and apply to every priest. They are not special or particular for Fr. Pavone.
So, to reiterate, formal “suspension” from priestly ministry itself, is very serious and rare and is a form of a canonical penalty. However, restrictions placed upon the manner in which any given priest may exercise his priestly ministry within his diocese (which include location; the type of ministry, title, etc.) happens all the time with every priest in active ministry and has nothing to do with a punishment of any sort.
Normally, if there is a disagreement between a priest and his bishop as to what would be an appropriate or fitting use of a priest’s particular skills/talents, etc., this is a private discussion between bishop and priest and never seen by the public.
I was thinking of moving to Texas, but it won’t be to the Diocese of Amarillo.
Hmmm. Well, from what is public so far it’s not clear actually, what the Vatican “agrees” with here.
Lawler’s point on the Catholic Culture editorial you linked to above is well taken. In fact, there was never any question as to whether Fr. Pavone was canonically suspended. The mere fact that Bishop Zurek once used this term in a sloppy way never meant that Fr. Pavone had actually been canonically suspended to begin with. A true suspension from priestly ministry is a formal legal ecclesial act by a bishop that never took place here–his imprudent use of the term notwithstanding.
As Lawler points out, the issue here (apart from the matter of Zurek’s questionable implications about financial issues) pertains to a bishop’s normal and regular authority to assign any priest under his jurisdiction to a particular priestly ministry within the diocese. To focus public attention simply on the matter of “suspension” is a distraction from the fundamental matters truly in play here.
Nauseating.
If the Vatican is siding with Father Pavone, then the Vatican is saying that none of the issues (financial, behavioral, etc.) had any sort of founding. Of course, we must respect the office that the Bishop holds so it looks like the Vatican is taking the prudent approach with this situation, which is good, and Father Pavone isn’t thumbing his nose at the bishop and is continuing a bettering of their relationship as priest and bishop, so good all around I must say.
Of course we cannot claim to know the ins and outs of their decision making. But again, if the Vatican is siding with Father Frank, and it is, they must have reached a conclusion resulting from the extended study of all of the documentation given by Priests for Life, Father Frank, and Bishop Zurek. And if the decision that the Congregation made is good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.
In the meantime, I’m celebrating! If there is one man who will END abortion, it’s Father Pavone!
Bishop Zurek, how’s that audit going?
Thank God!! Sad that this ever had to happen!
Zurek is an egotistical jerk.
There’s been many saints who have actually been yanked around by their bishops and superiors. Padre Pio is just one example. Father Damian of Molokai is another. Ultimately there must be some purpose to all of this. Time will tell.
I would very much like to help Fr. Pavone. I helped him for many years. But I have a question: Why can’t we see the official statement of the Holy See declaring him a priest in good standing? What does it take to show it? We are supposed to believe he is a priest in good standing on the basis of circumstantial evidence, by indirection. For me the affair has still not been cleared up to my satisfaction.
Fr. Gino Dalpiaz, C.S.
I would very much like to help Fr. Pavone. I helped him for many years. But I have a question: Why can’t we see the official statement of the Holy See declaring him a priest in good standing? What does it take to show it? We are supposed to believe he is a priest in good standing on the basis of circumstantial evidence, by indirection. For me the affair has still not been cleared up to my satisfaction.
Fr. Gino Dalpiaz, C.S.
The only way to know with clarity exactly what the Vatican’s action was in regard to Fr. Pavone (and what it wasn’t), we would need to see the text of the specific appeal sent to the Vatican by Fr. Pavone, as well as the text of the resulting May 18 decree by the Congregation for the Clergy.
The Vatican is very specific and particular with authoritative decrees that have canonical authority. The May 18 Vatican decree to uphold Fr. Pavone’s appeal, I am certain–is exactly that, and only that–an upholding of this particular appeal. I’m sure the Vatican upheld this specific formal appeal, and did nothing more. It is a mistake to over-generalize about what the Vatican did and say things like Rome “sided with” Fr. Pavone. The Church does not like this sort of terminology and would frown upon any implication of the Vatican “taking sides” with a priest against his Bishop.
It’s better to see this as the Vatican stepping in, upon request, to clarify the true state of the situation. Not to take sides–but to clarify–affirming what has truly taken place canonically, and what has not.
So, only what Fr. Pavone specifically appealed is what Rome upheld. The text of this appeal is very relevant. That was the specific request. The response from Rome would be to answer that specific request, and nothing more.