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:

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 […]

I have a new poll question up: Which type of pro-life Super Bowl television ad would be more persuasive, in your opinion? There are 2 options listed: “Graphic” and “Nongraphic.” Vote on the lower right side of the home page. Here were the results of my previous poll about Father Pavone and Bishop Zurek, not […]

No one questions whether Bishop Patrick Zurek had the authority to place Father Frank Pavone on forced hiatus. Good people do question whether the bishop’s decision was warranted. That dispute aside, the bishop certainly must have realized that to abruptly and without warning bar Father Pavone from fulfilling his pro-life speaking obligations for an undefined […]

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.

Read backstory here. This fiasco left off with Bishop Patrick Zurek (pictured right) publicly announcing on October 6 a private meeting he had invited Father Frank Pavone to attend on October 13. When that meeting did not happen, Bishop Zurek appears to have misrepresented why it did not happen, quoting Amarillo Globe-News on October 14… […]

7:34p: Priests for Life has issued a statement entitled, “Diocese of Amarillo Issues Clarification Affirming Fr. Frank Pavone’s Good Standing and Character,” in conjunction with the letter below. 7:15p: A friend told me I’d soon eat the “I’ve got to move on” words in my previous post, because the Father Pavone issue is exploding. But […]

I’ve got to move on to other pro-life topics after this post but have several bullets of interest on the Pavone/Zurek scuffle… A “Free Father Frank!” Facebook page has just been launched, not by me, but I have been added as an administrator. With an annual revenue of $10.8 million (2008), Priests for Life brings […]