Posted on 09/10/2011 3:40:55 PM PDT by Flying Circus
Bishop Patrick J. Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, has requested that Father Frank Pavone, founder of Priests for Life, not engage in public ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo, effective September 13, 2011. Bishop Zurek has also asked that Catholics throughout the United States withhold financial support for Priests for Life until further notice. In bringing this to your attention, we are grateful to those who comply with Bishop Zurek's request.
The only thing I could find on the web was page 4 of the linked news letter that highlights issues with the ecclesiastical status of Fr. Pavone's Priests for Life and Missionaries of the Gospel of Life. http://www.dioceseoflascruces.org/includes/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/mailngs/2011/02-16-11.pdf
Anyone else know anything about this?
Oh no!!!!!! If anyone knows what this pertains to, please advise.
Fr. Frank said Mass today on EWTN
This is not good. Fr. Pavone does much good for the pro-life movement. Wasn’t he based in NY, at least at one time?
I don’t follow all these things that closely, but even I know of Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life.
I’m disturbed by this, very much.
I’m not a Catholic, but I admire F. Pavone’s work. I would tell the bishop what Peter said in Acts 5:29 “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men”.
To paraphrase Jesus in Matt23: “Do as they say, not as they do”.
I don’t think there is any impropriety other than some informality by Cardinals Quinn and O’Connor. I suspect that in the history of the Church many similar situations have arisen due to shortcuts taken by bishops. The good news is that PFL is not illicit and it seems that the bishop in this case is simply ensuring that everything is legally accurate - both in canon law and civil law. I suspect that what this is really about is to ensure the Church does not subject itself to civil liability in case PFL gets sued. Smart move. There are vicious people and organizations who hate the Church and what She stands for - so the Church has to protect itself.
The Priests For Life FAQ page at http://www.priestsforlife.org/faq/index.htm includes this item:
What is the status of Priests for Life in Canon Law? Priests for Life belongs to the category of “Associations of the Faithful,” which enable members of the Church who want to join such associations to work together to advance particular aspects of the work of the Church.
The following excerpt from http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Associations.pdf explains what a law association of the faithful is:
Types of Associations
Two broad categories of associations exist within the Church: public and private. Further distinctions made in law are beyond the parameters of this article [cf. Clerical associations (Canons 302) and third orders (Canon 303)].
“Associations of the faithful which are erected by competent ecclesiastical authority are called public
associations (Canon 301§3).” In the decree of erection, the competent authority must bestow public juridic personality on the association and grant it a mission by which it formally acts in the name of the Church (Canon 313). Only the Holy See, a conference of bishops or a diocesan bishop has the authority to erect a public association of the faithful (Canon 312). Before issuing a decree of erection, the competent authority must approve its statutes (Canon 314).
Only a public association can receive a mission to teach Christian doctrine in the name of the Church, promote public worship or pursue a purpose which by nature is reserved to ecclesiastical authority (Canon 301§1). As a public association, the members act in the name of the Church when fulfilling the purpose of the association. Because of its public nature, the authority who erected it has direct supervision over the association and specifically has the right to confirm the election of the moderator, install a moderator presented or name a moderator in accord with the approved statutes; name the
chaplain or ecclesiastical assistant (Canon 317§1); designate a trustee to temporarily direct the
association (Canon 318§1); remove the moderator for a just cause (Canon 318§2); direct and audit the administration of goods and reception of offerings and alms (Canon 319); suppress the association or otherwise declare it extinct in accord with law (Canons 320, 120§1).
In contrast, private associations exist by private agreement, freely made among members of the Christian faithful, with the intent to attain the aims mentioned in canon 298§1 (Canon 299§1). By far, private associations of the faithful are the most flexible and less restrictive means for the Christian faithful to pursue a common purpose as a group. While ecclesiastical authority maintains a certain degree of vigilance over private associations as noted above, the guidance and direction of the
association comes from the members in accord with its statutes (Canon 321). Any further influence and
involvement by ecclesiastical authority depends on the level of recognition the association seeks. From least to most structured, private associations are categorized as de facto, recognized, praised or recommended and private with juridic personality. Unless a private association receives juridic personality from competent ecclesiastical authority, the association itself has no rights or obligations in law. However, its members may collectively assert their rights and obligations, even by proxy (Canon
310). This will be further discussed in the example below.
A de facto association of the faithful exists by common agreement among its members but has no recognition from Church authority. Because this type of association seeks no recognition from the Church, its statutes do not require review by ecclesiastical authority.
This lack of review of statutes allows great flexibility in development and discharge of the apostolate. It also encourages less structure, which may promote conflict, division and ultimately the demise of the
association. The lack of review of statutes by competent authority encourages a perception of secrecy.
For this reason, the law clearly states that “no private association of the Christian faithful in the Church
is recognized unless its statues are reviewed by competent authority (Canon 299).”
Due to the necessity of structure for a de facto association to survive and flourish, all members should
have opportunity to participate in the writing of clear and concise statutes. The members should exercise cooperation, flexibility and most importantly sincerity of faith. Its moderator should possess strong administrative skills and a deep knowledge of the Catholic Church.
A de facto association that allows its statutes to be reviewed by competent ecclesiastical authority receives recognition as an association by that very fact (Canon 299§3). It is not necessary that the association receives approval of its statutes, nor that it even receives formal recognition. This presentation of statutes to the competent authority, usually the diocesan bishop, is simply a way of
informing the bishop that an association exists with a specific purpose congruent with those mentioned in canon 298§1. Because the association allows its structure and objectives to be known to competent authority, this step of recognition encourages greater dialogue and cooperation between the members of the association and the formal structures of the Church. At the same time, the association enjoys the same autonomy a de facto association enjoys.3
An association that is praised or recommended by Church authority but does not possess juridic personality enjoys similar autonomy and flexibility. The main difference rests in the level of review by competent ecclesiastical authority. While the law does not explicitly state that the bishop must approve the statutes before praising or recommending the association, certainly no bishop will praise or recommend a group that he does not agree with. If the association wants his praise and recommendation, it will have to accept his critiques and suggestions.
Many canon lawyers legitimately hold the opinion that being “recognized” requires a formal statement from competent authority. They further argue that being recognized is part of being praised and recommended. Anyone seeking these levels of approval should accept the opinion held by the authority approached.
Finally, a private association can receive private juridic personality. This occurs only after the competent authority has reviewed and approved the statutes and issued a formal decree granting juridic personality (Canon 322). While this is the most structured of private associations, Canon 322 explicitly mentions that the approval of statutes by competent authority does not change its private nature. This
clearly demonstrates the intent of the law to protect the autonomy of private associations and allow the
Christian faithful to freely guide and direct them according to the prescripts of the statutes (cf. Canon
321). With juridic personality, the association itself has rights and obligations in law. When asserting or vindicating rights and obligations, entering into contracts or performing any public act in the Church, it is not necessary that its members act collectively. Rather, the association itself acts when represented by legitimate authority according to its statutes.
As autonomous of formal Church structures, all private associations freely select their own moderator and officials, freely administer the goods they possess and freely choose their own spiritual advisor,
who must be confirmed by the local ordinary (Canons 324, 325).
I can understand the Church needing to limit any legal liability from those organizations (given they have angered some powerful interests), and given such I can understand withdrawing the founder from public ministry. What still confuses me is the request that Catholics not donate further to the group.
If all connections to the Church are severed, but are still doing good work, then why the request to stop supporting them?
Doesn’t Fr. Pavone belong to the Birmingham diocese?
No, Amarillo.
Yes, but that newsletter was Feb. 16 and the letter was January 24. In the 8 months intervening, the bishop appears to have decided to remove Fr. Pavone from the special assignment work and restrict him to his home diocese.
I didn’t see anything on the diocese’s website, but I guess that’s not saying anything.
Whatever the problem is, I should think it’ll be handled correctly. No bishop would stop that wonderful ministry.
Thanks. Wonder what the problem is that donations to this cause need to cease? Funding accountability?
Why?
Hello all,
I did some research concerning why:
Bishop Patrick J. Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, has requested that Father Frank Pavone, founder of Priests for Life, not engage in public ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo, effective September 13, 2011.
Bishop Zurek has also asked that Catholics throughout the United States withhold financial support for Priests for Life until further notice.
Please see the two articles below.
God bless.
Dcn. Daniel
FIRST ARTICLE:
Storm Clouds Over Amarillo
Catholicculture.org
By Diogenes | August 18, 2008 12:14 PM
Don’t look now, but the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, the religious order founded in 2005 by Father Frank Pavone, has quietly been disbanded. The Missionaries continue to exist as a lay association, but the lay members may be confused, since they originally signed up as lay affiliates of an order that no longer exists.
The disappearance of the religious order reflects a decision by the Amarillo (Texas) diocese, ratified by the Vatican. In the long run, the move may presage further troubles for Priests for Life, Father Pavone’s more successful venture. The Missionaries were only a small part of the overall operation of Priests for Life. In fact, Church leaders had grown increasingly concerned that the religious order could be inappropriately controlled by a secular corporation— and a corporation with a strong political bent, at that. But there’s more to the story. Church officials in Amarillo and in Rome were reportedly concerned about possible confusion in fundraising between the religious order and the secular corporation. Beyond that there were— and still are— concerns about the successful fundraising by Priests for Life, a group that has been raising tidy sums with minimal ecclesiastical control.
Father Pavone is no stranger to conflict with diocesan officials. He enjoys his independence. Diocesan officials are rarely comfortable with priests who operate independently. So a conflict should not come as a surprise.
Nearly a year ago, when this conflict was first beginning to unfold behind the scenes, Father Pavone made an unusually acerbic column on his blog:
Put simply, there are too many leaders in the Church who are more concerned about controlling God’s work than about doing God’s work. The control freaks want everything done at their command and according to their specifications - or not done at all.
Now you know what that was about. But to be fair, the same criticism might be turned on Father Pavone, who has been reluctant to cede any control over his own movement.
The question isn’t whether or not the Church will support pro-life work. The question is whether priests and religious, when they engage in pro-life work, remain subject to ecclesiastical discipline.
The answer, by the way, is Yes. You can learn that the easy way or learn it the hard way.
SECOND ARTICLE:
See pages 3 to 5 at the below website.
Praying for Fr. Pavone and for everyone involved. May the Lord bless him and his work.
In these situations, one or more of three things operates: money, sex and power.
My guess is that Fr. Pavone/ Priest for Life has too much money and power for the liking of the local Bishop who wants to rein him in.
And two, with the 2012 elections coming up the Obama administration put pressure on the bishop to rein in Pavone who could make sure significant numbers of people don’t vote for Obama because Obama loves abortion. The Obama admin. would threaten to cut off the diocese’s tax exempt status and since money is always important to bishops, the bishop would sit up and take notice of that threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.