Posted on 09/15/2011 5:02:57 PM PDT by markomalley
Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, has said that if his bishop does not allow him to return to full-time pro-life work, he will consider being incardinated in a different diocese or founding a religious order to continue his pro-life ministry.
The well-known pro-life priest also said that he had been actively talking with Bishop Patrick J. Zurek of Amarillo, Texas for months about spending more time in the diocese before the bishop forbid him from ministry outside of the diocese.
In an interview with CNA, Fr. Pavone said that he arrived in Amarillo on Sept. 13, in obedience to Bishop Zurek’s order, but found that the bishop left town that day and would be out of the country for two weeks.
Fr. Pavone said that he does not know when he will be able to meet with the bishop, or how long he wants him to stay in the diocese.
He said that he has been given no assignment and left no instructions, so he is continuing to do work for Priests for Life from Amarillo.
He stressed that he has not been suspended from working for Priests for Life and that he still maintains all of his priestly faculties as a priest in good standing. The bishop’s only order was that he return to work in the Amarillo diocese.
According to Fr. Pavone, the bishop initially expressed a desire for him to spend more time in the diocese to fill a need for pastoral work.
The two clergymen had talked about an arrangement that would allow Fr. Pavone to come to the diocese periodically for several weeks in order to do pastoral work. In the course of this discussion Bishop Zurek asked for dates that he would be able to come to Amarillo.
“I sent him those dates two or three weeks ago,” the priest said.
But according to Fr. Pavone, the bishop never acknowledged receiving the dates, and instead sent a letter to the U.S. bishops accusing him of disobedience and demanding that he return immediately.
Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, told The Catholic Review that he supports Bishop Zurek’s decision.
“I appreciate Bishop Patrick Zurek’s statement and would hope that Father Pavone would adhere fully to the requests of his bishop,” Archbishop O’Brien said. “Bishop Zurek has been so very patient and thorough in dealing with this matter over many months. I appreciate his decision and support it completely.”
Monsignor Harold Waldow, vicar of clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo, said that while Fr. Pavone submitted financial information for Priests for Life, he failed to do so for two other affiliated nonprofit groups, Rachel’s Vineyard and Missionaries of the Gospel of Life.
“Two of the major pieces of the international pro-life movement and national pro-life movement are missing,” he told the Amarillo Globe-News.
“This is patrimony of the Church. It belongs to the Church,” Msgr. Waldow said. “People give their money over the understanding that it goes to the Church or Church auspices and programs and ministries.”
“I’m sure that our bishop does not stand alone on this,” he added. “I think Rome has been quite clear the bishops of the United States need to exercise more prudential guidance and governance over the patrimony of the Church.”
Meanwhile, on the afternoon of Sept. 15 Msgr. Waldow issued a clarification that said: “because there is dispute about the auditing process and the complete audit for all the entities of Priests for Life, Rachel’s Vineyard, and the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life does not mean that Father Pavone is being charged with any malfeasance or being accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters of Priests for Life.”
While Fr. Pavone has appealed his bishop’s decision to the Vatican, he says this is not a sign of disobedience or unwillingness to talk to Bishop Zurek.
“We have been talking with the bishop for years about these issues,” he said, explaining that he was only appealing to the Vatican on areas where he and the bishop had been unable to reach an agreement.
Fr. Pavone also added that he is following the prescribed procedure for a Vatican appeal, and that he has had a close working relationship with the Vatican for years.
“It is natural and normal that they already know about this,” he said.
If he is not allowed to continue his work with Priests for Life, Fr. Pavone explained that he is looking into the possibility of being incardinated into a different diocese.
“I do have various options,” he said. “The Church is bigger than Amarillo. The Church is the Church.”
Fr. Pavone noted that the reason he had initially come to Amarillo was to be able to run his pro-life ministry, which he did with permission from the bishop. He emphasized that he has always run Priests for Life with the approval of the bishop.
“I have experienced the call to full-time pro-life work,” he said. “I want to do that for the rest of my life.”
“It’s a vocational matter,” he added, explaining that he has never had the slightest doubt about his call to the priesthood, or about his call to pro-life work. He does not see them as incompatible but believes that he is called to both.
Fr. Pavone stated that he is “confident” that he will be able to work toward a positive resolution with both Bishop Zurek and the Vatican. He believes that part of the solution may lie in creating a new type of pro-life ministry within the Church.
Canon law allows for many movements and structures within the Church, Fr. Pavone explained. Religious communities are the most well-known, but there are also other ways to commit to a particular cause within the Church.
He said that he would be open to pursuing such a structure to welcome the commitments of both religious and lay people who feel called to give their whole lives to the pro-life cause.
Fr. Pavone pointed to saints who founded religious orders to devote their lives to working with the poor or disabled. Opposition from the local church was sometimes present as part of the “growing pains” of beginning their ministry, he explained.
“But ultimately, the Church vindicates the mission,” he said.
That statement worries me greatly.
Obedience to one's bishop is supposed to be foundational to being a priest.
Issuing a threat does not sound like obedience to me.
Uh-oh. This does not sound good.
Right now. he is obeying his Bishop. I look at this more as a bargaining session.
Do you want me to be a parish priest?
I am dedicated to the pro-life movement.
Could you be a parish priest?
For a little while, but I am seriously considering dedicating my life to the pro-life movement. How can we solve this? Should I move to another diocese? Start mt own order?
But according to Fr. Pavone, the bishop never acknowledged receiving the dates, and instead sent a letter to the U.S. bishops accusing him of disobedience and demanding that he return immediately."
I have been expecting this ever since Fr. Corapi was suspended. I told several friends, "Satan is sifting the good priests. Watch out! Fr. Pavone will be next!" Simply because he is good, effective, and GODLY.
I suspect the above situation is deliberate, although saying it is at the bishop's behest is not what I am getting at. I believe there is somebody in these chanceries who is deliberately "losing" crucial correspondence and mixing signals, for the express purpose of alienating good priests and removing them from ministry.
Maybe Corapi, could join Pavone’s new “order”
I am a catholic. This priest has been my hero for years. I left the church. I will leave again if it does not support pro life every single time. No exceptions.
I am a catholic. This priest has been my hero for years. I left the church. I will leave again if it does not support pro life every single time. No exceptions.
In the Church, people have roles, maybe he doesn’t want a role of the Priest.
We should just pray that he finds the place God wants him to fill in his plan.
The bishop is hinting an accounting problem...that could mean someone is siphoning money from the books, which happens all the time. (I had a nurse do this when I was in private practice...took awhile to figure it out).
Pavone is in charge, but that doesn't mean he could pick this up, since he isn't an accountant
The clue would be the bishop: Is he a "good guy" or is he one of the ones who dislikes conservative Catholics? Is Pavone in trouble because there is a problem with the books (which he might not be aware of) or because Pavone opposed the Florida bishop over Terry Schiavo?
Exactly.
It seems to me that the office no longer works well within the original structure.
Having an archbishop specifically assigned to them as in charge of a religious order would make the most sense to me.
This is one way to see that change happen.
Blessings to Fr. Pavone. He’s a hero to me, but I made a vow to the Church and I will not go back on that vow.
Here is the problem. Money. Father Pavone has it and the Church wants it. Undoubtedly. The Church is the Church after all and directs priests and religious orders through the office of the Bishops. Correct? So the dilemma is the Church after loosely attaching its authority over ministries is now seeking to assert it now and it is going to be a difficult transition. When one or two priests preside over quite a financial enterprise it is very different from the saints who suffered their mission in poverty. The attraction of the Church is its poverty and humility and obedience to Christ.
On the other hand, it can be presumed that when people give to Priests for Life, Rachael’s Vineyard, etc., they want their money to go to those ministerial missions. They think their tithe goes to the Church. I don’t know enough about this I’m sure, but there is that pesky vow to obedience to one’s Bishop. What a dilemma. Round about their are those who prick and peck at the orthodoxy of EWTN and would like to see its demise. I pray that EWTN is up to speed and in perfect allignment with the Church and with Rome so that they will enjoy the protection of Rome from the cafeteria Catholics in the USA. They certainly have zero profit bottom line.
One thing that has really left a bad taste in my mouth is the very public, personal, and vitriolic tone of the bishop’s letter. It was uncalled for. There was no reason for the bishop to make comments about Fr. Pavone’s ego. It was classless. He could have and should have kept the tone on a much higher plane. Also, using the word “suspended” was totally inaccurate and out of line. It has an obvious connotation and explicit meaning that is both unnecessary and inaccurate in the current situation. I’m very suspicious of the bishop’s motivation. I find it curious when a bishop so publicly and stridently reprimands a priest when money is involved, but not when doctrine or abuses of the liturgy are involved.
For his part, Fr. Pavone would do well to simply shut up and do what his bishop is asking him to do, and pursue his appeal with quiet calm and magnanimity.
Fr. Pavone is going to the Vatican for assistance in continuing the ministry of which the Bishop had previously approved, he's not going off on his own. He's working for Priests for Life, out of Amarillo, since the Bishop didn't leave an assignment for Fr. Pavone, before he left town.
Fr. Pavone DOES want the role of a priest. He believes he has a ministry in the Priests for Life, which is a powerful work for the Church. He has no desire to leave the priesthood, but he wants to operate within the pro-life ministry. His Bishop allowed him to do so, for a while, but now seems to have changed his mind.
Fr. Pavone mentioned in his public statement that Priests for Life has had independent audits for years, and that those financial documents were went to his Bishop regularly. From the article above, it seems as though there were a couple of other ministries, Rachel's Vineyard being one, that they didn't like acting independently. The article claims that it is a Church group, and as such, should come under the aegis of one of the Bishops, but I don't know if Rachel's Vineyard was begun by a parish or diocesan group, or if it is private.
John said, “He who says he abides in him so ought to walk, even as he walked.” The Master was a Torah Observant Jew. What time is it? Time to get on the road of return. Come home to Torah.
John said, “He who says he abides in him so ought to walk, even as he walked.” The Master was a Torah Observant Jew. What time is it? Time to get on the road of return. Come home to Torah.
Oh, no. Please understand I didn’t mean to imply that this was an unusual outcome, just that IMHO, it may be the best thing for Priests for Life.
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.