I am guessing it has to do with his coralling of Fr. Pavone. Yes, impressive credentials, but we know too well, in our Church as well as in our elective office, as in our universities, that other qualities trump credentials. In the case of the Church, that other quality is ‘robust manly orthodoxy’ - I don’t know if the good bishop possesses this, and I hope someone with first-hand experience will let us know.
I would disagree with that statement.
No one knows the circumstances of what is going on.
As a parish priest of Amarillo, Father Pavone might spend 4 weekends in Amarillo (or more) in a year.
That is not 4 weeks a year.
Also, Father Pavone is inseparable from Janet Morana. This might be the first time that those two have been apart for more than a week or two in quite a while (except when Janet goes on vacation).
As a former employee of PFL, I know a few things of what went from 2004 to 2006, but not that much.
It is possible that Bishop Zurek needs Father Frank in Amarillo for things like the group picture of priests.
It is also possible that there have been complaints lodged against PFL and/or Father Frank.
Having Father Frank in Amarillo allows the Bishop to have Father Frank aware of them, and answer/address them.
Does any of this imply wrong doing? No!
Ironically, one of the front page stories for the Diocese of Amarillo last week was about the 40 Days for Life vigil.
How many other dioceses will run front page stories on pro-life issues such as 40 Days for Life.
And yet many folks will condemn Bishop Zurek because he has Father Frank, a Diocesan priest of Amarillo, in the Diocese of Amarillo.
My final point is the following:
Father Frank is one of two children (to my knowledge). He, at times, acts like an only child of a family -- whom the family has spared the rod and spoiled the child.
I strongly disliked how Father Frank abuses resources for his creature comforts. But that is one of the reasons I left PFL, among others.