Posted on 09/28/2011 7:57:24 AM PDT by dangus
I'm incensed at the speed at which the conservative movement is throwing Fr. Frank Pavone under the bus, amounting to a nasty smear campaign. Here are some facts:
1. Fr. Frank Pavone is not being disobedient. With the approval of his ordinary, and in the presence of a Vatican Curial official, Fr. Frank Pavone took a vow to perpetually work in his pro-life ministry. I can buy that he is obliged under his obedience as a priest to resolve any perceived ambiguities between that vow and his priestly office in favor of his bishop, but that is exactly what he has done. The suggestion that he is inherently disobedient by appealing his case to the Vatican is ludicrous; he is morally obliged to resolve his vows, which are placed at odds with each other by his bishop.
2. There is no lack of transparency. Priests For Life is governed by a Board of Advisors which includes TWENTY-ONE bishops and cardinals. Fr. Pavone's claim that they have responded to every request for documentation about spending has not been "corrected" or amended by any of them, and therefore if he is lying, TWENTY-ONE bishops and Cardinals are complicit in the deceit. I'll believe the TWENTY-ONE bishops and Cardinals over the implications of one, since Bishop Zurek did not specify any one piece of documentation Fr. Pavone failed to provide. Further, as constituted under the direction of the Vatican as a separate non-profit entity, Priests for Life is subject to and has performed independent audits of its expenses and fundraising.
3. Bishop Zurek's behavior in the matter is quite troubling. He didn't simply summon Fr. Pavone, but issued a press release that is sure to cause grave permanent damage not to Fr. Pavone personally, but the Priests For Life movement. The letter makes very public insinuations, about disobedience and financial improprieties, yet utterly failes to justify, specify, or document its concerns.
I think Fr. Pavone makes a very strong case for his organization's financial propriety:
“I also want to point out that, according to the canon law of the Catholic Church, because I have begun this process of appeal to Rome, the Bishop’s order that I return to Amarillo has been effectively suspended. Nevertheless, because of my great respect for this Bishop and my commitment to be fully obedient at all times, I am reporting to Amarillo this Tuesday, in hopes that I can sort this problem out with the Bishop in a mutually agreeable and amicable way.*Keep in mind that I AM THE ONE criticizing the diocese. Nothing in his letters or public statements does so.“I would like to note that, unlike other organizations, which have sometimes been critical of the Church hierarchy or other institutions within the Church, Priests for Life has always remained 100% supportive of the Bishops, never criticizing any Church official,* and always acting as a megaphone for the Bishops’ pro-life statements. Moreover, we serve dioceses and their priests and laity without asking for any speakers’ fees, and distribute millions of pieces of pro-life literature to dioceses completely free of charge. We do not seek parish collections, and we work to reinforce in each diocese the local pastoral plan which the bishop wants to implement for pro-life activities.
"...In the interest of full transparency, I would like to make it known that I do not receive any salary or financial remuneration from either the Diocese of Amarillo or from Priests for Life. Priests for Life, as a Private Association of the Christian Faithful, does provide for my residence and the expenses associated with the ministry, but these expenses are very small. Though, as a diocesan priest, I have never taken a vow of poverty, I have basically chosen to live in that fashion in solidarity with the pre-born children we are trying to protect—who are the poorest of the poor.
Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
Sounds like he needs a few years of quiet ministering to the Faithful in the Dumas, Texas parish
IMO it would be very wise for Fr. Pavone to keep his yap shut while this is going on. Pavone needs to stop kicking against the goad. That he hasn't IMO is telling, either re financial propriety (less likely) or re ecclesial authority/submission (more likely).
The enemy is on the hunt. He is a big target for smear. He makes a diffference.
If you've only been reading what's in the secular press, I'm sure you would have that notion. The FACTS prove otherwise, but the pro-abortion MSM is happy to give a false impression, because they want to discredit the pro-life movement every chance they get.
Fr. Pavone is being obedient to his Bishop, as he knows he should be, and he's continuing his pro-life work while waiting for his parish assignment.
There has been a lot of chatter from some pro-life groups being very ugly to the Bishop, and Fr. Frank has asked them NOT to do that. It reflects badly on Fr. Frank, even though he is not the instigator of the ugliness.
I agree. This looks, on the surface anyway, like a private issue between the bishop and Fr. Pavone. I don't see how it does anyone any good for either party to keep making these public statements, whether they be unfounded accusations, or statements about obedience despite Vatican appeals.
The very best thing that we can do is pray for this situation...and for the virtue of humility for all persons involved.
If Ed Peters intends to be taken seriously, he can avoid outrageous and polemical comparisons in his title. Father Pavone does not envision a “parish without boundaries,” but, then, he is not and never was, a parish priest, but one who was assigned a role directly by the Vatican.
I just lost a LOT of respect for you.
>> Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. <<
By that logic, every person accused of anything may be regarded as guilty. And all any opponent ever needs to do is make an insinuation.
Dr. Peters make some good points, but he also puts his foot (rather gingerly) into the manure, as well... by choosing to scold Fr. Pavone for his “imflammatory and injudicious language”, while giving the bishop a free pass in that same regard. IMHO, Dr. Peters should be even-handed in scolding “rhetoric”, or he should button his lip on that particular point; it only makes him look biased and meddlesome.
>> Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Sounds like he needs a few years of quiet ministering to the Faithful in the Dumas, Texas parish <<
By that standard we can presume guilt whenever an accusation is made, thereby empowering enemies of Christ (not referring to Bp. Zurek here) to destroy any ministry at will.
FYI, he's not the only Bishop reining in priests in the pro-life movement. Bishop Cupcik in Seattle, and Bishop Vienneau in Québec are also attempting to silence or limit priests from speaking out against abortion, homosexuality, etc.
Obviously the word has come down from Rome that priests, no matter how in accord with Church teaching they may be, are not to free-lance without hierarchical permission.
I would say Peters does more than give a pass to the bishop on the use of inflammatory rhetoric. I see that he has slandered Pavone by calling Pavone’s rhetoric inflammatory, when it is quite certainly the opposite. (Has anyone READ what Pavone has written, before presuming it’s inflammatory?) Further, I see that he has done so in a manner which is, itself, absurdly inflammatory. A priest who willingly submits to his bishop’s recall, even though canon law specifically says he does not need to, is behaving like one of the history’s great villains of anti-Catholicism?
Agreed. Dr. Peters does make a plausible case for the idea that Fr. Pavone is canonically required to return to the Diocese for the time being, but the letter by the bishop (which, to be fair, was leaked, and not necessarily by the bishop or his staff; any nutty person who had hold of it could have done that) read like one big, petulant temper tantrum—short on substance and restraint, and very long on innuendo, detraction, rash judgment, and a host of other no-nos from moral theology (or even common sense). I’d want Fr. Pavone to be very careful in following the letter of the law (so as not to give the Bishop any “legitimate” ammo, after the fact), which is why I’d like him to keep as low a profile as possible until this blows over, but I agree that the bishop really destroyed much of the respect that he might once have had.
dangus, it is simply untrue that Father Pavone is anywhere near being “one who was assigned a role directly by the Vatican”. Never happened. Only because Fr. Pavone himself uttered his own dedication to pro life ministry in the presence of the ordaining Bishop has such a proposal now been stretched and to a leap that somehow the Bishop, or the Vatican, “assigned” Pavone anything, beyond the simple, clear duty of ordainment to the priesthood. I love the works of dear Father Pavone. I certainly remember him best, standing with the Schiavo family when those in high places would not. I am not “against” Fr. Pavone, and I understand that it can appear that Pavone has millions and the diocese wants it, but truly there are some ordinary accounting questions any oversight authority would be asking, like for instance why both staff and the website for Priests for Life state that donations are tax free when they lost their IRS tax exempt status 16 months ago, and why only 65% of monies from donations go to the cause which is lower than most charities. Just a few assurances are needed and this Bishop is simply asking. Pavone’s reaction to this oversight seems to have been defensive from the get-go, instead of remaining patient with his Bishop’s questions and concerns for understanding the financial shape of PFL, and his Bishop’s role of ultimate responsibility for the engagements of any and all priests in his diocese. For good or ill, it is the Bishop who bears the responsibility that his diocesan priests are competent in leading missions and orders, are IRS compliant, but most of all that they still are priests first. PFL is fierce force against evil and its members are just as competent as any one leader, so the mission will go on. It’s not about a man, it’s about a mission.
True- the difficulty comes from discerning whether the flames originate with the accused or the accuser....
By the way, Fr. Pavone was a parish priest at one time.
>> PFL is fierce force against evil and its members are just as competent as any one leader, so the mission will go on. It’s not about a man, it’s about a mission. <<
That’s why the handling of this is so upsetting. It’s Priests For Life that the bishop is destroying, not just Fr. Pavone.
>> Just a few assurances are needed and this Bishop is simply asking. <<
The letter makes accusations, not questions. I don’t know how anyone of a reasonable mind can interpret the bishop’s letter as “asking questions,” especially since there are no specifics, so no answer is possible.
>> Only because Fr. Pavone himself uttered his own dedication to pro life ministry in the presence of the ordaining Bishop has such a proposal now been stretched and to a leap that somehow the Bishop, or the Vatican, “assigned” Pavone anything, <<
No-one ever stated that Fr. Pavone didn’t ASK to be assigned, but the vow was made, and approved, and supported by the Vatican. But I fully acknowledged that such a vow must be secondary to his priestly vows; contrary to the hysteria floating around this, however, Fr. Pavone has acted in complete obedience.
>> and why only 65% of monies from donations go to the cause which is lower than most charities. <<
1. And how is it that you know this? Because it is public record? Doesn’t that blow a gigantic hole in the criticism?
2. That’s actually not lower than most charities. In fact, for a “get the message out” organization, it’s pretty good, since “content providers,” and communications & technology infrastructure are counted as “administrative.” (I’ve worked for organizations with far higher percentages, but that was because we were industry leaders, and much more of our political action was able to be characterized as “going to the cause.”
FURTHER, it was not “Priests for Life” which had its tax-deductible status revoked, but the much, much smaller “Gospel of Life,” which Fr. Pavone does also run. So please stop spreading hugely financially damaging libel about “Priests for Life”!!!!! You’ll have people thinking that they need to amend their tax returns!
As for “Gospel of Life,” there does seem to be a screw-up, but hardly financial impropriety.
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.