Fr. Frank Pavone and Bishop Patrick Zurek
Posted on 10/15/2011 6:21:01 AM PDT by NYer
.-
The Diocese of Amarillo confirmed to CNA that despite an invitation from Bishop Patrick J. Zurek, Fr. Frank Pavone did not meet with him on Oct. 13 and has instead asked for mediation.
“I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway,” Father David Deibel, canon lawyer for Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life, said in an Oct. 14 statement.
“All of us want this entire process to be carried out in private rather than through the media.”
On Oct. 6, Bishop Zurek had invited Fr. Pavone to come to his office and explained that his actions in the situation are tied to his pastoral concern for the national director of Priests for Life.
His invitation to meet privately with Fr. Pavone was the latest move after he called the priest back to the Amarillo diocese from his pro-life ministry in New York state.
The Amarillo Globe-News reported, however, that by 5 p.m. Thursday—diocesan office closing time—Fr. Pavone had failed to arrive.
“I would welcome a meeting with Father Pavone, face to face, a meeting as his bishop,” Bishop Zurek told the Globe-News. “I am still waiting for a favorable response to that.”
On the afternoon of Oct. 14, Fr. Pavone tweeted a link to a statement from Fr. Deibel, who said he advised Fr. Pavone to not meet with Bishop Zurek because the bishop has allegedly not responded to requests for mediation.
“The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking,” Fr. Deibel said.
“Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators,” he added. “Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.”
Fr. Deibel also accused Bishop Zurek of asking to meet one-on-one with Fr. Pavone and telling the priest to not write or speak of the meeting publicly.
“Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese,” Fr. Deibel said.
A response to the statement by Fr. Beibel from the diocese has not yet been issued.
The situation involving Fr. Pavone and his ministry with Priests for Life first became public when Bishop Zurek's issued a strongly-worded letter to his fellow bishops on Sept. 9. The bishop said in the letter that he had suspended Fr. Pavone from public ministry outside the diocese, beginning Sept. 13.
He cited “deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests for Life (PFL) organization.”
After the bishop’s suspension became public, Fr. Pavone produced professional audits of Priests for Life for the years 2005-2010, which he said were sent to the diocese every year. While the organization did well in previous years, Priests for Life ran a $1.4 million deficit in 2010.
Meanwhile, Fr. Pavone is appealing his suspension from active ministry outside the diocese to the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy and is denying charges that he disobeyed the bishop and failed to have Priests for Life audited.
Bishop Zurek clarified in an Oct. 6 statement that ultimately, he wants “what is best for all organizations that support and promote those teachings that come from the heart of the Catholic Church on the dignity and gift of human life.”
Additional information ping!
How about laying a little background on us?
The article is about as clear as Obozo’s citizenship.
What questions do you have?
Thanks, NYer. This unfortunate situation is of concern to me.
Is this just a local diocesan squabble or does it have more insidious detail?
What’s the aurgument between them....it didn’t specify.
Thanks for keeping us up to date on this, NYer. I am so relieved to hear that Fr. Pavone has a canon lawyer representing him, that he is asking for a mediator, and that the Vatican is very much involved.
Such a travesty.
Well, PFL usually draws around 10x the Amarillo diocese. That PFL showed a loss in 2010 isn’t really surprising, given the nature of the economy, but it’s too much for the diocese of Amarillo to cover over easily.
You have a bishop who’s presiding over a priest who’s responsible for a ministry that’s much, much larger than the diocese.
He was ordained by O’Connor in NYC, and stayed in that diocese, before switching over to Amarillo at his request. He used to serve under John Yanta who retired in 2008.
So you’ve got a new Bishop, working with Pavone, who’s already in a bit of an odd situation. He had permission to devote his vocation to the ministry in PFL, which meant that he was outside of Amarillo almost always. Now, it seems that Zurek is pushing for more regularlization, having him doing diocesan work in Amarillo.
Thank you Ben, for making the Amarillo situation much easier to understand.
Zurek is unhappy with PFL showing a loss, which is a problem for Amarillo, because PFL is much larger than the diocese of Amarillo. He wants to make sure that the losses were on the up and up, and to understand why they happened.
He also doesn’t seem to be happy with how things worked between Pavone and Bishop Yenta, his predecessor, with Fr. Pavone associated with the diocese yet not spending much time in it, while he works with Priests for Life all over the country.
Pavone, was happy with the status quo, enjoys his work with Priests for Life, and would like to get back doing it as quickly as possible. He’s unhappy that Zurek has recalled him, but has gone to Amarillo and remains there until Zurek and him work things out. Pavone isn’t happy with the communication between him and Zurek, and has requested a mediator to sort things out. He’s submitted a request to the Vatican to be incardinated under a different bishop, as he feels that Zurek’s actions have been detrimental to Priests for Life.
You’re welcome. I hope everyone’s sake that they can get this resolved soon to everyone’s satisfaction.
I’ve been following this story with great interest for almost a month now. It seems that every time the bishop says something in public, there’s irrefutable evidence to contradict him. He said Father Pavone was suspended and days later his Vicar for Clergy says he’s a priest in good standing. He says he didn’t get any documents and PFL produces an extensive list. He says he never got a response from Father Pavone about the meeting on October 13 and we find out that Father Pavone and other Church officials have told him numerous times to get a mediator. And now we find out that since the beginning of the year this bishop has been attempting to claim that PFL was never properly formed when PFL has documents dating back 20 years proving otherwise. I weep for my Church if bishop Zurek is the best we can produce.
Yes, that does seem to be the case, doesn’t it? Glad to see that Pavone has a canonist advising him. I’m sure that this will all work out for PFL.
Zurek isn’t doing himself any favors with his conduct. Especially here when Pavone attempted to meet with Zurek immediately only to be told by Zurek that he was busy.
In 2005, shortly after Pope Benedict XVI became pope, Father Frank moved from the Archdiocese of New York to the Diocese of Amarillo. The bishop of Amarillo then was John Yanta [now retired because of age].
Father Frank previously had to serve in a parish in New York on occasions [an agreement between the Archdiocese and Father Frank].
Under Bishop Yanta and Bishop Zurek, Father Frank only had to be a Diocesan priest of the Diocese of Amarillo a few Sundays/weekends a year.
The rest of the time, he was free to run Priests for Life.
Priests for Life is trying to establish a Bishop Yanta Pro-Life Center in Amarillo.
The status of that building is unknown.
Additionally, Father Frank Pavone wears more than one hat as National Director of Priests for Life
It is unclear to me why Father Frank is reluctant to meet with Bishop Zurek or why he would think he would need a mediator.
Part of the history that brought about the move from the Archdiocese of New York to the Diocese of Amarillo was that in 2001, Archbishop Egan of New York requested that Father Frank return to being a Diocesan priest in one of the parishes of the Archdiocese of New York.
At that time, a compromise was worked out that Father Frank would spend some weekends administering to the parishoners of St. Roch on Staten Island.
In fact, shortly before Peter Jennings died, he attended the Good Friday service given by Father Frank at St. Roch.
It was not public knowledge that Peter Jennings has cancer, and that was the last Easter of Peter Jennings life before his death.
How many weekends that Father Frank spends in Amarillo is not known to me.
At one time, all of the priests of Priests for Life had to spend time in Amarillo. To my knowledge, this is no longer true that this is a requirement for all of the priests of Priests for Life except Father Pavone.
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.