Posted on 10/18/2011 1:57:54 PM PDT by topher
In a 1,883-word plea for donations, the Rev. Frank Pavone warns of “heralds of the culture of death who seek to ... use my current situation to mislead people into thinking that they are wasting their precious pro-life dollars by entrusting them to Priests for Life.”
The anti- abortion charity based in Staten Island, N.Y., over the last decade has channeled more than $1.4 million to its nonprofit affiliates, spent $2.4 million on a ministry that soon went defunct and shelled out more than $250,000 in loans to an employee and a check to an entity in Europe.
Over the same period, Priests for Life has raked in tens of millions of dollars in donations while questions over finances recently have mounted, leading to a clash between Pavone and Amarillo Bishop Patrick J. Zurek that began as early as January, almost eight months before the priest arrived in town at the bishop’s command.
Those are among the details that emerged in an analysis of records related to Pavone, his charities and Zurek’s recent decision to restrict Pavone’s ministry over concerns about the finances of the anti- abortion groups he leads.
Zurek’s scathing Sept. 9 letter to U.S. bishops announcing his decision to order Pavone to Amarillo captured headlines, but a Jan. 24 missive to the same group adds light and murk, revealing deeper roots to the conflict and raising new questions about Priests for Life’s connection to the church.
The bishop declared Priests for Life was not and never had been officially associated with the church, contrary to the charity’s assertions both before the letter and after it.
That provides another wrinkle in the thickening tension between the priest and his bishop.
The two were to talk privately Thursday, but the meeting never took place, Zurek said.
“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,” said Pavone’s canon lawyer, the Rev. David Deibel.
A former consultant to the Servants of the Paraclete, a Catholic ministry to troubled priests, Deibel said the bishop had ignored Pavone’s requests for mediation. The bishop could not be reached for a response.
But the larger issue is about money. Priests for Life spokesman Jerry Horn repeatedly has denied requests for more details and explanations.
The records raise questions, in other words, that Pavone and his men have yet to answer.
Priests for Life has raked in $5 million to almost $11 million a year since 2002, according to its tax returns.
It finished 2010 with a $1.4-million revenue shortfall, according to an audit the nonprofit provided to Zurek and posted on its website.
The organization reported in that document an outstanding $878,000 loan to Gospel of Life Ministries, accumulated since 2007.
“Charities really aren’t in the business of providing loans to other charities, their staff, their board,” said Sandra Minuitti, spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, a nonprofit watchdog group based in New Jersey.
“I would think if you had something like that (outstanding), you would want to get it paid quickly.”
Gospel of Life’s fundraising could be hamstrung. The IRS automatically revoked the group’s tax-exempt status last year after it failed to provide required financial reports to the agency.
The organization faces potential federal, state and local tax liabilities and can no longer legally represent donations as tax-deductible.
Gospel of Life is an interfaith lay association that provides support for Priests for Life, the latter’s website said. Gospel of Life is independent from the Catholic church.
The loan was seed money for Gospel of Life television programming used by Priests for Life, the group’s audit states. Priests for Life also shelled out $280,903 in loans and to cover expenses for Rachel’s Vineyard, another affiliate, in 2004 and 2005.
That group’s revenue shortfall of more than $280,000 in 2005 was enough for auditors to express “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”
Rachel’s Vineyard still owed the money to Priests for Life in 2006, but the organization’s 2007 return noted no obligation. In 2008, Priests for Life made a $334,683 grant to Rachel’s Vineyard.
Other transactions listed in Priest for Life records include pre-paid expenses of $2.4 million in 2007 and 2008 for advance work for the now-defunct Missionaries of the Gospel of Life apostolic society, a $130-million seminary plan announced for Amarillo but canceled.
Pavone planned to train priests to follow in his footsteps to fight abortion and euthanasia. The society ultimately was rejected by the now- retired Amarillo Bishop John W. Yanta and Rome.
In addition, Priests for Life carried a $170,000 loan to an unnamed employee on its books in 2007, 2008 and 2010 audits and tax returns. The IRS form calls for the recipient’s name to be logged.
The charity also left blank the name of the foreign entity it paid $85,000 in 2008. The tax return form calls for the nonprofit to list the area or region of the recipient. Priests for life listed a continent — Europe.
“That’s not really kosher,” Minuitti said. “That’s not filling out the document appropriately. Part of that is the government’s interest in seeing where money is flowing overseas. I don’t think it’s OK to not fill that section out.”
Notes accompanying Priests for Life’s 2010 audit attribute its shortfall that year to reduced charitable contributions in a down economy. The audit shows the organization had to obtain a $128,000 short-term loan “for working capital.” The loan and its interest must be paid by Dec. 31.
That forms the background to Pavone’s online plea.
“It is vital that you maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fight to end legalized abortion-on- demand in America,” he writes. “Send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today.
“Not an hour from now. Not later this evening. Not tomorrow. But right now!”
Gospel of Life’s fundraising could be hamstrung. The IRS automatically revoked the group’s tax-exempt status last year after it failed to provide required financial reports to the agency.
In addition, Priests for Life carried a $170,000 loan to an unnamed employee on its books in 2007, 2008 and 2010 audits and tax returns. The IRS form calls for the recipient’s name to be logged.
Priests for Life needs to follow IRS rules.
One thing, as I understand it, if there is some trouble with the church [Catholic Church or whomever], the government will allow the church to try to clean its own house and inform the proper people [Bishop Zurek] about the problem.
Having trouble with the IRS given Obama is in the White House is a serious problem...
There is scarcely a secular newspaper in the country that is not pro-abortion, so I would venture to say that this is a hit piece on the pro-life movement. And if, as it appears, this bishop is a liberal of questionable views, then naturally they would side with him.
Priests for Life has done a great job spreading the pro-life word among priests and lay Catholics during a time when the bishops have failed to do so themselves.
I am not immediately familiar with Gospel for Life, but I would presume the idea is to bring Christians of all different denominations together to work in the pro-life cause. I have been a Catholic working with Evangelicals for many years, and I can say that while most Evangelicals are strongly pro-life now, they were NOT in the early years after Roe v. Wade. The first people to take up the pro-life banner were Catholic lay persons, and a few priests like Fr. Pavone and Fr. Marx (the founder of HLI, before he was removed by HIS superior).
Gospel of Life has a series of TV programs done by Father Frank Pavone. I imagine that might be where most of the money may have gone -- TV programs.
But one cannot dodge the IRS regardless.
I would hesitate to call them IRS problems as all the IRS, in some cases, is doing is asking for more information.
Well, sure, it could be a problem. But let’s face it, it is IMPOSSIBLE not to fail to dot and i or cross a t so the IRS can’t send you a letter, if they feel like it. My personal IRS form is incredibly complicated; I hate to think how complicated filling out a form for an organization like this would be.
I once was called into the nearby IRS office to go over my previous year’s tax form. The reason was that I had deducted for a home office, and the IRS was trying to kill that option by harassing anyone who took it.
We spent more than three hours going through all my my records and documents. At the end of three hours, we found one error. I owed the IRS another $10 because I had added up one bunch of charitable deductions wrong.
So, the IRS agent spent three hours and got $10. Unpleasant as the whole business was, that rather pleased me.
I disagree that Bishop Zurek is liberal.
He is being portrayed that way because he is trying to resolve this situation.
In the Clergy abuse case, Bishops not doing anything about bad priests was a problem.
Father Frank is answerable to Bishop Zurek.
” Gospel of Life has a series of TV programs done by Father Frank Pavone. I imagine that might be where most of the money may have gone — TV programs. “ <<<
That is the first plausible piece of information I have yet heard on expeditures of so many millions of dollars. Leaks here and there, but nothing detailing anything near the millions over 8 or so years. Television programming is VERY expensive. The reporter used a sour tone and loaded terms against Father Pavone, like “raked in”, and mocked his passionate plea for continued funding to PTL. Until the facts are all known it is very irritating to read the about pro-Life affairs and efforts in blistering tones. Regardless, most of us will always remember it was Pavone who stood alone with the Schiavo family when others would not and spoke powerfully for Catholics. Others stood....well, nevermind where they may have stood.
I am not sure what the arrangements are for the filming -- but I am sure that having more than one pro-life organization use the same TV studio makes it more feasible for both groups to use.
"That group’s revenue shortfall of more than $280,000 in 2005 was enough for auditors to express “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”"
I don't see how the Bishop technically responsible for oversight of Pavone could ignore the above way back in 2005. Nor do I see why people are upset with the Bishop, particularly when you read further and find :
"In addition, Priests for Life carried a $170,000 loan to an unnamed employee on its books in 2007, 2008 and 2010 audits and tax returns. The IRS form calls for the recipient’s name to be logged."
That's more than a warning sign according to everything I was taught and have seen. If I were going to be upset with the Bishop it would be over why he didn't know about this and have Pavone over for a little chat in 2007 or at the least, 2008. Is the Bishop now different from the one who was responsible at that time? I'm not real clear on that.
Loans to individuals who are not officers of the company are irregular, in fact they’re irregular enough that the accounting firms I have worked with (AA, E&W, PMM) always wanted them flagged as worthy of detailed investigation if anything other than basic accuracy of record keeping were being audited. In fact, they're one of the most commonly used ways to siphon money out of an organization (either a for profit or nonprofit), and therefore are a magnet for scrutiny in a really rigorous audit intended to confirm proper use of funds rather than only proper accounting practices being followed.
I really think there needs to be a standard set of rules that hands an organization started by a Priest to some sort of governing body once it grows beyond a certain point rather than remaining under the control of either the Priest or a Bishop. There's no reason why the priest can't still be just as actively involved and when the Bishop responsible for that Priest has a problem with the Priest it won't be automatically related to the money in the minds of so many people. The Bishop is responsible for the Priest, the organization should be something neither the Priest or the Bishop can use as a club on the other. JMHO
Regards
Sad.
Have given to PFL in the past.
It is my personal opinion, having worked for PFL, for Father Frank to responsible for less organizaations.
He was on the board of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform at one time.
And besides being the National Director of PFL, he is also:
(1) head of Gospel of Life
(2) Rachel's Vineyards
as well as other possible organizations.
There have been a number of issues that needed resolving between PFL and the Diocese of Amarillo in the past 5 years.
I would say that Bishop Zurek still needed to pick up the ball, though...
Patrick Zurek has been Bishop of Amarillo since 2008, although Rev. Pavone has been in conflict with his bishops in New York and Amarillo before that. Pavone’s fan club encouraging his defiance has undoubtedly caused or added to the problem.
Pro-Life bump
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.