 |
| Fr. Frank Pavone at the U.S. Supreme Court |
For a full year, while an investigation was pending, Father Pavone was restricted to working from a small cell in a Texas convent. He was unable to continue his travel and speaking schedule on behalf of the unborn. The high-profile case was sent to the Vatican for review.
 |
| Bishop Zurek |
Bishop Zurek is quoted in the Long Island Catholic:
“My concerns included some restructuring of PFL so that it would have juridic personality and become a true ecclesial association. Also included was a request for more adequate and transparent reporting of finances to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Both of these requests have been favorably addressed by the Congregation of Clergy.”
A year ago, in November 2012, the Congregation for Clergy had ruled that since the principal office of Priests For Life is in the Archdiocese of New York, the Archbishop of New York is the competent authority to exercise vigilance over the association.
“I am happy that this process is at an end," Bishop Zurek wrote in his most recent letter, "and I hope and pray that Father Pavone and PFL may now continue its important work in the defense of all human life, especially that of the unborn.”
This is the real story - " A year ago, in November 2012, the Congregation for Clergy had ruled that since the principal office of Priests For Life is in the Archdiocese of New York, the Archbishop of New York is the competent authority to exercise vigilance over the association."
ReplyDeleteThis means that the Texas Diocese Bishop who was causing the problems has/has no authority over "Priests for Life" or their money.
Most Catholics would trust Fr. Pavone over the Bishop whose Diocese received bad audits.
.
I wonder how many babies were killed because of the actions of this Bishop. He harmed the reputation of the "Priests for Life" and Fr. Pavone.
I hope Fr. Pavone will be speaking again soon.
Anonymous is oversimplifying this!
DeleteFor the record, I am a pro-life priest, and I think Priests For Life has done and continues to do good work. However, Fr. Pavone hitched his wagon (and that of PFL) to the Diocese of Amarillo at a time when things were not going his way in the Big Apple! The tide subsequently turned in Texas Panhandle (new Bishop and all) and suddenly, Fr. Pavone decided he didn't like his arrangement with Amarillo. He was effectively operating as sacerdos vagus (a wandering priest) and Bishop Zurek tried to rein him in for good reason. PFL does good work, and Fr. Pavone is a good man, though he occasionally strikes me as a bit of an egotist! I see no need to malign Bishop Zurek suggesting this the death of unborn children can be attributed to the actions he took. Sometimes a priest who is doing "good work" becomes a minor celebrity and everyone is convinced that he can do no wrong (think Corapi, Maciel, Cutie, etc.) and we attempt to vilify the competent ecclesiastical authority which is trying to make sure all is above board!
very well written reply, and I agree.
DeleteI checked out Priests for Life with the BBB and they said Priests for Life would not cooperate with the BBB.
DeleteJan. 17th...at this point it really does not matter because Fr. Pavone publicly disobeyed Church authority when he arrogantly refused to meet with his Bishop. And his fans stormed the Bishop's residence screaming demands that the Bishop 'free' Fr. Pavone. And while Fr. Pavone was in 'prison' we were receiving massive amounts of e-mails from him daily, demanding over and over and over again that we send him money, the largest amounts possible threatening that if we did not, then babies would die. This was discussed at last year's March for Life...people were furious. Fr. Pavone should step aside and let a young Priest with more character and less ego to take over...or 'babies could die!'...
DeleteFather Pavone does not have to talk to his bishop when his case is under appeal. You guys really need to learn Canon Law, and stop making up your own.
DeletePerhaps you could quote the relevant canons to support your statement. As I understand it though Fr Pavone would still be subject to his bishop in other matters while awaiting the result of the appeal. I know of no canon which makes a priest independent from a bishop while appealing a decision.
DeleteGolden Globe Awards 2017
DeleteGolden Globe 2017
Golden Globe Awards 2017 live
Golden Globe Awards 2017 live Streaming
Watch Golden Globe Awards 2017
74th Golden Globe Awards 2017
2017 Golden Globe Awards
Giants vs Packers live
New York Giants vs Green Bay Packers live
Dolphins vs Steelers live
Miami Dolphins vs Pittsburgh Steelers live
The reason why Bishop Of Amirillo had a right to question everything is because 1) Priests for life received a Semenary and property with the understanding that it would be used for the new community that Fr. Pavone was founding and which never worked out... And 2) the organization of Priests for Life and Fr. Pavone collected what was reported to be about 10 million dollars for this new religious community and then when everything fell through, he could not say exactly where the money was allocated...if they spent this money for their other activities then they misrepresented what they were collecting it for....even if it was unintentional...
ReplyDeletePriests for Life was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of New York, not The Bishop of Amarillo. I am surprised Bishop Zurek was not censured for this. Bishops can be imposed Canonical Penalties. Maybe Father Pavone, in his charity, declined to press the matter.
DeletePersonally, I think Father Pavone could be canonized. In that case, Bishop Zurek would have persecuted a Saint and would be punished by God for it.
Fr. Pavone was a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo, that was his choice. Bishop Zurek will not censured for doing his job. It is unlikely Fr. Pavone would be able to do anything against Bishop Zurek as the Bishop has the authority command obedience of one of his priests. Also even if Father Pavone is canonized that will in no way prove that he acted properly in this matter; canonization affirms his holiness not his impeccability. Saints have disagreed before ( the anti popes is a common example ) and no one questions the holiness of either saint.
DeleteNo one would question the horror of the sin of abortion and the good work of Father Pavone. However, abortion is the result of a more fundamental disease -- loss of Faith among Catholics. Pavone should not limit himself to this one issue, but rather preach the Faith along with his pro-life work. I never see a word in his letters about preaching the Faith and making converts. It's as if the Eucharist is less important than the pro-life cause. What about the bread of Life? How many pro-life evangelicals need to hear the message of the true religion outside of which there is no salvation? Father Pavone gives them no challenge. His newsletters and emails are alarmist and money (of course he asks for prayers secondarily) is the answer. Not so. Yes, the pro-life cause needs money. But it needs to address the causes of abortion and contraception. When the Faith is lost morality is lost. When the Church is weak good-willed Protestants are left with no challenge and no means for salvation. Establishing a religious congregation dedicated to the unborn is rather sad in view of the higher issue that ought to mark his priesthood. Noble cause, yes. But not the purpose for the priestly vocation. I am sorry to sound negative, but Father Pavone delivers a hopeless message. Abortion will cease when the Church reforms itself and starts reaffirming the true gospel challenge to all people, instead of this phony and scandalous ecumenism.
DeleteRegardless of the reason, this is great news. Fr. Pavone brings great gifts and vigorous action to the Pro-Life battle. I hope he will be welcomed back on EWTN as he offers a very reverent Mass along with his eloquent preaching.
ReplyDeleteAs Father points out above, Bishop Zurek's concerns were not without merit, so having corrected these deficiencies Priests for Life is now stronger than ever. Moreover, this timely opportunity to cultivate humility will hopefully make Fr. Pavone that much more effective in the battle for lives and souls.
Spiritual warfare is a reality, a battle in which we have taken too many casualties, some of which Father mentions. At ordination, our priests volunteer to go to the front of the line with a target on their cassock. Fr. Pavone's is neon.
Years ago, our parish priest pleaded with us to pray for him and other priests, "The prize is the flock, therefore the target of the enemy is the shepherd." An outstanding preacher, sadly we lost him when he resigned after being implicated in a scandal involving a young girl.
The object lesson here is that prayer for our priests has never been more vital. Now is an acceptable time to renew our commitment to do our part.
Priests for Life may be stronger than ever - preaching well or offering a reverent Mass means nothing if a Priest is disobedient - publicly - to Church authority. Fr. Pavone has done good work as have many others but many were tired of his constant use of the word "I" or his posting of pictures of himself everywhere...many asked if no one else at Priests for Life was working for the unborn - perhaps this situation has taught Fr. Pavone some humility - perhaps he should also publicly apologize for disrespecting his Bishop (and therefore the Church) by refusing to obeyi him; and he should apologize to all those he sent e-mails to, demanding money...and he should be held accountable for the millions of dollars that seem to have disappeared under his watch...the prize is the flock? Yes and in this case, the 'shepherd' -Fr. Pavone -gave in to the enemy by disobeying the Church's authority in the person of the Bishop...
DeleteI see you want to make up your own Canon Law Witness. You are an enemy of the Church by opposing the rights of a faithful under Canon Law. The Faithful CAN exercise their rights under Canon Law. By trying to hinder those rights, you could have Canonical Penalties imposed on you.
DeleteCan. 221 §1. The Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum according to the norm of law.
Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
Here are several canons that I found which seem relevant to Fr. Pavone's case. Also while Bishop Zurek cannot audit PFL accounts he can demand Fr. Pavone provide an accounting of his management in accordance with the permission provided by the bishop to manage. Also Fr. Pavone would need permission from Bishop Zurek to reside outside the diocese. Fr. Pavone would also require permission from the local ordinary to exercies faculties within the diocese he intends to live in.
DeleteCan. 273 Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.
Can. 283 §1. Even if clerics do not have a residential office, they nevertheless are not to be absent from their diocese for a notable period of time, to be determined by particular law, without at least the presumed permission of their proper ordinary.
§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand.
Can. 286 Clerics are prohibited from conducting business or trade personally or through others, for their own advantage or that of others, except with the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
As much as I admire the work of Priests for Life I cannot get past the point that these priests did not become priests to protest abortion. They became priests to spread the Gospel and minister to the Church. What they do is a good thing but I dont think it is the right thing. There are many who can protest abortion, there are few priests.
ReplyDeleteoh, I see. Let the killing of unborn children be.... makes sense...
DeleteNo, that is not what I read in the letter you reply to. Even Pope Francis has said recently that it is unwise for the Church to talk ONLY about abortion. Since in our country the problem is legalized abortion, it is essentially a legal and/or political problem; it became so mid-20th century. Those best equipped to handle legal and political problems are laymen. We have a great need for priests in confessionals, at the altar to say Mass, at the pulpit preaching fearlessly, etc. We have far less need for them in front of abortion mills or marching in the streets.
DeleteI do not follow your logic. How is it taking away from the spread of the Gospel to publicly stand up for the most innocent in our world? The women and men who go to the abortion mills need to be ministered too as well. Just because the Holy Father has said we should not only talk about abortion in no way means that we should not speak about this evil. It is a gift from the God that the situation is being resolved in a positive way and not some messy tabloid style.
Delete@ Johnny. I cannot disagree with you more. Abortion is a moral evil that is now sanctioned by the government. We need priests speaking out to try and wake up the people to this evil. If we allow this evil to some how be transformed into just a political issue then it will lose the horrible evilness and become just an issue. You need to dig deeper into the writing of the Holy Father. Hopefully there will be priests outside every abortion mill to stir the heart of those contemplating and abortion to change their mind and to minister to the need for healing when the abortion cannot be stopped.
DeleteFather Pavone took promises to defend life as a full-time commitment. The papal nuncio received them at the time. Are you trying to interfere with his rights again?
DeleteCan. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition.
Can. 219 All the Christian faithful have the right to be free from any kind of coercion in choosing a state of life.
Can. 221 §1. The Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum according to the norm of law.
No one is arguing that unborn should die or that Fr. Pavone should not be able to exercise his canonical rights. However it is a valid question of whether a priest should sacrifice his priestly ministry ( administering sacraments ) to do a job that any lay person is capable of doing. Protesting the murder of the unborn does not require ordination and may detract from his priestly ministry. This is a valid concern
DeleteIn light of all the commotion regarding clergy today--not simply the sex scandals but the fall from grace by John Corapi and the former head of HLI and others--why does it hurt to have oversight over the priest in charge of Priests for Life. I in no way intend to compare Father Pavone to the aforementioned priests in trouble. But I for one, despite a great love for priests, think they should all be monitored, whatever their activity or expertise. I may detest SNAP but I think those piranha are necessary to keep bishops on their toes. That's one orthodox Catholic's opinion. No one monitors The National Catholic Reporter and look that garbage dump, claiming to be Catholic. It makes Commonweal seem middle of the road. It doesn't hurt, either, to have an angry secular press report or mis-report whatever our pope has to say. If he's misinterpreted, then he or the Vatican can clarify everything so the rest of us know what he has said. These are strange times in which the media says anything. Everybody has to be watched so that at some point the truth comes out. Good luck to Father Pavone.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly ~ I'm grateful when we can have proactive administrative souls among us, lest the charismatic be left to their own devices! I immediately thought of Father Corapi, and what a blessing it might've been to have someone hem him in sooner.
DeleteTiffany, they did not have the authority to order Father Corapi to obey a vow he did not take.
DeleteCan. 219 All the Christian faithful have the right to be free from any kind of coercion in choosing a state of life.
What are you talking about? Fr. Corapi was a member of SOLT and subject to the head of the order. Also he was living in a expensive and expansive estate while having made a vow of chastity.
DeleteI'm a little lost here. The only "disobedience" attributed to Pavone was over one meeting with Bishop Zurich, where Father Pavone called in an acceptable representative as a third party witness to the appointment with the bishop. This party had a title in good standing with the Church, but which I can not recall. Other than that, Pavone's obedience to Bishop Zurich was reportedly so stellar and to the letter that it garnered much more criticism of the bishop than Pavone. A year in seclusion, in a panhandle pasture, with sisters was not induced by the bishop to be a retreat, but punitive and binding in nature.
ReplyDeleteThe financials of the PFL were never reported to be a scandal of neglect, or for mis-appropriation, or for any nefarious use. In fact, what the final audit included is hardly memorable. As for the dire straits the PFL suffered under Pavone's confinement motivated him to fund raise with some urgency.
You are correct Anonymous. Most of these people have no clue about this case.
DeleteI have live all my life in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it was in the early 80' s that I am a witness of two priests who actually were the founders of Priest For Life at the time when Operation Rescue held big protests in front of the abortion clinics in the Bay Area. I personally participated with these priests whose names I will not mention out of respect to them and I was arrested and went to jail with one of them, for participating.
ReplyDeleteOne belongs to a religious order and the other one is a secular priest, and they came up with the idea to have a foundation of priests who would intensively dedicate their time to the protection of unborn babies. I have respect for Father Pavone and his speaking for the sake of the unborn, however unless Father Pavone, came up with the same idea separately, I can testify that the original idea for the Priest For Life came from these two priest whom I happen to know very well.
Yes, Anonymous, you are correct. The two you refer to did start the organization and then asked Fr. Frank to take it over. He did with Cardinal O'Connor's blessings. Fr. Frank acknowledges that fact whenever he is referred to as the "founder". Since it's growth over the last 20 years, many have thought that. He acknowledges that it was founded in CA.
DeletePrayer for Priests
ReplyDeleteKeep them, I pray, dearest Lord.
Keep them, for they are Thine -
Thy priests whose lives burn out
before Thy consecrated shrine.
Keep them for they are in the world,
though from the world apart.
When earthly pleasures tempt, allure,
shelter them in Thy heart.
Keep them and comfort them
in hours of loneliness and pain,
when all their life of sacrifice
for souls seems but in vain.
Keep them, and, O remember Lord,
they have no one but Thee,
yet they have only human hearts
with human frailty.
Keep them as spotless as the Host
that daily they caress -
their every thought, word and deed,
deign, dearest Lord to bless.
Frank Pavone will soon leave the Diocese of Amarillo to try yet another diocese that will be large enough to withstand his huge ego and pompous righteousness. He's starting to run out of American dioceses to flee too, How about Europe, Frank?
ReplyDeleteA HUGE EGO? TEN MILLION BUCKS? THE ROOF IN HIS STATEN ISLAND OFFICE WAS LEAKING DURING HURRICANE SANDY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS MAN DO ANYTHING BUT GOOD. HE IS A FRONT LINE WARRIOR IN PROTECTING CHILDREN'S LIVES. HE WAS AT TERRI SCHIAVO'S EXECUTION BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OF DEATH. HE IS THE ONLY ONE I RECOGNIZE FIGHTING FOR THE POWS. PRISONERS OF THE WOMB. IS HE TOO CONTROVERSIAL? HAS THE GOVERNMENT CAUTIONED THE CHURCH TO SILENCE HIM OR LOSE THEIR 501C STATUS? YOU NOTICE HE IS NOT A CARDINAL. NO LIMO FOR HIM. NO BLESSING A NEW YORK RESTUARANT FOR A FREE $600,00 MEAL ALONGSIDE WOODY ALLEN AND ASSORTED COMMUNISTS. I STAND WITH THE ONE WHO STANDS WITH CHILDREN. VIVA CHRISTO REY.
ReplyDelete