Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: topher

What a shameful little piece of innuendo.

It's easy to see which priest is considered the greater threat by "the accuser."

7 posted on 11/22/2006 4:21:24 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: papertyger
I will not disagree with what you post.

My greatest concern is to bring concern about Father Frank's spirituality (if indeed it is a problem). There may indeed be a plank before my eye that blurs my vision. One problem I had at Priests for Life was that it was very difficult to maintain one's own spiritual life. A minimal amount of time was spent on prayer at the Staff Daily meeting, and even if there was a Mass in the Chapel at Lunch, employees were not allowed ANY flexibility - such as working additional time after normal work hours to go to Mass and then have lunch afterwards.

Another example of my concern for Father Frank is a column that he wrote during the 2004 Election, entitled the Ratzinger Fiasco.

This title is misleading and sensational - seeming to imply that Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was a fiasco for the Church.

Was it? And why chose a title that might harm the reputation of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict)?

A more appropriate title might have been Media distorts Ratzinger Letter or Media Attacks Catholic Church because letter by Cardinal Ratzinger which in point of fact the column was about (the secular media distorting a letter written by then Cardinal Ratzinger).

I saw an incident at Priests for Life where Father Frank Pavone treated a priest in such an unprofessional and shameful way in front of all the employees of Priests for Life. It was totally uncalled for and I was appalled by what I saw what Father Frank do to a fellow priest in front of the entire Priests for Life organization. The priest was someone who was Father Frank's elder by over 20 years in terms of ordination and age.

Too much of what I saw at Priests for Life was the work of King Pavone and not Father Pavone. He was a king who shoot the messenger of bad news. He had to have things done his way. The incident with the priest was not the exception, but in my opinion repeated over and over again. Father Frank Pavone made it a very hostile work environment because of how he wanted things done.

That priest could and would have worked at the Priests for Life headquarters in NYC Office if not Father Frank Pavone and politics at the NYC Office.

Additionally, I felt that Priests for Life was on the verge of growing from 7 priests to 12 last June/July. Instead, Priests for Life apparently lost a good priest and a number of priests did not join for whatever reason. Today, Priests for Life is at 6 priests (Father Frank Pavone, Father Peter West, Father Denis Wilde, Father Walter Quinn, Father Jim Heyd, Father Giacomo Capeverde, and Father Dennis Weber. They lost Father Mark Clarke this year, and I do not know the reason. He was a young priest who I admired his spirituality.

Father Frank Pavone is the greatest pro-life leader in the United States in my opinion, but if his spiritual life has fallen in disarray because of spiritual attack or other reasons, then that is a concern to pro-life Catholics.

If I were Father Pavone and traveling, I would find a good monastery if possible in the area to stay and not a hotel. Or the rectory of a strongly pro-life priest in the area.

13 posted on 11/22/2006 7:31:55 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson