Posted on 09/15/2011 5:02:57 PM PDT by markomalley
That statement worries me greatly.
Obedience to one's bishop is supposed to be foundational to being a priest.
Issuing a threat does not sound like obedience to me.
Uh-oh. This does not sound good.
Right now. he is obeying his Bishop. I look at this more as a bargaining session.
Do you want me to be a parish priest?
I am dedicated to the pro-life movement.
Could you be a parish priest?
For a little while, but I am seriously considering dedicating my life to the pro-life movement. How can we solve this? Should I move to another diocese? Start mt own order?
But according to Fr. Pavone, the bishop never acknowledged receiving the dates, and instead sent a letter to the U.S. bishops accusing him of disobedience and demanding that he return immediately."
I have been expecting this ever since Fr. Corapi was suspended. I told several friends, "Satan is sifting the good priests. Watch out! Fr. Pavone will be next!" Simply because he is good, effective, and GODLY.
I suspect the above situation is deliberate, although saying it is at the bishop's behest is not what I am getting at. I believe there is somebody in these chanceries who is deliberately "losing" crucial correspondence and mixing signals, for the express purpose of alienating good priests and removing them from ministry.
Maybe Corapi, could join Pavone’s new “order”
I am a catholic. This priest has been my hero for years. I left the church. I will leave again if it does not support pro life every single time. No exceptions.
I am a catholic. This priest has been my hero for years. I left the church. I will leave again if it does not support pro life every single time. No exceptions.
In the Church, people have roles, maybe he doesn’t want a role of the Priest.
We should just pray that he finds the place God wants him to fill in his plan.
The bishop is hinting an accounting problem...that could mean someone is siphoning money from the books, which happens all the time. (I had a nurse do this when I was in private practice...took awhile to figure it out).
Pavone is in charge, but that doesn't mean he could pick this up, since he isn't an accountant
The clue would be the bishop: Is he a "good guy" or is he one of the ones who dislikes conservative Catholics? Is Pavone in trouble because there is a problem with the books (which he might not be aware of) or because Pavone opposed the Florida bishop over Terry Schiavo?
Exactly.
It seems to me that the office no longer works well within the original structure.
Having an archbishop specifically assigned to them as in charge of a religious order would make the most sense to me.
This is one way to see that change happen.
Blessings to Fr. Pavone. He’s a hero to me, but I made a vow to the Church and I will not go back on that vow.
Here is the problem. Money. Father Pavone has it and the Church wants it. Undoubtedly. The Church is the Church after all and directs priests and religious orders through the office of the Bishops. Correct? So the dilemma is the Church after loosely attaching its authority over ministries is now seeking to assert it now and it is going to be a difficult transition. When one or two priests preside over quite a financial enterprise it is very different from the saints who suffered their mission in poverty. The attraction of the Church is its poverty and humility and obedience to Christ.
On the other hand, it can be presumed that when people give to Priests for Life, Rachael’s Vineyard, etc., they want their money to go to those ministerial missions. They think their tithe goes to the Church. I don’t know enough about this I’m sure, but there is that pesky vow to obedience to one’s Bishop. What a dilemma. Round about their are those who prick and peck at the orthodoxy of EWTN and would like to see its demise. I pray that EWTN is up to speed and in perfect allignment with the Church and with Rome so that they will enjoy the protection of Rome from the cafeteria Catholics in the USA. They certainly have zero profit bottom line.
One thing that has really left a bad taste in my mouth is the very public, personal, and vitriolic tone of the bishop’s letter. It was uncalled for. There was no reason for the bishop to make comments about Fr. Pavone’s ego. It was classless. He could have and should have kept the tone on a much higher plane. Also, using the word “suspended” was totally inaccurate and out of line. It has an obvious connotation and explicit meaning that is both unnecessary and inaccurate in the current situation. I’m very suspicious of the bishop’s motivation. I find it curious when a bishop so publicly and stridently reprimands a priest when money is involved, but not when doctrine or abuses of the liturgy are involved.
For his part, Fr. Pavone would do well to simply shut up and do what his bishop is asking him to do, and pursue his appeal with quiet calm and magnanimity.
Fr. Pavone is going to the Vatican for assistance in continuing the ministry of which the Bishop had previously approved, he's not going off on his own. He's working for Priests for Life, out of Amarillo, since the Bishop didn't leave an assignment for Fr. Pavone, before he left town.
Fr. Pavone DOES want the role of a priest. He believes he has a ministry in the Priests for Life, which is a powerful work for the Church. He has no desire to leave the priesthood, but he wants to operate within the pro-life ministry. His Bishop allowed him to do so, for a while, but now seems to have changed his mind.
Fr. Pavone mentioned in his public statement that Priests for Life has had independent audits for years, and that those financial documents were went to his Bishop regularly. From the article above, it seems as though there were a couple of other ministries, Rachel's Vineyard being one, that they didn't like acting independently. The article claims that it is a Church group, and as such, should come under the aegis of one of the Bishops, but I don't know if Rachel's Vineyard was begun by a parish or diocesan group, or if it is private.
John said, “He who says he abides in him so ought to walk, even as he walked.” The Master was a Torah Observant Jew. What time is it? Time to get on the road of return. Come home to Torah.
John said, “He who says he abides in him so ought to walk, even as he walked.” The Master was a Torah Observant Jew. What time is it? Time to get on the road of return. Come home to Torah.
Oh, no. Please understand I didn’t mean to imply that this was an unusual outcome, just that IMHO, it may be the best thing for Priests for Life.
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.