Bishops for Life? : On Civil Rights and the Silencing of Father Frank Pavone

The Remnant Online ^ | Oct. 5, 2011 | Christopher A. Ferrara

[Dajjal]

... Father Pavone’s bishop, Patrick Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, has issued an administrative decree “suspend[ing] Father Frank A. Pavone from public ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo.” In a letter dated September 9, which he sent to the entire American episcopate to justify his decision in the court of public opinion, Zurek reveals his real intention: to destroy Father Pavone’s reputation and sink Priests for Life. Professing a desire to “strengthen Father Pavone’s sense of communicatio sacramentalis,” Zurek combines vicious public insults with outright calumny....

Bishop Zurek’s power play against Father Pavone is a prime example of why the pro-life movement has yet to win a major victory in America: the Bishops are not behind it.... Their chanceries and seminaries riddled with modernists and homosexuals, the American bishops -- of course there are noble exceptions -- have betrayed the greatest civil rights movement of our time....

[Dajjal]

But in the lowest blow of all—again, without the least evidence of financial impropriety—Zurek suggests to all the Bishops in America that they direct the faithful to withhold their donations to Priests for Life: “If you judged it to be prudent, I would like to ask that you would inform the Christian faithful under your care to consider withholding donations to the PFL until the issues and concerns are settled.” This is nothing but a naked attempt to cripple the organization.

In his letter to the American Bishops of September 12, Father Pavone defends himself against Bishop Zurek’s public accusations of September 9. The reply is devastating. For one thing, it shows that Bishop Zurek has absolutely no jurisdiction over Priests for Life, a nonprofit, federally tax-exempt civil corporation of the State of New York, headquartered on Staten Island, with an independent Board of Directors, including other priests, 55 employees in the United States, and affiliated U.S. organizations and branches overseas with other directors and employees. Not one of these people owes any duty of obedience to an angry prelate in Amarillo who is trying to destroy their work.

The reply demolishes Bishop Zurek’s false allegation that Father Pavone has “consistently refused to subject Priests for Life to a complete and transparent auditing of all expenses.” Father Pavone, who takes no salary from the organization, has provided both Bishop Zurek and the Archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan, with certified financial audits every year since his incardination in Amarillo, prepared by an accounting firm whose clients include numerous federal agencies. The reply includes a lengthy list of other detailed financial information Father Pavone has supplied to Bishop Zurek -- far more than nonprofit law requires for full accountability. Father Pavone notes that he met with Zurek to discuss the finances of Priests for Life during Holy Week of this year and that during this meeting the Bishop indicated that he had no questions whatsoever -- months before Zurek wrote the American Bishops to allege totally unsubstantiated “deep concerns” about the organization’s finances.

Clearly, Father Pavone is the victim of a hatchet job.

Pro-Life ping

[Saundra Duffy]

This is horrible! The good Father was one of the main voices speaking out against the murder of Terri Schiavo. Some kind of stupid power play.

[aposiopetic]

Zurek combines vicious public insults with outright calumny

-snip-

the American bishops -- of course there are noble exceptions -- have betrayed the greatest civil rights movement of our time....

Look: I am not happy about what has happened to Fr. Pavone. However, as I understand, he made a vow to obey his Ordinary, and, to all appearances, he ought to keep that vow.

The language quoted above is over the top. We all must examine our consciences lest we fail to identify and repent of slander, detraction, calumny and/or gossip.

[Cicero]

This business is really looking worse and worse. It really appears that Bishop Patrick Zurek was a rotten appointment.

As St. John Crysostom once said, “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” Maybe he is acting in ignorance rather than malice. Still, that is no excuse for lying about financial disclosure at Priests for Life.

Bishop Zurek was appointed to his present position in January 2008. Brief biography here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Zurek

[Dajjal]

Look: I am not happy about what has happened to Fr. Pavone. However, as I understand, he made a vow to obey his Ordinary, and, to all appearances, he ought to keep that vow.

The language quoted above is over the top. We all must examine our consciences lest we fail to identify and repent of slander, detraction, calumny and/or gossip.

from the article:

But, with dreary predictability, that neo-Catholic schoolmarm of post-conciliar correctness, Jeff Mirus, has called upon Father Pavone to “obey” by submitting quietly to the destruction of his apostolate and the ruin of his reputation with public innuendos of financial impropriety and accusations of egomania and disobedience. “When any of us insists on our own apostolic work against the judgment of the Church,” Mirus pontificates, “we squeeze the fire hose of Divine grace down to a few ineffectual drips. The key is to do God’s will, not our own. It is a great gift to have God’s will made clear to us by authority, a gift that Catholics should be the first to recognize and treasure.” Whatever a bishop commands is ipso facto God’s will, and we must blindly obey. This is the classic neo-Catholic nominalism that has in large measure contributed to the worst crisis in Church history. Obedience for its own sake is made into the very channel of God’s grace; it becomes a theological virtue. Mirus is brimming with inept amateur theology of this sort.

As Mirus would have it, Father Pavone must offer no resistance even if Zurek’s actions are unjust: “Now it may be that Fr. Pavone will suffer unjustly for taking this course. As I said, I do not know who is right in the questions that have been raised. But at least such a response will release a roaring cataract of grace into the Church.” A roaring cataract, eh? You mean like the roaring cataract of grace that followed “obedience” to the unjust suppression of the traditional Mass and the destruction of the Roman Rite after Vatican II? I would like to take a reading of Mirus’s grace-o-meter over the past forty years to see how many graces the Church received from the passive acceptance of its auto-demolition. And what about the scores of innocent people engaged in the work of Priests for Life? What about the babies that apostolate saves from abortion? According to Mirus, Father Pavone must have no concern for any of these people; his one and only duty is blind obedience to the irate Bishop of Amarillo.

Of course, if Saint Athanasius had followed Mirus’s “spiritual advice,” he would have ceased resisting the spread of the Arian heresy and tamely submitted to his fraudulent excommunication. Likewise, the entire traditionalist movement, beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre, would have “obeyed” the non-existent “command” to abandon the Church’s own liturgical patrimony, precisely as Mirus and his fellow schoolmarms did before Pope Benedict admitted that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated and was always permitted. Oops.

[aposiopetic]

I question the premise that Lefebvre alone kept the Traditional Latin Mass alive and will gladly pay attention to any evidence adduced that Lefebvre alone is responsible for its preservation.

I also know of no command to abandon the Church's liturgical patrimony.

[Alex Murphy]

Bishop Zurek’s power play against Father Pavone is a prime example of why the pro-life movement has yet to win a major victory in America: the Bishops are not behind it.... Their chanceries and seminaries riddled with modernists and homosexuals, the American bishops -- of course there are noble exceptions -- have betrayed the greatest civil rights movement of our time...

I think FReeper all the best said it best, in 2008:

"Show me just one Catholic bishop who will speak up against coveting your neighbors’ goods. That is why Catholics ignored the Bishops on abortion. They know abortion is wrong but overlooked the Dems on that point because those same politicians pandered to their covetousness. Same for protestants and evangelical pastors, leaders and activists. American politics and government at all levels is driven by government-mediated coveting. Until the Church takes a stand against this we can expect to sink deeper and deeper into socialism and, oh yeah, abortion."

[achilles2000]

What are the odds that Zurek is a closeted sodomite?

[RitaOK]

Dajjal, I am not arguing with you or your premise. But. Have you yet heard where the millions and millions in donations went over the past 8 years? There is a jot here that has been leaked out, and a tittle there, but no real accounting. Do you think more will be coming forthwith? The visual among the public of the Priests for Life organization is really an image of only one man, Father Pavone, who is selfless and dedicated and stood with the Schiavo family when those who should did not. No question about it. In fact, if Father squandered, by simple lack of oversight, the whole wad he has dang sure has singularly done as much for Life as any one human on earth and no cash assets to show for it. His first Bishop in Amarillo was Bishop Yanta who was thrilled and honored to receive Fr. Pavone, and together they kicked off a splendid and well promoted ground breaking for the seminary to be built housing the priests and headquartering the Priests for Life.
I attended that affair and Bishop Yanta was beside himself with happiness and delight with Father, and thought Pavone a marvelous fit for the Amarillo diocese, who had a reputation for its own dedication to Life. The sister of deceased Cardinal O’Connor, of NYC, attended and the Roe lady, whose name at the moment has flown right out of my head. Then things went asunder and nothing happened, and nothing continued to happen. Bishop Yanta fell silent on the subject publicly, but there was absolutely no money for the colossol plan became clear to the shock of everyone. The rendering of the seminary was beautiful with arches and portico. Enthusiasm was abundant. This failure was not the fault of Bishop Yanta, whose diocese could not and would not have ever been put up as the backers of this sizable expense of millions, or whatever the seminary grounds and building costs were. So, the money presumably (my presumption) would have had to come from mostly Pavone’s bank account, or at the very least from his broad efforts to go out and obtain the funding. So, what happen there? Bishop Yanta then retires within a few years, Pavone is only loosely attached to the diocese and is traveling about doing his ministry back east and so on.

Now comes the new Bishop Zurek at post for a year or so, and all heck has broken loose from all the unfinished business. Where will it lead, now that Pavone has a canon lawyer to assist him in a “defense” of sorts?

[Domestic Church]

Bump & ping

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[aposiopetic]

And are you promoting the view that Bishop Zurek’s limitation on the activities of Fr. Pavone is of the same order, or even of the same kind, as whatever actions were taken by Pope Liberius with respect to St. Athanasius?

[Dajjal]

I also know of no command to abandon the Church's liturgical patrimony.

For over four decades countless petitioners have been turned away by the commands of local diocesan bishops when they have requested to have the Traditional Latin Mass celebrated at their parishes. That continues to this day in many dioceses even after Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

I question the premise that Lefebvre alone kept the Traditional Latin Mass alive and will gladly pay attention to any evidence adduced that Lefebvre alone is responsible for its preservation.

Where do you see the word "alone" in the article?

Stop making things up.

Likewise, the entire traditionalist movement, beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre, would have “obeyed” the non-existent “command” to abandon the Church’s own liturgical patrimony....

[aposiopetic]

Likewise, the entire traditionalist movement, beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre, would have “obeyed” the non-existent “command” to abandon the Church’s own liturgical patrimony, precisely as Mirus and his fellow schoolmarms did before Pope Benedict admitted that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated and was always permitted.

Making things up? Calling what the Pope says an "admission" is not making things up, in and of itself? As if the Pontiff had somehow previously denied this? Can you possibly be serious?

[Dajjal]

And are you promoting the view that Bishop Zurek’s limitation on the activities of Fr. Pavone is of the same order, or even of the same kind, as whatever actions were taken by Pope Liberius with respect to St. Athanasius?

First and foremost, I am posting at Free Republic what I consider to be an informative opinion essay by a prominent Catholic writer. That's what Free Republic is for. The reader can make of the article what he or she will.

As for the analogy which Mr. Ferrara makes, it is an analogy, not an equation. I can see some similarity. Analogies do not require a one-to-one correspondence.

Again, please stop making things up. If you don't like Mr. Ferrara's article, fine -- don't agree with him.

[Alex Murphy]

What are the odds that Zurek is a closeted sodomite?

IMO, about two out of three.

[aposiopetic]

Likewise, the entire traditionalist movement, beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre, would have “obeyed” the non-existent “command” to abandon the Church’s own liturgical patrimony....

For over four decades countless petitioners have been turned away by the commands of local diocesan bishops when they have requested to have the Traditional Latin Mass celebrated at their parishes.

Also, speaking of making things up, the article you quote speaks of a "command," in the singular. The numerous diocesan refusals, regrettable though they may be, to permit the TLM cannot constitute the singular "command" to which the quoted article refers.

Honestly, I think we are on the same side here. I don't agree with the actions of these bishops. That said, they are the ones charged with care of the souls of those in their dioceses, not me. I get to pray.

[aposiopetic]

The writer made the analogy; I did not. It will stand or fall on its own merits.

[Dajjal]

Can you possibly be serious?

You really need to take that up with the author.

But Pope Benedict XVI's statement in his 2007 Summorum Pontificum that "the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 was never abrogated" does sound to me like an admission that the traditionalists had been correct all along between 1969-2007, while the pontiffs had been silent on the matter.