Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 11/05/2011 11:36:46 AM PDT by topher
As someone who has worked for Priests for Life, I have a perspective of the current situation that few people enjoy.
Currently, there are reports of IRS problems with Priests for Life as well as debt problems with this non-profit organization. The current crisis has been brought to a climax by a recent letter issued by Bishop Zurek of Amarillo to all bishops of the USCCB asking them [and their flocks] not to contribute to Priests for Life.
Additionally, Bishop Zurek has recalled Father Frank Pavone to only work inside the Diocese of Amarillo -- with no travel outside the Diocese to do Pro-Life work.
Some people has called this a suspension of the priestly duties of Father Frank Pavone.
On the contrary, Father Frank Pavone can administer the sacraments -- he is just limited to doing so in the Diocese of Amarillo.
Why should the Knights of Columbus mediate/intervene in this crisis?
The Knights of Columbus would be able to bring financial help, accounting help (Priests for Life trouble with the IRS), and spiritual help.
The Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus is a bishop -- Bishop William E. Lori, STD. Additionally, the Knights of Columbus could provide a loan to Priests for Life based on Priests for Life submitting to certain requests that the Knights of Columbus might impose. The Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus might act as a mediator.
It would allow a peer of Bishop Zurek to discuss the situation. Hopefully, Father Frank Pavone would not object to the Supreme Chaplain as a mediator in this crisis.
There are various stories and misinformation about this situation. Having known Father Frank Pavone and his attitude at times towards the magisterium of the Church, I actually side more with Bishop Patrick Zurek.
But I think all parties [Priests for Life, Diocese of Amarillo, Father Frank Pavone, and Bishop Zurek] would benefit if the Knights of Columbus were to intervene/mediate this situation.
Bishop Zurek is calling for people to stop donating to PFL?
That is news to me. I didn’t know he was calling for this.
Zurek has been a huge disaster. I am going to encourage people to continue to donate to PFL and not to the diocese of Amarillo.
I have known Father Frank for quite a few years, and think the world of him as an extremely effective spokesmen for the pro-life cause. I am not Roman Catholic and don’t know what the problem is here, but the perspective of those of us outside that church is that bishops can sometimes be heavy-handed while being “formally correct”.
I’m not sure ofZurek’s motivations, but I haven’t seen him do anything here which was intended to be for the benefit for the prolife folks or Priests for Life. It reads as if an Obama official was shutting down an effective apostolate and outreach for the Church in America.
I think this is a good time for Father Frank to become a Dioscescean priest. Frankly, we constantly get “desperation” requests for money from Priests for Life. Don’t get me wrong, I am very pro-life, but they need to live within their means.
Bishop Zurek has acted horribly. He recalls Father Frank and then sends him to a convent. He is all alone in a convent with rattlesnakes on the grounds. The bishop should have had the person in the dioscese who is responsible for mentoring troubled priests to mentor Father Frank. And Father Frank should have been sent to a monastery or parish.
As I see it, there are two sides to this story and both of them are bad.
Beyond reporting a loss, in a bad economy, (which is to be expected), what has Fr. Frank done that has been untoward? He’s obeyed the request of his bishop to return to Amarillo, and is currently doing what has been asked of him to sit and wait.
He’s conducted himself in the proper fashion and I expect that he will be exonerated of all the accusations of impropriety. Zucker on the other hand has been terrible.
He calls Pavone back, and then refuses to meet with him to discuss things? Then he tells Pavone to meet with him, and doesn’t show up? Then tells Pavone that he wants a private meeting after all this, when Pavone declines, and requests mediation, then and only then, does he publish it to the diocese that Pavone is uncooperative?
Something else is going on and I’m not happy with how Pavone has been treated.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Including Zurek, who is in dire need of a remedial course in English composition.
Your Eminences and Your Excellencies,
I have decided to suspend Father Frank A. Pavone from public ministry outside of the Diocese of Amarillo to take effect on September 13, 2011. For an indefinite period, I am withdrawing my permission to him to minister outside our diocese and am calling him back to spend time in prayer and reflection. My decision is the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priest For Life (PFL) organization. The PFL has become a business that is quite lucrative which provides Father Pavone with financial independence from all legitimate ecclesiastical oversight. There have been persistent question and concerns by clergy and laity regarding the transactions of millions of dollars of donations to the PFL from whom the donors have a rightful expectation that the monies are being used prudently. These financial questions and concerns have persisted with no clear and adequate answers since the time when Father Pavone was under two previous bishop ordinaries. Since he has consistently refused to subject the PFL to a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures, I have reasons to be alarmed at the potential financial scandal that might arise if it were the result of my failure to correct Father Pavone’s incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority as his Bishop.
Additionally, the PFL financial resources have afforded Father Pavone with a formidable civil and canonical counsel which he utilized to rebuff my every attempt at calling for financial transparency. Thus, my decision to intervene and to call him to accountability is meant to express the dire need to safeguard his priestly ministry to which I am obligated as his father and to help the Church avoid any scandal due to the national scope of the PFL’s work. At a certain point, for me to hold all this knowledge about the PFL and to turn a blind eye would increase my culpability and quite possibly amount to material cooperation.
In his relationship to his bishop ordinaries, Father Pavone has gradually lost his need to show appropriate obedience to his Bishop. It seems that his fame has caused him to see priestly obedience as an inconvenience to his unique status and an obstacle to the possible international scope of his ministry. I would venture to say that the supreme importance that he has attributed to his PFL ministry and the reductionist attitude toward the diocesan priesthood has inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance and self-determination. This attitude has strained his relationship with me and has given me the impression that I cannot invoke obedience with him because he is famous. It is my desire to help him readjust his priestly bearing through spiritual and theological renewal in order to recapture that essential priestly hallmark of respect and obedience. It is also my desire to strengthen Father Pavone’s sense of communio sacramentalis with me so that he may be fortified with a healthy zeal to live in an authentic way his sacramental gift and mystery as a priest of Jesus Christ.
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.
Taking this opportunity to express my esteem and to ask for your prayers, I am,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Patrick J. Zurek, STL, DD
Bishop of Amarillo
Maybe Zurek is getting over on me, but his letter looks pretty reasonable at first reading.
Did Father Pavone truly refuse a transparent audit? That seems, prima facie, a bit suspicious.
Fr. Frank is already a diocesan priest. That's why we're having this kerfuffle in the first place.
Bishop Zurek has been heavy-handed, uncharitable, and careless in speaking. Fr. Pavone has been insubordinate to a scandalous degree, disingenuous, and seriously lacking in humility.
The Knights should stay out of it. It’s not their affair (as I understand it, they exist to defend the rights of the Catholic Church in the public square). Furthermore, from a sacramental and ecclesiological POV, it would be a very bad thing for them to intervene formally, in a binding way.
When an overbearing father has an argument with a disobedient son, we don’t call in teachers, coaches, cops, or second cousins to arbitrate. They are free (within limits) to offer unsolicited advice, but the idea that their views should be binding would be ridiculous and offensive.
Father Pavone suspended from ministry outside Amarillo Diocese
A brief quote from that article:
The suspension was made public in a Sept. 9 letter from Amarillo Bishop Patrick J. Zurek to his fellow bishops across the country, but Father Pavone told Catholic News Service that he was returning to Amarillo and planned to continue functioning as a priest there.
One problem is that Gospel of Life Ministries has had its tax exempt status revoked.
Priests for Life is loaning money to Gospel of Life Ministries [ecumenical, not Catholic organization] at a time when Priests for Life is running a deficit.
More from this article from the Amarillo Globe News:
Bishop: Pavone's mission not in question
Both articles might give a better insight to the problems facing Priests for Life and other organizations controlled by Father Frank Pavone.
Priests for Life is not the only organization that Father Frank controls.
In 2010, Priests for Life lent Gospel of Life Ministries and Rachel's Vineyards $1.5 million.
This was during a time that Priests for Life was running a deficit for its own operations.
Many would consider this financially unsound.
Anyone familiar with Bishops, Bishops normally require Diocesan priests to get approval for borrowing large sums of money for their parishes.
In the case of Priests for Life, they have committed to building a $3 million pro-life center [Bishop John Yanta Center] in Amarillo.
Priests for Life has also wants to build a $130 million dollar seminary in Amarillo.
Seems there may be some folks looking through rose colored glasses in this situation.
Where I do differ with you is that I believe that Father Frank has overextended Priests for Life, and other organizations he controls (Gospel of Life, Rachel's Vineyards).
The Supreme Chaplain might be able to help resolve this situation. I understand why you think others should meddle in this situation. But what is going on may be very damaging to the pro-life efforts in general.
NCRegister:
Father Pavone Turns Down Meeting With Bishop Zurek
Bishop Zurek's letter to fellow bishops [JPEG image]:
Letter by Bishop Zurek to fellow bishops
Catholic World Report: [has some good links and other info]
Developments in the Zurek-Pavone showdown UPDATED
There are other articles, but if one reads these articles and the letter, it will give a background on this situation.
Pennsylvania fined Pavone's charity
Basically, Priests for Life did not file certain information with the state of Pennsylvania. The fines are not large -- they totaled $8000 for two years.
But is shows the accounting complexities that Priests for Life faces.
Recently, Priests for Life has announced that it was going International. I would have the concern that Priests for Life has bitten off more than it can chew as just a National charity in the United States without taking on the complexity of meeting requirements of other jurisdictions.
I was unaware that individual states had rules for reporting for various charities...
“Seems there may be some folks looking through rose colored glasses in this situation.”
Maybe so. My glasses don’t let me see enough to figure out who’s in the right.
Seems unlikely that they will ever afford to build the $130 million seminary. Priests for Life is having trouble completing the Bishop John Yanta Pro-Life Center, which only is budgeted at $3 million.
“I am referring to Priests for Life committing to build a $130 million seminary in Amarillo when their revenues have been $2 milliont to $11 million from 2002 to 2010.”
Information added to slowly growing stack.
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.
