Skip to comments.
Bishop Zurek ignores plea to let Father Pavone speak at International Pro-Life Youth Conference
JillStanek ^
| November 9, 2011
| Jill Stanek
Posted on 11/09/2011 11:14:35 AM PST by NYer
No one questions whether Bishop Patrick Zurek had the authority to place Father Frank Pavone on forced hiatus.
Good people do question whether the bishop’s decision was warranted.
That dispute aside, the bishop certainly must have realized that to abruptly and without warning bar Father Pavone from fulfilling his pro-life speaking obligations for an undefined period would create havoc among churches and pro-life groups planning and publicizing those events.
It seems to me a compassionate spiritual leader would attempt to mitigate the damage his decision caused to innocent bystanders.
One important event caught in the crossfire was the International Pro-Life Youth Conference, scheduled for this weekend, November 11-13, in Los Angeles.
Father Pavone has been advertised as this event’s keynote speaker for months.
I just learned tonight that the youth leaders in charge of the IPLYC have been attempting to reach out to Bishop Zurek to secure his permission to allow Father Pavone to attend this event, and the bishop will not respond. Here is a note I received from Rev. Jeff White, founder of the Survivors, one of the host groups.
Hi Jill,
I am frustrated and I think something needs to be said publicly.
Bishop Zurek, Fr. Pavone’s bishop, did not respond to this letter, even though it was sent twice overnight personal. He has not returned the phone calls to his office.
I find it appalling he would not be courteous enough for someone in his office to let these young people know what is going on. I know a lot of Catholics feel everyone should just be quiet but is the Bishop above just being decent to a group of young people?
I will go on the record saying his deaf ear to the young organizers of the conference and his high-handed way he has stripped the pro-life movement of one of its prominent leaders is inexcusable.
The attached letter was signed by 20 or so young people, but I removed their names since my sending it out to the public is not what they agreed to.
The letter, linked above, is both sad and infuriating. It is just WRONG for Bishop Zurek to ignore and hurt these pro-life youth. Here’s a poignant excerpt:
In fact, many people are coming just to hear Fr. Pavone speak. Every day we receive more and more calls from pro-life groups and parishes asking whether or not he will be there. We have tried to remain calm in this matter, however, we have no idea what we will do if you do not allow him to come – not just because he is our main speaker, or because we think his presence will draw a large crowd. In all truth, we simply have no idea how we will look into the face of the youth, especially those in the Catholic Church, and tell them that the leader who has inspired so many of us to act on behalf of our preborn brothers and sisters will not be coming.
You see, it is not just the conference that will suffer if Fr. Pavone is denied attendance; it is the heart and spirit of a young generation that will be broken. And not broken by the outside world, which we already know to be evil, but broken by the one institution in this present darkness where we look to for leadership, refuge and inspiration: the Church.
This is just WRONG.
TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: pavone; zurek
1
posted on
11/09/2011 11:14:42 AM PST
by
NYer
To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
2
posted on
11/09/2011 11:15:28 AM PST
by
NYer
("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
To: NYer
Pavone took a vow of obedience. Let us pray for the Bishop and for the good Father. Meddling in this is not a good thing to do.
3
posted on
11/09/2011 11:18:50 AM PST
by
frogjerk
(America: Innocent until accused or considered being accused by an anonymous party)
To: frogjerk
The Bishop made the matter public, and has continued to act in a way that demeans his office.
4
posted on
11/09/2011 11:36:13 AM PST
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
To: NYer
Chill, Jill.
The bishop has been heavy-handed and clumsy in his treatment of this matter but Fr. Pavone's behavior has been petulant, proud and in short, a scandal.
The pro-life movement isn't about Fr. Pavone. As so often happens, these things can take on a life all of their own.
To: NYer
Everyone thinks he/she knows better....it would seem. We need to continue praying and allow the Holy Spirit to accomplish His purposes in this situation. May the increased fruits of that same Holy Spirit be evident in the outcome.
;-)
6
posted on
11/09/2011 12:54:31 PM PST
by
SumProVita
(Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
To: marshmallow
What’s a scandal is how many of you try to portray the Catholic faith as a form of lobotomy. I challenge you to name one thing that Fr. Pavone has done nothing against the faith regarding this incident. On the other hand, Bishop Zurek has objectively caused great harm to the pro-life movement without giving any explanation.
(shaking my head at your obstinate blindness)
To: None
if Pavone fails to show for a meeting that the Bishop has arranged and furthermore, he gets all lawyered up and wants to dictate the terms of a possible future meeting. Then in my book, Pavone has egg on his face, all other issues aside.
8
posted on
11/10/2011 10:45:20 AM PST
by
RBIEL2
To: NYer
Maybe how Bishop Zurek has been treated by pro-lifers has something to do with this.
For example, the The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform protested Bishop Zurek at a time when the Diocesan Newspaper ran a front page article supporting the 40 Days for Life in Amarillo.
Of course, people do not realize how Anti-Catholic the leadership of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is.
I heard of some of this before and during working at Priests for Life, but decided to remain "mute" about all the Catholic bashing that is done at the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.
If given a choice between the magisterium of the church or a nutty group like the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, I will choose the magisterium of the Church.
In terms of this article, I find Jill Stanek way out of line and basically attacking the Magisterium of the Church because "SHE KNOWS BETTER THAN THE CHURCH".
I am sure that there are thousands of letters sent each month to Bishop Zurek.
9
posted on
11/11/2011 1:41:50 AM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: rwilson99
What you have posted is why Bishop Zurek will not make an exception in this case.
Bishop Zurek has the authority and right to do what he has done.
If Father Frank Pavone wishes to stop being a Diocesan priest, FRANK PAVONE would be able to attend this event.
I am sure that Bishop Zurek is receiving thousands of letters each, many extremely hateful towards him, each month.
As a former employee of Priests for Life, I understand both Bishop Zurek's and Father Frank's position.
I side with Bishop Zurek because I saw problems with how Father Frank ran PFL.
Additionally, Bishop Zurek is part of the magisterium of the Church.
You might as well say add that Pope Benedict is wrong for not ordaining women as priest with your position.
10
posted on
11/11/2011 1:52:59 AM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: marshmallow
Your response if far wiser than my following response. But there may be information that people may not know about this situation that Bishop Zurek is keeping secret.
I have heard from Father Peter West, now Vice President of HLI and former PFL Pastoral Associate, how awful this situation has become because of how pro-lifers are acting towards Bishop Zurek and the STRONGLY pro-life Diocese of Amarillo.
As Father Frank's boss, Bishop Zurek would receive letters of complaint about Father Frank. It might be that the Stewardship of PFL by Father Frank might have brought such problems to Bishop Zurek's office that Father Frank disagrees with, but Bishop Zurek has kept confidential.
Clearly, Bishop Zurek has the right to act the way he did. I am not sure that it was prudent for the Bishop to do that, but criticizing a Bishop [in this case] may be worst than criticizing a priest.
11
posted on
11/11/2011 2:00:25 AM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: topher
Wow... you think bishops are infallible.
Where is that in the catechism?
Fr. Frank has taken a vow of obedience. I haven’t.
I am free to criticize the Bishop for his letter which bore false witness against Fr. Frank & Priests for Life and advocated stopping all donations.
I am free to criticize the fact that he called Fr. Frank back to Amarillo, and promptly went to South America for Vacation.
I am free to criticize how the Bishop has violated the most basic of agreements with Fr. Frank regarding how to handle discussions on the matter.
I am free to criticize how Bishop Zurek has ignored his Brother Bishops who have offered to mediate regarding the matter.
None of these actions on the part of Bishop Zurek are infallible and he has demeaned his office.
12
posted on
11/11/2011 5:01:10 AM PST
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
To: RBIEL2
The agreement was to have a meeting and not go public...
The Bishop then put out a press release regarding the meeting.
At that time, there was an instant trust issue and Fr. Frank insisted on mediation, led by another Bishop.
Bishop Zurek ignored a number of Brother Bishops who offered to mediate (that is the pattern here)
Therefore, no meeting.
It doesn’t make sense to communicate with people when they can’t keep the simplest of commitments.
13
posted on
11/11/2011 5:04:31 AM PST
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
To: rwilson99
Roman Catholics are urged not to criticize priests.
If one respects that, then they should respect Bishops.
If you disagree with a Bishop, then politely send him a letter.
In terms of Father Frank Pavone, I could criticize him for things I saw him do and not do when I worked for him at Priests for Life. Believe me, that would be more than Bishop Zurek recalling one of his priests to his Diocese, which he has a right to do.
Father Frank, in my opinion, needs to spend time in spiritual retreat away from the work environment of PFL.
At the time I left PFL, there were other employees that thought this would be wise.
14
posted on
11/11/2011 8:29:39 PM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: rwilson99
I would give as an example of why Father Frank needs some
spiritual time was the movie
Bella.
Father Frank had intimate contact with the cast and crew of Bella. He gave a spiritual retreat to them about 6 months before this movie [Bella] was released.
Yet to get Bella in local theaters, pro-lifers had to work at this.
Father Frank, and Priests for Life, instead of being the leading edge on getting the word out, was on the trailing edge.
I had Catholic pro-lifers in Atlanta upset at PFL because they only took action after Bella was about to stop playing in theaters.
At that time, I was a former employee of Priests for Life, and saw the problems that Father Frank had at that time [in my opinion] as the cause of Priests for Life not promoting a movie to bring the topic of abortion to the screen in a very powerful way.
I could have criticized Priests for Life for that major blunder/fumble of a potentially great pro-life oppourtunity. I consider how Priests for Life failed with the movie Bella to be why Father Frank needs to take a break, and why Bishop Zurek was right in what he did.
15
posted on
11/11/2011 8:36:37 PM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: rwilson99
To paraphrase Psalm 14:1: The fool says in his heart, I need not obey.
16
posted on
11/14/2011 9:23:27 AM PST
by
RBIEL2
To: topher
Zurek could have called him back to diocese... However he did exactly what you say Roman Catholics should not do.
He criticized one of his priests, in fact he made unsubstantiated accusations in public in a manner that demeans his office and makes him open to criticism.
Also... According to your standard, would it be wrong to public ally criticize a priest for inviting Barrack Obama to speak at Notre Dame?
Or should we just be good obedient Catholics when evil is praised in our watch?
17
posted on
11/14/2011 2:57:36 PM PST
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
To: rwilson99
Your wrote:
Also... According to your standard, would it be wrong to public ally criticize a priest for inviting Barrack Obama to speak at Notre Dame?
Father John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, was told by his bishop to uninvite Obama.
Additionally, about 100 Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals joined a petition against Notre Dame because of the invitation.
I certainly was guilty of criticizing Father Jenkins. But he is priest of a religious order (Holy Cross priests/brothers). Members of his own order criticized him for his stand. These priests came out publicly condemning the invitation of Obama.
In general, Notre Dame caused an extremely ugly situation such that there was an alternate graduation ceremony.
Finally, there is also the example of Father Michael Pfleger of Chicago who was almost defrocked by Cardinal George because of disobedience.
When Father Michael Pfleger found that he was going to be tossed from the priesthood by Cardinal George, Father Michael Pleger straightened up.
The problem with Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins is that he was only answerable to the board of Notre Dame and his religous order superior. He did not feel that he had to obey his bishop.
In terms of Canon Law, I believe that Father John Jenkins could disobey his bishop.
On the other hand, Father Frank Pavone must obey his bishop. His bishop is his boss as long as he is a priest.
18
posted on
11/18/2011 10:23:44 PM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: rwilson99
You wrote:
Zurek could have called him back to diocese... However he did exactly what you say Roman Catholics should not do.
Father Frank Pavone was recalled to his diocese.
However, there may be events that transpired that we are not aware of that made Bishop Zurek take the actions he did.
The following is known:
1. The Gospel of Life Ministries [which Father Frank Pavone controls] lost their tax exempt status. In 2010, Priests for Life loaned Gospel of Life $1.5 million at a time [in 2010] when Priests for Life was running a deficit.
2. Priests for Life is having trouble with the IRS. However, so far Priests for Life has not lost its tax exempt status.
In 2010, Priests for Life loaned money to Rachel's Vineyards, also controled by Father Frank Pavone.
Bishop Zurek's criticm was sending a letter to all Bishops of the United States asking them not to donate to Priests for Life. That letter is the most damning thing done, as it impairs the ability of Priests for Life to raise money. The economy is in horrible shape, and this has to be very hard on non-profits.
Bishop Zurek has to take action with a priest because of the example of the clergy sex abuse. For Bishop Zurek not to take action would be similar of not taking action for a priest who is accused of sexual abuse.
19
posted on
11/18/2011 10:33:32 PM PST
by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- are the values that time has proven them to work)
To: topher
Please... That is an epic reach.
20
posted on
11/19/2011 7:27:30 PM PST
by
rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson