Despite bishop's meeting request, Pavone a no-show

[Miriam1947]

Embattled activist priest Frank Pavone did not respond to Bishop Patrick J. Zurek’s public invitation for a private meeting Thursday, the bishop said.

Zurek included the invitation in an Oct. 6 statement he issued regarding his demand for greater financial transparency from three anti-abortion charities led by Pavone, the largest of which has drawn donations of $7 million to more than $10 million annually since 2004, according to its tax returns.

The statement said Zurek made the invitation to discuss Pavone’s “spiritual progress during this time of prayer and reflection.”

amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-10-13/despite-bishops-meeting-request-pavone-no-show

Pray for the bishop and the priest, please.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Embattled activist priest Frank Pavone did not respond to Bishop Patrick J. Zurek’s public invitation for a private meeting Thursday, the bishop said.

Zurek included the invitation in an Oct. 6 statement he issued regarding his demand for greater financial transparency from three anti-abortion charities led by Pavone, the largest of which has drawn donations of $7 million to more than $10 million annually since 2004, according to its tax returns.

The statement said Zurek made the invitation to discuss Pavone’s “spiritual progress during this time of prayer and reflection.”

amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-10-13/despite-bishops-meeting-request-pavone-no-show

Pray for the bishop and the priest, please.

Well, well, well, no matter what, the priest must obey. But I dont know much about it.

 

[seekerz]

I think it’s telling that the invitation was a public one. This suggests to me that the non-response was not altogether unexpected.

 

[Corki]

I think it’s telling that the invitation was a public one. This suggests to me that the non-response was not altogether unexpected.

In spite of how the news source reported it, Bishop Zurek’s statement on Oct. 6 was not the invitation. The Bishop mentioned in his statement that he had invited Fr. Pavone for a meeting. We don’t know the form or content of the actual invitation.

There’s a lot going on that we aren’t privy to, including some strong personalities and some unresolved past issues/baggage. We need to keep them all in our prayers.

 

[Joe_5859]

At the bottom of the article, there is a link to another article explaining the no-show:

amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-10-14/priests-life-release-statement-explaining-no-show

Official Statement from the Rev. David Deibel, Canonist

As Canonical Advisor to Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life, I have, on numerous occasions, communicated on their behalf with Bishop Patrick Zurek, asking for a mediator as a first step in restoring trust and facilitating healing in the relationship between the bishop and his priest. I can attest that Fr. Pavone is eager to restore with Bishop Zurek the trust and communication that should exist between any priest and his bishop. Fr. Pavone remains in Amarillo as directed by his bishop, and remains faithful and obedient.

The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking. Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators. Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.

Instead, he wrote to Fr. Frank, asked him to come to a one-on-one meeting with him, and asked him in writing not to speak to anyone about the meeting. Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the Bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese.

As his canonical consultant, I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway. All of us want this entire process to be carried out in private rather than through the media. He remains hopeful and prayerful that the bishop will respond privately to requests made of him, and that this situation will be resolved shortly in a truly Christian and ecclesial manner. I ask all to respect Father’s prayerful wishes in this regard.

Reverend David L. Deibel, JD, JCL

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

This is starting to appear to be personal on the bishop’s part (I am not saying that that is the case, to be clear…I’m saying it appears to be the case).

 

[Marie5890]

My own parish priest made a vague reference to this situation w/o naming names. He explained how on the day of one’s ordination that one promises to obey their bishop and his successors.

He told how one’s hands are placed in the bishop’s while this promise is being made.
He looked out over the congregation and said "well what is one going to say? ‘No’? ".

Obedience does matter. The promise of obedience to one’s bishop and his successors matter.

I feel badly for all the young people who are possibly getting the snap shot that Fr Pavone is being dis-obedient to his bishop by not meeting with him.

Humility matters. It was requested that mediation occur, but that request doesnt mean that the bishop has to comply.

I wish Fr Pavone would act more in accordance with humility and meet with his bishop that listening to the advice of his lawyer (even canonical one at that, is still a lawyer)

JMO.

 

[mlund]

Humility matters. It was requested that mediation occur, but that request doesnt mean that the bishop has to comply.

I wish Fr Pavone would act more in accordance with humility and meet with his bishop that listening to the advice of his lawyer (even canonical one at that, is still a lawyer)

Requests and orders are not the same thing, and even obedience to a Bishop is constrained by Canon Law. Any order a Bishop gives that violates Canon Law or is otherwise contrary to the Vatican’s teachings and discipline is illicit. There is currently a dispute in the process of a canon law appeal to Rome that neither priest nor bishop can subvert. No faithful canon lawyer would council a priest to violate the canon law or disobey a licit order from his ordinary.

The Bishop can request anything he wants. What the Bishop can actually order a priest to do is constrained by the Canon Law.

• Marty Lund

 

[Marie5890]

Marty,

Can you explain in what ways canon law constrains a bishop in his dealings with his priests? I honestly dont know.

Can the bishop want to meet with his priest and the priest decline? Is the bishop constrained in that matter?

Do you have any idea of what the bishop has wanted/requested of Fr Pavone that Fr Pavone can deny?

Thanks.

 

[mlund]

I’m not a canon lawyer, but I have some understanding of the valuable role they play in the healthy function of the Mystical Body of Christ.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

If a Bishop orders a priest in a way contrary to the above his order is illicit and a priest is not compelled by his vows of obedience to his ordinary to obey such an order.

For example: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6Y.HTM

The Bishop can not command a subject priest or layperson to refrain from or deviate from following the outlined process for seeking administrative recourse.

• Marty Lund

 

[Marie5890]

Thanks Marty, I appreciate that.

In light of that, I haven’t seen anything that the bishop has asked of Fr Pavone that would qualify as illicit under canon law, or that would make it such that Fr Pavone shouldnt have met with him.

But then, like you, I am no canon lawyer.
But I can see where they have their place in the church. Thank you for sharing that.

 

[Corki]

From post #5

Instead, he wrote to Fr. Frank, asked him to come to a one-on-one meeting with him, and asked him in writing not to speak to anyone about the meeting. Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the Bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese.

If this is true (and we have not idea if it is or not) its very troubling. Coupling this with the earlier issue where the Bishop first said Father Pavone was suspended and then said he was a priest in good standing, there is good reason to have some canon law interpretation/representation/mediation. And once the process starts rolling, it should follow the steps outlined in canon law.

As the Bishop pointed out, this is not dissimilar to a human resource issue in the corporate world. Some of the main rules when there are disputes between employees and managers are to follow the process and have third parties present at any meetings that are likely to get emotional or heated.