Father Pavone placed on leave by Bishop Zurek of Amarillo

[PaulinVA]

Guys, this is really simple.

• Priests for Life is a Catholic-related organization.
• People would logically think that PFL has oversight by the Church, after all, it’s **Priests **for Life
• Father Pavone is the National Director of Priests for Life
• Father Pavone is incardenated in the Diocese of Amarillo
• Bishop of Amarillo feels that he is responsible, therefore, for the money Fr. P raises for PFL He is the the Bishop with the closest and most visible relationship (outside the Board) to the National Director
• Fr P says that PFL has been transparent with Bishops in relation to finances
• Fr P believes that that his work is so important that it is a life-long commitment that no one (including his Bishop) can interfere with.
• The Bishop of Amarillo feels that Fr P is insubordinate and has no intention of being obedient to him.

Observation: It is really hard in these times, apparently, for a priest to have a national (not diocesan) ministry and still submit to a diocesan Bishop. I understand why, I think. I am against the “cult of personality” when it comes to, well, everything. It sure seems hard to have a national ministry when you are not in community with your brother priests.

 

[Corki]

Guys, this is really simple.

• Priests for Life is a Catholic-related organization.
• People would logically think that PFL has oversight by the Church, after all, it’s **Priests **for Life
• Father Pavone is the National Director of Priests for Life
• Father Pavone is incardenated in the Diocese of Amarillo
• **Bishop of Amarillo feels that he is responsible, therefore, for the money **Fr. P raises for PFL He is the the Bishop with the closest and most visible relationship (outside the Board) to the National Director
• Fr P says that PFL has been transparent with Bishops in relation to finances
• Fr P believes that that his work is so important that it is a life-long commitment that no one (including his Bishop) can interfere with.
• The Bishop of Amarillo feels that Fr P is insubordinate and has no intention of being obedient to him.

Observation: It is really hard in these times, apparently, for a priest to have a national (not diocesan) ministry and still submit to a diocesan Bishop. I understand why, I think. I am against the “cult of personality” when it comes to, well, everything. It sure seems hard to have a national ministry when you are not in community with your brother priests.

All of this is true. However, the Bishop is not responsible for the money or for PFL, only for the actions of the priest from his diocese (Fr. Pavone). As Brother JR laid out so well in the other thread, the Bishop has no control or interest (legal interest, not curiousity) in PFL.

To be clear, this new statement is by Msgr. Waldo, a spokesman for the diocese and not by the bishop himself. All that “patrimony of the Church” verbiage was an unfortunate choice of words. It makes it sound like the diocese of Amarillo wants control over PFL and its budget. **I don’t think that is the issue at all. **

Doesn’t the diocese use a lawyer to vet these statements first? Edward Peters, canonist, wrote yesterday about the first letter from the Bishop. Bishop Zurek used the term “suspended” in a letter to fellow bishops. “Suspension” has a very specific meaning when applied to priests and it doesn’t apply to Fr. Pavone here. And now we have another statement which is very inaccurate about the ownership of PFL’s funds.

I think all these people need to step back and really think about what is being put out in statements. Making clarifications later doesn’t help once a statement is out in cyberspace.

 

[mark_a]

Unlike the Fr. Corapi fiasco, Fr. Pavone certainly seems (after reading his statement) to have the upper hand, at least in the media.

I surely don’t know why this couldn’t have been handled a little more discreetly, though.