Father Pavone placed on leave by Bishop Zurek of Amarillo

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nimzovik said:
The article looks like more smoke than fire…
Click to expand...
It looks to me like Bishop Zurek is exercising prudence here. Where there’s smoke, there’s smoke – or there may be fire. I doubt Fr Pavone has done anything wrong but +Zurek may want to set some limits.
He may be trying to head off a Fr Corapi-type situation which largely resulted from a priest amassing a personal fortune and functioning w/o any oversight.

It might be wise for the USCCB to come up with some guidelines for “celebrity priests” (who can d a lot of good work". Personally I think they should not keep speaking fees, profits from videos, &c but plow them back into the ministry.
 
didymus said:
It looks to me like Bishop Zurek is exercising prudence here. Where there’s smoke, there’s smoke – or there may be fire. I doubt Fr Pavone has done anything wrong but +Zurek may want to set some limits.
**He may be trying to head off a Fr Corapi-type situation which largely resulted from a priest amassing a personal fortune and functioning w/o any oversight.**It might be wise for the USCCB to come up with some guidelines for “celebrity priests” (who can d a lot of good work". Personally I think they should not keep speaking fees, profits from videos, &c but plow them back into the ministry.
Click to expand...
Or he may be trying to control or silence a very vocal priest in advance of the upcoming election season. 🤷
 
He is obeying his bishop AND he has begun a process of appeal to the Vatican.

Statement from Fr. Pavone
Now, although Bishop Zurek is my Ordinary, he is not the bishop of Priests for Life. Each of our staff priests has his own Ordinary, and the organization has an entire Board of Bishops. We keep them all informed of our activities, and of our financial audits.
Click to expand...
I want to say very clearly that Priests for Life is above reproach in its financial management and the stewardship of the monies it receives from dedicated pro-lifers, raised primarily through direct mail at the grassroots level. To this end, Priests for Life has consistently provided every financial document requested by Bishop Zurek, including annual financial audits, quarterly reports, management documents—even entire check registers! Priests for Life has been completely transparent with Bishop Zurek and any other bishops who have requested information regarding our management and finances. Indeed, we have 21 bishops and cardinals who sit on our Advisory Board, and they are kept fully informed about our finances
Click to expand...
 
GraceSofia said:
He is obeying his bishop AND he has begun a process of appeal to the Vatican.

Statement from Fr. Pavone
Click to expand...
So very sorry that Fr. P. has released a statement regarding this.
I would think that prudence alone would dictate obedience and silence.

Wonderful that he is being obedient -
but why not keep silent? Here’s one
more case of he said and then he said.

Hate it.
 
1holycatholic said:
:coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Another visible anti-abortion priest in the cross-hairs of Satan. They got another one. It’s a proud day for all of us.

I also wish everyone would stop speaking about Fr. Corapi as though they had PERSONAL information.
 
catharina said:
So very sorry that Fr. P. has released a statement regarding this.
I would think that prudence alone would dictate obedience and silence.

Wonderful that he is being obedient -
but why not keep silent? Here’s one
more case of he said and then he said.

Hate it.
Click to expand...
The diocese released a statement giving their side and Fr. Pavone released a statement for PFL, that’s why. It was right that Father provide an initial explanation since he will undoubtedly have to cancel speaking engagements and TV/radio appearances. His statement was more about how this “re-call” affects the ongoing operation of PFL and that is appropriate. Now, if this turns into a big public back-and-forth, that would be something else.
 
Catharina:

I agree that the letter should have been shorter, only as there were a few points where Fr. Pavone started coming off as slightly defensive. However, I’m refreshed to see the transparency in his letter too, and the fact that he’s obeying the Bishop’s command to return to Phoenix even when he technically does not have to is a very heartening sign.

I tend to agree with other posters that all the Bishop is doing here is acting out of an abundance of caution, wanting to make sure (perhaps overzealously, but still with good intentions) that another Corapi-style situation is not brewing.
 
Corki said:
The diocese released a statement giving their side and Fr. Pavone released a statement for PFL, that’s why. It was right that Father provide an initial explanation since he will undoubtedly have to cancel speaking engagements and TV/radio appearances. His statement was more about how this “re-call” affects the ongoing operation of PFL and that is appropriate. Now, if this turns into a big public back-and-forth, that would be something else.
Click to expand...
A sentence or two stating that he ‘must now return’ to his home diocese
‘for a time’ would have been more than sufficient. Defensiveness is not OK.
 
catharina said:
A sentence or two stating that he 'must now return to his home diocese
‘for a time’ would have been more than sufficient. Defensiveness is not OK.
Click to expand...
I agree it could have been shorter but that sentance or two would not have been sufficient. In terms of the current situation of PFL, it was also important to explain the relationship of the organization to the Bishop in Amarillo and what effect the initiation of the appeal process had. Without those pieces of information, which were not included in the diocisan statement, his actions may have led to scandal.
 
Pat_Payne said:
I tend to agree with other posters that all the Bishop is doing here is acting out of an abundance of caution, wanting to make sure (perhaps overzealously, but still with good intentions) that another Corapi-style situation is not brewing.
Click to expand...
I agree as well. So many people criticized Fr Corapi’s superiors because they let the situation get out of hand. I think the Bishop is merely doing preventative work, protecting all involved.
 
Joe_5859 said:
There is always a choice. He could resign from the priesthood and call himself “The PavLove Dog.” Classically Conditioned for Christ.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
Thank you for that comedic relief from yet another heart-heavying news story.

😦

:gopray2: that this time, it gets resolved well, and that there isn’t any funny business going on after all.
 
I hope it isn’t crossing a line to post this (and if it is, let me know!), but Rocco Palmo (of Whispers in the Loggia fame) posted a picture of the letter sent by Bishop Zurek to all the other bishops:

lockerz.com/s/138409096

It explains the bishop’s concerns a little more clearly.

I can certainly understand his concern – even if that concern turns out to be (hopefully) completely unwarranted. A bishop has an obligation to ensure that his priests are spiritually healthy.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I hope it isn’t crossing a line to post this (and if it is, let me know!), but Rocco Palmo (of Whispers in the Loggia fame) posted a picture of the letter sent by Bishop Zurek to all the other bishops:

lockerz.com/s/138409096

It explains the bishop’s concerns a little more clearly.

I can certainly understand his concern – even if that concern turns out to be (hopefully) completely unwarranted. A bishop has an obligation to ensure that his priests are spiritually healthy.
Click to expand...
Wow.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I hope it isn’t crossing a line to post this (and if it is, let me know!), but Rocco Palmo (of Whispers in the Loggia fame) posted a picture of the letter sent by Bishop Zurek to all the other bishops:

lockerz.com/s/138409096

It explains the bishop’s concerns a little more clearly.

I can certainly understand his concern – even if that concern turns out to be (hopefully) completely unwarranted. A bishop has an obligation to ensure that his priests are spiritually healthy.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
This quote from Archbishop Chaput’s installation homily seems relevant to this situation:

“Mary didn’t expect the Annunciation. She didn’t expect to be mother of our Redeemer. And yet her act of obedience changed the course of history and led to a new covenant of love and fruitfulness.”

We are all called to humility.
 
I am concerned about this but I do take some solace in a couple of things: First, that Father Pavone is actually returning per his Bishop’s directive and honoring his promise of obedience. Second, that Father Pavone has appealed the situation to Rome. This causes me to think that he at least believes that the organization and its finances are above board and that he is doing what he is supposed to be doing.

I am not siding either way at this point and am in fact glad that the Bishop, if he legitimately feels that there are issues, has acted in this manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top