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.
…These financial questions and concerns have persisted with no clear and adequate answers since the time when Fr. 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…Additionally, the PFL financial resources have afforded Fr. Pavone with a formidable civil and canonical counsel which he utilized to rebuff my every attempt at calling for financial transparency…In his relationships to his bishop ordinaries, Fr. 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 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…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.
Click to expand...
 
No information given to substantiate concerns yet.

Could just be an over-reaction to the laxity that enabled another high profile priest to excessively profit personally from his ministry. Wait and see, I say. Justice grinds its wheels slowly.
 
Good for Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zurek. Bishop Zurek is right to be concerned. On a technical level he’s the one who will be held accountable if something goes horribly wrong with Priests For Life and the organization is too large for him to manage in the current state. Fr. Pavone is also right to be concerned about the promise he made to the Holy See and the obligations Priests For Life has towards many other dioceses. The task put before Priest For Life is something bigger than an individual see at this point.

I’m hopeful that the appeal to the Vatican may pave the way to formulate a proper framework for Priests For Life that exists beyond the purview of the Diocese of Amarillo - perhaps an project under the auspices of the Curia or the USCCB.
  • Marty Lund
 
Pat_Payne said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ultimately time will tell. Till then I shall wait and see. I must say that the tone the Bishop used in an apparantly public(?) venue was somewhat disconcerting. Ergo Father Palone was perhaps correct to do some damage control for the sake of the reputaion of the pro- life movement. However none of this should have made it outside of the Catholic Family until there was irrefutable, observable evidence of misconduct . It should have been done with perspicacity, which as it seems at the moment, it was not. If Father Palone were to have outrigtht refused to cooperate in any manner then perhaps the Bishop would have been correct to make it public. However that aside, I do know that I do not have all the exact details as to how all this unfolded.

We shall see what we shall see when we see it!

Let us ask that charity will prevail on both sides. However if there be evil here then let it be dealt with swiftly.
 
mlund said:
Good for Fr. Pavone and Bishop Zurek. Bishop Zurek is right to be concerned. On a technical level he’s the one who will be held accountable if something goes horribly wrong with Priests For Life and the organization is too large for him to manage in the current state. Fr. Pavone is also right to be concerned about the promise he made to the Holy See and the obligations Priests For Life has towards many other dioceses. The task put before Priest For Life is something bigger than an individual see at this point.

I’m hopeful that the appeal to the Vatican may pave the way to formulate a proper framework for Priests For Life that exists beyond the purview of the Diocese of Amarillo - perhaps an project under the auspices of the Curia or the USCCB.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
Just a note:

Priests for Life does exist beyond the purview of the Diocese of Amarillo. It is located in Staten Island. The responsibility for all things Catholic there belongs to Archbishop Dolan.

Because of that, I am puzzled as to why Bishop Zurek was so involved in the financial investigation of PFL beyond Fr. Pavone’s personal involvement. Wouldn’t that be the responsibilty of Archbishop Dolan? I would assume (hope) that Bishop Zurek consulted with Archbishop Dolan in this, especially the last part about asking for contributions to PFL to be suspended.
 
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...
In my opinion, he almost had to release a statement - think about it - if he did not some would think there was some guilt of something on his part. I like to think he released the statement not to protect himself, but to portect the work of saving the unborn. Donations and other help are needed, and perhaps he was afraid these might dry up if he did not say something.

As we have seen, the Church often moves very slowly in these matters, so he might be busy with this for months if not a year or more, and this could then become damaging to the ministry to the unborn.

Personally I do not think he needed to release the info about appealing to the Vatican - some personal pique might have entered into that part – but he is human afterall and still running his race to perfection, like all of us.

The whole thing seems a bit odd or confusing - the bishop mentioned questions about finanacial stewardship, but Fr. Pavone’s statement said they have regular transparent audits of all finances and have bishops on their committe who also get those audits. So it seems Fr. Pavone claims the stewardship is being handled appropriately but the bishop raises questions about it, so maybe it is not being handled appropriately?? Money is the root of all evil, but hopefully this is not the case here.

Oh well, I guess we will all find out soon enough. Pray that this in no way harms that ministry of saving the unborn. It has made great progress in recent years.

God bless you.
 
Corki said:
Or he may be trying to control or silence a very vocal priest in advance of the upcoming election season. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m sure those who have done pro-life work would agree that it is a very stressful cause. From a practical standpoint, saving one baby’s life cannot even begin to take away the horror of knowing that another one was just inhumanely ripped apart and thrown out as bio-hazardous waste (and that the government says that’s ok, our tax dollars help pay for it, and people who think themselves good and decent citizens support the right to do it). This kind of work is very difficult. Not many people can truly devote their entire lives to it.

I have watched Fr. Pavone over the years, and while I have a great respect for the things he has done for the pro-life cause, sometimes it has seemed like he’s allowed it to affect him more than it should. For example, I saw a video clip of him at a March for Life event- this was not the protest of a humble, loving, but passionate (and rightfully outraged) priest. This had crossed the line into an overly-emotional, almost-psychotic rant. I hope he takes time over the coming months to approach his priesthood with a new-found love and enthusiasm. He has done great work in promoting the pro-life cause, but his primary responsibility is to conform himself to Christ- and as a priest, to offer himself with Christ in silence “as a lamb before the slaughter” for the salvation of souls.
 
I must say, sadly, that I detect a hint of arrogance in Fr. Pavone’s statement, ala Fr. Corapi, and while he states that he has provided open audit records and passed audits for ten years, I am not sure this means no funds are being mishandled. I am not sure every penny collected is being properly accounted for. I wish I read more humility in his statement.

Pray, and
God bless you.
 
Dale_M said:
However, Fr. Pavone is obeying his superior and returning to the diocese for oversight. I think that is a very positive sign.
Click to expand...
Agreed …
It’s good to see Fr. Pavone’s obedience.

EDIT:

Haven’t yet read the statement,
so I have nothing to say on that
at this point.
 
Corki said:
Just a note:

Priests for Life does exist beyond the purview of the Diocese of Amarillo. It is located in Staten Island. The responsibility for all things Catholic there belongs to Archbishop Dolan.

Because of that, I am puzzled as to why Bishop Zurek was so involved in the financial investigation of PFL beyond Fr. Pavone’s personal involvement. Wouldn’t that be the responsibilty of Archbishop Dolan? I would assume (hope) that Bishop Zurek consulted with Archbishop Dolan in this, especially the last part about asking for contributions to PFL to be suspended.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Fr. Pavone asked to be transferred to the Amarillo diocese several years ago because of a conflict with Archbishop Dolan’s predecessor, which is why he and his organization fall under Bishop Zurek.
 
In a recent issue the Remnant ran an article about all the priests associated with EWTN who have been accused of either abuse or other forms of wrongdoing, going back to Fr. Ken Roberts in the 1990s. Pretty disgusting.
 
m134e5 said:
I’m sure those who have done pro-life work would agree that it is a very stressful cause. From a practical standpoint, saving one baby’s life cannot even begin to take away the horror of knowing that another one was just inhumanely ripped apart and thrown out as bio-hazardous waste (and that the government says that’s ok, our tax dollars help pay for it, and people who think themselves good and decent citizens support the right to do it). This kind of work is very difficult. Not many people can truly devote their entire lives to it.

I have watched Fr. Pavone over the years, and while I have a great respect for the things he has done for the pro-life cause, sometimes it has seemed like he’s allowed it to affect him more than it should.** For example, I saw a video clip of him at a March for Life event- this was not the protest of a humble, loving, but passionate (and rightfully outraged) priest. This had crossed the line into an overly-emotional, almost-psychotic rant.** I hope he takes time over the coming months to approach his priesthood with a new-found love and enthusiasm. He has done great work in promoting the pro-life cause, but his primary responsibility is to conform himself to Christ- and as a priest, to offer himself with Christ in silence “as a lamb before the slaughter” for the salvation of souls.
Click to expand...
Bold lettering Mine.

The subject matter is indeed horrific (abortion) I am quite surprised that those involved in taking the cause against this evil do not rant far more often. Those in the trenchs do indeed suffer a unique agony.

I personally would be the last one critiquing this priest’s comportment in this regard.
 
TMC said:
My understanding is that Fr. Pavone asked to be transferred to the Amarillo diocese several years ago because of a conflict with Archbishop Dolan’s predecessor, which is why he and his organization fall under Bishop Zurek.
Click to expand...
The NCRegister ran the story of Fr. Pavone today and they had a slightly different take. They mentioned that Fr. moved to Amarillo at the invitation of Zurek’s predecessor, Bishop Yanta who was closely involved in the founding of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life.
 
Considering the recent events with Fr, Corapi I think the Bishop Zurek is being properly prudent, I don’t believe that there will be much in a way scandal regarding the finances for PFL but those who have followed Fr. Pavone for a while have noticed the promouns “we” and “us” being replaced by “I” and “me”. So I think this may be a good time for a reality check.
 
I have watched Father Pavone on EWTN…He is truly dedicated to the Innocent ones. This Bishop Zurek should have investigated more closely before demanding he return to Texas. This sounds very unsettling to me. This Organization that Father Pavone was head of had done wonders for the movement to save our innocent ones…so why would a Bishop not show his thank instead of his criticism. Like I said if he had doubts, he should have done more investigation At any rate, see the article below, for it may give more insight to this horrible situation for Father Pavone. The article is from Lifenews.com “In God We Trust.”
**Father Frank Pavone Prevented From Running Priests for Life
Father Frank
Code: 
  Pavone is being prevented temporary from the Catholic Bishop under whom

  he serves from operating Priests for Life, the respected national pro-life

  organization that has been a leader for years in the pro-life movement.
According to a Catholic News
Code: 
  Service report, Amarillo Bishop Patrick J. Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo,

  Texas is preventing Pavone from leading the organization and working outside

  of the boundaries of the diocese. CNS indicates the suspension was made

  public in a September 9 letter the bishop released that questioned the finances

  of Priests for Life.
Pavone told CNS that he is complying
Code: 
  with the request from his bishop and returning to Amarillo, Texas to resume

  priestly duties. Father Pavone has been able to operate the Priests for

  Life ministry with the help and support of the Catholic Church ever since

  Cardinal OConnor granted him permission to create the organization

  in 1993.
My decision is the result
Code: 
  of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests

  for Life (PFL) organization, Bishop Zurek wrote in the letter. The

  PFL has become a business that is quite lucrative which provides Father

  Pavone with financial independence from all legitimate ecclesiastical oversight.
Zurek told CNS he has received
Code: 
  persistent questions and concerns about the finances of Priest

  for Life, which has become a large pro-life organization with numerous ministries

  to youth, women who have been victimized by abortion, a special outreach

  to Catholic priests and a political responsibility outreach urging pro-life

  groups to help pro-life voters register to vote and to vote pro-life. He

  said he wanted Pavone to return to spend time in prayer and reflection.
Pavone responded saying he would
Code: 
  comply with the request today after taping programs for EWTN, a popular

  Catholic television network. He came under the Texas bishops direction

  after Priests for Life relocated part of its offices from Staten Island,

  New York to the Texas diocese  but it has now returned to New York

  following the retirement of Bishop John W. Yanta, who strongly supported

  the organization.
Bishop Zurek asked me to
Code: 
  go back to the diocese today, which I am doing for a limited period of time,

  Father Pavone said. I am going there and my (priestly) faculties are

  fully intact and Im in good standing.
Pavone, who takes no salary from
Code: 
  Priests for Life, released an official statement on the matter (see below)

  and a letter in response. The pro-life advocate is asking the bishop to

  rescind his request, has appealed to Rome to be allowed to continue working

  in pro-life ministry full-time, and is actively defending the finances of

  Priests for Life as being aboveboard. Priests for Life has submitted to

  annual audits from a top accounting firm showing everything in top order.

  [lifenews.com/2011/09/13/father-frank-pavone-prevented-from-running-priests-for-life/](http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/13/father-frank-pavone-prevented-from-running-priests-for-life/)   **
 
There have got to be 21 bishops and cardinals who sit on PFL’s advisory board and are kept abreast of all the organization’s finances that have to be wondering what exactly the Bishop of Amarillo questions about PFL’s stewardship. It is truly interesting that this letter comes at the same time that PFL announces its international expansion. I have to admit that personally I was dismayed that a $100 contribution rebounded back with a flurry of mail from PFL asking for more money that I felt must have cost almost the full $100 to send me. I could see how reports of such letter campaigns to donors might raise questions by some clergy & laity about the proper use of donations. There were two letters where a dollar was enclosed to “prime the pump” for another donation. I kept the two dollars and considered myself only $98 dollars wasted. So I privately had reservations about PFL’s stewardship too and, resolved not to contribute in the future. To be fair, though, there may have been a desire to quickly build up a war chest to execute an advertising blitz / surge defending against the war on babies. So the donor letter campaign was most likely well intended, even though it turned me off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top