To us he will always be Father Corapi, and those who don’t understand about that can like that or lump that, he is " a priest forever in the ancient order of Melchezidak".Corapi is not to be referred to as “Father.” This has been made quite clear.
Wrong. You are4 mistaken. It has never been so stated.Corapi is not to be referred to as “Father.” This has been made quite clear.
In the eyes of the Church, as of now, he remains Father Corapi.To us he will always be Father Corapi, and those who don’t understand about that can like that or lump that, he is " a priest forever in the ancient order of Melchezidak".
There are other ways to mismanage money besides fraud. I don’t think that accusation is being made by anyone.The only opinion that I will offer here is this: The Bishop better know what he is doing because if he isn’t then he should be raked over the coals because he isn’t just accusing Father Pavone of fraud but the same of the 15 Bishops that are on the Board of Directors too.
That’s not necessarily true, it depends on how the Board is set-up. And that depends on if this is a separate non-profit subject to state and federal law, or considered part of the Church, in which case, little control is exercised by the state - like none, I think.he isn’t just accusing Father Pavone of fraud but the same of the 15 Bishops that are on the Board of Directors too.
However, now Father Pavone wishes to be placed in another diocese. I’m not saying that the Bishop is correct in all of these things. We don’t know either side of the story, but Father Pavone announced this today, and unless his Bishop is in agreement with Father Pavone’s desire, unhappily Fr. Pavone seems as if he’s lacking in obedience. Prayers for everyone. Our Holy Church and especially the pro life movement is being attacked.amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-09-14-1#.TnH4CE-Zwxo
There are all kinds of links associated with this story and I want to include the original letter from the Bishop in this as well:
catholicnews.com/images/letter.jpg
Based upon the comments the Bishop seems to be making the following allegations:
· Priests for Life (PFL) has become a lucrative business which has given Father Pavone financial independence from legitimate ecclesiastical oversight
· Persistent questions regarding the misuse of millions of dollars that PFL receives from donors
· Father Pavone has not provided clear and adequate answers regarding the use of these funds
· Father Pavone has refused to subject PFL to transparent and a complete auditing of all expenditures
· Father Pavone has been an incorrigible defiance to the legitimate authority of his Bishop
· PFL financial resources have prevented the Bishop’s attempt for financial transparency
· Father Pavone has been disobedient to his prior Bishop Ordinaries
· Father Pavone sees himself as a celebrity that views obedience to his Bishop as an inconvenience
· Father Pavone’s importance to PFL has resulted in an inflated ego and as a result has made him consider being a diocesan Priest as being reductionist
· Father Pavone sees himself as famous and that has somehow made the Bishop feel that obedience can’t be implemented
· No donations should be made to PFL at all
The only opinion that I will offer here is this: The Bishop better know what he is doing because if he isn’t then he should be raked over the coals because he isn’t just accusing Father Pavone of fraud but the same of the 15 Bishops that are on the Board of Directors too.
Speaking of hyperbole and going on a rampage, take note of Fr. P’s words:Something weird is going on here that we have yet to learn. Bishop Zurek is not handling this at all in a professional manner or in a customary manner. Even when priests get yanked, it’s usually with a very neutral letter, stating facts, not hyperole, and done in a way to downplay the problems until whatever needs to be looked at is done. This Zurek seems on a rampage.
Above, you have listed your conclusions regarding the bishop’s statements.amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-09-14-1#.TnH4CE-Zwxo
There are all kinds of links associated with this story and I want to include the original letter from the Bishop in this as well:
catholicnews.com/images/letter.jpg
Based upon the comments the Bishop seems to be making the following allegations:
· Priests for Life (PFL) has become a lucrative business which has given Father Pavone financial independence from legitimate ecclesiastical oversight
· Persistent questions regarding the misuse of millions of dollars that PFL receives from donors
· Father Pavone has not provided clear and adequate answers regarding the use of these funds
· Father Pavone has refused to subject PFL to transparent and a complete auditing of all expenditures
· Father Pavone has been an incorrigible defiance to the legitimate authority of his Bishop
· PFL financial resources have prevented the Bishop’s attempt for financial transparency
· Father Pavone has been disobedient to his prior Bishop Ordinaries
· Father Pavone sees himself as a celebrity that views obedience to his Bishop as an inconvenience
· Father Pavone’s importance to PFL has resulted in an inflated ego and as a result has made him consider being a diocesan Priest as being reductionist
· Father Pavone sees himself as famous and that has somehow made the Bishop feel that obedience can’t be implemented
· No donations should be made to PFL at all
The only opinion that I will offer here is this: The Bishop better know what he is doing because if he isn’t then he should be raked over the coals because he isn’t just accusing Father Pavone of fraud but the same of the 15 Bishops that are on the Board of Directors too.
First off they are summaries of direct quotes of the Bishop’s letter. If you had read the Bishop’s letter you might understand that.Above, you have listed your conclusions regarding the bishop’s statements.
That’s it and no more - your conclusions.
Of course, your opinion is your opinion.First off they are summaries of direct quotes of the Bishop’s letter. If you had read the Bishop’s letter you might understand that.
Even if they are conclusions, they are conclusions based upon the facts of the letter. If you have an issue with anyone of these you should bring up specific points that I made so that it can be intelligently discussed. If you don’t wish to do this then please don’t comment on my posts.
Finally, am I not entitled to my own opinion based upon the direct quotes from the Bishop’s letter? How come you are so defensive to tell everyone else that you are entitled to your personal opinion and not me?
I agree, I wouldn’t think the Diocese of Amarillo could co-op those moneys as “patrimony of the Church”. In 501 (c) (3) parlance those should be “restricted funds” used only for the furtherance of the pro-life effort for which they were donated. My theory consists of 7 points:lifesitenews.com/news/most-recent-updates-on-fr-pavone-situation
I respectfully disagree with this Bishop.
Catholics who donate money to “Priests for Life” from all over the US are donating specifically to their mission of stopping abortion.
They are not donating to the Diocese of ElPaso.
The same is true of Catholics who donate directly to EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network), St. Vincent de Paul, or any other Catholic Charity.
Catholics and others expect their donations to go exactly where they want them to go, and not be deverted.
Just as Catholics and other people of good will are making headway in the public opinion against abortion - this has to happen.
I don’t think that Bishop Zurek is saying that the PFL money belongs to the Diocese of Amarillo. Rather, the claim is that the bishop (and all bishops) have a right to be concerned with how the PFL money is being utilized.I respectfully disagree with this Bishop.
Catholics who donate money to “Priests for Life” from all over the US are donating specifically to their mission of stopping abortion.
They are not donating to the Diocese of ElPaso.
“I’m sure that our bishop does not stand alone on this,” Waldow said. “He is in a community of other bishops who have had the conversation also with the Holy See in Rome, asking questions as to … what is being done with the monies. I think Rome has been quite clear the bishops of the United States need to exercise more prudential guidance and governance over the patrimony of the church.
amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-09-14-1#.TnM6MdR6JI5“This is patrimony of the church. It belongs to the church. People give their money over the understanding that it goes to the church or church auspices and programs and ministries.”