I’m with you.
Thank you, Brother.Why do people have to see conspiracies where there are none and why can’t people learn to read canonical statements? Good gravy!
The bishop has said it very clearly. Priests For Life has a net income of over $9million. It’s a non-profit corporation that is headed by a priest, but is not a Catholic organization. Therefore, there is a problem. You cannot have a priest managing that much money without ecclesial oversight. Church law does not allow it. Priests, brothers and sisters may not administer money unless it’s for the Church or family. When they administer money for private organizations, there is always the danger of problems.
A bishop or a major religious superior has the right to call in a priest whom he has loaned out to an organization like this and ask for an accounting. The bishop is not interested in the money. The bishop is not interested in how PFL uses the money; it not a Church organization. The bishop has no voice in how PFL uses its money.
However, the bishop is responsible for his priest. He has a priest living and working outside of the diocese as the CEO of a very wealthy corporation. In light of things that have happened recently, such as the situation with Fr. Corapi, bishops want to make sure that there are no repetitions.
Observe that the article’s title is misleading. Fr. Pavone has been suspended from ministry outside of his diocese, not in his diocese. In other words, he is in good standing and is not suspect of wrong doing. If he were a religious, he would simply be recalled to the motherhouse. Since he is a diocesan priest, they have no motherhouse. The only way to keep a diocesan priest on homebase is to take away his license to operate outside ot the diocese.
The article’s titles makes it sound like he is in trouble until you read the words of the bishop. If he can demonstrate that everything is fine and that he’s not making any money from the ministry, he’ll be fine. The man doesn’t even get a salary from the ministry. According to canon law, every diocesan priest is to be paid a salary, have benefits provided with a home, and retirement security. He has none of that. The diocese will not pay him, because he does not work for them, even though it’s his diocese. The best thing for him to do is to return to the Archdiocese of NY since PFL has moved everything to NYC. This way he will always be supervized by his bishop.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Indeed. I hope the black sheepdoggie is watching…
I understand what you are saying Br. But in Fr. Pavone’s public letter, he noted that he HAS provided accouting to his bishop and to the Board of Bishops that oversee PFL.
Fr. Pavone is complying with the request to appear before the bishop next Tuesday, so hopefully this will all be cleared up.
Thanks for the reality check, Bro.Why do people have to see conspiracies where there are none and why can’t people learn to read canonical statements? Good gravy!
The bishop has said it very clearly. Priests For Life has a net income of over $9million. It’s a non-profit corporation that is headed by a priest, but is not a Catholic organization. Therefore, there is a problem. You cannot have a priest managing that much money without ecclesial oversight. Church law does not allow it. Priests, brothers and sisters may not administer money unless it’s for the Church or family. When they administer money for private organizations, there is always the danger of problems.
A bishop or a major religious superior has the right to call in a priest whom he has loaned out to an organization like this and ask for an accounting. The bishop is not interested in the money. The bishop is not interested in how PFL uses the money; it not a Church organization. The bishop has no voice in how PFL uses its money.
However, the bishop is responsible for his priest. He has a priest living and working outside of the diocese as the CEO of a very wealthy corporation. In light of things that have happened recently, such as the situation with Fr. Corapi, bishops want to make sure that there are no repetitions.
Observe that the article’s title is misleading. Fr. Pavone has been suspended from ministry outside of his diocese, not in his diocese. In other words, he is in good standing and is not suspect of wrong doing. If he were a religious, he would simply be recalled to the motherhouse. Since he is a diocesan priest, they have no motherhouse. The only way to keep a diocesan priest on homebase is to take away his license to operate outside ot the diocese.
The article’s titles makes it sound like he is in trouble until you read the words of the bishop. If he can demonstrate that everything is fine and that he’s not making any money from the ministry, he’ll be fine. The man doesn’t even get a salary from the ministry. According to canon law, every diocesan priest is to be paid a salary, have benefits provided with a home, and retirement security. He has none of that. The diocese will not pay him, because he does not work for them, even though it’s his diocese. The best thing for him to do is to return to the Archdiocese of NY since PFL has moved everything to NYC. This way he will always be supervized by his bishop.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Sorry I missed this yesterday.
I think this is what confused me about the Bishop’s letter. Of course this letter could have just been the most recent in a series but the tone seemed aimed more at getting a better accounting for the activities of PFL than about finding out more about Fr. Pavone’s situation with PFL.
With phrases in the Bishop’s letter like “Father Pavone’s incorrigible defiance” and “inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance” I don’t think you can fault us for thinking that Fr. Pavone is in trouble.Br. JR, OSF
I second Catharina’s ‘Thank You’, Brother!Why do people have to see conspiracies where there are none and why can’t people learn to read canonical statements? Good gravy!
The bishop has said it very clearly. Priests For Life has a net income of over $9million. It’s a non-profit corporation that is headed by a priest, but is not a Catholic organization. Therefore, there is a problem. You cannot have a priest managing that much money without ecclesial oversight. Church law does not allow it. Priests, brothers and sisters may not administer money unless it’s for the Church or family. When they administer money for private organizations, there is always the danger of problems.
A bishop or a major religious superior has the right to call in a priest whom he has loaned out to an organization like this and ask for an accounting. The bishop is not interested in the money. The bishop is not interested in how PFL uses the money; it not a Church organization. The bishop has no voice in how PFL uses its money.
However, the bishop is responsible for his priest. He has a priest living and working outside of the diocese as the CEO of a very wealthy corporation. In light of things that have happened recently, such as the situation with Fr. Corapi, bishops want to make sure that there are no repetitions.
Observe that the article’s title is misleading. Fr. Pavone has been suspended from ministry outside of his diocese, not in his diocese. In other words, he is in good standing and is not suspect of wrong doing. If he were a religious, he would simply be recalled to the motherhouse. Since he is a diocesan priest, they have no motherhouse. The only way to keep a diocesan priest on homebase is to take away his license to operate outside ot the diocese.
The article’s titles makes it sound like he is in trouble until you read the words of the bishop. If he can demonstrate that everything is fine and that he’s not making any money from the ministry, he’ll be fine. The man doesn’t even get a salary from the ministry. According to canon law, every diocesan priest is to be paid a salary, have benefits provided with a home, and retirement security. He has none of that. The diocese will not pay him, because he does not work for them, even though it’s his diocese. The best thing for him to do is to return to the Archdiocese of NY since PFL has moved everything to NYC. This way he will always be supervized by his bishop.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
‘Return to PHOENIX’-NOT!
How about taking another reality check? Let’s not only read JR’s post but put on our thinking caps too.Thanks for the reality check, Bro.
I hope everyone takes the time to read Bro.'s post instead of jumping to wild and crazy conclusions and some conspiracy theory.
Yes, quite a lambasting! This letter sheds much suspicion on the entire organization. This is what is upsetting…why on earth was this letter made public at all?
Furthermore, what does this do to the reputation of priests for life? This is beyond a doubt going to take the wind out of their sails, and it might be enough to cripple the entire organization. Archbishop Zurek did not think it through? If money were a concern to him, this could have been done way under the radar. IT WAS NOT.The answer can be found in the NCRegister’s article in the following statement
The way I read the Bishop’s statement has less to do with PFL and more to do with his specific concerns for Fr Pavone.
The Bishop’s letter was sent (privately?) to all his brother bishops so it was bound to come out. Supposedly, the letter was “leaked” forcing the diocese of Amarillo to make a public statement to which Fr. Pavone then responded.Yes, quite a lambasting! This letter sheds much suspicion on the entire organization. This is what is upsetting…why on earth was this letter made public at all?
The Church has always had a way of keeping things on the “Q T” when they wanted to. Why was it broadcasted in this manner? Was this really necessary? I DON’T THINK SO.
I would agree with you except then why did Bishop Zurek end his letter asking his brother bishops to tell their flocks to consider withholding donations to PFL?The way I read the Bishop’s statement has less to do with PFL and more to do with his specific concerns for Fr Pavone.
I didn’t take it as impugning the PFL organization at all.