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.
Corki said:
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?
Click to expand...
“…until issues and concerns are settled”

And it’s a request for considering withholding, so I see it as asking the faithful to pause for a moment until whatever concerns there are are settled.

I just am not reading it as an impinging of PFL.
 
Corki said:
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?
Click to expand...
Good gravy, I got another conspiracy theory. Bishop Zurek could be an upright whistleblower. Remember the Catholic Campaign for Human Development use of funds, especially towards Acorn, with the supposed oversight of the USCCB. Yikes. What if he got wind that funds were being used for campaign contributions for Pro-Life candidates? With Fr Pavone under his auspices, that might jeopardize the charitable status of the diocese, would it not? At any rate, it would require that the bishop would have to reconcile the situation for the financial health of the diocese. I think it might also shed light on the public repudiation method with a caution to fellow bishops without explicitly saying why.
 
Corki said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yep…exactly what sheds suspicion on the entire organization. Anyone who thinks this will not have substantial repercussions is in denial. The Bishop didn’t consider this? This couldn’t have been handled behind closed doors before making a statement? Strange how all of a sudden any inconsistency with a high profile priest becomes public knowledge that can cause possible scandal. I have been a Catholic for 61 years, but have never known this kind of “transparency” within the Church. and especially transparency that could bring scandal or that could cause harm.

I am very happy that Fr is petitioning the Vatican, and that he will act in obedience. He is taking a lesson from Fr. Corapi.
 
wynnejj said:
Good gravy, I got another conspiracy theory. Bishop Zurek could be an upright whistleblower. Remember the Catholic Campaign for Human Development use of funds, especially towards Acorn, with the supposed oversight of the USCCB. Yikes. What if he got wind that funds were being used for campaign contributions for Pro-Life candidates? With Fr Pavone under his auspices, that might jeopardize the charitable status of the diocese, would it not? At any rate, it would require that the bishop would have to reconcile the situation for the financial health of the diocese.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. I was just trying to reconcile the Bishop’s statement with what Brother JR wrote (bolding mine).
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.
Click to expand...
And no, an organization in one diocese that acts in violation of the tax code would jeopordize its own tax-exempt status but not that of the diocese, let alone a diocese halfway accross the country.

**
 
The charitable status of the diocese, in such a scenario, may not be in question. A lawsuit against an individual in the organization, not the organization itself, when said individual is technically under the auspices of an ordinary of a diocese might spell financial difficulties for the diocese. A public pre-emptive repudiation of the individual and a call to caution to other bishops may be the legal pre-emptive damage control that a bishop must exercise in these anti-Catholic litigious times.
 
The financial issues may need sorting based on donor questions. PFL is part of a larger (and as of yesterday, international) conglomerate of organizations, at least one of which, Gospel of Life Ministries, is ecumenical. Gospel of Life Ministries, while listed in Staten Island and requesting “tax deductible” donations online, does not show up in a search of 501(c)3 nonprofit corporations in the United States. There are also no current (later than 2007) 990s (nonprofit reports required by the IRS) on file for PFL. The results of audits, which Fr Pavone uses to claim that finances are in order, only certify that legal accounting methods have been used by the organization. They do not let donors see where their money is going, a right that any taxpayer has. PFL does not publish annual reports or any other form of public filing regarding their transparency. If monies are going to political purposes in violation of IRS regs, the organization’s status as a nonprofit is in jeopardy. So due diligence is in order–especially by the Ordinary of the priest who is the public identity of PFL and its related ministries. The Board members, while the first line of defense in this kind of situation, are committed to the ministry, and may not be willing to scrutinize the books as carefully. There also appear to be questions regarding the canonical status of PFL and its related ministries–separate from their tax status, this is a question of the juridical status of the organization in Church law.

In addition to the financial and organizational questions, there remains a question regarding Fr Pavone’s incardination. When he refused to be incardinated in New York over disagreements with the Ordinary, he announced that he was establishing a society of diocesan right, the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, in Amarillo, and that he would be incardinated through the Society. (This was similar to the situation with Fr Corapi, who claimed to be incardinated through the S.O.L.T., a society of diocesan right.) However, the Society never developed, and its religious/clerical arm was disbanded, so it could not provide incardination. In 2008, Bishop Zurek announced that Fr Pavone was incardinated as a diocesan priest in Amarillo, and therefore subject to his authority. If there is tension, part of it may be Fr Pavone’s reluctance to have his ministry “limited” in this way–so this needs to be worked out. There is some thought that he might request to transfer his incar incardination back to NY, now that Abp Dolan seems more sympathetic to the work than his predecessor. Again, a bit of speculation, but drawn from the public record.
 
J_Katherine said:
The financial issues may need sorting based on donor questions. PFL is part of a larger (and as of yesterday, international) conglomerate of organizations, at least one of which, Gospel of Life Ministries, is ecumenical. Gospel of Life Ministries, while listed in Staten Island and requesting “tax deductible” donations online, does not show up in a search of 501(c)3 nonprofit corporations in the United States. There are also no current (later than 2007) 990s (nonprofit reports required by the IRS) on file for PFL. The results of audits, which Fr Pavone uses to claim that finances are in order, only certify that legal accounting methods have been used by the organization. They do not let donors see where their money is going, a right that any taxpayer has. PFL does not publish annual reports or any other form of public filing regarding their transparency. If monies are going to political purposes in violation of IRS regs, the organization’s status as a nonprofit is in jeopardy. So due diligence is in order–especially by the Ordinary of the priest who is the public identity of PFL and its related ministries. The Board members, while the first line of defense in this kind of situation, are committed to the ministry, and may not be willing to scrutinize the books as carefully. There also appear to be questions regarding the canonical status of PFL and its related ministries–separate from their tax status, this is a question of the juridical status of the organization in Church law.

In addition to the financial and organizational questions, there remains a question regarding Fr Pavone’s incardination. When he refused to be incardinated in New York over disagreements with the Ordinary, he announced that he was establishing a society of diocesan right, the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, in Amarillo, and that he would be incardinated through the Society. (This was similar to the situation with Fr Corapi, who claimed to be incardinated through the S.O.L.T., a society of diocesan right.) However, the Society never developed, and its religious/clerical arm was disbanded, so it could not provide incardination. In 2008, Bishop Zurek announced that Fr Pavone was incardinated as a diocesan priest in Amarillo, and therefore subject to his authority. If there is tension, part of it may be Fr Pavone’s reluctance to have his ministry “limited” in this way–so this needs to be worked out. There is some thought that he might request to transfer his incar incardination back to NY, now that Abp Dolan seems more sympathetic to the work than his predecessor. Again, a bit of speculation, but drawn from the public record.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks for adding technical understanding on the financial side.
 
wynnejj said:
How about taking another reality check? Let’s not only read JR’s post but put on our thinking caps too.

There are 21 bishops and cardinals who are on the advisory committee who are kept abreast of the financial affairs according to Father Pavone. Seems to me the organization in teeming with ecclesiastical oversight.

Those who serve on an advisory committee are able to offer advice
to an organization. Their responsibility ends there. They are not
authorized to provide “oversight” in a way that is enforceable.

There are many priests in PFL organization who also report to their respective ordinaries in their own diocese who have not been recalled for an accounting in such a public manner and suggesting to all brother bishops, including those on the advisory board, that they should instruct their respective faithful to discontinue donations until further notice.

The Bishop of Amarillo has a right & duty to recall a priest for an accounting even if he only gets a whiff of smoke suspecting a fire - or even at his whim. No question.

His letter to fellow bishops was a public lambasting though. No question either. It amounts to impugning Father Pavone and his whole organization of bishops & priests.
Click to expand...
 
Corki said:
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.

Brother, am I correct that the supervision of PFL would come under the diocese of NY rather than the diocese of Amarillo while the reverse would be true for the supervision of Fr. Pavone?

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. 😃
Click to expand...
mysteryreligion said:
***i hope this question doesn’t sound too dumb…

but if Fr P was in Staten Island, NY

how is it the bishop of Amarillo (i assume this is Amarillo, TX?) is dealing wtih the situation?

i wonder: Can a bishop of just any state discipline a priest of another?

i used to think not… but

maybe someone can explain?***
Click to expand...
This is not catastrophic and no one is charged with wrong doing. The facts are simple.
  1. Fr. Pavone belongs to the Diocese of Amarillo.
  2. Fr. Pavone works outside of the diocese.
  3. Fr. Pavone is the CEO of a corporation that is not owned by the Catholic Church.
  4. When priests, brothes, sisters or nuns are in such a situation any question by donors, the IRS, or anyone else can come back to bite the priest, his bishop and diocese.
  5. The bishop has a right to recall his priest and ask for explanations.
  6. He has a duty to the other bishops whose faithful support PFL to inform them that there are questions and that Father is going back to answer them.
  7. This is not new. It’s called accountability.
  8. The proof that there is no inapproprite behavior on Father Pavone’s part is that he has not been suspended. His faculties to funciton outside of his diocese have been suspended. Well, very few diocesan priests have faculties to function outside of their diocese. This privilege is reserved for priests who are members of exempt orders such as the Jesuits. They can function anywhere Other priests can only function in their diocese (if they are diocesan) or in their (province, if they are religious).
  9. Once the bishop is satisfied with the answers, he can give Fr. Pavone permission to return to Staten Island. He does not have to do so. The disadvantage of being a diocesan priest is that you’re married to the diocese. You can’t leave it without the permmission of the bishop. You can’t incardinate into another dioceses without an agreement by both bishops. The only way that a diocesan priest can get out of his diocese without the bishop’s permmission is to become a religious. However, if he becomes a religious, the chances of being assigned to PFL in perpetuity are slim to none. Religious assignments are reviewed annually, plus religious superiors are not in office as long as bishops are in office.
  10. Father Pavone cannot request re-incardination into the NY Archdiocese until the matter is closed in his favor. While your superior or bishop has questions for you, you cannot ask for a move. You are totally in the hands of the bishop…
  11. As to putting out a financial statement for donors to see, no non-profit has to do this. EWTN does not do so. I don’t know about Catholic Answers. Only organizations that are part of the Catholic Church have to do this. The Church requires it. Your parish has to do this. Hospitals and schools must have these available for people who ask to see them. Private corporations operate according to civil law, not ecclesial law. The individual priest, religious and laity are bound to follow Church law, but not the corporation.
If I worked for PFL, I have to comply with Church law in all things related to me. The corporation can have its own policieis and procedures. I have to comply with them, unless they are in conflict with Church Law. Since not everyone who works for PFL is Catholic, the non Catholic are not bound .

Even though PFL is housed in NY, it does not answer to the Archbishop. It is a private corporation as is EWTN, Catholic Answers, St. Michael’s Media, many of oiur colleges and high schools. The bishop can prohibit the use of the name Catholic. But that would be an extreme violation of moral law or heresy. They have not been accussed of either.

The turth is that there are no accusations, civil or ecclesial on the table. There is a concern, because there is a priest at the head of this and there is a lot of money. The bishop has a right to check to make sure that his priest is behaving.

As much as we all love Father Pavone and his work, he is a hot head. Bishops are not going to take well a simple answer, “Everything is OK, now leave me alone.” I don’t know if that’s what he said, but I’m using that as an example. I used that one with my mother many times. I was telling the truth. But the answer did not go well with her and then really started checking up on me. :rotfl:

Let’s not speculate and insert what is not there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Father Frank Pavone Arrives in Texas, Gets Pro-Life Support
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/14/11 11:18 AM
lifenews.com/2011/09/14/father-frank-pavone-arrives-in-texas-gets-pro-life-support/

Priests for Life head is needed for work in Texas, Bishop Zurek says
By Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103637.htm

Amarillo bishop suspends Pavone
Priests for Life head barred from ministry outside Amarillo
Posted: September 13, 2011 - 12:35pm By KAREN SMITH WELCH
amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2011-09-13/amarillo-bishop-suspends-pavone

Diocese: Priests for Life’s Fr. Pavone needed in Texas
Vicar for clergy: Pavone ‘needed for work in Amarillo’
Sep. 14, 2011
By Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service
ncronline.org/news/people/diocese-priests-life-head-fr-pavone-needed-texas
 
he has not been put on leave, he has been recalled to his diocese
read the story in full, please
personally, if I were a Texas bishop, I would recall all of my priests who are operating an independent ministry outside my diocese for which they do not account directly to me.
 
I e-mailed, benedict.xvi@vatican.va
the following:

Dear Pope Benedict,

I am deeply disappointed that Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, has ordered Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life, to return to the diocese of Amarillo and remain there. Stopping this necessary and vital pro-life work is a black mark for our Catholic Church in America.

Please issue a statement immediately affirming that canon law of the Catholic Church, because Fr. Pavone has begun a process of appeal to the Vatican, the Bishop’s order that he return to Amarillo has been effectively suspended. Any delay damages respect for our Catholic Church.

May the Holy Spirit guide you!

Please e-mail Pope Benedict:
benedict.xvi@vatican.va
 
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...
Firstly, I hope and pray that this will not affect the work of the PFL ministry - which is deparately important and apparently very effective.

However, why would PFL / Father Pavone not allow tranparency of expenditure? This may just be a poor decision, but of course the concern would be that something is being hid. Now there is no evidence of wrong doing, but that probably doesn’t matter to some. It does look as if the Bishop has worked long and hard to resolve this and has only reluctantly taken this course of action - undoubtedly with the mistakes of the US child abuse scandal ringing in his ears. I think the Bishop has shown remarkable bravery. Let’s hope it is resolved quickly and in the Spirit.

God Bless,

Hal.
 
JReducation said:
The turth is that there are no accusations, civil or ecclesial on the table. There is a concern, because there is a priest at the head of this and there is a lot of money. The bishop has a right to check to make sure that his priest is behaving.

As much as we all love Father Pavone and his work, he is a hot head. Bishops are not going to take well a simple answer, “Everything is OK, now leave me alone.” I don’t know if that’s what he said, but I’m using that as an example. I used that one with my mother many times. I was telling the truth. But the answer did not go well with her and then really started checking up on me. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Did your mother make you stay at home, then write a letter to all the mothers in town about how defiantly disrespectful you were and suspect of misbehavior, and that all known friends of yours were to be suspected for misbehavior too?

Father Pavone was publicly humiliated by his bishop before all other bishops in the USA and, suspicion was cast upon his fellow bishops & cardinals who sit on the advisory board, as well as all fellow priests for life.

There are non-Catholic observers on this forum who have to be scratching their heads when they hear knee-jerk Catholic apologists defending what is obviously very uncharitable behavior by the Bishop of Amarillo’s public reproof of Father Pavone in such uncharitable terms.

Yeah, Fr Pavone may be cocky. Yeah, the Bishop of Amarillo may be petty.
That would be the very best scenario in the public display scandal.

The question is why now in such a openly chastising manner? What’s the real story?
 
I admit , it’s not clear to me who made the private letter between the bishop of Amarillo and the rest of the bishops public.

Or are such letters deemed public in the eyes of the Church? I have figured that the communication was ment to be private?
 
Is there a link that shows Bishop Zurek’s letter recalling Father Pavone? Not the CNS article but one that comes from Bishop Zurek himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top