Father Frank Pavone told reporters that he will seek incardination in another diocese following Bishop Patrick Zurek’s decision to end the priest’s ministry outside his diocese.
Speaking at a press conference before he celebrated Mass at Amarillo’s cathedral, Father Pavone said that “I do not foresee myself staying incardinated in Amarillo.”
“It’s a sensitive issue,” he added. “We’re working it out behind the scenes. But I say that in light of the bishop’s apparent unwillingness to let me do pro-life work full time, I will seek that elsewhere.”
Note: Okay, all well and good I suppose, but why not just take the open and confident step of having an independent audit conducted and be done with this? Because it seems that is what is required, and it seems that is wholly reasonable, and it seems stubborn not to allow this to be done as though it were some monstrous indignity.
People are anxious after the Corapi affair, Fr. Pavone. We- I- don't like to see a defense that appears tactical and evasive. We do not want to see a defense that cleverly and by insinuation puts one's bishop on trial. Ease our minds and resolve this matter transparently.
You have said you have given your bishop adequate financial information, including audits:
Your bishop has said he would like an independent audit:
Why in the world should this be a sticking point? It does, I hate to say, raise suspicions. This would be a simple thing to rectify, so why not just do so, rather than give the appearance of phoning friends in Rome to circumvent the process, or seeking a new and more convenient bishop when the one you have becomes a bother?
Again, after Corapi, no one wants procedural tactics and spin. If you can't salvage the relationship with your bishop and must move on, fine (although canonist Ed Peters notes that this is not so easily done, and it is surely not done subject to the petitioning priest's will), but have the independent audit first. Respect this process, because everyone's confidence in high profile priests is frayed by recent events. The moment you announce the intention to do so we will all be reasonably assured that this is a tempest in a teapot and that there really is "no there there".
If instead you act too big for your britches, attempt to short-circuit the process, appear to be trying to "muscle" your bishop, subtly encouraging pickets and protests against him, then you will be strengthening the case that it is unwise to have celebrity priests unanchored to a specific parish assignment who take on national or international responsibilities. It would seem then that such people too easily become ungovernable and laws- potentially even churches- unto themselves, and that such arrangements need to be dissolved and never allowed again. There is nothing to gain by a stroppy and obstructing defense. If applied such a defense would call into question the very wisdom of the freedom that you have been heretofore blessed with, the results of which have been such a blessing to us and to the unborn. This is a crucial time. Please choose your course with care.
If one has nothing to conceal than scrutiny is not to be feared. The very act of allowing the thorough inspection that your bishop requires would certainly put all minds at ease, because it would signal more loudly than any blog post or press release that you have absolutely nothing to hide. Don't negotiate, don't discuss: submit and be done with it. Please.
Enough of that, now back to the article:
You have said you have given your bishop adequate financial information, including audits:
"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!"
Your bishop has said he would like an independent audit:
"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 if it were the result of my failure to correct Father Pavone’s incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority as his Bishop."
Why in the world should this be a sticking point? It does, I hate to say, raise suspicions. This would be a simple thing to rectify, so why not just do so, rather than give the appearance of phoning friends in Rome to circumvent the process, or seeking a new and more convenient bishop when the one you have becomes a bother?
Again, after Corapi, no one wants procedural tactics and spin. If you can't salvage the relationship with your bishop and must move on, fine (although canonist Ed Peters notes that this is not so easily done, and it is surely not done subject to the petitioning priest's will), but have the independent audit first. Respect this process, because everyone's confidence in high profile priests is frayed by recent events. The moment you announce the intention to do so we will all be reasonably assured that this is a tempest in a teapot and that there really is "no there there".
If instead you act too big for your britches, attempt to short-circuit the process, appear to be trying to "muscle" your bishop, subtly encouraging pickets and protests against him, then you will be strengthening the case that it is unwise to have celebrity priests unanchored to a specific parish assignment who take on national or international responsibilities. It would seem then that such people too easily become ungovernable and laws- potentially even churches- unto themselves, and that such arrangements need to be dissolved and never allowed again. There is nothing to gain by a stroppy and obstructing defense. If applied such a defense would call into question the very wisdom of the freedom that you have been heretofore blessed with, the results of which have been such a blessing to us and to the unborn. This is a crucial time. Please choose your course with care.
If one has nothing to conceal than scrutiny is not to be feared. The very act of allowing the thorough inspection that your bishop requires would certainly put all minds at ease, because it would signal more loudly than any blog post or press release that you have absolutely nothing to hide. Don't negotiate, don't discuss: submit and be done with it. Please.
Enough of that, now back to the article:
Msgr. Harold Waldow, the diocese’s vicar of clergy and moderator of the curia, said that Bishop Zurek has extended his financial inquiry beyond Priests for Life to two other organizations associated with Father Pavone: Rachel’s Vineyard, which offers healing to women who have abortions, and the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, a lay association.
“I’m sure that our bishop does not stand alone on this,” said Msgr. Waldow. “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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment