More Information On Father Pavone

From Father Pavone's website, we have a history of his interactions with Church hierarchy, from his first involvement with Priests for Life until present.  He intends to fight this, as well he should.

The Code of Canon Law, sections 1717 - 1731, seem to indicate that the accused (in this case, Father Pavone) has a right to appeal and to present his case.  Specifically that is stated in section 1723.  There is one exception to that requirement: if the action is done by the pope.  That is the input from Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer who is associated with Robert Royal and Raymond Arroyo in the Papal Posse.  Moreover, a copy of the letter from the Papal Nuncio is now online.  The Papal Nuncio acts on behalf of the pope.  Hitherto, I had thought that maybe Francis wasn't involved with Father's removal, that it might have been too "small potatoes" for him.  I stand corrected, as it seems that Francis has bared his teeth here.

Now Canon 193 sec 4 states that removal from the office (priesthood) must be communicated in writing.  Father Pavone heard about his laicization in the same manner that most of us did - through the Catholic News Agency announcement yesterday. The Nuncio's letter was only made public today.  I still am uncertain as to whether or not Pavone received formal notice of this action.  Irregularities abound.

So do double standards.  One of the trumped up charges stems from Father displaying an aborted baby on a table that he sometimes used for Mass.  Zurek called that table "an altar" when in fact it was never consecrated as such.  However, if Bishop Zurek wants to get outraged over altar desecrations, the current occupant of the chair of Peter has provided at least two occasions for such indignation.   When Francis returned home from World Youth Day in 2013, he placed on an altar of St Mary Major Basilica, next to the Tabernacle, a beach ball and sports jersey.  In 2019, at a closing Mass in St Peter's after one of the countless synods, Francis placed on the altar a pachamama idol-plant.  Yes, the reputed pope placed an idol on a consecrated altar during Mass.  Bishop Zurek's anger would be more appropriately directed at that actual outrage.

Taylor Marshall below offers some insight into this whole vindictive attack on Father Pavone.

Marshall ended by exhorting us to prayer, fasting, personal holiness.  I take issue for that is not all we must do.  Yes we are laity, but some of us also have a few dollars - that should NOT go to the diocesan appeals and especially NOT to the Peter's Pence collections.  Now when (not if, when) we boycott these collections, it is not sufficient to refrain from contributions.  We must also drop into the collection baskets notes explaining precisely why we are boycotting - and sign your names.  The time for demure silence is long past.  They might cancel clerics, but we laity have rights that they don't.  Let's use them.

By the way - it appears that Father Pavone has at least one friend among the bishops.  Bishop Strickland decried the nuncio's letter in a tweet.

The blasphemy is that this holy priest is canceled while an evil president promotes the denial of truth & the murder of the unborn at every turn, Vatican officials promote immorality & denial of the deposit of faith & priests promote gender confusion devastating lives…evil https://t.co/ASzjW7IuAv

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) December 18, 2022

New Jersey Parish Using The Sacraments To Punish Those Not Bowing Before The Vaccine Idol

 HT - Eponymous Flower

The Code of Canon Law details why and how the Sacrament of Confession is to be administered by a Catholic priest.  The link is to Book IV, Part 1, Title IV, dealing solely with that sacrament,  Please note that Chapter III, Canon 991 specifically states that "every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite".  

That said, by what chutzpah did the Church of the Precious Blood of Monmouth Beach NJ attempt to restrict the Sacrament only to those who've received the Covid vaccine?  Think of the logic, or lack thereof.  In order to have one's sins forgiven at that parish, the penitent would have had to commit another sin by receiving one of the morally-tainted vaccines.  This is the announcement as it appeared earlier on the parish website.  Note that this is an archived page for they amended the requirement in an even more bizarre fashion.

Here is the announcement as it exists at the time of this writing.  I can only imagine that they removed their previous draconian requirement because they drew some rightly-deserved rebukes.  But the parish priests only manifested their vaccine-enslavement in another way that violates yet another canon law.  On that first link, Chapter I, Canon 964 section 2 states "The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely."  In other words, the penitent has the right to anonymous confession, no if ands or buts.

Now I for one find it rather interesting that the parish is mandating that there be no barrier between the priest and the non-vaccinated penitent.  Why, one might think that if the priest were truly fearful of contagion, that he might want a barrier between them to block all those dastardly, deadly microbes that must ooze forth from every non-vaccinated person these days!  Sarcasm aside, we know the motive - to shame and punish those who will not sully themselves with vaccines derived by the usage of the bodies of murdered children.

Here we have the contact page for this parish.  All of us should contact this parish and advise them that their misdeeds, unless rectified, will not go unpunished in the next life.  If they persist in their punishment of the non-vaccinated people, parishioners should punish them in this life too by withholding their donations.

Restricted Churches Will Mean Restricted Dollars

Last Sunday, Laetare Sunday, the priest at Mass gave a homily regarding the link between the Eucharist and the priesthood.  He recalled to our memories that Our Lord instituted both the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders on the first Holy Thursday.  The Holy Thursday mass commemorates both those realities.  That is why it is an abomination that women have their feet washed along with men during the Novus Ordo version of that Mass, but I digress.  Father went on to point out that the Church would cease to exist without these two Sacraments.

Whether or not Father intended to shed some additional light upon the current state of sacramental life in the Churches throughout the world, I don't know, but he did.  The shutdowns as inflicted upon the Catholic Churches are an attempt to strangle the Church to death and to choke off a necessary avenue of grace for our world that is obviously in dire straits.  I think it could very well be a deliberated goal on the part of some corrupt clergy, but it clearly is of the devils.  There are, of course, the clergy who really have no faith in God nor belief in the spiritual realm, so they play right into the hands of the other masterminds.

The immediate dissembling and capitulation of our bishops in the face of immoral and unconstitutional intrusion by civic officials is nothing short of sinful.  Indeed, in many cases, the bishops outdid the government in choking off the sacraments, and the graces that would flow from them.  Now that some of the local governments are backing off the restrictions, some bishops are moving to retain them.  The situation in Texas comes to mind.  Governor Abbott has done away with most restrictions, but that state's bishops, with the exception of Bishop Strickland, are keeping the sacraments from their flocks.

We now have a situation in which the world is spiritually and physically dying for lack of Masses being offered and other Sacraments being conferred.  It is up to us, the laity, to insist that Sacramental life be restored immediately, with our without the permission of increasingly rogue states.  No more can we just suffer this situation in silence.  If ever there was a time when "offering up" was simply a sanctimonious excuse for cowardice, now is that time.

For starters, please find below a petition that can be downloaded and mailed to your local bishop.  When you send it in, sign your name.  If you'd rather not spend the postage, you will be pleased to realize that many of the dioceses are having their annual appeals about now.  Many of those campaigns include the distribution of postage-paid envelopes in which you can send donations.  Well, use it for something more profitable to your diocese.  Put your letter therein and send it.  Please send them no money until they open both the Churches and the Sacraments.

To The Person Forced To Stand For Holy Communion Today

I refer to a specific incident that happened at a Mass in Montgomery County MD today, in the Archdiocesee of Washington.  I am an eye witness.  After Mass I was unable to locate the individual.

It is your right under canon law to receive on your tongue and on your knees.  Here is more on the matter.

If you wish to address this matter through Church channels, I'd be happy to stand as your witness.  If that is the case, please post a comment with the detais of today's incident, what you were wearing (so I can verify your account) and your contact information.  Your comment will not be published.  We can proceed from there.  I truly hope you will consider it seriously.  Failure to seek redress will only embolden errant priests to do the same, and worse, to others.

If other readers know of any resources to pursue such matters (such as canon lawyers), please list these in a comment box below.  Thank you.

No Bishop Can Abrogate Our Canonical Right To The Sacraments

I continue to be aghast at otherwise faithful Catholics who are falling lock-step behind  the government's unconstitutional ban on large gatherings.  The First Amendment guarantees, among other things, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Assembly.   I won't rehash last week's piece on this; read it here.

I commend the priests who are "working around" the draconian actions of their bishops, with many of those actions surpassing those of civil authority in jack-booted tyranny and in utter disregard of their sacerdotal mandates.  Several pastors are conducting "drive-through" confessions in their parking lots.  Others are exposing the Blessed Sacrament in the churches so that He can be seen and adored from the outside.  Other non-Roman rites are still conducting Mass, or Divine Liturgy to use their terminology.

But again, the mental contortions that some Catholics use to justify their "go along to get along" attitudes is a sight to behold.  More than a few are claiming that Catholics in a state of grace do not have the right to receive the Sacraments.  To which I will now reply, "AT CANON LAW, THEY CERTAINLY DO HAVE SUCH RIGHTS".  Canon 213 expressly states that truth.

Many times we have cited Canon 915, detailing that Catholics "persevering in manifest, grave sin" are not to be admitted to Communion.  However, examine Canons 912 - 923.  I foresee one attempt at silliness now and will quash it immediately.  Canon 912 states that "any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion."  "Law" in this context means church law, not civil; else we would have to conclude that Chinese Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion.

Now are the bishops actually barring us from Mass?  Well, they are actually quite clever about that.  At Canon Law, they cannot do that.  They are closing Churches and exhorting us to remain at home and maybe watch a live-stream of Mass.  In some discussions where I've broached the idea of going outside my diocese for Mass, I am told that I am "being disobedient".  No I am not.  I have the canonical right to go to Mass.  Moreover, the bishops never ordered us outright not to go to Mass.  They cannot, and they know it.  They simply put out some sly suggestions and hope that Catholics will believe that they are forbidden to attend.  Indeed, some naively take the suggestion and run with it, probably not stopping to actually think about the matter.

Let's look at Confession through the prism of Canon Law, beginning with Canon 960.  That canon states that grave sin can only be remitted via the Sacrament of Confession, excepted only by "physical or moral impossibility".  NEWS FLASH!  The equivocating cowardice of bishops, by which they so cavalierly close their confessionals, does NOT constitute those kinds of impossibilities.  God bless the priests mentioned above who have devised ways to work around their prelates' irresponsible directives.  Canon 986 is quite explicit about the duty of priests to make themselves available for confession, particularly when the penitent is in danger of death.

So my fellow Catholics, hold your bishops' feet to the fire.  Go outside your diocese to receive the Sacraments, if you must.  Remember that your first duty before God is your own and your families' salvation.  Physical health, good as it is, takes lesser priority to salvation.

Progressive Prelates Use Their Sacerdotal Authority As Weapons Against The Faithful

It seemed to me that Cardinal Muller still retained some concept of "sensus fidelium", but this account from GloriaTV disavows me of such notions.  Apparently he claims that a Catholic can conclude that his/her marriage before the Church is invalid with no canonical proof whatsoever.  In other words, he/she is his/her own judge in that matter, and the Church affirms this subjective evaluation.

We also received word from Church Militant TV that a faithful Catholic in Canada is finally being allowed onto her parish's property after being banned for over a year.  Her request that the parish announce the right to kneel for communion was met with slander from both the pastor and the parish secretary, with the apparent complicity of the local archdiocese.  Only after light was shone on the situation was the woman allowed onto her church property and to receive the sacraments.

These two stories seem unrelated, don't they?  Oh, they are very much related!  These are accounts of prelates who have no regard for the sacraments and the proper administration of the same.  On the one hand, you have a cardinal voicing approval for adulterous Catholics to pretend that they can receive Holy Communion.  On the other hand, a pastor vindictively - and in violation of canon law - denies the sacraments to a Catholic in good standing who simply asked to kneel at communion.

So here are two points we can glean from all this:

• Dissent from the Teachings of Jesus Christ - progressive prelates are just hunky-dorry with it and the subsequent sacrilege against the Sacraments.  
• Upholding the Teachings of Jesus Christ, especially in the face of the negligence and derision of prelates.  The bishops and clergy will meet such fidelity with resentment and even hatred, going so far as to punish the faithful by withholding sacraments which is itself a direct violation of Canon Law, specifically Canon 843

Progressive prelates, being compromised in their faith, administer the sacraments on basis of their own whims, caprices and even malice.  In doing so, they only add to the pile of sins that they already carry.  Unless they repent - and for many the clock is ticking loudly - their eternal salvation is in grave doubt.

By Its Rotten Fruit You Shall Know It - God Of Surprises That Is

Events of the past three days, spawned in great part by the lead of Pope Francis as he invokes this "god of surprises", makes painfully obvious that this "god of surprises" that the pope invokes is nothing more than a filthy false idol.  As noted in a post two days ago, we saw how Lutherans received Holy Communion.  It is sacrilege for non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion; that priest knew full well what he was doing.  May God bring him to speedy repentance.  Even if the pope ordered him to offer Holy Communion to non-Catholics, he was bound by the sacrament that he received not to commit mortal sin.  On the heels of this sacrilege we have a new outrage.

The pope ordered Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to issue a decree ordering that women be admitted to the washing of the feet during Holy Thursday liturgies.  Edward Pentin gives full details in the National Catholic Register, along with the full text of Cardinal Sarah's decree.  Note that in his decree, the Cardinal ascribes full responsibility for this foolishness to the pope; who can blame him?  Indeed, in his letter to Cardinal Sarah, the pope said he had "the intention of improving the way in which it is performed so that it might express more fully the meaning of Jesus' gesture in the Cenacle."  Yep!  For over two thousand years, the Church had no idea what it was doing when it restricted the rite to men.  In fact, Jesus Christ Himself had no idea what He was doing when He washed only the apostles' feet on Holy Thursday night.  It has always been the Church's teaching that this rite was reflective of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.  Is the "god of surprises" once again trying to get women admitted to that Sacrament?

The demon(s) that masquerade(s) as this "god of surprises" seem(s) to have in mind the complete deconstruction of the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.  Let's be clear - when we say "Sacred Tradition" we are talking about the revealed will of Jesus Christ as He has communicated it to His Church.  God's teaching and will do not change for God Himself cannot change.

I will note that there is one tiny piece of silver lining to this dark cloud that the pope just released.  In issuing the order stating that "from now on the pastors of the church may choose" women to participate, he is acknowledging that prior to the order, that women were not allowed to participate.  In other words, he is acknowledging his own disobedience to Canon law, as well as thousands of other progressive clergymen.  What, if anything, will be done to repent of so many sins of disobedience to the Church on those occasions?  Do we hear crickets?

I believe the order does specify that those chosen must be Catholics, although heaven only knows what he means by "people of God".  Will he add insult to injury by continuing to select non-Catholics for the foot-washing?  I suppose we should breathe a sigh of relief that he did not order priests to select women, although progressive bishops can now use this order to coerce their faithful priests into doing so.

When I first heard of this order, this poem came to mind: "Disobey!  Have your way!  Then one day, they'll say ok!"  The poem would be a perfect fit except that this papal order is not a reluctant concession, but one given in all enthusiasm.  It is right up his ally, as is apparent from his previous patterns of action and speech.

Let us pray that these abominations end soon, for they are wreaking havoc with the eternal destinies of many thousands, if not millions of souls.

Sin-Nod Emboldens Dissenters In Archdiocese Of Washington

When I use the word "dissenter" I mean those who willfully deviate from the Traditions of the Catholic Church as handed down through the centuries.  Two striking examples were made disgustingly evident today.

The first came from Cardinal Wuerl, in the publication of two interviews he gave after the sin-nod ended.  One was given to America magazine (and expounded upon by Vox Cantoris), the other was published by Religion News Service.  I am not going into a comprehensive analysis of these interviews, else we'd be here for hours.  It's clear that he is feeling emboldened by this pontificate to flaunt his liberalism with aplomb and impunity.  Vox Cantoris does an excellent job with the America interview.  I will touch on a few points.

In the America article, he says (among other things), "no longer is the framework of the Church’s pastoral response the code of canon law."  Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer, refuted the Cardinal's erroneous premise that canon law was ever the framework of the Church's pastoral stances.  He also points out how canon law is founded upon revelation, including the Gospels.  We can see that the cardinal is trying to paint a picture in which the Church simply had things wrong during all those previous centuries, but now, under this pontificate, a new day has dawned!  Halleluiah!  I'm sure the Cardinal is rejoicing at that silly thought, for canon law ceased to be any sort of reference for him some time ago.  Recall how he maltreated Father Guarnizo three years ago when the latter upheld Canon 915 in an archdiocesan parish (happens to be mine).

In the Religion News Service interview, we see the quote, “The frame of reference is now going to be: ‘What does the gospel really say here?’ That’s our first task.”  Really?   The gospels quote Jesus as saying "if you love me you will keep my commandments".  Jesus then commissioned the Church to teach His commandments to all.  The head-scratcher about Wuerl's comment is the word "now".  God's commands have always been the frame of reference for the Church.  Why the usage of this word "now"?  What meaning is that intended to convey?

Later on he says, "I’ve had priests say to me that the pope is really just affirming what most of us know in our hearts we are supposed to be doing anyway."  I'm sure that there are lots of archdiocesan priests who are also dissidents, who have off-kilter ideas of what they "are supposed to be doing".

That brings us to our second striking example.  I can easily imagine Father Peter Daly having such a chat with Cardinal Wuerl.  I've blogged on his progressivism in the past (see here and here).  He too gave an interview, this one to the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  He didn't touch on the sin-nod, but it is all too obvious that after the sin-nod, he is feeling his oats as he trumpets loudly his dissidence regarding homosexuality.  He praises the Obergefell ruling, as "making things better for our society".  He lauded the Maryland legislation legalizing same-sex #mowwidge, while most sensible Catholics strove to defeat it.

Get a load of this whopper of a quote.  "Same-sex marriage is a very conservative movement. Homosexual people who seek stable and committed relationships are implicitly declaring their opposition to promiscuous, violent, or exploitive sex. Like heterosexual couples they seek faithful relationships based on real love."  I scarcely know where to begin with this.  I think I have to start with the last sentence and work backwards, starting with the concept of "real love".  First and foremost, love must be founded on God's commands, and one of those commands forbids homosexual conduct.  Anything involving said activity is NOT love, pretenses notwithstanding.  For that reason, there is no way such a relationship can be considered stable, since there is no real foundation in God's order.  As far as it being "very conservative", I think many gays would take that remark as an insult.  Now consider he's a priest.  What kind of teaching about marriage did he receive in the seminary?

Now he admits his dissent and he arrogantly announces his intent to drag his parish into a spiritual and moral cesspool that may very well terminate in hell for some of his flock AND himself.  "As long as I am pastor here we will welcome and register everyone who shares our Catholic faith, including same-sex couples. After all, we register divorced and remarried people. We will educate their children in our religious education programs, and we welcome them as sponsors at baptism and confirmation. We open our ministries to them. We will allow them to teach religious education so long as they are respectful of the church teaching. (That we require of everyone.) We will encourage them to participate fully in the life of the church, including the Eucharist. We will treat everyone with respect and dignity. We will allow them the right of their own conscience."  If the parish is going to educate the children of these same-sex couples, just what do they intend to teach them about marriage and God's commands?  Will they teach the truth or some hell-oriented lie?  As far as being sponsors at baptism and confirmation, that is not an honorary role but one in which said sponsor must live out God's commands, including those pertaining to sexuality.  I could go on and on about all the errors in this paragraph, errors that are simply inexcusable for someone who calls himself "priest".

Lastly he announces his intent to allow the sin of sacrilege to be committed against Our Lord Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.  For all the lip-service he bestows on "respect and dignity", why doesn't Daly direct a little of that to Jesus, whose priest he's supposed to be?

He is long-time pastor of St John Vianney parish in Prince Frederick MD.  His article makes evident that while he retains his post, those parishioners will find their immortal souls in grave danger of damnation - unless they learn and embrace the Faith despite his machinations.  Yet Cardinal Wuerl allows Daly to carry on because they are of the same mind.  Did I say "allow"?  Not only that, the Cardinal probably applauds this heretic priest.   Consider this; under Cardinal Wuerl this heretic is allowed to retain his pastorate while Father Guarnizo is expelled precisely because he was a faithful and orthodox priest.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sin-nod ended less than two weeks ago and already the spiritual poison is spewing forth.  Of course I do live in a diocese in which one of the sin-nod's chief rainmakers holds sway so we can expect some severely noxious bilge to make its presence known here.  It will have impact everywhere.  Please pray and frequent the sacraments.

Holy Thursday - Pope Francis Washed The Feet Of A "Transexual Woman"

I put the phrase "transexual woman" because in reality what is being described is a man who has mutilated himself to appear to be a woman.  He calls himself "Isabel" and has given an interview about the travesty.  I'll link you to the Glora.TV site for that video has English subtitling.

As you'll hear, the poor man has been confirmed in his dangerous delusions by the actions of the pope - or the people who arranged to have his feet washed by the pope.  It is unclear how much the pope knew of this man.  For that matter we cannot guess the level of knowledge possessed by the priest who gave to "Isabel" Holy Communion.  They may have sincerely believed that he is a woman.  That said, the foot-washing scandal with "Isabel" would never have happened if the pope had respected Canon Law's prohibition against the washing of women's feet on Holy Thursday.

A Canonical Defense Of Father Guarnizo

Such is the title of the article on Pewsitter written by a priest and canon lawyer.  He wishes to remain anonymous; it takes no great imagination to fathom why.  His points remain valid nonetheless.  Should an irate bishop learn of his posting and prevail upon him to take it down, I have copied it and now post it in its entirety.  It's a long read (but well worth it), so I'll put it after the jump break.

A Well-Reasoned Post On The Fr Guarnizo Situation From A Canon Law Perspective

The blog Rorate-Caeli published an excellent treatise from a reader who addresses the matter from a perspective of canon law while making clear that canon law serves moral and divine laws, not vice versa.  I post to the article now.  It's a long read, but well worth it in my opinion.

A Curious Comment By The Diocese Of Amarillo

Monsignor Harold Waldow, vicar of clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo, had this to say regarding the assets of Priests for Life.  He stated, "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."

This donor (that is, I) would like to know precisely what he means by that.  Surely he is aware that our donations, as such, are intended for the usage and control of Priests for Life.  I understand that while Father Pavone and the other priests are personally answerable to their bishops, but what about Priests for Life itself, as an entity?  To whom/what does the entity answer?  There are two parts to that answer, corresponding to civil law and canon law.

In US civil law, Priests for Life Inc is a not-for-profit corporation.  By definition, there are no stockholders.  There is a board of directors, as there is for any US corporation.  It is this board that bears legal responsibility for the well-being and conduct of the corporation.  It is they who select the executive director and other officers of the corporation.  The executive director is the "front man", if you will.  It often does happen that it is the drive and passion of the executive director that is the moving force behind the corporation.  However, if the board of directors is content to just let the executive director have his/her way without real "hands-on" oversight, that board is seriously derelict in its duties.

Father Pavone has mentioned that on this board are several bishops.  He has also mentioned in recent communications that all board members, including the bishops, have received all financial and audit reports of Priests for Life.  He also mentioned that he sent copies of all reports to his own bishop, as well as the ordinaries to whom other Priests for Life clergy report.

At canon law, Priests for Life is a Private Association of the Faithful.  Until just a few days ago, I wasn't aware that PFL had that canonical status.  On the right bar of this blog are a number of links; one of these is to the Code of Canon Law.  The pertinent section I found is between and including Canon 321 and 326.  All private associations have statutes by which they conduct themselves; I'd suppose they're roughly analogous to by-laws.  Canon 325 s1 states that "A private association of the Christian faithful freely administers those goods it possesses according to the prescripts of the statutes, without prejudice to the right of competent ecclesiastical authority to exercise vigilance so that the goods are used for the purposes of the association."  Therefore, on the surface, it seems that the statement of Msgr Waldow, as quoted in this post's beginning, is canonically incorrect.  As to what constitutes "competent ecclesial authority", I'm gathering from Canon 321 (and 305, to which 321 refers) that this authority is either the bishop in which the association is headquartered, or the bishop who granted to PFL the status of Private Association of the Faithful.  Even that understanding could be incorrect, as I am not a canon lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.  In either event, it doesn't appear that Bishp Zurek of Amarillo has sole authority over the affairs of Priests for Life, as he does for Father Pavone.

In his statement of September 13th, Father Pavone stated that "Now, although Bishop Zurek is my Ordinary, he is not the bishop of Priests for Life. Each of our staff priests has his own Ordinary, and the organization has an entire Board of Bishops. We keep them all informed of our activities, and of our financial audits."  Some in the blogosphere accused Father Pavone of arrogance towards Bishop Zurek.  Not so - he was merely stating the relationships as they exist in canon law.

Getting back to the original comment about the assets of FPL and donations to the same, they belong to Priests for Life, to be used for the purposes as set forth in its statutes.  They are not available for appropriation for other purposes, laudible though those purposes may be for that would constitute misappropriation.  LifeSite News will have updates; please check with them periodically.