Father Pavone Addresses Maryland Pro-Lifers

Last evening I attended a talk given by Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life.  He touched upon his opposition to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate and why he will not obey it.  I also recorded it.  Here it is.

Father Frank Pavone Finally Vindicated

I've written before on the situation regarding Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life and Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, TX.  Over two years later, we have received news (see here and here) that Father Pavone is at last vindicated.  Deo Gratias!

Father Pavone Disses Bishop - Or Did He???

The Amarillo Globe News is atwitter about the "news" that Father Pavone pulled a "no-show" on a meeting with Bishop Zurek.  Of course this is being portrayed as reckless disregard of a bishop's authority.

Well, there's more to this than meets the eye - or at least, the eye of the Amarillo Globe.  On Lifenews we have a statement from Rev David Deibel, a canon lawyer who is assisting Father Pavone.  I leave it to you to read what Father Deibel has to say about the latest events.

Please keep this situation and all involved in your prayers.

Update On Father Pavone From Mark Crutcher

What is going on?  (Click here if you cannot see embedded video)

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.

An Interesting Coincidence Regarding Two Bishops In Recent News

Unless one has had their head in the sand, one could not have missed all the kerfuffle about Father Pavone being called back to his home diocese of Amarillo and away from Priests for Life.  Jill Stanek has much to say about this matter on her blog.  Here's more from LifeSite News.  The bishop of Amarillo is His Excellency Patrick Zurek.  Shortly after the bishop released his letter, he left for his vacation in the Rio.  He was gone when Father Pavone arrived.  But that is not the "interesting coincidence". 

The other bishop of interest is Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, who is forbidding his priests from engaging in pro-life activism (see yesterday's post).

So what do these two bishops have in common (besides squelching pro-life activities of their priests)?  Well, let's go back to May 2009, when the Messiah Most Miserable occasioned the University of Notre Dame's act of disdain of its Catholic heritage.  Although most of the bishops could not bestir themselves to utter a protest, 83 of them did so.  A list of these was compiled by LifeSite News.  Take a look - you will not find these two bishops listed thereon.  Surprised?  Don't be!

Baby Joseph Has New Lease On Life

Baby Joseph Maraachi is finally free from the clutches of the Canadian hospital that was, in effect, clamoring for the baby's demise.  See the Fox News report here.  After hearing from thousands of good people who beseiged them via phone calls, letters and emails, they finally released the boy to Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life who then had him flown by medical jet to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, MO.  The last I heard was that doctors there were reassessing his condition.  At the very least, the little guy will live out his last days in a humane, dignified manner.

We all, of course, owe thanks to God for saving the baby's life.  We must also draw some serious lessons.  In that Canadian hospital we see an ominous preview of the degradation of our own health care system should Obamacare ever be fully implemented.  Our own loved ones, and yes we ourselves may find our lives in dire peril - and there will be no US hospital to which to flee.

USCCB Throwing Smoke Screens and Red Herrings

The post below makes plain the real issues with which we're trying to deal in regards to the USCCB and its ties with organziations that are part and parcel of the culture of death.  The John Carr matter is but one sign of the corruption of the USCCB; he attracts our interest, however, because of his high position within the ranks of the USCCB.

Some good people, however, are being hoodwinked into believing that this is "all about John Carr".  One of them appears to be Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life.  Such confusion is displayed by this blog entry of his.  Please read it and leave your own respectful comments; you'll see that others already have.

Tom Peters of American Papist, now CatholicVoteAction.org also seems to have swallowed the koolaid about John Carr being personally attacked.  He states also that (and I quote), "the situation has not been helped, either, by the sensationalist reporting at RealCatholicTV.com, which in a recent report claimed that the allegations of misconduct at the CCHD was what Pope Paul VI was referring to when he warned that the “smoke of Satan has found its way into the Church” … seriously?"  Yes, Tom, seriously.  We are looking at the truth of the matter.  If the subject matter being examined is by nature so scandalous as to render its reporting "sensationalist", well then, so be it.  We take the truth as it is, not as we'd like it to be.  Tom states that "I don't follow RCTV directly but American Catholic does"  But Tom, you're the one commenting about it.  Doesn't it behoove you to look at these videos?  I'm posting the whole series as clips are published.  Please examine them here, or go to RealCatholicTV's youtube page to see their whole collection.  All, I suggest that in this case, also, to please leave comments for Tom at the end of his posting.