Michael Hichborn And Frank Pavone To Speak In Bethesda January 13th

Please spread the word and be there.  Circulate the flyer below freely.  Thank you.

Wolves And Vultures Behind The Animus Against Father Pavone Are Exposed

Below these musings I will post two videos: one from today's Lepanto Institute where Michael and Alyssa Hichborn are discussing Father Pavone's plight, bringing some salient points to bear on the matter and also taking issue with some faithful Catholics who are drinking the anti-Pavone kool-aid.  Below that will be an interview with Father Gerald Murray (one of the Papal Posse from The World Over).  Father Murray is a canon lawyer and he will explain just why this bogus laicization just does not jive with canon law.  I urge that both videos be watched in their entirety.

Archbishop Vigano also released a strong statement that condemns the obvious attempt to stab Father Pavone in the back.  As I read it, I surmise that he isn't aware that Bishop Strickland of Tyler TX also voiced support for Father Pavone in his tweet.

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

Father Frank Pavone Laicized???

This from the Catholic News Agency - Father Frank Pavone, pro-life activist and director of Priests for Life has been dismissed from the clerical state for "blasphemous communications on social media" and "disobedience to his bishop".  Mind you, Father Pavone has yet to receive formal notice of this action himself.  I too find it odd that CNA would learn of it before Father did.

Assuming that this is true, let's look at some context.  Francis celebrates Father James Martin, bestowing upon the perversion-advocating cleric high Vatican posts as well as private audiences, the latter never having been granted to the dubia cardinals nor to Cardinal Zen.  We see Knestout the Richmond bishop running interference for a priest that just happens to be a convicted sex offender.  Bishop Stowe of Louisville Kentucky ran roughshod over high school boys who were faithful Catholics and Trump supporters, and apologizing to gays for them being called out on their perversions.  This list could go on and on.

But Francis et al single out Father Pavone for maltreatment?  This isn't only about Father Pavone.  The Vatican goons are firing the proverbial "shot across the bow" to other Catholic clergy who might have the decency to comport themselves as actual Catholics instead of toadying to the New World Order and the Great Reset.

If course I'm hoping this announcement isn't true, but I suspect it is. 

As The Elections Draw Near, Never-Trump Trads Need A Verbal Spanking

As I write this, the Democrats have announced that Kamala Harris will be Joe Biden's running mate.  I would expect that Plugs himself was rather shocked at the news, but I don't want to explore that tangent just yet.  Suffice it to say that if (God forbid!) the Dems manage to cheat their way to victory, the most pro-abortion duo will ascend to power.  Given Biden's obvious mental issues, Harris will be less than a heartbeat from the presidency.

Yet even in the face of this looming disaster, there are still some who call themselves "traditional Catholics" who are announcing, perhaps virtue-signaling would be the more appropriate verb, that they will write in some obscure person or not vote at all in November 2020.  They have more disparaging things to say about Trump (who actually has made some solid pro-life accomplishments) than they do for the Dems, who are unabashedly pro-abortion.  I can only characterize their attitudes towards Trump to be so overly persnickety and finicky as to border on effeminacy.  They are more concerned about satisfying the unreasonable demands of their emotions (what they call conscience) as opposed to an actual rigorous examination of the matter in the light of Tradition.  I've taken a stab at so doing.  Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll link to two such posts of mine, here and here.  The comments in those posts illustrate some salient points as well.

Father Pavone of Priests for Life published a list of Trump's pro-life accomplishments - not promises but accomplishments.  In contrast, Biden, while Obama's vice president, assisted him in all his pro-abortion endeavors.  For her part, Harris is equally pro-abortion and has made no secret of her anti-Catholic prejudices.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you have some "never-Trump" people in your circles, please speak directly with them.  On this upcoming election depends western civilization, millions of lives and yes, souls.  

Does The Alder Hey Hospital Have Ulterior Motives In Engineering The Death Of Alfie Evans?

In England, Baby Alfie Evans had his ventilator removed yesterday.  The clear if unspoken intent of the staff of Alder Hey hospital was that he should die.  That is, they intended to murder him.  However, he still continues to breathe on his own.  Now they are denying him food; that is, if they can't smother him, their method of murder will now be forced starvation.

The Italian government, to aid him, has made Alfie an Italian citizen and are ready to transport him to Gesu Bambino Hospital in Rome.  Yet the murderous monsters who now control the British government won't allow it.  What kind of vested interest do they have in the death of this child?  Seems senseless, doesn't it?

Well, maybe not!

Apparently Alder Hey Hospital has been embroiled in a bit of scandal regarding the harvesting and storage of the bodies of babies for research.  This all came down in 2004-2005 so it may have faded from memories.  It certainly did from mine until I saw an article on Canon 212.   Doctors at Alder Hey took organs from dead children without their parents' consents.  These parents were denied justice as the Crown inexplicably dropped charges.  One might wonder if a few "pounds sterling" greased some palms.

At any rate, it makes one wonder that if Alfie were to be removed from the hospital, might his parents and/or other doctors (real doctors, that is) find evidence of, uh, "tampering" shall we say?  Why else would they be so adamant about keeping him there?  Of course I don't believe this crap that Alder Hey plopped out and neither does any sane person.  If his retention at Alder Hey serves any "best interests", it's those of that Frankenstein house of horrors that they call a hospital.  I must say they certainly have their network of stooges peppered throughout the UK high courts.  The hospital got off scott free in 2005; it pays to have friends in high places.  In fact, I'm sure one must pay to have friends in high places.  These "friends" are certainly going to bat for the hospital today, just as they did 13-14 years ago.

Father Pavone of Priests for Life put up a site whereby we can email to the hospital that they should allow that baby to live.  I urge you to go to it.  At the very least it will show them that the world is watching and remembering.  Certainly pray your rosaries, for there most certainly are demonic forces at play here.

By the way: where is the "non pro-life mutation" in all this?  Why do we hear nary a peep from them or from Rehumanize International?  Don't they care about the plight of this poor child?  It seems not; at least there is no evidence of it.

Some Pro-Life Organizations Are Jumping The Rails Regarding Maddi Runkles

I was hoping that some common sense had again taken root among some pro-life folks with regard to the situation at Heritage Academy and the animosity being ginned up against it by Students For Life.  I have two posts on it already (here and here).  While I'm seeing most of the flap in Facebook, I do see other articles being published outside; the New York Times article was already mentioned and I'll return to that one soon.

Students For Life is quite pleased with the online and network interviews that have drawn attention to this matter - and to them too.  Of course the school administration, themselves Christian, are being portrayed as "Simon Legree" hypocrites: that is to say, they are being slandered.  I just saw that Father Pavone of Priests for Life has unfortunately wafted from the kool-aid dispenser so now I'm going to attempt to bring some balance to the picture.  While there are plenty of common-sense comments on the various Facebook posts, I don't see other blogs taking issue with Runkles and SFL save for this one and the Remnant.  If I've missed any, please advise.

The SFL-led cabal seems to have two main objections:

1. The shame induced may lead to abortion.
2. Others in the school undoubtedly committed fornication yet they are participating in the commencement exercises.

Let's address these, dealing with the shame.  As mentioned before, Runkles and SFL have granted interviews with Fox News, New York Times, heaven knows who else.  Who, beset with shame, deliberately makes their plight a national gazing stock?

Speaking of shame, take a look at Runkles' picture in the NYT article.  What do you make of that facial expression, with hands on hips?  It certainly isn't that of shame.  In fact, a reasonable person might call that arrogant.  Now scroll to the very bottom of the article, for a quote from her that will, at the very least, have you scratching your head: "Some pro-life people are against the killing of unborn babies, but they won’t speak out in support of the girl who chooses to keep her baby.  Honestly, that makes me feel like maybe the abortion would have been better. Then they would have just forgiven me, rather than deal with this visible consequence."  I truly hope, for her own sake, that this is just a NYT misquote.  Else, I might have to conclude that this is a cheap attempt to instill guilt trips on those of us who don't fall lock-step in with her badgering of her school.  The fact that she speaks in the present tense of preferring abortion is really quite reprehensible - assuming that is an accurate rendition of something she said.

As for the second objection, whether or not others committed fornication is conjecture.  It may well be very reasonable conjecture, but it's conjecture nonetheless.  My blogging colleague, Steve Skojec who runs the blog One Peter Five, has some very good points about the added element of scandal that would be presented, had Runkles been allowed to walk.  We have to understand "scandal" to mean the enticement of others to sin by example.  I thought of paraphrasing Steve's facebook comments but I think instead that I'll just post the screen shots.  I did get Steve's permission to quote him, but not that of the other people, so I'll redact their names.  I'll also post these after the jump break since this will be a long post.

Why Is Father Pavone Kissing Up To Amoris Lamentia?

One must wonder who's twisting Father Pavone's arm to cause him to let loose with this drivel.  Either Father hasn't taken the time to study it or he's kowtowing to pressure from on high.  If it's the former, he is being irresponsibly careless; if the latter, he's acting in both a cowardly and dishonest manner.

I'm delighted that the comments that follow this rebuke this white-wash nonsense.  Maggie Sullivan's remarks about the placing of conscience before truth are spot-on.  If that heinous precedent is ever ensconced in "pastoral practice", that can - and will - be used to justify and excuse abortion.  Father Pavone just shot himself in the foot.

Another troubling phrase is found in the very last sentence.  "New road map"?  No, Father!  Nothing will ever be an "improvement" over the Teachings of Jesus Christ, taught by His Church these two thousand years.  One does not need a "new road map" to replace the Commandments and Precepts of the Church.  In fact such a "road map" will most likely confirm our culture's path to destruction and eventually to hell.

Father Pavone, for the sake of the babies whom you work diligently to save, please retract this article.

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!

ActsFive29 Rally Report With Video - Part 1

This past Sunday, September 30, I attended the ActsFive29 rally in Lafayette Park.  I took a good deal of video, so much so that I have to break this post into two parts.  I will intersperse clips with narrative, so..

Cardinal Dolan To Shame Himself Before Obama

By now most people have heard that both presidential candidates will be the main speakers at the Alfred E Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, hosted by Catholic Charities of New York.  It will be held Thursday, October 18th at the Waldorf-Astoria.

That's right!  Once again, the Messiah Most Miserable, the most abortion-fostering president to date, is being wined and dined and adulated at a Catholic event.  Of course decent people are outraged at this invitation.  Obama has shown himself to be openly hostile to Christian values of life and morality - particularly as they are displayed by Catholics.  Even now we are fighting the draconian HHS mandates that came into play a few days ago.

Cardinal Dolan's office tried to stave off criticism.  His spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, claimed, "this is not a partisan event.  It is an evening to put politics aside and come together in a spirit of civility."  Well, here are a few questions for Mr. Zwilling and (by extension) His Eminence.

• If this is not a "partisan event", just what kind of event is it?  Answer - a money-grubbing event, and an event to flatter the wealthy and powerful.
• When you "put politics aside", what else are you putting aside?  Answer - your Christian principles, your sense of right versus wrong.
• If you think you're putting politics aside, do you really think Obama is doing the same?  You are handing to him, on a silver platter, the perfect photo-ops to use on the Catholic public just two weeks away from the presidential elections.  But if you really persist in that belief, may I sell to you the Brooklyn Bridge?
• If you really want to engage in a "spirit of civility", why not ask Obama to "reach across the table" in that regard?  The fact is that while the dinner is occurring and all the schmoozing and elbow-rubbing occurs, babies will be murdered during that time.  Try asking Obama to have all abortions in New York City suspended while that dinner occurs and see how far that "civility" will go!

Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, denounced Obama's planned appearance at the dinner.  His remarks, though brief, are spot-on.  Of particular note is his statement, perhaps as a retort to Zwilling, "there comes a time when the polite putting aside of differences for a while amounts to scandal".  Father Pavone is correct.

Over three years ago, Obama gave the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame.  That was roundly and rightly criticized.  Among the critics was - Cardinal Dolan!   Read his statement from April 15, 2009!  He said (among other things), "by inviting President Obama to deliver the commencement address and to receive an honorary degree, Notre Dame wrongly signaled to students 'we hold him up as a model to you'".  I submit that there is no change between that occasion and this.  Why the change in Cardinal Dolan's outlook between then and now?  I submit that Cardinal Dolan is sending the same signal now that he so correctly deplored in 2009.  This dichotomy in the Cardinal's two positions is rendered more stark by the evils thrust on this nation during the intervening three years.

I now post below some comments from the Vortex, as well as a petition that Michael Voris is asking all to sign, to have this ridiculous invitation rescinded.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.



Here is the petition link http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/cdl_dolan_disinvite_obama/

I frankly believe the petition will be ignored (although I'd welcome being proved wrong in this case).  In that case, it might be necessary for Catholics (and others of good will) to take to the streets in front of the Waldorf-Astoria in protest, as did hundreds of good people at Notre Dame.  The onus for this will largely be on the faithful of New York.  Are we up for it?

It's Way Past Time To Take To The Streets

In the mid 1990s, Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life wrote a pamphlet called Our Media Is the Streets.  It's just as relevant now as it was then, and I'd encourage all to study it.  Just an "aside note - at that time, the internet was not an available resource as it is now.  Now we have both at our disposal and we must utilize both.

This past week, two such instances of street activism occurred which deserve attention.  They do so precisely because they take the pro-life message out of the confines of our church halls and in front of the general public that so desperately needs to be shaken from its state of mind-numb oblivion. 

Please educate yourselves and

Faithful Catholics In El Paso - Reclaiming Their Church

While they pray and petition Bishop Armando Ochoa for the reinstatement of Father Michael Rodriguez as pastor of San Juan Bautista Church, faithful Catholics in the Diocese of El Paso are working to counteract heretical teachings emanating from the Tepeyak Institute and its classes that lay teachers, etc are required to take in order to serve in various parish capacities.  As you watch the Vortex below, you'll hear how the attendees heard that "God is feminine", the hosts for the Eucharist should be made of indiginous foods.  Listen to the second person; what caused him to walk out of the class was when the teacher said "Mass is just for fellowship."  Now listen carefuly to the third person, Ms. Celeste Herget.  She relates how she was told that after death there is a "second chance", constituting a denial of the particular judgment.  Now from where did that clap-trap come?  It seems that it came from Bishop Ochoa himself - yes read this article penned by His Excellency!  We "go into overtime at the transition of death"?  This is a new one on me!

So please watch the Vortex - but scroll to the section underneath it, for I do have some observations about how this situation and Father Pavone's situation, are being portrayed in some Catholic blogs!  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.



First I'll say this right now.  While I could be incorrect, I think that Father Pavone is being railroaded.  Mark Crutcher's video set forth some issue quite nicely.  It is interesting to see some patterns in other Catholic blogs.  Some of them are piling on Father Pavone, calling him "prideful", "disobedient", and on and on.  Yet on these same blogs I can find no sign of concern or even interest regarding the situation in El Paso.  I find that to be - rather illuminating, to say the least!

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)

Baby Joseph Maraachli - Requiescat In Pace

Baby Joseph Maraachli, who defied the mongers of death in the Canadian health and legal system (aided by the determination of his parents and pro-life leaders, most notably Father Pavone), died peacefully at home yesterday.  LifeSite News gives the final details; they too have been instrumental in spreading the news of Joseph's plight several months ago and caused an outcry that helped save him from a brutal and inhumane death.

He died in peace and dignity, surrounded by his family who loved him.  Most importantly, he was baptized in the Catholic faith.  Having been incapable of sin in his short life, he is now in heaven - by definition, he's a saint.

We pray for God's consolation for his family and in gratitude for their struggle - a struggle that will benefit those who will find themselves in Joseph's shoes as they face down the culture of death.  Let us also ask little Joseph's intercession for this, and for his intercession for Father Pavone and his current predicament.

Gay Lifestyle Coddled By Some Bishops??

Michael Voris has been devoting his Vortex series to the question of why gays are being allowed to promote their lifestyle in Church-owned venues.  I'll post his latest video at the end, but let me say that I think that Voris might be understating the problem.  Not only are gays being given a free pass in too many churches, but we have received word that two priests who have had the God-given courage to proclaim the truth of that destructive lifestyle have been thrown under the bus by their respective bishops.

The case that was all over the Catholic pro-life news services last week involved Father Michael Rodreguez,  former pastor of San Juan Bautista Catholic Church in the Diocese of El Paso, Texas.  He published a four-part series in the El Paso Times that correctly set forth the Church's teaching regarding homosexualty.  This LifeSite News article links to each of the four columns.  Please note that these links are to pictures of the actual newspaper columns.  I read them and suggest you do so as well.  Notice that Father took great pains to distinguish between the person and the sin; he did so several times.  By the way - I said "former pastor" because the bishop reassigned him to another church.  The newspaper article doesn't name the church - how odd!  And this is not the first time that Bishop Ochoa has thrown Father Rodriguez under the bus - recall this incident!

Harsh though that is, the treatment meted out to an elderly Canadian priest who preached the truth is outright draconian.  Again from LifeSite News we read of the plight of Father Donat Gionet of the Diocese of Bathurst in New Brunswick.  This priest spoke truth about the gay lifestyle, abortion and cohabitation in a homily last month.  While the local chancery admitted that Father proclaimed the truth, they claimed he lacked "the proper pastoral sensitivity".  So in their own display of sensitivity, they suspended the faculties of this 85-year old priest who has spent all his life in priestly service to God and the Church!  An important aside - when you hear some cowardly bishop or chancery blather on about being "pastoral" and/or "sensitive", understand that those are thinly-disguised code-words for cowardice and/or boot-licking for money/favors, etc.

These two incidents, coupled with what happened to Father Pavone, sure makes me think that an ominous pattern of behavior is being made manifest in some chanceries.  Where will it strike next?

Now here's the Vortex clip.  Click here if you can't 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!