Pages

Showing posts with label Father Frank Pavone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Father Frank Pavone. Show all posts

Friday, October 21, 2011

Pro-Life Anderson passed away

I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.
 – 2 Corinthians 12:1-4

Pro-Life Anderson
I learned through a twitter message from Father Frank Pavone of the death of Pro-Life Anderson. I had never heard of him before. There are many unsung heros in the pro-Life crusade.

His message was a simple one. He got down on his knees and prayed:
"For the love of God, love of country and love of life ... protect the unborn in anyway you possibly can. Through your prayers, your actions ... anything else. Without life there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness."
Father Frank remembers him this way:
“Over the years I have been inspired by many pro-life activists and have tried to pattern my own life on them, but among those who have inspired me the most was ‘Prolife Anderson.’ This humble, energetic man – who was an orphan -- served our nation in the Air Force for two decades, receiving medals of commendation twice. But it was his passionate devotion of unborn children that most dramatically shaped his long life. Whether in Reno, Nevada, or Savannah Georgia, or any of the cities he visited in between, Prolife Anderson spoke publicly his pro-life message to anyone who would listen – and to those who would not listen.

“Many called him crazy. It was an honor, however, to stand with him in city after city against the atrocity of abortion, and to be called crazy with him. As he and I often discussed, we are crazy with love for our unborn brothers and sisters.

“He wore red socks to signify that we are all wading in the blood of the innocent. His car was covered with bumper stickers that gave voice to the voiceless. And in 1987 he had his first name legally changed to “Prolife.” His commitment to our youngest and most vulnerable brothers and sisters – those still in the womb – was absolute and all-consuming.

“That’s what I have learned from him over these years, and that’s how I will honor him, by calling numerous others to join me and my colleagues in a lifetime commitment to ending abortion.”



Here is some more information about him:
Pro-Life Anderson was born Charles Frederick Anderson in Jacksonville, Fla., in 1927. He had his name legally changed to “Pro-Life” in 1987.

Anderson never knew his father, friends say, and moved to Savannah at the age of three, after his mother died, to live with his grandparents. A self-described juvenile delinquent, Anderson was sent to St. Joseph’s orphanage after his grandfather died, and his grandmother, who had to go back to work to support the family, struggled with him and his brother, Allie.

Anderson grew up in a Protestant family but converted to Catholicism at the orphanage. He went to Benedictine Military School but said he dropped out to help support his grandmother. He spent 20 years in the Air Force and married Marie Patricia Cecelia Moore, a 38-year-old widow with a 9-year-old son, in 1964. They moved to Reno, Nevada.

Anderson started campaigning against abortion in Reno the late 1970s, inspired, he said, after his stepson’s girlfriend had an abortion. His wife died in 1984, and he moved back to Savannah in 1997.
Requiescat in Pace.

Here is the funeral information for those in the Savannah, Georgia area:
Visitation for Anderson will be held from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday at Gamble Funeral Service, 10 Stephenson Ave. A vigil service will be held at 5 p.m. Sunday at the Gamble Funeral Service Chapel. Mass will be held Monday at 10 a.m. at the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist, 222 East Harris St.

Donations, in lieu of flowers, are being accepted at Priests for Life, P.O. Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; at the Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church, 1003 East Victory Dr., Savannah, GA, 31405 and at the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist, 222 East Harris St., Savannah, GA, 31401.
 + + +

All the angels and the archangels, pray for us.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Homilies by Father Frank Pavone

Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.
 – 2 Timothy 4:2-5
Father Frank Pavone

Please keep Father Frank Pavone and Bishop Patrick Zurek in your prayers. Here are the last few homilies by Father Frank that were broadcast on EWTN just prior to his departure on September 13 to Amarillo, Texas at the request of his bishop.

Homily 09-10-2011 - Fr Frank Pavone - Saturday Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary


Homily 09-11-2011 - Fr. Frank Pavone - Tenth Anniversary of September 11 2001 Terrorist Attack


Homily 09-12-2011 - Fr Frank Pavone - The Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary


Homily 09-13-2011 - Fr Frank Pavone - St John Chrysostom - Bishop - Doctor of the Church


 + + +

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
St. John Chrysostom, pray for us.

 + + +

Related articles:

Friday, October 14, 2011

Bishop Zurek finally breaks media silence ... to cast aspersions

Take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
 – Matthew 18:16
We finally got a direct quote from Bishop Zurek in the Amarillo press. It comes after Father Frank Pavone did not appear for a scheduled "private" meeting with his Ordinary on October 13. Here are some quotes from an article titled "Despite bishop's meeting request, Pavone a no-show":
“I would welcome a meeting with Father Pavone, face to face, a meeting as his bishop,” Zurek said. “I am still waiting for a favorable response to that.”

“This is a delicate internal Church matter that needs to be resolved between a bishop and his priest,” he added. “This is parallel to a human resources matter in the secular workplace. And it is even more sensitive when you factor in the relationship between a bishop and his priest as one similar to a father to a son or a brother to a brother.”

“In this case, right now, a real concern for me is Father Pavone.”
The bishop is obviously no stranger to the spin room. Following this deprecatory statement, there was a flurry of denigrating articles from the usual suspects. I'm thinking in particular of the Catholic Culture article (no author -- I guess the article wrote itself) where Phil Lawler has been leading the charge on libeling Father Pavone's good name.  And of course the ever pesky gadfly Mark Shea felt it necessary to chime in without all the facts. How's this for showing "respect" for a Catholic priest in good standing:
"This kind of petulance makes the bishop look smarter every day. This is your bishop we are talking about, Fr. Pavone. Show some respect." – Mark Shea
And true to form, Edward Peters -- self-proclaimed canon lawyer extraordinaire -- could not wait for the facts to become clear before excoriating Father Pavone for missing the meeting. (Please see my previous article titled "Ed Peters' dogged defense of Bishop Zurek".) Without anymore information about the situation than you or I have access to, Ed Peters has declared himself to be the ultimate authority on all things related to Frank Pavone and Bishop Zurek. Once again, Peters can find absolutely no fault with Bishop Zurek -- even after he learns some more about the nuances of the situation from Fr. Deibel's account. Will Ed Peters have the manly courage to apologize for his libelous treatment of Father Frank after the fact? So far there are no signs of this ever happening. If Peters is as naïve as he sounds about human nature and Church politics from his posts on Father Pavone, then he has no business being a canon lawyer. I sure wouldn't want to be his client if I were a priest that had been accused of wrongdoing by my bishop.

If they had all waited a short while for a response from Father Frank or had made some attempt to contact Priests for Life, they would have heard the other side of the story. From LifeSiteNews in an article titled "Canon lawyer advised Fr. Pavone not to attend private meeting with bishop" we learn that things are not as simple as Bishop Zurek has attempted to portray them in the Amarillo press.
Fr. Pavone’s canon lawyer has said that he advised Fr. Pavone not to attend the meeting without a mediator present.

“The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking,” said Canonist Fr. David Deibel.

Fr. Deibel, in his official statement released today,  says that requests to have a mediator present at any meeting between Pavone and the bishop have not been acknowledged. “Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators,” he said. “Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.”

“Instead,” added Deibel, “he wrote to Fr. Frank, asked him to come to a one-on-one meeting with him, and asked him in writing not to speak to anyone about the meeting. Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the Bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese.

Fr. Deibel said that Priests for Life would prefer that the process of discussing the disagreement take place in private rather than in the media.  He said that Priests for Life remains hopeful that Bishop Zurek will respond privately to the requests for mediation and that the matter will be resolved shortly.

Fr. Deibel said however, “As his canonical consultant, I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway.”
I suppose that Father Frank's detractors will just use this as more evidence of his lack of "obedience" to his bishop.

I wrote a comment at another website just shortly before learning of the response from Priests for Life. I have to give myself a pat on the back for understanding how this situation has been playing out. Here it is:
I'm not as disturbed by Father Frank's no-show as you are. I never expected anything good to come out of this meeting anyway.

As for possible explanations, I can think of a few. Of course it would be better to wait until there is a statement from Father Frank himself. But first remember that the main issue here is not about a skipped meeting or even "obedience". I'm reminded of the famous quote from Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

Keep in mind also that the Bishop said this would be a "private" meeting - but he publicly announced it. And also keep in mind that the Bishop himself was a "no-show" for a month. Anything said in a private meeting can be spun any which way by the Bishop, and if Father Frank would have tried to give an alternate explanation of what happened he would again be labeled "disobedient" for contradicting his Ordinary -- or even for just speaking out according to some people.

So one scenario is that he was advised by canon or civil lawyers not to meet with the Bishop unless he could have someone else in the room with him that could represent him. Or at the very least to be a witness to what is discussed.

Or it could be that Father wants to delay the meeting because he is waiting for a reply from some other Church authorities.

I don't know. But this is the way that "witch hunts" are conducted. First a bogus accusation is made and then the allegations widen and the "lack of cooperation" by an innocent person attempting to defend himself is thrown in as "suspicious behavior". Until anything a person says or does not say is touted as proof of their guilt.

You know, like throwing someone in the ocean with an anchor tied to them and if they sink then they are innocent (but dead) because we all know that a witch would use his powers to be able to float.
As I have from the beginning, I remain "In full support of Father Frank Pavone".

 + + +

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

 + + +

Related articles:

 + + +

UPDATE 1 [Oct 14]:

Amarillo.com has published a follow up article titled "Priests for Life defends no-show" giving Father Deibel's explanation of why Father Frank did not meet with Bishop Zurek. Here is the full statement released by Father Deibel as it appears on the Priests for Life website:
Official Statement from the Rev. David Deibel, Canonist

As Canonical Advisor to Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life, I have, on numerous occasions, communicated on their behalf with Bishop Patrick Zurek, asking for a mediator as a first step in restoring trust and facilitating healing in the relationship between the bishop and his priest. I can attest that Fr. Pavone is eager to restore with Bishop Zurek the trust and communication that should exist between any priest and his bishop. Fr. Pavone remains in Amarillo as directed by his bishop, and remains faithful and obedient.

The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking. Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators. Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.

Instead, he wrote to Fr. Frank, asked him to come to a one-on-one meeting with him, and asked him in writing not to speak to anyone about the meeting. Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the Bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese.

As his canonical consultant, I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway. All of us want this entire process to be carried out in private rather than through the media. He remains hopeful and prayerful that the bishop will respond privately to requests made of him, and that this situation will be resolved shortly in a truly Christian and ecclesial manner. I ask all to respect Father’s prayerful wishes in this regard.

Reverend David L. Deibel, JD, JCL
 + + +

UPDATE 2 [OCT 14]:

True to form, Mark Shea brushed off Fr. Deibel's statement in an impudent comment:
"How thoughtful to deign to explain this the day after he blows off his bishop. Sorry, but he’s being childish. It’s like watching a divorcing prima donna spouse only talking to her husband through a lawyer. How about a little humility?"
Seriously, when is National Catholic Register going to give this gossipy columnist the boot? It is obvious that NCR is withholding judgement on the whole AmarilloGate mess that the bishop has fabricated. There have only been a few carefully worded articles on the site on this topic. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the fact that NCR is now affiliated with (owned by??) EWTN where the Priests for Life TV show "Defending Life" is seen.

And yet columnist Mark Shea has been constantly fanning the flames of controversy with his statements on his own blog. On top of that, Shea's general liberal Catholic pronouncements are far out of line with EWTN's goal of creating an orthodox Catholic presence on TV, radio and the internet. I think Shea would fit in much better at the heterodox National Catholic REPORTER -- also known as the National Catholic fish-wrap.

It was also interesting to see Ed Peters commenting over at Mark Shea's site. You would think that Mr. Peters would chastise Mr. Shea over some of his derogatory comments. But no. Does this mean that Peters shares Shea's open disdain for Father Frank Pavone? Well, until I see Peters publicly single out Shea for criticism, I have to come to that conclusion. Which casts a whole different light on some of Peters' supposedly lawerly statements.

Is there an organized campaign among certain prominent Catholic persons online to damage the reputations of Father Frank and Priests for Life? I'm waiting to hear next from the opinionated Gerald Nadal, who has made it very clear that he doesn't need any facts to come to the conclusion that Father Frank is guilty of .... well, something!

Is this the same gang that attacked Lila Rose and Live Action for their use of undercover tactics to expose Planned Parenthood? Who's side are they on?

Friday, October 7, 2011

Priests for Life comparison of the Democratic and Republican party platforms

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?"
 – Acts 8:30-31
I don't think it is a coincidence that Father Frank Pavone has been silenced by Bishop Zurek at the same time that the bishops have released their woeful "Faithful Citizenship" guide for Catholic voters for the 2012 elections.

For the 2008 elections Priests for Life issued its own voters guide titled "A Comparison of the 2008 Republican and Democratic platforms". If only the bishops elaborate 45 page guide were as honest and straightforward as this simple 2 page guide. The Priests for Life document highlights the differences between the parties on ten key issues which are highly relevant to Catholic Voters.
  • Abortion
  • Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Abroad, Including Forced Abortion in China
  • Judges
  • Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  • Gay Marriage
  • Immigration
  • Iraq
  • Sex Education
  • Equal Rights for Women
  • Euthanasia / Assisted Suicide
This two page guide to the issues is available as two PDFs at:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/comparison_side1.pdf
http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/comparison_side2.pdf

I have provided images below to show the clear format of this guide. Please see the PDFs for the full sized documents.



As an example, I highlight the information provided on the abortion issue below:

Democrat's position on abortion:


Republican's position on abortion:


Now that's what I call an effective voter's guide. As you can see, it simply gives the party's position on the issues as provided in their own party platform.

If the bishops really wanted to provide effective guidance to Catholic voters in the upcoming 2012 elections, then they don't have to reinvent the wheel. Priests for Life has already done all the work for them. The fact that the bishops refuse to provide clear guidance to Catholics on their moral duty to vote in a way that upholds Catholic teaching is a scandal.

Allow me to give one more example. We have seen how much the cause of "homosexual marriage" has been advanced under the Obama administration. And yet the bishops act as if this caught them off guard. Well here is the way the issue was presented in the 2008 Priests for Life guide on the issues.

Democrat's position on gay marriage:


Republican's postion on gay marriage:


Any questions? I didn't think so.

If Democrats want faithful Catholics to vote for their party, then they need to change their positions on abortion and "homosexual marriage". Otherwise, Catholics should boycott the Democrats. It's as simple as that. And until that happens, we will continue to see the types of virulent attacks on the Church that have occurred under Obama.

No one is saying that the Republican positions are in total conformity with Catholic teachings, but at this point in time the choice is clear. The Catholic Church must oppose the Democratic party, or very soon there won't be a Roman Catholic Church in America anymore. We will be like China with an "American Catholic Church" which is a puppet of the government and does not respect the authority of the Pope in Rome.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Sep 12 letter from Priest for Life canon lawyer

The following letter from Fr. David Deibel, the chief canonist for Priests for Life, to the bishops has been made public as a PDF and has been widely quoted in news articles. However, I haven't been able to find the full text online so I have decided to post it here. All underlines and italics are from the original document.

 + + +

September 12, 2011

Your Eminences and Your Excellencies:

I write to you as the Chief Canonist of Priests for Life, Inc. and on behalf of its Board of Directors. We are all deeply saddened, shocked, and puzzled by the recent letter addressed to you and all your brother bishops in the United States from Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo, Texas.

Bishop Zurek's letter notified you that he is immediately recalling Father Frank Pavone from his ministry at Priests for Life—citing vague assertions of financial misconduct at Priests for Life as the primary reason for his action against Fr. Pavone.

Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek's letter contains several injurious inaccuracies and unfounded accusations which cast a serious cloud of suspicion over both Priests for Life as an organization and Father Pavone as a priest. Therefore, out of our heartfelt desire for justice and charity, we are now compelled to give you our side of the story.

Please note, however, that we make the following statement with a spirit of true charity and respect for Bishop Zurek and all the bishops in the United States. Together, Father Pavone and Priests for Life have always maintained a positive and respectful relationship with all the bishops, particularly in the public forum.

Bishop Zurek's letter focuses mainly on alleged financial mismanagement or misconduct at Priests for Life—which is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life/pro-family grassroots organization, and a private association of the faithful. For example, Bishop Zurek says about Father Pavone: "He has consistently refused to subject PFL to a transparent and complete audit of all expenditures."

This is simply untrue. PFL is audited every year by an independent, fully certified CPA firm specializing in non-profit grassroots organizations like PFL. These audits have been conducted annually for the past ten years. Since 2005 (the year Father Pavone incardinated into the Diocese of Amarillo), PFL has submitted over 40 separate financial and management documents to the Bishop of Amarillo (His Excellency Bishop John Yanta, as well as Bishop Zurek). These included all annual audits from 2005 through 2010. The documents include quarterly statements, organizational charts, charts of accounts, internal management documents, and even the actual check register when it was requested by Bishop Zurek. Many of you have been copied when we sent these documents and have provided positive feedback. These submissions have never been acknowledged.

How this could possibly be called a "consistent refusal to subject PFL to a transparent and complete audit of all expenditures" is baffling to everyone at Priests for Life, especially the Board of Directors, as we were personally involved in this entire process of disclosure and transmission.

Bishop Zurek goes on to say, "I have reasons to be alarmed at the potential financial scandal that might arise." This is a supposition that is based on a feeling—not on any facts. Indeed, Priests for Life is deliberately structured to avoid any such controversy and suspicions, which is why Father Pavone does not oversee any of the finances of PFL. A separate Financial Committee on the Board of Directors has this responsibility, and they are very mindful to be perfectly transparent to the Church as well as to our donors and any relevant government authorities, such as the IRS. Indeed, we file a complete IRS Form 990 (a very thorough financial statement required for all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations such as PFL), and we always make that form available for public review.

We fully agree with Bishop Zurek's statement that donors who give to PFL have a rightful expectation that the monies are being used prudently. We take issue, however, with Bishop Zurek's statement that seems to malign PFL for being a successful ministry within the Church. He says, "PFL has become a business that is quite lucrative and provides Father Pavone with financial independence from all ecclesiastical oversight." Again, this is simply untrue.

First and foremost, Father Frank does not draw a salary from PFL, nor does he receive a stipend or compensation of any kind from the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas. PFL pays for the extremely modest living expenses of Father Frank, which amount to less than $2,000 a month. He does not own a home or an apartment, but lives in a small apartment rented by Priests for Life. Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has never seen any of this for himself, because he has never accepted Father Pavone's repeated invitations to come for a visit to PFL headquarters.

Thus you can imagine why we are so perplexed at Bishop Zurek's statement: "Since he has consistently refused to subject PFL to a transparent and complete auditing of all expenditures, I have reasons to be alarmed at the potential financial scandal that might arise..." He then goes on to say that he needs to "correct Father Pavone's incorrigible defiance to my legitimate authority as his Bishop."

We merely ask, "What incorrigible defiance?" Ever since the beginning of his pro-life ministry, Father Pavone has consistently remained obedient and faithful to his Ordinary— first in New York and then in Amarillo. When Bishop Zurek required Father Pavone to spend Holy Week and other specific days in Amarillo, Father Pavone complied. When Bishop Zurek required Father Pavone to spend 60 days in Amarillo, Father Pavone worked to cancel many previously arranged speaking engagements and juggled other commitments so that he could comply with his bishop's wishes. Finally, he sent Bishop Zurek two letters about going to Amarillo, one with a detailed list of the dates that he would be available for ministry in Amarillo. These letters and others assured the Bishop of his obedience and readiness to comply with the Bishop's demands. But these letters were never acknowledged by Bishop Zurek. Instead, the Bishop's reply to Fr. Pavone, in a letter dated September 6, made no reference to Fr. Pavone's clear readiness to comply, but rather insisted that Fr. Pavone had ignored the Bishop's request.

The distressing conclusion of Bishop Zurek's letter seems to us to be an outright and unjustified attack on the work of Priests for Life as a whole, which is much more grave than his real or imagined difficulty with Father Pavone. In His Excellency's final paragraph, he asks you to "inform the Christian faithful under your care to consider withholding donations to PFL." Herein lies the danger of introducing an element of mistrust toward an organization with an earned, longstanding and positive reputation, along with praise and endorsements from bishops and cardinals throughout the United States and the Vatican. Bishop Zurek's denunciation of Priests for Life has already provoked scandal where none exists, thereby fulfilling the concern he professes to have. Based merely on insinuations, misunderstandings, and conjecture, a public accusation against Priests for Life—calling into question the organization's ethics and spirit—tarnishes and stigmatizes what has become a most prominent pro-life ministry in the Church. Everyone will be harmed—including the unborn—perhaps irrevocably. Perhaps what is most distressing is the fact that the denunciations are predicated on non-existent facts. Documentary evidence that leads to the opposite conclusion and that is readily accepted in professional circles exists and is in the possession of Bishop Zurek and others concerned with Priests for Life.

Therefore, we have been left with no choice but to write to you openly and frankly about this matter so that any further damage to all concerned can be minimized. On behalf of the Board of Directors of Priests for Life, I urge you to look carefully into this matter and express your concerns to Bishop Zurek.

In anticipation of the necessity of a hierarchical recourse before the Congregation for the Clergy, we have formally petitioned Bishop Zurek to rescind his directive suspending Fr. Pavone's priestly ministry outside of the Diocese of Amarillo for an indefinite period, and are asking that he permit Fr. Pavone to continue his work with Priests for Life. This must be done, even though elsewhere Bishop Zurek has threatened in writing to withdraw Fr. Pavone permanently from pro-life ministry if he were to exercise his canonical rights to hierarchical recourse. As an association that has always sought to be faithful to the Church and its teaching, this is the only forum left to us within the Church.

It should be noted that since we have formally petitioned Bishop Zurek to rescind his penal decree of September 6, under the law as contained in the norm of canon 1353, the effects of that decree are suspended by the law itself until the matter is resolved by hierarchical recourse. In other words, under the canon law of the Church, Fr. Pavone is free to continue his pro-life ministry full-time outside the diocese of Amarillo until this matter is decided by the Vatican.

Despite the suspension of the penalties in Bishop Zurek's decree, and Fr. Pavone's clear right to continue his pro-life work outside the diocese of Amarillo, Fr. Pavone will obediently report to Amarillo on September 13, in the hopes that he can resolve this matter through mutual dialogue with the Bishop, and that it will not become necessary for him to initiate a hierarchical recourse before the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome.

Already, however, Bishop Zurek's letter has been obtained by the news media, which will no doubt use it as fodder against the Church and the pro-life movement. It is our hope and prayer that this perplexing action on the part of the Bishop of Amarillo—which has the potential to cause so much unnecessary damage in the pro-life movement—can somehow be remedied in a speedy fashion.

Above all, we want you to know that we do not impugn in any way Bishop Zurek's motives, but instead fervently desire a peaceful and amicable resolution to the whole matter.

With our loyal and obedient deference to you and all the shepherds of the Church, I remain,

Fr. David Deibel, JCL
Chief Canonist, Priests for Life

Bishop Zurek on Father Pavone's priestly status

Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
 – 1 Corinthians 9:16
Pope Innocent III dreams of St. Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran

Here is the full text of a letter posted on the website of the Diocese of Amarillo on September 30 by Bishop Zurek.
Clarification of Fr. Frank Pavone’s Priestly Status

Father Frank Pavone remains suspended. At my discretion and solicitude, he has faculties for ministry in the Diocese of Amarillo. He does not have my permission for ministry outside of the Diocese. He is to remain in the Diocese for an indefinite period of time for prayer and reflection.
Ed Peters has provided his comments on this letter on his blog. Peters had previously criticized Bishop Zurek for his use of the word "suspended". Here is what he has to say on this latest use of the word "suspended" by the bishop.
Zurek’s continued use of the word “suspended” is apparently idiosyncratic, as “suspension” is a type of canonical penalty and, to my knowledge, no crime has been alleged against Pavone and no penal process conducted in his regard. While, strictly speaking, a canonical suspension could be imposed which would allow for some exercise of ministry, (c. 1333 § 1), my guess is that Zurek is using the word “suspended” according to its common understanding to mean something like “sharply curtailed for administrative reasons”. I regularly advise against ecclesiastical officials using terms with canonical implications as they are used in common speech, for obvious reasons, but such use still happens.
I think that Peters is being overly apologetic about the bishop's use of the word "suspended". Surely the bishop is using the word very deliberately. If the bishop does not understand the correct ecclesiastical meaning of the word, then that would be very troubling. A suspension would mean that Father Frank would not be allowed to say Mass and that clearly hasn't happened. In fact the diocese of Amarillo specifically stated that he "remains a priest in good standing".

Peters goes on to offer his unsolicited advice to Father Pavone about what he should or should not do, saying that "he should avoid [working for Priests for Life from Amarillo]" since that would "interfere" with his "prayer and reflection". It doesn't seem to bother Peters in the slightest that the bishop has never stated any definitive reason why Father Frank needs to spend time in "prayer and reflection" rather than actively spreading the Gospel of the Lord to a nation that is sorely in need of repentance.

It is fortunate for St. Francis of Assisi that Ed Peters wasn't around when he was founding his order. You see St. Francis was preaching without a license and he and his twelve disciples had to appeal to the Pope in order to establish his order. It could have gone either way. Francis might have been declared a heretic, but Pope Innocent III had a dream in which he saw Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the mother of all churches. And thank God that he did.

Similarly, Father Frank has appealed to Rome and as Ed Peters is well aware, the canon lawyer for Priests for Life, Father David Deibel, has stated that this temporarily nullifies the suspension by Bishop Zurek until the Vatican weighs in. And yet Peters doesn't bother to mention this in his comments on the bishops letter of "clarification".

St. Francis was called to physically repair the Church of St. Damian which Pope Benedict XVI reminds us was "the symbol of a much deeper call to renew Christ's own Church". Today the challenge is to restore society's respect for the dignity of human life which Priests for Life is doing through its pro-Life ministry. The struggle to end abortion is "the symbol of a much deeper call" to unity within the Christian world. Nowhere do we see the various Christian denominations coming together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit like we do in the pro-Life community.

We need more priests like Father Frank Pavone who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the unborn. If there are some financial irregularities at Priests for Life, then by all means these need to be straightened out. But that can certainly be done without pulling Father Frank off to the sidelines at a time when we have seen Planned Parenthood under so much political and financial pressure. This is the time to increase the pressure on the pro-abortion forces and not let them off the hook. Bishops should be denying communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians according to the instructions issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in 2004. But the American bishops are in open defiance of such instructions, saying that this is "a complex question involving 'prudential judgment' in each case."

And on the matter of politicians that support "homosexual marriage", Cardinal Ratzinger in 2003 instructed that "the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against [the recognition of homosexual unions]". And yet Catholic politicians are never denied communion on the basis of supporting "homosexual marriage" or singled out by the American bishops for public chastisement.

But woe to the pro-Life priest that fails to maintain a spotless financial organization. Or is it woe to the priest who stands up to pro-abortion politicians as Father Frank has done?

What has Bishop Zurek clarified in his "clarification"? He is simply reiterating what he said in his previous letter. Ed Peters knows this. We all know this. It seems that Bishop Zurek is making good on his threat "to withdraw Father Pavone permanently from pro-life ministry if he were to exercise his canonical rights to hierarchical recourse".

In so doing he is posting a challenge to any other bishop outside of Amarillo who might wish to come to the defense of Father Frank. We all know this is not strictly a local matter confined to Amarillo, so why don't we hear from Archbishop Dolan, the president of the US Conference of bishops? After all, Priests for Life is headquartered in Staten Island, New York which is part of the Archdiocese of New York. Should we infer from his silence that he is in full support of Bishop Zurek?

I have to hand it to the pro-abortion National Catholic Reporter on this one. Rather than hurl stones at Father Frank while he is down, they have just quietly stood by and watched as some members of the Catholic pro-Life community have thrown the first stones.

I do not think that this is going to end well. Pray for the Church.

 + + +

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Ed Peters' dogged defense of Bishop Zurek

And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear."
 – Luke 11:46
Ed Peters seems to have appointed himself to be the lead prosecutor of Father Frank Pavone in a public trial which he is conducting through his blog. Yes, Ed Peters is a canon lawyer, but his issue with Father Pavone does not seem to be just about canon law; it seems to be much more personal than that.

From the beginning Peters has tried to portray this as a conflict between Father Pavone and Bishop Zurek. As a lawyer, he should know much better than that. This is not some sort of boxing match with the bishop and his priest in opposite corners as Peters likes to portray it.

This is a policy dispute which was made public when a letter by Bishop Zurek was published by CNS (Catholic News Service). The letter addressed to all the United States Catholic bishops made unsubstantiated claims about the character of Father Frank and about Priests for Life. As a public figure that has a responsibility to defend the reputation of Priests for Life, Father Frank was put into a very awkward position by his bishop.

If he said nothing then Priests for Life would be adversely affected. In fact Bishop Zurek asked his fellow bishops to halt all donations to PFL. How was Father Frank supposed to respond to that? Should he just quietly go into prayer as Peters has suggested?

Ed Peters seems to like to put himself in the limelight. Not that long ago he made a public pronouncement that Bishop Hubbard of Albany should deny communion to Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. This led to a flurry of publicity. When Bishop Hubbard did not take any action against Governor Cuomo, Peters let the matter quietly drop.

If only he had followed a similar trajectory in the current situation with Father Frank Pavone then he would have saved the pro-Life community a lot of public embarrassment. Instead Peters got ever more involved in criticizing anyone that showed any kind of support for Father Frank.

Why did Ed Peters let Bishop Hubbard off the hook while publicly scolding Father Pavone in article after article?

In the latest round of fighting initiated by Ed Peters, he took aim at Al Kresta who conducted an interview with Father Frank on his Ave Maria Radio show. Peters' main objection seems to be that Father Frank should simply not be allowed to speak out in public.

It was now Al Kresta's turn to be put into an awkward position. He was forced to defend himself against Ed Peters' charge that he had given Father Frank "what amounted to a 40 minute infomercial". Peters bluntly charged that this was "a bad idea". And added that neither Father Pavone nor Kresta were "competent to explain ... canon law to the public". He said that interviewing Father Frank was especially bad while the "dispute with Zurek was in full swing", which just shows how Peters has attempted to turn this policy dispute into a highly personal confrontation.

So much for tact and diplomacy on the part of Ed Peters; never mind being charitable. This is more the style of a bulldog than a diplomat.

In his response Al Kresta starts out by saying that he and Ed Peters are friends and that Ed Peters has appeared as a guest on his show in the past. Thank goodness that Al is a "friend" of Peters. I'd hate to think how he would have worded his criticisms if they weren't. Kresta tries his best to defuse the situation which Peters has created using very apologetic language. He does however say that Peters' characterization of the interview as an "infomercial" is "silly".

Peters in his reply rather than apologizing just digs in deeper. He describes himself as "one who knows what the rules are". So now Peters is not just the prosecutor, but has also declared himself to be the judge in this case. Aren't Bishop Zurek and the Diocese of Amarillo capable of speaking for themselves?

Meanwhile, where in the world is Bishop Zurek? It's been over two weeks since he disappeared from the face of the earth on September 13 -- the same day that he demanded that Father Frank show up in Amarillo.

As for Ed Peters, I wish he would turn his lawerly attentions to more worthy victims like Nancy Pelosi and the bishops that allow her style of public insubordination to continue unchallenged. Or Catholic "social justice" groups like the 8th Day Center for Justice which insists on showing a film that advocates "women priests". With all the attacks that the Church is under today, why zero in on a priest that has dedicated his life to end abortion?

I hate bringing this up, but I will anyway because it goes to the core of Peters' argument. When we blindly defer to the bishops, bad things can happen. The bishops can and must be held accountable. They should not be above criticism from the laity when they fail to vigorously defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. And they certainly should not be allowed to place themselves above the Pope.

The bishops should conduct their business in public and avoid secrecy as much as possible. Again, we have seen how secrecy has been used to hide abuse in the past. Eventually, secrets are uncovered.

Why shouldn't a bishop go on a radio program to be interviewed? If Archbishop Dolan can go on 60 Minutes, then why can't Bishop Zurek be interviewed by Al Kresta? He should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI who has been very open and candid in his papacy. At times this has resulted in his being attacked by the press as happened when "Light of the World" was published. But he has helped to dispel the myth that the Vatican and the Catholic Church has something to hide.

When baby Joseph was about to be euthanized by Canadian doctors the whole pro-Life community came out in support. But it was ultimately one priest who was able to make a difference and give Joseph a chance to live out a full life. Shouldn't this priest receive our thanks and support now when he needs it most?

God bless you, Father Frank.

 + + +

St. John Chrysostom, pray for us.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Father Michael Rodriguez and Father Frank Pavone

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
 – Matthew 23:2-4
Another holy priest has been prevented from doing the work of God by his bishop. In this case it is Bishop Ochoa who has removed Father Michael Rodriguez from his work at the parish of San Juan Bautista (St. John the Baptist) in San Antonio and re-assigned him to a parish in west Texas. Essentially sending him into exile for his outspoken defense of marriage.

What are we to make of this? Has the Catholic Church in America lost sight of its mission?

Perhaps we need to turn to the Orthodox Church to remind ourselves of our past heritage. Certainly orthodoxy does not seem to be welcomed by the Catholic bishops. Is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in America attempting to separate itself from the Holy See? Will the Roman Catholic Church in the future be a mixture of orthodox Catholics, orthodox Protestants and the Orthodox Church?

Our Holy Father is presently in Germany. His message is clear. The following quote is from the speech of Pope Benedict XVI to Orthodox Churches in Germany:
In the present climate, in which many would like, as it were, to “liberate” public life from God, the Christian Churches in Germany – including Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians – are walking side by side along the path of peaceful witness for understanding and solidarity among peoples, on the basis of their faith in the one God and Father of all.  At the same time they continue to place the miracle of God’s incarnation at the centre of their proclamation. Realizing that on this mystery all human dignity depends, they speak up jointly for the protection of human life from conception to natural death.  Faith in God, the Creator of life, and unconditional adherence to the dignity of every human being strengthen faithful Christians to oppose vigorously every manipulative and selective intervention in the area of human life.  Knowing too the value of marriage and the family, we as Christians attach great importance to defending the integrity and the uniqueness of marriage between one man and one woman from any kind of misinterpretation.  Here the common engagement of Christians, including Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, makes a valuable contribution to building up a society equipped for the future, in which the human person is given the respect which is his due.
One shudders to think if a Catholic priest were to make such a public pronouncement in the United States, what the reaction of his bishop might be. One wonders if the American bishops are among those who wish to "'liberate' public life from God".

Let's parse the Pope's statement and see what he believes to be the most essential elements of the Christian faith in these tumultuous times in which we live.
  • "the protection of human life from conception to natural death" - The very first thing he brings up is the pro-Life message. Isn't this the core message of Priests for Life? Isn't this exactly what Father Pavone has committed his life to?
  • "oppose vigorously every manipulative and selective intervention in the area of human life" - Again we hear the Holy Father emphasizing the pro-Life message. Could he possibly be more clear about how high a priority this should be for all of our priests and bishops?
  • "defending the integrity and the uniqueness of marriage between one man and one woman from any kind of misinterpretation" - Here we see how strongly the Pope connects the pro-Life message with the struggle to defend marriage. They are essentially one and the same. And wasn't this what got Father Rodriguez in trouble with his bishop? How can any priest possibly defend marriage from the attacks of the homosexual community without also pointing out the sinful nature of homosexual relationships? And how can the Church effectively defend marriage without getting more directly involved in the political process?
Father Frank Pavone and Father Michael Rodriguez are two priests that took the message of the Gospel to heart and acted on it. They both believe in freedom of religion; not just "freedom of worship". They spoke out in the public square; not just from the pulpit. And for this they have both been chastised by their bishops.

The mission of the Church is to save souls. We know that "the wages of sin is death". If the Church can get our society to recognize that abortion and "homosexual marriage" are sins then many souls will find their rewards in heaven. But in order to be heard over the din of secular society we must be "the voice of one crying in the wilderness".

St. John the Baptist was certainly not being "pastoral" in his pronouncements when he called the Pharisees and Sadducees a "brood of vipers". He did not confine his ministry to his home diocese. He went out to where the Lord was calling him and where he was needed. It's time for the Catholic Church to get back to Theology 101 and heed the words of St. John the Baptist:
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
 – Matthew 3:2
 + + +

St. John the Baptist, pray for us.

 + + +

Father Michael Rodriguez on "The Real Truth about Homosexuality"



 + + +

Related articles:

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The bishops on marriage: right message, wrong timing

Go to Media, my son, for I fully believe what Jonah the prophet said about Nineveh, that it will be overthrown. But in Media there will be peace for a time.
 – Tobit 14:4
The US bishops have just released a letter to President Obama signed by Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the President of the USCCB, that is strongly critical of the administration's policy towards marriage.

Now, if a similar letter had been released shortly before the vote on "homosexual marriage" in New York State, or while DADT was being debated in Congress, or at some critical time during the Prop 8 hearing, or shortly before the recent special elections ... then I would have applauded it.

But it almost seems as if the release of the letter was timed for when it could make the most minimal impact. So far the only ones to have taken any notice of it at all are the folks at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). They have posted a story on their blog which is how I became aware of it.

I suppose its possible that I'm just getting to this story a bit early. But wouldn't an organization like USCCB want to have some sort of PR event around such a major statement? Wouldn't they want to get in touch with their contacts in the press to make sure that they filed stories on this letter at the very moment of its release? Even the Catholic News Service (CNS) which is affiliated with the USCCB doesn't have a story at this time.

So, I seem to have managed to out-scoop all major news agencies on this story, which somehow isn't making me happy the way it should. I guess AP and the rest of the media don't pay too much attention to news releases from the USCCB or they would have noticed the official announcement by now. Maybe they have seen it and are still figuring out how they can spin the story to include some reference to the sex abuse scandal.

Let's just hope that this is a sign that the US Catholic bishops intend to become more vocal on the issue of marriage in the future. And let's pray that they use their influence to urge Catholic voters to make this a major issue in the upcoming 2012 elections.

Here are some key excerpts from the letter:
I write with a growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage. This past spring the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, a decision strongly opposed by the Catholic Bishops of the United States and many others. Now the Justice Department has shifted from not defending DOMA—which is problem enough, given the duty of the executive branch to enforce even laws it disfavors—to actively attacking DOMA's constitutionality.
[...]
The Administration‟s failure to change course on this matter will, as the attached analysis indicates, precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.
 + + +

UPDATE 1 (Sep 21):

For those who are, in my opinion, overly excited about this statement, I would like to point out a very similar statement earlier this year in March from Archbishop Dolan. I wish I could provide a link to the document on the USCCB website, but it seems that they don't have archives of news releases going back that far. But I was able to find the full text at the website of the Diocese of Saginaw.

Here is a key excerpt with a similar tone and content to today's letter:
The Administration’s current position is not only a grave threat to marriage, but to religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy as well. Our nation and government have the duty to recognize and protect marriage, not tamper with and redefine it, nor to caricature the deeply held beliefs of so many citizens as “discrimination.” On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I express my deep disappointment over the Administration’s recent decision. I have written of these concerns to the President in separate correspondence, and I pray that he and the Department of Justice may yet make the right choice to carry out their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage, and in so doing protect the future generations of our children.
It's not that I'm cynical about the ability to reverse this trend of destroying the institution of marriage. It's just that the approach of the US bishops of writing a letter now and then after the fact is not an effective one. This letter came out some weeks after the President announced that the Dept. of Justice would no longer defend DOMA on February 23. As close as I can tell this statement was released March 6.

And again it feels like the timing of the statement was designed to have a minimal impact. It is almost like the bishops really don't want to defend marriage at all, but they still want to be able to say to the Catholic faithful that they have "tried their best". Well, I just don't buy it.

If you want to take a look at what an effective defense of marriage looks like, then take a look at the work of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Or take a look at the Orthodox Jewish Rabbis that told their fellow Orthodox Jews in the latest special election in New York to vote for the Republican candidate and not vote for the Democratic candidate even though he was an Orthodox Jew. Why? Because he voted for "homosexual marriage", that's why. And what the Rabbis said was that they would not support a candidate that betrayed the basic religious principles of Orthodox Jews.

Or else take a look at the work of Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. He specifically instructs Catholics to look not only at the individual candidate, but also at their political party's platform. And in the case of the Democrat Party, the platform is pro-abortion and in favor of "homosexual marriage". So if you consider yourself a faithful Catholic, then you cannot vote for the Democrats. End of story.

If Catholics stopped supporting the Democrats and giving them a pass on the "social issues" then they would be forced to change those policies or disappear from history.

 + + +

Pray for the Church.

 + + +

Related articles:

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Father Frank on Ave Maria Radio

And as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are mad; your great learning is turning you mad." But Paul said, "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking the sober truth."
Acts 26:24-25
Father Frank Pavone was on Ave Maria Radio yesterday, September 19. He was interviewed by Al Kresta on his show "Kresta in the afternoon". What you should know about Al is that he has been the driving force behind Ave Maria Radio since its founding and that he is currently the President and CEO.

Here's some more relevant information. Ave Maria Radio's programs are carried by 160 stations and reaches an estimated 800,000 people a week. The "Kresta in the afternoon" program is Ave Maria's "flagship national production". And Ave Maria Radio claims to be "the largest producer of Catholic radio programming in the United States."

So that tells me two things. One, that Father Frank can't possibly have found a bigger soap box to stand on to defend himself in the Catholic world than this, with the exception of EWTN where he has his own weekly pro-Life show. And two, Al Kresta wants us to know that he fully supports Father Frank in his struggle to maintain his full-time ministry at Priests for Life.

The interview is available online. There is an archive at Ave Maria, but I couldn't get that link to work for me. But I found the same show posted on Al Kresta's blog which is where I found the following YouTube recordings of the show. The interview lasts for 40 minutes and answers many of the questions that people have been asking around the Catholic blogosphere. So if you are really interested in learning the answers, then it's well worth a listen.

Of course this is a one-sided discussion because we don't have the participation of Bishop Zurek. But that is by his own choice. He immediately disappeared after his letter became public. And he left no publicly available information as to his whereabouts. He simply announced that he would be out-of-town for two weeks.

Here is the interview.





Thursday, September 22, at 9:15am ET Father Pavone will be the guest on Catholic Connection with Teresa Tomeo. This is another show that originates from Ave Maria Radio. It is also carried by EWTN radio. There is more information about Father Frank's upcoming media schedule in his newsletter which is dated September 19.

 + + +

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Bishop Gries: "Please continue to support Priests for Life"

For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
 – 1 Corinthians 11:18-19
The latest news on Father Frank Pavone is that he has received a letter of public support from Bishop Roger Gries. He is an Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Cleveland and is also on the Advisory Board of Priests for Life. In his letter the bishop states:
Please keep Father Pavone in your prayers. He is currently facing some difficult days as he negotiates with his bishop. The work he had done since founding Priests for Life must continue as we face the future. Please continue to support Priests for Life.

I was proud to stand up with Father Pavone when he asked me to serve on the Advisory Board of Bishops. Every opportunity that comes my way to stand up for life will find me speaking out against abortion. Let us pray, pray and pray some more for the mothers carrying infants in their wombs. Also, let us pray for those who perform the abortions and work in those clinics for they need God’s grace to see the evil of their deeds.
 + + +


While we are waiting for the dispute between Father Frank and Bishop Zurek to be resolved, please enjoy the video that follows. It is one of the many fruits of Father Frank's pro-Life ministry.



Here is the description provided with this music video:
"This is My Body" was inspired through a conversation that Fr. Pavone [of Priests for Life] had with Dana about the comparison between the words "This is My Body" as used by Jesus to give us eternal life, and as used by abortion supporters to defend the taking of life. Fr. Pavone gave Dana the brochure that he had written about this comparison, and suggested that a song should be written to convey this powerful message. Within a few hours, Dana called him back and said that she had the song basically written! After subsequent meetings and sitting together at the piano, Fr. Frank and Dana were satisfied that the finished product would inspire pro-life people worldwide.

In the song, Dana plays the role of a woman who has had an abortion. Gretchen sings as a woman who believes in the "right to choose." And Mark plays the role of Jesus, who teaches us to sacrifice ourselves for others. They each do this using the same words, "This is My Body."
The video is available on DVD. It was first aired on EWTN. The song is also available as part of Dana's "Little Baby: Songs for Life" pro-Life album.

 + + +
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
 – Luke 22:19
 + + +

Here are the words from the brochure by Father Frank Pavone that inspired Dana to write her song.
This Is My Body
By Fr. Frank A. Pavone

Did you ever realize that the same four words that were used by the Lord Jesus to save the world are also used by some to promote abortion? "This is my body." The same simple words are spoken from opposite ends of the universe, with meanings that are directly contrary to each other.

Scripture tells us that on the night before He died to save all people, the Lord Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "This is My Body, which is given up for you." He was pointing to what would happen the next day, when He would give that same Body on the cross. He sacrifices Himself so that we may live. He gives up His Body so that He can destroy the power of sin and death. As a result, He welcomes us into His life, into His Kingdom. He makes us members of His Body!

On the other hand, abortion supporters say, "This is my body. So don't interfere with it! It's mine, so I can do what I want, even to the point of killing the life within it. All is secondary to my dominion over my body." In fact one abortion supporter has written, "I say their (pro-lifers') God is worth nothing compared to my body" (Michelle Goldberg, "Rant for Choice," in University of Buffalo student newspaper, 1995).

"This is my body." Same words, different results. Christ gives His body away so others might live; abortion supporters cling to their own bodies so others might die. In giving His Body, Christ teaches the meaning of love: I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person. Abortion teaches the opposite of love: I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself!

"This is my body." If, indeed, our body is ours, then let's ask the next question: Why? The answer is so that we can give our body, our life, ourself, away in love to one another and to God. Christ declares, "Do this in memory of me." He calls us to do what He did, and that is precisely how we reverse the dynamic of abortion. Mom and Dad must say to their child, "This is my body, my life, given for you," rather than, "This is my body, my life, so go away!"

Human happiness and fulfillment are never found by pushing other people out of the way. They are found when we push ourselves out of the way. Pope John Paul II says as much in Evangelium Vitae #51: He who had come "not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45), attains on the cross the heights of love: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn. 15:13). And he died for us while we were yet sinners (cf. Rom. 5:8).

In this way Jesus proclaims that life finds its center, its meaning and its fulfillment when it is given up.

At this point our meditation becomes praise and thanksgiving, and at the same time urges us to imitate Christ and follow in his footsteps (cf. 1 Pt. 2:21).

We too are called to give our lives for our brothers and sisters, and thus to realize in the fullness of truth the meaning and destiny of our existence.

"This is my body." It is no accident that the same words are used for such different purposes. A spiritual conflict rages here. We win, in our own lives and in the world, by living these words in self-giving, life-giving love.
 + + +

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Friday, September 16, 2011

If 100 bishops got thrown in jail ... that would be wonderful

But the high priest rose up and all who were with him, that is, the party of the Sad'ducees, and filled with jealousy they arrested the apostles and put them in the common prison.

But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out and said, "Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life."

 – Acts 5:17-20



This article titled "Kreeft: It would be wonderful if 100 bishops got thrown in jail for marching with graphic images" appeared on LifeSiteNews the day before we got the shocking news that Father Frank Pavone had been recalled by Bishop Zurek of Amarillo.
In a new video released last month by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, famed Catholic philosopher and author Peter Kreeft says it would be “wonderful” if one hundred bishops were arrested for marching with graphic images of aborted babies.

His comments are poignant in light of recent decisions by certain bishops to withdraw from pro-life events after the organizers could not guarantee that graphic images would not be present.

“What is wrong with exposing people to the truth?” he asked. “Suppose you were allowed to show the horrors in Auschwitz to the average German citizen. It might have toppled Hitler earlier. If something horrible is happening, covering it up is more horrible.”

Using the images is “probably going to be illegal. You’ll probably be thrown in jail,” he said.

He then recounted a story about a pro-life activist who picketed with a graphic image as President Bill Clinton entered the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, and was arrested despite being well outside the 10-foot limit.

“None of the TV cameras filmed that incident. Well, if a hundred people did that, the TV cameras would have to film it,” he explained. “If a hundred bishops marched with those pictures and got thrown in jail, the newspapers would have to headline ‘100 bishops thrown in jail’.”

“That would be wonderful,” he continued. “Not because I hate bishops, because I love them.”
For the latest news on Father Frank please visit LifeSiteNews at:
Latest updates on Fr. Pavone situation

You can also get updates at Priests for Life:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/update/

Father Frank released a new video today on the Priests for Life YouTube channel:

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Bishop Zurek says Priests for Life has no "ecclesial status"

Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.
James 3:12-14
I think this letter from Bishop Zurek on January 24, 2011 to the US bishops is explosive proof of his fundamental ideological opposition to the mission of Priests for Life. If the things he states in this letter are true than Priest for Life should never have been allowed to come into existence. So how is it that this organization with "no written decree from any competent ecclesiastical authority anywhere" has 21 bishops and cardinals on its Advisory Board?

(You can click on the images to enlarge them.)

Bishop Zurek also brings up Missionaries for the Gospel of Life in his letter. I don't think there is any dispute that this attempt at creating a religious order that would be entirely devoted to pro-Life work had to be abandoned by Father Frank Pavone. That is very unfortunate. If this organization were alive today, we would not be witnessing this current controversy which has already done so much harm to the pro-Life cause.

I wonder... Why wasn't this earlier letter revealed to the press? I happened upon this document buried inside a pdf on the website of the Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico in a Google search. I have searched for a copy on the USCCB website, but have not been able to find one. Since the Bishop of Las Cruces received this letter, I assume that the rest of the bishops also received and read it. And that would include the US bishops that are part of the Priests for Life Advisory Board. And that would also include Bishop Baker of the Diocese of Birmingham, Alabama where EWTN is located.

Notice that there is no mention in this letter about any financial concerns. The letter concludes by saying:
It is my hope that this letter makes clear the official status of these organizations in the event that they attempt to present themselves with simulated officially recognized ecclesial status in order to solicit funds or to seek permission to perform any work related to the respect life movement. Finally, I want to confirm that Father Frank Pavone is a priest incardinated into the Dioceses of Amarillo, and that at the present, he has my permission to be on special assignment outside the dioceses for the time being.
What a strange and perplexing statement. Ambiguous would be way to generous a description of this cryptic paragraph. The bishop says that Father Frank can continue his "special assignment", but that apparently he shouldn't do any "respect life movement" work. When you figure out what Bishop Zurek is saying here, let me know.

Advisory Board of Priests for Life
  • His Eminence Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna
  • His Eminence Renato Cardinal Martino, President Emeritus, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
  • Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Philadelphia 
  • Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge, Bishop of Raleigh
  • Most Reverend Robert W. Finn, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph
  • Most Reverend Roger J. Foys, Bishop of Covington
  • Most Reverend Roger W. Gries, Auxiliary Bishop of Cleveland
  • Most Reverend Sam G. Jacobs, Bishop of Houma-Thibodaux
  • Most Reverend Peter Jugis, Bishop of Charlotte
  • Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester
  • Most Reverend Ralph Walker Nickless, Bishop of Sioux City
  • Most Reverend Joseph A. Pepe, Bishop of Las Vegas 
  • Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs
  • Most Rev. Clarence Silva, Bishop of Honolulu 
  • Most Rev. Richard F. Stika, Bishop of Knoxville
  • Most Reverend Paul J. Swain, Bishop of Sioux Falls 
  • Most Reverend James Wall, Bishop of Gallup
  • Most Reverend John Quinn Weitzel, M.M., Bishop of Samoa-Pago Pago 
  • Most Reverend Martin Holley, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington
  • Most Reverend Dominic M. Luong, Auxiliary Bishop of Orange 
  • Most Reverend Victor B. Galeone, Bishop Emeritus of St Augustine  
 + + +

NOTE: This information was posted previously as "UPDATE 7" at the previous article titled, "In full support of Father Frank Pavone". I'm reposting it here to give it the prominence that it deserves.

 + + +


Our Lady of Guadalupe, protector of the unborn, pray for us.