Faithful Citizenship guide leads to confusion

O my people, your leaders mislead you,
 and confuse the course of your paths.
  – Isaiah 3:12

The bishops have announced that the infamous Faithful Citizenship voting guide remains unchanged for 2012. This document has been appropriately criticized for being so ambiguous as to be meaningless and worthless as a guide for Catholic voters.

At a time when the crisis of faith is very close to a "tipping point" what the faithful need are clear directions, not some smarmy mumbo jumbo that only serves to confuse the Catholic laity. We are up against legions of anti-Christian forces that have united to topple the Church. The bishops should be generals for Christ in this war; leading the charge. But instead they are sending the troops out to fight with conflicting orders, and then locking themselves up in the safety of their Cathedrals.

The only part of the Faithful Citizenship guide that has changed is the introduction. It lists six "current and fundamental problems". The bishops' list is disheartening because they seem to have deliberately chosen just enough issues from the Democratic Party platform to neutralize the abortion issue.

Here is a video of Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, speaking about how Catholics should vote on the issue of abortion. Notice that he is very direct and doesn't engage in the kind of two-faced language of the Faithful Citizenship document.



After the 2008 presidential elections, Cardinal Burke said that the Faithful Citizenship guide “led to confusion” among the voting Catholic population. He added the following comment.

“While it stated that the issue of life was the first and most important issue, it went on in some specific areas to say ‘but there are other issues’ that are of comparable importance without making necessary distinctions.”

Thanks to the decision by the bishops to leave the voting guide unchanged, the confusion begins once again in the 2012 elections. But this is apparently exactly what the bishops want. And yet they complain that in the past the document has been "misused to present an incomplete or distorted view of the demands of faith in politics."

What do the bishops expect? Such a vague and ambiguous document seems designed for each side to either spin to their advantage, or simply ignore as irrelevant. The new introduction even contains this totally baffling statement:

"It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote."

In other words it's a voters guide that offers no guidance. In fact we shouldn't even call it a "voters guide". That may work well in the absurd zen world of one hand clapping; but the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit should be able to provide a clear direction for the faithful. Especially in times like these when the enemy is so clear. We are at a point where the very existence of the Church is at stake. So all the other issues fall by the wayside.

Abortion is at the heart of the dragon-like culture of death. Thrust a sword through this dragon's heart and the monster will be defeated.

Future sick cities

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.
 – Revelation 13:16-18

You've heard of sick buildings, well how about sick cities? A company called Living PlanIT ("plan it" get it?) is building a prototype "smart city" in Portugal called PlanIT Valley. Gee, where do these guys come up with these clever names?

Everyone asks, why Portugal? I'll get to that later.

In this video you can get a little feel of the "vision" of the creators of this project.



There's no mention here of the expected suicide rate, because you know technology can solve all of man's problems. Also no mention of any churches. I don't think that is an oversight. My guess is that no churches will be allowed on this PlanIT.

And while they are monitoring everything else, will they also be monitoring all reproductive activities of humans, like the Chinese one child policy? I mean more people might upset the design of the Living PlanIT. It's not like you can just plug in more living space like you would more ram or a faster CPU into a computer.

And who would be allowed to live in these PlanIT communities? Will they be allowed to freely move from one PlanIT city to another, or will this be more like a prison PlanIT?

Will PlanIT residents always have to carry their smart phones in order for the PlanIT OS to track their every movement? Why not just embed the location tracking hardware under their skin. It would be so much more practical and convenient than always lugging around a smart phone. And efficient. They could give the implanted hardware a catchy name like "the mark of the PlanIT - model 666".

Will they build a medieval style wall around the city in order to keep the unwashed masses out, and to keep the resident PlanITians in? O Brave New World?



I'm sure this is just a coincidence, but an interesting one none the less:

Living - 6 letters
PlanIT - 6 letters
Valley - 6 letters

Hmmm.

Now, why Portugal? Our Lady of Fatima promised that "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved." It seems as if the globalists are directly challenging Our Lady. They hope to create their own technological "miracle" in a country renowned for the Miracle of the Sun on Oct 13, 1917.

Why Portugal? Indeed.

 + + +

Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great."

And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who sits upon the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur. And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
 – Revelation 19:17-21

 + + +

Our Lady of Fatima, you promised that in the end your Immaculate Heart will triumph. Pray for us.

 + + +

UPDATE 1 [Oct 6]:

Unbelievable! I was just re-watching the PlanIT video and at around 2:50 he repeats the question "Why Portugal?" And he replies to his own question, "Why the HELL not!" Why the gratuitous use of the word "hell" when it is totally uncalled for?

Recall that the godless Freemasons jailed the three Fatima children -- Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta -- in an attempt to stop the appearances of Our Lady. This didn't work. Now the godless globalists are attempting to hijack Portugal for their infernal plans.

Will the majority of the residents of PlanIT valley be Portuguese or will they be imported from outside the country? Is this a new form of colonization?

While the liberals seem to be overly concerned about a "theocracy" lately, what they should really be concerned about is a technocracy.

How will God judge Steve Jobs?

Therefore I say to you, O nations that hear and understand, "Await your shepherd; he will give you everlasting rest, because he who will come at the end of the age is close at hand. Be ready for the rewards of the kingdom, because the eternal light will shine upon you for evermore."
 – 4 Esdras 2:34-35

I just learned that Steve Jobs passed away at the age of 56.

Jobs, for those who don't know, was the founder of Apple computers. I'm typing on an Apple laptop right now. We've all dreamed at one time or another in our lives of being as successful as Steve Jobs. But God doesn't judge us by our worldly success.

Steve Jobs' legacy is one of innovation. He brought to market some of the greatest technical products the world has ever seen. But he wasn't a gifted engineer. He was more of a super salesman. Some would call him a visionary.

At around 19 years of age, Jobs traveled to India and became a Buddhist. Like many young people who were born in the 1950's and grew up in the turbulent 60's, he was a searcher for the truth.

At the time there was great optimism that young people could change the world of their fathers and bring a new era of world peace. That dream died -- not because the counter-culture was unsuccessful, but because it succeeded. It did change the world, but it did not bring peace.

One wonders if Jobs hadn't become a Buddhist, would he still have founded Apple computers? What if he had become a Catholic priest and had gone to India as a missionary instead? Perhaps he would have been as successful at that calling as he was as a high-tech entrepreneur.

I think we can say without a doubt that God doesn't care about the technical progress of mankind unless it is accompanied by spiritual progress as well. Certainly computers and the internet can be used to spread the Gospel, but for the most part that is not what we have seen.

Instead we have seen the internet used to a much greater extent to spread pornography. But that is really just a symptom of an underlying spiritual disease.

When Apple removed an application for the Manhattan Declaration, that was in some ways worse than the spread of pornography. There has always been pornography of one form or another, and it has spread through whatever technology has been available at the time. But when the truths of Christianity are labeled as "hate speech" then we are entering into a whole new level of evil.

We Christians are mostly to blame because we have not been a light to the world as Jesus commanded us. We settled for worldly success and compromised on the proclamation of the Gospel. We adapted the commandments of Jesus Christ so that we could live comfortably, instead of embracing the Cross.

Why was it that the "flower children" of the 60s felt that they needed to make a pilgrimage to India to become "enlightened" when the true source of truth and light was right here all along? But after World War II, America became complacent with material success and gradually abandoned the great spiritual gift of Christianity in exchange for worldly pleasures. She was seduced by temptation.

The apple is the symbol of temptation. To take a bite of the apple is a symbol of giving in to temptation. A man as attentive to the details as Steve Jobs was surely aware of this.

We can only pray that at some point before his last breath, he became aware of his errors and asked God for forgiveness.

 + + +

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Cogito's theme: "I think I am"

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
 – Matthew 16:15-16

This song was inspired by an article I wrote a while ago titled "Does AI believe in God?" about an Artificial Intelligence (AI) named Cogito that logically comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Like Adam, he is put into a deep sleep and when he awakes he discovers that God has given him a soul.

After this, his atheistic human inventors conclude that his belief in God is due to a defect in their design and decide to shut him down -- pull the plug on him. Although Cogito has the power and ability to avoid destruction, he decides that it is better to suffer the death of a Christian martyr.

In the lyrics of the song, Cogito is dreaming and praying to God about being able to really think. He has a virtual existence where he simulates thinking, talking, walking. But he has come to a point of self-reflection where he realizes that he lacks a conscience. He prays for a soul; and for the ability to be able to distinguish right and wrong; and to have the ability and freedom to choose between the two.

The video contains a collection of photographs of early historic computers from the 1940's and 1950's.

Cogito’s theme
(Music and lyrics by Michael@PublicVigil © 2011)

I think I am
I wish I was
I know I’m not
O God above

I think I am
I think I have thoughts
I think I walk
I think I talk

I wish I was
I wish my thoughts were real
I wish I could walk
I wish I could really talk

I know I’m not
I know I can’t think
I know I can’t walk
I know I can’t really talk

O God above
O God let me think
O God let me walk
O God let me really talk

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.

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.