If you've been monitoring the blogosphere regarding Bishop Zurek, Priests for Life, and Father Pavone, it seems that the deck is largely stacked against Fr. Frank.
However, I came across a blogger that seems to be giving a fair shake to Fr. Pavone and takes on Shea and Peters at the same time.
I guess in times like this, you know who your friends are..
Friday, October 14, 2011Bishop 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.