Zurek-Pavone dispute

by Steve Ray on September 15, 2011

Canon Lawyer Ed Peter’s writes:

Initial remarks on the Zurek-Pavone dispute -
As materials came available today in regard to dispute between Bp. Zurek and Fr. Pavone, I posted three brief sets of observations HERE

UPDATE
Summary of my posts on the Zurek-Pavone conflict
I did not want to bother blog subscribers and RSS followers with numerous notices generated by separate posts on the Zurek-Pavone matter, so I simply added updates (as developments warranted) to the original post. Now I see that some readers and followers wished they had gotten notice of those follow-up posts. My bad.

My six sets of comments on this unfortunate situation are all available here, and include the following:

1. Comments on Zurek’s letter to Pavone, and Pavone’s response to Zurek.

2. Comments on Pavone’s comments to the National Catholic Register.

3. Comments on Pavone’s letter to prelates of September 12.

4. Discussion as to whether Priests for Life is a “private association of the faithful”.

5. Comments on Pavone’s statement upon arrival in Amarillo.

6. Comments on Msgr. Waldow’s claims regarding Church property.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Ioannes September 15, 2011 at 10:55 AM

The Bishop claimed non-transparency of Priests for Life Finances. Priests for Life had independent audits done by Brooks and Associates, copies of which were repeatedly provided to the Bishop (contrary to what the Bishop claims in his letter). The Diocese of Amarilla from its own audit report by Cornell and Company, PC seems to take in as income considerably less than what Priests for Life takes in. After revelation of the Diocese’s sex abuse scandals in the early 2000s, is it inconceivable that people advising the Bishop would look with longing on the 10.8 million dollars per year that Priests for Life takes in as donations when the diocese doesn’t even seem to take in as much as two million dollars per year? There is more here with links to the audit reports – I am no auditor, so maybe I am completly wrong:

http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/09/comparing-financial-audits-of-priests.html

http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/09/fr-pavone-to-seek-new-diocese.html

http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/09/bishop-zurek-suspends-father-pavone-of.html (this one has the complete text of the Bishop’s letter and Fr. Pavone’s response)

franas September 16, 2011 at 5:00 AM

So the good bishop dropped a bomb and then left town for two weeks. Reminds me of another time when the superior of SOLT dropping another bomb and then leaving for a (long) conference too. Neither is/was available for comments of course …

Bill912 September 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Your point, franas?

Leave a Comment

 

Previous post:

Next post: