Catholic Relief Services “stonewalling” in the wake of allegations that it’s allied with pro-abortion, pro-contraception groups.

CRS’s statement is similar to an an email sent to this agency in late December in response to questioning about FRAYBA and CEREAL, and leaves several questions unanswered.

Although the organization also claimed in December that its partnership with FRAYBA had ended in 2011, CRS spokesman John Rivera refused to explain why the organization was still listed as a partner on its Mexico partner’s page.  He also would not state whether CRS continued to have some relationship with FRAYBA, or if it has a relationship with other pro-abortion groups, such as the All Rights for Everyone Human Rights Network (TDT), of which FRAYBA is a member.

However, following publication of LifeSiteNews.com’s recent exposé on the two groups on February 20, CRS removed the donor page listing both FRAYBA and CEREAL.  A copy of the original page can be found here.

Read more

Seen on the web: Abuse cover up claimed to be going on in Diocese of Joliet?

Reader comment re: Crisis Magazine article on KC Bishop Finn
A victim of recent Diocesan abuse 10/29/2011 11:38 am

The Diocese of Joliet in Illinois is also covering up an abuser is continues to be employed on staff in spite of numerous written and verbal complaints.  No secular organization would allow this person’s behavior to continue more than 5 minutes, yet he has been allowed to continue for over 5 years.

Any staff person attempting to address his sexual, physical, and verbal abuses has been threatened into silence.  Bishop Conlon is at least consistent in his response to this issue, in that he has a long history of coverups in his previous diocese of Stuebenville.

Link

Editor’s note: Does anyone know more about these allegations? If true, this is very serious. If false, calumnious. Either way, it needs to be properly addressed … and quickly! Please let me know.

PFL public relations director attempts to “set the record straight” about the Bishop Zurek/Father Pavone/Priests for Life dispute

As published in the October 25, 2011 issue of the Amarillo Globe-News

For over a month now, a tremendous amount of misinformation has been spread across the country about Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life. In the interest of fairness, the editors have offered us the opportunity to set the record straight and we thank them.

Read the article

Priest for Life’s letter to the bishops

…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.

Read more (PDF file)

A Canon Lawyer analyzes the Bishop Zurek – Father Pavone dispute

The Zurek-Pavone dispute is public. Based only on Zurek’s letter to Pavone and on Pavone’s response to Zurek as reported at Lifesite News, I offer the following initial observations and/or personal opinions.

Bp. Zurek:

  • should not have used the term “suspend” in regard to Pavone, for “suspension” is a canonical penalty for crime (c. 1333), and Pavone has not been accused of any crime.
  • is within his authority to recall Pavone to Amarillo in virtue of Pavone’s promise of obedience (c. 273) and may revoke the permission required for any secular cleric to be outside his diocese of incardination for a notable period (c. 283).
  • may assign Pavone to a “time of prayer and reflection” and need not give him a specific office (c. 157).
  • is responsible for Pavone’s reasonable maintenance (c. 281).

Fr. Pavone:

  • is a priest in good standing, specifically with faculties for ministry within the Diocese of Amarillo; absent clarification, however, I would regard as withdrawn Pavone’s faculties for preaching outside of Amarillo (c. 764), for confession outside of Amarillo (c. 967), and for the exercise of other sacred functions such as celebrating Mass outside of Amarillo (cc. 903, 561), none of which restrictions, however, is an express or implied penalty.
  • has a right to protest, even vigorously (c. 220), the use of the word “suspend” in his regard, but has alleged no basis to oppose his basic recall to Amarillo or any lawful directives otherwise imposed on him now or in the future.
  • has alleged no basis upon which the “public promise” of pro-life work he made in a ceremony “presided over by a Vatican cardinal” conferred on Pavone any special canonical rights able to be invoked against the normal exercise of ecclesiastical authority.
  • as the (apparent) CEO of Priests for Life, a “private association of the faithful” (cc. 321-326), Pavone/PFL are susceptible to the “vigilance” of ecclesiastical authority in the administration of its assets (c. 325); who exactly that authority is, however, is not clear from the information in front of me.
  • needs to be attentive to the restrictions against clerical involvement in the administration of goods belonging to lay persons (c. 285) and against clerical involvement in negotio (c. 286).

Read more

Seen on the web regarding Bishop Zurek, Father Pavone, and the PFL dispute

Posted Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:39 AM By Larry

Ohhh, boy. If you thought the Corapi case was ugly, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet, my friends. In that case, the accuser was a third party. Here the accuser is Father Pavone’s superior, a diocesan bishop who has as much as charged Pavone with being a crook as well as a rogue priest, going so far as to urge a donation boycott against Priests for Life.

I don’t see any wiggle room here, folks–no way around the conclusion that one of these two men is lying and when the dust finally settles, will have been unmasked and disgraced in front of faithful Catholics everywhere.

At least as fervently as with Corapi, I hope that Pavone can prove his innocense–but if he can, then that would mean that Bishop Zurek is not only a scoundrel, but a spectacular fool to have hurled charges and taken action as serious as this without sufficient evidence to back it up.

The Bishop faces high stakes as well. If it were to turn out that he is guilty of calumny and the attempted sabotage of the pro-life movement, the backlash will be overwhelming–far worse than with President Obama and Notre Dame.

The Holy See would either have to ask for his resignation or risk driving large numbers of the faithful into the arms of SSPX. Unless he is certifiably insane, Zurek must know this, and the Holy See must know it also and must be quietly watching and listening. Either way, I’m not looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Link

Editor’s note: I suspect the ill will towards Father Pavone, Priests for Life, and the pro-life movement (if it truly exists) will eventually be discovered, cleverly concealed in the Chancellery of the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas. Most bishops are much too savvy to fall for such things, without assistance.

However this turns out, what about the score of bishops who already sit on the board of Priests for Life? How will they respond to these allegations?

The Official Vatican Response To Accusations of Irish Government Official Enda Kenny

Read the document

Editor’s note: The short version of the response: Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny, like many other politicians, made a series of unfounded accusations, for he he had no proof whatsoever.