Fr Pavone Under Fire.

Please, not again!

I had read several times about Fr Pavone and if you use the search function of this blog, you might find an entry or two about him. I liked his pro-life commitment and the way he engages to do that which too many clergymen do not want to do.

It would now appear that his Bishop has suspended him and has ordered him to come back to Amarillo, alleging that Fr Pavone has disobeyed him by not allowing the accounts of his 10-million-bucks-a-year charity to be audited.

One would say that this is (then) Father Corapi all over again (poor chap, by the way; what has happened to him? I see dark clouds there, but I digress…), but in this case the circumstances appear rather different because Fr Pavone obeys to the bishop (coming back to Amarillo as ordered) even when he is not obliged to (as he has already appealed, and the appeal allows him to wait for the decision; I am not an expert in canon law but I’d say that we have seen this in the case of bishop Nourrichard).

The matter here is rather disconcerting for a different reason: the bishop says that Fr Pavone doesn’t want to have his books audited; Fr Pavone says that the books are audited but the bishops doesn’t want to acknowledge that they are. As the matter of auditing of financial statements is heavily regulated all over the West and not much of a grey zone seems possible, I am sure that we will rather soon know who is talking without thinking here. If Fr Pavone picked his cousin to audit the financial statements because he happens to be an accountancy student, the books are not audited and I think he’s in trouble; if he had the accounts regularly audited I think the Bishop will have some explaining to do.

The other matter rather reminiscent of the Corapi affair is the bishop’s accusation about “persistent questions remained unanswered” regarding how the money is used (hence the great need for auditing, of course). Once again, either the books have been properly audited, or they haven’t. If they have, it should have been for the auditors to express concerns, if such areas of concerns had been established. If they haven’t, the problem is there irrespective of Pavone having being wasteful or not.

It is sad to see that once again, a famous priest makes headlines for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, if a scandal is really on the making (and be that one of careless administration) the Latin saying oportet ut scandala eveniant has once again deserved its excellent reputation.

As in Corapi’s case, Fr Pavone should be presumed innocent until found guilty.

I truly hope we won’t see him soon photographed in a motorcycle jacket, though.


Posted on September 13, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. One wonders if Father Pavone should first submit to Bishop Zurek’s decision pending the Vatican response. Gives one pause that Mother Angelica handed control of EWTN to a lay board to keep Catholic Church’s hierarchy’s grubby hands away, Father Corapi defying his bishop and now the Father Pavone’s situation. Obedience….

    • George, you might be being more realist than the King here, but I think Fr Pavone’s decision to come back to Amarillo anyway is in the spirit you mention.


  2. Bishops gotta do what bishops gotta do,let’s assume that this one is acting as a godd shepherd..
    but for anyone else whatsoever…
    Even if there is missing money , through muddle , strightout losing, oversight (Easy), publicly inadmissable but necessary spending (one can imagine circumstances) or even , worstcasescenario, straight venality on Fr’s part, be it 10 bucks or 10 million or ten billion..

    SO WHAT? So censored WHAT!
    compared to the least life and the least soul and the least serious sin!

    Anyone scandalized by this sofarpossibility oughter got scandalized outter their tiny mind years back by the structures, not individual sins with consciousness of sin thereto, but structures,! of death and sin financed, and still defended , going out of collection plates through diocesan conferences in western christendom and into prodeath lobbies etc all over..

    Let alone from the public purse! from the uk, usa, via the UN, abortion being foisted neocolonially and the bishops arent on the streets the way they can for poisonous diabolic greenery.

    Yeah. Ceasars wife. Applied even handedly?

  3. I had never heard of Fr Pavone before. I feel so unenlightened :/

    • Shane,

      in the US he is very recognisable, a pro-life Corapi so to speak.
      Big organisation, lots of exposure in the Catholic internet press agencies/aggregators.

      A thoroughly good chap, I would have said.

      Actually I still do, until the contrary is proved.


  4. Mundabor, very interesting. Let’s just pray this turns out okay. ( BTW I’ve a new post on my blog on Maynooth which may be of interest to you.)

    • Very interesting, Shane, but you had written an “oh, no Mundabor” comment also regarding Michael Voris and it was a rather rash “oh no Mundabor”…. 😉

      In this case (there is another interesting link down the forum you link to) I would want to see the accusation that they go to every gay pride event rather more substantiated, and know whether by doing so they approve of the “lifestyle”. Say, if a priest approves of a “prostitute against abortion” movement, if doesn’t follow that he approves prostitution… though some photos might be questionable, and some actions unwise.

      Strangely enough, I have read several times of Frank Pavone around, but never in connection to “ties” to the homos, which would have made some waves in the past, with or without pro-life fame. But I never researched him seriously, too…

      The matter with the auditing is rather strange, and the bishop’s statement that Pavone uses the money to avoid auditing obligations rather silly.

      Auditing is a legal requirement, and strictly regulated. You comply or you don’t.


  5. shane:
    Oh no, I do hope not.
    I thought all just money, which really isn’t that imortant…..

%d bloggers like this: