Fr. Pavone and his Bishop – Several Evaluations

by Steve Ray on September 24, 2011

Review comparing other problems with priests and thoughts on Fr. Pavone.

A heartfelt and balanced analysis and review of the situation between Fr. Pavone and his Bishop Zurek. It is entitled “Fr. Pavone and Authentic Freedom.”

You can read it HERE

Another review of the situation on

the Latest by Canon Lawyer . It is entitled “Is John Wesley really the ministerial model Fr. Pavone wants to invoke?”

UPDATE: Al Kresta’s Response to Ed Peters’ Criticism of Radio Interview

Ed Peters’ Response to Al Kresta

Mark Shea’s Fr. pavone Needs to Seriously Back Down

Fr. Pavone and the Alamo

Catholic News Agency Canon Lawyer Evaluates Fr. Ps one’s Case

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

GADEL September 24, 2011 at 9:29 AM

God bless his children on earth.

franas September 25, 2011 at 1:38 AM

I thank Bonaventure for being honest and fair-minded.

Cheryl-Helene Thomson September 27, 2011 at 1:37 PM

The heart of the Fr. Pavone story is so obvious that we are all missing it. Politics. No, not Church Politics, National Politics. In 2008, Fr. Pavone was outspokenly anti-Obama. In 2010, Fr. Pavone paticipated in the protest against Obama speaking at Notre Dame University. The Presidential election is next year. Right now, Obama’s poll numbers keep sinking. Obama needs every vote he can get to get re-elected. So how does this look to Obama and his people? Fr. Pavone needs to be taken out. This is National Politics, Chicago-Style.

Where does Bishop Zurek come in? According to Huffington Post columnist Father Alberto Cutie (Episcopalian), Sept. 19: “His bishop in Amarillo is certainly much more progressive than he is, so there could be some ideological clashes there…” Okay, do these “ideological clashes” translate into the Bishop’s Democratic associations? Those associations include a relationship with former Mayor of San Antonio, Ed Garza. Garza appointed Bishop Zurek to serve on his Committee on Integrity and Trust in Local Government for the city of San Antonio. Ed Garza, sharing the Democratic leanings of other Hispanics in Texas, endorsed Obama in 2008, saying: “Senator Obama’s unique ability to bring people together and bridge partisan divides make him the best candidate to bring change we can believe in.”

I don’t want to suggest that Bishop Zurek himself is being a party to a ‘dirty tricks campaign’ against Fr. Frank Pavone, but the possibility exists that circumstances around the Bishop have been manipulated, with an agenda in mind.

Obama and abortion: according to Fr. Pavone, these are two tragedies, and they are linked. And so, Fr. Pavone is being targetted by very powerful people, including multinationals. UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund) is an abortion provider in China which was found complicit in the coercive implementation of China’s One Child Policy, following an investigation headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2001. Coercive implementation includes fines, detentions, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, beatings,and home destructions.

Obama stated that he “strongly opposes” forced bortion in China. Really? Then why did he restore funding of the UNFPA?

Now, sweetening up Obama’s class warfare strategy, Warren Buffett may claim to pay less taxes than his secretary (in fact, with the current level of sleght-of-hand accounting practices, perhaps he pays zero), but he is the director of Berkshire Hathaway, and that organization is one of the largest donors to abortion clinics in America.

There are people who are now advocating a One Child Policy worldwide. A One-World Government, put into place after the panic of a carefully planned worldwide financial meltdown, would institute many draconian regulations. Fr. Frank Pavone would be an encumbrance in this Brave New World, wouldn’t he?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: