|
Post by bernard on Oct 10, 2011 13:26:37 GMT
Continued from the "pro-life movement what went wrong thread" National Director of priests for life Fr. Pavone was re-called to his diocese and stationed in a convent of charismatic Catholics for an indefinite period of prayer and reflection by his superior Bishop Zurec. Some links that have posted so far... Video update by head of life dynamics Mark Crucher www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFlVhD5Npc&feature=channel_video_titlemarkshea.blogspot.com/2011/09/fr-pavone-seriously-needs-to-back-down.htmlwww.patheos.com/community/deacons....avone/#commentsWill Bishop Zurek become Planned Parenthood's person of the year for sabotaging Father Pavone and Priests for Life? www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/110921I did not suggest that Father Pavone should not obey his Bishop, nor has he. I do call into question the motives of the bishop and think it's fine that he is being criticized by pro-life activists, he has no jurisdiction over them. I understand your points regarding the jurisdiction of the bishop over the priest but the points that I raised were meant to highlight that this priest was well established in the pro-life movement and there are are a number of senior prelates involved with the organization. I don't think your comparison to the civil rights movement is applicable here. Nor do I think that the man who has run the organization for nearly 20 years can be removed without detrimental effects to the function of it. The cult of personality comment by Ed Peters is ridiculous. I'll admit that I haven't been become thoroughly familiar with the case but believe it is worth following.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 10, 2011 13:36:45 GMT
This is off-topic but I was thinking of out-of-control bishops and I was wondering about Bishop Magee's plans to "renovate" St. Colman's Cathedral. I know there was a group out there opposing him (the friends of st.colman) and I was wondering if they went through with the renovations. This was back around 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 10, 2011 19:54:05 GMT
This is off-topic but I was thinking of out-of-control bishops and I was wondering about Bishop Magee's plans to "renovate" St. Colman's Cathedral. I know there was a group out there opposing him (the friends of st.colman) and I was wondering if they went through with the renovations. This was back around 2005. You missed the whole drama, Bernard. The cathedral still is as was.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 11, 2011 13:37:27 GMT
You can call into question the actions of the bishop - bishops are quite capable of being dishonest or arrogant and abusing powers which they receive for legitimate purposes. I do not say that the bishop has acted correctly or that Fr Pavone is in the wrong - what I do say is that this is not self-evident on the evidence presented. You cannot call into question the bishop's motives (as distinct from his actions) unless you have specific evidence that he is being deliberately dishonest; he might be perfectly honest and still act rashly or unjustly or mistakenly. You should show that his actions are wrong before you proceed to question his motives, and indeed his motives are entirely irrelevant to the question of whether he has acted correctly. Your argument seems to be that the bishop's actions are so self-evidently wrong that there cannot possibly be any legitimate motive behind them. It seems to me from the points raised that an honest bishop could legitimately act as he has done, though the way he has gone about it is another matter. Criticising the bishop's actions in the Catholic media and lobbying through them is entirely legitimate. Going down to Amarillo and picketing Catholic schools and hospitals with placards accusing the bishop of being pro-abortion is not. No bishop is going to make concessions to people who act like this - he would regard it as intimidation, as would any observer who is not already committed to Fr Pavone's cause. These people should focus on providing financial assistance to Fr Pavone (and helping to prepare for any canonical case he may care to make) and on helping PFL to adjust to his absence, rather than acting in a way that will prejudice any canonical body not composed of archangels against Fr Pavone. The cult of personality argument is as follows: - Given that the organisation has been in existence for 20 years, if it is so vital to the pro-life movement as it claims to be (or even if it is not), it ought not to be completely dependent on Fr Pavone. Some sort of apparatus should exist so that if Fr Pavone were (let us say) to be killed in a plane crash or incapacitated by a heart attack, someone else can take his place without undue disruption to the organisation. If no such provision has been made, this suggests that Fr Pavone has acted irresponsibly by using it as his personal vehicle without making provision for a time when he will no longer be there but there will still be a demand for the organisation's work. The point about the priests involved in the civil rights movement is not about the relative merits of the civil rights movement and the pro-life movement. The essential point of similarity is that when the priest takes the view that the cause MUST take priority over his ordinary priestly vocation he is in danger of substituting it for that vocation, and that is what happened with the priests in question.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 11, 2011 14:54:10 GMT
Fair enough, I have to admit that video got me a bit worked up the other day. There didn't seem to be anything in the Bishops history that suggested he was anti-pro life, which is something that would have been brought up by now.
|
|