Frank Pavone Suspended For Financial Mismanagement, Fights Suspension Order

By David Gibson
Religion News Service

NEW YORK (RNS) One of the highest profile anti-abortion activists in the Catholic Church in the United States says he will abide by but appeal a suspension order from his bishop following allegations of financial mismanagement.

The Rev. Frank Pavone, who developed a huge following through his nationwide campaigns against abortion as head of the New York-based Priests for Life, is under investigation for mishandling his organization's budget.

Pavone said Tuesday (Sept. 13) that he had appealed the suspension order issued by Bishop Patrick J. Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, but said he would return to Amarillo as Zurek ordered.

Pavone is the third high-profile conservative Catholic leader this year to face charges of misconduct, following allegations leveled against two other priests in different organizations.

Zurek sent a letter to all U.S. bishops on Sept. 9, announcing that he was suspending Pavone from ministry outside his diocese after "persistent questions and concerns" from clergy and laity about how Priests for Life is spending "millions of dollars in donations."

"My decision is the result of deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests for Life (PFL) organization,"
Zurek wrote in the letter, which was first reported on Tuesday by Catholic News Service. "The PFL has become a business that is quite lucrative which provides Father Pavone with financial independence from all legitimate ecclesiastical oversight."

According to CNS, Internal Revenue Service records show the organization took in $10.8 million in 2008, the latest year tax forms were available.

The records also show that Pavone has taken no salary from Priests for Life, as he promised when he became national director of Priests for Life in 1993.

In a statement released Tuesday, Pavone said he was "very perplexed" by Zurek's demand, and argued that under canon law Zurek's order is automatically suspended while Pavone appeals his case to the Vatican.

Pavone said Priests for Life is "above reproach" in its financial management and noted that the group has "21 bishops and cardinals who sit on our Advisory Board, and they are kept fully informed about our finances."

In fact, Pavone has developed an impressive base of hierarchical as well as grassroots support around the U.S. and in Rome, making any showdown between him and Zurek a close match.

Since taking charge of Priests for Life, Pavone has led something of a nomadic existence. He initially moved the organization's headquarters from California to New York, where he was ordained a priest in 1988 by the late Cardinal John O'Connor.

Pavone reportedly had a falling out with O'Connor's successor, Cardinal Edward Egan, and in 2005 he put himself under the jurisdiction of the Amarillo diocese, and moved some PFL operations there. In 2007, Pavone tried to establish his own religious order dedicated to the pro-life cause, but abandoned it for lack of recruits.

PFL's offices are now based in Staten Island, N.Y., but Pavone remains a priest of the Amarillo diocese.

Last January, the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, the charismatic head of Human Life International was suspended from ministry over misconduct with a woman during exorcisms. And in June, John Corapi, a popular conservative speaker and television personality, resigned from the priesthood after religious superiors detailed allegations of extensive sexual and financial misconduct.

WATCH: The Archbishop Protests An Abortion Clinic, Louisville KY:

Comments

[JCramer479]

05:47 AM on 09/16/2011

To the childmolester comments

Are we jumping to conclusions about Pavone based on intimate knowledge of the facts or... anything? Isn't there any such thing as the "rare" occasion of actually a decent man who happens to believe in something that you do not?

Or perhaps we like blindly listening to everything that falls out of a Catholic Bishop's mouth... it actually sounds like you're a perfect match for this religion. I'm not even catholic. But Pavone is a good man being falsely accused for gaining success at something he is passionate enough about to work around the clock, not have a family or a wife, and not take a paycheck even though he could. Proof is as follows..

http://bit.ly/oNZbbN
These are all the actual documents that are involved in this ruckus

http://bit.ly/oWwk6b
This is their audit

[JCramer479]

05:48 AM on 09/16/2011

The organization has been fully transparent in all their audits although the Zurek said otherwise. They don't charge for any services or products and still managed to pull in 10.8 million in a year in strictly donations because that many people believe in what is going on.

The Bishop never even acknowledged getting the audits... similar to some of the things you're complaining about the church huh?

Even if you don't like Catholics, or pro-life/anti-abortion activists, try not to perpetuate false rumors from some Bishop, and try not to create new gossip or rumors by talking about a different article here. I'm sure you can find another article on this very site that trashing on criminal priests is far more relevant and far more productive. But he's Catholic, anti-abortion... and a priest! It's hard enough for him without being loosely involved to child molesters collar or no collar.

The Bishop on the other hand...
Can we think of any other cases out there in which an upper level clergy are in the wrong?
I'm sure we can get creative here.
Hmm..

[Dale720240]

12:11 AM on 09/17/2011

The problem is not exactly about Priests for Life, it's about the status of other related ministries that PFL funnels money to (Rachel's Vineyard and Gospel of Life Ministries) which don't seem to be able/willing to provide the records that the bishop wants to see--and also have SEEM to have some irregularities in terms of their IRS filing status and ability to solicit tax deductible donations. Also, if you look more closely at PFL's audited financial statements, you'll see that an inordinate amount of PFL's donations are spent on salaries and travel, which is why Charity Navigator gives them only 1 star out of 4 in terms of their efficient use of donor funds. The audit itself raises plenty of questions that need some answers. Now it could be that they are not doing anything wrong, but it's worth a thorough investigation. And it is more than a little odd for a diocesean priest to be running an interdenominational not-for-profit.

[JCramer479]

05:30 AM on 09/16/2011

I meant to say millions... 10.8 in 2008

[JCramer479]

05:28 AM on 09/16/2011

To the "childmolester" comments

Are you jumping to conclusions about Pavone based on the facts or... anything? Aren't "rare" occasion of a decent man who believes in something you don't possible?

Perhaps you like blindly listening to what falls from a Catholic Bishop's mouth... sounds like you're a perfect match for this religion.

Catholic or not, Pavone is a good man, persecuted for success at something he is passionate enough about to work endlessly, not have a family, or even a paycheck.

http://bit.ly/oNZbbN
Documents involved...

http://bit.ly/oWwk6b
Their audit...

The organization's been fully transparent in their audits although Zurek has said otherwise. They don't charge for any services or products and still pulls million a year... in donations.

The Bishop never acknowledged receiving the audits... similar to some of the things that are being complained about some Catholics huh?

Even if you don't like Catholics, or anti-abortion activists, try not to perpetuate false rumors from some Bishop, and try not to create new gossip or rumors by talking about a different article here. I'm sure you can find another article, on this site, where trashing on criminal priests is far more relevant.

He's Catholic, anti-abortion... and a priest! It's hard enough already without being loosely connected to childmolesters.

The Bishop on the other hand...
Can we think of any other cases out there in which an upper level clergy are in the wrong?
Hmm...

[krissyknoxltn]

02:13 AM on 09/18/2011

@JCramer479 -- You are correct. There is nothing in this article or in Fr Frank Pavone's life that says or remotely implies that he is a child molestor. I haven't read all the comments yet, except a few, but I was surprised to read that some would even think this. There is absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest this. It's merely ridiculous. Thanks for writing an excellent comment. BTW, I know Fr Frank, but that's not even why I consider him upstanding and outstanding. It's just that the more I read about him, the more I read what a good priest he is, and the more that certain accusations and comments seem. May God help us all, but may He most help those little ones among us who cannot help themselves... for the babies, krissyknox
my main blog: http://sometimesithink-krissy.blogspot.com
follow krissy on twitter: www.twitter.com/krissyknox

[JCramer479]

06:29 PM on 09/15/2011

http://www.priestsforlife.org/update/amarillo-clarification.pdf

[goatini]

08:56 PM on 09/15/2011

Only those who don't understand Canon Law (or Vatican politics) are questioning the status of Mr Pavone's priesthood. Those of us who are fairly knowledgeable understand that Mr Pavone's suspension is NOT in regard to his priesthood itself. The suspension is with regard to Mr Pavone's highly lucrative ministry that is not under the control of the diocese under which he has been assigned to serve.

But nice attempt to change the subject. Okay, maybe not so nice.

As for the last paragraph, that's a bunch of ambiguous double-speak that basically means only that the case is still under review and that no official conclusion has been reached. It does not in any way exonerate Pavone, it just means "cannot comment on the investigation until it is complete".

[Mike Maiale]

04:25 AM on 09/16/2011

By Canon Law standards, though, it's not a "suspension" at all.

[JCramer479]

05:42 AM on 09/16/2011

Zurek doesn't have jurisdiction over "the PFL". The PFL has "some 21 Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals" on their advisory board. (http://bit.ly/orDxtJ)

Zurek is Pavone's Ordinary... Not PFL

Pavone has been sending PFL's audit to Amarillo every year since he was incardinated there even though he doesn't have to... out of respect. Does that sound like a disobedient priest?

And the words you pick are interesting
lucrative means you generate a profit or profitable. He doesn't take a pay and I advise you use www.dictionary.com. Or you can try to refute their legit 501(c)(3) status. www.bbb.org or bbb's review of PFL http://bit.ly/qvrokN

So if the Bishop had to clarify that Pavone isn't accused of wrongdoing with the finances then couldn't he have misworded his accusations about Pavone's disobedience?

[Semper Veritas]

04:32 PM on 09/15/2011

Dear Fr David Deibel, JD, JCL and Gentle Readers:

Thank you for clarifying the situation, Father Deibel. Why, oh why, did this become public in the Internet age with no proof and no investigation? The result was, of course, predictable.

Semper Veritas wants the highest and best for everyone who reads her posts. That said, her heart is heavy. Father Pavone's reputation has been sullied. Scores of posters have succommed to their most base inclinations and attacked a fellow human being and the entire Catholic Church.

Semper Veritas encourages her Gentle Readers to refuse mob thinking and to seek Truth, Goodness, Unity and Beauty.

Sincerely,
Semper Veritas

[Ostro Picta]

08:16 PM on 09/15/2011

"Semper Veritas encourages her Gentle Readers to refuse mob thinking and to seek Truth, Goodness, Unity and Beauty."

Who are you? Imelda Marcos?

[Semper Veritas]

12:06 PM on 09/16/2011

Saint Thomas Aquinas (not Imelda Marcos) wrote about the four Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, Unity and Beauty. Perhaps Ostro Picta has not thought about these qualities in so long that they sound outlandish?

Naturally, we are all free to dislike truth, goodness, unity and beauty. Indeed, some people do embrace their opposites: lies, evil, chaos and ugliness. Each to her or his own.

No, Semper Veritas is not Imelda Marcos: She is an ordinary person who loathes injustice and cruelty. Surely that is not so unusual that it would mystify, jar or amuse Huffington Post readers?

Semper Veritas hopes that the truth about Fr. Pavone will be revealed. If Fr. Pavone is proved to be an honorable man who has done nothing wrong, what will posters who have rushed to attack him on this website do to repair the damage?

[goatini]

09:04 PM on 09/15/2011

Mr Pavone doesn't need any help in sullying his reputation, he's doing just fine on his own.

As to "why it became public", there is NO WAY this would have become public at all if Mr Pavone had the slimmest of chances to exculpate himself.

[Mike Maiale]

04:33 AM on 09/15/2011

This article is misleading. Fr. Pavone has not been suspended. He has been recalled to his diocese and the official reason for this is that his work is needed there.

For another, Bishop Zubek has complained that he has questions about Priests for Life's finances, but he has not actually alleged true financial misconduct. PFL submits to an outside audit every year. These have been carried out by reputable firms like KPMG. The most recent audit was conducted by Brooks and Associates. The audit, containing PFLs financial statements, is available on PFL's website. The bishop is free to doubt the prudence of certain financial decisions PFL has made, but they are a private association over which he has little financial oversight. Even if he believes they made unwise decisions, their financial management has clearly been conducted within the bounds of the law and good practice guidelines for non-profits. There was no financial misconduct.

Additionally, I don't think Pavone's issue founding a society was recruitment. It turned out that there were procedural obstacles that made his vision unworkable.

Finally, the similarities among Fr. Pavone and Fr. Corapi are few. Fr. Pavone has not actually been accused of specific misconduct, nor is he facing any disciplinary proceedings. This is just a dispute between him and his boss about his job responsibilities. Comparing him to Corapi, who used money from his ministry to buy a number of large houses for himself, and was accused of sexual improprieties, drug use,etc., is ridiculous.

[SimonBao]

10:10 AM on 09/15/2011

Your enthusiastic support for Pavone is noted. Perhaps you are not as well informed as you imagine, however.

But Religion News Service (RNS) is not the only source reporting on these troubles.

And other news reports appear to completely contradict your assertions that there's no story here.

Amarillo Globe News
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-09-14-1#.TnIE9Ox62uI

Catholic News Service
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103632.htm

CatholicCulture.Org
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11751

National Catholic Register
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amarillo-bishop-recalls-father-frank-pavone-restricts-his-faculties/

There are many such news reports that claim, contrary to your personal assertion, Pavone has been suspended, and Bishop Zubek is extending his official inquiry into the finances and financial management of two additional organizations associated with Pavone's anti-abortion work.

Do you have anything to back up your claim? Is your claim based on first-hand, eyewitness, personal knowledge?

Granted, Pavone has a LOT of fans who believe in him, but so too did Fr. Corapi.

[Veronica Hillard]

02:10 PM on 09/15/2011

Mmmm suspension?

On September 13, 2011, it was widely misreported in various Catholic and secular media that the Most Reverend Patrick Zurek, Bishop of Amarillo, had “suspended” Rev. Frank Pavone, a priest of his diocese, and put him “on leave.”

This is absolutely false.

Father Pavone is and has been a priest in good standing. Moreover, the canonical language of “suspension” in this regard is a mistake. Father Pavone has not in any way incurred any ecclesiastical penalty. Nor is Father Frank under the threat of any penalty.

I want to point out that in a Catholic News Service story dated September 14, 2011, Msgr. Harold Waldow, vicar for clergy in the diocese of Amarillo, confirmed Fr. Pavone’s good standing:

Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, remains a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, said Msgr. Harold Waldow, vicar for clergy in the diocese. Msgr. Waldow told CNS Sept. 13 that Bishop Patrick J. Zurek only suspended Father Pavone’s ministry outside of the diocese because the well-known pro-life priest is needed for work in Amarillo.

Today, Father Pavone—as a priest in good standing—celebrated Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Amarillo, Texas. See photos below.

Fr David Deibel, JD, JCL
Chief Canonist
Priests for Life

Source:http://bit.ly/b6kPyS

[Mike Maiale]

02:42 PM on 09/15/2011

My complaint is with the use of the word "suspension." A diocesan priest carrying out ministry outside his own diocese needs his bishop's permission. The bishop doesn't owe him that permission. He doesn't have to give it, and he can withdraw it whenever he sees fit. When he chooses to withdraw it, he doesn't have to explain himself... he can do it on a whim.

Zurek has revokes Pavone's permission to carry out ministry outside of Amarillo. People are referring to that as a suspension. But, generally, the term suspension is used when a priest is removed from his ministry because he's under investigation for a crime under Canon Law. That's not the case here. Fr. Corapi was suspended because he was under investigation for criminal (under Canon Law... though, also civil law) acts. While Zurek has made vague accusations in this case, there's not actually an official investigation into the violation of a specific law.

And, even if there were, Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life are not one and the same. An investigation into PFL would not automatically result in a suspension of Fr. Pavone, nor would an investigation of Fr. Pavone automatically implicate the entire organization of PFL. I'm not sure that a full investigation of PFL falls under Bishop Zurek's jurisdiction... it seems like that would be the under the Archdiocese of New York.

A well known canon lawyer has discussed some of the canonical issues here: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/

[goatini]

09:13 PM on 09/15/2011

Mr Corapi's sins, and Mr Pavone's putative sins, are different, but the fact that they both are/were maverick priests with rock star status in the official Vatican house organ in the US does invite at least a few valid comparisons.

Corapi belonged to some flaky order out of Rome that was instigated by Wojtyła, and basically answered to no one. Pavone is assigned to the Diocese of Amarillo, but nevertheless he went ahead and built himself a little (or, maybe not so little) fiefdom in NYC that was not under the auspices of the Diocese of Amarillo. So they're both cowboys who tried to circumvent the hierarchy.

[Hysterian68]

01:58 AM on 09/15/2011

Financial fraud and mismanagement in the Catholic Church--the next great scandal to be unmasked-- will make years of child abuse in the priesthood seem as inconsequential as a dull Methodist Sunday picnic.

[gungavin]

11:05 PM on 09/14/2011

Please tell me: where is the surprise here?

[charlesdickens]

11:05 PM on 09/14/2011

Whodda thunk it - no recruits for Pavone's personal religious order. There is a God.

[wak84]

04:02 PM on 09/14/2011

I stopped giving money to these hucksters some years ago when it was reported that a Louisiana bishop (to whom I financially supported in my NC parish after hearing his plea to help educate inner-city children) was found to be using this money raised from our private donations to redecorate his office and residence. They still think they should live the life of a prince of the church.

[synergie]

06:46 PM on 09/14/2011

Are the vows of poverty and chastity only for the nuns?

[goatini]

07:36 PM on 09/14/2011

Actually, I think in practice they are. In my childhood, I remember the Sisters living communally in a decrepit 1920s-built convent, performing all of their own sustenance labor - while the priests had very nice apartment-style digs in a brand new rectory, with a housekeeper to cook all meals and perform all household chores. She would answer the door at the rectory, and invite you into the plush living room that had a fully stocked bar against one wall. The priests could come and go as they pleased, dining out, attending sporting and other events, and visiting the local pubs, usually with a pack of smokes in the pocket. The Sisters, on the other hand, lived fairly ascetic lives with strict rules and schedules, and most definitely did not enjoy the same freedom and independence as did the priests.

[Mike Maiale]

04:40 AM on 09/15/2011

Diocesan priests don't take vows of poverty. Most are, in fact, quite poor, but if they have a large inheritance or something like that, the money is theirs to keep. Those in orders (Franciscans, Augustinians, etc.) take vows of poverty. The exact meaning of that varies from order to order, but generally priests in orders do not personally own anything. The house they live in, the car they drive (if they're given access to one), etc., are not actually legally theirs. The Franciscan order is unique (to my knowledge) in that not only do its priests take a vow of poverty, but the order does not own property or anything, either, so whatever they have is truly at the mercy of donors. Where the Augustinian order may own certain houses in which its members are assigned to live, the Franciscan order does not.

[Hysterian68]

02:03 AM on 09/15/2011

Bishops belong in prison. The greatest collection of con artists and charlatans in existence.

[Semper Veritas]

03:53 PM on 09/14/2011

Semper Veritas is an eternal optimistic realist who prefers to give the benefit of the doubt to others; hence, the vitriol expressed in the majority of these posts concerns her deeply for her fellow human beings. Why do posters take such joy in what they perceive as the downfall of another? Has no innocent person ever been falsely accused?

A journalist knowingly chooses inflammatory language about unproven allegations, and suddenly everyone chimes in (about the priest): “Crucify him!” This is a mob mentality.

As for Fr. Frank Pavone: Why has Bishop Zurek launched an investigation in such a public way? He must be aware that his actions immediately torpedoed Fr. Pavone’s reputation? Where will Fr. Pavone go to get his good name back? Why did Bishop Zurek set up Fr. Pavone and the Catholic Church for the hundreds of hateful comments on this site alone?

[goatini]

04:49 PM on 09/14/2011

I see the Pavone fanboys have been sent their approved Message Board Talking Points. I noticed a post earlier today with very similar content to the above, complete with wild accusations and unfounded rumors about Bishop Zurek, attempting to deflect the blame on him.

It didn't work when Mr Corapi's fanboys tried it, and it's not going to work for Mr Pavone either.

[Ostro Picta]

05:17 PM on 09/14/2011

You make a very good point.

But you are also assuming Pavone is guilty by comparing him with Corapi, aren't you?

[Semper Veritas]

06:59 PM on 09/14/2011

Dear goatini:

You are in error. Semper Veritas has no need of "approved talking points." She is quite capable of thinking for herself. It just so happens that she deplores injustice and mob destruction of the reputation of her fellow human beings. There are no "wild accusations or unfounded rumors about Bishop Zurek" in Semper Veritas' post.

If posters cannot resist the urge to deconstruct a fellow human being publicly, Semper Veritas respectfully requests that you have the kindness to wait until that person is proven guilty of something. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Respectfully,
Semper Veritas

[Ostro Picta]

10:46 PM on 09/14/2011

Because Pavone made the wrong person angry (and is paying the price through his local bishop).

It is not exaclty like Pavone has been peaches n' cream to some important people at USCCB.

This is the Roman Catholic Church, not the local Independent Church LLC.

[jsaiditfirst]

03:20 PM on 09/14/2011

Odd the Vatican would be so quick to suspend and investigate on matters of finance (when their not getting their share) and yet turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to sexual abuse taking place right in front of them.

[Mike Maiale]

03:30 PM on 09/16/2011

"The Vatican" hasn't had anything to do with this case so far. Bishops operate with next to no Vatican oversight. The Vatican doesn't, can't, and shouldn't get involved in the finances of what individual priests do in private organizations. Nor, for that matter, is it involved in investigating sexual abuse cases unless those are referred to it by the ordinary (i.e. bishop).

People imagine that every Catholic bishop, priest, and lay administrator is a strictly overseen employee of the Vatican, when they're usually neither employed nor overseen by anyone in Rome.

[Cordell Cameron]

02:12 PM on 09/14/2011

And just think... that money could have been spent on lowering birthrate statistics. What a shame.

[Hysterian68]

01:23 PM on 09/14/2011

The Tea Party priesthood is being exposed for the financial hucksters that they are. It's bad enough we have perverts and pervert protectors in the priesthood, the papacy, and the hierarchy, but now embezzlement and financial mismanagement can be added to the growing list of their crimes.

The out-and-out mismanagement of dioceses throughout the world is the next big phase of the Catholic meltdown.

[johnnybic]

10:49 AM on 09/14/2011

As a now laicized priest, I can assure you that there must be some malfeasance here that is not discussed in the article. We were taught the 11th and 12th Commandments: #11) Thou shalt not "eff" the flock; and, #12) Thou shalt not tinker with the till. #12 was always considered the more serious offense. My religious order is paying child support for several still-active priests/brothers. Those who "mismanaged" funds, on the other hand, were summarily dismissed and charges were brought against them. I know at least one is in jail.

[Ostro Picta]

01:54 PM on 09/14/2011

Unless you are a certain Cardinal, then only your nephew goes to jail.