The Remnant: NOT Happy with Bishop Zurek and USCCB over Priests for Life.


It’s a long and Blistering opinion piece at the Remnant, a conservative Catholic Newspaper, ripping Bishop Patrick Zurek  for pulling Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life back to Amarillo, and “suspending?” him.

This treatment of the pro-lifers is NO surprise to the Pharmer, who has long noticed that our business and priorities are NOT those of the USCCB, even though they have been putting out a little showing of concern for the problem in the past few years.

Up until recently, the babies bodies have been politically  bartered  in order to gain other benefits of higher priority.  It’s been better for social programs, more open borders, and the collection plate, to push the abortion issue to the back burner.

Now that it’s painfully obvious to most everyone  that Catholics will be forced to participate in abortion, whether they want to or not,  we’ve gotten a new Committee!   (wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!) at the USCCB.

But Fr. Frank Pavone, who has his own pro-life organization has been ordered to cease and desist.  Maybe  a vengeful  heart against those of us who stopped contributing to the USCCB, (which was  funding ACORN and some other organizations connected to abortion), caused Bishop Zurek to recommend that Catholics not donate to Priests for Life.

Pharmer is not inspired by this  to resume the contributions to USCCB.


4 thoughts on “The Remnant: NOT Happy with Bishop Zurek and USCCB over Priests for Life.

  1. Maybe, just maybe, Bishop Zurek has knowledge of material facts regarding this situation you and the editors at the Remnant don't.

    Perhaps all would be better served if, instead of criticizing and engaging in destructive speculation, you and the Remnant would encourage prayer and fasting — the traditional means of dealing with difficult situations such as this.

  2. Pharmer is a pro-lifer, and that sentiment happens to be shared by the more traditional Catholics. Fortunately that group, which has been marginalized by Jerry and those with whom he does business, is not a strictly contemplative order.

    The Bishop's letter to his colleagues does not contain justification for a boycott of Priests for Life. Perhaps that's not considered necessary.

    The pro-life health professionals who lose their jobs because they refuse to participate in abortion have found that even though 16 percent of the health care systems in the U.S. are Catholic affiliated, there was not much recognition or understanding of this problem in the U.S. Catholic church. Response has only been very recent.

    As a result of the long failure to address the problem, the Catholic health systems and employers are now being required to participate in abortion.

    The Popes have not been requesting civic inactivity from us, but the abortion supporters are.

    Catholics are often requested to pray and fast by those who do not believe in Christianity at all. The reason for that is obvious.

  3. A poster says maybe Bishop Zurek has knowledge of material facts regarding this situation that we don't know about.

    Well, Bishop Zurek it's high time you aquainted us with those facts. Your behavior in this situation has been less than edifying. Instead of meeting with Fr. Pavone when he arrived in Amarillo in response to your order, you took off for Rio. What urgent necessity caused you to do that? You haven't even met with him as I write this. Meanwhile you have dithered around as to whether he is suspended or not. You first said yes he is. Then your vicar general whom you left to put out the fire during your urgent sojourn in Rio asserted he is not suspended. Then you published a letter saying that yes he is. All the while Fr. Pavone is left in suspense, and the Pro Life Ministry he so championed is in jeopardy. Bishop, as far as I'm concerned you'd better have a good explanation.

  4. 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 abortion 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?

Comments are closed.