What did the Vatican really decide in Father Pavone's case?

If there was never any real question that Father Pavone remained a priest in good standing, and never any real question that Bishop Zurek could reassign him, what do we really learn from this week’s news?

Nothing at all.

The key question—the question that no one in authority has addressed publicly—is whether Bishop Zurek had good reason to worry about Father Pavone’s work with Priests for Life.

When he called the pro-life leader back to Amarillo, Bishop Zurek explained to his fellow bishops that he was concerned about the financial management of Priests for Life and about Father Pavone’s resistance to episcopal authority.

The bishop had good reason to be concerned, but oddly, he did not present those reasons to the public, and to the donors who might have wanted to reconsider their support for Priests for Life.

Apparently many donors, reading the tea leaves, did decide to cut back. Father Pavone acknowledges that Priests for Life now faces a severe financial squeeze.

But the organization faces other serious questions as well. Should Father Pavone be acting as president? Is he handling the group’s finances responsibly? Is he properly accountable to Church leadership?

Justice—for Father Pavone, for Priests for Life and its supporters, for the pro-life movement in general—requires clear answers to those questions.

After months of uncertainty, and an appeal to the Vatican, we still don’t have them.

Link