Summary of my posts on the Zurek-Pavone conflict

Hmmm. I did not want to bother blog subscribers and RSS followers with numerous notices generated by separate posts on the Zurek-Pavone matter, so I simply added updates (as developments warranted) to the original post. Now I see that some readers and followers wished they had gotten notice of those follow-up posts. My bad.

My six sets of comments/discussions concerning this unfortunate situation are all available here, in this order (simply scroll through the post to spot them):

1. Re Zurek’s letter to Pavone, and Pavone’s response to Zurek (14 Sep);

2. Re Pavone’s comments to the National Catholic Register (14 Sep);

3. Re Pavone’s letter to prelates of September 12th (14 Sep);

4. Re whether Priests for Life is a “private association of the faithful” (15 Sep);

5. Re Pavone’s statement upon arrival in Amarillo (15 Sep); and

6. Re Msgr. Waldow’s claims regarding Church property (15 Sep)

Since the above:

CBR's plans to aggravate Fr. Pavone's problems (16 Sep)

Some non-canonical reactions to Fr. Pavone's latest statement (16/17 Sep), updated in regard to 'Medal of Honor' tweet (19 Sep)

Bp. Gries' letter for Fr. Pavone does not help this situation (20 Sep)

M. Medlin, "Canon lawyer analyses issues in Fr. Pavone case" (CNA, 23 Sep)

Is John Wesley really the ministerial model Fr. Pavone wants to invoke? (26 Sep)

My response to Al Kresta (28 Sep)

Brief remarks on Bp. Zurek's "Clarification" regarding Fr. Pavone (30 Sep)

On Fr. Pavone's failure to meet with Bp. Zurek (14 Oct)

Is 'mediation' the way to resolve the Zurek-Pavone conflict? (16 Oct)

A comment or two on Mark Cructher's report on the imprisonment of Fr. Pavone (6 Oct), follows:

“Oh, dear, it’s no good trying to explain. Protestants always think Catholic priests are spies.”

Substitute “bishops” for “priests”, and “sinister” for “spies”, and Lady Marchmain’s lament about stereotypical Protestant suspicions of Catholic hierarchy's motives came to mind when watching Mark Crutcher’s 18 minute spiel on the “imprisonment” of Fr. Pavone—being shut away in a tiny convent, several miles down a lonely dirt road, in the middle of the desolate plains of Texas, having only a shovel to fight off scary snakes, and so on. Oh, and no TV. The horror, the horror. Imagine an albino monk from Opus Dei guarding the door, and Crutcher could paint a nice Da Vinci Code style narrative from this palette.

True, Crutcher doesn't explain why a young man from Manhattan should have any more trouble fending off snakes than do a bunch of little old nuns from Texas, nor does he seems aware of the possibility that maybe a Catholic convent is “out there” at all because the People of God are “out there”, too. But, hey, a lot of things escaped Crutcher’s notice. Like ecclesiology.

Bp. Zurek, however, did not escape Crutcher’s notice.

Per Crutcher, Zurek is “this guy”, this “puppet”, driven by “ego” and “jealousy” into pulling a “stunt” in a “cowardly” manner, as he continues “out-of-control” to effect an “outrageous” deed that “viciously attacks” Pavone and makes others feel “sick and queasy” , etc., etc., etc. Whew!

Any number of replies to this kind of--whatever--leap to mind. But then I think, no, Lady Marchmain is probably right: It’s no good trying to explain.