Vatican Dismisses Leading Pro-Life Priest from Priesthood – Leading LGBT Priest Remains in Posteditor
From The Catholic World Report (CWR)…
Father Frank Pavone, a well-known pro-life activist and national director of the organization Priests for Life, has been dismissed from the clerical state for “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,” CNA has learned.
In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. bishops obtained by CNA and confirmed by multiple sources as authentic, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, wrote that the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Clergy issued the decision on Nov. 9, adding that there was “no possibility of appeal.” Continues...
Some of the claims in the CWR piece don’t look good for Father Pavone but I suspect that most of it is either misrepresentation of Father Pavone or downright falsehoods. Not sure. What I AM sure about is that there is something seriously wrong in the Vatican (hardly breaking news) when a pro-life priest can be dismissed from the priesthood, and returned to the lay state on (probably) trumped up charges while outright heretics and blasphemers remain in good standing. The list is too lengthy to reproduce here, but think “Father James Martin SJ” (openly LGBTQ+ advocate) and the German Bishops who are operating in de facto schism. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us! Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Further proof that the Church has become a mirror image of the corrupt world. In America, patriots, parents who object to critical race theory, and any and all Trump supporters are denounced as “domestic terrorists.”
In the Church, likewise, faithful priests are laicized (all this, assuming that Father Pavone has been framed, but who knows…), and laity faithful to the Traditional Mass are marginalized with the latest insults and veiled threats from Francis.
Gee, Editor, I had just finished viewing the depressingly pitiful pabulum from the Archbishop of Dublin (what are these “partnerships” he kept referring to?), and now this. Got any good news up your sleeve?
(Having now read the full article, it appears that Father’s outspoken political preferences are what got him into trouble, and his tweets about Biden and Democrats were not exactly appropriate for a priest, but nothing justifying his laicization, as far as I can tell.)
I’m glad you mentioned the “inappropriate” tweets – I am often taken aback at the way priests speak these days, they can be very crude and use bad language like any other “guy” (which is how they seem to want to be treated). It’s very disappointing.
TBH, I didn’t like Father’s demeanour in that video where he seemed, if anything, quite pleased at being the centre of attention like this. I’m afraid I often see that same seeming pleasure at the being in the limelight in priests who have been suspended, such as Fr Altman and Fr Mawdsley, parading themselves as persecuted priests at conferences in the USA.
I know that will seem uncharitable but that has been in my mind for a while and this latest news just reinforced what I’ve thought for a while. If priests know their bishop is gunning for them, they should take care not to give him ammunition. Instead they seem to be looking to make things worse. I hope I’m wrong, but that’s how I interpret some of these “persecuted” priests.
Saying that, I agree it’s terrible for this to happen to a pro-life priest while the likes of Fr James Martin SJ get to stay put, and even get welcomed by the Pope himself in the Vatican! It’s all so incredible and disoriented.
I don’t think you’re being uncharitable at all. Many of the clergy, it seems, have been infected by the age of self-promotion, not to mention self-promotion triggered by their disobedience.
However, I really don’t know anything about Fr. (Mr.?) Pavone, but I would tend to think he was not a traditional priest. No trad priest I know would use language like that. In fact, no traditional priest I know of would even consider having a Twitter account!
Many of the clergy saints were sanctioned by their bishops and suffered obediently until their reputations were cleared, and/or until justice was done. These days, however, suffering under obedience is an alien concept.
One more thought, while I wait patiently for my previous post to appear (ahem….): I do know one thing about Mr. Pavone, thanks to Editor’s occasional complaints about always receiving fund-raising requests from him!
Well, ah DO decleah! I have not seen any comments from you lurking in admin today, not a one, so either you withdraw that scurrilous allegation or is it slur, or is it an alleged slur, against ma hitherto
unspeakableimpeccable character or ah will jes have to take some kind of lethal action against you. Am giving you fair warning now, Mr Victor, so ah recommend that you speak to your lethal adviser at crack of dawn tomorrow if not earlier, which would make it the middle of the night. You will get the gravity of the situation, ah DO decleah!
Years since I saw Gone with the Wind but some things one just never forgets 😀 And “ah DO decleah!” is one of them 😀
PS – Yes, the constant stream of begging emails from pro-life groups is really off-putting. Big time.
I have had the exact same thoughts myself about priests in the limelight. I was astonished to see Fr Mawdsley advertised as “the persecuted priest” at one American conference (Remnant, I think) and almost launched a thread to ask precisely WHO is persecuting him but decided not to add to either the publicity or the persecution complex, in case that is what it is, a persecution complex. Obviously, if he really IS being persecuted, that’s awful but in the “old days” such suffering – we were taught – was to be united to Our Lord’s and offered in sacrifice for our own souls and the souls of those most in need. Priests don’t do that any more. They either take to the stage with microphone in hand to tell their “story” or they turn viciously on the person (usually me) whom they blame for causing them anything from mild annoyance to REAL annoyance.
As for Fr Altman – I have placed him in the same category as the current UK Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt-with-the-permanent-grinning-eyes. If that’s being persecuted, gimme a share!
Mu Deah Edituh, if it’s GWTW you want, then don’t forget your fiddle-dee-dee!
I have to agree with you about the celebrity type priests going on the conference circuit. I think it is a dangerous road to go down. I’d be more impressed if they entered monastic life.
Josephine what ammunition does any good Priest need to talk about to be Cancelled and Persecuted. Personally for this Site I believe your comments are our of order. Fr Altman and Co are rightly so proud to be cancelled for talking the Truth something which I haven’t heard a peep of really from Our Mealy Mouthed Lot overhere. Jesus said it that on the Day they persecute you for my Sake be Happy for they Persecuted Me before You. Bergoglio is the real one that should be cancelled . As far as am concerned Bergoglio is not the Pope as surely first off one should be a Catholic to be a Pope and on that front Bergoglio doesn’t qualify. God Bless these Good Priests who speak out Maybe just Maybe it will even reach the Ears of Catholics who will awake and see The Evils that Bergoglio is now doing on a Practically Daily Basis.
Josephine I apologize to you if I seemed so curt but I had already read of this earlier on at LSN . To be Honest the way Mr Pavone ( as the New Babylon now calls Him ) actually heard of His sacking through the Media is Typical of Bergoglio.
No need to apologise. I just think it’s such a serious matter to be returned to the lay state, that it doesn’t seem appropriate to me to laugh about it, or take it lightly. I do also think some of these priests seem to thrive in the publicity. It’s just my opinion.
I agree. It would have been much more fitting, given the gravity of the situation, if Fr Pavone had explained the background without grinning from ear to ear. That is, in my considered opinion, self-evident.
Too angry to be polite. These faithless fakes in palaces droning on about “lawful instructions”, pure Pharisee speak. Our Lord is quite clear about these snarling wild animals in dress up.
Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton is on record attacking Catholic Truth, she had worked in the dark against the Church and was quite vocal about it. The Democratic Party makes it publicly clear that babies in the womb should be able to have their lives terminated up to birth. That is not being partisan against the Democrats, Herod’s court has been very public about it. St John the Baptist is God’s prophet. Fr Pavone is only echoing the Great Saint. Pope Francis has been leaned on to have him dismissed and this wicked man on Peter’s Chair is only too happy to oblige. Just as he was only too happy to oblige the Chinese Communist Party thugs by not demanding the release of another great Apostle of Our Lord, from his Communist Prison, His Eminence Cardinal Zen.
Bergoglio seems to want to be Worse in Wickedness than Herod .As you say Bergoglio is a Wicked Man who does more Evil now than your Average Reformation Protestant King. He really Hates us Catholics and Hate is a really strong word.
Speaking of Herod, Francis is hunting down the Traditional Mass the way Herod tried to hunt down Our Infant Lord.
You are right about the scandal of the Pope supporting the evil-doing Democratic Party while taking such draconian action against a pro-life activist priest. It is truly scandalous.
I’d hold fire a bit on this one – despite it being unsurprising of the Vatican to attack a pro-life priest while supporting an ‘LGBT’ promoting priest. Another article was written in Catholic Culture way back in 2011 warning Fr Pavone to get his act together https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/father-pavones-last-stand/## This is the piece which rings alarm bells with me:
“For years Father Pavone has run PFL as his own personal fiefdom. He has been answerable only to the PFL board of directors—on which he and his paid subordinates have formed a solid voting majority. That long run of complete autonomy is now coming to an end. This is not a case in which a bishop has set out to squelch pro-life activism. It is a case in which a bishop has realized that a priest and a Catholic apostolate are both in urgent need of supervision. Recognizing this reality may be a difficult process for Father Pavone. Until now, PFL has been his project: his baby. But he cannot continue running PFL the way he has been running it. If the mission of PFL is to continue and thrive, it will be under some new form of leadership. Painful though it will be, Father Pavone should realize that the time has come to offer his baby up for adoption. He of all people should realize the most likely alternative: the baby will die.”
I’ve seen this kind of thing in action before, in more than one kind of Catholic apostolate. Someone else called it ‘Founder’s Syndrome’ i.e. the founder – or their successors – become unhealthily attached to the apostolate, to the extent that they think it becomes their personal possession, to do with as they will, which can become very detrimental to the work it was founded to do.
I met Fr Pavone in Rome back in the 1990’s at the Pontifical Council for the Family. I can’t say I was that impressed. He didn’t seem that interested in what we had to tell him about the problems in the UK with the hierarchy, catechetics, liturgy, dissent in general etc. All of which ultimately adversely affects the family.
That Catholic Culture article is important. It highlights a danger which, for years, I’ve felt exists – i.e. priests being appointed to a particular post (outside the parish) on a more or less permanent basis, ranging from school and hospital chaplains to priests like Fr Pavone operating almost independently – especially in the pro-life movement. Priests in parishes can answer calls to hospital sick-beds and can visit schools from time to time – there’s no need for these posts which, in my experience, have in-built dangers for all concerned.
The pro-life movement can be managed perfectly well by lay people. And given the shortage of priests (although the real shortage is people in the pews) I can’t see why it is necessary for a priest to head an organisation like Human Life International. There are all sorts of dangers attached. On my one and only trip to the USA – thanks to the miserable RCA Victor falling to invite me back 😀 I met the then head of Human Life International, Fr Tom Euteneuer, who later resigned in scandalous circumstances.
These scenarios, where priests end up being suspended or, in this case shockingly returned to the lay state, are all too often (although not always) a result of the priest failing to do all in his power to keep the lid on the situation. The whole publicity machine is, in itself, a possible temptation to priests, especially those – like Fr Pavone – who have cultivated an independent spirit – because that spirit is alien to the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Spot on Editor,
Look how many ‘media priests’ and priests in high-profile apostolates have fallen by the wayside. I can think of quite a few. It’s a real danger.
Regarding graeme taylor’s response below on Dec 18 @ 6.55pm – I am not a child of ten who can’t see right from wrong. I just don’t think it’s prudent to take an immediate ‘black or white’ stance, or put this or that priest on a pedestal without knowing the full facts, and what preceded this drastic action of laicising a priest. I made it clear in my first comment about today’s Vatican – that part is obvious to anyone, that pro-life supporting priests are right and LGBT supporting priests are wrong. But it doesn’t mean that all pro-life priests are infallible in the way they go about their work, or how they run their apostolates. What I was trying to point out is that Fr Pavone may have, to a great degree, been the author of his own misfortune. If good Catholics were warning him 11 years ago to hand the apostolate over to someone else, then obviously something was very wrong back then. Phil Lawler’s predictions in 2011 have now come to pass. It might be worth putting that link again: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/father-pavones-last-stand/##
I was also astonished to read that Fr Pavone made a video with an aborted baby on some kind of a table mocked up to look like an altar. That is too much. There are ecclesiastical laws governing the treatment and disposal of human remains – this is a more recent one https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/10/25/161025c.html and I suspect Fr Pavone’s stunt crossed the line, and that poor aborted child should have been given a decent burial, not videotaped and pasted across the internet.
Maybe when the dust settles down, we might be able to see justifiable reasons for this laicisation. On the other hand, we might not, and Fr Pavone may yet be vindicated.
Re-reading that Catholic Culture article again myself, it appears that issues of grave concern were raised prior to 2011. This link is dated 2008: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/storm-clouds-over-amarillo/
Thank you for that measured and thoughtful comment, much appreciated.
I am shocked to learn of the use of an aborted baby on a table in that way – sounds like an attempt to mimic “the Sacrifice of the altar” and if so that is blasphemous.
I have to add, too, that I am unimpressed with Father’s attire – call me old-fashioned if you will, you wouldn’t be the first, but I don’t think a leather jacket is suitable dress for a priest. Is he, I ask myself (I often talk to myself), about to jump on a motorbike and cycle away into the Scottish mist, which I know is hardly likely since he lives in the good old U.S. of A. Still one does wonder. Oh, fiddle dee dee! – as Wurdesmythe/Scarlett O’Hara might say 😀 – why can’t priests just be priests and set us humble lay folk an example of fidelity to the legitimate authority of the Church.
In short, Fr Pavone’s reaction to this shock news from the Vatican is disappointing. I am disappointed to see a grinning priest dressed in leather, more or less mocking the decree, dismissing it; this is not the Catholic attitude. When Archbishop Lefebvre was (falsely) excommunicated by the (Saint, yeah right) Pope John Paul II, he didn’t dismiss it but explained, from Canon Law, why his consecration of the bishops was not a schismatic act. He showed no disrespect to the Pope at all.
So, I agree with you, maybe when the dust settles, we’ll see this matter more clearly.
I didn’t like the leather jacket either but I don’t think it’s that uncommon – priests seem to want to follow fashions these days, so it’s not the end of the world, IMHO.
Father is going to take legal action about this laicisation. I have to say, I started of being 100% on his side, more or less, but having read the comments here, I’m in two minds.
You may have overlooked my invitation to return to the formerly united States of America. It was hidden in a chocolate bar wrapper….
I’ll be on the next plane! I’m told I’ll be met by some very high profile American politicians at the airport – I’ve insisted that you are invited (plus Trump!)…
Westminster fly, by their fruits you shall know them. The powerful impact that this great priest’s leadership and action as a leader in the Church Militant has brought in the USA and in the world is God’s work. “Founder’s Syndrome” is not at all what I would expect in response to the Pope signing off this Great Apostle of God’s work against this evil, the laicisation of this priest is because he has called out the pompous men in mitres which threatens their comfortable lifestyles and their vast government funding.
St John the Baptist seek justice in the Court of Heaven against this wicked Pope’s actions.
God bless Fr Pavone.
We live in odd times. I’ve heard people in denial about the scandalous behaviour of priests like Fr John Corapi even when the evidence was laid bare for all to see. On the other hand, I’ve heard others dismiss Cardinal Pell as just another Vatican paedo, when all along, he was innocent. I don’t take things at face value anymore. I’ve had first hand experience of working in a Catholic apostolate where problems occurred, and also had first-hand experience of working with priests and have seen first-hand that on the surface, while they appear to be doing good works, in reality, it is underpinned by pride and they become a law unto themselves, and woe betide anyone who disagrees with them. I’m not saying Fr Pavone hasn’t been wronged. He may well have been. I just don’t like to jump into either defence or attack mode too quickly when it comes to this kind of situation.
Westminster fly, I too have seen everything you speak of, however, to return a priest to the lay state is for upsetting pompous fakes in mitres is not of God. The Jimmy’s push their evil and are publicly recorded visiting Francis and being gushed over.
So, no I am sorry there is no comparison, Our Lord speaks clearly you are either for me or against me.
Jimmy is against Our Lord and Fr Pavone is doing God’s work. To quote HE Cardinal Erenze, a child of ten could see that.
Your assessment in this matter of Fr. Pavone is both measured and wise.
Faith of our Fathers, I agree. Maybe this will reach of ears of those Catholics who think Bergie is the ‘Cats Meow’ They can’t help but see that the Papa is putting him in the same boat as McCarrick practically … who could help but say … ‘hey … just a minute … there’s something odd here. This was a good man.’ And that’s the end all. This Was A Good Man and Priest. He gave his life to the work of God and tried to do it right. And did. How could he help but have a few choice words for our fearless leaders in the swamp?
That’s Father Victor, not “Mr.” Victor….. 🙂
Bishop Strickland has responded to this situation: https://www.lifenews.com/2022/12/18/catholic-bishop-condemns-vatican-dismissing-pavone-the-blasphemy-is-this-holy-priest-is-canceled/
Well, ah DO decleah again! You callin’ me a scarlet woman? Or as we say in Glasgow, a “scarlitt wummin”?
I’ve read that Lifenews article and this says it all, really:
The decision [to remove Fr Pavone from the priesthood] comes on the heels of Pope Francis facing criticism for putting an abortion advocate on the Pontifical Academy for Life, claiming that giving an abortion support a Catholic Church platform helps “dialog.”
Yeah, dialogue with the Devil, that dialogue.
Whatever he’s said or tweeted that is in appropriate, it’s surely not right to strip him of his priesthood. Others have done much worse, much much worse, and are not removed from the priesthood.
This is scandalous, and I’m glad Bishop Strickland has publicly condemned the Vatican for this OTT reaction.
That’s what I’ve been thinking, that others have done much worse, although I’m not so sure now that I know about the aborted baby on the table/altar. That is shocking. I don’t know what to think.
This is a very fair video presentation by Taylor Marshall. He does say maybe more will come out but it seems to be an injustice on its face. This video is a bit long, but still under an hour, and worth watching. He compares Francis’ move against Fr Pavone, to his lifting of the excommunication against another priest, a Jesuit, found guilty of the most shocking crimes. It is very hard to understand why he would do this.
I watched the T.M. video all of it ,and also watched the L.S.N. latest on Fr Pavone . He has already Confessed for the God Damn Tweet which really has nothing to with Him being sacked by Bergoglio . Personally i wouldnt be surprised if Brandan had a moment of Clarity and phoned Bergoglio to have this Thorn in His Brain ( whats left of it removed ) This sacking of a Good Priest is straight from Bergoglio of that there is no doubt. Someone mentioned that Fr Pavone was a bit of celebrity Priest at least He,s getting the Pro Life message across and is not Raping Nuns as Bergoglios new Buddy is. What a mess this Apostate Judas is causing in Our Catholic Church. Then again Bergoglio is only doing His Masters bidding ,and He did of course say He wouldnt mind causing a mess. Fr Pavone is not perfect but He is also not a Homosexual for were He so He would be in Line for promotion, not being fired .
I watched the TM video. The sex scandal of the Jesuit priest Marko Rupnik who had his excommunication lifted by Francis, has now gone mainstream: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11557939/Priest-close-Pope-accused-inviting-two-nuns-Holy-Trinity-threesome.html It will be interesting to see how Francis wriggles out of this one. Although the Rupnik and Pavone cases are not related in any way and concern entirely different issues, Francis is going to have to make an extremely good case for laicising Pavone, while reinstating Rupnik and putting him in plum positions in the Vatican.
I agree, 100%.
That is even more scandalous that the Dily Mail has reported on the Rupnik scandal, making it so widely known. When people then see Pope Francis cancelling a pro-life priest then even the thickest of them will have to realise that something huge is going on in the Catholic Church, even if they didn’t realise it before!
Frank Pavone thinks the next Pope will reinstate him. Following the 2022 consistory, 83 of the cardinal electors had been appointed by Francis, 38 by Pope Benedict XVI, and 11 by Pope John Paul II. Each of Francis’ consistories has increased the number of cardinal electors from less than the set limit of 120 to a number higher than 120, as high as 132 in 2022. Being as Francis’s Cardinals have been hand-picked to continue the Bergoglian agenda, I suspect this is just wishful thinking. Still, stranger things have happened . . . https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253117/priest-for-life-frank-pavone-next-pope-can-reinstate-me-to-priesthood
In reply to your post and CWR article of 11:17, this statement by Mr. Pavone is rather disturbing:
““It’s about the millions of supporters of the movement I help to lead and will continue to lead,”
Well no, actually, it’s about stopping the murder of infants in the womb. You seem to have lost the plot, Mr. Pavone.
Also, I don’t know where he thinks he will get by pursuing “civil action.” The Church does not recognize civil action attempts to restore clergy….
I don’t know how you found that video of Bill Barr playing the pipes, but in the current so-called “administration,” the only pipes being used are crack pipes…so, as long as Joke Biden remains in the White House, where he doesn’t belong, you are coming to America at your own risk!
I was looking for a prank video which was posted on the blog ages ago, of a man playing the bagpipes at one of those phone boxes which you only see in America, where the person is standing, speaking in the street (and this before the days of mobile phones!) The prank was that a man stood close to the phone playing the bagpipes and each caller looked annoyed, finger in ear, trying to conduct the phone call but looking daggers at the piper. I had only started to look for that video when I saw the Bill Barr one and couldn’t resist!
As a matter of interest, though, a friend of mine went to the USA recently and I told her I was amazed she would take the jab because you have to have the vax to get into America even now. She replied that she had an exemption certificate but anyway, she set about distracting the woman at the place where vax status would have been asked, and managed to get through without the question being asked. I have a suspicion that her “exemption certificate” was, so to speak, doctored (appropriately enough) but I wouldn’t dream of asking her, not least because she wouldn’t dream of telling me 😀
What a life!
There’s a deeper issue also which this current situation highlights.
Namely, the moral indifference of the Vatican regarding clergy who openly oppose Church Teaching on Abortion and Sexual morality, doctrine, liturgy and sacraments. These individuals are openly and vociferously encouraging others to follow them in their diabolical sin and error.
None of them have be censured, disciplined etc. In addition we have many of the German Episcopate in open heresy with their public advocacy of the aforementioned sins. Yet the silence from Rome is palpable beyond belief.
May God have mercy on these individuals.
Our Lady of Fatima pray for us!
I couldn’t agree more. The dissenters and outright heretics are left to spread their lunacy and even promoted to high office within the Church, while priests who put that proverbial foot wrong are punished to excess. It’s called “diabolical disorientation”.
Amen amen 🙏
I think it’s a lot worse than “moral indifference.” That implies a certain passivity. I think it amounts to the active endorsement of immorality, in imitation of their father, the father of lies.
In the secular world, the globalists are no longer hiding their infernal goals, no longer trying to conceal them with bland-sounding words and reams of paper issued by bureaucracies: they are right out in the open about them. Likewise in the Church, now under the control of those same globalists, thanks to Francis.
Their time has come (so they think) to come out of hiding, drop their “benevolent” masks and flex their muscles of darkness. We’ll see how that works out for them…
Thank you for your excellent remarks. Regarding my own previous thoughts let me elaborate further.
The moral indifference is both passive and active on the part of the Vatican hierarchy they are playing a duplicitous and perfidious game.
The indifference manifests itself in an very public manner by the Vaticans unwillingness to deal with those individuals at all levels including their heresies as previously stated.
From this silence those forces hostile to the Church and the Faith become more secure and confident in their heresy and descent in the knowledge that they are not subject to Canonical disciplinary actions etc.
The Vaticans indifference so to speak is the insidious green light for those elements to speak and act with impunity safe and secure in the knowledge that they have friends at court so to speak.
I agree they are liars and they are of their father the Devil.
The more I think about this I think it’s wrong to laicise Fr Pavone.
The Pope himself caused scandal and I think was guilty of blasphemy, by allowing the pagan Amazon goddess statue into the Vatican in a procession!
Also, I’m wondering how many paedophile priests have been laicised, convicted of the crime or even not charged but with a big question mark over their reputations?
I don’t see this extreme punishment fitting the crime. I see it as OTT
I’d forgotten all about that Pachamama scandal – the pope himself presided over some sort of pagan ritual in the Vatican gardens, I think I’m right in saying. So, he can’t accuse anyone else of blasphemy, after that.
I have my doubts about Fr Pavone, all told having thought carefully about it, but I think laicisation is a step too far, no question about it.
Well now, I am little short of horrified at this conversation between Fr Pavone and a Protestant, the lovely Jenna Ellis, who was one of Donald Trump’s lawyers. As you will hear, when asked by Jenna what is going on in the Catholic Church Fr Pavone makes no mention of the crisis/apostasy (except eventually applying the latter to some bishops) and misses the opportunity to inform her about Fatima. Additionally, it quickly becomes clear that he holds to Protestant theology about the Church, which is (in his/Protestant) interpretation, wider than the Catholic Church. While he eventually does accurately answer Jenna’s question about papal infallibility, and explains the nature and limits of papal infallibility, he doesn’t distinguish between Christendom and “the Church”. Watch for Jenna’s delighted response to his comments about Our Lord, the Gospel, “the Church” (as he sees it) etc. – she is in total agreement. As would any self-respecting Protestant. Watch this and… weep.
Despite his good pro-life work and the controversy over his laicisation, I don’t think it’s ever been in doubt that Frank Pavone is a novus ordo, Vatican II priest, so would have almost certainly have imbibed many, if not all of the post-conciliar errors. I dare say if he’d been a traditionalist priest with a pro-life apostolate, he would have been cancelled decades ago.
I agree and it is very sad – and sobering – to realise just how deep is the rot; the majority of priests today are not, in fact, Catholic, whether “in whole or in part” as the saying goes. You are correct – the majority, if not all, have “imbibed… the post-conciliar errors.”
As for your observation about “a traditionalist priest…” Find me one with any kind of apostolate (anything at all) and I’ll eat my (imaginary) hat. In my experience, such priests are of the (false) opinion that their only task is to dispense the sacraments and even then, only if you don’t annoy them!
N O T I C E . . .
I’m interrupting this thread to post a link to a petition – shockingly a pro-lifer has been arrested for, er, possibly thinking about abortion, or maybe something else. Thought-Crime at its most sinister. I’ve signed, and urge everyone else to do so as well. This is an outrage.
Since Mr. Pavone seems to think that Protestants are part of the Body of Christ, maybe it’s a good thing that he has been removed from the priesthood, even though for obviously political reasons.
Someone should ask him this: since you think that Protestants are ipso facto part of the Church, why don’t you just become a Protestant minister?
Thank you for your helpful reply (yesterday, 9:25 pm). As to the difference between the Vatican looking the other way, and the the forces hostile to the Church using that as a green light for their heresies, I am seriously tempted to place the “Vatican” and “forces hostile to the Church” in the same category!
I suspect you are right in this regard.
I do think that there are many excellent individuals in the Vatican but through fear etc have decided to remain silent in the face of this ongoing diabolical apostasy at the top.
All in all its leading many souls into Hell which is contrary to the highest law of the Church and its Divine mandate.
Dr Taylor Marshall in conversation with Fr Frank Pavone – I’ve not had time to watch it right through myself yet.
Yes, no doubt there are many clergy keeping a low profile due to fear. As for fear, one wonders when a certain fear of eternal torment will strike those who seek to destroy the Church by “reforming” her and her infallible teachings, while they indulge in their various mortal sins.
Sorry, but I was not impressed with Fr Frank Pavone in that conversation. He is taking credit himself for all sort of situations where abortions were prevented, healing after abortion etc. I didn’t warm to him at all. I think he’s a prolife worker first, and a priest second. That’s all wrong IMHO.
And, again, I’ve not watched this through, but it looks interesting.
I think that is a very balanced presentation of the Pavone situation. A good model for unbalanced hot-head bloggers like me…
Here is the Crisis Magazine article from which the narrator quotes:
Believe it or not, I’m only just back at the desk, so I will get down to watching those two videos (posted by me!) asap and then comment. But, it really does without saying that my next contribution(s) will begin “RCA Victor – you are right… ” 😀
That Crisis article is excellent. I found it very helpful. I think it is clear now that the issue is obedience to legitimate commands. Fr Pavone has trouble obeying because he is too big for his boots, as the saying goes. I copied this from the article:
his problem, at least as I see it looking from the outside, is that he believes he is too important to the pro-life movement to leave it, for any reason. Yet no one is above the movement, and faithfulness to our sacred vows and promises is far more beneficial to the unborn than any human work we might do.”
It’s a thought that, if he had obeyed his bishop in the first place (this is pointed out in the article) then the pro-life cause might have been blessed by God in a special way. We’ll never know.
I’ve now watched both the Taylor Marshall interview and the commentary from the young man in the “Pavone defrocked” video. The latter is very good in that he sees the key problem. Yip, at 29 (I think he says – my favourite age, I picked it years ago and stuck with it) he hits the nail on the head. Father Pavone’s vocation is to the priesthood, not to the prolife movement. Taylor Marshall seems not to have noticed this.
In fact, early on in the Taylor Marshall interview, Fr Pavone admits that the majority of the members in Priests for Life are lay people as is, without doubt, true also of the majority of pro-lifers across the world. A key error of the Vatican II brigade is to have priests doing the work of the laity and the laity doing the work of the priest. This is one important example of this error.
My considered opinion at this point in the conversation is that, without making any judgment on his soul, I sense that Fr Pavone is in spiritual danger due to his apparent need for and enjoyment of the praise and adulation of all those who are encouraging him to rebel. Look how he beamed when Taylor Marshall called him a “hero” (or similar… can’t quite recall, saw the video earlier). His response to such praise is always delight, whereas the great spiritual saints teach us to shun praise. Easy for me – I don’t get any. Of course, they’ve probably updated the Imitation of Christ make it more inclusive so that praise and adulation don’t feel marginalised 😀 I have to agree with Fidelis that the list of all the things he has achieved – I have done this, that, t’other – is not a good sign.
I have a feeling that this won’t end well. Pray for Fr Pavone, and for his supporters. They do not have a truly Catholic understanding of the Church – and are in danger of following in Luther’s footsteps, using the pro-life movement – where he used the bible – to cause yet another split in Christendom.
This is interesting because Fr Murray is a Canon lawyer.
I have been following this case closely and the one thing that has jumped out at me is the absence of clarity from the Holy See, which seems to indicate that the knives were out for Fr. Pavone. The video you posted with Fr. Murray adds to that conclusion. I see very strong similarities between the way they’re treating Fr. Pavone and the way Archbishop Lefebvre was treated. The penalty is too severe for what Fr. Pavone is accused of doing, there’s no apparent official documentation showing exactly why and how the Holy See concluded as it did, and, if true, the fact that Fr. Pavone denies any direct contact to inform him of the punishment just adds to the theory that someone wants to shut him down.
I’m not sure I’d place too much faith in Father Murray – only a couple of weeks ago I heard him saying that he thinks the SSPX is in schism!
It wasn’t just Fr. Murray’s input I was going by, it’s the absence of transparency from the Vatican. When they can’t provide accurate details in so grave a case then something is definitely off. We should bear in mind here that Pope Francis has recently appointed a pro-abortionist to the Pontifical Academy for Life under the pretext of “aiding dialogue”, so Fr. Pavone is a very great inconvenience with his anti-abortion rhetoric and tactics. Perhaps this explains the determination to laicise him. Something isn’t right and it has nothing to do with whether of not Fr. Pavone likes the limelight.
Some time later (2.50pm) – I’ve made an amendment to the original text of this comment – see clarification in bold below*…
I’ve just finished typing a lengthy reply to your comment and while I usually copy lengthy posts in case of WordPress machinations, I didn’t do so this time and was horrified to see a “nonce verification” notice, which means it’s gone, irretrievable. So, time being of the essence, this reply will be short and (I hope) sweet.
I think we’re all agreed that the Pope has reacted outrageously by laicising Fr Pavone given the multitude of priests who have caused grave scandal and yet remain in good standing. Some, like Fr Martin, even invited into the Vatican and given photo opportunities with the pontiff. Utterly scandalous.
But, as the old arithmetical saying goes “two wrongs do not make one right” so while his bishop and Pope have treated him appallingly, Fr Pavone is also wrong to refuse to obey his bishop when he issues a legitimate command. Priests are called to the priesthood, not to a particular parish or position. Thus, when the bishop indicates that it’s time for a change, the priest must obey. If, as is claimed, he has persistently refused to obey such legitimate commands, then we can be certain that – despite all appearances – his work will not be pleasing to God. “I want obedience, not sacrifice” is a theme running throughout the Old Testament and repeated by St Paul (Romans).
Not so long ago, I published a thread on the obedience owed by laity to priests and I am pleased to report that it was published in full in the current December edition of Christian Order.
There are, believe it or not, examples of lay people obeying an unjust and illegitimate command from a priest – something we’ll be discussing at our forthcoming conference, and I have to say, I’m discovering that most priests – in my experience – do take their promise of obedience to their bishop very seriously. Hence, we are having to replace our clergy panel advertised to take place at our Conference, with a lay panel. All will be revealed on the day! Suffice to say that the Fr Pavone laicisation has had a chilling effect on priests, especially those whose bishop has made clear that he does not want his priests to have anything to do with Catholic Truth.
*Clarification: a priest has just informed me that the bishop’s comments do not rise to the level of a command. He just doesn’t approve of us, and that is hardly breaking news 😀
In fact, I suspect that Francis will overturn his decision to laicise Fr Pavone, given the outcry across the world, but Father’s reaction to this cross is disappointing, in my considered view.
PS – note: this is the short version of what I originally typed! Think yourselves lucky!
I agree that there is something off and that the bishop and Vatican obviously wanted rid of Fr Pavone, but he doesn’t help himself, IMHO, by his love of the limelight. He has admitted the scandal of his blasphemy and language etc, but the fact that a priest would even think of placing an aborted baby on a table for filming purposes in this way is really shocking. What one of the prolife groups does is different – they show images of aborted babies to drive home the evil of it, but to make it look equivalent to the sacrifice of the Mass, using a table that he sometimes uses as an altar for Mass, is very bad indeed.
Saying that, I agrees with you and everyone else here, that Fr Pavone is being treated very differently from other scandal-causing priests and you make a very good point abut the Pontifical Academy for Life.
I agree with everything you write, except to say that Fr. Pavone says he never disobeyed his bishop. I think he goes into that a bit more in the Taylor Marshall interview. It’s also worth remembering that blind obedience to superiors can be as dangerous as it is praiseworthy, depending on circumstances. Archbishop Lefebvre was frequently accused of disobedience to superiors, yet we know his obedience was first to God when Faith and morals were put at risk. I’m not satisfied that Fr. Pavone did anything worthy of censure, but I’m certain that it will all come out in the end.
I look forward to your Conference clarification on when and when not to obey the command of a priest. Abuse of priestly authority has been a scourge on the Church in various places for a long time.
Of course you are right about blind obedience. But that is not the case here, if I understand the situation correctly. Archbishop Lefebvre’s “disobedient” action (in consecrating the bishops) was directly linked to the safety and salvation of souls, in the preservation of the Mass. Fr Pavone, by his own admission, notes that his work at Priests for Life is NOT in that category – his work there is NOT the work of a priest. He says that clearly. Thus, it would appear that he has an attachment to this cause and of course, that is praiseworthy in itself, but not if it means refusing to move to a different position, if his bishop deems it necessary. Even if his bishop is mischevious (which I suspect is the case), if what he commands is legitimate, within his authority, then the priest must obey. Fr Pavone seems to be focusing on the “mischevious”, the ill intent of the bishop, rather than the legitimacy of his command. No souls will be endangered by his obedience; indeed, those with a correct understanding of the nature of the priestly vocation, would be edified.
I remember WF’s early comment about meeting Fr Pavone and that he didn’t seem interested at all in the situation regarding dissent and the state of the Church in the UK at that time, so the well-being of souls doesn’t seem to be high on his priority list. Indeed, I’m not sensing anything like that from his interviews, although I will be happy to be proven wrong since the salvation of souls should be at the top of any priest’s concerns.
Since I last posted here, I had an unexpected communication from a priest outside of Scotland, who surprised me greatly by describing Fr Pavone as “a chancer”. He mentioned plagiarism, in writing a book as one example. I’ve not had time to research that so if anyone knows anything about this, please post the information here.
In any case, as you say, “it will all come out in the end.” In the meantime, we should pray for Father Pavone, as our ever-charitable graeme taylor urges.
Added a few minutes after posting the above…
I was initially confused because I, too, heard Fr Pavone denying having been disobedient. However, I then noticed that, while he says this, he also says, in the next breath, that nothing would stop him doing his work at Priests for Life – words to that effect. Make of that what you will. I see it as disingenuous.
Good points. I can’t in fairness disagree with you because I don’t know enough about Fr. Pavone and this case. Your comment seems fair, though, especially the part about the salvation of souls being the priority for any priest. I’d sure like to ram that home to all those lazy priests who cancel Masses outside obligation and do away with devotions in their churches. They have no idea the judgement that awaits such sloth.
God bless and protect Fr. Pavone.
The descriptions of his “bishops” shameless and arrogant behaviour over the years culminating in this Card Mahoney style (attack on Mother Angelica) are clear to see.
Great St John the Baptist may your intercession to Our Lord end these wolf’s farce quickly.
St Francis of Assisi pray for him.
St Ambrose pray for him.
I agree that his bishop and the Vatican have both behaved despicably towards Fr Pavone.
Having said that, and having read all the comments and looked at all the evidence on this thread, I can’t say I’m impressed with this priest. His attitude seems prideful. I’d have been more impressed if he had stayed out of the limelight and fought his battle with the Pope in private, out of the public gaze. That strikes me as being more in line with the example of the saints and even of Jesus himself, who accepted the outcome of his unjust trials and eventual death on Calvary. I think that’s where the grace would be. As it is, Fr Pavone seems to be more concerned with keeping his top position in the prolife movement, which he admits is almost 100% not requiring a priest. Whether he or others like it or not, the bishop is entitled to ask him to step aside from any assignment and take up another.
I also agree that we should pray for him.
Michaela I can only assume you are unaware that Fr Pavone’s bishop told him he did not want him in a parish, he did not want him in his diocese, Fr Pavone had the agreement of a catholic bishop to have him in his diocese but Fr Pavone’s bishop would not agree to that.
Bishop’s are being exposed by their shameless lack of Catholicism and pride and arrogance and double standards, many of these American bishops are registered members of the Democratic party which is so clearly anti- Catholic.
Not sure how to make it clearer.
Here’s a statement from “Frank Pavone” published at Lifenews – does his description of is work sound like that of a priest… or a doctor?
Sadly, “Frank Pavone” announces the death of his father today, Feast of the Holy Innocents.
Bishop Strickland of Texas asks all the Catholic churches, priests and parishes to offer a mass for the family of Father Pavone, as his father, Joseph Pavone recently passed away. Please spread the word to your parish and to social media.
“I encourage every priest to pray a Mass for Joseph Pavone the father of Frank Pavone. Joseph died yesterday, December 28. The parents of priests have a very special place in our hearts and being able to offer Mass for our deceased parents is a great treasure for every priest. 🙏”
Seems, sadly, there is more to this laicization than we’ve been told to date…
This is precisely why I urged caution earlier on in this blog on Dec 19th when I wrote “I just don’t think it’s prudent to take an immediate ‘black or white’ stance, or put this or that priest on a pedestal without knowing the full facts, and what preceded this drastic action of laicising a priest.” Although a spokeswoman for Pavone has said that “any complaints Fr. Frank was made aware of” were “resolved satisfactorily” it didn’t seem the woman who told her story in that article was satisfied.
Comments are closed.