A private letter to Frank Pavone from his Texas bishop has been revealed and is on Frank Pavone’s website. Wow and Yikes.
Don’t cry for Frank Pavone, but pray for him and thank his bishop and pray for him too!
Don’t cry for Frank Pavone, but pray for him and thank his bishop and pray for him too!
16 comments:
The bishop’s letter is well done. What sometimes happens to advocate’s of a particular just cause , like demanding an end to abortion, is you cross the line into fanaticism. Placing an aborted child on an altar is an act of fanaticism and beyond the pale. So the result is not surprising. However, in terms of political advocacy violating Canon Law, Wilton Gregory and Blaise Cupich apparently need to be reminded of that provision of the law. I think that is why Catholics have become alienated from the Church. They see the double standard being applied
I felt placing that poor deceased child on the altar, was not just a gross misuse of the altar but a horrible exploitation of a child already exploited by the abortion industry. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I did not know, that the child had already been given a burial by Pavone who then exhumed the child to make a point about the right to life. Using that child and in that way was and is wrong.
Well written letter by a justifiably frustrated bishop.
Similar to an earlier posting by Fr. AJM, I don't know who he is, but the actions described in the letter are without question disturbing. To me, someone with a peripheral knowledge about the Church, her beliefs and sacraments, would instinctively know that an altar in this context is not to be used in this way.
The old adage "more Catholic than the pope comes to mind here". This person's agenda was selfish, disobedient and well in excess of the mission if his bishop, let alone the pope.
I'm sorry that I can't jump on this bandwagon of celebrating the demise of a priest who has done far more good than bad, but will instead suggest a couple of things to think about:
1). While I do not deny that Pavone's ill-advised fetus-on-the-altar act was wrong (IF in fact, it went down as alleged), I strongly suspect there is more going on than we, the spoon-fed news-consuming public know about.
2). If this dismissal is valid--and it very well could be--I find it rather disturbing, no I find it rather nakedly and repugnantly hypocritical that this dismissal from the priesthood comes with no possibility of appeal. Yet the hypocrisy of this act DOES serve a purpose: It makes it unmistakably clear to the rest of us that there IS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a double-standard of discipline in the corridors of ecclesial power.
Need examples? Cardinal Marx, who doesn't deny his heretical or apostate positions on a number of issues, resigns only to be "lifted up" by Bergoglio in an obviously contrived act of political theater. James Martin and his "disordered is beautiful" ministry are PRAISED by the pope. Cardinal McCarrick is literally pulled back out of the penance imposed upon him by a good pope because he was "needed" to negotiate a deal to sell out the faithful in China, and, only--I mean ONLY when the public outcry and evidence were too obvious and blatant to ignore is he finally dismissed from the clerical state.
The lefties who share the politics of the zeitgeist embraced by apostate Rome are comforted, enabled and, in the rare instance of sanction, given the most gentle of slaps on the hand. Simultaneously, a priest who has put his name on the line and worked relentlessly to try to stop the biggest crime of our lifetime goes too far and the merciless iron fist of pure, raging justice falls upon him with no restraint.
NO POSSIBILITY OF APPEAL. Just think about that.
And you guys are metaphorically "high-fiving" each other in self-congratulatory celebration.
Shame on you all.
We can agree about a mistaken decision to use an aborted baby...however is this really a cause for laicisation? The fact is, Zurek is a little ant attempting to control a giant of the pro life movement. He has tried every way to destroy Fr. Pavone's ministry. For a fact, he has tried time and time again to restrict or stop pto life ministry in his diocese. For an antidote to the bishops' letter, read the letter of Fr. Pavone on his website. There are two sides to evey story. The bishop just cannot accept that Fr. P has an international ministry and is bigger than his attempts to control him.
Jerome and Gregory, I agree that equity must be applied. But the Church is mostly local not universal in terms of discipline.
You have in Pavone, a priest, who at his ordination made two promises, that of obedience to his bishop and celibate chastity.
Would you be so accommodating of Pavone, if he blatantly and publicly disobeyed his promise of celibate chastity and lived publicly like a married man?
You can’t have it both ways. Giving him a pass for blatant public disobedience of his bishop or living publicly like a married man in breach of his promise of celibacy.
I agree though, that there needs to be equity in these sorts of things. James Martin is a prime example and he too has been a pain in the neck for bishops in the USA. His Jesuit superior, the local one, and the pope need to show the same sort of accompaniment of Fr. Martin to lead him back to the truth of Catholic sexual morality and chastity as Pavone’s bishop tried to do with him.
And yes, Pope Francis needs to call out in the most public way Cardinal Marx and Card head of the synod on their heterodox sexual ethic and anthropology.
And yes Marx should be charged with sacrilege having a “gay flag” on the alar at a Mass he celebrated. That flag celebrates the gay culture and all of its disorders with no hint of Catholic sexual morality included.
Jerome:
Who is "celebrating" former-Father Pavone's downfall? Please name names. I see no celebrating here.
Let me speak about this as a priest. The claim is that the "real" issue is Pavone's advocacy of the prolife cause. I am sorry, but this is BS. Lots and lots of priests coast to coast are very active and outspoken on the prolife cause. I am one of them. It would be more honest to say that Pavone ran afoul of his bishop not because of the *prolife* aspect of his work, but in the manner in which he advocated the prolife cause. Those are obviously very different things, and one has to be wilfully obtuse not to see it.
Second, it is certainly deeply frustrating when the hammer falls on this one, while others seem to merit consequences that never come. Yet it has ever been thus, and it will always be so, until Christ's reign comes in full. But this is not a valid argument either to defend Pavone's choices, nor to disqualify their consequences. Pavone's bishop had the right to act, and if the linked letter is accurate (Pavone released it; does he dispute it?), then he clearly had grounds to act. That other bishops and religious superiors fail to act where they might do so is all on them.
And, yes, you can say, "but the Vatican..." We were never promised that the successor of Peter and his collaborators would always make the most just decisions. We are promised that the surpreme Judge will do so. If the pope and the others in Rome who handle disciplinary matters for clergy have failed in justice, then they will answer for it.
Finally -- and this is the main issue, and it's not close -- is the question of obedience. Candidly, I wonder if the laity -- not having been ordained -- fully appreciate this. But it was and remains powerfully clear to me that I did promise obedience to my ordinary; I knew what I was doing when I did it, and I remember vividly doing so. And I have had occasion since to contemplate that promise, in light of decisions the ordinary made that I did not like or agree with, but I went along with: BECAUSE I PROMISED OBEDIENCE.
This doesn't mean anything goes; it doesn't override conscience. But let's be clear: the actual circumstances in which any priest might have to refuse to obey out of fidelity to conscience are rare, vastly rarer than we like to admit. Far more often, what I might term an issue of conscience is actually a matter of my own judgment; not the same thing at all.
It can be broken out two ways. The bishop compels me to do such-and-such. If my conscience doesn't allow me to do it, then I can resign.
Or, the bishop forbids me to do such-and-such. What could he forbid that would be a matter of conscience for me still to do? To believe? To pray? Certainly not to carry out a project, no matter how praiseworthy. It would be the height of arrogance to say that I -- and only I -- am the fit instrument to carry out any particular project. God can raise up sons of Abraham from stones.
It is entirely reasonable to say that a superior's demand for obedience was misguided; the stories of the saints are full of such situations. Nevertheless, the response of obedience is always right, because it is an entrustment of oneself, and all that one seeks to do, to Almighty God. If God wants an apostolate built, or a book written, or a church built, or an order established, he knows well how to make it happen.
Father Fox,
Perhaps I was overreacting or reading too much into it, but it seemed to me like the posts before mine all reeked of "he had it coming". I'm getting sensitive to this stuff in my old age, probably from reading all of the other "Intolerant Francis-Haters and Latin-Mass-Lovers brought Traditiones Custodes upon themselves" and other such drivel.
Maybe he did have it coming, but I still maintain we probably have far more that is NOT known about this than what's been fed to us. I am not advocating for priests to disobey their bishops either. However, we seem to live in an age where we have a lot of priests doing what Catholic priests normally would do, only to be silenced, cancelled or rebuked or punished by their bishops. Pavone's case is troubling no matter how you look at it, but I groan when I read comments about how deserved this was when we probably don't really know the whole truth of the matter and, when HIS justice is so merciless and justice towards the leftists and apostates in the Church is so selectively gentle.
That's all. Once again, I probably should not have bothered posting anything in the first place.
Jerome,
If the Left did not have double standards they would have no standards at all
"...but I still maintain we probably have far more that is NOT known about this..."
In other words, you have no knowledge whatsoever of the "more" that you do not know, but you KNOW that there is more that is somehow being hidden or kept under wraps.
No, "lots of priests" are not being silenced, cancelled, or rebuked for doing what Catholic priests normally would do. The vast majority of us go about our daily business, doing what we normally do, and nothing whatsoever happens to us in terms of punishment from our bishops.
The priest who went to Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021 and performed an "exorcism" on the Capitol grounds wasn't doing what priests normally do. He's in hot water. The EWTN personality who refused to obey the legitimate authority of his religious superiors and got sacked was not doing what priests normally do. He's out. the priest of the La Crosse diocese who rejected his bishop's authority and publicly threatened the bishop, "Let's say we take out a bishop" he said on a YouTube video wasn't doing what priests normally do. He's banned.
There is no great conspiracy operating to silence priests who do what they normally do. However, those who step out of line, sometimes WAY out of line, are the ones who get called on the carpet - and rightly so.
Fr K,
This is rich coming from you of all people - you have claimed to know the inner thoughts of many folks here, including John Nolan. Without knowing your inner thoughts, it would appear you are short on self-awareness.
oh, Father Kavanaugh, so sure, so enamored of the self-fancy of being 'the great debunker" of misinformation. So "erudite" with your certitude of rising above the great unwashed with your embrace of politics, party of death politics, exonerating yourself with seamless garment mental gymnastics, so bereft of humility, so...well it speaks for itself when any of us hits a nerve and draws you out of your den of smugness to set us straight.
It's not hard to understand why YOU of all people would take exception to the notion of good priests being shut down by their bishops. I could refer you to the Coalition of Cancelled Priests, but we all know that you can surely "debunk" all the "misinformation" such priests are feeding us with.
In a sense, you are right, because I don't know all the details of Pavone's laicization, which, of course, you so arrogantly assert means that I know NOTHING. Hmmmm. So what DO I know? Without revealing too much, I have spent a significant portion of my life investigating clergy misbehavior and publishing my findings--so yes, Jerome Merwick is NOT my real name. And one thing that kept revealing itself is that the average American diocese has its sleazy side. The average American bishop is not necessarily a bad guy, but that bishop is more concerned with keeping the plant going than more, spiritual considerations. And when abuse takes place, settlements are only paid WHEN THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT is signed. In short, a culture of secrecy taints many chanceries. So it's hardly a stretch to consider that the bishop has told us HIS side of the story and there's very likely a lot of dirty details he doesn't want us to know about.
On a more personal level, I have one close friend priest who spoke out against a Gay Pride weekend in a homily and was called in to explain himself to the bishop. Gee, a priest has to explain supporting what the Church has always taught? An even closer friend who became a priest later in life for a New England diocese was yanked by his bishop for the crime of...warning his congregation about Freemasonry. How Un-conciliar!
Father, you are an intelligent man. Smarter than most of us. The trouble is, you've enamored yourself with your own intelligence and it's taken you to a place where you all too obviously get kicks by putting us down if we don't march to your beat. And God bless TJM for his relentless reminders to you about your support of the Party of Moloch. Of course, you know more than us about that...but are you really willing to bet your soul?
And Father, if it's really that important to you to be recognized for your brilliance, (and it obviously IS) I will freely and happily assert that you probably have a higher I.Q. than I do or most of the people here. You don't have to resort to your oblique put-downs and clever observations to prove that.
I just hope that you can remember that our Particular Judgment isn't going to be based on our I.Q..
John - People reveal their inner thoughts through their words and actions.
You have ZERO knowledge of ANYTHING being kept under wraps. Your own consiiratorial mind invents such things.
I have no joy in seeing priests taken down. But I would suggest that they are not the "good priests" you think they are. The case of Pavone is a prime example. You know what I know about his case. It's all in the letter from his bishop. If Pavone contests his bishop's version, let him publish his response. Until then, you know nothing more than what is available to all.
No, John, I am not enamored with my intelligence. I am grateful for it as it is a gift from God. I am also keenly aware of what I do not know. You, on the other hand, when you don't know something, concoct whacky notions of things being hidden under the rug. ""...but I still maintain we probably have far more that is NOT known about this..." are your words.
You can worry all you want about IQ levels. I don't. You can put down eloquence and erudition all you want. I don't.
The priest doth protest too much, methinks.
Jerome - No rotests, just responses.
And as for your "personal" anecdotes, I still maintain we probably have far more that is NOT known about the behavior of these priests, more that would most certainly have resulted in their being disciplined.
See how that kinda thing works...?
Post a Comment