Prominent US Pro-Life Priest Laicised

 

Over the weekend the story broke that Father Frank Pavone, a well-known pro-life activist, was dismissed from the clerical state for “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,”

Pavone is the National Director of Priests for Life (PFL) and serves as the chairman and Pastoral Director of its project Rachel's Vineyard. He also is the President of the National Pro-Life Religious Council, an umbrella group of various anti-abortion Christian denominations, and serves as Pastoral Director of the Silent No More campaign.

The news came in a letter to U.S. bishops dated 13th December from Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the apostolic nuncio to the United States. Archbishop Pierre wrote that the prefect of the Dicastery for the Clergy issued the decision on the 9th of November and included the unusual dimension that there was “no possibility of appeal.” It did not, however, provide any examples of the “blasphemous communications” or “persistent disobedience”.

The letter states:

“Father Pavone was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the canonical proceedings, and he was also given multiple opportunities to submit himself to the authority of his diocesan bishop,” explains a separate statement attached to Pierre’s letter. “It was determined that Father Pavone had no reasonable justification for his actions.”

However, Fr. Pavone claims he is yet to be informed of his laicisation by any Catholic Church authority and his initial response was, understandably, surprise that the news had broken without his being officially informed. But he soon came out fighting, posting a defiant statement addressed to Church leaders on his organisation’s website Saturday. In it, he vowed to continue his ministry despite his dismissal from the clerical state.

“It’s about the millions of supporters of the movement I help to lead and will continue to lead,” he wrote, adding that he would respond by taking “all appropriate canonical and civil action as well as public communications to the Faithful.”

The timings here immediately raise questions. As Michael Voris points out; if the congregation kicked Pavone out of the priesthood on Nov. 9, why did Apostolic Nuncio Christophe Pierre wait more than a month to inform the bishops of the United States? Why did he not inform Fr. Pavone first or at least close to the same time? Why was the letter transmitted to CNA before Fr. Pavone even knew about it?

Father Pavone told Voris that he was shocked at the possibility because he had been told since the date of the letter (again, Nov. 9), that "very high" — his words — authorities in the Vatican were speaking personally with Pope Francis about his case, and a "simple resolution" (again, his words) was in the works. Catholic News Agency made no mention of that.

Pavone is well known as the host of the show “Defending Life” on EWTN for many years until the Bishop of Amarillo, Texas, revoked his permission to appear on the Network.

Pavone has served as Defending Life’s national director since 1993. He has a long history of conflicts with bishops, beginning more than 20 years ago with the late Cardinal Edward Egan of the Archdiocese of New York. Egan succeeded the late Cardinal John J. O’Connor, who ordained Pavone in 1988 and encouraged his pro-life work.

He has a large following capable of raising money and he is outspoken on life issues. It does seem to be a ministry that makes the bishops very uncomfortable as detailed in numerous interviews and reports (see for example, this interview).

Pavone received criticism during the most recent U.S. elections for openly supporting Donald Trump, a fact he proudly announces on his Twitter profile.

Pavone served on official Trump campaign outreach positions in 2016 and was originally a co-chair of Trump's 2020 pro-life coalition as well an advisory board member of Catholics for Trump. 

Pavone must have known that this was problematic. Canon law forbids clerics from having an active role in political parties unless they receive the permission of their bishop. Pavone did not hold back. One has to wonder if this is an example of the "blasphemous communications" he is charged with?

Perhaps the most troubling incident took place in November 2016, when Pavone filmed a video at the Priests for Life headquarters during which he urged support for Trump. The video was staged with the body of an aborted baby laid before Pavone on what appeared to be an altar.

In response to criticism of the video Pavone said that this was a table in the office which was sometimes used for Mass and not a consecrated altar in a chapel.

Pavone said: “In retrospect, I should have made the baby video in a different location so as to avoid any confusion to begin with.”

After the video’s release, Bishop Zurek stated that he would open an investigation into the incident, calling it “against the dignity of human life” and “a desecration of the altar,” adding that “the action and presentation of Father Pavone in this video is not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church.”

Ed Mechmann, director of public policy for the Archdiocese of New York, said at the time that the use of an aborted baby "as a prop" is "absolutely appalling, and deserves to be repudiated by all of us who consider ourselves to be pro-life in the fullest meaning of that word."

"A human being has been sacrificed and the altar of God has been desecrated, all for politics," Mechmann said in a blogpost on the Archdiocese of New York website. "Everyone who respects the dignity of every human person should reject and disavow this atrocity."

"A priest of the Catholic Church publicly displayed on a sacred altar a dead baby who was the victim of a terrible crime as part of a propaganda video in favour of a political candidate," he said. "It is hard for me to express in calm, measured terms, the revulsion I feel about this."

While there has long been debate within the pro-life movement about whether to show images of aborted babies in order to reveal the graphic reality of abortion, that discussion is "beside the point," Mechmann said.

"The real question is, what about that baby as a human being? That baby is an individual human person, someone's son or daughter, made in the image and likeness of God, unique and unrepeatable, and deserving of our love and mercy," he said. "To use her body in this way is to treat that poor lost girl or boy as an object to be used – which is the antithesis of love – and not as a brother or sister to be mourned."

Fr. Thomas Petri, vice president and academic dean of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., echoed Mechmann.

"The issue here is the dignity of the child that was used and violating the dignity of his or her body on an altar of God – which is supposed to be used for divine worship. It really is a profane violation," he told CNA.

"The Catholic Church is very strict that human bodies are to be treated reverently after a person dies."

I think this is pretty shocking stuff. I am really concerned though that we don't get carried away and we try and understand the context here. Trump was the most pro life U.S. President in history and Fr. Pavone is concerned with the defense of the unborn. Give the fairly black and white choice between a President who works to defend life and Joe Biden, who, as we have seen, could hardly do more to work for abortion, the mutilation of children and the destruction of the Sacrament of Marriage, you can surely see why Fr. Pavone went all out. I am not saying he was right or wrong - just that we have to try and understand what went on and why and I don't want to attack Fr. Pavone who seems clearly to be doing God's work.

That said, we need to be aware of the facts and it is true that concerns about Fr. Pavone’s activities go back to well before this incident. Back in 2008 it was clear that Fr. Pavone was in dispute with diocesan authorities. Pavone was also included in a report from The Pillar last year about unaccountable priests. You can see how this is a headache for bishops, but are you seriously telling me that they couldn't sort something out without curtailing Fr. Pavone's ministry?

It is clear there is a history of tension, but the political maelstrom surrounding the abortion issue in the U.S. means that this story is at the very centre of Church politics and the Vatican's relationship with the U.S. and as such, requires careful attention.

WAS POPE FRANCIS INVOLVED?

CNA asked Father Gerald E. Murray, a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City who is a regular contributor to EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo.” about Fr. Pavone's laicisation.

Fr. Murray states:

"The diocesan bishop, if he finds that a priest is guilty of such offenses, would then refer the matter to the Holy See if he judged that the penalty of removal from the clerical state was the appropriate punishment. The diocesan bishop cannot on his own authority dismiss a priest of his diocese from the clerical state.
Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law does not state that the possible penalties for these two offenses include dismissal from the clerical state. Canon 1368 states that a person who utters blasphemy is to be “punished with a just penalty.” Canon 1371 states that “a person who does not obey the lawful command” of his Ordinary “and after being warned, persists in disobedience, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the case, with a censure or deprivation of office or with other penalties mentioned in can 1336, 2-4.” Canon 1336, 5, which is not included in the scope of punishments for a violation of canon 1371, mentions dismissal from the clerical state.
Thus, imposing dismissal from the clerical state for these offenses would require what happened in this case, that is, the issuance of what Archbishop Christophe Pierre (the apostolic nuncio to the United States) identified as a “Supreme Decision admitting of no possibility of appeal.” Only the Pope, who enjoys “full and supreme power in the Church” (canon 332, 1), can issue such a decision against which there is no possible appeal."

So if things were done properly, Fr. Murray is saying the Pope himself had to be directly involved.

In a recent highly publicised interview with America Magazine, Pope Francis spoke against about political polarisation, especially in the context of abortion.

Pope Francis took a similar line in a recent Spanish interview:

#Pontifex on ABC (Spain): "When a priest gets involved in politics, it's not good..... The priest is a pastor. He should help people make the right choices. Accompany them. But don't be a politician. If you want to be a politician, leave the priesthood and become a politician”.

— Thomas Michelet OP ‏ (@ThMichelet) December 18, 2022

When considered along with his clear outreach to abortion supporting politicians like the U.S. President and the Speaker of the House, it is hardly surprising he would likely take a tough line with Pavone.

However, despite numerous respected news outlets carefully documenting the ongoing complex issues surrounding Fr. Pavone's ministry, the narrative in the US has very quickly become that Fr. Pavone has been removed from the priesthood for being too pro-life. This sentiment is perhaps best summed up by this tweet, although there are many similar examples:

What the hell is going on??? Father Frank PAVONE is a HERO. How many priests who MOLESTED CHILDREN have been allowed to stay in the priesthood, yet they KICK OUT Father Frank for making the case Against Abortion. SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG! pic.twitter.com/6ySkfUXwHJ

— Greg Kelly (@gregkellyusa) December 18, 2022

There is great scandal in this. Scandal that a highly respected priest has been publicly censured in such a cack handed way. Scandal that non-Catholics looking at this are wondering what the heck is going on?!

To make matters worse, this is taking place at a time when serious questions are being asked regarding Pope Francis' intervention in the excommunication of another so-called "celebrity" priest, Father Marko Ivan Rupnik. Further revelations emerged over the weekend with an account of the alleged abuse suffered by one of the former nuns ministered to by Rupnik in Italian news outlet Domani. It is harrowing reading in which the former nun says she came close to committing suicide due to the suffering "caused by Rupnik's delusions of omnipotence and sexual obsession". The victim claims to have denounced her abuser several times over the years and claims that the Church has consistently covered the abuse up.

If your Italian isn't up to it, you can read a full report in English from Jules Gomes here.

Another report, from Vatincanista Franca Giansoldati in Il Messaggero accuses the Superior of the Jesuit order of blatantly lying about the case and calls for him to resign after Father Sosa contradicted the Jesuits’ earlier statement by saying the restrictions on Father Rupnik’s ministry actually dated from the 2020 conviction for the violation of the Sacrament of Confession, and not the 2021 preliminary investigation into the serial abuse. The Jesuits revealed on the 18th of December that preliminary restrictions were first put in place in June 2019.

Allegations of the Pope's personal involvement in this case swirl and there are clear echoes of the Inzoli case. Mauro Inzoli, formerly a very powerful priest of CL (also called "Don Mercedes" for his love of flashy cars and high living and friend of numerous cardinals and bishops) was condemned and excommunicated for acts of paedophilia by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith and was subsequently 'pardoned' by Pope Francis who lifted his excommunication and returned him to the priesthood in 2014. Only after an Italian civil court convicted Inzoli of sexual violence against five boys between the ages of 12 and 16 in 2016 did Pope Francis decide to reduce him to the lay state (but without excommunication). The then-66-year-old Inzoli was sentenced to four years and five months of imprisonment. Prior to the conviction, Inzoli had agreed to pay 25,000 euros as compensation to the families of his victims.

Are we witnessing a similar papal favouritism being displayed in the case of Rupnik? Despite multiple requests from bishops, cardinals and journalists the Vatican remains totally silent. This silence calls into question any real commitment to transparency.

There is also Zanchetta, Pope Francis friend from Argentina. Zanchetta was so close to the Pope that he was one of the very first Argentines whom Francis promoted to bishop, on his own initiative, bypassing all canonical procedure, on July 23, 2013, at the head of the diocese of Orán, in the north of the country. Nine months ago, a court in Argentina sentenced Zanchetta to four and a half years in prison for sexual abuse of two former seminarians. Has Zanchetta been laicised?

It seems reasonable, given priests convicted of abuse like Inzoli can be absolved of their crimes, that people are wondering if laicisation was the only option in respect of Father Frank Pavone? It seems incredibly draconian and over bearing.

Whatever you think of Fr. Pavone's choices, does he really deserve to be stripped of his vocation?

Most of all, this must be extremely difficult for Fr. Pavone, who, I have no doubt, has been doing his best for the Church and the unborn. He is now open to enormous scrutiny and people will doubtless be making calls over his judgement. Be gentle and pray for Fr. Pavone!