I’ve looked into this, and it seems like it’s an accurate report. If anyone has any different information, please let me know. The Vatican is now referring to him as Mr. Frank Pavone.
Here is a CNA (Catholic News Association), article confirming that the Vatican has laicized Fr. Pavone.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253106/vatican-dismisses-father-frank-pavone-from-priesthood
See also National Catholic Register https://www.ncregister.com/cna/breaking-vatican-dismisses-father-frank-pavone-from-priesthood
If this is the case, and unless they give some pretty good reasons, I consider this way too the extreme. Who knows what the ramifications of this will be. If there IS a case against Fr. Pavone which we are not privy to, it should be revealed. And why was he laicized in early November and never told (according to what we know), and why did he have to learn it through the media over a month later?
This seems like a cowardly and dishonest way to deal with a priest.
Fr. James Martin and the German bishops get special meetings with the pope, and Fr. Pavone gets removed from the priesthood?
The “charges” mentioned by CNA and other news outlets is “dismissed from the clerical state for ‘blasphemous communications on social media’ and ‘persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop‘.”
According to the definition of “blasphemy” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I find it hard to see how this could be applied to Fr. Pavone, and even if they do have something unknown to us, isn’t there a middle way to deal with it? Maybe a sabbatical or period of time of restriction and counseling?
BLASPHEMY: CCC 2148 “Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.”
The prohibition of blasphemy extends to Language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion. (1756)
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.”(Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 519).
This Post Has 5 Comments
What? We need a complete explanation if this is true! Let’s see the details on any action.
STEVE RAY HERE: Further confirmation https://www.ncregister.com/cna/breaking-vatican-dismisses-father-frank-pavone-from-priesthood
A priest who calls people f*****g losers is not a priest in need of a “sabbatical or period of time of restriction and counseling”.
A priest who uses that type of language about his fellow man (no matter what the disagreement maybe) is in serious need to no longer be a man of the priesthood. This man like Donald J. Trump is the total opposite of Gods & Jesus teachings
STEVE RAY HERE: You and I may agree on a few things, but we disagree on a lot of others. I am leaving your post for objectivity. People, even priests, who do and say things you don’t like don’t make it necessary to remove him. I know other priests who sometimes use some pointed language at times who are quite good priests.
One of the big problems here is going to be the uneven playing ground and the way liberal priests are given a pat on the back while others who speak out truthfully are shut down. Fairness is one of the issues here and playing even handedly.
And look up the definition of blasphemy in the Catechism and please demonstrate now Fr. Pavone has come even CLOSE to that.
I do not agree with much of Fr. Pavone’s acts or words. Yet laizacition? Really?
The lack of information and transparency is appalling.
Ruling by “fiat” might be possible but is it prudent or good for the Church?
This is certainly “overkill” but part of the current papacy.
When no one can challenge the bishop of Rome’s behaviors, acts and decisions is this the same Church where Paul rebuked Peter to his face? (Gal. 2, 11-13)
This is part of the apostolicity of the Church as well as her Tradition.
The “developed” papacy of today has little in common with the papacies of St Gregory the Great, St. Leo the Great or the papacy as exercised before the first millennium.
Certainly, popes have been shepherds of the whole Church but usually not with total disregard for authentic Tradition. “More proprio” does not mean the pope can do whatever he wants, however he wants.
Certainly their has to be some consistency in how he governs?
STEVE RAY HERE: Fr. Khoury, I agree with you.
There are bigger differences between Mr. Pavone and Fr. Martin than the tendency of the former to regularly resort to vulgarities. Unlike Mr. Pavone, Fr. Martin is in good standing with his superiors and does not shamelessly (and repeatedly) advocate for politicians or political parties. Fr. Martin comports himself like a priest. Mr. Pavone is a political activist.
STEVE RAY HERE: Unfortunately “superiors” are quite diverse. James Martin would not be in good standing if he were under the authority of a true and conservative bishop. A lot is relative with a comment like yours.
I strongly suggest that you read Phil Lawler’s reprinted column:
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/father-pavones-last-stand/
STEVE RAY HERE: I have always had great respect for Phil Lawler, and continue to do so with this article.
I assumed from the beginning that there’s a backstory that a lot of us are unaware of. We know of some conflicts, but we don’t know the whole story. It would be wrong of us to jump to conclusions with knee-jerk reactions without waiting to see what the actual facts are when the smoke clears.
I have tried to withhold judgment about the whole situation as to the facts. But I have been quite critical of the way it’s been implemented, and the way the laicization was handled without any foundational announcement or information.
It does great harm to the church and the pro-life movement. I agree with you!
Comments are closed.