Pro-life Priest Fr. Frank Pavone Defrocked

The Vatican laicized Fr. Frank Pavone, pro-life activist and National Director of Priests for Life, apparantly for disobedience and using "GD" in a tweet 2 years ago without the possibility of appeal. I know it's low hanging fruit, but I can't help but marvel at which acts get you kicked out of the RC priesthood and which the RCC is willing to overlook. My my my...

https://www.foxnews.com/world/vatic...est-clergy-alleges-blasphemous-communications

 

He's become quite the case. He could be reinstated in one of the Eastern Rite churches or incardinated into an Anglican church next week. I don't know if that's what he wants but the opportunity is out there.

 

Pardon my ignorance but what is blasphemous about writing "goddamn" ?

 

Heinous...

 

I heard he got reinstated

 

from what i heard he showed an aborted fetus on a alter

 

He sounds like a nut who persistently blurred the line between his religious and political commitments, and turned his opposition to abortion into a complete worldview of its own. People with that kind of a lack in mental discipline and distorted view of the world have no business being in trusted leadership positions. Clergy should never reveal who they vote for to their parishioners. It should come as no surprise that he was laicized.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/18/1143...riest-who-once-placed-an-aborted-fetus-on-an-

 

Yes, he just pushed the envelope a little too far over and over with his politics. I think he forgot what the role of a priest is actually all about and became addicted to being a 'celebrity' - it happened before with Father Corapi - they just get seduced by being popular and lose all perspective.

 

I'm not sure it's possible to be "laicized" in Anglicanism. I might be wrong, but I think I recall my rector (an archdeacon) telling me, "Once a priest, always a priest," because the person is believed to have been made a priest by God rather than by man. But RC theology obviously doesn't follow that line of thought; the "vicar of Christ" (the pope) is believed to hold the authority to personally speak for the Almighty.

Today I wrote to Fr. Pavone and encouraged him to contact my bishop, Julian Dobbs. I would like to see him join us Anglicans. There should always be room for a devout, sincere man of God in the Anglican church (and Lord knows we could do with a bit more fervor).

 

Yes, how DARE a priest tell his congregation that one candidate supports abortion while the other candidate supports the unborn's right to life! And how DARE a priest shock them by showing them that an unborn fetus looks just like a tiny human baby child! Why, the nerve...

Admit it, if the roles were reversed (if Hillary had been the pro-life candidate and Trump the pro-abortion one) you would think Pavone did the right thing if he'd spoken in favor of Clinton, wouldn't you? Hatred of "orange man" makes all the difference. What does the Bible say? Don't love your enemies, don't pray for them... don't forgive those who trespass against (offend) you?

 

They are still a priest but have been allowed to return to a lay state. In an emergency they can still act as a priest.

 

"Once a priest, always a priest" is exactly right as ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul. In the RCC you can have your faculties removed so that you can no longer function as a priest but you're still a priest. You can also still administer the sacraments of penance, baptism, and anointing of the sick in an emergency situation.

 

Fr. Frank Pavone was laicized for a number of reasons. He had some accusations of misuse of funds from Priests for Life and fought against having any oversight. He made inappropriate statements (blasphemous and imprudent) and refused to accept correction from his Bishop. He made other questionable decisions and again refused to accept correction.

He had major cases of disobedience in three separate dioceses and had to relocate each time. His final strike was going rouge and refusing to be placed under a bishop. He then proceeded to offer masses and other sacraments within multiple dioceses in Florida without permission or faculties.

Priests do make a promise of obedience as one of the big three upon ordination. The fact that he wasn't laicized sooner is what is really surprising to me.

 

In this country, we have an explicitly secular constitution. The typical parish or congregation is composed of people who belong to each of the major political parties in good conscience. Not only is it inappropriate for clergy to explicitly take sides politically and thus risk dividing their congregations, it is also against the law, at least if the church doesn’t want to potentially risk its tax-exempt status. I absolutely have no idea which way my rector leans politically (nor do I care), and that’s as it should be. I trust our clergy to do their job faithfully regardless of which party they may privately support.

 

The statement, "it is against the law," is Bull Byproducts. Religious freedom is specifically protected from government interference, and any attempt by the state to regulate what a priest says in his homilies is forbidden. Sure, the government can withdraw tax exempt status, but they can't forbid references to politics or candidates.

Besides, pointing out that candidate X supports grossly sinful conduct, and that a vote for candidate X is essentially a vote in favor of that conduct, is at its core a statement on a moral/religious issue and the political aspects are secondary to doing God's will (opposing immorality).

 

False. Religious organizations have a legal and moral obligation to obey the law of the land, otherwise they have no moral claim to protection by the State.

 

Like Invictus, I have no idea what political affiliation my priest holds, nor would I wish to know. I don't want political opinions shoved down my throat at Mass - there is enough of that online and everywhere else.

If my priest were to support Hillary, it would be weird since I live in Australia. As for the whole abortion issue, I have no problem with Fr Pavone supporting his organisation, but the pulpit is not the place to do that.

Pavone's political beliefs aside (if we can do that for a minute), he wasn't laicized just for this, but also for his disobedience to his Bishop over years and his blasphemy. I have known one other RC priest personally who was laicized and he spent years trying to appease his Bishop and get reinstated but with no success. To get to such a point, the Bishop has to be pretty angry indeed, and probably at the end of his rope trying to get the priest to obey. Pavone would have had many opportunities to correct his behaviour, but he chose not to do so.

It isn't just about abortion.

 

The law of the land:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

 

Irrelevant. Acts of Congress and federal Court rulings are also the law of the land. We are talking about religious organizations engaging in political speech, not the ‘free exercise’ of religion. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

 

Looks like we will have to "agree to disagree" on whether the First Amendment is irrelevant, and whether pointing out the immorality in a politician's (or political party's) platform is "free exercise of religion" or just "political speech."

But I think if you ask any attorney worth his degree, he would say that court rulings and laws both are governed by, and must comport with, the Constitution and its Amendments... not the other way around.