Frank Pavone, president of Priests for life has been removed from the priesthood. In a letter of the Apostolic Delegate the reasons stated are:
This action was taken after Father Pavone was found guilty in canonical proceedings of blasphemous communications on social media, and of persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,"
What is behind the persistent disobedience is the notion in canon law that a cleric is incardinated into a particular diocese (or religious order) and therefore cannot continue to exercise ministry if he acts independently of his bishop or religious superior.
Can. 265 Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all.
Can. 266 §1. Through the reception of the diaconate, a person becomes a cleric and is incardinated in the particular church or personal prelature for whose service he has been advanced.
§2. Through the reception of the diaconate, a perpetually professed religious or a definitively incorporated member of a clerical society of apostolic life is incardinated as a cleric in the same institute or society unless, in the case of societies, the constitutions establish otherwise.
§3. Through the reception of the diaconate, a member of a secular institute is incardinated in the particular church for whose service he has been advanced unless he is incardinated in the institute itself by virtue of a grant of the Apostolic See.
A cleric who cannot get along with his bishop can find another bishop. However, both his bishop and the other bishop have to agree. In the case of Pavone this did not happen. Why was Pavone not able to find another bishop?
Can. 267 §1. For a cleric already incardinated to be incardinated validly in another particular church, he must obtain from the diocesan bishop a letter of excardination signed by the same bishop and a letter of incardination from the diocesan bishop of the particular church in which he desires to be incardinated signed by that bishop.
§2. Excardination thus granted does not take effect unless incardination in another particular church has been obtained.
Canon law allows this transfer to take place relatively easily. Pavone needed merely to have moved to another diocese and informed both bishops. If neither objected, it would have taken place automatically.
Can. 268 §1. A cleric who has legitimately moved from his own particular church to another is incardinated in the latter particular church by the law itself after Five years if he has made such a desire known in writing both to the diocesan bishop of the host church and to his own diocesan bishop and neither of them has expressed opposition in writing to him within four months of receiving the letter.
Even if his diocesan bishop objected to his excardination, Pavone could have escaped him if a religious order had accepted him. That is what happened to Guiterrez. He got into trouble with his bishop in Peru. He came to the USA to live at Notre Dame where he was accepted into the Dominican Order. His bishop could do nothing about it.
§2. Through perpetual or definitive admission into an institute of consecrated life or into a society of apostolic life, a cleric who is incardinated in the same institute or society according to the norm of can. 266, §2 is excardinated from his own particular church.
Getting into another diocese is more difficult because the diocese has to agree to financially support the cleric. In the case of a religious order that is automatic since the priest has a vow of poverty.
Can. 269 A diocesan bishop is not to allow the incardination of a cleric unless:
1/ the necessity or advantage of his own particular church demands it, and without prejudice to the prescripts of the law concerning the decent support of clerics;
2/ he knows by a lawful document that excardination has been granted, and has also obtained from the excardinating bishop, under secrecy if need be, appropriate testimonials concerning the cleric’s life, behavior and studies;
3/ the cleric has declared in writing to the same diocesan bishop that he wishes to be dedicated to the service of the new particular church according to the norm of law.
Priests do have some rights in regard to excardination. Of course, to exercise them the priest has to find a bishop who is ready to receive him. That likely did not happen in Pavone's case.
Can. 270 Excardination can be licitly granted only for just causes such as the advantage of the Church or the good of the cleric himself. It cannot be denied, however, except for evident, grave causes. A cleric who thinks he has been wronged and has found an accepting bishop, however, is permitted to make recourse against the decision.
Can. 271 §1. Apart from the case of true necessity of his own particular church, a diocesan bishop is not to deny permission to clerics, whom he knows are prepared and considers suitable and who request it, to move to regions laboring under a grave lack of clergy where they will exercise the sacred ministry. He is also to make provision that the rights and duties of these clerics are determined through a written agreement with the diocesan bishop of the place they request.
There is also provision for priests to work elsewhere outside their diocese. Father McBrien the controversial priest who taught at Notre Dame and headed its theology department for many years was incardinated in the Diocese of Hartford and remained so throughout his life. Father Don Cozzens stayed here in the Cleveland Diocese and taught at John Carroll and supported himself by writing books. So, a priest can have a very independent life if his bishop agrees to it. Pavone was unable to find a bishop who would agree to his independent life.
§2. A diocesan bishop can grant permission for his clerics to move to another particular church for a predetermined time, which can even be renewed several times. Nevertheless, this is to be done so that these clerics remain incardinated in their own particular church and, when they return to it, possess all the rights which they would have had if they had been dedicated to the sacred ministry there.
§3. For a just cause the diocesan bishop can recall a cleric who has moved legitimately to another particular church while remaining incardinated in his own church provided that the agreements entered into with the other bishop and natural equity are observed; the diocesan bishop of the other particular church, after having observed these same conditions and for a just cause, likewise can deny the same cleric permission for further residence in his territory.
Bottom Line: While Pavone and others may cry "persecution" the law of the Church makes it clear that that there were many ways in which this situation could have been resolved. It appears that Pavone was simply not able to find a bishop or a religious order who would support his independence.
Jack, excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about Pavone except that he headed Priests for Life for a long time. As we know, there are one or two bishops who would seem to be pretty aligned to his anti-abortion, pro-Trump views, and one would think they'd be open to taking him in.
But on the other hand, maybe even for them, he has the reputation of being a ticking time bomb, i.e. more bother and hassle than he'd be worth. I don't know; just speculating.
I also would wonder whether he really tried very hard to find a different diocese; it strikes me as possible that his ministry in Priests for Life has been so all-consuming that he has more or less lost interest in being a diocesan priest with all that entails (e.g. being a parish pastor; surely his home diocese needs them - all dioceses need pastors these days). That could at least partially explain why, as I saw in one news report, he is interested in founding a religious order dedicated to being against abortion (or something similar).
Founding a religious in which he would have been his own superior would have been one solution. However, he would have needed either the permission of a bishop or of Rome to have founded a religious order.
DeleteHe probably could have found some laity who would join his religious order. However, if he was interested in founding a Priests for Life religious order, he probably found few priests who were interested. Maybe like bishops, priests saw him as a ticking time bomb.
There are some issues (abortion, nuclear war, climate change) that can become all consuming. For example, the protests against draft boards, and nuclear facilities. They somehow make an evil the center of one's life.
My basic criticism of the pro-life movement is that it became first an anti-abortion movement then a repeal Roe movement. In the end, they were for Trump. A far cry from being for mothers and children!
There are already several orders dedicated specifically to being pro-life. It's my understanding that a fledgling religious order which isn't officially approved yet still has to have the support of the bishop where they are located. Our archdiocese had one such fledgling order (Intercessors of the Lamb) which had conditional support, and that support was withdrawn and they were suppressed when problems surfaced. So forming an order might not be the work-around Pavone thinks it would.
DeleteForming new religious orders in dioceses has been problematic. Most bishops do not have the time and expertise needed to do this. Rome recently adopted rules that essentially say that Rome has to be notified and consulted when new religious orders are approved at the diocesan level. I guess they decided they needed to become involved early rather than left to clean up messes.
DeleteThere are priests out there who are unattached, if not legally then for all practical purposes. Once or twice I've received letters which are sent out from the diocese with a "black list" of priests who should not be allowed to perform ministry in the diocese; these guys are free agents who present themselves as priests but who apparently are unable to get letters from their bishop or religious superior confirming they are clergy in good standing.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there are deacons in a similar situation; deacons can more or less 'disappear' without dioceses being aware, as most deacons don't really have much of a personal relationship with their bishop. In the cases I'm aware of with deacons, they didn't disappear to "go rogue" elsewhere; they simply walked away from the ministry.
Many years ago, a nephew was killed in an auto accident. His mom, my sister, was a single mom who wasn't in a state of mind to be able to make funeral arrangements. So my brother and I flew out to the city where she lived, and took care of the arrangements. (I am not sure I should even say, "...did it on her behalf"; we did it because nobody else was stepping up.) This was in my pre-diaconate adulthood, when I didn't know many things I know now, such as what the institutional church expects regarding funerals and burials. I had never planned a funeral before, and had lost comparatively few people in my family.
All of which is to say: I didn't really know what I was doing. I did what a lot of families do, and relied on the funeral director, whose name my sister had pulled out of the Yellow Pages at random because the hospital which had custody of her son's body told her she had to have it released to a funeral home. We knew my sister didn't have interest in a funeral in a Catholic church, or any church at all. But we knew my parents and some other relatives would want some sort of religious observance. So we asked the funeral director if, instead of having a funeral in church, a priest could come and pray the rosary (I had recalled having prayed the rosary at a funeral home at some time or other in my life). He told me that what I was requesting was something most priests wouldn't agree to, as it would be breaking the official Catholic rules, but he did know one priest would would agree to do something like that. We said, Great, get him. In retrospect, that guy might have been one of those "rogue priests" who appear on the banned lists published by dioceses.
Interesting, Jack. I didn't know all the rules surrounding cardination/excardination. I did know that in order to officiate at the wedding of a friend's daughter in another diocese my husband had to get a letter of good standing from his archdiocese and have the permission of the diocese in which the wedding took place.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Pavone not being able to find a bishop or religious order who would support his independence, another thought occurs to me, that he simply didn't try. That he maybe thought he was going to do whatever he wanted, wherever he wanted. Obviously that didn't work out, if that was the case.
There are some rather radical bishops around, who might enjoy a chance to have a thumb in the pope's eye. It is surprising if Pavone couldn't get one of them to support his independence. Of course a loose cannon could be a pain in the neck for them too.
Are there still titular bishops of archaeological sites or dioceses which are no longer active? They used to give retired bishop those titles. Now they just call them "emeritus". It's odd if Pavone couldn't get one of those to claim him. Or maybe not.
Seems to me that Pavone was more interested in being a celebrity than a priest.
Only a sitting bishop of a diocese can incardinate a priest in that diocese. Auxiliary, titular, and retired bishops do not count.
DeleteThis whole thing goes back to the early church notion that one, whether bishop, priest or deacon, is always ordained for the service of the people of God in a particular diocese never for oneself or the whole people of God. Even the Pope can only exercise the Petrine ministry by being chosen bishop of Rome.
In a very indirect way this upholds accountability to the people of God since originally bishops were elected either by the people or the clergy of the local church, and that election was verified by consecration or installation of the surrounding bishops.
These are the ideals expressed in canon law. We know there are rogue priests and bishops, and unaccountable priests and bishops.
However, if one pursues the norms of canon law, it is possible to catch up with these rogues and expose them. Evidently that is what has happened in the case of Pavone. Canon law did provide him with a lot of avenues to find a place for his ministry in the church. That did not happen.
Jack - Founding a religious ( order);in which he would have been his own superior would have been one solution. However, he would have needed either the permission of a bishop or of Rome to have founded a religious order.
ReplyDeleteI guess he doesn’t have an uncle who is a bishop who will take him. And doesn’t raise enough $$$ for Rome.
Marcial Maciel founded the Legionnaires of Christ after he had been kicked out of two seminaries. He apparently was ordained anyway by one of his uncles, who was a bishop. Four of his uncles were bishops. One of them was canonized in 2007. The first steps to this were approved by JPII, a decision which raises question.
One of the uncle bishops supposedly instructed Maciel to found the new religious order after he was kicked out of the second seminary. Maciel and his order became favorites of JPII, because he was absolutely reliable in adherence to the official orthodoxy of JPII, he was good at attracting seminarians, and he was spectacular at raising money. (I had some close encounters for a period of several years with a couple of priests of this order but it took me a while to catch on to them.). Apparently his successes in recruiting priests and extremely wealthy Catholic donors in Mexico along with his pure sycophancy to JPII were among the major reasons the many reports of his sexual abuse of junior seminarians and his drug use were carefully hidden for decades. Ratzinger was well aware of them though, and obviously convinced, because stripping Maciel of his position, ordering lifelong penance and launching an investigation into the order were among the first things he did on becoming pope. It seems that he put obedience to the human being who was his boss ahead of doing the right thing when he was at CDF.
Perhaps the PTB learned a lesson from the Maciel disaster?
"Perhaps the PTB learned a lesson from the Maciel disaster?" I hope so. If red flags go up when someone is in seminary, it's a lot easier to not admit them to the priesthood in the first place than to deal with the fallout later. If they are dismissed from formation for cause, there shouldn't be any shopping around for a seminary that will wink and nod at the previous record. If someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.
DeleteMaybe good fundraisers get a pass. The PTB gave McCarrick a pass too - apparently because he was good at schmoozing with rich and powerful Catholics and raising a ton of money.
DeleteAnd maybe there should be a canon law that prohibits bishops from ordaining their own relatives who get kicked out of seminaries.
As Jim noted, there are multiple bishops in the US who are aligned with Pavone’s thinking, including his MAGA leanings. So did his self- perceived celebrity status make him feel that he didn’t need to exert himself to follow the rules? Or did his repeated actions of disobedience to his bishop make the other bishops back off? He had transferred dioceses once already. He had permission from Rome to do so again. Apparently he also did try to establish a new religious community at the request of his then bishop. So was he seen as too rogue or did he not bother with the paperwork? Bishops revel in their power over other people, especially over priests. Since Pavone apparently has a track record of thumbing his nose at bishops at times, maybe the other bishops didn’t want to be put in a position of displays of public disobedience and disrespect towards them by one of their priests. Who knows. His removal from the priesthood is probably a good thing.
Priests take an oath of obedience to bishops, just as cardinals do to the pope. Bishops and popes are human beings. Perhaps religious oaths should only be made to God rather than to men. A good bit of the sex abuse scandal - especially the coverups - is rooted in the oaths of obedience to human beings. Perhaps things wouldn’t have gotten so bad if priests and bishops remembered that only God deserves absolute obedience.
From Wiki
« After a difference in opinion with Cardinal Edward Egan in New York, Pavone sought and received a transfer to the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas.[12] Pavone informed Cardinal Egan that he wanted to continue to pursue anti-abortion work on a full-time basis and that Bishop John Yanta of Amarillo, Texas agreed to support this.[13] The transfer occurred in 2005.[14]
In March 2005, the Catholic Diocese of Amarillo announced that Pavone would establish a religious community called Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, a collective of priests and seminarians exclusively dedicated to anti-abortion work.[15] In 2007, Bishop John Yanta, with the approval of the Holy See, suppressed the community.[16][17] In 2008, the Diocese of Amarillo and Priests for Life issued a statement indicating that Missionaries of the Gospel of Life would merge with Priests for Life. Pavone indicated that the priestly formation activities of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life were interfering with his anti-abortion advocacy efforts.[11]
On November 11, 2019, by a Vatican decree, the Congregation for the Clergy dismissed Bishop Zurek's restrictions formerly placed upon Pavone and authorized him to transfer from the Diocese of Amarillo and find a bishop who supported his ministry«
Thanks, Anne, for some of the details about Pavone's history with bishops. I knew there was one, and decided the best thing was to give the big vision of Canon law about how these things ideally should be resolved.
DeleteWhatever the details of his history, I knew at the end of the day the problem was that Pavone could not find a bishop who would sponsor him as a priest of their own diocese.
As for money, I suspect Pavone raised money for his own operation; however, none of that fundraising likely supported the diocese where he was a priest.
His failure at trying to establish a religious community may also have worked against him. This guy may simply be a hard person to work with or for.
In the spirit of sharing a wide range of reactions: a couple of evenings ago, a parishioner sent me a link to this story at LifeSite News. To be frank, I wouldn't have clicked on it, if we hadn't been discussing Pavone here. Here it is - your mileage may vary (wildly!):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/say-no-to-pope-francis-removing-pro-life-hero-fr-frank-pavone-from-priesthood/
[Begin quoted portion]
Say NO to Pope Francis removing pro-life hero Fr. Frank Pavone from priesthood
We've had enough of attacks on good priests while bad priests are promoted to the heights of the hierarchy. Have you?
LifeSiteNews.com
153
Sat Dec 17, 2022 - 11:10 pm EST
(LifeSiteNews) — LifeSiteNews was shocked to learn that Father Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests for Life, has been dismissed from the priesthood.
To add to our feelings of outrage, Pavone himself had no idea that this had happened until a reporter called him for comment.
In response, LifeSiteNews has launched a petition in which you may say “NO” to Pope Francis on this unprecedented attack on the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church in the USA.
Given all the rhetoric we have heard during the first year of the so-called Synod on Synodality, it is clear that the “listening Church” is making a mockery of justice.
Here’s what we know so far: Catholic News Agency reports that a December 13 letter to all bishops in America, sent from the Pope’s representative in America – the Papal Nuncio Archbishop Christophe Pierre – says that Pavone was laicized for “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop.”
Faithful Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, has a response to that:
“The blasphemy is that this holy priest is canceled while an evil president promotes the denial of truth & the murder of the unborn at every turn, Vatican officials promote immorality & denial of the deposit of faith & priests promote gender confusion devastating lives…evil,” he said on Twitter.
In a separate statement, the papal nuncio wrote that the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Clergy – the head of the Vatican’s department dealing with priests – said that there was “no possibility of appeal” of the decision.
This, during a week in which Pope Francis is receiving criticism for his lenient behavior towards Slovenian priest-artist – and alleged sexual abuser – Father Marko Ivan Rupnik. This, in the midst of never-ending scandals – financial, moral, and theological – involving Vatican-based prelates like suspected embezzler Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu and the egregious president of the once great Pontifical Academy for Life, Cardinal Vincenzo Paglia. This, while clerical heretics attempt to destroy the Catholic faith in Germany from within.
This, this is beyond belief.
We’re not going to stand for this spiritual rape of Fr. Pavone, and we ask you to read his story and join us in our protest by signing our new petition.
We’ve had enough of attacks on good priests while bad priests are promoted to the heights of the hierarchy. Have you?
[End quote]
Um, I don't consider LifeSite News a reliable or objective news source. It's in the same category as Epoch Times or whatever the QAnon fans put out. Funny Strickland is griping to high heaven. But he's not volunteering to bring Pavone on board in his diocese. Maybe because he doesn't want to dea with a loose cannon who doesn't seem to feel an obligation to obedience.
DeleteFrom what I understand, Lifesite News is categorized as extreme right- wing, and extreme anti- Francis. It’s sort of a Catholic Breitbart/Infowars. It appears that they are also active leaders in the schismatic movement to topple Francis. I’m guessing that not all the facts have been revealed. The church never grasps the lesson it should have learned by now - that transparency causes fewer problems in the long run than does its habit of secrecy.
ReplyDeleteAnne, I think you are right that not all the facts have been revealed. For the most part, Francis has been pretty tolerant of dissent within the ranks. Take Strickland himself. I haven't heard that he is under any censure. Also a whole bunch of German cardinals and bishops on both sides of the ideological divide. And Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Vigano, as far as I know, are still priests in good standing. The fact that Pavone is reduced to the lay state without any possibility of appeal, says that something happened that we're not hearing about. I understand that there is a degree of confidentiality to be respected, but I think it would be better to say out loud what occurred and shut down the rumors and speculation.
DeleteRe: LifeSite News: I don't defend it. (Nor do I read it.) But the fact that a parishioner forwarded the link to me suggests that there are people who read it. It has a certain amount of influence in certain quarters of the church. I would guess that none of us lives in a LifeSite News bubble (by bubble I mean an ecosystem of a media organ and its readers). But that bubble exist, and some of our fellow Christians live in it - just as our fellow Americans live in the Fox News bubble, the One America News Network bubble, the Federalist bubble, et al.
ReplyDeleteThat LifeSite News story more or less confirms something I've been aware of for some time: that among a lot of pro-life people, Francis isn't perceived to be "all in" on being against abortion. This forced laicization of Pavone can only feed that perception.
ReplyDeleteI perceive that Francis is 100% against abortion. But he is a "seamless garment" person. He recognizes the "intersectionality" of all the life issues contributing or detracting from one another. (Okay, I realize I swiped the term intersectionality and am using it wrong. But it is descriptive of a bunch of things colliding together to make a bad situation worse.) The problem with some of the pro-life people is that they are one-issue and don't seem to recognize that all the life issues are interconnected.
DeleteIt is said that politics makes bad bedfellows and some of the pro-life movement are in with some sketchy things in the name of being "all in" against abortion.
The fact that there are a lot of clergy who are in that far right pro-life bubble, and aren't censured or laicized, and go on their merry way in good standing, tells me there is something different about the Pavone situation.
DeleteFor starters, most right- wing clergy do not disobey their bishops, they keep out of the media, they do all the regular things that priests do. They are not like Pavone.
DeleteBishops and priests generally like priests who quietly do their jobs and don't get a lot of publicity. Those who do get a lot of publicity whether liberals or conservatives can expect to be in trouble. They generally need a very tolerant bishop who will not respond to those who want him to rein the straying shepherd back into the fold.