On Nov. 9, Cardinal Lazzaro You Heung Sik, prefect for the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Clergy, dismissed Father Frank Pavone from the priesthood for “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop.”
The decree, shared with U.S. bishops in a letter dated Dec. 13 written by the apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, precludes any possibility of appeal.
Pavone, 63, is the longtime national director of the pro-life organization Priests for Life who is well-known for his pro-life activism, politically charged social media posts, and public support of former president Donald Trump.
Pavone’s sudden laicization has shocked many Catholics and pro-life advocates. It also raises a host of still-unanswered questions about his case. Among them: What are the specific canonical crimes with which Pavone was charged? And when, and how, was he notified he is no longer a priest? Pavone, for his part, claims that he had no prior notification about the Vatican’s action until contacted by Catholic News Agency (CNA) on Dec. 17. Is this plausible?
To better understand the Church laws and judicial processes involved in cases such as this, CNA sought the expertise of 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.
What is the typical process for these types of accusations?
Ordinarily, it is the responsibility of the bishop of the diocese in which the accused priest is incardinated to investigate accusations of “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,” which are the two reasons given for Father Pavone’s dismissal from the clerical state in a communication sent to the bishops of the United States by Archbishop Pierre.
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.
When is the defendant normally informed?
Ordinarily, the priest who has received such a penalty is informed in a timely fashion. It would be interesting to know if and when Father Pavone received a copy of the decree in which the Supreme Decision was handed down and to see if the decree further specified the grounds upon which a decision was reached that he was guilty of blasphemy and disobedience. Father Pavone has been quoted as saying that he only learned of this decision, which Archbishop Pierre wrote was dated Nov. 9, 2022, when CNA contacted him on Dec. 17, 2022.
What happens if the laicized priest persists in celebrating the sacraments, especially Mass?
A laicized priest is forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, with the exception of hearing confessions and absolving a sinner in danger of death (canon 976). Any other sacramental celebration is unlawful and thus an act of disobedience.
How unusual is Pavone’s case?
I am aware of the case of a priest in France who was dismissed from the clerical state in the recent past in part because of disobedience to his bishop.
What could constitute “blasphemy on social media”? Has this type of charge ever been noted before?
The Modern Catholic Dictionary by Father John Hardon, SJ, defines blasphemy as: “Speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner. Serious contemptuous ridicule of the saints, sacred objects, or of persons consecrated to God is also blasphemous because God is indirectly attacked.” It would have been helpful if the incidents in which such blasphemy was committed were identified, along with the evidence that Father Pavone refused to retract such blasphemies when informed that he was being prosecuted for this canonical crime. I have not heard of another recent case of dismissal from the clerical state because of blasphemy.
As noted above, blasphemy and disobedience are not punishable in the Code of Canon Law by dismissal from the clerical state. Thus priests who are found guilty of committing such acts presumably do not expect to receive such a punishment. When they are first accused of such canonical offenses, there will likely be a dispute as to whether their acts in fact constitute blasphemy or disobedience. Since the Holy See has chosen to impose this punishment that goes beyond what is foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, it would have been incumbent upon the diocesan bishop and the Holy See to warn Father Pavone that, if found guilty, he would face such a punishment that went beyond the provisions of the Code.
The above comes from a Dec. 18 posting on Catholic News Agency.
Fr Stu wouldn’t have had a chance
Fr. Pavone should continue living as a priest and celebrating Mass just as before — unless he has no prudent doubt that the dismissal is valid (of which there’s plenty). Doubtful things don’t bind.
You trads think the rules don’t apply to you. You always try to come up with a loophole to justify disobeying orders to stop celebrating the TLM or, in this case, for a priest to disregard his dismissal. The rules apply.
seems like our current papacy’s encyclical writing team has found lost of loopholes for “discernment” to squeeze through….
“You trads”? The idea that doubtful laws don’t bind isn’t a “trads” thing; it’s a Catholic thing going back centuries now.
There’s nothing doubtful about Pavone’s dismissal nor a bishop’s decision to close TLMs in his diocese. Trads are the new cafeteria catholics.
Hmm. “Trads = new cafeteria Catholics.” Bingo!
I do not know what you mean by doubtful laws but you are bound to obey everything that is not a sin.
If you are a layperson and your bishop tells you to pray the Rosary, you are not bound to that because he cannot bind you to something that the Church does not bind you to.
You should not obey sin, so if he tells you to steal you should disobey.
It can be confusing to lay people.
I do not know if a priest can be bound to pray the Rosary. They are already bound to pray the Office.
For better or worse, it’s not his call.
Then what is a conscience for?
Mere animals like dogs are to obey without discretion, but Catholics are human beings and they have both a right and a duty to use their conscience in all matters of obedience and law. Blindly obeying commands is immoral — very immoral — and sick. It’s never been what Catholics are called to do.
You must be a supporter of Fr. James Martin, then. It’s like you took your words right out of his mouth.
Supporter of Fr. Martin? Just because my point can abused doesn’t mean it’s incorrect — abusus non tollit usum.
Mel, you are required to obey anything that is not sin.
If you have taken a vow of obedience to a bishop, like diocesan priests do, you are bound to obey.
If he tells you to sin, you should not obey.
Well, it seems many conservatives don’t want to obey elections they don’t win or defrockings they don’t like. They make up frauds that don’t exist to justify their disobedience. If it is true that Pavone can’t even tell us who his bishop is, or give us a P&L of his organization, it is entirely possible he won’t care whether he has faculties to celebrate the sacraments or whether he was defrocked. As others have pointed out, impersonating a priest is an excommunicable offense, regardless of what Pavone’s conscience may tell him. Biden won the election and is objective the President of the US, whatever the voices in Trump’s head tell him.
Democrats don’t want to obey laws they disagree with nor the Constitution when it limits their power grabs.
What does Trump have to do with this? He lives in your head rent free, man.
The Pillar explains it all clearly. Pavone didn’t want to accept a parish assignment in his Diocese (Amarillo), and he refused his bishop’s requests for financial transparency in managing Priests for Life.
Pavone was just another man who wanted the perks of being a priest without the responsibility. Like Fr. Z. Just want to blog and go to Rome and hobnob with the people they admire. They don’t want to work in a parish, which is where priests should be. With the people. Good riddance.
good riddance– You need to carefully re-read what Fr. Gerald Murray said in the above article. You obviously didn’t read or understand a word of it.
According to Pavone himself in his interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, his refusal to obey his ordinary and work as a parish priest began 21 years ago, in NYC with Cardinal Egan.
the priests i have know didn’t have any perks. 3 or 4 parishes to drive to over large territories, no one to cook or shop for them, even clean house or do laundry. closest larger city with a walmart 50 miles. no local car repair shops. minimal salary Salaries vary per region, pretty much), parish members who no longer have the abiding faith of the founding generation…no weekends off to mix with the rhythm of the surrounding culture. car paid out of their salary,,,healthcare benefits are, however, provided.. and in most dioceses, no retirement homes…. The ‘perks are really keeping applicants standing in line at the chancery doors, aren’t they?
There’s a whole lot wrong with the Church hierarchy. They left the faith. For those who should know it best of all, seem to be lacking in the true teachings of Christ. The laity sees all and when you open your mouths, we can immediately realize the true Catholic leaders. God have Mercy on the souls of you false prophets. You lead the flock into the den of satan. You will be held accountable one day. Suggesting you re-read a Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically one published 2012 or before. Fr Pavone is a holy priest of the True God. Nothing you say or do will take that away.
The online Catholic publication, “The Pillar,” co-founded by former Catholic News Agency editor, J.D.Flynn and Ed Condon, is getting sued by Abp. Paglia. The Pillar had a detailed news story about Abp. Paglia’s misuse of nearly half a million euros of charity funds, to renovate his Vatican apartment. Paglia stated that he replaced the funds he took– with new charity donations! Any integrity, here?! Paglia got an American lawyer to represent him. A nutty case.
Are we witnessing the church dying?
No
No, just a separation of the wheat from the chaff. Remember when Peter and Paul went at it? Remember Paul called Peter “that man” before Peter changed his mind after the vision from the Lord. Later both were declared saints.
Centuries later came the French Revolution when antichrists literally put a whore on the altar of Notre Dame in France and called her “the goddess of reason”. then changed the calendar and took out all references to Christianity.
This has been going on since Genesis and Christ’s Incarnation — good vs evil the Children of Light vs the Children of Darkness.
I think you have the Bible wrong there.
But I like your point that they are both saints.
And that things like this have been happening throughout history.
Paglia should be the next one to go. And I could name at least twenty others.
Clearly not a Catholic. You are just spouting “anti everything” statements with no respect for Holy Mother Church. Mr. Pavone should quietly disappear.