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.
Go here to read the rest. Well that makes sense. For Pope Francis, taking out Father Pavone from the priesthood would be a threefer:
1. Pope Francis hates Americans.
2. Pope Francis hates conservatives.
3. Pope Francis has ever been protective of pro-abort politicians like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.
Further evidence of the involvement of Pope Francis: The Apostolic Nuncio giving the news to the US Bishops, which was a highly unusual move in this type of situation. The little acts of petty cruelty, ever the Francis touch: No formal notice to Father Pavone, the reference to him as Mr. Pavone, the no appeal provision.
Whatever, one thinks of Father Pavone, and I think in his relationship with his ecclesiastical superiors for a very long time he has been a trainwreck, Pope Francis is using this during Advent to vent his spleen at those he hates.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has a lot of hate within himself. But so would any heretical Marxist Peronist Caudillo.
PS, yes, I agree that Fr. Pavone has been a train wreck. His goal of saving the lives of the pre-born is laudable. His methods and means less so. Truthfully, I never really looked up to him as a leader to be followed. But then again, Francis the heretic is certainly not a shepherd to be followed. I can understand and excuse Fr. Pavone for his failings. Francis however is utterly contemptible.
I was bothered by all of it, the dismissal-undisclosed accusations..but the timing of this rotten tomato toss seemed counter productive. Prepare for anti-peace celebration via Rome. Really? To slam one of most cherished pro-life advocates in the fourth week of Advent? Who does that?
Oh. Yeah…I remember know.
The grand pooh-bah impersonating a bouncer. Can’t get that past work experience out of the heart.
What a shame.
Merry Vengeance.
Francis the Mercyful? Dialog? Who am I to judge? What a wolf and enemy to Christ!
Would that the Church acted so aggressively against pedofiles.
Stand up for what the Church teaches? Banished or destroyed.
Rape a child? “We need to honor process. Priests have rights.”
Would that the Church acted so aggressively against pedofiles.
Pedophiles. Pederasty was much more common than pedophilia, though you had quite a bit of both. The problem with ‘acting against pedophiles’ is that your information set was quite limited. You have one man making a complaint 15 years after the fact and there is nothing but his say so, that’s certainly a dilemma for an honest bishop. You had boneheads like Lee Podles and Rod Dreher pretending for effect that this wasn’t a problem. I’ve been personally acquainted with two men, both conscientious priests, who had accusations lobbed against them. One was actually put on trial in Montgomery County, NY in front of a judge who had been hell on sex offenders in the past. The charges completely fell apart – one count was withdrawn by the prosecutor, he received an acquittal on two counts, he was convicted of a (4th) misdemeanor count which was then vacated by the judge. SNAP still pretends he was guilty. Another received a letter in the mail from the Diocese of Syracuse in 2015 or thereabouts informing him his faculties had been removed due to two ‘credible’ accusations against him. He was 85 years old and had been retired for 14 years. The midpoint of his years as a working priest was around about 1977. Then the diocese published his name three years later. His response when the Utica papers called on him was, yes, I got this letter a few years back; people who know me won’t take it seriously; I can’t do anything about it. “Acting aggressively” means octogenarians get hung out to dry by reporters, lawyers, and bureaucratic microbes who really have no idea if the object of their wrath is guilty or not.
“ You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch
You really are a heel
You’re as cuddly as a cactus, you’re as charming as an eel, Mr. Grinch…”
It’s almost Christmas.
Not letting what’s-his-name ruin the mood.
I’m certain the (approved) action from Rome will bring in hordes of new faithful to God’s Holy Church…won’t it? Meanwhile some 60 plus million slaughtered babies cry out for the vacuum left by Rome without apparent concern for a serious replacement for Fr. Pavone. A cynic might thusly conclude it was his tremendous activity for life that they were after. Who knows?
I think it is pretty clear there are those within the Curia who wait for a complaint against a conservative, an American, or better, both, and quickly run it to the Chair knowing they’ll get Pope Leer to take decisive action. Fr. Pavone, not beyond criticism, provided the machine an easy target. Others more deserving of such treatment will be ignored because they ascribe to the appropriate hue of purple in those circles.
Pro-aborts at the Pontifical Academy for Life, and the founder of Priests for Life laicized. Somewhere, “one of Italy’s forgotten greats” Emma Bonino is smiling. Francis the merciful strikes again.
Merry [expletive-deleted] Christmas, Mr. Pavone.
Very truly yours,
Papa Foxtrot
Amen to all the above. Pavone did make himself an easy target, but a Pope with true charity in his heart would never have treated any priest this way. Donald, if I may, I suggest your characterization of this papacy as a kidney stone, while apt, needs to be revised. A kidney stone can be passed, albeit with much pain, but the patient generally recovers fairly quickly. We are past that point with Francis, whose regime is now a cancer on the Bride of Christ, full recovery from which which will take a long time, absent Divine intervention of major proportion. I pray daily for its removal, and for the salvation of the Pope’s soul, which must be seriously in jeopardy, for this and all the other reasons that have been discussed here and elsewhere. Hard to believe that we’ve gone from “Santo Subito” to this in seventeen and a half years, a blip on the timeline of the Church. 😢
Yup, the whole thing reeks of a petty Pope’s vindictiveness. No doubt Cupich and the rest of the Pope’s U.S. cheerleading squad are overjoyed.
I wonder if the timing has anything to do with the upcoming March for Life?
The timing of the public announcement has everything to do with distracting the Catholic world, especially the American Catholics, is the appointment of Bishop Heiner Wilmer as the as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/12/16/bishop-heiner-wilmer-this-catholic-moment-and-the-catholic-future/
And Rupnik was saved from excommunication by the same guy.
I agree that Pavone’s been a problem for a while–the handling of cash and his shrug at the quick collapse of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life are but two of the problems warranting harsh discipline.
But you can’t gig Pavone for blasphemy and let Rupnik off for blasphemous conduct and sacrilegious use of confession for the women he used as sex toys.
Then again, you can’t have a real justice system when one guy runs the whole show and can alter the rules as he goes.
Not happening. It will be Scicluna, whose conception of Catholic ecclesiology is that of What Peter Is. The perfect company man for issuing proper interoffice memos.
That’s frightening JFK … Once again, what PF says does not jive with what he does … and the paganization of the Church continues unabated.
Don, I don’t mean to nit pick pulitizer-prize stuff, but you left the word “cloven” out of the title. Guy, Texas
🙂
Francis hates priests, especially faithful ones. He always uses Christmas time to vent at them – it’s his MO. Considering he also gave an award to unrepentant abortionist Emma Bonino, maybe canning Father Pavone was a Christmas present to himself.
“Pope Francis is using this during Advent to vent his spleen at those he hates.“
We have to admit we often make it easy for him to do just that,
What do we do? Just pray! There must be a purpose in all this, it’s just that we don’t know what God’s plan is. And, of course, there is God letting free will operate. We go to Hell by our own choice. So the evil in the world is not of God’s design, but by the workings of Original Sin. Someone who knows more theology than I, please correct me.
Sadly, leftist dissent has gotten off much easier for decades now. It didn’t start under this pontificate. It’s certainly more obvious, to be sure. One of the reasons, among many, why is so is that the left is much smarter and more shrewd in their dissent. I remember trads doing the “Levebvre get excommed while Mahony runs amok” whataboutist two-step with John Paul II. While one can certainly sympathize with that, Mahony didn’t illicitly consecrate four bishops against papal orders not to, either. As in the world at large, leftists in the ecclesiastical world are much more litigiously savvy than conservatives are. Plus, there is an unhealthy martyr’s complex among many orthodox Catholics that plays into this as well.
Oh, how the money is gonna come POURING into Pavone’s coffers as a result of this!
By the way, I’m surprised OSheama bin Libel hasn’t issued a gleeful fatwa on this yet. It’s got to be forthcoming.
“Not happening. It will be Scicluna, whose conception of Catholic ecclesiology is that of What Peter Is.”
Any reputable source on that, Dale. Abp. Scicluna would make sense given both what you already pointed out and that he was in Ratzinger’s CDF. He was Ratzinger’s point man on the Maciel debacle. The Where Is Peter crowd can say Francis is being in continuity with the past, blah, blah, freakin blah.
Another good take by Phil Lawler: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/in-pavone-case-vaticans-silence-is-damaging/
Unbelievable Clericalism.. It seems the more this won’t fly the more the bishops think it might? Weird.
Nothing to see here… move along… really?
Not one thin dime.