From Father Pavone's website, we have a history of his interactions with Church hierarchy, from his first involvement with Priests for Life until present. He intends to fight this, as well he should.
The Code of Canon Law, sections 1717 - 1731, seem to indicate that the accused (in this case, Father Pavone) has a right to appeal and to present his case. Specifically that is stated in section 1723. There is one exception to that requirement: if the action is done by the pope. That is the input from Father Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer who is associated with Robert Royal and Raymond Arroyo in the Papal Posse. Moreover, a copy of the letter from the Papal Nuncio is now online. The Papal Nuncio acts on behalf of the pope. Hitherto, I had thought that maybe Francis wasn't involved with Father's removal, that it might have been too "small potatoes" for him. I stand corrected, as it seems that Francis has bared his teeth here.
Now Canon 193 sec 4 states that removal from the office (priesthood) must be communicated in writing. Father Pavone heard about his laicization in the same manner that most of us did - through the Catholic News Agency announcement yesterday. The Nuncio's letter was only made public today. I still am uncertain as to whether or not Pavone received formal notice of this action. Irregularities abound.
So do double standards. One of the trumped up charges stems from Father displaying an aborted baby on a table that he sometimes used for Mass. Zurek called that table "an altar" when in fact it was never consecrated as such. However, if Bishop Zurek wants to get outraged over altar desecrations, the current occupant of the chair of Peter has provided at least two occasions for such indignation. When Francis returned home from World Youth Day in 2013, he placed on an altar of St Mary Major Basilica, next to the Tabernacle, a beach ball and sports jersey. In 2019, at a closing Mass in St Peter's after one of the countless synods, Francis placed on the altar a pachamama idol-plant. Yes, the reputed pope placed an idol on a consecrated altar during Mass. Bishop Zurek's anger would be more appropriately directed at that actual outrage.
Taylor Marshall below offers some insight into this whole vindictive attack on Father Pavone.
Marshall ended by exhorting us to prayer, fasting, personal holiness. I take issue for that is not all we must do. Yes we are laity, but some of us also have a few dollars - that should NOT go to the diocesan appeals and especially NOT to the Peter's Pence collections. Now when (not if, when) we boycott these collections, it is not sufficient to refrain from contributions. We must also drop into the collection baskets notes explaining precisely why we are boycotting - and sign your names. The time for demure silence is long past. They might cancel clerics, but we laity have rights that they don't. Let's use them.
By the way - it appears that Father Pavone has at least one friend among the bishops. Bishop Strickland decried the nuncio's letter in a tweet.
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 https://t.co/ASzjW7IuAv
— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) December 18, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.