More Information On Father Pavone

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

Father Frank Pavone Laicized???

This from the Catholic News Agency - Father Frank Pavone, pro-life activist and director of Priests for Life has been dismissed from the clerical state for "blasphemous communications on social media" and "disobedience to his bishop".  Mind you, Father Pavone has yet to receive formal notice of this action himself.  I too find it odd that CNA would learn of it before Father did.

Assuming that this is true, let's look at some context.  Francis celebrates Father James Martin, bestowing upon the perversion-advocating cleric high Vatican posts as well as private audiences, the latter never having been granted to the dubia cardinals nor to Cardinal Zen.  We see Knestout the Richmond bishop running interference for a priest that just happens to be a convicted sex offender.  Bishop Stowe of Louisville Kentucky ran roughshod over high school boys who were faithful Catholics and Trump supporters, and apologizing to gays for them being called out on their perversions.  This list could go on and on.

But Francis et al single out Father Pavone for maltreatment?  This isn't only about Father Pavone.  The Vatican goons are firing the proverbial "shot across the bow" to other Catholic clergy who might have the decency to comport themselves as actual Catholics instead of toadying to the New World Order and the Great Reset.

If course I'm hoping this announcement isn't true, but I suspect it is. 

USCCB Throwing Smoke Screens and Red Herrings

The post below makes plain the real issues with which we're trying to deal in regards to the USCCB and its ties with organziations that are part and parcel of the culture of death.  The John Carr matter is but one sign of the corruption of the USCCB; he attracts our interest, however, because of his high position within the ranks of the USCCB.

Some good people, however, are being hoodwinked into believing that this is "all about John Carr".  One of them appears to be Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life.  Such confusion is displayed by this blog entry of his.  Please read it and leave your own respectful comments; you'll see that others already have.

Tom Peters of American Papist, now CatholicVoteAction.org also seems to have swallowed the koolaid about John Carr being personally attacked.  He states also that (and I quote), "the situation has not been helped, either, by the sensationalist reporting at RealCatholicTV.com, which in a recent report claimed that the allegations of misconduct at the CCHD was what Pope Paul VI was referring to when he warned that the “smoke of Satan has found its way into the Church” … seriously?"  Yes, Tom, seriously.  We are looking at the truth of the matter.  If the subject matter being examined is by nature so scandalous as to render its reporting "sensationalist", well then, so be it.  We take the truth as it is, not as we'd like it to be.  Tom states that "I don't follow RCTV directly but American Catholic does"  But Tom, you're the one commenting about it.  Doesn't it behoove you to look at these videos?  I'm posting the whole series as clips are published.  Please examine them here, or go to RealCatholicTV's youtube page to see their whole collection.  All, I suggest that in this case, also, to please leave comments for Tom at the end of his posting.