P
pnewton
Guest
Where is this “situation” stated in canon law?
- Status
V
Victoria33
Guest
Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.
§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PY.HTM
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
He deserved better than to be murdered, true. I would think if the baby was looking down, they would happy that their death might be a tool for saving other lives. I am not sure I am a fan of Fr. Pavone’s display, but not sure I am totally opposed either.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Your being opposed doesn’t offend me. Others not being opposed doesn’t offend me. People supporting the right to abortions does offend me however.
I see more offense taken at those defending Fr. Pavone than those who oppose him, but perhaps that’s just me.
I see more offense taken at those defending Fr. Pavone than those who oppose him, but perhaps that’s just me.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Thanks for that (name removed by moderator)ut Newton … I had no idea of my newfound power of having a(n unbidden) helper racing to looking up my Canon Law queries for me! I shall try not to abuse said power, tempted though I may be in my spiritual infirmity.
Since Fr. Pavone himself has decided to adjust his relationship with the Trump campaign, the point may be somewhat moot. Though I don’t know if he admitted any wrongdoing … and will parse the (self-qualified) Canon Law guidance above to test the spirit and binding aspects of it per Pavone’s “case”.
The quoted text above is ONE sentence … yet covers several points and has the qualifiers “unless” and “ACTIVE part” and “GOVERNING” before closing out with “the promotion of the common good requires it”.
Careful not to strain out a gnat < (the POSSIBILITY that a self-qualified Canon Law might have been adhered too little to) and swallow a camel (keep silent completely and give NO aid to groups actively opposing the greatest injustice the nation is guilty of … because THEY are organized and political) I submit my doubts as to how clear and certain it is that Fr. Pavone EVEN certainly violated the Canon Law paragraph above.
At what point does one become an “active part” in a political party?
Jesus did say to go teach the nations … without excluding giving the good news to the leaders of those nations… Would giving an invocation of prayer at a political meeting be way too much … or barely any counsel at all?
Pavone being a candidate IMO would be a clearer conflict of interest - than giving counsel to a candidate regarding what the Church teaches. I do remember St. John Paul II publicly scolding a priest who’d become part of the ruling Sandinistas of Nicaragua and a proponent of so called “liberation theology” which more directly contradicted Church teachings than OVERLY defending the lives of the unborn against those who justified TAKING those lives.
Priests For Life in its inception had the “judgement of competent ecclesiastical authority” to do a mission. Dropping that mission instead of reasoning that the Canon was not suggesting a priest could not give any requested aid to a party that was doing God’s will in opposing an evil the Church was already (supposed to be) opposing?
Per: ” … the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it”. Giving SOME support to a party that is protecting the rights of the Church (against the dubious additional assaults on the rights of the Church by … the other party) would seem to be not only OK but good citizenship. Adding one’s NAME and title (Father) publicly to say, a party platform that supported Church teaching(s) … especially “thou shalt not kill” is almost the least one with Fr. Pavone’s mission could do IMO.
Last edited:
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
He isn’t a priest in good standing anymore. I think it’s safe to say he was disciplined.F_Marturana:
The Church did not discipline him in any way from what I understand.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
He’s still campaigning,
He’s not supposed to endorse a political party.
He’s not supposed to endorse a political party.
V
Victoria33
Guest
That’s actually a rather egregious thing to say if one is wrong. You also submit no proof.
He has some show on ETWN, Priests for life remains and it even has a letter stating he is in “good standing”. That is shown in the Deibel letter above.
This article in the other forum already went into this debate.
The laws are fairly nuanced. I don’t know if they say that at all.
Canon laws, many laws can be fairly nuanced. I’d be careful in interpreting them oneself.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Worked … WITH Trump (where he is right) better?
Fr. Pavone works for someone very much higher than the President.
He may not have joined a campaign that was not
… already working practically in unison with his group’s overall pro-life mission,
… and which in addition defends the Church against the continuing attack(s) … like the Sisters of Charity being forced to violate their consciences and become abortifacient drug enablers by an unjust law or “heath care mandate”.
The fact that this President has strengthened the hand of Priests for Life and others of good will by publicly appearing at the March for Life … while other high leaders (even so-called Catholics) in the U.S. publicly excuse-to-recommend abortion … should be enough to merit some support.
Personally, before witnessing the good fruits that this President’s term of office bore in the pro-life field … I might have agreed with your “disgraceful” assessment. I thought he was “pro-choice” on abortion since he initially didn’t say much on the subject.
But (to perhaps push an analogy to its limit)
… after seeing Trump do things I’d long wanted leaders to do per defending life … I felt a bit like a first century Christian who couldn’t get his head around the fact that Saul of Tarsus … was now a good guy, God’s servant, DOING things I’d wanted done … and NOW deserving of my support. < Or at least, post-change, not worthy of my continued opposition to him, based on his past sins … and negating his change of heart and praiseworthy leadership.Sometimes GOOD people change in the opposite direction too, I know. The biblical example being King Solomon. SO GOOD … but crashed and burned by the 9th inning of his Kingship. So … it’s OK to keep discerning things.
The last I knew, Trump had adopted the less-than-total pro-life position of allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest. That seemed more of a utilitarian political twist to get elected than a just position to me. Unborn babies are incapable of either rape or incest. And even those who commit those crimes are not given the (1) death penalty WITHOUT (2) a trial, (3) representation, (4) appeals, etc. Yet voting for Trump in 2020 may be my best pro-life alternative by a long shot, IMO. If you live in a state like mine … so certain to go against Trump … you might even support the right thing to do with your vote – because what’s the harm? Your state may sanction the mortal sin of abortion … but you protested … and your (reluctant) protest vote didn’t even tip an electoral college vote to the guy you were reluctant to support.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
I believe Indiana even has or had a bill requiring all fetuses/babies be buried with dignity. All of that is another story, not the one in the OP… however, just saying a baby needs to be buried with dignity is nothing new. We know that, it’s done. It may be law in some states.
B
billsherman
Guest
With apologizes to my colleague Prof. John Barry: “When you mix religion and politics, you get politics.”
The Church mixing too heavily with the Republican Party in the US has worked to weaken the pro-life movement so badly that many Catholics consider a president who supports abortion, the death penalty, militarizing police, deploying the military against Americans, and denying refuge to asylum seekers to be pro-life. Some, on this very website, consider him to be “the most pro-life president ever.”
Be Catholic, not Republican. Only one of those things tries to put God’s commands into action.
The Church mixing too heavily with the Republican Party in the US has worked to weaken the pro-life movement so badly that many Catholics consider a president who supports abortion, the death penalty, militarizing police, deploying the military against Americans, and denying refuge to asylum seekers to be pro-life. Some, on this very website, consider him to be “the most pro-life president ever.”
Be Catholic, not Republican. Only one of those things tries to put God’s commands into action.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Thanks Victoria.
As I remember it … Fr. Pavone got custody of the murdered infant’s body with the understanding that it would receive a proper burial. The stories about the body’s exposition at a mass didn’t mention where it is buried now … but I think some don’t think it still hasn’t been buried and that Fr. Pavone is repeating that … child on the altar decision of displaying the deceased at a mass < often done at requiem masses > over and over again still today.
Maybe the Priests for Life site can update that burial info … I haven’t looked (yet) nor seen it elsewhere.
I’ve heard eulogies given at funeral masses. And mostly, even partial exposition of the deceased’s body is clothed … usually in cooperation with the deceased’s family.
This little murdered one was not given clothes by his/her family. Said “family” may partially have funded the murder. The presiding priest at the service chose to bring the
body to the altar of Christ as part of the service. This is not usually done … but it was a small body.
Bringing it as close to Jesus as possible does not seem like an egregious thing. It offended some, or at least one, who accused Fr. Pavone of using the child’s body as a PROP. < One should be sure of such accusations of wrongdoing IMO. And I don’t think Fr. Pavone actually thought " hey now, I can USE this baby as a sensational PROP to promote my ministry!" < Though I can’t PROVE it.
If showing our little brother or sister in his/her murdered condition turns the hard hearts of some who may otherwise have kept putting power into the hands of an evil industry at the voting booth … it more than justifies risking the
possible icky feelings about
possible Canon Law infractions
objections some have … IMO.
Rest in Peace little one.
In assessing recent wrongs done to that little one: being placed on an altar during mass after being so egregiously victimized … was the least of that child’s problems.
If Father’s judgement per the mass bothers some more than the murder itself …
perhaps Jesus’ “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” caution should be examined for its applicability in assessing one’s priorities.
Some general info I didn’t have before:
As I remember it … Fr. Pavone got custody of the murdered infant’s body with the understanding that it would receive a proper burial. The stories about the body’s exposition at a mass didn’t mention where it is buried now … but I think some don’t think it still hasn’t been buried and that Fr. Pavone is repeating that … child on the altar decision of displaying the deceased at a mass < often done at requiem masses > over and over again still today.
Maybe the Priests for Life site can update that burial info … I haven’t looked (yet) nor seen it elsewhere.
I’ve heard eulogies given at funeral masses. And mostly, even partial exposition of the deceased’s body is clothed … usually in cooperation with the deceased’s family.
This little murdered one was not given clothes by his/her family. Said “family” may partially have funded the murder. The presiding priest at the service chose to bring the
body to the altar of Christ as part of the service. This is not usually done … but it was a small body.
Bringing it as close to Jesus as possible does not seem like an egregious thing. It offended some, or at least one, who accused Fr. Pavone of using the child’s body as a PROP. < One should be sure of such accusations of wrongdoing IMO. And I don’t think Fr. Pavone actually thought " hey now, I can USE this baby as a sensational PROP to promote my ministry!" < Though I can’t PROVE it.
If showing our little brother or sister in his/her murdered condition turns the hard hearts of some who may otherwise have kept putting power into the hands of an evil industry at the voting booth … it more than justifies risking the
possible icky feelings about
possible Canon Law infractions
objections some have … IMO.
Rest in Peace little one.
In assessing recent wrongs done to that little one: being placed on an altar during mass after being so egregiously victimized … was the least of that child’s problems.
If Father’s judgement per the mass bothers some more than the murder itself …
perhaps Jesus’ “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” caution should be examined for its applicability in assessing one’s priorities.
Some general info I didn’t have before:
bold and italics above are MY emphasis … CaptFun
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
Please don’t sermonize to me.
Last week, as covered in World News, an illegal immigrant killed 3 TX police officers.
I am pro-life wherever it may be. Or at least, I try to while also being fully cognizant of Church teaching.
This attitude of bringing immigration out of the blue doesn’t seem proper to me.
Likewise, I don’t know if I mentioned the Republican party one time, so again, this makes for a surprising topic as well to bring up. It makes little sense.
If you live in Louisiana, you have two pro-life parties, look it up. I am not politicizing this, perhaps you are.
Your directing your post at me with your grievances seems quite out-of-the-ordinary.
Last edited:
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
Look it up. People have phoned the Amarillo diocese and been told this directly. Or call the diocese yourself. I’m not sharing articles as it seems in bad taste to do so. But you can easily and quickly verify the info for yourself.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Anecdotal. Anyone can say anything. No, I am not going to be making phone calls over this and my understanding is he left Amarillo years ago. Bad taste to leave articles. Oh, certainly.
P
pnewton
Guest
There is nothing in that canon that allows for any priest to make the judgment for himself that an exception exists. Only the diocesan bishop can make make that exception.
A better question is whether his actions constitute an active part, but really, I can not imagine how his actions , role, and statements could not be an active part.
A better question is whether his actions constitute an active part, but really, I can not imagine how his actions , role, and statements could not be an active part.
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
You’d rather believe that a priest is in good standing when he isn’t than check to make sure? You shared a link from 2016 and you’re not going to find out if there’s been an update in the last 4 years? Okeedokee.
T
Trader
Guest
You are correct. Indiana law requires burial or cremation of aborted fetuses. They may not be disposed of as medical waste. The law passed in 2016 and was signed into law by Governor Mike Pence. That part of the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Our law did not stop Ulrich Klopfer from transporting 2200 fetuses to his Illinois home. For years he came to Indiana on a weekly basis to perform abortions in Gary, South Bend, and Fort Wayne clinics because local doctors and hospitals refused to do them. He lost his license to practice medicine in Indiana for multiple serious health violations. These included unsanitary conditions and failing to timely report abortions for underage girls that made it more difficult to prosecute child rapists.
B
billsherman
Guest
I was addressing the actions of Fr. Pavone. He is clearly, and intentionally, mixing politics and religion. That is the entire point of the thread.
I don’t. Prof. Barry is my colleague in a rather small profession (history professors), we don’t work at the same school.
I want pro-life to mean PRO-LIFE, not kind of sort of anti-abortion, like it usually does. Fr. Pavone’s actions only reinforce the false idea that the Republican Party stands for life. It clearly doesn’t. It doesn’t even oppose all abortion!
V
Victoria33
Guest
The Church and the Holy See have declared the seriousness of the abortion issue many times, they have called it something like the preeminent problem of our time. The Pope speaks on abortion I would say a few times about every year,
The USCCB too also routinely addresses the issue. It’s difficult for me to see how this is not urgent.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/
Index, collection of statements and articles.
Last edited:
- Status