Here is a general explainer of the process and what’s involved:
One of the editors at The Pillar is a canon lawyer, iirc.
Yep:
Ed Condon
…
Ed is also a practicing canon lawyer, having worked in dioceses across three continents and the Holy See. Previously he spent nearly ten years working in professional politics in the United Kingdom.
SHOCKING!!!
And never defrocked.
Actually, none of that is shocking at all.
Ok. Through 7 episodes already. Glad I’m reading, not watching or listening.
Thanks for posting. That was a long but informative read. I found this part interesting (bold mine, italics original):
I thought this was interesting:
Canon 1366 of the Code of Canon Law constitutes it a crime to attempt to appeal a decision of the pope to either an ecumenical council or to the College of Bishops, the body of bishops in communion with the pope.
In US law, there are lots of situations where the relevant body will refuse to hear an appeal. But i don’t think it’s ever criminal to try.
Well he doesn’t seem to be abiding by it, at any rate… using the title “Father” and live-streaming masses. I’m not sure what, if anything, the Vatican can do about that beyond publicizing his status as a former priest.
The article suggests he could be excommunicated if he persists.
But really, what can they do? The Vatican doesn’t have any police operating in the US, and it’s not as if it’s a violation of US law to live stream a religious service, or use “father” as a title.
It may be fraudulent to advertise as an ordained roman catholic priest in good standing when you are not.
I doubt he’s gone quite that far…
But i suppose it could come to that.
A website says that, but at this point they plausibly haven’t had a chance to update it.
If it still says that at the end of January then I would agree that it could be considered fraudulent.
And you’re right about the excommunication part. I wonder if it will come to that.
Yeah, thinking about this some more… he claims he didn’t even know about the laicization until the Catholic News Agency reached out to him for comment. If true, that means he had no opportunity to explain himself (such as table vs consecrated altar) or apologize and promise to stop or whatever… which seems a little (but not super) strange. It also said he was disobeying his bishop on multiple occasions, so my guess is that was where he had opportunities to say “ok, sorry, it won’t happen again” but he persisted. But that’s just a guess.
If you are referring to chargeable criminal fraud, I think he has to get money or something else of value from his fraud. He might be saying that donating to him is just like donating to the local Catholic parish.
But, if it’s plain to the donors that he is running his own splinter group and he isn’t forwarding any money to the regular Catholic hierarchy, then I think he is within the law.
OK, I finished the “readcast.”
Very good history lesson.
Thank you and vjvj for the link!
Eh, if he’s telling them that the organization they’re donating to is run by a bona fide Catholic priest in good standing with the church when that is not remotely true then I don’t think that’s legal. That’s the sort of thing that could very easily influence a person’s decision to donate to the charity.
That’s kind of what I intended to say in my post. I guess the question is “what does ‘good standing’ entail from the donors’ perspective?”
The concepts are more about ecclesial or canon law, not political or sovereign laws of a nation. Based on what I understand (IANACanonL) now that he has been laicized the diocese in which he lives would be the church authorities responsible for looking into excommunication. Normally, any Catholic who decides, hey, I don’t believe X, Y or Z, which the Church teaches are integral to the Faith, isn’t subject to a formal excommunication process. However, given Pavone’s high profile, and if he continues to act as he weren’t laicized, the local bishop would probably start the process to 1) give Pavone a chance to repent for his own good, and 2) warn the faithful that Pavone is acting in ways that could be harmful to them.
That seems unlikely. But even if it’s true, he seems to have been defrocked mostly for refusing to obey the lawful instructions of the bishop who held authority over him. In particular, he seems to have been instructed to return to Texas and serve as a priest in a local (to Texas) parish, and he ignored that, and remained in Florida running his anti-abortion group. It seems unlikely that he didn’t have any opportunities to explain that, and the church claims he had several opportunities to correct that lapse.
Shoulda kept his nose clean.
Not sure who all can read it, but this is a really good article about religion in America.
Could even say it’s…riveting.