Priests and Politics - The Fine Line

“Whenever the church, in order to defend a principle, didn’t do it pastorally, it has taken political sides, If a pastor leaves the pastorality of the church, he immediately becomes a politician.” (Pope Francis, 2021)

Father Frank Pavone has been removed from the priesthood.

"This action was taken after Father Pavone was found guilty in canonical proceedings of blasphemous communications on social media, and of persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,"  (Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States)

There's a great deal of "noise" surrounding this and controversy aplenty. 

"The blasphemy is that this holy priest is cancelled 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." (Bishop Joseph Strickland) 

Until more is known - if it ever is - this is the position Happy Jack finds himself in agreement with:

In the Vatican’s announcement of Father Frank Pavone’s laicization it was notable that they referred to him as “Mr Pavone”. 

For most of us (and apparently for Father Pavone too) the news of his being ejected from the clerical state came as a surprise. I have not followed Fr Pavone’s mission very closely over the years. While I admired his strong pro-life campaign, I shuddered at his open support for Donald Trump and was suspicious of his being somewhat of a freelance celebrity priest. We saw what happened with Father Corapi who also was allowed a free ranging ministry that too often was focussed on the promotion of Father Corapi and his bank account. This is not to say Father Pavone was another Corapi–only to say that when a priest is cut off from a local pastoral ministry in union with his bishop or religious community we should not be surprised when it ends in tears.

The psychological dynamics of charismatic religious leaders and their followers is an interesting study in dysfunction and human weakness. Typically the most wonderful and charismatic religious leaders have a strong personal identity combined with a streak of egoism. This is what makes them strong, outspoken leaders. This is also what makes them very attractive to a certain personality type who needs a strong, dynamic and outspoken leader. An unhealthy symbiotic relationship develops. The strong religious leader draws people who tend to be dependent. They, in turn, love him too much. They can become attached not only to his message, but to him as a person. They give him their attention. They give him their time. They give him their money, and all this feeds his egoism and makes him even stronger and more outspoken and this makes his followers adore him even more.

Please understand, I don’t know that much about Fr Pavone, and I’m not necessarily saying this is what developed in his ministry. I am simply commenting in general terms about the dynamics I have seen in religious organizations time and time again–and it doesn’t matter whether they are Protestant or Catholic, conservative or liberal. It happens everywhere.

Then when the ecclesiastical authorities attempt to rein in the freelance cleric he often pushes back, and he does so with the full support of his adoring fan club. Before long he becomes a martyr and the evil church authorities are to blame for his downfall.

This being said, it does seem peculiar to me that Fr Pavone–an outspoken pro-life priest–has been disciplined in this way while other liberal priests who flaunt the church’s teachings on morality and are clearly heterodox in their theology are celebrated and promoted. As with the pope’s Moto proprio Traditiones Custodes about the Traditional Latin Mass, it seems to me to be a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.

But making a judgement on it is above my pay grade. I hope the specifics of Fr Pavone’s offenses will eventually be made public. Much is said these days about transparency. We need it in this case if, for no other reason, than to help Fr Frank’s brother priests know where the line is and how far they can speak out before they are thrown under the bus by the powers that be.

I personally take his case as a reminder that my most important work is not the writing, blogging, speaking and my wider public ministry–and it is certainly not any sense of “celebrity” status this might bring me. The public ministry I consider part of my gifts and calling. The “celebrity” status is stupid and a shallow illusion. My most important work is as a parish priest, a husband and a father. What is local is real and what is real is eternal.

For  those interested, here's an overview of Father Pavone's history 

Update One:

In addition to his 2016 outrage, when he obtained an aborted foetus, laid this naked and uncleaned dead child upon an altar and posted a live video of this 'event' on Facebook, here are a sample of Tweets made during the 2020 American election:

In September 2020, the Diocese of Amarillo posted a brief statement on Father Frank Pavone. You can verify this here:

September 16, 2020

Statement: Diocese of Amarillo in regard to Father Frank Pavone. 

Recently Father Frank Pavone has posted a variety of messages and statements in regard to the General Elections in November, 2020. These postings on Social Media as videos concern the serious sinfulness of voting for candidates of a particular political party (with refusal of absolution if confessed) and the use of scandalous words not becoming of a Catholic priest. These postings are not consistent with Catholic Church Teachings. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Diocese of Amarillo condone any of these messages. Please disregard them and pray for Father Pavone.

Update Two:

Catholic Culture - not known for "progressive" views has a series of articles on Fr. Pavone dating back many years, including his suspension from the priesthood in 2011. Just use their search facility. They are worth a read if one wants to understand the full background to this affair. 

Here are some extracts from their most recent commentary:

Yes, there are other priests—many others, really—whose conduct has been far more egregious, whose public statements have been far more injurious to the faith. Yes, it is painful to see a leading figure in the American pro-life movement disciplined, while others who undermine Church moral teaching are showered with Vatican honors. Yes, many thousands of loyal Catholics have lost confidence in their bishops, and the see a blatant double standard in the handling of disciplinary cases.

Nevertheless the laicization of Frank Pavone is not an injustice. In fact it should not be a surprise ...

His bishop had warned him, long ago, about the exactly that possibility. After nearly fifteen years of fighting against episcopal authority—years in which he refused to accept his bishop’s directives—Pavone could not have been surprised by this weekend's news. 

If it is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that Pavone first heard the news from a CNA reporter a few days ago—although the Vatican order for his laicization was issued on November 9—that can only be because he had broken off communications with his bishop ... 

Father Pavone was certainly not the first priest to fall into an adversarial relationship with his diocesan bishop. But other unhappy clerics recognize that on the day of their ordination to the priesthood, when they promised obedience to the ordaining bishop and his successors, they gave away all the high cards in their hand. In a battle with his bishop, the diocesan priest inevitably loses.

And frankly, despite all the problems that are so sadly evident in the Catholic hierarchy today, that is as it should be. A Catholic priest must be subject to some hierarchical control; otherwise he is a loose cannon: a minister who represents the Church but does not accept the Church’s authority.

In defending himself against his bishop, Pavone has consistently taken the line that he has been persecuted for his pro-life advocacy. “They just don’t like the work I’m doing for these babies,” he told CNA. That argument is disingenuous at best. Many other priests have been outspoken in their defense of the unborn, without causing any such conflicts with their superiors. His conflicts with his bishops—first with Cardinal Edward Egan in New York, then with Bishops John Yanta and Patrick Zurek in Amarillo, Texas—have revolved around his role in the secular corporation that he founded: Priests for Life ...

In announcing Pavone’s laicization to the American bishops, Archbishop Pierre said that the priest was disciplined for his “blasphemous communications on social media” as well as his “persistent disobedience.” The charge of disobedience is easy to understand; Pavone had insisted that he could not accept Bishop Zurek’s order to work in the Amarillo diocese. He explained that the late Cardinal John O’Connor, who ordained him, had approved his work with PFL. But it seems highly unlikely that Cardinal O’Connor gave him carte blanche to define his own priestly mission. And in any case, at ordination a priest promised obedience to his bishop and that bishop’s successors. When Cardinal Egan sought to put some restraints on his PFL involvement, Father Pavone arranged to transfer to the Amarillo diocese. But the problems with obedience followed him to Texas.

But what about those “blasphemous communications”? The apostolic nuncio did not explain the charge, but Father Pavone had often pushed the boundaries of taste in his condemnations of the abortion industry and its supporters. During the 2020 presidential campaign he wrote on Twitter about “supporters of this goddam loser Biden and his morally corrupt, America-hating, God-hating Democratic party.” Can we agree that sort of language is inappropriate for a man of the cloth?

Pavone’s heavy involvement in partisan politics was a concern, certainly. (He made few friends among the American bishops when he took a high-profile stand in support of Donald Trump’s campaign.) But his willingness to use religious occasions for political purposes—even for purposes as worthy as the pro-life movement—also made bishops uneasy. Their concern reached new heights in 2016, when he put the body of an aborted fetus on an altar, and posted a video of it on social media. Critics saw this action as a desecration of both the altar and the unborn child’s remains.

(Pavone has said that the fetal remains were placed not on an altar, but on a table, which he sometimes used as an altar. The distinction is obscure. What do you call a table on which a priest sometimes celebrates Mass? An altar.)

Final Update: 

This is an informative and balanced account with links to helpful articles