Vatican Removes Anti-Abortion Activist From the Priesthood

[Estro Felino]

I disagree. In America, people who vote Democratic call themselves Democrats. I don't, but they do.

I found his comment offensive anyway. I find the man very unlikeable. I have no respect for him, nor empathy at this point. He's MAGA. He promotes election hoax fraud and surely has no respect for the bedrock American principle of church-state separation, yet calls others America-hating. He considers Biden a loser, but who's the loser here, padre? Biden is a decent man and has been a very effective president.

Also, I find the term God-hating offensive even though I am an atheist. Biden and Pelosi are both better Catholics and better people than this man.

And I don't mind that he finds himself humiliated, ostracized, and unemployed. It seems just to me.

I understand. But I don't think he was referring to American voters,
Just that.

 

[Estro Felino]

From what I understand of the lore… I suspect it is something Christ would do, were he in the Pope’s position. From what I remember of Christianity, none are beyond redemption… no matter what their views, and no matter what their crimes.

I think it would be a good thing, after all. So people will understand we are two separate states.
In the end, people don't like contrived things.
If he doesn't feel like meeting them, it's good his decision is respected.

 

[PureX]

Just another guy drunk on the idea of his own righteousness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed. I said the Vatican has no first Amendment.

We would be describing it as the last dictatorship in Europe if anyone took its "statehood" seriously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just another guy drunk on the idea of his own righteousness.

Pavone or Francis?

 

[Estro Felino]

We would be describing it as the last dictatorship in Europe if anyone took its "statehood" seriously.

It's a state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a state.

It's a "state."

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a "state."

As San Marino is a state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As San Marino is a state.

No, San Marino is just small. It meets all the normal criteria for statehood; Vatican City doesn't.

San Marino has a permanent population and diplomatic relationships with other nations, two things that Vatican City lacks.

Plus, in practical terms, nobody reacts to the Pope as if he's the head of state of a dictatorship; they react to him as if he's the head of a church and nothing else.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, San Marino is just small. It meets all the normal criteria for statehood; Vatican City doesn't.

San Marino has a permanent population and diplomatic relationships with other nations, two things that Vatican City lacks.

Plus, in practical terms, nobody reacts to the Pope as if he's the head of state of a dictatorship; they react to him as if he's the head of a church and nothing else.

Vatican's statehood exists regardless of what foreigners think.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, San Marino is just small. It meets all the normal criteria for statehood; Vatican City doesn't.

San Marino has a permanent population and diplomatic relationships with other nations, two things that Vatican City lacks.

Plus, in practical terms, nobody reacts to the Pope as if he's the head of state of a dictatorship; they react to him as if he's the head of a church and nothing else.

Vatican City possesses the juridical elements that international law requires for statehood.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Catholic clergy is a club, in which membership is voluntary. The club has rules, and if you can't follow the cllub's rules, it should be no surprise to you when you are asked to leave the club.

And as was pointed out earlier, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor does it pretend to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vatican City possesses the juridical elements that international law requires for statehood.

No, it doesn't.

The entity that has diplomatic relations and (a measure of) international recognition is the Holy See, but the Holy See and Vatican City aren't the same thing.

The Holy See - a.k.a. the Diocese of Rome - doesn't have autonomous control over its territory. Most of the Holy See is Italian soil.

... and neither the Holy See nor Vatican City have a permanent population.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Catholic clergy is a club, in which membership is voluntary. The club has rules, and if you can't follow the cllub's rules, it should be no surprise to you when you are asked to leave the club.

And as was pointed out earlier, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor does it pretend to be.

I think the issue here is that the Catholic Church's rules - at least for clergy - include the whims of whoever happens to be pope, and what Pavone was up to was in line with the whims of the last two popes, so the rules have changed rapidly... or at least rapidly for the Catholic Church.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, it doesn't.

The entity that has diplomatic relations and (a measure of) international recognition is the Holy See, but the Holy See and Vatican City aren't the same thing.

The Holy See - a.k.a. the Diocese of Rome - doesn't have autonomous control over its territory. Most of the Holy See is Italian soil.

... and neither the Holy See nor Vatican City have a permanent population.

Vatican City has permanent population.
There are Vatican citizens, that are lay people.
The Vatican is a state separated from the Italian Republic. I have studied ecclesiastical law. I know what I am talking about.
The Italian Republic has zero power over Vatican territory (there are countless buildings and churches that are considered Vatican territory, besides the Vatican). In fact the Italian Republic has asked the Vatican for judicial cooperation in so many cases ...but the Vatican denied it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am not at all surprised at this action as the publication 'Priests for Life' has been so far to the right.

well-known Catholic priest and incendiary leader of the anti-abortion movement was removed from the priesthood by the Vatican, according to a letter from Pope Francis’ representative to the United States that was obtained by The New York Times.

Frank Pavone, who leads the advocacy organization Priests for Life, and was once a religious adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, was dismissed from the clergy on Nov. 9 with no possibility of appeal, the letter states. The letter included a statement about the removal, called laicization, that it said was approved by the Dicastery for the Clergy, a Vatican office.

“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,” it states.

“I’m waiting for them to point out to me what I did wrong that merits something like this,” he said. And though the Vatican has said there was no possibility of appeal, Mr. Pavone said that ultimately he and his allies “would have to appeal to the next pope” and “to the people of God.”

Mr. Pavone was devoted to Mr. Trump and was among those who questioned the results of the 2020 election.
“I’ve been persecuted in the church for decades, decades. This is nothing new for me,” he said. “They just don’t like the work I’m doing for these babies.”

He seemed to refer to a comment on Twitter from 2020 in which he referred to “supporters of this goddamn loser Biden and his morally corrupt, America-hating, God hating Democrat party.”

“I used the word G-D in a response to somebody in a tweet and for that they want to throw me out of the priesthood,” he said.

“As you will know, Father Pavone was a very public and high profile figure associated with the Right to Life Movement in the U.S.,” Archbishop Pierre states. “His dismissal from the clerical state may, therefore, be a matter of interest among the faithful. In anticipation of that potential interest, the attached statement regarding Father Pavone is provided for your information.”


During the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Pavone posted a live video on Facebook in which he put an aborted fetus on what appeared to be an altar. The Diocese of Amarillo in Texas, which oversaw him at the time, announced that it opened an investigation into Mr. Pavone as a result. The diocese did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday night.

Vatican Removes Anti-Abortion Activist From the Priesthood (msn.com)

Friend @pearl , please.

Is there anything from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah on the matter, please? Right?
What if Mary would have aborted, please? Right?

Regards

 

[kiwimac]

Good, Pavone is a creep!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vatican City has permanent population.
There are Vatican citizens, that are lay people.

Those lay people's "citizenship" is tied to their employment. When they leave their position in the Vatican, they lose their citizenship. Not a permanent population.

The Vatican is a state separated from the Italian Republic. I have studied ecclesiastical law. I know what I am talking about.

Maybe you should have studied actual law, then.

The mere fact that Italy doesn't try to exercise authority over Vatican territory doesn't make it a state.

The ItaIian Republic has zero power over Vatican territory (there are countless buildings and churches that are considered Vatican territory, besides the Vatican). In fact the Italian Republic has asked the Vatican for judicial cooperation on so many cases ...but the Vatican denied it.

You seem to be confused. Are you sure you aren't talking about properties of the Holy See?

Again: the Holy See and the Vatican aren't the same thing, and the decision of the Italian government not to enforce Italian law on some church property doesn't automatically make Vatican City a country.

And again: one giveaway is that the Italian government - like many governments - imposes sanctions and the like on heads of state who oppress their people. If they thought that the Pope really was the head of state of a country where the vast majority of citizens have no democratic rights, the relationship between the Pope and Italy would be very different.

The Pope is free to travel through the rest of Rome because everyone recognizes that Vatican City is a church property and not a country. The Papal States haven't been a thing for a long time.

 

[Estro Felino]

Those lay people's "citizenship" is tied to their employment. When they leave their position in the Vatican, they lose their citizenship. Not a permanent population.

That's not true. Emanuela Orlandi was a Vatican citizen. She was not an employee. Neither was her mother who still lives in the Vatican and she has always been a housewife.
Vatican citizens have a Vatican passport.

Maybe you should have studied actual law, then.

The mere fact that Italy doesn't try to exercise authority over Vatican territory doesn't make it a state.


You seem to be confused. Are you sure you aren't talking about properties of the Holy See?

Again: the Holy See and the Vatican aren't the same thing, and the decision of the Italian government not to enforce Italian law on some church property doesn't automatically make Vatican City a country.

And again: one giveaway is that the Italian government - like many governments - imposes sanctions and the like on heads of state who oppress their people. If they thought that the Pope really was the head of state of a country where the vast majority of citizens have no democratic rights, the relationship between the Pope and Italy would be very different.

The Pope is free to travel through the rest of Rome because everyone recognizes that Vatican City is a church property and not a country. The Papal States haven't been a thing for a long time.

There is a rule of international law that says pacta sunt servanda.
In 1929 the Holy See and the Italian State signed a concordat which is a treaty. Lateran Pacts.
This treaty recognizes the Vatican State as an autonomous State.
And since Italy recognizes Vatican statehood, so should the other countries of the world.

Article 7 Italian Constitution
The State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign, each within its own sphere. Their relations are regulated by the Lateran pacts. Amendments to such Pacts which are accepted by both parties shall not require the procedure of constitutional amendments.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This statement on social media falls into the First Amendment,

No, it doesn't. You don't have freedom of speech when you use social media and agree to abide by certain rules and not say certain things.

Voters are decent people and vote for whomever they think is the right choice. And they are all good people.

Those "good and decent" voters in Indiana are widely ****ty and terrible people who vote for hateful Christians like Pence to enact discriminatory legislation.
Voters are often nasty people. This is why the American Founding Fathers declared democracy is mob rule.