From ChurchMilitant.TV:
"Look who we ran into at the Reagan National airport...Fr. Frank Pavone with Priests for Life and Fr. Z!!"
Showing posts with label Fr. Frank Pavone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fr. Frank Pavone. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Publicly Calling Abortionists to Repent
By Fr. Frank Pavone
11/10/1997
(Priests for Life) One of the most effective ways to stop abortion is to dry up the supply of abortion providers. This happens to a large extent by itself, as the already relatively small band of abortionists grows older and young doctors seem more reluctant to use their skills to destroy babies. However, the abortion industry aggressively recruits doctors for its purposes. Incidentally, this is a major reason for their push toward chemical abortions.
There are a number of things the pro-life movement can do to see to it that although abortion is legal, fewer and fewer people will be willing to provide it.
One of those things is actually a very old practice in the Christian world: admonish the sinner. This is one of the spiritual works of mercy. An aspect of charity is to alert the sinner to the harm that sin does to him/her, as well as to the victim. In fact, the Second Vatican Council, in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, says that crimes like abortion do more harm to those who practice them than to the victims themselves!
Abortion is a public activity, and is publicly advertised. There is nothing against charity to publicly call for prayers for the abortion provider, by name, and to publicly call upon the abortionist to repent.
The demands of charity in this case include being absolutely sure that the person in question does in fact provide abortions, and saying nothing untrue about the person. They also include making it clear that we in the pro-life movement and the Church always have the door open to those ready to repent of child-killing, as so many have already done. Approaching the individual, and providing opportunities for confidential dialog, are activities that also need to be included.
Besides the repentance of the individual, however, there is another side to the activity of publicly admonishing abortionists that the Church cannot afford to ignore. Even when a particular abortion provider does not repent, the public identification of that person as an abortionist sends a clear signal to other abortionists and to those in medical school who might consider becoming abortionists: Perform this activity, and you will face the spotlight, with all the discomfort that entails! We have evidence that this works in dissuading actual and potential abortion providers.
One thing the abortion movement can never do is to remove the stigma from abortion. When we point out that specific people perform abortions, we capitalize on the biggest weakness of the other side.
It is interesting that many who perform abortions do not want to be called abortionists. Those who practice psychology are called psychologists. Those who practice neurology are called neurologists. There is nothing unusual, therefore, if we call those who practice abortion abortionists. The difference, of course, is that abortion carries a stigma which no amount of money or power can take away. That is a fact we should use to our advantage.
Link:
11/10/1997
(Priests for Life) One of the most effective ways to stop abortion is to dry up the supply of abortion providers. This happens to a large extent by itself, as the already relatively small band of abortionists grows older and young doctors seem more reluctant to use their skills to destroy babies. However, the abortion industry aggressively recruits doctors for its purposes. Incidentally, this is a major reason for their push toward chemical abortions.
There are a number of things the pro-life movement can do to see to it that although abortion is legal, fewer and fewer people will be willing to provide it.
One of those things is actually a very old practice in the Christian world: admonish the sinner. This is one of the spiritual works of mercy. An aspect of charity is to alert the sinner to the harm that sin does to him/her, as well as to the victim. In fact, the Second Vatican Council, in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, says that crimes like abortion do more harm to those who practice them than to the victims themselves!
Abortion is a public activity, and is publicly advertised. There is nothing against charity to publicly call for prayers for the abortion provider, by name, and to publicly call upon the abortionist to repent.
The demands of charity in this case include being absolutely sure that the person in question does in fact provide abortions, and saying nothing untrue about the person. They also include making it clear that we in the pro-life movement and the Church always have the door open to those ready to repent of child-killing, as so many have already done. Approaching the individual, and providing opportunities for confidential dialog, are activities that also need to be included.
Besides the repentance of the individual, however, there is another side to the activity of publicly admonishing abortionists that the Church cannot afford to ignore. Even when a particular abortion provider does not repent, the public identification of that person as an abortionist sends a clear signal to other abortionists and to those in medical school who might consider becoming abortionists: Perform this activity, and you will face the spotlight, with all the discomfort that entails! We have evidence that this works in dissuading actual and potential abortion providers.
One thing the abortion movement can never do is to remove the stigma from abortion. When we point out that specific people perform abortions, we capitalize on the biggest weakness of the other side.
It is interesting that many who perform abortions do not want to be called abortionists. Those who practice psychology are called psychologists. Those who practice neurology are called neurologists. There is nothing unusual, therefore, if we call those who practice abortion abortionists. The difference, of course, is that abortion carries a stigma which no amount of money or power can take away. That is a fact we should use to our advantage.
Link:
Monday, July 23, 2012
Priests for Life Mascots
Father Frank Pavone: "Our
Priests for Life mascots are hard at work today. Georgio and Gianni say
hello to all of our social media family here on facebook. Blessings to
everyone! — at Priestsforlife.org."
Link:
Related:
Link:
Related:
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Father Frank Pavone's Appeal Upheld by Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy
Priests for Life
6/26/2012
We are happy to announce that the Vatican has upheld Father Frank Pavone's appeal and has declared that Father Pavone is not now nor has ever been suspended. Father Pavone remains a priest in good standing all over the world.
We were confident all along that a just decision would be made by the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy. While we fully agree that Bishop Zurek has rightful authority over the priests of his diocese, we also see the urgent need for Father Pavone to be allowed to conduct his priestly ministry outside the diocese of Amarillo for the good of the pro-life movement.
Link:
Related:
6/26/2012
We were confident all along that a just decision would be made by the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy. While we fully agree that Bishop Zurek has rightful authority over the priests of his diocese, we also see the urgent need for Father Pavone to be allowed to conduct his priestly ministry outside the diocese of Amarillo for the good of the pro-life movement.
Link:
Related:
Friday, November 11, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Father Gordon MacRae - The Duty of a Priest: Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life
From Father Gordon MacRae at These Stone Walls:
Part of the agenda among the more radical wing of the Catholic left has been to get about the business of removing any Magisterial authority from our faith experience. The goal is to carve out a distinctly American Catholic church with identifiably American Catholic values that mirror the now disintegrating American wing of the Church of England, the Episcopal church. But that’s a whole other blog post for some other day – such as next week, perhaps.
It’s time for American Catholic liberals to see and admit that their own views and causes are being hi-jacked by this radical wing. For them, organizations like Priests for Life are seen as an anachronistic hindrance to social progress. A nice little scandal undermining Priests for Life would be most welcomed in some circles right about now, not least among them some purportedly Catholic circles.
But there isn’t a scandal. Father Frank Pavone hasn’t been accused of anything, though I do worry about his extreme vulnerability. There are agendas at work even in our Church that would be bolstered by the destruction of Father Pavone, his career, and his reputation. That fact must be a part of the equation as Catholics evaluate this story. Father Frank Pavone first was a target long before he was a suspect...
BISHOPS AS PROSECUTORS
I cannot speak to the internal disagreements between Father Frank Pavone and Bishop Patrick Zurek. I know none of the details. But I can speak in a broader sense of the necessity for any priest in the current climate to preserve his rights under Church law. I can only relate some of what transpired with my own bishop in a canonical proceeding to shed light on some of what may be happening behind the scenes in the Diocese of Amarillo.
Father Pavone came under recent attack in some circles because his bishop scheduled a personal meeting which Father Pavone declined to attend. There were some people – some very well intentioned – who saw in this some shades of culpability on the part of Father Pavone, using it to cast suspicion on his own transparency and desire to cooperate with his bishop.
It is likely, however, that Bishop Zurek has declined to allow a meeting to take place with Father Pavone’s Canonical Advocate present. I do not know this for certain, but I have read that Father Pavone’s Canonical Advocate has requested mediation in this matter between Father Pavone and his bishop. It was apparently on the advice of the Advocate that Father Pavone declined to meet without his Advocate or a mediator present. Both Father Pavone and his Canonical Advocate, Father David Deibel, J.D., J.C.L. have come under some public fire for this.
Church Law insists that any priest in a canonical forum has a right to advocacy. I stand by what I wrote in “Thy Brother’s Keeper“:
Far worse, when my bishop learned that I am seeking an opportunity to bring forward a new appeal of my conviction, my bishop hired his own lawyers to conduct a secret evaluation of my trial to present in Rome and circumvent my own efforts to defend myself. He has repeatedly refused to share with me or my Canonical Advocate the findings of that secret assessment.
My bishop has acted throughout in the role of a prosecutor, but it’s even worse than that. In America, prosecutors are required to turn over to the defense the nature of charges and any evidence that supports them. When I tried to assert my rights under Church law in this matter, my bishop responded with silence and has remained silent ever since.
I believe I could safely say that every organization formed on behalf of priests to assist in protecting their rights under Canon Law would now state that no priest in even a hint of an adversarial circumstance with his bishop should ever agree to a one-on-one meeting without his Canonical Advocate present. It would not only be foolish, it could be destructive. It would be akin to a prosecutor demanding to meet privately with a defendant without his lawyer present.
As the priesthood crisis became critical in 2002, Cardinal Avery Dulles gave bishops and priests a clear reminder of their rights and obligations under Church law. His fine article, “The Rights of Accused Priests” is reprinted under “Articles” on These Stone Walls. Given these rights and obligations, I admire that Father Pavone is determined to resolve this matter in unity with his bishop. No bishop can in justice order him or any priest to set aside his rights under Church law... (continued)
Link:
Related:
Part of the agenda among the more radical wing of the Catholic left has been to get about the business of removing any Magisterial authority from our faith experience. The goal is to carve out a distinctly American Catholic church with identifiably American Catholic values that mirror the now disintegrating American wing of the Church of England, the Episcopal church. But that’s a whole other blog post for some other day – such as next week, perhaps.It’s time for American Catholic liberals to see and admit that their own views and causes are being hi-jacked by this radical wing. For them, organizations like Priests for Life are seen as an anachronistic hindrance to social progress. A nice little scandal undermining Priests for Life would be most welcomed in some circles right about now, not least among them some purportedly Catholic circles.
But there isn’t a scandal. Father Frank Pavone hasn’t been accused of anything, though I do worry about his extreme vulnerability. There are agendas at work even in our Church that would be bolstered by the destruction of Father Pavone, his career, and his reputation. That fact must be a part of the equation as Catholics evaluate this story. Father Frank Pavone first was a target long before he was a suspect...
BISHOPS AS PROSECUTORS
Father Pavone came under recent attack in some circles because his bishop scheduled a personal meeting which Father Pavone declined to attend. There were some people – some very well intentioned – who saw in this some shades of culpability on the part of Father Pavone, using it to cast suspicion on his own transparency and desire to cooperate with his bishop.
Church Law insists that any priest in a canonical forum has a right to advocacy. I stand by what I wrote in “Thy Brother’s Keeper“:
“I bow also to Father Pavone’s resolve to protect his rights under the higher authority of the law of the Church, for the [Dallas] Charter makes one thing clear now: Some bishops will neither protect nor respect those rights.”I speak from experience. Throughout the last decade of attempting to defend myself before both a court of law and a court of public opinion, I have also had to simultaneously defend myself against a one-sided effort by my bishop to bring about a canonical dismissal from the priesthood with no defense whatsoever offered by me. Throughout this process, my bishop has steadfastly refused to meet or even converse with my Canonical Advocate regarding the matter of preserving my rights under Church law.
Far worse, when my bishop learned that I am seeking an opportunity to bring forward a new appeal of my conviction, my bishop hired his own lawyers to conduct a secret evaluation of my trial to present in Rome and circumvent my own efforts to defend myself. He has repeatedly refused to share with me or my Canonical Advocate the findings of that secret assessment.
My bishop has acted throughout in the role of a prosecutor, but it’s even worse than that. In America, prosecutors are required to turn over to the defense the nature of charges and any evidence that supports them. When I tried to assert my rights under Church law in this matter, my bishop responded with silence and has remained silent ever since.
I believe I could safely say that every organization formed on behalf of priests to assist in protecting their rights under Canon Law would now state that no priest in even a hint of an adversarial circumstance with his bishop should ever agree to a one-on-one meeting without his Canonical Advocate present. It would not only be foolish, it could be destructive. It would be akin to a prosecutor demanding to meet privately with a defendant without his lawyer present.As the priesthood crisis became critical in 2002, Cardinal Avery Dulles gave bishops and priests a clear reminder of their rights and obligations under Church law. His fine article, “The Rights of Accused Priests” is reprinted under “Articles” on These Stone Walls. Given these rights and obligations, I admire that Father Pavone is determined to resolve this matter in unity with his bishop. No bishop can in justice order him or any priest to set aside his rights under Church law... (continued)
Link:
Related:
- Fr. Gordon MacRae: Federal Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Habeas Corpus Appeal
- Bishop Zurek misleads?
- Thy Brother’s Keeper: Why Wrongful Convictions Should Matter to You
- A Touch of Deja Vu: The Case against Rev. Gordon MacRae - by Ryan A. MacDonald
- Trial by Therapists - by Ryan A. MacDonald
- To Azazel: Father Gordon MacRae and the Gospel of Mercy - by Ryan A. MacDonald
- A Priest and His Wounds: Padre Pio Under Investigation
- SNAP Judgments Part II: Ground Zero of the Catholic Scandal
- SNAP Judgements Part I: Catholic Priests Among the Public Ruins - by Fr. Gordon MacRae
- As The Year of the Priest Ends, Are Civil Liberties for Priests Intact?
- Dr. Bill Donohue Discussing Fr. Gordon MacRae and SNAP on EWTN's The World Over
- SNAP EXPOSED: Unmasking the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests - by William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Bishop Zurek misleads?
From Jill Stanek:
Read backstory here.h/t to The Tenth Crusade
This fiasco left off with Bishop Patrick Zurek (pictured right) publicly announcing on October 6 a private meeting he had invited Father Frank Pavone to attend on October 13.
When that meeting did not happen, Bishop Zurek appears to have misrepresented why it did not happen, quoting Amarillo Globe-News on October 14…
Embattled activist priest Frank Pavone did not respond to Bishop Patrick J. Zurek’s public invitation for a private meeting Thursday, the bishop said….But by 5 p.m. Thursday – closing time at the diocese offices – Pavone had yet to appear.In fact, Father Pavone did respond, requesting – with good reason – that a mediator be present at that meeting, and Bishop Zurek never responded to Father Pavone’s request.
“I would welcome a meeting with Father Pavone, face to face, a meeting as his bishop,” Zurek said. “I am still waiting for a favorable response to that.”
In fact, Father Pavone (pictured left) and Priest for Life’s Chief Canonist have “on numerous occasions” requested mediated meetings between the two men, to which the bishop has never responded. This entire matter could have been cleared up weeks ago had the bishop agreed to the help of mediators.
In addition, I am aware of a letter Bishop Zurek wrote on October 5, finally acknowledging for the first time that he indeed had in his possession PFL’s financial statements for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010, as well as “[i]ncomplete financial statements” for 2009 (about which he requested more information, which PFL promptly submitted).
In that letter Bishop Zurek also acknowledged having the 2010 financial statements for Rachel’s Vineyard and Gospel of Life.
To clarify, PFL submits all financial statements and audits to Father Pavone’s diocese and members of PFL’s board of directors as soon as they are completed.
Thus, Bishop Zurek was admitting that the Amarillo Diocese has had PFL’s up-to-date financial records in its possession from the time Father Pavone joined the diocese in 2005 – contrary to Bishop Zurek’s allusion in his September 9 letter to all U.S. bishops that Father Pavone had “rebuff[ed] my every attempt at calling for financial transparency.”
In addition, Bishop Zurek went on to say in that October 5 letter, “I shall submit these statements to my advisors for review. After I have been advised about these financial statements, I shall forward to you all their concerns and questions.”
In other words, Bishop Zurek was conceding that neither he nor his advisers have ever analyzed PFL’s financial statements, even though he wrote a scathing letter to all U.S. bishops on September 9 all but accusing Father Pavone of financial malfeasance and recommending that parishioners withhold donations to PFL.
[Top photo via Amarillo Globe-News]
Friday, September 16, 2011
Diocese of Amarillo Issues Clarification: Father Frank Pavone is Not Accused of Any Wrongdoing
St Mary's
Cathedral Church
Diocese of Amarillo
Priests for Life
Staten Island, New York
As the Vicar of Clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo and the Moderator of the Curia I want to publically state that Reverend Frank Pavone of Priests for Life is a priest in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. He has all the faculties for ministry that every priest of our diocese has in and for the Diocese of Amarillo.
I would also like to clarify that because there is a dispute about the auditing process and the complete audit for all the entities of Priests for Life, Rachel's Vineyard, and the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life does not mean that Father Pavone is being charge with any malfeasance or being accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters of Priests for Life.
Sincerel yours,
Reverend Monsignor Harold Waldow
Vicar of Clergy
Moderator of the Curia
Rector of the Cathedral
Cathedral Church
Diocese of Amarillo
September 15, 2011
Priests for Life
Staten Island, New York
As the Vicar of Clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo and the Moderator of the Curia I want to publically state that Reverend Frank Pavone of Priests for Life is a priest in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. He has all the faculties for ministry that every priest of our diocese has in and for the Diocese of Amarillo.
I would also like to clarify that because there is a dispute about the auditing process and the complete audit for all the entities of Priests for Life, Rachel's Vineyard, and the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life does not mean that Father Pavone is being charge with any malfeasance or being accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters of Priests for Life.
Sincerel yours,
Reverend Monsignor Harold Waldow
Vicar of Clergy
Moderator of the Curia
Rector of the Cathedral
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Father Frank Pavone: Priests for Life Now an International Association
Update: Father Frank Pavone Prevented From Running Priests for Life
Update: Official Statement of Father Frank Pavone
Update: Letter From Father Frank Pavone to Bishops and Cardinals
From Fr. Frank Pavone's blog:
The Pastoral Team of Priests for Life announced today that it has formed an International Private Association of the Faithful called the Gospel of Life Association. Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, explained, “Priests for Life has for some time now been a family of ministries. As we have grown and diversified, the work of these ministries has also increasingly become international. Twenty years ago, Priests for Life was established as a Private Association here in the United States. Now we felt it was appropriate to establish the same kind of association internationally, and to have our various branch ministries formally ratify their intent to be such an association.”
The benefit of an association is that the groups work with a more deliberate emphasis on the fact that pro-life is a spirituality, not simply a cause. The Association is guided by special bylaws that express the cohesion of the ministries as a family of believers.
Along with Priests for Life, the ministries are Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, Rachel’s Vineyard, Silent No More Awareness Campaign, Seminarian Life Link, Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, Life on the Line, Prayer Campaign, Deacons for Life, Hispanic Outreach, African American Outreach, Political Responsibility and Stand True Youth Outreach.
Link:
Update: Father Frank Pavone Prevented From Running Priests for Life
Related:
Update: Official Statement of Father Frank Pavone
Update: Letter From Father Frank Pavone to Bishops and Cardinals
From Fr. Frank Pavone's blog:
The Pastoral Team of Priests for Life announced today that it has formed an International Private Association of the Faithful called the Gospel of Life Association. Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, explained, “Priests for Life has for some time now been a family of ministries. As we have grown and diversified, the work of these ministries has also increasingly become international. Twenty years ago, Priests for Life was established as a Private Association here in the United States. Now we felt it was appropriate to establish the same kind of association internationally, and to have our various branch ministries formally ratify their intent to be such an association.”The benefit of an association is that the groups work with a more deliberate emphasis on the fact that pro-life is a spirituality, not simply a cause. The Association is guided by special bylaws that express the cohesion of the ministries as a family of believers.
Along with Priests for Life, the ministries are Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, Rachel’s Vineyard, Silent No More Awareness Campaign, Seminarian Life Link, Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, Life on the Line, Prayer Campaign, Deacons for Life, Hispanic Outreach, African American Outreach, Political Responsibility and Stand True Youth Outreach.
Link:
Update: Father Frank Pavone Prevented From Running Priests for Life
Related:
- Letter From Father Frank Pavone to Bishops and Cardinals
- Official Statement of Father Frank Pavone
- Father Pavone suspended from ministry outside Amarillo Diocese
Friday, February 12, 2010
Father Frank Pavone on the Tebow Ad and "Bump+"
From the National Catholic Register:
by Tim Drake
by Tim Drake
Some pro-life groups and inviduals have criticized Focus on the Family’s Tim Tebow Superbowl ad and Yellow Line Studio’s faux-reality drama series “Bump” as not going far enough. I asked Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, how he felt about such efforts in the context of pro-life work overall. Here’s what he had to say.
There’s been a fair amount of controversy over the approach of Focus on the Family’s Tim Tebow Superbowl commercial and Yellow Line Studio’s faux-reality show “Bump+”. Do you see a place for such efforts in the broad scope of pro-life work?
Yes. The reason is, first of all, the commandment is against killing and compromising with killing, not against soft ads or approaches. We need to be wise and prudent and know our audiences. The Tebow ad was a victory in that the ad was shown.
I think that one of the things that is helpful for our people to understand, and this is traditional Catholic teaching, is the difference between positive and negative commandments. Negative commandments, such as ‘do not kill’ are absolute. Positive commandments, such as ‘do good’ or ‘preserve life’ or ‘protect your health’ admit of different degrees and limits. While I have an obligation to preserve my health, does that mean that I need to set up an exercise room in my own house or shop only at health food stores? These things vary and there is a lot of room for discretionary judgment. It’s the same thing with the whole pro-life effort.
How strong does a pro-life ad have to be? There’s no norm for that. Imagine all of the negotiations that had to take place with CBS to air the commercial. You get the best things you can get under the circumstances. I was delighted with the ad. Could it have been stronger? Of course, but could it have been stronger under the circumstances?
Are there other examples of softer approaches which have had success?
A lot of the efforts of the pro-life movement in general could be described in this way – television ads with different degrees of intensity, newspaper ads from National Right to Life, or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Second Look Project. Their message to the people was, ‘Have we gone too far?’ Of course we have, but the point in advertising is where is the mind of the people and how do we best reach them where they are at?
All of these campaigns have had success. The Tebow ad shouldn’t be considered outside of the norm of what the movement has been doing in reaching the audiences where they are.
How do you feel about web-based drama series “Bump+”?
“Bump+” is a great service to the pro-life movement. “Bump+’s” target audience is not the pro-life community. It is trying to reach the vast number of citizens whose attitude toward abortion can best be described as conflicted. “Bump+” is not a forum for an abortion debate. The point here is to help viewers hear and feel both sides of the issue through stories. This is simply a conversation, not a condoning of abortion. We need to bring people through the conversation through stories. Jesus was a storyteller. You tell a story and let people connect with that. We do this through our Silent No More Awareness Campaign.
The big benefit for people in the middle is that “Bump+” helps people get beyond the slogans. Slogans can contain a lot of truth and grace, but they can also shut down thinking. If you can get people beyond slogans, that is a big benefit.
On the pro-life side of the coin, we have to make sure that we’re not just articulating arguments, but that we can feel with those who are facing the decision and the temptations that lead one toward abortion. This doesn’t mean that the decision should be anything other than choosing life, but the more we understand them, the better we will be able to help them.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Notre Dame Students Select Father Frank Pavone to Lead Obama-Free Graduation
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 11, 2009
South Bend, IN (LifeNews.com) -- Notre Dame students who don't want to attend a graduation ceremony involving pro-abortion President Barack Obama put together alternate plans. Today, they announced that Father Frank Pavone, the director of Priests for Life, will lead prayer at a pro-life prayer vigil.
The Class of 2009 Vigil for Life will be celebrated at Sunday's commencement ceremony at the same time as the graduation event.
“In standing with these students, I am standing with the true spirit of Notre Dame: a pro-life spirit, in harmony with human reason and Catholic Faith," Father Pavone told LifeNews.com on Monday.
"The scandal that has been generated does not represent what Notre Dame is all about," Pavone added. "It represents a radical betrayal of what Notre Dame is all about."
Pavone said the scandal has resulted in pro-life Catholics standing up for the teachings of the Catholic Church and wanting to hold the university accountable to them.
“Hundreds of thousands of Catholics, hundreds of priests, and dozens of bishops have called upon Notre Dame to end this scandal by withdrawing its invitation to President Obama," he said. "The result of that demand is not in our control."
Pavone told LifeNews.com he thinks pro-life students should exercise their right not to attend the graduation ceremony, where President Obama will give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree.
"One final response to this scandal is fully in the control of each graduating senior: don't show up. Don't participate in an event which will only serve to obscure rather than highlight the Church’s pro-life teaching and the true spirit of Notre Dame," Pavone continued.
"The seniors who do this are manifesting the real meaning of commencement: they are carrying out the witness to truth and service that their hard-earned degrees have prepared them to give in the world," he added.
Some pro-life students plan to join Pavone for the alternative event, but others plan to conduct their own protest during the graduation ceremonies, ND Response, the pro-life collection of student groups, told LifeNews.com last week.
"It certainly appears obvious from these announced plans that a large or perhaps the sole focus of that response is a boycott," ND Response indicated. "There also may be other small groups or individuals amongst the 2009 graduates and their guests who have their own ideas about raising the pro-life issue to Mr. Obama inside the Joyce Center."
The students say they want a focus on peaceful and respectful opposition, especially in light of some of the more in-your-face opposition appearing at their campus in recent days along with the arrest of some pro-life advocates.
Related web sites:
Priests for Life - http://www.PriestsforLife.org
Notre Dame response - http://www.ndresponse.com
LifeNews.com Editor
May 11, 2009
South Bend, IN (LifeNews.com) -- Notre Dame students who don't want to attend a graduation ceremony involving pro-abortion President Barack Obama put together alternate plans. Today, they announced that Father Frank Pavone, the director of Priests for Life, will lead prayer at a pro-life prayer vigil.
The Class of 2009 Vigil for Life will be celebrated at Sunday's commencement ceremony at the same time as the graduation event.
“In standing with these students, I am standing with the true spirit of Notre Dame: a pro-life spirit, in harmony with human reason and Catholic Faith," Father Pavone told LifeNews.com on Monday.
"The scandal that has been generated does not represent what Notre Dame is all about," Pavone added. "It represents a radical betrayal of what Notre Dame is all about."
Pavone said the scandal has resulted in pro-life Catholics standing up for the teachings of the Catholic Church and wanting to hold the university accountable to them.
“Hundreds of thousands of Catholics, hundreds of priests, and dozens of bishops have called upon Notre Dame to end this scandal by withdrawing its invitation to President Obama," he said. "The result of that demand is not in our control."
Pavone told LifeNews.com he thinks pro-life students should exercise their right not to attend the graduation ceremony, where President Obama will give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree.
"One final response to this scandal is fully in the control of each graduating senior: don't show up. Don't participate in an event which will only serve to obscure rather than highlight the Church’s pro-life teaching and the true spirit of Notre Dame," Pavone continued.
"The seniors who do this are manifesting the real meaning of commencement: they are carrying out the witness to truth and service that their hard-earned degrees have prepared them to give in the world," he added.
Some pro-life students plan to join Pavone for the alternative event, but others plan to conduct their own protest during the graduation ceremonies, ND Response, the pro-life collection of student groups, told LifeNews.com last week.
"It certainly appears obvious from these announced plans that a large or perhaps the sole focus of that response is a boycott," ND Response indicated. "There also may be other small groups or individuals amongst the 2009 graduates and their guests who have their own ideas about raising the pro-life issue to Mr. Obama inside the Joyce Center."
The students say they want a focus on peaceful and respectful opposition, especially in light of some of the more in-your-face opposition appearing at their campus in recent days along with the arrest of some pro-life advocates.
Related web sites:
Priests for Life - http://www.PriestsforLife.org
Notre Dame response - http://www.ndresponse.com
Friday, April 17, 2009
Monday, August 25, 2008
Catholic leaders react to Biden pick; Bishops say he should refrain from Communion
"Fr. Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, took a broader view of Barack Obama’s vice presidential selection, calling it 'a wake-up call to the Church (clergy and laity alike). '
Among the steps that the Church needs to take, said Fr. Pavone, are: to “improve the way we hand on the Faith, be willing to exercise the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner, and to keep politically active so that such people are voted out of office.”
Politicians, Fr. Pavone underscored, are engaged in publicly expressing “their support for keeping abortion legal” while at the same time consistently refusing to admit what abortion is. He added, 'if a politician cannot respect the life of a little baby, how is he supposed to respect yours and mine?..''Biden's own bishop, Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington, Del., has said that the issues pertaining to the sanctity of human life are the ‘great civil rights issues of this generation’.
Bishop Saltarelli denounced the notion that politicians can 'personally oppose' abortion, but refuse to pass laws protecting the unborn. In fact, Bishop Saltarelli has made clear that pro-abortion Catholic politicians should refrain from receiving the Eucharist.
On Monday morning in Denver, where the Democratic National Convention is underway, Archbishop Charles Chaput told the Associated Press that because of support for abortion, Biden should refrain from taking Communion..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)