Priest Says Who to Vote For

[WhiteLily]

No matter the outcome, Jesus will always have the victory. Let us continue to pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Whoever is elected into public office, let us continue to pray for them that they may grow deeper in love with Jesus and understand Truth on who He is and live their lives in accord to the Gospel.

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

The sight of our Blessed Lord hanging dead, blooded and naked on the altar of Calvary was a very similar stumbling block, or discomfit, outrage, etc  to those that viewed it at the time. And it is the same for many who see that same depiction in the Crucifixes that hang above (or should) every altar in the Catholic Church.  I cannot tell you how many times I have had to defend myself for wearing a Crucifix from those using the very same logic you and others are using to attack, yes attack all though it is weakly, Father Frank. "Isn't there a better way to show Jesus than that?" "Don't you think it's better to point out His Resurrection?" "Don't you think that is gruesome?"

As I have already shown, Church history shows that there is no problem whatsoever with the dead on the altar, under the altar or the dead being made into an altar. What the real problem here is simple, what Father did, that is actually so offensive is that he dared to show the naked, unveiled truth of child slaughter. This proves to me that if Abortion did not happen in hidden away places and instead happened in the streets, where we would have to see it, hear it, smell it we would all be a lot more outraged at the wickedness of it.

I hope and pray you and other rethink your attacks on Father.

No, you're wrong. According to just about every form of law (Divine, natural, canon, civil, etc). A good friend of mine who is a canon lawyer and theologian recently posted this, in response to similar defenses. 

Quote

 I realize it's easy to criticize based on feelings, so let me lay out precisely why this cannot be praiseworthy.

By canon law, it's a violation of the purpose of the altar and causes grave scandal. Many people cite 1239, of course, but leave out sect. 2, which says you can't USE an altar if someone (relics excluded) is buried under it. 1376 says profanation merits a just penalty. It is unlikely that Fr. Frank can plead canonical ignorance. 1399 sets the conditions for a penalty: "special gravity" (I think a worldwide broadcast certainly qualifies) and need to prevent or repair scandal. (Yup.)

Natural law dictates in every society that the dead are to be treated with respect, which is why, EVEN IF YOU BURY THEM AFTERWARDS (which is owed them by justice, you don't get to hold it up as mercy!) you don't get to reenact Weekend At Bernie's in a funeral home without being sued. 

Divine law specifies that the bodies of the dead are to be treated with reverence (hence no cremation without just cause) and according to the Rites of the Church - the reason this isn't explicitly mentioned in the Rites is that you'd have to be nuts to think it was ever a good idea.

One last thing: our respect for the dead is a sign of our respect for the dignity of the living. This is the opposite of pro-life. And disobedience is not heroic."

What Fr. Pavone did, plain and simple, is sacrilege. 

Quote

Do you think the author of that article will be calling for the suspension of politicians that make the laws that allow child slaughter? Or has the author done so in the past? I kind of doubt it. What do you think Father? Would the author be consistent in their attack or contradictory?

Yeah, actually, he has. 

[dominicansoul]

I think if concentration camps had been discovered earlier in WWII, the Allies would have had a more urgent need to fight the Nazis, and their motivation and morale would have been at a fever pitch to end the atrocities.

The public doesn't see these babies, except what they may see on placards and graphic billboards.  These real human babies are being disposed of in trashcans throughout the USA.  Father Pavone wanted to show his audience what was so important for him to be voting for the Republican Party.  He did that by introducing the audience to a victim of abortion.  This little baby's soul is already in the Glory of God the Father.  HE didn't mind being there.  In fact, I'm sure if it helps the unborn, this little baby was more than happy to help out Father Pavone's message...

Instead, we have Catholic outrage (I'm not surprised, I feel that too when I speak of the unborn, I get it worse from Catholics then from pro-aborts.  Heck, even Pope Francis told us to stop talking about them.  But I can't, I really really can't.  This is the terror above all other terrors, that we have allowed this murder and we make much more fuss about our HURT FEELINGS than we do about that little baby on the altar.  Do you see how damaged he is?  How brutally slain he was?)  I recall a certain Friar's body being placed on an altar on 9/11... nobody really complained about that then...

 

Saducees and Pharisees.  Father meant well.  Who could see that little baby and think of nothing more than the terrible holocaust this country allows?  I didn't think of Canon Law, rules, rubrics, etc.  I thought of that little baby.  

I think people are offended not so much of what he did, but more so of what he was calling us out for--- not doing all we can to stop Democrats and their bloody murdering political machine...if more priests and bishops were like Father Pavone, then maybe Catholics would actually start giving a beaver dam about abortion instead of putting it aside as a "non-issue" in elections...

 

[Amppax]

So a desire to be a faithful son or daughter of the Church means one is a Pharisee? 

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah... I cannot back you up on this one, KoC. I would like to think Fr. Pavone had good intentions, and I do think something similar might have been done which would have been quite a bit more acceptable*, but the way it played out was, in my opinion, clearly tasteless, and apparently a serious violation of canon law. This is not an issue of obedience wherein there are some limited circumstances that justify disobedience for a greater good.

*For instance, if the child had been wrapped in a shroud and in a small casket in front of the altar, I think the same message would have been sent, but in a more respectful manner. Lacking that same rhetorical shock certainly, but that is pretty far down the list of priorities when we are considering it against canon law and sacrilege.

Additionally, I think incidents like this give liberal and modernist Catholics more reason to push abortion off to the side as 'one issue among many', and it gives the secular world more reason to paint the pro-life movement as one which is crass, hypocritical, and lacking in empathy. Then liberal Catholics use this to justify ignoring the social reign of Christ the King (which they want to do anyway and simply like having more excuses), and the secular world continues to marginalize the Church.

[beatitude]

I didn't know the canon law around this, and when I read the story, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, we do venerate the relics of saints and the image of Christ crucified. On the other hand, something about Fr. Pavone's action felt off to me. Learning about the canonical issue with it made me see why: a crucifix is a sacramental object and a relic is a physical testament to someone who died in union with Christ and now intercedes there for us, and both are meant to be inspire prayer and devotion. We also treat relics and blessed objects with appropriate respect; there are rubrics and customs governing how we use them what we can do with them. Fr Pavone used the altar as a stage and the remains of this baby as a prop; he put the body there long enough to take the photo and then upload it to the Internet. It's not the same thing.

I think a Mass in memory of babies killed through abortion would have been better. The shock value would have been reduced, certainly, but there is more power and grace in the celebration of the Eucharist than in graphic images.

[Amppax]

Sincerely praying and hoping this is not the case, but http://www.patheos.com/blogs/steelmagnificat/2016/11/has-father-pavone-kept-mummified-human-remains-for-more-than-a-decade/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-CAT&utm_content=steelmagnificat

[dominicansoul]

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

So a desire to be a faithful son or daughter of the Church means one is a Pharisee? 

Pharisees had the same intentions and believed they were just the cream of God's crop on earth.  Know it alls who knew even more than the Son of God (but they couldn't even recognize him.)  

I actually see Jesus Christ in that little baby.  You all don't????  I'm positive that Christ doesn't mind what Father did.  He did it for the least of our unborn brothers and sisters, so he did it for Christ.

 I myself hesitate to criticize a priest who is doing everything he can to bring to light the holocaust of the unborn.  All I'm saying is for Catholics not to rush to throw the rules and regulations against him like the pharisees did to Christ.  Fr. Pavone didn't intend sacrilege of a human corpse.  He wanted to show us the effects of abortion while speaking urgently to us to use our power as US citizens and Catholics to help stop the massacre.  He did this because he firmly believes in what he speaks of--- see it in the context of who he is and what he's done all his priestly life.  

..or some people can stick with the Pharisaical stuff, bring up all kinds of outrageous assumptions about him and crucify him like the pharisees did to the Lord Jesus... 

Yes, persecute him cos obviously he's more sacrilegious than abortion...

I'm sure he's more than prepared for the firestorm that goes with being a defender of the unborn...

[Peace]

23 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

Pharisees had the same intentions and believed they were just the cream of God's crop on earth.  Know it alls who knew even more than the Son of God (but they couldn't even recognize him.)  

I actually see Jesus Christ in that little baby.  You all don't????  I'm positive that Christ doesn't mind what Father did.  He did it for the least of our unborn brothers and sisters, so he did it for Christ.

 I myself hesitate to criticize a priest who is doing everything he can to bring to light the holocaust of the unborn.  All I'm saying is for Catholics not to rush to throw the rules and regulations against him like the pharisees did to Christ.  Fr. Pavone didn't intend sacrilege of a human corpse.  He wanted to show us the effects of abortion while speaking urgently to us to use our power as US citizens and Catholics to help stop the massacre.  He did this because he firmly believes in what he speaks of--- see it in the context of who he is and what he's done all his priestly life.  

..or some people can stick with the Pharisaical stuff, bring up all kinds of outrageous assumptions about him and crucify him like the pharisees did to the Lord Jesus... 

Yes, persecute him cos obviously he's more sacrilegious than abortion...

I'm sure he's more than prepared for the firestorm that goes with being a defender of the unborn...

The ends do not justify the means.

[beatitude]

It isn't fair to suggest that people aren't seeing Christ in that child if they don't want his body to be placed on the sacred altar as part of a political advert. The reason so many Catholics are objecting to it is because they see Christ in that child, and his body deserves respect. The argument in favour of breaking canon law in order to make a political point boils down to "the end justifies the means", which is a utilitarian idea that doesn't fit with Catholic teaching. I'm not saying anything about the purity of Fr Pavone's intentions, or him as a person, but this particular action was wrong.

[dominicansoul]

4 minutes ago, beatitude said:

It isn't fair to suggest that people aren't seeing Christ in that child if they don't want his body to be placed on the sacred altar as part of a political advert. The reason so many Catholics are objecting to it is because they see Christ in that child, and his body deserves respect. The argument in favour of breaking canon law in order to make a political point boils down to "the end justifies the means", which is a utilitarian idea that doesn't fit with Catholic teaching. I'm not saying anything about the purity of Fr Pavone's intentions, or him as a person, but this particular action was wrong.

His body was being respected though...but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder...

sadly abortion wouldn't be political if the powers that be had forced it to be so...it's really a matter of life and death, of right and wrong...and it just happens to be election day, a very important one at that, and Fr. Pavone, who's life is totally dedicated to that little baby he placed lovingly on the altar, just wanted everyone to see what abortion IS and to vote prolife.  

 

You all can argue about how wrong he was and what ever canons he busted, I'm sure he's really interested in all that...

 

I'm going to go vote pro-life...

 

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

I'm going to go vote pro-life...

Sweet. I voted ASP too.

[Gabriela]

4 hours ago, beatitude said:

I didn't know the canon law around this, and when I read the story, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, we do venerate the relics of saints and the image of Christ crucified. On the other hand, something about Fr. Pavone's action felt off to me. Learning about the canonical issue with it made me see why: a crucifix is a sacramental object and a relic is a physical testament to someone who died in union with Christ and now intercedes there for us, and both are meant to be inspire prayer and devotion. We also treat relics and blessed objects with appropriate respect; there are rubrics and customs governing how we use them what we can do with them. Fr Pavone used the altar as a stage and the remains of this baby as a prop; he put the body there long enough to take the photo and then upload it to the Internet. It's not the same thing.

I think a Mass in memory of babies killed through abortion would have been better. The shock value would have been reduced, certainly, but there is more power and grace in the celebration of the Eucharist than in graphic images.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, beatitude. At the risk of phrasing it in an overly Kantian fashion: Fr. Pavone used that baby as a means to an end, but the Church always insists that people are ends in themselves. That baby is already aborted and so could neither consent to participate in this way nor benefit from its participation. It was therefore merely used as a rhetorical device for a political end.

Not okay.

[Amppax]

30 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

His body was being respected though...but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.....

There is absolutely no sense in which Fr. Pavone respected the body of that child. 

[Ice_nine]

Some people cannot be reasoned with.

And it's interesting when it comes to violating cannon law, breaking/bending rules etc it's usually the liberal Catholics that use the "you're like a Pharisee" or "legalism" or "but this is what Jesus would really want" excuse.