Monday, 19 December 2022
How to get rid of a turbulent priest
Probably several of my readers will one day become pope (Hi, Blase! Hi, Arthur! Hi, Tina!) and will need
me to advise them on how to behave. Today's topic is the vexed one of getting rid of a priest
you don't like. These days, popes don't often poison priests - in fact Francis has been a model non-poisoner -
and the most common solution is simple laicisation. But of course we don't laicise
everyone who offends.
For example, Cardinal Cocaine, who wears a lampshade on his head and
knows all about "gay" orgies can't really be said to be a problem!
Not a problem.
Likewise, Father Jimbo SJ, who can't take a cup of tea without relating it to LGBT issues, and whose Biblical teaching is best described as "imaginative",
is to be welcomed into the Vatican and asked for his advice!
Then there's Archbishop Paggles,
who stars in homoerotic murals, doesn't really understand what a Pontifical Academy for Not Bumping People off is supposed to do, and seems to be in all sorts of other troubles. He's safe.
Even Fr Rumpy, who won a prize for the worst ecclesial art ever seen, who has trouble keeping his vestments on,
and who solves his problems by
absolving the people he has sinned with, only gets a brief slap on the wrist from the CDF.
Rumpy's masterpiece - a drunken man surrounded by custard pies.
But what's the point of being pope if you can't sack a few people?
Aha! I have it! There's this Pavanne chap of "Priests Against Murder", who
is admittedly rather eccentric in his methods. Worst of all he is very very very pro-life!
Emma Bonehead isn't at all happy! Mariana Mozzarella has complained!
Sack him! But do it in a Jesuit way - i.e., don't say exactly why you're sacking him.
Mutter something about blasphemous communications (Uncle Wilt has explained to you that backing Donald Trump
is a hideous blasphemy) and accuse him of disobeying his bishop (a catch-all, as sometimes you have to choose between
God and your bishop).
Public Enemy Number One.
You are, of course, a merciful pope (as well as a humble one), so you won't be sending the Swiss Guard round to do a Thomas Becket on him. Well, not this week. Thank Heavens that the art of removing turbulent priests has evolved since the days of Henry II, and you can simply cast him into outer darkness!
https://catholicherald.co.uk/why-has-jesuit-artist-father-rupnik-been-practicing-his-ministry-despite-vatican-restrictions/
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on this Bruvver, but I think the situation of Fr Pavone involves some (I hate to say it) serious points which also need to be addressed. In this instance there does appear to be ill will on the part of the bishop, but doesn't a priest have a duty of obedience to a bishop's orders (so long as it isn't an order to do evil) irrespective of whether he is a 'good' or a 'bad' bishop? The dangers facing "celebrity priests" is well documented (e.g., Fr Francis Mary Stone, Fr Thomas Euteneuer, Fr Albert Cutie, Fr John Corapi) and a sensible bishop would want to save a "celebrity priest" from getting too big for their boots. If Fr Pavone had a heart attack and died tomorrow Priests for Life would get by. We are foolish in thinking we are indispensable for any project. I understand that his bishop tried to keep Fr Pavone working within the diocese but that he claimed his 'vocation' was to work full time for the pro-life cause. Yes, some people do work full time for the pro-life cause, but Pavone's first allegiance is to the Church and his bishop. Assuming that the bishop did have a genuine problem with Pavone, it seems to me that the first recourse should have been to suspend him from functioning as a priest, in order to give Pavone time to discern whether his priority is the priesthood or the prolife cause. If he chose pro-life campaigning that would have been his free choice. He could - as all priests should - in any case, be working for the Kingdom of Heaven even as a priest in the lowliest parish of the most forsaken diocese. This isn't an "anti Fr Pavone" comment. Far from it. I pray for him and wish him well and hope he may be restored to priestly ministry. But the situation isn't perhaps as black and white as it seems.
ReplyDeleteIf the Bishop orders a Priest to submit a "request for laicization", is he required to obey? That has been alleged. Should the Priest be punished or the Bishop?
DeleteYou make some good poibts, but i don't think you undersrand what Bishop Zurek is really doing. He simply wants to shut up Pavone because he is liberal and does not agree with Pavone's speaking out continually about the issue. I believe he is also envious of the sucess and following Pavone has, while most Catholics don't know the name of the bishop. The bishop has tried to do this by ordering him to pastor a church in rural Texas with 50 members.
DeleteI have worked
for the church for 25 years, and this is a tactic I have seen before - the bishop exiles the priest to a parish where no one will ever hear from him again, ...problem solved.Pavone has repeatedly tried to reason and to be transferred to another diocese, but Zurek agrees, then changes him mind and also dirrctly lies about it! CHECK OUT Pavone's letter on his website which details the long story...you will understand.
John F. Kennedy: I should have said that a priest has a duty of obedience to a bishop's *legitimate* orders. So, if a bishop orders a priest to wear a clown's suit around the parish the priest can laugh and tell him to do one. As I understand it, a bishop can ask and encourage a priest to submit a "request for laicization" but cannot order him to do so.
DeleteGregory: I read Pavone's letter and it gives a lot of helpful background information. And, yes, it certainly seems that Bishop Zurek was trying to shut up Pavone because he's a liberal. I think Pavone is entitled to make the maximum use of any rights he can claim under canon law. This includes the possibility of being transferred to another diocese (though there really is a problem being transferred to a THIRD diocese, where - so I understand - the bishop would be retiring in a year, and where the next bishop could be another Zurek). Ordinarily, though, a priest should accept, in obedience, the appointment he is given - even if the bishop is a jerk and hostile towards him. A rural church with 50 members also needs a good pastor, and so much good can be done in the most unpromising of parishes as that saintly chap in Ars found out in the 19th century. If it's the will of God that Fr Pavone and nobody else were necessary to lead PFL then I'm sure God would not find it too difficult to arrange for this to happen. But, equally, Fr Pavone might have done an excellent job as Director in training some priests who can do an even better job than him, and God might wish to take further Fr Pavone's excellent work by using the liberal bishop of Amarillo as a means of ensuring that an even better priest takes over as Director. So, the wicked plans of the unsaved bishop could all be for the greater glory of God! Who knows?
DeleteHere in the US, there are several (?) 'cancelled priests' and even an organisation of and for them. I wonder about the circumstances that brought each of them from the status 'priest in good standing' to that of 'priest who may or may not have faculties' etc etc, and remember them in my poor prayers, but good heavens, how can a distant observer be expected to know what's what in each of those cases? Bishops can be wicked or at least very unsaved but so can priests (as we all know); saying the right words in the right venue and to the right journalist doesn't make Father N. necessarily virtuous or martyr-material. What a world!
ReplyDeleteThe great majority of those priests are good priests, they made the mistake to speaking out on conservative issues, when their leftist or worse, openly homosexual bishops opposed them and shut them up.
DeleteIn this case, the Vatican had a low hanging fruit. This “rogue” priest had enough dubious circumstances to make himself an easy target. It goes without saying that the Vatican cabal needed Pavone and his pro-lifers out of the way.
ReplyDeleteThat's how it appears in my humble opinion.
Delete