Pope Francis, Fr. Frank Pavone and the End of Roe v. Wade

Catholics were shocked by news that Pope Francis signed a decree dismissing Fr. Frank Pavone from the priesthood just months after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

January 4, 2023 by Fr. Gordon MacRae

As most readers of this post already know, I write as a priest in prison where I have spent the last 29 years in unjust confinement. In more recent years, much evidence has surfaced that I was wrongfully convicted, and that evidence has been repeatedly covered by a secular global media venue, The Wall Street Journal. Because I write for a blog with a global readership, others both here in my prison and beyond have come to see that faith is a better path to true freedom than any other. Priesthood, even in confinement, is meant to be lived in a state of sacrificial fatherhood.

Now I wonder how my stubborn clinging to something under such public assault as Catholic priesthood might be seen in the light of recent revelations about Pope Francis and the ever-growing reality of “cancelled priests” to which he seems to have lent the power of his pen. News of the dismissal from the priesthood of Father Frank Pavone, the most respected, outspoken, and visible prolife priest in North America, cast a good part of the Catholic prolife world back into the land of gloom just before Christmas. That drama continues with lots of finger-pointing.

As I ponder this troubling development, my own finger keeps turning like a compass needle to a possible causal connection. Midway through 2022 I wrote, “After Roe v. Wade, Hope for Life and a Nation’s Soul.” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights sent that post to all its thousands of members asking them to read and share it. The U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade cast much of this nation into political turmoil. It generated on the political left waves of threatened reprisals against Catholic churches, prolife Catholics, and the entire prolife movement. Did reprisals come from within the Church as well?

My internal compass cannot help but notice that only five months later, the most visibly prolife Catholic priest in America was removed from the priesthood ostensibly for behaviors that ordinarily would not have resulted in such a penalty. Fr. Pavone and others with internal knowledge of this bombshell have insinuated that activist progressive bishops brought pressure to bear. If this is true, and evidence surfaces to support this claim, it would be a scandal of immense proportions for the prolife cause and for the Church.

There are some that would readily imagine political payback as the true heart of this decision. Others see it as an unjust punishment imposed for reasons more secular and political than ecclesial. In his homily to priests on his apostolic visit to the United States in Philadelphia in 1979, Pope John Paul II articulated the indelible character of the priestly vocation: “It cannot be that God who gave the impulse to say ‘yes’ now wishes to hear ‘no.’”

We are not owed explanations of the Pope’s deliberations so we may never have an adequate explanation of this. But I cannot forget the last words published by Father Richard John Neuhaus about my own situation. The late Father Neuhaus was one of the premier theologians and observers of Catholic culture in the Church in North America. In “A Kafkaesque Tale” in First Things magazine (August-September 2008) he wrote of my imprisonment:

“You may want to pray for Father MacRae and for a Church and a justice system that seem indifferent to justice.”

We must now pray as well for Father Frank Pavone and all who were involved in bringing about his separation from priesthood. The Church must not seem indifferent to justice. The timing of this matter could not have been worse for prolife Catholics who sacrificed much over many years working toward a conscience-driven judicial reversal of Roe v. Wade even as many in the Catholic hierarchy set it aside in favor of other moral priorities such as climate change.

Absent any other explanation for Father Pavone’s dismissal, many are left to conclude something nefarious. There is no shortage of demonic attack on the champions of the Catholic prolife movement. I alluded to this in a paragraph in my recent post, “Joseph’s Dream and the Birth of the Messiah”:

“Our culture’s turning away from life is also a turning away from God. The fact that many nominally Catholic politicians lend their voices and votes to that turning away is a betrayal of Biblical proportions. In the Story of God and human beings, we have been here before. Planned Parenthood is our culture’s Temple to Baal.”

Double Standards

I have, in the past, expressed concerns about the fervent witness of high-profile outspoken priests like Fr. Frank Pavone and Fr. James Altman. I have written of my belief that their message might be more effective with some toning down of their rhetoric. Some readers reminded me that Jesus Himself did not seem to think so when he drove the money-changers out of the Temple (Mark 11:15). So, to borrow a phrase from Pope Francis himself, “Who am I to judge?”

Still, I have witnessed Father Pavone react to this latest news with an aura of both written and verbal apparent disrespect for Church authority. His anger is suspect, but the absence of any anger would be much more suspect. Would priesthood mean so little to him that being discarded should be met with calm acquiescence?

I recently received a letter from a priest in which he wrote, “I understand that you have a problem with Pope Francis. Perhaps you just don’t understand him.” I asked the priest what gave him that impression. In response, he referred to a post of mine entitled, “Pope Francis in a Time of Heresy.” It is but one of many posts I have written about Pope Francis. None were disrespectful.

However, the priest who wrote to me had not read anything beyond the title before concluding that I have a problem with Pope Francis and therefore use this blog to rebel. That could not be further from the truth. The “heresy” described in that post was not that of Pope Francis at all. It rather challenged the many self-described traditional and conservative Catholics who openly charged that any question of divorce, remarriage, and Communion cheapens the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and undermines it.

True or not, those same Catholics had little or nothing to say when it was the Sacrament of Holy Orders that came under assault in 2002 and remains so. The “heresy” post ended up holding the record for being shared on social media (over 25,000 times on Facebook alone) only because many who thought it accused Pope Francis of heresy never actually read it.

After news of Father Pavone’s dismissal from priesthood, one of our readers referred to Pope Francis in a comment as “the fake pope.” Like Elon Musk (but with none of his resources) I much prefer to let people speak their minds, but I asked to have the word “fake” removed before posting that comment. Francis is the legitimate successor of the Chair of Peter. As priests, both Father Pavone and I owe allegiance and fidelity to his office. Sometimes exercising that fidelity means also writing and speaking the truth. I am committed to doing so without anger or insult.

However, many readers of this blog have commented that a clear double standard exists in the discipline of priests. It is widely believed that conservative and traditional priests are treated with more oversight and disdain from hierarchy than so-called progressive clerics. Many cite Fr. James Martin who openly challenges and even disregards Catholic moral teaching on sexual and gender issues, and some of the German bishops who defied Pope Francis by the blessing of same-sex unions.

None have received any penalty, much less the nuclear bomb dropped on Father Pavone and Priests for Life. The U.S. Bishops Conference had an opportunity, supported by many bishops, to address with pro-abortion Catholic politicians the dichotomy between what they profess as Catholics and what they practice in regard to the right to life. A few bishops took a courageous stance. Most voted against it, and the matter was left to dangle unaddressed. I wrote of this double standard in “Biden and the Bishops: Communion and the Care of a Soul.”

Because the subject, and that post, surfaced just months before a presidential election in 2020, the topic was largely suppressed in the media, a trend that now has a familiar ring. Suppressed as well is the fact that Pope Francis has himself made many bold statements in support of the prolife cause while his climate change statements are widely disseminated in the media. Given this, one would hope that he would be conscious of double standards and their effect on clergy and laity alike.

A Bombshell for So Many Catholics

As I was preparing to write this post, a reader sent me a recording from the popular radio show, “Catholic Drive Time with Joe McClane.” The episode was devoted to news of Fr. Frank Pavone’s dismissal, and Pavone himself was a call-in guest of the show. Joe McClane referred to the dismissal as “a bombshell for so many Catholics.”

Father Pavone was asked to respond to the matter, and said with some sarcasm, “What took them so long?” I expect him to be angry and disappointed, but I do not think sarcasm serves his cause. One concerned priest and canon lawyer observed this as well, and told me that Father Pavone may not be entirely innocent in all this. I recall a similar discussion with a reader who defended former police officer Derek Chauvin who brought about the death of George Floyd in 2020. He stated that Floyd tried to pass a fake $20 bill. True or not, no one in America is executed over a fake $20 bill.

Also appearing on the same show was Father Gerald Murray, JCD, a well-known canon lawyer in the Archdiocese of New York who appears frequently as part of “The Papal Posse” on EWTN’s The World Over with Raymond Arroyo. I have much respect for Father Murray and his canonical expertise. He pointed out that the charges against Father Pavone are two-fold: blasphemy in Internet postings and persistent disobedience to his bishop.

The charges were adjudicated by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy at the behest of the Bishop of Amarillo, Texas, Father Pavone’s bishop. Father Pavone was then judged to be guilty of both offenses. However, neither of those offenses, even if found to be true, generally result in a canonical dismissal from the clerical state according to Father Murray who added that punishment for those offenses went beyond what is prescribed in Canon Law. Father Pavone’s bishop may have requested removal. Until a formal decree is issued, no one seems to know how this dismissal came about, according to Father Murray.

To his credit, Father Pavone went on to explain that he has laid out his defense against the charges on his personal website, FrFrankPavone.com. I am told that there is a lot there to read, and I encourage readers with concerns about this matter to peruse that site.

In his Catholic Drive Time radio interview, Father Pavone concluded, “I urge everyone to respect authority in the Church, but I do not respect abuse of authority.” He did not place blame directly with Pope Francis for his dismissal, but with “certain bishops” who “lie, block and obstruct to control the kind of prolife message” the Church will hear.” He cited as an example of the abuse of process that he learned of his dismissal from Catholic News Agency instead of from his own bishop.

Priests for Life

The high-profile case of Father Pavone has now resulted in a high-profile reaction, some of it marked by obvious anger. The Coalition for Canceled Priests issued a statement from Sister Dede Byrne who found national prominence when she was invited to address the Republic National Convention before the 2020 presidential election where she advocated strongly for rights and protections for the unborn. Here is a segment of her public response to the laicization of Father Frank Pavone:

“The most vocal prolife priest has been laicized! What crime has he done to warrant such a harsh punishment? In the wake of this travesty, we still have the most pro-death, anti-nuclear family president in our nation’s history who professes to be a Catholic in good standing ... with no real guidance from our bishops or the Vatican ... What appears to many Catholics who love our Church is selective mercy from the Pope of Mercy. I ask myself, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on Earth?” (Luke 18:7)

Sister Dede Byrne touched upon what should be a grave concern for every priest. What happened to Father Pavone likely would not have happened just a decade ago. Another canon lawyer explained to me that under a 21st-Century papal decree, bishops obtained the authority to seek a priest’s removal from ministry and even formal dismissal from the clerical state without a penal process. Some have come to see this as the Church’s own version of capital punishment. More frequent use of this development should cause concern for every priest and lay Catholic. Such a process invites abuse and the application of bias against what a bishop might perceive as ideologically undesirable clergy.

The message sent by Pope Francis is that he is on board with such a cause. I wonder if he fully knows the deep sadness and disillusionment now thrust upon priests, the faithful, and especially the prolife cause in this dichotomy. The Pope who assumed the Chair of Peter and launched the Year of Mercy in his papacy appears to have abandoned all mercy for priests.

I have not been dismissed from priesthood. I hope and pray that such an injustice never befalls me. Father Frank Pavone and I have only the grace of fortitude. I never knew I had it until recently. It is defined as “Strength of mind that allows one to endure pain or adversity with courage.” We could both simply abandon the Church and be free of all scrutiny and betrayal, but the grace of fortitude stands in the way. I thank God for that.

An appeal of this dismal is not possible because the outcome already bears the signature of the highest authority in the Church. In 2002, however, Saint John Paul II reminded bishops that they should not lose sight of the power of prayer and conversion in the life of a priest. The Pope is also a priest and he can reconsider his own conclusions. Pope Francis and Father Frank Pavone are both priests for life. Please pray for them in these difficult days for the priesthood. Above all, pray for justice. The Church and priesthood are much diminished without it.

+ + +

Note from Fr. Gordon MacRae: Writing for The Catholic Thing, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D, STD, has written perhaps the most pointed analysis in print on this matter: “Fr. Pavone and “The Spirit of Vatican I.”

Thank you for reading and sharing this week’s post. You may also like these related posts from Beyond These Stone Walls:

The Duty of a Priest: Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life

Pope Francis in a Time of Heresy

Will Pope Francis Stand Against Catholic Schism?

Biden and the Bishops: Communion and the Care of a Soul

+ + +

Photo courtesy of Vatican Media

+ + +

One of our Patron Saints, Saint Maximilian Kolbe, founded a religious site in his native Poland called Niepokalanowa. Today the Chapel has a real-time live feed for a most beautiful adoration chapel where people around the world can spend time in Eucharistic Adoration. We invite you to come and spend some quiet time adoring our Lord.

Click or tap the image for live access to the Adoration Chapel.

As you can see the monstrance for Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is most unusual. It is an irony that all of you can see it but I cannot. So please remember me while you are there. For an understanding of the theology behind this particular monstrance of the Immaculata, see my post “The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of God.”

The Duty of a Priest: Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life

In a bombshell report, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and the most visible pro-life priest in America has been dismissed from the priesthood by Pope Francis.

December 18, 2022 by Fr. Gordon MacRae

Note from Fr. Gordon MacRae: In a bombshell report that I learned of only today it seems that Fr. Frank Pavone, Director of Priests for Life and the most visible pro-life cleric in North America has been dismissed from the clerical state by Pope Francis. At this juncture, the dismissal is both inconceivable and unexplained. Fr. George David Byers wrote of it with some attachments today.

I plan to postpone further comment on this troubling development for pro-life Catholics until there is further clarification from Rome, if ever. Of interest, I wrote this post about Fr. Frank Pavone and his struggles eleven years ago. Much that I described in this post has now come to pass. I have never been more sorrowful for being right. Please pray for Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life.

+ + +

For about a year now, Beyond These Stone Walls has had a link to Priests for Life, one of the strongest and most vocal pro-life organizations with oversight from the Catholic Church. So when news began to circulate that Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life since 1993, was “recalled” to his diocese — the Diocese of Amarillo — I paid attention, as did many.

Before commenting on the justice or injustice of what has occurred to date in this matter, however, I must comment on the context. It has become clear to me even from behind these stone walls that not all is as it seems. Generally, a matter such as this would generate some dialogue within the Church, perhaps even in the Catholic media, but that would be the extent of its interest. This matter between Father Frank Pavone and Amarillo Bishop Patrick Zurek, however, has also become fodder for comments in the secular media providing fuel for the speculation and controversy now surrounding Father Pavone.

What exactly is the controversy? Father Frank Pavone has been recalled to his diocese, the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, by his bishop. Father Pavone has been neither suspended nor disciplined for any cause. A Catholic News Service account included some clarification of this by Msgr. Harold Waldow, Vicar for Clergy in the Diocese of Amarillo:

“Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, remains a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas. … Msgr. Harold Waldow told CNS that Bishop Patrick J. Zurek only suspended Father Pavone’s ministry outside of the diocese because the well-known pro-life priest is needed for work in Amarillo.”

— Catholic News Service, Sept. 14, 2011

But there remains some taint upon Father Pavone. This matter between a priest and his bishop has become a matter of public dispute, and that itself is a violation of Father Pavone’s rights under Church law. After writing a letter to the nation’s bishops describing his suspension of Father Pavone’s ministry outside his own diocese, the bishop reportedly released the letter publicly. That seems to be what sparked their differences thrusting this matter into a public forum, but without any clear allegation of wrongdoing.

Brian Fraga wrote an informative article about this in Our Sunday Visitor (“Pro-life priest ‘baffled’ by bishop’s shutdown,” OSV, October 2, 2011). He cited the broad support that has emerged for Father Pavone including from the Priests for Life Board of Directors, from the National Pro-Life Council, and other corners. Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Rev. Martin Luther King and a staunch pro-life advocate, has released a powerfully supportive statement about Father Pavone and Priests for Life.

I have believed from the outset that the hype about all this has little to do with Father Frank Pavone and Bishop Zurek. It has to do with Priests for Life and its vocally Catholic pro-life stance. There is an agenda out there — an agenda with tentacles that have reached deeply into the arena of Catholic life — that would be encouraged by the diminishment or outright destruction of the Church’s pro-life ministry. In this entire matter, it is not only Father Pavone whose reputation is on the line. It is also the Church’s pro-life stance, consistently undermined by those who want compromise with a secular agenda in the culture war.

The demise of Priests for Life would be a great trophy for that agenda. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I can’t help notice that this story is unfolding nationally just as a Presidential Primary is taking shape, and the culture war is gearing up for battle.

Resisting Secular Sabotage

In a chapter entitled “Self-Sabotage: Catholicism” in his book, Secular Sabotage (Faith Words, 2009), Catholic League President Bill Donohue pointed out that dissent in the Church’s pro-life ministry is not as simple as some trendy left-wing Catholics promoting abortion. Very few people of even the remotest Christian persuasion actually promote abortion as a societal good. What Bill Donohue pointed out was something much more subtle. There is a growing consensus among left-wing Catholics that the Church has simply lost the battle for life and should just move on.

Please note here that I do not use the term “left-wing Catholics” in any derogatory sense. I spent much of my life and ministry squarely in that camp. So did Father Richard John Neuhaus and Cardinal Avery Dulles, two exemplary Churchmen to whose memory we have dedicated Beyond These Stone Walls. Their drift to the right is far more a story of their embracing the great adventure of orthodoxy to the Magisterial authority of the Church — an authority that took precedence for them above any trendy political ideology.

My own drift away from the left followed their same example. It marked the official end of my adolescence that the life of the Church took precedence over my own sometimes highly misinformed publicly dissenting points of view.

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 hijacked 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 has not 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.

I have a personal example of how this works right here at Beyond These Stone Walls. For over two years now, BTSW has presented the views of a priest claiming to be falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned. So much of what I have written has been in direct confrontation with the agendas and claims of victim groups like SNAP and Catholic “reform” groups like Voice of the Faithful. Some of my postings about the Catholic League report, “SNAP Exposed” have been confrontational. My three-part series, “When Priests Are Falsely Accused” made a very controversial case for why accusers should be named. Nothing flies in the face of the cult of victimhood like that particular point of view.

But very few people disagreed with me or attacked these statements and positions. At first, I wondered if these controversial posts were even noticed, but then I learned they were widely disseminated. Even the Spanish-language news network, Univision, posted links to “When Priests Are Falsely Accused” on their website, as did National Public Radio and many international secular sites. Very few people disagreed with me or attacked these posts.

The very worst attack — though a rather wimpy one — was a one-line comment from SNAP director, David Clohessy. Commenting on the Spero News version of my BTSW post, “Due Process for Accused Priests?” David Clohessy called me “a dangerous and demented man.” Maybe he didn’t read “Sticks and Stones: My Incendiary Blog Post on Catholic Civil Discourse.”

But in contrast to the lack of any real attacks on Beyond These Stone Walls was a barrage of nasty e-mail attacks when I posted a clearly pro-life article, “The Last Full Measure of Devotion: Civil Rights and the Right to Life” last January. I got clobbered. Some of the messages called me all sorts of names, denounced Beyond These Stone Walls, and denigrated those who assist me as its editors. It was perfectly okay with these people if I remind Catholics that some priests are falsely accused and some Americans are wrongly imprisoned. But how dare I use a Catholic blog to post a reasoned and thoughtful defense of the Catholic Church’s pro-life position and why it should not be compromised?

So that’s it then. I can write that a lot of men and women have committed fraud by falsely accusing Catholic priests of decades-old abuses. I can write that some of our bishops have been unwittingly complicit in this fraud and have left their priests vulnerable by blindly settling virtually every claim. I can even write that some of the purported “victims” are in fact criminals who should have their names and their claims exposed before any real due process and justice can take place. Not many on the left or right had much to say in response to any of that. But when I wrote about why abortion is a basic civil rights issue, some Catholics called me a “predator priest who should be silenced by the Church.” One writer called for prison officials to confiscate my typewriter.

It all reminded me of a troubling conversation I had with a prisoner two years ago. He was a career criminal; a gangster, a thief and a thug, who came to my  door one day. “I have a question,” he said:

“Can you explain to me why all these Catholics can say they are protecting children when they scream about 30 or 40 year old claims of child abuse, but then have nothing to say about the fourteen million American babies sacrificed in abortions in just the last decade?”

It’s a hard question for which I have no answer. But I explained to him that no one in our Church will call him a gangster, a thief, or a thug unless he asks a question like that too loudly.

This was when I really came to admire Father Frank Pavone. I became aware of how visible the target on his back really is. As I wrote two weeks ago at the end of “Thy Brother’s Keeper,” I bow to Father Pavone’s faithful witness to both the truth and to his duty as a priest which is to preserve both his obligations and his rights under Church law. The bottom line is that anyone who thinks his bishop is going to protect his rights has not been paying attention in the last ten years.

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’:

“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 Beyond 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.

Complicating my own comments on this matter is the fact that Father Frank Pavone and I have the same Canonical Advocate in the person of Father David L. Deibel, J.D., J.C.L. who has broad training and experience in both civil and Church law. He, of course, has not discussed the Father Pavone matter with me at all. He is an accomplished professional motivated by the law and an impeccable set of ethics.

But Father Deibel has come under some highly unjust fire because of his advocacy for me. Some have used this to try to impugn his reputation and undermine Father Pavone’s own canonical defense. In truth, Father David Deibel was the sole Church official to appear at my trial and sentencing over seventeen years ago. He traveled from California at his own expense to do this. At the time I was sentenced by Judge Arthur Brennan to 67 years in prison, Father David Deibel was one of only two people in that courtroom with the moral courage and personal integrity to speak the truth, despite knowing that there was a price to pay for it. Father David Deibel was one of the heroes in my case, and the extent to which this is true will very soon be placed into public view. There is a lot more to come in this regard, and it is indeed coming.

Meanwhile, the Church owes Father Frank Pavone the right of defense — and respect, support, and encouragement for his tireless voice on behalf of those who have been denied one. Click here for Father Frank Pavone updates.