The Catacombs
Rome Denies Fr. Pavone’s Request to Say Funeral Mass for His Mother - Printable Version

+- The Catacombs (https://thecatacombs.org)
+-- Forum: Post Vatican II (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Rome Denies Fr. Pavone’s Request to Say Funeral Mass for His Mother (/showthread.php?tid=7799)

Rome Denies Fr. Pavone’s Request to Say Funeral Mass for His Mother - Stone - 12-20-2025

Rome Denies Fr. Pavone’s Request to Say Funeral Mass for His Mother
The hierarchy can ration tradition, platform revolutionaries, and smile through public disorder — but a pro-life priest’s grief must be managed.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...0x854.webp]


Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile [slightly adapted] | Dec 19, 2025

The Letter
Fr. Frank Pavone posts a note on nuncio letterhead. Dated December 18, 2025. Signed by Cardinal Christophe Pierre. The request is simple, human, and so normal it should not need a file number: permission to celebrate his mother’s funeral Mass.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1379.jpeg]

The reply is the kind of bureaucratic cruelty the modern chancery class mistakes for “pastoral balance.” Condolences up front, a hard stop in the middle, and a pious seasonal flourish at the end. The core sentence is the only honest line in the whole genre: “the limitations imposed by your canonical status, compounded by the complexity of your public profile, make it impossible for the request to be considered.”

Impossible. That one word is the catechism of the new order. Not “this is painful,” not “this is delicate,” not even “we fear confusion.” Just impossible, as though a son’s grief were a missing form, as though the altar were a government counter.

And yes, the date is perfect. The same day the USCCB announced Dolan’s resignation and the appointment of Ronald Hicks as Archbishop of New York, an announcement publicized by Pierre himself.

One hand signs episcopal press releases. The other hand tells a priest he cannot bury his mother at the altar. This is what managerial Catholicism looks like when it stops pretending.


The Calling

The strongest defense of Fr. Pavone is that the Church herself put him on this battlefield and then punished him for fighting like it mattered.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1000.jpeg]

Fr. Pavone became a national pro-life figure because the Church treated the pro-life crisis as an apostolate worthy of national-scale priestly energy. Cardinal John O’Connor brought him into Priests for Life in the early 1990s, and for years he functioned publicly as a priest whose primary “assignment” was trench warfare against the legal killing of children.

That’s what makes the “public profile” sneer so telling. In the old Catholic imagination, public priestly work wasn’t a problem when it defended the innocent and proclaimed the moral law. In the new imagination, “public profile” is code for “you made the wrong people uncomfortable.”


The Transfer

Then came the shift that always shows you where the fault line really is. Not whether Pavone was “pro life.” Everyone says they’re pro life. The fight was whether he could keep doing it full throttle without being domesticated by chancery culture.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x763.jpeg]

After O’Connor’s era, the relationship with New York tightened into restrictions. Under Cardinal Edward Egan, Pavone’s situation became increasingly constrained, and the public record ties the eventual solution to exactly that friction. He needed a canonical home that would let Priests for Life function as his full time apostolate instead of a tolerated side gig under constant leash.

So in 2005 he transferred his incardination to Amarillo, Texas. Not because he wanted to become a West Texas parish priest. Because that move gave his national apostolate a stable diocesan anchor while the work continued largely based out of New York.

That’s the key. Amarillo wasn’t a “relocation.” It was a canonical shelter.


The Amarillo Turn

And for a time, it worked, because the bishop who received him treated the pro life mission the way a Catholic bishop is supposed to treat it: as something to defend, not something to manage.

Bishop John Yanta brought Pavone in and gave him room. He functioned like the safe harbor bishop, the one willing to let a national pro life priest be a national pro life priest, even if the work wasn’t tidy, even if it was loud, even if it annoyed the right people.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x785.jpeg]

Then Yanta retired. And this is where the story stops being mysterious and starts being familiar.

Bishop Patrick Zurek takes over Amarillo, and suddenly the screws turn. In 2011 comes the order to report back to the diocese for “prayer and reflection,” the episcopal phrase that always sounds spiritual and almost always means administrative containment. Come home. Get quiet. Submit. Let your apostolate be resized to fit diocesan control.

Zurek even said the quiet part out loud at the time. The pro life mission itself was “not in question.” That line is the modern episcopal two step. Praise the cause in principle, then punish the man who refuses to practice the cause in a way that is polite, controllable, and politically harmless.

So yes, the mission didn’t change. The bishop did. And when the bishop changes, the entire machine changes, because the bishop holds the canonical hook, and Rome holds the hammer.


The Clampdown

The whiplash came when episcopal control became the point.

Rome’s 2022 notice to the U.S. bishops said Pavone was dismissed from the clerical state for “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,” and that the decision allowed “no possibility of appeal.”

Whatever you think of his rhetoric, that combination should bother any Catholic who still believes penalties exist for the salvation of souls rather than the satisfaction of a bureaucracy. Maximum finality, minimum specificity, and a demand that the faithful treat the destruction of a public priesthood as an administrative memo.

The same coverage also notes what everyone knows but few will say out loud: Pavone’s political entanglements became part of the conflict, including the demand that he stop certain partisan activity, with disobedience cited as a core charge.

In America, that is not a small detail. It’s the key. Because abortion is not an abstract “issue” here. It is a civil religion. A priest who refuses to pretend the parties are morally symmetrical on legalized child-killing will inevitably be called “partisan,” even when he is simply refusing to lie about reality.


The Real Offense

If you want to understand why Pavone became intolerable to the new regime, don’t start with his Twitter tone. Start with what he made unavoidable.

Pro-life work at Pavone’s intensity forces choices. It forces clarity. It forces confrontation with the political machine that protects abortion. It forces Catholics to stop hiding behind soft phrases like “both sides” and “prudence” when one side treats dismembered children as a sacrament of autonomy.

That kind of priest is a living rebuke to an episcopal culture that wants pro-life words without pro-life consequences. They will praise the cause in principle while disciplining the man who refuses to keep the cause quiet.

So yes, his support for Trump matters here, not because Trump is a saint, but because 2016 and 2020 were not morally complicated on the central question of the state’s right to kill children. Pavone refused to play dumb. That refusal is what the managerial class cannot forgive.


The Double Standard

Now watch the machine’s selective squeamishness about “politics.”

When priests and bishops posture against Trump on immigration, the language becomes urgent, public, and photogenic. Reuters reported U.S. bishops condemning immigration enforcement and opposing “indiscriminate mass deportation,” with the usual moral framing.

The hierarchy is not “above politics.” It simply prefers its own politics.

Chicago supplies a perfect exhibit. Clergy activism around immigration enforcement has included public demonstrations connected to bringing Holy Communion to detainees at the Broadview ICE facility, being denied, and then turning the denial into a sustained media cycle, lawsuits, and headline.

When the cameras are pointed at Trump, public clerical activism is “prophetic.” When the cameras are pointed at abortion and a pro-life priest refuses to moderate his fire, the Church suddenly discovers that “public profile” makes everything impossible.

Chicago’s notorious Fr. Pfleger belongs in this conversation, because he has spent decades being publicly political while remaining institutionally survivable. Chicago media and national Catholic outlets have repeatedly treated his activism as part of the landscape rather than as grounds for eradication, even when it includes direct public attacks on Trump and his policies.

The rule is not “no politics.” The rule is “no politics that embarrasses the conciliar establishment.”


New York’s Sponsored Scandal

Then you get the kind of story that would have triggered immediate correction in a Catholic world that still feared scandal as the faithful once understood it.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...4x825.jpeg]

Gio Benitez was publicly confirmed at St. Paul the Apostle in Manhattan, with his “husband” serving as sponsor, and it was widely treated as a feel-good “inclusion” moment.

A Confirmation sponsor is a public ecclesial role held up to the faithful as exemplary Catholic life. A public same-sex civil “marriage” is not a private struggle. It is a public state. That is precisely why the Church traditionally treated such public contradictions as matters requiring correction, not applause.

So where is Pierre’s word “impossible” for that? Where is the letterhead clarity? Where is the hard stop?

It doesn’t exist. Because the postconciliar hierarchy’s idea of scandal has been inverted. Scandal is no longer what confuses souls about sin. Scandal is what embarrasses the managerial class.


The Nativity as Protest Sign

The same instinct shows up in smaller, uglier ways: sacred imagery converted into political signage, then defended as “prophetic,” and managed as optics.

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...x1800.jpeg]

The National Catholic Register documented the Boston-area parish standoff over an “anti-ICE” Nativity display, with the archdiocese calling it inappropriate and the pastor publicly resisting.

Notice the contrast with Pavone. There is “dialogue” and press conferences and public wrangling when the messaging aligns with the Church’s preferred political theater. But when a pro-life priest asks to bury his mother at the altar, the answer is not “let’s talk.” It’s impossible.


The Phrase That Gives It Away

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x893.jpeg]

Pierre’s letter did not merely cite canonical status. It added “the complexity of your public profile.”

That is the admission. This is not governance by the old Catholic categories of truth, repentance, reparation, scandal, and discipline ordered to salvation. It is governance by risk management. “Public profile” is the new crime. The unforgivable sin is to become a symbol the regime cannot control.

And that is why Pavone is still being punished even after the laicization. The system doesn’t merely want to discipline. It wants to domesticate memory. It wants priests to learn the lesson: if you choose the wrong enemies, Rome will remember your tone. If you choose the right enemies, Rome will remember your dignity.


A Word to Fr. Pavone

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...0x720.jpeg]

If Rome’s penalty is just, then it should be able to withstand sunlight. It should be able to explain itself with clarity, not slogans. It should be able to demonstrate proportionality, not merely power. And it should not need to add gratuitous cruelty by denying a son the ordinary consolation of the altar for his mother’s funeral.

But if the penalty is unjust, or weaponized, or infected with the regime’s obsession with optics and “public profile,” then it does not bind the conscience the way a truly lawful and truly ordered command binds.

Old Catholic moral theology never taught that “obedience” means moral suicide. Obedience is a virtue ordered to God, not a spell that turns injustice into justice because it came on letterhead. Commands that are contrary to the purpose of authority, or that are issued as petty punishment rather than the cure of souls, do not become holy merely by being issued. The Church’s law exists for salvation, not to satisfy the temperament of bureaucrats.

So here is the simplest way to say it, in a way Fr. Pavone can actually own without converting to anyone’s full ecclesiology overnight.

A son asking to offer the Holy Sacrifice for his mother is not asking for a political rally. He is asking for an act of religion. If those who wield power insist on turning that act of religion into a public humiliation, then their “authority” is functioning as a lash, not a staff.

And if they want to bare their teeth by escalating further, let them. Let them try to excommunicate a priest because he offered a funeral Mass for his mother. Let them force the mask fully off. Let them publish, in their own handwriting, the priority list they have tried to hide for sixty years.

Because the moment they do, the faithful will finally see the regime without incense and soft adjectives. Not a shepherd protecting souls, but a machine enforcing compliance. Not courage against the culture of death, but precision against the men who refuse to make peace with it.


Conclusion

Pierre’s letter says the request is “impossible.” Fine. Then the word becomes a mirror.

Impossible to let a pro-life priest mourn at the altar, yet somehow always possible to platform the clerics who soften sin into identity, possible to stage the sacraments as PR, possible to sermonize against Trump with cameras rolling, possible to treat political theater as pastoral courage.

This is why the faithful are angry, and why they are right to be. Not because discipline exists, but because discipline has become a class weapon.

If Fr. Pavone’s life has been a provocation, it is this: he treated abortion like the emergency it is. He refused to domesticate the horror. He refused to speak the dialect. He made the bishops’ cowardice visible simply by not sharing it.

And now the regime wants him to grieve quietly, offstage, out of sight, because even his mother’s funeral must be managed.

No.

If they are going to punish him, let them do it in the open. If they are going to show the faithful what kind of Church they have built, let them show it in full daylight. The altar does not belong to public relations men. The Mass is not a privilege dispensed to the compliant. And a son’s prayer for his mother is not “impossible” unless the men in charge have forgotten what the priesthood is for.

RE: Rome Denies Fr. Pavone’s Request to Say Funeral Mass for His Mother - Stone - 12-20-2025

Fr. Pavone’s laicization came from Pope Francis himself: canon lawyer
Fr. Frank Pavone's removal from the priesthood reportedly required the 'personal authorization' of the pope.


Dec 20, 2022
(LifeSiteNews) — The shocking decision to laicize pro-life priest Father Frank Pavone without appeal could only have come from Pope Francis himself, according to a prominent canon lawyer.

In an interview Sunday with Catholic News Agency (CNA), canonist Father Gerald Murray, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and a regular contributor to EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” noted that the Pope alone can issue a decision “against which there is no possible appeal.”

“Only the Pope, who enjoys ‘full and supreme power in the Church’ (canon 332, 1), can issue such a decision against which there is no possible appeal,” Murray said.

As first reported by CNA, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the apostolic nuncio to the United States, announced Pavone’s laicization in a December 13 letter to U.S. bishops.

According to Pierre, the prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Clergy approved a decree on November 9 dismissing Pavone from the clergy. Pierre described the pro-life priest’s removal as a “Supreme Decision admitting of no possibility of appeal.”

Moreover, The Pillar reported Monday that the Vatican laicized Pavone using special faculties granted to the Dicastery for the Clergy in 2009, and that method requires the “personal authorization” of the Pope.

“Because every ‘special faculties’ laicization is presented to the pope for his personal authorization, it is a legal act of the pope himself,” the outlet stated.

The Dicastery for the Clergy’s special faculties are an “extrajudicial process” that doesn’t allow for a formal trial in front of a tribunal of judges, according The Pillar.

The Pillar also reported that Bishop Patrick Zurek of the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, where Pavone was incardinated, petitioned the Vatican for his laicization.

Zurek has publicly clashed with Pavone for years and was one of more than 60 prelates who signed a letter in 2021 urging the U.S. bishops’ conference to halt discussions about denying Communion to politicians who facilitate the murder of children in abortion. Pavone, the longtime national director of Priests for Life, is well-known for his strong public condemnation of pro-abortion politicians and his opposition to giving them the Eucharist.


Legal issues with Fr. Pavone’s laicization

The Dicastery for the Clergy charged Pavone with “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop” – accusations that Pavone has refuted.

In Murray’s Sunday interview with CNA, however, he noted that laicization is not listed in the Code of Canon Law as a penalty for alleged blasphemy or disobedience:

Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law does not state that the possible penalties for these two offenses include dismissal from the clerical state. Canon 1368 states that a person who utters blasphemy is to be “punished with a just penalty.” Canon 1371 states that “a person who does not obey the lawful command” of his Ordinary “and after being warned, persists in disobedience, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the case, with a censure or deprivation of office or with other penalties mentioned in can 1336, 2-4.

What’s more, Pavone has attested that he has not received formal notice of his removal from the priesthood, which may also present problems under canon law, according to Murray:
Quote:Ordinarily, the priest who has received such a penalty is informed in a timely fashion. It would be interesting to know if and when Father Pavone received a copy of the decree in which the Supreme Decision was handed down and to see if the decree further specified the grounds upon which a decision was reached that he was guilty of blasphemy and disobedience.

[…]

Since the Holy See has chosen to impose this punishment that goes beyond what is foreseen in the Code of Canon Law, it would have been incumbent upon the diocesan bishop and the Holy See to warn Father Pavone that, if found guilty, he would face such a punishment that went beyond the provisions of the Code.

Puerto Rican Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres, whom Pope Francis abruptly removed from his diocese earlier this year over his opposition to vaccine mandates, similarly did not receive formal notice of his dismissal even months after news of the decision went public.