Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Apr 25, 2023 / 05:30 am (CNA).
Frank Pavone, the national director of the pro-life organization Priests for Life, has repeatedly framed his dismissal from the priesthood late last year as the culmination of a long-running campaign by some in the Catholic hierarchy to undermine his outspoken pro-life activism.
“This is not just an attack on me,” Pavone said in a Dec. 19, 2022, statement, “but an effort by forces both inside and outside the Church to intimidate every courageous pro-life priest and lay activist.”
Pavone’s narrative is difficult to square with his recent troubles, however, as former members of his own organization and other leaders in the wider pro-life community have sought to distance themselves from him, especially after several women went public with allegations that Pavone sexually harassed them while they worked for him at Priests for Life. Those accusations, first reported by The Pillar, led two former Priest for Life officials to call for Pavone to step down from the organization to allow for an independent investigation.
More recently, several pro-life leaders, frustrated by what they see as Pavone’s lack of transparency and accountability, have gone public with complaints that Pavone has not provided straight answers either about the Vatican’s action or the misconduct allegations.
Among them is Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-life Action League, who resigned in February from a private forum of pro-life leaders convened by Pavone and Priests for Life to coordinate strategies. Pavone and Scheidler had worked closely together over the years on the National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children.
“I have completely lost confidence in Frank’s leadership,” Scheidler said in a letter of resignation from the 115 Forum. “I no longer trust him, or Priests for Life, as partners in my work at the Pro-Life Action League.”
Other pro-life leaders who spoke to CNA say they still strongly back Pavone. One supporter, Troy Newman, executive director of Operation Rescue, told CNA the prospect of losing Pavone as the head of Priests for Life would be “like missing General George Patton from WWII.” He described Pavone’s critics within the pro-life community as “leftists” and dismissed the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Pavone, which include accusations of inappropriate touching and other alleged grooming behavior, as “hyped-up baloney.”
‘Working for greater unity’
A central figure in pro-life activism for the past 30 years, Pavone was arguably the most prominent pro-life voice among the U.S. Catholic clergy before the Vatican in November permanently barred him from functioning as a priest, for what it called his “blasphemous” social media posts and “persistent disobedience” to his bishop, Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo, Texas.
Pavone, 64, has become known, at least in recent years, for his strident and occasionally profanity-laced social media posts, as well as his full-throated public support of former president Donald Trump. He also gained significant attention in late 2016 after placing the body of an aborted baby on a table used for Mass while livestreaming an endorsement of Trump.
Pavone’s dismissal from the priesthood garnered significant attention in part because Priests for Life is one of the most influential Catholic pro-life groups in the country.
Based in Titusville, Florida, the organization, which says it employs about 50 people, routinely elicits donations in excess of $10 million each year, thanks in large part to Pavone’s talents as a provocative news commentator with more than 217,000 Twitter followers. That’s millions more in donations than the annual contributions made to other pro-life organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee and Live Action, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filings. In the years 2014-2018, Priests for Life reported total contributions of $55.8 million, its 2018 federal tax filing shows.
As it explains on its website, Priests for Life has two main purposes.
First, it works “to galvanize the clergy to preach, teach, and mobilize their people more effectively in the effort to end abortion and euthanasia,” primarily through talks, training seminars, videos posted on social media, and participation in pro-life events around the U.S. and abroad.
Second, it supports a “family” of affiliated pro-life ministries including Rachel’s Vineyard, a retreat program for women and men who have lost children to abortion, and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, which encourages those who now regret their abortions to speak out about their experiences.
In addition to these efforts, Priests for Life sees “working for greater unity within the pro-life movement” as integral to its mission. But some pro-life leaders say Pavone’s handling of the crises he’s faced in recent months is having the opposite effect.
Monica Migliorino Miller, director of the Michigan-based group Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, said she was disappointed that Pavone gave no advance warning to her and other pro-life leaders about the Vatican’s severe sanctions, which came after a formal canonical process in Rome.
“His dismissal from the priesthood came as a total shock to me as I thought his difficulties with his bishop were resolved,” Miller told CNA. “Apparently that was not the case.”
In response to media inquiries about these issues, Pavone has frequently referred back to a 13,600-word, 26-page-long PDF document posted to his personal website detailing, from Pavone’s perspective, his “persecution” by Bishop Zurek and other Church leaders, going back to his early conflicts with Cardinal Edward Egan in the early 2000s when Priests for Life was based in Staten Island, New York.
Scheidler, the head of the Pro-Life Action League, told CNA he was shocked when Pavone referred him to the same document when he asked Pavone about the controversies.
“Why is he asking me to read a 30-page website and hundreds of documents to answer my three, four simple questions, instead of just answering them?” Scheidler asked.
Reading Pavone’s account after Pavone continued to be evasive in meetings with pro-life leaders only added to his dismay, he said.
Over his 17 years as a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo, Pavone appears to have disobeyed Bishop Zurek’s instructions on several occasions, including a 2014 order that Pavone was not to appear in the media and a 2016 order — issued soon after the incident with the aborted baby — not to celebrate Mass publicly or wear his clerical garb.
Pavone has circulated a pair of letters he says support his claims that Zurek was determined to get rid of him., one of which was written in March 2016 by the late Monsignor Harold Waldow, then Amarillo’s vicar of clergy, attesting to the “personal animus” Zurek exhibited toward Pavone.
Scheidler said Pavone’s lack of transparency about these conflicts and sanctions has hurt the reputations of pro-life organizations that have associated themselves with Priests for Life over the years.
“I found just a pattern of obfuscation, of equivocation, of dividing and conquering,” Scheidler said of his reading of Pavone’s account. “He was always trying to set the Vatican off against the U.S. bishops, one bishop off against another.”
More recently, Scheidler said he was deeply disturbed by Pavone saying that he is being “aborted” for his pro-life activism.
“So in every profession, including the priesthood, if you defend the #unborn, you will be treated like them!” Pavone tweeted on Dec. 17, 2022. “The only difference is that when we are ‘aborted,’ we continue to speak, loud and clear.”
“The fact that Frank presented himself as a victim, the fact that he compared himself to an aborted baby … I’ve heard this guy speak so eloquently about the unborn child, but then make this bizarre comparison to himself, no matter how extreme of a punishment laicization is, to suggest that that’s like being aborted is just bizarre. It’s unhinged,” Scheidler said.
Herb Geraghty, a secular pro-life leader with Rehumanize International who also resigned from the Pavone-led private forum, similarly expressed frustration about Pavone’s ambiguous comments about the sexual harassment charges leveled against him. Pavone has never specifically refuted the allegations publicly, saying instead that he is “enormously saddened by recent efforts of some to revisit old accusations that contain numerous inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and mistruths, that have already been addressed.”
The Diocese of Amarillo has remained silent about the women’s accounts, leaving numerous questions unanswered.
After the allegations came out, Geraghty said it became clear that Pavone “did not [have an explanation],” even for fellow pro-life leaders, apart from saying that the situation was “handled.”
“I have been extremely disappointed and uncomfortable with the responses I have heard [from Pavone and Priests for Life] on this issue, and I can tell you they’re not any different from what the public responses have been,” Geraghty said.
‘It’s about the fruits’
Other pro-life leaders with deep ties to the former priest have fiercely defended him in recent months, dismissing calls for Pavone to step aside as the work of those — mainly fellow Catholics — who may want Pavone to exit the pro-life movement.
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue opined that Pavone’s laicization was “100%” due to a desire among the U.S. bishops to quash Pavone’s pro-life ministry and said he believes that Pavone’s pro-life critics have disavowed Pavone not because they couldn’t get answers but because of “political, religious, and moral differences.”
“The people who know Father Frank know him, and will continue to support him,” Newman said, describing him as one of “the most driven pro-life people I know.”
Joe Langfeld, executive director of Human Life Alliance, a pro-life group based in Minneapolis, said he sees no reason to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and ask Pavone to step aside after what he sees as the “tremendous good” that Pavone has done for the pro-life movement in the U.S.
“For us, it’s about the fruits,” Langfeld said.
Gregg Cunningham is one of several pro-life leaders who said they are satisfied with Pavone’s response to misconduct allegations. Cunningham leads the California-based Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, on whose board Pavone has sat for the past 25 years.
He said he believes pro-life leaders currently disavowing Pavone are doing so, at least in part, because they are jealous of Pavone’s prominent position in the U.S. pro-life movement.
“If I were persuaded that Father Pavone were guilty of mistreating the women … then I would ask him to resign from our board. But that’s not what I see here,” Cunningham said.
“There’s a scandal here. But the scandal is not anything Father Frank has done,” Cunningham said.
“The scandal is what’s being done to Father Frank. And the scandal is the Church has turned away from this holocaust [of abortion] and is persecuting somebody who tried to take the holocaust seriously.”
Priests for Life did not answer CNA’s questions about the pro-life leaders’ concerns or whether Pavone has any plans to step aside from his leadership position. The organization issued a more general statement instead.
“The false accusations and vitriol are truly unfortunate, and Priests for Life has not contributed or encouraged our supporters to respond in kind. We have great love and respect for all members in our movement, and we are grateful for the tremendous and widespread support amongst pro-life leadership,” the statement from Priests for Life reads.
“We will not be deterred by distractions of any kind and are instead committed to our mission of protecting the sanctity and gift of life,” the statement adds.
‘Serious reckoning’ needed
Miller of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society believes the fallout from Pavone’s dismissal from the priesthood and the sexual misconduct allegations against him have caused “a very large conflict” within the pro-life movement.
“The fact is, Frank is one of the most important pro-life leaders, and up to a point what affects him, in terms of any scandal, even if baseless, also affects other leaders,” Miller said.
Geraghty agreed.
“I have no interest in canceling Pavone … accountability doesn’t mean shunning him and never allowing him to do pro-life work ever again,” Geraghty said. “But it might mean that he needs to have a serious reckoning with how he has treated people in the past.”
For his part, Scheidler said he believes it is vital for the movement to “rebuild our public image from the ground up,” present a united front, and show an increasingly hostile culture that the movement is pro-woman.
“This is a movement that has been commissioned to share a very difficult message with a culture that does not want to hear it,” Scheidler said. “And if we haven’t got the courage to call out dishonesty within our own movement, then how can we succeed with the American public?”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“And if we haven’t got the courage to call out dishonesty within our own movement, then how can we succeed with the American public?”
That applies to other folks we all know as well.
If those you disagree with become powerful, the only option left to you is to destroy them. Funny, I thought the Scriptures told us to admonish our brothers not to destroy them. Unfortunately our Church is very much on script with how the Left operates.
Hope your observation catches on……I’ve seen the hypocrisy for years. Pavone gets ostracized from the Catholic church for defending the unborn and Biden and Pelosi get praised from the Left for approving all who want to destroy babies. All the while the Catholic church remains silent……like they did during the holocaust.
Corrections to Brian (Young?):
1. Catholic Church; not Catholic church. As the one and only true Church, it is properly recognized as the Catholic Church. Not capitalizing church in this context applies to all heretical churches, like Protestant churches.
2. The myth regarding the so-called silence of the Church during the Holocaust is still pushed by haters of the Catholic Church despite the fact that it has been debunked by honest historians. Many books and videos are available to learn the true history wherein Pope Pius XII did many, many, many things to aid as many Jews as he could, and this is why many leaders in Israel honored him for his support.
Try the following books to learn the truth:
A. “Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler” by Mark Riebling.
B. “Hitler, the War, and the Pope” by Ronald Rychlak.
Also see the following article:
“The Jewish Defenders of Pius XII” in the Catholic Answers website.
____________________________________________
3. See my comment post in these comboxes on the Pavone situation. We agree for the most part on this.
You are absolutely correct. The Bishops wanted to avoid the issue of Pelosi and Biden fearing political repercussions. The issue of Frank Pavone did not reach those heights, yet they needed the support of the Vatican to meet their objective.I wonder what Christ would say?
I’m with Fr.Frank Pavone— a priest that has stood up for the babies for years….we really don’t know if the whole liberal storyis true…Just like Trump how some just hate him and make up stories, thank you Fr.Frank Pavone for saving babies lives….as he continues to. There are many priests that have stood up for God and have been condemned as well as taking away their priesthood….Fr. Altman for one…we have some bad bishops.
I also think we should reserve judgement. Prolife division & Catholic bickering is exactly what the secularists & population control interests want to see from us.
The Disciples used to bicker amongst themselves, right?
Probably so. Our fallen human nature doesn’t change much.
Divide & conquer is a very old tactic & I think diabolical comes from a Greek word meaning to scatter or break apart.
A Prayer for All Mothers
I pray for mothers whose kids drive them wild,
For every mother of a preborn child.
I pray for mothers who cannot be,
For them to cling to Jesus, His Blood, and the tree.
I pray for mothers’ who gave their child away,
For their suffering day after day.
For a mother of a child never born,
And for her heart trampled and torn.
I pray for her regrets and fears,
I pray for her tears.
May every child look their mother in the eye,
My ultimate prayer, they won’t have to die.
Hear the whisper, end the strife,
“Mom, take my hand, not my life.”
Holy See has to stop acquiescing in the slander of people who refuse to co-operate with abortion in the Church; and stop acquiescing in the scandalizing that is sought to be found, by scandalizers, out of this, for whatever reason.
If someone has something “from the past” it can be dealt with without scandal according to the justice due to it. First of all it is wrong not to observe this. Secondly it is grave scandal to keep producing these kinds of scandals.
Is the Holy See seeking as well to acquiesce in the scandalization of those outside the Church who refuse to co-operate in evil? This scandal problem erupted in the 20th Century on a lesser scale and never was of the Church.
The way things have been going these days in the Church, one can easily believe either side– or suspect that neither side is completely clean.
Maybe it’s not “the true church” as it claims. Jesus and the apostles had major differences and message than the Catholics of today.
I am in one hundred percent agreement with Eric Scheidler on this matter and find it offensive that Frank Pavone has found it necessary to avoid answering simple questions. But then again, perhaps his ego is such that he cannot bring himself to deal with the problems affacting him in an honest, forthright manner. This is why we are praying for him.
Some food for thought for all honest readers of CWR:
1. In the article, the writers refer to “several women” levying accusations against then Fr. Pavone.
NB: I recall reading about 2, perhaps 3 women, but “several” disingenuously suggests many more by the writers. Also, the allegations are some 13 years old. The Bishop who wanted Pavone out of the priesthood had every incentive to find the women complaints “credible,” but even he found them insufficient, yet he advised the woman or women that they could sill reach out to him again at any time if they had more evidence.
–Zip.
Moreover, if the accusations of sexual harassment are accurate, why were there no lawsuits filed against Pavone? The MeToo Movement that picked up lots of steam in 2017 to 2018 would have been even more favorable a time for filing lawsuits if within the applicable statute of limitations, and if not within the statute, at least in the court of public opinion. Still nothing from the ladies until The Pillar decided to jump all over Pavone, and so they featured them only after the laicization of Pavone. “Nice” of you to do so, people of The Pillar. You must be proud.
–I’m smelling somethin’ rotten in Denmark. I bet others do, too.
2. The article authors also make mention of “several” pro-life leaders who are basically in opposition to Pavone continuing as the head of PFL.
NB: In the article they mention and cite 3 “pro-life” leaders, with 1 being prominently featured. If there are many more as suggested by “several,” at least the article authors could have mentioned them by name and affiliation instead of once again providing an insinuation that may be inaccurate.
–Is there an agenda in all of this kind of “reporting”?
3. Article quotes Eric Scheidler saying in his resignation letter from an affiliated group that “I have completely lost confidence in Frank’s leadership.”
NB: Did Pavone show any reason whatsoever in his pro-life actions while Scheidler was working with him to merit a loss of confidence in his leadership? Why only after the laicization and the 13-year-old complaints brought to light did Scheidler lose confidence? He doesn’t like Pavone’s responses to both, and so Scheidler concludes that his pro-life leadership is now no longer any good.
–Wow! ‘Great leadership for many, many years, and still doing pretty much what you always did, so I, Scheidler, conclude that your leadership is no longer any good because of the laicization and the way you responded to 13-year-old allegations brought up again by others to cast you into a bad light. Is not my logic stunning?”
4. Article authors mention that Pavone had become known recently for “occasionally profanity-laced social media posts.”
NB: I heard of one in particular that Pavone admitted was wrong, and that he availed himself of confession soon thereafter to freely engage in a proper mea culpa. If there are more, let’s see them instead of yet another insinuation via “occasionally profanity-laced social media posts.”
–That smell in Denmark is getting worse. Keep piling on via innuendo, boys.
5. In the middle of the article, the authors do a decent thing by citing some of Pavone’s supporters.
NB: However, as the article is constructed, this is part of the classic Oreo cookie technique (also known by other names). The first part of their article blasts away at Pavone, and then to appear completely neutral they feature some of his supporters in the middle part of the article, but then in the last part of the article, they return to their primary modus operandi and make use of the anti-Pavone forces to serve as a kind of rebuttal to the pro-Pavone forces.
–A completely fair report would have provided both sides, and then leave it to the readers to decide, but again, that would have been fair, and the whole idea is to trash Pavone to persuade others to do the same and perhaps stir up more people to try to get him out of his leadership role that he has served quite well despite his mistakes.
6. Back to the article’s primary anti-Pavone opponent. He is referred to as saying ‘Pavone’s lack of transparency about these conflicts and sanctions has hurt the reputations of pro-life organizations that have associated themselves with Priests for Life over the years.’
NB: Really? How so? Once again we have accusations with no substantive evidence to back up the claims. Why is Scheidler never quoted or referenced as pointing out specifically how Pavone is actually doing the damage that is claimed to be the case?
–Could it be that Scheidler et al. want Pavone’s reputation to suffer more and more and thereby help bring about what they claim is now a reality only because of Pavone?
7. Scheidler quoted again: ‘“The fact that Frank presented himself as a victim, the fact that he compared himself to an aborted baby … I’ve heard this guy speak so eloquently about the unborn child, but then make this bizarre comparison to himself, no matter how extreme of a punishment laicization is, to suggest that that’s like being aborted is just bizarre. It’s unhinged,”’…
NB: Rubbish. Pavone was making an analogy for effect, and the use of exaggeration for the effect is on target. The only thing unhinged is Scheidler’s reaction to it, but note the personal attack on Pavone himself as if he is mentally unstable, etc.
–Do the Limbo. How low can you go?
_____________________________
Okay, that’s enough to illustrate what’s going on in this article to try to get Pavone out of the pro-life movement or reduce his work to a secondary level. All of what I set forth as food for thought is not to exonerate Pavone for some culpability on his part for some past wrongdoings, but it is to point out a basic injustice in how he continues to be treated in some online journals that profess to be Catholic while they make use of innuendo, insinuation, drumming up old complaints as if they are completely legitimate, and so on in order to tar and feather Frank Pavone.
Bonus Food for Thought: Scheidler et al. complain about Pavone’s refusal to say anything more than he already has regarding the 13-year-old complaints. Once again, the one Bishop who would have loved to find anything to use against him found the accusations serious but nothing rising to the level of needing to do anything further except provide for an intervention for Pavone, for which charitable-minded people can applaud Pavone for getting it together from that time forward regarding anything he may have done that appears to have violated some ladies’ space, etc., by being too handsy and too frisky taking too many liberties, which is indeed wrong.
NB: Pavone owes nobody nothing else, just like there is no need to re-confess the same sin over and over again. Moreover, based on how the anti-life mainstream media acts, if he were to say anything else no matter how benign it might be, how do you suspect those vipers would make use of his comments?
I have no knowledge about any of this other than what I read in Catholic news articles but I’m a bit weary of grown women reporting to others that their personal space had been invaded when in fact they should have been able as mature adults to make that known to the person who had crossed boundaries. Sure, the first time someone does that you may be too surprised to say anything but if that happened repeatedly?
A violent assault is one thing, a pat on the back or something similar is another & we certainly should have the strength of mind to ask the offender to quit it. For goodness sakes, if women don’t speak up they’re just encouraging more of the same. And we’re not delicate pieces of china that will shatter if someone attempts a back rub.
Priests should take a cue from Orthodox Jews & keep their hands to themselves around women period. Just my two cents. We all need to set boundaries & act like adults.
“Judge not that ye be not judged Matt.7:1” Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye,but not the beam in your own eye. Father Pavone ( an yes will always be a priest!) may have faults like ever other human, let us not forget we are not perfect only God is! his good for the pro life movement far exceeds any faults that he may have. I hardly think that he had abused women. It’s all a set up to get him to be docile to the so called “holy hierarchy” I pray for him!
To mrscracker and Barry:
I appreciate your contributions and insights. With respect to the complaining women, and as I set forth in my post, it appears that Pavone was seriously counseled on this via an intervention mandated by Bishop Zurek, and after that, he also appears to have changed/eliminated any “handsy” behavior that could be deemed inappropriate, and he has apologized for any offense that was given. Again, he should be given credit for this unless it can be shown (not just claimed) that he “fell off the wagon” so to speak and continued to act inappropriately.
After all, we are properly taught to rejoice when someone who has lost their way on anything gets back on track.
Alas, others just keep pummeling Pavone for past mistakes as if he has gotten away with murder and needs to be “hanged” by the court of public opinion.
P.S. Frank Pavone is indeed a priest in good standing in the Order of Melchizedek. 🙂
Shannon Mullen as CNA editor doesn’t seem to write (or contribute) to many artcicle but when he does he seems very focused (obsessed?) with Pavone –
This assessment of this article by “DocVerit” matches what I thought as I read it.
Seems like somebody’s trying to sustain/build a narrative that seems to be involved (or orchestrating?). As a CWR donor, I wonder why we are distributing that narrative????
It’s like Fr Corapi all over again. Remember him?