Talk:Frank Pavone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rating[edit]

Since there was nothing saying only administrators should rate articles, I went ahead and gave this article a rating for Project Catholicism. If this was out of place for me, please fix it. Also, if people want to discuss the rating, please feel free. JelloSheriffBob 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)JelloSheriffBob[reply]

Rewrite tag[edit]

I'm adding a rewrite tag. The article needs basic cleanup for grammar, references, etc. and reorganization into sections. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Pavone's suspension[edit]

Not sure who put in the sensationalist language about Fr. Pavone's suspension with the "See WHISPERS IN THE LOGGIA for more details" and exclamation points, but I removed it and replaced with more appropriate language and references concerning the restrictions placed on Fr. Pavone by the Bishop of Amarillo so it will read more like an encyclopedia entry and less like a propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Buehler (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are spot on about the propaganda. Thats what this article and mariacahi case is ! so called "pro-life" propaganda.Time to change that. 65.35.249.125 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you did the opposite..... 172.101.197.5 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might put a comment in the entry about how Father Pavone came to be incardinated in Amarillo (I just learned of that today). I recall seeing an earlier blurb that (as a priest of NY Archdiocese) he might have to return there because he was needed for work there, and a statement from Cardinal Edward Egan, then the Archbishop of New York, apparently was to indicate that Father Pavone and Priests For Life were not in any trouble. Is that the case regarding the Bishop of Amarillo? In that case, why was the section you are reading titled "Fr. Pavone's suspension"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Father Frank Pavone was suspended from ministry outside his diocese by his bishop, who cited some concerns about how Pavone has handled the pro-life group's finances. "

and here is a link : http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/09/daily-links-tuesday-sept-13-married-priests-divorce-and-charges-against-pope

65.35.249.125 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't count as wp:realiable sources. DVdm (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fortunately there are mostly just blogs.. Here is a link to the letter from rev Zurek. I am sure it does not get more reliable than letter from person who suspended him for "concerns about stewardship of finances"

http://www.catholicnews.com/images/letter.jpg time to add this information to this and priest for life article

sauce number 2 : " Frank Pavone, the leader of Priests for Life, has been suspended from engaging in active ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, as a result of concerns about financial improprieties." http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2011/FrankPavoneSuspended.asp

50.9.109.170 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the letter itself is allowable on Wikipedia, even if it is published. The asp-source looks solid and acceptable. Of course there is also wp:RECENT (aka we are not a newspaper), although this particular news fact could be sufficiently notable in the context of this article. By the way, anon 50.9, calling other contributors "darling" is definitely not a good idea here. You might consider striking that. DVdm (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
he did not have a problem with that. its your problem if you don't have any sense of humor.go patronize someone else. Both LINKS are VERY solid. Time to move on. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to contributors insisting that a source for suspension should be provided in the text: the cited source [1] is unambiguous. There's no reason not to have "suspension" in the section header, since the section is about the suspension, and clearly properly sourced. Can you guys please move on to someting more important? Thank you. DVdm (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suspension from extra-diocesan activity is not a full-blown suspension as the header implies. See Suspension#Roman Catholic canon law. Also, Fr. Pavone says he is not suspended. We need to be mindful of WP:BLP. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
who cares? he was suspended (as a form of punishment) and thats what it is. no need for peacock words

50.9.109.170 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I notice that NYyankees51 (talk) changed it back immediately after the page was unprotected. So as a compromise, and in order to allow everyone to move on, I have changed the header to "Suspension from extra-diocesan activity" per NYyankees51's recent remark above. DVdm (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Don't know why I didn't think of that, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the keyword is distance... - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good idea, merging the sections, as the first one was a bit short indeed. I merged the headers as well, to better reflect the content of the former (longer) section. - DVdm (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't always a priest of Amarillo diocese[edit]

The article said "He is a priest of the diocese of Amarillo", and I have changed "is" to "then became". Further up on the talk page you are reading is a reference to him being a priest of archdiocese of New York. I don't know when the change took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death threat[edit]

Therefore, I have restored the {{fv}} tag. Please be advised that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions including WP:1RR as an abortion-related topic. Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Words still in the article and not in the cited source:
  • hypothetical
  • anti-abortion
  • murderer (the article says "killer")
  • Scott Roeder
Please restore the {{fv}} tag or remove these terms from the article and make it conform to the source already. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make the passage conform with the source, and you have added things that are outside the source. I tagged the article in an effort to have it improved and you simply removed the tag without fixing the problem. I gave a choice above. Of course the vastly preferential choice would be to remove the tag and the words which are not in conformity with the source. But since you, @Roscelese:, are in violation of WP:1RR, it's probably best for you in particular to self-revert, restoring the tag, and permit WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to determine the next edit. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't make it clear why you added the tag; I simply assumed you'd missed or ignored the fact that Shulman's threat was conditional upon Roeder's acquittal, which had not happened and did not happen. Do you feel that "hypothetical" is a poor paraphrase of the situation? What word would you prefer to use instead? Ditto with "anti-abortion", "murderer", and "Roeder." Are you suggesting that it was somebody else who murdered Tiller, that that person was not in fact convicted of murder, or that the source mentions Tiller's profession simply as an interesting fact unrelated to his murder? Are you unaware that the SILive article is not the only extant source on these events? I see no reason for this caviling other than to make things purposefully difficult. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you want to add a bunch of words as spin to downplay the fact that someone was convicted of death threats against Frank Pavone. That's WP:COATRACKing. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If only the threats are relevant, due to the fact that this is an article on Pavone and not on Shulman, Roeder, or the threats, there would be no call to include Shulman's views either. Clearly you don't think that, since you want to include Shulman's views, so let's give a proper short account of the situation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, let's address whether to include Shulman's views. Why did he threaten Pavone? Because he wears glasses? Surely there should be some indication of motive. I'm happy with the article now as @BoboMeowCat: has modified the passage. Don't mess with it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the current text is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note, as the Mother Jones article does (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/theodore-shulman-arrested-indictment-death-threats ), that Shulman never said or posted that he (Shulman) would kill Pavone, he only predicted that "someone" would do so. Therefore, his post is not (technically speaking) a threat but a prediction or a warning, although several sources described it as a threat, and Shulman eventually pled guilty to the crime of "transmitting a threat to injure another person" NOTE: "injure", not "kill". Goblinshark17 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shulman was convicted of threatening Pavone. He was not convicted of predicting or warning. On Wikipedia, once you are convicted of something, it's stated as a fact, even tho there always could be debate over whether they were convicted in error or not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have edited the Shulman page as well. Seems perhaps reasonable on that page to go into all the detail of Thulman saying "someone" would do the killing, not necessarily him personally, and yet the FBI etc took it as a threat and not just a prediction, and then Thulman was ultimately convicted of threatening Pavone, but explaining all of that here is undue weight. In sake of accuracy and brevity, perhaps the sentence should be edited to say that Thulman indicated Pavone "would be killed". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE "brevity": Changing the word "he" to the word "someone", and adding a single reference (the MoJo article) for that change, does not take up much space. RE "accuracy": the word "someone" is also more accurate. Again, Shulman never said nor posted that "he" would kill or harm anyone. Shulman was also not convicted of making a DEATH threat; he was convicted of making a threat to INJURE. To say that he threatened that "he would kill" someone, as the article currently does, is rank libel, for which Wikipedia could in principle be held liable in court if damages could be shown. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your wording misleads the readers who wont know from just reading this page that Thulman was actually convicted of threatening Pavone. I think it's better to write that Thulman indicated Pavone would be killed. You appear to be trying to add wording that suggests it was just a prediction, when the FBI etc didn't see it that way. All of that context actually seems appropriate and interesting on the Thulman page, but not here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with the phrasing "would be killed". As long as you don't state that Shulman said that he (Shulman) would do the killing himself, (as the article currently does, must be corrected) it's ok with me. Please make the appropriate change, I have already used up my one revert for the day. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also restored the Mother Jones article as an additional reference. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No context, totally confusing?[edit]

There's no context here for the Amarallio-suspension thing. The article discusses that he may have been subject to some kind of sanction but... it comes out of nowhere. No explanation of the dispute, what it was over, etc. I don't know, so I'm not in a position to add it.

Surely there's some way of just-the-facts putting in some kind of context so people understand what its about?

Right now the article is so stripped of content that its impossible to tell why this person is even notable.

Djcheburashka (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's try to correct this. KatieHepPal (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should start by changing the order of some of the material. His problem's with the Bishop of Amarillo should not be presented until after his work in Priests for Life is thoroughly introduced. KatieHepPal (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles by David Gibson in the Catholic Reporter provide some context. KatieHepPal (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frank Pavone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news[edit]

Regarding the latest news about Father Pavone, until it has been reported in a reliable secondary source, it is not suitable for inclusion here. Please remember that all unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious assertions about living people must be removed immediately from articles, per WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, soon after I wrote this, the news hit CNA with a full article and roundup of reactions. I have added it to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Pavone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added some additional facts plus citations[edit]

I've been researching this and found some information suitable for inclusion, although it's not recent news. There are two sources that are not as strong as they should be, I'm digging deeper to replace them with stronger sources, but I feel the facts are important enough to include. Star7924 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laicizied or former priest?[edit]

The correct expression is "laicized," because it makes it clear that he is still a priest but not allowed to function as one. Theologically, you cannot become a "former priest." The sacramental character of ordination makes it indelible. So, for instance, Pavone is still bound to celibacy. Melchior2006 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on not using "former priest" unless preceded by some other sort of modifier, especially should he formally split with Rome (obviously this is WP:CRYSTAL). However, the word "defrock"–a synonym of "laicize"–appears to be the most common term among the larger media outlets (see AP, NPR, and The Hill; National Review uses both words interchangeably). I would encourage we use "defrocked" at first mention, then use "laicize", as this is the more common term among modern Catholics. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"defrock" is not a synonym of "laicize", it is a sensationalistic, inaccurate slang term with massively negative connotations. It is slung around by British press because its origin is in British English and Anglican circles. The canonical terms for what happened are "laicization" and "dismissal from the clerical state". I contest any other terms as inaccurate and attack-oriented. Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. 2605:A000:BFC0:21:94E6:7356:1FEF:7D78 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream media sources such as Associated Press have poor reliability when it comes to Catholic topics. I would say that the most reliable sources are those that understand doctrine and Canon Law and have accurate reporting on Catholic canonical events. Catholic News Agency and National Catholic Register do not use "defrock" and we don't need to, either.
If this were a secular legal case we would not say that the judge "threw the book at him and tossed Frankie into the slammer" even if the tabloids were describing the courtroom situation in this way. We would use unambiguous legal terms to describe the actual legal situation, and because this is a WP:BLP, accuracy matters. Pavone has not been "defrocked". Elizium23 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Thank you for your analysis of the situation. We already have an article on loss of clerical state; if we don't link to that on the first mention of laicization in this article, we should—especially since it comments on the term "defrocked" and why it doesn't apply as well. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To that end, I have changed "defrocked" to "laicized" in the first sentence, and at the end of the first paragraph, I have added text to note that "dismissed from the clerical state" is the same thing as "laicized". I don't think we need a note about "defrocked", even though it shows up in sources. —C.Fred (talk) —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23 and C.Fred: To say "defrock" is slang and libelous in a way that violates BLP is really unsupported. A particular persuasion on the connotations of a word are subordinate to reliable sources. Besides the rather tenuous assertion that "Associated Press have poor reliability when it comes to Catholic topics" (no), the National Review, an outlet that has a rich history of Catholic involvement uses the words interchangeably. Other sources that use "defrock" are WSJ (wherein longtime Vatican correspondent Francis X. Rocca uses the word), Fox News, and ABC News. The term "laicize" is a technical term (one that's in fact misleading to most readers, to boot). "Defrock" is supported by reliable sourcing, so you really can't argue BLP. "Defrock" is the better word. Also, our own article cites this post as justification for saying "defrocking" is improper terminology–despite the author saying its a term of preference. The multiplicity of sources simply outweighs personal sentiment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, speaking of experts on Catholic canon law, here is actual canon lawyer J.D. Flynn writing for the Catholic News Agency on laicization, where he uses "defrocked" as a synonym. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what Flynn did is to use the term by way of introduction in a question, and then in the body of his answer he ceased using it altogether and exclusively used forms of "laicize". Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A noted canon lawyer, Ed Peters, says neither "defrocking" nor "laicization" is correct, but rather "dismissal from the clerical state". [2]. — Archer1234 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue a point here as that does not seem to serve any purpose. But I will quote from a glossary proved by the Holy See.
Dismissal from the clerical state: A penalty imposed on a cleric for having committed certain grave delicts. The penalty can be imposed through a judicial proceeding, or, in an especially grievous case of the sexual abuse of minors, ex officio, in an administrative proceeding. While Sacred Ordination to the priesthood never becomes invalid, the penalty of dismissal means that the one ordained loses the juridic condition of a cleric. He is barred from performing functions connected with priesthood or presenting himself as a priest. [I will add here that baptism is not reserved solely to the priesthood. In time of need, anyone can baptize if done in the correct form. Additionally, Canon Law holds that: "Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present."]
Dispensation from the obligations of priesthood: Sacred Orders, once validly received, never become invalid. A priest or deacon, however, who recognizes his inability to continue to function as a cleric, can request from the Holy Father a dispensation from the juridic obligations connected with priesthood, including that of celibacy. The grace of such a dispensation is granted only for the gravest reasons. Once it has been granted, the cleric is barred from performing functions connected with priesthood or presenting himself as a priest. 2605:A000:BFC0:21:7485:3BFC:38C7:F7BD (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said canon lawyers don't consider the term synonymous (they do; here is canon lawyer Ed Condon doing so) and that Catholic sources don't use the term (they do [3], [4], [5], etc.). You can retract your claim. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're twisting my words and I stand by my claims. Furthermore, you've edited the article against our consensus amidst an edit war and incipient page protection. I suggest you return it to the consensus version while you argue this weak position against several other editors. Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I edited after I first posted to the talk page. Your claims are baseless, whether they be accusations of misconduct or contentions of inaccuracy. You're welcome to support your claims, of course. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wouldn't your criticism more aptly apply to C.Fred? Of course not—they were just acting in good faith. Please, actually address the content of this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: The problem is, there is no consensus version. This is newly-added material. I don't think you really want to go back to how the article stood before your edits, since that might leave the article calling him a "former Catholic priest"—and I'm not sure anybody currently active in the discussion is favoring that wording. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided seven sources from some of the best reliable sources we have saying Pavone was "defrocked". I've demonstrated that "defrocked" is regularly used as a synonym for "laicized" by canon lawyers and Catholic media (and, in Pavone's case, by organizations coming to his side). Is there a reason we shouldn't use it that I haven't addressed already? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Defrocked" is sensationalistic, and Elizium23 has explained very well, why that is so. While Condon and Flynn (writers for "The Pillar") may use "defrocked," they are using it in a journalistic way to gain more readers and sponsors. That is their privilege. But an encyclopedia uses different standards, and loses clout by reverting to journalistic parlance. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Melchior2006: You can't arbitrarily argue a term is "sensationalistic" when it's used by a half-dozen of Wikipedia's favorite sources to describe this specific event. Besides, here's a Holy Cross professor using it as definitionally identical to laicization. Unless you can cite anything in policy or in sourcing that says to avoid "defrocking", we are supposed to defer to reliable sourcing on this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all that, if "an encyclopedia uses different standards", why does Britannica agree with the definitions I've provided and use the term in their articles? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be.[1] Some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts, e.g. claim in law.
  • Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Died and had sex are neutral and accurate; passed away and made love are euphemisms. Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.
  • Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
    1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
    2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect: now cite where in canon law the word "laicization" is used—because it's a modern innovation of a word ("trendy") that can be misunderstood (the priest isn't a lay person) and is euphemistic. Here is the canon law in question. Your argument hinges on wrong history and a misapplication of policy—"laicization" is an inferior euphemism; "defrocking" is a longstanding shorthand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about saying that he is "a former Catholic cleric" or "a former cleric of the Catholic Church", which is in sync with "dismissed from the clerical state"? This avoids the canonically imprecise terms "defrocked" or "laicized" without saying he is a "former priest". At the risk of straying into OR territory, it could be argued that a cleric is one to whom authority is granted and when that authority is withdrawn then they are no longer a cleric, but they still remain a member of the ordained (i.e., a priest). A footnote could be added to explain further.

Frank Anthony Pavone (born February 4, 1959) is an American anti-abortion activist and former Catholic cleric.[a]

Notes

  1. ^ Ordained a Catholic priest in 1988, Pavone was "dismissed from the clerical state" by Pope Francis in 2022. This means that while Pavone remains an ordained priest, he is "forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, with the exception of hearing confessions and absolving a sinner in danger of death".[1]

References

  1. ^ Mullen, Shannon; Wicks, Kelsey (December 18, 2022). "Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray on Frank Pavone's dismissal from Catholic priesthood: Only the Pope can issue a decision without appeal". Catholic News Agency.

There seems to be no reason to use laicized rather than defrocked when that's the word sources use, if editors want sources to not be reliable to report on specific religious sects they can take it up with rsn. XeCyranium (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps quoting a canon lawyer of the Church is the most accurate[edit]

OP likely targeting another editor in this thread; blocked as sockpuppet. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that using simple language as used by an actual Church lawyer might be the most accurate and helpful way to describe Pavone's status. Could anyone please explain why such language is confusing to them? Silly-boy-four (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silly-boy-four: I suggest joining the discussion above. "Dismissal" is the most accurate term (it's used in a few sources on Pavone and in the canon law) but most people don't know the term. If you want to use "dismissed", I think it's a term better used in the body, as we can more easily use sourcing to explain what that means. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Yes, dismissal is used in the current wording, and I agree it is more accurate. The theological term "laicized," while also accurate, is unfortunately not in the vocabulary of most folks, and thus the canon lawyer uses the word dismissed, which is also accurate, but also more easily understood by more folks, no? Silly-boy-four (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can ignore Silly-boy-four's comments; they were blocked for really quite blatant sockpuppeting; perhaps with the intent of targeting another editor in this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV on titles/common name[edit]

Referring to Pavone as BOTH an anti-abortion activist and a pro-life activist is appropriate for this article. The man is both, and they are different in this case. Anti abortion is being against aborting living fetuses, unborn humans. Being pro-life in some cases refers to the same thing, but in this case, refers to Pavone's pro-life activities that have nothing to do with abortion as his support for the person or their family was in the case of terminally ill adults or children who've already been born. The cases are cited fully within the article. Jumping on the political bandwagon to try to ignore this is a biased position. My edits were revered by User:Pbritti claiming "POV issues" which is false. The issue appears to be that someone dared to insert a truthful and well-cited piece of information that apparently upset the liberal POV. That's now how Wikipedia works. Pavone is pro-life as demonstrated by sitting bedside and advocating for life of terminally ill patients. Abortion and the unborn had nothing to do with those cases. Editors disallowing this title are really not acting in good faith IMO. The only reason the article doesn't use the term pro-life, is because biased editors keep deleting it. Several of the article's points discuss quite literally his pro life activity. Anxiously awaiting the explanation on the POV issue. As well, other facts, well documented and fully cited were removed. GoWithChrist (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replied on your talk page. Please stop using the POV terminology. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response could be friendlier, but I'll assume you're in a hurry. But it is more appropriate to have the full discussion here on the article's talk page so that people with an interest in the subject can see the entirety of the discussion points and be 100% transparent. Please re-read the Pavone article. He clearly engages in cases of abortion but also in pro-life activism. Terry Schiavo and Baby Alfie Evans were not abortions, nor did their cases have anything to do with abortion. Using the title of pro-life activist in this particular article, along with anti-abortion activist is totally proper. GoWithChrist (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite it's clear that you and @Doug Weller don't want to discuss this topic here, on the article's talk page, which is exactly where these types of discussions should occur. Instead, you prefer to launch a coordinated pseudo-attack on my talk page in order to keep the discussion off this page where some rational non libtarty editor might also weigh in. As I replied to @Doug Weller (who is engaging in a discussion with me and trying to help me better understand what pro-life means) on my talk page, Doug here said that Pavone is not against the death penalty so he cannot be pro-life. Actually Pavone IS steadfastly against the death penalty, and yes, you are correct, you are either pro-life, or you aren't. Again, Terry Schiavo and Baby Alfie Evans were not abortions, and Pavone heavily advocated for their right to life and sat bedside with each of them. These are not about abortion. The whole Wikipedia stance on the term pro-life is totally political and left-wing biased. You don't have to try so hard to explain it to me since you don't seem to see that your "explanation" to me (to help me understand) really is arguing the same point I've been making all along. It appears that it is you and the others you include in "we" who don't understand and can't find the logical argument to qualify as strong reasoning. If Pavone cannot be referred to in both manners for which he is known, then it's clear that wikipedia is not a free and unbiased platform but yet one more libtarty crybaby platform where we silence voices we don't like, especially when we can't defend our arguments with reason. Pavone should be refererred to as both an anti-abortion AND a pro-life activist. You just don't want it so. But please explain what your problem and issue is with referring to him as a pro-life advocate? And, for that matter, why the whole section on the Terry Schiavo case was deleted? GoWithChrist (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the editor who told me “wikipedia is not a free and unbiased platform but yet one more libtarty crybaby platform where we silence voices we don't like, especially when we can't defend our arguments with reason.” Doug Weller talk 17:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller Can't think of anything substantial to contribute to the argument for the pro-life term I see. GoWithChrist (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to, you've already been told about the faq at Talk:Anti-abortion_movements. That applies here. Nice to hear he's against the death penalty, but that doesn't change the way we handle this. We can though, if we have independent sources discussing his position on the death penalty, consider using those. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller ever heard of a circular argument? LOL. Beyond that, there are several source where Pavone's stance on the death penalty is discussed, here and here and here. It's funny that you think living people, one even a full-grown adult, embroiled in a right-to-life/right-to-die case has anything to do with abortion. And that's the leg you stand on in your argument, that in the context of an anti-abortion discussion, liberals have put forth the viewpoint that the term "pro life" is non-neutral, so it cannot be used at all in Wikipedia. What a cowardly cop-out. And for the record, I'm for abortion, it's great. Everyone should have one. Maybe we need to run a "friends and family" promotion and have a buy one get one free offer. Now that would be getting some important humanitarian work done, wouldn't you agree? GoWithChrist (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information in the section "Diocese of Amarillo"[edit]

The page says:

On November 11, 2019, by a decree of the Holy See, the Congregation for the Clergy dismissed Bishop Zurek's restrictions formerly placed upon Pavone and authorized him to transfer from the Diocese of Amarillo and find a bishop who supported his ministry.

Two sources are given. Both sources go back to Pavone himself who removed the information from the priests for life website, so the sources are meaningless. Furthermore, the information was seemingly false. The Congregation for the Clergy who worked with his bishop in Amarillo are the ones who laicized him in 2022. That is very odd if they cleared him of wrongdoing in 2019 and allowed him to transfer to another diocese. Furthermore, he claimed in 2016 to be working to get a transfer to Colorado Springs. That means the transfer should have been years in the making and easy to complete. But, the bishop of Colorado Springs said he knew nothing of the transfer.

Now I am not suggesting that we add all this to the wikipedia entry. I am suggesting that there is enough evidence here to suspect the page is incorrect and that we remove the quoted sentence until we can get a valid source. Dshinton (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Life[edit]

article full of inaccuracies and bias, the missing term "prolife" being replaced with "anti abortion" is proof of authors bias, despite it being the movements self described position and name for decades. 2601:14B:4082:2100:F191:4272:DF00:32E6 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Pavone&oldid=1216835524"