Father Frank Pavone, the Ultimate Crook
Recently, the Vatican defrocked Frank Pavone. His diehard fans are outraged. This is because he cleverly manipulated his fans and the press all the while living well from donations and, apparently, abusing some women. By making abortion the "sin" of the century, and himself the main opposition to this one sin, he himself could get away with any sin he pleased.
As the link points out, Pavone was the perfect priest for the Trump era. Trump is so self-important laws have no role in his life. He felt accountable to no one. Women were there to be had. Pavone and Trump are interchangeable.
Pavone was very successful raising money. In his mind, abortion was so important in Catholic beliefs and he was so important in anti-abortion the money he raised opposing it was his to do with what he liked. The Catholic Church, the brand name he used to raise this money, thought the money belonged to it. When he gave the Vatican the bird, it gave him walking papers.
With polls showing the majority of Catholics believe some levels of abortion should be available and church numbers falling, forcing anti-abortion to be central to being a Catholic is a losing strategy. One person, I believe, who sees it this way is the Pope. He cannot agree with abortion but he can decide what the church is going to talk about. Just like the Cardinal who spoke publicly about the "sin of homosexuality" and found himself demoted so it is with Pavone. The penalty of not having any appeal available can only come, according to what I read, the Pope himself. Apparently, he too has had enough of a one-issue Catholic Church.
At least two priests and several lay people reported Pavone crossed the boundaries and committed sexual harassment. One woman went public. There were suspicions he used money donated to oppose abortion to pay off women who complained.
The anti-abortion fervor attributed to the Catholic faith may be toned down soon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm "re the alleged payoffs...induging in hearsay.."
DeleteI'm only repeating what is already in the press. According to what has been reported, the Vatican wanted to know what this schmuck did with the money he took from donors. He would not tell his superiors. The payoff story was not made up by the press. I feel sympathy for you and/or other readers of this blog who were taken in by his malarky and gave him money and now must see this.
On top of that, he has been saying untrue things about doctors who perform abortions, "murderers", for decades. He has no business complaining about what is said about him. It's time for you to read up on issues. Being informed is never a bad thing.
And yet, the 'ultimate crook' has never been charged with a crime. Could it be that Jon is obsessed with someone who is just religious?
DeleteMatt-- Hmmm. I wonder why he refused to let Catholic officials look at his books.
DeleteI did not ever give him any money. paid little attention to what he was doing. and I don't need your '"sympathy". that said, "suspicion" of payoffs sounds a tad suspect to me. besides if he was doing what the press supossedly claimed there should have been an investigation by the civil authorities. was there any such?
ReplyDeletetsm "...there should have been an investigation by the civil authorities..was there any such?"
DeleteI know of no law against affectionately stroking the backs of women. There are women who complained. Word was out that he paid off some women. The Vatican investigated and wanted to see where his money went. He refused. Obviously, you are quite a fan of his. Sorry for your disappointment in learning he is a scoundrel.
He merely joins the parade of scoundrels in the Catholic Church (exceeded in number by scoundrels in protestant churches) including Bishops and Archbishops who hid pedophiles. You need to remind yourself of the REAL harmful groups: Pagans who dance around May poles in Spring, atheists who drink coffee Sunday mornings and Satanists who mock Christianity by putting up statues of Satan next to the Ten Commandments.
tsm I looked at a website that estimates the personal wealth of celebrities. Pavone's net worth is estimated at five million dollars.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm "...it's just that they (don't ? ) have any logical grounds for their morality."
DeleteAnd, Christians have a "logical grounds for their morality"? What might that be? An imaginary god told them what is and is not moral? A book, the Bible, told them it was moral to drown millions of innocent people in the Noah story? I'm listening.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm "you reject Divine revelation"
DeleteThat is correct. There is no such thing as divine revelation. It only exists in religions.
"you reject classical natural law"
That is correct. Natural law is a self serving aspect of religion. It has no place except in religion.
"what remains then, crass utilitarianism... bottomless pragmatism...?"
Yes, what remains is the factual record of human experience. This is at least something rather than what you learned at the feet of your priests and nuns. The case it makes is at least a gazillion times more powerful than your made-up stuff.
"..you would do well to think about this issue before you go around pontificating about the moral lapses of others" That is exactly, precisely my advice to you. The religious propaganda you have been taught should not be regarded as wise and deep. For just one moment, stop and reflect on who benefited most from this propaganda. You will discover it was those who wrote it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm --"I will let your anti Christian slurs pass..."
DeleteAnd, how do you handle the Greek god Zeus? Do you say, "Yes, the Greek god Zeus existed. I would never doubt the existence of the god of another religion." I don't follow your rule. No god exists until there is evidence it exists. Same with "divine revelation." Statements of fact are not slurs.
"So what experiences did you have in mind?" All human experiences. Many have been bad experiences. Sometimes humans learn from them. They don't learn from old white men who make up rules to benefit themselves.
"intrinsic to human nature.." Old white men have come up with "natural law" but did not study humans across the globe or across time. "Natural law' is mostly laughed at in modern philosophy. Those who do not believe in Christianity have moral values at least as high or on a higher plain than Christians. That is so obvious I can't believe you have not noticed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm We could and should end this discussion but you continue to make outlandish and false claims that need to be corrected. Here is one: "..most of who are living off the moral residue of Judaism and Christianity." WHAT??? Let's start with the Ten Commandments. Surely you do not believe Moses literally went up a hill and visited God and God handed him stone with writing on it which was the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments came from the minds of those unknowns who wrote the Bible. They simply wrote what they knew to be rules of the existing society and/or rules they wanted the 98% of society which was not literate to follow. Yes, the rules and values of Judaism and Christianity are OK. It's just that they come from the cultures which then put them into their religions. If we are going to assign a religion as a source of values it would be Paganism (and those religions before Paganism)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm "what you are saying in effect is the commandments merely reflect moral principles that have existed since the dawn of mankind. ...sounds an awful lot like natural law thinking."
DeleteWe're making progress here. You are admitting atheists have moral values. They are the ones passed down from ancient times. They did not originate with from the out of date reading list of your long-ago philosophy class or your current reading of Catholic publications. They did not come from the Bible or the Jews or Catholic Clergy.
The word "natural" implies humans came to behave in certain ways due to "nature." Some species survive by forming packs which helps them ward off predators and hunt for food. Others survive solitary lives except for mating. Humans formed family groups or packs to survive. To function in this way required social rules. These are where of moral "laws" came into play.
While you take time away from posting comments here spend that time productively. Do some critical thinking. Ask yourself if you might be a victim of Catholic indoctrination provided you in hopes you will give money or respect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm "are you saying moral law is hard wired into us?"
DeleteOf course not. As to the violent and brutish behavior of humans, yes that's how they are. The only thing that keeps them from robbing and killing each other is group support for rules--the majority understand enforcement is necessary for survival.
It's a shame you know so little about the social sciences, in this case anthropology. Some people in this field search for human traits to see if there are things that are "natural" or that we are born with. In one of my classes the professor spent quite a bit of time on incest. One body in the field had concluded there was a universal human distaste for incest. As evidence, they looked across the world and found almost everywhere laws against it. Our professor said they were wrong. Incest, instead happens because of the sex drive in humans. Without laws against it, it would happen everywhere. The commonly found laws against it is a sign it is part of the sex drive we are born with and is not a taboo we are born with. The laws are there because the consequences are destructive--humans have figured this out.
save your incest lecture for someone else. I know that incest and/or sex between close relatives has popped up quite a few times in recorded history. look to the nobility in the Middle Ages if nowhere else. oh so the consequences are "destructive"' .no s--t Sherlock. among other things they give rise to genetic abnormalities: consider the famous Hapsburg chin. true, somewhere along the way we dicovered that incest was not compatible with the classical notion of human flourishing (ie. the natural law). similarly it took us a very long time to get rid of slavery (assuming that we really have done so). somewhere along the way we got "woke" and realized that slavery was not compatible with human flourishing, again as natural law thinkers would think of it. and while I'm at it, let me give a thought to consider: natural law did not come into the world full grown. it was present in the minds of early men, but probably in rather inchoate form. my tribe has its rules of justice and all . but that tribe next door is outside the pale, not even human. bottom line, it took a lot of thinking, a lot of philosophy and a lot of experience to bring natural law theory to its present form. just when,ironically, we have decided to jettison it.
ReplyDeletetsm "my tribe tribe has rules of justice....but that tribe next door is outside the pale...it too a lot of... experience..to bring natural law to its present form..."
DeleteSo you are agreeing with me our present laws and the values they reflect are based on experience. This is correct. They are not based on religion. It is the same point I have been making. We agree.
But in your original volley you said atheist have no basis for their morality. The experience you correct refer to is both the experience of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, pagans and every other group in the U.S. You insist on calling it "natural law" because Catholics like that term. In reality, it was never "natural" to follow laws. Humans simply learned, sometimes against their will or because they were put in jail, to follow laws. Their "values" are survival. To survive they need to support their group and their group need to support them.
a very quick response to your latest comment: no I do not agree with your assertion that the moral law/ethics ultimately rests on experience. raw experience, rather, entails some sort of meta-narrative, some construct beyond, something more fundamental than mere expenience. one can have "experiences" galore that add up to nothing except more experiences. just like those of any sentient animal. as to atheist morality, it seems that you are saying that they have a meta-narrative, namely survival of the species or the individual. that take on the matter smacks of Hobbes with a garnish of Darwinism. besides, it is a very imperfect, dangerous foundation on which to build a house.
ReplyDeletetsm "experiences can add up to nothing more than experiences...atheist..."
DeletePoint well taken. I knew when I wrote all that I was sort sliding between survival of the fittest (what seems to work over time) and whatever it is you consider "morals." I agree whatever you consider "morals" is a somewhat different topic than basing societal rules on what has worked (and not worked) through experience. The thing is, your view of "morals" is not they same as everyone else's. My view is that when people do things that harm the present and future of others, this is a moral shortcoming. It harms to some degree the future of others. Thus, preventing abortion by women is a bad moral principle. So is needlessly harming the environment. I'm sure we will never agree on what is a moral principle.
harm? what is harm exactly? anything that offends some one? I think that we could use a bit of critical thinking on this issue. BTW if harm is defined as anything that would offend/upset the Other, what about Christian bashing? I could be deeply offended by a lot of your posts of that genre? but I just consider the source and try to blow it off. .
Deletetsm "what is the harm exactly" Harm by damaging the ability of current or future people to enjoy Mother Earth. Or, wars which kill but have no justification.
Delete