This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
50.9.109.170 ( talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Frank Anthony Pavone (born February 4, 1959) is an American anti-abortion activist and former Catholic cleric. [a]
Notes
References
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)
OP likely targeting another editor in this thread; blocked as sockpuppet. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
50.9.109.170 ( talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Frank Anthony Pavone (born February 4, 1959) is an American anti-abortion activist and former Catholic cleric. [a]
Notes
References
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)
OP likely targeting another editor in this thread; blocked as sockpuppet. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
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)
|
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)
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)
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)