Celebrities are the lifeblood of the entertainment industry. Their fame, fortune and power to persuade, inform and entertain, however, extend beyond Hollywood. Unlike the entertainment celebrities, celebrated religious personalities from Tammy Faye Baker to Jimmy Swaggart, from Pat Robertson to Robert Schuller have used their fame and power to their own advantage, attracting millions in donations. But as with Hollywood celebrities, the religious superstars have fans and detractors.
Just as some adore Lady Gaga while others despise her, there are those who worship the celebrated Fr. Frank Pavone while others think of him as a shameless, greedy imposter. Pavone began his early parish priest life in the Archdiocese of New York, and rose to fame and fortune following his 1993 appointment as the full-time director of Priests for Life. As a celebrity, Pavone embodies the outer trappings of a serious religious life with the all-consuming popularity of profane celebrity culture. It might seem contradictory to consider the sacredness of religion with the sacrilegious nature of the celebrity world when describing one Catholic priest, especially a staunchly anti abortion leader. Yet, as celebrity scholar David Chidester notes, popular culture and religion operate in characteristically similar ways—both have their machinery, superstars and devotees.
Like all entertainment celebrities, Pavone is both a name and a product. He is widely recognized across the U.S. as a television, radio, newspaper and Internet personality among the prolife glitterati and politicos. His fame has drawn nearly $12 million in donations yearly. As for his devotees, an encounter with the Executive Director of Priests for Life is no different than an encounter with the likes of George Clooney or Angelina Jolie. His groupies breathe in the air of the superhuman, sacred and transcendent. They pose for photographs, beg for autographs and grovel over his every word. One such encounter happened in an Allentown PA church where I interviewed Pavone, thanks to arrangements made by three female antiabortion protesters. On this particular evening, these three women, bedecked with jewels and voluptuous face painting were flushed with excitement. And despite his illogical arguments against abortion and his obvious disdain for women’s reproductive rights, these past-their-prime women cooed at his every word, undulated in ecstatic response to his touch. It was a sight to behold. Grown women being seduced by a charlatan in a collar—the sacred and the profane in one egotistical storyteller.
Pavone’s narratives, following his bright moment in the media with the Terri Schiavo euthanasia debacle, have now been reduced from the inclusive prolife to exclusive anti abortion agenda as a venue for his celebrity. Priests for Life, thus, is a misleading term because the organization focuses solely on controversial, attention-grabbing topic of abortion. The death penalty, hunger, starvation and other ‘life’ issues just aren’t sexy enough for the antiabortion zealot known as Frank Pavone.
Curiously, his fan base reaches beyond the boundaries of Catholicism to other anti abortion institutions such as the aggressively misogynistic Operation Rescue and God-deluded Operation Save America. Pavone has also engaged in many secular activities include media-centric events like attending and being honored at the $500-a-plate the annual Proudly Pro Life Award dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria with Rush Limbaugh, Steve Forbes, Charlton Heston, and Ben Stein and 700 other guests. Like the celebrity Paris Hilton who sells perfume, jeans and herself, Pavone sells his abortion-related books, offers his services for scheduled talks, television appearances, and newspaper columns rather than adhere to a strictly clerical schedule. In many ways, Pavone’s work parallels that of Jimmy Swaggart. They both trafficked in the presentation of the charismatic self, the faithful servant living a meager existence. Yet, Pavone’s presentation as the devotee to the unborn appears to be a scam if ratings from independent charity evaluators have any credence. Charity Navigator gave his nonprofit industry an overall poor rating (46 out of 70 points) for lack of accountability and transparency. Further, in the fall of 2011, Fr. Frank was forced to stand down from his antiabortion mission to fulfill his role as a parish priest when he ran afoul of the church hierarchy. Like the celebrated Reverend Jimmy Swaggart who fell from grace, Pavone may be headed for a similar fate. His superior, Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, Texas, suspended him from his Priests for Life director position due to concerns over financial improprieties and a failure to be an obedient priest. In a Catholic Register article, Dorothy Cummings McLean argues that the worship of celebrities is the “hallmark of a powerful new paganism” that is dangerous for celebrity priests and Catholics because it diverts attention away from God. Like Fr.
Alberto Cutie and Fr. John Corapi, failed priests who basked in the profane magnificence of wealth and fame, McLean suggests that Frank Pavone is following a similar path. I’d agree. Pavone is a celebrity first, an anti abortion crusader second and a lowly priest only when obligated.

April 19, 2012 at 9:10 am
Although my name is not mentioned, Kate Ranieri’s 8/18 post on the abortion.ws blog attacks yours truly for sure. On the surface it attacks the handsome, rich, popular and articulate Frankie Pavone; below the surface it goes for the ugly, poor, unknown and inarticulate me.
Why? Because Kate is caught up in the very hero worship she derides(I’d a loved to have gotten a look at what she looked like for that interview). Unless someone is all the things Fr. Frank is, Kate ignores him. How do I know? Because every time I see Kate at the baby-killing place we visit, she stays far away from me. My attempts to talk with her are rebuffed. I lip read and my binoculars show me the nasty things she says, but talk to me face to face? Ne vah! And she know how envious I will be when I see how lucky Frankie is. As I say, I’m her real target
.
I’ve tried everything. I even composed some doggerel I recite on the few occasions these days when she does appear at the AWC. Here are the first two stanza sung to the tune of “McNamara’s Band”:
Oh my name is Kate Ranieri and I’m telling you again
That I lead the killers’ helpers and we used to number ten.
But that was back in Allentown we’ve moved from there, oh hell.
The only two I lead now are Doug Marsh and Ellen Bell.
It goes on for like a hundred more stanzas and gets better (has to, right?). But do my efforts have any effect? None whatsoever. She stays the silent sourpuss.
LikeLike
April 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm
John,
Who are you?
You made some Grandiouse statements for someone I never heard of . . .
LikeLike
April 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm
John,
Are you illiterate? You cannot reply to a comment on your moronic missive? Guess you don’t have the Brain power whatever you are. I doubt you even a real person, probably just an Avatar . . .
LikeLike
April 27, 2012 at 8:44 am
Bart; You seem to have a very liberal way of arguing your points of view.
It begins with personal attack and ends with no point being made. You are very good at it. I see it in your other posts as well.
Typical when you have no point to make to resort to name calling and belittling the person.
Who are you anyway. Never heard of you before reading this stuff. You must not be very important…lol, I’m a fast learner arn’t I?
LikeLike
April 19, 2012 at 11:28 am
I noticed how those horrible, hypocritical protesters behave when a priest is around them outside a clinic. They go from nasty to nice when the priest arrives. Like naughty children behind their parents backs, they have a yellow streak down their back.
LikeLike
April 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
That streak is probably just incontinence running uphill! LOL! Sorry, I crack myself up sometimes!
LikeLike
April 27, 2012 at 8:45 am
Wow! Another point well made BART.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
i have noticed that as well, bella.
LikeLike
April 19, 2012 at 11:59 am
John, you’re right about your post…it’s some doggerel
LikeLike
April 20, 2012 at 6:28 am
Anti abortion bullies and terrorists are everywhere….
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 11:26 am
Just your average run of the mill Satan inspired Christian bullies.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Not sure it’s satan inspired but definitely extremist, intolerant, hypocritical and, worst of all, purely mean.
LikeLike
April 23, 2012 at 7:12 am
What a bunch of ProLife misogynists.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
i wish more antis would admit that terrorism is what it is, rather than best case scenario, dismissing it.
just because i agree with someone’s stance o9n something, does not by any means indicate that i should find such behavior as acceptable.
LikeLike
April 20, 2012 at 6:39 am
Just in case you think that priests are misdirected, here’s another example, this time from the boys in the vatican who have their “tidy whities” in a knot over American nuns.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112080711
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 11:59 am
god bless, keep and guide all of the nuns.
whether they kowtow to what some think they should or not, they have devoted their lives to showing christ’s mercy.
LikeLike
April 22, 2012 at 5:12 am
From Jezebel, an especially funny paragrahp about the investigation of American nuns:
“This directive came as the result of a two-year-long investigation—excellent use of resources, boys—and appears to be part of what is seen as the church veering into more conservative territory. You might not think nuns would be the obvious target of any investigations, considering it’s the priests who’ve been causing most of the actual problems the church has faced recently, but of course organized religion never lets a little thing like logic get in the way.”
LikeLike
April 23, 2012 at 7:14 am
It is a riot that pedophile priests and those who cover up the pedophile’s crimes are investigating nuns!
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm
how do you know that the ones investigating the nuns are pedophiles?
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm
what’s more, why would that be a riot?
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 8:35 pm
jajajajajaja
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Yes, let’s be clear that the Vatican, the American bishops, etc are not a unified body. That should be evident to the casual observer. So to suggest that the Church acts in absolute unison and conformity is a farce. It’s no different than any large organization with a clear vision and mission. There will always be outliers, charlatans, criminals and celebrities. This includes the Catholic church and other religious instituitions (like Willow Creek), corporations, the White House, all branches of the military, educational institutions, and lowlifes like small not-for-profits like Priests for LIfe, Operation Rescue, Focus on the Family or the Komen Foundation.
LikeLike
April 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm
these nuns have devoted every aspect of their lives to serving god.
their lives revolve around showing his love and mercy to all that they encounter.
i trust god to guide them in doing this.
LikeLike
April 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Not only do American nuns (b/c I have no perspective outside our borders) show love and mercy to all they encounter, they do so by caring for themselves. Nuns do their own housework while priests have housekeepers.To say that priests deserve housekeepers that the church pays for while the nuns who works every bit as hard if not harder and do so more with much less, is a sign of blatant patriarchy. And then to see bishops oversee their work? Utter balderdash.
LikeLike
April 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm
These priests molest boys. The Church should solve their criminal pedophile problems as they have lost all credibility by their actions as a moral authority of any kind.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 11:53 am
i was unaware that fr frank had been accused, muchless convicted of molesting boys.
since you specify boys, does that mean that you consider the violation of little girls as more acceptable than that of little boys?
quite a misogynist concept
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm
I’ve never heard one iota of suggestion that Pavone was guilty of any molestation nor would I want to suggest such a thing. At one time, he had enough on his plate with all his celebrity bookings.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 7:13 pm
you never suggested that, nor did i get the impression that you did, kate.
you may disagree with someone, but i have never known you to bear false witness against them or anyone else.
that reply was to zambino’s contribution to the dialogue.
LikeLike
April 23, 2012 at 7:17 am
I don’t read Z’s remark as accusing that singular priest.
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm
gee, this entry is about a particular priest.
LikeLike
April 23, 2012 at 7:21 am
Now that I read it again, it doesn’t appear to state anything except priest’s have molested boys, and we all know this is true, and they seem like boy more for their pedophilia. Just a Priestly fact. Then the statement just says the Church’s Pedophile problem should be solved, making no issue of gender bias. I see no misogyny there. Just a condemnation of Pedophilia.
LikeLike
April 24, 2012 at 8:30 pm
>>>it doesn’t appear to state anything except priest’s have molested boys, and we all know this is true<<<
of course it is true.
but i fail to see how that is relevant to fr pavone.
"and they seem like boy more for their pedophilia. "
how on earth do you know that?
"Pedophile problem should be solved, making no issue of gender bias."
i agree, however, Z made it gender bias an issue by making the comment about boys specifically.
i think that the molestation of ANY child is an atrocity, regardless of gender.
" I see no misogyny there. "
then you are in denial
LikeLike
April 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm
I just want to say how much I enjoy your blog posts. You are very timely and hard hitting with your posts. I share them on my FB page. You have your finger on the pulse of the abortion world..Thank you
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Thanks Sarah Rose.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 5:28 am
Just in case you haven’t connected the dots about John Dunkle’s contribution to each new article on abortion.ws, know that he’s clinging to relevance like it’s the last chopper out of attentionville. It’s sad to read the anxiety in this man’s petulant writing. But realize that his desperation is directly related to 1) the influence of religious dogmatic drek, 2) an inflated sense of self-importance along with a constant need for attention and 3) the blatant disregard for the feelings of others including having little ability to feel empathy.
Have pity on the poor lost soul. He knows not what he does.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm
i like fr frank.
i found him, along with the author of this article, to be compassionate, good listeners and among the few white people whose opinions on the legacy of PP in regards to racism, that i will take seriously.
i do, however have to agree with kate in regards to the celebrity aspect.
fame is intoxicating and i worry for him because of that.
fr cutie’s fall was particularly disappointing for me. fr oprah was insanely popular and loved among hispanic people and his show was among my faves.
but when people begin to worship other people, rather than see these leaders as guides, these things are sure to happen because of what the worshippers do to them.
pride goeth before a fall.
LikeLike
April 22, 2012 at 5:20 am
I agree with you that fame is intoxicating. Fame is a funny thing, especially how it has been earned. Culturally and historically speaking, fame was earned through aristocracy or noteworthy accomplishments for the state or military. But beginning in the early 20th century, the machinations of media, press agents, advertising, marketing, press releases, created fame for celebrities. Without the internet, EWTN, the Washington Post, and television news, Fr. Frank Pavone would remain an ordinary mortal rather than a celebrated collar.
LikeLike
April 22, 2012 at 6:04 am
Thoughts for the morning from MizzPresos (commenter on RH Reality)
I’m done “respecting” these cretins who have hijacked the feminist movement and twisted the Left’s words around to legislate their religion and push their Stone-Age agendas on the rest of us. Too bad that Rick Perry didn’t get his wish – I’d love to see states like Texas secede. Better yet, I’d love to live in a country defined only by the Constitution, and would be all too happy to ship the religious nuts off elsewhere, where they could create their fantasy society governed by Biblical Sharia Law. America was founded on the principles of religious liberty, and if these whackjobs feel so persecuted, let them start their own country where the Bible is the word of the law.
LikeLike
April 27, 2012 at 8:56 am
A soldier, given a mission, goes about his job to accomplish the mission. I suspect that is how this priest operates. It’s kind of funny to read the article that starts out kind of in an informative light and quickly digresses to the usual unsupported constant personal attack. Interestingly using early examples of crass celebrity who populate the arrogant left’s camp.
The left just can’t stand it when the conservatives have someone that reaches a kind of celebrity status. It seems that the anti religion crowd are better versed on how a religious person should act than the religious person.
Interestingly they want the conservative to behave kindly and with calm understanding and “no judging” while the lefty can attack, spit, curse, drowned out free speech, pull dirty tricks AND kill babies all at the same time without restriction. OOPS just ain’t going to happen LOL.
LikeLike
April 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Questions for Jeff Gabel:
What unsupported constant personal attack are you referencing?
And in the category of calling the kettle black, what was said that was unsupported? What evidence do you have that “the left just can’t stand it when the conservatives have someone that reaches a kind of celebrity status” (childish as that comment seems)?
Who is the anti religion crowd, Jeff? Have any substantive evidence?
LikeLike
April 29, 2012 at 2:53 pm
>>>Kate Says:
April 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Not only do American nuns (b/c I have no perspective outside our borders) show love and mercy to all they encounter, they do so by caring for themselves. Nuns do their own housework while priests have housekeepers.To say that priests deserve housekeepers that the church pays for while the nuns who works every bit as hard if not harder and do so more with much less, is a sign of blatant patriarchy. And then to see bishops oversee their work? Utter balderdash.<<<
my spiritual advisor is a nun.
i can't fathom that the love that she shows me in her guidance would be any less valuable because she is a woman.
i love her so much, and i consider myself blessed beyond words, as a catholic and as a human being, to have someone as loving, humble and devoted as she is to guide me in my walk with the lord.
LikeLike