While there has long been debate within the pro-life movement about whether to show images of aborted babies in order to reveal the graphic reality of abortion, that discussion is “beside the point,” Mechmann said.
“The real question is, what about that baby as a human being? That baby is an individual human person, someone’s son or daughter, made in the image and likeness of God, unique and unrepeatable, and deserving of our love and mercy,” he said. “To use her body in this way is to treat that poor lost girl or boy as an object to be used – which is the antithesis of love – and not as a brother or sister to be mourned.”
Fr. Thomas Petri, vice president and academic dean of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., echoed Mechmann.
“The issue here is the dignity of the child that was used, and violating the dignity of his or her body on an altar of God – which is supposed to be used for divine worship. It really is a profane violation,” he told CNA.
“The Catholic Church is very strict that human bodies are to be treated reverently after a person dies.”
The video also drew fire in the Catholic blogosphere. In a Nov. 7 blog post, Mary Pezzulo, a blogger on Patheos, noted that the baby’s body had not even been cleaned or dressed before being placed on the altar.
“It is wrong to use dead people as political props. Most people know that,” she said, pointing to the teaching of the Catechism that “The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity.”
“Human bodies are not objects for us to exploit. As we do to them, we do to Christ,” Pezzulo said.
Blogger Mark Shea also rejected the treatment of the baby.
“(T)he Church does indeed insist on the right to life of the unborn baby,” he said in a post on Patheos. However, he continued, “That does not mean that in the name of fighting abortion, you get to use the unborn’s naked body as a prop for attacking your culture war enemies on the eve of an election. It does not make the unborn’s body a thing for you to manipulate as political imagery.”
Scott Eric Alt, a third Patheos blogger, called for Fr. Pavone to have his faculty to celebrate Mass suspended. He pointed to Canon law, which stipulates: “An altar, whether fixed or movable, is to be reserved for divine worship alone, to the exclusion of any secular usage.”
“The altar is intended for a sacramental purpose, as the place where the priest celebrates Mass,” Alt said.
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
At Catholic News Agency, our team is committed to reporting the truth with courage, integrity, and fidelity to our faith. We provide news about the Church and the world, as seen through the teachings of the Catholic Church. When you subscribe to the CNA UPDATE, we'll send you a daily email with links to the news you need and, occasionally, breaking news.
As part of this free service you may receive occasional offers from us at EWTN News and EWTN. We won't rent or sell your information, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
“There is no other way to put it than that this is a sacrilege and a scandal. The human person is not a prop for a political stunt. This is an offense to the purpose for which priests are ordained to use the altar.”
Furthermore, Alt charged, “what Fr. Pavone did is the opposite of pro-life.”
“Being pro-life is about respecting the dignity of the human person. It is the antithesis of respect for the dignity of the human person to use a dead child as a political prop to lobby for your presidential candidate the day before an election. This does no honor to the dead.”
Although Priests for Life claims to be in good standing with the Vatican, Fr. Pavone has previously sparked controversy over his contentious relationship with Bishop Patrick J. Zurek of Amarillo – whose jurisdiction he is under – given charges that he had disobeyed the bishop and had failed to allow the Priests for Life to undergo auditing.
Fr. Pavone also had a severe run-in with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York - where Priests for Life is headquartered - in 2014. That November, Cardinal Dolan wrote in a letter to fellow bishops that he wanted “nothing further to do” with Fr. Pavone given the priests refusal to cooperate in “several necessary reforms” of the organization after requests made by the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy.