Fr. Marcel Guarnizo's Fate... Priestly Faculties Removed.

[Strictlyinkblot]

Here's another article about it.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html[/url]

[LaPetiteSoeur]

I couldn't read all of the comments, but I think this was one of those letters the diocese sends out for parishes to slip into bulletins (at least, it looks like the ones that came from the diocese I used to work in).

Prayers for all involved.

[Theologian in Training]

We wonder why the government thinks it can just roll over what the Church teaches and how they could be so inconsiderate as to take away our religious freedoms. Yet, at the same time, the Church does not stand behind its priests when all he was trying to do was to avoid public scandal and live up to his expectations in protecting the Eucharist. If we are so divided how in the world can we stand together? The early Church went to great lengths to guard the Eucharist even going so far as to make sure it rarely talked about it, but, now, because we have become so afraid of lawyers, we cannot stand when it counts the most.

Technically, she is "living together" and so whether lesbian or straight, we are to inform those who do so that they cannot receive the Eucharist. It's not pleasant, it's not politically correct, but it is our obligation as dispensers of the mysteries of God. Just a couple of weeks ago, I explained to someone why I could not absolve them since they were living together and not married in the Church. As a result, the couple is seeking to have a convalidation. If we don't inform the people, how can they know? If we don't make every effort to protect the Eucharist, then what is the point?

I pray for our bishops, I pray for the Church, I pray for the priests, and I pray that soon we stop being afraid before it's too late.

[Nihil Obstat]

When it comes to canon law, I'm sticking to Ed Peters. As far as I'm concerned he's the best source when it comes to situations regarding the application of canon law, which is what this is. If he's not concerned, then neither am I.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331592294' post='2399812']
When it comes to canon law, I'm sticking to Ed Peters. As far as I'm concerned he's the best source when it comes to situations regarding the application of canon law, which is what this is. If he's not concerned, then neither am I.
[/quote]

While I am very concerned, I'm trusting Ed Peters on this one. I really appreciate his calm objective applications of canon law on Catholic news items such as this one. He is very good in commenting on a situation and how it pertains to canon law without allowing emotion to overpower his analysis.

[Nihil Obstat]

I especially like Ed Peters because he always ruffles feathers with the question of clerical continence as applied to the permanent diaconate.

[Nihil Obstat]

He wrote a new blog post today.

[url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/three-recent-questions-in-the-wake-of-the-lesbiancommunion-controvery/http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/three-recent-questions-in-the-wake-of-the-lesbiancommunion-controvery/"]http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/three-recent-questions-in-the-wake-of-the-lesbiancommunion-controvery/[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[b] [size=4]Ed Peters:[/size][/b]

[color=#000000][b] Three recent questions in the wake of the lesbian/Communion controvery[/b][/color]

[indent=3][color=#000000]275]March 13, 2012[/color][/indent]
[indent=3][size=1][color=#000000]275]
[size=1][size=4]I get paid to explain canon law in the calm context of the graduate classroom, where things like definitions, nuance, history, and values can be reflected upon by well-informed peers (or at least by students who do the readings!) But I never let my students forget that canon law is fundamentally a [i]legal system[/i], and that legal systems deal with [i]real people[/i], and that real people can make a [i]sorry mess of their lives and the lives of others[/i] in pretty short order. So, if the recent lesbian/Communion controversy affords us an unlooked-for opportunity, perhaps even a necessity, to explain some of the working of canon law, so be it. I’m game.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Here, I consider the three common questions about this case. Sometimes, yes, the questions are rhetorical and seem designed more to taunt than to inquire, but to the degree they nevertheless help surface issues that others might find instructive, let’s look at them.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4][b]Isn’t it just splitting hairs to describe Fr. Guarnizo as being on “administrative leave” when everyone knows he is suspended?[/b][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]We are talking canon law, right? Well, canon law is an ancient legal system that, over many centuries, has developed numerous terms of art. Canon law is not secret, but neither is it simple. Those who want to discuss canon law intelligently must understand and observe canonical definitions, or risk talking nonsense. In any case, it is not incumbent on canon lawyers to run around explaining their terms to everyone under the sun who wants to express an opinion about this canonical issue or that. Instead, it is incumbent on those many others to find out (or at least to take some guidance on) how canon law uses certain words before pronouncing judgment.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]The word “suspension” denotes a canonical [i]penalty imposed only upon guilt[/i] for a canonical crime (c. 1333). In the not-too-distant past, some ecclesiastical officials, including bishops, misused the word “suspension” to describe what may be more accurately described as “administrative leave” (more about that in a sec), but when they did so, canonists, publicly and privately, corrected that misuse of terms and, for some time now, the mistaken use of “suspension” seems to have faded out among ecclesiastical leadership.[i] Deo gratias[/i]. Only to reappear now among some bloggers. [i]Sigh.[/i][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]But: if you are talking canon law, and you describe a cleric as “suspended”, you have described him as being guilty of a canonical crime. Therefore, those describing Fr. Guarnizo as “suspended” are canonically defaming him. Whether they know it or not.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Now, about “administrative leave”. Canon law, a living legal system serving a living Church, is trying to catch up to some recent developments in, among other things, the theology of holy Orders, which developments have brought about, among things, the eclipse of the Pio-Benedictine category of “simplex priest”, leaving a hole in the law, or at least in its terminology, to describe a priest who is [i]not[/i] under a penalty (c.o.), [i]nor[/i] irregular for orders (c. 1044), [i]nor[/i] restricted pursuant to a penal process (c. 1722). This category of priest undoubtedly exists (because faculties for preaching, confessions, sacramental acts, and so on, can undoubtedly be restricted or taken away without any suggestion of guilt, etc.), but the 1983 Code does not give us a neat term to denote such priests. Until such time, if any, as the Legislator chooses to give us such a term, the phrase “administrative leave” seems to cover that gap fairly well, or at least, it does so among people who know what they are talking about.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]In short, the phrase “administrative leave” protects the reputation of the cleric in question; the term “suspension” marks him as a canonical criminal.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4][b]So, are priests supposed to help lesbian Buddhists commit sacrilege against Our Lord by giving them holy Communion?[/b][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Deep breath, Ed….Okay. Let’s break this down.[/size][/size][/color]
[size=1][size=4][color=#000000][i]Lesbian[/i]. First, [/color][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html"][color=#000000]the Church regards the homosexual/lesbian condition as “disordered”[/color][/url][color=#000000] in somewhat the same way that one may regard alcoholism as a “disorder”. According to our tradition, one may[i]not[/i] deny holy Communion to an individual suffering from a “disorder”, so, those Catholics calling for the banning of “a lesbian” from Communion are violating our tradition (not to mention our canon law). That said, however, it [i]is[/i] possible to deprive one of holy Communion who engages in conduct that amounts to canonically verified “obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin” (c. 915), as canon law uses each of those terms. I have said from the beginning of this mess, verifiable conduct, not asserted status, is the only question relevant here. Now, if someone wants to make the case that [i]all five[/i] (per c. 18) of those banning conditions were canonically satisfied a few minutes before Mass one day, they are free to try. I think they would fail in the attempt, but that’s just my opinion. In any case, at least such persons would be talking about what is relevant here, the law on holy Communion, and not just using rhetorical questions as cudgels.[/color][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4][color=#000000][i]Buddhists[/i]. Buddhists have no right to holy Communion; baptized persons, in accord with law, have the right to holy Communion (c. 912, etc.). This woman was baptized Catholic. The presumption is, therefore, that she had a right to Communion, and the burden is on those who would deny her same to prove that she is no longer permitted by law to receive holy Communion, here, on the grounds that she is a Buddhist. That is a heavy burden of proof, of course, and one not likely sustainable in a short conversation before Mass one day, and one made even more difficult in the wake of a [/color][url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_discus.htm"][color=#000000]Notification handed down in April 2006[/color][/url][color=#000000] regarding the “formal act of defection” and its relation to, among other things, the canonical crime of apostasy (cc. 751, 1364), and in turn its impact on the application of wider canon law to such individuals. In short, canonists know that a Catholic’s[i]claim[/i] to be a Buddhist, and a Catholic’s [i]being canonically recognized[/i]as being a Buddhist, are very distinct things. Those who are not canonists may be excused not being aware of the difference, but not for ignoring it once it is pointed out to them.[/color][/size][/size]
[color=#000000][size=1][size=4][b]Given all the hoopla this lady has generated about herself, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if she presents herself for Communion again, she should be denied?[/b][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Yes. With one caveat common among the doctors who have discussed these situations for several centuries—in contrast to most bloggers who have been aware of these questions for maybe several days.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Notoriety (of the type needed for denial of the Eucharist) in one place is not necessarily notoriety in another. Like other human communities, the cyber-community exaggerates how widely known are matters of interest to it. I would not want to see a priest unaware of this woman’s profile, etc., and giving her Communion, being torn to shreds by Catholic hotheads for desecrating the Eucharist. This is one more reason why Canon 915 (and a half-dozen other relevant norms) are so narrowly drawn: the primary responsibility for approaching holy Communion worthily rests with the individual (c. 916).[/size][/size][/color]
[size=1][size=4][color=#000000]This, mind, from someone who has labored for years, and who will continue to do so,[/color][url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"][color=#000000] to get Canon 915 enforced properly[/color][/url][color=#000000]. + + +[/color][/size][/size]
[color=#000000][size=1]Ha! That’s the [i]second[/i] time the “s” in “controversy” has dropped out of my title! How funny.[/size][/color][/size]
[/indent]

Edited March 13, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[qfnol31]

It's worth mentioning here that he's a priest of Russia and so the Archdiocese has to extend faculties for him to offer Mass and hear confessions regularly in the Archdiocese.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Score one for the Roman Catholic Church standing behind it's own religious doctrine and priests that impliment it.

[Slappo]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/fr-guarnizo-has-more-to-say-about-being-removed-from-ministry-in-washington-d-c/#comments

[quote]
[b]Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident[/b]
I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.
I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.
Here are the facts:...
[/quote]

Read more at the link. It's a hefty letter, with quite a bit of insight from the priest's perspective.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331836484' post='2401281']
[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/fr-guarnizo-has-more-to-say-about-being-removed-from-ministry-in-washington-d-c/#comments"]http://wdtprs.com/bl...n-d-c/#comments[/url]



Read more at the link. It's a hefty letter, with quite a bit of insight from the priest's perspective.
[/quote]
I definitely question whether or not it's wise for a priest in his situation to say anything at all. I imagine a good canon lawyer would tell him to speak to his bishop, the bishop of the diocese he has been working in, and nobody else.

[CatherineM]

Lawyers, canon or otherwise, always tell their clients to keep their lips zipped.

[Nihil Obstat]

Have you seen that razzle dazzle video of a law professor (formerly a defense attorney) and a police officer both giving a lecture on why you should never ever talk to police?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331838559' post='2401309']
I definitely question whether or not it's wise for a priest in his situation to say anything at all. I imagine a good canon lawyer would tell him to speak to his bishop, the bishop of the diocese he has been working in, and nobody else.
[/quote]

At least he has to his advantage that his promise of obedience does not lie with the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. Otherwise I agree - not sure how prudent it is.