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

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331841727' post='2401340']
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.
[/quote]
That is true enough, but I'm assuming that the best case scenario would be for him to return to active ministry in Washington. It would be possibly relevant to know why he was working there instead of in Russia...

[cappie]

[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]



Might be good to read [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/"]http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/[/url]

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement evidences misunderstandings of several aspects of Catholic law on the administration of holy Communion and confirms my sense that Guarnizo erred in withholding holy Communion in this case. Regarding those errors, I believe that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction.
Preliminary points
I offer here canonical commentary, and that, only for those who are interested in the operation of canon law in the Church and are aware of (or willing to take direction on) how this venerable legal system serves the Christian community. Those suffering, regardless of their doctrinal views, from various kinds of ecclesiastical antinomianism are invited to address their more basic concerns about the role of law in the Church in another context.

I comment here only on Guarnizo’s decision to withhold holy Communion from Barbara Johnson on Feb 25, except briefly to correct one parenthetical remark by Guarnizo: he apparently thinks that Cdl. Wuerl does not have the authority to “suspend” him. I have stated all along that Guarnizo is not suspended, but there is no question that Wuerl could suspend Guarnizo, or apply any other appropriate penalty, if things come to that (cc. 1408, 1412).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1331848039' post='2401410']
Might be good to read [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/"]http://canonlawblog....012/03/15/1733/[/url]

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement evidences misunderstandings of several aspects of Catholic law on the administration of holy Communion and confirms my sense that Guarnizo erred in withholding holy Communion in this case. Regarding those errors, I believe that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction.
Preliminary points
I offer here canonical commentary, and that, only for those who are interested in the operation of canon law in the Church and are aware of (or willing to take direction on) how this venerable legal system serves the Christian community. Those suffering, regardless of their doctrinal views, from various kinds of ecclesiastical antinomianism are invited to address their more basic concerns about the role of law in the Church in another context.

I comment here only on Guarnizo’s decision to withhold holy Communion from Barbara Johnson on Feb 25, except briefly to correct one parenthetical remark by Guarnizo: he apparently thinks that Cdl. Wuerl does not have the authority to “suspend” him. I have stated all along that Guarnizo is not suspended, but there is no question that Wuerl could suspend Guarnizo, or apply any other appropriate penalty, if things come to that (cc. 1408, 1412).
[/quote]

Oh, I'm glad he wrote a response! Thanks for posting that. I forgot to check his blog today.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331841727' post='2401340']
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.
[/quote]Respect and obedience (they're in the same promise made kneeling before the bishop). He wasn't ordained here, but it's very unwise to upset the bishop under whose authority you currently minister. I'm not sure if his archbishop is pleased by this anyway...they often stand up for their own.

[cappie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331848236' post='2401412']
Oh, I'm glad he wrote a response! Thanks for posting that. I forgot to check his blog today.
[/quote]

No problem I check his blog every other day. Canon Law was my "best" subject in the seminary and I have had more than a passing interest since. Canon Law protects all people in the Church. It allows us to deal justly without being blown about on whims and personal likes/dislikes. By applying Canon Law we don't run the rick of the "lynch mob" mentality as there is always due process to follow. Had it been followed then it would have protected the priest and the person. End of story.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1331851815' post='2401446']
No problem I check his blog every other day. Canon Law was my "best" subject in the seminary and I have had more than a passing interest since. Canon Law protects all people in the Church. It allows us to deal justly without being blown about on whims and personal likes/dislikes. By applying Canon Law we don't run the rick of the "lynch mob" mentality as there is always due process to follow. Had it been followed then it would have protected the priest and the person. End of story.
[/quote]

On the one hand I wish it were ok for Fr. Guarnizo to have done what he did, but on the other hand I think it's more important for Canon 915 to be enforced as is.

[Slappo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331849242' post='2401420']
Respect and obedience (they're in the same promise made kneeling before the bishop). He wasn't ordained here, but it's very unwise to upset the bishop under whose authority you currently minister. I'm not sure if his archbishop is pleased by this anyway...they often stand up for their own.
[/quote]

Oh I quite agree

[KnightofChrist]

Here is a interesting counterargument to Mr. Peters rather public and semi-sorta prosecutorial effort against Father Garnizo.


[b][url="http://www.newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.it/2012/03/guest-letter-challenging-dr-peters-on.html"]Greetings in Christ,[/url][/b]

I am writing you regarding the incident that happened recently towards the end of last month in the Archdiocese of Washington wherein Ms. Barbara Johnson was denied communion by the priest, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo. I would like to break open, yet one more time, the whole issue of canon 915. In particular, I would like to challenge the reading of this canon by Dr. Edward Peters.

My argument will be structured around two main points. First, how do we read the word “obstinate” in canon 915? Second, how do we read this canon’s use of the word “manifest”?
The blogosphere is full of discussions that assume that for someone to be “obstinate” according to c. 915 he must have been first privately talked to and warned by a pastor about his sin. On this reading, communion should be denied him only [i]after[/i] he has been warned and [i]then [/i]continues in his sin and publicly presents himself for communion.

The most recent Magisterial interpretation of canon 915 is the [i]Declaration Concerning The Admission To Holy Communion Of Faithful Who Are Divorced And Remarried[/i], put out by the Pontifical Council For Legislative Texts in the year 2000. It defines “obstinate” as follows:

“obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.”
For this PCILT document, “Obstinate”, as it appears in canon 915, is not necessarily only verifiable by a process of pastoral discussion and warning. Rather, a person is considered to be “obstinate” in their sin if their sinful lifestyle has been lived in for some time and has not been abandoned by them. So for example, cohabitating couples, simply by their lifestyle, are “obstinate” in their sin. So also the sin of a practicing and open homosexual would be considered “obstinate”. Of course, it makes good pastoral sense to avoid “making a scene” and embarrassing people by having to deny them communion in public. If a pastor can speak [i]beforehand[/i] to a person he has good reason to consider publically unworthy, he should do so. But prior discussion and warning are not absolutes. Even apart from them, the minister has an obligation to deny communion to the publically unworthy.

The PCILT document says,
“Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. [i]In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy.[/i] They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.” [Emphasis mine]

I think this idea of the necessary “prior warning” has accidentally gotten inserted into the discussion and raised confusion because of the issue of Catholic politicians who support political policies contrary to the faith. The public unworthiness of such politicians is a bit more difficult an issue than the public unworthiness of cohabitating couples or practicing and open homosexual persons. In the case of such politicians, it makes sense for a bishop to first talk with the politician, verify the objective gravity of his political stance (which by nature is going to be a more complex matter than fornication, adultery, or homosexual acts), warn him, and—if he persists in his stance—only then issue a diocesan-wide notice instructing ministers to refuse communion to him.

[url="http://www.newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.it/2012/03/guest-letter-challenging-dr-peters-on.html"]Read More...[/url]

[dUSt]

I disagree with the lawyer guy. lol

He's basically doing the same thing against the priest that he claims the priest did against the lesbian. He's assuming the priest could not know that the lesbian's conduct was obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful--based on the fact that he only had a limited conversation with her... Yet, he's making all of these assumptions based off of a very limited blog post?

[qfnol31]

I can guarantee four things:

1) The Archdiocese of Washington met with Father Guarnizo after this incident and spoke with him privately: his "punishment" was originally to be temporary.

2) This was not the first issue with him, and I don't think that the real issue was what happened with Holy Communion anyway.

3) Not one of these posters has any real good understanding of the Archdiocese in general. As a person who used to handle questions of a priest's ability to offer regular public Mass or hear regular confessions in the Archdiocese, there is too much ignorance present in the whole discussion.

4) No good will come from criticizing the actions of Bishop Knestout - who I guarantee you has the full support of Cardinal Wuerl.

[XIX]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332463132' post='2405659']
I disagree with the lawyer guy. lol

He's basically doing the same thing against the priest that he claims the priest did against the lesbian. He's assuming the priest could not know that the lesbian's conduct was obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful--based on the fact that he only had a limited conversation with her... Yet, he's making all of these assumptions based off of a very limited blog post?
[/quote]
I think The Lawyer Guy's assumptions are more than reasonable. It's ironic, sure, but not hypocritical.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332463132' post='2405659']
I disagree with the lawyer guy. lol

He's basically doing the same thing against the priest that he claims the priest did against the lesbian. He's assuming the priest could not know that the lesbian's conduct was obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful--based on the fact that he only had a limited conversation with her... Yet, he's making all of these assumptions based off of a very limited blog post?
[/quote]

The fact that we can even question whether or not it was manifest means, nearly by definition, that it was not. Dr. Peters spent quite a bit of time going over exactly what manifest means in the context of canon law. As you know, terminology is used in very precise ways in technical fields, especially in law, and doubly so in canon law.
I'm going to go with the guy with decades of practical and theoretical experience in the field. Pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.


ETA: Here's part of his bio, the part relevant to canon law.
[spoiler]
[color=#000000][font=Times][size=1]
[size=4][font="Arial"]After graduation from law school, he was admitted to the [url="http://www.mobar.org/"]Missouri Bar Association[/url], and following two years of working in California for educational and religious television projects, he began studies in canon law at the [url="http://canonlaw.cua.edu/"]Catholic University of America School of Religious Studies[/url]. He earned his licentiate degree (J.C.L.) in 1988, was named a Johannes Quasten Fellow for doctoral studies, and completed doctoral course work in canon law in 1990. Peters' doctoral dissertation, “[url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_books.htm#Penal%20Procedural%20Law"]Penal Procedural Law in the 1983 Code of Canon Law[/url]” was defended in August 1991.[/font][/size][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Times][size=1][center][size=4] [/size] [size=4] [/size]
[left][size=4][font="Arial"]For some twelve years he served variously as diocesan[/font][font="Arial"]Director of the Office for Canonical Affairs, [/font][font="Arial"]Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor[/font][font="Arial"], Defender of the Bond, Collegial Judge for the diocesan and appellate tribunals of the Dioceses of [url="http://www.dioceseduluth.org/"]Duluth, MN[/url], (Province of St. Paul), and of [url="http://www.diocese-sdiego.org/"]San Diego, CA[/url], (Province of Los Angeles), and Special Assistant to the Bishop. Throughout this time Peters continued writing for [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/petersfaculty.htm#1992"]a wide variety of religious and secular publications[/url] and was a canonical consultant to numerous ecclesiastical institutions and persons. He has made many[url="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/canonlaw_speakingmedia.htm"]appearances in Catholic and secular media[/url] over the years.[/font][/size][/left] [size=4] [/size]
[left][size=4][font="Arial"]From 2001-2005 he taught at [/font][font="Arial"]the (Graduate) Institute for Pastoral Theology (Canon Law, Liturgy & Sacraments, Canonical Structures, and Ecclesiastical Latin) based on the campus of [url="http://www.mi.avemaria.edu/"]Ave Maria College[/url]. In 2005 Peters was appointed to the Cdl. Szoka Chair at [url="http://www.aodonline.org/SHMS/SHMS.htm"]Sacred Heart Major Seminary[/url] in Detroit.[/font][/size][/left] [size=4] [/size]
[left][size=4][font="Arial"]In 2010, Dr. Peters was named a [url="http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/signaturae-apostolicae-referendarius.html"]Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura[/url] by Pope Benedict XVI[/font][/size][/left] [size=4] [/size]
[/size][/font][/color][/center]
[/spoiler]

Edited March 23, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

From Dr. Peters' blog:




[b] A brief thought on the phrase ‘manifest sin’ in Canon 915[/b]

[indent=3][color=#000000]275]March 17, 2012[/color][/indent]
[indent=3][size=1][color=#000000]275]
[size=1][size=4]As I look through the continuing blogosphere commentary on the lesbian/Communion case, I see many people confusing the concept of “manifest sin” in Canon 915 with the notion of, I dunno, something like “manifestly sinful”. Those two phrases mean different things*, I suggest, and Canon 915 speaks only in terms of the former, not the latter.[/size][/size][/color]
[size=1][size=4][color=#000000]In 2008 I published a CLSA advisory opinion on Canon 915 and two years later posted it on my [/color][url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"][color=#000000]Canon 915 resource page[/color][/url][color=#000000]. I paraphrase part of that opinion for use today:[/color][/size][/size]
[color=#0000cd][size=1][size=4][i] Manifest[/i]. The additional requirement that gravely sinful behavior be[i]manifest[/i] prior to withholding the Eucharist helps distinguish Canon 915, which operates in realm of [b]public[/b] order, from Canon 916, which informs one’s [b]personal[/b] responsibility to receive the Eucharist worthily. Reception of Communion at Mass is a [b]public[/b] action in service to rendering liturgical worship to God; it is not the place for the proclamation of another’s [b]private[/b] behavior. However sinful it might be, conduct that is not already widely known in the community is not[i]manifest[/i] as canon law understands that term in this context. In something of a parallel to Canon 1340 § 2 (which prohibits imposing public penances for occult transgressions) and Canon 1330 (which prohibits any penalties in cases where no one has perceived the offense) the public withholding of the Eucharist for little-known sins, even though they might well be grave, is not permitted under canon law.[/size][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=1][size=4]Some folks seem to get the canonical distinction between public and private conduct but think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin. They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here. Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard. + + +[/size][/size]
[size=1]* Example: I keep saying that a would-be Communion recipient’s brief disclosure to a minister a few minutes before Mass that she has a female “lover” does [i]not[/i] suffice to verify, among other things, that the [b]sin[/b] apparently being admitted to is canonically[b]manifest[/b] in the community; others say, c’mon, lesbian sexual activity is [i]manifestly sinful[/i]. See? I’m talking about what Canon 915 [i]actually[/i] says, while they are talking about what they [i]think[/i] Canon 915 says.[/size][/color][/size][/indent]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332467920' post='2405707']
The fact that we can even question whether or not it was manifest means, nearly by definition, that it was not. Dr. Peters spent quite a bit of time going over exactly what manifest means in the context of canon law. As you know, terminology is used in very precise ways in technical fields, especially in law, and doubly so in canon law.
I'm going to go with the guy with decades of practical and theoretical experience in the field. Pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.[/quote]Hijack!!

Recognize the last name Peters? That's right, Tom Peters from Catholicvote/American Papist is his son!

/hijack

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332468233' post='2405714']
Hijack!!

Recognize the last name Peters? That's right, Tom Peters from Catholicvote/American Papist is his son!

/hijack
[/quote]

I dunno who that is, but it's probably really awe[color=#000000]s[/color]ome. :D