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

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332463339' post='2405662']
4) No good will come from criticizing the actions of Bishop Knestout - who I guarantee you has the full support of Cardinal Wuerl.
[/quote]

And on that note, good rarely, if ever, comes from criticizing any clergy. The respect we lay people need to have for them is astronomical, regardless of their personal lives. Prayers, not criticism, are the only thing I see as acceptable on the part of the laity. May sound extreme, but in my view, it is an extreme thing to pass judgment on a member of the clergy.

[dUSt]

Yes, I understand how qualified he is. I get it.

My point was that everything he is saying is in response to a blog post. He's not actually in communication with anyone involved, is he? It's like listening to a commentator try to explain the whole game based off watching one play.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332468977' post='2405733']
Yes, I understand how qualified he is. I get it.

[color=#282828]My point was that everything he is saying is in response to a blog post. He's not actually in communication with anyone involved, is he? It's like listening to a commentator try to explain the whole game based off watching one play. [/color]
[/quote]

He doesn't need to be. This woman's sin was not manifest, and it takes only very cursory understanding of the situation to understand that. The trouble with the armchair canon lawyers of the blogosphere is that they're trying to use "manifest" in a non-technical way, which does introduce uncertainty. In a technical sense it's rather simpler.

[dUSt]

Define manifest.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just did, above. In Dr. Peters' words, which are better than mine.

[dUSt]

Well, his words may be better than yours, but I don't see where he defines manifest, so they must not be that good. Doesn't manifest mean "without a doubt" or "obvious"?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332469536' post='2405747']
Well, his words may be better than yours, but I don't see where he defines manifest, so they must not be that good. Doesn't manifest mean "without a doubt" or "obvious"?
[/quote]

No, that's exactly what I've been saying. That's the colloquial meaning. In canon law it's a technical term with a very precise meaning.


[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]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332468327' post='2405716']


I dunno who that is, but it's probably really awe[color=#000000]s[/color]ome. :D
[/quote]The reason for a sorta large thread on Rick Santorum in the Debate Table. :-)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332469696' post='2405754']
The reason for a sorta large thread on Rick Santorum in the Debate Table. :-)
[/quote]

LAME!

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332469658' post='2405751']


No, that's exactly what I've been saying. That's the colloquial meaning. In canon law it's a technical term with a very precise meaning.


[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]
[/quote]
Help me out here bro. Still don't see where he defines manifest. Help me find that "very precise meaning".

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332469745' post='2405757']
Help me out here bro. Still don't see where he defines manifest.
[/quote]

To simplify it, perhaps way too much, you could say that it means "clearly public".
Nancy Pelosi's sins are manifest, or Sebelius. Your neighbour down the street who masturbates may be in a state of mortal sin, but it's not manifest. Not even if all three of his roommates and his confessor know about it.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[dUSt]

OK, but even if the sin was not manifest. That's not really the question. The question is if the priest thought that the sin was manifest. If the priest made the decision, confident that it was a manifest sin, then he did the right thing according to his own conscience, did he not?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332470209' post='2405765']
OK, but even if the sin was not manifest. That's not really the question. The question is if the priest thought that the sin was manifest. If the priest made the decision, confident that it was a manifest sin, then he did the right thing did he not?
[/quote]

Whether or not a sin is manifest really isn't a judgement call. Certainly not on that level. If it was truly manifest sin, then everyone should know about it. The issue is that I don't think Fr. Guarnizo understands what manifest means in a canonical sense. He probably understands it as you do. His zeal in defending the Eucharist is absolutely admirable, but ultimately what we did was against canon law. What he needs is further study and education on what the law means.

Dr. Peters again:

[size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4][b]Summary argument on Canon 915 in light of Guarnizo’s admissions[/b][/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified, whether Johnson’s [b]sin[/b] (speaking objectively), which could be [b]grave[/b] (a conclusion I think a Catholic could reach based on the words used here) was [i]also[/i] [b]manifest[/b], as well as [b]obstinate[/b] and [b]perseverating[/b]. Yet such factors, according to a host of respected commentators writing over many decades, must be verified before withholding holy Communion from a member of the faithful. Consider:[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]“If the priest … doubts the publicity or notoriety of the crime, it would certainly be safer to give the Holy Eucharist to one who publically asks for it.” Dom Augustine, COMMENTARY (1920) IV: 230.[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]“Occulto peccatori qui publice accedit ad sacram Mensam administranda vero est sacra communio … si fideles, quippe cum eis indignitas non sit nota, timore afficiantur, ne et ipsi infamentur, si sacerdos ob … ignoratiam, errorem, etc, eos praetereat.” Jone, COMMENTARIUM (1954) II: 100.[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]“If there is doubt about the notoriety of the sin, the communicant is to be favored in public.” Abbo-Hannan, SACRED CANONS (1960) I: 854.[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]“Before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave.” Kelly, in GB& I COMM (1995) 503.[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]“The minister of holy communion should not publicly deny communion to a person who, being afflicted by grave sin and/or subject to a non-declared penalty [i]latae sententiae[/i] [e.g., for apostasy] is not notoriously under those situations.” Gramunt, in EXEGETICAL COMM (2004) III/1: 615-616.[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]I know of no commentator who disputes these views. In terms of Canon 915, and given Guarnizo’s factual admissions above, I conclude that Guarnizo erred in withholding Communion.[/size][/color][/size][size=1]
[color=#000000][size=4]Interestingly, some language in Guarnizo’s statement suggests that not even he thinks that Canon 915 provides cover for his decision, and we now turn to other factors that he thinks might justify his withholding Communion from a member of the faithful who asks for it publicly. We must determine whether these grounds (a) would support him in principle and, if so, (b) whether they would do so in fact.[/size][/color][/size]

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332470432' post='2405767']
Whether or not a sin is manifest really isn't a judgement call. Certainly not on that level. If it was truly manifest sin, then everyone should know about it.
[/quote]
But you yourself said that Pelosi and Sibelius are guilty of manifest sin, yet clearly, not everyone knows about it--in fact, there are a great number of people who think they should not be denied communion. So why is one case so obvious, yet another case is not?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332470601' post='2405768']
But you yourself said that Pelosi and Sibelius are guilty of manifest sin, yet clearly, not everyone knows about it--in fact, there are a great number of people who think they should not be denied communion. So why is one case so obvious, yet another case is not?
[/quote]

That's because most people don't know what canon law actually says.