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

[Nihil Obstat]

Dr. Peters:


[size=1]
[size=5][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][size=1]
[size=4][i]Lesbian[/i]. First, [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html"]the Church regards the homosexual/lesbian condition as “disordered”[/url] 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.[/size][/size][size=1]
[size=4][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 [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_discus.htm"]Notification handed down in April 2006[/url] 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.[/size][/size][size=1]
[size=5][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][size=1]
[size=4]This, mind, from someone who has labored for years, and who will continue to do so,[url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"] to get Canon 915 enforced properly[/url]. + + +[/size][/size]

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471967' post='2405809']
You're twisting my words, and not really mine, but what the code of canon law actually says, as far as Dr. Peters has taught.



Show me other great sources on canon law that we can access. We can analyze them when we see them.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/user/318-cappie/"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/user/318-cappie/[/url]


[url="http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/paul-burke-biography.html"]http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/paul-burke-biography.html[/url]

Granted, I don't think they have blogs about it. But there is way more than one resource for canon law.

[Nihil Obstat]

Dr. Peters:




[b] [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/a-thought-exercise-occasioned-by-the-lesbiancommunion-controversy/"]A thought exercise occasioned by the lesbian/Communion controversy[/url][/b]


[indent=3]275]
[size=1][size=4]Perhaps this thought exercise might help folks to think through the[url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/note-on-the-lesbian-communion-case-3/"]lesbian/Communion controversy[/url] better. Imagine we’re looking at the line of those approaching for holy Communion one Sunday morning at Mass.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]I see ten men approaching. One of them is dressed in Neo-Nazi gear. Quick, which one (in my view) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned him away?[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]I see ten people approaching. It’s Gay Pride Week and two of them are wearing Rainbow Sashes. Quick, which two (in my view) are ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned them away?[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]I see ten people approaching. One of them is Nancy Pelosi. Quick, which one [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/nancy-pelosi-deserves-to-be-taken-seriously-very-seriously/"](in my view)[/url] is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned her away (even if they disagreed with my decision)?[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Okay, now, I see ten women approaching. One of them is a lesbian. Quick, which one (according to some) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? And how would anyone there know why I turned her away?[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]See the problem? Everyone knows what Neo-Nazis, and Rainbow Sashers, and Nancy Pelosi look like, but what does a lesbian look like?[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4][url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"]Canon 915 (unlike Canon 916!) is about public consequences for public behavior.[/url]But “public” must be taken here as understood by canon law, and not necessarily as assumed from casual parlance.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Some evil conduct is so open, protracted, and well-known in the community (whether locally or nationally) that consequences at Communion time should (in a well-ordered body ecclesiastic) come as no surprise to the faith community. But other conduct, [i]even though it is gravely wrong[/i] (one element of Canon 915) is not so open, protracted, or well-known (another element of Canon 915) so as to allow the community in question to understand what is happening to the individual in question.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]If Nancy Pelosi is turned away from Communion, no one is going to wonder whether it is because she is, say, carrying on a torrid affair against her husband; if Rainbow Sashers are turned away from Communion, no one is going to suspect that, I dunno, they’ve embezzled money from their employers; and if a Neo-Nazi is turned away from Communion, no one is really going to wonder why. But if a some normal-looking woman in line for holy Communion is tuned away from the Sacrament, even politely, how are people supposed to know why? Did she kill maybe someone? Is she a porno queen or a prostitute? Maybe she runs that abortion clinic. Is she cheating on her husband or taking bribes at work? What?[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I’m assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion, that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]Now, sure, over time, and under certain circumstances, any of the behaviors described above can become so well-known in the community that those involved in such activities should be denied holy Communion, provided the [i]other[/i] elements of c. 915—like, say, “obstinacy”— are [i]also[/i] satisfied.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]A few years ago, [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/04/denial-of-communioin-to-lesbian-couple.html"]Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination[/url] about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different. + + +[/size][/size][/indent]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332472322' post='2405814']
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/user/318-cappie/"]http://www.phatmass....ser/318-cappie/[/url]


[url="http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/paul-burke-biography.html"]http://www.holyspiri...-biography.html[/url]

Granted, I don't think they have blogs about it. But there is way more than one resource for canon law.
[/quote]

I believe Fr. Cappie agrees with Dr. Peters. I may be misremembering, but I think he does.

[Nihil Obstat]

I dunno what else you guys want. This isn't some radical new rule being forced on us. It's all on the books.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332471967' post='2405809']
You're twisting my words, and not really mine, but what the code of canon law actually says, as far as Dr. Peters has taught.
[/quote]
How am I twisting your words? You said Dr Peters said that a priest should not deny communion to anyone unless he can prove that person has a manifest sin. Isn't that what you said? And then you said determining if a sin is manifest is not a judgement call. Did you not? So, all I said was, according to Dr Peters, a priest cannot deny communion to someone using their judgement.

What part am I twisting?

[missionseeker]

No one said it was a radical new rule. nor do I think it is (I actually HAVE studied canon law in a classroom). I'm just saying, he's not the ONLY resource, and even if was, he doesn't have all the info. He's just a commentator like everyone else. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with his interpretation. (Mostly cuz I don't read his blog.)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332472739' post='2405821']
How am I twisting your words? You said Dr Peters said that a priest should not deny communion to anyone unless he can prove that that person has a manifest sin. Isn't that what you said? And then you said determining if a sin is manifest is not a judgement call. Did you not? So, all I said was, according to Dr Peters, a priest cannot deny communion to someone using their judgement.

What part am I twisting?
[/quote]
You were off on something about priests not being allowed to protect the Eucharist. That's definitely not what I said,

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332471821' post='2405803']
This is a revelation to me. [b]I wasn't aware that priests did not have the freedom to protect the Eucharist according to their own judgement.[/b] Now I see why it's so difficult to be a good priest in this day and age. Ugh, lawyers ruin everything!!!
[/quote]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332472765' post='2405822']
No one said it was a radical new rule. nor do I think it is (I actually HAVE studied canon law in a classroom). I'm just saying, he's not the ONLY resource, and even if was, he doesn't have all the info. He's just a commentator like everyone else. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with his interpretation. (Mostly cuz I don't read his blog.)
[/quote]

As I said, you provide other commentary and we can analyze it.



I don't think anyone here can disagree with a single point Dr. Peters actually made. If you can, go for it, and we can discuss that. Short of that, I don't even see what we're still talking about.

[Nihil Obstat]

[b] [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/note-on-the-lesbian-communion-case-3/"]Note on the lesbian Communion case[/url][/b]


[indent=3]275]
[size=1][size=4]The [url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/02/maryland-priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral/"]story of the lesbian being denied holy Communion[/url] at her mother’s funeral has several versions and layers to it (no reason to think any one of them is especially complete or accurate), but, based on what [i]seems[/i] to have occurred, I’ll say this:[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]This is what happens when bizarre events (like an admitted practicing lesbian presenting herself for holy Communion in the first place), happen on the watch of priests whose love for the Eucharist probably exceeds their knowledge of the law on reception of holy Communion (through no fault of their own, doubtless), before a well-wired-world that can broadcast misinformation and even flatly wrong interpretations of an event with nary a care for correcting itself later. No matter who gets hurt along the way. And plenty of people have been hurt in this one.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]I have expended [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"]no little effort[/url] over many years ([url="http://www.canonlaw.info/a_denialofeucharist.htm"]like about 22[/url]) trying to get Canon 915 correctly understood and properly applied in ecclesiastical life. In the last few years, some signs of progress have appeared. Now, out of nowhere, Canon 915 is being invoked by some as justification for an action that, reading the facts as alleged in the light most favorable to the minister, would [i]not[/i] have justified his withholding holy Communion from the woman in question. Specifically, a few minutes conversation (if that’s what happened), mostly with a third party (if that’s what happened), would not suffice, in the face of numerous canons protecting the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments, to verify either the [b]notoriety[/b] of the (objectively) sinful situation, or to verify the [b]obstinacy[/b] of the would-be recipient, [i]both[/i] of which elements, among others in Canon 915, [i]must[/i]be demonstrated before withholding holy Communion.[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]What else is there to say? I offer no opinions on the rest of this mess (e.g., did she perhaps approach for the Sacrament in part to make a point? is the archdiocesan letter of apology prudent?), and would advise those who really wish to understand Canon 915 and its proper, even vital, role in ecclesiastical life to study [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"]the materials gathered here[/url].[/size][/size]
[size=1][size=4]PS: for another case of Canon 915 being applied in regard to a lesbian couple, [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/04/denial-of-communioin-to-lesbian-couple.html"]see my post here[/url]. + + +[/size][/size][/indent]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332472543' post='2405818']
I believe Fr. Cappie agrees with Dr. Peters. I may be misremembering, but I think he does.
[/quote]

From what I've read from his posts, I would venture to agree. At least in the sense that we need to cautiously ensure that all of the criteria of Canon 915 are met.

And on some level, doesn't this ensure that each individual person has a responsibility to protect the Eucharist and their own souls? I mean, if we emphasized a loose interpretation of 915, then that's an even more HUGE responsibility placed on the shoulders of the priest. To me it sounds almost like absolving some of the responsibility from the person presenting him or her self for communion, that a person could just say, "Well, Father should have withheld Eucharist from me!"

I'm not saying that's what anyone is saying in this thread, but more that it doesn't seem like a far logical conclusion.

ETA: 915, 916..tomato, tomahto.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1332473580' post='2405834']
From what I've read from his posts, I would venture to agree. At least in the sense that we need to cautiously ensure that all of the criteria of Canon 915 are met.

And on some level, doesn't this ensure that each individual person has a responsibility to protect the Eucharist and their own souls? I mean, if we emphasized a loose interpretation of 915, then that's an even more HUGE responsibility placed on the shoulders of the priest. To me it sounds almost like absolving some of the responsibility from the person presenting him or her self for communion, that a person could just say, "Well, Father should have withheld Eucharist from me!"

I'm not saying that's what anyone is saying in this thread, but more that it doesn't seem like a far logical conclusion.
[/quote]

Yes, 100% agreed.

Canon 915 deals with the public realm, 916 is private.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332473088' post='2405826']
I don't think anyone here can disagree with a single point Dr. Peters actually made. If you can, go for it, and we can discuss that. Short of that, I don't even see what we're still talking about.
[/quote]
I never disagreed with his points.

I disagreed with the premise of commenting on a case based off a blog post.

We're still talking because if I remember correctly, you refuted my point that listening to Dr Peters was akin to listening to a commentator comment on a game in which he only watched one play.

Which then led to you saying that defining manifest was not a judgement call.

Which then led to me saying you said priests cannot protect the Eucharist making a judgement call.

Which then led to you saying I twisted your words.

Which then led to me seeking clarification on how I did that.

Which then led to you asking what we are still talking about.

Which then led to this post explaining why we are still talking.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332473836' post='2405837']
We're still talking because if I remember correctly, you refuted my point that listening to Dr Peters was akin to listening to a commentator comment on a game in which he only watched one play.

Which then led to you saying that defining manifest was not a judgement call.

Which then led to me saying you said priests cannot protect the Eucharist making a judgement call.

Which then led to you saying I twisted your words.

Which then led to me seeking clarification on how I did that.

Which then led to you asking what we are still talking about.
[/quote]

You implies that canon law forbids a priest from protecting the Eucharist. That's completely not the case.
As we established, neither of us are experts. We have no expert opinions contradicting Dr. Peters', so..... what? None of us are qualified to criticize his professional opinion.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332474003' post='2405839']
You implies that canon law forbids a priest from protecting the Eucharist.
[/quote]
I do not think anyone in this thread except you thinks that I implied, "canon law forbids a priest from protecting the Eucharist".

The only thing I ever did was to ask for your clarification that "priests should not withhold communion based off their judgement" since you said that "manifest" is not a judgement call. So, I implied nothing. You said it.

[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. [b]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.[/b] End of story.
[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332474276' post='2405844']
I do not think anyone in this thread except you thinks that I implied, "canon law forbids a priest from protecting the Eucharist".

The only thing I ever did was to ask for your clarification that "priests should not withhold communion based off their judgement" since you said that "manifest" is not a judgement call. So, I implied nothing. You said it.
[/quote]

You said: "[b]I wasn't aware that priests did not have the freedom to protect the Eucharist according to their own judgement."[/b]
We were talking about exactly what canon law does and does not allow. It certainly does not disallow a priest to protect the Eucharist. If you weren't implying that it does, then this was completely irrelevant to our discussion.