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

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332473088' post='2405826']
You were off on something about priests not being allowed to protect the Eucharist. That's definitely not what I said,





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.
[/quote]

When I have questions with canon law, I don't take it to the internet, so I don't know internet sources. I know actual ones. and the books. And the book commentaries. On things like this, I tend to just let the Church do her job.


That said, on some level, the term "manifest" IS relatively vague, just as many things in the Church are. The fact that not only did she openly claim to be Buddusht and Lesbian, living with her partner, but she spoke openly about it at the Catholic school where she taught gives me doubt as to whether or not this was or was not manifest. I think it could go either way, honestly. I don't know if she taught students that way or not (but I would guess that she did). But either way, I'm not sure if it is is or is not manifest. Glad I don't have to be the one to decide it.


[quote]
[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif]When taking a job as an art teacher in a Catholic high school, she wrote, “I felt I couldn’t allow myself to be put into a position to be closeted, even for a few months,” because doing so would leave her “feeling invisible and unworthy of knowing.”[/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif]“So in my interview with the principal we talked openly about my being a lesbian and a Buddhist.”[/font][/color]
[/quote]

[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif]she also did write publicly about being lesbian [url="http://kutztown.academia.edu/BarbaraJohnson/Papers"]http://kutztown.acad...aJohnson/Papers[/url][/font][/color]


[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif]also her fb page (if this is not ok, would a mod let me know) [url="https://www.facebook.com/artworksnow"]https://www.facebook.com/artworksnow[/url] all sort of anti-catholic/pro-GBLT, even pro-abortion art on there. [/font][/color]


[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, sans-serif]so is it public? is it private? idk. I think it could go either way. [/font][/color]

Edited March 23, 2012 by missionseeker

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1332473580' post='2405834']

ETA: 915, 916..tomato, tomahto.
[/quote]
Yeah, I knew you knew that. I didn't bring that up in response to you. I just found it interesting for myself when I was reading all of this material.
People seem to want to apply 916 in a public sense, basically apply 916 as if it were 915, which is not at all what is allowed by the books.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332474360' post='2405846']
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.
[/quote]
You keep leaving off that last part, "according to their judgement". [b]You[/b] are the one that said defining manifest is not a judgement call, not me.

If you recall, I was trying to make the point that the priest, according to his judgement, may have been convinced that it truly was a manifest sin. In which you replied that defining manifest is not a judgement call--refuting my point that the priest could have been acting under good faith on his own judgement.

So, please do not continue to twist this into something that I seem to be implying about canon law. I'm simply seeking clarification. You yourself are the one saying that priests should not use their judgement to protect the Eucharist.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332474542' post='2405847']
When I have questions with canon law, I don't take it to the internet, so I don't know internet sources. I know actual ones. and the books. And the book commentaries. On things like this, I tend to just let the Church do her job.


That said, on some level, the term "manifest" IS relatively vague, just as many things in the Church are. The fact that not only did she openly claim to be Buddusht and Lesbian, living with her partner, but she spoke openly about it at the Catholic school where she taught gives me doubt as to whether or not this was or was not manifest. I think it could go either way, honestly. I don't know if she taught students that way or not (but I would guess that she did). But either way, I'm not sure if it is is or is not manifest. Glad I don't have to be the one to decide it.
[/quote]


All right, that's great. If you have offline sources we can use those too. I'm pretty confident we won't find any major dissenting opinion being offered by competent canon lawyers.
You said "On things like this, I tend to just let the Church do her job."
That's exactly what I'm doing. We have the CIC, we have very competent interpretations of it, so we have no issue. Whichever bishop is involved with this case seems to be aware of the proper application of 915. There was a nice little discussion just today by a canonist priest who literally just opened his blog, discussing the idea of "administrative leave" (not a term in canon law) and "irregularities" (a canon term) with regards to how Fr. Guarnizo is and should be dealt with. It was a great article, if this guy stays active he will be every bit as great a source as Dr. Peters.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332474740' post='2405850']
You keep leaving off that last part, "according to their judgement". [b]You[/b] are the one that said defining manifest is not a judgement call, not me.

If you recall, I was trying to make the point that the priest, according to his judgement, may have been convinced that it truly was a manifest sin. In which you replied that defining manifest is not a judgement call--refuting my point that the priest could have been acting under good faith on his own judgement.

So, please do not continue to twist this into something that I seem to be implying about canon law. I'm simply seeking clarification. You yourself are the one saying that priests should not use their judgement to protect the Eucharist.
[/quote]

In this case, with regards to Canon 915 only, which is what we're discussing, the rules are quite clear. It isn't left open to personal judgement with regards to 915. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. The priest's own judgement is taken out of the equation in the context of canon 915.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332474763' post='2405851']
All right, that's great. If you have offline sources we can use those too. I'm pretty confident we won't find any major dissenting opinion being offered by competent canon lawyers.
You said "On things like this, I tend to just let the Church do her job."
That's exactly what I'm doing. We have the CIC, we have very competent interpretations of it, so we have no issue. Whichever bishop is involved with this case seems to be aware of the proper application of 915. There was a nice little discussion just today by a canonist priest who literally just opened his blog, discussing the idea of "administrative leave" (not a term in canon law) and "irregularities" (a canon term) with regards to how Fr. Guarnizo is and should be dealt with. It was a great article, if this guy stays active he will be every bit as great a source as Dr. Peters.
[/quote]

Sorry, I am not about to dig my books out at midnight, nor call the priests I know to go over this.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332474902' post='2405854']
Sorry, I am not about to dig my books out at midnight, nor call the priests I know to go over this.
[/quote]

That's fine. As I said, I'm confident we won't find major dissenting opinions on the main points of this case. Canon 915 is pretty clear. The trouble is that laypeople like us aren't qualified to discuss it based on our own knowledge.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332474839' post='2405852']
In this case, with regards to Canon 915 only, which is what we're discussing, the rules are quite clear. It isn't left open to personal judgement with regards to 915. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. [b]The priest's own judgement is taken out of the equation[/b] in the context of canon 915.
[/quote]
OK, thank you! Now, I will repeat exactly what I said the first time you jumped on me, hopefully met with less resistance this time:

I wasn't aware that priests did not have the freedom to protect the Eucharist according to their own judgement.

[Nihil Obstat]

The only real points of disagreement that I personally can foresee among canon lawyers in this case would be the most prudent way in which to deal with Fr. Guarnizo. Personally I think he should be sent to take a class or two in canon law, and in the meantime have him say Mass privately, with faculties to administer the rest of the sacraments. But of course that's not what we've been discussing here.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332475167' post='2405858']
OK, thank you! Now, I will repeat exactly what I said the first time you jumped on me, hopefully met with less resistance this time:

I wasn't aware that priests did not have the freedom to protect the Eucharist according to their own judgement.
[/quote]

They do. Just not within the very specific context of canon 915. That is why I cannot agree with you, and why your remarks are far too broad. There are countless other scenarios in which his own judgement is crucial.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332474987' post='2405855']
That's fine. As I said, I'm confident we won't find major dissenting opinions on the main points of this case. Canon 915 is pretty clear. The trouble is that laypeople like us aren't qualified to discuss it based on our own knowledge.
[/quote]

The problem is that even the learned who are discussing it are basing what they are saying off of what is out there which is probably about .05% of the actual story. Having been involved in a parish where we had dealings with the CDF and many canon lawyers over certain issues, and having studied canon law, I'm not going to touch this with a ten foot poll. There is WAY more to this story than we know.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332475335' post='2405862']
The problem is that even the learned who are discussing it are basing what they are saying off of what is out there which is probably about .05% of the actual story. Having been involved in a parish where we had dealings with the CDF and many canon lawyers over certain issues, and having studied canon law, I'm not going to touch this with a ten foot poll. There is WAY more to this story than we know.
[/quote]

But Dr. Peters was willing to offer his professional opinion. Granted it was in a non-official capacity, but the fact that [i]he[/i] was willing to consider it means that he had a very good reason to believe that his experience and knowledge was adequate to address those aspects which he did address.
I'm quite sure he's not an imprudent man in offering his professional opinion. He wouldn't be a very good canon lawyer if he was.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332475647' post='2405864']
But Dr. Peters was willing to offer his professional opinion. Granted it was in a non-official capacity, but the fact that [i]he[/i] was willing to consider it means that he had a very good reason to believe that his experience and knowledge was adequate to address those aspects which he did address.
I'm quite sure he's not an imprudent man in offering his professional opinion. He wouldn't be a very good canon lawyer if he was.
[/quote]


I'm not saying anything about Dr. Peter's being wrong. Just that he's ONLY offering his personal professional opinion on a fraction of the information.


And like I said, given the fact that she's been writing and teaching about her budhism and lesbianism for over a year, I'm not sure the "manifest" argument stands. But that is not my job to determine.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332475243' post='2405860']
They do. Just not within the very specific context of canon 915. That is why I cannot agree with you, and why your remarks are far too broad. There are countless other scenarios in which his own judgement is crucial.
[/quote]
What is a scenario that would involve denying the Eucharist to someone that does not have anything to do with canon 915?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332475887' post='2405868']
I'm not saying anything about Dr. Peter's being wrong. Just that he's ONLY offering his personal professional opinion on a fraction of the information.


And like I said, given the fact that she's been writing and teaching about her budhism and lesbianism for over a year, I'm not sure the "manifest" argument stands. But that is not my job to determine.
[/quote]

If I were the worst of heretics and a disgusting deviant pervert, I could write on my blog and on this site and talk to my friends about all the awful things I do, and that wouldn't qualify for manifest. Nor necessarily would it qualify for obstinate, depending on circumstances.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332475990' post='2405870']
What is a scenario that would involve denying the Eucharist to someone that does not have anything to do with canon 915?
[/quote]
I'm not even near qualified to offer a guess, and I don't know where I might find Dr. Peters' opinion in a reasonable amount of time. I'll post something of his if I do find it.