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

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332477928' post='2405897']
Shouldn't we be assuming that both Dr. Peters and the bishop involved in this both understand the canons they're dealing with? You want to trust in the Church's judgement, and the Church seems to have done exactly what Dr. Peters suggests was the canonically proper response. I mean, if we want to deal with conjecture and such we can certainly assume that both Dr. Peters and this bishop both misunderstood this case entirely, and that they're somewhat incompetent in applying canon law, but I'm not really prepared to do so. Some people are, a lot of the blogosphere seems willing to do that, but I'm not.
ETA: And obviously you're not either, as evidenced by your posts, so I think it's safest for us to, #1, assume the bishop got it right, and #2, assume that Dr. Peters' analysis agrees with the bishop. Anything less on either of those implies at least a degree of incompetency on one of those two parties.

[/quote]

You are not actually reading what I am saying, are you?

I said that YES THE CANON LAWYER SEEMS TO BE CORRECT IN HIS ANALYSIS Buuuuuuut, he can only analyze the information he has. Given that other information could emerge, the layity should be careful about making assumptions either way.

Also, I don't think you should compare Dr. Peters and the Bishop, because the bishop is privy to much more information than Dr. Peters (and we don't see the Bishop making that information public, therefore we don't know how the outcome will be affected.) It seems to me, that the Church is not acting in the proper canonical way according to the suggestion of Dr. Peters, but that he is explaining why the Church acted in the way she did and how it is indeed canonically proper, given the information we have. It's a subtle difference, but an important distinction. Dr. Peters understanding the canons has nothing to do with his knowledge of the case (which is limited, unlike the Bishop's)

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332477479' post='2405887']
We've been over this. I don't really want to do it again. Read my previous posts over the last few pages, quote what you want, then we'll talk.
[/quote]

OK then:

[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. 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]
[/quote]

I guess it all hinges on whether it was common/"public" knowledge among the family/friends of the deceased that she was a lesbian with a "partner".

Edited March 23, 2012 by Norseman82

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1332478603' post='2405907']
You are not actually reading what I am saying, are you?

I said that YES THE CANON LAWYER SEEMS TO BE CORRECT IN HIS ANALYSIS Buuuuuuut, he can only analyze the information he has. Given that other information could emerge, the layity should be careful about making assumptions either way.

Also, I don't think you should compare Dr. Peters and the Bishop, because the bishop is privy to much more information than Dr. Peters (and we don't see the Bishop making that information public, therefore we don't know how the outcome will be affected.) It seems to me, that the Church is not acting in the proper canonical way according to the suggestion of Dr. Peters, but that he is explaining why the Church acted in the way she did and how it is indeed canonically proper, given the information we have. It's a subtle difference, but an important distinction. Dr. Peters understanding the canons has nothing to do with his knowledge of the case (which is limited, unlike the Bishop's)
[/quote]

Of course I'm reading what you're saying. That's why it's clear to me that you're placing your trust in the Church's judgement, as I am doing also.
Dr. Peters can only analyze such information as he has access to, and his analysis agrees with the actions of the bishop. Inasmuch as that's the case, it's charitable and prudent of us to assume that both have their analyses correct.

However, the specific actions of the bishop are up for some discussion. (Not that a response is necessary, because we are assuming that it is, but what actions are best.)
Dr. Peters said in one of his posts that 'administrative leave', a non-canonical term, is probably a decent response at this point as there is sort of a grey area in dealing with priests who are not guilty of a crime, yet are involved in a situation requiring some sort of response.
This new priest canonist, whose name I can't remember since he only started his blog today, was saying that the canonical structure of irregularities, which I don't understanding [ETA: I'm leaving that typo in because it's funny], are perfectly suited for dealing with this case. I think what he was saying is that temporarily removing his faculties to say Mass publicly would be a good response, as well as sending him to some classes on canon law.

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332478706' post='2405909']
I guess it all hinges on whether it was common knowledge among the family/friends of teh deceased that she was a lesbian with a "partner".
[/quote]

I don't think that limiting it to family and friends is sufficient. The Mass, and a funeral, are public ceremonies in the eyes of the Church, not private events. Inasmuch as they're public ceremonies, "manifest" seems to need to be applied in the broadest sense. That's only my interpretation, but it seems to make sense to my mind.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332478910' post='2405910']
I don't think that limiting it to family and friends is sufficient. The Mass, and a funeral, are public ceremonies in the eyes of the Church, not private events. Inasmuch as they're public ceremonies, "manifest" seems to need to be applied in the broadest sense. That's only my interpretation, but it seems to make sense to my mind.
[/quote]

The reason I said "family and friends" was because I was referring to the attendees at the funeral.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Norseman82

[dUSt]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332478706' post='2405909']
I guess it all hinges on whether it was common/"public" knowledge among the family/friends of the deceased that she was a lesbian with a "partner".
[/quote]
Right. Because to be "manifest", the sin doesn't necessarily have to be known to the entire community, only to the community in attendance at the funeral.

Anyway, I'm not and never was arguing canon law. My main point is that I don't think this case is best presented by armchair quarterbacks.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332479031' post='2405912']
The reason I said "family and friends" was because I was referring to the attendees at the funeral.
[/quote]
[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332479053' post='2405913']
Right. Because to be "manifest", the sin doesn't necessarily have to be known to the entire community, only to the community in attendance at the funeral.
[/quote]

I don't think this is the case, at least I don't see how it can be given how we view the Mass.
The Mass is not something that happens in isolation at any given parish or chapel. The Mass, celebrated publicly (as this funeral was) is a public ceremony. It's simply not true that it's limited to friends and family. It is the public worship of the Church, so any publicly celebrated Mass would logically involve the entire Church in a public sense.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332479324' post='2405916']
I don't think this is the case, at least I don't see how it can be given how we view the Mass.
The Mass is not something that happens in isolation at any given parish or chapel. The Mass, celebrated publicly (as this funeral was) is a public ceremony. It's simply not true that it's limited to friends and family. It is the public worship of the Church, so any publicly celebrated Mass would logically involve the entire Church in a public sense.
[/quote]

That may be true in theory, but for the vast majority of funerals, aside from people that are part of the liturgy such as the funeral choir, altar boys, clergy, sacristans, and such, how many people actually attend funerals of someone they don't know? That is why the "public" in this case can indeed be defined as the attendees there, who most likely are family/friends of the deceased, and, unless the lesbian and her "partner" have yet to "come out", probably are aware of the situation.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332479999' post='2405929']
That may be true in theory, but for the vast majority of funerals, aside from people that are part of the liturgy such as the funeral choir, altar boys, clergy, sacristans, and such, how many people actually attend funerals of someone they don't know? That is why the "public" in this case can indeed be defined as the attendees there, who most likely are family/friends of the deceased, and, unless the lesbian and her "partner" have yet to "come out", probably are aware of the situation.
[/quote]

In an 'accidental' sense, to use the Thomistic term (perhaps not exactly, but wutevs), the funeral might be limited to friends and family. However, in the relevant canonical sense it is a public ceremony. The canons still apply which make very strong presumptions in favour of reception as opposed to denial. I posted that thing above showing other relevant canons, and how working together they make a very strong case that reception must be assumed in the broadest possible sense, and denial in the narrowest. Your perspective makes sense, but from what I'm understanding from Dr. Peters' many posts and papers, this has to be interpreted as strictly as possible, and your interpretation doesn't fall within that parameter.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1332480596' post='2405936']
In an 'accidental' sense, to use the Thomistic term (perhaps not exactly, but wutevs), the funeral might be limited to friends and family. However, in the relevant canonical sense it is a public ceremony. The canons still apply which make very strong presumptions in favour of reception as opposed to denial. I posted that thing above showing other relevant canons, and how working together they make a very strong case that reception must be assumed in the broadest possible sense, and denial in the narrowest. Your perspective makes sense, but from what I'm understanding from Dr. Peters' many posts and papers, this has to be interpreted as strictly as possible, and your interpretation doesn't fall within that parameter.
[/quote]

Well, we'll have to see how this plays out on appeal and such. I'm no doctor in canon law, just an average Joey Bagadonuts (even though I did attend a HS seminary) in the pews on Sundays/HDOs, and I just don't see how her situation/actions don't constitute "manifest" (unless she hasn't come out yet) but a "Rainbow Sash" protester's would.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Norseman82

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332481366' post='2405946']
Well, we'll have to see how this plays out on appeal and such. I'm no doctor in canon law (even though I did attend a HS seminary), just an average Joey Bagadonuts in the pews on Sundays/HDOs, and I just don't see how her situation/actions don't constitute "manifest" (unless she hasn't come out yet) but a "Rainbow Sash" protester's would.
[/quote]

IMO Dr. Peters' explanation is more than sufficient, so I'm content on that point.

[cappie]

New addition to the discussion [url="http://musingsofacanonist.wordpress.com/"]http://musingsofacanonist.wordpress.com/[/url]

[dUSt]

From Cappie's article:
[quote]Fr. Guarnizo, I don’t think, could have made the proper judgment merely from his brief conversation in the sacristy. He could not assume that the family and friends knew, even if chances were likely. Canon 912 says a baptized personmust be admitted to Communion unless prohibited by law. There was no way that Fr. Guarnizo could ascertain, with the needed precision (in a case where rights are involved), whether or not Ms. Johnson was barred by law.[/quote]

This is the great assumption I'm seeing made by all the lawyer guys talking about this. They assumed the priest couldn't have known that all the family and friends knew. Why do they assume that? They weren't there. What if it was so obvious that all the family and friends knew that the priest was 100% certain?

Also, notice how the article limits the "community" in this case to the family and friends in attendance, as I mentioned earlier.

[Slappo]

[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]

I haven't gotten through to the end of the thread yet but I thought one interesting thing to note is that although she may have been very public about her sins, Fr. Guarnizo was not aware of the publicity of them as he just met the woman. I don't think he would have had sufficient knowledge to know that her sins were manifest (assuming they were) and met the requirements of C915 to withhold communion. Fr. Guarnizo's knowledge of her sin was 5 minutes before mass.

[Archaeology cat]

Good point, Slappo.

Question: could he have said something prior to Communion (during the Mass) about the requirements for presenting oneself for the Eucharist? I know something like that was said at my nuptial Mass, but I don't know the guidelines for doing so. If he did that, and if she presented herself anyway, what canon would be in effect? I will defer to the experts, for I know I am not one.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Archaeology cat

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1332513010' post='2406048']
From Cappie's article:


This is the great assumption I'm seeing made by all the lawyer guys talking about this. They assumed the priest couldn't have known that all the family and friends knew. Why do they assume that? They weren't there. What if it was so obvious that all the family and friends knew that the priest was 100% certain?

Also, notice how the article limits the "community" in this case to the family and friends in attendance, as I mentioned earlier.
[/quote]

No, that's what I've been saying. The nature of canon 915 itself, its public nature, and the explicit very narrow interpretation that is demanded in other canons simply make it impossible.