Kathleen Sebelius To Speak At Georgetown

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337179699' post='2431216']
Father Guarnizo is still under "administrative leave" and remains removed from public ministry. But true not suspended by using the term suspended but the administrative leave had the same effect basicly. No action at all was was taken against the woman Father sought to protect the Blessed Sacrament from and I never claimed otherwise. But Card. Wuerl did publicly apologize to her via one of his auxiliary bishops.
[/quote]Do you know Father Guarnizo to know for sure he is on administrative leave? If he remains there it is because of his public response to Cardinal Wuerl and not because of the Holy Communion issue. His leave was originally to be temporary. The original response was not simply because he denied her Holy Communion. There was always more at play than what happened at that moment, and in fact more than had happened just that week or month.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337166913' post='2431173']
Your post is simply incorrect. I never asked for an excommunication, only a statement. I was referring only to her recent comments! But Wuerl is the canonical authority for the archdiocese of Washington and when she is here she is subject to him. Canon law is quite plain on that. No one can travel around the country and pretend they are not subject to the bishop of the diocese they visit or reside temporarily in.[/quote]While they are subject to their local bishop as they travel, when I lived in Rome for a couple months for school the bishop there wouldn't have presumed to be my pastor. You may disagree with Wuerl on this point of pastorship, but it is something yet to be determined by the Church. As far as I know, we don't have any directives on what happens when a person lives somewhere temporarily. Otherwise, college students would have to call their local parish's pastor their own pastor when at school. I'm not quite sure that's how it works. Again, as I mentioned above, politicians here live in two dioceses, not just one. Does that mean that the bishop of the diocese in which they work is most responsible for them, or the bishop of the diocese in which they reside parttime, or the bishop of the diocese in which they reside most of the year?

As head of the capitol's archdiocese Cardinal Wuerl has a particular need to defend the Catholic faith. He does, time and time again. Sad thing is, everyone misses it when he does. By continuing to call out his silence, Catholics give reason for other people to ignore what has been said. I think this is a bit deceiving in a sense.

That's fine if you don't think an excommunication is necessary. Wuerl has called out Pelosi a couple times, but to no avail, as you mention below.

[quote]Moreover, Wuerl pointedly criticized Pelosi in 2008 when she distorted Catholic doctrine on conception, so it's not as if he has always been silent. Wuerl has stated rather that he indeed has an obligation to state things publicly. Niederauer invited Pelosi to meet with him four years ago, but to my knowledge she ignored him.[/quote]
In the case of Sebelius speaking at Georgetown, I think something will be forthcoming. However, I'm not sure it'll be simply Cardinal Wuerl's response, but we'll see. Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism in our country ought to know that this is an affront to Catholics and the bishops everywhere. I think it's painfully obvious. Perhaps something good would come out of a public rebuttal of Georgetown's actions, but I can't see what exactly. Cardinal Dolan has made some comments about the invitation publicly, but even he hasn't come out directly. This is an attack on him just as much as it is on Cardinal Wuerl and as president of the USCCB he has the authority and the personality to come out with a harsher statement.

[quote]I disagree that "this is how Cardinal Wuerl operates in all things". It's how he operates in some things. So indeed he has thrown in the towel?[/quote]I meant that Cardinal Wuerl acts more slowly and deliberately than most people like in this day of instant information and gratification. Everyone's always impatient for an immediate response, but even Rome rarely operates that way. In my numerous encounters with the Cardinal he has always been slow to respond, but has always given a very deliberate response. It's not just always public.

[quote]I think it's odd that the article in the Catholic standard would invoke Ex Corde Ecclesia and say so little on the obligation of bishops in that regard. That's in canon law since the new code in 1983. The bishops ignored it and then the Vatican reminded them in 1999. And we are still waiting....

S.
[/quote]I agree with you in that I hope that Georgetown mends its ways or loses its association with the Catholic Church, especially while it flaunts Church authority.

[qfnol31]

Now lest anyone think that the Archdiocese and its pastor are simply taking this lying down:
http://www.adw.org/query2011/newsite_news.asp?ID=1000&Year=2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/washingtons-catholic-archbishop-georgetown-president-spar-over-graduation-invitation-to-kathleen-sebelius/2012/05/15/gIQA01ZLSU_story.html

This was in response to the following statement: http://www.georgetown.edu/GPPI-Tropaia-2012.html

And this is Msgr. Pope's take: http://blog.adw.org/2012/05/concerning-graciousness-in-speech-and-love-for-one-another-yes-even-on-blogs/

As one final note on this, Cardinal Wuerl has always worked through those that work for him. That doesn't mean its any less valid, even if we don't like how it works.

[Papist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337180385' post='2431218']
I'll start with Pelosi then get to Sebelius. Cardinal Wuerl has spoken on a few occasions why Pelosi simply isn't right. I have never yet met a Catholic who was ignorant of Church teaching without being obstinately against the Magisterium in general, as is Pelosi. But a bishop calling out such a person like Pelosi, those disinclined to follow the Magisterium will just be justified.

As for Sebelius, she was told publicly not to go to Holy Communion. What more should be done? And yet, it has done no good because people simply won't listen.

This is one point with which I agree with Cardinal Wuerl, though I think it's a lot more nuanced than anyone will allow. I am not against bishops denying some of their flock from receiving Holy Communion and think they should do it when most appropriate. By Cardinal Wuerl himself [i]publicly[/i] taking such action against Nancy Pelosi or Kathleen Sebelius (who ought not go to Holy Communion at this time) he makes the Blessed Sacrament into a weapon to be wielded against those who despise the Church. Privately there is not such a danger. Therefore, while I am in support of any bishops denying Holy Communion, I think such action should remain in private. In public these bishops would do well to condemn the statements of such politicians. This has been done already and continues to be done.

This says nothing of where Sebelius or Pelosi live. Half our nation's politicians live in Bishop Loverdi's diocese for less than half the year. Therefore they reside in their home diocese for more than half the year. Are all three bishops equally responsible as their pastor? I'll say more in response to Skinzo in a minute.
[/quote]

I was not[meant not] to comment on Sebelius or Pelosi, but rather on excommunication regarding a public figure. What I would like to see or not see happen is irrelevant to the bishop's prudent decisions. I leave the bishop's duties to the bishop.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337181783' post='2431224']
While they are subject to their local bishop as they travel, when I lived in Rome for a couple months for school the bishop there wouldn't have presumed to be my pastor. You may disagree with Wuerl on this point of pastorship, but it is something yet to be determined by the Church. As far as I know, we don't have any directives on what happens when a person lives somewhere temporarily. Otherwise, college students would have to call their local parish's pastor their own pastor when at school. I'm not quite sure that's how it works. Again, as I mentioned above, politicians here live in two dioceses, not just one. Does that mean that the bishop of the diocese in which they work is most responsible for them, or the bishop of the diocese in which they reside parttime, or the bishop of the diocese in which they reside most of the year?

As head of the capitol's archdiocese Cardinal Wuerl has a particular need to defend the Catholic faith. He does, time and time again. Sad thing is, everyone misses it when he does. By continuing to call out his silence, Catholics give reason for other people to ignore what has been said. I think this is a bit deceiving in a sense.

That's fine if you don't think an excommunication is necessary. Wuerl has called out Pelosi a couple times, but to no avail, as you mention below.


In the case of Sebelius speaking at Georgetown, I think something will be forthcoming. However, I'm not sure it'll be simply Cardinal Wuerl's response, but we'll see. Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism in our country ought to know that this is an affront to Catholics and the bishops everywhere. I think it's painfully obvious. Perhaps something good would come out of a public rebuttal of Georgetown's actions, but I can't see what exactly. Cardinal Dolan has made some comments about the invitation publicly, but even he hasn't come out directly. This is an attack on him just as much as it is on Cardinal Wuerl and as president of the USCCB he has the authority and the personality to come out with a harsher statement.

I meant that Cardinal Wuerl acts more slowly and deliberately than most people like in this day of instant information and gratification. Everyone's always impatient for an immediate response, but even Rome rarely operates that way. In my numerous encounters with the Cardinal he has always been slow to respond, but has always given a very deliberate response. It's not just always public.

I agree with you in that I hope that Georgetown mends its ways or loses its association with the Catholic Church, especially while it flaunts Church authority.
[/quote]

With respect to the "travel" issue, indeed all Catholics are subject to the bishop of whose diocese they reside, temporarily or not, that's in canon law. You are quite wrong to say "this has not been determined by the Church". This goes back to Wuerl's assertion that "Pelosi, as a San Franciscan, isn't part of my flock!" Ed Peters the distinguished canon lawyer addressed this very point and here is what he said:
"[size=2]Wuerl is the chief shepherd over the territory assigned to him (cc. 369, 372, 381) and chief presider over the Eucharist celebrated therein (c. 835 and [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] 1142, 1369, 1561). Canons on sacramental discipline are universally applicable to Roman Catholics (cc. 12, 915). None of these norms is thwarted by the fact that a specific member of the faithful might have a "foreign" domicile, quasi-domicile, or residence if that individual is [i]acting[/i] within the territory of the arch/bishop.

Consider moreover, by way of analogy, that if Pelosi's actions in Washington were canonically criminal (that is not my claim here), Canon 1412 would authorize Wuerl to take penal action against her regardless of her "foreign" status. Now, if Wuerl is authorized to take the harsher route of [i]penal[/i] action against someone based only on the fact that his or her actions occurred within his territory, it is difficult to see how he is suddenly forbidden from taking merely [i]disciplinary[/i] action against anyone who is acting contrary to sacramental law in his territory.

There is, I conclude, simply no question but that an arch/bishop is authorized by canon law to take the steps necessary to protect the sacraments ([i]especially[/i] the Eucharist, cc. 897-898) from unworthy administration in his territory and his people from the danger of scandal that might be given by such reception. "[/size]
[size=2] [/size]
[size=2]Wuerl's well known position that "there's a question about whether [Canon 915] was ever intended to be used to bring politicians to heel . . . I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' In one of your earlier posts here, you also state that this is using the Eucharist as a "weapon" another point made by Wuerl. [/size]
[size=2]In refuting Wuerl on this point, Ed Peters points out that it is disingenuous to say that any canon was written to bring "politiicians to heel" . Canon law is written for everyone quite simply and its purpose is to advance the salvific mission of the Church (canon 1752). Canon 915 does not admit exceptions for politicians or indeed anyone else as it was of course written for all Catholics. In response to queries on this from American bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following (of which Wuerl seems myteriously unaware):[/size]
[size=2]5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."[/size]

[size=2][url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=31113563&CFTOKEN=93235585"]http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6041&CFID=31113563&CFTOKEN=93235585[/url][/size]

[size=2]Ed Peters article on Wuerl can be found here: [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/05/response-to-abp-wuerls-claims-that.html"]http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/05/response-to-abp-wuerls-claims-that.html[/url][/size]

[size=2]I do not understand your notion that it does no good to speak out. Were we to follow that we would not be faithful to the Gospel! We are to "teach all nations" . Wuerl himself would reject that point of view as he does believe in the importance of teaching and every teacher knows the importance of repetition. And in any event, my post was more about the need for "ACTION", the kind of actions that would bring Georgetown into compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae" . [/size]

[size=2]S. [/size]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337180494' post='2431219']
Do you know Father Guarnizo to know for sure he is on administrative leave?[/quote]

Not personally, but I do know parishioners of his parish in Maryland who do know him. Last I heard from one of them 14 days ago he was still on administrative leave for the original 'crime'. Also, Father Guarnizo's name still does not appear on the parish directory since he was removed from his priestly duties.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337180494' post='2431219']
If he remains there it is because of his public response to Cardinal Wuerl and not because of the Holy Communion issue. His leave was originally to be temporary. [/quote]

You have no way of knowing that as fact. Father was placed on administrative leave with his priestly faculties removed until such time as an inquiry into his actions at the parish was completed. He was never given any type of trial thus the inquiry remains uncompleted. And God forbid he should defend himself after it was evidenced he would not receive a trial, and the media's non stop onslaught against his character.

Even if what you say is true it goes to show real action can be taken and not mere words against those that are seen as publicly defending their postions which maybe counter to those of the Archdiocese of Washington.


[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337180494' post='2431219']
The original response was not simply because he denied her Holy Communion. There was always more at play than what happened at that moment, and in fact more than had happened just that week or month.
[/quote]

Yes yes hidden secret charges that have not yet been revealed and which he has never faced trial for to be found guilty. All of which if they actual exist pale in comparison to the very unhidden, well know, public wicked evil actions of those who support the murder of babies, sodomitic unions and the attacks by the U.S. Government on the Reigious Liberty of Mother Church. Such persons rarely have any effective or real action taken against them.

Edited May 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Skinzo]

qfnol31, on Yesterday, 11:01 PM, said:

"If he remains there it is because of his public response to Cardinal Wuerl and not because of the Holy Communion issue. His leave was originally to be temporary."

A point to keep in mind here is that Father Guarnizo was not silenced, therefore his public statement to defend himself was not inappropriate nor an act of disobedience.

S.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337212385' post='2431468']
qfnol31, on Yesterday, 11:01 PM, said:

"If he remains there it is because of his public response to Cardinal Wuerl and not because of the Holy Communion issue. His leave was originally to be temporary."

A point to keep in mind here is that Father Guarnizo was not silenced, therefore his public statement to defend himself was not inappropriate nor an act of disobedience.

S.
[/quote]I am waiting until I am at a computer before I respond in full.

I know Fr. Guarnizo and have known him for several years. I also know more about his past than most parishioners. I had a professional relationship with him and therefore am uniquely qualified to speak on this issue. The only reason that anyone is able to criticize Cardinal Wuerl in this case is because the Cardinal does not see it fit to defame Fr. Guarnizo. Fr. Guarnizo did not extend the same courtesy.

Also, while Fr. Guarnizo may have had the right to speak out, it does not mean that he made the correct decision. He has not been entirely honest with his situation. I feel no need to go into further detail than that. His actions were inappropriate for the circumstances.

Furthermore, priests owe a certain level of respect for their local ordinary. It's in the same promise as obedience. This makes his case, taking the situation public, all the more opportunity for scandal.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337204524' post='2431381']
With respect to the "travel" issue, indeed all Catholics are subject to the bishop of whose diocese they reside, temporarily or not, that's in canon law. You are quite wrong to say "this has not been determined by the Church". This goes back to Wuerl's assertion that "Pelosi, as a San Franciscan, isn't part of my flock!" Ed Peters the distinguished canon lawyer addressed this very point and here is what he said:

[quote]Wuerl is the chief shepherd over the territory assigned to him (cc. 369, 372, 381) and chief presider over the Eucharist celebrated therein (c. 835 and Catechism of the Catholic Church 1142, 1369, 1561). Canons on sacramental discipline are universally applicable to Roman Catholics (cc. 12, 915). None of these norms is thwarted by the fact that a specific member of the faithful might have a "foreign" domicile, quasi-domicile, or residence if that individual is acting within the territory of the arch/bishop.

Consider moreover, by way of analogy, that if Pelosi's actions in Washington were canonically criminal (that is not my claim here), Canon 1412 would authorize Wuerl to take penal action against her regardless of her "foreign" status. Now, if Wuerl is authorized to take the harsher route of penal action against someone based only on the fact that his or her actions occurred within his territory, it is difficult to see how he is suddenly forbidden from taking merely disciplinary action against anyone who is acting contrary to sacramental law in his territory.

There is, I conclude, simply no question but that an arch/bishop is authorized by canon law to take the steps necessary to protect the sacraments (especially the Eucharist, cc. 897-898) from unworthy administration in his territory and his people from the danger of scandal that might be given by such reception.[/quote] [/quote]With all due respect to Dr. Peters, his point does not necessarily follow. He begins by talking about the authority of the local ordinary, which Cardinal Wuerl has never denied. He, and you, then infer that his authority must be enforced at all times and that his authority thereby gives him pastoral care over those who temporarily reside in the diocese. I have not read any canon that specifically addresses my second point, which means that while Cardinal Wuerl is to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanity and has the full jurisdiction over those in his care, this is not the same as saying that he must extend the same pastoral care to her as would her own bishop. This point most certainly has not been addressed by the Church in the terms you say it has.

[quote]Wuerl's well known position that "there's a question about whether [Canon 915] was ever intended to be used to bring politicians to heel . . . I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' In one of your earlier posts here, you also state that this is using the Eucharist as a "weapon" another point made by Wuerl.
In refuting Wuerl on this point, Ed Peters points out that it is disingenuous to say that any canon was written to bring "politiicians to heel" . Canon law is written for everyone quite simply and its purpose is to advance the salvific mission of the Church (canon 1752). Canon 915 does not admit exceptions for politicians or indeed anyone else as it was of course written for all Catholics. In response to queries on this from American bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following (of which Wuerl seems myteriously unaware):
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

[url="http://www.catholicc...FTOKEN=93235585"]http://www.catholicc...FTOKEN=93235585[/url]

Ed Peters article on Wuerl can be found here: [url="http://www.canonlaw....laims-that.html"]http://www.canonlaw....laims-that.html[/url][/quote]Again, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Peters on this point, for the same reasons stated above. Not one canon used has talked about the pastoral care for the individual as though it is a requirement of the bishop, though perhaps he could take over that role should he want.


Furthermore, I think that Dr. Peters does not give Cardinal Wuerl a fair hearing. I've spent nearly five years listening to him and reading his comments, and I don't think he means them in that respect. Cardinal Wuerl is in a better position to know what the other bishops think. He's been a member of their order for twenty-five years. Secondly, Cardinal Wuerl is not speaking to the purpose for which Canon Law was composed, but the way in which many Catholics try to use Canon Law. This is a very clear, though often obscured difference. In other words, Cardinal Wuerl's problem is Catholic bloggers who misuse Canon Law, not how Canon Law was meant. He's not misconstruing Canon Law; that act has already been done by his critics. This is the Cardinal's point.

As far as Cardinal Ratzinger's letter goes, I know it quite well. If you search on this board in 2004-2006 you will find many instances in which I used it to make a point. In fact, I make a similar point today about the worthiness of reception.

I don't think that letter was meant to be made public. In addition, note the singular use of "Pastor" in the letter. Cardinal Ratzinger did not specify who that is. Cardinal Wuerl has been very consistent that he respects the role of the person's particular pastor. Thing about pastors is their level of stability. We aren't used to that, but bishops have a certain sense of stability or (sort of) permanence in their diocese.

[quote]I do not understand your notion that it does no good to speak out. Were we to follow that we would not be faithful to the Gospel! We are to "teach all nations" . Wuerl himself would reject that point of view as he does believe in the importance of teaching and every teacher knows the importance of repetition. And in any event, my post was more about the need for "ACTION", the kind of actions that would bring Georgetown into compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae" .

S.
[/quote]In the case of Cardinal Wuerl speaking out at this moment it does no good. Anyone who's open to hearing the bishops sees this as an affront. Anyone who's deaf to the bishops and the Church knows otherwise. At this point responding to Sebelius will not bring Georgetown into compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae. He might yet act on Georgetown; we shall see what happens. I have been in Catholic colleges/universities for over nine years now. I know some of the work that goes into getting them into compliance and some of the unique problems encountered by the US in this regard.

Until that time, I exhort you to spend your time writing Cardinal Wuerl personally and privately or complaining about Georgetown. I do not see the good that will come by the laity not trying to give their bishops the best possible reading.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337211070' post='2431449']
Not personally, but I do know parishioners of his parish in Maryland who do know him. Last I heard from one of them 14 days ago he was still on administrative leave for the original 'crime'. Also, Father Guarnizo's name still does not appear on the parish directory since he was removed from his priestly duties.[/quote]As I said above, I know Father Guarnizo. I had a professional relationship with him for years that gave me some particular insights on this.

[quote]You have no way of knowing that as fact. Father was placed on administrative leave with his priestly faculties removed until such time as an inquiry into his actions at the parish was completed. He was never given any type of trial thus the inquiry remains uncompleted. And God forbid he should defend himself after it was evidenced he would not receive a trial, and the media's non stop onslaught against his character.[/quote]In fact I can know for a fact, but how isn't important. In America and in the Catholic Church trials are not immediate. I don't know what you mean by "inquiry" as though this was simply a pronouncement given to Fr. Guarnizo. So much more happened than that.

[quote]Even if what you say is true it goes to show real action can be taken and not mere words against those that are seen as publicly defending their postions which maybe counter to those of the Archdiocese of Washington.

Yes yes hidden secret charges that have not yet been revealed and which he has never faced trial for to be found guilty. All of which if they actual exist pale in comparison to the very unhidden, well know, public wicked evil actions of those who support the murder of babies, sodomitic unions and the attacks by the U.S. Government on the Reigious Liberty of Mother Church. Such persons rarely have any effective or real action taken against them.
[/quote]Canonist Ed Peters, whom Skinzo and I have referenced, actually gives a fairly good argument (from ignorance obviously) why Fr. Guarnizo may have been in the wrong.

Why need these actions be made public? Should all such actions be public? This is such an unfair American approach to the Church that doesn't belong to her.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337217900' post='2431521']
As I said above, I know Father Guarnizo. I had a professional relationship with him for years that gave me some particular insights on this.[/quote]

razzle dazzle.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337217900' post='2431521']
In fact I can know for a fact, but how isn't important. In America and in the Catholic Church trials are not immediate. I don't know what you mean by "inquiry" as though this was simply a pronouncement given to Fr. Guarnizo. So much more happened than that.[/quote]

Inquiry was the word chosen by the Archdiocese when they announced his priestly duties being removed. I have no proof anything happened other than his deny communion to a openly gay Buddhist, let alone 'so much more'.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337217900' post='2431521']
Canonist Ed Peters, whom Skinzo and I have referenced, actually gives a fairly good argument (from ignorance obviously) why Fr. Guarnizo may have been in the wrong.[/quote]

And other canonists do not agree with Dr. Ed Peters on his public judgement of Fr. G. Until such time Fr. G receives a just trial I will presume him to be innocent until proven guilty. But I seriously doubt he will ever receive such a trial. He has already been publicly found guilty by the Media, then the Archdiocese, and others.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337217900' post='2431521']
Why need these actions be made public? Should all such actions be public? This is such an unfair American approach to the Church that doesn't belong to her.
[/quote]

Because the grave sins and scandal are public! Public scandal is NOT a private matter this has nothing to do with an American approach. It is a traditional Catholic approach. According to Cardinal Burke, repairing public scandal begins with the public acknowledgment of one's own error and the public declaration of one's adherence to the moral law. The soul which recognizes the gravity of what one has done will, in fact, understand immediately the need to make public reparation. The Angelic Doctor, a non-american, in his Summa Theologica gives four just reasons why some penances should be public. 1) So that a public sin may have a public remedy. 2) Because he who has committed a very grave crime deserves the greatest confusion even in this life. 3) In order that it may deter others. 4) That he may be an example of repentance, lest those should despair, who have committed grievous sins.

Edited May 17, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337221022' post='2431537']And other canonist do not agree with Dr. Ed Peters on his public judgement of Fr. G. Until such time Fr. G receives a just trial I will presume him to be innocent until proven guilty. But I seriously doubt he will ever receive such a trial. He has already been publicly found guilty by the Media, then the Archdiocese, and others.[/quote]But in the meantime you speak about the Archdiocese and the Cardinal as though he is guilty in such matters until proven otherwise by Fr. Guarnizo's guilt, should that in fact happen.

[quote]Because the grave sins and scandal are public! Public scandal is NOT a private matter this has nothing to do with an American approach. It is a traditional Catholic approach. According to Cardinal Burke, repairing public scandal begins with the public acknowledgment of one's own error and the public declaration of one's adherence to the moral law. The soul which recognizes the gravity of what one has done will, in fact, understand immediately the need to make public reparation. The Angelic Doctor, a non-american, in his Summa Theologica gives four just reasons why some penances should be public. 1) So that a public sin may have a public remedy. 2) Because he who has committed a very grave crime deserves the greatest confusion even in this life. 3) In order that it may deter others. 4) That he may be an example of repentance, lest those should despair, who have committed grievous sins.
[/quote]In the case of Fr. Guarnizo's other acts, they were not necessarily public. His case is different than that with Kathleen Sebelius.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337221334' post='2431538']
In the case of Fr. Guarnizo's other acts, they were not necessarily public. His case is different than that with Kathleen Sebelius.
[/quote]

Yes, his case is different the media isn't calling for Kathleen Sebelius' head to be placed on a platter.

Edited May 17, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337217577' post='2431518']
[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337217577' post='2431518']
With all due respect to Dr. Peters, his point does not necessarily follow. He begins by talking about the authority of the local ordinary, which Cardinal Wuerl has never denied. He, and you, then infer that his authority must be enforced at all times and that his authority thereby gives him pastoral care over those who temporarily reside in the diocese. I have not read any canon that specifically addresses my second point, which means that while Cardinal Wuerl is to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanity and has the full jurisdiction over those in his care, this is not the same as saying that he must extend the same pastoral care to her as would her own bishop. This point most certainly has not been addressed by the Church in the terms you say it has.

Again, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Peters on this point, for the same reasons stated above. Not one canon used has talked about the pastoral care for the individual as though it is a requirement of the bishop, though perhaps he could take over that role should he want.


Furthermore, I think that Dr. Peters does not give Cardinal Wuerl a fair hearing. I've spent nearly five years listening to him and reading his comments, and I don't think he means them in that respect. Cardinal Wuerl is in a better position to know what the other bishops think. He's been a member of their order for twenty-five years. Secondly, Cardinal Wuerl is not speaking to the purpose for which Canon Law was composed, but the way in which many Catholics try to use Canon Law. This is a very clear, though often obscured difference. In other words, Cardinal Wuerl's problem is Catholic bloggers who misuse Canon Law, not how Canon Law was meant. He's not misconstruing Canon Law; that act has already been done by his critics. This is the Cardinal's point.

As far as Cardinal Ratzinger's letter goes, I know it quite well. If you search on this board in 2004-2006 you will find many instances in which I used it to make a point. In fact, I make a similar point today about the worthiness of reception.

I don't think that letter was meant to be made public. In addition, note the singular use of "Pastor" in the letter. Cardinal Ratzinger did not specify who that is. Cardinal Wuerl has been very consistent that he respects the role of the person's particular pastor. Thing about pastors is their level of stability. We aren't used to that, but bishops have a certain sense of stability or (sort of) permanence in their diocese.

In the case of Cardinal Wuerl speaking out at this moment it does no good. Anyone who's open to hearing the bishops sees this as an affront. Anyone who's deaf to the bishops and the Church knows otherwise. At this point responding to Sebelius will not bring Georgetown into compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae. He might yet act on Georgetown; we shall see what happens. I have been in Catholic colleges/universities for over nine years now. I know some of the work that goes into getting them into compliance and some of the unique problems encountered by the US in this regard.

Until that time, I exhort you to spend your time writing Cardinal Wuerl personally and privately or complaining about Georgetown. I do not see the good that will come by the laity not trying to give their bishops the best possible reading.
[/quote]

With all due respect to Dr. Peters, his point does not necessarily follow. He begins by talking about the authority of the local ordinary, which Cardinal Wuerl has never denied. He, and you, then infer that his authority must be enforced at all times and that his authority thereby gives him pastoral care over those who temporarily reside in the diocese. I have not read any canon that specifically addresses my second point, which means that while Cardinal Wuerl is to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanity and has the full jurisdiction over those in his care, this is not the same as saying that he must extend the same pastoral care to her as would her own bishop. This point most certainly has not been addressed by the Church in the terms you say it has.

Again, I'm not sure I agree with Dr. Peters on this point, for the same reasons stated above. Not one canon used has talked about the pastoral care for the individual as though it is a requirement of the bishop, though perhaps he could take over that role should he want.


Furthermore, I think that Dr. Peters does not give Cardinal Wuerl a fair hearing. I've spent nearly five years listening to him and reading his comments, and I don't think he means them in that respect. Cardinal Wuerl is in a better position to know what the other bishops think. He's been a member of their order for twenty-five years. Secondly, Cardinal Wuerl is not speaking to the purpose for which Canon Law was composed, but the way in which many Catholics try to use Canon Law. This is a very clear, though often obscured difference. In other words, Cardinal Wuerl's problem is Catholic bloggers who misuse Canon Law, not how Canon Law was meant. He's not misconstruing Canon Law; that act has already been done by his critics. This is the Cardinal's point.

As far as Cardinal Ratzinger's letter goes, I know it quite well. If you search on this board in 2004-2006 you will find many instances in which I used it to make a point. In fact, I make a similar point today about the worthiness of reception.

I don't think that letter was meant to be made public. In addition, note the singular use of "Pastor" in the letter. Cardinal Ratzinger did not specify who that is. Cardinal Wuerl has been very consistent that he respects the role of the person's particular pastor. Thing about pastors is their level of stability. We aren't used to that, but bishops have a certain sense of stability or (sort of) permanence in their diocese.

In the case of Cardinal Wuerl speaking out at this moment it does no good. Anyone who's open to hearing the bishops sees this as an affront. Anyone who's deaf to the bishops and the Church knows otherwise. At this point responding to Sebelius will not bring Georgetown into compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae. He might yet act on Georgetown; we shall see what happens. I have been in Catholic colleges/universities for over nine years now. I know some of the work that goes into getting them into compliance and some of the unique problems encountered by the US in this regard.

Until that time, I exhort you to spend your time writing Cardinal Wuerl personally and privately or complaining about Georgetown. I do not see the good that will come by the laity not trying to give their bishops the best possible reading.
[/quote]

I think there is no point in your answering the post if you don't read the relevant canons that Dr. Peters cites. He is indeed a canon lawyer, and you are? Not that it matters as I am only going to state again canon law makes NO distinction to those who temporarily reside in a diocese. If you move to any diocese for any length of time, you are subject to that bishop, period. As to the "other bishops" mentioned by Wuerl he does not name any and it does not matter as Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the American bishops leaves little doubt on that on Canon 915 and how it is to be applied. It's straightforward to any fair reading: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."
Cardinal Burke on the subject: "[b]Archbishop Burke, a doctor of canon law, said that despite the statements in the US Conference document 'Catholics in Political Life' suggesting otherwise, Bishops cannot opt not to forbid obstinately pro-abortion politicians communion.[/b] Kralis asked, if the U.S. Conference document meant that "one Bishop can deny Senator John Kerry Holy Communion and another Bishop can give Kerry Communion and both Bishops are correct?" Archbishop Burke replied, "No, in fact, Canon 915 must be applied. It does not give an option. Canon 915 says that those persons who obstinately persist in grave manifest sin must be denied the Eucharist. I strongly believe that if a bishop has spoken to someone who obstinately persists in grave manifest sin and he still presents himself for Holy Communion, he should be refused"
The chief pastor in any diocese is of course the bishop. He is the one who must see that canon law is applied.
As to writing Wuerl, I have done so but did not receive a response. I was writing letters to complain about scandals at Georgetown in the 1970's, and the response was not impressive then. The overall tone of your posts is thoroughly condescending so I will simply let this one go. None of your points hold water. And by the way I have spent much longer in Catholic schools than you have, o young one!

S.

[Papist]

Please... Enough about the bishops. Let's get back to the topic, which is Sebelius speaking at Georgetown.

I can understand why a university would want the Secretary of HHS to speak, or US President, etc. I only hear about the commencement speaker when he/she is a controversial one. But never controversial b/c of their strong advocacy against abortion and/or same-sex marriage. It seems that some "Catholic" colleges intentionally picking un-Catholic thinkers.

Last Weekend’s Commencement Speakers


[quote]
[b]Bellarmine University’s[/b] commencement speaker was pro-abortion rights and same-sex ”marriage” supporter Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear.

The university also gave Beshear an honorary doctor of law degree for his “civil public discourse and bipartisan cooperation for the benefit of all citizens.” Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was also given an honorary doctor of law degree.

Guess which one there was a protest over?

Thirty-one professors from surrounding colleges and universities signed a public letter admonishing Bellarmine for honoring Mitch Daniels because of his support for “right-to-work” laws which could harm unions.

[b]Gonzaga University[/b] had caused the most outrage earlier this year with their decision to honor ”pro-choice” Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu with an honorary doctor of laws degree, at least until Georgetown disgracefully invited HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to speak to their graduates.

Archbishop Tutu spoke at the commencement ceremony on Sunday.

As The Cardinal Newman Society reported earlier there was a significant amount of protest from alumni because Archbishop Tutu had infamously endorsed a constitutional amendment in South Africa to legalize abortion and even reportedly endorsed the work of the Marie Stopes abortion chain. He also reportedly said, “Planned parenthood is an obligation of those who are Christians. Our church thinks we should use scientific methods that assist in planning of families.”

A petition asking Gonzaga administrators to rescind the invitation garnered about 850 signatures. In fact, the controversy grew so intense that Tutu himself responded in the pages of the Washington Post by lecturing opponents of his being honored by the Jesuit university. ”We need to be able to listen,” Archbishop Tuto wrote.

[b]Loyola University[/b] in New Orleans hosted Pulitzer Prize-winning author, presidential historian, and former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham as commencement speaker and awarded him an honorary doctorate of humane letters degree over the weekend.

Meacham wrote a column last year for the Daily Beast headlined “A Victory for Liberty in California” that praised the California Supreme Court’s overturning a voter-approved ban on same-sex “marriage.” Arguing that “the religious case for gay marriage is a strong one,” Meacham compared the ban on gay marriage to Jim Crow laws.

Although Meacham is an Episcopalian, in his May 2002 article “Sex and the Church: A Case for Change,” he encouraged the Catholic Church to embrace homosexuality (including, by implication, sexual activity), gay priests, married priests, female priests, same-sex “marriage” and adoptions by same-sex couples.

[b]Saint Joseph College[/b] in Connecticut honored Governor Daniel P. Malloy, who supports abortion rights and same-sex “marriage,” with an honorary degree at the College’s commencement ceremony on Sunday.

Malloy has been such an outspoken advocate of the HHS contraceptive mandate that in February, the White House reportedly thanked Malloy. Last year, Malloy even issued a press release celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. “I’ve been a lifelong advocate and strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose,” he said. Planned Parenthood.org lists Governor Malloy under the banner of “Mayors and Governors Stand With Planned Parenthood.”

On same-sex “marriage,” last year Malloy reportedly spoke cavalierly: “Historically, two people get married. We’re not changing history. We might be changing the sex of individuals or the concept that they’re both of the same-sex, but we’re not changing anything. A registration is a registration is a registration.”

Previously, [b]Mount St. Mary’s College[/b] in California hosted Los Angeles Times columnist Sandy Banks as its commencement speaker. Banks has written a column in favor of a program that pays for sterilization and contraceptives — including the abortifacient IUD — for illegal drug users. She wrote, “We are helping mothers heal when we keep unwanted children from being born.”

In a 2008 column, Banks also urged her readers to support same-sex “marriage.”

So far, there’s no video or release or media report concerning Banks’ speech other than a tweet from the college saying Banks told graduates to “trust yourself.”

The Cardinal Newman Society will be sure to keep you updated about any news that comes out of these speeches.

[color=#696969]cardinalnewmansociety.org[/color][/quote]