Kathleen Sebelius To Speak At Georgetown

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337212971' post='2431478']
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.
[/quote]

I see nothing in Father Guarnizo's response that defames Cardinal Wuerl. You say "the Cardinal does not see fit to defame Father Guarnizo" ? One would hope not as defamation is immoral!
You seem to be saying that there is more damaging information on Father Guarnizo, and I can only point out that just to suggest that is wrong. That in and of itself damages someone's reputation though no specifics are given. And people are entitled to their good name regardless of whether they deserve it. It's definitely time to move on to something else.

S.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Skinzo

[qfnol31]

I definitely don't want to prolong this conversation since it seems to have run its course, but I want to make three quick points that I feel are necessary:

1) I say there is more information on Fr. Guarnizo because that is the Archdiocese's position. To say that these issues extend more than just the week or the month before the incident is only to clarify what the Archdiocese has already said and to respond to the constant attacks against the Archdiocese and the Cardinal that they are merely responding to the Holy Communion incident. I have in no way meant to imply anything against Fr. Guarnizo or his character except that which is already public. I apologize if it sounds like I meant more than this, but I feel that people don't trust the Cardinal or the Archdiocese to do what is right, and I want to assure people that the Archdiocese is acting in accord with what it knows as the most authentically Catholic response to Fr. Guarnizo in general. I don't think this should be in question at the present.

2) I don't necessarily agree with Cardinal Wuerl on his position on Holy Communion. I am a bit of a legalist, but I really want to point out that there is tons of disagreement between theologians and canon lawyer in general, that probably won't ever be resolved. But please don't take my defense of the Cardinal's position as me being in agreement necessarily.

3) Most importantly, the Cardinal should not receive the level of criticism for the faults of Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, or Georgetown University as he has, particularly from Catholics. I have followed the work of many bishops in my (short) life and have never known an American bishop who was so active as Cardinal Wuerl has been. I know that he doesn't always make the flashiest comments, but he has never had to apologize for his words. He is a very thoughtful person. On a personal level, he is a very holy and humble man, but always keeps in mind the Church's best interests. I know at times people wish he would be more politically active. but the only reason anyone can say that is if they ignore his current political work. As Papist said above, Georgetown University, Sebelius, Pelosi, etc. are the enemies of the Church in many ways. I don't think that the Cardinal deserves all the character assassination he has received, both implicitly and explicitly. If you think he should say something, that's fine, but the criticisms (both on this site and Catholics in general) that he uses the wrong methods to achieve a goal are really unbecoming of Catholics. I don't think it's fair to say that the Cardinal is unresponsive to the current situation simply because he works through his staff.

I have read more criticisms on this site of Cardinal Wuerl than Cardinal Mahoney, Bishop Weakland, or any other such bishops and I don't think they're fair. I don't expect people to like the Cardinal, but the attacks against his character have been fairly frequent. Most Catholics seem to be skeptical of him for whatever reason, and I really want to know if that's deserved? Politically I can't answer, but as someone in his diocese I'm quite proud to have him working as he has to preserve our faith and way of life in this hostile town.

Disagree with him if you want, but I will continue to speak up against the personal attacks against Cardinal Wuerl. Again, I don't want to spark more debate, but people seem to feel free to criticize Wuerl inappropriately, and all three of my current comments are directed at that. I think it's time for people to begin trusting that our bishop situation in America is turning around and we ought to work with the bishops in their good work, not against them. All I hear is how little Cardinal Wuerl has done, and nothing about what he has tried to do over his last six years here. I'm not claiming that he's perfect, but believe me, he's a lot better than most people here seem to think. I believe it's time to redirect our attention to the true problems in the Church and stop constantly criticizing bishops when they aren't necessarily wrong.

[Skinzo]

I don't want to spend much time on this either as it is clear we are not going to agree. You say: "I say there is more information on Fr. Guarnizo because that is the Archdiocese's position". The only statement I know on Father Guarnizo is that of Bishop Knestout which said only he was being disciplined because some have said he acted in an "intimidating" fashion. That is the archdiocese's position. No more than that.
You may think as you wish regarding Wuerl's response or lack thereof to what Pelosi, Sebelius, or Georgetown is doing. As I've said before I think the dilemma of Cardinal Wuerl is that talk is just not enough. Every time Pelosi, Sebelius and Georgetown do things that are contrary to Church teaching they are spitting in the face of Wuerl and every other faithful Catholic. Where are the disciplinary actions? People don't respect you if you don't fight back, it's that simple. If a bishop does not act to insure the institutions of his diocese are teaching in accordance with the Church, he is likely to be a target of scorn and ridicule. As laity we sometimes have to speak out on what pertains to the good of the Church. And yes, I think sometimes that means we may question whether some bishops are using the right methods. Cardinal Wuerl will not have to worry of any attacks from faithful Catholics if he takes ACTION. As the old saying goes, "talk is cheap". The Gospels teach us that it is our actions that define us. "[b]Not[/b] every [b]one[/b] who is [b]saying to me Lord[/b], [b]lord[/b], shall come into the reign of the heavens; but he who is doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens." Matthew 7:21. Thus, it is our actions that matter ultimately, and not our words.
As to "trusting" our bishop situation is turning around I would like to believe that's true but again, people won't buy that if they don't see actions. I was born into a world where one could rely on every single Catholic institution speaking with the same voice and enunciating the same teachings. That world is long gone, and whether the bishops like it or not, they have a long way to go to recover it and to recover people's trust. That has everything to do with forty plus years of dissent at so many Catholic institutions not to mention the sex abuse crisis which was handled abominably by the bishops. If you wonder where the "trust" went, well don't wonder. Right now some think that only traditional priests are going to be disciplined by Wuerl. And when it comes to actual disciplinary actions, it's hard to argue with that.

S.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337433926' post='2432607']You say: "I say there is more information on Fr. Guarnizo because that is the Archdiocese's position". The only statement I know on Father Guarnizo is that of Bishop Knestout which said only he was being disciplined because some have said he acted in an "intimidating" fashion.
[/quote]Toward whom did Fr. Guarnizo act in an intimidating fashion? Obviously the implication because of circumstances is that he intimidated the woman whom he denied Holy Communion, but the letter says the complaints were filed by more people.

Also, when Fr. Guarnizo went public with how the Archdiocese responded, I think he took his complaint to the wrong forum. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he was wrong to explain denying Holy Communion, but he says the Archdiocese gave him no chance to defend his actions and he at least implied that the Holy Communion incident was the only reason he was suspended. I find this statement disingenuous for two reasons. First, Bishop Knestout was not the only person with whom Fr. Guarnizo met. He implies otherwise, but (now I'll present extra information) there was at least one other meeting.

Second, the Archdiocese says there is a history of intimidating actions, not the singular instance. Fr. Guarnizo said outright that is a lie. Perhaps it is, but again I don't think the best place to say something is in public defense. I believe a certain amount of patience is required. I think the same of Fr. Corapi who has tried to leave the priesthood rather than trust the Church.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html

I feel at this point that the only response acceptable for Catholics is the immediate imposition of Canon Law. I realize why they might think thusly, but Cardinal Burke backed off a little from that position regarding Wuerl (and Loverde! whose role most people ignore-even if you and Dr. Peters are right, the pastor of many politicians is in fact Bishop Loverde, not Wuerl), and even Dr. Peters has left some room for disagreement in this.

We can disagree and I can easily accept you might be right, but too often Cardinal Wuerl is merely a scapegoat for those who want all the bishops to do more, but under the accusation that he is being unfaithful to the Church. Why is there no outrage about the bishops of the home diocese for these politicians? These bishops can act too, and only one immediately comes to mind.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337438227' post='2432620']I feel at this point that the only response acceptable for [b]many[/b] Catholics is the immediate imposition of Canon Law.[/quote]Fixed.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336791409' post='2429955']
I am referring the massive ethnic cleansing that occurred in Iraq following President Bush' decision to invade Iraq on deceitful pretenses.[/quote]

again...what ethnic cleansing? I'm pretty Sure, as an individual who has actually eaten ice cream with the PMOI including Saddam's personal assassin...and living in the country for a year during the heaviest fighting of the insurgency, and walking daily through villages helping and giving treatment to the Iraqis that. the Iraqis and Iranians would also be confused as to any cleansing that happened during the war. Note: I am NOT defending the war here, nor ignoring that we went on deceitful pretenses only the ethnic cleansing claim as I am un aware of anything on that skill since the PMOI under the direction of Saddam gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq.


[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336791409' post='2429955']
I really don't think that's the same thing. I'd say the same thing about Bush in relation to the killing occurring in Darfur during his administration. Clinton did far worse in allowing the killing in Bosnia to continue and in bombing the only pharmaceutical manufacturing plan in the Sudan as an empty gesture to attempt to give the impression that he was tough on Al-Queda.
[/quote]

Thanks for bringing up Bosnia, that is TWO unjust social actions on a much larger death scale that President Bush's unjust war, Dafur was directly related and allowed to happen by the U.S. because we cared about the Southern Lands more...Again not DEFENDING President Bush rather point out that while President Bush's unjustness IS wrong...ALL politicians do things wrong...even compared to President Clinton I believe the total unjust death tole under President Clinton and President Obama are MUCH higher because you must include those aborted as well. President Bush at least in words defended life which while still isn't much helps in not placing abortion on his shoulders. Meanwhile even with all of this... Sibelius is actively trampling on religious freedom in a way which is dangerous to all of us, where as President Bush despite policy decisions that were wrong did not try to remove fundamental freedoms from Americans.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336791409' post='2429955']
The point is that while you can say 'yeah, both sides have their anti-life issues' I only see the protests and petitions coming when it's a democrat. A lot of innocent people are dead because of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq for no beaver dam good reason.
[/quote]
While we can stand on this side and say those things ( as I agree with many of them) and I agree that we should challenge what we see in every official speaking and working in the public. I also know that many Iraqis I worked with would NOT agree that there was no reason to do what was done.


[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336791409' post='2429955']
Yet I don't see people here (The Franciscan Friars of the Renewal sent a very brave letter warning about the toll that would befall poor Iraqis if we invaded) labeling him or the individuals in his administration as 'anti-life' Nor do I see concern about the immense amount of torture that occurred under his administration.
[/quote]
really? I could be mistaken and the search is down, but I seem to remember a lot of people denouncing those actions here on PM during those days. Again my memory could just be faulty.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337438227' post='2432620']

Second, the Archdiocese says there is a history of intimidating actions, not the singular instance. Fr. Guarnizo said outright that is a lie. Perhaps it is, but again I don't think the best place to say something is in public defense. I believe a certain amount of patience is required. I think the same of Fr. Corapi who has tried to leave the priesthood rather than trust the Church.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html"]http://www.washingto...4lk5R_blog.html[/url]

I feel at this point that the only response acceptable for Catholics is the immediate imposition of Canon Law. I realize why they might think thusly, but Cardinal Burke backed off a little from that position regarding Wuerl (and Loverde! whose role most people ignore-even if you and Dr. Peters are right, the pastor of many politicians is in fact Bishop Loverde, not Wuerl), and even Dr. Peters has left some room for disagreement in this.

We can disagree and I can easily accept you might be right, but too often Cardinal Wuerl is merely a scapegoat for those who want all the bishops to do more, but under the accusation that he is being unfaithful to the Church. Why is there no outrage about the bishops of the home diocese for these politicians? These bishops can act too, and only one immediately comes to mind.
[/quote]

This is beyond tiresome at this point. Bishop Knestout's letter is clear on the subject of "history":
"pertains to actions over the past week or two."

When you say someone has a history of something it usually implies multiple incidents over a long period. Knestout's letter says nothing of the kind. Guarnizo does not use the word "lie" in his response. I have no idea why you want to bring Bishop Loverde into this. Nancy Pelosi for one owns a residence in Washington D.C. End of story.
I know of no evidence that Cardinal Burke backed off anything. I don't think Wuerl is a scapegoat. He has been criticized for inaction and not speaking out on some things. We do know the Archdiocese moved quickly to discipline Father Guarnizo, but not so in other instances. I am tired of repeating myself.

S.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337465727' post='2432740']
This is beyond tiresome at this point. Bishop Knestout's letter is clear on the subject of "history":
"pertains to actions over the past week or two."

When you say someone has a history of something it usually implies multiple incidents over a long period. Knestout's letter says nothing of the kind.[/quote]
You are right to say that the letter can be read as speaking only of recent history. Most Catholic blogs seem to read it in that way. This approach is fine as long as it is recognized that more is present at this point than the simple refusal to distribute Holy Communion. The link I posted above also has some extra information to supplement the reading that this was not a singular incident. Fr. Guarnizo was also accused of intimidating parish staff. We will know before too long if these accusations are true or not.

My point was that I have added nothing new to the case against Fr. Guarnizo than can already be inferred from what's been published, if only people are willing to give the Archdiocese a fair hearing. This has not been the case at all, so I have attempted my best to defend the Archdiocese without adding to the public knowledge of the case against Fr. Guarnizo. I don't want to add anything against him that cannot already be inferred from the letters, but I know information about this case that lends more credence to the Archdiocese. I cannot add what I know except that flaming the personnel is not fair. There are protections in place that prevent them defending themselves, things in place to defend priests in general. I may not have succeeded, but I have tried my best not to argue this from what I know and have tried to use only that which can be taken from the letters and statements present. I am in no way just trying to promote a poor image of Fr. Guarnizo. Unfortunately, I cannot give good reasons for defending the Archdiocese at this point except that the general public response was truly unwanted.

[quote]Guarnizo does not use the word "lie" in his response. I have no idea why you want to bring Bishop Loverde into this. Nancy Pelosi for one owns a residence in Washington D.C. End of story.
I know of no evidence that Cardinal Burke backed off anything. I don't think Wuerl is a scapegoat. He has been criticized for inaction and not speaking out on some things. We do know the Archdiocese moved quickly to discipline Father Guarnizo, but not so in other instances. I am tired of repeating myself.

S.
[/quote]You can call something a lie without using that word.

[quote] Father Guarnizo contradicts a statement by the vicar general of the Washington archdiocese, who claimed that his decision to place the priest on administrative leave was prompted by reasons unrelated to Father Guarnizo’s refusal to administer the Eucharist to Barbara Johnson. In fact, the priest says, the disciplinary action taken against him by the Washington archdiocese had “everything to do with the Eucharistic incident.”[/quote]

That's from one of the defense articles. It makes more sense in context.

As for Loverde, not all politicians live in DC, though everyone seems to expect all politicians to be addressed by Wuerl. I'm happy to hear you don't think of him that way. Most Catholic blogs treat him as such. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032602185.html

As to your final comment about immediacy, you cannot truly know that for sure. Again, I can't say why explicitly, but both comments you have made are not exactly true and thus unfair. Cardinal Wuerl could have in fact met with these politicians and told them not to go to Holy Communion. That he has not done so publicly or that he has not denied Holy Communion doesn't mean he hasn't started the process already, albeit privately. Secondly, as I have indicated above, the Fr. Guarnizo incident may not have been immediate, even if it appears that way. This incident could have been the final straw for all anyone knows. To speak otherwise and not give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt is unfair.

[Skinzo]

Qfolnol31,
Your posts are truly awkward and well, bizarre.
You said: "but I know information about this case that lends more credence to the Archdiocese"
That statement can only imply you have information that would make Father Guarnizo look bad.

Then you say: "I am in no way just trying to promote a poor image of Fr. Guarnizo"
I don't know how you think those two statements can co-exist in the same post. They contradict one another. Stack that up against your other comments about him, and I don't think he will be hiring you for a PR man. Just a hunch.

Your pretense of a special relationship with Wuerl or special knowledge of this case is not impressive and quite irrelevant. As to Wuerl possibly meeting with politicians, he in fact says nothing of the kind. He said Pelosi was not part of his flock. As he refuses to think Canon 915 can be applied to politicians (kind of strange since canon law applies to ALL of us) there is no reason to think any such meetings have taken place. Wuerl has had plenty of opportunities to re-visit the canon law issue but has not. You say the archdiocese is not getting a "fair hearing"? The archdiocese has not sought a hearing of any kind in the matter. They can respond any time they wish. They don't.
Again you seem lost on the Fr. Guarnizo case. How could it have been the "last straw"? The archdiocese's statement is that and only that. No such thing is hinted at. And such a remark hardly supports your claim that you are not trying to "promote a poor image of Fr. Guarnizo" (!)
This is my last post on this and you are going on my ignore list because I have better things to do than repeat myself.

S.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Skinzo

[TheoGrad07]

I've been reading this thread for a few days and am rather disgusted by the attitude prevalent. There is more to the Fr. Guarnizo case than is being admitted by most posters; I know this not only through personal connections but also because interviews on the local radio have presented more information.

In any case, it is our place as laity to respect the decisions of Holy Mother Church as presented to us through legitimate authorities; if we disagree with a decision our responsibility is to pray that the Holy Spirit guide our pastors in their decisions -- NOT to lambast them in the public square. The pastors of the Church receive their authority because of their office, not because we personally think they are deserving of our respect and obedience nor because we think they're doing a good job. An attitude of humble obedience and fervent prayer should characterize our response to Church authority, whether we are laity or a priest being disciplined. Fraternal correction must observe the proper structure of hierarchy or our "correction" becomes mere insubordination and lack of proper respect for the hierarchical structure of the Church (cf. [i]Summa Theologiae[/i] IIaIIae q33). Our disagreements should be taken to prayer and we should patiently wait for God's will to be manifest through his earthly representatives. If we feel the need to voice our disagreement with Church authorities, letters, phone calls, and emails are the much more appropriate route than a public hanging. Taking our disagreement and dissension to the public forum is not only contrary to the discipleship to which we are called but also undermines any claims we make to be the one true Church founded and guided by Christ and distinguished by his charity.

Bottom line: a basic mark of being a Catholic is the respect and obedience due the Church hierarchy. The attitude that it is the role of the laity to stand in judgment over the Church's (& therefore Christ's) pastors (whether priests or bishops) strikes me as fundamentally un-Catholic.