Fr. Guarnizo: They’re Lying About Me

By Rod Dreher • March 14, 2012, 5:51 PM

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, the priest whose ministerial faculties were withdrawn by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, has released a long statement defending his conduct in the incident in which he refused Buddhist lesbian Barbara Johnson communion. He explains his actions, and says the Archdiocese is spinning when it says his suspension has nothing to do with the communion incident. Excerpt:

I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld.

Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve the Catholic Church in Washington D.C.

As to the latest allegations, I feel obliged to alleviate unnecessary suffering for the faithful at St. John Neumann and others who are following the case.

I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of “intimidation” are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese’s latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or “intimidation” allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings. The meetings in question, occurred in our effort to document from people at the funeral Mass in written form a few facts about the nature of the incident. We have collected more than a few testimonies and affidavits, testifying to what really took place during the funeral liturgy.

Now it gets real. If the Archdiocese has anything else on Fr. Guarnizo, it’s going to have to release it. He’s basically called the Archdiocese a pack of liars.

91 Responses to Fr. Guarnizo: They’re Lying About Me

← Older Comments

Roland de Chanson says:

March 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm

cermak_rd,

I can’t help remarking that both of your points are heavily punctuated with the verb “want”.

It’s not about what they “want”.

Neither Communion from the profane hands of a lay “minister” dropping the Sacred Species all over the floor to be trodden underfoot or pawed by the unwashed never mind unconsecrated hands of the laity, nor happy clappy “services” with hand-shaking hand-waving egoists and narcissists engaged in an orgy of self-adoration, nor yet a cacophonous choir caterwauling “On Eagles’ Wings”.

Nor even eulogies for a dead sinner who is probably at the very least at that moment enduring the flames of Purgatory. “You couldn’t ask for a nicer fellow and he always bought the grandchildren ice-cream, at least on the few occasions when he was sober.”

Quite honestly, the Church does have to make a calculus: is it the Church founded by Christ with authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sins, to teach all nations, to be the unshakeable oak of God’s presence among mankind, or is it just another rotted splinter among the fallen branches of protestantism?

Cupio ergo sum. The Cartesian Catholic. I want, therefore I am. I. I. I. I.

Thou alone art Holy. Thou alone art Lord. Thou alone, O Jesus Christ, art Most High. Thou. Thou. Thou.
Kevin B. says:

March 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

The law was made for man, not man for the law.

Did Father Guarnizo err in a prudential application of Can. 915? Possibly. I’m no canon law expert.

Did he do the right thing in denying Holy Communion to a lesbian Buddhist? Absolutely.

Faithful Catholics suffering at the hands of the hierarchy is nothing new, alas. Some wags are suggesting Father Guarnizo and priests like him should start cultivating a devotion to St. Joan of Arc for that reason.
Richard W Comerford says:

March 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Mr cermak_rd

“In the pre-Vat II days, many people didn’t partake so there wasn’t as much of an issue.”

That claim is very incorrect.

The old method via communion rail was (and is) quicker, much quicker, than the present method of standing in line.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
Dimitry Aleksandrovich says:

March 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Conor Dugan you don’t know what you’re talking about. Over the past 100 years the Russian Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church have been two of the most persecuted Churches in history. They’ve endured martyrdom and destruction not seen since the times of Nero. I don’t think that we can easily judge the Russian Church for submitting to the communist authorities when not doing so could have meant that all vestiges of Russian Christianity would have been completely eradicated during the Soviet times. It’s easy for outsiders to judge and for a long time even the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) completely rejected the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate. However thanks be to God the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church has been mended and the Russian Orthodox Church in exile has been reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church’s influence in the Russian Federation is becoming more and more prominent 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
James Kabala says:

March 15, 2012 at 2:37 pm

I have never seen a Eucharistic minister drop a host on the floor. I’m sure such a thing has happened at some point somewhere, but I’m sure priests have done it too – ordination does not guarantee dextrous fingers. I certainly wouldn’t expect that if the host was accidentally dropped, anyone would be allowed to step on it.

The EMHC privilege is often abused, but crazy overheated arguments against it will not help the cause.
Roland de Chanson says:

March 15, 2012 at 2:54 pm

The host cannot be dropped on the floor if the communicant is kneeling at the altar rail and the altar boy is holding a paten under his chin.

BTW, altar boys were not allowed to touch anything but the handle of the paten. Now even “altar girls” are allowed to handle the sacred vessels as if they were the dinner’s dirty dishes.

But that was before the novus ordo sect stopped believing in Transubstantiation.

Again, there is no such thing as a “Eucharistic minister.”
R Hampton says:

March 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm

Canon lawyer Ed Peters:

“I have expended no little effort over many years (like about 22) trying to get Canon 915 correctly understood and properly applied in ecclesiastical life. In the last few years, some signs of progress have appeared. Now, out of nowhere, Canon 915 is being invoked by some as justification for an action that, reading the facts as alleged in the light most favorable to the minister, would not have justified his withholding holy Communion from the woman in question. Specifically, a few minutes conversation (if that’s what happened), mostly with a third party (if that’s what happened), would not suffice, in the face of numerous canons protecting the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments, to verify either the notoriety of the (objectively) sinful situation, or to verify the obstinacy of the would-be recipient, both of which elements, among others in Canon 915, must be demonstrated before withholding holy Communion.”

“What else is there to say? I offer no opinions on the rest of this mess (e.g., did she perhaps approach for the Sacrament in part to make a point? is the archdiocesan letter of apology prudent?), and would advise those who really wish to understand Canon 915 and its proper, even vital, role in ecclesiastical life to study the materials gathered here.”

http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm
Roland de Chanson says:

March 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Mr. Richard W Comerford,

You are absolutely right. It was very quick and efficient. I remember that when I was an altar boy, there were priests who could say Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam in one syllable!

Distribution of Communion could be dangerous however. If there were two or more priests (as there were on Sundays), there was the possibility of one of the altar boys (who had to walk backwards) crashing into a priest behind him and nearly decapitating a communicant with the paten. This was the true but unspoken reason for the blessing of throats on St. Blaise’s Day.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich,

Well said.
R Hampton says:

March 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Canonical observations on Fr. Guarnizo’s statement of March 14
March 15, 2012

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement evidences misunderstandings of several aspects of Catholic law on the administration of holy Communion and confirms my sense that Guarnizo erred in withholding holy Communion in this case. Regarding those errors, I believe that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction…

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/
cermak_rd says:

March 15, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Standing appears to be the historical form.

The only time I’ve ever received while kneeling at an altar rail was in an Episcopalian church. In their case, they changed between the modes (standing v. kneeling) depending on liturgical season (Advent and Lent were for kneeling).
caroline says:

March 15, 2012 at 3:40 pm

I pray that there will soon be many orthodox priests willing and available to bring the Eucharist to people in hospitals so that there need be no more hospital EM’s. Nor home visitor EM’s to the housebound. In the meantime I will carry on.
Richard W Comerford says:

March 15, 2012 at 3:43 pm

Mr Nathan:

“If a soldier is given orders that conflict with the Constitution, US law, or international agreements such as the Geneva Accords or the Torture conventions, he has an affirmative obligation to disobey those orders regardless of what rationales the Justice Department may come up with.”

No. The “obligation”, so far, has not protected a U.S. service member before either a military or civil court.

“During the Holocaust in France French Catholics willingly put Jews on trains bound for Auschwitz.”

How was a priest to know if the “French Catholics” knew that the train was bound for Auschwitz or that Auschwitz was a death camp, or even that the transportees were Jews? [Your example has been argued endlessly in France.]

“formal guidance from Pius XII should they have done so?”

Pius XII ordered that Vatican City, his summer residence, monasteries and convents give refuge to Jews and other refugees from Hitler.

“Regardless of church teaching if the priest follows scripture”

Canon law does not oblige, and indeed forbids, a priest from administering Holy Communion to a known, public and hardened sinner.

“In his case would this be the church equivalent of an “illegal” order?”

No one ordered Fr. G. to give Holy Communion to Ms. Johnson. The Archdiocese of Washington also alleges that it has not placed Fr. G. (he disputes this allegation) on administrative leave because of the Johnson incident.

However a Canon Lawyer from another Archdiocese (Edward Peters) very publicly announced that Fr. G. had (allegedly) erred in violation of Canon 915 in this matter. This unofficial finding fro ma Canon Lawyer who represents neither party has so far apparently driven the controversy.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
Ethan C. says:

March 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm

This Protestant says, “Good for this priest.”

This may sound strange, but those who think that Fr. Guarnizo should have given Ms. Johnson communion are really saying that he should have fed her spiritual poison.

The Bible is quite clear as to the effects of taking communion in a sinful, unworthy fashion. Canon 915 and the other canon laws relating to administering the Eucharist are intended to help prevent this from occurring. But it is the responsibility of the priest himself to be the final line of defense to protect a sinful person from partaking unworthily.

It’s really important to remember that denying communion is not supposed to be some kind of punishment, or some kind of public signal of disapproval. It is instead a pastoral act of mercy, *for the subject’s own benefit*.

According to Fr. Guarnizo’s account, his actions were absolutely the correct method for him to fulfill his duties: he was discreet and private, but he did what was necessary given his understanding of the situation. He did the right thing, and now he seems to be justly defending himself from the abuse being done to him by Cardinal Wuerl.
Dave D says:

March 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Ben, I meant a statement about who should receive communion. Father Guarnizo in refusing communion to her is making a statement, regardless of how privately he did so. Even private acts have public aspects to them, and I meant if the Bishop thought a funeral was not the proper place to do so.

Dimitry, no offense, but look at the two nations that are the strongholds of Orthodox faith: Russia and Greece. Both are cesspits of corruption, both have a massive demographic crunch and mortality rate in contradiction to the levels of religious faith supposedly present, and both are…well, not known for their religion impacting their national character. Compared to say, South Korea.

Orthodoxy at best is a boutique faith practiced in the west, and at its worst is a massive propping up of the status quo, even worse than Catholicism because of its stridently nationalistic character. It should be judged, because any Christian sect can be good under persecution. It’s under largesse it’s true nature is known.
Richard W Comerford says:

March 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Mr. R Hampton:

“Canonical observations”

Lawyer Edwards writes in part:

“Guarnizo says that, a few minutes before Mass started, Johnson appeared in the sacristy and introduced another woman as her “lover”; further conversation was prevented by the “lover” standing in a doorway. There was apparently no mention of Johnson’s possible lesbian activism,”

This is a strange statement.

In 21st Century America when one woman introduces another woman to a Priest as her “lover” this is a very strong indication of “possible lesbian activism”.

When this same women dramatically makes an issue of her “lesbian activism” immediately before Mass (with her lesbian lover in tow) to the priest-celebrant this is strong indication that something is indeed amiss.

When the aforementioned lesbian lover physically prevents the startled priest from leaving the sacristy and attempting to clarify this matter this is a strong indication that the Holy Eucharist is about to be profaned.

A casual reading of Canon 915 would indicate to the average Christian that Fr. G. acted correctly.

However maybe Canon Lawyers are using a little Gnosticism in interpreting Canon Law?

God bless

Richard W Comerford
alcogito says:

March 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm

This part from his letter is significant, “If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with Canon 915. … In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported.

It is the Archdiocese which is giving scandal by disciplining this priest for doing discreetly what all priests are bound by conscience and vows to do under these circumstances.
R Hampton says:

March 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Richard W Comerford,

Please read the full observations made by Mr. Peters as he explains with considerable detail exactly why Fr. Guarnizo overstepped his authority.

“…Put another way, the burden is not on Guarnizo’s critics to prove that he should not have acted as he did in this case, rather, the burden is on Guarnizo to prove that he acted in accord with Church discipline.”

“Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified, whether Johnson’s sin (speaking objectively), which could be grave (a conclusion I think a Catholic could reach based on the words used here) was also manifest, as well as obstinate and perseverating. 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…”
Mary Russell says:

March 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm

It seems to me that Peters’ whole argument hinges on the assertion that Guarnazo could not have known that Ms. Johnson’s disposition was grave, obstinate, persevering, etc.
Hogwash. When a female patient introduces another woman to me in the office as her “partner”- this has happened from time to time- I understand (and am meant to understand) that she is in a sexual, committed relationship with this person. A priest’s office is not so very different from a doctor’s consultation room in this regard. This is not rocket science.
Peters’ lack of common sense grates.
Richard W Comerford says:

March 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm

Mr R Hampton:

Re: Scribes & Pharisees

“the burden is on Guarnizo to prove that he acted in accord with Church discipline.”

That is a stunning statement. Are you or Lawyer Edwards claiming that a priest must be able to prove that during every moment and every act of his priesthood that he acted in perfect accord with Church discipline? Must he take notes or perhaps have a team follow him around recording his every action for review by Lawyer Peters?

“Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified, whether Johnson’s sin (speaking objectively), which could be grave (a conclusion I think a Catholic could reach based on the words used here) was also manifest, as well as obstinate and perseverating”

Now we are getting into stupid. Fr. G. cannot look into someone’s soul. Only God can verify whether a sin is “manifest, as well as obstinate and perseverating”

However in the real world outside of the one scribes pharisees and when a women Canon Lawyers inhabit enters a sacristy before Mass with another women in tow and announces to a startled priest that the other woman is her “lover” then most Christians would presume that it manifest that these women are stubbornly persevering in serious sin.

Some Christians might even suspect that the Demonic is at work here.

“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”

How far must a priest go to verify such a thing? Employ a detective, an inquisition, the iron maiden?

It should be noted that Romans in the USA are regularly denied Holy Communion for the grave sin of kneeling to receive.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
JonF says:

March 15, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Roland, perhaps you could add electric lights and the English language to your list of scandals?

But really, do you expect the Church to be a museum frozen in amber? It’s a temporal institution, subject to time and change. If it has seen fit to institute a new office of eucharistic minister why is that any more scandalous than the Apostles creating the office of deacon, or the creation of other offices like cantor and reader, or the monastic orders, in later times? And as for eulogies I can’t see a problem there: it’s a local custom that has been assimilated for the Church, another process that has been going on since the day after Pentecost. The Church has plenary authority to govern its own affairs, and while it is not always wise and virtuous, and we can debate specific changes, the mere fact of change itself ought not be a scandal.
JonF says:

March 15, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Re: It should be noted that Romans in the USA are regularly denied Holy Communion for the grave sin of kneeling to receive.

Richard let me note here that some very ancient councilliar canons do forbid kneeling in church on Sunday. Those are more attended to in the East than in the West, but there is precedent for telling people not to kneel.
R Hampton says:

March 15, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Richard W Comerford,

Are you or Lawyer Edwards claiming that a priest must be able to prove that during every moment and every act of his priesthood that he acted in perfect accord with Church discipline? Must he take notes or perhaps have a team follow him around recording his every action for review by Lawyer Peters?

No, not at all. But the standard for denying communion is exceptional.

PETERS: “Moreover, Canon 18 requires that any law restricting the exercise of rights (as Canon 915 certainly does) be strictly interpreted, that is, that the restrictions in Canon 915 be construed as narrowly as reasonably possible.”

So there are necessary conditions that need be met beyond the personal judgement of the priest.

PETERS: “In contrast, Canon 915 binds ministers, not recipients. Prescinding from rarely encountered excommunication and interdict situations, Canon 915 lays out several distinct conditions that must be simultaneously satisfied before a minister of Holy Communion may (and indeed, should) withhold the Eucharist from a member of the faithful. To justify withholding the Eucharist under Canon 915 according to its plain terms, the conduct in which a communicant perseveres must be obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful. These conditions must be understood and assessed according to the Church’s canonical tradition, else, one is no longer talking about the law of the Catholic Church.”

PETERS: “Given the very strong canonical presumptions accorded the faithful in regard to reception of the sacraments, and given the strict interpretative hermeneutic set out in Canon 18, the burden is, without question, on the minister of holy Communion to VERIFY THAT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN CANON 915 ARE SATISFIED BEFORE HE WITHOLDS HOLY COMMUNION from a member of the faithful who approaches for it publicly.*”

(forgive the use of ALL CAPS, but bold text isn’t supported)
R Hampton says:

March 15, 2012 at 8:29 pm

In anticipation of further objections of yours, Peters offers these examples to prove his point:

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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 latae sententiae [e.g., for apostasy] is not notoriously under those situations.” Gramunt, in EXEGETICAL COMM (2004) III/1: 615-616.
Roland de Chanson says:

March 15, 2012 at 10:10 pm

R Hampton: Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement evidences misunderstandings of several aspects of Catholic law on the administration of holy Communion and confirms my sense that Guarnizo erred in withholding holy Communion in this case.

It isn’t clear whether you are expressing your own opinion or quoting Peters. I don’t have the time to look it up.

Let me posit a scenario for you and the canon lawyer. I barge into the sacristy before Sunday Mass and inform the presbyter (formerly known as a “priest”) that on Saturday afternoon I drove a pregnant girlfriend to the clinic for an abortion (she never could remember to take the damn pill) and last night I had sex with another girlfriend while the first recuperated. I will be in the Communion line. Any objections, Padre?

Now, in the old days, the priest (not a “presbyter”) would have punched me in the mouth and knocked me cold. They were men. Ergo I would still have been insentient on the sacristy floor long after the Last Gospel and the prayers at the foot of the altar which included the Prayer to St. Michael:

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. Rebuke him, O God, we humbly pray. And thou, Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God cast into Hell Satan and the other malign spirits who wander through the world for the perdition of souls.

Were my canonical rights violated?

More to the point, would I have dared to have attempted such a sacrilege?
Richard W Comerford says:

March 15, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Mr JonF:

“Richard let me note here that some very ancient councilliar canons do forbid kneeling in church on Sunday”

What Council of the Universal Church, ancient or new, ever forbid Christians to kneel in Church on Sunday; but then allowed Christians to kneel in Church on Saturday or Wednesday?

“Those are more attended to in the East than in the West, but there is precedent for telling people not to kneel.”

Rome forbids the denial of Holy Communion to Christians who kneel despite what a local Ordinary or a National Bishops Conference may desire.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford says:

March 15, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Mr R Hampton:

“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.”

There is no doubt of the notoriety of the instant crime. The criminal boasted of her crime to the priest-celebrant before Holy Mass and then proved that her crime was public and serial by introducing her lesbian lover to said priest-celebrant also before Mass.

What do you and Lawyer Edwards want – an affidavit signed by Ms. Johnson and her lover? Perhaps the following will serve you:

“we publicly, proudly and jointly declare that we the undersigned regularly and for some time have indulged in the act of sodomy together. Signed in our blood under the legal penalty of perjury…Ms Johnson and friend”

And then the signed affidavit is sent to the Diocesan Committee for the Investigation of of ardent priests. Which forwards it to the USCCB Committee of Scribes & Pharisees. And in less than two years it is returned to the original priest-celebrant with questions for further clarification.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
alcogito says:

March 16, 2012 at 2:43 am

I am reading “The Screwtape Letters” this Lent. It occurs to me that this Peters must be one of Screwtape’s most attentive pupils.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

March 16, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Well, after skimming this long meandering of dense prose about canon law, I’m glad I don’t have to pay any attention to it. I don’t see any reason the priest had to give her communion, because she obviously wasn’t a practicing Catholic. What else needs to be said?
bones says:

March 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm

Siarlys, the conversation seems to have boiled down to a disagreement between those who think the Church’s own should be applied correctly – even when it makes us uncomfortable – and those who want certain sacraments to be “safe, legal and rare”. Funny how those who’d probably react most strongly to the invocation of something like “the Spirit of Vatican 2″ in other situations are invoking their own “the Spirit of Trent” to this one.
Joseph D'Hippolito says:

March 16, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Siarlys, +100.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to write:

1. The Catholic Church is very much a mixed bag when it comes to Nazism and the Holocaust. People forget that the Church in Germany condemned Nazism, that Archbishop von Galen from Muenster led a successful campaign against the Nazis’ euthanasia policy, that Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge, condemning Nazi ideology and that Angelo Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII) issued visas to as many visas Jews as he could while he was the Church’s diplomatic representative to Turkey.

None of that negates its failures during the Holocaust but let’s not assume that the Catholic Church was the handmaident of Hitler, either.

2. Anytime church authority and state power mix, the faith becomes tarnished. Dave D is absolutely right about Orthodoxy in Russia and Greece. You can also mention Henry VIII and Cromwell (different centuries, I know) in England, Calvin in Geneva, Luther with regard to the Peasants’ Revolt, and innumerable Catholic examples.

The fundamental reason is that, too often, one particular denomination was established over and above all others in European nations. As a result, Christian spirituality in Europe is dead. OTOH, the United States Constitution mandates no establishment of religion; people are free to practice whatever faith they adhere to. As a result, Christianity is the U.S. is (at least relatively) healthier than in Europe.
Fake Herzog says:

March 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm

“Now, in the old days, the priest (not a “presbyter”) would have punched me in the mouth and knocked me cold. ”

Really? A priest who is committed to Christ’s command to turn the other cheek or who reminds us “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” [Matt. 5:44]? I would think he would instead encouraged you to immediately take confession so you could receive communion with a clean conscience.

Look, both you and Mr. Comerford are just plain wrong about Cannon Law and Father Guarnizo. Go through Ed Peters’ latest post very carefully — the one in which he takes apart Father G’s letter bit by bit. Also, if you want a traditional priest’s take on the situation who comes to the same conclusion as Mr. Peters, then check out this post:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-her-mothers-funeral-anger-ensues-can-915-hell-breaks-loose/
Richard W Comerford says:

March 17, 2012 at 12:13 am

Mr Fake Herzog:

“Go through Ed Peters’ latest post very carefully — the one in which he takes apart Father G’s letter bit by bit.”

Yes. We should always listen to, obey and trust lawyers. Were they not the same guys who handed Christ over to Pontius Pilate? The same guys who went over to Hitler lock, stock and barrel? The same guys who gave us both the Dred Scot Decision and Roe v Wade?

So let me get this straight please.

Ms. Johnson with her lesbian lover and brother in tow, unannounced, confront Fr. G. in his sacristy before Mass. The issue is Ms. Johnson’s lesbianism and her lesbian lover. Fr. G, now knows that Ms. Johnson is involved in serious sin with another soul and over a period of time. What is more, the serious sin is public knowledge.

When Fr. G. does no respond to the confrontation in the manner approved by the Washington Archdiocese Ms. Jonson storms out of the sacristy and her lesbian lover blocks Fr. G. as he attempts to follow and reason with her.

So Fr. G. now has a hardened, public sinner on his hands who refuses to even discuss the matter of her grave, public and continuous sin.

Now let me post the relevant portion, yet again, of Canon 915:

“and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

So where in “others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”
Can Fr, G, find leave to admit to Holy Communion a woman who has just informed him of her ongoing lesbian relationship with the woman standing right beside her?

Or, are you and lawyer Peters claiming that two women living together so that they can pursue perverse sexual relations with one another is not in the eyes of Rome “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”?

Common Sense is another gift of the Holy Spirit.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
Felice says:

March 17, 2012 at 12:16 am

Father guarnizo has preached in favor of human rights and inspired supporters at abortion mill in germantown, md., he is sure about what he says and he says it well….the abortion camp is reacting and they have sent out a this lady to bait him.
Roland de Chanson says:

March 17, 2012 at 11:47 am

Fake Herzog: both you and Mr. Comerford are just plain wrong about Cannon Law and Father Guarnizo.

I never said a word about canon law. What I said was lex superior legi inferiori derogat. And I gave the citation from 1 Corinthians.

Mr. Peters touts his legalistic tome in order to serve his paymaster the bishop; I proclaim the Word of the bishop’s Master. Fr. Zed might have trumped Peters in a similar way but either feared to do so or didn’t know how.

And the hypothetical priest I mentioned would not have violated the command to turn the other cheek. He would merely have waited for me to regain consciousness to see whether I would turn mine. He followed the axiom of the ancient and universal law which reads colaphus corrigat.

The legalist Mr. Peters and his apology for sacrilege is part of the reason the Orthodox consider the Romans a den of shysters. And in this case, they would rightly so.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

March 17, 2012 at 2:49 pm

“Mr. Peters touts his legalistic tome in order to serve his paymaster the bishop; I proclaim the Word of the bishop’s Master.”

Roland, you are sounding like a Protestant, even a Lutheran.
Ben Callicoat says:

March 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Roland wrote: “The legalist Mr. Peters and his apology for sacrilege is part of the reason the Orthodox consider the Romans a den of shysters. And in this case, they would rightly so.”

Just so.

Mr. Peter’s illegitimate defense of the hierarchy is disgusting and disreputable in the arena of canon law. As an attorney — civil, not canon — I can tell you that what passes for his legal reasoning is common and not at all convincing to one who spins for a living.

Civil attorneys are trained to be able to argue any side of an issue, and do so zealously regardless of the the relative correctness of the side we happen to be arguing for at any given moment.

Mr. Peters is arguing for his boss, the bishop of Detroit, and his brethren in the episcopacy — against a good and courageous priest who upheld his duty. In a court of civil law, this might be forgiven — applauded even. But in this arena it is in my opinion a disgusting affront to Christ.
DB says:

March 21, 2012 at 1:45 am

To Richard Comerford et al:

Well done, Richard. Over the past week or so, I’ve posted a few responses in detail at other sites (as some have requested who support Dr. Peters – they should be careful what they wish for) to Dr. Peters’ application of Canon law that he and others believe is the only possible, nearly infallible interpretation and judgment of the matter regarding the Fr. Guarnizo/B. Johnson case. I hope you and others enjoy the particular commentay below that dissects the Peters’ approach to Canon 915 (and a few others) by appealing to common sense and the recognition that the unique circumstances of this case do not parallel other precedents/scenarios that would suggest an interpretation of the applicable Canon laws in favor of reception of Communion. Much of what I set forth dovetails in with your own writings on the matter.

God Bless!

DB
____________________

Ed Peters Gets It Wrong Once Again, But Continues to Pontificate

Below is a detailed critique of Dr. Peters’ recent offering concerning his view of Canon 915, and how he believes it must be interpreted and applied in the Fr. Guarnizo/B. Johnson case.

The actual critiques are set forth as parenthentical comments throughout Dr. Peters’ assessment, and proceeded by C: Dr. Peters’ statements are proceeded by P:
__________________________________________________
From Ed Peters’ Blog “In the Light of the Law” (3/17/12)

P: “A brief thought on the phrase ‘manifest sin’ in Canon 915”

P: “As I look through the continuing blogosphere commentary on the lesbian/Communion case, I see many people confusing the concept of “manifest sin” in Canon 915 with the notion of, I dunno, something like “manifestly sinful”. Those two phrases mean different things*, I suggest, and Canon 915 speaks only in terms of the former, not the latter.”

(C: Here we go again. Dr. Peters claiming his interpretation of the canon is the only one possible, so others must be using terms incorrectly, and/or they are confused. But are they?)

P: “In 2008 I published a CLSA advisory opinion on Canon 915 and two years later posted it on my Canon 915 resource page. I paraphrase part of that opinion for use today:
Manifest. The additional requirement that gravely sinful behavior be manifest prior to withholding the Eucharist helps distinguish Canon 915, which operates in realm of public order, from Canon 916, which informs one’s personal responsibility to receive the Eucharist worthily. Reception of Communion at Mass is a public action in service to rendering liturgical worship to God; it is not the place for the proclamation of another’s private behavior.”

(C: It is B. Johnson who publicly proclaimed her manifest grave sin.)

P: “However sinful it might be, conduct that is not already widely known in the community”

(C: What constitutes “widely known,” and where is that set forth in Canon 915? Dr. Peters is adding terms that are not found in the canon. I thought this was taboo, but perhaps not for Dr. Peters. Even so, “widely known” also needs to be defined if and only if it must be included in the interpretation of Canon 915, but this is not established even if Dr. Peters and pals think of it this way. Also, nowhere does Canon 915 mention “widely known in the community.”)

P: “is not manifest as canon law understands that term in this context.”

(C: …“not manifest as canon law understands that term in this context”…or as canon lawyer Peters understands that term in this context,…whatever “this context” may be? This is very telling, because it suggests that Dr. Peters and canon law are one and the same. Wow!)

P: “In something of a parallel to Canon 1340 § 2 (which prohibits imposing public penances for occult transgressions)”

(C: What constitutes “occult transgressions”? Does not a public announcement, even to one party make the transgression no longer occult? Do we need 5 people present, 25 people, etc? Dr. Peters never suggests any specifics, but always claims/suggests that some greater number of people is needed to satisfy the “public” requirement. Or perhaps he means “canonically public”? )

P: “and Canon 1330 (which prohibits any penalties in cases where no one has perceived the offense)”

(C: Oops. “[W]here no one has perceived the offense.” We know in the Johnson case that at least one person perceived the offense, and one more or a few others as well. This is a faulty reference in support of Dr. Peters’ overall approach to this case, because this canon can now support Fr. Guarnizo.)

P: “the public withholding of the Eucharist for little-known sins, even though they might well be grave, is not permitted under canon law.”

(C: Where does “little-known sins” come into play? This looks like another extra addition thrown in to aid Dr. Peters’ interpretation, but he wouldn’t do that while accusing others of similar actions, would he? Say it ain’t so, Joe,…or Ed.)

P: “Some folks seem to get the canonical distinction between public and private conduct but think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin.”

(C: There he goes again. Declaring something to be the case when it is not the case. The announcement takes the situation away from being private. If no such announcement was made, it would be private for obvious reasons, and this would even be so under a new and superfluous concept called “canonically private.”)

P: “They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here.”

(C: Thanks, Dr. Peters. But didn’t Dr. Peters jump all over Fr. Guarnizo and others for appealing to Church wisdom that is also “more than canon-law deep here”? This now seems a bit odd that Dr. Peters would make such an appeal to defend his own interpretations.)

P: “Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard.” + + +”

(C: They understand Dr. Peters’ interpretation, which may indeed be the prominent one, but is it the only possible one? Another possible interpretation is what Dr. Peters can barely conceive despite the flaws in some of his own statements and applications, and the fact that this particular case brings in some new elements that precedents do not necessarily apply to as he believes they must and do, though others with good reason do not so believe.)

P: “* Example: I keep saying that a would-be Communion recipient’s brief disclosure to a minister a few minutes before Mass that she has a female “lover” does not suffice to verify, among other things, that the sin apparently being admitted to is canonically manifest in the community;”

(C: Again, what is “canonically manifest”? Where is there a requirement in the canon itself that requires such a thing as “canonically manifest”? This intriguing terminology (and other such statements) reminds me of some Protestant biblical interpretations, especially those that criticize Catholic doctrine that permits more common sense applications and hermeneutics that may not be “biblically manifest” as a Protestant understands the term.)

P: “others say, c’mon, lesbian sexual activity is manifestly sinful. See? I’m talking about what Canon 915 actually says, while they are talking about what they think Canon 915 says.”

(C: As unequivocally pointed out and illustrated above, Dr. Peters doesn’t always talk about what the canon actually says, but what he believe it says or infers, and again, he also adds to it to support his interpretation that he presents as the only possible one it could have in respect to the Fr. Guarnizo/B. Johnson case, and so those who disagree are simply wrong and “need correction.”)

DB
DB says:

March 21, 2012 at 1:56 am

Typo corrections to the above post by DB.

Just prior to the actual critique, the following statement should read as follows:

The actual critiques are set forth as parenthentical comments throughout Dr. Peters’ assessment, and preceded by C: Dr. Peters’ statements are preceded by P:

DB
DB says:

March 21, 2012 at 2:16 am

More on the Interpretation and application of Canon Law by Dr. Ed Peters Regarding the Fr. Guarnizo/B. Johnson Case. This “rebuttal” pertains to Dr. Peters’ blog post of 3/15/12, and was written by yours truly on the same day.

God Bless
DB
________________________________________________

Dr. Peters Pontificates Against Father Guarnizo Once Again!
But is his interpretation that favors human sensibilities over protection of the sacred host necessarily the only one possible as he claims it to be? If it is, should the Canon law be changed? Would Dr. Peters favor Canon law that coincides more with Father Guarnizo’s actions?
__________________________________________________
Some Things to Think About Concerning Dr. Peters’ 3/15/12 Blog Post Entitled:

“Canonical Observations on Fr. Guarnizo’s statement of March 14”
___________
1. Dr. Peters writes: “I offer here canonical commentary, and that, only for those who are interested in the operation of canon law in the Church and are aware of (or willing to take direction on) how this venerable legal system serves the Christian community.”

Comment: Note two things here. One is the arrogant “willing to take direction on,” which means taking what Dr. Peters has to offer as direction. Real nice. If you don’t accept his teaching, forget about the commentary. It’s almost like denying others the opportunity to enjoy a different kind of communion with Dr. Peters. Seems a bit selfish and judgmental.

Next is the use of the term “Christian community.” No big deal, perhaps, but when you move from “canon law in the Church” to “Christian community,” something could be amiss. Does canon law serve the Christian community in a broad sense or narrow sense? I wonder what canon law has to say on this.

2. Dr. Peters writes: “Guarnizo admits that he only met Johnson a few minutes before her mother’s funeral Mass, admits that he had no knowledge whatsoever about the Johnson family, and offers no indication that he knew anything about the congregation gathered for Mass that day.”

Comment: Whoa, Nellie! Dr. Peters’ statements bear the marks of classic red herrings in that the essence of the matter is not based on knowledge of the family or the congregation, so this is a gratuitous attack on Fr. Guarnizo, and it is largely off point. Even if Fr. Guarnizo did have some knowledge, what would constitute sufficient knowledge to satisfy the bogus standard that Dr. Peters is hinting at via the red herring information? Moreover, Fr. Guarnizo’s statement reveals that he was scheduled for confessions from 9:30 to 10:20. Did he hear any? If he did, even with the seal of confession that prevents him from making known anything heard, he MAY HAVE NEVERTHELESS LEARNED QUITE A BIT…PERHAPS EVEN ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE, but we don’t know. We do know that if he did hear confessions, it is obvious that he would have learned something about some people in the congregation if that is important even in the least, which doesn’t seem likely except perhaps from a humanistic approach to things.

In any case, Dr. Peters’ assertion is false and should be retracted. Let’s just say I am simply correcting Dr. Peters, because he needs to be corrected.

3. Dr. Peters writes: “Guarnizo says that, a few minutes before Mass started, Johnson appeared in the sacristy and introduced another woman as her ‘“lover”’; further conversation was prevented by the ‘“lover”’ standing in a doorway. There was apparently no mention of Johnson’s possible lesbian activism, her cohabitation status (if any), her degree of ‘alienation’ from the Church, or her possible involvement in Buddhism.”

Response: It’s red herring time again, and Dr. Peters is adding information that is designed to make Fr. Guarnizo look bad, but it is not fairly stated, nor is it relevant to what Fr. Guarnizo actually wrote. Take a look at the actual statement of Fr. Guarnizo:

“A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson
came into the sacristy with another woman whom she
announced as her “lover.” Her revelation
was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms.
Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically
blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to
move and she refused.”
(Fr. Guarnizo Statement: 3/14/12)

Once again, we need more information, but we should not jump to the faulty conclusions that Dr. Peters does, all the while accusing Fr. Guarnizo of jumping to a false conclusion, and others of doing the same thing in his defense.

For instance, we do not know if anything was stated by Fr. Guarnizo in response to the announcement made by B. Johnson. If he did make even one statement about communion reception, that would be helpful, and if he did not, this does indeed weaken his case in terms of advising B. Johnson what she should or should not do. However, it does not devastate Fr. Guarnizo’s case as Dr. Peters and his “he’s the expert so he must be right” clan proudly proclaim.

Now for the red herrings that Dr. Peters threw in to try to make Fr. Guarnizo’s judgment appear to be more unjustified according to Dr. Peters. In Dr. Peters’ own words once again:

“There was apparently no mention of Johnson’s possible lesbian activism, her cohabitation status (if any), her degree of ‘alienation’ from the Church, or her possible involvement in Buddhism.”

Response: Somewhat clever but most unworthy of Dr. Peters. There is no need to have a discussion about such possibilities as lesbian activism unless this is mandated by Canon law. There is no need to have a discussion about a possible cohabitation status unless this is mandated by Canon law. There is no need to have a discussion about what possible degree of alienation from the Church may be present unless this is mandated by Canon law, and there is certainly no need to discuss any possible involvement in Buddhism unless this is also mandated by Canon law. Imagine the silliness of fulfilling Dr. Peters’ imaginative requirements to make sure of certain things over X amount of time, and if you cannot, you simply do not have sufficient information to make a judgment to withhold Communion. A priest would have to ask and discuss things along the following lines to satisfy Dr. Peters’ red herrings:

A. Are you involved in lesbian activism? If so, how involved are you? Are you a professional or amateur activist? Does your activism make you feel like you are no longer a good Catholic? Your feelings are the most important thing here, especially when considering receipt of Holy Communion.

B. Are you cohabiting with your lover, or do you simply meet her on weekends at a local motel? Anyplace else? This is crucial information to establish your status as a notorious lesbian. You know, if you’re not a notorious lesbian as Dr. Ed Peters understands it, you could be a lesbian in good standing, at least insofar as receiving Holy Communion.

C. Do you feel alienated from the Church? What degree of alienation do you suppose is involved? For instance, Fifth Degree Blackbelt Alienation is the highest form you could feel, or only First Degree Purple Belt Alienation as the lowest form you could feel?

D. I have a sense that you might be involved in Buddhism. Is this so? Do you consider your involvement one that coincides with your Catholic faith, or do you consider it an important element in your growth as a human being? Remember that your feelings are paramount once again.
_________________
Moving forward.

4. Dr. Peters writes: ‘“Canon 843 § 1 forbids ministers from withholding sacraments from those “who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them,”…”’

Okay. If a female person enters a sacristy and makes an unsolicited announcement (which may also be construed as a statement in public if other parties are present) that an accompanying female person is her “lover,” and then the person moves away while her announced lover acts to physically prevent a priest from seeking to further the brief meeting,…CAN THIS BE CONSTRUED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THIS PERSON IS NOT PROPERLY DISPOSED TO RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION, or must additional research or a silly survey as set forth above be conducted before making such a rational and prudent judgment?

Bottom Line Time:

1. B. Johnson made a definitive declaration that she was in a gravely sinful state by announcing that the person who accompanied her was (not used to be) her lover (in the present tense). What is the purpose of making such a statement in a sacristy only moments before a Mass? Are such statements common?

Also, if good faith is to be presumed by a priest regarding typical Mass attendees who approach communion, then good faith should also be presumed by that priest when an attendee makes a definitive statement in the manner made by B. Johnson. In short, he must in good faith accept the fact that what she has proclaimed is true unless he is presented with evidence to the contrary, but what evidence did he actually receive except that which would corroborate the statement?

2. B. Johnson made such a declaration, probably in public, again just prior to Mass. Why not sooner? Why not sooner? Why not sooner? What does this say about being properly disposed to receiving Holy Communion? Please apply some common sense here.

3. B. Johnson’s accomplice exhibited some belligerence toward the priest by blocking him in his attempt to possibly provide more priestly/pastoral actions. What does this say about proper dispositions, obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, etc. when you have an accomplice so interfere? What is the purpose of having someone block a priest after making an announcement concerning one’s status? Please apply some common sense here. Again, if B. Johnson was properly disposed to receiving communion, then why wait until the last minute to make such an announcement in a hit-and-run fashion, and then have your accomplice serve as a blockade of sorts? Why would B. Johnson demonstrate such obstinate behavior in having the possibility of catechesis prevented just prior to Mass?

Who in their right minds would ever judge such a person to be properly disposed to receive communion?

So perhaps Fr. Guarnizo has the support of Canon 843 as well as Canon 915 if this will also permit an interpretation not limited to Dr. Peters’ and others’ interpretation, even if it is the most prevalent interpretation favored by an overwhelming majority.
_____________
5. One more for now. Dr. Peters cites examples about priests in doubt, and what they should do if in doubt. Where does Fr. Guarnizo express that he had any doubts about what he should do? His consternation over the pain and discomfort, etc., does not equate to having doubts in terms of his actions, and indeed, his own defense manifests no doubts whatsoever. Of course, Dr. Peters believes he should have doubts, and Dr. Peters would obviously have plenty of doubts because common sense and making quick judgments are not given much weight in his fundamentalist letter of the law approach to interpretation only as he deems it should be.
Lastly, if the Canon law must be interpreted to only accept Dr. Peters’ interpretation, then perhaps it should be changed to prevent greater abuses of the sacrament. Perhaps even Dr. Peters would support such a change, but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.

DB
Richard W Comerford says:

March 21, 2012 at 10:17 am

Mr. DB:

I will just shut up in the future on cases like this (sadly I think there are more to come); and simply await your observations on the matter.

Thank you very much.

God bless

Richard W Comerford
DB says:

March 21, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Greetings, Richard:

Thanks for your kind words.

All voices in defense of the Truth and common sense need to sing out at times, so keep providing your sage and insightful commentaries.

Besides, I don’t comment in detail all that much, but this case and the one-sided “Dr. Peters and Canon Law are one and the same, and his interpretation is the only possible one” approach by Dr. Peters and his fellow travelers compelled me to at least present another possibility in defense of Fr. Guarnizo that could also coincide with Canon law.

One more thing in this regard to give you (and others) another chuckle that is also a bit telling.

Notice at times that Dr. Peters refers to his commentaries via titles like “A Canonical Understanding of”…or “A Canonical Interpretation of”….

(As pointed out above, Dr. Peters also likes to offer his take on various terms by adding the adverb “canonically” to them. So he offers things like “canonically manifest,” “canonically public,” and so on to try to add more weight to his views and shut down discussing the possible meanings of the terms used in a particular canon.)

A more humble and appropriate use of titles would be along the lines of “My Interpretation of ….” or “My Approach to…”

But when you proclaim that what you are about to write is “A Canonical…,” then the implication that follows is that those who write in opposition are not “canonical,” even though Canon laws are interpreted in different ways and changed at times, especially when different circumstances, etc., open the door to other possible interpretations.

Sadly, too many people fall victim to such linguistic techniques used by Dr. Peters, so they just lap up whatever he says without looking at it with more discernment to better determine if his views are really on target or might miss the mark.

Thanks again and God Bless!

DB