Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church has been transformed by the world. The salt that has lost its saltiness is fit for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot.
WTH??? Talk about wrong! He should be given a medal and a parade for standing up for Catholic church teachings.
Even as a Protestant, I know better than to expect a Catholic priest to give me communion if he knew I wasn’t Catholic. Of course I also know that if a non-Catholic or a Catholic who hasn’t been to confession goes up during communion they are to cross their arms over their chest so the priest will bless them instead.
Queers are a real pain in the @$$. She’s a buddhist for crying out loud. What the hell does she know about communion? The priest should have given her a couple of bucks from the collection plate and told her to take her goatsmellin’ ass down to the mall and by herself a waffle cone.
So...
Gay priests are OK.
But, a straight priest who follows church doctrine is not.
And one might wonder why I left the church.
So, a Catholic Priest is supposed to allow a lesbian Buddhist to take a consecrated article of a sacrament? What about satanists and wiccans? Can they present themselves for Communion and expect inclusion?
From the master teacher, Fr. Z http://wdtprs.com/blog/
The Canonical Defender, Prof. Ed Peters, who does not have an open combox on his fine blog In The Light of the Law, has opined about the case in the Archdiocese of Washington DC, now infamous, wherein a lesbian Buddhist instrumentalized her own mother’s funeral Mass so as to set a trap for a priest whom she wanted to provoke into refusing her Holy Communion.
My own opinion has been clearly given all along. I think the priest in question, Fr. Guarnizo, acted prematurely in denying the lesbian Communion under can. 915, but his choice was understandable and ought to be applauded. Given the lack of good examples from bishops in regard to can. 915, priests – who are also bound to obey can. 915 – have been left to shift for themselves. Also, Fr. Guarnizo was trying to uphold some important principles.
In any event, people are writing to me that Fr. G was “suspended” by his ordinary bishops Card. Wuerl.
No… not really. There is LAW involved, as it turns out.
That said…
Take it away Dr. Ed!
My emphases except for headings and comments.
Bp. Knestout’s March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo
March 11, 2012
Most of the lesbian/Communion controversy has been a dis-edifying parade of misleading commentary[I hope I am not guilty of same.] being proffered about misapplied laws. I don’t write here to correct these many errors, as their partisans (whether ‘left’ or ‘right’) don’t seem especially interested in what the law actually says, but I am happy to offer some observations on Bp. Knestout’s letter of March 9 for those who are trying to understand what is, and is not, at work in this matter.
1. Fr. Guarnizo has not been suspended (suspension is a canonical penalty levied only upon guilt for crimes, per c. 1333), but he has been placed on “administrative leave”, a term not found in the Code, [! Not in the Code... but it sure is used OFTEN.] but nevertheless serving as a practical description of a situation in which, usually, one is not permitted to function as a cleric for so long as a wider situation requires resolution. A priest’s faculties for confession, preaching (homilies), witnessing weddings, etc. can be restricted a couple of different ways, and there is no reason to think that those ways were not satisfied in this action (although direct discussion of them is lacking). [By which I think Prof. P means, they haven’t been explained to the public.]
From the text of the letter, I cannot tell whether Guarnizo is prohibited from celebrating Mass even in private (he is certainly prohibited from public celebration), although the trend in such cases is to allow for private celebration. This question could easily be addressed between Knestout and Guarnizo, and probably has already been answered.
2. A vicar general almost certainly has sufficient authority to issue such a letter (c. 479 § 1); one may expect the Cardinal to be informed of this action in a timely manner (c. 480).
3. As a parochial vicar, Guarnizo has considerably fewer procedural rights to office than would a pastor. Compare a pastor’s rights under c. 522, etc., and c. 1740 etc., with those of a parochial vicar, per c. 552. All associate pastors know this. [An aside. The terms I became used to were “assistant”, rather than “associate” or this “parochial vicar” creature. Years ago a priest was visiting the rectory of my home parish when the late Msgr. Schuler reigned. He ask Msgr. whether in that archdiocese we used the “assistant” or “associate”. Without missing a beat Monsignor responded, “The first three letters are the same”. But I digress.]
4. Guarnizo is not “incardinated” in the Archdiocese of Washington (c. 265 etc.); the situation of an “extern” priest is inherently more tenuous than is the situation of locally incardinated clergy, it being a function more of contract (express or implied) than of law. All extern priests know this.
5. Little in Knestout’s letter suggests that this action is being taken in response to the lesbian/Communion controversy (though one may be sure that the pro-lesbian camp will claim victory, [A big reason why I wonder if this was well-done. But I am not the man in the big chair and don’t know much about the circumstances.] and the pro-Guarnizo camp will decry the ‘mistreatment’ of the priest).
The allegations of “intimidating behavior” by Guarnizo are not recited in Knestout’s letter, but three questions would occur to me: (a) is this just a pile-on by people looking to kick Guarnizo while he is down?, or (b) are there long-standing legitimate complaints against Guarnizo that the recent controversy made more likely to surface? , or (c) did Guarnizo’s post-controversy conduct in the parish render him intemperate with others, provoking what are really recent complaints? Such are the things that an investigation is designed to, well, investigate.
6. The letter expresses the hope that Guarnizo will be able to return to priestly ministry.
There. As you arm-chair observers itch to weigh in, that is the analysis by a canonist of the law involved.
Finally, I will only note that there are a lot of priests out there doing some pretty crazy things and teaching oddities from their pulpits and they are not on administrative leave. I’m just sayin’
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness.
Isaiah 5:20
Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.
Proverbs 17:15
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Ann Barnhardt commented on this, fearing the higher ups in the church would wimp out on...they did.
This priest should be lauded and supported by the Catholic Church. The gaymafia needs to be destroyed. They are evil and trying to corrupt the worldview of children and to destroy the Christian paradigm and establish a pagan/marxist/muslim paradigm-—worldview for our kids to be indoctrinated into. It all destroys the idea of God, so they might as well stand up now.
The Catholic Church won’t exist in the U.S. after a generation of schools and MSM brainwashing kids into “sodomy is good and a right”. Such stupidity taught will destroy Ethics in this country—it will destroy logic and reason in children which used to be the basis of Western Civilization.
Gee, I guess he should have given her a box of condoms too. /semisarc Hard to stand on principle in one instance and go wobbly on another one at the same time.
This is but one more indicator that the Catholic Church is going to cave to Obamas abortion demands.
Well I’m not a Christian but it seems like he did the right thing. Either you follow all of the teachings of the Bible or none, but not some. I didn’t read the whole story but it seems like she was trying to precipitate a confrontation.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
The priest did right, obviously. His befuddled accusers will have to answer to a higher authority.
Omigod, I thought they would back this guy up. What has become of the Church?
David Wilkerson’s prophesies are coming to pass in regards to the falling away of Protestants and Catholic Churches.
Is his bishop a flit??
(1)The refusal to give communion to a lesbian (which from the information I have read on various threads) was sound, and the correct thing to do.
(2)If I read the article correctly, I believe they said he started at the parish last March. Dollars to donuts, the folks working in the parish, parish council,etc have a liberal element and that is what is driving this agenda.
My old parish had a similar situation (minus the lesbian) and they tormented our parish priest with letters to the bishop for three years. When our priest finally was made convener to a new parish, I decided to take up roots and follow him to his new parish. It is a 45 minute trip one way, but well worth it.