Card. Wuerl Silent on Biden Remarks

By now, it's old news that the Vice President of the United States Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, a nominal Catholic, not only said he supports homosexual "marriage", but that there's no difference between homosexual "marriage" and heterosexual marriage (also known simply as marriage). His support for this issue was so persuasive that, about an hour ago, the President of the United States announced his support for homosexual "marriage" as well.

What's most troubling is the deafening silence stemming from the Ordinary of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction where the Vice President, his diocesan faithful, works - Cardinal Wuerl. Wuerl, who is accustomed to giving our Lord to pro-abortion politicians and celebrities, such as Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews and other nominal Catholics in not-so-good standing, has been silent on Biden's remarks. In fact, when contacted by Rorate Caeli, his communications office refused to comment and said it was "highly unlikely" Wuerl would ever say anything publicly.

Yet, he sure was vocal and public when it came to Father Marcel Guarnizo, who is STILL suspended in the Archdiocese of Washington, all for refusing to give Holy Communion to a lesbian Buddhist.

Maybe you, your family, friends, and everyone else who cares about the name of the Church can get the good Cardinal to speak up. If you get a statement, any statement, please let us know:

Office of Media and Public Relations
Secretariat for Communications
301-853-4516

communications@adw.org

A Canonical Defense of Father Marcel Guarnizo - II Father Anonymous Responds

"Not another post on Father Guarnizo!" Great injustices never go away - at least, not until they are reversed. The Washington Eucharistic Affair will not go away while the injustice done to Father Marcel Guarnizo, his "prohibition" by the Washington Archdiocese "from exercising any priestly ministry", remains in place. As the Holy Father said this year in his yearly speech to the Roman Rota:

[T]rue law is inseparable from justice. The principle is obviously valid also to the Canon Law, in the sense that it [Canon Law] cannot be shuttered within a merely human system of norms, but must be connected to a just order of the Church, in which a higher law is in effect. Seen through this lens, Human Positive Law loses the primacy which one would want to attribute to it, since law is no longer simply identified with it; in this, however, Human Law is held in value inasmuch as it is an expression of justice, above all for how much it declares as Divine Law, but also for that which it presents as a legitimate determination of Human Law.

Father Anonymous, who is also a Canonist, sent us the following reply to online challenges to his previous work on this matter.

[With this post, this contributor's personal recess begins. A fruitful Holy Week and a joyful Eastertide to all our readers.]

__________________________________

[For background, see Father Anonymous's first post on the matter.]

Father Anonymous Responds

A Canonical Defense of Father Marcel Guarnizo

By a contributing unnamed Father and Canonist:

A Canonical Defense of Father Marcel Guarnizo

As a priest and canon lawyer, I'd like in canonical terms, to revisit the controversial events surrounding the denial of Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson by Father Marcel Guarnizo. First of all, while I agree with many of the points by the very well-respected canonist Dr. Ed Peters, I believe that even with the rather limited information currently available, Father Guarnizo very possibly and correctly satisfied the conditions of canon 915 in denying Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson. Secondly, I would like to comment on Father Guarnizo's unjust "administrative leave" in light of the Code of Canon Law.

Part 1 - Canon 915 and Father Guarnizo

The first rule of interpretation in canon law is to read the canon. Canon 915 reads

"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

As Ed Peters clearly points out, canon 915 lays an obligation on the minister distributing Holy Communion to deny Holy Communion to certain parties. Who are these parties? The first two parties are those who have been excommunicated or interdicted by imposition or declaration. The third party to be denied Holy Communion are those who fulfill all of the following three conditions, i.e., those who

1. Obstinately persist

2. in manifest

3. grave sin.

How is this canon to be interpreted? Ed Peters rightly mentions a general norm:

Can. 18 - "Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation."

as well as canon 912:

Can. 912 - "Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion."

On the other hand, Father William Byrne, Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns, in the Archdiocese of Washington's press release, states,

"We should receive Jesus with the intention of becoming more like Him. No one is entitled to the Eucharist. It is a free gift and should be received with humility and reverence."

Ed Peters is again correct to say that the burden lies upon Father Guarnizo to prove he satisfied the requirements of canon 915. On the other hand, canon 915 lays a grave obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and to prevent scandal. It goes without saying that the minister who violates canon 915 should be justly punished.

Ed Peters summarily explains why Father Guarnizo does not fufill the conditions of canon 915:

"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 (sic). "

This statement raises a question. Given the extremely limited information we currently have from a variety of sources, how exactly does Ed Peters judge that Father "Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified" Barbara Johnson was not a manifest, grave sinner? It is safe to assume that Ed Peters was not present at the chapel for the funeral, nor was he in the sacristy, nor does he have knowledge of who or how many persons witnessed the conversation that took place between Father Guarnizo and Barbara Johnson.

A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair

When Church matters are filled with the marks of injustice and persecution of Priests and lay faithful who merely wish to do what they are and have always been called to do (for instance, taking the greatest of cares for the Most Blessed Sacrament), it is quite understandable that people remain moved to speak up.

That was the case with George Neumayr and his superb article for The American Spectator.

It was also the case of a reader, Scriptor, who has sent us this letter on the several canonical aspects involved in the Washington Eucharistic Affair as a follow-up to his shorter post on the same matter posted in The New Theological Movement.

Greetings in Christ,

In light of Fr. Guarnizo’s recent letter and Dr. Peters’ recent posts in response to that letter, I would like to continue discussion and reflection on the application of c. 915 vis-à-vis the Guarnizo-Johnson controversy.  I continue to find myself disagreeing with Dr. Peters’ interpretation of c. 915 in this case.  For the sake of argument, permit me to consider the situation in abstraction from Fr. Guarnizo’s own self-understanding of what he was doing when he refused communion to Ms. Johnson.  I want to focus on c. 915 and in particular on its use of the word “manifest”.     

An Insuperable Burden?

In one of Dr. Peters’ recent posts (“Canonical observations…”, March 15^th) he cites a number of canons to show that, in light of its having the effect of restricting the rights of the faithful, we need to interpret c. 915 “as narrowly as reasonably possible”.  He then goes on to cite a number of traditional commentators to the effect that before a minister refuses the sacraments to someone, he must have no reasonable doubts about whether the person is publically unworthy in the technical sense.  Both these points are well taken.  I will argue though, that when analyzing Guarnizo-Johnson case, Peters does interpret c. 915 in an unreasonably narrow fashion.  I will also argue that a priest in Fr. Guarnizo’s shoes could reasonably have been free of doubts as to whether c. 915 applied to Ms. Johnson.  Peters writes, “…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 withholds holy Communion from a member of the faithful who approaches for it publicly.”  In the Guarnizo-Johnson case, I don’t think this is an insuperable burden. 

This sounds about right

Since we had already stated that the only missing piece of the Fr. Marcel Guarnizo story was his own version of the facts, we post his letter below, as published by Catholic News Service. It perfectly fits with all other data, and it makes the Archdiocesan Chancery look even worse than before, because their letter "prohibit[ing Fr. Guarnizo] from exercising any priestly ministry" mentioned unidentified "intimidating behavior" - which, as it would seem to any third party, and indeed Fr. Guarnizo confirms in his letter, was all related to the Communion denial affair. That is, there was never any kind of secret "intimidating behavior" (an expression that made many wonder, "what else could this mad priest have done?"), it was all part of the same "Communion affair".

This letter also makes "professional Canonists" look terrible, because in a few words Fr. Guarnizo makes clear why he could not have acted any differently - not because of Canon X or Y, but because he is a Priest of God whose responsibility towards the salvation of souls is paramount, strictly personal, nontransferable, and must be decided, in many circumstances, according to the judgment of the moment. Canon Law was made for man, not man for Canon Law... Of course it would be much easier for him, and for any priest, to just throw the Body of Christ around, like a bursting piñata; he would not be in this situation if he had acted thus. It is breathtaking that, for doing his job, he has not been protected by his superiors, but exposed, ridiculed, and rashly sacrificed by them on the altar of the mainstream media.

Vere panis filiorum...

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident

Here are the facts: On Saturday, February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact, I had never met her or her family until that morning.

The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m.

From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.

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.

I understand and agree it is the policy of the archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.

La Terreur of the Church in America Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery

Speaking of persecution during the French Revolution (cf. Rorate Caeli, Open thread: Book suggestions for Lent), is it our impression or does it seem that some dioceses in America are repeatedly acting against priests who do their priestly duties merely due to what amounts to a pseudo-canonical version of the Law of Suspects?

We have resisted speaking of the Fr. Marcel (first name watch!) Guarnizo affair, mostly because we have not been able to hear directly his side of what happened in that fateful funeral Ordinary Mass for which he became a name well known in America and around the world.

But, as unclear as things may seem, why does the Diocesan Law of Suspects appear to weigh in only regarding conscientious priests?'

The Church cannot go on like this, leaving scandalous heterodox priests in place while rigorous and stern orthodox priests are "prohibited from exercising any priestly ministry" when, even according to the most partial reports, the worst thing of which they can be accused is a slightly imprudent action. Until when will the Jacobins rule over the Washington Archdiocese?

On the good side, a Priest true to his heart and to his mission will never fear injustice and persecution: so the Chancery Jacobins are providing Fr. Guarnizo with a wonderful Lenten present. Sacrifice is a priest's life and call. [Tip: Abbey roads]