Priest who denied Holy Communion to lesbian placed on leave [CWN]

[NewEnglandPriest]

Would someone please show me where I stated a wish or a need to “control” public perception?

You listed what you stated were the assumptions of what happened. I merely pointed out that there’s nothing that can be done about such perceptions.

The subtext, among the reading public (both Catholic and non-Catholic) is severally apparent, and includes these assumptions:

I fail to see why it would be difficult or inappropriate to make the following statements, and let the public perceive or not perceive what they like:

It is routine to investigate allegations while simulataneously putting a priest accused (of anything) on (some kind of) leave or inactivity. This is standard operating procedure and not particular to any ‘sensational’ aspects of this case more than any others in which there has been any kind of complaint or allegation. It also parallels what happens in many secular civil jurisdictions. It is not a comment about the truth of the allegation, the behavior of the one accused…necessarily. It’s simply a process.

I understand what you’re saying, however, dioceses usually don’t work that way. They normally don’t care to comment on their intern personnel matters beyond what they think is absolutely necessary.

~Any baptized Catholic is well aware of the conditions for reception of the Sacraments, including Eucharist. Such knowledge, and such conditions, are permanent requirements for receipt of those sacraments, and every baptized Catholic is bound by those requirements, regardless of whatever alternate religion they later declare themselves to be practicing or believing. That remains true even if such persons have given formal written notice to their bishop that they renounce their Catholic baptism. The word “permanent” incudes emotionally sensitive events such as funerals, weddings, and other sentimental occasions.

Someone from the archdiocese issued something similar to that at the beginning.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Refutation of Ed Peter’s analysis by a Moral Theologian:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/the-lesbian-communion-incident-canon-law-versus-the-eternal-moral-law/

Who is Ronald L. Conte Jr.? On what basis does he claim to be a moral theologian? From what I can tell he only has a bachelor’s degree in theology (no focus on moral theology specified) and serves on no faculty nor has any mandate from a bishop. He appears to be some guy with a background in theology and philosophy who has a blog and writes about unapproved apparitions.
Beyond his questionable credentials, he makes serious errors in his understanding of canon law.

You might as well just quote any old Joe.

 

[TMC]

Who is Ronald L. Conte Jr.? On what basis does he claim to be a moral theologian?

I can answer this one for you, Father. Mr. Conte is a blogger and he appears to have simply proclaimed himself as a “theologian”. He got a brief burble of internet fame when he correctly guessed that Cardinal Ratzinger would take the papal name Benedict. Beyond that, he is mostly known for calling everyone that disagrees with him a “heretic.” I don’t believe any reputable theological organization or academy recognizes him as a theologian of any stripe. In other words, he is entitled to his opinions, just like the rest of us, but there is no reason to give them any more weight than that.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Refutation of Ed Peter’s analysis by a Moral Theologian:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/the-lesbian-communion-incident-canon-law-versus-the-eternal-moral-law/

In part based on PCLT Declaration from Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

In addition, Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters has several posts claiming that married permanent deacons and married priests (in so far as this is permitted in the Latin Rite) may not have sexual relations with their wives(!):

ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/may-married-deacons-have-marital-relations/

Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian replies:

Ya, that is the other point that I arduously disagree with Dr. Peters on and he has been proven wrong, even in spite of his rigid defense of deaconal continence. If the Pope won’t even declare that married deacons must remain continent, not sure why Peters won’t let it go.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You listed what you stated were the assumptions of what happened. I merely pointed out that there’s nothing that can be done about such perceptions.

Thanks for your clarification. However, it is standard operating procedure for any institution (or public figure) subject to media scrutiny, to issue statements for that media which at the least do not inflame controversy. (Sometimes called “damage control,” to use the “control” word for my first time. ) Such a gesture can be merely effecting a holding pattern, so to speak, but it never includes mere silence.

Naturally perceptions can’t be “controlled.” But as someone who worked in public relations & marketing, I am well aware of how a mere statement communicating restraint can tend to shape (as opposed to control).

I am certainly not alone in my concern about public misperception about the Church and her (various) processes and structure. Many bishops and priests spend quite a bit of time in this effort (as time allows), because of the positive position they wish to promote for the Church as an important minority moral voice in society.

I understand what you’re saying, however, dioceses usually don’t work that way. They normally don’t care to comment on their intern personnel matters beyond what they think is absolutely necessary.

Thanks for that, too. If, however, there is nothing in procedures to forbid what is “unusual,” what is unusual might be put into use when it comes to more sensational “stories.”

Someone from the archdiocese issued something similar to that at the beginning.

OK, thanks.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I think Pete Holter makes an excellent argument that Canon 915 does, in fact, apply.

Thank you, and may God bless you!

Glad to see that I’m not the only one who finds Edward Peters treatment of this incident distasteful.

I’m glad I could be here. Virginia, eh? I’m right next door in Maryland. Are you near Purcellville? I loved going to Saint Francis de Sales when I lived closer.

The God of peace be with you.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Thanks for your clarification. However, it is standard operating procedure for any institution (or public figure) subject to media scrutiny, to issue statements for that media which at the least do not inflame controversy.

Naturally perceptions can’t be “controlled.” But as someone who worked in public relations & marketing, I am well aware of how a mere statement communicating restraint can tend to shape (as opposed to control).

I understand completely. However, as we clergy like to joke, if we were a business we’d be out of business. The Church tends to operate by her own set of customs whether for good or for ill. Its frustrating for people who aren’t used to it.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Ya, that is the other point that I arduously disagree with Dr. Peters on and he has been proven wrong, even in spite of his rigid defense of deaconal continence. If the Pope won’t even declare that married deacons must remain continent, not sure why Peters won’t let it go.

I don’t think anyone here is claiming Dr. Peters is infallible. When he’s out on a limb by himself (which he readily admits in the above case) his arguments can seem a bit strange. However in this case he is backing what he’s saying with pretty standard and undisputed stuff.

 

[Ender]

In part based on PCLT Declaration from Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ration_en.html

This is an interesting citation.

As I understand Dr. Peters’ position, he believes Fr. G incorrectly applied canon 915 because two of the four criteria for withholding communion were not met: the woman’s lesbianism was not manifest and, since she had not been counseled, she could not be said to be obstinately persevering in sin.

As to the first, I have no clue as to the extent to which this woman’s sexual inclinations were known, despite her being there with her “partner.” As to the other point, however, it would seem that Dr. Peters may be interpreting the canon too narrowly, a position suggested by the citation you provided. Specifically, this observation:

3. …* Pastors must strive to explain** to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. … **They must, however, do this with firmness, *conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

In this instance the priest appears to have been physically prevented from making such an explanation, which would seem to satisfy the provision that, if it was not possible to discuss the situation beforehand, the priest must still deny communion.

It seems that the determination of the correctness of the priest’s action hinge on whether those assembled for the funeral were aware of the daughter’s lesbianism, a situation she appears to have taken no efforts to hide.

I hope, when the diocese deliberates what to do in this situation, they will recognize "the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls."

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

3. …* Pastors must strive to explain*** to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. … **They must, however, do this with firmness, **conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

The key phrase is “publicly unworthy.” Someone who enters into legal marriage is considered to have automatically committed a “public” act. When it comes to sins that are not legally declared then “publicly unworthy” becomes much more difficult a standard to judge.

In this instance the priest appears to have been physically prevented from making such an explanation, which would seem to satisfy the provision that, if it was not possible to discuss the situation beforehand, the priest must still deny communion.

Once again, this document is addressing someone who is in a situation that is automatically considered “publicly known” by the Church. Dr. Peters does address this to some extent in one of his blog posts.

I hope, when the diocese deliberates what to do in this situation, they will recognize "the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls."

The archdiocese doesn’t appear to be deliberating what to do about the refusal of communion, they appear to be deliberating how to address Fr. G’s behavior with the funeral home and parish staff.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I understand completely. However, as we clergy like to joke, if we were a business we’d be out of business. The Church tends to operate by her own set of customs whether for good or for ill. Its frustrating for people who aren’t used to it.

Father, I think you’re arguing against a straw man. There are two different issues here:

A Church which

tends to operate by her own set of customs

and on the other hand

A Church which intersects with the secular world on a daily basis, cognizant of a need to engage that world regarding the moral realm, but often on the world’s turf (specifically with regard to communication, not “customs and operations.”) That is, if those moral messages from the Church are to be considered seriously by anyone outside the Church, it’s necessary to have some credibility, and the modern avenues of communication are often essential to that credibilty.

That has nothing to do with internal “customs and operations.” It has to do with being understood by those outside that system, and that is not difficult to do while still not compromising customs & operations.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A Church which intersects with the secular world on a daily basis, cognizant of a need to engage that world regarding the moral realm, but often on the world’s turf (specifically with regard to communication, not “customs and operations.”) That is, if those moral messages from the Church are to be considered seriously by anyone outside the Church, it’s necessary to have some credibility, and the modern avenues of communication are often essential to that credibilty.

That has nothing to do with internal “customs and operations.” It has to do with being understood by those outside that system, and that is not difficult to do while still not compromising customs & operations.

I understand what you’re saying but you’re missing my point. The Church, at this time, has very little interest in opening up its internal personnel matters to the public beyond what it views as absolutely necessary. You think it should be more interested such things, and perhaps you are right, but the current state of affairs is that it is not. The archdiocese of Washington, at this time, views this matter as an internal personnel matter. The fact they released any information at all beyond “Fr. John Doe is on administrative leave” is a relatively rare event. In their mind they’ve already shared more with the public than they normally do and they probably agonized over that.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I understand what you’re saying but you’re missing my point.

No. Communication between us is not optimum.

The Church, at this time, has very little interest in opening up its internal personnel matters to the public beyond what it views as absolutely necessary.

I have never suggested otherwise. I wonder why you think I have.

You think it should be more interested such things, and perhaps you are right, but the current state of affairs is that it is not.

Nope. I think only that it should be interested in communicating that its customs and operations are a closed system, and in communicating the four points in navy blue font I enumerated earlier. That does not jeopardize or even alter the Church’s internal system. To be silent about that does not necessarily communicate to the ‘outside world’ that such things are self-evident.

The archdiocese of Washington, at this time, views this matter as an internal personnel matter.

So do I, and so would the media understand and accept this if that fact were so stated (and clearly), and that such a decision indicates no bias for or against any of the parties.

The fact they released any information at all beyond “Fr. John Doe is on administrative leave” is a relatively rare event. In their mind they’ve already shared more with the public than they normally do and they probably agonized over that.

The Church has found a need, of late, to operate differently than it has been accustomed to, so that it can be heard with regard to universal moral issues in contemporary society. I’m suggesting that refusing to communicate at all (a) is not necessary to the integrity of Church systems, and (b) does not promote the moral priorities of the Church with regard to bigger issues.

IOW, I would at least slightly disagree with you that whatever Church officials have communicated so far to the public (what they “agonized over”) has been received in the way the Church assumes it was received.

 

[Ender]

The key phrase is “publicly unworthy.” Someone who enters into legal marriage is considered to have automatically committed a “public” act. When it comes to sins that are not legally declared then “publicly unworthy” becomes much more difficult a standard to judge.

Given what is now known about the woman would you say that she is manifestly unworthy to receive communion and that it should be denied her?

Once again, this document is addressing someone who is in a situation that is automatically considered “publicly known” by the Church.

I don’t know what it means for something or someone to be “publicly known” by the Church. If the woman’s active lesbianism was known to all attending the funeral that would surely meet the criterion that the sin be manifest.

The archdiocese doesn’t appear to be deliberating what to do about the refusal of communion, they appear to be deliberating how to address Fr. G’s behavior with the funeral home and parish staff.

This goes to the point Elizabeth502 has been making. If the diocese is unconcerned with the denial of communion it should have made that point clear in its press release regarding the investigation since clearly everyone assumes that’s what prompted the action in the first place.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Given what is now known about the woman would you say that she is manifestly unworthy to receive communion and that it should be denied her?

Well, her situation is definitely manifest/public now so, yes, she can easily be denied communion under canon 915.

I don’t know what it means for something or someone to be “publicly known” by the Church. If the woman’s active lesbianism was known to all attending the funeral that would surely meet the criterion that the sin be manifest.

I would agree only if the priest knows that to be the case. Otherwise its nothing more than an assumption.

This goes to the point Elizabeth502 has been making. If the diocese is unconcerned with the denial of communion it should have made that point clear in its press release regarding the investigation since clearly everyone assumes that’s what prompted the action in the first place.

The archdiocese doesn’t care all that much about public perception of its personnel decisions. It already stated the administrative leave is based on allegations of intimidation, that’s probably all they’re ever going to release.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Nope. I think only that it should be interested in communicating that its customs and operations are a closed system, and in communicating the four points in navy blue font I enumerated earlier. That does not jeopardize or even alter the Church’s internal system. To be silent about that does not necessarily communicate to the ‘outside world’ that such things are self-evident.

Like I said, the archdiocese (like most dioceses) doesn’t care all that much about the “outside world” in such matters.

The Church has found a need, of late, to operate differently than it has been accustomed to, so that it can be heard with regard to universal moral issues in contemporary society. I’m suggesting that refusing to communicate at all (a) is not necessary to the integrity of Church systems, and (b) does not promote the moral priorities of the Church with regard to bigger issues.

That’s certainly a valid opinion to have. But like I said, many in the Church view things differently.

 

[JReducation]

At the end of the day, everything that is being said here is “straw” as St. Thomas Aquinas once said. The Church is not interested in what the general public assumes or does not assume. That’s not her policy and has never been her policy. She operates within her customs and laws and takes the attitude that no matter what she does, there is always going to be someone or some group that is going to be unhappy. So why bother? Just stick to your way of doing things and move along. This too shall pass.

She feels that no one has the right to know or be informed of her policies, except the individual who is in trouble. It’s a very closed social system.

We can debate that this should be more open, until hell freezes over. But it’s not going to happen until the Church decides that it needs to happen. I understand that people are saying that the Church should say that this is a closed system and that it will be dealt with internally. You may be right. However, the Church does not accept this and there is no way in hell that we’re going to make her accept this. So why even both battling it out on CAF, a forum that no bishop ever reads and that no priest or religious ever takes to his bishop.

That never ceases to amaze me, that people take so much time and energy and put so much passion on statements that no bishop is ever going to see or is even interested in seeing. There are so many important things that Catholics need to attend to in daily life.

I for one, just go about my business and let them worry about this in DC. It’s not my diocese and the priest is not under my jurisdiction. The only other Catholic who should be interested in what’s going on is the Archbishop of Moscow, because this is one of his priests. He has the power to pull the plug on this by recalling his priest. That would leave everyone with their assumptions and questions unanswered, because the Archbishop of Moscow owes us no explanations, not even to Cardinal Wuerl. This is his man.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Like I said, the archdiocese (like most dioceses) doesn’t care all that much about the “outside world” in such matters.

Father,

I am sorry to be blunt, but If that was true, there would have been no need to release the statements that they did early on in the process. They certainly do care about the outside world. Based purely on the process which has unfolded since this situation first developed, it is hard to come to any other conclusion. The question which we really should be asking along these lines is: whose opinion are they listening to?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I am sorry to be blunt, but If that was true, there would have been no need to release the statements that they did early on in the process.

From what I can tell they did not actually issue a statement. They sent a letter to their priests (the letter was addressed to “Brother Priests” and not the media) informing them that Fr. G’s faculties were suspended due to being placed on administrative leave. The pastor at Fr. G’s parish then read the letter from the pulpit. It was not directly issued to the media, in fact the media had to contact the archdiocese to confirm the events.

They certainly do care about the outside world. Based purely on the process which has unfolded since this situation first developed, it is hard to come to any other conclusion.

Once again, that is a conclusion that is not supported by the known facts.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If the diocese is unconcerned with the denial of communion it should have made that point clear in its press release regarding the investigation since clearly everyone assumes that’s what prompted the action in the first place.

Fr. G’s pastor has already made that statement:

[ Knestout about Guarnizo in the last week, but he said emphatically, “The issue discussed this week did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago. Let me repeat that: The issue discussed this week did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago. The issue pertains to actions over the past week or so.”

He did not elaborate, and Washington archdiocesan officials have declined to comment further, calling it “a personnel issue.” LaHood did say he agreed fully with Knestout’s decision.](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/03/fr-marcels-pastor-let-me-repeat)