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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NewEnglandPriest said:
The archdiocese AFAIK didn’t issue a press release on the matter. They sent a letter to their priests to let them know that Fr. Marcel was on leave, which is necessary so other parishes don’t invite him to say Mass, hear confessions, etc. That letter was then leaked to the press by someone. I could be wrong on this.
Click to expand...
…and the unwritten message to the preists is if a lesbian notifies you she is living in mortal sin right before communion don’t you dare deny her the Eucharist.

Masterful politics, poor shepherding.
 
Michael_C said:
…and the unwritten message to the preists is if a lesbian notifies you she is living in mortal sin right before communion don’t you dare deny her the Eucharist.

Masterful politics, poor shepherding.
Click to expand...
That’s an unfair attack on the diocese. The Cardinal clearly stated how he wants this done. One of the things that he said was that this requires private, one-on-one dialogue with the person. The other thing that he said was that he has a problem, because he does not know what’s in the mind of the person. Which is a legitimate statement, if you have not had a chance to engage in any dialogue with the individual.

Just because the Church says that something is objectively gravely sinful, does not mean that the person knows or understands that he or she is subjectively culpable unless it has been clearly explained. Even then, some people just don’t get it. That’s what the Cardinal means when he says that it’s tough, because you don’t know what’s in a person’s head.

To be fair to the Cardinal, he and several other bishops wrote to the Holy See asking for guidelines for the implementation of the canon and they wanted to know what was in the mind of the writer. Canon Law is rather tricky. It doesn’t always mean what it says. Often you have to go into the intent of the author. That’s why we have canon lawyers. I don’t think that the Holy See has answered the question. This was several years ago.

As we have said here many times, the Holy See is more interested about bigger things happening in the USA. If they have not given a satisfactory and clear answer, it may still be forthcoming.

That leaves the Ordinary of the diocese free to create his own guidelines. That’s his legitimate right, unless there are guidelines from the Holy See. It’s unfair to accuse the Cardinal of playing politics.

Let’s not forget that this was the man who stood up to the Government of the District of Columbia on a number of issues regarding religious freedom and threatened to close down every charitable organization operating within Washington, DC. He’s not out to make friends in Washington. He already has many enemies and the last confrontation with the government was precisely over “gay rights” that they tried to impose. They’re still battling it out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
This is so upseting to me that orthodox priests are always getting punished while liberal heretics can do whatever they want. There’s a blog by Eye Witness that gives more details about this and the blogger even wrote to Rome. theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2012/03/open-letter-to-apostolic-nuncio.html

I also read Father Z’s blog. Apparently canon law allows sacrilege if the only knowledge a priest has about a communicant is personal, such as the women telling him that she was a lesbian. The only encouraging thing about this is that Jesus and Mary love this priest for not allowing sacrilege. I feel like buying the book “The Dialogue” and highlighting the parts where God talks about unfaithful bishops who care more about what the world thinks than about He thinks and mail it to this bishop. I’ve asked America Needs Fatima to start a rosary campaign for Father Marcel. He and all faithful priests needs our prayers to persevere and we need to pray for the unfaithful ones too - that they repent.
 
Michael_C said:
…and the unwritten message to the preists is if a lesbian notifies you she is living in mortal sin right before communion don’t you dare deny her the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
That’s an issue of canon law which Dr. Edward Peters has addressed and you can find the links in this thread.
Masterful politics, poor shepherding.
Click to expand...
Highly uncharitable words.
 
JReducation said:
That’s an unfair attack on the diocese. The Cardinal clearly stated how he wants this done. One of the things that he said was that this requires private, one-on-one dialogue with the person. The other thing that he said was that he has a problem, because he does not know what’s in the mind of the person. Which is a legitimate statement, if you have not had a chance to engage in any dialogue with the individual.

**Just because the Church says that something is objectively gravely sinful, does not mean that the person knows or understands that he or she is subjectively culpable unless it has been clearly explained. Even then, some people just don’t get it. ** That’s what the Cardinal means when he says that it’s tough, because you don’t know what’s in a person’s head.

To be fair to the Cardinal, he and several other bishops wrote to the Holy See asking for guidelines for the implementation of the canon and they wanted to know what was in the mind of the writer. Canon Law is rather tricky. It doesn’t always mean what it says. Often you have to go into the intent of the author. That’s why we have canon lawyers. I don’t think that the Holy See has answered the question. This was several years ago.

As we have said here many times, the Holy See is more interested about bigger things happening in the USA. If they have not given a satisfactory and clear answer, it may still be forthcoming.

That leaves the Ordinary of the diocese free to create his own guidelines. That’s his legitimate right, unless there are guidelines from the Holy See. It’s unfair to accuse the Cardinal of playing politics.

Let’s not forget that this was the man who stood up to the Government of the District of Columbia on a number of issues regarding religious freedom and threatened to close down every charitable organization operating within Washington, DC. He’s not out to make friends in Washington. He already has many enemies and the last confrontation with the government was precisely over “gay rights” that they tried to impose. They’re still battling it out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
While i agree with 95 % of what you have stated, I must ask how an adult, Catholic could not know that living a Lesbian lifestyle was a Deadly Sin? And openly flaunting it by introducing her “partner” as her lover to this Priest before the Funeral Mass? Brother ,what would you have done when she presented for The Blessed Sacrament?
 
In an extensive statement provided to CNA, Father Marcel Guarnizo insists that the reasons the Archdiocese of Washington placed him on leave “have everything to do” with his recent decision to withhold communion from Barbara Johnson.

Fr. Guarnizo explains that he decided to issue the detailed March 14 statement because of the questions his parishioners and the public are asking about the recent incident.

His response, which is published below, offers corrections to previous news reports, responds to canonical arguments and gives information about where the allegations of intimidation came from.

Priest: removal from ministry was tied to communion incident

catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-removal-from-ministry-was-tied-to-communion-incident/
 
JReducation said:
To be fair to the Cardinal, he and several other bishops wrote to the Holy See asking for guidelines for the implementation of the canon and they wanted to know what was in the mind of the writer.
Click to expand...
One would think that a 55 page document written in 2007 by the person who is the current Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (basically the Supreme Court of canon law) dedicated specifically to that question would have resolved the issue.
Canon Law is rather tricky. It doesn’t always mean what it says. Often you have to go into the intent of the author. That’s why we have canon lawyers.
Click to expand...
Are we not to believe that the canon lawyers have now spoken? What more needs to be said? And by whom?

Ender
 
General Reminder

Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  • Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
 
Netty1 said:
In an extensive statement provided to CNA, Father Marcel Guarnizo insists that the reasons the Archdiocese of Washington placed him on leave “have everything to do” with his recent decision to withhold communion from Barbara Johnson.
Click to expand...
Well then, the issue is now squarely before us:* “I am going to defend my conduct in these instances…”* Good for him. Let the facts come out and be openly addressed.

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 it is: Fr. Guarnizo’s troubles stem directly from “the incident” and are not related to some “other” issue. Interestingly, Fr. G doesn’t merely explain that this was the case but he states that the truth (as he understands it) contradicts the statement made by the diocese. This is the clarification we’ve been asking for.

Whether he acted correctly in this instance I cannot say but I surely agree with him about the implications involved here.

I am confident that my own view … 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.

Ender
 
Ender said:
One would think that a 55 page document written in 2007 by the person who is the current Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (basically the Supreme Court of canon law) dedicated specifically to that question would have resolved the issue.
Are we not to believe that the canon lawyers have now spoken? What more needs to be said? And by whom?

Ender
Click to expand...
The document gave an explanation of the law, not procedures for its implementation. That was the question that many bishops had. That answer has not been given.

The canon lawyers can only comment on the law. The procedures must come from the Holy See, the Conference of Bishops or the individual bishop for his diocese.

The most common interpretation of this law is that if it’s something that the priest knows, but the general public does not know or the priest does not know that the general public knows, the canon does not apply. The priest must be certain that the canon applies.

However, this is the interpretation of the lawyers. For this reason, bishops have asked what was the intent of the writer. To the best of my knowledge, the answer has not come back. Maybe Father has heard something about the procedure to follow, but I have not and many other people have not.

This kind of direction usually comes from either the Congregation for Bishops or the Congregation for the Faith, because it involves an episcopal action, but also a moral one.

As to the intent of the writer, that belongs to the Signatura. The Signatura did not address this issue, because the question had not been asked.

We have to get our timeline in order here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Dirt said:
While i agree with 95 % of what you have stated, I must ask how an adult, Catholic could not know that living a Lesbian lifestyle was a Deadly Sin? And openly flaunting it by introducing her “partner” as her lover to this Priest before the Funeral Mass? Brother ,what would you have done when she presented for The Blessed Sacrament?
Click to expand...
You would be surprised at how many adults hear something, have it explained to them and still walk away shaking their heads. They’er being very honest. They’re not lying. They walk away saying, “This does not make sense to me,” or “There is something wrong here.”

For there to be subjective culpability, there has to be knowledge. Knowledge does not mean that we can repeat the rules. That’s not knowledge. That’s memory. Knowledge means that I understand it and I understand the consequences. Subjective culpability is proportionate to the degree of knowledge, not to mention freedom.

As any of use who do spiritual direction, hear confessions, do pastoral counseling or religious education. Some people can’t wrap their heads around certain things. They’re being honest when they say so.

After you’ve done the best you can to teach, you hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will grant the person the wisdom to understand what you taught him or her. For some people, moral laws are like math is to others.

I don’t know if you were a good math student, but I taught math for many years. I had students who could do problems if they had the formula, but they did not have a clue what a sine or a function was. In other words, they were duplicating what they saw the teacher do. No matter how hard they tried, they just could not wrap their heads around it. Abstract thinking is not as easy to everyone as it may be to you and me. That’s why the Church often used intimidation and fear in the past, because not everyone can do that level of abstract reasoning. It was believed that if you threatened people, you could get them to assent. We know that didn’t work. It just turned many people against the Church. The Protestant Reformers were Catholics who could not separate a “p” from a “q”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The issue is that so many Catholics live in sin, i.e. open cohabitation. Has anyone ever denied communion to one of these?
 
hudson said:
Wow…as many here suspected. This makes me very sad indeed.
Click to expand...
I’ll second that. I actually am sad not only for Father but for the entire Parish. I can imagine the emotions that they are going through.
 
LovePatience said:
The issue is that so many Catholics live in sin, i.e. open cohabitation. Has anyone ever denied communion to one of these?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but technically I believe he had an obligation to, given the circumstances. She came in to the sacristy with her lover and told him she was living with her, and then when he tried to follow her out to talk to her, the lover blocked the door barring him from leaving. No one has even picked up on the fact that this incident in and of itself was an act of intimidation and aggression.

Then, of course she was upset that Fr. sent someone else to the Cemetery to finalize the burial. He had a migrane, that was becoming disabling. …I would have been throwing up from stress. But had it been me? I would have denied her communion.

Reading the entire article he actually concurs exactly from what I have read.
 
I pray that God blesses Fr. Marcel in a special way for standing up and being willing to protect the Lord in the Eucharist and I pray that this woman one day realizes the mockery she made of receiving the Eucharist in the manner she did.

Unbelievable how far some people will go.
 
Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.
 
Ender said:
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 it is: Fr. Guarnizo’s troubles stem directly from “the incident” and are not related to some “other” issue. Interestingly, Fr. G doesn’t merely explain that this was the case but he states that the truth (as he understands it) contradicts the statement made by the diocese. This is the clarification we’ve been asking for.
Click to expand...
Even Fr. G’s own words show that the actions of the archdiocese have nothing to do with the communion incident. The actions by the archdiocese are in response to Fr. G’s behavior with the funeral home and parish staff after the communion incident.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.
Click to expand...
Father, what was his behavior afterwards? I’m not questioning you, I just haven’t read enough on it.

God bless. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top