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

[jen_fla]

I have no views on the rights and wrongs of this, other than to say that the church should be free to make and enforce its own rules as a private organisation.

However, I am the only one has noticed how well the priest in question writes? His letter of defence is a masterpiece of clarity and careful, systematic elucidation of his point of view. He expresses himself without a hint of distress, and says nothing about his own emotions. He is purely focused on the facts of the matter at hand. I wonder what his sermons are like?

are you criticizing him for taking care with his letter? who wouldn’t do the same in his shoes?

 

[anp1215]

are you criticizing him for taking care with his letter? who wouldn’t do the same in his shoes?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t read hokomai as criticizing him.

 

[jwinch2]

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.

The archdiocese never should have scolded him publicly and suspended his faculties without even bothering to speak with him. The priest has a right to his good name and I am glad to see him speak. Furthermore, his parishioners have a right to know what is going on.

 

[jwinch2]

Maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t read hokomai as criticizing him.

Me either. I took it as admiration.

 

[jwinch2]

To what end is he defending himself? Suppose someone lied about you and went to the press. After a media blitz public opinion is that you are a hateful bigot and a homophobe and your reputation is ruined. Are you going to be silent? This is a matter of justice. The man has a right to his good name and an obligation to set the record straight and publicly stand up to the smears and intimidation of the gay lobby.

He can “function” in every diocese but DC who has basically kicked him out for doing his job.
The problem in this country is that we’ve gotten used to the idea that priests who actually do the right thing deserve to be sold out by their bishop, be personally and professionally ruined and then fade away. Cardinal Wuerl is the one who should have been defending this man in the media. A good bishop protects his priests against the slanderers, he doesn’t issue apologies to the slanderers then discipline his priest.

How can Father “function” if he does nothing? Work in the shadows as the “bigot priest” forbidden to defend himself? This priest is out there every week protesting George Tiller’s protege aborting 9 month old babies in the womb. He’s on the front lines every week. He’s changed women’s minds and saved lives. He’s had death threats. The pro-aborts want to shut him down. This priest was the first to be ordained in Russia after the Iron Curtain fell. What has Cardinal Wuerl done? Does he care that the most diabolical abortionist in the planet now has a priest opponent less able to effectively stop him?

This was not a run of the mill story. Individual priests are not internationally disparaged, slandered, lied about, hated, threatened, targeted, smeared and the object of scorn every day.

I agree.

I posted this on the other thread, but the conversation seems to have moved over here so I will share it on this one instead.

One thing which is amazing is the number of the faithful speaking out on this. I think many of the faithful are sick of seeing people like Sister Carol Keehan or Father Michael Pfleger openly defy the bishops and reject the teachings of the Church for years and nothing is done. Yet, a priest moves to protect the sanctity of Holy Communion and, if his version of events is accurate, he is suspended without even being given the courtesy of providing his side of the story to the vicar general. Combine that with the fact that the archdiocese of Washington openly allows politicians who defy Church teachings on issues such as abortion, etc. to receive communion. Its no wonder the faithful are scandalized and are up in arms regarding this situation.

If the archdiocese has any credible evidence that Fr. Marcel acted in such a way to deny him faculties, then they should release it. If not, they should reinstate him, apologize, and move on.

 

[Robertanthony]

are you criticizing him for taking care with his letter? who wouldn’t do the same in his shoes?

Hi jen fla,
I also think you misread. I, like others, saw nothing but admiration in Hokomai’s post. Not even a hint of veiled criticism. Niet.

 

[incense]

Ok, then let everyone, worthy or not, partake and drink their own condemnation. And if an anti-clerical figure shows up in the communion line to make a public affront and ridicule the Eucharist, why deny him? The priest was actually doing the lesbian woman a huge, huge favor, although his intention was probably 1st and foremost to prevent a sacrilege against the Lord.

I’ve only read about this aspect in the saints’ mystical writings, but I’m sure the Church has written it somewhere (okay Paul wrote some in his epistles). One mystic wrote that when Judas ate at the Last Supper, this caused a full possession (he was only oppressed before), and then he went out and betrayed Jesus.

 

[jen_fla]

Hi jen fla,
I also think you misread. I, like others, saw nothing but admiration in Hokomai’s post. Not even a hint of veiled criticism. Niet.

i wasn’t sure which is why i asked as a question. i’m very defensive of this Priest and feel really bad for all he’s going through. i guess the word “systematic” more often than not tends to carry negative connotations so it led me to wonder what hokomai was trying to convey.

my apologies to hokomai, if my questioning was too abrasive.

 

[incense]

I think the willingness to overlook the Priest’s unprofessionalism and large support come from the fact he denied communion to someone who is a pet hate on this forum. A homosexual.

A homosexual is not an object of hate to a Catholic, only the sinful behavior. If we hated everyone who sinned, that would not be Catholic.

The homosexual issue is so popular in the news section of the forum only because the homosexual movement is persecuting the Church so much lately.

 

[oneofmany]

Political correctness will be our doom.

I know there are many other Christians coming into the church just because their churches are being too politically correct and ordaining gays plus marrying them. I hope our church does not cave to this agenda.

 

[Hokomai]

i wasn’t sure which is why i asked as a question. i’m very defensive of this Priest and feel really bad for all he’s going through. i guess the word “systematic” more often than not tends to carry negative connotations so it led me to wonder what hokomai was trying to convey.

my apologies to hokomai, if my questioning was too abrasive.

No apology needed. I’m happy to clarify that I meant nothing but praise for the priest’s ability as a writer. I was rather hoping someone would post a link to some of his other work. I look out for good writing, and find that there are many good writers who are never told they are. If you know him - please pass on my comments.

 

[Catholic_Press]

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.

More…

 

[True_Mass]

Who is Barbara Johnson?

lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-denied-communion-at-her-mothers-funeral-is-also-a-buddhist

If anyone would like to respectfully and courteously express their opinion on this issue to the Archdiocese, the article provides the following info:

“To email the Archdiocese: chancery@adw.org.
Communication should be directed to Bishop Barry Knestout.”

 

[True_Mass]

Fr. G never publicly apologized. He has nothing to apologize for. He did his job. Bishop Knestout apologized, before knowing all of the facts, to a practicing lesbian, Buddhist, and gay-rights activist who introduced her “lover” to Fr. G in the sacristy 5 minutes before Mass as her “lover” blocked Fr. G’s way to go talk to her about it. He threw a good priest on the front lines of the pro-life war under the bus within minutes of Johnson going to the press. Instead he and Cardinal Wuerl should have been getting the facts from Fr. G, and then discovering that he acted correctly, that there was no time to “privately counsel”, come out and defend this priest against the weeks long media onslaught of viscious smears.

Finally, and thankfully, Father G has responded to the disinformation that the media, bloggers, and many on internet boards couldn’t help but take as the truth and speculate on.

See here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=655459

Also, who is Barbara Johnson, the woman Bishop Knestout apologized to? Who is this woman that the Bishop chose to believe over his own priest? A priest who, every week, is out by the late term abortion clinic where babies about to be born are killed and thrown in an incinerator in DC?

Here’s who she is:

lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-denied-communion-at-her-mothers-funeral-is-also-a-buddhist

 

[LovePatience]

Based on what? If you have been on CAF a while you have seen lots of threads about denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians and activists as well as those who are divorced and remarried without annullment and those who are not Catholic. In all of those cases, most of the posters here choose the side of denying Communion to those not properly disposed. What sin (publically acknowledged as this one was) do you think would be getting a “pass”?

Wuerl: Why I Won’t Deny Pelosi Communion from Archbishop Wuerl.

On the question of who should and should not be allowed to receive Communion, people are all too happy to be quoted by name, aren’t they?

Sure, he says, because this is also "an age of polemicists’’ who "seem to think they’re not bound by the commandment, ‘You shall not bear false witness.’ The glorification of pundits contributes’’ to a world in which "you’re not bound by the rules of decency.’’

He’s beyond sorry to see Communion wielded as a weapon: "That’s the new way now to make your point. We never – the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people.’’ Whereas sanctioning them, in his view, has the opposite effect.

For bishops, "there are two different approaches’’ to bring Catholic politicians in line with Church teaching. "One is the pastoral, teaching mode, and the other is the canonical approach’’ – the legal approach, in other words. He doesn’t think it’s a very close call: "I have yet to see where the canonical approach has changed anyone’s heart.’’

Has he seen his approach change anyone’s heart? He smiles, and says one has to take the long view: "The teaching approach that we’ve used for centuries requires patience, persistence and insistence, but I believe if we teach our people, we will not have a problem with our politicians.’’

Of Pelosi in particular, he cites two big reasons he hasn’t and won’t try to keep her from receiving Communion:
First, "there’s a question about whether this canon’’ – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used’’ to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.’’

politicsdaily.com/2009/05/06/archbishop-wuerl-why-i-won-t-deny-pelosi-communion/

Do not be driven away from the Eucharist

On January 6, 2001, at the concluding Mass of the Jubilee, John Paul II personally offered the Eucharist to Francesco Rutelli, a practising Catholic and pro-abortion lobbyist in Italy.

During two Eucharistic liturgies Pope Benedict XVI led in April 2008 in Washington DC and New York City there was no effort to prevent three prominent pro-choice politicians from sharing in the Eucharistic service. A National Catholic Reporter article posted on April 20, 2008, stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator John Kerry received the Eucharist at Nationals Stadium and Rudy Giuliani did the same at St Patrick’s Cathedral.
timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110524/letters/Do-not-be-driven-away-from-the-Eucharist-1-.366902

One would think also that a person who is a politician merits more protest than a private citizen. Probably the majority of Catholics on this forum would not give it a pass. However, the majority of Catholics in the Church, and the majority of the Catholic hierarchy: bishops, cardinals, Popes, etc. probably would. There are very very few priests and nuns on this forum.

This is what St. Faustina says about the faithful laity versus the priests/nuns.

“The child asked me, ‘Do you see this moon and these stars?’ When I said yes, he spoke these words to me, ‘These stars are the souls of faithful Christians, and the moon is the souls of religious. Do you see how great the difference is between the light of the moon and the light of the stars? Such is the difference in heaven between the soul of a religious and the soul of a faithful Christian.’ And he went on to say that, ‘True greatness is in loving God and in humility.’”

 

[True_Mass]

Let’s look at Cardinal Wuerl’s profile. All of this can be found on the internet, if anyone wants to look for the Cardinal’s resume.

I did.

Here is a portion of a New Oxford Review book review on Randy Engel’s book The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church :

Engel writes: “From 1980 to 1985, Fr. Wuerl served as Vice Rector and Rector of St. Paul Seminary. The seminary had a reputation for rampant homosexuality going back to the days of Bishop Wright.” Then Wuerl became Bishop of Pittsburgh in February 1988, fulfilling his protégé role.

Writes Engel: “After Donald Wuerl was posted to the Diocese of Pittsburgh, he permitted Dignity/Pittsburgh Masses to continue for eight more years… Dignity/Pittsburgh was one of the last chapters to be evicted from Catholic facilities in the United States [on orders from the Vatican]. According to Pittsburgh Post-Gazette staff writer Ann Rodgers-Melnick, ‘Banning Dignity was a sad moment for Wuerl.’… Under Wuerl, the Pittsburgh Diocese has become a stomping ground for nationally-known doctrinal and moral miscreants including Father (now ex-priest) Matthew Fox, Sister Fran Ferder, Father Robert Nugent, Sister Jeannine Gramick, Father Raymond Brown and howling feminists Rosemary Radford Ruether and Monica Hellwig.”

In the summer of 1996, Mother’s Watch featured a lengthy article called “Bishop Wuerl’s Magnificent Obsession.” Engel mentions a segment “dealing with Wuerl’s exceptional relations with the members of the Pittsburgh ‘gay’ community who refer to the bishop as ‘Donna’ Wuerl…” We’ve heard that too.

 

[LovePatience]

I’ve only read about this aspect in the saints’ mystical writings, but I’m sure the Church has written it somewhere (okay Paul wrote some in his epistles). One mystic wrote that when Judas ate at the Last Supper, this caused a full possession (he was only oppressed before), and then he went out and betrayed Jesus.

If you would be so kind, I would be interested in reading this mystic. Is it Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Agreda.

This might be true, but we can’t question that Jesus did the right thing. Jesus knew that he would be fully possessed if it did in fact happen.

 

[LovePatience]

The homosexual issue is so popular in the news section of the forum only because the homosexual movement is persecuting the Church so much lately.

How is the homosexual movement persecuting the Church more than other movements, i.e. widespread premarital sex? Is it popular because they persecute the Church more or because they are easier to criticize since there are so few of them and so it seems like an easier problem to deal with, i.e. 2-3% of the population is gay, while upwards of 90-99% of the population has premarital sex?

 

[True_Mass]

Cardinal,

How is the “pastoral approach” for bringing pro-abortion politicians “in-line” working out? What have you done to meet with these polticians in DC to bring them “in-line”? What Catholic politicians have changed their position on this issue through this approach? What consequences are you willing to bring about if they do not publicly renounce a position that babies up to 9 months in the womb can be violently killed under law?

In your opinion, are those politicians who publicly promote the funding and access to the murder of the unborn worthy to receive Our Lord in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity at Mass? What if a Catholic politician were for the legalization and funding of killing the poor, Jews, the elderly, minorities? Would you still take a “pastoral approach” towards these politicians, or would a canonical approach then be in order?

If a “pastoral approach” is called for in the case of Nancy Pelosi, why wasn’t a “pastoral approach” taken by you in the case of a pro-life priest who did his job?

Thanks.

 

[LovePatience]

In your opinion, are those politicians who publicly promote the funding and access to the murder of the unborn worthy to receive Our Lord in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity at Mass? What if a Catholic politician were for the legalization and funding of killing the poor, Jews, the elderly, minorities? Would you still take a “pastoral approach” towards these politicians, or would a canonical approach then be in order?
.

Well, this has already happened, see Hitler who killed both Jews and minorities.

According to Hitler’s chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members, however it was Speer’s opinion that “he had no real attachment to it.” According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within himself its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God.

Nazi General Gerhard Engel reported in his diary that in 1941 Hitler stated, “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

During negotiations relating to the Concordat with the Catholic Church and the Nazis state in 1933, Hitler expressed his view on the relationship between race and religion to Bishop Wilhelm Berning:

In November 1936 the Roman Catholic prelate Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber met Hitler at Berghof for a three hour meeting. He left the meeting convinced that “Hitler was deeply religious” and that “The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God. He recognises Christianity as the builder of Western culture”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

The Jewish opinion on the Holocaust is split. One one hand, they recognize that the Catholic Church saved more Jews than all other international organizations combined. On the other hand, they criticize the Pope and oppose his beautification because they think he could have done more, and made stronger statements. The condemnation of abortion today compared to the condemnation of the Holocaust as it was happening is actually much stronger. Some call him Hitler’s Pope.

The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, “German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race,” which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was “unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities.”(12) One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti-communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.(13)

The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, “The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses.”(14) During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the “hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.”(15) The Pope never mentioned the Jews by name.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html