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

[gus]

Christ would do the same ss the priest
If she came seeking forgivenness. The priest would have forgiven her.

Christ gave forgiveness when it. was sought with the advice to avoid future sin. He certainly rebuked many of the less contrite
sometimes in a much more forcefull way
Than this priest.

 

[Ender]

Why would they say that? They explicitly stated their reason for placing him on administrative leave.

A generic statement that the priest exhibited “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others” is intentionally vague.

Its clarified as to the reason, not the details of the allegations.

So then you can tell us if his suspension is or is not directly related to his action at the funeral?

People are raising questions and accusations with no basis.

People are raising questions because quite clearly they have not been answered. If everything had been clarified as you claim we would have answers … not questions.

Ender

 

[baylee]

A generic statement that the priest exhibited "intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others" is intentionally vague.

Exactly. I posted this earlier in this thread. The key phrase is “and others” and I can tell you that in the secular internet world they do think that his suspension is about the funeral incident…and they are applauding it (well, as much as any Catholic Church action can be applauded by the secular world…

 

[JustaServant]

I have a couple of thoughts on this:

1. I wonder how Jesus would have responded if a lesbian approached him during his lifetime? Especially at her mother’s funeral. Would Jesus have pushed her away? Would Jesus publicly point out her all her faults and sins? Would he have condemned her to hell? Would He have alienated her?

Or, would Jesus love, hold, console, and comfort her? Yes, Jesus would help her to lead a holy life. Yes, Jesus would forgive sins. But, from my reading of the Scriptures, every time a sinner approached Jesus, Jesus loved them.

And guess what… we are all sinners.

1. I get concerned when “Catholics” applaud priests who deny communion to their parishioners. It almost seems like, the more people they can exclude the holier they must be.

There are those who think that priests should deny the Eucharist to:

All divorced people,
All Democrats (after all, they are for abortions),
All people who aren’t “orthodox”
All people who ask questions about their Church leadership (even if concerns financial mismanagement, extremely poor pastoral care and even out and out sinful and illegal behavior).
All homosexuals,
And anyone else who doesn’t think the way they do.

The Church isn’t the Hotel of the Holy, but the Hospital of the Hurting. We come to Christ because we are all sinners and we all need Jesus. We come to the great physician for healing.

This whole situation could have been handled in a more pastoral way.

The last time I checked the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is considered the Body and Blood of Christ. This has been the practice for 2000 years. My wife and daughter could not recieve the Eucharist until after they were confirmed.
Are you saying the Body and Blood of Christ should just be given out regardless? Do you yourself beleive it is the Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A generic statement that the priest exhibited "intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others" is intentionally vague.

Yes it is intentionally vague. If they are too specific how would they be able to sort through real events from fake ones. If they gave specific details about the allegations of intimidation then people who are out to get the priest could make up things that fit the previous alleged pattern.

So then you can tell us if his suspension is or is not directly related to his action at the funeral?

Because it doesn’t say he violated preferred diocesan policy or anything like that. It focuses specifically on the parish staff.

People are raising questions because quite clearly they have not been answered.

And those questions never will be because they are not really our business.

If everything had been clarified as you claim we would have answers … not questions.

People can always raise questions about anything. Whether there’s a basis for such questions is another matter.

 

[choose_to_love]

@justa: there is no reason to question Church Man’s beliefs. I think that is going too far.

On the substantive issue, if even Fr. Z. thinks this may have been an incorrect time to deny Communion, I am not sure why so many are quick to support the refusal to distribute the Eucharist. The sin of the intended communicant must be obstinately persisted in and manifest. The priest in question alleged just learned about the situation, as I understand it. How could he know the intended communicant was manifest (i.e., publically known to all and sundry) or that she was persistent in alleged sin? Perhaps her regular pastor is counseling her and is in the process leading up to an alleged sin being persistent? The point is one cannot know that from the information available.

 

[JReducation]

I believe there is a confusion here about canonical boundaries. Bishops and major superiors of religious do not have to give an accounting of disciplinary or administrative actions regarding a clergyman or a religious to anyone but the Holy See, if asked.

I’m going to take this from the angle of a religious community, which I understand better than a diocese. If Father had been a member of my community, the bishop would have informed me of the complaints. I would have pulled him. The constitutions of the community, based on the rule written by the founder, prohibit disclosing why I pulled him to anyone except my vicar, the local bishop and the Holy See, if the Holy See asks. If it doesn’t ask, I don’t have to report…

In canon law, if it’s not in the law, you don’t have to do it, because Canon Law is based on Roman Law, not English Law. Nothing in Canon Law says that bishops and major superiors have to give an accounting to the public for personnel actions.

Therefore, the questions and expectation that the person in authority say more is unreasonable, because authority has no obligation to inform the public, nor does the law grant the public the right to know. This includes other priests in the diocese or if it were a religious, it includes other religious in the community.

I know this from personal experience. Several years ago, I put someone on administrative leave. No one in that house knew why, not even the superior of the house. He simply received a memo saying that N was on administrative leave, effective immediately. They had no right to ask why, nor did I have an obligation to explain. No one in the public sector was ever told why. I informed the bishop that this person would not be serving in his diocese until I got to the bottom of the problem. Eventually, I did get to the bottom and I reinstated the person.

When I was not superior, I lived in a house where someone was put on administrative leave and ordered to move back to the mother house in 48 hours. We were never told why, nor were the faithful with whom we worked. To this day, we don’t know why. Whatever it was, it was resolved, because six months later the person was reassigned to a local fraternity.

Once an investigation comes to a conclusion. Decisions are made and the file is closed. That’s the way this works.

I believe that there is too much of a desire to know what we don’t have any business knowing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hudson]

Yes it is intentionally vague. If they are too specific how would they be able to sort through real events from fake ones. If they gave specific details about the allegations of intimidation then people who are out to get the priest could make up things that fit the previous alleged pattern.

Because it doesn’t say he violated preferred diocesan policy or anything like that. It focuses specifically on the parish staff.

And those questions never will be because they are not really our business.

People can always raise questions about anything. Whether there’s a basis for such questions is another matter.

A simple addition to the announcement that “this has nothing to do with the lesbian buddhist being denied communion” would have cleared up any confusion that this was indeed a suspension based on other matters. The diocese was purposely vague(in my opinion) so that they could calm the storms coming from the secular media and leftist groups. In doing this, they have scandalized a good portion of the faithful.

What I find shocking isn’t that a lesbian buddhist was denied communion in a Catholic Church, but that some of the Catholics on this thread(this is not pointed at anyone specifically) are happy a Catholic Priest has been suspended from his duties. With the shockingly low number of Priests that are ordained now days we should be praying and supporting all of our Priests unless they commit heinous acts such as child rape. Priests that do that should be laicized and thrown in jail.

 

[JReducation]

A simple addition to the announcement that “this has nothing to do with the lesbian buddhist being denied communion” would have cleared up any confusion that this was indeed a suspension based on other matters. The diocese was purposely vague(in my opinion) so that they could calm the storms coming from the secular media and leftist groups. In doing this, they have scandalized a good portion of the faithful.

What I find shocking isn’t that a lesbian buddhist was denied communion in a Catholic Church, but that some of the Catholics on this thread(this is not pointed at anyone specifically) are happy a Catholic Priest has been suspended from his duties. With the shockingly low number of Priests that are ordained now days we should be praying and supporting all of our Priests unless they commit heinous acts such as child rape. Priests that do that should be laicized and thrown in jail.

I don’t see that Father is happy that the priest was put on administrative leave. He’s just explaining how the process works.

As to scandal, the law works both ways. One has to avoid giving scandal; but one must also avoid being scandalized. One’s sensibilities must be reasonable. If someone is scandalized because of his or her unreasonable expectations, the problem lays with him or her.

In this case, the unreasonable expectation is that the Vicar General, who was the person who took the action, explain in detail what was and what was not. The Church does not operate that way and it is unreasonable to get scandalized for what a practicing Catholic should know. The Church puts out information for those who have a right to the information. The Vicar General gave his reason to the media. He does not have to say what is excluded from his decision.

If this was not part of his decision, it may not have crossed his mind to even mention it when asked why he put this man on administrative leave.

All that we’re doing is explaining how the system works and what we have a reasonable right to expect and what we cannot expect, because the Church does not require it. If at some point, the bishop decides that there is a need to make a follow-up statement, then he will do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hudson]

I believe there is a confusion here about canonical boundaries. Bishops and major superiors of religious do not have to give an accounting of disciplinary or administrative actions regarding a clergyman or a religious to anyone but the Holy See, if asked.

I’m going to take this from the angle of a religious community, which I understand better than a diocese. If Father had been a member of my community, the bishop would have informed me of the complaints. I would have pulled him. The constitutions of the community, based on the rule written by the founder, prohibit disclosing why I pulled him to anyone except my vicar, the local bishop and the Holy See, if the Holy See asks. If it doesn’t ask, I don’t have to report…

In canon law, if it’s not in the law, you don’t have to do it, because Canon Law is based on Roman Law, not English Law. Nothing in Canon Law says that bishops and major superiors have to give an accounting to the public for personnel actions.

Therefore, the questions and expectation that the person in authority say more is unreasonable, because authority has no obligation to inform the public, nor does the law grant the public the right to know. This includes other priests in the diocese or if it were a religious, it includes other religious in the community.

I know this from personal experience. Several years ago, I put someone on administrative leave. No one in that house knew why, not even the superior of the house. He simply received a memo saying that N was on administrative leave, effective immediately. They had no right to ask why, nor did I have an obligation to explain. No one in the public sector was ever told why. I informed the bishop that this person would not be serving in his diocese until I got to the bottom of the problem. Eventually, I did get to the bottom and I reinstated the person.

When I was not superior, I lived in a house where someone was put on administrative leave and ordered to move back to the mother house in 48 hours. We were never told why, nor were the faithful with whom we worked. To this day, we don’t know why. Whatever it was, it was resolved, because six months later the person was reassigned to a local fraternity.

Once an investigation comes to a conclusion. Decisions are made and the file is closed. That’s the way this works.

I believe that there is too much of a desire to know what we don’t have any business knowing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. you are, respectfully, missing a key point in this. The publicity of this entire story. When a religious is suspended it is of no concern to the news media and public in general. In the case we are speaking of here, the story of this Priest denying the Eucharist to a proud lesbian buddhist has been all over the news for 1 to 2 weeks. All leftist groups and media outlets have seen and commented negatively of this incident. Then after this 1-2 week period the Priest is suspended without a word about this incident that has played out publicly. For the news media, they put 2 and 2 together and run stories that the Priest was suspended for this act. Maybe that is not the truth, but it would have all been clear had the statement from the Diocese denied any link to the incident in question. There is scandal in the way this has all played out. I know in the past you have argued that scandal only originates from the person that is supposedly scandalized(may not be word for word your explanation), but I certainly disagree with that view.

 

[hudson]

I don’t see that Father is happy that the priest was put on administrative leave. He’s just explaining how the process works.

As to scandal, the law works both ways. One has to avoid giving scandal; but one must also avoid being scandalized. One’s sensibilities must be reasonable. If someone is scandalized because of his or her unreasonable expectations, the problem lays with him or her.

In this case, the unreasonable expectation is that the Vicar General, who was the person who took the action, explain in detail what was and what was not. The Church does not operate that way and it is unreasonable to get scandalized for what a practicing Catholic should know. The Church puts out information for those who have a right to the information. The Vicar General gave his reason to the media. He does not have to say what is excluded from his decision.

If this was not part of his decision, it may not have crossed his mind to even mention it when asked why he put this man on administrative leave.

All that we’re doing is explaining how the system works and what we have a reasonable right to expect and what we cannot expect, because the Church does not require it. If at some point, the bishop decides that there is a need to make a follow-up statement, then he will do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I tried to make it clear I wasn’t singling out Father by separating the paragraphs and including the disclaimer after that statement. I obviously wasn’t successful. As for how you see scandal, I addressed that in my previous post.

 

[JReducation]

I tried to make it clear I wasn’t singling out Father by separating the paragraphs and including the disclaimer after that statement. I obviously wasn’t successful. As for how you see scandal, I addressed that in my previous post.

That’s not how I see scandal, that’s how moral theology sees scandal. There is legitimate scandal and there is unreasonable scandal. Unreasonable is when one expects what one should not expect or should know not to expect. In the latter case, there is no scandal being given, the individual is choosing to be scandalized or simply does not know the rules, which is probably the case here. Most people don’t know the rules.

I was not scandalized, because I know the rules. The Vicar General said what he said and that’s that. I have no right to ask for or to expect more, regardless of what the media says or does. The media will always find fault with it’s latest whipping boy. Now it’s the Catholic Church. In a few years, it will get bored and find another target.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A simple addition to the announcement that “this has nothing to do with the lesbian buddhist being denied communion” would have cleared up any confusion that this was indeed a suspension based on other matters.

As a priest I would find it hard to believe the archdiocese would want all this publicity over a personnel matter. If it was directly related to the communion refusal then they could have waited 6 months to do this and avoided most of the media frenzy. Dioceses rarely make very much public on personnel matters and the priest does have a canonical right to not have his name publicly dragged through the mud. The archdiocese gave their reason (alleged staff intimidation), I’m not sure why some people want to create a conspiracy theory.

The diocese was purposely vague(in my opinion) so that they could calm the storms coming from the secular media and leftist groups. In doing this, they have scandalized a good portion of the faithful.

As I said, dioceses are almost always vague about personnel matters. Unless something is a criminal matter there’s no reason to publicly declare every last detail.

What I find shocking isn’t that a lesbian buddhist was denied communion in a Catholic Church, but that some of the Catholics on this thread(this is not pointed at anyone specifically) are happy a Catholic Priest has been suspended from his duties.

Where did you see that?

 

[Ender]

Yes it is intentionally vague.

Thank you. Then we are agreed that the point was not clarified.

If they are too specific how would they be able to sort through real events from fake ones. If they gave specific details about the allegations of intimidation then people who are out to get the priest could make up things that fit the previous alleged pattern.

No one cares about the other incidents which are unknown outside of a limited group of people in that parish. Everyone in the country knows about the incident with the lesbian and it is reasonable that they would want to know if the priest’s removal is connected with that incident.

And those questions never will be because they are not really our business.

You know that the question of the withholding of communion is hotly debated. For many issues it would be none of our business why a priest is disciplined … but not this one. Archbishop Wuerl’s position is known and it is not unreasonable to assume that he is disciplining Fr. Guarnizo for taking an action the archbishop feels is inappropriate and has personally decided against.

People can always raise questions about anything. Whether there’s a basis for such questions is another matter.

There is surely a basis for the questioning here. For example, assuming the lesbian incident is a primary contributor to Fr. G’s trouble, is it because he applied canon 915 incorrectly or because he applied it at all? Complicating things for the archbishop is the fact that if one argues that canon 915 was inappropriately applied here then one has to clarify when it is appropriate to apply it … which brings up the “why doesn’t it apply to Pelosi et al” question all over again. On the other hand 915 is not a canon suggestion so while the archbishop may get to decide when it applies he cannot claim the right to ignore it and say it should never be applied.

Ender

 

[hudson]

That’s not how I see scandal, that’s how moral theology sees scandal. There is legitimate scandal and there is unreasonable scandal. Unreasonable is when one expects what one should not expect or should know not to expect. In the latter case, there is no scandal being given, the individual is choosing to be scandalized or simply does not know the rules, which is probably the case here. Most people don’t know the rules.

I was not scandalized, because I know the rules. The Vicar General said what he said and that’s that. I have no right to ask for or to expect more, regardless of what the media says or does. The media will always find fault with it’s latest whipping boy. Now it’s the Catholic Church. In a few years, it will get bored and find another target.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Is someone not free to disagree with this moral theology view of scandal? I certainly disagree with it. There are things in today’s world that come into play that this definition completely disregards. The news media can sway minds in an instant with stories they run. When the news media runs these stories(whether true or not) without correction from authorities in the church, it scandalizes me and many other faithful.

The document released by the Auxiliary Bishop was vague enough that the news media is able to run stories saying the suspension is because of the indecent in question. I would bet that if you polled public opinion after this story has played out, a huge majority that followed it would say the Priest was suspended for denying a lesbian communion.

In a world where the media does not have this power, then I can accept your definition. I would have no rights to this privileged information and would have no reason to be scandalized for it not being provided. In today’s world the Church has a responsibility to provide correct and full information so stories are not portrayed in the news media as something it is not. Why is misinformation in the news media not corrected? If the answer is because the Church doesn’t care about what the news media says, then I think that is wrong. If the Church is to spread its message of truth then it must engage society through the media in the times we live. It Must correct misinformation that is spread through the media.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Thank you. Then we are agreed that the point was not clarified.

It was clarified as to the basis for the leave of absence. It was not clarified as to the details of that basis.

No one cares about the other incidents which are unknown outside of a limited group of people in that parish.

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.

Everyone in the country knows about the incident with the lesbian and it is reasonable that they would want to know if the priest’s removal is connected with that incident.

Well since the letter that leaked out made mention only of an alleged incident(s) with parish staff there’s no reason for anyone to think it had to do with the refusal of communion.

Archbishop Wuerl’s position is known and it is not unreasonable to assume that he is disciplining Fr. Guarnizo for taking an action the archbishop feels is inappropriate and has personally decided against.

1. We don’t know if Cardinal Wuerl initiated the action or if he was merely informed of it and didn’t stop it.
2. As I’ve said, most dioceses do not want media frenzies over personnel matters. If it was solely about the communion refusal they could have waited 6 months to make the move. And I also find it highly unlikely that a single incident of refusing communion would result in being placed on leave of absence.

 

[hudson]

1. As I’ve said, most dioceses do not want media frenzies over personnel matters. If it was solely about the communion refusal they could have waited 6 months to make the move. And I also find it highly unlikely that a single incident of refusing communion would result in being placed on leave of absence.

Then correct the misinformation that is running rampant. Is that so difficult? Send a letter to all news outlet saying, this has absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question. Also request all stories be retracted that said it did. That would clear up all misconceptions and this thread would once and for all end.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Then correct the misinformation that is running rampant. Is that so difficult? Send a letter to all news outlet saying, this has absolutely nothing to do with the incident in question. Also request all stories be retracted that said it did. That would clear up all misconceptions and this thread would once and for all end.

They could perhaps do that. However dioceses tend to guard the privacy of personnel matters.

 

[Phemie]

As a priest I would find it hard to believe the archdiocese would want all this publicity over a personnel matter. If it was directly related to the communion refusal then they could have waited 6 months to do this and avoided most of the media frenzy. Dioceses rarely make very much public on personnel matters and the priest does have a canonical right to not have his name publicly dragged through the mud. The archdiocese gave their reason (alleged staff intimidation), I’m not sure why some people want to create a conspiracy theory.

As I said, dioceses are almost always vague about personnel matters. Unless something is a criminal matter there’s no reason to publicly declare every last detail.

That’s been my experience.

Our pastoral assistant had his faculties lifted and was sent packing back to his home country as soon as his affairs could be arranged. The bishop showed up on Saturday to inform him that his faculties had been lifted and to celebrate Mass that weekend since our pastor was on holidays. Fr. Y was on a plane on Friday. Nobody but the pastor, the Brother living in the house with them and one other person was ever officially told why.

He tried to save face by saying he was going home because his mother was ill but those of us who worked closely with him knew what had happened. Nobody else in the parish did, although a few suspected that his faculties had been lifted when for the first two weekday Masses (the bishop had left and the pastor was back) he stupidly opted to sit fully vested in a pew and not concelebrate as was the norm.

 

[JReducation]

Is someone not free to disagree with this moral theology view of scandal? I certainly disagree with it. There are things in today’s world that come into play that this definition completely disregards. The news media can sway minds in an instant with stories they run. When the news media runs these stories(whether true or not) without correction from authorities in the church, it scandalizes me and many other faithful.

The document released by the Auxiliary Bishop was vague enough that the news media is able to run stories saying the suspension is because of the indecent in question. I would bet that if you polled public opinion after this story has played out, a huge majority that followed it would say the Priest was suspended for denying a lesbian communion.

In a world where the media does not have this power, then I can accept your definition. I would have no rights to this privileged information and would have no reason to be scandalized for it not being provided. In today’s world the Church has a responsibility to provide correct and full information so stories are not portrayed in the news media as something it is not. Why is misinformation in the news media not corrected? If the answer is because the Church doesn’t care about what the news media says, then I think that is wrong. If the Church is to spread its message of truth then it must engage society through the media in the times we live. It Must correct misinformation that is spread through the media.

I understand what you’re saying about the media and I find it equally frustrating that they can spin a story and connect dots without all of the information. You can connect the wrong dots doing that.

Having been in the position that the Vicar General is in, a major superior for religious has the same power and responsibilities over his brothers (priest and lay) as does a bishop, I can also understand the chancery’s silence.

Allow me to explain. Often, when you offer a statement of clarification, the media and the court of public opinion has already made up its mind against you and it can only makes things worse. They begin to allege that you’re covering up. It’s almost a catch 22. Therefore, there are times when people in authority will let it something die out rather than feed the sharks.

We don’t know if the Office of Communication will advice the Cardinal to say something or not. That’s their job in that office. They’re supposed to know what to say and when it should be said. But I hope you understand the catch 22 problem here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF