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.
I think something else getting lost in the discussion here is that there seems, to me, to be a significant difference between what the vicar general and the cardinal have the authority to do under canon law, and what they probably should have done.

Can they withdraw faculties without consultation with the priest? Can they release statements which say that the priest was wrong? Yes to both. Is it the decent and just thing to do? Frankly, I don’t believe it is. The decent and just thing to do would have been to release a simple statement that they looking into the matter and then call the priest in to get his side of the story. Then, if things appear credible, take things further.

What happened appears to be far more indicative of a knee jerk reaction based on media pressure and political correctness under the cover of canon law. Again, I cannot speculate on motives, but this is the appearance which is created by the actions which have been taken. And again, I wish the powers that be in the Church would spend a bit more time worrying about how their actions are going to be perceived by those among the laity who are trying to live their faith, in a world where the faith itself is counter cultural. There appears to be plenty of time spent worrying about how things appear to non-Catholics.
 
Perception plays a key role. If I were an activist opposed to the Church teachings on any given topic (homosexuality seems to be the flavour of the day), I’d be probably thinking something along the lines of: “It’s really *that *easy to get rid of a cleric who takes a strong/public stand against us?” Someone, somewhere is taking notice…
 
jwinch2 said:
In the Archdiocese of Washington, we see pro-abortion politicians being allowed to receive holy Communion repeatedly and then we have a priest who moves to defend the sanctity of the sacrament, and he is suspended.
Click to expand...
I would just like to comment on this one statement. This has a lot more layers then what you may understand. As someone that lives in the Baltimore/Washington area I follow this pretty close. The reason pro-abortion politicians in this area receive communion isn’t totally on the Cardinal. He is of the opinion that it is up to the bishop of the diocese of which the politician lives to instruct the person on whether they are supposed to receive communion or not. Since the politicians are technically transient he doesn’t feel they are fully under his responsibility. He does not want to step on the authority of the home bishop. Whether his understanding of the issues is correct or not is “above my pay grade”.

His personal belief pertaining to people that are in his direct control seems to be that confrontation should not happen at the communion rail, except in obvious situations (i.e. rainbow sash movement) where someone is obviously using the communion rail as a political statement.

As Brother JR says we should let this process work the way it is supposed to. Unlike the sexual abuse situations this isn’t a matter of protecting children, so knowledge of the proceedings from the outside world isn’t really important. Similar to the Father Corapi situation I have a feeling if the priest himself talks to the press a lot, the diocese may come out with full disclosure of the situation.
 
Marauder said:
I would just like to comment on this one statement. This has a lot more layers then what you may understand. As someone that lives in the Baltimore/Washington area I follow this pretty close. The reason pro-abortion politicians in this area receive communion isn’t totally on the Cardinal. He is of the opinion that it is up to the bishop of the diocese of which the politician lives to instruct the person on whether they are supposed to receive communion or not. Since the politicians are technically transient he doesn’t feel they are fully under his responsibility. He does not want to step on the authority of the home bishop. Whether his understanding of the issues is correct or not is “above my pay grade”.
Click to expand...
I understand all of that. However, when the live in his diocese the majority of the year, he certainly has a responsibility to decide who is and who is not allowed to receive communion. If I have two homes in different diocese and I start publicly advocating for abortion and even sending money to planned parenthood, the bishop where I am at would be right in refusing me Holy Communion.
As Brother JR says we should let this process work the way it is supposed to. Unlike the sexual abuse situations this isn’t a matter of protecting children, so knowledge of the proceedings from the outside world isn’t really important. Similar to the Father Corapi situation I have a feeling if the priest himself talks to the press a lot, the diocese may come out with full disclosure of the situation.
Click to expand...
As I have noted above, the archdiocese could have handled this in such a way that things were out of the public eye. Yet they chose not to. The second they removed him from ministry and commented publicly, this became an issue of concern for the laity. Also, your comment regarding this not being a matter of protecting children is valid. Yet one can easily turn that around also and say that there was no need to remove him from ministry prior to at least hearing his side of the story.
 
Luvtosew said:
Maybe in these situations an announcement should be made before the service begins that only Catholics in grace can receive communion. How is the Priest suppose to know when non parisheners are present and some people aren’t aware they are not to receive.

Also family members should let friends or relatives know if they are not to receive.

Saying that she should of not made such an issue of it, my gosh.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what one parish in my area does. For funeral, Wedding Masses or any Mass that they expect extended family and friends that may not be Catholic or May not be in a proper state to receive Communion, the Priest makes a statement at the very beginning of Mass to that effect. To me, it solves a lot of problems.
 
This entire episode brings out into the light one of, if not the most important issues in the Church today. Are our Bishops, in unison, going to start standing on the teachings of The Church and holding everyone accountable, or continue to hodge-podge and duck every time the heat is on. I remember reading somewhere;

“[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] **Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. **[3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.”
2nd Timothy

Scripture from drbo.org/index.htm

At this dangerous, awful time in history, We need ALL of our Bishops to Stand on Faith and Preach the unadulterated, Hard, True word of God and to quit worrying about public or lay opinion.

Pax
 
Tommy72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍 Mockery indeed! Some people will* go*** that far and some** much** further!!
I believe God has already* blessed** Father in a very special way!!*

But I am going* to defend my conduct** in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. Such circumstances** can** and will be** repeated multiple times over** if the local church** does not make clear** to** all Catholics** that openly confessing sin is something** one does** to** a priest** in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.*
I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing* a faithful Catholic priest could do** in** such an awkward situation**, quietly, with no intention to** hurt** or embarrass, 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 theCatholic Church in Washington D.C.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-removal-from-ministry-was-tied-to-communion-incident/
.
Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to **distribute Holy Communion *to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
stpeterslist.com/2963/6-points-on-the-worthiness-to-receive-communion-by-cardinal-ratzinger/
 
jwinch2 said:
Can they withdraw faculties without consultation with the priest?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Church has the authority to suspend anyone’s faculties without prior consultation. However, only your bishop (if you’re diocesan ) or your superior (if you’re religious) can suspend your faculties. Since the Cardinal is not his bishop, he cannot suspend his faculties. If you’re not under the local bishop’s jurisdiction, the most he can do is tell you that you may not exercise ministry in his diocese. That’s not a suspension. It only applies to that particular diocese. Therefore, the man’s faculties have not been suspended.

He is an extern priest. Extern priests and religious are granted faculties by the host bishop to function in his diocese, which is the Archdiocese of Washington. The host can also take them away at any time. That simply means that you cannot function within the host diocese. You can function in your home diocese or any other diocese where the bishop chooses to grant you faculties. He can also go to any religious house of men that is an exempt community, such as the Franciscans or Dominicans, the superior of the house can grant him faculties to function in his house. That’s why it’s called an administrative leave and not a suspension.

A suspension is what the SSPX priests have and what Fr. Corapi has. They may not function as priests anywhere in the universal Church, no bishop or religious superior can grant them faculties. There are laws that carry with them an automatic suspension.

This does not apply here. He’s not being accused of sexual abuse or insubordination or some major crime that has an automatic suspension.

The Archdiocese has never said that he is suspended, nor has Father said that he is suspended. Everyone on CAF and in the media is saying that he is suspended.

The Archdiocese gave a response, because someone leaked to the press that this man had been suspended for denying this lady Holy Communion. The diocese said that it was for another reason, but was deliberately vague.

In other words, the archdiocese has no desire to inform the public of the details for putting this man on administrative leave. This is a right that every vicar general, chancellor, bishop and religious superior has. There need not be a grave reason for putting you on administrative leave. The reason can be anything from an accusation that someone makes against you to poor health.

If the person in authority feels that you need to sit on the bench until he figures out what happens next, he can do that and he owes you and no one else any explanations. The Church is not a democracy. It is a hierarchy, a community governed by the heiros (priests).

The only person who can ask questions is the affected person. However, the Church is not obliged to give him answers until it feels that it has all the information that it needs. Pope John Paul did this to many priests. Pope Benedict has done it to many priests and religious. They have been put on leave and denied an explanation until the Holy See is ready to give one. That’s the nature of the law in the Church. When we enter, we’re taught this and we accept it. You can’t be ordained or make vows, if you don’t accept this total submission to authority.

Father did what he could. He asked. He has a right to ask. In a nutshell, he was told that he has to wait. That is perfectly legal. You cannot be punished without being charged. That is illegal. If you are charged, you have a right to an appeal. However, Father has not been charged.

Of course he’s frustrated. I would be too, if I asked why I’m being benched and I was told, “We’ll discuss it later.” That’s basically the answer he got. None of us likes that answer.

First comes an administrative leave. During that time the people in authority determine if there is just cause to charge someone with a crime or not. If there is, then the person is told what he’s being charged with and he’s given a chance to defend himself in a hearing. If there is nothing to the allegations or it’s something absurd, which is 99% of the time, the person is returned to active duty and it’s over.
 
As to being deliberately vague, this is the normal procedure in the Catholic Church. The Holy See does not want bishops and religious superiors giving out too much information in these cases for very good reasons.
  1. If the person is innocent, more harm can come if you give out too many details only to find that you were lied to. The media is not going to publish a follow-up saying that Father was exonerated. Look at how many priests are accused of sexual impropriety and are exonerated. The media reports the accusation, but never the resolution.
  2. An investigation can be impaired if the accuser feels pressured by the community. In which case, the accuser often withdraws. If the person is innocent, that’s a good thing. If the person is guilty, that’s not good.
In this case, I doubt very much that this will go to a hearing. If Father was rash, rough or if he is alleged to have been so, because the person was angry or the person perceived it that way, if all that happened was that Father was rude or that the person was angry, that’s not a crime. If it’s true that he went overboard in his manner, then the worse that will happen is that his bishop will get a letter informing he to recall Father. From then on, it’s up to his bishop to decide what to do next.

I believe that what people are forgetting or not understanding is that when you’re an extern priest or a member of a religious order, the local bishop does not have the same obligations to you as he has to his deacons, priests and auxiliary bishops. These men are incardinated in his diocese. He is their pastor. Extern priests and religious have their own Ordinaries to pastor them.

The easiest way out of this would have been for the Vicar General to ask his bishop to recall him. That’s why I asked in a previous post, do people really believe that the Cardinal is going to keep an extern on administrative leave, if he did not have some doubts in his favor?
The Cardinal has nothing to gain by keeping an extern in his diocese who is on leave.

Church law requires that the allegations be investigated. That’s why it’s very important that people be very careful what they say about priests and religious. Something said in anger can cause a tempest in a tea pot.

Cardinal Wuerl has a reputation for zero tolerance of any kind of allegation of misbehavior by priests and religious. This is public knowledge. Google Wuerl and you’ll read that he’s tough on allegations. He will investigate every allegation. That’s what he did with the child sex abuse. He was running investigations since 1988, before the Vatican got involved. This is a man who rather err on the side of caution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
jwinch2 said:
I agree that they have the power. I do however, question the wisdom of choosing to go that route.
Click to expand...
It’s the way that it’s always been done since suspensions were instituted in the year 1,000. When we go through formation, we’re taught that this is the way it has to be. We’re taught this long before we make any final commitment. Basically, we’re taught that we are subservient to all who are above us. It’s a hierarchical system.

It’s not that different in the secular world, if you think about it. Most organizations don’t consult before they fire you.

The important thing to remember here is that Father has not been suspended. Why people keep throwing that word around baffles me.

Guest priests and religious have no rights outside of their homebase. The host bishop giveth and he taketh away. 😃 Father was lucky to get an administrative leave and not a one way ticket to Moscow. The usual way of dealing with these issues is that the Vicar General calls the person who has authority over you and demands that you be pulled out of his diocese, no discussions.

I know a bishop that had several religious pulled out of his diocese because they did not wear their habit. He asked them to wear it. They did not do so, even though there was a prescribed habit in their constitutions. The next thing they knew, they were getting a letter from their superior informing them that they had one week to get back to the mother house and no explanation as to why. The found out why when they walked into the major superior’s office.

We know this when we go beyond our homebase.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
. . . The important thing to remember here is that Father has not been suspended. Why people keep throwing that word around baffles me. . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I used “suspension of faculties within the Archdiocese” in post # 163 Br. JR , and I would bet that I used the word “suspension” before in another thread which has now been closed (it’s not easy living up tp my username you know, 😃 ) . . . so you can blame me if you want . . . as long as you try to keep posting once in a while, because when you do I often learn something new.

You mentioned Fr. Corapi in the post prior to your most recent one. I believe when his whole case began he was placed on administrative leave. Some authors were alluding to this as the equivalent of being suspended . One example would be in this article by Daniel Nichols . He uses the title “Father Corapi Suspended” , but then in the very first sentence of the article, he says
“Fr John Corapi has been placed on administrative leave.”
Click to expand...
Maybe some of the confusion comes from what we read before we post.

As an aside, Scott Richert , after certain developments several months later, had written that Father Corapi
" . . . had been suspended from public ministry."
Click to expand...
That would seem to encompass even his being prevented from celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass privately ? Would you know if this is the case ?
 
jwinch2 said:
What happened appears to be far more indicative of a knee jerk reaction based on media pressure and political correctness under the cover of canon law. Again, I cannot speculate on motives, but this is the appearance which is created by the actions which have been taken.
Click to expand...
I agree with your other comments but this one seems especially significant. Whatever is really going on in DC doesn’t change the way the incident is being perceived and it is not enough for the Church to respond “this is the way our laws work” if the appearance is created that those laws are unfair.

Because of the way in which they handled this case I think the archdiocese has created a situation for which there may be no good solution for them. If Fr. G is reinstated they’ll face severe criticism from a hostile media to the effect that the Church is so bigoted against homosexuals that they sanction harassing them at family funerals.

On the other hand if Fr. G is not reinstated they will create the impression that they have thrown a priest under the bus for believing what the Church appears to teach: that it is not merely the responsibility of the recipient not to receive unworthily but is also the responsibility of the presenter to protect the sanctity of the Eucharist: * There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table.* (Chrysostom)
And again, I wish the powers that be in the Church would spend a bit more time worrying about how their actions are going to be perceived by those among the laity who are trying to live their faith, in a world where the faith itself is counter cultural.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is not the legal niceties of this case that anyone will remember or refer to after it has been resolved, but the perceptions it creates will last for years. That’s why the real questions aren’t about procedural details (whether his faculties were suspended or this is an administrative leave). Right or wrong and for better or worse this risks alienating even more that (significant) part of the laity that sees this as another battle in the war between orthodoxy and accommodation.

As you pointed out, it is how the incident is *perceived *by the laity that will effect the Church.

Ender
 
NeedImprovement said:
As an aside, Scott Richert , after certain developments several months later, had written that Father Corapi

That would seem to encompass even his being prevented from celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass privately ? Would you know if this is the case ?
Click to expand...
I don’t personally know. I can tell you what the rule is. A major superior can suspend his subject. That suspension applies to the Universal Church. In other words, the suspended subject cannot function as either a religious or a cleric until the suspension is lifted. There are conditions that must be met.

There has to be proof that there is just cause for suspension, because suspension is a canonical penalty.

In the case of Fr.Corapi, given the nature of what the superior discovered, those are sufficient reasons for a suspension. The superior has to notify the individual and to give him the reasons. He cannot withhold those reasons from him. The individual has the right to appeal. The superior must also report the suspension to the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Failure on the part of the superior to follow proper procedure can annul his actions.

Given those principles that I have just explained, my guess is that he may be suspended a divinis. That’s only my guess. It’s up to the superior to apply the law if he feels that it merits it.

There is another issue in that case, which does not apply to Fr. G. Fr. Corapi walked without permission. A deacon, priest or bishop can’t just walk away. That would be considered serious enough to incur a suspension. In Fr. Corapi’s case, since he was not a religious, because the SOLT are not religious, he does not have double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is when a man is both a consecrated religious and an ordained cleric, a deacon is enough. If you walk, you are out of compliance on two fronts.

From everything that I’ve read, Father G is a secular priest, not a consecrated religious. The principle of double jeopardy does not apply to him. He has only to deal with the bishop of the diocese where he’s employed. There is no second authority such as a religious superior involved here. That would make matters even more complicated.
Hokomai said:
Not sure if anyone has linked to this interesting assessment:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/
Click to expand...
These article supports what I’ve said in many posts. Canon Law cannot be taken at face value. It is very complex, with many layers and many cross overs between one canon and another. The intent of the lawyers does not always come through in the wording. At times, the wording is deliberately ambiguous. This former characteristic of ambiguity is a trait of Roman Law, which is the basis for Canon Law.

As Americans we’re used to English Law, which aims for greater precision. Not that it always achieves it, but it tries. We tend to read Canon Law through our English eyes. For this reason, a layman should not attempt to play canon lawyer. By a layman, I mean one who is not a canon lawyer, whether he’s a theologian, cleric, religious or lay person. If one is a “layman” to Canon Law, it’s best to let the lawyers figure it out. There are too many layers.

That’s why Cardinal Wuerl and other bishops, who are scholars, knew that they needed more information, because they are not lawyers. They are theologians and philosophers, some bishops are doctors in fields other than theology and philosophy.

At the end of the day, the only person who can interpret canon law without error is the pope. Without error because the pope is the Living Law of the Church; therefore, his interpretation of the law is final. There is no way to dispute him.

This article is also an excellent example of why chanceries give deliberate vague responses to certain questions. There is too much at risk. Too much information can hurt someone, either the priest or the plaintiff, depending on the law and how it’s interpreted. The custom has always been to say as little as possible, without lying.

Personally, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. What I foresee is more theologians and lawyers writing on the Internet, which will help us understand the complexities of theology and Church Law.

We had two years of Canon Law in the seminary. I can tell you from my experience, that I would not major in law, if it was the only discipline at the seminary. I’m perfectly happy having majored in Ascetical and Mystical Theology. The two years of Canon Law were enough to give me two things:

a) Massive headaches.

b) An appreciation for the complexity of the system.

We just scratched the surface in two years. Some seminaries have only one year of Canon Law, because they cannot fit two into the curriculum.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
True_Mass said:
Behavior afterwards…that was directly related to the refusal of Communion.

Two witnesses were apparently upset that Fr. Marcel asked them if they would give statements about the episode, as many others had done. He had no idea they were “offended.” He goes into the Bishops office and sees the signed letter of suspension sealed and sitting on the Bishop’s desk before he can say a word.

He is helping himself a great deal by defending himself publicly against public calumny.

I doubt Father is too concerned about the archdiocese being “amused.” They’ve already found him guilty and threw him under the bus before he could defend himself. They gave Johnson, a practicing Buddhist, lesbian, and gay-rights activist, weeks on the air defaming their priest while not lifting a finger to defend him.

Indeed it is the Catholic faithful of DC who are not amused at the archdiocese.
Click to expand...
Hear Hear :clapping:
 
Robertanthony said:
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.

Lemonandlime, please get over your victim mentality, stop taking things personally, it’s not about you and it’s not about me (I too am in an irregular situation that keeps me from taking communion “lest I drink my own condemnation”.)
Click to expand...
FYI We don’t “take” communion, we “receive” communion. God gives us communion as a gift, we do NOT “take” it from him, it is a gift that is received.
 
Robertanthony said:
Perception plays a key role. If I were an activist opposed to the Church teachings on any given topic (homosexuality seems to be the flavour of the day), I’d be probably thinking something along the lines of: “It’s really *that *easy to get rid of a cleric who takes a strong/public stand against us?” Someone, somewhere is taking notice…
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Beyond question this kind of maneuvering by people with a vendetta against the Church is just the tip of the iceberg. I would compare it to the sexual abuse crisis. How many priests are in jail that did nothing? More than people think. This is not a war of flesh and blood, but of principalities and powers. I pray that the Bishops are up for real battle, and will put on the armour of God. John Paul ll couldn’t have coined it better: We are now entering a period of the Church vs. the Anti-Church, the Gospel vs. the Anti-Gospel. How correct and prophetic he was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top