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

[Santo_Subito]

The previous Canon Lawyer/Blogger article which was linked to, unfortunately kept addressing Canon 915. In Fr. Marcel’s statement he clearly reiterates that he did not rely on Canon 915. The article came out after the statement. Thus, I don’t understand why the author wrote extensively on Canon 915.

The author then goes into detail about intoxication, apostasy, etc. If you read Fr. Marcel’s statement it is clear that he was not trying to say Johnson was intoxicated or an apostate. Fr. Marcel used those as other separate cases in which he would also not give Communion.

The canon law article author failed to grasp what Fr. Marcel was saying and therefore his very long article unfortunately misses the point. It really tells us nothing we didn’t already know.

 

[Santo_Subito]

Retraction in The Daily Caller re: Fr. Marcel:

dailycaller.com/2012/03/16/the-devil-is-a-theologian/

 

[Cactus]

Why does it seem that the default position in any chancery is to throw a priest under the bus rather than offend an apostate homosexual? The preferential option for leftist causes seems to be a deeply imbedded problem among professional ecclesiastical administrators. It’s “Goodbye Good Men” all over again.

 

[JReducation]

Retraction in The Daily Caller re: Fr. Marcel:

dailycaller.com/2012/03/16/the-devil-is-a-theologian/

If I were a betting man, which I’m not, I believe that Fr. G will be sent back to work.

Here’s my analysis of what could have happened.

1. Woman walks in and introduces her lover.
2. Fr.G interprets the canon incorrectly (according to lawyers). I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll take their word for it.
3. Woman gets very angry and says that Fr. G was ugly to her.
4. Fr. G has migraine and by the end of it all was probably ugly to his own dog. Migraines do that to people.
5. Carindal Wuerl’s policy has always been zero tolerance, no allegation against a priest or religious is to be ignored. All must be investigated.
6. If you’re investigating an allegation, the normal thing is to put the person on leave.
7. Fr. G is not a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington. Therefore, the Archdiocese does not have to put him on leave. It can simply remove his faculties to serve in that diocese and send him back to Russia.
8. Something tells the Vicar General that all is not well here. Instead of sending Fr. G back to Russia, he puts him on leave and informs cardinal.
9. True to his policy, the Cardinal calls for an investigation.
10. Fr. G offers his side of the story.

My guess . . .

Fr. G is probably telling the whole truth. The lady was angry and said things that should not have been said, because they were not true.

Fr. G had a migraine and probably barked back at the dog. This did not help either when the dog was asked if Fr. G had been ugly that day.

When all this is put together, the Vicar General will realize that two things happened here, neither of which is enough to penalize Fr. G.

1. Woman was angry and went over the top.
2. Fr. G was not feeling well, did not tell his dog, dog confirms that Fr.G was mean that day.

Case closed.

Addendum:

The article is wrong on one count. A baptized Catholic remains a Catholic until he or she formally leaves the Church. He must put this in writing. Without that being in writing, the person retains his or her rights as a Catholic.

If she says that she’s a Liberal Buddhist (not sure what that is), unless she put that in writing and sent it to her bishop, as far as the law is concerned, she’s still a Catholic and has all of the same rights and duties as other Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Why does it seem that the default position in any chancery is to throw a priest under the bus rather than offend an apostate homosexual? The preferential option for leftist causes seems to be a deeply imbedded problem among professional ecclesiastical administrators. It’s “Goodbye Good Men” all over again.

Two things here.

1. Canon Law requires that you make a formal denial of your faith in order to apply the term apostate. This woman is not an apostate, if she has never formally denied her faith. By formal, Canon Law means in writing to the bishop.
2. The default position is to take every allegation at face value until you can prove the contrary. Canon Law is based on Roman Law. It’s much more pliable in the hands of authority than our American Law which is based on English Law. The policy that Cardinal Ratzinger instituted was that all allegations against priests and male religious be taken at face value, the person must be put on time out immediately, no questions asked, an investigation must be held. If the person comes out clean, he goes back to work.

Bl. John Paul signed off on this policy and Pope Benedict added only one small change to it. He allows bishops and male religious superiors the right to decide if something needs to be investigated. Once authority decides that it needs to be investigated, the time out follows.

If authorities feel that there is no action needed, there is no time out, because there is no investigation in progress.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Santi2]

Here’s my analysis of what could have happened.

1. Woman walks in and introduces her lover.
2. Fr.G interprets the canon incorrectly (according to lawyers). I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll take their word for it.
3. Woman gets very angry and says that Fr. G was ugly to her.
4. Fr. G has migraine and by the end of it all was probably ugly to his own dog. Migraines do that to people.
5. Carindal Wuerl’s policy has always been zero tolerance, no allegation against a priest or religious is to be ignored. All must be investigated.
6. If you’re investigating an allegation, the normal thing is to put the person on leave.
7. Fr. G is not a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington. Therefore, the Archdiocese does not have to put him on leave. It can simply remove his faculties to serve in that diocese and send him back to Russia.
8. Something tells the Vicar General that all is not well here. Instead of sending Fr. G back to Russia, he puts him on leave and informs cardinal.
9. True to his policy, the Cardinal calls for an investigation.
10. Fr. G offers his side of the story.

My guess . . .

Fr. G is probably telling the whole truth. The lady was angry and said things that should not have been said, because they were not true.

Fr. G had a migraine and probably barked back at the dog. This did not help either when the dog was asked if Fr. G had been ugly that day.

When all this is put together, the Vicar General will realize that two things happened here, neither of which is enough to penalize Fr. G.

1. Woman was angry and went over the top.
2. Fr. G was not feeling well, did not tell his dog, dog confirms that Fr.G was mean that day.

Case closed.

Many thanks Br JR. My 11-year old grandson just read your post and said that I should have explained it the way you have. He also wants me to pass on: you are

 

[JReducation]

Many thanks Br JR. My 11-year old grandson just read your post and said that I should have explained it the way you have. He also wants me to pass on: you are

:extrahappy:

At my age, it is a high honor when an 11-year old says that I’m

He has made an old man very happy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pete_Holter]

“Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement evidences misunderstandings of several aspects of Catholic law on the administration of holy Communion and confirms my sense that Guarnizo erred in withholding holy Communion in this case. Regarding those errors, I believe that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction” (Canonical observations on Fr. Guarnizo’s statement of March 14).

Canon Law states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin [Latin=*in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes] are not to be admitted to holy communion” (Canon 915).

To present yourself to an unknown priest as a homosexual “lover” at a Mass with the active homosexual’s family in attendance is to be “persevering in manifest grave sin.”

• The very word “lover” denotes sexual relations over a period of time, and homosexual intercourse is grave; therefore, this person was “persevering in grave sin.”
• If the priest knew that they were lovers within moments of meeting them, it is not difficult to surmise that the woman’s own family is aware that they are lovers. The sin was manifest to those attending the Mass. The Canon does not say to whom or to how many the sin must be manifest. It only says that it must be “manifest.” John Chrysostom held that even if only the priest knew of the sin, this would constitute “manifest” sin (it is manifest to the priest), and the priest should withhold the Eucharist for the sake of the sinner (cf. Homily 82 on Matthew). Edward Peters explains his “opinion” as to what manifest means by mentioning that Canon 1330 “prohibits any penalties in cases where no one has perceived the offense.” In this case, I simply highlight the words, no one. He also points to Canon 1430 § 2, “which,” as he says, “prohibits imposing public penances for occult transgressions.” The Church does not impose a public penance for a hidden or secret sin. But the relationship between the two women was, again, not hidden or secret, either to the priest or to the family. I simply point out that the next step up from “hidden” and “no one” is surely not “widely known,” and “manifest” does not equate to “public” and “notorious.”
• The only question is whether this was being done with obstinacy. The fact that one of the lovers physically blocked the priest from speaking with the other, suggests that this disposition is present in their relationship. It suggests that the lovers know that the Church teaches against homosexual sex, and that they are refusing correction in spite of this, as evinced by refusing to allow the priest to even speak the medicinal words. In other words, it was not out of ignorance and innocence that they announced that they were lovers.

Edward Peters, my brother in Christ, asserts that “Guarnizo erred in withholding Communion” and “that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction.” Edward Peters is free to interpret Canon Law in this regard in a way that is more or less rigid or liberal than others. But I think that Canon 915 can be easily understood to favor the decision of the priest, and that Edwards does harm in publically promoting his opinion against our priest. The priest was there, he protected this woman from becoming “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” and of bringing judgment upon herself (1 Corinthians 11:27; cf. 11:29), and I think that we should extend this priest the benefit of the doubt. I pray that Cardinal Wuerl and Edward Peters will come to stand behind this priest. I pray for the grace of God to bring Father Marcel and Barbara Johnson to a close friendship with one another in the mercy of our Savior! And if Father was harsh towards her in any way, I am sorry, and I ask for forgiveness from Barbara and from God.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

He may be on leave for other reasons, unrelated to the lesbian. Here is an interesting blog on the canon law that his situation:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bp-knestouts-march-9-letter-on-fr-guarnizo/

This is not the first time that I fundamentally disagree with “canonical lawyer” Peters. While I respect his right to have an informed opinion, the long and short of the matter is that he is not ordained, and is therefore not imbued with the holy obligation to defend the sacraments of God. Father G (spelling) does. I believe that Father G acted according to the spirit of canon law and with the dictates of the grace of his ordination. At the very moment of action, Father G has the blessing and annointing of God to act in a way that protects the Church, not “canon lawyer” Peters. What is even more troubling is the behavior of the bishop, who appears to be caving to political pressure. What a shame, he dishonors his holy office. But, this is becoming the norm. WHen priests act in accordance with the spirit of the Church tradition and law, but butt up against popular culture, they are suspended, put on leave, have their faculties removed, etc… THe devil is winning this battle, and it grieves me to no end.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

“Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement evidences misunderstandings of several aspects of Catholic law on the administration of holy Communion and confirms my sense that Guarnizo erred in withholding holy Communion in this case. Regarding those errors, I believe that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction” (Canonical observations on Fr. Guarnizo’s statement of March 14).

Canon Law states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin [Latin=*in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes
[/QUOTE]
] are not to be admitted to holy communion” (Canon 915).

To present yourself to an unknown priest as a homosexual “lover” at a Mass with the active homosexual’s family in attendance is to be “persevering in manifest grave sin.”

• The very word “lover” denotes sexual relations over a period of time, and homosexual intercourse is grave; therefore, this person was “persevering in grave sin.”
• If the priest knew that they were lovers within moments of meeting them, it is not difficult to surmise that the woman’s own family is aware that they are lovers. The sin was manifest to those attending the Mass. The Canon does not say to whom or to how many the sin must be manifest. It only says that it must be “manifest.” John Chrysostom held that even if only the priest knew of the sin, this would constitute “manifest” sin (it is manifest to the priest), and the priest should withhold the Eucharist for the sake of the sinner (cf. Homily 82 on Matthew). Edward Peters explains his “opinion” as to what manifest means by mentioning that Canon 1330 “prohibits any penalties in cases where no one has perceived the offense.” In this case, I simply highlight the words, no one. He also points to Canon 1430 § 2, “which,” as he says, “prohibits imposing public penances for occult transgressions.” The Church does not impose a public penance for a hidden or secret sin. But the relationship between the two women was, again, not hidden or secret, either to the priest or to the family. I simply point out that the next step up from “hidden” and “no one” is surely not “widely known,” and “manifest” does not equate to “public” and “notorious.”
• The only question is whether this was being done with obstinacy. The fact that one of the lovers physically blocked the priest from speaking with the other, suggests that this disposition is present in their relationship. It suggests that the lovers know that the Church teaches against homosexual sex, and that they are refusing correction in spite of this, as evinced by refusing to allow the priest to even speak the medicinal words. In other words, it was not out of ignorance and innocence that they announced that they were lovers.

Edward Peters, my brother in Christ, asserts that “Guarnizo erred in withholding Communion” and “that he, and those inclined to support or even imitate him, need correction.” Edward Peters is free to interpret Canon Law in this regard in a way that is more or less rigid or liberal than others. But I think that Canon 915 can be easily understood to favor the decision of the priest, and that Edwards does harm in publically promoting his opinion against our priest. The priest was there, he protected this woman from becoming “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” and of bringing judgment upon herself (1 Corinthians 11:27; cf. 11:29), and I think that we should extend this priest the benefit of the doubt. I pray that Cardinal Wuerl and Edward Peters will come to stand behind this priest. I pray for the grace of God to bring Father Marcel and Barbara Johnson to a close friendship with one another in the mercy of our Savior! And if Father was harsh towards her in any way, I am sorry, and I ask for forgiveness from Barbara and from God.

With love in Christ,
Pete

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

 

[JReducation]

This is not the first time that I fundamentally disagree with “canonical lawyer” Peters. While I respect his right to have an informed opinion, the long and short of the matter is that he is not ordained, and is therefore not imbued with the holy obligation to defend the sacraments of God. Father G (spelling) does. I believe that Father G acted according to the spirit of canon law and with the dictates of the grace of his ordination. At the very moment of action, Father G has the blessing and annointing of God to act in a way that protects the Church, not “canon lawyer” Peters. What is even more troubling is the behavior of the bishop, who appears to be caving to political pressure. What a shame, he dishonors his holy office. But, this is becoming the norm. WHen priests act in accordance with the spirit of the Church tradition and law, but butt up against popular culture, they are suspended, put on leave, have their faculties removed, etc… THe devil is winning this battle, and it grieves me to no end.

The fact that the canon lawyer is not a priest is of no importance to the Church. Many canon lawyers are not priests. They’re laymen, religious sisters and religious brothers. A lawyer’s job is to explain the law. A lawyer is NOT a theologian. Theologians are not lawyers, usually. Even theologians do not have to be priests. Priests are rarely canon lawyers. Only about 2% of priests are canon lawyers. We’re expected to take two semesters of Canon Law during the four years it takes to get an M. Div and four semesters if you’re going for an MA in theology. That does not qualify as a canon lawyer. The non ordained is not a disqualifier. You’d be surprised how many canon lawyers are the signatura are laymen and laywomen or religious men and religious women.

As to the Cardinal, that’s not really a fair portrayal either. If he truly wanted to cave, he would have caved a long time ago. This man took on the entire District of Columbia Government when it tried to force Catholic adoption and foster care to consider gay couples as candidates for parents. He closed the entire system rather than give in to the political and social pressure.

If you pay attention, Fr. G does not belong to his diocese. The easiest way to avoid any kind of pressure would have been to put him on a plane back to Moscow. He did not do this. There is a suggestion here that he has concerns that there was more to this story than he was told. There is nothing for the Cardinal to gain by placing someone on leave who is not one of his own. If it’s one of your own, you’re stuck with him. If he belongs to another diocese or a religious order, the easiest way to come out of this looking good is to pack him off and send him home.

As it stands now, the Cardinal is taking heat from the liberal media and the ultraconservative Catholics as well. He’s on everyone’s hit list. Not a pleasant place to be and a place that he need not be with a simple plane ticket.

Finally, you must pay attention to his policy on allegations. There is zero tolerance. If there is an allegation against you, you’re pulled until there is an investigation. He is very consistent in this. Why attack this man?

I do believe, as I said above, that Fr. G is telling the truth and that the person was so angry that she said things that were not true. This happens a lot, not only in the Church, but on the job as well. They Church gets more publicity than Walgreen’s. That’s the difference.

But the Cardinal wants proof that the person lied or at the very least, over reacted to the priest’s actions. The priest has not been put on leave because he violated Canon Law. That’s another issue. Canon lawyers are not saying that he violated the law. They are saying that he applied it incorrectly. That’s not the same thing. That’s an honest mistake that happens every day in parishes and dioceses around the world. As I said, most of us are not canon lawyers and we do not have a canon lawyer on hand for every question. Most of the time we fly the seat of our pants. I can tell you that for certain having been a major superior. You have to make a call and you use the best judgment possible and pray that you got it right… You don’t always have the luxury of calling the tribunal to ask a question. For that reason, you’re not usually charged with violating the law, when the decision is a spontaneous one as it was in this case. If you made a mistake it’s called a mistake, period.

The allegation was that he was a bully to the person and to staff. That may be pure perception, which I bet it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The fact that the canon lawyer is not a priest is of no importance to the Church. Many canon lawyers are not priests. They’re laymen, religious sisters and religious brothers. A lawyer’s job is to explain the law. A lawyer is NOT a theologian. Theologians are not lawyers, usually. Even theologians do not have to be priests. Priests are rarely canon lawyers. Only about 2% of priests are canon lawyers. We’re expected to take two semesters of Canon Law during the four years it takes to get an M. Div and four semesters if you’re going for an MA in theology. That does not qualify as a canon lawyer. The non ordained is not a disqualifier. You’d be surprised how many canon lawyers are the signatura are laymen and laywomen or religious men and religious women.

As to the Cardinal, that’s not really a fair portrayal either. If he truly wanted to cave, he would have caved a long time ago. This man took on the entire District of Columbia Government when it tried to force Catholic adoption and foster care to consider gay couples as candidates for parents. He closed the entire system rather than give in to the political and social pressure.

If you pay attention, Fr. G does not belong to his diocese. The easiest way to avoid any kind of pressure would have been to put him on a plane back to Moscow. He did not do this. There is a suggestion here that he has concerns that there was more to this story than he was told. There is nothing for the Cardinal to gain by placing someone on leave who is not one of his own. If it’s one of your own, you’re stuck with him. If he belongs to another diocese or a religious order, the easiest way to come out of this looking good is to pack him off and send him home.

As it stands now, the Cardinal is taking heat from the liberal media and the ultraconservative Catholics as well. He’s on everyone’s hit list. Not a pleasant place to be and a place that he need not be with a simple plane ticket.

Finally, you must pay attention to his policy on allegations. There is zero tolerance. If there is an allegation against you, you’re pulled until there is an investigation. He is very consistent in this. Why attack this man?

I do believe, as I said above, that Fr. G is telling the truth and that the person was so angry that she said things that were not true. This happens a lot, not only in the Church, but on the job as well. They Church gets more publicity than Walgreen’s. That’s the difference.

But the Cardinal wants proof that the person lied or at the very least, over reacted to the priest’s actions. The priest has not been put on leave because he violated Canon Law. That’s another issue. Canon lawyers are not saying that he violated the law. They are saying that he applied it incorrectly. That’s not the same thing. That’s an honest mistake that happens every day in parishes and dioceses around the world. As I said, most of us are not canon lawyers and we do not have a canon lawyer on hand for every question. Most of the time we fly the seat of our pants. I can tell you that for certain having been a major superior. You have to make a call and you use the best judgment possible and pray that you got it right… You don’t always have the luxury of calling the tribunal to ask a question. For that reason, you’re not usually charged with violating the law, when the decision is a spontaneous one as it was in this case. If you made a mistake it’s called a mistake, period.

The allegation was that he was a bully to the person and to staff. That may be pure perception, which I bet it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I guess maybe the prime issue that I am having is that we have entered into such a realm of canonical legalism that is detracts from the authenticity of the Gospel message. I can only imagine that in circumstances such as this, Jesus is looking down from Heaven with his face in his palms saying to Himself, “What are you people doing? I made it so simple and you are mucking it all up.”

 

[Santo_Subito]

We also must remember that Ed Peters is only one Canon Lawyer who has an opinion. He also happens to have a blog and publicly analyzes cases based on media reports. His opinion is his opinion, though he often states it very authoritatively.

I have heard second hand, from a trusted source that there are Canon Law professors who disagree with Mr. Peter’s view, although they don’t have blogs and don’t want to comment on cases publicly.

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

Regardless, Fr. Guarzino seems to think he was justified for reasons other than Canon 915. Thus, the Canon 915 debate may be irrelevant, or, at the most, a side-issue.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I have a question about Fr G and why he is in DC to begin with.Was he at school?

I understand that he does visible pro-life work. Until very recently, Russia had extraordinarily liberal abortion laws and an extremely high abortion rate. Does he plan to go back and work for the pro-life cause there?

 

[JReducation]

I guess maybe the prime issue that I am having is that we have entered into such a realm of canonical legalism that is detracts from the authenticity of the Gospel message. I can only imagine that in circumstances such as this, Jesus is looking down from Heaven with his face in his palms saying to Himself, “What are you people doing? I made it so simple and you are mucking it all up.”

LOL – That part about Jesus I totally agree with. The Church has become so big that it’s government is quite complex. I’m sure that Peter never imagined anything this big and he’s sitting in heaven thankful that he was the first pope and had only a handful of faithful to deal with.

We also must remember that Ed Peters is only one Canon Lawyer who has an opinion. He also happens to have a blog and publicly analyzes cases based on media reports. His opinion is his opinion, though he often states it very authoritatively.

I have heard second hand, from a trusted source that there are Canon Law professors who disagree with Mr. Peter’s view, although they don’t have blogs and don’t want to comment on cases publicly.

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

Regardless, Fr. Guarzino seems to think he was justified for reasons other than Canon 915. Thus, the Canon 915 debate may be irrelevant, or, at the most, a side-issue.

This is the dilemma that many bishops have, because most are not canon lawyers. The law says X, but you have 10 canon lawyers with 10 interpretations of what it means and how it is to be applied. Cardinal Burke wrote a paper on it, but it did not really help. It raised more questions than it answered.

Bishops from all over the world sent questions back to Rome, after Cardinal Burke wrote his paper. The hope was that the Holy Father, who has the final word on interpreting the law and saying how it will be applied would do so. But Pope Benedict is very hesitant to get involved in the affairs of the local dioceses, because he feels that every diocese is an independent Church and the bishop must be seen as the head of that Church. His response is usually the same, “Figure it out yourselves” or “Apply the principle of subsidiarity,” which is the same as figure it out yourself. He only gets involved if the matter is a matter of scholarship, ecumenism, dogma or an international issue that requires the central government of the Church to intervene. His idea is to decentralized as much as possible.

I have a question about Fr G and why he is in DC to begin with.Was he at school?

I understand that he does visible pro-life work. Until very recently, Russia had extraordinarily liberal abortion laws and an extremely high abortion rate. Does he plan to go back and work for the pro-life cause there?

There are many priests who are sent to the USA for different reasons. Many come to go to school here. We have the three best schools of theology, canon law and biblical theology in the Catholic Church.

Others are borrowed from other dioceses around the world as missionaries, because we have a shortage and other countries have a surplus. Remember, we used to have many priests from religious orders staffing parishes, but that’s not longer allowed for most orders. Most parishes in the USA are middle class Catholics. Most orders do not minister to middle class Catholics. They have pulled out of parishes.

Many orders had a surplus of priests, so they are ordaining less to bring down the numbers in order to protect the consecrated life from being obscured by the priesthood. That also brings down the numbers of priests available. Many orders no longer do parish work They have gone back to the charism of their founders.

Because we have not produced enough secular priests, we now have a shortage. It’s to the advantage of dioceses to hire priests who come to study or who are unemployed in their home dioceses.

I’m not sure what the status is for Father G, whether he’s a student or a missionary. The media has not said. But he is definitely not incardinated into the Archdiocese. He is what is called an extern priest. These priests get faculties to function in that diocese. Of course they have faculties to function in their home diocese, until they die, unless they commit a crime.

This happens in the USA all the time. Because we have several hundred dioceses, priests have to ask for faculties every time they cross the line from one diocese to another. Some states have State Conferences of Bishops. A state like Florida, which has seven dioceses, has its own Conference of Bishops. They agree to grant their men faculties within the seven dioceses. These priests don’t have to ask for faculties when they cross from one diocese to another. Only the priests who belong to religious orders have to ask for faculties.

Washington, DC belongs to the Baltimore Province. A priest with faculties in DC can function in any diocese in the Baltimore Province. If the priest is benched in Washington, he is automatically benched in Baltimore.

Benched (administrative leave) is not the same as suspended. Suspended is a major penalty and applies everywhere you go. Administrative leave only applies in the region where you got the leave. Any bishop can grant you faculties to function in his dioceses and any religious superior of men (not women) can grant you faculties to function in one of his houses or his institutions. Even if he’s not a priest, he has the same power as a bishop over his order and its properties.

Fr. Can go up to the Dominican house and ask the Prior for permission to celebrate mass and the Prior can grant it as long as it’s in the priory, because Father is not suspended.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

JReducation:

We have the three best schools of theology, canon law and biblical theology in the Catholic Church.

Which are? I’m particularly interested in the Biblical Theology aspect, but i’m curious to hear your list of three…

*I apologize for the thread drift and I will leave it alone after this, but I couldn’t let that one slide by without follow up on it…

Peace

 

[JReducation]

Which are? I’m particularly interested in the Biblical Theology aspect, but i’m curious to hear your list of three…

*I apologize for the thread drift and I will leave it alone after this, but I couldn’t let that one slide by without follow up on it…

Peace

Catholic University of America: Canon Law, Scripture and Theology
Dominican House of Studies: Systematic Theology
The Josephinum: Systematic Theology and Spiritual Theology

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Catholic University of America: Canon Law, Scripture and Theology
Dominican House of Studies: Systematic Theology
The Josephinum: Systematic Theology and Spiritual Theology

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks,

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

To present yourself to an unknown priest as a homosexual “lover” at a Mass with the active homosexual’s family in attendance is to be “persevering in manifest grave sin.”

Yes and no. Manifest in this sense means publicly known. Fr. G had no way of knowing if the individual’s lesbian relationship was publicly known. Secondly, another essential aspect is that the perseverance of the manifest grave sin must be obstinate. Simply being in the current state of grave sin does not make mean the individual is obstinately persevering in it.

If the priest knew that they were lovers within moments of meeting them, it is not difficult to surmise that the woman’s own family is aware that they are lovers.

Immediate family knowing the situation does not equal publicly known. However, even that being said, that would still be an assumption and not a knowledge of facts.

The sin was manifest to those attending the Mass.

How do you know this? Once again that’s an assumption. A reasonable one perhaps but an assumption nonetheless. Canon law requires certainty.

The Canon does not say to whom or to how many the sin must be manifest. It only says that it must be “manifest.”

Canon law does not exist in a vacuum. There is tradition that underlies the use of words and their meanings. Manifest in this sense means publicly known or notorious.

John Chrysostom held that even if only the priest knew of the sin, this would constitute “manifest” sin (it is manifest to the priest), and the priest should withhold the Eucharist for the sake of the sinner (cf. Homily 82 on Matthew).

We currently operate under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. What St. John Chrysostom did over 1500 years ago is not necessarily relevant.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

We also must remember that Ed Peters is only one Canon Lawyer who has an opinion. He also happens to have a blog and publicly analyzes cases based on media reports. His opinion is his opinion, though he often states it very authoritatively.

Agreed.

I have heard second hand, from a trusted source that there are Canon Law professors who disagree with Mr. Peter’s view, although they don’t have blogs and don’t want to comment on cases publicly.

There are canon lawyers that would disagree with some things Dr. Peters says. However in this case I am unaware of any.

Regardless, Fr. Guarzino seems to think he was justified for reasons other than Canon 915. Thus, the Canon 915 debate may be irrelevant, or, at the most, a side-issue.

Dr. Peters addresses this in his latest blog post.