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

[NewEnglandPriest]

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 think that’s highly unfair to Dr. Peters. While he is not ordained he is a relative expert in canon law and is employed by the Vatican as such. Just because someone is a priest does not mean they know canon law better than Dr. Peters.

I believe that Father G acted according to the spirit of canon law and with the dictates of the grace of his ordination.

That’s the problem. When it comes to restrictions in canon law there is no “spirit of the canon.” Anything that restricts someone’s rights must be interpreted strictly (canon 18).

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.

Who 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.

Priests are expected to obey the law.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When it comes to restrictions in canon law there is no “spirit of the canon.” Anything that restricts someone’s rights must be interpreted strictly (canon 18)…Priests are expected to obey the law.

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.

Father and Brother,
This is all well and good, gentlemen, but you do realize, do you not, that this is all Inside Baseball, and has nothing to do with what’s going on in the perceptions of the American public which has encountered this incident and aftermath?

You see, the subtext of the hue and cry against the priest in question (whom Br. JR admits probably acted according to his knowledge, capabilities and limitations of the moment), is that the priest erred by not allowing an exception to approaching the Eucharist to a person who is

still a Catholic and has all of the same rights and duties as other Catholics.

[bolding mine]

The subtext, among the reading public (both Catholic and non-Catholic) is severally apparent, and includes these assumptions:

(1) practicing homosexuals, whether male or female, have a “right” to receive the Eucharist, whether they are or are not obstinately persevering in their lifestyle, including if they make that obstinancy public.

(2) funerals, and/or other emotionally-laden events (baptisms? First Communion? weddings?) should be exceptions to Roman Catholic sacramental regulations with regard to receipt of the Eucharst. The absolute principle is the emotional state of the layperson in question; the relative principle is that person’s state of grace, including whatever public acknowledgement has been made about that person’s state of grace.

(3) The Church “singles out” homosexuals (vs. other self-proclaimed sinners, such as those marrying after divorce or cohabiting before legitimate marriage).

(4) The Church, self-conscious about clergy abuse, is permanently in a position of political weakness and must compromise its own sacramental requirements and rubrics in order to satisfy a suspicious and hostile public.

(5) The priest in question is being justly “punished.” Brother, 98% of the public out there has no knowledge of the process of “time out” or strict investigation. Maybe church officials are unperturbed by that fact, but I would suggest to you that the credibility of the Roman Church is more comprehensively at stake here. There are some major moral issues in contemporary society, and the Church has a voice in those issues. I.m.o., the way this incident has been handled as Inside Baseball (so far), with communication on a Need-to-Know basis, does not help the Church’s profile among the American public.

I would have hoped, many lay people would have hoped, that the Church clarify the points you raised earlier about the process, while restating Roman Catholic moral theology and sacramental theology, so as to be very clear that the Church does not suddenly view itself as having no legitimacy to proclaim absolutes.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is all well and good, gentlemen, but you do realize, do you not, that this is all Inside Baseball, and has nothing to do with what’s going on in the perceptions of the American public which has encountered this incident and aftermath?

Perceptions are difficult to control. The Church can’t be afraid to act or not act based on perceptions.

see, the subtext of the hue and cry against the priest in question (whom Br. JR admits probably acted according to his knowledge, capabilities and limitations of the moment), is that the priest erred by not allowing an exception to approaching the Eucharist to a person who is still a Catholic and has all of the same rights and duties as other Catholics.

The exception is to withhold communion. I don’t think any reasonable person doesn’t think the priest acted in good faith.

(1) practicing homosexuals, whether male or female, have a “right” to receive the Eucharist, whether they are or are not obstinately persevering in their lifestyle, including if they make that obstinancy public.

We need to be careful to use the terms as the Church does. While no one has a “right” to receive communion the priest also doesn’t have the “right” to withhold it without canonical basis. Our reception of communion is governed by Church law, not the judgment of the priest.

(2) funerals, and/or other emotionally-laden events (baptisms? First Communion? weddings?) should be exceptions to Roman Catholic sacramental regulations with regard to receipt of the Eucharst. The absolute principle is the emotional state of the layperson in question; the relative principle is that person’s state of grace, including whatever public acknowledgement has been made about that person’s state of grace.

I think that would be an unfair perception but I understand what you’re getting at. Its impossible to control such perceptions even if they are incorrect.

(3) The Church “singles out” homosexuals (vs. other self-proclaimed sinners, such as those marrying after divorce or cohabiting before legitimate marriage).

Once again, an unfair perception but difficult to control. However this perception would only be re-enforced if the priest was allowed to act against canon law in the case of a homosexual but not another case.

(4) The Church, self-conscious about clergy abuse, is permanently in a position of political weakness and must compromise its own sacramental requirements and rubrics in order to satisfy a suspicious and hostile public.

Anyone with that perception will be sorely disappointed when other events fail to meet that expectation.

(5) The priest in question is being justly “punished.” Brother, 98% of the public out there has no knowledge of the process of “time out” or strict investigation. Maybe church officials are unperturbed by that fact, but I would suggest to you that the credibility of the Roman Church is more comprehensively at stake here.

Well, on this forum it would seem the perception is that he’s being unjustly punished.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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.

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.Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, that does. Thank you Br. I had never heard of this priest before this controversy, but based on other’s comments, I take it that he is well-known in the archdiocese.

 

[mdgspencer]

This seems a case where the diocese won the battle, but lost the war. They made moves that can be justified through canon law, but the diocese lost respect with Catholic public opinion. They could for example simply have warned the priest, or taken some milder action. But apparently, they seemed to act as they did because they preferred to look good to public opinion, though instead what they did served to lose their good name when it comes to Catholics.

Perceptions are difficult to control. The Church can’t be afraid to act or not act based on perceptions.

The exception is to withhold communion. I don’t think any reasonable person doesn’t think the priest acted in good faith.

We need to be careful to use the terms as the Church does. While no one has a “right” to receive communion the priest also doesn’t have the “right” to withhold it without canonical basis. Our reception of communion is governed by Church law, not the judgment of the priest.

I think that would be an unfair perception but I understand what you’re getting at. Its impossible to control such perceptions even if they are incorrect.

Once again, an unfair perception but difficult to control. However this perception would only be re-enforced if the priest was allowed to act against canon law in the case of a homosexual but not another case.

Anyone with that perception will be sorely disappointed when other events fail to meet that expectation.

Well, on this forum it would seem the perception is that he’s being unjustly punished.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Yeah just perfect timing is all. Of course all the news media is running the story as “Priest who denied communion to Lesbian is placed on leave” Guess what they won this battle. You can bet that now that they know it will work they will do it more and more. All of our most Orthodox Priests will be in their crosshairs. Now the Priest also know that Bishops may not stand with them and defend them when they make a tough decision. Really is sad in my opinion.

I guess I have two questions related to your post.

1. Who would Jesus refuse to feed?
2. Who are “they” when you say " Guess what they won this battle."

God Bless

 

[Corki]

I guess I have two questions related to your post.

1. Who would Jesus refuse to feed?
2. Who are “they” when you say " Guess what they won this battle."

God Bless

I’m not Hudson, but I would like to contribute my own view.

1. Jesus would not refuse to feed anyone. And neither would we. But Communion isn’t just about food. It is a Sacrament, instituted by Christ Himself and the Church and her people protect that Blessed Sacrament from disrespect. Jesus also gave the Church the power to loose and bind. She binds her priests and those who present themselves for Communion to certain standards and has the authority to enforce those standards.
2. As I read Hudson’s post, “they” seems to refer to those trying to use the media to influence public opinion about the Church, including those who are trying to advance agendas with regard to the normalization of homosexual acts.

 

[Love_God_Too]

I’m sorry I just disagree.

There is no greater feeding than the feeding of one’s soul through the Eucharist. The term “They” to me seams to be a judgmental dividing of God’s children, when we are called to love one another.

If it was sin for her to receive the Eucharist, it was her’s and her’s alone. God will judge that. I believe God loves all his children, even the gay ones. I believe he wants to nourish their souls too.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I believe he wants to nourish their souls too.

Receiving unworthily is no way to get God to nourish one’s soul. I believe more than one person has already referenced scripture in regard to receiving unworthily and about a little something called condemnation.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Receiving unworthily is no way to get God to nourish one’s soul. I believe more than one person has already referenced scripture in regard to receiving unworthily and about a little something called condemnation.

I don’t believe I have ever received the Eucharist and felt, “worthy” of such an awesome gift from God. Who exactly gets to determine one’s “worthiness”? Scriptures also says “Judge not less you be judged.” I don’t know of anyone on Earth who can make the call of worthiness of God. Anytime we try to say one is more worthy than another, we are standing in judgment as humans against each other.

 

[Corki]

I don’t believe I have ever received the Eucharist and felt, “worthy” of such an awesome gift from God. Who exactly gets to determine one’s “worthiness”? Anytime we try to say one is more worthy than another, we are standing in judgment as humans against each other.

This is not a question of one person being more worthy than another. It is about a particular person not being properly disposed to receive Communion. The requirements are spelled out in numerous doucments. At a minimum, one must not be conscious of any unconfessed mortal sin and have fasted for at least one hour.

Scriptures also says “Judge not less you be judged.” I don’t know of anyone on Earth who can make the call of worthiness of God.

We are called to exercise the virtue of Right Judgement which means recognizing good as good and evil as evil. We do not judge the final disposition of anyone’s soul but we most certainly can judge the appropriateness of someone’s actions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This seems a case where the diocese won the battle, but lost the war. They made moves that can be justified through canon law, but the diocese lost respect with Catholic public opinion. They could for example simply have warned the priest, or taken some milder action. But apparently, they seemed to act as they did because they preferred to look good to public opinion, though instead what they did served to lose their good name when it comes to Catholics.

Very well said, and I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Love_God_Too]

We are called to exercise the virtue of Right Judgement which means recognizing good as good and evil as evil.

You seem to have a much greater grasp of Catholic doctrine than I so I can’t debate you on that level. It seems to me, however, exercising “Right Judgment” refers to what we ourselves do as good / evil and not the actions of others.

Isn’t interesting though we are both Catholic and we seem to recognize what is good and evil differently. In fact, if there were 10 of us or 1000 of us in a room, I believe we would have 10 or 1000 definitions of “Right Judgment”. That’s why that judgment should be left to the Almighty.

God Bless

 

[Elizabeth502]

Perceptions are difficult to control.

Where did I say anything about “control?”

The Church can’t be afraid to act or not act based on perceptions.

Where did I make I say or imply that Church officials were “afraid” to act or not act based on perception?

I don’t think any reasonable person doesn’t think the priest acted in good faith.

The media is filled with irrationality and unreasonableness. It’s touted every night as “fact” and “truth” by the mainstream media.

I think that would be an unfair perception but I understand what you’re getting at. Its impossible to control such perceptions even if they are incorrect.

Again with the “control” word – something I never brought up. It would be a fallacy, I would think, to suggest that a clear and well-worded statement from Church officials translates to “control” of perceptions.

Once again, an unfair perception but difficult to control.

Would someone please show me where I stated a wish or a need to “control” public perception?

Anyone with that perception will be sorely disappointed when other events fail to meet that expectation.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by the second half of your sentence, but since I am asking for clarity, let me provide some of my own.

I fail to see why it would be difficult or inappropriate to make the following statements, and let the public perceive or not perceive what they like:

**~*It is routine to investigate allegations while simulataneously putting a priest accused (of anything) on (some kind of) leave or inactivity. This is standard operating procedure and not particular to any ‘sensational’ aspects of this case more than any others in which there has been any kind of complaint or allegation. It also parallels what happens in many secular civil jurisdictions. It is not a comment about the truth of the allegation, the behavior of the one accused…necessarily. It’s simply a process.

~The public at large, including the news media and including the Catholic public, is not entitled to details about that process while it is occurring (and perhaps afterward as well). It is a confidential process.

~The Church does not make official statements about the behavior of a priest accused of anything, at the very least until the process is over. The Church is neutral in this case, as in others, until the investigation is complete.

~Any baptized Catholic is well aware of the conditions for reception of the Sacraments, including Eucharist. Such knowledge, and such conditions, are permanent requirements for receipt of those sacraments, and every baptized Catholic is bound by those requirements, regardless of whatever alternate religion they later declare themselves to be practicing or believing. That remains true even if such persons have given formal written notice to their bishop that they renounce their Catholic baptism. The word “permanent” incudes emotionally sensitive events such as funerals, weddings, and other sentimental occasions.***
The above are the concepts which the Church could easily provide without compromising the process or Ms. Johnson. They might not be worded as Church officials would word them; they are just the concepts.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

You seem to have a much greater grasp of Catholic doctrine than I so I can’t debate you on that level. It seems to me, however, exercising “Right Judgment” refers to what we ourselves do as good / evil and not the actions of others.

Isn’t interesting though we are both Catholic and we seem to recognize what is good and evil differently. In fact, if there were 10 of us or 1000 of us in a room, I believe we would have 10 or 1000 definitions of “Right Judgment”. That’s why that judgment should be left to the Almighty.

God Bless

It’s important to note that there is a difference between us laity and priests. A priest has been given authority by God to make judgments in certain matters. Remember the passage about binding and loosing sins? That is a judgment call the priests make in the confessional (obviously within confines of Canon Law). I know this situation did not occur in the confessional, but I am just giving an example of how judgments are necessary.

Also keep in mind that there are all the instructions given to us by Jesus through the apostles, the magisterium, the Fathers of the Church, and so on. God gave his Church authority to hand down truths. At times priests are called upon to remind us of these things because it is their duty. Honestly, claiming that we have to be lovey-dovey and let only God have any say in this (and not his Church, which he gave authority!) is something that I’ve heard many a time from protestants who have no belief in a visible Church. We can’t wait on Moses to come down from the clouds waving the ten commandments!

 

[Chipper]

Isn’t interesting though we are both Catholic and we seem to recognize what is good and evil differently. In fact, if there were 10 of us or 1000 of us in a room, I believe we would have 10 or 1000 definitions of “Right Judgment”. That’s why that judgment should be left to the Almighty.

God Bless

1 Corinthians 6:1-4
2 Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life…

 

[Santo_Subito]

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

This is because, as I said, most Canon Lawyers do not make public authoritative judgments on cases based on media reports.

Dr. Peters addresses this in his latest blog post.

Unfortunately, he does not. If you read Fr. Marcel’s response and then read Peter’s analysis, you’ll see that Peters does not understand Fr. Marcel’s point. Fr. Marcel was not arguing that Ms. Johnson was intoxicated, divorced or remarried, or any of the things Peters point by point debunks. It is clear from the text that Fr. Marcel felt he had no more right to give Ms. Johnson Communion under the circumstances than to someone else who announced to him beforehand that they were divorced and re-married, etc. I honestly do not know how anyone reading Fr. Marcel’s response could come to the conclusion that he was trying to say Ms. Johnson was intoxicated or divorced and remarried.

 

[Santo_Subito]

The American Spectator on Cardinal Wuerl & the Fr. Guarzino incident.

spectator.org/archives/2012/03/19/cardinal-wuerls-dereliction-of

 

[Santo_Subito]

Refutation of Ed Peter’s analysis by a Moral Theologian:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/the-lesbian-communion-incident-canon-law-versus-the-eternal-moral-law/

In part based on PCLT Declaration from Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

In addition, Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters has several posts claiming that married permanent deacons and married priests (in so far as this is permitted in the Latin Rite) may not have sexual relations with their wives(!):

ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/may-married-deacons-have-marital-relations/

Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian replies:

His basis for this argument is Canon law, and that is the fundamental problem. Canon law is entirely subordinate to the eternal moral law. So if the eternal moral law permits a married cleric (ordained person) to have relations with his wife, then any reading of Canon law to the contrary must be a misreading. But I say more. Even if Canon law explicitly forbid a married permanent deacon or a married priest from having marital relations, the spouses could do so without sin or fault; such a law would be null and void because it contradicts the eternal moral law.

 

[Catherine_S]

The American Spectator on Cardinal Wuerl & the Fr. Guarzino incident.

spectator.org/archives/2012/03/19/cardinal-wuerls-dereliction-of

Thank you !!
.
The notion that bishops aren’t gatekeepers would come as a surprise to the Church’s first ones. The apostles** were told** by Jesus Christ that the** good shepherd watches** the gate, lest his flock be eaten. “Do not give what is holy to dogs,” Jesus warned them.
The Church’s position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege and scandal is not determined by his “comfort” level, Cardinal Wuerl. It is determined by the clear requirements of canon law. Cardinal Burke has spoken; the case is closed. Either the bishops take control over* their own sacraments or** the Church’s enemies will.*