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

[JReducation]

Father,

I am sorry to be blunt, but If that was true, there would have been no need to release the statements that they did early on in the process. They certainly do care about the outside world. Based purely on the process which has unfolded since this situation first developed, it is hard to come to any other conclusion. The question which we really should be asking along these lines is: whose opinion are they listening to?

I believe that what happened was that someone leaked information to the press. The press accused the Archdiocese of penalizing the priest for something that was not on the table. The Archdiocese has a right to say what is on the table. The pastor has done just that.

This does not mean that the Archdiocese cares whether people believe what it says or not. What it cares about is that it told the truth. Father is on time out, not suspended, because allegedly he was abusive to some people. From that point forward, whoever wants to believe can do so and whoever does not want to believe doesn’t have to believe them.

The Archdiocese knows that no matter what it says, there is going to be some voice out there who is going to accuse them of something. The Archdiocese also knows that there is large number of Catholics whose greatest pastime is shooting at its own clergy and dragging the name of the bishops through the mud, only to whine the next day, because the sharks in the media are anti-Catholic.

No matter what an Archdiocese does, it will never win, because its greatest enemies are Catholic. At the end of the day, non-Catholics don’t talk about these things for a week as Catholics have been doing all over the internet. The non-Catholics have moved on. Bishops are intelligent men. They know that no matter what they do, they will make someone angry. So why bother say too much?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

From what I can tell they did not actually issue a statement. They sent a letter to their priests (the letter was addressed to “Brother Priests” and not the media) informing them that Fr. G’s faculties were suspended due to being placed on administrative leave. The pastor at Fr. G’s parish then read the letter from the pulpit. It was not directly issued to the media, in fact the media had to contact the archdiocese to confirm the events.

I’m sorry Father, but that is not accurate.

Well before he was suspended, the Archdiocese released a statement that Fr.'s actions were incorrect. This was within a day or two of the event taking place.

washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html?hpid=z4

wusa9.com/news/article/193305/373/Lesbian-Barbara-Johnson-Says-Father-Marcel-Guarnizo-Denied-Her-Communion-At-Her-Mothers-Funeral

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13512

However, Fr. Marcel was not removed from his duties until approx. March 12, perhaps a little before. As you can see, the Archdiocese issued statements that Fr. Marcel acted incorrectly well before he was removed from his position.

Once again, that is a conclusion that is not supported by the known facts.

Again, I apologize for being blunt, but yes it is. If the Archdiocese was as unconcerned with the outside world as you claim, they would not have released a statement at all. At the most, they would have simply released a statement that they were looking into the matter and leave it at that until they had finished their investigation. However, that is not what happened. Instead, they released a statement where they announced to the world that Fr. Marcel had acted improperly and apologized for the situation. That simply does not add up with the idea of not caring what the rest of the world thinks.

This causes me to again state that the question we should be asking is not whether they care what people think, as they most certainly do. What we need to be discussing is: whose opinion do they care about? Faithful Catholics, or the secular media, dissidents, and the liberal left?

The Archdiocese knows that no matter what it says, there is going to be some voice out there who is going to accuse them of something. The Archdiocese also knows that there is large number of Catholics whose greatest pastime is shooting at its own clergy and dragging the name of the bishops through the mud, only to whine the next day, because the sharks in the media are anti-Catholic.

No matter what an Archdiocese does, it will never win, because its greatest enemies are Catholic. At the end of the day, non-Catholics don’t talk about these things for a week as Catholics have been doing all over the internet. The non-Catholics have moved on. Bishops are intelligent men. They know that no matter what they do, they will make someone angry. So why bother say too much?

Brother, I see the same thing as you but have come to a different conclusion. If the Bishops realize that Catholics are the ones really still talking about this situation as you correctly stated, to me the conclusion is that they ought to spend more time worrying about scandalizing the faithful and less worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. Many people do enjoy taking pot-shots at the Bishops, that is true. It also is not right. However, there is also a reason that it happens.

Earlier, you noted that Cardinal Wuerl and other Bishops have requested clarification on Cardinal Burke’s statements on when to refuse someone Holy Communion. However, that is not the rational that Cardinal Wuerl used to defend his not giving communion to pro-abortion candidates. Instead, he stated that it made “uncomfortable”. Statements like that followed up by situations such as this, are why we have people taking pot shots at the clergy as much as we do.

Peace,

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’m sorry Father, but that is not accurate.

Well before he was suspended, the Archdiocese released a statement that Fr.'s actions were incorrect. This was within a day or two of the event taking place.

You’re mixing apples and oranges here. One situation is a public matter (funerals are considered public events by the Church) and the archdiocese responded to a public pastoral/canonical issue.
The other (administrative leave) is an internal personnel matter that the Church rarely makes public announcements regarding. It was personnel matters that I was referring to.

If the Archdiocese was as unconcerned with the outside world as you claim, they would not have released a statement at all. At the most, they would have simply released a statement that they were looking into the matter and leave it at that until they had finished their investigation. However, that is not what happened. Instead, they released a statement where they announced to the world that Fr. Marcel had acted improperly and apologized for the situation. That simply does not add up with the idea of not caring what the rest of the world thinks.

The Church does care about public matters, which a funeral and canon law on reception of communion are, and does its best to address those. On that I agree with you. However on the matter of personnel decisions they rarely care to explain themselves to anyone not directly involved.

 

[Ecoclimber]

Not to beat a dead horse to death or get in this fray but there are some things that should be said that seem to get lost. Barbara Johnson was raised Catholic so she knows the teachings and dogma of the Catholic Church. Father Guarnizo stated the requirements for those who want to receive the Holy Eucharist at the funeral service. Barbara Johnson Did receive Holy Communion that day from the E.M. Father Guarnizo did not prevent the E.M. from distributing the Holy Eucharist to Barbara Johnson.

Was this a set up to change Catholic dogma concerning homosexuality and gay marriage within the church? She stated “You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.” This has nothing to do with politics but maintaining the 2000 year dogma and teaching of the Catholic Church. The only politics employed was attempting to remove those priests who uphold the teaching of the church concerning Catholic doctrine.

Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral closes national Catholic gathering with moving words.

The question, of course, is whether one returns to the Catholic church on one’s own terms or on the church’s terms. According to the church, the answer is that the Catholic church and its leaders are in charge of defining those doctrinal terms. According to Johnson, that decision is up to her

The emotional distress was brought on by Barbara Johnson,herself, who knew what the Church’s teaching concerning participating in Holy Communion and was determine to put forth her own “politics” to change Catholic doctrine.

Why does the LGBT community consider it a win because of the Archdiocese of Washington apologies and subsequent administrative leave of Father Guarinzo if perception is not important. If Catholic doctrine and dogma is not enforced consistently throughout the Catholic Church, what is the purpose of Catholic doctrine if everyone becomes confused?

 

[Catherine_S]

“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything** in my power to see that you are** removed** from** parish life** so that** you will not** be** permitted** to harm** any** more families.”
/quote]
.
I doubt the apologies from the powers that be in the church or from the priest involved will have changed much in the end! To a lawyer they are an admission the priest did something wrong! I do not think this is over by any means and while I am not a gambling person, I would be willing to bet, there’s a lawyer or two behind the scenes, deciding just what** amount** of money will compensate for this kind of abuse and suffering etc. etc.
There never was chance the Priest involved would be going back to the parish. *
.
Why does the LGBT community consider*** it a** win** because of the Archdiocese of Washington apologies and subsequent administrative leave of Father Guarinzo if perception is not important. If Catholic doctrine and dogma is not enforced consistently throughout the Catholic Church, what is the purpose of Catholic doctrine if everyone becomes confused?
.
In this case, perhaps to prevent a lawsuit?
**

 

[Catherine_S]

Was this a set up to change Catholic dogma concerning homosexuality and gay marriage within the church? She stated “You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.” This has nothing to do with politics but maintaining the 2000 year dogma and teaching of the Catholic Church. The only politics employed was attempting to remove those priests who uphold the teaching of the church concerning Catholic doctrine.
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7170

.
I doubt the apologies from the powers that be in the church or from the priest involved will have* changed** much** in the end**! To a lawyer they are an admission the priest did something wrong! I do not think this is over and while I am not a gambling person, I would be willing to bet, there’s a lawyer or two behind the scenes, deciding just what** amount** of money will compensate for this kind of abuse and suffering etc. etc.*

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Church is not interested in what the general public assumes or does not assume. That’s not her policy and has never been her policy.

I understand that people are saying that the Church should say that this is a closed system and that it will be dealt with internally. You may be right. However, the Church does not accept this and there is no way in hell that we’re going to make her accept this.

Again, who’s talking about “making” anybody do anything? I’m certainly not. Rather, several of us are talking about the advisability, not a “requirement,” to communicate simply, for the sake of better credibility on issues that do matter. I doubt anyone in the popular press cares about ecclesial personnel issues such as the closed system being referred to here, and most Catholics probably don’t (including myself).

The popular press cares (rather) about:
~lesbianism and homosexuality
~“discrimination” (widely defined) toward the same
~perceived “discrimination” against the same
~Roman Catholic responses to breaches of the moral law, and to statements about that
~secular “justice” vs. divine justice
~secular “justice” vs. ecclesiastical justice
~marginalizing and discrediting the Catholic view of human sexuality, hopefully with maximum public effect
~the humiliation of Catholic clergy

Why is this “important?” Because in the minds of an impressionable American public, the above is all directly or indirectly linked to contemporary issues about homosexual “rights,” including but not limited to gay marriage, active (deep-seated) homosexuals in the priesthood (and their “rights”), and much else. It is also – being present in the DC story – all linked to the perceived moral legitimacy of the Catholic clergy.

It makes no difference that you and I and any truly informed, thinking Catholic does not see the connection.

I think this is a matter of the relative newness of a political “profile” of the Church in the modern U.S. world. Much of contemporary society is not used to the Church being as visible as it has been of late (and I’m not talking about clergy sexual abuse). By contrast, most of the public is intuitively or directly aware of the U.S. military being a closed system, including as regards personnel matters, but not limited to that. “Suddenly,” recently, the Church has become politically active in this country. (The armed forces, as a collective agency, never has been, at least has never taken an active role in personal moral issues affecting society.)

The only other Catholic who should be interested in what’s going on is the Archbishop of Moscow, because this is one of his priests.

I believe that any Catholic who cares about the credibility of moral positions for which the Church stands, in society, should care about how this incident has been handled.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The archdiocese doesn’t care all that much about public perception of its personnel decisions.

It’s the public, actually, that probably doesn’t care all that much about Church personnel decisions, overall. It cares much more about the sexual aspects of this incident, and it will interpret any Church statements about that (including any which are ambiguous or leaving a lot to the imagination) as indicative of a Church divided, in its upper ranks, about moral issues, a Church easily weakened by intimidation tactics, a Church vulnerable to negative press, a Church lacking a backbone to be clear about moral boundaries, etc.

Such erroneious perception wouldn’t matter if the Church were not interested in making an impact on contemporary society in various moral areas: abortion, mandated contraception coverage, homosexual “marriage” and adoption, and much more. (Those are all “sex” issues, in the eyes of the persuading and voting public.)

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

[The public] cares much more about the sexual aspects of this incident,

Once again, the administrative leave is not directly related to the lesbian communion refusal incident. The letter by the archdiocese mentions its reasons were related to a separate behavioral allegation and the pastor of the parish specifically stated its not about the lesbian communion refusal. There is no “sexual aspect” to the administrative leave.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that any Catholic who cares about the credibility of moral positions for which the Church stands, in society, should care about how this incident has been handled.

I cetainly care about the credibility of the Church, but I do not care about this situation, because :

1. I have no right to express an opinion in the matter. He’s not a member of my community.
2. Since I have no right to express an opinion on the matter, anything I say will be words spoken in the wind. No one is interested in hearing them.
3. I have no authority over this priest, his bishop or the Archdiocese of Washington.
4. The Archdiocese has decided how it wants to handle this. Whether their way is a good idea or a bad idea, as St. Francis says in our rule, “When authority makes a decision, even if you think that you have a better way, remain silent and support authority, for such humility is pleasing to God and man. God is not concerned with our being right, but with our being submissive as Christ was submissive.” There is nothing for me to say to or about the Archdioceses manner of dealing with this.
5. As a number of our Franciscan bishops have been telling the people of their dioceses around the world, “The faithful (clergy, religious and laity) do not own the Church, nor do they have the right to smear the reputation of their bishops and clergy.” The Church is not always going to do things the way we believe they should be done, because it we don’t own it. Even if we did, there are too many opinions out there. Someone has to make the final call.
6. As long as authority does not ask me to do something that is condemned by moral law or Canon Law, I pray that I will have the spirit to submit and be quiet. What he does is his business. He has to answer for it, not I.

We pray that these things will be resolved in a way that is good for everyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ecoclimber]

She feels that no one has the right to know or be informed of her policies, except the individual who is in trouble. It’s a very closed social system…

…That never ceases to amaze me, that people take so much time and energy and put so much passion on statements that no bishop is ever going to see or is even interested in seeing. There are so many important things that Catholics need to attend to in daily life.

I for one, just go about my business and let them worry about this in DC. It’s not my diocese and the priest is not under my jurisdiction. The only other Catholic who should be interested in what’s going on is the Archbishop of Moscow, because this is one of his priests. He has the power to pull the plug on this by recalling his priest. That would leave everyone with their assumptions and questions unanswered, because the Archbishop of Moscow owes us no explanations, not even to Cardinal Wuerl. This is his man.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

With all due respects, does not the Catholic laity as Christ’s faithful, have the right to speak out? Under Canon Law we have a right and a duty in keeping with our knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to our pastors our views on matters which concern the good of the Church (Can. 212 2, 3)

Canon 212: 2-3 states: The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[JReducation]

Under Canon Law we have a right and a duty in keeping with our knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to our pastors our views on matters which concern the good of the Church (Can. 212 2, 3)

Canon 212: 2-3 states: The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

The red is mine.

The faithful certainly have a legal right to make known their needs, concerns and opinions. That is not in question here.

The reverence part can be questioned. Some of the posts on this thread have certainly been lacking in reverence toward the Cardinal. Canon Law is based on Roman Law. Respect is owed, regardless of what one thinks of the person.

To make one’s concerns known to the Cardinal is one thing, to plaster them all over the Internet where the Cardinal will never see them is a waste of time and is not what Canon Law had in mind.

We have to look at the tradition of Canon Law. When it speaks about making known one’s needs, concerns, etc, it is thinking of the way that it has customarily been done through the centuries, which has always been in private.

Take for example St. Catherine of Siena. No one ever knew her thinking on the issues of her day until more than 100 years after her death. Her letters were confidential and the Dominicans kept them archived for more than a century before releasing them. To this day, there are some that we will never see.

The same is true of St. Francis of Assisi. There are letters that he wrote to the pope and to the local bishop which the rest of the Church will never see, not even Franciscans. They are archived and marked as Top Secret in the Vatican Vault. We have no idea what he said.

The same was true of Ignatius of Loyola and other great reformers of the Church. When the canon speaks about the right of the faithful, it’s thinking in light of this established tradition of confidentiality, reverence, silence, privacy and respect for the good name of others. This kind of thread does not achieve what Canon Law has in mind. This is more like a bar room discussion, which may do more harm than good.

The law says that we may communicate our concerns. The law does not bind the hierarchy to do anything about our concerns. At some point, we simply accept that we tried to help and we move on and let those who should deal with the issue do so.

St. Bernard and St. Francis both spoke about this. They were very prudent and intelligent men. They both encouraged their sons and daughters to be honest with authority, but to keep in mind their own insignificance. This is very important. While they encouraged honesty and openness, they discouraged entitlement. Once you had communicated, you let the matter drop and from that point forward, you accept what those in authority decided.

I think that we see a lot of entitlement, especially among American Catholics. I suspect that this why the Vatican ignores us so often. It is no secret that they feel that American Catholics are arrogant and have a sense of entitlement. We tend to speak to our religious leaders as we would to our politicians, as if they worked for us or as if we have the right to make demands of them, rather than the right to express concerns and ask for assistance when needed or even offer to help.

Often, we’re not very helpful. On the one hand we scream bloody murder when the media attacks Catholicism and on the other hand we feed the media. We’re the first to air the Church’s laundry all over the internet. This is something that Ignatius, Francis, Catherine, Dominic and other reformers would never do and never allowed their sons and daughters to do. They were very protective of the Church. They handled all of their concerns in private, usually through letters.

There is an interesting story of how Catherine of Sienna had one of her spiritual children flogged for criticizing the pope in public about something that Catherine had said to the pope in one of her letters. Her point was not the content of the comment, but the fact that it was indiscreet. We do tend to be indiscreet and that’s not what Canon Law has in mind. Canon Law has a tradition in mind when it writes.

It’s important to ask what the law means, before one applies it. Very often, there is a history that the writer has in mind and simply does not include it in the canon itself, for the sake of brevity, but it will be found elsewhere. When I was in the seminary, we had two years of Canon Law, hardly enough to make you a canon lawyer. Just enough to get you through certain spots. In any case, one of our professors always insisted that we ask ourselves, “Why did the writer use that word? What has that word meant in the history of the Church? How has it been used before?” I was very surprised to find that the law often had more layers to it than what was on the printed page.

We do have a right to communicate with the authorities in the Church, but it has to be done within the tradition of the law. This requires a great deal of trust in Providence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

As a number of our Franciscan bishops have been telling the people of their dioceses around the world, “The faithful (clergy, religious and laity) do not own the Church, nor do they have the right to smear the reputation of their bishops and clergy.”

And you think that posters on this thread are engaging in a smear campaign against bishops and clergy?

Wow. Apparently we see words through a different lens. I see sincerity and support for clergy by my brothers and sisters on this thread, as well as by me.

I don’t know about various “smear campaigns” in whatever geographic locations or internet sites are being referred to. If they exist, I’m not a party to those. I do not equate civil debate with smear campaigns.

 

[Ecoclimber]

The red is mine.
To make one’s concerns known to the Cardinal is one thing, to plaster them all over the Internet where the Cardinal will never see them is a waste of time and is not what Canon Law had in mind…

…We have to look at the tradition of Canon Law. When it speaks about making known one’s needs, concerns, etc, it is thinking of the way that it has customarily been done through the centuries, which has always been in private…

… When the canon speaks about the right of the faithful, it’s thinking in light of this established tradition of confidentiality, reverence, silence, privacy and respect for the good name of others. This kind of thread does not achieve what Canon Law has in mind. This is more like a bar room discussion, which may do more harm than good…

This is something that Ignatius, Francis, Catherine, Dominic and other reformers would never do and never allowed their sons and daughters to do. They were very protective of the Church. They handled all of their concerns in private, usually through letters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree with most of what you said but you missed an important section. This Canon 212: 2,3 is the very law of canons John Paul II signed into law in 1983.

The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.(2)

You stated so eloquently the prior historical context as communication done in privacy and in secrecy. **I asked you then in your illustration, how this concept of privacy does not conflict with section 3 of making their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful? **

In this new age of the internet, are you saying that the Christian faithful do not have the right to distribute their opinion among the Christian faithful by this means? If so what other avenues should they take?

In all humility, I am not well versed on Canon Law so I welcome your opinion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The faithful certainly have a legal right to make known their needs, concerns and opinions. That is not in question here.

Canon Law is based on Roman Law. Respect is owed, regardless of what one thinks of the person.

In that we have agreement!

The law says that we may communicate our concerns. The law does not bind the hierarchy to do anything about our concerns.

Another point of agreement. I don’t know, however, how any educated Catholic would assume that communicating concerns = binding the hierarchy. Do you?

I think that we see a lot of entitlement, especially among American Catholics. I suspect that this why the Vatican ignores us so often. It is no secret that they feel that American Catholics are arrogant and have a sense of entitlement. We tend to speak to our religious leaders as we would to our politicians, as if they worked for us or as if we have the right to make demands of them, rather than the right to express concerns and ask for assistance when needed or even offer to help.

I’m glad you brought that up. I do believe that some American Catholics are arrogant. I think it is extremely unfair to paint all or most of them with that broad brush.

~many A.Catholics are ignorant (of their faith, of the Church structure, etc.)
~many are arrrogant
~some are BOTH.

However, lots & lots of A.Catholics are neither, and do not deserve, imho, to be ignored “so often” by the Vatican. I won’t derail the thread, but will just express my opinion that I believe the Vatican and U.S. Catholics desperately need each other (for different reasons). I believe that U.S. Catholics can be an enormous source of good & of assistance. There needs to be some flexibility, frankly, on both sides, in order to harness what A.Catholics have to offer – assuming that those in that position are faithful, practicing Catholics. I think it is a serious mistake to ignore American Catholics.

 

[JReducation]

You stated so eloquently the prior historical context as communication done in privacy and in secrecy. **I asked you then in your illustration, how this concept of privacy does not conflict with section 3 of making their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful? **

This part of the canon is taken directly from Apostolate of the Laity. It goes hand in hand with another canon that says that the laity should be encouraged to form associations for the common good. It has been a long standing tradition in the Church, which sort of god lost between Vatican I and Vatican II, that the Christian faithful (clergy, religious and laity) formed societies for the common good of the Church and within the context of these societies there was always a great deal of sharing and problem solving. A wonderful example of this is Fr. Michael McGivney and the Knights of Columbus, the secular orders, many confraternities, many societies that grew up around parishes for the purpose of responding to common concerns. Obviously, you can’t respond to concerns if you don’t make them known.

The idea of the canon was not to take the affairs of the Church out to the public square, but to encourage the faithful, especially the laity, to become actively involved in the life of the Church, including addressing problems and concerns, so that they are not all left on the doorstep of the pastor or the bishop.

The problem that we’re having in the 21st century is that we’re not having these discussions in the context of structured associations and other groups. We’re having these discussions in the public arena. This is not a safe thing to do for a number of reasons.

The person or people who do not understand Catholicism become very confused.

The enemies of the Church delight in seeing Catholics angry at their Church, because it gives them ammunition.

The Church is a family and families solve their problems at home, not in the town square.

In this kind of environment, nothing is being solved, because the people about whom’re speaking will never see this. What’s the purpose?

Communicating concerns must serve a purpose, otherwise it’s not a very productive activity. That’s why we have a long tradition of environments where people gather to share concerns, but also to problem solve. Otherwise, it just becomes a gripe session.

Elizabeth, you feel very strongly that the Vatican needs the USA, but the Vatican does not feel that strongly about it, because we make up 5% of the world’s Catholic and we often demand 50% of the Church’s attention and resources. We need to solve problems at the local level working with our bishops rather than expend the Vatican’s energy.

The Vatican often feels puzzlement at the things that rattle us. Things, which in their experience are isolated events compared to the bigger issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

I think that everyone always feels that their issues are important, because they’re in the middle of it. But when we take a community as large as the Catholic community, which is second only to China, the problems that rattle us are small and they don’t understand why we just don’t deal with them with our bishops.

In addition, the Vatican has an agenda, which is usually set by the pope. Each pope comes in with an agenda. Pope Benedict’s agenda is to recover Europe, enhance the dialogue between Catholics & Jews and Catholics & Muslims, bring more academic research to the table. For that reason he spend a good part of his day doing research and writing, dealing with the sex abuse issue, and trying to lead the Church to a middle ground between the Traditionalists and the Liberals. Those are big issues to the Vatican.

I’m remembering how the clergy in Iraq has been asking the Vatican for help, because they are getting bullied by the Muslim Iraqi. The Vatican has been very quiet on that front. If it’s doing something for them, it’s not very public, it’s covert. They are deliberately trying not to draw too much attention to that particular situation. While they want to help the Eastern Catholics in Iraq, they don’t want to destabilize what the progress they have made with the Muslims in other countries.

By comparison, an issue like that of Fr.G is not one that the Vatican wants to deal with. But there are many Americans that want the Vatican to get involved. That’s what makes the Vatican look at us as having a sense of entitlement. By comparison, the situation of the Eastern Catholics is much more serious than this, because they’re in danger and the relationship with Muslims is in danger. That requires a great deal of attention to detail, which means time and manpower. They have to provide the help in a manner that does not ruffle feathers and endanger more Christians. These are the kinds of comparisons that they make when trying to decide what to take on and what to leave to the local bishops to deal with.

I hope this helps a little.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

Communicating concerns must serve a purpose, otherwise it’s not a very productive activity.

I could never agree with that. Thoughtful discussion which communicates concerns helps to shape purpose, often – with regard to any issue or arena. It doesn’t always have to equal immediate “results” or enacted steps. Sometimes it shapes, enlarges, individual purpose, and sometimes it builds a community of concern which indirectly does lead to productive results.

Elizabeth, you feel very strongly that the Vatican needs the USA, but the Vatican does not feel that strongly about it, because we make up 5% of the world’s Catholic and we often demand 50% of the Church’s attention and resources.

We make up 5% of the world’s Catholics but the point is that, when harnessed for good (not for dissident opinions, etc.) our reach can extend to far more than a 5% effect. But when any group senses that they are not valued, they will not come forward to be servants of the Church. I don’t know which “we” you’re referring to (above), but I’m not “demanding” anything, let alone

50% of the Church’s attention and resources.

I’m referring to making contributions of labor and support, not “attention” and “resources.”

We need to solve problems at the local level working with our bishops rather than expend the Vatican’s energy.

Naturally. And who’s talking about “expending the Vatican’s energy?” That cannot be implied by my statements. That’s just an assumption.

I think that everyone always feels that their issues are important, because they’re in the middle of it.

I don’t understand why you keep implying that I, personally have “issues” which I feel are important and supposedly the Vatican should pay attention to them. I haven’t said anything about that. I’m not talking about any personal issues of mine.

In addition, the Vatican has an agenda, which is usually set by the pope. Each pope comes in with an agenda. Pope Benedict’s agenda is to recover Europe, enhance the dialogue between Catholics & Jews and Catholics & Muslims, bring more academic research to the table. For that reason he spend a good part of his day doing research and writing, dealing with the sex abuse issue, and trying to lead the Church to a middle ground between the Traditionalists and the Liberals. Those are big issues to the Vatican.

I’m quite aware of His Holiness’ agenda. I understand it. I support it.

I’m very much in support of, and in touch with, my local bishop & his predecessor. I don’t see why the Vatican and the local bishops are mutually exclusive. However, this subject is somewhat tangential to this thread, so I won’t belabor it, except to correct any misimpressions of what I have already said, in case such come up again.

 

[Love_God_Too]

I have noticed that many people quote Cannon Law throughout this entire thread related to this issue. I wonder how Cannon Law read during the days of the inquisitions or when some Catholic Priests and Protestant Ministers were quoting scripture that supposedly supported opposition to interracial marriage in the 40’s and 50’s and so on.

I fear that as a Catholic, 20 years from now, we will once again look like George Wallace blocking the doors to the schoolhouse. After all, if Cannon Law can at one time permit torture and executions as it did during the inquisitions. It certainly isn’t flawless. Below is a link to a list of people executed by the Holy See.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_Holy_See

I believe God Loves his Gay children too.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I have noticed that many people quote Cannon Law throughout this entire thread related to this issue. I wonder how Cannon Law read during the days of the inquisitions

Canon Law didn’t exist as a unified single code until 1917. Until that point Church laws were kind of ad hoc. So its useless to really make such comparisons. That’s kind of like wondering about the application of the Bill of Rights (1791) in the US Articles of Confederation (1777-1787).

or when some Catholic Priests and Protestant Ministers were quoting scripture that supposedly supported opposition to interracial marriage in the 40’s and 50’s and so on.

AFAIK there’s nothing in the 1917 Code that spoke directly to that issue. Segregation was a US matter and canon law addresses the universal Church throughout the world. Segregation would have never occurred to European Church members to write canons about since it didn’t exist there or in most of the Catholic world.

I believe God Loves his Gay children too.

The Catholic Church teaches the same.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Canon Law didn’t exist as a unified single code until 1917. Until that point Church laws were kind of ad hoc. So its useless to really make such comparisons. That’s kind of like wondering about the application of the Bill of Rights (1791) in the US Articles of Confederation (1777-1787).

With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference. The fact is that Cannon Law is, and has been, written by flawed men as were the laws of men in the church in the days of the inquisitions. Was our church any less of the one true church then? It is very easy for people to formulate an opinion, and then find a single line in scripture to support it. Via their interpretation of said scripture of course. Cannon Laws were written in a similar way and have evolved considerably with the addition of knowledge that only the passage of time can provide. You cannot claim our faith as the one true church started by St. Peter and so cavalierly dismiss the early views and actions of our church.

You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.