Thursday, March 15, 2012

Fr. Guarnizo Sheds Light

The embattled Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has issued a public statement regarding the lesbian-Communion affair and his removal from public ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington.  The entire text of his statement can be found here.

In my first round of comments on this ugly business, I asked what effect the occasion (a funeral) had on the Can. 915 requirement of "manifest grave sin" to justify withholding Communion.  I pointed out that the daughter of the deceased was a prominent attendee of this particular Mass, rather than just another face in the crowd, and that the congregation most likely knew about her lifestyle.  I think Dr. Ed Peters has now answered my question, based on Fr. Guarnizo's public statement.  Addressing Can. 915, Peters says (emphases and comments added):
Prescinding from rarely encountered excommunication and interdict situations, Canon 915 lays out several distinct conditions that must be simultaneously satisfied before a minister of Holy Communion may (and indeed, should) withhold the Eucharist from a member of the faithful. To justify withholding the Eucharist under Canon 915 according to its plain terms, the conduct in which a communicant perseveres must be obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful. [In other words, the conjunction "and" tells us all of these conditions must be met.  This principle of statutory construction also applies in the secular world.]These conditions must be understood and assessed according to the Church’s canonical tradition, else, one is no longer talking about the law of the Catholic Church.

Given the very strong canonical presumptions accorded the faithful in regard to reception of the sacraments, and given the strict interpretative hermeneutic set out in Canon 18, the burden is, without question, on the minister of holy Communion to verify that all of the conditions listed in canon 915 are satisfied before he withholds holy Communion from a member of the faithful who approaches for it publicly. Put another way, the burden is not on Guarnizo’s critics to prove that he should not have acted as he did in this case, rather, the burden is on Guarnizo to prove that he acted in accord with Church discipline.

...

Guarnizo did not know, and could not have verified, whether Johnson’s sin (speaking objectively), which could be grave (a conclusion I think a Catholic could reach based on the words used here) was also manifest, as well as obstinate and perseverating. Yet such factors, according to a host of respected commentators writing over many decades, must be verified before withholding holy Communion from a member of the faithful. Consider:

“If the priest … doubts the publicity or notoriety of the crime, it would certainly be safer to give the Holy Eucharist to one who publically asks for it.” Dom Augustine, COMMENTARY (1920) IV: 230.

“Occulto peccatori qui publice accedit ad sacram Mensam administranda vero est sacra communio … si fideles, quippe cum eis indignitas non sit nota, timore afficiantur, ne et ipsi infamentur, si sacerdos ob … ignoratiam, errorem, etc, eos praetereat.” Jone, COMMENTARIUM (1954) II: 100.

“If there is doubt about the notoriety of the sin, the communicant is to be favored in public.” Abbo-Hannan, SACRED CANONS (1960) I: 854.

“Before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave.” Kelly, in GB& I COMM (1995) 503.

“The minister of holy communion should not publicly deny communion to a person who, being afflicted by grave sin and/or subject to a non-declared penalty latae sententiae [e.g., for apostasy] is not notoriously under those situations.” Gramunt, in EXEGETICAL COMM (2004) III/1: 615-616.

I know of no commentator who disputes these views. In terms of Canon 915, and given Guarnizo’s factual admissions above, I conclude that Guarnizo erred in withholding Communion.
So basically, what I understand Dr. Peters to be saying is this: at the very moment that Holy Communion is withheld, (1) the requirements of obstinacy, manifestness, gravity and sinfulness must exist simultaneously; and (2) the minister of Holy Communion must have a subjective knowledge that all these conditions exist.  So even if the four requirements of Can. 915 are in fact in place, the minister who denies Communion is still not covered as long as he has a doubt (which I take it means legitimate doubt, not born of willful blindness) that they were in place.  What the minister finds out afterwards, or what later turns out to be the case, is not relevant: what is relevant is what he knows at the moment of the incident.

The inescapable conclusion, then, is that Fr. Guarnizo did not comply with Can. 915 in withholding Communion.  For reasons that he delves into in his post linked above, Peters also concludes that Fr. Guarnizo's action was not covered by canon law on any of the other potential grounds for denying the woman Communion.  In short, Fr. Guarnizo was wrong and stands in need of correction.

But what Fr. Guarnizo doesn't stand in need of is persecution.  He erred, but he erred on the side of love for the Eucharist and for the deluded soul of the woman who provoked him: on that point, he requires no correction.  I have said before, and continue to maintain, that this whole thing was a set-up, and that the penalties visited upon Father are out of all proportion to the offense.  Yes, there has been a firestorm, but Fr. Guarnizo's error was merely the excuse for the firestorm: it is the so-called injured party who has fanned the flames.  The lesson that needs to be drawn from this is that a priest's best defense against attacks of this kind is solid, thorough training in the proper application of canons governing the administration of the Sacraments.

Based on the foregoing, I accept that Fr. Marcel Guarnizo erred under canon law in this incident.  But (a) he has received a vastly disproportionate, and therefore unjust punishment; and (b) the Archdiocese of Washington gives every appearance of throwing him under the bus, all while coddling the woman who put him in such a dreadful position.  To my way of thinking, that is the greatest scandal in this whole affair.      

9 comments:

  1. I guess I just don't get it not being a Canon lawyer.

    But... a woman introduces her "lover" to the priest minutes before the service and is expected... nay required to give her communion?
    What does the word "lover" other than sexual congress?
    That was real time not after the fact.

    I think this example is a reason why orthodox Catholics are so split with the hierarchs such as the Bishop and the Canon lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. New Guy, there needs to be clarity of thought here. First of all, it is not fair to lump those who think the priest violated the law with those who are throwing him under the bus. I have declaimed from the rooftops that Fr. Guarnizo is being persecuted, and continue to do so even though I now agree he acted wrongly. His error is not corrected by the hierarchy's failure to deliver a fitting and proportionate response (which, if I'm not mistaken, is another over-arching principle of canon law).

    Second of all, attention must be paid to all, not some, of the elements that must be present in order to justify denying Communion. Furthermore, individual laws cannot be read in isolation: this is a principle that operates in the secular law as well as in canon law. A strong presumption in favor of giving Communion is going to be very difficult to overcome, and canons about denying Communion must be interpreted in light of such a presumption.

    We can't just ignore the law, or dismiss it as so much hair-splitting bureaucracy, just because we don't like the result.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts issued a Declaration on June 24, 2000 which gives clear insight into Canon 915. The Declaration makes clear the preference for avoiding scandal, a fact ignored by Dr. Peters as he sets his own high bar for meeting the conditions of the canon.

    The Washington Post death notice identified the woman and her partner, "Ruth" as if they were a married couple. The woman proudly announced her relationship with another woman to the priest. It was MOST reasonable to determine that at least some in the funeral congregation were well aware of the gravely serious sin. The Declaration says the opportunity for scandal must be removed: "remoto scandolo". Could one conclude that the opportunity for scandal was removed in this circumstance? No way.

    The concern for avoiding scandal is so great that the Declaration requires the minister of Communion to withhold Communion even if there was not an opportunity for prior warning!

    I suggest that before reaching the "inescapable conclusion" that Fr. Guarzino erred, one should take the time to read the Vatican's own helpful insight into how to interpret Canon 915.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your response and I do appreciate it.
    I do see your support of the Fr., too.

    So, the answer to my original question...

    "But... a woman introduces her female "lover" to the priest minutes before the service and is expected... nay required to give her communion?"

    ... is Yes?

    Well, that may be correct according to Canon law
    but is still wrong in my eyes. What I see is an orthodox priest defending the Holy Eucharist and being denied a vigorous support from the hierarchs.

    Of course, he doesn't deserve persecution. But, the persecution is entirely predictable. Satan hates priests. Satan especially hates orthodox priests.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JTWilson, you might provide a link to the document you're talking about if you want it to be considered. Also, I myself previously raised the issue of the woman's notoriety within that particular congregation, and asked why that did not make a difference. Apparently, it does not change the analysis because the minister's own subjective knowledge was lacking. But in any case, the principles you say the Vatican document sets forth do not sound inconsistent with Peters' analysis. The goal of avoiding scandal by withholding Communion is not met where the sinner does not meet the requirements for openness and notoriety. Also, there is the potential for scandal in wrongly withholding Communion. Hence the need to be right in withholding Communion.

    New Guy: it would seem that, in particular circumstances, the answer to your question is indeed yes. It is possible to do the wrong thing with the best of intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anita, here's the link:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

    We probably agree that the goal of avoiding scandal under Canon 915 only arises because of obstinate grave sin that is manifest. The scandal is directly linked to the likeliness of pre-existing public awareness of the sin.
    As described in my earlier post, the "manifest" hurdle was most reasonably met. The "obstinate" requirement is met if the sin is ongoing--- and she announced that it was. The requirements of Canon 915 having been met (grave sin, obstinate persistence, and manifest nature), the minister was obligated to withhold Communion. I just don't see how the subjective knowledge of the minister fits in here. Perhaps what is being suggested is an additional hurdle: demanding that the minister be thinking "I'm withholding communion because of Canon 915." Which is an interesting question, since the priest has stated that he was NOT thinking that. So, here you have a circumstance where the minister's thoughts were perhaps insufficient, but the outcome was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just don't see how the subjective knowledge of the minister fits in here.

    As I understand it, where the subjective knowledge of the minister fits in is this: the minister must know that each and every Canon 915 element -- obstinacy, manifestness, gravity and sinfulness -- is present at the moment Communion is denied. As far as manifestness is concerned, it seems to me that this means the minister must know that the congregation knows that the person presenting himself for Communion is an obstinate public sinner. I don't know how to express correctly standards of intent under canon law, but based on what I have seen, it appears that "knowledge" means that the minister believes something to a practical certainty, based on the facts before him. That would be a higher standard than mere possibility or even probability.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Declaration's guidance on this hinges on the term "remoto scandalo." I've never studied Latin, but asked a Latin teacher the meaning of "remoto" and was told it means "removed." (I'd have bet "remote.") Either way, it's a much lower bar than "practical certainty." Dr. Peters injects a similarly high bar by requiring the sin to be "widely known."

    Real insight comes from the example in the Declaration. A divorced and remarried couple receives the sacrament of penance and is living "in full continence" (as brother and sister.) They are thus not in a state of mortal sin and can present themselves for Communion. The congregation, however, is not going to be aware of the couple's private married life, and inclined to assume they live as any typical married couple (not as brother and sister). The opportunity for scandal remains! Under this circumstance, the Declaration states:


    "Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo."

    So here you have a someone spiritually disposed to receive Communion, yet the directive to the minister is to withhold Communion unless the likelihood of scandal is removed.

    This example clearly demonstrates the gravity of the concern about the threat posed by scandal. In fact, one could argue it shows that the threat of scandal outweighs the person's right to receive the sacrament.

    Thus, it is contradictory to require the minister to know with practical certainty that scandal will occur before giving Communion to someone who is NOT spiritually disposed (i.e. having just admitted to ongoing grave sin).

    The weightiness of the concern over scandal is also evidence by the stipulation that even if there is no time to counsel the errant Communicant the minister must withhold Communion.

    Like you, I am uneducated on standards of intent under canon law, but it seems we could evaluate things logically. The canon stipulates elements which give rise to the opportunity for scandal. If those elements (grave sin, obstinate and manifest) are present, Communion must be withheld. The state of mind of the minister has no impact on whether scandal is given.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Declaration's guidance on this hinges on the term "remoto scandalo." I've never studied Latin, but asked a Latin teacher the meaning of "remoto" and was told it means "removed." (I'd have bet "remote.") Either way, it's a much lower bar than "practical certainty." Dr. Peters injects a similarly high bar by requiring the sin to be "widely known."

    Real insight comes from the example in the Declaration. A divorced and remarried couple receives the sacrament of penance and is living "in full continence" (as brother and sister.) They are thus not in a state of mortal sin and can present themselves for Communion. The congregation, however, is not going to be aware of the couple's private married life, and inclined to assume they live as any typical married couple (not as brother and sister). The opportunity for scandal remains! Under this circumstance, the Declaration states:


    "Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo."

    So here you have a someone spiritually disposed to receive Communion, yet the directive to the minister is to withhold Communion unless the likelihood of scandal is removed.

    This example clearly demonstrates the gravity of the concern about the threat posed by scandal. In fact, one could argue it shows that the threat of scandal outweighs the person's right to receive the sacrament.

    Thus, it is contradictory to require the minister to know with practical certainty that scandal will occur before giving Communion to someone who is NOT spiritually disposed (i.e. having just admitted to ongoing grave sin).

    The weightiness of the concern over scandal is also evidence by the stipulation that even if there is no time to counsel the errant Communicant the minister must withhold Communion.

    Like you, I am uneducated on standards of intent under canon law, but it seems we could evaluate things logically. The canon stipulates elements which give rise to the opportunity for scandal. If those elements (grave sin, obstinate and manifest) are present, Communion must be withheld. The state of mind of the minister has no impact on whether scandal is given.

    ReplyDelete