tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post8748884306167283775..comments2024-02-02T12:19:39.504-07:00Comments on V for Victory!: Fr. Guarnizo Sheds LightAnita Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-40205415007567750772012-03-18T13:16:18.911-06:002012-03-18T13:16:18.911-06:00The Declaration's guidance on this hinges on t...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."<br /><br />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: <br /><br /><br /> "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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.JT WIlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050538183905634833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-51209296890976502162012-03-18T09:08:06.107-06:002012-03-18T09:08:06.107-06:00The Declaration's guidance on this hinges on t...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."<br /><br />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: <br /><br /><br /> "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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.JT WIlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050538183905634833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-9394108850602321782012-03-17T23:35:41.542-06:002012-03-17T23:35:41.542-06:00I just don't see how the subjective knowledge ...<i>I just don't see how the subjective knowledge of the minister fits in here.</i><br /><br />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 <i>at the moment Communion is denied.</i> As far as manifestness is concerned, it seems to me that this means the minister must <i>know</i> 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.Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-71514946852515236252012-03-17T16:28:51.725-06:002012-03-17T16:28:51.725-06:00Anita, here's the link:
http://www.vatican....Anita, here's the link: <br /><br />http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html<br /><br />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.<br /> 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.JT WIlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050538183905634833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-50579684515956970672012-03-16T22:56:53.893-06:002012-03-16T22:56:53.893-06:00JTWilson, you might provide a link to the document...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 <i>wrongly</i> withholding Communion. Hence the need to be right in withholding Communion. <br /><br />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.Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-24628547731828795022012-03-16T15:22:16.628-06:002012-03-16T15:22:16.628-06:00Thanks for your response and I do appreciate it.
I...Thanks for your response and I do appreciate it.<br />I do see your support of the Fr., too.<br /><br />So, the answer to my original question...<br /><br />"But... a woman introduces her female "lover" to the priest minutes before the service and is expected... nay required to give her communion?"<br /><br />... is Yes?<br /><br />Well, that may be correct according to Canon law<br />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. <br /><br />Of course, he doesn't deserve persecution. But, the persecution is entirely predictable. Satan hates priests. Satan especially hates orthodox priests.newguy40https://www.blogger.com/profile/07691117339629857830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-86140553881158697012012-03-16T15:13:15.614-06:002012-03-16T15:13:15.614-06:00The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of L...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.JT WIlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050538183905634833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-5962076360326340502012-03-16T15:07:07.366-06:002012-03-16T15:07:07.366-06:00New Guy, there needs to be clarity of thought here...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).<br /><br />Second of all, attention must be paid to <i>all</i>, not <i>some</i>, 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 <i>giving</i> Communion is going to be very difficult to overcome, and canons about denying Communion must be interpreted in light of such a presumption. <br /><br />We can't just ignore the law, or dismiss it as so much hair-splitting bureaucracy, just because we don't like the result.Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31669215.post-9252431571637231432012-03-16T13:41:42.768-06:002012-03-16T13:41:42.768-06:00I guess I just don't get it not being a Canon ...I guess I just don't get it not being a Canon lawyer.<br /><br />But... a woman introduces her "lover" to the priest minutes before the service and is expected... nay required to give her communion?<br />What does the word "lover" other than sexual congress? <br />That was real time not after the fact.<br /><br />I think this example is a reason why orthodox Catholics are so split with the hierarchs such as the Bishop and the Canon lawyers.newguy40https://www.blogger.com/profile/07691117339629857830noreply@blogger.com