Old School

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum (of the dead, [speak] nothing unless it is good) has always been one of my favorite Latin aphorisms but it would put us historians out of business.  It would also permit the ideologues to totally distort the truth about the past, something that a wide variety of the krazy spectrum—from the ‘Tea-Party’ folk in politics to the Latin Massers in the Church—do well enough already with their various rewrites of history, secular and religious.

And today Cardinal Edward Egan, former Archbishop of New York, is laid to rest.  The television is replete with a variety of people ranging from the policeman who stands in front of the Cardinal’s residence on Madison Avenue to a Knight of Malta resplendent in the cowl of his Order saying what a warm and kind man His late Eminence was.  De mortuis nihil nisi bounum is about selective memory.  History needs to be more rounded.

There are good things one could say about the Cardinal. Edward Egan was not a bad man and even if he were, everyone has something good that can be said about them.   His family testified to his love for them and his love for the people of New York.  Love he may have had but he certainly was not one to emote in public or even show affection.   He certainly was there for the people of New York in the aftermath of 9/11 and, while not a warm man, he was dutiful in personally performing the funeral rites of many and visiting many more in hospitals.   

He was a great money man.  And despite all our liberal “disdain” of filthy lucre, the fact is the Church needs money to accomplish its mission.  On the one hand, Cardinal Egan was a great fund-raiser and, on the other, he could tighten a budget in a way that Scott Walker could only envy—and, unfortunately, too often with the same amount of human suffering of which the good Governor is proud of in the great State of Denial, I mean Wisconsin.  Egan was more successful in reaching solvency for the Diocese of Bridgeport when he was bishop there than he was in New York, but New York’s problems were much greater and, on the bottom line, he didn’t do bad for New York from the fiscal perspective.  He was slow to close underpeopled churches which has left headaches for his successor but which somewhat modulated his unpopularity among those parishioners whose churches he kept open. 

He also was a staunch promoter of priestly vocations though the quality of men he attracted to his seminary and the “reforms” he enacted at the seminary in Yonkers (Saint Joseph’s, Dunwoodie) are not universally admired.  One would have to say that the Jury is still out on those questions.  He certainly didn’t anticipate the “Francis Model,” though the worst system will still produce some good priests and the best system some rotten apples.  He also missed Francis’ boat when it came to providing a retirement residence; let’s just say that it wasn’t a downward move when the left the official Archbishop’s residence on Madison Avenue for his new retirement digs. 

He was a staunch defender of the unborn but also a proponent of interpreting canon 915 to exclude those in public life who saw their public duties differently.  He instructed then Mayor Rudolf Giuliani not to receive Holy Communion and was furious when the Mayor received Communion at Pope Benedict’s New York Mass in April 2008, issuing a public rebuke of the Mayor over the matter. 

Both as Bishop of Bridgeport and Archbishop of New York, Egan had somewhat of a checkered history when it came to the issues of reporting clerical sexual abuse.  His position in Bridgeport was that there should be an internal hearing to determine the credibility of the accusation before the individual was reported to the civil authorities lest the priest be the victim of unfounded allegations.  Priests were grateful for this protection from potentially false or ill-motivated claims but it was in violation of the civil law.  In 2002 he gave an apology saying: "If in hindsight we also discover that mistakes may have been made as regards prompt removal of priests and assistance to victims, I am deeply sorry."  However he was later to retract this apology saying “I never should have said that…I don’t think we did anything wrong.”  

In New York the Cardinal lost the confidence of many of his priests and an anonymous letter from the priests was circulated, published, and sent on to Rome saying “During the last six years, the Cardinal’s relations with the Priests of New York have been defined by dishonesty, deception, disinterest and disregard.”  The writers of the letter said they had to remain anonymous, at least as regards the published letter, because of Egan’s “vindictive” nature. 

Cardinal Egan’s episcopacy needs be measured by the fact that like so many of the Bishops appointed during the John Paul years, he was the wrong sort of man to be a bishop.  Like his best friend and soul-mate, John Richard Keating, a fellow Chicagoan and fellow Canon Lawyer, Egan had the heart of a bureaucrat, not a shepherd.  The Church needs bureaucrats; it is—among other things—a bureaucracy.  But it is not at its heart a bureaucracy and it shouldn’t have bureaucrats at its heart—that is, in the ministry and office of Bishop.  This isn’t to say that Edward Egan wasn’t a good man, or even—in his own way and according to his own gifts—a good priest.  He just wasn’t what the Church needs.  Conservative though he was, he was no right-winger.  He had no interest in validating the “Old Rites,” but then he had little or no interest in the “New Rite” either.  The slovenliness of his funeral rites were appropriate to his own liturgical style.  He was a lawyer, a money-man, a person dedicated to making the system run as efficiently as possible.  He did that well and as I wrote above, we need those sort of persons around—on the chancery staff—but not necessarily among the ordained and certainly not with miter and crosier.  John Paul gave us some good bishops but mostly corporation men like Egan.  Benedict gave us brighter men, men who could think, but not necessarily braver men or holier men.  Benedict’s bishops (for the most part), like those of his predecessor, were climbers.  Every so often an O’Malley or a Curlin or a Morneau got snuck in, but over the last thirty-five years for the most part we got our Cordileone and Lori and Finn and Morlino and Dewayne.  It will take some time to clear them out and hopefully we will in the future receive more bishops like Blase Cupich or Christopher Coyne or Robert McElroy.  In the meantime, eternal rest to Edward Egan.  He may not have been the best we could have hoped for, but neither was he the worst.  While I am not an admirer, I did think that singing the Dies Irae as he was carried to his crypt was more than a bit harsh.  He was as good a man as he was able.  God be good to him. God be good to us all.  

Why They Are Afraid of Pope Francis 16

Cardinal Burke: old school not in tune with Pope

Francis and his Church of the Poor

Well, we haven’t finished the Dissolution of the Monasteries and I am a bit frustrated.  I thought I could do it in two posts and have done three and we still have at least two to go.     But I need to go back to Pope Francis for a while.   I do notice that the hits to the website jump whenever we talk about him, but more to the point he has done a few things lately that are worth comment.  And at least one of them has a lot of the neo-trads running scared again.  He replaced Cardinal Burke on the Congregation of Bishops with Cardinal Wuerl and this is a pretty clear sign that Burke’s sun is setting.  We should not be surprised.  Burke is the old-fashioned prelate who likes the princely style that Francis has been renouncing.  His Eminence is particularly attached to the pre-Conciliar rites and a very close padrone of the Institute of Jesus Christ Sovereign Priest a peculiar institute of self-appointed quasi-prelates who work to revive the monarchial style of Catholicism prevalent before the Second Vatican Council.  Cardinal Burke was Archbishop of Saint Louis until his heavy handed abuse of power led Pope Benedict to remove him to various desk jobs in Rome.   Now he has lost what is probably the most influential of those desk jobs, his position on the committee that nominates bishops.  He remains as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura which is the Church’s highest court but is not equivalent to our Supreme Court in as that it cannot rule on the constitutionality of Church Law nor can it hear cases unless those cases are appealed from two lower courts that are each considered supreme within their own areas of competence—the Sacred Roman Rota which is the normal court in which cases ranging from appeals against one’s bishop to marriage annulments and the Apostolic Penitentiary which is the court that deals with internal forum issues and excommunications.  Each of these courts are supreme in their jurisdictions and only if there has been a procedural error do cases get referred to Burke’s bench at the Signatura.  In other words, unlike our supreme court, the review is based not on an interpretation of the law, but only if there has been a procedural error that needs to be rectified.  Moreover, there are 26 judges who sit on the Signatura and cases are not heard by an individual judge but dealt with administratively by panels of judges assigned to hear a case.  Thus Burke’s power is highly checked as he does not have the same position of decision making that prefects of the various congregations would have.  His appointment to the Signatura was a clever way of disposing of a man to whom experience proved power cannot be entrusted. 
Power he may lack, but until this recent fall influence has been Cardinal Burke’s in abundance.  His position on the Congregation for Bishops put him in a position to advance or check the careers of up and coming bishops.  He was a key player in the advancement of Archbishop Lori, for example, from being Bishop of Bridgeport to Archbishop of Baltimore—a see that often carries a red hat with it.  Lori and Burke—along with the infamous but influential Cardinal Bernard Law, formerly of Boston—were responsible for the allegations against the American nuns affiliated to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  Cardinal Burke still sits on a number of other Vatican Congregations and Commissions as do each of the Cardinals, notably those who live in Rome, but none have the influence that the Congregation for Bishops has.  His removal from that Congregation and replacement by Donald Wuerl is a clear sign of the sort of Bishop Pope Francis wants appointed for the American Church.  The notable conflict between Burke and Wuerl was over Burke’s policy of refusing Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support legislation in conflict with Catholic moral theology whereas Wuerl has set the policy in his diocese that the Eucharist is not a weapon to be used against people—whether politicians or individuals whose lives do not conform strictly to Catholic moral theology. 
Many of the extremists among Catholic conservatives were delighted with Cardinal Burke’s outspoken defense of traditional Catholic values whereas the vast majority of more moderate Catholics agreed with Cardinal Wuerl that the issues need to be addressed at a place other than in the Mass itself.  Cardinal Burke has always interpreted canon 915 that Holy Communion is not to be distributed to those who are excommunicate, to those who are under interdict, or to those who persist in grave public sin to apply to politicians who support or do not oppose “pro-choice” legislation or who support or do not oppose same-sex marriage.   Cardinal Wuerl reminds his priests that such politicians have neither been excommunicated nor placed under interdict and disputes whether their legislative actions consist of “grave public sin.”  Of course as head of the Apostolic Signatura, the chief judicial arm of the Church, one would think that Burke is the better arbiter of the Canon Law, but Pope Francis obviously does not see things the same way.  Reading through various “pro-life” blogs and articles, one sees a growing disillusionment with Pope Francis, and even a sense of alarm.  The pope’s admonition that the Church needs not to be “obsessed” with the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage have provoked outcries from Michael Voris, Judy Brown of the American Life League, and others who see their Catholic credentials being eroded in the policies of this papacy.   Certainly with Cardinal Wuerl on the Congregation for Bishops we can expect more middle of the road prelates than we have seen in the past decade or two (or three). 

Joe Biden, Pope Francis, and the Communion Kerfuffle

Well, now the fuss is that Vice President Biden and Democratic House Minority leader, Pelosi received Holy Communion at the Mass inaugurating the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis.  Did you honestly think that they wouldn’t?  As for whether they should or not, it isn’t my business to make a judgment call.  I am not sure it is the business of all those who have an opinion on the matter either. 
I was living in Rome during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and the inaugural Mass of Pope Benedict XVI and was working for the BBC and several other networks as a consultant.  As such I had access to a wide variety of sources of information.  Moreover, in the circle of friends and acquaintances with whom I had dinner or went to the beach or spent weekends in the Tuscan countryside were any number of low and medium level Vatican “officials.”  An inveterate gossip, I learned not to give opinions but only to ask questions with a faux innocence that opened the dams of behind-the-scenes information.  I found out, among other things, that the priests giving Holy Communion at the Masses for the funeral of John Paul and the installation of Benedict were instructed not to refuse anyone Holy Communion.  This instruction was especially reinforced for those in the diplomatic section and the sections where special guests were being seated.  This meant that not only were dubious politicians of various nationalities to be given Holy Communion but non-Catholics as well.  In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict gave Holy Communion to Prior Roger Schutz, the Calvinist prior of the Ecumenical Community of Taizé.   Of course precedents had been set when Pope John Paul had given Holy Communion to Tony Blair—at the time not only a pro-choice politician but an Anglican—at a Mass with the Blair family in the Pope’s private chapel.
As prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger had written a letter to the American Bishops supporting the policy that pro-choice politicians should be denied Holy Communion.  Cardinal McCarrick managed to deflect the letter, not releasing it but only summarizing it in remarks to the Bishops at their semi-annual meeting.   McCarrick and Ratzinger were not on friendly terms, at least after that.  McCarrick allegedly led the American Cardinals in the 2005 conclave in an unsuccessful alliance with the Germans to evade a Ratzinger papacy.  Cardinal McCarrick’s resignation, offered on his 75^th birthday, was immediately accepted by Pope Benedict unlike the resignation of most other Cardinals who were invited to stay on for several years.  Was McCarrick’s refusal to implement canon 915 the reason for Benedict’s quick acceptance?  The Holy Father could have removed the Cardinal from his see earlier, of course, but that would have been a too obvious rebuke. Nevertheless, had Benedict wanted canon 915 to be enforced he would not have appointed Donald Wuerl to the Washington See as Wuerl, when Bishop of Pittsburgh, had made it very clear that he was not going to refuse Holy Communion to anyone, even those politicians who supported abortion or euthanasia.  Wuerl’s removing the faculties of Father Marcel Guarnizo, a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow working in the Washington Archdiocese, for Guarnizo’s having refused an acknowledged Lesbian communion, was a clear sign that in his Archdiocese ministers are not to take it upon themselves to decide who may and may  not receive Holy Communion.  We all know where Wuerl stands on this issue. 
Pope Benedict had not found it in his agenda to remove Cardinal Wuerl or, for that matter, Bishop Loverde of Arlington, from their sees for refusing to implement canon 915.  Bishop Loverde has somewhat flown under the radar on this issue while it is likely that more Democratic politicians live in his diocese than in the Archdiocese of Washington.  Loverde is a very gentle and pastoral man—perhaps too gentle with his priests who are often in rebellion against his authority for his being “too liberal.”  Moreover, priest friends of mine in the Washington chancery have claimed that both Wuerl and Loverde are under instructions from Rome not to make this matter of Holy Communion and politicians an issue.  We will see if that changes in the new papacy, but in the meantime I need to remember that it is not up to me to enforce canon 915 and it probably isn’t up to you either.  When I make judgments about who is receiving Holy Communion worthily, I probably am not doing so myself.

 

 

Canon 915 and Who is the Decider, part 2

Lay Ministers administering Holy Communion in a
combat situation

Let’s pick up the ball on this issue of who may and who may not exclude someone from Holy Communion. A person has, in canon law, a right to Holy Communion and there is no provision for an individual minister to arbitrarily take this right away.  Canon 912 says that “Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.  Who can forbid by law?  Who can decide if an individual is forbidden by law?  Is that responsibility in the prerogative of the individual minister?  Can the individual minister make a decision contrary to his or her ecclesiastical superior—the priest contrary to the bishop; the lay minister to the pastor?  In the previous posting I spoke of various bishops who made decisions excluding those whom they had determined were “obstinately persist(ing) in manifest grave sin” as Canon 915 describes.  The Ordinary clearly has such a right in his diocese and his judgment may not be popular but it must be respected. And it must be obeyed by every minister of the Eucharist in the diocese from an auxiliary bishop to an layperson serving as an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist.  I try to stay away from theology in this blog but in Catholic Ecclesiology (the Theology of the Church) the Bishop is the sole center of Eucharistic Fellowship in the Church.  He is the Priest of the Diocese and the presbyters (what we call priests) exercise their priesthood in his name. When a priest celebrates the Eucharist (The Mass) he does it as an extension of the Bishop.  When he forgives sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the priest absolves in the name of the Bishop.  The priest derives his authority to minister as a priest from the Bishop. And so the Ordinary—not any bishop, but the Ordinary, i.e. the bishop (or other prelate) who holds title to that diocese can exclude or admit people to Holy Communion and the other ministers of the Eucharist, whatever their rank (auxiliary bishop, priest, deacon, acolyte, lay extraordinary minister) are bound to follow his directives.  Are there others who have the authority to deny people Holy Communion on the grounds of personal integrity?  That is to say, are there others who have the right to deny a person communion because they—publicly or privately—are in grave sin? Can some other minister decide that the person before him for Holy Communion is guilty of sin sufficiently grave to deny him or her Holy Communion.   (The question of denying Holy Communion to people who are not Catholics or in communion with the Catholic Church is another issue as there is Universal Law that govern that decision and Universal Law trumps the authority of a Bishop in his diocese). Well, let’s look again at canon 915 again.

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

When speaking of “obstinately persist(ing) in manifest grave sin” Canon 915 is referring to what was once termed “public sinners.”  The current code does not use this term, but we can look back at the 1917 Code of Canon Law and see how it was applied.  The 1917 code is no longer in effect but it can help us understand the current code and be a guide to its interpretation.  The applicable canon would be 855.

Arcendi sunt ab Eucharistia publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti manifestoque infames, nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet et publico scandalo prius satisfecerint.

Occultos vero peccatores, si occulte petant et eos non emendatos agnoverit, minister repellat; non autem si publice petant et sine scandalo ipsos praeterire nequat. 

Can.855 §I . Those whose unworthiness is public are to be excluded from the Eucharist: those who are the excommunicated, those who are interdicted and those of blatant infamy unless their penance and conversion has been ascertained, and who have first atoned for the public scandal.

§2. The minister should also to refuse those whose sin is private if they request privately and he will not have ascertained them to have repented; however, if they publicly request (the Sacrament) and he is not able to pass over them without scandal is not to refuse them.

First then to Barbara Johnson, the woman refused communion because she “lives with a woman and that is a sin according to the Church.”  Ms Johnson would not have fallen under article 1.  While her sin is known to her family and associates, she is not (or at least was not until Father Guarnizo made her) a public person.  Traditionally canon 855 was applied (or could be applied) to public personages—actors, statesmen, members of the nobility, government officials, leading citizens.  It was meant for people who would be known by the general public.   While Ms Johnson’s “sin” was known to the circle of her family and friends, it would be considered “private” and she would be among those the canon refers to as “occultos peccatores.” Under those circumstances, if she asked Fr Guarnizo if she could receive Communion, he would be entitled to say “no.”  However, if she asked publicly, that is if she presented herself for Holy Communion; he could only refuse her if he could do so without scandal.  Obviously he was not able to do so without scandal as it has become a huge uproar, pitted the priest against his bishop, resulted in the priest being put on administrative leave, and filled the blogosphere with a huge amount of discussion—most of simply an exchange of ignorance masquerading as knowledge of the faith. 

What about those we once would have called “public sinners?”  Maybe Ms. Johnson doesn’t fall under this category—or at least didn’t until the Washington Post picked it up and it went viral--whose call is it to refuse such people as once were called “public sinners” Holy Communion?  Excommunication or interdict would not be a problem—that would be the prerogative of the Bishop (or higher authority) but the canon more or less implies a consensus that “everyone knows” who would be manifestoque infames.  A look at the canon proscribing Christian burial for public sinners isn’t any more clear as to who is the decider of those to be denied public funeral rites.  In the good ol’ pre-Vatican II days the practice was that the Diocese—the Bishop or his Vicar General—made that call. Some chancery rat with purple piping on his cassock would call the local pastor and tell him that a funeral for Pasquale Corleone was to be refused.  It mostly was used to bar funerals for Mafiosi and, in the days of Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles, the occasional actress.    Pastors usually didn’t take the initiative for fear that the “boys downtown” would overrule them in return for a generous donation to the bishop’s “Cross, Ring, and Crozier Fund” so it really wasn’t a problem most of the time.

While canon 855 does not mention who gets to decide who is—and who is not—a “public sinner” it only mentions the individual minister of the Sacrament as having the authority to refuse the Eucharist in terms of those who are occultos peccatores.  There was no authority given the individual minister—be it pastor, priest, or deacon—to refuse someone for public notoriety.  And remember in the days when canon 855 was in force, there were no extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. 

So where does that leave us today.  Can the individual minister, ordinary (bishop, priest, deacon, acolyte) or extraordinary (lay) take it upon himself to deny Holy Communion to an individual whom he or she deems unworthy to receive the Eucharist?   Well, the current canon does not cover occultos peccatores—that is the ordinary person known, or thought, by the minister to be in serious sin.  As I pointed out, Ms. Johnson—should she fall into any category of sin, would be, or would have been, in this category.  While an individual in serious sin is warned in canon 916 not to receive the Eucharist, there is not authority given the minister in canon 916 to refuse the Sacrament.  The minister is not the enforcer of the canon but the individual’s own conscience.  There simply is no authority given to deny a person communion because they are, in the opinion or even knowledge, of the minister to be in grave sin.  As for those who are excommunicate or under interdict—it is clear that they are to be refused,  but  excommunication or interdict is not in the power of the minister to impose, only to follow through and refuse communion to the excommunicated or interdicted individual.  As for those persisting in manifest grave sin, it seems that is in the prerogative of the Ordinary and unless he has specifically banned someone, I don’t see how the minister can justify refusing communion to that person any more than if the Ordinary had banned someone that the minister could, on his own judgment, administer the Sacrament to the outlawed individual. 

This is long and convoluted—I realize that—and it has taken me not only over my self-imposed ban about theology but way beyond my expertise (of which I have as much as the typical priest or deacon but no more) in Canon Law, but the Canon Lawyers I have consulted agree.  Then again, I am sure that there are those who wouldn’t.  Well, Hillel and Shammai had the same problems back in the old day.  I’m glad that Hillel and his school won out; I am equally glad that Father Guarnizo and his enthusiasts haven’t managed to capture the day and I hope we can move on and away from the black eye this priest has given the Church.     

Canon 915 and Who is the Decider, Part I

Cardinal Burke wearing the galero that
someday will hang over his tomb

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication  or interdict  has been imposed or declared,  and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This is the text of canon 915, these days probably the most cited canon in the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church as intra-Church disputes rage concerning congressmen and lesbians coming to Holy Communion..  But we not only have a text we have a context and the text needs to be put into its context for correct application.     

      The first part—those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared…” is fairly clear and does not need to be commented on other than to note it refers to those on whom excommunication has been imposed or declared.  This does not include those who have occurred excommunication latae sententiae or “automatically.”  Such people should not present themselves for Holy Communion but since reason for their automatic excommunication would be “internal forum,” it would not be in the scope of the minister of the Eucharist to deny them the sacrament.  Presumably the only one who could tell their moral state with any certainty would be their confessor and he cannot do anything that would indicate knowledge gained in the Sacrament of Reconciliation even if it meant giving the Eucharist “unworthily.”  Any other minister of the Sacrament would have to presume the person had been reconciled and the excommunication lifted. 

      The issues under debate revolve around “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”  This provision is to cover those who in some circles are called “public sinners.”  Who makes the determination? 

      The controversy has raged in the American Church at least since 2004 when then Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis and several other bishops declared that Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry should not be admitted to Holy Communion because of his support—and his party platform’s support—for the legality of abortion.  Burke had articulated this same position earlier as Bishop of LaCrosse Wisconsin but it only became a practical issue when he held a major See in which a presidential candidate might be likely to be present on a Sunday.  Senator Kerry was not alone under the threat of a Eucharistic ban.  Archbishop Burke had always been pretty free imposing this ban on those whom he perceived as disagreeing from Church teaching.  After numerous conflicts in his diocese with priests, religious, and laity, Burke was (re)moved to Rome where he was given a significant post in the Church’s judicial system but without any direct pastoral responsibilities.  This position rewarded him with a Cardinal’s hat and permitted the archdiocese to heal from his divisive leadership thus being a win/win situation.  He was succeeded in Saint Louis by Archbishop Robert J. Carlson.

      Not all bishops have interpreted Canon 915 in the same way that Archbishop Burke has.  Indeed, most American bishops have tried to duck the issue.  Cardinal Francis George of Chicago advised a Chicago Pastor where it was thought that 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, a faithful Mass-attender, might attend Mass while in Chicago that he should not give Biden communion at Mass but allow him to receive privately in the church sacristy.   The then Bishop of Biden’s family Diocese, Scranton PA, Joseph Martino, told Biden he was not to receive Holy Communion in the Scranton Diocese, but successive Bishops of Wilmington, Michael Saltarelli and William Malooly have not issued any such ban.  Bishop Martino, like Archbishop Burke, had alienated various people and institutions in the Scranton Diocese and though only in his early sixties resigned his See “for reasons of health” soon after announcing that Biden was not welcome to Holy Communion.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas banned from Holy Communion then Governor Kathleen Sibelius.  When Sibelius became Secretary of Health and Human Services, Naumann claimed that this ban was effective in Washington but Canon Lawyers have clarified that his authority to restrict an individual from Holy Communion is limited to his own diocese.  When Sibelius took up residence in the Washington area such jurisdiction passed to the Archbishop of Washington or the Bishop of Arlington, depending on where the Secretary lives and/or attends Mass.  

      Of course, Cardinal Donald Wuerl (and his predecessors Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and James Hickey) and Bishop Paul Loverde of the Arlington VA Diocese are the most watched prelates for how the Canon is applied.  Neither Wuerl (nor his predecessors) nor Loverde have shown any indication that they will ban individuals from the Sacraments because of their stance on political issues including abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research or other “hot button” issues.  Wuerl in particular takes much heat on this issue and is regularly picketed when he appears at his cathedral or other parishes by those who insist that he has a moral responsibility to invoke canon 915 against Democratic politicians.  While Bishop Loverde, a very kind and pastoral man, was named to the Arlington See before this became an issue, Wuerl—as Bishop of Pittsburgh—had made his position very clear that he would not invoke the canon.  This did not stop his appointment to Washington and some sources claim that Rome would not appoint a prelate to Washington who would stir up this controversy.  Rome certainly knew what they were getting with Wuerl on this issue and there does not seem to have been any pressure on him from the Holy See to invoke Canon 915.    But there are those more Catholic than the Pope who fault him for his “lax” defense of the Eucharist.  Maybe the Pope should have appointed one of them as Archbishop. 

More on this subject next time. 

This Story Just Won't Go Away

Father Marcel Guarnizo

We are getting to watch an interesting chapter in the history of the Church in the United States unfold as the precise meaning of Canon 915 gets argued out, but frankly this particular story is getting old--and weird.  The communion battle triggered by a priest’s refusal of Holy Communion to a lesbian at her mother’s funeral rages on.  As mentioned in several previous posts, (February 28, March 1, 2) the Reverend Marcel Guarnizo, a priest of the Archdiocese of the Mother of God (Moscow, Russia) but who was raised in Northern Virginia and is currently serving in the Archdiocese of Washington DC refused communion on February 25^th to Barbara Johnson at the funeral mass for Ms. Johnson’s mother at Saint John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg MD.  Over this weekend the Archdiocese of Washington withdrew Guarnizo from priestly ministry pending an investigation of charges that he has “intimidated” parish staff members these past two weeks as the story has unfolded.  Specific charges and names are lacking in the public account, but this is normal protocol to prevent those making the allegations and witnesses to the alleged acts from being intimidated.  Given the tone of several local bloggers, notably “An Archdiocese of Washington DC Catholic,”  “Restore DC Catholicism” and the ubiquitous Mary Ann Kreitzer of “Les Femmes: Women of Truth” this is a more than reasonable discretion.  Ms. Kreitzer, despite her claim to be a “woman of truth” has a local reputation for spreading calumny against anyone to whom she takes exception from her much beleaguered bishop (of whom she has spread the story that he was “living with a man”—his secretary, a religious brother, now deceased) to various priests, religious, and prominent laity for a variety of charges from witchcraft to heresy to ogling “altar babes” (one of her terms for girls who are permitted to serve at Mass.)  Any hope for sane conversation in this matter can be eliminated from the blogosphere and belongs in the appropriate canonical chambers where the investigation will be conducted. 

      Do I think Father Guarnizo will get a fair hearing?  Absolutely.  I trust the canonical procedures.  First of all, as Gaurnizo is not a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, his being put on leave (which is not the same as being suspended a divinis) applies only to the jurisdiction of the Washington Archdiocese.  He is free to return to his own diocese and resume ministry.  Moreover, he is free to go to any other diocese in the country—or the world—and, with the permission of the local ordinary, assume ministry.  The Washington Archdiocese investigation will only determine whether or not he will work in that Archdiocese.  Of course, if the allegations are substantiated, his own bishop can act upon them though, frankly, it would be unlikely that allegations of intimidating people would be much of a problem in the Moscow Archdiocese.  Moreover, I doubt that his having refused communion to an individual whatever the circumstances would be a problem in the Moscow Archdiocese.  I would expect there to be a very different set of cultural expectations on the authority of a priest in Russia than in the United States.  This would have nothing to do with doctrine, much less an issue of the place of Gay people in the Church.  It would simply be a matter of priestly authority and how it is used.  In the United States we labor under the disadvantage of a democratic mentality; the Russians have never had this heresy.  They have long embraced autocracy. 

      As for the procedure itself I have seen enough of canonical inquiries to trust that the investigation will be scrupulously fair.   The Archdiocese will not want to give sufficient reason for this to go either to the civil courts or on appeal to the Holy See.  That being said, I don’t think the Archdiocese would take this step of an investigation unless they thought that the allegations were credible.  Given that Father Guarnizo is not a priest of the Archdiocese, no reason has to be given that his services “are no longer required, thank you very much.”  He could simply be told to leave and his assignment be withdrawn. 

      I mentioned in an earlier entry (March 2^nd) that I found Father Guarnizo’s account of the events “fishy.”  The story was not stable.  It keeps evolving.  First Father Guarnizo encountered Ms. Johnson’s partner who told him of their relationship.  Then the story came out that Ms. Johnson herself confronted the priest in the sacristy informing him that this other woman was her “lover.”  Father supposedly then instructed her not to come to communion but she stormed out before he could have any “pastoral conversation” with her.  Since then stories have made the blogosphere that Barbara Johnson writes gay porn for a living and that she is an apostate who has forsaken the Church for Buddhism.  The story from Guarnizo supporters keeps growing.  How much is true?  Is any of it true?  Family members deny it; funeral home employees don’t support it.  I wasn’t there.  I don’t know.  Several priests have expressed their opinion that the stories don’t ring true—family members usually are met at the door of the Church when the body arrives, not in the sacristy before the Mass.  Priests usually have some encounter with the family before the morning of the funeral where “delicate” pastoral situations are made evident to the priest.  Funeral home personnel or parish bereavement team members warn the priest about “irregularities” they may need to know.  Frankly, I am left wondering if these charges of “intimidating” behavior by Guarnizo haven’t resulted from his attempts to force parish staff members to support his account of events against what they saw or heard that day.  I am only wondering, but until someone comes up with another explanation, I can’t think of a more plausible one. 

       Let’s give Father Guarnizo a pass for his judgment (bad or good) to refuse Ms. Johnson communion.  What if, after Bishop Knestout’s statement and reprimand, Guarnizo had simply swallowed his pride and said: “I made a poor judgment,” (not even “I was wrong”) “and I apologize to the Johnson Family (not even the individual refused communion) for any hurt my poor judgment caused.  I hope I can learn from this experience so that others are not put through this sort of pain in the future.”  There would not even be an admission of error here. (Again, I said poor judgment, not bad judgment.)  All it would take would be some humility.  Do you think this issue would have ballooned into this tragedy?  I don’t know a single priest (and I know many) who agree with Guarnizo’s judgment here.  No, I think there is much more to this story than we are getting from the anti-Wuerl bloggers and I am willing to give the Archdiocese the benefit of the doubt.        

     

Attempts to Justify--More on Saga of the Priest Who Refused Communion

Cardinal Donald Wuerl,
Archbishop of Washington

The saga of Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who last Saturday, February 25, refused communion to a woman at her mother’s funeral because the woman is living in a same-sex relationship continues to unfold.  It began to appear on the internet on Monday and in the newspapers on Tuesday.  The Archdiocese was quick in damage control and hung the priest out to dry, claiming that he acted contrary to diocesan policy.  (He did—that was very clear, as Cardinal Wuerl has made a point that people are not to be refused communion during Mass for any foreseeable reason.)   By Wednesday the story was circulating that the woman’s partner had encountered the priest in the Church before the Mass as she was preparing a reading and the priest asked who she was.  She supposedly identified herself as the partner of Barbara Johnson, the daughter of the deceased.  That is what gave Guarnizo a heads-up that Johnson was in a relationship that is outside the bounds of Catholic morality.  Following on this information, Guarnizo then refused Johnson communion at the Mass saying “I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin according to the Church.”  By Wednesday evening the story had evolved that Johnson had confronted the priest in the sacristy before Mass, introducing the other woman as her “Lover.”  Well what was a priest to do when challenged like this?  One account has it that he then “warned” Johnson that she should not come up for communion due to this sinful relationship, but she confronted him by appearing first in line for Holy Communion.  In another version Johnson stormed out of the sacristy before the priest could warn her that she should not receive.  Whichever version—if either—being true, Guarnizo felt that under the circumstances he was justified in his decision as Johnson had been duly warned that her living situation removed her from active participation in the Sacraments.  He was only doing his duty.  
I would have more confidence in the story if the versions put out by the priest’s supporters were consistent but details seem to be added with each round to bolster his case.  And I am not saying that the account isn’t true, but frankly it doesn’t wash.  Priest friends of mine say that Guarnizo’s version of the story “sounds fishy.” The usual protocol at a funeral is that the family arrives at the Church accompanying the body just in time for the funeral Mass.  One priest said: “I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but in thirty-five years of priesthood  I don’t ever recall a family member being in the sacristy before the funeral.  I invariably meet them at the door of the Church when the undertaker brings in the casket.”   Others who know Ms. Johnson say that she is frank about her relationship but not “in your face” and couldn’t imagine her using the term “Lover” in those circumstances.  Her family and guests at the funeral supports her version of the story that the refusal of Holy Communion was unprovoked.
       Another priest friend of mine said that he could not imagine this happening as it was recounted to him.  He said that in his parish he always visits with the family at least once before the funeral to ascertain their needs and then he attends the wake or vigil service before the funeral to meet the family again and see how they are handling the death.  He said that he would know if there was some “irregularity” in the family situation long before the funeral Mass.  A third priest I spoke with said that the local funeral director always tips him off about family situations when the details are being arranged with the Church.  Both priests thought that if Guarnizo didn’t know the situation before the funeral he should have.  Then a parishioner from the parish said: “Father may seem soft-spoken and quiet, but he is a scrappy little fellow, quick to fight over what he thinks is right.”  But does all this address the issue of his “right” to refuse the woman communion? 
     If the (Arch)bishop has a policy regarding Holy Communion—or any other question about public worship and administration of the sacraments, is an individual minister of the Eucharist, priest or lay, free to take the decision into his own hands?  One canon lawyer said: “Absolutely not!  Look at it from the other side: can you imagine if a priest in Saint Louis had given communion to Senator Kerry after (then Archbishop) Cardinal Burke had said he was not to be given the Eucharist?   The bishop sets the policy, not any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to be giving out Holy Communion.”  Another said: “This is not the situation for which canon 915 applies. That canon is for manifest public sinners and the decision about how it is to be implemented rests with the Ordinary (the Bishop).  This woman’s sin—and it is a sinful situation—this woman’s sin is considered in the private realm and not public even though friends and family would be aware of her relationship.  Public sin would refer to something like criminal behavior—heading up a Mafia family, being a racketeer, publicly known to be operating a house of prostitution or an illegal gambling establishment.  It could be applied to the owner of an abortion mill or its physicians if they were publicly identified with it.  Moreover it not only has to be a matter of public knowledge—as distinguished from common knowledge—but the person has to obdurately persevere in the sinful activity.  That is they need to be publicly admonished and remain in the sinful situation after and in spite of the public admonishment.  The case of Ms. Johnson clearly falls under private and not public sin.  Even a first year canon-law student would know this.”  
       But the crazies still clamor for blood—and not Marcel Guarnizo’s.  Local bloggers Restore DC Catholicism and An Archdiocese of Washington DC Catholic have been joined by Les Femmes—a one woman band from the hills of the Shenandoah—and her ties to the Catholic Media Coalition will spread it through the Catholic neo-con network in an attempt to bring down Cardinal Wuerl and his policy of not refusing people Holy Communion.  She has long been critical of Wuerl, his predecessors, Cardinals McCarrick and Hickey, and her own bishop, Paul Loverde of Arlington.  I suspect the publicity will run out of fuel before it achieves its goals of having Cardinal Wuerl or Bishop Loverde “corrected” by Rome, but it is a fascinating picture of the struggle over who determines Church policy.  This—the struggle for controlling Church authority—is an increasingly interesting issue as it puts the religious right into the role of rebellious and unfaithful Catholics, a role with which they are usually most uncomfortable.  We have to do a posting on that topic.