-255x255.jpg "CNA photo by Michelle Bauman")
WASHINGTON — In the wake of Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, the university’s president, John DeGioia, issued an “open letter” that noted her “sincerity” and adherence to civil discourse as she advocated on behalf of the contraception mandate before a group of House Democrats on Feb 23.
“Sandra Fluke … was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression,” stated DeGioia in his letter.
But in a March 11 address, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington used DeGioia’s letter as a point of departure for a penetrating and sustained reflection that contrasted a modern, subjective view of conscience with Catholic teaching on man’s capacity and obligation to correctly choose between good and evil.
“The statement, ‘I am sincere’ is confused with the reality of being right. Everyone can have an opinion, but that does not make it right. ‘She was sincere and spoke with conviction’ does not equate with ‘She was right and her position is correct,’” noted Cardinal Wuerl as he delivered the John Carroll Society Lenten Lecture before a crowd at the Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda, Md.
The cardinal’s remarks may constitute the first time a Catholic leader has publicly addressed the latest chapter in an increasingly acrimonious and partisan debate over the Obama administration’s decision to approve a new federal law that requires private employers — including Georgetown University — to provide contraception services in their health plan.
On Feb. 23, during videotaped testimony before House Democrats, Fluke attacked Georgetown’s refusal to include these services in its student health plan, reporting that many female students struggled financially to access contraceptives by other means. Asserting that university employees experienced similar difficulties, she opposed two bills before Congress that would broaden exemptions for institutions and individuals that opposed contraception and related services on moral or religious grounds.
Subsequently, radio talk-show host Limbaugh ignited a furor when he ridiculed Fluke’s demands, suggested she wanted taxpayers to cover the cost of her sex life, and described her in derogatory terms. Limbaugh later apologized for this remarks after corporate sponsors of his show suspended their advertising.
Cardinal Wuerl did not address the details of the case. Rather, he took a different tack, examining how a culture of moral relativism and reliance on opinion polls has resulted in a confused understanding of the human conscience. Even many Catholics cite public acceptance of immoral behavior, such as premarital sexual activity, to challenge consistent doctrinal teaching.
Indeed, in recent weeks the cardinal has struggled to clarify Church teaching on both contraception and same-sex “marriage” amid in a deeply politicized media environment.
In late February, The Washington Post carried a front-page story reporting that a lesbian had been denied Communion at the funeral Mass for her mother by a priest at a suburban parish in Gaithersburg, Md., who knew of her sexual orientation.
UPDATE: Canon lawyer Ed Peters responds to the latest developments in the case involving the Maryland priest: In the Light of the Law.
The archdiocese quickly apologized for the priest’s action, while challenging the assertion that any given individual had a “right” to the Eucharistic.
Subsequently, in a March 9 letter, Auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout confirmed that the pastor had been placed on administrative leave, citing “credible” reports of “engaging in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.” The letter said nothing about the incident at the funeral.
Local Christian leaders are gearing up for a referendum on same-sex “marriage” in Maryland, and the headlines about the denial of Communion were thus viewed as politically motivated. But the archdiocese’s decision to place the priest on leave has since ignited a firestorm on Catholic websites — though all the details of the case have not been brought to light, as canon lawyer Ed Peters noted in a March 12 post on his blog.
After his March 11 address, Cardinal Wuerl was asked to explain when Communion should be denied to an individual, and he repeated his earlier position that only in extremely rare cases after an individual has been publicly excommunicated.
In his prepared remarks on the Catholic understanding of conscience, the cardinal sought to clarify its divine origins, its proper function and its proper impact on a person’s moral choices.
“Conscience is that sure orientation of the human heart and mind, our human nature, towards the good and the right. It is sometimes described as the quiet voice of God within our hearts,” stated Cardinal Wuerl.
In Scripture, conscience underscores man’s close relationship to God, listening to his word and accepting his will, combined with “an inner awareness of one’s own position and responsibility before God and an awareness of the divine judgment.”
“Although the term for conscience is not found explicitly in the Gospels, the teaching of Jesus moves the emphasis from external action to the heart, to interior dispositions and the need for purity of intention,” he said, noting that Jesus did not retreat from public opposition.
Citing the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the cardinal stressed that the proper role of conscience is more than an intellectual judgment. Rather, the movement of the conscience arises from an integrated personal choice, combining mind, will and heart, oriented to the loving will of God.
Noting the contributions of Blessed John Henry Newman to the development of Catholic teaching, the cardinal challenged secular definitions of the human conscience that approached moral judgments in a spiritual and moral vacuum, giving more weight to “feelings” and unexamined “opinions” than reasoned deliberations and a humble adherence to moral absolutes.
“Conscience … is more than a mere psychological or sociological phenomenon; it is intricately bound to the Creator and his law, and any notion of conscience which does not recognize and accept this was meaningless to Newman,” he stated.
In the wake of the U.S. bishops’ public opposition to the contraception mandate, Democrat supporters of the federal rule have cited statistics suggesting that a large majority of Catholic women have used contraception, thus substituting opinion polls for a reasoned critique of Catholic teaching and of First Amendment rights.
Similarly, the gender of an individual speaking out on an issue is often given more weight than the substance of their position. Thus, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., attacked the credibility of an all-male panel of representatives from Catholic, Baptist and Lutheran churches at a Congressional hearing on religious liberty.
Meanwhile, self-identified Catholic individuals and groups have argued that the bishops’ defense of Church teaching on contraception rejects the new understanding of conscience affirmed by the Second Vatican Council.
Cardinal Wuerl countered this persistent charge by referencing the Council document Dignitatis Humanae, which affirmed the role of Catholic faith and morals in the proper formation of the conscience.
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. The Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the Teacher of the Truth,” states Dignitatis Humanae.
The widespread use of opinion polls also marks an increasingly common belief that moral truth is elusive and cannot be substantiated, but the cardinal rejected this stance.
“Moral norms can in themselves be known,” he said.
The cardinal’s hour-long address offered a thought-provoking departure from the often distorting media sound bites that have accompanied and even fueled the national debate on the contraception mandate.
But it is a measure of the quality and limitations of that debate that his well-informed and measured reflections are likely to receive no more weight than the “sincere” convictions of a Georgetown law school student who has challenged the free exercise of Church-affiliated institutions.
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Comments
Post a Comment
I am truly confused and I need a serious answer.
I know a saint who died while defending the Eucharist in his arms.
I have seen a movie where saint Josemaria Escriva quickly received all Eucharist when he realized he has to escape.
All of that was done in order to defend Jesus Christ’s body from those who disrespect Him.
Based on what I read, the saint died in vain. He could simply leave the Eucharist to the [undevelopped] conscience of attackers.
Father Escriva could simply run leaving Eucharist to the communists.
None of these took a sword to cut the ear of perpetrator. They simply used their bodies to protect body of Christ.
Is not the same what this priest did?
I understand the priest, as well as us, should not judge people, but he judged behaviour which he deamed immoral.
Eucharist is not a rubbing stone, and not should be given as such to people.
Eucharist should be received in full understanding of Who is being received and in full communion with the Church.
Doing openly what the Church calls immoral is an open standing against the Church and Jesus Christ.
That is why I think I would do the same what this priest has done regardless how I would be persecuted by the people of the Church.
Besides, I think that if one would have to receive a communion on her/his knees and on the tongue, that would made that person twice to think before receiving God. That requires humiliation and not entitlement… Just a thought…
Blessings,
Greg.
Not only that, but some websites are saying that the woman who wanted the Communion was a Buddhist! In that case, if not the other, this was truly a sacrilege.
As for Sandra Fluke, she is very active in Reproductive Health for Women, which should tell us that is is not a conscience thing, it is a planned anti-life movement.
I am glad to hear Cardinal Wuerl’s defense of contraception and remarks on MsFkuke. However, I think Padre Pio would completely disagree with him on denying communion only after excommunication and would defend Fr Guarnizo entirely. Of course St Padre Pio was once disciplined by the Church.
the cardinal seems to be at odds with the teaching of the church with regards to the sacraments. it seems a self admitted lesbian and buddhist
has the faculties to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of christ
similar to any catholic in the state of grace. the priest did what he is
mandated to do by canon law. what happened??? have a good year (ali)
Greg—-I have a similar question. I don’t envy the challenges facing our Bishops and priests and especially Cardinal Wuerl given his environs, but I didn’t realize that excommunication was the only precondition to denying Communion.
“After his March 11 address, Cardinal Wuerl was asked to explain when Communion should be denied to an individual, and he repeated his earlier position that only in extremely rare cases after an individual has been publicly excommunicated.”
I raise this not in the context of Father Marcels case as I leave that situation to be resolved by cannon legal process, but rather as something that caught my eye and caused me to proclaim my own ignorance.
Greg, beautifully and perfectfully said.
Yes, it is confusing & heartbreaking. If Cardinal Wuerl would just pick Fr. Marcel up from under the bus. As a recent convert to RC from ECUSA it is disheartening to see what is happening too a faithful priest. The politically correct, moral relativists make one weary. But they seem to be succeeding in the culture war. Thanks be to God that He is faithful when we all fall short ... At least we know who wins.
Thank you, Cardinal Wuerl, for pointing out these gaping philosophical holes in modern popular thought. I’m proud to be from your former diocese of Pittsburgh.
I believe the priest was correct in his actions. It would be helpful if Catholics were told Church teaching on such matters, then these situations could be avoided or at least minimized. I believe the higher good is respect for the sacrament. A non - Catholic friend of mine would receive Communion at Sunday Mass. The pastor phoned and explained the Church law and any further situation was avoided. Unfortunately the article does not mention whether the woman was aware of Church law… strong possibility she was. If the person knows the prohibition, but acts defiantly then she deserves be publicly refused the sacrament.
adolph hitlers conscience said it was all right to kill the jews, a murderer kills a family because his conscience says its all right,the women in the Catholic Church take birth control because their conscience says its all right…THIS CONSCIENCE THING IS ABSOLUTE BULL…if the CHURCH cannot speak to the people in the Church FORCIBLY THAT THE CONSCIENCE MUST BE FORMED TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES TEACHING…you leaders in the Church have let its members and society throw itself into hell because YOU DONT HAVE THE GUTS TO STAND UP TO THE FEMINIST AND HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY AND THESE HELLBOUND POLITICIANS THAT IS THROWING SOCIETY INTO HELL…...GODS DIVINE JUSTICE WILL SOON FALL ON HIS CHURCH AND SOCIETY FOR ITS WICKEDNESS WORSE THAN HE TIME OF THE FLOOD
The women in question was not catholic, she was a Buddhist. Receiving Jesus in the Eucharist is an act that affirms your assent to the Churches Teachings. Not only was this women’s reception sacrilegious because of moral reasons, she’s not Catholic, and not a Christian! We need to reaffirm the churches teaching on this. I know that in my parish, protestants receive communion any time they attend mass, thinking that they have that right, and the priests don’t even try to explain what it means to receive.
I am saddened by the weak-kneed response of Cardinal Wuerl that communion should only be denied only in rare cases and after a person has been “publicly” excommunicated. I’m sorry, but in the case of manifest sinners who are downright offensive in proclaiming their “sin” to be a “right” it is the responsibility of the priest to act as a guardian of the Eucharist - and also, I might add, a guardian of the sinner, who by partaking of the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord eats and drinks condemnation unto him/herself.
Half the time it isn’t even opinion polls that sway people’s minds over reasoning and objective truth, but photo ops and propaganda. Helen Alvare made the point on “The World Over” last week that her panel, and that of other women who testified along with Bishop Lori, were left out of photos and televised coverage during the Congressional hearings so as to stick with the leftist script that it was men against women on the religious liberty/war on women deal. When people’s opinions can be changed by appeals to perception, it isn’t just conscience that suffers. Add to that all the lies Fluke was caught in, from the real cost of contraceptives to misrepresentations on her student status and role as a pro-abortion activist, and she’s hardly this poor victim. What’s truly frightening is that the opposition now lies boldly without fear of exposure by an allied press.
As a Catholic convert, baptised on Easter Saturday 2008, one of things that brought me to the Church was their undying and unyielding stance on social issues, mainly the acceptance of homosexuality and abortion as being acceptable behavior. With that said, I continue to be disturbed over certain liberal Catholic leaders caving in to the politically correct crowd. The woman that was denied communion at his mother’s funeral was a practicing Buddist. She was no longer a Catholic and proudly tells the world on her Facebook page that she is Buddist. This was in addition to being a lesbian and living in a state of mortal sin. The last time I checked non-Catholics do not participate in the Eucharist unless under extremely rare conditions. Buddists and non-Christians absolutely do not receive communion at a Catholic Church. I urge Church leadership to quit caving in to the politically correct crowd. Right is right and wrong is wrong. AMEN.
Ironic that in a time when clerics engage in esoteric arguments related to morality that a D.C. area priest is chastised for refusing to offer communion to a known homosexual. Apparently, we live in a time where due to sensitivity, political correctness and the underground “Lavender Mafia” in the clerical ranks, a priest is prohibited from defending the eucharist. Maybe we are at a juncture when we should capitulate, being Episcopals (where anything goes and we can pretned to be non-judgemental catholics, small “c” intended)
I need a clarification too. Why did the archdiocese apologize immediately for the actions of the priest ? Are we not suppose to evangelize and teach the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist ?
Is public opinion more important than our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament ?
Let me quote Cardinal Wuerl :
“Conscience is that sure orientation of the human heart and mind, our human nature, towards the good and the right. It is sometimes described as the quiet voice of God within our hearts,” stated Cardinal Wuerl.
A question : Does Fr.Guarnizo have the right to follow his concience ?
Was Fr. Guarnizo “intimidating to staff ” before the incident or after ? This is a very sad incident for the church. Saints and martyrs died and suffered for our Lord in the Eucharist, their sacrifices thrown aside in favor of public opinion…
“Is public opinion more important than our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament ?”
—I agree with this comment. Instead of applauding someone like Fluke, not that I say we should insult her, but to take a stand for truth.
Ever since Obama has been in office, America has turned into an anti-Christ and immoral cesspool. From the likes of Jennifer Ahlquist in Rhode Island, Chaz Bono being on “Dancing with the Stars”, the latest TV show “GCB”, gay marriage being shoved down everone’s throat and now Fluke have done nothing but deteriorate our country. The actions of these liberals are destroying America.
Catholics, Christians and the like better start rasing their voice againt such smut. Write letters to ABC-who broadcasts such racist to poeple of the faith shows like “GCB”. Get out there and help to Get either Santorum or Newt as the Republican candidate for President and vote him in to remove KING OBAMA from the Presidential Office! We also need to vote out all other liberal Governors, Mayors, Congressmen and Senators.
We are strong in numbers—lets put an end to all the evils these democrats and liberals are poisoning our country with!
sure conscience is right but my conscience tells me that it is wrong to bring a child into this world if I dont want one, or cant take care of it properly, or give it a good home. The church leaders have tunnel vision and all they want is for us not to practice birth control. They are fooling themselves if they think all women even catholic ones are gonna listen to what they dictate or think should be. It makes me so angry to read that a lesbian was refused communion because a priest thought it was wrong. The bible teaches us NOT to judge but love a sinner. This is why I dont go to church anymore.
We NEED Cardinal Burke back here in the U.S. and he needs to talk with Cardinal Wuerl about Canon Law 915, NOW. As for that poor Priest doing the right thing and getting punished for it, is a perfect example of why we have mush for sermons and Bishops that are afraid of being Men of God. Everyone involved in this scandal of the Diocese of Washington, D.C. should themselves be suspended, no matter how high or low the level goes. When are the Bishops going to remove all of those that go against the Catholic Teachings, from our schools, churches, etc.? Miss Johnson, not only following the Buddhist “religion” and being an active homosexual, was or still is teaching in a “catholic” art school. +JMJ+
Love should always come first. Denying a woman the Eucharist at the funeral of her own mother is the very model of a lack of charity. Her mother’s funeral will possibly be a source of great pain for her for the rest of her life above and beyond the pain she already suffered from her loss. Those who think that the funeral of a dearly beloved family member is the place to deny the body and blood of Christ to someone, and in such a publicly humiliating way have lost their compassion. It was Jesus Christ himself who taught that love is be more important than the law, which is why he castigated those who would walk past the Samaritan wounded on the side of the road, or deny healing people on the Sabbath. Where are your hearts?
It is obvious that most if not all the comments to Cardinal Wuerl’s praise his presentation before the John Carroll Lenten Lecture. He decided to not mention the contents of Ms. Fluke’s presentation in front of the Democratic hearing in Congress. She was not referring to sexual intercourse in any of the things that she said. Ms. Fluke was talking aboout the problems that many women have with their reproductive organs that can be controlled by the use of contraceptives. The Cardinal did not indicate what he thought of Rush Limbaugh’s offensive language either. I believe that some of the conservative, republican, catholic hierarchy need to deal with the crimes committeed by priest in the sexual scandal, and the obstruction of justice in hiding and moving priest around to protect the Church from scandal. Fortunately, the Cardinal and bishops are not able to control news in the information age. I pray for Cardinal Wuerl and his brother bishops that they will eventually realize that they need to be more truthful.
1) I would urge all faithful Catholics to remember it is the RIGHT and DUTY of the BISHOP (not members of the laity) to decide when and how a priest can deny the Eucharist in his diocese. Reading blogs does not qualify any of us to attack a bishop governing his diocese.
2) @Vicki - the Bible teaches us that to receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is to commit grave sin (you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons - 1 Cor 10:21) And to “avoid fornication (1 Cor 6:18) And that “neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulters nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites… will inheiret the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)
There are two aspects to Communion. #1 It is a public action, presuming one is in good conscience enntitled to receive it, in the sense that Jesus invites and the Church, starting with Paul in I Cor tells us it requires discernment to avoid guilt. #2 That woman intruduced her female partner to the celebrant. She took communion from the lay minister, the priest made no fuss about it publicly, she did obviously. The revelation came later that she was a Buddhist. She set herself up for this by introducing her partner. St Paul in that I Cor teaching and in other places ex-cummunicates people to bring them to conversion, not to judge them unjustly or unkindly but to judge their conduct. This contemporary idea of seeing us all as personal, private, conscience-guided units totally rejects the communitarian nature of the human and the Church as divinely guided instrument of the Gospel. The priest is now temporarily on leave, while the supposed complaints about him are examined, not because of the communion incident but because of his overall dealing with people, some of which may have been aggravated by the communion incident. They all need prayer, sensitive hearing and understanding of how and why the Church is both Mother and Teacher, and too many of us at times are not the most diligent students.
As I teach my students, one’s conscience is the voice of one’s soul.
If the soul is perfectly formed according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, then one’s conscience speaks the truth. But, forming the conscience is a life-long process, not an event. A person’s conscience is constantly being formed through the action of the Holy Spirit. If one wishes to call oneself a Catholic, then one’s conscience needs to be consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. If one speaks with a conscience that is not properly formed, then one does not always speak the truth.
That’s where the problem is today. People are being led to believe that there is such a thing as “subjective truth” when then say, “I believe.” There is no such thing as “subjective truth.” It may be an opinion, but it may not necessarily be the truth. Rather, all truth is objective, and is defined as: “Every Word that comes from the mouth of God,” for Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
I truly believe that the lesbian set up this situation to cause problems for the Church. It’s okay in society’s eyes to attack the Catholic Church and this woman knew full well what she was doing. I am disappointed by Cardinal Wuerl’s response. If priests and the Church hierarchy will not teach us what is right, they will follow us into hell. My mother in law used to say that Hell is filled with the souls of priests as well as other sinners. I have to believe that leading others into sin is even worse than committing the sin yourself. Please pray for all priests and religious and for our Church. I know that good will win in the end, but right now I see the beginnings of the next persecution of the Church and who is to say that we don’t deserve it for being passive on too many issues for too long?
One word. This time Wuerl has cut the branch out from under himself. If “Opinion” is not truth, why in the world would he not defend the Truth as mandated by the Roman Catholic Church in America? He reprimands a priest who refused to give the Body of Christ to a blatant, activist lesbian who swore to have his head and now Wuerl speaks to this? Some nerve.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been to wedding and funeral Masses where the priest has gotten up and told the whole congregation before Communion that if you’re not Catholic or if you are a non-practicing Catholic who hasn’t been to Confession within the last year to refrain from receiving the Sacrament! This priest was just doing his job! I believe that the Church was set up—just as I believe that the whole mess with Ms. Fluke was a set up as well. I sincerely wish that the Church hadn’t issued an apology so quickly! It makes the Catholic church appear weak!!
Posted by vicki on Tuesday, Mar 13, 2012 9:00 AM (EST):sure conscience is right but my conscience tells me that it is wrong to bring a child into this world if I dont want one, or cant take care of it properly, or give it a good home. The church leaders have tunnel vision and all they want is for us not to practice birth control. They are fooling themselves if they think all women even catholic ones are gonna listen to what they dictate or think should be. It makes me so angry to read that a lesbian was refused communion because a priest thought it was wrong. The bible teaches us NOT to judge but love a sinner. This is why I dont go to church anymore.
—-Well, that’s just too bad.
As for the Openly-Known lesbian, who also wrote smut for a living—She did not dserve communion for both things—Her lifestyle AND what she did for a living.
It’s sad that someone like you can’t handle to truths of immoral behavior—and that is what keeps you away from attending church.
I can only say, our Church is becomingvery liberal!!!! If a priest lets a lesbian receive Holy Communion, then he is the one to have to answer to God. I say “Good for him” People need to take a close look at the 10 Commandments. They haven’t changed. God gave us the right to make our decions but the Big decision will still be His.
Sebelius, Pelosi & the muslim in the oval office were behind the law-school fluke ! Georgetown is a anti-Catholic cesspool, when will the Cardinal address that ? Knestouts name is on the letters but rest assured the Cardinal is the one directing matters. The Cardinal is a prime example of why a better process is needed in selecting Bishops. He was groomed for it, he never pastored a parish, was the private secretary of another effeminate Bishop & when heard from will befuddle you with meaningless words. He cowers before the CINO politicians who for decades consistently voted for numerous anti-Catholic laws & mandates. The Church must rid itself of these weak, effeminate & spineless prelates !
What the cardinal says about conscience explains why I as a thinking woman Catholic do not accept the church’s ruling on birth control. The church does not speak infallibly on this issue. Nor does it fully include women in the Body of Christ
Seems some missed the entire picture here. The priest sadly was objectively wrong for refusing the lady communion in that public setting , even though he knew she was living the lesbian life style as the woman had introduced her partner to him before Mass. She as noted seems to have set him and the Church up. The cardinal taught about the Fluke incident and the reply of the president of G’town by clarifying the diffreence between objective and subjective and the curse of relativism today, as in “my truth is mine yours is yours and we are both right.” Totally illogical but there is a lot of it going around. The priest wsas publicly corrected without giving him a face-saving out, now his pastoral style of dealing with people is being studied. Painful for all and sad.
fr. marcel guarnizo seems to me to be a very Holy Man who loves God and corageously resists the devil and his liberal minions. May God forgive his detractors.
Before the Second Vatican Council there was no ambiguity in de fide doctrine and dogma. The Council of Trent and Vatican Council I left no doubt concerning what the Magisterium and Catholic Church professed and taught. When I started reading the documents of VCII, ambiguity and weasel wording seemed to be the new rule. The decree on Ecumenism seemed to promote the Heresy that one religion is as good as another and coined the confusing term not in the fullness of faith to describe Protestant denominations. My question was:Isn’t the fullness of faith required for salvation? I believe the defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That is not to say that Protestants can’t be saved. I believe God requires everyone to accept or reject him. I don’t buy into invincible ignorance. How He does that is not for us to know. How fortunate that Protestants have purgatory to atone for their sins if they accept God. They don’t understand that Jesus only died to open the gates of heaven – that they have to earn salvation by atoning for every sin because the Scriptures tell us they have to be perfect as Jesus is perfect before they can enter heaven. Without any offense at Cardinal Wuerl,I can blame VCII for what sounds to me like ambiguity in his comments about denying Communion.
So God has delegated you to decide who is Moslem, who voted for anti-Catholic laws and who is effeminate and should not be a bishop and which catholic college is a cess pool. Quite the portfolio. Do you need prayer or did God tell you to handle it without any advice or checking facts?
Brother Robert Anthony I admire you, as an instructor of the Catholic Faith as your words are full of truth, it is the word of GOD. May GOD Bless you, I hope that all who read your paragraph will understand that the Catholic Church is the true church of Jesus Christ, because JESUS gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, to ST. PETER, some 2,000 years, ago. The Catholic church’s first POPE, Peter is the rock, that Jesus built his church on.
May God have Mercy on those who try to change it!
This article is disturbing. Cardinal Wuerl is an example of what is wrong with our church. He is disciplining a Priest for doing the “Right Thing”. He seems to be more worried about what the anti-Catholic News Media has to say than what the Gospel of Jesus Christ has to say. Yes, he is correct when he says that having an opinion doesn’t make it right. I wish we have Church leader who will stand up for the church.
I am totally confused. I am trying to do what Jesus would want, and in my naivete I have been looking to our priests and bishops for guidance and clarity- silly me! The messages I have been getting are contradictory and ambiguous. Frankly, if I thought there were a better church I would join it. But here I am, clinging to my Catholic Church, not even sure what the heck I am supposed to be believing!
It is a sad state of affairs when a priest is suspended for having the backbone to do what the bishops won’t do.
There’s a nice discussion of denial of communion at http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm This .discussion indicates that the decision rests with the bishop of the particular diocese.
Posted by LoneThinker on Tuesday, Mar 13, 2012 12:31 PM (EST):Seems some missed the entire picture here. The priest sadly was objectively wrong for refusing the lady communion in that public setting , even though he knew she was living the lesbian life style as the woman had introduced her partner to him before Mass. She as noted seems to have set him and the Church….
—-Exactly! This lesbian woman obviously was bitter—She used her own mother’s funeral to push her own agenda—And for a little publicity!
Please remember that WE SHOULD DO THINGS TO PLEASE GOD and NOT to please man! In the eyes of our Almighty God, the Supreme and Final Judge, the action of Father Marcel was indeed very pleasing to Him because not only did Father Marcel saved his soul by not allowing the BODY, BLOOD , SOUL and DIVINITY OF OUR LORD TRULLY PRESENT IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST to be disrespected , but at the same time prevent this ‘spiritually lost person’ from committing further sacrilegious offense towards God. Had this person, before the celebration of the Holy Mass, not come forth and introduced to Father Marcel not only herself but also her sexual orientation as well as her’ same sex lover’, then it would have not been an act AGAINST Father Marcel’s CONSCIENCE and one that is UNPLEASING TO GOD, if he gave this woman Holy Communion.
Without any shadow of doubt, Father Marcel’s action has earned him great rewards or points towards his TREASURES in HEAVEN that will be his GATE PASS to Eternal Life of Joy and Happiness with his Creator.
Let us continue to pray for Father Marcel’s Superiors who were quick in chastising him publicly instead of supporting and defending the BODY,BLOOD ,SOUL and DIVINITY OF OUR LORD IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
To Cardinal Wuerl’s response, I have a question, ” when and who conducts the ‘Public Excommunication’ of a person who publicly by his/her actions, words and deeds commit mortal and sacrilegious sins against God and thus should be denied the reception of Holy Communion. So in the case of Father Marcel, did he have to wait for this woman’s ‘Public Excommunication’ , not save his soul, and in a way saving also her soul, and allow the Lord to be disrespected?
In response to “Vicki”, I pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten you with the Gift of Wisdom to know God, who created you and the FETUS, a life , not just a piece of flesh, in your womb; the Gift of Knowledge to understand the meaning of GOD and the SANCTITY OF LIFE, to comprehend how we need to live as followers of Christ and respect the sanctity of life from conception to natural death; the Gift of Counsel in order to have the right judgement, the difference between RIGHT and WRONG, GOOD and EVIL; the Gift of Fear of the Lord so you’ll have the fear of offending God and separating yourself away from His Love; the Gift of Fortitude to give you the courage to stand up for what is right in the sight of God and not of man; the Gift of Piety to give you that deep sense of respect or reverence for God and your Church; the Gift of Understanding so you will not be confused by the conflicting messages in our culture about the right way to live in accordance with the 10 Commandments of God. Remember, getting rid of that FETUS in your womb through abortion or abortion pill because you DON’T WANT THAT CHILD is against the sixth Commandment- THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
Karl Rahner is the one who opened up the “supremacy of conscience” arguments to justify sin. I recommend a people watch Fr.Brain Mullally on with Fr. Mitch, EWTN Live, speaking about “both servant and free”. Our Church is really messed up, and it will be Lay people who will bring it back in line.
The Archdiocese is totally wrong, according to Catholic teaching, by saying “everyone has a right to receive Holy Communion”. That is NOT what we are taught as Catholics. Those of us who go to Mass regularly and follow the teachings of the church have been told that we should not be receiving Communion when and if we are in a state of mortal sin. Why do the rules suddenly change for a gay person who is living the gay life style? According to Catholic teachings, being gay is not the problem, it is living the sexually oriented life style. Just the same as a heterosexual having sex outside of marriage is committing sin. So that archdiocese had better check the Catholic Catechism before they make any other statements.
Just read that Fr. Garnizo had been suspended for “other” reasons. And anyone who believes THAT! I have a bridge in Death Valley I want to sell you. This is the underhanded way Wuerl gets rid of a sticky situation. No way on God’s green earth will this man stand up and DEFEND the Body of Christ and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. He will bend and twist and flip anyway he can to maintain his political correctness in the den of iniquity which he relishes his post. Poor man. If he thinks the people in the pews cannot see he is gravely mistaken. That is why the HUGE condemnation of his actions. Especially in giving Holy Communion to people who spit in his face and in the face of Christ by supporting and advocating abortion and gay marriage. Oh! and I got a form email sent from his office by God knows who letting me know he “reviewed” my comments, blah, blah, blah. Nothing will make him see the Truth. He is too mired in his status in Washington. God have mercy on him.
The Cardinal Wuerl has presented his case and we all understand that due process and consideration for the priest in questions prevents public airing of the facts.
However, the woman admitted she is an activist, a lesbian and a Buddhist. She could not be in communion with the Holy Catholic Church. The priest talked with her in advance of the service and advised her not to attempt to receive communion. How is it the priest is being disciplined and an apology is sent to the provocateur?
But keep in mind this is from the Archbishop of the Diocese of Washington. The same Archbishop who refuses to excommunicate the “Catholic” representatives and senators who visibly support abortion and who voted against the conscience consideration in the Blunt Amendment.
When will the Shepherd of the Church in Washington DC actually call out these “Catholic” legislators and remind them of Church teachings. If they cannot support these teachings, then the Church should finally stop the charade and inform these “Catholics” not to present themselves for Communion until they are reconciled to the “Body of Christ”. We should not tolerate this sacrilege any more than we should tolerate a priest being disciplined to protecting the Eucharist.
One should read what the Fathers say about homosexuality and other areas as well. They didn’t mince words like what is done today by an apostate hierarchy. It is necessary to form consciences and that needs to be done at Masses on Sundays at Church. American Catholic thinking is far from where it should be overall, and in fact most have no good consciences. We wonder what is wrong with the ‘American’ Church? Oh please…...
Wow, we are finally getting some Bishops with the courage to speak the truth regardless of what the main stream press says —not being afraid to upset the poor darlings from Columbia school of Journalism. And this attempt by the left to change the argument of the mandate to womens righs has failed miserably as Obama’s ratings with women decreased since the “Fluke Flap” hit the wire.
The real disappointment however, was the president of a Catholic University supporting a women who wanted a Catholic institution to pay for her fornication. Absolutely an abomination of Catholic thought.
This is more complicated than I realised. There is an article in The Deacon’s Bench today- a Blog written by a retired professional journalist who is a permanent deacon. He has an article on Barbara Johnson who was raised Catholic, and is working her way back home as it were to the RC Church of her baptism. A well known lay canon lawyer, Ed Peters does a piece on the canon law pertaining to her actual status as Catholic and on the brief sacristy visit to meet her lesbian partner. Very few priests at the spur of the moment would have enough knowledge of the law to make a judgment to deny or give her communion. The law, like all laws, is not a straight up or down yes or no, fill in the blanks. The better choice would have been to give her the sacrament because of her conscience and the circumstances here. Father Marcel’s leave of absence is due to his conduct toward staff and not because of the incident, perhaps as was suggested in the article because of the stress of worldwide publicity, yes worldwide, we read it here in Europe. In all cases, the archbishop, on his own or acting through his Vicar General, makes the definitive decision about communion. That is done for pastoral reasons based on the Canons and the higher law of Love, not sentimental love such as, “God loves everyone, who are we to judge”, so lay off him and the Bishop vicar general for such situations. Pray for them all, please.
A “right” to recieve communion? I have never heard of such a thing. Where is that at?
I was born in 1958 and raised Catholic during the confusing days of Vatican II and the years that followed with Catholic schools closing, churches closings, nuns and priests leaving their vocation, my priest using hypnosis rather than prayer to help us. I finally left the church, not knowing what was sin and what was not. I needed a spiritual guide, not a anything goes/do what feels good spirituality. I went in search for truth but needed the one true Christianity. I want to come back to the Catholic Church but after seeing Father Marcel Guarnizo removed for doing what was right, I wonder if Holy Spirit is guiding them.
1. Has everyone who Comments on here actually read the cardinal’s respoinse to the Fluke incident and the president of G’town’s reswponse to her. It is unambiguous, Church law and teaching and Natural Law. 2 The conscience teaching goes back to St Thomas Aquinas, way older than Fr K Rahner SJ. It is not a short-cut to “make up your own mind.” It spells out, as does the CCC what is expected to make a conscience decision. IF one erroneously decides, she/he is bound to follow it, Aquinas teaches, and one example is deciding the RC Church is not the Body of Christ. Can you grasp that, one can be objectively wrong but conscientiously right, and can thus act in good conscience. The obligation today is for each of us to seek the Truth. 3. I would be very fearful of second-guessing the decisions of any bishop UNLESS I had the full facts. That is where false judgment and our private hubris raises its head.4. Attacking a Shepherd - local pastor or bishop, is not a safe and charitable thing to do IF we are looking from the outside. 4. In the last line of the release about fr Marcel the vicar-bishop wrote (they) hoped to return him to ministry. Accusing the archbishop of lying and making an excuse is not apparently justified by what is publicly known. The Fluke and Fr Marcel story and being twinned and thus twisted.
Excuse this forgotten point in my last post. BAPTISM gives one a right to receive the EUCHARIST. However, one has to be as humanly worthy as possible, as I noted above and someone else cited I COR when St Paul says we must EXAMINE ourselves before receiving the sacrament. Sincerely accepting and obeying the Church’s teachings, confessing and rejecting what is morally evil and a “firm purpose of amendment” are the required conditions for receiving the sacrament after reconciliation for mortal/deadly sins.
GROK HADRIAN Please read the actual facts about Fr Marcel in the story and at least from my posts. Some are neither accurate nor charitable nor fair in their interpretation of the actual facts. WELCOME home!
This is the “Register” lonethinker, take your modernist theology to the “Reporter” with the other lost sheep. When someone is wrong, it is our duty to voice our dis-approval, regardless of their position.
After reading all the opinions I can say that I haven’t read any answer that would support Cardinal Wurl’s answer.
It really saddens me.
Faith is logical. It can be go beyond logic, but not against it.
Decision to suspend pastor is illogical in the light of Catholic Church teaching as well as the Bible.
What the priest did was not against but rather a sign of charity. Charity towards the person who wanted to take the Body of Christ knowing that should not do it accordingly to the Church’s teaching. If that person did not know (acknowledged) that this is Body of Christ, then an act of refusal is an act of Love towards Christ.
Would you bring your small child to a kindergarten run by child molester that officialy says that it is okay to have sex with small kids? If not then why can you say it is okay to give Body of Christ to a person who can desecrate Him by throwing Him on the ground, stepping over Him, or hiding the Eucharist in order to do other things later on? Is that Love for Christ or rather fear of the world’s opinion?
It is right that the priest should be obedient to his bishop, but as long as bishop is not requesting anything against Charity and Love! If Bishops says ‘jump from the bridge’ the priest has not only right but is required to say no.
The interesting thing about this issue is the underlying difference between the opinion of many american bishops like this one, and the explicit instructions of Church law concerning refusal of communion to someone who is not catholic, or is in a publicly sinful lifestyle like adultery.
On top of that, it is ludicrous to suggest that a priest must somehow obey this “policy” against the dictates of an informed conscience. You could throw me out of the priesthood, but I would not be able to engage in willful sacriledge against Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Politics has nothing to do with it.
The real clincher is when he says “only to those publicly excommunicated”. Now there is a laugh. The same bishops refuse to publicly excommunicate anyone.
GREYBEAR #1 Did you actually read my carefully-worded post re Communion and our need to discern and not receive if not sacramentally prepared? Judging as you did without knowing the available facts is what drives weaker members away from the CHURCH, but they are just hurt by ignorance, and are rejecting ignorance and not JESUS who is hidden beneath contemptible words and actions.
#2. OR Did you not get the Cardinal’s correct application of the Law and pastoral practice. Fr Marcel’s pastor issued a statement that his communion stance was not the cause of his TEMPORARY leave of absence?
##########Your post about G’town above and the cardinal shows you are so far out of your depth in liturgy. theology and canon law not to mention sick uncharitable judging without the facts.
One sees a need for all to read the canons, see how and when one is ex-communicated, automatically by one’s own sinful action, smple way is consciousness of mortal sin until forgiven in the sacrament or by formal decision, such as a bishop who attempts to ordain a bishop without papal mandate. What is required, how and by whom, assessing scandal pastorally, getting all the facts, and not - once again- confusing Fr Marcel’s actions SINCE the refusal incident with his conduct toward staff.
Lonethinker: Call me what you will. I’ve know this prelate since he was ordained a priest. He only uses the canons to hide behind. As for Jesuit-Georgetown, their “Woodstock Theology Group” & many professors have signed petitions & back the Abortionist in the oval office, I think the cesspool term was being kind. The self-excommunication of these Fake-Catholics does not stop them from receiving the Eucharist, e.g. Pelosi, Cuemo, Biden, Harkin etc. Fr. Marcel did the right thing. You seem to be jumping to conclusions about his interaction with “staff”. If the canons were properly enforced most of the Churches problems in the USA would have dried up. Do some research on your own. The infection started in the 60’s & continues today. Just where did all of the homosexual priest come from ? Some were even elevated & ordained more. Do you wait for the cancer to kill you or do you try save your Church ?
Grey Bear: I hold no brief for the cardinal, the US bishops or any national cnference of bishops. I learned a long time ago that gossip, lies, jealousy, selective memory are very alive and well in every institution, club, church and government. I have no reason to doubt the letter from the bishop vicar, nor the message from Fr LaHood, FR M’s pastor. i also know that Jesus has not appointed me to monitor the private conduct of his hierarchy or clergy, or judge the state of the souls of any University professors. I have a fulltime role caring for my own soul, with monthly confession and daily Mass and prayer. I pray for the whole Church, the government of the USA and this nation daily. I decided a long time ago to light a candle, not curse the darkness (the Christopher’s adopted motto. It is very peace-making when I do not curse!
Jesus did not deny the sacrament to Judas…but his unworthy reception of the Host obviously contributed to his condemnation….just a thought for what it’s worth by a sinner who at this present time cannot in good consciounce recieve the Lord.
What is the difference between CONTRACEPTION and ABORTION ???
There is no difference because they both prevent a life and therefore are directly opposed to the will of GOD and the natural order of things.
To Lonethinker: A very good example of what is wrong with this nation and the Catholic Church today—APATHY….....
I hope all have seen the Canon Law EXPLAINED BY layman Dr Joe Peters in the deacon’s bench blog which is available to all to see his original and later piece on the communion row, published today 16 March, and the actual law governing it.
I could be wrong but I believe that Card. Wuerl might have felt that, although the Priest knew the woman was with a lesbian lover, many others did not and to refuse her Communion, that would have branded her as a grave sinner…I think the Priest honored the Eucharist and did what he believed he had to do. However, Card. Wuerl will not even tell Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden not to present themselves for Holy Communion despite the fact that they publicly defy Church teachings and urge others to join them in their stand against the Church…at least Pelosi does. So why is she still being affirmed in her public sins and receiving the Eucharist. Kathleen Sebelius was told not to receive the Eucharist because of her radical pro abortion agenda. all this is very confusing for Catholics and gives great ammunition to the enemies of the Church.
I think JESUS has the answer for all of us. We, who do not have all the facts, do what He did, met with the adultress when the accusers have drifted off, advised her not to sin any more and saved her from being stoned to death by the accusing sinners-also mob. Bishops are there to administer His mercy and judge objective facts, and they and the pastors are obliged above all to administer His Love- ” Father forgive them” ” Do not judge,” ex-communicate as Paul did to get repentance and re-connection with the Table, and that was when Channel 13 of JERUSALEM, and THE JERSUALEM YELLOW RAG were ready to pounce and exploit the occasion. We have no idea how torn the arcbishops, bishops, parish clergy and lay people themselves have in struggling with these issues. WWJD?
In reading many of these posts I became aware of something that heretofore has eluded me. I am so happy to now know the great number of moral theologians and experts in Canon Law we have in the Church to help guide us.
I am so sad about our Church and specifically Wuerl. So few have courage, so few Shephers are showing
the sheep the way. These bishops skulls will pave the way to hell ! Father Marcel is a hero and Bishop Berry and
Cardinal Wuerl have no spines.
It’s strange how the Church has changed since the 1960’s. I am a “pre_baby boomer” and before Vatican II this situation would have been unheard of. This woman wouldn’t have Communion if she knew she was Lesbian or in the state of Mortal Sin. Neither would Nancy Pelosi, et al. The parishes were very strict at that time and so were the Bishops and Cardinals. What happened to the grit they used to have? They weren’t afraid to go to the pulpit and condemn movies or talk about women wearing modest clothes to Mass. And we had about 6 Masses on a Sunday with no shortage of priests or orthodox nuns. Now most of our Catholic leaders,the Bishops and Cardinals, seem to be afraid to say anything against what’s going on now, let alone forming a correct conscience. Jesus said that if we were given a lot, we would be judged more harshly. Since the Bishops are supposed to be leading the sheep, I wonder if they even think about the ramifications of the Last Judgement and the harm they are doing to the Church by not speaking up.
I am still amazed and not that amused to see the Sunday morning Mass quarter backs, as opposed to the Monday morning footbal crowd, mking wild claims judgmeents about cardinals and bishops souls destined for hell. READ the actual posts. Read the PH D canon lawyer layman, the doctorate-endowed cardinal about the actual case of Fr Marcel at the Mass and the reason why he is on adm. leave now. Then direct your outrage at the NEW YOURK TIMES for refusing to anger the islamic community with an anti-Moslem ad but had no trouble accepting a Catholic-bashing one. The DEVIL laughs all the way to his HELL BANK OF LOST SOULS INC when we Catholics lay into each other with half-cocked guns blazing away at each other.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.