Wednesday, February 29, 2012


Looks like the One True Church® is treating the Guarnizo incident as a PR problem and letting the beleaguered priest hang out to dry:

Seems to me that Cardinal Wuerl's own policy is out of step with Canon Law 915.


  1. "'When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person,' the statement said. 'Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.'

    Active Catholics in the Greater Washington region said they could not recall another recent occasion when a priest had refused to administer the sacrament to a gay Catholic. Guarnizo’s refusal, they said, seemed at odds with the strong stand against denial of Communion to Catholics enunciated by the archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl."

    So, apparently the policy in the Archdiocese of Washington is to allow all who judge themselves in a state of grace can freely receive the Eucharist. I guess private judgement isn't as perilous as we were told.

  2. RCs disagreeing? Well, so much for perspicuity...

  3. If perspicuity is measured by whether or not anyone bitches, there has never been an instance of clarity on any meaningful subject in the history of the world.

    Anyway, the question here is about when and how to confront someone who is clearly engaged in sin. Do you shame them in public at the first opportunity? It's reasonable to decide no, that shouldn't be the preferred method.

    The problem is it looks like this is a case of (possibly intentional) forcing the priest's hand. This really comes off as an incident where a woman decided, "I made sure he knew I was in an active lesbian relationship, and that I have zero repentance about this. But I'll bet he won't refuse to give me communion here of all places."

    What do you do when someone is not only engaged in sin, but committed to insisting it's not (contrary to Church teaching) a sin, and is eager for confrontation? And if that is what happened, then clearly there's manipulation going on here - trying to make this look like a priest dragging someone aside and chewing them out in public, at the worst possible time, just to be vindictive and preachy.

  4. While I understand the woman may feel hurt, let's face some facts here. It was in a Catholic church. According to the Catholic church, homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. Whether that judgement is correct or not, that is the policy. So, I would ask, why the surprise and outrage? Please forgive the nature of the comparison but would you want to try and fire an employee at Wendy's because they wouldn't serve you a pizza?