FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Canon 915 and the lesbian buhdist
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Some of the arguments I've seen regarding Fr Marcel claiming he applied the canon incorrectly, as that woman's sin was not public seem to forget one thing.  She was at a funeral mass for her mother.  I'd argue that most of the people there knew she was a practicing lesbian, and therefore her sin was public, and she was quite unrepentant as she was there with her lover.  Do you think that the fact that most of the people at the mass knew she was an active lesbian changes the argument regarding the application of 915?
How much more public do you have to be to be an out and out lesbian, living with your partner, and proclaiming both of these things before the priest before Mass?

Secondly, isn't a priest justified in withholding the Eucharist if he is absolutely sure of a private sin?  I realize that the modern Code may not allow for this, but what was previously done?  I can't imagine that a priest is required to administer the Eucharist to, say, a brother whom he knows is cheating on his wife.
I'm totally with you Walty, but I'm addressing the argument over weather her sin was 'manifestly public' or however it's worded.
If living with one's partner and boasting about it in Church isn't "manifestedly public" then nothing is.
(03-22-2012, 03:36 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]How much more public do you have to be to be an out and out lesbian, living with your partner, and proclaiming both of these things before the priest before Mass?

Secondly, isn't a priest justified in withholding the Eucharist if he is absolutely sure of a private sin?  I realize that the modern Code may not allow for this, but what was previously done?  I can't imagine that a priest is required to administer the Eucharist to, say, a brother whom he knows is cheating on his wife.

As the story goes, the lesbian-buddist was a known public sinner. It was obvious to the priest that lesbian-buddist's status was not a private sin. Refusal of communion was the correct action taken by the priest under the new Code or the 1917 Code.

A priest cannot deny Communion to someone who he knows to be in a state of mortal sin but the fact is not known to the general public. It doesn't matter if he knows his brother is cheating on his wife. Everyone is entitled to his good name. After all a priest can say Mass in a state of mortal sin if it would deprive his congregation of Sunday Mass or bring scandal. But doing so does compound his sin as he then commits sacrilege. He doesn't have to announce to the congregation that he is in a state of mortal sin and sully his reputation.
(03-22-2012, 03:53 PM)OldMan Wrote: [ -> ]He doesn't have to announce to the congregation that he is in a state of mortal sin and sully his reputation.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that you may be right, I'm just not sure that your justification is correct.  Is a man entitled to his good name more than Christ is entitled to reverence?
Here's an article on it from Rorate-Caeli.  I posted an excerpt, but click the link for the full article.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03...ngton.html

EXCERPT FROM RORATE CAELI Wrote:A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
When Church matters are filled with the marks of injustice and persecution of Priests and lay faithful who merely wish to do what they are and have always been called to do (for instance, taking the greatest of cares for the Most Blessed Sacrament), it is quite understandable that people remain moved to speak up.

That was the case with George Neumayr and his superb article for The American Spectator.

It was also the case of a reader, Scriptor, who has sent us this letter on the several canonical aspects involved in the Washington Eucharistic Affair as a follow-up to his shorter post on the same matter posted in The New Theological Movement.

Quote:    Greetings in Christ,



    In light of Fr. Guarnizo’s recent letter and Dr. Peters’ recent posts in response to that letter, I would like to continue discussion and reflection on the application of c. 915 vis-à-vis the Guarnizo-Johnson controversy.  I continue to find myself disagreeing with Dr. Peters’ interpretation of c. 915 in this case.  For the sake of argument, permit me to consider the situation in abstraction from Fr. Guarnizo’s own self-understanding of what he was doing when he refused communion to Ms. Johnson.  I want to focus on c. 915 and in particular on its use of the word “manifest”.   



    An Insuperable Burden?
    In one of Dr. Peters’ recent posts (“Canonical observations…”, March 15th) he cites a number of canons to show that, in light of its having the effect of restricting the rights of the faithful, we need to interpret c. 915 “as narrowly as reasonably possible”.  He then goes on to cite a number of traditional commentators to the effect that before a minister refuses the sacraments to someone, he must have no reasonable doubts about whether the person is publically unworthy in the technical sense.  Both these points are well taken.  I will argue though, that when analyzing Guarnizo-Johnson case, Peters does interpret c. 915 in an unreasonably narrow fashion.  I will also argue that a priest in Fr. Guarnizo’s shoes could reasonably have been free of doubts as to whether c. 915 applied to Ms. Johnson.  Peters writes, “…the burden is, without question, on the minister of holy Communion to verify that all of the conditions listed in canon 915 are satisfied before he withholds holy Communion from a member of the faithful who approaches for it publicly.”  In the Guarnizo-Johnson case, I don’t think this is an insuperable burden.
EVEN if it wasn't public in the sense that EVERYONE knew, if a priest has knowledge of a person's mortal sin and certainty that they have not confessed it, he's MORE than justified to refuse a person communion.  Not a common situation, no, but true.  Think of it this way: If the priest saw someone commit a murder or a sexual sin right before mass (any mortal sin would do) then the priest would not give that person communion.  I don't want to give examples because it's especially crass, but you can use your imagination.  The priest had sufficient reason to believe she was in mortal sin (she admitted it herself) and that's enough.  That's objective sufficient reason, too-- not even comparable to the questionable practice of some trad priest's refusing communion to people they don't know.
I thought you had to be a practicing Catholic to receive communion.  If she is a Buddhist then he can deny her on those grounds alone surely.

Otherwise why are we bitching about B16 and Brother Roger of Taize?
(03-22-2012, 04:38 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]EVEN if it wasn't public in the sense that EVERYONE knew, if a priest has knowledge of a person's mortal sin and certainty that they have not confessed it, he's MORE than justified to refuse a person communion.  Not a common situation, no, but true.  Think of it this way: If the priest saw someone commit a murder or a sexual sin right before mass (any mortal sin would do) then the priest would not give that person communion.  I don't want to give examples because it's especially crass, but you can use your imagination.  The priest had sufficient reason to believe she was in mortal sin (she admitted it herself) and that's enough.  That's objective sufficient reason, too-- not even comparable to the questionable practice of some trad priest's refusing communion to people they don't know.

This is what I was trying to say above.  This sin would remain private, but it seems that the priest still has a duty to withhold the Eucharist.