Father Guarnizo responds
#41
Refutation of Ed Peter's analysis by a Moral Theologian:

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2012/03/15...moral-law/

In part based on PCLT Declaration from Vatican:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...on_en.html

In addition, Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters has several posts claiming that married permanent deacons and married priests (in so far as this is permitted in the Latin Rite) may not have sexual relations with their wives(!):

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/18...relations/

Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian replies:

Quote:His basis for this argument is Canon law, and that is the fundamental problem. Canon law is entirely subordinate to the eternal moral law. So if the eternal moral law permits a married cleric (ordained person) to have relations with his wife, then any reading of Canon law to the contrary must be a misreading. But I say more. Even if Canon law explicitly forbid a married permanent deacon or a married priest from having marital relations, the spouses could do so without sin or fault; such a law would be null and void because it contradicts the eternal moral law.
Reply
#42
(03-16-2012, 08:41 PM)Gerard Wrote: Before I sign, can someone point out to me what the purpose is with a petition?  I honestly don't think Card. Wuerl is interested in the opinions of good Catholics.  What leverage is the petition supposed to gain?

It might be the thing that tips the scales in Heaven to your favour.  That is the point.

He is a just priest, with the balls to stand up, which is more than most of his fairy colleague have and you're showing your moral support to him by signing it.
Reply
#43
(03-19-2012, 10:56 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(03-16-2012, 08:41 PM)Gerard Wrote: Before I sign, can someone point out to me what the purpose is with a petition?  I honestly don't think Card. Wuerl is interested in the opinions of good Catholics.  What leverage is the petition supposed to gain?

It might be the thing that tips the scales in Heaven to your favour.  That is the point.

He is a just priest, with the balls to stand up, which is more than most of his fairy colleague have and you're showing your moral support to him by signing it.

Fair enough, if it can help the priest.  I've always found petitions to be kind of 60s hippy-style nonsense.  If on the other hand it's an appeal to his Bishop. (it seems that Wuerl is not actually his bishop?) I seem to think those are useless games in order to jerk people around on a chain. 

Reply
#44
Another incident of "refusing Communion":  In my old traditional parish (FSSP) in Oklahoma, we had a priest who would refuse Communion to anybody not properly dressed when kneeling at the rail.  Mostly this would be women who either didn't wear a veil or were not "properly" dressed (immodest decolletage, no sleeves, etc.)  The poor women be so embarrassed getting up from the rail and walking back to their pew.  This priest was never reprimanded , nor do I think these incidents were ever reported, or the aggrieved woman making complaints to the bishop.
Reply
#45
Clerics in holy orders, who in open concubinage keep their mistresses in their houses, should either cast them out and live continently or be deprived of ecclesiastical office and benefice. Let all who are found guilty of that unnatural vice for which the wrath of God came down upon the sons of disobedience and destroyed the five cities [ed- Sodom, Gomorrah, etc.] with fire, if they are clerics be expelled from the clergy or confined in monasteries to do penance; if they are laymen they are to incur excommunication and be completely separated from the society of the faithful. If any cleric without clear and necessary cause presumes to frequent convents of nuns, let the bishop keep him away; and if he does not stop, let him be ineligible for an ecclesiastical benefice. - 3rd Lateran Council, Canon 11
Reply
#46
(03-19-2012, 10:02 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Another incident of "refusing Communion":  In my old traditional parish (FSSP) in Oklahoma, we had a priest who would refuse Communion to anybody not properly dressed when kneeling at the rail.  Mostly this would be women who either didn't wear a veil or were not "properly" dressed (immodest decolletage, no sleeves, etc.)  The poor women be so embarrassed getting up from the rail and walking back to their pew.  This priest was never reprimanded , nor do I think these incidents were ever reported, or the aggrieved woman making complaints to the bishop.

Interesting.  That was Society of St. Peter and not Society of St. Pius Xth?

I've only ever come across that at the SSPX.  They seem to have patches around the world where strict modesty in dress is taken like an 11th commandment.

Sometimes it is justified.  I have seen the odd woman wear ridiculous clothing to mass before.  More often the priest in question just has hang ups.  But mos SSPX priests would let all but the most egregious cases slide.
Reply
#47
Quote:His basis for this argument is Canon law, and that is the fundamental problem. Canon law is entirely subordinate to the eternal moral law. So if the eternal moral law permits a married cleric (ordained person) to have relations with his wife, then any reading of Canon law to the contrary must be a misreading. But I say more. Even if Canon law explicitly forbid a married permanent deacon or a married priest from having marital relations, the spouses could do so without sin or fault; such a law would be null and void because it contradicts the eternal moral law.

I find this very interesting since I have become increasingly aware of a disparity in how the modern Church approaches the question of law.  In Scotland, the bishops are rightly pointing out that the imminent redefinition of marriage under law is contrary to the Natural Law. So, legal positivism (i.e. those with power define what is right or wrong) is condemned outside of the Church. But when we look at the Church itself it seems that there is a kind of legal positivism rampant that posits that there is no appeal to justice outside of the 'justice' of those who interpret and enforce canon law. It seems that the Natural Law stops at the door of the Church.

I am thinking in particular of bishops basically acting tyrannically over their priests and those who remonstrate being told to "pay, pray, obey" (as I saw someone say recently on this forum). It's absolutism at its worst and simply not Catholic.

It also touches on the apparent 'abrogation' of the immemorial Roman rite of Mass by Paul VI. There is a mindset among many Catholics that says that whatever someone with ecclesiastical power does must be de facto right. It's as if the faithful had no right to the immemorial rite of Mass outside of that defined in canon law. It is as if there were natural rights outside of the Church but not inside the Church.
Reply
#48
I would also say in response to those who quote Padre Pio's persecution in this instance (usually 'conservative' Catholics) that just because God can bring good out of evil that does not mean that the evil is no longer evil. So even if a priest increases in merit and draws down many graces because of his unjust treatment at the hands of his superiors it does not mean that this situation is not unjust and should not be rectified. That what some people seem to be insinuating. A ship going down may bring forth many acts of great generosity and self-sacrifice but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make ships safer so that such catastrophes don't happen.
Reply
#49
I would tend to agree with you Scotus that the Vatican and its dioceses today are what I would say selective on what they defend and how they defend it.  Natural law we know is binding on all men.  The Catholic Church recognises this and it also knows that Divine Positive law is the Church's to explicate and defend and that it has at it's disposal Canon's that she has put into place.  While some may deal with "administrative" issues, much of her law has to do with Divine Law.
  The Pope is the legislature and is free to change laws that are not of Divine origin.  The bishops are supposed to use the law for the good of souls.  In this case(Fr Guarnizo's) he is being pointed out for doing what his conscience told him to do by sticking to his beliefs while the hirelings of the diocese use whatever is at their disposal to silence him.  Pray for him and men in similiar predicaments.

  Joe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)