Ed Peters says the conversation has gone on long enough, that everything that could possibly be said has been said (according to his point of view at any rate). He has consistently insisted that his interpretation of Canon 915, etc. is the correct one and that the laity who disagree just don't get it.
Well, he's right about that from my point of view and many other faithful laity who believed Fr. Guarnizo was correct and Ed Peters was wrong. Call it the "sensus fidelium" if you like. At least one canon lawyer, an anonymous priest, disagrees with Peters and supporst what faithful laity believed all along. He entered the fray to defend Fr. Guarnizo and publicly dissent with his colleague's interpretation of the subject canon laws. One can argue that anonymous opinions carry less weight than public opinions, but in view of what powerful prelates can do to their disrespected underlings whose rights are often violated, anonymity is probably a prudent course of action for a priest. And if this priest serves in the Archdiocese of Washington or another diocese with a bishop who operates llike Cardinal Wuerl, his action is more than understandable. After all, Fr. Guarnizo was denied due process. Why would Cardinal Wuerl hesitate to do the same to any priest who disagreed with him?