Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Priest Canon Lawyer Defends Fr. Guarnizo, Takes Issue with Ed Peters
Many laity have questioned the conclusions of canonist Ed Peters about Fr. Marcel Guarnizo's decision to deny Communion to lesbian Barbara Johnson at her mother's funeral. A new opinion is now online published by an anonymous priest who is also a canon lawyer. Read his opinion here. I want to publicly thank this priest for expressing such a clear defense of Fr. Guarnizo's actions. Those of us laity who are not canon lawyers had the "gut feeling" that denying Johnson was correct. Father's reasoned step-by-step explanation illustrates why. Two thumbs up, Father!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't this great? Finally someone coming to Fr. G's defense.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to see this from a priest too, not a lay person.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the priest is from the archdiocese of Washington...
I also wonder if Our Lady of Akita said Canon Lawyers will oppose Canon Lawyers ;)
Phil
LeoXIII@me.com
Cannoli, personal comments like that are out of line. Can we keep this to a civil argument rather than rude ad hominem attacks please.
ReplyDeleteMary Ann,
ReplyDeleteSorry.
Perhaps I've spent to much time on FR where rude comments are the soup du jour.
However, I don't think I'm the only one in the room who has heard enough from Peters' one-sided, pro-establishment pap and would hope that he very soon retires to where ever it is that biased Canonists retire to.
Best wishes, Cannoli
It also seems as if the daughter's female lover did not want the priest to tell the daughter to leave her as she tried to block the doorway which probably was meant to be a form of intimidation toward the priest.
ReplyDeleteMary Ann, I'm disappointed to see what vile comments you allow to stand here. I thought better of this site.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I apologize. Thank you for the fraternal correction.
ReplyDeleteWow. I'm used to being vilified for critiques of this case, but not to having such vilification removed (let alone so promptly) upon my pointing them out. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteOh, I remember what I originally came by here to post, that tho I don't engage anonymous critics (there are simply too many of them out there), if folks wanted a response to the canonical critic of me that you mentioned atop, written by a canonist who uses his real name, they might check out: http://musingsofacanonist.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/not-every-canonist-is-a-good-canonist/
ReplyDeleteBest, edp.