St. Patrick’s Day Parade ending ban on gay groups

By David K. Li

(New York Post) New York’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade will finally end its ban on gay groups marching in its annual Irish celebration, organizers said Wednesday.

OUT@NBCUniversal — a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender affinity group at 30 Rock — will be flying its banner and marching up Fifth Avenue on March 17, officials said.

That’ll be the only gay group marching in the 2015 version of the world’s largest St. Patrick’s Day Parade, but other LGBT groups can apply in future years, spokesman Bill O’Reilly said.

The organizing committee said this move to “change of tone and expanded inclusiveness is a gesture of goodwill to the LGBT community in our continuing effort to keep the parade above politics.”
OUT@NBCUniversal applied to be in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, according to Craig Robinson, executive vice president and chief diversity officer at NBCUniversal.

It wasn’t immediately clear why OUT@NBCUniversal was chosen or if there were any other openly gay groups that applied.

“We welcome the parade committee’s decision to accept OUT@NBCUniversal’s application to march and enthusiastically embrace the gesture of inclusion,” Robinson said.

“Our employees, families and friends look forward to joining in this time-honored celebration of Irish culture and heritage.”

Organizers insisted they are “remaining loyal to church teachings,” and O’Reilly said Cardinal Timothy Dolan — grand marshal of the 2015 parade — was “very supportive” of including gay groups in the event.

In a prepared statement Wednesday, Dolan didn’t outright endorse the move — but said the parade remains “close to its Catholic heritage.”

“Neither my predecessors as archbishop of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade (or any of the other parades that march along Fifth Avenue, for that matter),” he said, “but have always appreciated the cooperation of parade organizers in keeping the parade close to its Catholic heritage.”

“I know that there are thousands and thousands of gay people marching in this parade,” Dolan has said previously. “And I’m glad they are.”

Over the years, the parade’s ban on openly gay groups has grown problematic.

Mayor Bill de Blasio refused to march in this past year’s parade, and Guinness beer withdrew as a sponsor.

The Guinness loss was a huge factor in forcing parade organizers to change their long-standing policy, a former grand marshal told IrishCentral.com.

Guinness officials also played a role in brokering the deal that brought OUT@NBCUniversal into the 2015 parade, according to IrishCentral.com.

“Once an iconic company like Guinness showed it was standing up, pretty much everyone else had to follow,” the one-time grand marshal said.

Obviously, gay individuals have always marched in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade — but they’ve never before been allowed to participate under a banner identifying them as gay.

About 320 groups will be marching in the 2015 parade, the committee said.

“Organizers have diligently worked to keep politics — of any kind — out of the parade in order to preserve it as a single and unified cultural event,” organizers said. “Paradoxically, that ended up politicizing the parade.”

Politicians, city workers in uniform, marching bands, bagpipers and Irish dancers have all been stalwarts of the parade, which began in 1762.

Gay rights advocates hailed Wednesday’s announcement but said it was long overdue.

“It’s about time,” said GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis.

“Discrimination has no place on America’s streets, least of all on Fifth Avenue. As an Irish-Catholic American, I look forward to a fully inclusive St. Patrick’s Day Parade that I can share with my wife and children, just as my own parents shared with me.”

City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito — who, like de Blasio, did not march in this year’s parade over the gay flap — hailed the organizers’ move.

“This is a welcome first step and a good day for New Yorkers who believe in fairness, equality, and human rights,” she said. “For far too long, the St. Patrick’s Day Parade excluded New Yorkers just because of who they [want] to love. I am happy organizers finally realized that this parade is better when all are invited.”

Former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, said parade organizers have lifted a “terrible mark of discrimination and bigotry” by allowing a gay group to march.

“Today faith had been rewarded. After close to 25 years of struggle and hard work, the terrible mark of discrimination and bigotry has finally been lifted from Fifth Avenue and the St. Patrick’s Day Parade,” said the one-time mayoral hopeful.

“All of the members of the LGBT community and our allies deserve great thanks for never giving up and remaining committed, proud, and strong. I also want to wholeheartedly thank [parade organizers] the [Ancient Order of Hibernians] and Cardinal Dolan for taking this important step forward.”

Link:

• St. Patrick’s Day Parade ending ban on gay groups 

Related:

• BREAKING: NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade Goes Gay - Dolan Cheers!

Religion Unimportant to Most LGBT Americans

By Kelly Dickerson, Staff Writer

(LiveScience) Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) are much less likely to be religious than non-LGBT Americans, according to a new Gallup poll.

Just less than half of LGBT Americans said religion is important in their daily lives, compared with about two-thirds of non-LGBT Americans. Moreover, about 40 percent of non-LGBT adults identified themselves as highly religious, compared with just 24 percent of LGBT adults. About the same percentage of LGBT and non-LGBT Americans said they considered themselves moderately religious (29 percent). But LGBT Americans were much more likely to identify as not religious at all: 47 percent considered themselves not religious, compared with just 30 percent of non-LGBT Americans.

Participants were categorized as "highly religious" if they said religion played an important role in their day-to-day life and they attended a religious service every week, according to Gallup. A person was considered "not religious" if they said religion is not important in their daily life and they seldom or never attended any religious service, according to Gallup. "Moderately religious" people reported that religion is important to them but they do not regularly attend services. [10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Part of the reason for the disparity in religiousness may be that LGBT individuals do not feel welcomed into religious communities whose doctrine does not support any kind of nonheterosexual relationship, Gallup representatives noted.

However, religious doctrine is not the only explanation for the difference in religiousness between the two groups: Gallup representatives pointed out that LGBT people may be more likely to live in areas where religion is less common, and more likely to adopt the same mind-set and practices of others in the area.

Age may also play a significant role, according to a statement from Gallup. Overall, the U.S. LGBT population is much younger than the non-LGBT population, and young adults are less religious than any other age group in the United States. This could partially explain the lower rates of religious people among the LGBT group, according to Gallup.

However, even after breaking up the data by age, LGBT individuals are still less likely to identify themselves as religious. More than half of LGBT young adults (ages 18 to 34) reported they are not religious, while only 39 percent of non-LGBT young adults said they are not religious.

LGBT individuals were most likely to identify with Protestantism (35 percent), followed by Catholicism (20 percent). LGBT individuals were also much more likely to identify with a non-Christian religion (8 percent) than non-LGBT individuals (2 percent).

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Presbyterian Church voted to allow ministers to marry LGBT couples if their state has legalized same-sex marriage. If religious communities continue to become more accepting, the religious gap between LGBT and non-LGBT individuals may close, Gallup representatives said.

The results of the poll are based on 104,000 telephone interviews with U.S. adults ages 18 or older between Jan. 2 and July 31.

Link:

• Religion Unimportant to Most LGBT Americans

Nearly 1,000 attend Charlotte Catholic meeting on nun’s speech

By Tim Funk

(Chartlotte Observer) Nearly 1,000 parents gathered at Charlotte Catholic High School on Wednesday night to air complaints about a recent speech to students by a nun who made what many considered inflammatory comments about gays and lesbians, divorce and single parenthood.

So many parents lined up to speak that the meeting with high school officials, the school’s chaplain and the Diocese of Charlotte’s vicar of education lasted more than an hour longer than scheduled.
Though the gathering was closed to the media, texts and tweets from parents inside the school gym cast the meeting as often heated, with emotions running high on both sides.

Diocese spokesman David Hains acknowledged after the meeting that the Rev. Matthew Kauth, the school’s chaplain, apologized to the parents for a March 21 speech by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel that was not the one he expected her to give.

Hains also said the high school committed to developing new policies that would better scrutinize visiting speakers in the future. He said the school also wants to do a better job of communicating with parents ahead of time when such speeches will deal with sensitive subjects such as sexuality.
“Parents should have been better informed,” Hains said.

During her speech, Laurel quoted studies that said gays and lesbians are not born with same-sex attractions, and that children in single-parent homes have a greater chance of becoming homosexual, Hains and others said.

Susan Traynor of Matthews, whose son is a sophomore, said he is usually pretty quiet when she picks him up from Charlotte Catholic High.

But on the day Laurel spoke to the assembly, she said, he spoke right up when he got in the car.
“He said, ‘We had the worst assembly today,’ ” Traynor recalled. “He said he tried to leave with some others, but they were made to sit down. There are students in this school who are openly gay and some who are not out yet. Obviously, they felt bullied.”

Parents who spoke Wednesday night got up to three minutes at the microphone. The meeting started at 7 p.m. and ended just after 9:30.

Some defended Laurel, saying she was presenting traditional Catholic teachings. But Hains and others said the majority of parents who spoke did not agree with the nun or many of her comments.

And some expressed anger at the school for inviting her, for not stopping her when she veered off script, and for not telling parents ahead of time what she would talk about.

“You asked us to trust you. You betrayed our trust,” one parent told the gathering, according to a text to the Observer.

Though the Observer and local TV stations were told to leave the campus during the meeting, a reporter from the Catholic News Herald, the diocese’s newspaper, was allowed in the meeting to cover it.

Before being ordered off the high school property, some Charlotte Catholic High School alumni and parents of former students passed out wristbands critical of the nun’s remarks on gays and lesbians. The wristbands read “We are all God’s children.”

Link:

• Nearly 1,000 attend Charlotte Catholic meeting on nun’s speech

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/02/4813240/more-than-1000-attend-charlotte.html#.Uz3ZnVeCX00#storylink=cpy

Related:

• Anger at Charlotte Catholic school after speaker criticizes homosexuality

Femen feminists attack Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard of Mechelen-Brussels, Belgium

"Scantily clad activists of feminist group Femen invaded a conference at a university in Brussels. During the act, demonstrators threw water on the Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, Andre-Joseph Leonard. The priest did not react and avoided looking at the activists. The protest was against homophobia, according to international agencies. At the end of the demonstration, the archbishop kissed a picture of the Virgin Mary to leave the room. Born in Ukraine and with subsidiaries in several countries (including Brazil and nations with a Muslim majority), the Femen often campaigning for the rights of women and minorities. One of their banners is the defense of gay marriage."

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The Catholic Church in Belgium on Wednesday angrily denounced Femen topless protesters who targeted its primate at a conference though the archbishop himself remained composed and apparently at prayer throughout.

The four protesters leapt out of their seats at a debate on blasphemy and freedom of expression held at the Brussels' Free University (ULB) campus Tuesday evening, baring their breasts and squirting water at Archbishop Andre Leonard as they accused him of homophobia.

Security guards threw the women out of the hall within minutes as the archbishop remained quietly seated, his hands crossed apparently in prayer.

The Belgian religious leader, a known conservative, has often been criticised for his stand on gay issues.
In March he said homosexuals should practise "a form of celibacy and abstinence" and welcomed protests in France against its gay marriage legislation.

The Church in a statement denounced "the attitude of a few persons... in total contradiction with the theme of the debate and with the manner in which the Catholic Church hopes for dialogue".

"At the end of the demonstration, the archbishop kissed a picture of the Virgin Mary to leave the room."

Link to AFP story

Same-sex marriage isn't enough: 'I want to have babies the way straight people do'

By Frances Kelly

Redefining marriage won't satisfy gay rights activists; they want to redefine reality.

(Renew America) Segregating genders in marriage to suit the sexual attractions of less than 2% of the population isn't enough. This woman with same-sex attraction wants scientists to "try harder" and give "priority" to making it possible for two women to procreate. Michelle Cheever says: "I want to have babies the way straight people do."

Huffington Post:

What I mean is that I want the ease, the convenience, the — dare I say it — naturalness that straight people have when starting a family. I want both the simple beauty of two people loving each other so much that they'd like to see more of the other in the world, and I want that simple beauty to be translated into scientific terms of fairness: chromosomes and DNA given in equal amounts from two parents.

The attitude I have always taken to having a baby with another woman has been this: "It's not fair! It's so hard! Why me?"

I am a total brat about what I consider a biological injustice. . .

Why can't my girlfriend and I have a baby that shares our DNA? Why can't an egg from each of us be scrambled up and sprinkled with sperm? It seems so easy! Try harder scientists! Make this a priority.

Instead of urging scientists to "try harder," Cheever might as well demand that science try harder.

"Biological injustice"? What's next — are they going to sue their bodies for justice?

The problem with same-sex marriage is not that so-called anti-gay bigots oppose it. The challenge that gender segregationists face is their own biology, not hatred. SSM activists battle nature, not just culture. The problem is reality, not politics.

No matter how much we love our friends and relatives who have SSA, we cannot overcome the necessity for gender-integration in order to create the next generation.

If they truly do want to make babies the "way straight people do," using the "simple beauty" of "naturalness," instead of asking scientists to scramble their eggs, women with SSA could appeal to psychiatrists to try harder to discover therapies to redirect sexual orientation.

But for that to happen, gay rights activists might need to try harder to be open minded to the idea of change.

Link:

• Same-sex marriage isn't enough: 'I want to have babies the way straight people do'

Mennonites: we are willing to die rather than betray girl to court-appointed lesbian ‘mother’

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

 
September 4, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nicaraguan Mennonites say that they have been persecuted by government authorities since they chose to shelter ex-lesbian Lisa Miller and her daughter Isabella following their escape from the United States, but add that they are willing to suffer and even die to protect Isabella from a court-ordered custody transfer to her non-biological lesbian “mother.”

Lisa Miller and her daughter fled the country in late 2009 in order to avoid sharing custody of Isabella with Miller’s former homosexual partner, Janet Jenkins, with whom she had entered into a Vermont civil union. Jenkins is not biologically related to Isabella, who was conceived through artificial insemination and never adopted by Jenkins. Nonetheless, the Vermont court declared Jenkins to be Isabella’s “mother.”

Following their breakup, Miller repented of the homosexual lifestyle and professed faith in Christ, and began to fight the shared custody arrangement imposed by the court. Although expert testimony was submitted as evidence that Isabella was traumatized by the visits with Jenkins, the court refused to cancel them.

In a letter published on a Mennonite website devoted to defending Pastor Kenneth Miller (no relation to Lisa Miller) and others involved in Lisa and Isabella’s escape, the Mennonite “Nicaraguan Brotherhood” describes pressure and harassment from both U.S. and Nicaraguan authorities regarding their decision to shelter the two after their arrival in the Central American country.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
 
The Brotherhood says that their churches in Nicaragua have been “questioned and pressed to give information” regarding the whereabouts of Isabella. “Some have been questioned when going to the US embassy. Others were interrogated in their homes.”

“Brethren and neighbors have been watched, interrogated and threatened,” and, “In some churches Sunday morning services have been watched and videoed,” they write. “A house of one of the brethren was searched without a search warrant.”

“Some excommunicated brethren said that they were offered free visas, a trip to the states, study offers and easy ways to become a police officer if they would help find her. The policeman also suggested they rejoin the church but work as spies for them,” write the Bretheren.

The Brotherhood says that they forgive their persecutors, but will stand firm in the defense of Isabella, now 10 years old, who “has become an innocent victim of an ungodly agenda.”

“Her wellbeing has not been given much or any consideration. According to the Bible we believe that God has given Lisa sole responsibility to care and protect her own daughter since she has no known father.

According to the Bible it is a war between good and evil, a battle between God and Satan. As congregations we stand united in this spiritual warfare against evil.”

The Brotherhood add that they are willing to suffer imprisonment or death in the cause of protecting Isabella.
“The fact is that suddenly we find ourselves having to choose between obeying God and man made laws,” they write. “We have chosen to obey God. We are willing to give up our rights, go to jail, or even die, for the cause of helping anyone become free from a sinful life and helping that person to live in obedience to God’s Word.”

U.S. Mennonite pastor Kenneth Miller has already been convicted of helping Lisa Miller and Isabella to flee the United States, and may face up to three years in prison when he is sentenced. Jenkins has also filed a civil suit against Kenneth Miller for unspecified monetary damages, and has included organizations in the suit that have expressed support for Miller. Liberty University Law School’s dean Mat Staver has characterized that complaint as an attack on freedom of speech.

The letter of the Nicaragua Brotherhood does not specify which Nicaraguan Menonite churches are represented. Although its publication date is given as February of this year, it appears not to have been distributed outside of Mennonite circles. It was quoted in May in the Mennonite World Review, and was quoted in Jenkins’ lawsuit.

Link:

• Mennonites: we are willing to die rather than betray girl to court-appointed lesbian ‘mother’

Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator

Last week I reported that Cardinal Donald Wuerl's communications director, Chieko Noguchi, lodged a complaint with my editor. I did not object to the fact of the complaint; I objected to its form: an attempted traceless phone call. By contrast, I noted that Cardinal Roger Mahony's old pit bull, Tod Tamberg, nipped at my heels in plain sight. Tamberg sent a letter to TAS, signed it, and placed his title below his name. That's more honorable than a record-less phone call designed to silence me.

Critics of my column, such as Ed Peters, a canon lawyer from the archdiocese of Detroit, say that my complaint about the complaint resembles the very thin-skinned whining I bemoan in Cardinal Wuerl. No, it doesn't. I welcome Cardinal Wuerl's criticism. I invite him to write a formal letter of complaint, and I urge TAS to publish it in full. Moreover, TAS offers readers a comment box in which readers can launch limitless attacks upon my pieces.

Cardinal Wuerl's silence is deafening. He still hasn't commented directly on his baldly unjust "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. Nor has he explained to the faithful why Barbara Johnson, the self-described practicing lesbian and Buddhist to whom Fr. Guarnizo properly denied Communion, enjoys a canonical right to the sacred species.

Perversely, Cardinal Wuerl has at once violated the canonical rights of a faithful priest while inventing out of thin air a "policy" that orders his subordinates to distribute the Eucharist to anti-Catholic activists and defiant mortal sinners. In his apology to Barbara Johnson, via one of his auxiliary bishops, Cardinal Wuerl rebuked Fr. Guarnizo for a lack of "pastoral" sensitivity. This is Cardinal Wuerl's euphemism for priestly action that takes orthodox teaching and discipline seriously.

The word "pastoral" should make the faithful groan at this point. It is one of the great weasel words of the "spirit of Vatican II" Church in America. The word "pastoral" invariably dribbles from the lips of bishops like Cardinal Wuerl who regularly expose their flocks to wolves. Jesus Christ said that the "good shepherd" watches the gate. Cardinal Wuerl's "policy" is to leave it wide open for the Church's fiercest enemies. This is why the Pelosis and the Barbara Johnsons just keep coming up for Communion. Since Cardinal Wuerl refuses to control the sacrament, they will.

Notice that "pastorally sensitive" bishops produce very few pastors (by punishing orthodox priests like Fr. Guarnizo, they cause vocations to dry up); they scatter flocks through feeble and slippery catechesis; and they provide plenty of cover for wolves in Catholic clothing, such as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who wade into the Communion line and tout their "Catholicism" on the campaign trail while slam-dunking secularism over feckless and compromised bishops.

"Do not scatter pearls before swine," Jesus Christ said. "Do not give what is holy to dogs." How pastorally insensitive of the Son of God! A Church official who has watched Wuerl's persecution of Fr. Guarnizo with horror commented to me that if Jesus Christ had served in Cardinal Wuerl's archdiocese "he would be on administrative leave too." Unlike the Cardinal Wuerls, Christ didn't felt the need to play patty cake with the enemies of the Church. He liked struggling sinners but not unrepentant ones who seek to defile his temple.

It amazes me that a clericalist culture of toadying and flattery still exists in American Church circles, given the scandals into which the bishops have routinely plunged the faithful. I have no desire to participate in this worldly game of ring-kissing in which the Cardinal Wuerls wallow. They enjoy the trappings of their office without actually exercising it for the good of souls. They demand 13th-century obedience while behaving like 21st-century flakes who play church in costume and staff.

As St. Augustine said, God does not need our "lies." He needs our truth-telling, even if that truth-telling means wounding the egos of derelict successors to his disciples.

The aforementioned Ed Peters suggests that I am guilty of canonical offenses for criticizing Cardinal Wuerl. I mentioned this to another canon lawyer. He laughed openly, dismissing the charge as clericalist bluster.

The faithful have not only a right but a duty to resist heterodox bishops. Without that resistance clericalism runs amok and the integrity of the faith is lost.

Last week I was called the journalistic equivalent of Hugo Chavez -- a "right-wing fanatic, a man whose dogmatism is as scary as the authoritarians on the left." Perhaps I should complain to the bishops' Catholic anti-defamation group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. But, wait, I can't: the statement above comes from the Catholic League's head, Bill Donohue, who added that he has "known Cardinal Wuerl for about 25 years" and that he "got me involved in the Catholic League."

It all sounds very chummy. An "anti-defamation" league that defames orthodox Catholics as "authoritarians" is exactly what one would expect from one of Cardinal Wuerl's clericalist tentacles. I apologize for nothing and repeat that he is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. He has damaged the reputation of an innocent priest while emboldening the Church's enemies. This is a scandal which cries out to Pope Benedict XVI for correction.

Link:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal
• Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty
• A Canonical Defense of Father Marcel Guarnizo
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
• A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
• Guest letter challenging Dr. Peters on canon 915, Communion, and "manifest" sin
• EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL
• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
• Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out

Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal

His spokeswoman has filed a complaint against me with TAS.

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator

Last week Cardinal Donald Wuerl lodged a complaint against me with my editors at TAS, via his communications director, Chieko Noguchi, after my article, "Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty," appeared.

This is pretty much what I expected. Wuerl is notoriously thin-skinned about sharp criticism from orthodox Catholics. And since he likes to operate in the shadows -- confrontation is "not his style of pastoral ministry," he told a reporter in 2007 -- he had his paid PR agent do the dirty work for him. Say this for Tod Tamberg, Cardinal Roger Mahony's former spokesman: he at least wrote a straightforward letter to the editor denouncing me after I criticized the former Los Angeles prelate. Two, actually. In the first, Tamberg dismissed me as a "medievalist," which should give you a sense of the low esteem in which Mahony holds the age of Aquinas. In the second, Tamberg accused me of sloppiness while botching the spelling of my last name.

But as I say, at least he put pen to paper. Ms. Noguchi, perhaps reflecting the style of her boss, prefers to create troubles for me by phone.

Go ahead and do damage to me in this city, Cardinal Wuerl. I don't care. I will not surrender one inch to PC prelates like yourself who punish dutiful priests while pandering to the enemies of the Church.

This moronic controversy, triggered by a self-described practicing "lesbian Buddhist" who effortlessly mau-maued Cardinal Wuerl into a craven apology and trumped-up "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, is a grotesque farce beyond the satirical imagination of Evelyn Waugh.

I petition the Holy See -- if anyone happens to read TAS there -- for urgent relief. This scandal is sickening. Cardinal Wuerl has damaged the reputation of a faithful priest, exposed the Holy Eucharist to sacrilege, scandalized confused congregants, and handed a propaganda victory to forces of secularism that seek to destroy the Church in America.

Knowing Cardinal Wuerl, he will probably write to allies at the Vatican after this column appears. That was his practice in Pittsburgh, where he served before arriving in D.C. In 1994, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Wuerl, whenever he saw criticism of his heterodoxy appear in a conservative publication like the Wanderer, would move into action:

If The Wanderer or a letter-writer attacks him, Wuerl doesn't wait for Rome to send him an inquiry. He immediately writes to the appropriate Vatican office, enclosing a copy of the Wanderer article and full documentation on any diocesan program in question.

This ''shows that our teaching material here is absolutely orthodox. But the second purpose is to show that there are a lot of irresponsible statements made, and they need to be accepted as just that,'' he said.

Wuerl doesn't believe that Vatican officials take The Wanderer and its like seriously.
''I have never received an inquiry from Rome based on that type of accusation. If (Vatican officials) were taking it seriously, I think they would raise some questions,'' he said.

But not all bishops are as savvy as Wuerl, said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit political scientist who makes his living studying the bishops.

"Wuerl is sophisticated. He understands the Vatican, he knows who to talk to. The bishop who has never worked in Rome probably doesn't know which office to respond to -- and the people in Rome don't know him. Wuerl is known and respected in Rome. When (conservative pressure groups) start accusing him, they lose their credibility,'' Reese said.

Did you notice the source of that last quote -- Fr. Thomas Reese? He is the openly heterodox Jesuit ninny who had the gall to say that Wuerl should send Fr. Guarnizo back to the gulag. "If I was Cardinal Wuerl, I'd buy him a one-way ticket to Moscow," the Rolodexed Reese said to a purring press.

Perhaps non-Catholic readers of TAS, who have stayed with this column up to this paragraph, are wondering why they should even care about Wuerl's fiasco. Isn't this just one more tedious sectarian squabble in the Church? I agree with you that it is boring, but it is not trivial. As pretentious as it sounds, these skirmishes form small battles in a larger war that affects everyone. Both Catholic and non-Catholic Americans, whether they realize it or not, benefit from a free and orthodox Catholic Church for a very basic reason: it stands as the era's last major barrier to the triumph of the coercive secular state.

The capitulations of the Wuerls to the atheistic agitprop artists of the age -- the "lesbian Buddhist" at the center of this controversy stands as a symbol of them all -- hasten the disintegration of that barrier. Without it, the coercive state will simply replace God, and all Americans will wake up one day to find this pitiless secular deity on their doorsteps, red in the tooth and clause of Obamacare, ravenous for their freedom.

UPDATE: Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis

Link:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
• A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
• Guest letter challenging Dr. Peters on canon 915, Communion, and "manifest" sin
• EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL
• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
• Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out

A Canonical Letter Challenging Dr. Peters on the Father Guarnizo Eucharistic Affair

From RORATE CÆLI:

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 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.

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 15^th) 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. 

Peters writes, “To justify withholding the Eucharist under Canon 915 according to its plain terms, the conduct in which a communicant perseveres must be obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful.”  First off, I think he is rhetorically loading the deck in his favor by highlighting five distinct words.  The PCILT document that I often cited in my post on The New Theological Movement breaks c. 915 down into just three distinct concepts (see the post for March 12^th on the New Theological Movement, “Guest Letter Challenging Dr. Peters…”).  There is no question of withholding communion in the case of venial sins and so the only sort of sin we are considering here is serious or gave sin.  That’s one notion.  I think we can know that a woman who introduces to us her “lover” is engaged in serious sin.  The second condition of c. 915 as interpreted by the PCILT document is “obstinate perseverance”.  I dealt with this in the New Theological Movement post.  We can reasonably know that this condition too would obtain for Ms. Johnson.  So the third and last condition is “manifest”.  This is the crux of the matter.    

Towards A More True-To-Life Adjudication of When Obstinate Grave Sin Is “Manifest” 

Dr. Peters’ approach to “manifest” in c. 915 remains two-dimensional and unrealistic.  He reduces the public knowledge of a person’s obstinate grave sin to what is already actually known by the particular witnesses who are present when the sinner in question presents himself for communion.  For example, in one of his recent posts (“A brief thought…”, March 17^th), he writes, “However sinful it might be, conduct that is not already widely known in the community is not manifest as canon law understands that term in this context.” [Emphasis mine]  A little later on, he writes, “Some folks…think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin.  They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here.  Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard.”  Apart from bringing notice to what I consider an unfair conflation of his readers differing with him in his interpretation of the Church’s law with his readers having differences with the Church, I would like to underscore his phrase “grave-but-as-yet-private sin.”  Is “as-yet-private-sin” never “manifest” in the technical canonical sense?   

In another one of his recent posts (“Three recent questions…”, March 13^th), Dr. Peters touches briefly upon the principle, entertained as a legitimate opinion by canonists for many ages now, that the “notoriety” of a person’s sin can be present in one community while not being present in another.  Take the unlikely but possible scenario of a man whose unworthiness is known say in Sacramento California but completely unknown in Richmond Virginia.  Now say there was a priest of Richmond Virginia who knew of this man and his bad reputation in Sacramento.  If this man were to come into this priest’s parish in Richmond and present himself for communion, the priest might have poor grounds for considering this man’s unworthiness to be “notorious” or “public”.  It could be public in Sacramento while not being public in Richmond.  The priest should in this case give the man communion.  There is a flip side to this principle, though.  If the nature of the man’s obstinate grave sin is such that the knowledge of it is likely to spread from the first into the second community, then the priest who is administering the Eucharist to this man in the second local is justified in regarding this man’s sin as “manifest” even though to those in the second community it is “as-yet-private”.  Those who are witnessing the man present himself for communion may not be actually currently aware of the man’s sin, but the priest has good reason to believe they will soon be aware of it.  The point is that when making a decision as to whether an obstinate grave sin is manifest, the minister doesn’t simply take into account the actual but also the possible or likely knowledge of the witnesses.  To do this, he must take into account the nature of the community or communities in question and also the kind of sin that is being dealt with.

Here is a passage from a classic moral theology manual which takes into account the above mentioned factors: “The Sacraments are to be refused to a public sinner, whether he asks for them publicly or secretly…Such a one has no right to the Sacraments, with the exception of Penance. That sinner is called a public sinner, absolutely speaking, if he is notoriously so; he will be a notoriously public sinner, if he has been juridically condemned as such, or has admitted his sin, or if his sin cannot be concealed nor excused, or if his sin is noised abroad so that it can be easily known anywhere.” [Emphasis mine] (Moral and Pastoral Theology, by Henry Davis, S.J., vol. III, p. 35)  One of the conditions for the “notoriety” and thus technically “public” status of the sinner in question is whether or not his sin can be concealed or excused.  Notice how the kind of sin and its potential to become common knowledge to others are relevant considerations.  Now what happens when the sinner in question is not ashamed of his sin and doesn’t even try to conceal it in public?  What happens when the sinner in question has even adopted a personal m.o. of actively making known his sin to others even upon first introductions?  What happens when the sinner in question doesn’t just regularly make his sin known to others but wants and even expects others to accept and applaud his sin as normal and good?  What if such a sinner even thinks that he has a right—his habit of making his sin known in public notwithstanding—to the precious and immaculate body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?  This, I suggest, is the case of the baptized Catholic who is also a practicing and open homosexual.  According to the standards of the above cited manual, such a person’s sin could not be concealed and would thus count as “notorious” or “public” or “manifest”.

To bring it home a little closer to the actual circumstances of the Guarnizo-Johnson case, the practicing and open homosexual in question showed up to the funeral with her lover and presented her to the priest as such.  I think it reasonable for a priest who had received such an introduction to conclude very quickly that this woman likely had already introduced herself and her lover as such to others at the funeral.  This priest might also justifiably conclude that, given the nature of this woman’s sin, if the people at the funeral don’t already know about it, they probably will by the time the funeral is done.  Two active and open homosexuals present at a funeral who have introduced themselves to the priest as such are going to be verbally making known to others their status as “partners”.  What’s more, the two homosexual lovers are likely going to be relating to each other physically and socially in a spousal manner.  This is not going to be just about hugs and hand holding but a total way of relating to each other that sends a multitude of subtle but clear signals to others as to who they are.  And the witnesses have plenty of opportunity to catch those verbal and non-verbal signals.  There is the funeral mass itself but also the burial and often also the reception after the burial.  There is also, in many cases, the wake the night before.  The sin of such a couple is of such a kind that it’s not going to remain secret for very long.  It’s the kind of sin that can’t be concealed.  This is what we are dealing with when it comes to this phenomenon of “out-of-the-closet” gays.  Let’s not ignore the obvious. 

There Is More Than Just One Conscience We Need To Respect

In the first of Dr. Peters’ posts that I cited above (“Canonical observations…”, March 15^th), he makes it clear that that “Canon 916 binds gravely in conscience and an accounting to God of one’s conduct under that canon (or at any rate, under the values it protects) will be owed by each Catholic at Judgment.”  But what he fails to mention, although I know he would acknowledge it as true, is that canon 915 also binds gravely in conscience before God.  The reader is left with the impression though, that canon 916 is a matter of conscience while canon 915 is something else.  This is a misleading way of presenting the situation.  The obligation of the minister to withhold communion from the publicly unworthy (canon 915) is just as much a divine law as the obligation of the communicant to make sure he is rightly disposed before receiving communion (canon 916).  Referencing different authorities, we read, “Divine and ecclesiastical law command absolute exclusion from the Holy Table of all persons publicly unworthy of it, unless they have shown signs of conversion and amendment and repaired the scandal given to the community” (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law by H. A. Ayrinhac, 1928).  And from a more recent commentary, we read: “…this [c. 915] is a norm of divine-positive law…declared by the council of Trent in its decree on the Holy Eucharist, received by the 1917 Code, and restated by Vatican II’s post-conciliar legislation.” (Gramunt, in EXEGETICAL COMM (2004) III/1: 614-615.)  Thus the person who violates the divine precept underlying c. 915 will be accountable to God on Judgment Day just as much as the person who violates the divine precept underlying c. 916.  Arguably, the law of the Church itself recognizes by way of sanction the seriousness of violating c. 915.  At least in the opinion of Gramunt, the minister who violates this precept “can be punished by virtue of c. 1389 sec. 2, or by invoking c. 1399 which foresees, in a general way, the possibility of punishing those who cause grave scandal by an external violation of divine or ecclesiastical law” (Gramunt, p. 616).       

Dr. Peters talks about the importance of interpreting canon law in continuity with the tradition of the Church.  To that I say ‘Amen’.  This was one of the concerns of my previous post.  So to continue in that vein, and to bring home with one more citation the seriousness of the divine precept underlying c. 915, let’s reference yet one more authority—an older one.  Here is Rev. James O’Kane’s 1867 commentary, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, p. 380:

“[Public sinners] are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in any circumstances, until they have given proof of their repentance and amendment.  They have no claim to be admitted.  By their exclusion they are merely prevented from consummating an act of sacrilege; and even their reputation cannot suffer, since they are, by supposition, public sinners; and on the other hand, great scandal would arise from admitting them.  The priest, therefore, is bound to exclude them.  According to some theologians, he might administer the sacrament to save his own life, provided he were not required to do so in contempt of religion.  St. Liguori for a time thought this opinion probable, but he afterwards rejected it, and maintains that the priest must refuse the sacrament to the notoriously unworthy, at the risk of his life, even when contempt is not intended.” 

In the opinion of St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, the minister should rather die than give communion to the publicly unworthy.  By anyone’s account, this is pretty serious stuff.  Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal?  Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized?  We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments.  Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?     

Differences of Opinion on Prudential Judgments Calls for Charity

Looking through a number of manuals and commentaries from the 19^th and 20^th centuries, it becomes clear that there is wide variety of factors to take into account when deciding whether or not a particular case of sin is “public”.  In the last analysis, this is not an exact science but a matter of prudential judgment.  The authorities themselves concur.  Stanislaus Woywod, for example, in A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. I (1925), says: “No general rule covering all cases can be given for distinguishing a public sinner from an occult one, and the circumstances of every individual case must be considered.”  To return to the O’Kane commentary, we read on p. 381: “We need not seek for mathematical accuracy in a matter of this kind, and Carriere concludes that a crime may be looked on as public in any community when, considering the crime itself, the persons to whom it is known, and the community of which there is question, the knowledge of it is morally certain to spread.”  It is true that the minister must have a practical certainty that any given person falls into the category of those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” before he is bound to withhold communion from that person.  I have argued above that practicing and open homosexuals could very easily fall into that category.   More specifically I have argued that such an active and open homosexual as is being considered in the Guarnizo-Johnson does in fact do so.  But more to the point here is that even if in your judgment a priest in a situation like Guarnizo’s would not have made the right prudential decision by withholding communion from the person in question, it should at least be acknowledged that his decision was not wildly unreasonable.  We can in all charity acknowledge that one minister’s doubtful case might be another minister’s clear case.  We can respect his certain conscience even if in the same situation ours would have been doubtful.  We can acknowledge that there are situations in which different prudential judgments can be made by different people without either side faulting the other for negligence on the one hand or insensitivity on the other.  The Guarnizo-Johnson case is certainly one such case.  For example, probably Dr. Peters himself has a good pulse on the academic world of canon law and would know whether or not there are at least some respectable canonists who would disagree with him on this issue.  Are there no canonists who would judge that, per c. 915, Ms. Johnson should have in fact been withheld from communion?  I would imagine we could find a few.       

A Broader Perspective 

Peters can also, no doubt unintentionally, sometimes write as if canonists are the only people who should have anything to say on this issue.  Are there not other specialists whose respective expertise would be helpful?  What might a Scripture scholar, for example, have to say about this issue?  We often quote I Cor 11:27-29 when talking about the divine obligation undergirding canon 916.  But the Church has also traditionally cited Mt 7:6, “Give not what is holy to the dogs”, when talking about the divine obligation undergirding c. 915 (cf. Didache 9).  Is Mt 7:6 Eucharistic?  Does it have a sacrificial subtext to it? (cf. Ex 29:37; Lev 2:3)  Who are the dogs? (cf. Rev 22:15; Deut 23:18)  Maybe the canonists can learn from the Scripture scholars? 

Also what might a moral theologian have to say about the little known fact that the good name of the occult sinner is actually not a proportionate reason for the minister of communion to materially participate in the sinner’s sacrilegious communion but that the minister is only morally justified in materially participating in such a sacrilege in light of the possible negative effects a refusal might have on the community?  How might the perspective of the common good adjust our antecedent considerations that we bring to bear on reading and applying the Church’s law in the case of c. 915?  Also, if the sinner who presents himself for communion has the right to his good name, what happens when the sinner in question thinks his sin should be made public?  Is it even meaningful to talk about protecting the good name of the active and open homosexual?  What reputation is there left for the Church to protect at this point and how might this affect our application of c. 915?  These are all questions moralists could fruitfully explore and canonists benefit from... (continued) 

Read More Here

Links:

• A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
• Guest letter challenging Dr. Peters on canon 915, Communion, and "manifest" sin

Related:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty 
• EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
• Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out

Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator on 3.19.12 @ 6:09AM

Since he won't control the sacraments, the Church's enemies will.

The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops. That's a slight paraphrase of a line from St. John Chrysostom.

The saints of old warned bishops to choose holiness and orthodoxy over the blandishments of the "world."

Many bishops today in America choose the good opinion of worldly elites over orthodoxy. These cufflinked cardinals worry not about punishment in the next world but slights in this one. They desperately crave the approval of America's movers and shakers and live in dread fear of losing it.

What will the Pretty People think if I withhold Communion from powerful pro-abortion Catholic pols? Will the Washington Post editorialize against me? Will I lose my place of honor at posh parties? Will my dissenting priests think ill of me? Will I be scorned at the next USCCB meeting?

These are some of the thoughts that race through the minds of modern prelates. Out of these anxieties comes fiascoes like Cardinal Donald Wuerl's recent one. Wuerl and his surrogates have rebuked a visiting priest from the archdiocese of Moscow for denying Communion to a self-described practicing lesbian at a funeral mass. That's not our "policy," gasped Wuerl's horrified surrogates.

But it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church. If a person is not in communion with the teachings of the Church, said person should not receive Communion. Period. Canon law makes this explicitly clear. If you don't believe me, ask the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, Cardinal Raymond Burke. Though most of his colleagues seem to ignore his stance, he has said for years that canon law places a grave burden on priests to protect the sacraments from defiant sinners. According to Burke, canon law is not a whimsical option for hardline eccentric priests but a moral duty which "obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament" to those in "manifest grave sin. "

Wuerl rejects this authoritative interpretation of canon law. A while back he was asked if he would withhold Communion from the pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi. He said no. That style of "confrontation" makes him uncomfortable, he told a persistent reporter.

I've heard Church insiders call the cardinal "Wuerl the girl," a reference to his precious personality. He has many fine qualities. He seems a little less common to me than some of his hackish colleagues. But cufflinks, starched shirts, learning, and reasonably civilized manners do not a good bishop make. Jesus Christ never required that his disciples place roses in his room or mints on his pillow. He walked straight at the decadent elites of his time, denounced them as a "brood of vipers," and then called it a day. It didn't take long for these vipers to kill him.

Wuerl can only earn the red of his rich robes through a willingness to endure the blood of Jesus Christ's martyrdom. And the truth is that protecting the sacraments would cost him far less than death. Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't clap him on the back so heartily after that. Maybe he would get an angry letter or two from moneyed donors in the tank for the Dems. But who cares?

This latest episode isn't even a close call. If Cardinal Wuerl doesn't have the guts to deny Communion to an agitprop lesbian Buddhist, he should just close up shop and hand the keys to his chancery over to Obama.
This ludicrous controversy reminds me of another fiasco, one from 2008. Remember when San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, while distributing Communion at a parish in the gay Castro district, handed out the sacred species to two garishly painted and costumed members of the homosexual activist group "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."

News of this sparked furor across the Catholic world, and even the liberal archbishop had to admit he blew it, saying dimly: 

Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors, Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it…

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so…

Of course, the bishop's passive understanding of his duties and his fear of the liberal elite -- like Wuerl, Niederauer won't deny Communion to Nancy Pelosi either -- invited this outrage. After all, if a bishop announces that he is not a "gatekeeper," who can't come up to receive it? Such passivity was an invitation to abuse and the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" took it. Similarly, the lesbian Buddhist to which Wuerl cravenly apologized seized her chance to stick it to the Church.

The choice that the Wuerls face is clear: either they take seriously the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will multiply without end.
The notion that bishops aren't gatekeepers would come as a surprise to the Church's first ones. The apostles were told by Jesus Christ that the good shepherd watches the gate, lest his flock be eaten. "Do not give what is holy to dogs," Jesus warned them.

The Church's position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege and scandal is not determined by his "comfort" level, Cardinal Wuerl. It is determined by the clear requirements of canon law. Cardinal Burke has spoken; the case is closed. Either the bishops take control over their own sacraments or the Church's enemies will.

Updates:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis
• Cardinal Wuerl's spokesman files complaint with The American Spectator

Links:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty 
• EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
• Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out

Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality

by Patrick B. Craine

BOWMANVILLE, Ontario, March 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A self-proclaimed ‘lesbian’ whose two children attend a Catholic school near Peterborough is demanding that the Peterborough Catholic school board remove a Catechism quote dealing with homosexuality from a school pamphlet. Ann Michelle Tesluk has started an online petition to pressure the board to action and describes her activities as gearing to make the Catholic Church into an “openly gay friendly church.”

The pamphlet in question, however, is controversial from more than one perspective.  While quoting the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”, the pamphlet also misrepresents Catholic teaching in numerous ways. The pamphlet calls on schools to highlight homosexual role models and familiarize students with terms like “LGBTQQ” and “two-spirited.” It indicates that Canada legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005 without mentioning that the Church opposes such unions.

Greg Reeves, director of education for the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School Board (PVNCCDSB), told LifeSiteNews that they have had enough complaints about the pamphlet, called The Colour of Equity, to give the wording a “relook” to see if they can explain the Church’s teaching better.

The trustees voted 6 to 8 last Tuesday against a request to remove the passage, but Nancy Sharpe, the board’s head of communications, said that the pamphlet has been sent for review to the Equity and Inclusive Education committee.

Reeves says the school board felt they needed to include the Catechism passage because they are “under the Magisterium of the Church, the teaching and the authority of the Church.”

“When we were going into the section on orientation, we felt it important that people understand what the Catholic Catechism would say,” he explained.

In her online petition, which has garnered 86 signatures thus far, Tesluk says the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality are “outdated and harmful” and suggests the teachings have exacerbated the problem of teen suicides.

“As it is right now, it is derogatory, patronizing and discriminatory, not to mention lacking in scientific evidence,” she says. “Any child who reads this will be faced, at minimum, with a negative attitude towards homosexuality,” she continues. “Isn’t this what we are trying to prevent? How can we allow any school in Ontario to teach this to our children?”

Reeves said the complaints are largely a result of confusion over the Church’s teaching, saying that the Catechism’s “phraseology is old.”

According to Reeves, by calling the homosexual inclination “objectively disordered,” the Church means that homosexual relationships are disordered.  According to Church teaching, he explained, authentic sexual relationships must be both unitive and procreative.

“It’s not the person who’s disordered,” he said. “It’s the concept that the relationship, in the eyes of the Catholic Church in this definition, is disordered.”

But Prof. Scott Nicholson, chair of theology at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy in Barry’s Bay, Ontario, said the Catechism teaching is not about the homosexual relationship per se, but a disorder in the person’s sexual drive.

“It is true that acting on it is disordered,” he explained, “but above and beyond that the inclination itself isn’t something that you’d find in human beings except for original sin.”

“In a fallen world, individuals have various disorders in them that may not be any fault of their own but they remain disordered,” he continued. “Someone born blind, that’s an objective disorder because we’re meant to see, that’s what eyes are for. The sexual drive is meant to be inclined and lead people toward reproduction.”
“If it’s ordered in a particular individual in a way that isn’t inclined towards reproduction then it’s disordered. It’s out of the order for which it’s meant,” he added.

Sharpe said the Equity and Inclusive Education committee will decide whether to remove the language or perhaps explain it, and then make a recommendation to the trustees.

“I know that the language of that passage will have to be explained at the committee meeting because many of us don’t understand it because it was written by theologians,” she said.

Prof. Nicholson noted that the Catechism is not a work of high theology but intended for a “wide audience.” “It’s really intended for every educated, and I’d even go so far as to say semi-educated, Catholic,” he said.
The Church needs to use precise language, he added, to say exactly what it means on issues of importance.
As the province’s Catholic school boards adopted McGuinty’s equity and inclusive education strategy in the last two years, pro-family advocates warned that it would give homosexual activists a foothold to further undermine the effort to impart Catholic sexual teaching.

According to Tesluk, during the six years her children have attended school in the board, she has held various positions on the local school council.

Contact info:

Greg Reeves, Director of Education
Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School Board
1355 Lansdowne St. W.
Peterborough, ON   K9J 7M3
Tel: (705) 748-4861, Ext. 224
Fax: (705) 748-9734
greeves@pvnccdsb.on.ca

Contact info for trustees.

Link:

• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality

Related:

• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist

Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action

Following Father Guarnizo's suspension, two D.C. area Catholic bloggers, An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic and Restore-D.C.-Catholicism, recommend the suspension of Cardinal Wuerl's Appeal pledges and instead donating money to other Catholic and pro-life causes and charities:

From Restore D.C. Catholicism:

Today, at the 9:30 Mass at St John Neumann parish, Father LaHood read a letter from Bishop Barry Knestout announcing the suspension of Father Marcel Guarnizo's priestly faculties.  Did I say the letter was penned by Bishop Knestout?  Let's not kid ourselves!  This letter came straight from the top - Cardinal Wuerl.  I'll bet my bottom dollar that all Bishop Knestout did was change the wording slightly (so that he could call the letter "his" with a straight face) and sign the thing.  I really don't think he's to blame, as he is vowed to obedience, as is Father LaHood bound to obedience in reading this thing with the introductory comments.  I recorded it so you can listen to the entire thing right here.

"The lesbian who is attempting to get a Catholic priest removed from his parish for denying her Holy Communion at her mother’s funeral is a Buddhist who describes herself as a “naturally born agitator” committed to a “culture war.” - LifeSiteNews

You'll hear towards the middle of the clip that "the issue discussed did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago.  The issue pertains to actions over the past week or so."  Then Father proceeds to read the letter from Cardinal Wuerl Bishop Knestout whoever.   He announced the suspension and that it was taken after he "received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior towards parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."

Why, isn't it just the most peculiar of coincidences that these "credible allegations" are coming out of the woodwork on the heels of the Holy Communion issue two weeks ago?  Father Guarnizo has been at the parish a year now - so these "intimidating behaviors" are now just beginning to surface?   Just what is the nature of these "intimidating behaviors"?  Who are the offended parties?  Unless we see some real basis of these allegations, I'm willing to bet that - none exist!

I think we bloggers did too good of a job in revealing Ms. Johnson's utter lack of credibility.  It certainly did her no good that there were other eye witnesses at the funeral Mass that contradicted her account of the events there.  Thus the Archdiocese cannot act upon Ms. Johnson's complaints without being tainted with her lack of credibility.  In other words, Plan A is shot, so they come up with Plan B.

So where are all these offended parish staff?  Let's hear from them!  If you post, don't do so anonymously for I will ascribe to it no credibility whatsoever.  But I don't think there will be any such posts, for I believe there is really no such subject matter.

In the title of this post I said it's time to take action - perhaps it's way past that time.  What do I suggest?  Well, if you read the blog posts of A Washington DC Catholic, you'll see he suggested it first.  I'm talking of suspension of your Cardinal's Appeal pledges.  I agree with the other blogger when he says that's the only language that the bureaucrats in the chancery seem to understand from us.  Of course let the chancery know precisely why they should not expect one more penny from you.  Contact information is here.

So what to do with that money?  Recalling that we are bound, under the Precepts of the Church, to support its work financially, I'd suggest taking that money and giving it directly to a Catholic and/or prolife cause that you know to be worthy of your donations: a crisis pregnancy center, a solid seminary, soup kitchen - there are numerous worthy candidates for your donations.  Clearly "the work of the Church" does not mean throwing good priests under the bus when they uphold Canon 915 and I for one will not support that.

Links:

• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - Time To Take Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Fr. Marcel Guarnizo Update
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled