In an article in First Things entitled Fencing the Altar, Dr Peters writes:
Participation in Holy Communion is achieved by two related but distinct acts: the action of a member of the faithful in seeking Communion (reception) and the action of the minister in giving Communion (administration). These two actions are not only performed by different persons, they are governed by different canon laws. Virtually all confusion over Communion can be traced to the failure to keep these two actions distinct.It is worth reading as it helps minsters guard against over-zealous denial of the Holy Communion on the one hand as well as giving clear guidance on how to apply the law of the Church in this matter. There are public figures whom Peters has no doubt should be excluded by their bishops from Holy Communion.
I am much consoled by his line:
Difficult cases of law and fact will arise, and mistakes will inevitably be made in deciding them.for we do inevitably find ourselves in tight spots during the celebration of Mass and do not always get it right.
On the basis of the law, which is purposive and always serves a great truth or principle of the Faith, it is clear that Father Guarnizo was correct in, and to be applauded for, taking the action he did to protect the Blessed Sacrament, and souls in the Washington DC case. The vicious and crazed response of the anti-Catholic groups, including much of the Media so actively and cynically fomented by the woman and her collaborators, showed that Satan was much enraged.
ReplyDeleteDr Peters has commented on this case and in his opinion Father Guarnizo did not act in accordance with the law.
DeleteI think was wrong. As other canonists have opined. Grave scandal would have been caused had Fr Guarnizo given the lady Holy Communion in the circumstances he described. And grave scandal was caused by the Archbishop's apology to the anti-Catholic activist; this apology was further used to promote dissent from he Church's doctrine.
DeleteAn interesting article by Fr. Peters. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteJust sorry that Father did not deal with reception of Most Blessed Sacrament by those living together before Marriage. Seems to me many do not recognise that as a sin and frequently approach for Communion.
I think Dr Peters would acknowledge that these, too, should be denied Holy Communion if their condition is publicly known. (Doctor, not Father. He's a layman, married with quite some family!)
DeleteIndeed. But one can't mention everything in any given article.
DeleteThanks for your as-always kind and thoughtful words, Pater. Re Lynda’s conclusion that “on the basis of the law” it is “clear that Fr. Guarnizo was correct”, I am astounded, ASTOUNDED, that anyone could have read my First Things essay—to say nothing of my numerous blog posts about that incident—and conclude that I held him to have acted in accord with the law, a claim I opposed despite some pretty “vicious and crazed responses” I received for doing so at the time. Anyway, we shoulder on. PS: Winter’s coming. Stay warm in the UP, eh!
ReplyDeleteMy original comment did not advert in any way to Dr Peter's opinion on that case.
DeleteOK, but my post was about Dr Peters' post which I think is a very important contribution to the question. He is one who clearly advocates the application of Can. 915 and so his conclusion on the Guarnizo case is, to say the least, of interest.
Delete