Reflections on the Blessed Mother at the Foot of the Cross

As part of my Lenten practices, I have been trying to do the Seven Sorrows of Mary everyday, and also the Stations of the Cross.  I don't have time to do these at church, so I actually pray them by using my Ipod.  I guess it's the 21st  Century way.

Doing these devotions has naturally led me to meditate on the Crucifixion of our Lord and also on the role of the Blessed Mother in our Lord's sacrifice.  She was with him literally every step of the way, never turning away from the horror and the pain, suffering right along with him, and yet never turning against any of those who were torturing her Son.  She was love personified.  She was also a wall of strength to all who stayed by her side.

I attended a Lenten reflection last night, and one of the topics brought up by the priest giving the reflection was Mary's role in the sacrifice of Christ.  I began to think more about that, and it dawned on me that at the Crucifixion, those who stayed with Mary also stayed with Christ, because that is where she was.  To follow Mary was to follow Christ.  All those who ran away - all but one of the apostles and all but a handful of the disciples - also abandoned Mary. 

I believe this is true for every believer.  If we will stay with Mary, Jesus' beloved mother whom he has given to us as our Mother, we will never stray from Christ.  She will be our strength and help us carry our crosses just as she was with her own Son on his way to Calvary, and throughout his entire life on this earth.  Those who stayed with Mary at the foot of the cross were given the courage and strength to face the horrors of that first Good Friday.  There is nothing that we can face that can be more horrific than that day, when perfect Goodness and Purity was crucified so that we could be saved.  

Here is a wonderful reflection on the martyrdom of Mary and her sufferings with her Son by St. Alphonsus Liguori from catholictradition.org

The Martyrdom of Mary Was Never Equaled
by St. Alphonsus Liguori

The words of the prophet Jeremias explain my meaning on this point:

To what shall I compare thee? or to what shall I liken thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? ... for great as the sea is thy destruction; who shall heal thee? (Lam. 2:13) No, the acuteness of the sufferings of Mary are not to be compared, even with those of all the Martyrs united. "The Martyrdom of Mary," says Saint Bernard, "was not caused by the executioner's sword, but proceeded from bitter sorrow of heart." In other Martyrs torments were inflicted on the body; but Mary's sorrow was in her heart and soul, verifying in her the prophecy of Simeon, Thy own soul a sword shall pierce. (Luke 2:35)

Arnold of Chartres writes that "whoever had been on Mount Calvary, to witness the great sacrifice of the Immaculate Lamb, would there have beheld two great altars, the one in the Body of Jesus, the other in the heart of Mary; for on that Mount, when the Son sacrificed His Body by death, Mary sacrificed her soul by compassion." So much so, says Saint Antoninus, that whereas other Martyrs sacrifice their own lives, the Blessed Virgin consummated her Martyrdom by sacrificing the life of her Son, a life which she loved far more than her own, and which caused her to endure a torment which exceeded all other torments ever endured by any mortal on earth.   

As a general rule, the sufferings of children are also the sufferings of their mothers who are present at and witness their torments. This Saint Augustine declares, when speaking of the mother of the Machabees, who witnessed the execution of her children, Martyred by order of the cruel Antiochus: he says that "Love caused her to endure in her soul all the torments inflicted on each of her children." Erasmus adds that "Mothers suffer more at the sight of the sufferings of their children than if the torments were inflicted on themselves." This, however, is not always true; but in Mary it was verified; for she certainly suffered more in witnessing the sufferings of her Son than she would have done had she endured all the torments in her own person. "All the wounds," says Saint Bonaventure, "which were scattered over the Body of Jesus were united in the heart of Mary, to torment her in the Passion of her Son" so that, as Saint Lawrence Justinian writes, "The heart of Mary, by compassion for her Son, became a mirror of His torments, in which might be seen, faithfully reflected, the spittings, the blows, the wounds, and all that Jesus suffered." We can therefore say that Mary, on account of the love that she bore Him, was in heart, during the Passion of her Son, struck, scourged, crowned with thorns, and nailed to the very Cross of her Son.

The same Saint Lawrence considers Jesus on His road to Calvary, with the Cross on His shoulders, turning to Mary and saying to her, "Alas, My Own dear Mother, where are you going? What a scene will you witness? You will be agonized by My sufferings, and I by yours." But the loving Mother would follow Him all the same, though she knew that, by being present at His death, she would have to endure a torment greater than any death. She saw that her Son carried the Cross to be crucified upon it; and, adds Abbot William, she also took up the cross of her sorrows, and followed her Son to be crucified with Him. Hence Saint Bonaventure considers Mary standing by the Cross of her dying Son, and asks her, saying, "O Lady, tell me where did you then stand---was it near the Cross? No, you were on the Cross itself, crucified with your Son." About these words of the Redeemer, foretold by the prophet Isaias, I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the Gentiles there is not a man with me. (Isaias 63:3) Richard of St. Lawrence says, "It is true, O Lord, that in the work of human redemption You did suffer alone, and that there was not a man that sufficiently pitied You; but there was a woman with You, and she was Your Own Mother; she suffered in her heart all that You endured in Your Body."

To show the sufferings endured by other Martyrs they are represented with the instruments of their torture; Saint Andrew with a cross, Saint Paul with a sword, Saint Lawrence with a gridiron; Mary is represented with her dead Son in her arms; for He alone was the instrument of her Martyrdom, and compassion for Him made her the Queen of Martyrs. On this subject of Mary's compassion in the death of Jesus Christ, Father Pinamonti gives expression to a beautiful and remarkable opinion: he says, that "the grief of Mary in the passion of her Son was so great, that she alone compassionated in a degree by any means adequate to its merits the death of a God made man for the love of man."

Blessed Amadeus also writes, that "Mary suffered much more in the Passion of her Son than she would have done if she herself had endured it; for she loved her Jesus much more than she loved herself," Hence Saint Ildephonsus did not hesitate to assert, that "the sufferings of Mary exceed those of all Martyrs united together." Saint Anselm, addressing the Blessed Virgin, says, "The most cruel torments inflicted on the holy Martyrs were trifling or as nothing in comparison with your Martyrdom, O Mary." The same Saint adds, "Indeed, O Lady, in each moment of your life your sufferings were such that you could not have endured them, and would have expired under them, had not your Son, the source of your life, preserved you." Saint Bernadine of Sienna even says, that "the sufferings of Mary were such that had they been divided among all creatures capable of suffering, they would have caused their immediate death." Who, then, can ever doubt that the Martyrdom of Mary was without its equal, and that it exceeded the sufferings of all the Martyrs; since, as Saint Antoninus says, "they suffered in the sacrifice of their own lives; but the Blessed Virgin suffered by offering the life of her Son to God, a life which she loved far more than her own."

The Martyrs suffered under the torments inflicted on them by tyrants; but Our Lord, Who never abandons His servants, always comforted them in the midst of their sufferings. The love of God, which burnt in their hearts, rendered all these sufferings sweet and pleasing to them. Saint Vincent suffered, when on the rack he was torn with pincers and burnt with hot iron plates; but Saint Augustine says that "the Saint spoke with such contempt of his torments, that it seemed as if it was one who spoke and another who suffered." Saint Boniface suffered when the flesh was torn from his body with iron hooks, sharp reeds were forced under his nails and melted lead was poured into his mouth; but in the midst of all, he could never cease to thank Jesus Christ, Who allowed him to suffer for His love. Saint Lawrence suffered when roasting on a gridiron; "but the love which inflamed him," says Saint Augustine, "did not allow him to feel the fire, or even that prolonged death itself."

The greater the love of the Martyrs for Jesus Christ, the less they felt their pains: and in the midst of them all, the remembrance of the Passion of Christ sufficed to console them. With Mary it was precisely the reverse; for the torments of Jesus were her Martyrdom, and love for Jesus was her only executioner. Here we must repeat the words of Jeremias: As the sea is all bitterness, and has not within its bosom a single drop of water which is sweet, so also was the heart of Mary all bitterness, and without the least consolation: Who shall heal you? Her Son alone could heal her and heal her wounds; but how could Mary receive comfort in her grief from her crucified Son, since the love she bore Him was the whole cause of her Martyrdom?

"To understand, then, how great was the grief of Mary, we must understand," says Cornelius a Lapide, "how great was the love she bore her Son." But who can ever measure this love?

Blessed Amadeus says, that "natural love towards Him as her Son, and supernatural love towards Him as her God, were united in the heart of Mary."

These two loves were blended into one, and this so great a love that William of Paris does not hesitate to assert, that Mary loved Jesus ''as much as it was possible for a pure creature to love Him." So that, as Richard of St. Victor says, ''as no other creature loved God as Mary loved Him, so there was never any sorrow like Mary's sorrow."

Now there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother. Let us stay awhile to consider these words before concluding our discourse; but I entreat you to renew your attention.

There stood. When Jesus was on the Cross, the disciples had already abandoned Him; they had done so from the moment in which He was taken in the Garden of Olives: then the disciples all leaving Him fled. (Matt. 26:56) The disciples abandoned Him; but His loving Mother did not abandon Him; she remained with Him until He expired.

There stood by. Mothers fly when they see their children suffer much, and are unablehers fly when they see their children suffer much, and are unable to give them relief; they have not the strength to endure the torment, and therefore fly to a distance. Mary beheld her Son in agony on the Cross; she saw that His sufferings were slowly depriving Him of life; she desired to relieve Him in that last extremity, but could not; but with all this she did not fly, she did not go to a distance, but drew nearer to the Cross on which her Son was dying.

She stood by the Cross. The Cross was the hard bed on which Jesus Christ had to die. Mary, who stood by its side, never turned her eyes from Him; she beheld Him all torn by the scourges, thorns, and nails; she saw that her poor Son, suspended by those three iron hooks, found no repose. She, as I have already said, would have desired to give Him some relief; she would have desired, at least, that He should have expired in her arms; but no, even this is forbidden her. "Ah, Cross!" she must have said, "restore me my Son; you are a gibbet for malefactors, but my Son is innocent." But wait, O sorrowful Mother; God's will is that the Cross should only restore you your Son when He has expired.

Saint Bonaventure, considering the sorrow of Mary in the death of her Son, writes, that "no grief was more bitter than hers, because no son was as dear as her Son." Since, then, there never was a son more worthy than Jesus, nor any mother who ever loved as Mary loved, what sorrow can be compared with the sorrow of Mary? "Ah, there never has been in the world a more amiable Son than Jesus," says Richard of St. Lawrence, "nor was there ever so loving a Mother. Had there been less love between this Mother and Son, His death would have been less cruel, their griefs would have been diminished: but the more tender were their loves, the deeper were their wounds." Mary saw that death approached her Son; therefore, casting her compassionate eyes upon Him, she seemed to say, "Ah, Son, You already depart, already You leave me; and are You silent? Give me a last remembrance." Yes, He did so. Jesus Christ left her a remembrance; it was this: Woman, He said, behold your son, referring to Saint John, who stood near; and with these words He bade her farewell. He called her woman, that by the sweet name of mother He might not increase her grief: Woman, behold your son, he will take charge of you when I am dead.

There stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother. Let us finally observe Mary, who stood at the foot of the Cross and beheld her Son expire. But, a God, what Son was it that died? It was a Son Who from all eternity had chosen her for His Mother, and had preferred her in His love to all men and Angels: it was a Son so beautiful, so holy, so amiable; a Son Who had always obeyed her; a Son Who was her only love, for He was her Son and her God; and Mary had to see Him die before her eyes, of pure suffering. But behold, the hour of the death of Jesus has already come; the afflicted Mother saw her Son then enduring the last assaults of death; behold, again, His Body was already sinking, His head drooped down on His breast, His mouth opened, and He expired. The people cry out, "He is dead! He is dead!" And Mary also said, "Ah, my Jesus, my Son, You are now dead!"

When Jesus was dead, He was taken down from the Cross. Mary received Him with outstretched arms; she then pressed Him to her heart, and examined that head wounded by the thorns, those hands pierced with nails, and that body all lacerated and torn. "Ah, Son," she said, "to what has Your love for men reduced You!" But the disciples, fearing that with her Son clasped in her arms she would die of grief, out of compassion approached her, and with reverential determination, removed her Son from her arms, wrapped Him in the winding sheet, and carried Him away to bury Him. The other holy women accompanied Him, and with them the sorrowful Mother followed her Son to the tomb; where, having herself deposited Him with her own hands, she bade Him a last farewell and retired. Saint Bernard says, that ''as Mary passed along the way, her sorrow and grief were such, that all who met her were thereby moved to tears;" and he adds that "those who accompanied her were weeping rather for her than for Our Lord."

My readers, let us be devout to the sorrows of Mary. Saint Albert the Great writes, that ''as we are under great obligations to Jesus Christ for His death, so also are we under great obligations to Mary for the grief which she endured when she offered her Son to God by death for our salvation." This the Angel revealed to Saint Bridget: he said that the Blessed Virgin, to see us saved, herself offered the life of her Son to the Eternal Father: a sacrifice which, as we have already said, cost her greater suffering than all the torments of the Martyrs, or even death itself. But the Divine Mother complained to Saint Bridget that very few pitied her in her sorrows, and that the greater part of the world lived in entire forgetfulness of them. Therefore she exhorted the Saint, saying: "Though many forget me, don't you, my daughter, forget me." For this purpose the Blessed Virgin herself appeared in the year 1239 to the founder of the Order of the Servites, or Servants of Mary, to requested them to institute a religious order in remembrance of her sorrows; and this they did.

Jesus Himself one day spoke to Blessed Veronica of Binasco, saying, "Daughter, tears shed over My Passion are dear to Me: but as I love My Mother Mary with an immense love, the meditation of the sorrows which she endured at My death is also very dear to Me." It is also well to know, as Pelbart relates it, that it was revealed to Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, that Our Lord had promised four special graces to those who are devout to the sorrows of Mary:

• 1st, that those who before death invoke the Divine Mother, in the name of her sorrows, should obtain true repentance of all their sins:  

• 2nd, that He would protect all who have this devotion in their tribulations, and that He would protect them especially at the hour of death:  

• 3rd, that He would impress upon their minds the remembrance of His Passion, and that they should have their reward for it in Heaven:  

• 4th, that He would commit such devout clients to the hands of Mary, with the power to dispose of them in whatever manner she might please, and to obtain for them all the graces she might desire.

+ + + + + + + + + +

There are two kinds of Martyrs, one in open suffering, the other in the hidden virtue of the spirit. For many, enduring the snares of the enemy and resisting all carnal desires, because they have sacrificed themselves in their hearts to Almighty God, have also become martyrs in time of peace, and if they had lived in time of persecution, they could have been Martyrs in reality.

---Saint Isidore

I once heard a priest compare Mary to Abraham, who was asked to sacrifice his son upon the altar.  But at the last moment, God spared Abraham from having to follow through and instead provided a lamb, which prefigured the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.  God said to Abraham:  "I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake." (Gen. 22;12)  For that, God made Abraham the father of many nations:  "By my own self have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake: I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice."  (Gen 22:16-18). 

If this was true for Abraham, how much more is it true for our Blessed Mother, who gave us her Perfect Son, and was willing to watch him be so cruelly tortured and put to death for our sake as she herself suffered this death in her own heart.  That is why we call her our Blessed Mother, the mother of all Christians.  She is the one who will always lead us directly to her Son, and just as she never left the side of Jesus, so she will never abandon us.  To stay by the side of Mary is to stay by the side of Jesus.

What a wonderful gift our Lord has given us in His Mother!

At the Cross Her Station Keeping

Stood the Mournful Mother Weeping

Close to Jesus to the Last

Where America Goes, Persecution Follows (For Christians)

I have previously posted about the fate of Christians whenever Americans invade or "help liberate" a country.  Almost without fail, Christians are persecuted, driven out and/or killed.  Is it a coincidence?  It seems almost impossible for this to be true given the number of times it has happened in recent history. 

Just this past weekend, the New York Times had an article dealing with the fate of Christians in Iraq.  This was probably the oldest existing community of Christians anywhere in the world, dating back to the time of the Apostles.  They even still speak Aramaic, the same language spoken by Jesus and the Apostles.  These Christians survived thousands of years under many different conditions, and thrived even under Saddam Hussein, whom we were told was the most evil man in the world. 

But then the Americans invaded and "liberated" Iraq, and now the Iraqi Christians are being systematically destroyed. 

Exodus From North Signals Iraqi Christians’ Slow Decline

TENNA, Iraq — Iraq’s dwindling Christians, driven from their homes by attacks and intimidation [which did not happen until the Americans invaded], are beginning to abandon the havens they had found in the country’s north, discouraged by unemployment and a creeping fear that the violence they had fled was catching up to them.

Their quiet exodus to Turkey, Jordan, Europe and the United States is the latest chapter of a seemingly inexorable decline that many religious leaders say tolls the twilight of Christianity in a land where city skylines have long been marked by both minarets and church steeples. Recent assessments say that Iraq’s Christian population has now fallen by more than half since the 2003 American invasion, and with the military’s departure, some Christians say they lost a protector of last resort.

Their flight is felt in places like the wind-scoured village of Tenna, which has sheltered dozens of Christian migrants over the past nine years. The families fleeing Baghdad’s death squads and bombings found safety here beneath the hulking mountains, but little else besides poverty, boredom and cold. Villagers estimate that half of the 50 or so Christian homes are now empty, their families abroad. Walid Shamoon, 42, wants to be the next to leave. He said he left Iraq’s capital in January 2011 after a confrontation with Shiite militia members set off a nightmare of escalating death threats and an attempt on his life. A brother had already been killed in a mortar attack six years earlier, so he said he quit his contract job with the Australian Embassy, giving up a $1,500 monthly salary, and came here.

These days, all he can think about is his application to emigrate to Arizona.

“This is not a life,” he said one recent afternoon, as a blizzard raced down from the mountains. “There is no improvement. There is no work.”

Many of the people now struggling in Iraq’s Kurdish north came in the wake of a suicide attack in Baghdad at Our Lady of Salvation Church in October 2010. It was the single worst assault on Iraq’s Christians since the war began, one that left 50 worshipers and 2 priests dead and that turned the church into a charnel house of scorched pews and shattered stained glass.

Christian families in Baghdad grabbed clothing, cash and a few other provisions and headed north for the Christian communities along the Nineveh plain and Kurdistan’s three provinces. They joined tens of thousands of other Christians from the capital, Mosul and other cities who traced similar arcs after earlier attacks and assassination campaigns.

“They traded everything for security,” said the Rev. Gabriel Tooma, who leads the Monastery of the Virgin Mary in the Christian town of Qosh, which took in dozens of families.

The Christians in northern Iraq make up a tiny fraction of Iraq’s legions of displaced people. In all, there are 1.3 million of them across the country, according to the most recent United Nations estimates. Many live in garbage dumps, shanty towns and squalor far worse than anything facing the Christian families in Kurdistan.

Still, Christians and other minorities were singled out in the years of sectarian cleansing that bifurcated a once-diverse Baghdad into pockets of Sunnis and Shiites. Estimates by the United States and international organizations say that Iraq’s prewar Christian population of 800,000 to 1.4 million now stands at less than 500,000.

“The consequence of this flight may be the end of Christianity in Iraq,” the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom wrote in its most recent annual report, summarizing the concerns of church leaders.

In January, the International Organization for Migration found that 850 of 1,350 displaced Christian families it was tracking in northern Iraq had left in the past year. Many cited fears about security as well as the strains of finding work, housing and schools in an unfamiliar place where they had few connections and spoke only Arabic, and not Kurdish.

“No one has done anything for us,” said Salim Yono Auffee, a member of the Chaldean/Assyrian Popular Council, a Christian group in northern Iraq. “These people are trying to figure out how to build their futures, to find homes, to get married. And they are leaving Iraq.” [The "no one" mentioned here includes the United States, which has done nothing to help the persecuted Christians.]

Even in the relative safety of Kurdistan, some Christians say they still live in apprehension. A kidnapping of a Christian businessman in Erbil, the Kurdish capital, and a recent outbreak of riots and arson attacks against Christian-owned liquor stores in Dohuk Province — the northernmost in Iraq, along the Turkish border — have deeply unsettled Christian migrants to the area.

Seven years ago, after retrieving his son from kidnappers, Salam Meti Abdul Karim moved his family from Mosul to the small Christian community of Shioz, a half-hour’s drive from the center of Dohuk Province. The years passed quietly, until one night in December, when a pickup truck full of men pulled up at the edge of town and set fire to a liquor warehouse.

“I felt like history was repeating itself,” Mr. Abdul Karim said. “We worry the situation is just going to devolve into violence. I was thinking to just take my family and go up to the mountains.”

The village hired armed guards after the attack, Mr. Abdul Karim said.

No Christians were killed in the riots against Christian store owners. Local officials say they were not specifically targeted because of their religion, but because the mobs who burned their stores — and the conservative clerics who had incited them — viewed the alcohol sales as un-Islamic.

Still, Kurdish officials, who have welcomed Christians to the region, rushed to defuse fears conjured by the clash. Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish president, visited Christians in Zakho, the city where the riots were centered, and a parade of government officials and religious leaders emphasized Kurdistan’s historical tolerance, and its deep ties to Assyrians, Chaldeans and other branches of Christianity.

“They are part of us,” said Fadil Omar, the head of the provincial council in Dohuk.

The Kurdish government has offered land, free fuel and other assistance to Christians as they have arrived from Baghdad, and it has opened its universities to students from Mosul, officials say. And Christians do not lack a political voice. They sit on local and provincial councils throughout the north, and hold seats in Parliament in Kurdistan and Baghdad.

Despite the help, many families say they are straining to stay afloat. Those close to cities have found jobs, but those in villages are largely unemployed, and they subsist on government pensions or relief payments of about $200 per month. They skip meals and share heating fuel. They are often miles from schools that teach in Arabic, and some parents say their children have dropped out.

The mountain village of Dawudiyah is a study in trade-offs, a place whose residents share similar stories of fear and flight from their homes in Baghdad. One man was threatened with death if he did not hand over his daughter to militants. A couple’s son was killed on his way home from work. Another family’s son was gunned down with three friends. They gave little thought to the consequences of leaving. They just had to get out.

“It was unbearable,” said Berkho Odeesho, the village’s mayor. “We found safety in Kurdistan, but things are getting unstable. We don’t know where to go.”

But like others here, Mr. Odeesho has a plan. He has applied for an immigration visa, and he is now busy preparing for his consular interview. Uprooting his family from Iraq may be difficult, he said, but it would be in service of a new future, away from Iraq, in a distant place called Illinois [where the Obama Administration is working hard to destroy the Church].

SOUR GRAPES? PRIEST PLACED ON "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE"

Father Marcel Guarnizo

Just yesterday I posted about the situation with Father Marcel Guarnizo, who denied communion to a self-professed lesbian.  It has also come out that she doesn't even pretend to be a practicing Catholic but labels herself a Buddhist.  Well, this just gets curiouser and curiouser.  Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has now been placed on Administrative Leave by Auxillary Bishop Knestout, who originally reprimanded Fr. Guarnizo in this situation.  Msgr. Knestout says that he has "has received several complaints against Fr. Guarnizo claiming intimidating behaviour on his part against parish staff and others, and 'that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.'"  Msgr. Knestout give us no details whatsoever as to what he is referring.  Hmmmmm.

Ed Peters, an expert on Canon law, gives this explanation:

Bp. Knestout’s March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo

Most of the lesbian/Communion controversy has been a dis-edifying parade of misleading commentary being proffered about misapplied laws. I don’t write here to correct these many errors, as their partisans (whether ‘left’ or ‘right’) don’t seem especially interested in what the law actually says, but I am happy to offer some observations on Msgr. Knestout’s letter of March 9 for those who are trying to understand what is, and is not, at work in this matter.

1. Fr. Guarnizo has not been suspended (suspension is a canonical penalty levied only upon guilt for crimes, per c. 1333), but he has been placed on “administrative leave”, a term not found in the Code, but nevertheless serving as a practical description of a situation in which, usually, one is not permitted to function as a cleric for so long as a wider situation requires resolution. A priest’s faculties for confession, preaching (homilies), witnessing weddings, etc. can be restricted a couple of different ways, and there is no reason to think that those ways were not satisfied in this action (although direct discussion of them is lacking).

From the text of the letter, I cannot tell whether Guarnizo is prohibited from celebrating Mass even in private (he is certainly prohibited from public celebration), although the trend in such cases is to allow for private celebration. This question could easily be addressed between Knestout and Guarnizo, and probably has already been answered.

2. A vicar general almost certainly has sufficient authority to issue such a letter (c. 479 § 1); one may expect the Cardinal to be informed of this action in a timely manner (c. 480).

3. As a parochial vicar, Guarnizo has considerably fewer procedural rights to office than would a pastor. Compare a pastor’s rights under c. 522, etc., and c. 1740 etc., with those of a parochial vicar, per c. 552. All associate pastors know this.

4. Guarnizo is not “incardinated” in the Archdiocese of Washington (c. 265 etc.); the situation of an “extern” priest is inherently more tenuous than is the situation of locally incardinated clergy, it being a function more of contract (express or implied) than of law. All extern priests know this.

5. Little in Knestout’s letter suggests that this action is being taken in response to the lesbian/Communion controversy (though one may be sure that the pro-lesbian camp will claim victory, and the pro-Guarnizo camp will decry the ‘mistreatment’ of the priest).

The allegations of “intimidating behavior” by Guarnizo are not recited in Knestout’s letter, but three questions would occur to me: (a) is this just a pile-on by people looking to kick Guarnizo while he is down?, or (b) are there long-standing legitimate complaints against Guarnizo that the recent controversy made more likely to surface? , or (c) did Guarnizo’s post-controversy conduct in the parish render him intemperate with others, provoking what are really recent complaints? Such are the things that an investigation is designed to, well, investigate.

6. The letter expresses the hope that Guarnizo will be able to return to priestly ministry. + + +

So, I noticed some hits coming from WaPo, and I clicked back to see what was sending readers my way. Now, I’m confused.

A Washington Post news blog by one Michelle Boorstein states that “Specific details about why the Rev. Marcel Guarnizo was barred from ministry – a severe penalty – were not immediately available.” The words “a severe penalty” are hot-linked to my post above.

But, the very first point of my post above is that Guarnizo is NOT under a penalty (let alone, a severe one, a description of suspension that I never used).

Ever wonder why so few professionals try to blog complex current events? It’s because we usually end up wondering, how on earth can our crystal clear statements be so completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented? Sigh.

I would probably get in trouble for posting this anywhere else, but since this is my blog, I can only say that in IMHO, it sure seems like "sour grapes" on the part of Msgr. Knestout.  He penalizes this priest and gives only the vaguest of explanations.  Dr  Peters seems to be trying to be as fair as possible in explaning this process, but it just doesn't add up to me.  As I posted previously, I certainly didn't think there would be an apology forthcoming from Msgr. Knestout, but it never entered my mind that he would go this far.  I hope and pray that Fr. Guarnizo just plays it cool and lets things work out as they should.  If he is in the right, it will be shown.  This is could be a very good learning situation for all. 

Is the following the manner in which bishops would like communion to be distributed?

Not Perfect? You Have No Right to Life

I posted a few days ago about an Oregon couple who are suing because the results of a test of their pre-born baby did not show that she had Down Syndrome.  If they had known this, they would have killed the baby while it was still legal so as not to be burdened with raising a handicapped child.

Well, the verdict came in last Friday, and the jury unanimously voted to give these parents $3 million for a "wrongful birth."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there is such a thing as wrongful birth in our society - babies who have no right being born.   And because they insist on being born anyway, the price tag has been set at $3 million. 

This is an unbelievably horrific consequence of abortion.  The child in this particular case is mentally handicapped, so hopefully she will never know or understand that she has no right to life.  But her brothers know, and everyone else in the world now knows it. 

Here is the story:

Jury awards nearly $3 million to Portland-area couple in 'wrongful birth' lawsuit against Legacy Health

A jury this afternoon awarded nearly $3 million to a Portland-area couple whose daughter was born with Down syndrome even though a prenatal test found she didn't have the chromosomal abnormality.

The jury voted 12-0, taking less than six hours before reaching a verdict in the case of Ariel and Deborah Levy vs. Legacy Health System. The decision capped a 10-day highly emotional trial in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The money will cover the estimated extra lifetime costs of caring for a child with Down syndrome.

Deborah Levy, who had held her emotions in check throughout the trial, began to cry as Judge Karin Immergut read the verdict. The couple nodded and mouthed "thank you" as jurors filed out of the courtroom. A few nodded back, smiled or reached out a hand toward the Levys. One juror visibly held back tears. Another wished them peace.  [Does anyone care about the child?  Do the jurors realize that by rendering this decision, they have said this child should never have been born, that she has no right to life?]

After jurors left the room, Ariel and Deborah Levy shared a long embrace.The couple sued Legacy Health, claiming that Deborah Levy would have aborted her pregnancy had she known her daughter had the chromosomal abnormality. The lawsuit blames Legacy's Center for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in North Portland and a Legacy lab for allegedly botching the test.  

The case was one of just a handful of so-called "wrongful birth" suits estimated to be filed each year in the United States, bioethics experts say. It was one of an even rarer few to go to trial -- and garner a multi-million dollar verdict. In the process, the case stirred passionate public debate nationally and even internationally. The judge prohibited media in the courtroom from photographing or recording images of the couple, whose attorney said had received death threats.

Experts say so few parents choose to file wrongful birth suits because it forces them to take an awkward position: They must be willing to say on the record that they would have aborted the pregnancy, and that they feel a burden -- albeit financial -- of raising the child.  [At least there are some people who still realize the terrible message this sends to the child and to the rest of the world.]

The Levys' attorney, David K. Miller, said his clients deeply love their daughter but worried about being portrayed as heartless. [Who would ever think that a couple who would have preferred to kill their baby is "heartless"??] Miller said they sued because they worried about providing all that their daughter would need over her lifetime. [And just how have people down through history provided for their children?  They didn't go around suing people.]  Experts testified that she will continue to need speech and physical therapy and face a concerning list of possible medical problems over her lifetime. Professionals have told the Levys that she will likely never be able to live independently, or earn a living.

According to several studies, 89 percent or more of expectant mothers who learned their children would have Down syndrome chose to terminate the pregnancies.

Jurors said they found Legacy Health negligent on five fronts, including that the doctor who performed the prenatal test took too small of a sample from Levy's womb to be useful. They concluded that employees -- including the doctor who took the sample and lab workers who analyzed it -- failed to communicate, leading to the erroneous result.

"I don't think there's a winner in this," said one juror, who like others, declined to be named because of the high profile of the case.  [Ah, but there is a winner in this case - his name is Satan, who has been highly served.]

The Levys spoke of the challenges of raising a special-needs child, including concerns about her health, her ability to communicate and whether she'll get the attention she needs once she starts public-school kindergarten in the fall.

"I have two children," the juror said, "and it's hard to watch another mother, another family, go through all that."  [Is there anyone who cares about the child and what she has to go through??]

The Levys were the parents of two young boys when in November 2006 they were surprised to learn Deborah Levy was pregnant again. Because she was 34, she and her husband were concerned about the possibility of genetic disorders. Experts testified that about 1 in 250 women that age give birth to a baby with Down syndrome. A first-trimester screening estimated Deborah Levy's chances were even higher: 1 in 130.

Roughly 13 weeks into her pregnancy, Deborah Levy went to Legacy's Center for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in North Portland, where Dr. Thomas Jenkins performed a prenatal test called chorionic villus sampling, or CVS for short. A Legacy lab tested a small amount of tissue that the doctor had removed from Levy's womb. The results showed the Levy's daughter had a normal chromosomal profile.

Although in the following weeks two ultrasounds showed abnormalities that sometimes indicate Down syndrome, the Levys testified they were assured that their daughter would not have the chromosomal abnormality. Legacy staff did not advise them to get an amniocentesis, which is another prenatal test that detects Down syndrome.

Within a week of their daughter's birth, they were devastated to find out that the girl, Kalanit, did indeed have Down syndrome.

The Levys contended that Dr. Thomas Jenkins removed maternal tissue -- not fetal tissue -- during the CVS procedure. The suit alleged that Jenkins and lab workers didn't recognize that the tissue was from the mother.

Legacy's attorney, Robert Keating, called on experts who said the CVS was properly done, and that the results showed the girl has a normal genetic profile because she has mosiac Down syndrome, meaning a significant number of her cells don't contain an extra 21st chromosome.

The Levys are Jewish.  One would think that they would be even more aware than the average person that what they proposed to do with this child is exactly what Hitler did in Germany - kill all "undesirables."  They and all who think like them are no better than Hitler or any other mass killer.  They have decided they are the ones who make the decision about who lives and who dies.  They have no right to ever criticize Hitler or anyone else like him. 

God bless this little girl and all others like her, those whom our society has decided are undesirable and have no right to life. 

Further Thoughts: "Wrongful Birth"

I just recently posted about a couple in Oregon who are suing their doctors because their unborn baby was not diagnosed with Down Syndrome in time for them to abort her.  Because the baby was not diagnosed until after birth, the parents are "stuck" taking care of her, and they want the doctors to pay $3 million to cover all the costs of taking care of their child for her entire lifetime.

If this couple wins this lawsuit, it will set an extremely dangerous precedent.  All gynecologists and obstetricians and anyone else involved in caring for pregnant women and/or delivering babies are going to be hypersensitive when it comes to diagnosing birth defects in pre-born babies.  If there is the slightest chance that a baby will not be physically perfect, they will be pushing for abortion.  And most likely, women would have to sign some sort of release form saying they have been warned of possible birth defects in their babies and have chosen not to abort, thus leaving the doctor legally off the hook if the baby is born with a defect of any kind.  This, unfortunately, will scare most women into having an abortion if there is so much as a hint of an abnormality in the baby.  Just as the doctors were wrong in this case when they told the parents in Oregon that their baby was completely normal, doctors can be and have been wrong when telling their patients that their babies had birth defects.  Tim Tebow is a case in point.  The doctors told his mother that he would be born with major birth defects and urged her to have an abortion.  She refused, and the result is the major professional athlete that we see today.

If this lawsuit succeeds, it will also push more women to undergo amniocentesis, a dangerous and invasive procedure in which the doctor inserts a needle into a pregnant woman's abdomen in order to extract amniotic fluid from which they can test for any abnormalities in the baby.  Most doctors will tell you that it is basically a safe procedure, but at the same time, there are tremendous risks involved, including sticking the baby with the needle, infection and miscarriage.  No one and nothing should be invading the womb of a pregnant woman. 

Our society continues more and more on the downward spiral, descending into the depths of moral depravity and disregard for human life.  We need to stand up against this, uniting in prayer and not being afraid to speak out if we are given the opportunity.  The most precious creation in the universe is human life, because it was for the salvation of humans that our Lord came to earth and poured out His Precious Blood on the cross.  If He thought human life was important enough for Him to allow his own Creation to crucify him in order to save them, we have no right to hold human life in any less regard.

Disposable Babies

We've all heard of "wrongful death suits".  Well, now we have "wrongful birth suits."  I remember back in 1973 when abortion, the murder of unborn babies, was legalized, we were told that all babies would be loved and wanted because people would be able to choose.  That doesn't seem to have worked out.  Just as we were warned by Catholic Church, the legalization of abortion has only served to devalue life.  Just recently I posted about an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics which is arguing to allow the killing of newborn babies because “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons,” and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus’ health, “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” 

Now there is a couple suing their doctors because their baby was born with Down Syndrome.  They are basically suing because their baby is "defective" and the doctors didn't catch it when the mother was pregnant and they could have legally killed it.  Hopefully their child will never be able to understand that if her parents had known she wasn't "perfect", they would have killed her without thinking twice about it.  Since her "imperfections" went undetected, her parents are now suing because they didn't get the correct information in order to make the decision to kill her.  If those at the Journal for Medical Ethics have their way, parents will be allowed to kill their newborn babies if the babies don't satisfy all the parents' needs and wishes. 

Blessed John Paul II wrote:

The Gospel of life is for the whole of human society. To be actively pro-life is to contribute to the renewal of society through the promotion of the common good. It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace.

Can any society survive with this kind of mentality that can sue for "wrongful birth"?  We recycle bottles, cans and paper, but we throw away our babies.  God help us all. 

From oregonlive.com:

Portland-area couple sues Legacy Health for $3 million for 'wrongful birth' after child born with Down syndrome

By Aimee Green, The Oregonian The Oregonian

On the June 2007 day their daughter was born, Ariel and Deborah Levy were overcome with excitement, then shock when hospital staff told them their daughter looked like she had Down syndrome.

A doctor asked Deborah Levy if she'd had a prenatal test -- a chorionic villus sampling, or CVS for short -- and Levy said yes, the results showed they'd have a normal, healthy child.

Within days of her birth, however, a blood test confirmed that the little girl, Kalanit, hadDown syndrome.

The Levys filed suit against Legacy Health, claiming that Deborah Levy would have aborted her pregnancy had she known her daughter had the chromosomal abnormality. The lawsuit blames Legacy's Center for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in North Portland and a Legacy lab for allegedly botching the test. The Levys -- who dearly love their daughter, now 4 [they "dearly love" their baby whom they would have killed if given the opportunity??]-- want Legacy to pay for the extra life-time costs of caring for her. That is estimated at about $3 million.

This afternoon, after nine days of trial in a downtown Portland courtroom, 12 jurors began deliberating in a case that gets to the core of how we view and value a life, and asks who should have to pay when that life is less than optimal. Experts say such "wrongful birth" cases are extraordinarily rare nationwide, for one, because prenatal tests such as the CVS are as much as 99.7 percent accurate and when they fail, few parents are willing to endure the scrutiny of a legal challenge. But wrongful birth lawsuits may be becoming more common as technology advances, more women in their late 30s or 40s give birth and millions of expectant mothers come to rely on genetic screenings.

Internet commenters have assailed the couple as heartless. The Levys' attorney, David K. Miller, said the couple has received death threats.  [This response is just as bad as parents wanting to kill their children.]

Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Karin Immergut banned courtroom photos of the couple for safety reasons.

Several studies show that more than 89 percent of women who learn they will give birth to a child with Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies. [This is the horrendous consequence of allowing people to throw away their babies.] 

Miller, the Levy's attorney, contends that Dr. Thomas Jenkins removed maternal tissue -- not fetal tissue --from Deborah Levy's womb. The suit faults Jenkins and lab workers for not recognizing that the tissue was from the mother. The suit also faults Legacy for reassuring her that her baby didn't have an extra 21st chromosome even though two ultrasounds allegedly raised red flags by showing traits of Down syndrome.

Legacy's attorney said Jenkins and other staff followed proper procedures and weren't at fault. Attorney Robert Keating said the CVS found only normal cells because Kalanit has mosiac Down syndrome -- meaning a significant number of her cells don't contain an extra 21st chromosome. Keating pointed to an analysis of Kalanit's cells -- taken after birth -- that showed nearly 31 percent are normal.

But the Levys' attorney told jurors they should discredit that analysis because it had been done by a Legacy lab looking to defend its legal position. Miller argued that 100 percent of the cells analyzed in the CVS were normal because they were Deborah Levy's cells. Meanwhile, other samples of tissue taken from Kalanit after she was born show an insignificant number of normal cells, less than one or two percent.

The attorneys called upon a series of medical experts with each side criticizing the others' experts as ill-informed. [No one is arguing about whether this child has a right to live.  That should be the only real issue.  Unfortunately, in our society, the child does not have an inherent right to life.]

Ariel Levy, 39, is a civil engineer. Deborah Levy, also 39, is a dental hygienist.

The two met in preschool, went to Wilson High School, and later, to a Boston-area college. They started dating in 1996, and in 2000, they married. A few years later, Deborah Levy gave birth to a boy, now a third grader. He was followed by another boy, now a kindergartner. The Levys considered their family complete and were surprised in November 2006 to learn that Deborah Levy was pregnant again.

Because she was 34, she and her husband were concerned about the possibility of genetic disorders. Experts testified that about 1 in 250 women that age give birth to a child with Down syndrome. A first-trimester screening showed Deborah Levy's chances were estimated to be higher than average, at about 1 in 130.

So when Deborah Levy was 13 weeks pregnant, she underwent the CVS. [Description of 13 week old fetus:  Fingerprints have formed on your baby's tiny fingertips, her veins and organs are clearly visible through her still-thin skin, and her body is starting to catch up with her head — which makes up just a third of her body size now. If you're having a girl, she now has more than 2 million eggs in her ovaries. Your baby is almost 3 inches long (the size of a medium shrimp) and weighs nearly an ounce.  See the video below showing the "fetus" that Deborah Levy was ready to abort:]

Ariel Levy told jurors he remembers feeling happy when he and his wife were told the results were normal.

"We were told that we had nothing to worry about," he said.

Deborah Levy testified that after their daughter was born at Good Samaritan Medical Center in Northwest Portland, a doctor told her not to worry about the way the child looked because the results of the CVS were normal. One week after her daughter's birth, she said she arrived at the pediatrician's office eager to "show off my daughter." That's when she learned the blood tests showed her daughter had Down syndrome.

"It was devastating," Deborah Levy recalled.

The Levys said their sons are healthy, strong and bright. The oldest is a competitive chess player and has placed in the 99th percentile on standardized tests.

Their experience with their daughter has been much different. Her parents say they worry about future medical problems, her ability to interact with others and whether she will receive the extra therapy and attention she will need in school. Experts have told the Levys that she likely won't be able to live on her own, or support herself. [And hopefully the child will never know or understand that her parents wanted to kill her and sued because they did not get the chance to legally do so.  But do their two sons now wonder, if they hadn't been "perfect", would the Levys have killed them?  The answer is painfully obvious.] The Levys worry about who will care for their daughter once they are gone.

Kalanit speaks in two word sentences, and few other than her mother and father understand. Like many of those with Down syndrome, she doesn't like brushing her teeth.

"I literally have to pin her down with my legs while she's screaming," Deborah Levy said.

Despite all of this, the Levys say they have the same expectations for their daughter as they do for their sons: They want to help her reach her full potential. Deborah Levy said Karen Gaffney has been a role model. Gaffney -- a Portland area woman who has Down syndrome -- graduated from high school with a regular diploma, earned a Portland Community College degree and travels the nation speaking about overcoming limitations.

One expert estimated that a child with Kali's condition is likely to live into her mid-50s. The additional lifetime costs of caring for her --above and beyond that of a child without Down syndrome -- is nearly $3 million. [What kind of society puts a dollar amount on the value of life?  Our Lord - the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the One who gives us every breath of life - gave His Life for Kali and everyone else who has ever been conceived.  How is it possible to put a dollar amount on this?  Our society has truly descended into hell.]

The jury continues deliberating Friday.

I think the jury has already come in with the decision on our anti-life society, and it is not a positive decision.

The Importance of Silence

Living in New York City, I have come to learn that there is very little that you can't find here, be it good or bad.  But one thing that is very hard to come by is silence.  This has to be one of the noisest places on earth.  But in our modern world, it seems as if people run from silence no matter where they are.  If we are by ourselves, we're talking on our cell phones, plugged into our ipods or ipads, which we can take everywhere.  At home the TV immediately comes on, or the radio or the computer.  We can't go into a store or restaurant without "music" playing (I put the word music in quotes because most of what we hear, IMHO, is no longer music but merely noise).  Waiting in a receptionist room and even in a lot of restaurants, we are usually bombarded with TV, blocking out even our own thoughts. 

I have written previously about the lack of silence in the Novus Ordo Mass and how destructive it is to prayer and communion with our Lord. 

A few weeks ago I posted the Pope's speech which he gave on January 24 and which was for World Communications Day on May 20.  That speech concerned the importance of silence in communication.  This past Wednesday, March 7, the the Holy Father, in his weekly general audience, again talked of the importance of silence, this time specifically on the importance of silence in our relationship with God.  It is a very short speech, but as is true any time the Pope speaks, it is packed with wisdom.

From the Vatican website:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In concluding this series of catecheses on the prayer of Jesus, I would like to speak of the importance of silence in our relationship with God. In Christ’s own life and prayer, and especially in his experience of the Cross, we see a constant interplay of word and silence. Jesus’ mortal silence on the Cross is his final word to the Father, his supreme prayer. To hear God’s word requires the cultivation of outward and inward silence, so that his voice can resound within our hearts and shape our lives. But Jesus teaches us that God also speaks to us, especially at times of difficulty, through his silence, which invites us to deeper faith and trust in his promises. Jesus is our great teacher of prayer; from his prayer we learn to speak with confidence to our heavenly Father as his beloved sons and daughters. In this filial dialogue we are also taught to recognize God’s many gifts and to obey his will, which gives meaning and direction to our lives.

The Pope is basically saying here that unless we can be silent, we will not hear God.  We have to turn off the TV, the internet, the radio, our ipods and ipads, even our own internal noise.  This is especially true in this holy time of Lent, as we go into the spiritual desert with our Lord.  This is one of the reasons why Eucharistic Adoration is so powerful.  We go before the Blessed Sacrament, exposed on the altar and turn off the entire world.  It is just you and the Lord.  And you let him speak to you in that still small voice described in I Kings 19.  Jesus will never push himself on you.  He is always there for you, but you have to turn off the world and listen quietly and intently, just as Elijah did.

9And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?

10And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

11And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

12And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

May you find that still small voice and hear our Lord calling to you.

When Political Correctness Rules

Please enjoy this culturally, ethnically, religiously
and politically correct cartoon responsibly.  Thank you.

A few days ago I posted about a priest who was reprimanded for refusing to give communion to a woman who had introduced herself and her lesbian lover to him immediately before the funeral Mass for her mother.  To me, reprimanding the priest in this situation is political correctness run amok in the Church.  The bishops seem much more concerned about hurt feelings than concern for souls or desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Lifesitenews.com has now posted an article giving background on the priest involved.  This article shows even more clearly that the bishop acted much too quickly without full awareness of the facts of this matter.  How I pray for the day when the bishops are more concerned about souls than political correctness. 

Exclusive: Inside sources provide new info on priest censured for denying lesbian Communion

by Christine Dhanagom

• Fri Mar 02, 2012 15:27 EST

(Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story identified Barabara Johnson as the partner of Kathleen DeBold and written up in Metro Weekly. A homosexual activist organization contacted LSN to note that it is a different Barbara Johnson identified in the newspaper. We are investigating the matter.)

GAITHERSBURG, MD, March 1, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of international press coverage of a priest’s decision to deny a lesbian communion, and the woman’s subsequent demands that he be removed from the parish, a source close to the incident contacted LifeSiteNews with new information that he says will set the record straight. Among other things, the new information indicates that the woman did actually receive Communion at the Mass – but from an Extraordinary minister rather than the priest.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo of St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, was reprimanded by the Archdiocese of Washington this week after denying communion to Johnson at her mother’s funeral. Johnson had informed the priest before the Mass that she was a lesbian, and was denied communion when she presented herself in line.

In a statement issued last week, the Archdiocese said that Guarnizo’s actions were against diocesan policy, and that “any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

LifeSiteNews spoke today with Diego von Stauffenberg, a source who is close to the incident and who revealed detailed information about the nature of Fr. Guarnizo’s actions at the funeral. According to Stauffenberg the priest was confronted by Johnson for the first time moments before Mass began.

She was reportedly agitated by the fact that the funeral was being presided over by Fr. Guarnizo, who is well known for his outspoken defense of Church teachings. The priest has been on the front lines of local pro-life activism, leading prayer vigils at Dr. LeRoy Carhart’s late term abortion facility in Germantown.

Johnson initially came into the sacristy to discuss the details of the two eulogies that were supposed to be delivered, but left abruptly and returned with her brother and another woman, whom she introduced as her “lover.”

Following this introduction, Johnson made a second abrupt exit, this time with her lover reportedly blocking the door in an apparent attempt to prevent any further conversation between Fr. Guarnizo and Johnson.

The priest proceeded with the Mass, but decided to remind the congregation before Communion of what is required to be properly disposed to receive. Stauffenberg reports that when Johnson approached for Communion anyway, Fr. Guarnizo turned her away in a manner so discreet that the Extraordinary Minister standing a few feet away did not know what had occurred. Johnson then crossed over to the Extraordinary minister’s line and was given communion.

Moreover, says Stauffenberg, media reports that Fr. Guarnizo refused to be present during Johnson’s eulogy are inaccurate. Johnson had told Channel 9 News that “Fr. Marcel left the altar, and did not return until I finished my eulogy.”

She also told the National Catholic Reporter that Fr. Guarnizo not only did not attend the burial, but also did not make an effort to find another priest to do so, and that it was the funeral director who took the initiative in contacting another priest.

The truth, according to Stauffenberg, is that Fr. Guarnizo suffers from migraines which are triggered by stressful situations. He had a migraine during the funeral, and discreetly left after the first eulogy ended, looking for water to revive himself. When he returned to the sanctuary, Johnson was about five minutes into a eulogy that lasted around fifteen to twenty minutes.

After the Mass was over, he accompanied the body in procession down the aisle and out the door to the hearse, where he informed the funeral director that he would be unable to make the 11 mile drive from the Church to the cemetery on Aspen Hill. He personally arranged for the funeral director to contact another local priest, Fr. Paul Sweeney, who joined the family at the cemetery.

“Mrs. Johnson was given a Catholic funeral with all of the formality and all of the respect that the Catholic Church has to offer,” said Stauffenberg.

Most of the substantial details offered by Stauffenberg have been corroborated by another source who also contacted LifeSiteNews, but who wishes to remain anonymous. In addition, an email circulating in the Diocese which claims to have originated from a group of people who met with Father shortly after the incident says the following:

“Fr knew the lady was a practicing lesbian because she came into the sacristy and introduced her ‘lover’ to Fr just before the Mass. He quietly denied her communion (so quietly that the Euch minister next to him didn’t realize that he did), and the woman promptly went to the other line and received communion anyway! He left to use the restroom (he was getting a migraine) between the eulogies, but did finish the ceremony and escorted the casket out. He made arrangements for there to be another priest at the gravesite and there was. He felt that it was a matter of conscience to deny her communion since he had been informed that she was an active homosexual by her own admission.”

Another statement from the Archdiocese about the incident was published yesterday in the Washington Post. The statement noted that “no one is entitled to the Eucharist,” and that “any person who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

The statement also said that situations which called for denial of communion “ideally” would be handled by “discussing the consequences of such sin with the person privately before actually denying them Communion.”

Meditation on the First Sorrowful Mystery: Jesus' Agony In the Garden

I'm a little late on this one, but yesterday, March 3, was the First Saturday of the Month.  As I have mentioned previously,  Our Lady of Fatima has asked us, on the First Saturday of the Month to:

1.  Go To Confession.
2.  Receive Holy Communion
3.  Pray 5 decades of the Rosary and Meditate for 15 minutes on one of the mysteries of the Rosary.

This is to be done in reparation for the evil of the world and that the consecration of Russia be done to her Immaculate Heart.  I must add that the Consecration is the only solution to the crisis in which the world finds itself.  The solution is not political.  The devil is in that "solution."

I have chosen this month to meditate on the First Sorrowful Mystery, which is the Agony of Our Lord in the Garden.  The Book of Luke describes Jesus' agony as such (Luke 22:41-43):

And he was withdrawn away from them a stone's cast; and kneeling down, he prayed, Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done. And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed the longer. And his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.

 In contemplating Christ's agony in the garden the night before he was crucified, I always read these verses to mean that our Lord was in agony over the physical brutality he was about to undergo.  And that may have been part of it.  But I think his agony was caused much more by the thought that he was about to take the entire sin of the world - past, present and future - upon himself, and thus to enter into such horror and wickedness that we cannot even comprehend.  Just to feel a tiny fraction of the evil that is the sin of the world would kill any one of us.  Just think of some of the gruesome murders you have heard of, child abuse, the horrors of war.  Christ saw and experienced all of this in living color, sterophonic sound, 3D, with all the sights and smells and pain associated with this evil.  Men who have been to war and experienced the death and brutality associated with it have come back never to be the same.  Our Lord took all of this on himself and so much more, and presented Himself to the Father as the Redemptive Sacrifice to pay the price for all of the unspeakable evil in the world. 

Our Lord brought the three closest men with him to the garden:  Peter, James and John.  He walked away from them to pray to the Father and prepare Himself for what he was about to undergo.   Matthew 26:36-39 gives us this account:

Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani; and he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray. And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death: stay you here, and watch with me. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 

 Here is the account of Christ's prayer in which he asks the Father to allow this cup of suffering pass from him.  He asks this not once, but twice more (Matthew 26:40-44):

And he cometh to his disciples, and findeth them asleep, and he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me? Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak. Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done. And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy. And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word.

Total Innocence, Goodness and Purity was taking on the vast evil and filth of this world in order to redeem our souls.  Is there any sacrifice too big for us to make in comparison to this?  It is the reason the martyrs throughout history have gladly given their lives for their Savior.  There is nothing we can do that can begin to compare to the terrible agony and suffering which our Lord experienced starting in the Garden of Gethsemani.  But as we say at each Mass:  "Lord, I am not worthy, that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed."

Ember Friday in Lent

Today is Ember Friday.  I have posted on Ember Friday previously.  Ember days are no longer enforced in the post-conciliar Church, but there is nothing wrong in observing them.  I don't know the reasoning for dropping these days, at last not officially.  Before Vatican II, the Church required much more of the laity, which would seem to be a good thing for their souls.  Fasting was done all 40 days of Lent - meaning one meal a day, with 2 snacks (not enforced on Sundays, which are "of" Lent and not "in" Lent).  We were required to fast at least 3 hours before receiving Communion, and not too long ago, Catholics were required to fast from midnight on.  Holy days were never abandoned, as they often are now if they fall on a Saturday or Monday.  For some reason, the Church felt that if they made the requirements "easier" people would be holier and more devoted to the Church.  Well, surprise, surprise, just the opposite has happened. 

Ember Days are fast days - Wednesday, Friday and Saturday - observed 4 times a year, coinciding with the change in the seasons.  One of those times is this week in Lent.  But whether you observe Ember Friday or not, you are absolutely obligated, even here in the United States, to abstain from meat and meat products on Fridays in Lent. 

Enjoy that fish sandwich today!

Is Reception of Communion a Right or a Privilege?

The confusion in the Church
makes my head ache

Why has it become so hard to identify sin in our world?  A woman at a funeral for her mother introduced herself and her lesbian partner to the priest before Mass, and when she presented herself  for communion, the priest denied her, saying she was involved in serious sin and he could not give her communion.  She became quite indignant, wrote a nasty letter to him, complained, and now the Diocese is reprimanding the priest!!!   This woman is in clear violation of Church teaching and the plain teaching of the Bible, and yet the priest is reprimanded? 

I make no pretense at being able to explain Canon Law.  But I do understand that reception of communion is not a right.  It is a gift given to us by our Creator, and unless we are in a state of grace, free of mortal sin, we are not qualified to receive.  The very fact that this is being disputed indicates, to me at least, that something is seriously wrong.

Here is the article from Lifesitenews.com:

Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian

GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND, February 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A parish priest in Maryland, who denied communion to a woman who identified herself as a lesbian, has been publicly rebuked by the Archdiocese of Washington.

Barbara Johnson attended her mother’s funeral last Saturday and introduced her lesbian partner to the priest before Mass.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo of St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, covered the Host as she approached and told her, “I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the Church, that is a sin.”

Afterwards, she wrote him a letter telling him, “I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”  [She shows no sense of humility whatsoever.  She does not question herself and ask whether the priest may be right.  If she is a Catholic, she knows that homosexuality is condemned by the Church.  Yet she still feels that she has a right to communion.]

Auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout wrote a formal letter of apology telling Johnson, “I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity.”  [First of all, a funeral should not be a "celebration of life".  The purpose of a funeral is to pray for the deceased.  Secondly, how about reminding this poor lost soul that she is in fact living contrary to God's law and that unless she repents and changes, she could very well lose salvation?  Isn't there any concern for her soul, or are we too concerned about hurting her feelings?] 

The Archdiocese of Washington issued a brief press release saying Fr. Guarnizo’s actions were inappropriate. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”  [Even when the sin is public?  She was there with her Lesbian lover.  If she told the priest, it is an almost sure thing that others knew as well.  It was a public matter.  And aren't we the least concerned about desecration of the Blessed Sacrament by giving it to someone who is in mortal sin?]  After receiving the letter of apology, Johnson said “I will not be satisfied” until Fr. Guarnizo is removed from the parish.

Monsignor Charles Pope, who blogs for the Archdiocese of Washington’s website, told LifeSiteNews.com, “One would presume a priest would have had more ongoing conversations with somebody of a private nature before one would publicly deny somebody communion.”   [I don't understand this.  The woman admitted to being involved in serious sin.  What am I missing?]

“There may be a time when a pastor has concerns about a parishioner and then speaks to them privately and advises them privately not to receive communion,” he said. “But we don’t have these confrontations at the altar rail.”  [I can understand not wanting to have confrontations at the altar rail, but it is also important to keep the Blessed Sacrament from being desecrated, which seems to the major concern of Fr. Guarnizo.]

Canon 915 of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law admonishes priests to deny Holy Communion to those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

The New Commentary on Canon Law states: “Eucharistic Ministers are also to refuse holy communion when they are certain (1) that a person has committed a sin that is objectively grave, (2) that the sinner is obstinately persevering in this sinful state, and (3) that this sin is manifest,” or widely known to those present at the Mass. [As I already stated, if the woman was so bold to present herself and her Lesbian partner to the priest, it's a pretty sure bet that others knew as well.  Since that most probably is the case, doesn't giving her communion put the Church's approval on her clearly sinful relationship?]

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops established “engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage” as such a sin in its 2006 publication “‘Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper’: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist.”

“Catholics who are conscious of committing any mortal sin must receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion,” they wrote.

[See below]
The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, states, “before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave.” [Is there any doubt in this situation?  The woman has a live-in Lesbian partner, and not only didn't try to be discreet about it, but openly bragged of it to the priest.  It would seem reasonable for him to assume that this was public knowledge.]

“Most canonists, including pastors and priests, interpret that not just as not just a quick conversation but something of a more substantial nature,” Monsignor Pope told LifeSiteNews.   [This is the problem.  Canon Law can be "interpreted" in different ways by different people.]

Dr. Ed Peters, a canon lawyer at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote “a few minutes conversation…would not suffice, in the face of numerous canons protecting the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments [emphasis on the word "faithful", which it would seem this woman was clearly not, and her prideful, revengeful attitude afterwards would seem to support this conclusion], to verify either the notoriety of the (objectively) sinful situation, or to verify the obstinacy of the would-be recipient.” However, Dr. Peters noted after a sufficient period of warning and instruction, a priest would be well within his rights to invoke Canon 915 and deny communion to an obstinate, sexually active homosexual.

“I don’t know that that can be determined by a brief interaction in a sacristy,” Msgr. Pope told LifeSiteNews.  [Again, who is the one who is suppose to make these judgments?  It seems that Canon Law only leads to confusion.]

Fr. Guarnizo may have been forcibly denied the opportunity to expand on his conversation. A commenter on Deacon Greg Kandra’s blog, who claimed to have been “in a meeting with Fr Marcel and heard the whole story,” wrote: “The woman in question brought her lesbian partner into the vesting sacristy just before the funeral Mass and made sure to introduce her partner to Fr. Marcel, introducing her as her ‘lover’. He told her then that she should not present herself for Communion.” A commenter claimed Barbara’s partner “blocked his way out of the sacristy when he attempted to speak with her further.”

The Catholic Church believes a faithful Christian has such an interest in receiving Holy Communion that it must only be denied only in extreme cases. “When in doubt, give it out,” Msgr. Pope said. [This seems to be very dubious reasoning.  Isn't protection of the Blessed Sacrament of any importance?]

The popular blogger Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote no one should be surprised that questions persist about when to publicly deny someone communion.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf writes that “Many priests have received inadequate training in these matters of law and have been given even worse example by bishops who ought to be applying can. 915 is genuine cases of applicability,” he wrote. [Father Z also used this post to promote his own "stuff" for sale:  "Finally, while I have your attention, please go buy some can. 915 stuff."  Sigh.  Hard to take him seriously when he is always hawking his "Swag Store."]

Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, waded into a similar controversy in 2009 when he said he would not deny House Speaker Nancy Pelosi communion, claiming to do so would amount to “Communion wielded as a weapon.” When asked, he said, “there’s a question about whether this canon [915] was ever intended to be used.”   [I rest my case about the confusion caused by Canon Law.]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf described Fr. Guarnizo’s actions as “well-meaning” but “premature,” adding he could not find fault with his motivation.

“He should be thanked for taking his role seriously and for wanting to uphold the Church’s teaching,” he wrote.

Fr. Guarnizo did not return messages left by LifeSiteNews.

When situations like this happen, and the Church hierarchy sides with someone clearly in violation of church teaching against a faithful priest,  is there any wonder that the laity in the Catholic Church just throw up their hands and make up their own minds about what is right and wrong?  Yet, it is just that which has led to the crisis in the Church, sinking attendance, lack of belief in the Real Presence.  Like the Protestants, far too many Catholics have become their own Magesterium.  Further, by making an "example" of this faithful priest, the Church hierarchy is telling the priests to be more concerned about hurting people's feelings than saving their souls. 

Blessed Mother, pray for us.