Ed Peters Needs A Refresher

A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): “You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, [and] that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church’s modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion.”

But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord’s table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, “If he who is called a brother among you,” etc., Augustine’s gloss remarks: “We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal.” Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord’s table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: “Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God.” – St. Thomas Aquinas

H/T Big Blue Wave

Jesus never had a very good opinion of most lawyers because they had a narrow view of the law and thought it was the beginning and the end of all that mattered.  He frequently went BEYOND and OUTSIDE of the law in His teachings to the heart of what God really wanted.

Canon law is not the Gospel.  Many elements of it are subject to the culture in which we live and can (and should) be changed.  Canon lawyers like Ed Peters need to start to recognize this fact and stop treating Canon Law like the Gospel.  In the case of the Lesbian Buddhist, it’s not Fr. Guarnizo that has to change, it’s Canon Law and therefore Ed Peters.

3 thoughts on “Ed Peters Needs A Refresher

  1. Sometimes Canon Law is based on firm Catholic doctrine. Sometimes it is a matter of prudential judgement.

    It’s basic Catholic doctrine: do not give the Eucharist to open and grave sinners.

    I don’t understand what is so hard about that. WHY DOESN’T CANON LAW REFLECT THIS DOCTRINE!

    In any event, bishops and priests are very “liberal” in their interpretation and application of canon law, so it almost doesn’t matter. Okay, sorry to be cynical, but the disregard for basic Catholic doctrine can be very disheartening sometimes.

  2. It is very interesting that Father Guarnizo has resurfaced in the rally against the HHS mandate. He was quoted on LifeSiteNews. If his bishop had removed him from his priestly services, it is interesting to see him show up here. I have a feeling we are going to be hearing more from him in the future.

  3. Suzanne,

    The problem here is that Canon Law has not caught up with our hostile culture. The current version of Canon Law dates back to 1983, which was a different time. It was the time of a super star papacy, and the Church still was respected and feared by politicians and our enemies. That’s no longer true.

    Canon Law is supposed to PROTECT essential truths of the faith in the culture in which we live in. By its very nature, therefore, Canon Law MUST change to be relevant and react to the culture in which the Church finds itself.

    Let’s say in the future, the Eucharist comes under concerted attack by the Lesbian/Gay Activists and this attack starts to spread around the world. Would not the Church have to respond through Canon Law and protect the Eucharist as the Church is ultimately forced underground?

    Yes, it would.

    The problem with people like Ed Peter is that they have their Canon Lawyer Blinders on. They can’t see beyond the letter of the law to what the law is supposed to protect.

    Anyone who objects *in principle* to what Fr. G did (irrespective of what the law says) is someone to be very suspicious of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
28 + 28 =