In defense of Fr. Marcel

Our colleague over at Restore DC Catholicism has posted a number of good articles regarding the defense of Fr. Marcel by Canon lawyers.

One of the first that I came across, which my colleague did not cite (and thru no fault of her own) was on the Deacon's Bench, from a commentator by the name of DB. For example:

Dr. Peters writes: “Guarnizo admits that he only met Johnson a few minutes before her mother’s funeral Mass, admits that he had no knowledge whatsoever about the Johnson family, and offers no indication that he knew anything about the congregation gathered for Mass that day.”Comment: Whoa, Nellie! Dr. Peters’ statements bear the marks of classic red herrings in that the essence of the matter is not based on knowledge of the family or the congregation, so this is a gratuitous attack on Fr. Guarnizo, and it is largely off point. Even if Fr. Guarnizo did have some knowledge, what would constitute sufficient knowledge to satisfy the bogus standard that Dr. Peters is hinting at via the red herring statements? Moreover, Fr. Guarnizo’s statement reveals that he was scheduled to hear confessions from 9:30 to 10:20. Did he hear any? If he did, even with the seal of confession that prevents him from making known anything heard, he MAY HAVE NEVERTHELESS LEARNED QUITE A BIT…PERHAPS EVEN ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE, but we don’t know. We do know that if he did hear confessions, it is obvious that he would have learned something about some people in the congregation if that is important even in the least, which doesn’t seem likely except perhaps from a humanistic approach to things.In any case, Dr. Peters’ assertion is false and should be retracted. Let’s just say I am simply correcting Dr. Peters, because he needs to be corrected.

For more, go here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/03/on-fr-marcel-guarnizos-statement-i-believe-that-he-and-those-inclined-to-support-him-need-correction/#comments