There is an unfortunate thing happening here. Father G is being held up as a faithful priest, because he withheld Holy Communion from a lesbian woman and the Cardinal is being thrown under the buss.

Let's look at Cardinal Wuerl's profile. All of this can be found on the internet, if anyone wants to look for the Cardinal's resume.

1. The media itself, in 1988, called him "The Zero Tolerance Bishop". He investigated every allegation of sɛҳuąƖ abuse in his diocese. He had every guilty priest laicized and reported to the police. He even took a case to Pope John Paul when the tribunal ruled in favor of the priest and then Bishop Wuerl was certain that he was guilty. The Holy See ruled that he was guilty and the priest was laicized.

2. He took on the District of Columbia when the City Council voted for gαy marriage and passed anti-discrimination laws. The Cardinal threatened that he would close every Catholic adoption and foster care agency in Washington. He did as he promised. The Archdiocese of Washington extends into to southern counties in Maryland. I'm not sure that they closed in Maryland, maybe so. I don't believe that he has suddenly become so "gαy couple friendly"

3. He has pastoral concerns as to how to apply the law. He has no objections to the moral position of the Church. There is a big difference. He spearheaded the question to the Holy See on how to apply the law and what was the author's intent after the famous 50 page docuмent from the Signatura. The answer has not come back. We all know that the Church moves slowly on things that it does not consider an emergency. He has not challenged the law, he has asked for practical guidelines. Until such time as they come back, a bishop is free to make his own guidelines. That is legal and moral.

4. He serves on the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The man is not only a bishop, but he is a scholar.

5. He is the only non-bishop who was allowed into the papal conclave when Bl. John Paul was elected. That's how much he was trusted by the College of Cardinals.

6. It was the Vicar General who put Fr. G on leave. The Vicar General has the canonical authority to do this, as does the Chancellor. The bishop of the diocese must be informed after the fact. He can uphold or retract the action.

7. There is no mention in the Vicar General's statement about the refusal to administer Holy Communion. The statement refers to reports of ugly behavior on the part of Fr. G toward people after the fact. Whether Fr. G was ugly to people or not, we don't know. He says that he was not and that this is all about the Communion issue. That's his position. It's not Gospel. The Vicar General does not say that the reports are Gospel either. He says that the priest is on administrative leave until the investigation is complete.

8. The Archdiocese of Washington does not have any obligation to run an investigation on this matter. If they really wanted to get rid of Fr. G, they could have done so very legally and without anyone knowing. Fr. G is a guest in the Archdiocese. All that the Vicar General has to do is call his bishop and request that the bishop recall him home. He does not even have to give the bishop an explanation as to why he's making such a request. Fr. G himself admits that the Cardinal is not his bishop. There is no obligation on the part of the Cardinal to give him the benefit of the doubt and have an investigation. The Catholic Church does not operate that way. If someone in authority has a problem with you and you're not their responsibility, they send you home, no questions asked. The Holy See itself can't stop that from happening, unless the priest was placed there by the Pope or it's dangerous to go home. In which case, I would deal with my host privately, not in the press.

Given the Cardinal's record for his service to the Church, it's really unfair to say that a "faithful priest is being persecuted." What about a faithful Cardinal? Is he not being persecuted?

Does his Vicar General not have the right to investigate a complaint?

Were Father's rights violated? Was Father suspended? Was Father sent back to his bishop? Could they have ignored the concerns and shipped him home? Could the Cardinal, as a member of the Congregation for the Clergy have requested that the man's bishop suspend him? The answer to that is, affirmative. The Sacred Congregation could have been asked to intervene with Fr. G's Ordinary.

None of these tragedies have happened. There is an administrative leave, pending the results of an investigation. No one has said that Father is guilty. Even Father himself does not say that he has been found guilty of anything. He says that he believes the the reason is the communion issue. He has not been told this. Until he's told this as a fact, it is his belief. He's entitled to his belief. That does not make him a martyr. If he were unjustly punished, that would be wrong.

He has choices. He can wait out the investigation or he can go home to his bishop. He is not a priest of the Archdiocese. Therefore, canonically, he has no right to a position in any ministry outside of his diocese, nor does he have an obligation to hang around either. He can blow it off and go home. It sounds like he's willing wait for the outcome, why can't we, before we throw another good priest under the bus?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF