Peters is not employed by the bishops.
He is also highly critical of Wuerl’s refusal to obey Canon 915, and has carefully dissected several misleading statements Wuerl has made.
Your opinion on his analysis of Fr. Guarnizo’s action will be worth listening to when you can demonstrate how Peters has misinterpreted Canon Law.
Actually, I thought Peters’ analysis of this was fairly good and probably Fr Guarnizo should not have denied the woman Communion based on a few words in the sacristy, but should have told her he wanted to speak to her after the funeral was over. However, he had actually asked her at that time not to appear for Communion, but she went up anyway, so she put Fr Guarnizo in a no-win situation.
Where I think Wuerl went wrong was in his excessive punishment of Fr Guarnizo for what was, at worst, a misstep. Fr Guarnizo was put in a very difficult position, and the woman most definitely set him up so that no matter what he did, it was going to be wrong. Wuerl is not his bishop (he is in the neighboring diocese and was just filling in at the funeral) but he should have been concerned first about Fr Guarnizo. Wuerl should have found out the details of the situation before sending out a public letter of apology to the woman and essentially hanging Fr Guarnizo out to dry, and he should not have removed his facilities in that diocese. This is a severe public punishment and was completely wrong, especially given the level of outright heresy and defiance that Wuerl tolerates in his diocese (as Peters pointed out).