Skip to comments.Priest who denied communion to lesbian stripped of priestly faculties (Gay mafia alert)
Posted on 03/12/2012 6:20:51 PM PDT by Mandingo Conservative
The Maryland priest who denied communion to a lesbian at her mothers funeral is being stripped of his priestly faculties and placed on administrative leave, according to a letter from the Archdiocese signed by auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout...
According to a source close to the incident who spoke with LifeSiteNews, Johnsons lesbian lover physically blocked Fr. Guarnizo from speaking further with Johnson when she abruptly left the sacristy following this introduction. When Johnson presented herself for Communion, the priest refused to give it to her, although she ended up receiving from an extraordinary minister.
It was later revealed that Johnson is also a Buddhist.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church has been transformed by the world. The salt that has lost its saltiness is fit for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot.
WTH??? Talk about wrong! He should be given a medal and a parade for standing up for Catholic church teachings.
Even as a Protestant, I know better than to expect a Catholic priest to give me communion if he knew I wasn’t Catholic. Of course I also know that if a non-Catholic or a Catholic who hasn’t been to confession goes up during communion they are to cross their arms over their chest so the priest will bless them instead.
Queers are a real pain in the @$$. She’s a buddhist for crying out loud. What the hell does she know about communion? The priest should have given her a couple of bucks from the collection plate and told her to take her goatsmellin’ ass down to the mall and by herself a waffle cone.
Gay priests are OK.
But, a straight priest who follows church doctrine is not.
And one might wonder why I left the church.
So, a Catholic Priest is supposed to allow a lesbian Buddhist to take a consecrated article of a sacrament? What about satanists and wiccans? Can they present themselves for Communion and expect inclusion?
From the master teacher, Fr. Z http://wdtprs.com/blog/
The Canonical Defender, Prof. Ed Peters, who does not have an open combox on his fine blog In The Light of the Law, has opined about the case in the Archdiocese of Washington DC, now infamous, wherein a lesbian Buddhist instrumentalized her own mothers funeral Mass so as to set a trap for a priest whom she wanted to provoke into refusing her Holy Communion.
My own opinion has been clearly given all along. I think the priest in question, Fr. Guarnizo, acted prematurely in denying the lesbian Communion under can. 915, but his choice was understandable and ought to be applauded. Given the lack of good examples from bishops in regard to can. 915, priests who are also bound to obey can. 915 have been left to shift for themselves. Also, Fr. Guarnizo was trying to uphold some important principles.
In any event, people are writing to me that Fr. G was suspended by his ordinary bishops Card. Wuerl.
No not really. There is LAW involved, as it turns out.
Take it away Dr. Ed!
My emphases except for headings and comments.
Bp. Knestouts March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo
March 11, 2012
Most of the lesbian/Communion controversy has been a dis-edifying parade of misleading commentary[I hope I am not guilty of same.] being proffered about misapplied laws. I dont write here to correct these many errors, as their partisans (whether left or right) dont seem especially interested in what the law actually says, but I am happy to offer some observations on Bp. Knestouts 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, [! Not in the Code... but it sure is used OFTEN.] 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 priests 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). [By which I think Prof. P means, they haven’t been explained to the public.]
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 pastors rights under c. 522, etc., and c. 1740 etc., with those of a parochial vicar, per c. 552. All associate pastors know this. [An aside. The terms I became used to were “assistant”, rather than “associate” or this “parochial vicar” creature. Years ago a priest was visiting the rectory of my home parish when the late Msgr. Schuler reigned. He ask Msgr. whether in that archdiocese we used the “assistant” or “associate”. Without missing a beat Monsignor responded, “The first three letters are the same”. But I digress.]
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 Knestouts 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, [A big reason why I wonder if this was well-done. But I am not the man in the big chair and don’t know much about the circumstances.] and the pro-Guarnizo camp will decry the mistreatment of the priest).
The allegations of intimidating behavior by Guarnizo are not recited in Knestouts 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 Guarnizos 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.
There. As you arm-chair observers itch to weigh in, that is the analysis by a canonist of the law involved.
Finally, I will only note that there are a lot of priests out there doing some pretty crazy things and teaching oddities from their pulpits and they are not on administrative leave. Im just sayin
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness.
Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I know that is wrong....I know that for things to turn around it'll take deep faith and deep committment...
but its tough to see this sort of crap...
Ann Barnhardt commented on this, fearing the higher ups in the church would wimp out on...they did.
This priest should be lauded and supported by the Catholic Church. The gaymafia needs to be destroyed. They are evil and trying to corrupt the worldview of children and to destroy the Christian paradigm and establish a pagan/marxist/muslim paradigm-—worldview for our kids to be indoctrinated into. It all destroys the idea of God, so they might as well stand up now.
The Catholic Church won’t exist in the U.S. after a generation of schools and MSM brainwashing kids into “sodomy is good and a right”. Such stupidity taught will destroy Ethics in this country—it will destroy logic and reason in children which used to be the basis of Western Civilization.
Gee, I guess he should have given her a box of condoms too. /semisarc Hard to stand on principle in one instance and go wobbly on another one at the same time.
This cannot be stressed loudly enough.
SHE'S A BUDDHIST!
No, she's a lesbian and has no use for them. Wait a minute, then again ...
The fault lies with the lesbian Buddist daughter.
Why did she participate in her mothers Catholic funeral ceremony, only in order to make a mockery of it?
There was no “call for all” to approach the alter at any of the Catholic funeral ceremonies I have attended.
Have they started something new?
Somehow, I’m judging that this post is not the entire story. In other words, I think there is a lot more to be revealed.
But the gay mafia is after him, that’s for sure.
> generation of schools and MSM brainwashing kids into
> sodomy is good and a right.
Get your kids *OUT* of the government school collective now! Make whatever sacrifices you must. Home school them. Form your own school cooperatives with like-minded family and neighbors. Send them the parochial schools, church schools, synagogues schools. BUT GET THEM OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOL COLLECTIVE NOW!
And SHOOT YOUR TELEVISION.
Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reproved them.
Read stories to your kids at night. Read the Bible. Sing hymns. Pray together. But get away from that filthy one-eyed hollywood invader.
This is but one more indicator that the Catholic Church is going to cave to Obamas abortion demands.
Such wise advice!!!!
Well I’m not a Christian but it seems like he did the right thing. Either you follow all of the teachings of the Bible or none, but not some. I didn’t read the whole story but it seems like she was trying to precipitate a confrontation.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
The real Catholics are SSPX, other traditionalists in the Church, a small proportion of practicing “New Catholics”. These are true to the faith.
The priest did right, obviously. His befuddled accusers will have to answer to a higher authority.
If a sinning Catholic can’t have communion, neither can someone who is both a sinner by Catholic doctrine NOR a Buddhist.
Bump for your writing style and content. It is superb.
Omigod, I thought they would back this guy up. What has become of the Church?
I’m wondering about the earliest witness report, where it was said that Father G suffers migraine headaches and that he had an onset of one following the private meeting, causing him to be unable to continue with communion and to call for another priest to escort the procession to the cemetery and take over the buriel service.
If that should be true, and if two weeks of problems with others should be true then I am concerned for his health quite apart from the story in the headlines.
There is more to this story and discretion is a trademark of Church investigations. Perhaps there are two different issues at play- health may be one. Regardless, any investigation suspends until a question is resolved, but does not exactly “strip” one of priestly duties until resolved.
It has already been proven that Father G did the right thing on communion, UNLESS, in that Diocese the bishop forbade it of his priests therein.
David Wilkerson’s prophesies are coming to pass in regards to the falling away of Protestants and Catholic Churches.
Is his bishop a flit??
That's not a hard prophesy to make considering Paul makes the same prophecy in multiple place in his epistles.
If this happened to our pastor he would be celebrating Mass with 100 Knights of Columbus and 500 parishioners blocking the way from anyone who tried to keep him from it.
If this happened to our pastor he would be celebrating Mass with 100 Knights of Columbus and 500 parishioners blocking the way from anyone who tried to keep him from it.
Certainly the entire congregation should withhold any further financial contributions until the Priest is restored.
(1)The refusal to give communion to a lesbian (which from the information I have read on various threads) was sound, and the correct thing to do.
(2)If I read the article correctly, I believe they said he started at the parish last March. Dollars to donuts, the folks working in the parish, parish council,etc have a liberal element and that is what is driving this agenda.
My old parish had a similar situation (minus the lesbian) and they tormented our parish priest with letters to the bishop for three years. When our priest finally was made convener to a new parish, I decided to take up roots and follow him to his new parish. It is a 45 minute trip one way, but well worth it.
If the Priest doesn’t receive an apology and a complete restoration of his duties, I hope he’ll consider “swimming the Bosphorus!”
Here is another good source of rational, informed analysis on this issue:
Three recent questions in the wake of the lesbian/Communion controvery
March 13, 2012
I get paid to explain canon law in the calm context of the graduate classroom, where things like definitions, nuance, history, and values can be reflected upon by well-informed peers (or at least by students who do the readings!) But I never let my students forget that canon law is fundamentally a legal system, and that legal systems deal with real people, and that real people can make a sorry mess of their lives and the lives of others in pretty short order. So, if the recent lesbian/Communion controversy affords us an unlooked-for opportunity, perhaps even a necessity, to explain some of the working of canon law, so be it. Im game.
Here, I consider the three common questions about this case. Sometimes, yes, the questions are rhetorical and seem designed more to taunt than to inquire, but to the degree they nevertheless help surface issues that others might find instructive, lets look at them.
Isnt it just splitting hairs to describe Fr. Guarnizo as being on administrative leave when everyone knows he is suspended?
We are talking canon law, right? Well, canon law is an ancient legal system that, over many centuries, has developed numerous terms of art. Canon law is not secret, but neither is it simple. Those who want to discuss canon law intelligently must understand and observe canonical definitions, or risk talking nonsense. In any case, it is not incumbent on canon lawyers to run around explaining their terms to everyone under the sun who wants to express an opinion about this canonical issue or that. Instead, it is incumbent on those many others to find out (or at least to take some guidance on) how canon law uses certain words before pronouncing judgment.
The word suspension denotes a canonical penalty imposed only upon guilt for a canonical crime (c. 1333). In the not-too-distant past, some ecclesiastical officials, including bishops, misused the word suspension to describe what may be more accurately described as administrative leave (more about that in a sec), but when they did so, canonists, publicly and privately, corrected that misuse of terms and, for some time now, the mistaken use of suspension seems to have faded out among ecclesiastical leadership. Deo gratias. Only to reappear now among some bloggers. Sigh.
But: if you are talking canon law, and you describe a cleric as suspended, you have described him as being guilty of a canonical crime. Therefore, those describing Fr. Guarnizo as suspended are canonically defaming him. Whether they know it or not.
Now, about administrative leave. Canon law, a living legal system serving a living Church, is trying to catch up to some recent developments in, among other things, the theology of holy Orders, which developments have brought about, among things, the eclipse of the Pio-Benedictine category of simplex priest, leaving a hole in the law, or at least in its terminology, to describe a priest who is not under a penalty (c.o.), nor irregular for orders (c. 1044), nor restricted pursuant to a penal process (c. 1722). This category of priest undoubtedly exists (because faculties for preaching, confessions, sacramental acts, and so on, can undoubtedly be restricted or taken away without any suggestion of guilt, etc.), but the 1983 Code does not give us a neat term to denote such priests. Until such time, if any, as the Legislator chooses to give us such a term, the phrase administrative leave seems to cover that gap fairly well, or at least, it does so among people who know what they are talking about.
In short, the phrase administrative leave protects the reputation of the cleric in question; the term suspension marks him as a canonical criminal.
So, are priests supposed to help lesbian Buddhists commit sacrilege against Our Lord by giving them holy Communion?
Deep breath, Ed .Okay. Lets break this down.
Lesbian. First, the Church regards the homosexual/lesbian condition as disordered in somewhat the same way that one may regard alcoholism as a disorder. According to our tradition, one may not deny holy Communion to an individual suffering from a disorder, so, those Catholics calling for the banning of a lesbian from Communion are violating our tradition (not to mention our canon law). That said, however, it is possible to deprive one of holy Communion who engages in conduct that amounts to canonically verified obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin (c. 915), as canon law uses each of those terms. I have said from the beginning of this mess, verifiable conduct, not asserted status, is the only question relevant here. Now, if someone wants to make the case that all five (per c. 18) of those banning conditions were canonically satisfied a few minutes before Mass one day, they are free to try. I think they would fail in the attempt, but thats just my opinion. In any case, at least such persons would be talking about what is relevant here, the law on holy Communion, and not just using rhetorical questions as cudgels.
Buddhists. Buddhists have no right to holy Communion; baptized persons, in accord with law, have the right to holy Communion (c. 912, etc.). This woman was baptized Catholic. The presumption is, therefore, that she had a right to Communion, and the burden is on those who would deny her same to prove that she is no longer permitted by law to receive holy Communion, here, on the grounds that she is a Buddhist. That is a heavy burden of proof, of course, and one not likely sustainable in a short conversation before Mass one day, and one made even more difficult in the wake of a Notification handed down in April 2006 regarding the formal act of defection and its relation to, among other things, the canonical crime of apostasy (cc. 751, 1364), and in turn its impact on the application of wider canon law to such individuals. In short, canonists know that a Catholics claim to be a Buddhist, and a Catholics being canonically recognized as being a Buddhist, are very distinct things. Those who are not canonists may be excused not being aware of the difference, but not for ignoring it once it is pointed out to them.
Given all the hoopla this lady has generated about herself, wouldnt it be fair to say that if she presents herself for Communion again, she should be denied?
Yes. With one caveat common among the doctors who have discussed these situations for several centuriesin contrast to most bloggers who have been aware of these questions for maybe several days.
Notoriety (of the type needed for denial of the Eucharist) in one place is not necessarily notoriety in another. Like other human communities, the cyber-community exaggerates how widely known are matters of interest to it. I would not want to see a priest unaware of this womans profile, etc., and giving her Communion, being torn to shreds by Catholic hotheads for desecrating the Eucharist. This is one more reason why Canon 915 (and a half-dozen other relevant norms) are so narrowly drawn: the primary responsibility for approaching holy Communion worthily rests with the individual (c. 916).
This, mind, from someone who has labored for years, and who will continue to do so, to get Canon 915 enforced properly. + + +
I don’t know if you are aware of this woman—Charlotte I.—but she outlines the actual psychology behind “education” in America and who funded it. Everything she says is backed up by many other authors-—like John Taylor Gatto and BK Eakman, etc. etc. etc.
It is worth your time if you have never listened to this.
I knew about everything she’s talking about. I remember the fight over “Values Clarification” curriculum in our local school collective back in the 1990’s.
I will be sharing this with LOTS of people!
I was living in the “Matrix” and working in schools with curricula—such as Values Clarification and Situational Ethics-—but I hadn’t been educated in philosophy and psychology to the extent I am now.
I was very young at the time, and raised in Catholic schools, so something didn’t sit right with me—just remembered not liking it but couldn’t put my finger on “why”. Marxist/communists always twist words and make them sound so pretty—and upbeat-—so people swallow it without analyzing it.
Took me decades before I figured out their purpose-—and Marxism’s purpose is always evil and vile and deadly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.