Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has finally addressed the issue of his actions regarding his refusal to give Holy Communion to the "Buddhist" lesbian, Barbara Johnson. Catholic News Service published the statement in full. It would seem that Fr. Guarnizo has been shamefully treated.
Two key passages include:
If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with Canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of “intimidation” are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese’s latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday, March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or “intimidation” allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings.
Thank you for spreading the word also. Much better and simply said than my rant and I also bolded (and possibly underlined) similar or exactly your two passages there.
ReplyDeleteI styled my commentary and post after Fr. Z's ranting and Vox Cantoris' also when he get really testy.
The actual content and tone of the two conversations is missing. What we are left with is a priest who was entrapped and two accusers whose testimony will not be made public.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute... the two conversations Fr. Guarnizo had were some time after the date of the funeral on March 7 and 8. Who was present for these conversations? If there was a third party present then there is a witness. If these were private conversations with these two people, then what was he thinking?
ReplyDelete