Priest who denied Holy Communion to lesbian placed on leave [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thaelros said:
My point is that he does not seem at all very intimidating. This is why I am extremely suspicious.
Click to expand...
He could be great. But the bishop says that he has received credible allegations.

Should the bishop not act on those because the priest is pro-life? Shouldn’t all priests be pro-life?
 
maryjk said:
He could be great. But the bishop says that he has received credible allegations.

Should the bishop not act on those because the priest is pro-life? Shouldn’t all priests be pro-life?
Click to expand...
Being pro-life is irrevalent here. We have a priest who correctly refused to give an active homosexual the Eucharist. He was then castigated by the media bandwagon, and sometime afterwards he was placed on administrative leave on charges of intimidating behavior that is based off of “credible” claims from parish staff. In my opinion, he does not to seem to have an intimidating attitude. So obviously could one not possibly think that this whole thing is a stratagem bent on separating the shepherd from his flock? I’m not necessarily bashing the parish or the bishop, and I’m not necessarily on Fr. Marcel’s side (mainly because I don’t have objective evidence). I just feel that it is worth pointing out that when one looks at this situation from a certain perspective, the whole thing seems too perfect to be true.
 
Thaelros said:
Being pro-life is irrevalent here. We have a priest who correctly refused to give an active homosexual the Eucharist. He was then castigated by the media bandwagon, and sometime afterwards he was placed on administrative leave on charges of intimidating behavior that is based off of “credible” claims from parish staff. In my opinion, he does not to seem to have an intimidating attitude. So obviously could one not possibly think that this whole thing is a stratagem bent on separating the shepherd from his flock? I’m not necessarily bashing the parish or the bishop, and I’m not necessarily on Fr. Marcel’s side (mainly because I don’t have objective evidence). I just feel that it is worth pointing out that when one looks at this situation from a certain perspective, the whole thing seems too perfect to be true.
Click to expand...
Yup,
and I might add that she is also reported to be a Buddhist.
 
Thaelros said:
We have a priest who correctly refused to give an active homosexual the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Even that is debatable:
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/a-thought-exercise-occasioned-by-the-lesbiancommunion-controversy/

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/note-on-the-lesbian-communion-case-3/
He was then castigated by the media bandwagon, and sometime afterwards he was placed on administrative leave on charges of intimidating behavior that is based off of “credible” claims from parish staff. In my opinion, he does not to seem to have an intimidating attitude. So obviously could one not possibly think that this whole thing is a stratagem bent on separating the shepherd from his flock? I’m not necessarily bashing the parish or the bishop, and I’m not necessarily on Fr. Marcel’s side (mainly because I don’t have objective evidence). I just feel that it is worth pointing out that when one looks at this situation from a certain perspective, the whole thing seems too perfect to be true.
Click to expand...
As a priest I would find it highly unlikely that he placed on leave for refusing communion. There’s usually some kind of ongoing issue(s). Single issue situations rarely result in any kind of action (unless its very serious). Even if he was 100% wrong in his refusal of communion I still don’t see being placed on leave as a likely outcome. He’d simply be read the riot act and sent on his way.
 
Bishop Barry Knestout decision is questionable at best.

The sanctity of the Eucharist and your worthiness to recieve is a nice thing, but it’s much more important that we all get along. That’s the message I get.

It seems more consideration was given to the political aspect then to the Shephard aspect.
 
From what I’ve read she basically dared him not to give her communion. Despite her protestations she got what she wanted and that wasn’t the Eucharist.
 
Of course, act militantly and drum up the false “war on women” mantra that’s hot now. Unfortunately the Church fell into the “trap”.
 
Michael_C said:
Bishop Barry Knestout decision is questionable at best.

The sanctity of the Eucharist and your worthiness to recieve is a nice thing, but it’s much more important that we all get along. That’s the message I get.

It seems more consideration was given to the political aspect then to the Shephard aspect.
Click to expand...
If you read the article, you will see that the bishop put the priest on leave because staff members and others had accused the priest of “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.” It is very possible that this priest is very hard to work for. It could be that after he denied Communion, he became very hard to work for.

Unless we hear from one of the people that have accused him, we are all just guessing. One thing we should be very careful about doing is guessing that the Bishop is not telling the truth.
 
maryjk said:
If you read the article, you will see that the bishop put the priest on leave because staff members and others had accused the priest of “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.” It is very possible that this priest is very hard to work for. It could be that after he denied Communion, he became very hard to work for.

Unless we hear from one of the people that have accused him, we are all just guessing. One thing we should be very careful about doing is guessing that the Bishop is not telling the truth.
Click to expand...
But there is no “guessing” involved with how our media will portray his dismissal. Even the headline suggests his suspension was due to the communion denial.
 
maryjk said:
If you read the article, you will see that the bishop put the priest on leave because staff members and others had accused the priest of “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.” It is very possible that this priest is very hard to work for. It could be that after he denied Communion, he became very hard to work for.

Unless we hear from one of the people that have accused him, we are all just guessing. One thing we should be very careful about doing is guessing that the Bishop is not telling the truth.
Click to expand...
There are several things about him that makes is more likely for the bishop to act:
He’s not the pastor, he’s an associate.
He’s not incardinated in the diocese. He belongs to another diocese and can be sent back easily as I saw it happen overnight in my own parish, though for a totally different reason.

Basically, if he’s a headache for the bishop to have around, and not specifically because of the Communion refusal, it’s easy to take away his faculties and send him home for his own bishop to deal with.
 
scipio337 said:
But there is no “guessing” involved with how our media will portray his dismissal. Even the headline suggests his suspension was due to the communion denial.
Click to expand...
One thing to remember is that headlines are designed to get you to read the article and are often misleading. Usually, the one who writes the article doesn’t write the headline and even a balanced article can be topped by a sensational headline.
 
"Ender:
Where did it say that this action either was or was not related to the incident with the denial of communion?
maryjk said:
Here:
“This action was taken after I received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry,” the bishop added.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, that comment contains nothing at all about the incident with the lesbian. That’s the point, the diocese didn’t clarify the reasons for the priest’s removal leaving everyone to assume it was because of that incident. What a miserable way to deal with this situation.

Ender
 
Ender said:
No, that comment contains nothing at all about the incident with the lesbian. That’s the point, the diocese didn’t clarify the reasons for the priest’s removal leaving everyone to assume it was because of that incident. What a miserable way to deal with this situation.

Ender
Click to expand...
Could be that the priest was put on leave and that leave had nothing to do with the denial of Communion and the incident surrounding it. In fact, the bishop indicated that the priest was put on leave because he was accused of “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.”

If it had nothing to do with the aforementioned incident, why mention the incident at all?
 
In my humble opinion the dismissal of this Priest came a few months too late. His handling of the lesbian/funeral was a fiasco. He clearly mishandled that situation. Now we have reports being made against him by people who work with him, big surprise. My prayers are with him that he recieves the help he needs.
 
SamDash said:
The Catholic Church is more concerned with the “traumatic experience” you might receive on Judgment Day.

It is not a social club. Denying you Communion is not the equivalent of denying you access to the Friday Fish Fry, though I doubt you would recognize the difference.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Thaelros said:
Being pro-life is irrevalent here. We have a priest who correctly refused to give an active homosexual the Eucharist. He was then castigated by the media bandwagon, and sometime afterwards he was placed on administrative leave on charges of intimidating behavior that is based off of “credible” claims from parish staff. In my opinion, he does not to seem to have an intimidating attitude. So obviously could one not possibly think that this whole thing is a stratagem bent on separating the shepherd from his flock? I’m not necessarily bashing the parish or the bishop, and I’m not necessarily on Fr. Marcel’s side (mainly because I don’t have objective evidence). I just feel that it is worth pointing out that when one looks at this situation from a certain perspective, the whole thing seems too perfect to be true.
Click to expand...
Completely Agree!!! The whole situation doesn’t pass the smell test…
  1. Openly homosexual woman causes stir at Mom’s funeral.
  2. She should not have presented herself for Communion when; a) being openly homosexual and living with her partner, b) I believe I read that she is now a buddhist.
  3. Cue media outrage and fire storm which just so happens to come after the Church refused the contraception mandate, then Sandar Fluke’s “congressional testimony” which was drummed up by the Obama/Pelosi kabal.
  4. Now we have the State Department declaring the Vatican a money launderer.
This seem to me to be a consorted effort to attack the Catholic Church. Please pray for our leaders as the devil has his sights firmly set on the Church.

DLG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top