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

[Sailor_Kenshin]

God bless this priest.

Amen.

One by one, the faithful and orthodox priests are being taken down by the devilish element within the church.

 

[Teelynn]

Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.

The article I read stated that yes, the Bishop indicated that his behavior after the incident was out of line. But the article also said it was unknown how he behaved. In other words no one has the facts. As usual, we do not have the entire story. We probably shouldn’t be commenting at all, we were not there. We did not see first hand what happened.

“Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.”

 

[Maundy]

Here is a more in depth summary of the things Cardinal Wuerl has been involved in throughout his career.

motherswatch.net/content/view/13/2/

 

[LovePatience]

Here is a more in depth summary of the things Cardinal Wuerl has been involved in throughout his career.

motherswatch.net/content/view/13/2/

Could you point to the specific things he did that were wrong?

Only recently, after the public outcry of Pittsburgh Catholics, which included letters and documentation sent to the Vatican and to Courage, did the Diocese reluctantly stop the sacrilegious Dignity Masses being offered for homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals. An anonymous Dignity coordinator said: "We have nothing negative to say about Wuerl…it was simply a matter of conflict of conscience."14 The “banning of Dignity was a sad moment for Wuerl,” according to the March 24, 1996 article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Further, the article claims Bishop Wuerl had "started an alternative group for gay Catholics who wanted to be celibate and for eight years tried to persuade Pittsburgh’s Dignity to renounce the unorthodox teachings of the national group."15

Well stopping Dignity Masses seems the right thing to do… starting an alternative group for gay Catholics who want to be celibate and persuade Dignity to renounce unorthodox teachings also seems right?

As for the fact that he is simply associated with people, Judas was one of the twelve apostles. Opus Dei was associated with the same people. “A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.”

Fr. Frank J. Hoffman, J.C.D., chaplain to Warwick House, Pittsburgh’s Opus Dei headquarters (located next door to Bishop Wuerl’s residence) was listed as an editor for Catholic Vision of Love’s “Talking to Youth About Sexuality: A Parent’s Guide” along with Mike Aquilina, General Editor for the Pittsburgh Catholic and Fr. Kris Stubna, Secretary for Education for the Pittsburgh diacese.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Final Reminder

I have already banned one member

Do not attack Catholic clergy you disagree with and say they are promoting sin. And do not link to sites that do so. Please read the forum rules posted at the top of the Catholic News forum.

Also This thread is wandering stay on topic

 

[Corki]

How is the homosexual movement persecuting the Church more than other movements, i.e. widespread premarital sex? Is it popular because they persecute the Church more or because they are easier to criticize since there are so few of them and so it seems like an easier problem to deal with, i.e. 2-3% of the population is gay, while upwards of 90-99% of the population has premarital sex?

Do you see the “premarital sex movement” organizing like the Rainbow Sash movement and disrupting Mass? Do you see an equivalent to the Dignity organization which demands the Church change its teaching on homosexual unions?

Try Googling “gay rights attack on Church” and see how many incidents come up of groups literally attacking and vandalizing Catholic Churches and those of other Christian denominations that do not get on the “gay rights” bandwagon. You won’t find any such attacks by “premarital sex actvisits”.

 

[NeedImprovement]

From the top, can we please dispense with any more comments on the priest “leaving” the service - casting doubt on whether he suffers from migraines ? I don’t personally suffer from migraines, but a deacon friend of mine does and I have witnessed him having to withdraw from a co-celebration of the Mass before it was even halfway through because of a migraine he suffered.

I note in Father Guarnizo’s statement that he remains " . . . my bishop’s and my Church’s, and above all Christ Jesus’ **obedient servant **."

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have heard about or commented about any of this. (Chalk one up on the negative side for modern technology :doh2: ). St John Vianney used to say we must never speak against a priest publicly . What we seem to be living today is the antithesis of that particular counsel. In one sense, today, being so connected, we get persecuted along with those they are speaking against. Personally I’m grateful I had the opportunity to read Fr. Guarnizo’s statement … since we had to be subjected to all the other stuff first.

Up until his statement , we had been witnessing Father Guarnizo’s character assasination in the media ; a very one-sided ordeal where what they were asserting implies that every word/accusation that comes forth from the mouth of Barbara Johnson is pure truth , while Fr. Guarnizo was condemned as guilty until proven guilty.

The admonition he offered in the statement stood out to me:

“But I am going to defend my conduct in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.”

Of course, if we were to accord any credibility to the crud written in the Huffington Post by John Shore ( sorry guys - no links this time. If you’re going to use your search engine , make sure to have some anti-nausea medication on hand, and make sure you read his subsequent article gleefully rejoicing over Fr. Guarnizo’s suspension), he says Feb. 29th, 2012 :

“I spoke with Barbara on the phone the day before this story hit.”

(Gee…… I wonder how that happened ?") But let’s focus on this part where he quotes Barbara Johnson :

“Obviously, I don’t think being gay is a sin,” she told me. “But this wasn’t about me. This was about about my wonderful mother having the beautiful funeral that she deserved. So yes, I would have let Father Marcel grant me absolution.”

Okay, now wait a minute … … You don’t think being actively gay is a sin , but you would “let Fr. Marcel grant you absolution.” … For what ??? … You haven’t confessed anything . In your mind there is no sin …:shrug , ergo no sense of amendment. To receive absolution , we have to first acknowledge our sins.

I think Father Guarnizo was merciful in his statement when he worded it as “openly confessing sin . . . minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given…” According to the information on hand, that could have just as easily been referred to as open proclamation and celebration of sin before the presider – particularly in light of his words

A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover." Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms. Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.

C’mon !!.. Even Catholics who miss Sunday Mass without a valid reason are supposed to set things right in the sacrament of Reconciliation before approaching to receive Holy Communion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

How is the homosexual movement persecuting the Church more than other movements, i.e. widespread premarital sex?

A “Premarital Sex Lobby” (vs. The Catholic Church) does not exist, and it didn’t exist when your “percentages” were undoubtedly much lower. “Believers” in premarital sex are not a political group, nor do they care about their obvious rights, equal with the rights of homosexuals, to engage in private sexual behavior of any kind without governent interference – such as menage-a-trois & whatever. The concept that homosexuals are being “persecuted,” whether by the Catholic Church or by society at large, is a myth. They are free under the laws of the land to pursue their sexual lifestyle, to access employment & housing without restriction, etc.

But the Gay Lobby is a political movement. They have admitted that they want public recognition and religious approval of the supposed morality of their lifestyle, and they will not rest until they pressure and humiliate the Roman Catholic Church to “accept” and even bless such a lifestyle. Their friends in this effort are the lamestream media such as MSNBC and other major media outlets who carry their water.

Obviously not all homosexuals are activists such as I describe, but it is the homosexual activists who have succeeded, and still succeed, in manipulating the press to attack the Church at every possible opportunity. And it is “sensational” stories like this one which fuel and support their efforts. It is publicity of a controversial nature which they seek.

 

[NeedImprovement]

So far, it appears to be a very lopsided view of this case. We don’t appear to be affording equal emphasis on the fact that Father Guarnizo had to first consider – had to answer to , his own conscience – as he pointed out in his statement ; his being a steward and minister of the sacraments requires scrutiny first as it applies to his own conscience.

I’d just like to point out one subtle thing to everybody here (usually I do that on a thread devoted to examining this type of deception).

In The Washington Post story written by Michelle Boorstein linked near the beginning of this thread , have a look at the caption under this photo of Barbara Johnson included with the story ; it reads

(Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post) - Barbara Johnson was denied communion and the priest walked out on her mother’s funeral last Saturday after he found out Johnson was a lesbian.

.

Now look at Michelle Boorstein’s Washington Post story about Father Fuarnizo’s suspension of faculties within the Archdiocese. It bears the same photo of Barbara Johnson, but this time the caption has been changed so it only reads:

Barbara Johnson was denied Communion at her mother’s funeral. (Marvin Joseph- WASHINGTON POST)

I don’t know if I would hold my breath waiting for a retraction or anything. What kind of a lie is that… when the so-called “truth” being reported is “evolving” - a lie in a constant state of flux ; of contortion. How effective is it to print a lie like that the same time that same sex (it will never be marriage) ‘marriage’ is supposed to become legislation … and then casually change it once the priest lands in hot water ?

I think it’s rather conniving. And this is supposed to be the Washington Post - not the huffington Post . Yet some of their journalists get away with this stuff with relative impunity.

:dts:

Let’s be aware of what the media can do with the truth today guys.

 

[LovePatience]

They are free under the laws of the land to pursue their sexual lifestyle, to access employment & housing without restriction, etc.

Many states do not have anti-discrimination laws against gays. They can be fired from a job or housing for private sexual behavior without legal recourse.

But the Gay Lobby is a political movement.

Premarital sex is a political movement. There is very little opposition to premarital sex in the United States anymore so there is no need to protest the opposition.

In other countries, where there are legal restrictions, i.e. the Middle East under sharia, Western feminist groups also frequently protest politically and mobilize.

One could reverse the saying - people against premarital sex aren’t a political group that tries to express societal disapproval against premarital sex through laws. The very minute that they become one, i.e. Santorum speaking about a state law banning contraception, they will get more protest.

 

[JReducation]

Cardinal,

How is the “pastoral approach” for bringing pro-abortion politicians “in-line” working out? What have you done to meet with these polticians in DC to bring them “in-line”? What Catholic politicians have changed their position on this issue through this approach? What consequences are you willing to bring about if they do not publicly renounce a position that babies up to 9 months in the womb can be violently killed under law?

In your opinion, are those politicians who publicly promote the funding and access to the murder of the unborn worthy to receive Our Lord in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity at Mass? What if a Catholic politician were for the legalization and funding of killing the poor, Jews, the elderly, minorities? Would you still take a “pastoral approach” towards these politicians, or would a canonical approach then be in order?

If a “pastoral approach” is called for in the case of Nancy Pelosi, why wasn’t a “pastoral approach” taken by you in the case of a pro-life priest who did his job?

Thanks.

If you want to say this, you should send it to the Cardinal’s office, not post it on CAF. It’s easy to grandstand and be rude to a cardinal, when you’re posting where he won’t see the message and you’re anonymous. Therefore, he can’t respond.

This does not help anyone here where the Cardinal will not see it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The archdiocese never should have scolded him publicly

He was not scolded publicly. The way that I understand it, someone leaked the story to the press and the Archdiocese responded to the story in the news.

and suspended his faculties

His faculties have not been suspended. He has not been punished. A suspension is a canonical penalty.

without even bothering to speak with him.

The law of the Church does not require superiors to speak to you before suspending. They are to send you a written notice, not tell you orally. If you want to talk about it, the Church says that it’s on you to ask for an audience. It is never the role of authority to get your (name removed by moderator)ut before suspending.

We have to remember that there are two reasons for getting suspended. A) You violated a law that carries an automatic suspension. B) You have disobeyed a direct order from your bishop or your religious superior. In both of those cases, you don’t have to be informed of what you’ve done, because you already know.

The priest has a right to his good name and I am glad to see him speak.

He does have a right to his good name, so does the Archdiocese. That’s why we should wait and see how this plays out, before throwing either the priest or the Archdiocese under the bus.

Furthermore, his parishioners have a right to know what is going on.

Parishioners need to be told that the priest will not be available, because he’s on leave. They are not to be told the specific reasons. That is not a right of the parishioners, because it violate’s the right to privacy of the priest and of the person(s) who are alleging that he did harm to them. Observe the use of therm, alleging. Until the investigation is complete, it’s just that, an allegation. But it’s one that the diocese took seriously enough to look into.

The problem is that we live in a society where someone makes an allegation and everyone takes sides. Either the person is guilty or the party making the allegation is lying. We really need to see it for what it is. It’s an allegation. If it’s not true or if the person misunderstood the priest’s behavior, the priest goes back to active ministry. If it’s true, the priest is sent back to his bishop. From there, it’s up to his bishop to decide what happens next.

The Archdiocese cannot punish him, because he’s a guest, not a diocesan priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

He was not scolded publicly. The way that I understand it, someone leaked the story to the press and the Archdiocese responded to the story in the news.

And in that response the archdiocese stated that the priest had acted improperly. All they had to do was say they were looking into the matter and leave it at that. They chose to take it further.

His faculties have not been suspended. He has not been punished. A suspension is a canonical penalty.

Withdrawn then. Either way, he is not able to function as a priest.

The law of the Church does not require superiors to speak to you before suspending. They are to send you a written notice, not tell you orally. If you want to talk about it, the Church says that it’s on you to ask for an audience. It is never the role of authority to get your (name removed by moderator)ut before suspending.

It may not be required, but they certainly have the option and it is certainly the just and fair thing to do.

He does have a right to his good name, so does the Archdiocese. That’s why we should wait and see how this plays out, before throwing either the priest or the Archdiocese under the bus.

And yet the archdiocese did not wait at all. They removed him immediately and commented multiple times in public about the situation. I do not fault this priest from speaking out on the situation. If they wanted him to be quiet, they should have done him the same courtesy.

Parishioners need to be told that the priest will not be available, because he’s on leave. They are not to be told the specific reasons. That is not a right of the parishioners, because it violate’s the right to privacy of the priest and of the person(s) who are alleging that he did harm to them. Observe the use of therm, alleging. Until the investigation is complete, it’s just that, an allegation. But it’s one that the diocese took seriously enough to look into.

That might have worked 50 years ago when there was no internet and no 24 hour news cycle. In this day and age, situations like this are world wide knowledge in a matter of minutes. The potential for the faithful to be scandalized is huge, and it can happen almost instantaneously. And the priest’s reputation and credibility with his flock is damaged significantly in the process. Regardless of the result of the investigation, there will be those in his parish who will always have doubts on the matter and the priest himself will always be wondering what others think of him. His ability to minister to his flock has been impacted regardless of the outcome of this investigation. This will follow him wherever he goes in the world.

The problem is that we live in a society where someone makes an allegation and everyone takes sides. Either the person is guilty or the party making the allegation is lying. We really need to see it for what it is.

There are reasons for this that I noted above and on other threads where we have had this discussion. As a result of this situation, there is no place in the world that this priest will be able to go where this does not get brought up at some point. Yet, we see priests that openly defy Church teachings who are left in place year after year. In the Archdiocese of Washington, we see pro-abortion politicians being allowed to receive holy Communion repeatedly and then we have a priest who moves to defend the sanctity of the sacrament, and he is suspended.

Your points are well taken, but the faithful are frustrated, upset, and tired of seeing the leadership in the Church act in ways that, on the outside, are more representative of being a politician then a shepherd. I cannot speak for the motivations of those in the archdiocese or Cardinal Wuerl himself and would not presume to do so. What I can do is observe the actions which have been taken and the results created by those actions. By all accounts, there is a very small portion of those who call themselves Catholic who actually try to hold to the tenants of the faith. Every time something like this happens, they find out about it almost instantaneously as they are the ones on the forums, chatrooms, blogs etc. They come to those places because in many parishes they are surrounded by the majority who are luke-warm and they want to learn and interact with those who take their faith seriously. They also tend to be younger as more of the older Catholics, even faithful ones, are not online as compared to younger ones. As a result of this, the younger and faithful Catholics are the ones who are disillusioned and disheartened when things like this happen seemingly over and over again.

I have seen little evidence that those in positions of authority within the Church understand that dynamic.

I know you disagree with my positions on this and similar issues and I respect that.

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

And in that response the archdiocese stated that the priest had acted improperly. All they had to do was say they were looking into the matter and leave it at that. They chose to take it further.

They said that they had complaints that he had acted improperly. They did not accuse him.

Withdrawn then. Either way, he is not able to function as a priest.

That’s not what an administrative leave means at all. He cannot serve in the Archdiocese Washington, until the matter is resolved. If he goes home to his diocese or is invited to another diocese, this does not apply.

To say that someone cannot do priestly ministry means that you can’t do it anywhere in the world. To be put on administrative leave has different levels. It can be for a diocese, an organization, a religious community or the Universal Church, but that would be up to your superior. The local bishop can only put you on leave for his diocese. Your faculties are not suspended. The Salesians up the street can invite him to celebrate mass in their chapel. It would be legitimate, because the chapel of a religious house does not fall under the jurisdiction of a bishop. If he were suspended, they could not issue such an invitation. Do you see the difference between a leave and a suspension?

It may not be required, but they certainly have the option and it is certainly the just and fair thing to do.

It’s not something that the Holy See looks upon with good eyes.

That might have worked 50 years ago when there was no internet and no 24 hour news cycle.

It’s still the law of the Church. We have no choice here. We don’t make the law and we have no right to ask for it to be changed.

We have to wait and see how this plays out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mlund]

And in that response the archdiocese stated that the priest had acted improperly. All they had to do was say they were looking into the matter and leave it at that. They chose to take it further.

And that is the crux of the matter.

It is good to reiterate the Diocese’s position with regards to implementing Canon 915.

With regards to the first communication, the apology from the Diocese where they judged the priest in question: it is terrible to make public judgments on a specific incident without gathering all the facts and being precisely detailed as to what exactly went wrong. The response comes across as pandering for fear of being cast in a villainous light by poison pens rather than as being resolute and deliberate in pursuit of the truth.

If nothing else the Diocese could have used the opportunity to set an example of mutual charity and resisting a rush to judgment.

Withdrawn then. Either way, he is not able to function as a priest.

In public ministry within that Diocese, no. No priest may perform such public functions in a Diocese without the consent of the Bishop. If a priest from Baltimore came through town he’d have the same restrictions. Basically it is the Bishop’s town and only those he duly deputizes are allowed to serve in his domain.

And yet the archdiocese did not wait at all. They removed him immediately and commented multiple times in public about the situation.

Truly, the issue is how the Diocese conducted itself in public and the impact it has on the faithful and the priests that serve. I see no spiritual benefits to any party or glorification of God or the Church stemming from any of the comments given by the Diocese in excess to clarifying their position on canon 915 (first incident) and stating that they had placed the priest on leave while investigating (second incident).

As communications go it was an abysmal failure.

• Marty Lund

 

[heaintheavy]

Yeah just perfect timing is all. Of course all the news media is running the story as “Priest who denied communion to Lesbian is placed on leave” Guess what they won this battle. You can bet that now that they know it will work they will do it more and more. All of our most Orthodox Priests will be in their crosshairs. Now the Priest also know that Bishops may not stand with them and defend them when they make a tough decision. Really is sad in my opinion.

This media outlet is a Catholic news source…the editors at Catholic Culture decided to use that headline. Interesting choice.

 

[Michael_C]

“On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash.”

I stand by all my previous posts on the matter.

 

[JReducation]

“On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash.”

I stand by all my previous posts on the matter.

All that Father is saying is that he was told that they could not discuss it at that point in time. He’s not saying that they said he was guilty as charged.

He’s complaining that the letter was already written. That’s a judgment call that the Vicar General made, to write the letter before Father came in. There is nothing in Canon Law that says that this cannot happen. The usual is that you get the letter in the mail and then you ask for a meeting.

It is also usual that if you ask for details, you are told that you cannot have them at that point in time. The logic is that if you divulge your sources and if the priest shares that information with others, those sources can be subject to intimidation. The Church, like the civil courts, wants sources that are not influenced either way or as close as possible to being objective. No one is ever perfectly objective.

Were I in Father’s position, I would be upset too. But I also know that this is the way that the Holy See set up the system and I can fight the system or fight my case. I’d rather fight my case. Eventually, someone has to come back to him and say, “You are accused of A B and C, what’s your side?”

If the Archdiocese truly wanted him out of the way, the easiest thing would have been to send him home. This is the part that people are not getting. They did not send him home. Which is a signal that they believe that this can be resolved. Do you really think that any bishop would keep an extern priest, if he thought that he had no hope of putting him back into ministry? To keep an extern that he has no hope of ever using again is silly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jen_fla]

No apology needed. I’m happy to clarify that I meant nothing but praise for the priest’s ability as a writer. I was rather hoping someone would post a link to some of his other work. I look out for good writing, and find that there are many good writers who are never told they are. If you know him - please pass on my comments.

thanks for the clarification.

peace.

 

[Ender]

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 bus.

We have no reason to believe to Fr. G is anything other than a faithful priest and questioning the actions of the diocese hardly amounts to throwing the cardinal under the bus.

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.

Interesting but irrelevant since none of it pertains to the issue of refusing communion.

1. He has pastoral concerns as to how to apply the law… 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.

Apparently his personal guideline is not to apply the law, which raises the question again of what kind of law it is that one doesn’t have to abide by.

4… The man is not only a bishop, but he is a scholar.

Which makes it all the more puzzling that he can’t figure out how to apply the law, given that, as you yourself said, he has the authority to define his own guidelines.

1. 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.

Is it not reasonable to assume that if the cardinal does not retract the action that he agrees with it?

1. 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.

This is another source of concern inasmuch as Fr. G contradicted the statement from the Vicar General, a statement that even NewEnglandPriest recognized as intentionally vague.

1. 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.

Inasmuch as the archdiocese did not deal with this issue “without anyone knowing”, and in light of the enormous publicity the issue has raised, the obligation of the archdiocese now is to deal with it openly and honestly.

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?

The cardinal’s history is not relevant to the question of whether or not Fr. G’s situation is being handled correctly today. As for the cardinal being persecuted, you seem hypersensitive to suggestions that the actions of the archdiocese were questionable.

Were Father’s rights violated?

We cannot know but it is surely bothersome that his understanding of why he is in trouble is at such variance with the explanation given by the Vicar General.

Ender