Really? Excuse my cynicism, but I've seen how bishops allow priests to "present [their] positions." Fr. Guarnizo is now being accused of "intimidating" somebody at the parish. Wow! Nice little two-step there. All the revelations coming out about lesbian activist Barbara Johnson has made it hard to hoist Fr. Guarnizo on that petard, so the Archdiocese chooses a more general accusation that is hard to define or refute. What was his "intimidating" behavior? Did Fr. Guarnizo lose his temper and make somebody feel bad? Gosh, I've had priests' "intimidate" me with angry responses when I gently challenged their liturgical abuses. One leaned over and contemptuously said in my ear, "You're full of it, Honey." He then stomped off giving me the single digit salute over his shoulder. Hmm...I should have accused him of sexual harassment, but it didn't occur to me. Do you think his bishop would have suspended him? So what did Fr. Guarnizo do, roll his eyes at some loony-tune comment? Did he kick a can in the parking lot that scared a liberal wimp? -- They have such tender feelings.
As one who's been accused of "violence" by liberal dissenters for daring to disagree with them,
I give Fr. Guarnizo the benefit of the doubt. This looks more and more like the same game-playing used to suspend other good priests. Fr. James Haley in the Diocese of Arlington got it for bringing Bishop Paul Loverde bad news about his homosexual priests. About a year later, Fr. Joe Clark was suspended by the same bishop because he corrected a deacon who mishandled the Precious Blood during Mass.
Was Fr. Clark given a chance to "present his position?" Hardly. He was called in to what he thought was a private meeting so the bishop could hear his side of the story, "his position" so to speak. Instead of a private meeting he found the bishop, the diocesan lawyer, and the vicar for clergy. He was then handed a letter of suspension, dated the day before. Was he given a chance to give his side of the story? Nope! Bishop Loverde already had his mind made up. Liberal deacon good; orthodox priest bad. To make a long story short, the case ended up in Rome where it was decided there was right and wrong on both sides, but Bishop Loverde was instructed to reinstate Fr. Clark.
Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical that Fr. Guarnizo will be treated fairly without an intervention. Cardinal Wuerl is not known for his orthodoxy. And, let's face it, when the Barbara Johnson story started to unravel, the archdiocese needed to find another pretext for dumping a troublesome priest. So all those pro-aborts who hate Fr. Guarnizo for fighting Leroy Carhart, the late-term abortionist in Gaithersburg, and all the homosexual activists who hate him and all orthodox Christians for opposing their sinful lifestyle can join hands in a victory dance. Thanks, Cardinal Wuerl, for giving another PR victory to the enemies of the Church.
Any faithful Catholics who continue to put their money in the basket for the Archdiocese of Washington need their heads examined. And Catholics need to know that the regular collection is taxed for the diocese. So find another way to support your parish. Write your checks to the electric or phone company for a portion of the parish bill. Buy the flowers that grace the altar every weekend. Maybe your parish has a development fund that is exempt from the diocesan tax. But stop feeding bishops who kick you in the teeth by removing the priests who actually believe what Holy Mother Church teaches and act on it.
And by the way, Cardinal Wuerl has a priest in his diocese, Fr. Robert Keffer, who is scandalizing his parish, Resurrection in Burtonsville, by using a book, Quest for the Living God, condemned by a committee of the USCCB (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops). And guess who was on that committee? You got it -- Cardinal Wuerl. Has he done a thing about this program at Resurrection? (I know people who've complained to the chancery about it.) Short answer. NO! Here's the bulletin notice about it published in the February 26th issue:
Quest for the Living God Discussion Group led by Father Bob Keffer on Tuesday eveningsSo go ahead and scandalize your people with heretical books. No problemo! Support the faith but make a lesbian activist mad? Sayonara, padre. The hypocrisy is astounding!
during Lent, beginning on Tuesday, February 28, at 7:30 p.m. in the Youth Center.
Father Bob will lead a Lenten Discussion group on Elizabeth Johnson’s book, “Quest for the Living God.” Books are now available in the Parish Office for $15.00 each. [Fr. Bob suggests reading the first 50 pages of the book before the Feb. 28 session, if possible.]
No registration is necessary in order to attend.
11 comments:
Oh Mary Ann,
"Did he kick a can in the parking lot that scared a liberal wimp? -- They have such tender feelings."
Did you think that you could post insults like this and not have readers think you are a complete hypocrite?
Oh sorry, was that an insult? I thought maybe you wouldn't have such tender feelings as those you insult and denigrate all over your joke of a blog.
Please please ban my ID, I beg you.
If the shoe fits, wear it, as my mom used to say. As for being a complete hypocrite, you seem to fit the bill since you self describe as a Catholic but don't believe what the Church teaches.
It's interesting, my blog is such a joke you just can't help yourself from posting all over it. LOL!
Ignore the liberal wimps, Mary Ann. Your blogs are a much needed source of info and commentary. If the wimps can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!
I thought I would just say thank you for the details that have been exposed here. It helps us understand with greater detail that this priest is truly persecuted. He is not politically neutral, or as one wonderful priest friend describes, he is not neutralized by the required spinal extraction required by catholic priests today, to stay in ministry. It is sad, but it has been foretold , and we need to understand we are standing once more at the foot of the cross. Christ is being insulted, spat upon, and humiliated once more by the Judas' that live today. The passion of the church cycles each time the members of the body take the '30 pieces' of wordly reward in order to stay in the safe place of the world's eye. Pope JPII , when he greeted the young people at World Youth Day in Denver, stated, (I paraphrase) 'let me greet the future martyrs of the Church. If we follow Christ, we must take up our cross daily. In our world where so much hatred of Truth (capital intended) prevails, we who follow Christ will be persecuted.
WE can minimize Fr. Guarnizo's cross by sending out otherwise donations to the Church to him to help defray the costs of what will be a canonical process, or pay for his food and a place to live. Priests who are suspended are not given salaries and a place to live so let us live the corporal works of mercy and help the real victim here. Just like we can pray for the conversion of Mary Ann who serves the vitriolic contempt of the enemy.
Sorry Mary Ann, I meant, we can pray for Paul McMichael who serves our enemy in his contempt for those who heroically serve the Truth. Could you please follow up and tell us where Fr. G is and how we can send him money to help defray his costs?
Thanks, Anonymous, I hope everyone will pray for Mr. McMichael and I'll take the prayers as well. As for where Fr. Guarnizo is I'm trying to find out myself. Since he's originally from McLean I looked up his name there and found an address and phone number but the phone number was out of service. So I sent a letter to him at the address and I'll see if he responds. There is mail collecting at his former parish, St. John Neuman in Gaithersburg. The address there is 8900 Lochaven Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20882-4460. If I am able to find a better address for him, I'll post it.
Hi Mary Ann, My name is Kris, not anonymous, but I cant figure out how to post any other way. Yes, I sent a letter almost as soon as all this happened to the parish, but I am sure he is not there now. So thanks, hopefully someone who belongs to the parish will step forward with an actual current address. Blessings. Kris
I don't think it is persecution to be asked to obey properly constituted ecclesial authority. Isn't disobedience the problem is the "Call to Action" folks? Fr. Marcel had a tough call to make. He made the wrong decision because his actions (plus one omission) lend themselves to the interpretation that the Church disrespects homosexuals rather than the sinful behavior that may have been at issue. The main problem with Fr. Marcel's handling of the incident was inconsistency. If he believed the Church required him to decline to distribute the Holy Eucharist to Ms. Johnson, Fr. Marcel should have prohibited the EME from distributing it to her. I think there's more than enough evidence to have supported that course of action, but none to support his personal refusal while permitting the EME to do so.
Fr. Marcel's current comments and potential intimidation of others were a mistake. His legalistic distinction between that "Cardinal Wuerl is not MY bishop" gives me a chill. Cardinal Wuerl IS mine. Am I supposed to forsake MY bishop for Fr. Marcel? The bishop Christ appointed for me? Moreover, the comments continue to drive a wedge between Catholics when we ought to be uniting to oppose the White House and HHS.
I'm confused by your comment, Church Guy. When did Fr. Guarnizo disobey a "properly constituted ecclesial authority? Can you be specific? I'm not aware of any disobedience on his part at all. Defend your statement please.
As for being inconsistent. How can you know? He refused Barbara Communion and may not have noticed she got in the other line. The priest and the LEM are often separated at a funeral in a large church with the casket between them? When I go to Communion I don't notice who's in the line next to me and presumably the priest is paying attention to Jesus in the Eucharist and to the next person in line -- not scouting the other line.
As for Cardinal Wuerl not being Father's bishop, that's simply a matter of fact, the Church law you say you support, in fact. He was correcting what some people were saying on the internet about his being "suspended." He wasn't suspended because Cardinal Wuerl CAN'T suspend him - he doesn't have that "ecclesial authority." What actually happened was that Father had his faculties to act as a priest in the Archdiocese of Washington removed and that is another matter altogether. He's obviously obeying that because he's gone - poof! Why would you presume that he was being defiant or disrespectful by simply clarifying his status and correcting a serious error? There's a world of difference between a priest being removed from ministry and not being welcome in a particular diocese.
As for the division in the Church, it isn't Fr. Guarnizo who's causing that, but the bishops, many of whom defy Church doctrine and allow heresy and error to run rampant in their dioceses as, for example, Cardinal Wuerl is doing by taking no action against Fr. Robert Keffer at Resurrection parish in Burtonsville. Go to the end of this comment.
http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-letup-in-fr-guarnizo-persecution.html#more
Laity who care about the faith have an obligation to stand up and defend it, especially when bishops won't. When people make the obedience argument I shake my head. We are NOT called to blind obedience of clerics. That's the error of clericalism. Who was right in England? Those who followed the bishops into apostasy or those who went to the Tyburn "tree," i.e., the gallows? Every heresy was begun by a man in a Roman collar. Those who follow blindly are very likely to be led off the narrow path onto a blind trail that leads to a dead end.
Mary Ann Kreitzer, your post of 2:30 PM on March 16th is quite right. We are to follow our bishops concerning the Faith in everything except heresy and sin. If a bishop asked a married woman to commit adultery with him or to deny the Holy Trinity she certainly would not and should not be required to acquiesce. To do so thinking it is required of one would be blind obedience. I do not think any Catholic is truly that stupid or naive unless they are a minor. The same would apply here where a priest truly thought the woman was still in mortal sin. No priest by canon law is required to give Communion to someone he knows to be in mortal sin. He is not required even to forgive them a mortal sin in the confessional if they are not truly repentant. This woman seemed to be bragging about what she was doing and unrepentant. She was also in Apostasy if she had been baptized Catholic and became Buddhist and had not give up Buddhism. This is all such a sham and anyone with any common sense at all knows it.
Sorry for the delay. .. been busy. I will address the question whether Cardinal Wuerl is the properly constituted pastor of this diocese later.
I'd like to address the situation with the EME first because that is what changed my mind. As you may see, I have a little blog myself. I planned to write a vigorous defense of Fr. Marcel because I thought a good practical case could be made under Canon 915 for withholding the Eucharist from Ms. Johnson. But, when I pondered the inconsistency of the EME distributing the Eucharist to her, I ultimately came out thinking that an error of judgment occurred, but nothing more. I thought Bishop Knestout and the others at ADW were trying to ride out the storm so they could work with Fr. Marcel.
Where do I see the inconsistency? Obviously, if Fr. Marcel thought Canon 915 or some other reason disqualified Ms. Johnson from receiving the Eucharist, his duty as guardian of the sacraments required him to act against the sacrilege. I think we can all agree on that.
We also know that he did not. So, why?
I don't think it is reasonable to think he didn't know that Ms. Johnson receive the Eucharist from the EME. Per Fr. Marcel's statement, the EME was four feet away from him. Ms. Johnson is a big woman. Fr. Marcel had just taken a major stand against the profanation of the Eucharist. Either he knew that Ms. Johnson received the Eucharist or he should have known. As it happened, Fr. Marcel's action combined with the failure to stop the EME suggested that he acted not to defend the sanctity of the Eucharist, but because of a personal opinion relating to Ms. Johnson. It is interesting that Bishop Knestout's personal letter to Johnson spoke of this issue, rather than the more hot button issues at hand.
More to come. . .
Post a Comment