Priest who denied communion to lesbian no longer with DC archdiocese
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. says it no longer employs a priest who became known for denying Holy Communion to a partnered lesbian woman.
“Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow, Russia, who was given a temporary assignment at St. John Neumann parish,” archdiocesan communcations director Chieko Noguchi Scheve said in a statement provided to CNA on July 10.
“That assignment period has ended and Father Guarnizo is no longer in ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington,” Scheve wrote.
Fr. Guarnizo declined to comment on the announcement from the archdiocese.
In February 2012, the priest drew national attention for withholding the Eucharist from Barbara Johnson at her mother’s funeral. Fr. Guarnizo made the decision after Johnson introduced him to her lesbian partner before Mass.
Johnson remained outraged after the incident, threatening to have Fr. Guarnizo “removed from parish life.” The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. apologized for his “lack of pastoral sensitivity” and said it was against policy for a priest to “publicly reprimand” a person approaching the sacrament.
In March, Fr. Guarnizo was removed from ministry in the archdiocese. The announcement of did not refer to Johnson, but cited “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.” Fr. Guarnizo defended his action, and said his removal from ministry was related to the funeral incident.
In a paper published online, Johnson had at one point identified herself as “a lesbian and a Buddhist.” However, she later told MSNBC that she is “a Catholic” who is “deeply influenced by eastern religion philosophy.” Her relationship with the Church, she said, is “complex.”
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:51
Obama names former CRS head ambassador to the Vatican
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:46
Addressing U.S., global child malnutrition a top priority for advocates
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:42
Female priests risk excommunication to be ordained
-
Jun 14, 2013 5:04
Catholic League president: ‘Nest of homosexual priests’ should be ‘rooted out’
-
Jun 14, 2013 5:01
Gay marriage little mentioned at faith confab
-
Jun 14, 2013 4:58
Vatican court denies latest appeal from Scituate church group
-
Jun 14, 2013 4:53
Conservatives to honor evangelist Pat Robertson as a trailblazer in faith, politics
-
Jun 13, 2013 1:41
Obama administration drops fight to limit age restrictions on Plan B
-
Jun 11, 2013 12:29
Bishops warn against changes in immigration bill that could kill it
-
Jun 11, 2013 12:25
Catholic Church rallies parishioners against Gov. Cuomo’s proposed abortion law changes
54 Comments
[...] 13, 2012 3:42 cathnewsusa The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. says it no longer employs a priest who became known for denying [...]
I suppose this priest who refused to give the woman communion was just following the rules; however, he should have told her not to approach back when she introduced him to her “partner” and not at the later embarrassing time. If I were to introduce my heterosexual, unmarried “lover” to the priest before mass, would he be right in refusing to give me communion? Wouldn’t that be the rule he had to follow? I think it’s more about “how” he did this rather than he did it at all.
Another example of the Diocese not backing its Priests in applying its teachings. Public admonition was correct after all this person is publicly living in an abnornal relationship. Living together is OK. Its the the same recreational “sex” actions that are abnormal
Agreed, Paul — I know one priest who told me directly that he was removed from his parish by the bishop because people complained about him for insisting on some Catholic practices during Lent (I forget the details). This priest was venting to me — he felt betrayed by the bishop, and I believe he was. The reason the priests typically are pusillanimous is because their leaders, the bishops, also are such. We need more people like Archbishop Chaput, or Father Don Calloway, or a chaste Father Corapi.
You dare to question the authority of a Bishop who acts directly with the authority of Rome and the Vicar of CHrist. After all your ramblings about the authority that can not be questioned? Oh that’s right, they only can not be questioned if you agree with the action.
Honestly, Concerned, you are not thinking very deeply. I never asserted bishops cannot make administrative mistakes; the specific case I was citing is one such example of (in my opinion) such a mistake. What I have consistently said, though, is that the Church is inerrant in her dogmatic Magisterium. Those are two very different things. So, the Magisterium says homosexual sex is wrong; masturbation is wrong; contraception is wrong. And, although it may not represent dogma, the proclamation by JPII that women never will be able to be ordained to the priesthood is also inerrant.
It should also be noted that a person may be invoked in homosexual act, or be involved with masturbation and or be involved with contraception and yet not be subjectively guilty of serious sin.
True, Anthony, but if the person knows these acts to be mortal sins and engages in them with full consent of the will, then the person is guilty of serious (mortal) sin.
The full consent of the will aspect is very important especially where habit is concerned and other psycological issues are concerned that may affect the freedom of the individual.
The sufficient reflection of the person also must be present and may also be affected by numerous factors.
Agreed, Anthony — and I do think it is important that Catholics understand what you have posted. For example, many teens can easily be discourgaed by repeated failure with masturbation, but they need to know that if they did resist the impulse before finally giving in, then that is de facto evidence that they did not engage in masturbation with full consent of the will. Again, I agree this is a very important point; as I believe many teens leave the Church over the difficulty stopping masturbation, and their false belief that they are constantly falling into mortal sin. As I reflect on my life, I believe that was a good part of the reason why I fell away from the Church duing my teen years.
Father Corapi???? Father John Corapi was like a clanging cymbal — an insensitive and self-righteous blow-hard.
Right on!
As a cradle catholic, I don’t understand how she exected to receive communion after introducing her partner and admitting to living in sin. I don’t understand her views on her faith.
This, Elizabeth, illustrates vividly the problem when people decide they know better than the Church, and feel free “in good (in truth, bad) conscience” to conduct their lives the way they want. Many people who post on this blog believe homosexual sex is morally acceptable for people with same-sex attractions; so, many posters here will see no problem with what she did.
Jim, I’m sure that’s exactly what your Jesus would do. But not mine.
I’m sure yours wouldn’t Scott. Here’s the problem: your “Jesus” isn’t going to be the judge; the One the Catholic Church proclaims will.
Jim, given that you have now publicly criticized the One Holy Catholic Church and her Bishops (see above) i would worry about the judgment that comes to you. Scott – keep being guided by the model of Jesus you believe in – that one is much like the Jesus of the Gospels. I don’t know who Jim is following, but it is not the Jesus of the Gospels.
Concerned – the “Jesus of the Gospels” cursed a fig tree and killed it in the process; he turned over tables of merchants; he called His critics a “brood of vipers;” and he told his apostles shake the dust off their sandals if a town was not receptive to the truth. Now, respond directly to that evidence, Concerned — please don’t respond with another undocumented opinion of what you believe Jesus was like. I provided documentation for my opinion — you must now do the same.
Didn’t Christ come to save sinners? Why should the grace of the Eucharist be denied a person because an ordained person has passed judgement?
Eileen — the Church received the power to bind and loose sins here on Earth from Jesus Christ Himself. The first spiritual work of mercy is to admonish the sinner. If everyone lacks the courage to tell her the truth, she may spend an eternity in Hell. Do you let your friends drive drunk, or do you upset them by demanding they not drive? I hope you care enough about your friends to do the latter.
Jesus told people not to sin. He INVITED them to a new way of life. Even when they did not accept the invitation Jesus still had an open heart for them – it was not conditional – that they change their ways – it was unconditional. They were always welcome to be with him. There is quite a difference between telling someone that they are doing wrong and telling theem their faults and making them feel unwelcome in your presence. If your friend demanded to drive even though he did drink too much, would you chase him from your life, or stay with him to keep inviting a change?
Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus speaking (the same Jesus to whom you are referring, Concerned): “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words — go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”
Smoking-gun evidence that Jesus in fact turned His back on unrepentent sinners; although I certainly agree that, when the person repents, He would welcome them with open arms and tears in His eyes. And here’s how God the Father treats unrepentent sinners: “They became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened” (Romans 1:21).
Note, Concerned, that it does not say the people darkened their own minds, but rather that they were darkened by something external to themselves: God Himself. For the record, Concerned, I have no joy over sinners, and I wish Hell on no one. In fact, I love others much more than you do; I love them so much that I am willing to sacrifice myself, be attacked by people like you, in the process of telling people the truth. If the bridge up ahead is out, I am going to try to warn you; the precise reason I am warning you is because I do not want anyone to be lost. But, you have a free will, and you can continue to reject the truth if you want, just like in one of Jesus’ parables they kept killing the people sent to them by the owner of the vineyard.
Jesus was speaking of those who would reject listening or welcoming the disciples. The original person- in the news story – did not threaten the priest – no where does it say that she did not listen to his words. What you offer is the smoking gun evidence that you have reinterpreted Scripture for your own gain and to promote your own self-righteousness. Jesus accepted everyone unconditianlly and attempted always to lead them to the right path that would allow them to find what God is offering them.
Concerned — when you respond to a post of mine, I would appreciate it if you would be coherent. I probably could figure out what you mean if I took a great deal of time to study your post — but your thoughts are not worth my time.
But, your last sentence — while not clearly linked to the rest of your post — is easily refuted by today’s Gospel (Matthew 10:34-36). Now, instead of you posting a nasty, specious, unsubstantiated ad hominum attack in a response to me, why don’t you go read and meditate on today’s Gospel? It will do you and all of us a lot more than you continuing to spew your venom.
You are right Eileen. When the example of Jesus is followed everything works som much better.
And that example, Concerned, includes what Jesus said to the woman they intended to stone, after He saved her by writing with His finger in the sand: “Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. But, GO AND SIN NO MORE.” So, the person you are suggesting we model ourselves after modeled admonishment for sinfulness — so thank you, Concerned, for agreeing with me on this point that we need to model ourselves after Jesus, including His practice of the first spiritual work of mercy (admonishing the sinner).
Jesus ate with sinners – many different people. Not once did he throw them out of his sight. Not one who was forgiven and then sinned and came back to Jesus would have been unwelcome.
there should be no gloating, happiness or satisfaction that someone sinned. You celebrate that someone was denied Communion. You are filled with elation when someone is called out for not living to your criteria, as defined by you, as interpretted by you, as judged by you. Jesus welcomed all – even when Peter denied any relationship with Jesus, he was not thrown out, denied access. He was welcomed.
Concerned THANK YOU
You too, Anthony, are (incorrectly) judging me. There is not one shred of evidence you can produce that supports your contention that I gloat over others who are sinning. Yet, without evidence, you have judged me and convicted me — very interesting. I await an apology for your judgmentalness and rejection of me, a sinner.
I merely thanked Concern for his comments.
Right, Anthony. Please have some integrity. You thanked Concerned for his comment which accuses me of gloating over the sinfulness of others; and he clearly implies in his post that I am being judgmental. A logical person only could conclude that you share his thoughts. Indeed, you even shouted your agreement.
No I thanked concerned for his presences here as I thank you as well?
Okay, Anthony, I won’t push the issue, given that some have advised me to “chill” (but I keep freaking out about the fact that I can’t figure out what “chill” means) — but honestly, I think you are being disingenuous.
and once again you simply twist the Gospel to fit your own thought process and preferences. Jesus welcomed everyone – at every moment. You gloat in your self-righteousness – and I confront you about that as a concerned CHristian.
Concerned — the smoking-gun evidence that you misunderstand Jesus is at, among other places, Matthew 10:14-15: “Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” Wow, there’s the God-man telling us to vamoos when the truth will not be received. By extension, Concerned, that means Jesus would advise me and others to let you stew in your own sin — you’ll face the judge someday, and be held accountable for your pride — I won’t have to answer for your blindness. And again, your statement that I “gloat in (my) self-righteousness” — this is now your second invitation to cite the specific thing I ever have said that represents gloating. You won’t be able to find it, Concerned — except perhaps a mind that routinely twists things may see things that aren’t there.
addendum: now, it is true that Jesus wants all to be saved — but He never insists; and the evidence that He honors our free will is that some souls choose Hell for themselves — FOR AN ETERNITY, Concerned. And here’s today’s Gospel (Matthew 10:34-36): “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set
a man ‘against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ How’s that fit with your distored notion of Jesus, Concerned? You should be concerned — but mostly for yourself.
Jesus’ love and acceptance of her was not conditional. Or are you saying that God’s acceptance of us is conditional? If that is what you are saying then you are goiong against the teaching of the Catholic CHurch and the example of Jesus. God’s love and acceptance is unconditional, unmerrited and completely gift. Of course some people think they actually have earned what God has given.
Eileen: When I was studying in the R.C.I.A. group prior to becoming a Catholic Lady, our Priest reminded me that I must not partake of the Holy Eucharst. I am so thankful to this Holy man who was and still is, concerned with my everlasting soul. And when the time came when I could join the church at the “Lords Table”, well that was the most joyful day of my life.
a very different situation and for very different reasons.
Because to an unrepentant sinner, receiving the Eucharist brings damnation, not grace. The Eucharist is only a source of grace and Life to those who have been washed, but to the unbelievers and the lapsed, who have not yet been cleansed of their sins, It is poison.
our good father failed in his first duty
The Cardinal Archbishop of Washington was right in dismissing a seemingly un Pastoral priest.
Absolutely!
Sorry Warren, but you are wrong this Pastor was more concerned with her soul than being popular.
Marilyn I am only a layman with abn observation you may want to tell the Cardinal archbishop how to do his job.
The priest was right in refusing communion to someone who is living in sin.
Then who can receive the Eucharist – I am still under the impression that we are all sinners? Who is worthy of the gift of Jesus? Who is deserving? Who has meritted the infinite MERCY of God?
Concerned — “Lord I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof” — no one, obviously, is worthy to receive Jesus. His gift of Himself to us is just that: an unmerited gift. But, we need to not receive Him unworthily — i.e., not have any unconfessed mortal sins.
Good job, Father — we need more priests with intestinal fxrtxtude and clear convictions like you!
Good job Archbishop – we need more leaders who want everyone to feel welcome – just as Jesus did.