Archdiocese Of Washington Displays Its Cowardice

Here are some offerings of the "lamebrain mainstream" media regarding the funeral incident last Saturday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/193305/158/Gaithersburg-Priest-Involved-In-Funeral-Controversy

By the way - as you listen to that second one, notice two things.  At the 00:45 mark, you'll hear that "Father Guarnizo apparently learned that Barbara was involved in a romantic relationship with another woman.."  Conveniently omitted was how Father came to learn of this.  Just before the ceremony, in the sacristy, Barbara walked in as Father was vesting.  She introduced herself and "her lover" (yes, her words).  They did not give him opportunity to speak with them about Church policies for reception of Communion.  However, as is standard practice during weddings and funerals (for the  benefit of non-Catholics in attendance), he did announce the Church's requirements - making plain that the gay relationship disqualified them from such reception.

At the 00:58 mark, it is announced that she is a "lifelong Catholic and former Catholic school teacher".  It defies all common sense to pretend that she didn't know that she was ineligible to receive Holy Communion under her freely-chosen circumstances.  

I know that Father Guarnizo went to the chancery offices and explained what had happened.  You can see a summary of that embodied in my previous post.  None of that seemed to matter to the chancery officials - many of them turn a blind eye themselves when the Pelosi-and-Biden types strut up for Communion.  They cringe at the thought of the slightest criticism from the mainstream media, and their courage collapses like a house of cards if the liberal media so much as looks cross-eyed at them.  

Thus we see that Bishop Barry Knestout, Vicar General of the Archdiocese, threw Father Guarnizo under the bus by issuing this groveling "apology" to Ms Johnson.  In the second paragraph, the bishop claims that Ms Johnson did not experience "kindness" and "charity" from Father Guarnizo.  I beg to differ - and that difference hinges on what constitutes "kindness and charity".  It would NOT have been "kind" of Father Guarnizo to facilitate for Ms. Johnson the mortal sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion.  And just what did Bishop Knestout think would have been the "pastorally sensitive" thing to do?   Canon 915 lays it right out there.  This apology is not only an attempt to appease those who embrace dissidence from Church teachings, but is also an attempt to justify the archdiocese's own fecklessness in the face of their obligations to obey Canon 915.  The yap and yammer about "pastoral sensitivity" is mere smoke and mirrors to excuse their own disobedience to Church law.

I understand that there is talk of transferring Father Guarnizo elsewhere or even asking him to leave the archdiocese.  Barbara Johnson made plain her intention to have Father Guarnizo removed from parish life in this diocese.  I regret to say that the Feckless Ones within the DC chancery will leap to do her bidding in that regard.  But there might be a miracle.  Let us pray that someone in the DC pastoral center finds a backbone and realizes that his Sacrament of Ordination really means service to Jesus Christ even to martyrdom.  Perhaps they'll take some inspiration from Father Guarnizo.

Let us pray for all involved - particularly Barbara Johnson.  As much as the chancery has thrown Fr Guarnizo under the bus, it is she who has received the greatest disservice from the Archdiocese of Washington.

Please contact the Archdiocese.  Let them know that you take a dim view of their behavior.  If you haven't made a pledge yet to the Cardinal's Appeal, you might want to hold off on that for a while.

A Canonical Defense Of Father Guarnizo

Such is the title of the article on Pewsitter written by a priest and canon lawyer.  He wishes to remain anonymous; it takes no great imagination to fathom why.  His points remain valid nonetheless.  Should an irate bishop learn of his posting and prevail upon him to take it down, I have copied it and now post it in its entirety.  It's a long read (but well worth it), so I'll put it after the jump break.

Open Letter To The Nuncio

Note: I sent this via email to: nuntiususa@nuntiususa.org

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States

3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W 

Washington, DC

Your Excellency,

I write to you as a Catholic in the Archdiocese of Washington and as a parishioner of St John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.  No doubt you are aware of the matter regarding Father Marcel Guarnizo, former parochial vicar at St John Neumann.  On February 25, 2012, Father offered a funeral Mass for one of the parishioners.  Shortly before Mass, the daughter of the deceased came into the sacristy while Father was vesting with another woman.  The daughter presented the other woman to Father as “her lover”.  Father was prevented from addressing the daughter further.  When the daughter came forward for Holy Communion, Father discreetly advised her that reception of Holy Communion was impossible due to her ongoing mortal sin of homosexual conduct.  Much controversy has erupted over the matter.  I have catalogued much of it on my blog http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com .

I regret to inform you that the behavior of both Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Knestout towards Father Guarnizo has been rather utterly despicable.  They immediately announced that Father Guarnizo had acted improperly and apologized to the woman for not being allowed to commit the sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion reception (In fact, she did receive from another minister who was unaware of her status and previous interactions with Father).   When several of us in the blogosphere successfully uncovered facts about the daughter that lessened her credibility as an accuser of Father Guarnizo, charges of “intimidating behavior” were immediately lodged against Father.  Needless to say I hold the timing of these charges to be highly suspect.

A week later Father Guarnizo was informed that his assignment at St John Neumann had ended and that his priestly faculties were removed.  I think it is only Father’s status as a priest for the Archdiocese of Moscow that shielded him from being suspended as a priest.  Two days ago Father released a statement that detailed the February 25 funeral and subsequent events from his perspective.  My blog links to the several sources of that statement; it is worthy of your study.

Cardinal Wuerl’s record of obedience to Canon 915 has been deplorable.  He himself has made plain that he has no intentions of obeying Canon 915 as plainly written.  See http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=dbc84fb0-aacd-4dad-bfb5-2b27538150cd for his own admission.   Now it seems there is a vendetta against any priest who might take seriously the protection of the Blessed Sacrament from blasphemy, profanation and sacrilege, and his treatment of Father Guarnizo is the latest manifestation of such.

Your Excellency, I hereby request that you commence your own investigation into this disturbing matter.  Surely you can see what the treatment of Father Guarnizo will do to the morality of priests not only in this diocese but throughout the world.  This matter has garnered much attention.  I am copying this letter not only to the Archdiocese of Washington but to my own blog for all to see.  Please be advised that I am urging like-minded parties to cease contributions to the Cardinal’s Appeal collection.  Whatever else the 6^th Precept of the Church means, it does not mean throwing one’s hard-earned money at an organization that is bent on destroying the vocations of good priests such as Father Marcel Guarnizo.  Only when I am certain that Father has received justice and yes, his own apology will I consider rescinding my call for a boycott of Archdiocesan collections.

Your Excellency, for the sake of all concerned, I urge your immediate action.

Thank you

Webmaster

http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com

The Archdiocese of Washington's Apology

So much error - so little time!  But I'll give it my best shot.  Before I do so, let me state that what I'm writing requires no advanced theology degree - just the common sense that God gave to a billy goat!  Here is the piece of slop so that you can read it for yourselves.

First, I'm under no illusion that Bishop Knestout is solely responsible for this.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was written (or at least inspired) by someone else who then asked Bishop Knestout to put his name to it.  At the very least, Cardinal Wuerl would have at least reviewed and approved this before it was published.

My understanding of the purpose of the Requiem Mass is that it is held to commend the soul of the deceased to God's mercy and to perhaps lessen any time in Purgatory.  A secondary purpose is to encourage all in attendance to consider their final end - to remind them that they need to prepare now for their judgment before God's throne, as none of us knows the hour of our passing.  No where in that "apology" do we see mention of these essential purposes of the Requiem Mass.  Instead, we read of "comfort from the Church", "celebration of your mother's life" and "fond remembrance".  At best, these are ancillary to the proper consideration of the Last Things and for prayers for the deceased.

By her own doing, Father Guarnizo was made very aware of the precarious state of Ms. Johnson's soul.  She unambiguously declared before Father that she was living in a state of mortal sin - one that posed imminent danger of hell to her immortal soul.  Given the nature of the Mass that was about to take place, Father Guarnizo would have been incredibly remiss in his true priestly duties had he pretended that Ms. Johnson's situation was not as grave as it really was (probably still is).  Yet this apology suggests that is what Father should have done for the sake of mere sentimentality.  While Bishop Knestout disingenuously accuses Father Guarnizo of not being "pastoral", it is he (and the ghost writer of the apology) who display their true lack of pastoral sense in suggesting to Father, and to all the readers, that the proper thing to do would have been to ignore the dreadful peril of hell to which Ms Johnson was subjecting herself by her lifestyle.

The final paragraph voices hope for "healing and reconciliation with the Church".  I echo that hope, but realize that such healing and reconciliation will only occur if Ms. Johnson repents of the disordered lesbian lifestyle and avails herself of the Sacrament of Confession.  Nowhere in this "apology" do I see any entreaty for Ms. Johnson to make a good confession, and to do so soon.  Without the Sacrament of Penance, such a wish for "healing and reconciliation" is a siren call to a false and eternally deadly "comfort".  In voicing this baseless false comfort, the bishop is acting as a blind shepherd leading the blind sheep.  Father Guarnizo is the only cleric in this matter who has pointed the way to true healing and reconciliation - and for that he has been slapped down by the very people who should be supporting him.

This "apology" is an insult not only to Father Guarnizo, but to all good Catholics who strive to live by the Church's authentic teachings.  It is Father Guarnizo who deserves a real apology from the chancery.

How NOT To Pray For Father Guarnizo's Situation

I received yesterday a suggestion for prayer regarding Father Guarnizo's situation; many of you readers received the same thing so you'll know immediately to what I refer.  I respect the writer as a person of prayer and a faithful Catholic, but I think some things in his letter warrant some "due diligence" examination.

In regards to the specific situation, he expresses concern saying, "I see many of us upset because of injustice, perceived lack of ecclesial backing, love for Fr. Marcel etc."    PERCEIVED????   Not merely perceived - the injustice to Father Guarnizo is all too real.  I find the use of that adjective to be most troubling, as it can have the effect of causing others to doubt the clear evidence in front of their faces and to minimize the real harm being done to this good priest.

The writer of this call to prayer correctly notices that we are upset and even angry about what is happening to Father.  From my reading of this email, it seems that he believes our anger is a problem that can cause disunity.  Well, maybe it can - if it is not utilized properly.  One way it can be a problem is if it's treated as a problem rather than as a God-given emotion that can help motivate constructive action and yes, real prayer.  St John Chrysostom said "he who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins".  Here is what I believe to be a fairly balanced treatise on anger.

Let me be frank.  There is disunity, but it is being caused by the capitulation that is going on within the ranks of the chancery - the "apology" issued by Bishop Knestout (under the likely guidance by the Cardinal) being one prime example.  If there is to be true unity, must it not be founded on truth rather than emotional "calm"?  The "apology" contains a good bit of error; I'll touch on that in another post.

There is another line in that email that causes me concern.  It reads,"Through baptism in the Spirit we have the tools, the gifts that we need to act against the devil."   Does the author therefore imply that those who have not experienced "baptism in the Spirit" lack "the gifts and tools needed to act against the devil"?  On its face, that statement is incorrect.  "Baptism in the Spirit" is not the source of our gifts.  We have these through the Sacraments, through prayer, the Church's teaching and the practice of virtue.  "Baptism in the spirit", while it may be beneficial to some, is still extraneous to the Seven Sacraments.  Some of us (including the author of that email) will recall what Cardinal Hickey told the Mother of God Community when he came in September 1995 to address us: "baptism in the Spirit is not essential to the Christian life; those who do not receive baptism in the Spirit are not second-class Christians!"   The statement in the email smacks of the misunderstanding that the late Cardinal addressed in that part of his address (3rd paragraph under "teaching").  Any baptized and confirmed Catholic who is pursuing the life of grace via reception of the Sacraments, pursuit of prayer and virtue, has these same "tools and gifts".

I fear that this well-intentioned message will cause its readers to engage in "paralysis by analysis".  Of course we must pray as there is definitely a diabolical impetus behind the mischief being wrought against Father Guarnizo.  But we don't want to let a false humility lure us into a passive stance in this matter.  We must continue our efforts in petitioning the chancery to do the right thing and to stand by Father Guarnizo as opposed to throwing him under the bus to appease the ravenous wolves at their doors.  By the Sacraments that we have received, we have the wherewithal to do that.

Michigan Priest Denies Holy Communion To Flagrant, Arrogant Lesbian Judge - Action Needed Now

Father Scott Nolan of St Stephen parish in the Diocese of Grand Rapids (MI) denied Holy Communion to an openly lesbian judge.  The judge's name is Sara Smolenski and she is the chief judge of the Kent County District Court; she and her accomplice in perversion are pretending that they are "married" with the help of civil courts.  Fr. Nolan advised her in private that she was living a sinful lifestyle.  Still, she presented herself for Holy Communion. Father, in obedience to Canon 915, denied her Communion.  Immediately Smolenski took to mainstream media to pout about the matter and to gin up opposition to Father Nolan simply because the latter acted like an actual Catholic priest.

Long-time readers of this blog will realize why this story immediately caught my eye.  Over seven years ago in my own parish, just as Lent 2012 was getting underway, Father Guarnizo likewise denied Holy Communion to another flaming lesbian.  One just has to go into this blog's archives circa March 2012 to get an idea of the situation.  The mainstream media likewise jumped all over that story and it even caught international attention.  The two situations are similar in many respects, but differ in one key, striking manner.

Reading through Fr Guarnizo's story, one will see that the Archdiocese of Washington acted immediately to evict Fr Guarnizo from the Archdiocese.  I've no doubt that they would have suspended him as a priest, had it not been for the fact that he's incardinated in another diocese.  While the situation was unfolding, I thought that the chancery's actions were simply the result of cowardice and wanting to toady to the politically correct and powerful.  At the time, McCarrick was still a cardinal and bishop emeritus of the DC archdioecese, and Wuerl held the helm.  Over the past few years, we've come to understand that McCarrick was himself a serial gay predator and that Wuerl was covering for him.  Those revelations shine quite a different light on their attitude towards Fr Guarnizo.  I think they ousted him because his presence and actions seared their own sick and guilty consciences.

Father Nolan is blessed to have the support of his bishop, Bishop David Walkowiak.  He released a statement saying that Father Nolan acted correctly.  He stated that while the Church accepts its members, that it expects of its members adherence to the Church's teachings.  He did so by quoting (of all things) Amoris Laetitia.

NEEDED ACTIONS

Here is the contact information for the parish.  Please call and/or email Father to express support.  You can bet your bottom dollar that the gay nazis are out in force against him, just as they drew their long knives against Father Guarnizo seven years ago.  Here is the diocese's contact information, along with their statement regarding Father Nolan.  Thank Bishop Walkowiak for supporting his priest.

In addition to voicing support for both Father Nolan and Bishop Walkowiak, there is other action that we as the Church Militant must take.  It seems that this broad Smolenski has had her long knives pointed at Father Nolan previously.  From LifeSiteNews we read that she tried to get Father ousted as chaplain for the Catholic Lawyers' Association of Western Michigan.  When those in mortal sin refuse to repent of said sins, they hate with a passion anyone who dares to suggest that they need to repent.  They think that by hurting the truth-tellers that they can justify their filth and perversion.  Witness how the murderers of St Stephen the First Martyr covered their ears as he spoke.

Here is the website for the district courthouse in which she sits as judge.  I for one think it highly unethical that she is using her public position as a platform from which she can launch her attacks against a Catholic priest who was acting according to his responsibilities.  Of course be polite but also be firm.  For her own good, we cannot allow her attacks to go on without any rebuke to her.

Father Marcel Guarnizo On The Ed Morrissey Show

Today on the Ed Morrissey Show, Father Marcel Guarnizo discussed his recent article regarding socialism, communism and Christianity.  He made clear that three types of freedoms are inherently intertwined: cultural, political and economic.  We cannot have one of these be trampled and expect the others to remain intact.  Here is the link to the video.

As a supplement to understanding these matters as they're unfolding before our eyes, I recommend the following book.  It's called "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes Of Political Madness", written by Lyle H. Rossitter, Jr, MD.  I recommend it particularly so that we might understand why socialism has such seductive sway over so many, as Father Guarnizo noticed.  It's not an easy read, but well worth the time investment.

Father Guarnizo will be interviewed tomorrow night, 10:00pm est, by Christine Le Niles on her Forward Boldly blog-talk radio show.  Here is the link:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/forwardboldly/2014/02/09/forward-boldly-interview-with-fr-john-hollowell-fr-marcel-guarnizo

Good Priests And Their Lord At Calvary

Michael Sean Winters of the Not-So Catholic Reporter offered two articles yesterday that I think are supposed to have Good-Friday-related themes.  The first is entitled Wuerl's Cross.  On the Cardinal's behalf, he whines and snivels about the well-deserved reactions that the Cardinal has received owing to his despicable treatment of Father Marcel Guarnizo.  I remind one and all (even some canon lawyers) that Father Guarnizo acted correctly when he tried to prevent Barbara Johnson from incurring the guilt of the mortal sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion.  Winters calls that "Taliban Catholicism".  Faithful Catholics call that Catholicism - plain and simple.

His strange conception of the Cross is even more evident from another post of his from yesterday entitled Good Friday.  In it he states that "HIV/AIDS was the Calvary of the gay community", as he describes how AIDS decimated the work force of a Dupont Circle cafe (word to the wise - don't dine in Dupont Circle).  I'll be the last to doubt that AIDS is a horrific disease wrecking havoc upon its victims and their grieving families.  However, it is NOT analogous to the Passion and Death of Our Lord.  Let's be real - the bulk of AIDS cases come about through gay sexual relationships - always sinful.  If an alcoholic were to die from cirrhosis of the liver, would anyone have trouble linking that disease to his/her drinking?  Of course not - so let's drop the politically-correct blinders when it comes to gay folks falling prey to AIDS, who are reaping a tragic but very preventable consequence of sinful behavior.  What we commemorated yesterday was the sinless Son of God offering Himself as a sacrifice for our sins (including gay behavior).

It is when one suffers unjustly for doing good that we liken that suffering to that which Jesus endured (and even that suffering pales to the Crucifixion).  Such is the case with Father Guarnizo (yes George Neumayer and the rest of us "Taliban Catholics" have it right).  It is also the case with Father Michael Rodriguez, Father Gerhard Swierzek and many others who've been punished precisely because they are faithful.

For those who either:

• Think that a post during Triduum should be more "spiritual" or
• Think that I should stop bringing up Father Guarnizo's situation

There are other blogs offering excellent meditations on Easter; I'd suggest you read them.  However, there is a danger in letting our consciousness about Father Guarnizo's situation just fade - a danger to us as well as to him.  To my fellow St John Neumann parishioners, will we allow ourselves to be so shallow, will we allow our memories to be so little, that we won't recall the harm, the injustice that occurred in front of our faces just last month?  If so, what kind of people are we?  Will we be the ten disciples who cowed, or will we be the Marys, the Johns, the Magdalenes who at least stood by His Cross?  Of course we can and must continue to raise our voices as well as our prayers for him and for all unjustly-treated priests.

Homoideology And Homoheresy

These are terms coined by Polish priest Father Dariusz Oko in his report on the extent of the homosexual infiltration of the Church - even inside the Vatican.  He also uses the term "homomafia".  These are rather accurate terms.

We have long suspected this problem existed, and this report comes as no surprise to me as it describes things that I've personally seen.  Take the refusal to acknowledge the fact that the abuse of boys by clergy is obviously homosexual in nature.  When this crisis broke into national news, the Archdiocese of Washington tried to do some damage control.  They decided to have a panel of "experts" go into various parishes to "explain" the matter to parishioners.  The first one happened at St Raphael's in Rockville.  They tried to tell us that pedophilia targets both boys and girls in the general population.  We pointed out that our focus was not "the general population" but the Roman Catholic clerical abusers whose victims were 90% pubescent boys.  That and other reminders of pesky facts was not appreciated; I could see it in their eyes.  Guess what?  That "first panel" was also the "last panel".  We never heard a peep from them again.

Just last year we saw a dramatic manifestation of the gay problem within the Archdiocese of Washington - and at St John Neumann Church in particular.  I blogged extensively about Father Marcel Guarnizo who was then stationed at St Joh Neumann.  He denied Holy Communion to a flagrantly practicing lesbian.  Without so much as even interviewing Father Guarnizo, Bishop Barry Knestout handed to Father the papers that informed him that he was no longer to function as a priest within the Archdiocese of Washington.  Father Guarnizo is incardinated within the Archdiocese of Moscow.  Had he been incardinated here, I strongly suspect his faculties would have been suspended altogether.  Now we all know how long it can take to get things done within the chancery, don't we?  Didn't this maltreatment of Father Guarnizo happen lickety-split? I've no doubt that the homomafia within the Church was ten-thousand-percent behind the Archdiocese of Washington's despicable maltreatment of the good priest Father Guarnizo.  If anyone thinks me incorrect, I defy you to provide cogent reasons why!

Yesterday's LifeSite News features an article that ties together the various events that have erupted over the past few days, including the Vatileaks situation.  It also has a link to the report by Father Oko.  It is a downloadable pdf; I do suggest that you download it to your own computers.  Also take the time to read the "related articles" linked at the bottom.  I'll post the Vortex video below.

Some Thoughts Regarding The Archdiocese's Disgusting Treatment Of Father Guarnizo

I think it most significant that today's Gospel is the account of Jesus forcibly evicting from the temple the sellers of sacrificial animals and the money changers.  Mind you, He did not take what so many post-modern clergy would call a "pastoral approach".  Read John 2:13-25.  He drove them out with a whip and overturned all the tables, shouting "Stop making My Father's house into a market place."  I dare to speculate that the chief priests and those in charge of the temple might have had their noses put out of joint over the whole incident - and I dare to speculate that Our Lord cared not one whit.

Now just for review, I'm going to quote Canon 915.  It's very brief and very simple.  Here it is.  "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."  How can it possibly be more clear in its intent?    This canon binds upon ministers of Holy Communion - such as Father Guarnizo at that Feb 25th funeral.  Notice that it says that people in mortal sin "are not to be admitted" - period.  There is no provision for "pastoral options".  If a minister of Holy Communion knowingly admits such a person to Holy Communion, he/she has disobeyed Canon 915.  Moreover, he/she will have cooperated with that recipient's commission of another mortal sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion.  Such cooperation, being formal and material, would then constitute mortal sin for the minister him/herself.  That's it - pure and simple.  To understand this, one only need have a grasp of grammar and the ability to read a sentence.  No advanced theology or canon law degree is required here, for there is absolutely no nuance about Canon 915.

Five years ago, my Catholic Media Coalition colleague, Allyson Smith of the California Catholic Daily, interviewed then-Archbishop Wuerl when the latter made a trip to California.  She queried him on his refusal to obey Canon 915 in relation to Nancy Pelosi, who was using her high position to advance both abortion and same-sex marriage.  It seems that Canon 915 doesn't fit in with his "style of pastoral ministry".  The account of the interview is on the CalCatholic website for your review.

At the funeral on February 25th, Father Guarnizo obeyed Canon 915.  His obedience puts to shame the disobedience of Cardinal Wuerl.  Is this one of the unspoken reasons why Father Guarnizo is being punished?  And yes, it is a punishment.

Last month, when Chris Matthews sullied Blessed Sacrament Church by peddling his book there, we had petitioned the DC chancery to have that book-signing event cancelled.  Mind you, Matthews is an individual who has showcased his dissidence from Church teaching on abortion and gay marriage many times on his Hardball show.  He went so far as to invite Bishop Tobin to speak with him and then proceeded to revile him to his face.  I posted the youtube of that.  The chancery's response to this profanation of Blessed Sacrament was to say that they wouldn't bother to involve themselves with it.

Now contrast that indifference with their attitude towards a priest who had the courage to obey Canon 915 in the face of flak that he knew he would receive.  Certainly the chancery did not assume their patrician, hands-off indifferent attitude in this matter.  After the funeral, Barbara Johnson wrote a letter to Fr Guarnizo stating that "I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life.."

Well, it looks like she got the chancery to play along with her game of vengeance and to do her bidding like good little lap-dogs.  Did it occur to Cardinal Wuerl that in so doing, that he is confirming Ms Johnson in her mortally sinful lifestyle?  How does that fit in with any legitimate "style of pastoral ministry"?  Is he that afraid of the gay community's profanity-laced emails that he'll do anything to get them to stop?  Or could it be that niggling contrast between his disobedience of, and Father's obedience to, Canon 915?

By the way - the Abbey Roads blog has a copy of the letter read at today's Masses.

Archdiocese Restates Its Cowardice In Father Guarnizo Matter

On February 25th, at a funeral Mass at St John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg, Father Marcel Guarnizo (then assigned to that parish) quietly withheld Holy Communion from the daughter of the deceased.  The daughter was at the time (most likely still is) actively engaged in a homosexual relationship.

From that day onward, through March and beyond, I posted very extensively on this matter.  There's no need to rehash the particulars here; anyone unfamiliar with this matter can go back and examine the posts and related links.

Today the Archdiocese of Washington confirmed that Father Guarnizo will no more serve in the Archdiocese of Washington.  You can read the accounts of MSNBC and the Washington Post.  The loss is that of the Archdiocese of Washington.  The shame is that of the chancery - right up to Cardinal Wuerl himself.

At the bottom of the Post article, you'll read that Fr Guarnizo gave an address a week ago Saturday during a symposium on "Religious Freedom and Democracy" at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, VA.  I was in attendance and recorded Father's address.  It was an excellent address and I urge you to listen here.

Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - Time To Take Action

Today, at the 9:30 Mass at St John Neumann parish, Father LaHood read a letter from Bishop Barry Knestout announcing the suspension of Father Marcel Guarnizo's priestly faculties.  Did I say the letter was penned by Bishop Knestout?  Let's not kid ourselves!  This letter came straight from the top - Cardinal Wuerl.  I'll bet my bottom dollar that all Bishop Knestout did was change the wording slightly (so that he could call the letter "his" with a straight face) and sign the thing.  I really don't think he's to blame, as he is vowed to obedience, as is Father LaHood bound to obedience in reading this thing with the introductory comments.  I recorded it so you can listen to the entire thing right here.

You'll hear towards the middle of the clip that "the issue discussed did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago.  The issue pertains to actions over the past week or so."  Then Father proceeds to read the letter from Cardinal Wuerl Bishop Knestout whoever.   He announced the suspension and that it was taken after he "received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior towards parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."

Why, isn't it just the most peculiar of coincidences that these "credible allegations" are coming out of the woodwork on the heels of the Holy Communion issue two weeks ago?  Father Guarnizo has been at the parish a year now - so these "intimidating behaviors" are now just beginning to surface?   Just what is the nature of these "intimidating behaviors"?  Who are the offended parties?  Unless we see some real basis of these allegations, I'm willing to bet that - none exist!

I think we bloggers did too good of a job in revealing Ms. Johnson's utter lack of credibility.  It certainly did her no good that there were other eye witnesses at the funeral Mass that contradicted her account of the events there.  Thus the Archdiocese cannot act upon Ms. Johnson's complaints without being tainted with her lack of credibility.  In other words, Plan A is shot, so they come up with Plan B.

So where are all these offended parish staff?  Let's hear from them!  If you post, don't do so anonymously for I will ascribe to it no credibility whatsoever.  But I don't think there will be any such posts, for I believe there is really no such subject matter.

In the title of this post I said it's time to take action - perhaps it's way past that time.  What do I suggest?  Well, if you read the blog posts of A Washington DC Catholic, you'll see he suggested it first.  I'm talking of suspension of your Cardinal's Appeal pledges.  I agree with the other blogger when he says that's the only language that the bureaucrats in the chancery seem to understand from us.  Of course let the chancery know precisely why they should not expect one more penny from you.  Contact information is here.

So what to do with that money?  Recalling that we are bound, under the Precepts of the Church, to support its work financially, I'd suggest taking that money and giving it directly to a Catholic and/or prolife cause that you know to be worthy of your donations: a crisis pregnancy center, a solid seminary, soup kitchen - there are numerous worthy candidates for your donations.  Clearly "the work of the Church" does not mean throwing good priests under the bus when they uphold Canon 915 and I for one will not support that.

Just Who Is Silencing The Church's Voice?

Almost two weeks ago I noted the peculiar definition of "dissent" as coined by Cardinal Wuerl in a blog post that he wrote.  He hopes to warp the meaning of the word to convey "one who disagrees with the pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position".  Yes, I agree the structure of that sentence is awkward but it isn't mine.  The structure is twisted because of the attempt to twist the meaning of the word "dissent".

Because almost everyone with a brain understood him to imply that Cardinal Burke is a "dissenter" (according to his odd definition of that word), he felt impelled to go into "damage control" mode.  Often, though, "damage control" winds up causing more damage.  America magazine interviewed him.  (Hint: For examples of "dissent" as the word is classically defined, just read an issue or two of that rag!  But I digress!)  As my friend at the Tenth Crusade noted, the Cardinal does a "Fred Astaire", or at least he attempts it.

Here's a rather telling statement from him, regarding the sin-nod (in response to the first question).  "In the closing hour of that daylong discussion, I noted in my brief intervention that obviously there is no challenge to the teaching of the church on the indissolubility of marriage. I also pointed out that many participants distinguish between the doctrine on marriage and the pastoral practice of reception of Communion for those divorced and remarried."  (Italics mine)   May I assume from this that in addition to Cardinal Burke being a "dissenter", that Cardinal Gerhard Muller also fits Wuerl's definition of that word?  Cardinal Muller did state, "Each division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of the faith would be a reflection of a subtle Christological ‘heresy."  What Cardinal Muller said is very true.  Those "many participants that Cardinal Wuerl mentioned are dabbling in heresy.  Enough of that for now.

Three days ago, Cardinal Wuerl posted another piece on his blog.  This one is entitled, "Silencing The Church's Voice".  In it he voices this complaint: "But today there is a new challenge. Some who reject the Church’s teaching – who choose to live by another set of values – not only find the voice of Christian values annoying, they would like to see it silenced or at least muted. Thus we have a whole new upside down version of words like 'discrimination,' 'freedom' and 'human rights,' and laws to enforce the new meaning."  While these words are true enough, they ring ironic and I daresay hypocritical in light of his treatment of Father Marcel Guarnizo three years ago.  I now present an anthology of posts I did as that incident and its fallout were unfolding at the time.  To reiterate: Father Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion to a flagrantly practicing lesbian.  This woman and her cohort raised a ruckus, whereupon the Archdiocese of Washington immediately surrendered to the gay community and threw Father Guarnizo under the bus.  In this scenario it was Cardinal Wuerl who played the part of the one "silencing and muting the voice of Christian values".  If he truly is serious about what he wrote three days ago, he might want to revisit his conduct (along with Bishop Knestout) of three years ago for his actions against Father Guarnizo can only have emboldened those who seek to stifle Christian morality in our culture today.

Another cleric who tried to silence the "voice of Christian values" is Father Thomas Rosica.  You might recall that he threatened to sue David Domet, the blogger behind Vox Cantoris because he had been shining the light on Father Rosica's misconduct.  After other faithful Catholics (and bloggers) got wind of it, we caused that light to be glaring.  Father Rosica caught a glimmer of that light (or he was instructed by higher-ups to stand down) and backpedaled on his legal threat.

Along with prayer, we'll have to continue to speak out.  If we shine the light on these folks relentlessly, we can at least mitigate the damage if not eliminate it altogether.

Father Guarnizo On Kresta In The Afternoon

Today Father Marcel Guarnizo was a guest on Ave Maria's Kresta in the Afternoon radio show.  I have linked to the podcast.  Many long-time readers of this blog will recall that Father Guarnizo, while parochial vicar at St John Nuemann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, withheld Holy Communion from an avowed and practicing lesbian.  In doing so, he was obeying Canon 915 and attempting to keep her from committing yet another mortal sin by receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously.   I won't get into the detail here as it can be found in previous posts.  The podcast of the show is here.



Kresta introduced Father (at the 17:40 mark) and asked him to comment about the incident.  Father pointed out that he still remains a priest in good standing with all faculties intact (at the 23:30 mark).  He declined further comment, pointing out (at the 23:48 mark) that the matter is being investigated by Cardinal Wuerl's superiors.

The conversation then turned towards the synod where Father Guarnizo currently is.  Pope Benedict XVI and the synod fathers are addressing the need for reevangelization of the world.  In talking of the economic and cultural situation in western Europe, Father had much to say about the need for sound economics and the damage done by welfare states (at the 34:00 mark).  I wonder in listening to this if we may have unearthed some of the motive behind the horrid treatment Father received last March, given some progressive elements that lurk in both the DC chancery and the USCCB.

Some Others Weigh In On Father Guarnizo's Situation

Newsbusters takes an understandably dim view of the lack of research done by the Washington Post before they published Barbara Johnson's sob-story account of the events of February 25th.  Read Tim Graham's article here.

Then we have this piece by Ann Barnhardt (you may need to scroll down to March 4, 2012).  I've come to appreciate her no-nonsense way of stating things.  Then we have Matt Abbott of Renew America writing of "A Lesbian's Wrath".

Now read this about "Fall Guy Priests".  This tells the stories of good priests who've been back-stabbed by their bishops/superiors, etc.  Herein we read of Father Guarnizo, Father Michael Rodriguez and others.

To the trolls of the Archdiocese of Washington - Please read these articles closely.  Take them back to the Cardinal.  Please advise him that we are not buying the partisan line that Father Guarnizo "acted inappropriately".  The chancery needs to take some lessons from Father Guarnizo, not vice versa.

Two Newspapers Earn Booby-Prizes For Lousy Reporting On Father Guarnizo's Situation

First booby-prize - the Washington Post (again!)

I suppose we can all be thankful that there are no looming disasters in the world that are of note.  How else could a rehash of the February 25 incident with Father Guarnizo have made it onto the front page of the Washington Post's Sunday edition?

Michael Rosenwald and Michelle Boorstein try to compare Father Guarnizo and Barbara Johnson, claiming that they are simply just two very different Catholics.   While that itself is laughable on its face, there are more things in this article to tickle the funnybone.  So let's proceed to unpack this sloppy excuse for journalism.

First, when the Post writes that Father "has essentially accused church officials of lying", they are referring to the statement that Father released this past Thursday.  I reproduced that in my post that day.  He simply relayed the facts as he saw them.  Had he remained silent, he himself would have lied in doing so.

A few paragraphs down, we read that Father "was known as a particularly intimidating protester in weekly demonstrations outside a Germantown abortion clinic."  That clinic would be the late-term facility operated by Leroy Carhart, who murders late-term babies.  Father has been instrumental in convincing some mothers not to have this done to their babies.  I suppose from the abortionists' perspective, anyone or anything that cuts into their profit margin is "intimidating".  Otherwise, the notion of Father being intimidating is silly when one considers that Father stands about 5'6" and is 130 pounds tops.

Moving on, we see mention of "much-debated canon law".  Canon 915 is actually quite clear in and of itself.  Yes, this is a canon that ministers of Holy Communion are bound (not "requested" but bound) to obey.  It is quite scandalous that the Archbishop of Washington DC holds this Canon in disdain.  Father upheld it.

Then we read of Mother of God Community, a charismatic community located across the street from the St John Neumann Church.  Father Guarnizo is a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow.  The two religion writers of the Washington Post write this incredible statement: "The Catholic archdiocese in Moscow appears to be part of that community."  Do you think these "religion writers" should have done just a little research on these two entities?  For the Mother of God Community, all they had to do was search the Post's own archives for articles written in 1997.  Actually the history of Mother of God Community (at least a good-enough synopsis) is on the Post's own website!  Now here's an article from Wikipedia on Roman Catholicism in Russia.  Do these writers really believe that an entire archdiocese is an arm of a group of charismatic Catholics that runs out of a relatively small office complex on Goshen Road?  Do they have common sense?

Then the Post writers quote this less-than-authoritative comment from Fr Thomas Reese, SJ.: "If I was Cardinal [Donald W.] Wuerl, I’d buy him a one-way ticket to Moscow.   These days, arch-conservative priests feel much more comfortable attacking their bishops than do liberals because they feel they’ll get support from conservative Catholic blogs and maybe some in the Vatican."  The article states that Reese is the former editor of the liberal Catholic magazine "America".  They fail to mention why he's the former editor - in a nutshell, Pope Benedict XVI gave Reese the "heave-ho" as one of the first acts of his pontificate.  I mention that only to give an idea of Reese's credibility - or lack thereof.

Second booby-prize  - Our Parish Times!

What did they have to say?  Nothing!  Nada!  Zippo!  The page for St John Neumann is filled with the usual happy-clappy stuff - but not one peep about the funeral incident.  Please don't tell me that the paper went to print before it happened for I saw reports of other events that occurred as late as March 3, a week after the incident hit the Post and other media outlets.  The silence is deafening and disingenuous.  I might have expected that from the Catholic Standard, the Archdiocesan mouthpiece that would be itching to cover up the chancery's malfeasance.  But I thought that Our Parish Times was independent of the chancery's control.  That paper has gone downhill since Bob McCarthy's column disappeared.

Cardinal Burke: Nancy Pelosi Must Be Denied Holy Communion

LifeSiteNews published an article regarding an interview given by Cardinal Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura.   The article links to the full interview as reproduced by the Wanderer.

As he commented about the status of the Church in the United States, he touched on many topics: the gay agenda, abortion, Tridentine Mass.  When asked about a particularly scandalous statement that Nancy Pelosi made regarding the Faith, he replied, "Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied." (emphasis mine)  Very simply, Canon 915 states that "those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion".

Notice that His Eminence did not say that she shouldn't present herself for Holy Communion (that would be Canon 916).  No doubt he is aware that she would arrogantly do so anyway.  In invoking Canon 915, Cardinal Burke clearly lays the onus on the two bishops who would, before God, have some spiritual responsibility for Pelosi: Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco (her home diocese) and Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington DC (her "home-away-from-home" diocese).  Cardinal Wuerl has already made known his aversion to Canon 915.  Did I say "aversion"?  Perhaps "disregard" is a better word.  In fact, recall that in Lent of 2012, he actually punished a priest, Father Marcel Guarnizo for upholding Canon 915.  Most of my Feb-March 2012 posts elaborated on that disgraceful action of the DC chancery in regard to Father Guarnizo.

What Cardinal Wuerl and so many others call a "pastoral" approach is cowardice and/or currying of favor of powerful dissidents.  There is no real regard for the eternal destinies of Pelosi and others like her.  The real pastoral approach can be found in the words and practices of both Cardinal Burke and Father Guarnizo.

Father Guarnizo At Germantown Rally

This session of 40 Days for Life will conclude a week from tomorrow.  At the beginning of this session several weeks ago, in Germantown MD, Father Marcel Guarnizo of St John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg delivered an address at the Kick-Off Rally.  He addressed the obligation (not option but obligation) for all Christians to combat the evil of abortion.  It is important to note that this particular 40 Days location is at the Germantown location of Leroy Carhart, and the church where Fr Guarnizo delivered this address is literally around the corner from the mill.   Watch Father's address below.  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.

Lifesite News Report On The Denial Of Holy Communion Last Week

Lifesite News has more details on what transpired just before the funeral Mass last weekend at St John Neuman Church in Gaithersburg, MD.  Please read it.  You'll see that Father was actually impeded from having that "private, pastoral" meeting with Ms. Johnson.  Father had no choice but to deny her Communion.  Mind you, Ms. Johnson did not have to present herself for Holy Communion.  Indeed, Canon 916 binds her to abstain until such time as she makes a worthy Confession.  Again, all this was made clear to chancery officials at the onset, rendering all the more pathetic and inept the apology that Bishop Knestout pronounced.  Moreover, his reprimand of Father Guarnizo was utterly lacking in respect for the truth and the Eucharist, let alone justice for Father Guarnizo.

The Lifesite News article states that Ms. Johnson is the author of lesbian erotic literature.  Thus it can be asked if the woman who was denied Holy Communion last week is this individual?  Here's another.  Notice that this one is set in Delaware and DC, which makes understandable Lifesite New's allegation that this author was at St. John Neumann Church last weekend.  If "Barbara Johnson the smut author" and "Barbara Johnson who was at St John Neumann last week" are one and the same, this sheds new light upon her desire to see Father Guarnizo removed from the priesthood.  It also would make Bishop Knestout's apology appear all the more foolish.

Pro-Aborts And Vatican Progressives Lash Against Those Who Speak Truth

It seems that if Archbishop Fisichella has his way, Yours Truly (and others) will be excommunicated for speaking the truth about the grievous errors that are pouring forth from the Vatican on a daily basis, with a goodly portion of that error coming from the pope.  In the same breath with which he spoke of this "year of mercy", he said that those who speak out against the pope's errors are guilty of "physical violence" and might require the ministrations of these specially-commissioned "missionaries of mercy".   Fortunately, this nonsense from Fisichella appears to be its own collection of many errors; Dr. Ed Peters, canon lawyer, did an analysis that showed Fisichella's claims to be in contradiction to canon law.

While I'm sure that won't stop Fisichella, it does show how hollow are his veiled threats.  I suspect that won't stop him or his buddies from attempting to silence us and prevent us from upholding Catholic truth.  Similar things were accomplished in the Archdiocese of Washington over three years ago.  In my own parish, at the beginning of Lent, Father Marcel Guarnizo denied Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian, thus upholding Canon 915.  When she went pouting to the Washington Post, Bishop Knestout - with the approval, if not direct order, from Cardinal Wuerl - stripped Father Guarnizo of his faculties and apologized to the lesbian for the attempt to prevent her from committing sacrilege.  She made no secret that she wanted to destroy Father Guarnizo.  Had Father been incardinated in this diocese and not elsewhere, I'm sure that the cowards of the DC chancery would have fallen all over themselves to do her bidding and laicize Father.

On another front, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch (a Minion Most Mindless if ever there was one) threatened to "take action" against "anti-muslim speech".  Apparently the Messiah Most Miserable is quite adept at picking officials who neither know nor respect the US Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.  Now, after a well-deserved drubbing after her tyrannical remarks, she appears to be back-peddling a bit.  Too late, Toots!  You're wise if you don't overreach yourself but now we know how your brain ticks (using the word "brain" loosely).

Do you see a pattern here?  Progressive lemmings ensconced in high places, be it the Vatican or Washington DC, are lashing out against those who are exposing their chicanery.  When the light shines, cockroaches run and they resent those who shine it.  Perhaps we prick their consciences when we do, or simply make it harder for them to do their misdeeds under scrutiny.  By God's grace, we must be doing something right; their rage and venom is proof.  Hopefully they'll learn and be converted to real Christianity.