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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Msgr Pope On Denying Holy Communion To Those In De Facto Adulterous Situations

Yesterday Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington posted a piece called "Musings And Concerns On The Synod".  Below he gives very sound reasonings why the distribution of Holy Communion to those in irregular situations would be gravely harmful and thus morally impossible.  I urge you to read this and study it.

Obviously Cardinal Wuerl might take exception to this post. Using Father Guarnizo as his example, he already has demonstrated disdain for those priests who do uphold Canon 915; you see, it's just "not his style" AND he "follows a pastoral approach, not a canonical approach".  That last quote is quite telling, as it sheds much light on what the progressive bishops mean by their "pastoral, not doctrinal" gobblygoop that is spewing from their mouths at the SinNod.

Given the subject matter involved and the fact that Msgr Pope differs from the local bishop regarding Canon 915, I think it's possible that this Oct 9th post could suffer the same fate as did Msgr's post regarding Cardinal Dolan and the now-putrefied St Patrick's Day parade.  Therefore I have saved it below, should the link return an error message.

The text of Msgr Pope's post follows:

We are seeing in Rome a rather unusual unfolding of the Synod, wherein cardinals and bishops with very different points of view are airing those differences quite publicly. Even prior to the Synod there was the publication of various competing books.

To be fair to the bishops and cardinals, it would seem that Pope Francis himself has largely encouraged this. It is more typical at synods for the sparring and debates to take place more privately, and press conferences usually just issue summaries of things discussed. Time will tell of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of such public airings, but if the permission for frank discussion may extend to a lowly parish priest, I will say that it concerns me greatly. It is never pretty to see how the sausage is made and some who are less familiar with the internal debates may well be discouraged, while others will be inappropriately heartened. Again, though, to be fair, vigorous debates in Church Synods and Councils extend all the way back to the first one described in Acts 15.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, what I think about the matter of Holy Communion to those in invalid matrimonial states and other irregular situations is no secret. I simply cannot see how it is possible for us to extend Holy Communion to Catholics living in invalid marriages unless they are willing to live as brother and sister. Rather than restate all the reasons, I’ll just refer you to  earlier posts I wrote: HEREand HERE.

And while the pastoral solution of living as brother and sister may not seem a “pastoral” or reasonable solution to many, it does remain a solution if Holy Communion is sought. Of course it is not a perfect solution. There is still the possibility of scandal, since not everyone will know or understand that an individual who is coming forward is not sexually intimate with his or her current “spouse” from a second union. But if celibacy is generally known as a possibility, others could presume good will and a large degree of scandal could be avoided.

I was speaking of this matter recently on the phone with someone (not a parishioner) and she scoffed at the notion of asking celibacy of people in these situations. She shifted the terms and asked me somewhat rhetorically,

How can you go on denying something as important as Holy Communion to people just because they are in what you consider a bad marriage?

I told her that I would answer her question if she would answer mine:

How is it that many have come to regard having sexual intimacy as more important or necessary than receiving Holy Communion?

I went on to add:

While Holy Communion is important (and I surely think that it is), I wonder why the people you describe as seeing it as so important wouldn’t choose to live celibately in order to be able to receive our Lord. You suggest I’m being cruel by denying it, but it isn’t really I who is making the choice here. The choice is really theirs. I am not the master of the Eucharist; I am His servant. Given Jesus’ description of second marriages as adulterous (Matt 19), and Paul’s clear warning against receiving Communion in an ongoing state of serious sin (1 Cor 11), it doesn’t seem that I have any choice. The choice is and remains theirs: either to so value Holy Communion and intimacy with the Lord that they are willing to forego sexual intimacy, or to seek solutions in the annulment process, or to continue refraining from Holy Communion.

Though I was being accused of somehow denying Holy Communion, I am not really doing any such thing. I celebrate Holy Communion every day for God’s faithful who are not impeded to receive. If they are somehow impeded, I will do what I can to help them overcome this impediment. If at the end of the process there can be no way to address the impediments, then the choice returns to them: live celibately and receive Communion, or choose not to and refrain from Communion. I am not denying anyone Communion; some choose to exclude themselves.

I realize that some people are in difficult and complex situations, but I cannot simply overrule the Lord or what He said to St. Paul. At the end of the day there is a choice for those who desperately seek Communion but are in second unions. That choice is celibacy. I realize that this is difficult and some conclude that this would be unjust to the second “spouse.” But it is ultimately their choice, not mine. I am respectful of the fact that some do not think they can reasonably choose to live celibately in their second union. However, it is not fair to say that just because other avenues have been exhausted, those in these situations have absolutely no choice. They do. It is difficult, but it is their choice to make.

It is sad that the Synod on the family has seemingly become a synod on divorce. I do hope and pray that some discussion is being had about the grace of living according to the Lord’s plan for matrimony and family. Surely the agenda will expand!

Father Guarnizo Speaks Out! Bravo, Father!

Father released a written statement today, giving his account of the events of February 25th.  His statements are corroborated by others that have been cited on this blog (and others).  Moreover, he makes plain that the lifting of his faculties has everything to do with the funeral events and not with the bogus (my word, not his) allegations of "intimidating behavior".  Of course I hope that anyone who has at least two brain neurons firing in syncopation would be able to see through that smoke-screen - or did all these people become "intimidated" just as Barbara Johnson's fabrications were falling to shreds?

Catholic News Agency carries his statement here.  One can also find it on CNSNews.  But I'll also copy it below.  Here it is...  (Begin statement)

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident


I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.

I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.

Here are the facts:  On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.
The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.
 
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.

I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.

In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.

If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either.  If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.

In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so.  (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported.

Details matter. Ms. Johnson was not kneeling when she approached for communion, she did not receive the cup as the press has reported she has stated. It is the policy of St. John Neumann parish never to distribute under both species during funerals.

During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson’s funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial. Furthermore as the testimony of the priest that was at the cemetery conveys, he was present when the Johnson family arrived, and in fact mentioned that being called to cover the burial rite is quite normal, as many priests for reasons much less significant than mine (rush hour traffic for example) do not make the voyage to the cemetery. He routinely covers for them. This change in plans, was also invisible to the rest of the entourage. Regrets and information about my incapacitating migraine were duly conveyed to the Johnson family.

I have thanked the funeral director and the priest at the burial site, for their assistance that day. Mrs. Loetta Johnson was properly buried with every witness and ceremony a Catholic funeral can offer. I did not and would not refuse to accompany Barbara Johnson and her mother to the cemetery because she is gay or lives with a woman. I did not in any way seek to dishonor Mrs. Johnson's memory, and my homily at the funeral should have made that quite evident to all in the pews, including the Johnson family.

I would like to extend again to Ms. Johnson and her family, my sincerest condolences on her mother’s death.  I would never intentionally want or seek to embarrass anyone publicly or increase anyone’s emotional distress during such a difficult time. I did not seek or contrive these circumstances.

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.

I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld.  Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve theCatholic Church in Washington D.C.

As to the latest allegations, I feel obliged to alleviate unnecessary suffering for the faithful at St. John Neumann and others who are following the case.

I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of “intimidation” are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese’s latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or “intimidation” allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings. The meetings in question, occurred in our effort to document from people at the funeral Mass in written form a few facts about the nature of the incident. We have collected more than a few testimonies and affidavits, testifying to what really took place during the funeral liturgy.

My personal conversation with both parties in question were in my view civil, professional and in no way hostile. I respect both individuals in question and really do not know the nature of their grievance.

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.

In the days to come I look forward to addressing any confusion about the above conversations if the Archdiocese or the persons involved wish to talk about it publicly or privately.

I am grateful for all the good wishes and prayers I have received. And sincerely, having lost my own mother not long ago, I again extend my condolences to the Johnson family. I finally wish for the good of the Universal Church, the archdiocese, my parish and the peace of friends and strangers around the world, that the archdiocese would cease resolving what they call internal personnel matters of which they cannot speak, through the public media.

I remain my bishop’s and my Church’s, and above all Christ Jesus’obedient servant,
Very truly yours,
Father Marcel Guarnizo   

(End of Fr Guarnizo's statement)  

DC Chancery Shows Disdain For Good Priest Who Follows God's Laws

In doing so, the DC Chancery also displays (once again) Canon Law and the eternal salvation of souls.  My fellow blogger "a Washington DC Catholic" alerted me to the statement issued by Archdiocese of Washington regarding Father Guarnizo's actions this past Saturday.  Please refer to his blog post for the statement and for the text of Canon 915.

This will be long, so I'll put the jump break here.

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.

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'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.

Washington Post: Statement From Archdiocese On Holy Communion

Father William Byrne is Archdiocesan Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns.  Today the Washington Post published a statement of his regarding the importance of Holy Communion to Catholics.  I commend its reading to you.

A statement from that article, relevant to the situation at St John Neumann last weekend is "The priest has an obligation to make sure that the sacraments are respected, and any person who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.  Ideally, the priest will handle such a situation pastorally by discussing the consequences of such sin with the person privately before actually denying them Communion."  Two questions:

1. Did the daughter "obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin"?  Consider: she introduced herself and the other woman to Father as "lovers".  She certainly had no bones about letting Father know her "orientation" in a most up-front manner.
2. Did Father have the opportunity to "handle the situation pastorally and privately"?  I suspect he would have wanted to do so, but they hurried away before he had opportunity.  Now consider that the daughter had been a long-time Catholic school teacher; that being said, how could she not have known that homosexual conduct is mortally sinful?  Having lacked such opportunity, Father did what he had to do when he was deliberately set between a rock and a hard place.  He did not want to facilitate the woman's mortal sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion (which would have been sinful for him) and he wanted to protect the Eucharist from being treated disrespectfully.     

I thank Father Byrne for writing this and the Post for publishing it.  These statements make plain that Father Marcel Guarnizo was only fulfilling his duties as a Catholic priest and that the apology issued by Bishop Knestout is a lamentable farce.

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.

The USCCB And Pogo

That is the title of an article written by my friend and Catholic Media Coalition colleague, Jim Fritz of Defenders of the Faith (headquartered in West Virginia).  Now follows the article...

Many readers will remember the famous quotation from an animal character named Pogo by cartoonist Walt Kelly back in the 1950s, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”  Set in the Okefenokee Swamp of the southeastern United States, the strip often engaged in social and political satire through the adventures of its anthropomorphic funny animal characters. As stated by one biographer of Kelly, “It perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition.” There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, but he may be us.

Perhaps the U,S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has finally realized that the enemy is the bishops themselves.  After decades of the bishops supporting liberal social policies, they must now realize who the real enemy is. During the last election, Catholics voted for Obama by 54 percent. The bishops promoted this by (1) their support of the health care law which is now resulting in mandates requiring religious employers to pay insurance coverage of birth control and abortifacients; (2) ignoring canon 915; and, (3) issuing a ridiculous, incorrect, and totally useless document titled, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

When did this all begin? 

The Second Vatican Council (also known as Vatican II) addressed relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the modern world. It opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965. No one can really state that Vatican ll caused the decline of the Catholic Church; however, the fifty years since the end of Vatican ll have been a disaster for the Church. The number of priests has greatly declined even as the population has increased. The religious women have had an even greater decrease in numbers and those who are left have drifted so far from Church teaching they are now not even recognizable as nuns - especially those who sport business suits and mannish haircuts. Catholic schools have closed by the hundreds, and many parents refuse to send their children to those that remain open. Only a handful of Catholic colleges can really be classified as Catholic. After Notre Dame awarded an honorary law degree to Barack Obama it was renamed “Notre Shame” by true Catholics and even some Protestants. There are currently Pro-Homosexual (Pride) Clubs at 107 Catholic Colleges. Bankruptcies have occurred in eight dioceses due to the sexual abuse scandal. And the list goes on and on and on.

Coming From The Rubble Of The Referendum

News is coming forth of some Irish clergy who are raising their voices in defense of the Church's teachings regarding life in the wake of the referendum debacle.  Bishop Kevin Doran of Elphin said that Catholics who voted for the repeal while knowing that it would result in abortion being unleashed in Ireland should take their vote to confession.  He stopped short of telling such errant Catholics that they should not receive Holy Communion until they do.  That last waffling was to his discredit.  Now I presume that the ballots are secret, but if any Catholics in his diocese were flagrant in their disregard for the laws of God, I pray that he would have the decency to obey Canon 915 and deny Holy Communion to them until they repent of the public evil they committed.

Northern Ireland was not impacted by last week's vote, although the pro-aborts have that area in their crosshairs.  One Northern Irish priest laid down the law to a couple in his parish that advocate for abortion.  Father Damien Quigley of the Diocese of Armagh told the couple that they'd need to discuss their advocacy with him before he allowed them to be married in his church.  He relayed this message to the couple privately, so one has to imagine that the couple themselves leaked the matter to the public.  They are behaving in much the same way as did Barbara Johnson did six years ago in my parish when Father Marcel Guarnizo denied Holy Communion to her since she was openly engaged in a lesbian relationship.  Now the question remains if the Bishop of Armagh will through Father Quigley under the bus as did Cardinal Wuerl to Father Guarnizo.

Now hear from Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Akita And Fatima Prophesies Playing Out Before Our Eyes

Our Lady of Akita warned that bishops would be pitted against bishops.  Again Our Lady of Fatima she prophesied that the final battle would revolve around the family.  Today we are seeing both these words bear fruit as we see the smoke of Satan issuing forth - with some of it coming from the pope.

Today Catholic Herald published details of an exchange between the pope and some Lutheran pilgrims from Finland.  He told them that "the intention of Martin Luther 500 years ago was to renew the Church, not divide her".  How he divines such an intention is beyond me.  Luther's rebellion spawned many wars, but that's not the worst of it.  His errors led countless millions into eternal damnation as souls cut themselves off from the One True Church.  Unless there is evidence of Luther's repentance and reversion to the Faith, we have reason to believe he's not in a good place.  His life is a lesson to us, true, but it is a lesson in the sorry effects of rebellion, disobedience and deliberate eschewing of the Sacraments.

That being said, why, oh why, is the Vatican commemorating Luther by having its post office issue stamps commemorating him?  Can it be because Luther, who was an ordained priest, jettisoned his vows of celibacy and married?   Well, if they really want to showcase people in Church history who have made mockeries of marriage, perhaps they should issue stamps commemorating King Henry VIII of England.  They could make several of him, showing him with different wives.  Maybe they'll want to go back to the time Christ walked the earth and have one commemorating Herod and Herodias.  Perhaps I shouldn't be saying these things because I might just give them ideas.

Meanwhile, dissident bishops are becoming more brazen.  We heard last week of the scandal being instituted by the bishops of Malta in permitting adulterers to receive Holy Communion to the detriment of their eternal well-being.  One of them, Bishop Mario Grech of the Diocese of Gozo, is compounding his disobedience, heaping disgrace upon his miter, by ordering his priests, under pain of suspension, to distribute Holy Communion to known adulterers.  This insult to Our Lord Himself has precedence, some of it stemming from my own parish almost five years ago.  Recall how the Archdiocese of Washington ejected Father Marcel Guarnizo when Father would not give Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian.  I've no doubt that had Father Guarnizo been incardinated in this diocese, that he would have been suspended.

In contradiction of the bishops of Malta and in standing for the teachings of Jesus Christ, three bishops of Kazakhstan - including Bishop Athanasius Schneider - released a letter urging that we pray for Pope Francis to revoke "guidelines" such as those issued by the Maltese bishops.  The letter reiterates that God's teachings on marriage and the Eucharist are sacrosanct and immutable.

The bishops of Malta are again being quite flagrant - so flagrant that they cannot be ignored.  If the pope pretends not to notice, I believe we will know where he truly stands on these matters.

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.