I want to revisit the Father Guarnizo affair. This was a case in which the Archdiocese of Washington suspended the faculties of Father Marcel Guarnizo after he refused communion to lesbian activist, Barbara Johnson.The immediate reaction of the diocese, seems to have been one of immediate suspension of Father Guarnizo, without due consideration of the facts of the case.
The Archdiocese did not explain the circumstances of the case. Neither, did they chastise Barbara Johnson for receiving communion when she made a point making her manifest grave sin known to a priest, as if she wanted to flaunt it in Father Guarnizo's face.
Barbara was at a funeral for her mother, and made known, according to Father Guarnizo, that she was a lesbian and that the woman with her was her "partner." Father Guarnizo had a right to be morally offended, as any Christian of good conscience should have been.
Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states that a person who "obstinately persist[s] in manifest grave sin" is to be refused communion. Alot of commentary from canon lawyers insued, in which they said Father Guarnizo had to be aware of the circumstances of a person's life in order to judge that. I find that funny, because the facts of the case, on the face, are that she was a manifest grave sinner being in a lesbian relationship which is "intrinsically disordered" according to paragraph 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Objectively, Barbara Johnson should have not been admitted to holy communion. Because, objectively, she was a manifest grave sinner. Father Guarnizo had a right to act on this knowledge when it was presented to him. Father Guarnizo later states that he did it based on "one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching ," which does not help his case. Because it was on the part of Barbara to withhold herself from holy communion.
Objectively, however, Father Guarnizo was correct, regardless of his reason for doing it. Simply based on the facts, Father Guarnizo intuited the refusal of holy communion correctly, but for the wrong reasons. So, based on the facts again, Father Guarnizo should not have been suspended if it was based on his refusal.
The Archdiocese later said that he was suspended for reasons unrelated to this case. This has a giggle factor and is very suspicious given the timing of the announcement. While we do not have all the facts in our possession, the suspension was too suspicious for my taste.
Currently, the case of Father Guarnizo is in my rosary. I ask that all of you place it in yours. If he is innocent, let our Blessed Mother's prayers free him. If Bishop Knestout is guilty, let our Lord chastise him and he repent. If there has been a grave injustice here, let it be repaired and a good priest be returned to his ministry.
If all of this is true, may the Archdiocese of Washington make public restitution and repair his good name.
Here is a canonical defense of Father Guarnizo's actions. Here is a canonical criticism.
