The Father Guarnizo Affair

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.

Are Those Who Deny Lesbians Communion Now Wrong?

In case you did not know, Father Marcel Garnizo, of the Archdiocese of Washington, denied holy communion to a woman who was cohabitating with another woman. Since lesbianism is grave sin, she was to be denied communion according to Canon Law:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

A complaint was lodged against Father Garnizo, which was addressed by Most Rev. Barry Knestout, who threw Father Garnizo under the bus. A complaint that it was at a funeral, which does not change the standard, was lodged by the prospective communicant. The bishop, Most Rev. Barry Knestout, seems to have erred in this matter, embarrassing Father Garnizo. I think Father Garnizo should appeal this decision to the Congregation for the Clergy, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Holy Father himself if need be.

A Disturbing Trend
The bishops seemed to have a habit of throwing priests overboard.  With the new norms for clergy abuse, priests have found themselves being left by their bishops to the sharks. Several innocent priests have died due to the stress of trial after trial, even though some have been found innocent. The pendulum has swung too far.

Father Garnizo acted appropriately given a lesbian was presenting herself to communion. Perhaps the bishops should think about their faithful, instead of abandoning them to pander to a manifest grave sinner.

A Proper Balance
Much of this article was written to swing the pendulum back. Throwing priests under the bus is not the standard, neither is siding with them at all times and in all matters. Rather, a due consideration of both the rights of priests and of the faithful. It is a not an either/or situation, but rather a both/and. Both the needs of the accused and of the accuser need to be considered, not an all or nothing approach which fears the possible fall-out of civil authorities:

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love" (1 John 4:18).