Skip to content

Fr. Guarnizo Explains Himself

 

 

 

FR. Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who declined Communion to a Maryland woman who identified herself as a lesbian minutes before her mother’s funeral Mass has been removed from pastoral duties by the Archdiocese of Washington. In this letter to the public, posted at CNA, he explained the events that occurred on the day of Loetta Johnson’s funeral and clarified how his removal from duty was connected to the incident, in contradiction to the archdiocesan statement that he was suspended because of “intimidating behavior” toward staff.

Fr. Guarnizo’s letter is an extraordinary document, both because it is an unusual departure from normal protocol under which a priest who has been disciplined would defer to higher authorities and because of the actual events of that day. Barbara Johnson appeared in his office to introduce her lesbian lover a few minutes before the funeral Mass. Fr. Guarnizo was physically blocked by Johnson’s lover from leaving his office in order to follow Johnson and inform her of her obligation to abstain from Communion. He says he was overcome by a migraine after the funeral Mass, no doubt because of stress brought on by the evident hostility and defiance of the deceased’s daughter, whom he had no choice but to refuse publicly at the altar.

According to The Washington Post, Johnson, who contends she is both a Buddhist and a Catholic, told Fr. Guarnizo in a letter, “I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”

The Archdiocese of Washington has made good this Buddhist lesbian’s threats and condemned the man adhering to Catholic doctrine.

Here is his letter:

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

                                            — Comments —

Lydia Sherman writes:

Liberalism is militant. It extracts, but does not accept apologies. One could prostrate oneself before such militants and never be absolved of the offense. These liberals have a goal of changing the culture, and the apology is part of their strategy. When an apology has been extracted through pressure, the liberal has humbled the victim, possibly neutralized him, and put him in control. In the case of this priest, the women involved are cruelly trampling on his rights to establish their own. He is merely one of the obstacles in their way, and no negotiating to make things right will satisfy the two women involved, because they do not offer forgiveness or reconciliation, things beyond their comprehension. They want the right to suffer; they want blood. You can never please such radicals because part of their religion is to keep trouble stirred up. It appears that the funeral incident was not much of an incident at all, but that it was blown up to be one, which is also typical of those who are have been made aware of their transgressions but want to feel better without repenting.

Vincent C. writes:

To any fair minded person wishing to hear an honest and truthful explanation of this unusual, but not unpredictable, situation, which culminated in a priest resorting to the extreme measure of “going public” in defending his clerical integrity, while countering the charges of a woman who, by Church teaching, is regarded as leading a “disordered” way of life, I am reminded of Alice Through the Looking Glass: Verdict first; evidence later.

Equally bothersome was the apparent indifference of the clerical authorities of the Archdiocese of Washington to investigate what actually happened, and not to question the evidence that supplied the basis of these charges. To me, the diocese’s acceptance of the word of a non-observant and hostile lesbian over the explanation of a priest speaks volumes, and further convinces me that the smoke of Satan has entered the sacristy.

The very fact that, as Fr. Guarnizo mentions, the letter suspending him from his priestly functions was written and sealed four days before his meeting with the bishop to discuss the matter, demonstrates beyond cavil that the archdiocese – and it is not Bishop Knestout, but Donald Cardinal Weurl who is pulling the strings here – was deaf to any explanation by the Padre. But why would that be so?

The Washington Post’s story on this sordid matter quotes Barbara Johnson, the lesbian in question, as claiming that she was a “Catholic on her own terms.” Indeed. The actions of Cardinal Weurl and other Catholic clerics like him, including his predecessor, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, have for decades willingly accepted that now entrenched belief amongst a considerable number of Catholic laity: you can pick and choose your Catholicism; hence, the word “cafeteria Catholic.” Far too many modernist priests and bishops are far more interested in their “social justice ministry,” a neologism concocted after Vatican II, than they are in maintaining the traditional teachings of the Church. It is a recipe for disaster.

But beyond even that distortion of Catholic belief is my contention that fifty years after Vatican II, we are witnessing the fruits of Vatican II, which transformed the Church in a way that 18th-century political writer Baron de Montesqieu envisioned: The Catholic Church will destroy the Protestant churches, and then become Protestantized.

Perhaps Fr. Guarnizo, who is incardinated in Moscow, will return there shortly still shaking his head over that has happened to the Catholic Church in the West.

Share:EmailFacebook0Twitter1Pinterest0Google+0