Fr. Marcel Guarnizo's Fate... Priestly Faculties Removed.

[cappie]

PRIEST WHO DENIED LESBIAN COMMUNION HAS FUCULTIES REMOVED BY BISHOP.

The letter dated March 9, 2012 written by Bishop Barry C. Knestout, chief of staff to Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who heads the Archdiocese states as follows:

[i]"Dear Brother Priest,[/i]
[i]I write to inform you that effective today, Father Marcel Guarnizo’s assignment at St. John Neumann Parish is withdrawn and he has been placed on administrative leave with his priestly faculties removed until such time as an inquiry into his actions at the parish is completed,” Bishop Knestout said in his March 9 letter.[/i]
[i]“This action was taken after I received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry,”[/i]
[i]“Given the grave nature of these allegations, and in light of the confusion in the parish and the concerns expressed by parishioners, Father Guarnizo is prohibited from exercising any priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington until all matters can be appropriately resolved, with the hope that he might return to priestly ministry.”[/i]
[i]Sincerely in Christ
Most Reverend Barry C. Knestout
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia" [/i]

Does anyone know if this is correct. It seems not to pertain to the previous controversy.

[BG45]

I don't know if it's 100% confirmed, but a supposed scan of the letter was on a blog post I just read:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/X9yUe.jpg[/img]

[CatholicCid]

My first thought upon reading this was, who put forward this letter? It seems to be addressed to Fr. Guarnizo's pastor (Dear Brother Priest), so one would assume it was not released publicly.

[eagle_eye222001]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html[/url]

Below is an excerpt from the article. This seemed to be the only updated information as the rest of the article restates what everyone knows.

[quote]
[color=#000000][font=arial][left]The archdiocese on Sunday confirmed Guarnizo's removal, and noted that Knestout's letter was read at all Masses this weekend at [url="http://www.saintjohnneumann.org/"]St. John Neumann.[/url] The pastor there, the Rev. Thomas LaHood, added some additional comments, including noting -- and repeating -- that the removal was not related to the Communion standoff, but "pertains to actions over the past week or two." He did not elaborate.[/left][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=arial][left]In announcing the penalty on Sunday, LaHood spoke at some length about the disagreements that have unfolded in the parish because of the funeral Mass scene.

"As we know there’s been disagreement within the parish over how and to whom Communion is distributed. From my perspective this disagreement and related emotions flow from love. Love for Christ, really and truly present in the Eucharist. However, how we live out this love is important. The Scriptures tell us that we are known above all by how we love," he said before reading the letter. After, he said "I realize this letter is hard to hear. Please keep mind that this is a first personnel issue, dealing with issues of ministry in the church. Father Guarnizo will have every opportunity to present his position."[/left][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=arial][left]An archdiocesan spokeswoman Sunday would not clarify if LaHood's comments meant that Guarnizo would not be penalized for his handling of Barbara Johnson at the funeral.[/left][/font][/color]
[/quote]



This is a mess for the Church. I'm afraid of what the other side will take from this. This is awful and will likely send the wrong implications.

Btw- I am [b]not [/b]saying the priest is completely innocent...

[penguin31]

This doesn't seem to be the type of document intended for public release. Which begs the questions: Who leaked it, and [i]why[/i]?

Edit: They actually used the Mass to discuss this and read the above letter? Really? Strange.

Edited March 12, 2012 by penguin31

[Ed Normile]

Lets see, this priest makes a proper decision concerning the Most Holy Sacrament, the most important part of the Catholic faith and he is reprimanded and removed from his priestly duties and then a letter addressed to his Cardinal is leaked to further bring scandal and attention to the Church, sounds like the deceiver is involved in this. If anyone doubts that evil is present and alive and the Church is under attack in this time they are either naive or part of the problem.

ed

[Annie12]

wow. This looks like a messy situation.

[Brother Adam]

The letter seems disingenuous, but I agree it is not meant for the media. However it does say that the information was read at the parish.

[homeschoolmom]

[HopefulBride]

smh. They all need prayers, I will definitely keep them in prayers.

[cappie]

From Ed Peter's Blog: [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bp-knestouts-march-9-letter-on-fr-guarnizo/"]http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bp-knestouts-march-9-letter-on-fr-guarnizo/[/url]

Bp. Knestout’s March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo
March 11, 2012
Most of the lesbian/Communion controversy has been a dis-edifying parade of misleading commentary being proffered about misapplied laws. I don’t write here to correct these many errors, as their partisans (whether ‘left’ or ‘right’) don’t seem especially interested in what the law actually says, but I am happy to offer some observations on Bp. Knestout’s letter of March 9 for those who are trying to understand what is, and is not, at work in this matter.

1. Fr. Guarnizo has not been suspended (suspension is a canonical penalty levied only upon guilt for crimes, per c. 1333), but he has been placed on “administrative leave”, a term not found in the Code, but nevertheless serving as a practical description of a situation in which, usually, one is not permitted to function as a cleric for so long as a wider situation requires resolution. A priest’s faculties for confession, preaching (homilies), witnessing weddings, etc. can be restricted a couple of different ways, and there is no reason to think that those ways were not satisfied in this action (although direct discussion of them is lacking).

From the text of the letter, I cannot tell whether Guarnizo is prohibited from celebrating Mass even in private (he is certainly prohibited from public celebration), although the trend in such cases is to allow for private celebration. This question could easily be addressed between Knestout and Guarnizo, and probably has already been answered.

2. A vicar general almost certainly has sufficient authority to issue such a letter (c. 479 § 1); one may expect the Cardinal to be informed of this action in a timely manner (c. 480).

3. As a parochial vicar, Guarnizo has considerably fewer procedural rights to office than would a pastor. Compare a pastor’s rights under c. 522, etc., and c. 1740 etc., with those of a parochial vicar, per c. 552. All associate pastors know this.

4. Guarnizo is not “incardinated” in the Archdiocese of Washington (c. 265 etc.); the situation of an “extern” priest is inherently more tenuous than is the situation of locally incardinated clergy, it being a function more of contract (express or implied) than of law. All extern priests know this.

5. Little in Knestout’s letter suggests that this action is being taken in response to the lesbian/Communion controversy (though one may be sure that the pro-lesbian camp will claim victory, and the pro-Guarnizo camp will decry the ‘mistreatment’ of the priest).
The allegations of “intimidating behavior” by Guarnizo are not recited in Knestout’s letter, but three questions would occur to me: (a) is this just a pile-on by people looking to kick Guarnizo while he is down?, or (b) are there long-standing legitimate complaints against Guarnizo that the recent controversy made more likely to surface? , or (c) did Guarnizo’s post-controversy conduct in the parish render him intemperate with others, provoking what are really recent complaints? Such are the things that an investigation is designed to, well, investigate.

6. The letter expresses the hope that Guarnizo will be able to return to priestly ministry. + + +

[CatherineM]

I don't have as much a problem at someone self-identifying as a lesbian receiving communion as I do in someone who self-identifies as a Buddhist doing so. Someone with SSA may well be in communion with the church, but Buddhists probably aren't.

I suspect the main issue has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened at this funeral. Believe it or not, priests can have personal issues that can make them make poor interpersonal decisions. The media may well be focusing on just symptoms, whereas his bishop is attempting to deal with the underlying issue. Priestly personnel issues are difficult enough to deal with in an appropriate, compassionate manner without it becoming so public. I don't think any of us would like for a human resources letter from our employer to be made public in this manner.

[Cherie]

Many prayers for this situation and all involved.

[Strictlyinkblot]

I was very saddened to read about this. Obviously we don't know the full story but it appears (in my opinion, not knowing all the facts) that the punishment is far greater than the crime. We have fewer and fewer priests available to us.

I will pray for him and all those involved.

[Archaeology cat]

Prayers