For They Know What They Do
http://cnsnews.com/news/
CNSNews.com
Father Marcel Guarnizo: 'I Did The Only Thing a Faithful Catholic
Priest Could Do'
March 14, 2012
Editor's Note: On Feb. 25, at a funeral Mass at St. John Neumann
Parish in Gaithersburg, Md., Fr. Marcel Guarnizo discreetly denied
Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson, the daughter of the deceased.
Johnson had entered the sacristy before the Mass along with another
woman whom she made a point of announcing to Fr. Guarnizo as her
"lover." Since the incident, Johnson has told her version of what
happened to several news organizations. Until now, Fr. Guarnizo has
remained silent.
Fr. Guarnizo is a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Moscow,
Russia—not of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., where he has been
practicing his vocation in recent years. On March 9, the Archdiocese
of Washington suspended his "faculties" to administer the sacraments
within its borders.
Here, for the first time, in a written statement, Fr. Guarnizo
begins to tell his story:
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 10:30 a.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 a so-called "annulment," a
decree of nullity) 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 trip 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 her 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 Miss 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 the Catholic 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 details 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 Marcell Guarnizo
_____________________________
Care to make a comment?
HIS EMINENCE DONALD CARDINAL WUERL
ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, DC
|
5001
Eastern Avenue |