The removal of Father Guarnizo—what we still don't know

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 13, 2012

Catholic Culture readers are understandably concerned about the status of Father Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who has been placed on administrative leave by the Washington archdiocese after he denied Communion to a lesbian woman. While I fully share that concern, I submit that it’s important—before we begin making judgments—to recognize a very important consideration: We don’t have all the facts. Here’s what we do know:

• Barbara Johnson reports that she was refused Communion at her mother’s funeral.
• Johnson should not have presented herself for Communion, because she is an avowed lesbian.
• Bishop Barry Knestout, the vicar general of the Washington archdiocese, announced that Father Guarnizo has been placed on leave, explaining that he took the step because he had “received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.”

Now here’s what we don’t know:

• Whether Father Guarnizo acted properly, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law, in denying the Eucharist to Barbara Johnson.
• Whether Barbara Johnson deliberately provoked the incident.
• Whether Johnson’s self-identification as a lesbian was known to everyone in the congregation at the funeral.
• Whether Father Guarnizo spoke privately with Johnson, admonishing her not to receive Communion, before refusing to administer the Blessed Sacrament.
• Whether the archdiocese had adequate reason to place Father Guarnizo on leave and suspend his priestly faculties.
• Whether the archdiocese took action against Father Guarnizo because of the media uproar.

Unless we have clear answers to all these questions—and frankly, we are unlikely to get them—we cannot pass judgment about this troubling case. Sometimes when the facts are uncertain, it’s best to remain silent. God knows the truth; He can make the judgment.

Walk through the case with me, and notice how many important points are uncertain:

That Father Guarnizo refused to administer the Eucharist to Barbara Johnson is undisputed. Some eyewitnesses say that the priest was quiet and discreet in doing so; others say he was abrupt and rude. We don’t have the facts.

Johnson reportedly told Father Guarnizo, just before the funeral, that she was a lesbian. She may have made the statement provocatively, hoping to goad a priest who is known for his orthodoxy. Or she may have made the disclosure in a matter-of-fact way, not recognizing that it would constitute a problem. (Her understanding of the Catholic faith appears very confused, as we shall soon see.) We don’t have the facts.

Johnson should not have presented herself to receive the Eucharist, since she is living in a scandalous situation and her public advocacy of grave immorality puts her seriously at odds with the Church. She probably knew that; but can we be sure? Johnson has described herself as not only a lesbian but also a Buddhist. Yet she claims, implausibly, that she is still a Catholic. It seems preposterous that someone could, in good faith, believe herself to be a lesbian Buddhist Catholic. But is it completely impossible? Unfortunately there are professors at Catholic universities who would defend her if she made that profession.

The Code of Canon Law (#915) stipulates that the Eucharist should not be administered to those who have been excommunicated “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” No bishop has announced that Johnson is excommunicated. So it would be proper to deny her the Eucharist only if she has obstinately persisted in manifest grave sin. Notice the two key modifiers in that phrase: “obstinately” and “manifest.” Her involvement in a lesbian relationship could qualify as grave sin. But has she been obstinate—that is, has she continued the relationship despite having been previously warned against this sin? And was her sexual relationship “manifest”—that is, was it well known to the public, so that it would constitute a scandal if she received Communion? Canon lawyer Edward Peters, who has written a great deal of sensible commentary on this matter, offers a rule of thumb for the interpretation of Canon 915:

Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I’m assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion, that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated.

So in this case, did Father Guarnizo have good reason to believe that the worshippers at this funeral were all well aware of Johnson’s ongoing lesbian relationship? We don’t have the facts.

Many Catholic activists—including myself—have pleaded with the American bishops to enforce the provisions of Canon 915, and refuse to administer the Eucharist to public figures who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” by supporting legal abortion and other gravely immoral causes. It is important to recognize, however, that the case of Barbara Johnson is quite different from that of, say, Nancy Pelosi. Whereas only a small circle of acquaintances knew of Johnson’s lesbian relationship, the whole world knows of Pelosi’s support for abortion. And whereas we do not know whether any Church official has ever privately admonished Johnson to amend her life, we do know that the American bishops have repeatedly warned Pelosi that her public posture places her outside the communion of the Catholic Church.

When Nancy Pelosi receives the Eucharist it is a public scandal, and eminent canon lawyers— including no less an authority than Cardinal Raymond Burke, the head of the Apostolic Signatura—have argued that bishops and priests have not only the right but the duty to refuse the Eucharist to politicians who support legal abortion. Still in the Washington archdiocese, where this incident took place, Cardinal Donald Wuerl is on record as saying that he will not withhold the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Wuerl’s public stance complicates the Guarnizo-Johnson matter immensely. Many Catholics (again, I include myself), frustrated by the cardinal’s apparent unwillingness to enforce the provisions of canon law, are ready to applaud a brave priest who takes the necessary step. But even if Cardinal Wuerl should withhold the Eucharist under one set of circumstances, that does not mean that Father Guarnizo should withhold the Eucharist under different circumstances. We don’t have the facts.

And now Father Guarnizo has been removed from active ministry. Certainly the timing of that move is remarkable, and the priest’s supporters have every reason to be suspicious. But in announcing that Father Guarnizo had been placed on administrative leave, Bishop Knestout made a point of saying that the action was not a consequence of his encounter with Barbara Johnson. According to the vicar general, Father Guarnizo had “engaged in intimidating behavior.” Is this a convenient excuse or a real problem? We don’t have the facts.

Maybe Father Guarnizo is entirely innocent, and the archdiocese dug out a few complaints as an excuse for removing him, to appease the angry pundits. (Such a betrayal by the archdiocese would be appalling.) Or maybe Father Guarnizo had some personality problems, which the archdiocese had neglected to address until the poor priest was in the media spotlight. (That would be only a bit less appalling.) Or maybe the sudden immersion in a media firestorm—and the conspicuous absence of support from the archdiocese—drove Father Guarnizo beyond his breaking point. Any one of those explanations is entirely plausible. Which one is closest to the truth? We don’t have the facts.