 |
| Gramick poses with lesbian Barbara Johnson(left), the charming lady who is so beloved of Bishop Barry Knesthout and Cardinal Wuerl |
If he does I may call the Vatican press office in Rome and ask why they might tell me why he is silent on, among many other things too numerous to elaborate here, Miss Asia Bibi, sitting on death row in Pakistan.
Magister discusses what seems to be a sort of "revolving door" for homosexuals at Rome which if true does not bode well. It would seem to be another indication that Francis is deaf to the pleas of thousands of Catholic laymen that he reject this new tolerance of perversion, one of the deadliest of mortal sins.
Says Magister about the ubiquitous Gramick:
"For the record, in Saint Peter’s Square on Ash Wednesday, February 18, a group of Catholic homosexuals from the United States will join Jeannine Gramick, the Notre Dame sister who together with her countryman Robert Nugent, a Salvatorian religious, was the object of a 1999 notification from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith - of which Joseph Ratzinger was cardinal prefect at the time - that prohibited both from carrying out “any pastoral work involving homosexual persons,” since the “errors and ambiguities” in their statements and activities concerning the teaching of the Catholic Church in this matter are “not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion” for those persons"
The Homosexual Mafia using Gramick as its front man has thrown down yet another perfumed gauntlet at the feet of the Pope. They will prance and mince before him demanding...what, exactly?That he will bless their tragically disordered lives? His response to this if it is consistent with his recent actions will no doubt enlighten a few more people that something is not right in Rome. If he refuses to meet her that of course would be news.
The photo above is repulsive. That Gramick chooses to cuddle up to lesbians and other sodomites tells us a little bit about her. When one gazes at the photo and recalls Gramick's ongoing campaign to legalize homosexual trysts as marriage I believe we are entitled to assume that she has some moral problems with regard to this unnatural vice. If it walks like a duck........etc.
The photo is also repulsive in that it brings to mind once again the cravenness of some high-ranking Churchmen when confronted by lesbian harpies like Barbara Johnson, pictured above with Gramick. When the noble Father Guarnizo had to refuse Communion to this monster at the funeral of her mother the monster made sure this upstart little priest would pay for not bending the knee toward Sodom. And pay he did. The despicable Cardinal Wuerl (I am sorry: there is no other word that describes this Cardinal), using his stooge Barry Knesthout, had Guarnizo booted out of his diocese and into that Siberia where all loyal priests end up who stand for what is right. George Neumayr wrote several articles on the Communion scandal and was besieged by the usual Modernist/Americanist Ku Klux Klan represented by the National Catholic Reporter as well as by dim bulbs on the Catholic Right. Even the terminally annoying Dr Ed Peters, self-styled infallible interpreter of Canon Law, weighed-in with articles supporting Wuerl and dripping with condescension towards the Great Unwashed who disagree with him. (Peters was subsequently laughed off the stage when genuine Canon Law experts refuted his thin arguments.)
And all that happened when Benedict was still Pope. No one from Rome on down came to Father Guarnizo's defense or put Wuerl in his place. Now that Francis is Pope and his Bastard Synod is still cooking its indigestible stew for this October it will be quite revealing to see how he will react this Ash Wednesday to a troop of sodomites marching to Rome to meet with him. Will these misguided souls receive the tough love of mercy which compels them to give up their vice, or will they receive the false mercy of love without correction?
If it is the second kind of mercy they receive from Francis, the Church will continue its sad and desolate Way of the Cross: its agony.
13 comments:
Just a little clarfification on Father Guarnizo's situation that occurred three Lents ago in my parish. Father has always been incardinated in the Archdiocese of Moscow. Yes, Father was given the heave-ho by Cardinal Wuerl; for that few months that was the sole topic of my blog. But because Father was not a priest of the DC diocese, all Wuerl could do was expel him from the DC area. Had Father been under Wuerl, I've no doubt he'd have been suspended or perhaps even laicized. As it is, he is no longer under Wuerl's thumb, thanks be to God.
Thanks very much, Restore-DC. I was aware of that and perhaps should have worded things more carefully. I, too, was all over that horrible betrayal at the time and even spoke to the Nuncio about it (his reply was curt and non-committal, by the way). That Guarnizo was treated like so much dirt by Wuerl is a scandal that will not go away. Not on this blog, anyway.
I wanted to add, Restore_DC, that your blog did a magnificent job reporting on this when it happened. It inspired many of us.
Here it is three years later and people still ridicule Bishop Knestout and make vile comments about Barbara Johnson.
From Bishop Knestout's March 9th, 2012 letter "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,".
This statement accurately describes Father Guarnizo's interactions with the staff as well as with some parishioners.
Two days later Father LaHood, the pastor at St John Nuemann, read the following at the Sunday March 11th Masses.
“The issue discussed this week did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago. Let me repeat that: The issue discussed this week did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago. The issue pertains to actions over the past week or so.”
Again, this accurately describes Father Guarnizo's interactions with the staff as well as with some parishioners.
Father Guarnizo's believed "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". It should have been no surprise to him considering the numerous occasions his conduct at St. John Neumann brought scrutiny upon himself.
Father Guarnizo said "The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own." Father Guarnizo had an opportunity to meet with the Johnson family and discuss arrangements for the funeral but neglected to attend. If he had he would have known of the Johnson's request to have two eulogies. Perhaps at the meeting he would have learned of Barbara Johnson's personal relationship and been able to discuss receiving Communion at the funeral Mass and prevented the incident.
Barbara Johnson was not the person that brought the incident to the press. It was someone else attending the funeral. For a short time after the incident Ms. Johnson granted interviews with the press and has not been heard from since. Father Guarnizo however gallops across the globe seeking attention while spending little time performing priestly functions.
Dear Anonymous poster above me. You need to ask yourself why you have a devil inside you. Then go do something about it, "Ms" Anonymous.
Dear Anonymous,
You said, "Here it is three years later and people still ridicule Bishop Knestout and make vile comments about Barbara Johnson.
"From Bishop Knestout's March 9th, 2012 letter '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."
Thanks for this info, Anon. Glad to know that Bishop Knestout is being made to lie on the bed he has made.
If it's not about the Barbara Johnson case, why did he time his excoriation of Fr. Guarnizo's unpriestly interaction with the staff with the Barbara Johnson case? You really can't blame people for lumping both cases together.
Thanks, AG, for pointing out where the Canonist Ed Peter failed. At some point I thought he thought his was the final word on the Johnson case. It was not.
Marietta
Anon @2:52am:
Than you for your comment.
I have heard all these statements condemning Father Guarnizo before, mostly during the original incident three years ago. I'm afraid that where we are now is in a kind of "he said, she said" mode which makes discussion difficult in that no evidence has yet been presented about Father's supposed interactions with parishioners. Others have said exactly the opposite about him, that he was kind, conscientious and helpful. So who are we to believe?
Let us assume, just a moment, that you are correct and that Father ruffled some feathers among parishioners. It would be interesting to know what it was, exactly, that caused this resentment. Two points here may be of interest. I ran across an acquaintance of mine the other day, a brilliant choir director, who was leading a Church choir in a Catholic parish in our state. After two years of dedicated work he was summarily fired by the pastor because his insistence on following Vatican II's call for pride of place to be given Gregorian Chant at Masses was upsetting the liberal parishioners who did not like to have their ears assaulted by all that Medieval "junk". They wanted the usual pop pap they have become accustomed to so they pressured the pastor to fire him.
Another incident: I attend a parish administered by a French order of traditional priests who say the Ancient Rite Mass. These priests are on occasion arrogant, condescending even, I dare say, somewhat obnoxious at times. But we grin and bear it, knowing that priests are human after all and subject to human foibles which can certainly ruffle feathers.
Perhaps you see where I'm going with this. Frankly I suspect that the usual cliques of Modernist Catholics were upset with Father Guarnizo and after he had the audacity to refuse Communion to a proud lesbian Buddhist (that's TWO reasons why she should not have presented herself for Communion)they decided to go crying to the Bishop. And contrary to what you stated Mizzz Johnson very publicly vowed to get Guarnizo disciplined for refusing to give her, lesbian Buddhist that she was, a sacrilegious Holy Communion. Also contrary to what you wrote, Father approached her PRIOR to Mass and advised her to refrain from receiving, advice she simply ignored.
So I'm afraid you have made no case here and, anyway, everything you have written has been brought up before and answered. As for Guarnizo traipsing around the globe telling his story all I can say is two things: 1) he has accepted invitations to speak here and there (hardly globe-trotting), and 2) please let me know where he is speaking next so that I may attend and shake his hand for the courage and sensus Catholicus he displayed.
As for the hapless Barry Knesthout the less said about his toadying behavior the better. Ans as for Cardinal Wuerl he remains now one of the most disgraceful clerics it has ever been my misfortune to observe. May God change his heart, and may God lead Johnson away from her mortal sins and back into Holy Mother Church.
Anonymous of 2:52am today, I'll address some of your statements. Please bear in mind that I am a parishioner of St. John Neumann and was at the time. I too heard the letter read, alleging "intimidating behavior" by Fr. Guarnizo. At best, it's stuff and nonsense. First, Fr. Guarnizo stands 5'6" and weighs 135 pounds tops. Who would be intimidated by that size? Now he did speak truth during his homilies. Only those steeped in sin will find such truth to be "intimidating". Second, we may ask why these poor "intimidated" souls chose that occasion to "air their grievances". It strikes me not so much as "convenient" but as a coordinated campaign to expel Fr Guarnizo: much like the Post coverage a scant 3 days after the funeral. The Post was just waiting for that to happen; else they could not have had those articles ready to go to press so quickly. If you want more, I invite you to put the following link in your browser. http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/search?q=Barbara+Johnson
Anonymous has suggested Fr. Guarnizo had an opportunity to meet with the Johnson family and chose not to. That is incorrect. He replaced another priest who made the arrangements. I can hardly bear re-hashing the hatred and judgment of a holy priest that has blessed so many lives in his priestly ministry, with his deep love for the Church. All I will say regarding Barbara Johnson is, it was someone else that let her down before that fateful day, not Fr. Guarnizo. I have no doubt that he acted with great courage in speaking the truth in true charity, a charity that is an invitation to draw closer to Christ, despite difficulty. Our God is a God of the Supernatural, and the invitation is still extended to her. I hope one day she is truly free. Regarding accusations of intimidation, the letter read to our parish I understand was actually addressed to the priests of the diocese and not intended to be read aloud, so that was an interesting decision. It came with the assurance of some sort of investigation into the credibility of allegations of inappropriate intimidation and hope that Fr. Guarnizo would return to ministry within the diocese. To my knowledge no such investigation ever took place and the persistent inquiry of many faithful Catholic families to this day remain unacknowledged. As we begin another Lenten Season, may we all pray that Christ, the Truth, abide in us.
Did anyone mention that Barbara Johnson did receive Communion at the funeral? She got in the line of the Extraordinary Minister who didn't know about the discussion in the sacristy where Father told Johnson he could not give her Communion. Actually, the woman was working at the time as an artist and practicing the Buddhist faith which also made her ineligible for Communion. The entire situation was a farce or perhaps a deliberately manipulated situation to go after Father. What is it the Alinsyites say? Never let a good crisis go to waste.
First, to the person behind the blog The-Eye-Witness I appreciate your posting my comments. Not all bloggers post comments they do not agree with.
I agree with what Aged Parent wrote, “I'm afraid that where we are now is in a kind of "he said, she said" mode which makes discussion difficult”. So much of what I have read over the last three years is pure conjecture and it is unlikely the complete and accurate story will ever be made public. That being said, there are several accurate comments.
Mary Ann Kreitzer is correct, Barbara Johnson did receive communion from an Extraordinary Minister and she has claimed to be a practicing Buddhist.
Restore-DC-Catholicism is correct that Father Guarnizo is about 5’ 6” and of a slight build. I will also note that he in fact does suffer from migraines and legitimately may not have been physically able to attend the burial. In his stead Father Sweeney accompanied the Johnson’s to Gate of Heaven Cemetery.
SAA, you are correct the salutation in Bishop Knestout’s letter was “Dear Brother Priest”. Whether or not Father LaHood had permission to read the letter to the parishioners of St. John Neumann I do not know. However you are incorrect that Father Guarnizo replaced another priest and that he did not have an opportunity to meet with the Johnson family. He turned down an opportunity to meet them two days prior to the funeral. It was at this meeting the readings, music and eulogies were discussed with Parish staff.
SAA while you may be unaware of any investigation taking place concerning the incident there was in fact an investigation by the Archdiocese however the information gathered has not been made public.
Restore-DC-Catholicism you wonder why those ‘”intimidated” souls’ chose that occasion to air their grievances. In actuality complaints about Father Guarnizo had been made to clergy several times in the months preceding the incident.
Aged Parent, you are correct that Ms. Johnson expressed here desire to have Father Guarnizo disciplined. I clearly said Ms. Johnson gave interviews. I simply pointed out that her interviews ceased within a few months of the incident.
You also suspect that “Modernist Catholics” decided to cry to the Bishop. I do not have the answer to that however if that did happen it is unlikely the cries were made by parishioners at St. John Neumann. St. John Neumann is a not a “Modernist” parish. It has 24 hour Eucharistic Adoration every day of the year. The last year Father LaHood was pastor of the Parish he instituted an Extraordinary Rite Mass. The parish has a large, if not the largest, home schooling community in the Archdiocese of Washington. Many parishioners are also involved with the Mother of God Community located across the street from the parish facilities.
Although I do not agree with all the opinions expressed I do respect them with the exception of the one made by Miss Beautiful and Happy Woman. You do not know anything about me except from reading a few of my opinions. To say I have the devil inside me is a deeply serious accusation. I suggest you prayerfully reflect on what you said and pa
Anonymous, your own reflections reveal a bias against Fr. Guarnizo as well. I will agree to the pointlessness of a, "he said-she said with things like at what point he came in to funeral preparations since these likely can't be amended. However, you say:
Father Guarnizo's believed "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". It should have been no surprise to him considering the numerous occasions his conduct at St. John Neumann brought scrutiny upon himself.
You have perfectly made the point I have attempted to make for years. He was pre-judged based on previous, "scrutiny" of his conduct on numerous occasions. There is no way it was correct or proper for a letter signed and sealed to await him.
"Scrutiny," indeed. It reminds me of one incident with a neighbor and long-time friend. She threatened to leave the Church over something he was right to do. It also reminds me of a good friend who complained because his homily at daily Mass made her late for her doctor appointment. And it reminds me of Fr. LaHood himself who said in the "early days" of his brief time at SJN (not word for word),"Satan's not bothering with me, he's going after him. He takes his faith seriously." Well, so does Fr. LaHood, but he recognized what many of us did and many others are determined to squelch.
"Scrutiny." Go ahead and make your call and stand by it.
Anonymous, you seem to know a bit about these complaints; you seem to believe that they were lodged months prior to the funeral incident. Would you care to be more specific about these allegations? You must admit that "intimidating behavior" is rather nebulous.
Post a Comment