Wednesday, March 14, 2012

An 'official' note on Fr. Guarnizo's 'administrative leave' situation...

All the priests in the archdiocese received an e-mail from Bp. Knestout on Monday, March 12:

"Last night and early this morning it was reported incorrectly on some news outlets that the placement of Fr. Guarnizo on administrative leave resulted from the incident in which Communion was denied at a funeral. This report is incorrect."

"Fr. Guarnizo was placed on administrative leave as the result of credible allegations of behavior that is distinct from and occurred subsequent to the incident involving communion. The archdiocese’s Communications staff is monitoring and correcting inaccurate stories on a continual basis." 
"I have initiated two formal inquiries into both these incidents. Fr. Guarnizo will have the opportunity to present his side in both matters."

My sources must remain anonymous.  It should be understood however, that neither professional, nor amateur bloggers and pundits, priests nor canon lawyers, conservative traditionalist observers, nor liberal progressive-Catholics know the details of this case.  And since it is a personnel matter, most of us will never know unless the principals themselves release a public statement.

Let's get back to Lent now.

Wait a minute!  Wait a minute!  Fr. Guarnizo has spoken.  Go here

6 comments:

  1. So publicly condemning Cardinal Wuerl as a "despicable worm" is out?

    Aw, man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian5:29 PM

    Merc,

    No Cd. Wearl is still a smoke and mirrors prelate- who talks orthodox because he knows that is where the wind is blowing in the Vatican- but on the ground he is often a different guy- as one official in the Vatican a few years ago said of some of the American bishops- to use a football analogy- he fakes right, but actually on the ground moves left- but time will tell on this case. I just find it a bit uncanny in terms of the timing that the good father is removed two weeks after the lesbian deal. A little suspicious to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it is too much of a coincidence as well - no matter what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian - you may be right.

    I said that in sarcasm because of a commenter a few days ago who launched a tirade against the entire hierarchy of the church, going so far to say the pope is a fake pope, and that NO priests or bishops can be trusted, because of the evil "robber Council", etc.

    Wuerl may be a liberal, but "despicable worm" is a bit much, and we still have to show respect to our bishops, if only for their office.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4:19 AM

    Terry

    We don't know the story. It could be coincidence, or even if it is not, it doesn't have to go one way. Maybe the priest was being investigated and so that led him to act as he did, knowing he would get publicity and supporters. Maybe not. We don't know. It's best not to assume (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Anonymous - you are right.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.