[emphases mine]
GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- Just two days after Maryland's Legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, a Gaithersburg priest reportedly denied Communion to Barbara Johnson, a former Catholic school teacher, during her mother's funeral Mass because Johnson is a lesbian living in a same-sex relationship.
In response to the controversy that erupted over Saturday's incident, the Archdiocese of Washington, in which the Gaithersburg parish is located, said, "Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive Communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting."
The priest who reportedly refused Communion to Johnson was Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, a parochial vicar at St. John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg, a city in Montgomery County about 25 miles northwest of Washington, D.C.
In an interview Tuesday with WUSA-TV, the Washington-area NBC affiliate, Johnson said she was "shocked" by the priest's denial of Communion when she approached to receive the sacrament near the end of her mother's funeral Mass.
Shortly after that, she said, when she came up to give a closing eulogy, Guarnizo left the altar; afterward, he declined to accompany her mother's body to a cemetery a few miles away in Aspen Hill. Johnson said she was told he had become ill.
Johnson expressed appreciation for the archdiocesan statement criticizing Guarnizo's action but said at some critical life moments, "we don't get a do-over."
The archdiocese said it "will handle this as a personnel issue" with Guarnizo. Archdiocesan spokeswoman Chieko Noguchi declined to comment beyond the archdiocese's prepared statement.
Publicly denying Communion to a Catholic Christian is not a "personnel issue."
If anyone knows of an organized, local, lay-led response to this, please let me know.
It needs to stop now.
Pax et bonum.
I had seen the story and was sort of hoping that it was one of those made up internet stories like the Black Eyed Kids or Giant Catfish Eats Kid.
ReplyDeleteThen I was kind of hoping that maybe it was one of those SSPX type churches.
Alas, this was not to be. In light of events, their homepage is a freaking laugh riot: http://www.saintjohnneumann.org/index.htm
"We welcome you."
Delete"Welcoming community."
Lying is a mortal sin, no?
Not for the clergy. For them its a seminary class.
DeleteQuite right.
DeleteThe man should be sent away to ponder Our Lord's welcome to the outcast.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed he should be.
DeleteShe's not the first person and, probably, not the last to be denied Communion. In the context of the wider Church it's nothing unusual. There was a reason for that and we all know it. The rest is probably unknown as it is possible her mother wasn't even practicing Catholic, therefore her body wouldn't be accompanied by a priest to a cemetry.
ReplyDeleteThis lady was aware that her life is at odds with what the Church teaches. What happened was the result of her own life choices. If she doesn't like it, she can go elsewhere. Correct me, but there's no obligation to be a Catholic.
"In the context of the wider Church" this rarely, rarely happens. Tell me- how does one know about the state of one's soul when they approach for Communion?
DeleteEven if you consider loving someone a sin (another matter entirely), I DO recall that Christ shared His table with whores and traitors as easily as with priests. That those who presume to say that they are Him in reliving that very act would NOT do as He did speaks more about the 'righteous' than those who ask for Salvic Grace and are denied it.
DeleteAmen.
DeleteThom, it happens more often than you think, but unlike her, others have more class and don't make so much noise about it. And who says anything about one's soul? It's about one's actions as those can be judged.
DeleteTim, what about "go and sin no more"? Mysteriously, you always forget about it distorting Jesus' image and teachings.
What actions would those be? Did someone see her going down on her partner? Is there video? Wouldn't that, then, be pornography?
Delete@Peter: I have not and do not forget that part of reconciliation is to turn away from the sin which has caused your relationship with G-d to be damaged. That is between her and G-d and is not the issue.
DeleteThe issue is that the priest in question usurped the right of G-d alone to judge by refusing the Bread of Life and Salvic Cup. Further, by that action, he denied Christ's teaching "if anyone is thirsty, come to me and drink." Not a chosen few, not those who a priest finds worthy, but ANYONE.
She didn't deny that she lives against the teachings of the Church so my point still stands.
DeleteAnyone, Tim? Really?
Thom, there are men who find lesbians having sex rather sexy, so I don't think many would complain if presented with such a tape. ;)
@Peter :
Delete"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink." (John 7:37)
Anyone. Really.
"There is no obligation to be a Catholic"
DeleteIsn't this a kind of double speak. On the one hand we often hear "if you don't like the rules, you may leave". On the other hand, we hear "once you are baptized, you are a Catholic forever". And attempts by former Catholics to have their names removed from parish records are very much looked down upon and seen as scandalous.
Of course, when people do leave, it's accompanied with words of damnation, designed to guilt the person back into the fold. So let's not be so causal about people leaving the Church, acting disinterested and blase about it. Tacitly, in that comment, is the very suggestion that Catholicism is just one more spiritual-life-option on the market to suit the taste of those so inclined.
@Tim:
Delete"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27)
@J_Daniel:
Double speak? You probably had this lady on mind. As for the records of the Church - they contain information about one's sacraments and othe relevant information about a person in the Church and even if you want to formally defect it doesn't change the fact that you were baptized and it was noted by the Church. Nothing unusual. Words of damnation? Where and when?
Does the fact that you can choose something else bothers you?
I made no comment on the withholding of communion, and appreciate the complexities surrounding this issue. I don't say that I have solution, only the worry that it is issues such as these that push the Church further and further towards status as marginalized (somewhat self marginalized?) sect.
DeleteHowever, I don't buy the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" mentality. Campaigns like "Catholics Come Home", the constant lamenting of the decline of attendance and the apathy of the "godlessly secular" masses, the traditionalist yearning for all the hallmarks of the Church as "the religion of the people"...
The Church is above all intended to be a community- we're supposed to stick together to whatever extent possible, even in times of disagreement. If we must have the notion of "the pure Church", we must also recognize that it will always be a "diamond in the rough"; that community doesn't and can't mean membership on the terms of one caste of membership alone.
Letter writing campaign -- details at http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/communion-denied-to-lesbian-woman-at-her-mothers-funeral/
ReplyDeleteThanks very much!
DeletePeter, at least here in the States it's normal practice not to turn people away at Communion except in cases that would provoke great scandal - and no, a woman living with another woman doesn't fit the definition. It's especially unheard of at events like funerals.
DeleteThere are calls for the priest to be suspended:I'd provide a link to an article on he American Catholic blog, but Thom's new comment gizmo is a pain to work with on an iPhone for some reason...
Sorry about that, Bill. I had to switch from a popout box to embedded comments so I could keep the "subscribe by email" option.
DeleteAnd yes, you're absolutely right.
That's okay - if I want to paste something I'll switch to my laptop. Like now: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/02/denying-communion-funeral-offense-worthy-suspension-definitely
Delete(And I was wrong - it's US Catholic, not American Catholic...)
I saw that- they're absolutely right.
DeleteWe're not talking about friends sharing the same apartment, Bill, are we?
DeleteIt doesn't matter why they're living together - see my comment downstream.
DeleteShe confirmed to be a lesbian living with another woman, maybe even married. You still want to tell me it doesn't matter? It was precisely because of that.
DeletePeter, we aren't debating how you think the Church ought to treat gay people, but whether or not the priest followed the directives put in place by his superiors or the procedural obligations of denying someone Communion under canon law. The first thing he definitely failed in, and it appears he failed in the second as well. When you're elected Pope you can (try to) abolish the rule of law and make everyone subject to the personal dictates of every individual in Holy Orders, but we have not reached that pass yet.
DeleteI had no idea you were so concerned with the law. You also forgot that there's no agreement as to how apply this canon in practical terms.
DeleteFr Guarnizo seems to be something of a macher in the (politically) conservative community, apparently. He is (or was) the Director of the Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe: http://www.institute.sk/article.php?2220
ReplyDeleteThe biographical information may be partially incorrect. According to an interview he gave to EWTN, he is a native of Colombia but was raised in the US.
And the plot thickens...
DeleteBet he's a closet case.
DeleteI thought about bringing it to the attention of various Episcopal media outlets, but I'm now keeping my fingers crossed that it goes unnoticed by them - we're already unbearably smug about both the place of gay people in the Church and our alleged superiority to the Roman Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteTruth.
DeleteMore details: Fr Guarnizo and the woman whose mother's funeral it was do not seem to have met prior to the funeral, and he learned of the relationship between the two woman just before the Mass (which raises interesting questions about hearsay - or, as it's usually called in the Church, gossip). And the Archdiocese wrote what seems to be a very touching apology letter.http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html?tid=pm_pop
ReplyDeleteIt would be problematic hadn't she been a lesbian. Otherwise, it seems as this woman asked for a trouble. She got that and now plays a victim. Ironically, she's a victim of her own choices. If there is anyone who should apologize, it's her.
DeleteNo, Peter, you are (yet again) mistaken as to the facts of the matter. The priest simply does not seem to have followed either archdiocesan policy or the statute in canon law he probably thinks allows him to deny "sinners" Communion (canon 915, I think). It doesn't matter if the person is gay, a remarried divorcee, or someone who voted for a "pro-choice" politician. You don't publicly deny Communion to people except under very specific circumstances. Having someone whisper in your ear right before Mass that so-and-so is a lesbian isn't one of them.
ReplyDeleteThe typical example that the Church hierarchy points to as someone to deny Communion to is a politician who publicly and persistently campaigns for abortion in spite of private remonstrations and warnings of the consequences.
Was this priest provided with false information? No, so the only possibly problematic aspect of this story might be the form of his actions.
DeleteGiven the fact, that in our age the teaching of the Catholic Church is well known to an average person, specially if he/she claims to be Catholic, I see no need to offer private warnings as they are very ineffective and pointless. This lady, given the climate she created around this issue, wouldn't be any exception. In fact, only she and her allies see any problem at all.
You may see no need for a private warning. You may think that the mere state of being a lesbian or a gay man debars you from the Sacraments. The Church, however, sees it differently. And in what alternate universe is the Archdiocese of Washington counted as the ally of lesbians? They saw a problem big enough to warrant a letter of apology.
DeleteIt's called PR, nothing more, Bill.
DeleteYou're probably right that it's only PR - Archbishops are typically thrilled when their policies are ignored by parochial vicars.
DeleteArchbishops, like this in Washington, are more interested in looking cool than in being Christian witnesses to the world.
ReplyDeleteNew facts, emerging right now, confirm that there's more to this story than this lady told to the public.
ReplyDeleteShe talked, accompanied by her partner, with this priest before the funeral. So no, it wasn't a gossip, but a first-hand information about her own life. And, it highly probable that she was asked not to present herself during the Communion. Some say she could be absolved through confession. Unlikely, given the fact she's been fine with her life as a lesbian and her deceased mother, a devout Catholic woman, loved her partner as a second daughter. Do you really think she would, at least, try to change her life?
And who wanted to go public about this? It was her. And what she want now? To get rid of this priest. How Christian of her...
It really is worth considering how much you or the priest or anyone know about what goes on in couples' bedrooms. There are such things as chaste relationships, with straight AND gay couples. I no longer take for granted what may or may not happen behind closed doors, even with married couples. Be that as it may, this is still not the sort of grave, manifest, and public sin the canons should be used for: the priest erred.
ReplyDeleteAnd who is making so much fuss about it? Once again, the one and only Ms. Johnson. If she hadn't made an issue out of it, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. She had to tell the priest she's lesbian and she expected what? Congratulations? Chaste same-sex couples living according to the teachings of the Church don't make headlines as they keep it private. She couldn't help herself and had to blow this out of the proportion. It's even more funny when you read coverage of this story that says nothing about whether she considers herself a Catholic or not. From what I read on the Internet, she only (sic!) wanted to have a nice funeral for her mother; I guess it means treating sacraments as props.
DeleteI'm not sure, if I were illegally denied Communion, that I would address the matter in the same way that Ms Johnson has (and regulations regarding the denial of Communion in the Episcopal Church are considerably different from those in the RCC). But then again, if I'm ever denied Communion it wouldn't be at my mother's funeral, as she died in 2002. I remember what that day was like, though. The death and burial of a parent is a horrible thing; I cannot imagine what it would have been like if anyone had gone out of their way to treat me and my mother in such a fashion at her funeral. I find it sad that you can't even seem to summon up a smidgeon of empathy for Ms Johnson's experience.
DeleteYes, Ms Johnson is making a "fuss." She has every right to do so, being the aggrieved party. And needless to say, whether or not she is making a fuss has absolutely no bearing on the priest's actions. It says something that you've abandoned defending Fr. Guarnizo's actions and are now engaged in blaming the victim.
By the way, the version I've read does not have Ms Johnson volunteering information; either she or her partner responded to a question by Fr Guarnizo about their relationship by stating, "I'm her partner." That was it. That was the big revelation. Doubtless, if she had said something else and the information came out, RC reactionaries would now be attacking her for lying to a priest.
She put him in a possibly untenable position by seeking Communion when she knew that the Catholic Church felt she was ineligible and knew that the priest knew. And, do you think that someone's funeral is a good place to make a statement about your disagreement with Church doctrine?
DeleteShe knew the doctrine and chose this time and place to fight it. She’s not innocent as you try to present her. She got what she asked for.
Yes, you're right that had she withhold this information, she would have been a liar, but the problem here is her and her actions. She can be a lesbian, but she can't be a Catholic lesbian.
Fr. Guarnizo's application of the Church law might be considered improper, but, essentially, he was and is right.
And, what about his conscience, Bill? If he followed his conscience, like allegedly this woman did, then you shouldn't criticize him as he was doing what he deemed right in that situation.
I hasten to clarify my previous comment: while I no more believe that sex acts between members of the same sex are always sinful than I believe that sex acts between men and women are always sinful, Rome does. But as the Church has made abundantly clear, while same-sex sex is sinful, gay/lesbian orientation is not. The US Catholic bishops reiterated this in the 90s with "Always Our Children." www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm (One of its recommendations for pastors, by the way, is not to assume that all gay people are sexually active.)
ReplyDeleteFr Guarnizo may have suspected that Ms. Guarnizo engages same-sex acts, but there's no way he had knowledge that she did. That's not the reason he gave for not communicating her, though - he claimed (falsely) that two women living together is contrary to Church teaching. It is not. Even if he had knowledge that she engages in same-sex acts, though, he was in error in denying her Holy Communion. A person's conscience may bar them from Holy Communion because of their personal sex life, but under canon law a priest may not bar them. I'm not a canonist, but it seems that Fr. Guarnizo violated canon 912: "Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion."
Sex acts committed in private may make reception of the Eucharist a sin. A gay sexual orientation does not. And sex acts committed in private - assuming their sinful nature, for sake of argument - do not rise to the level foreseen by the canons for denying someone Communion.
Sorry to go on like this, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't interpreted as saying that I thought gay sexual orientation was sinful, but not the sort of sin that falls under canon 915.
Do you really believe people would know about chaste same-sex relationship?
DeleteI'm afraid that Peter is really getting off on this, so I'm closing comments now.
ReplyDelete