Oh joy, just what we all want — another thread about homosexuality. Alas, as so often happens, the controversy now in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington involves homosexuality, religion, and changing social mores. Let us dive in, shall we?
Here is the front page story that appeared the other day in the Washington Post. Excerpt:
Deep in grief, Barbara Johnson stood first in the line for Communion at her mother’s funeral Saturday morning. But the priest in front of her immediately made it clear that she would not receive the sacramental bread and wine.
Johnson, an art-studio owner from the District, had come to St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg with her lesbian partner. The Rev. Marcel Guarnizo had learned of their relationship just before the service.
“He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.
She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.
Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.
“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”
Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”
“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” Knestout wrote. “I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”
Johnson called the letter “comforting” and said she greatly appreciates the apology. But, she added, “I will not be satisfied” until Guarnizo is removed.
Read the whole thing. But notice what Get Religion points out about the story:
While this story contains a variety of voices representing various flocks of stakeholders, including the archdiocesan leadership, it does not contain any material that attempts to explain the viewpoint of the priest.
In other words, to use Poynter language, it appears that Father Guarnizo is not a stakeholder in a story that centers on his actions and beliefs. This is most strange.
I know that the comments thread here is going to fill up with people saying that Fr. Guarnizo doesn’t deny communion to divorced people who don’t have annulments, or other unrepentant sinners. For one thing, how would you know? Unless you are part of his parish, and know this for a fact, this claim would be groundless. For another, even if Fr. Guarnizo is selective in his application of this pastoral practice, that doesn’t mean he was wrong in principle to have observed it here; it may simply mean that he should be more consistent.
People who say that Barbara Johnson ought to have been given communion that morning have to explain why a priest ought to have knowingly violated canon law to have done so. That’s not nothing for a priest. Personally, I believe that there can be situations in which a priest is justified in violating the law out of a sense of mercy. In my opinion, this probably would have been one of those occasions. Had Fr. Guarnizo given her communion under these circumstances, I believe it would have been uncharitable for orthodox Catholics to insist that he ought to have stood on the letter of the law, instead of showing mercy in this extraordinary situation. Still, I say “probably” because if it is true that Johnson introduced Fr. Guarnizo to her “lover” (her alleged words) in the sacristy before the service, and that Fr. Guarnizo instructed her not to present herself for communion, then the scandal here is entirely on Johnson, who in that case would have chosen this sacred moment to make a point. Let me make this clear: if Father Guarnizo privately told her not to present herself to communion, and she did so defiantly, in public, then Johnson is guilty of exactly what she accused Guarnizo of: politicizing the Eucharist. If, after that, Johnson was bound and determined to defy the priest and receive communion, then she could have presented herself to a Eucharistic minister — as she ended up doing, and receiving communion.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Fr. Guarnizo — who, it must be said, behaved badly by leaving the altar and subsequently refusing to go to the graveside service — did exactly what canon law tells him to do. Barbara Johnson is trying to get him fired from his job as pastor for upholding the teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. The demand for his firing is so absurd it’s hard to believe anybody is taking it seriously. The Archdiocese of Washington has already distanced itself from Fr. Guarnizo’s actions, but I find it hard to believe that it hasn’t issued a formal statement of support for Fr. Guarnizo, putting to rest any question that he will be removed from his ministry, as Johnson demands.
Catholics (and Orthodox) these days have such misguided ideas about the Eucharist. Unlike in Protestant churches that practice communion, Catholics and Orthodox are expected to have had a recent confession before receiving the Eucharist, and not to be conscious of any serious sin. The idea is that to receive the Eucharist — which, in Catholic and Orthodox theology, is not a symbol but is actually, and mystically, the Body and Blood of Jesus — while in a state of serious sin is blasphemous. Barbara Johnson may not believe that being an active (= non-chaste) homosexual is sinful, but the Roman Catholic Church believes it is. Does Barbara Johnson’s opinion trump the Church’s teaching? Does she have a right to expect the Eucharist? She apparently thinks she does. So do a lot of Catholics and Orthodox. It is also undoubtedly the case that with certain exceptions, the clergy of both churches have done little or nothing to instruct them otherwise.
A similar controversy erupted at the Orthodox (OCA) cathedral in Washington, DC, last year. A deacon declined to commune an Orthodox lesbian living openly with a female partner. It caused a big row. The deacon was driven out of the parish — which is Metropolitan Jonah’s own parish, note well. As the Archdiocese of Washington appears to be doing with Father Guarnizo, the hierarchy of my church allowed a principled member of the clergy to be thrown under the bus for defending official Church teaching and practice regarding the sanctity of the Eucharist.
160 Responses to The Priest and the Lesbian Communicant
← Older Comments Newer Comments →-
An Anachronistic Apostle says:
But that leads me to a bit of a story. When my wife’s aunt died, we suffered through the funeral. Well in the back of the program there was this long, convoluted, explanation of why communion was closed to non-catholics and they were trying to be nice about it, but in doing so just made it confusing
Well, that did not bother me at all, I’m protestant. I really don’t get insulted by that. But my wife on the other hand, who is a recovering catholic as she puts it, was really offended, not by the practice but by the attempt to explain it. — Mr. Cosimano
Now follows the attempt to explain why the phrase “recovering catholic” should not really offend the really true followers of the Bishop of Rome: “Look, it’s like “recovering alcoholic” … it’s a virtue, and Roman Catholicism is like misused Jim Beam, a mental illness according to the DSM-IV TR if you examine it closely, so, well, umm … hey, what about those pedophile priests, eh?
The attempt, we are informed, was handled in a “nice” manner. A humane and sensitive effort was made, to explain certain limits established on the basis of centuries old dogma. But in our age of ripe narcissistic injury … perhaps tweaked by a funeral which serves as superb reminders of our own inherent weakness and fraility … that isn’t good enough. Even niceness offends, because our,/i> way was snubbed. “Hey, come on! Treat me gentle! I’m recovering from you guys!”
Under such circumstances, one can understand how the officiant may feel like abruptly turning his heel from the Altar, and going to the pub to end his recovery from alcohol.
-
Thomas Tucker, part of my response is provided by others above:
Brutus – It only excommunicates people for violations of doctrine.
Dimitry – Now if marrying a non-Christian woman excommunicated me from the Catholic Church than why should this woman openly in a lesbian relationship expect to recieve communion.
Savia – Anybody in a state of mortal sin, priests or otherwise, is under condemnation by God, if they don’t repent and receive communion. …and… Homosexuals committed to chastity are not denied communion.
If RC doctrine is clear, and we can at least agree that a sense of entitlement is not sufficient to negate doctrine, then Ms. Johnson is in a constant and unrelenting state of sin and cannot receive communion anywhere, anytime and for any reason. Can you imagine someone with a modicum of integrity denouncing her life partner just to pay lip-service to a rule?
I’m not a Catholic. I’m a privileged outsider, having grown up with mostly Catholic families and becoming acquainted with their faith by exposure and occasional study. Don’t get stuck, please, on “they should all be excommunicated” because there certainly could be another equivalent action. My point is simple: The RC hierarchy is playing with homosexual lives and souls. Make the announcement, no communion for homosexuals without confession and total renouncement (celibacy) of their sexuality. Bite the bullet on the PR storm that would follow. Nothing short of that is a valid response to my charge of hypocrisy.
-
Andrea says:
Remember the saying “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar?” You’re also more likely to listen to the words of a priest who treats you with compassion and understanding and doesn’t insist on the letter of the law at a time when you are devastated, as this woman would have been after losing her mother. If this priest had any hope of ministering to this woman and eventually persuading her of the error of her ways, this was not the way to do it.
I don’t care if she’s a Buddhist or a lesbian or rebellious against the Church, etc. She was raised Catholic and some part of her feels a connection to the Church or she wouldn’t have bothered to go up for communion or to feel rebellious enough to introduce her lover to the priest. She knew Church teaching, probably as well as the priest did. The priest had an opportunity there to surprise her with compassion and disarm her anger and build a relationship that might have changed her life which he squandered.
He is a bad priest, even though he followed Church teaching to the letter.
-
Another Matt says:
“Why a gay person would want to belong to a religion that despises them has always confused me.”
apparently you are not fully cognizant of the Church’s teachings about homosexuality. I suggest you go forth and learn then comment
this will get you started “People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.”
In other words, “If you’re gay and you expect to be treated with human dignity and compassion, the Catholic Church is not for you. Nobody deserves compassion; compassion has to be earned, and you can earn it from us by lying to yourself and everyone else about who you are.”
-
Charles Cosimano says:
Mr. Apostle, that is pretty much what I was thinking about that convoluted piece of really bad writing in the back of the program. My point is that I was not the one offended and I think if they had just said, “Catholics only,” my wife probably would not have been. After all, she knew that the world would end in fire and brimstone before I would have gone into that communion line. The problem actually came from trying to be nice about something that there really is no way to be nice about. It seemed to her totally hypocritical while I just thought that it, like the rest of the event, was unbearably funny as well as being really bad writing. (Regular readers of this blog have probably encountered my opinion of my wife’s family, which they no doubt reciprocate.)
What you have in this case is just plain bad manners on the part of the woman compounded by bad manners on the part of the priest. But at least they seem to have known which way to point the coffin.
-
Andrea, you cannot be anymore wrong. He would be a bad priest if he, out of a mistaken belief that he must appear compassionate, gave her communion. It is the soul the the church is supposed to seek to help, not the person’s feelings. It would be a lie to her to give her communion, as that would be misleading her to believe her choices were correct. And if she is not a Catholic, just why would she be offended by not getting communion? She was shocked that she did not get communion, so just how would she be surprised when she actually got it? I do not understand the premises of your argument, as they make no sense.
-
savia says:
Franklin,
The Catholic debate is not over the origins of homosexuality, but the objective nature of acts.
Yes, homosexuals are required to be celibate. This is not a denial of their sexuality, but a different way of living it out. Sexuality is not limited to an act.
Courage is in fact one of the church’s fastest growing Apostolate , run by same-sex attracted Catholics. They choose to live by the teachings of the church.
All things are possible with God’s help.
In fact heterosexuals are not given the license to do whatever we want.
We all have to reconcile our erotic desires with that of God’s, whether married or single.
In marriage this love is expressed through a life-long commitment, that is faithful and open to life.
For homosexuals it’s chaste friendship and mystical union with God, because contraceptive sex is forbidden.
Check out the website for Courage.
I have a greater respect for same-sex attracted Catholics who live by the teachings of the church.
-
Another Matt,
So a person is defined by who they sleep with?
-
W.E.B. Dupree says:
Charles Cosimano, thanks for responding. Perhaps that detail of my family’s old story is true then.
-
Savia, with respect (and gratitude for your response) I can’t debate you on your stance. We have in irreconcilable disagreement: The Catholic definition of the objective nature of (sexual) acts.
Keep in mind that my understanding of Catholic doctrine is entirely intellectual. It fails in making any connection to my soul. My personal perspective is on the people. My experience of Catholics is far and away positive (except those few who want to exorcise me, or some such). My experience of homosexuals is described almost exactly that way. The men and women I love who happen to be sexually attracted to their own gender have that aspect as one of my objective knowledge of them, not as a judgment of them. Of those I know who grew up Catholic, many are as conflicted as you might hope them to be, but in the end they live a fundamental denial of the entire “disordered” argument. Just as my heterosexuality is inseparable from the core of my being, so too is their homosexuality for their being.
That brings us full circle to my original assertions. The aspect of this that is disordered, from my biased POV, is the Catholic Church insisting on talking inclusivity for homosexuals only if they excise their sexual beings from their cores. It is as distasteful to me as the use of pain as a devotional method. Show them the door and close it behind them as gently as you wish, but the way I see it they are stuck in the doorway and the door is slammed in their faces by everyone else who passes through.
-
I was thinking about this as I posted, and decided to add…
Celibacy is in fact and in practice a denial of one’s sexuality. The word “denial” is perforce pejorative, so I clarify it as follows: Voluntary celibacy as (part of) an act of devotion is very powerful. Celibates I’ve known (very few) and read about discuss redirecting their sexual energy (tension) into their devotions (into service to others, quite often). Allow me to now reiterate my main point: Catholic doctrine strictly defines acceptance only of voluntarily celibate homosexuals. I see no blurring of that line. Any sexually active homosexual by that definition is sinning, and cannot be counted as a Catholic.
-
Clare Krishan says:
Well said PDGM – from an adopted Krish-ostom ! However I must firmly aver re: __IanH’s__ “You’re not Catholic. so your opinion means less than nothing to them.” and __Chad Rushing’s__ “three cheers for Guarnizo for sticking to his guns. I wish more Protestant pastors/elders would exhibit the same fortitude in similar situations. ” and __ Dave D.’s__ “may just be safer not to offer communion at all during funeral services.” and __Another Matt’s__ “Is it possible to believe that Guarnizo is an ass but still well within his rights?” and of course __Roland de Chanson’s__ “You made the right move, Rod” (see my comments on Deacon’s threads for details of my situation and reasoning).
We Catholics care exactly SO very deeply because to not act in coherence with the pneumatology of the sacred, is to no longer act pneumatological sacred, ie we act Protestant!
The priest’s autoerotic self-love of premature ejaculation righteous indignation put him in the same category of violence against Self, God and Neighbor that Dante places LOWER in hell than mere unresisted concupiscence (sins of our free will are always reckoned as more GRAVE than those of undisciplined flesh). The PRESUMED same-sex genital-recreation (its not sex without physical complementarity) of the daughter of a faithful devout congregant does not rise to the standard of GRAVE without a conversation with her about what ‘lover’ conduct corresponds to when she takes her clothes off each night and does she share such recreational activities with her partner (if they were HepC or HIV+ they may have made the loving decision to live chastely) not something I’m imagining is best done 5 minutes before a funeral. Therefore it is not, nor can it be, MANIFEST to the priest – rather he made a naked suppostion of his own free will contrary to right reason and absent charity. Nor is it, or can it be PERSERVERING, for he has not even yet identified the positive error he’d need to collate as to its repetition, he made a second naked suppostion of his own free will contrary to right reason and devoid charity so rather HE persisted in a manifest (everyone and his brother now know all about it) grave sin (he’s the expert on right reason and ordained to boot, or at least that’s what he was called to the seminary to become). So far? Our vicar is losing this one 0-3. Lastly Ms Johnsons sin has hardly met the OBSTINANCY test since he never asked her to stop sharing whatever he imagined she and her lover do when they take their clothes off or invited her to hear the diocese’s – not the Parish’s – response to SSA, or offered widely available sensitive pastoral materials from multiple global Church sources. No, he didn’t go that road with her. He just separated himself in a publically cowardly fashion from an unpalatable situation. He went rogue, he went Protestant. Quite obstinently too – he left the altar for God’s sake, 0 – 4 offenses/sins/delicts against the law, all in need of Divine Mercy (just as whatever offenses/sins/delicts Ms. Johnson cops to she gets around to next speaking with a priest – don’t hold ya breath, she’s had enough exposure to false Divine Mercy to innoculate her for a lifetime).
When a family event may possibly mean the sanctuary is predominately occupied by non-Catholic congregants, no priest should offer Mass, as it would be disrespectful to the Eucharist when so many folks would be acting out unaware of the Sacred Real Presence they were invited to participate in. In Catholic families this isn’t yet common, since baptism not orthopraxy is what determines the count, so the faithful have a RIGHT to the sacraments being celebrated at weddings and funerals even it they do no present themselves to commune, assuming they approach the minister with enough advance notice to permit the adequate reverential preparation needed. No one gets to pick and choose what’s “safe.” That type of puritanism of a Protestant bent is unfortunately rather common among RadTrads like Fr. Marcel. I don’t think Ms, Johnson singled him out, sorry. She had the misfortune of having her mother die as a registered congregant of a parish he was posted to – he’s not the Pastor by a long shot, he serves alongside two other more senior clerics. And that’s another part of his problem but not sinful.
He’s an ass and way out of bounds, that’s why the Bishop covered his ass then reminded him of the proscribed limits of his rights in that very public letter. Anyone who disagrees is free to follow into schism or heresy, I’d prefer our own Catholic clerics didn’t make it so easy to incite panic in the flock. The wolves shouldn’t be inside the sheepfold, for those on the fence pray an Anima Christi before you take the leap, and then decide just where the wounds are located you want to hide in – those of your own whited sepulcre or those of the whole world in atonement for whom the sacred species was shed?
-
Perhaps it would be best not to serve communion at funerals, or at least, to dispense with it if some close kin of the deceased are not eligible.
Several comments critical of the priest have played up that this is Johnson’s mother’s funeral, and seem to assume that taking communion is part of the mourning and showing respect process. It’s not. It’s a sacrament.
Now if the priest had said “You are a sinner, therefore you may not keen, mourn, cry, or delivery a eulogy…” that would be an entirely different matter.
-
Right on Franklin! “They are playing ecclesiastic politics with living souls.”
the sad part is their own sins make them SSA disordered from a transcendent body of Christ perspective, they attempt to make themselves equal to God , which never can be attempted never mind consummated! That’s why faithful well-formed Catholic understand heterosexual difference fit for conjugal relating to be a SIGN of true love, exercised in passion for limited innings, and SSA is the fan club or tail gate party. Same game, same love, just no agreement on where the goalposts are or what the referee’s job is, or even if what’s happening in the stadium matters when you’re enjoying yourself out in the parking lot. No quibbles on that. But just when did anyone get it in their head that “the tailgaters” get to run the affairs of the “AFL” or “NFL”? Ludicrous no? Well apparently in matters of freedom of conscience and religious doctrine, our gummint arogates exactly the fan club position – Yeh! toys for tots at Christmas! Yeh! Rice bowl collections at Lent! Yeh! Florist eye candy in the cemetries at Easter! Yeh! Appalachia youth outreach Vacation Bible camp! Yeh! Winter coat drive for the homeless! Yeh free substance abuse programs and HIV hospice care each New Year! Yeh! More money and time leftover for the rest of us to enjoy a guilt-less happy life. Its a kinda guilt-less life, so we devote our free time to a lot of mental onanism, please forgive us. We appeal to freedom of conscience rights to contemplate our navels. No, you cannot contemplate yours.
Signed,
The majority of the American Electorate
with apologies to Thomas Jefferson
(He didn’t really mean to make such open-ended
promises to those New Orleans nuns bak in the day, so we feel no obligation to respect our founding fathers intentions) -
oops missing adjectives “Its a kinda boring, unsatisfactory guilt-less life, so we devote …”
-
Jefferson text at tail of this opinion peice in the The San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1148/abp_niederauers_outstanding_column_its_not_about_the_tea.aspx
-
So a person is defined by who they sleep with?
If you aren’t an essentialist, then I suppose a person is defined by everything they are, and that will include sexuality. I share Franklin Evans’s view:
Just as my heterosexuality is inseparable from the core of my being, so too is their homosexuality for their being.
But the church is doing far, far more to define gay people by who they sleep with than even gay people themselves.
-
Franklin,
“Catholic doctrine strictly defines acceptance only of voluntarily celibate homosexuals.”
Yes, this is true. But, there is nothing that says, sexually active homosexuals are not Catholic, they are just living in a state of sin. Just like some others who may live in sexual immorality.
Actions are chosen, even if attractions are not.
The unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality cannot be separated.
-
“If you aren’t an essentialist, then I suppose a person is defined by everything they are, and that will include sexuality. I share Franklin Evans’s view:”
Not if you see people as embodied persons. If someone injured my leg, they don’t just injure me leg, they injure me as a person.
“But the church is doing far, far more to define gay people by who they sleep with than even gay people themselves.”
It’s because they take an embodied stance.
The problem with the secular world is not that it makes too much of the body, but that it makes too little of it.
For example every Catholic sacrament requires proper matter and proper form. You can only baptize with water, you can only anoint with oil, you can only consecrated wheat bread and grape wine.
It make look legalistic, but if you understand how we are embodied persons who interact with the world of time and space, then it makes sense.
-
He is not a priest I would want anything to do with, much less have officiating at a relative’s funeral. Yes, he is right regarding church doctrine; he is right regarding what the strictest moralist would have him do at the altar with a woman he knows shouldn’t be receiving communion. But I maintain that he is a bad priest because he has a pastoral tin ear, because he did this at the woman’s mother’s funeral. If he ever had a chance of getting this woman’s ear, he has lost it because of his actions. This is exactly the sort of thing that drives people away from the Church.
-
CLD says:
Update: the facts come out. See LifeSite News’ article on this matter.
-
cp says:
savia, on March 1st, 2012 at 11:42 pm Said:
The Orthodox are permitted to receive Catholic communion, and there are certain exceptions made for Protestants.That’s the Roman Catholic view. From the Orthodox perspective an Orthodox Christian who communes in a Roman Catholic Church is in a state of apostasy.
-
Zathras, here’s the Vatican’s take on CL 915:
“Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm…In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal.” After reading the latest LifeSite News article, I believe that it was not possible for Father to counsel the woman privately -the lesbian lover blocked him from talking with her after she made her “lover” introductions- and that he DID announce to the congregation at the start of the service the conditions for receiving Holy Communion. If canon law allows priests to deny Communion only to people who have sinned over time (as canon law expert Peters suggests), and does not allow priests discretion to prevent the REAL scandal of allowing a woman who has just announced her fully embraced and practiced lesbianism to him to receive the sacrament, then may I be so bold as to suggest that this law must be revisited and revised? -
Andrea, he would not have gotten her ear by just giving out communion. Do you really think that she would be coming back in the first place? She not only is living according to Catholic Doctrine, in a state of mortal sin, she is no longer even a Catholic. There is absolutely no chance that she could have honestly expected something different. He is a good priest for remaining true to beliefs instead of lying to himself and the woman that it is fine and dandy for her to recieve communion.
-
one lazy dog says:
perhaps the issue here is not the detail of thr rights and wrongs. No doubt the priest was ecclesiastically in the right to deny communion. However, as is usual w the catholic church, they have an extraordinary level of sensitivity on all issues of women’s sexuality, but appear utterly indifferent (or outright dishonest) on all other moral and ethical issues.
-
Thanks CLD.
The apology was not necessary, since the woman did receive communion and is an attention seeking brat, out for revenge.
Among other things, the new information indicates that the woman did actually receive Communion at the Mass – but from an Extraordinary minister rather than the priest.
Additionally, LifeSiteNews has learned that the self-identified lesbian, Barbara Johnson, is very public about her homosexuality and is a published author of erotic lesbian material.
According to Stauffenberg the priest was confronted by Johnson for the first time moments before Mass began.
She was reportedly agitated by the fact that the funeral was being presided over by Fr. Guarnizo, who is well known for his outspoken defense of Church teachings.
Read the rest here.
-
Andrea,
How many faithful priests are going to be persecuted by those who are open about their defiance?
It’s not like this woman was ignorant here about church teaching.
It’s this sort of thing that caused Rod to leave the church and many others.
-
Sorry, but I think doing it at the funeral of this woman’s mother was exactly the sort of act that drives people away from the Church because it was so insensitive and unkind, though undoubtedly right according to the strictest interpretation of doctrine. I don’t think strict doctrine should get in the way of good pastoral care. There are simply some times when the rules ought to be bent and this was one of them. This woman may never have wanted to return to the Catholic Church but the priest has just given her yet another good reason not to,.
-
Lifesitenews better be careful they’re not encouraging more errant Pavone-clones:
Ed Peters backs up my contention that the Priest is the manifest grave persistent obstinate type that are not easily corralled inside ecclesial structure/strictures:contradicting this POV “But the church is doing far, far more to define gay people by who they sleep with than even gay people themselves.” the Church is NOT presuming to do this, the Church’s canons are written to preclude ANY CATHOLIC BOUND BY THEM to presume to do this. Only those who arouse or indulge a perverse puritanical pleasure in presumption (a mortal sin incidentally) many of them Catholics therefore not in good standing are “doing the defining” going rogue, going protestant…. so sad, so unholy, so ungracious, so irrational, so contrary to natural law, and so EVIL.
motes and splinters folks
-
oops missing citation
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/a-thought-exercise-occasioned-by-the-lesbiancommunion-controversy/“if a some normal-looking woman in line for holy Communion is tuned away from the Sacrament, even politely, how are people supposed to know why? Did she kill maybe someone? Is she a porno queen or a prostitute? Maybe she runs that abortion clinic. Is she cheating on her husband or taking bribes at work? What?? the priest instigated an incident of scandalous uncertainty in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, unsettling deceased family, the congregation and the region’s Catholics devastated. Not charity. Not by a long shot. The Bishop is his bishop for a reason !
-
Richard W Comerford says:
Andrea:
“exactly the sort of act that drives people away from the Church because it was so insensitive and unkind”
The superstitious Romans hold that we live in a fallen world. That our true home is in heaven, But that a single serious (mortal) sin will (objectively) speaking damn us for all eternity.
The superstitious Romans also hold the consecrated host is the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.
The superstitious Romans further hold that sex between women is perverse and unnatural as well as an intrinsic evil. A person engaged in such an evil who has not first sort the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) before reception of Holy Communion commits the grave sin of sacrilege.
Finally the superstitious Romans hold that a Catholic who publicly and stubbornly persists in grave sin over time removes himself from communion with the Bishop of Rome and those Christians in full union with him (Excommunication). Such a person cannot be admitted to Holy Communion.
Christ told us that he did not come to unite us but to divide us. Given the above do you not think it would have been hypercritical for the priest not to deny the lady Holy Communion? Would you want the funeral mas of your loved one to be said by a hypocrite?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
-
Let us at least be clear that the First Amendment strictly protects the right of the superstitious Romans to believe all that Comerford says they believe (and he would know, better than I). It upholds their right to teach it, to preach it, and to govern their own rituals and sacraments accordingly. The government may not coerce them to do otherwise, not among their own communion, and not in their own precincts, not criminally nor civilly.
If God Almighty were to communicate unequivocally that they are wrong to so believe, still, the government of the United States, or any state, is without jurisdiction to enforce the divine will upon the superstitious Romans. (God is rumored to have ample powers to enforce his own edicts, and, to date, he has allowed the superstitious Romans to believe what they believe about his divine will).
The First Amendment does NOT immunize an employer who happens to be a superstitious Roman from providing a legally defined minimum of compensation to an employee, whether in cash or kind (e.g. medical coverage), but by the same token it does bar an offended sinner (as the superstitious Romans define one) from maintaining a legal action in the courts to obtain the holy Eucharist from a Roman priest. The courts are without jurisdiction to hear her plea.
-
Siarlys,
Last I checked, no religious organization has taught as a matter of faith that accepting or providing a just wage to employees is a violation of their conscience, and income is not analogous to contraception, anyway. Also, interesting misinterpretation of minimum wage laws… Note that the Almighty IRS generally does not include health insurance benefits as income, and even Obamacare does not require all employers to provide health insurance. Regardless, the First Amendment requires an exemption where necessary for the “free exercise of religion.” To artificially close off or even abort new life through contraception is one of those pesky, moral, life-and-death issues that the Catholic Church thought it should weigh in on as a matter of doctrine; the First Amendment applies here. Your own superstitions might be worth examining. -
Given the scandalous behavior of bishops and priests who have covered up the horrendous conduct of other priests, there are already a number of hypocrites in the Church, unfortunately. It’s also arguable whether the priest refused communion to the other people at the funeral whom he probably knew had committed sins equally egregious in the eyes of the Church.
I was raised Catholic; I know what communion means and other church doctrine as well as you do. I memorized the Baltimore Catechism backwards and forwards. But I still think this priest was utterly wrong. I might see his point if he had done this at some other Mass that wasn’t the woman’s mother’s funeral, but he did and that woman now has one more reason to resent the Church. Bad priest, lousy people skills, not someone I would want officiating at any funeral for one of my loved ones.
-
Ms. Andrea:
“there are already a number of hypocrites in the Church”
Always have been. Always will be. Until Judgement Day. Wheat an Chaff.
“It’s also arguable whether the priest refused communion to the other people at the funeral whom he probably knew had committed sins equally egregious in the eyes of the Church.”
According to some of Mr. Dreher’s correspondents in this thread above the lady in question with her girl friend in tow,confronted the priest prior to Mass and made an issue of (in the Church’s eyes) her sexual perversion. Making it hard for any conscientious priest to ignore the issue.
“I might see his point if he had done this at some other Mass that wasn’t the woman’s mother’s funeral”
Are you saying that “at some other Mass” the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is not present in the consecrated host as the Romans claim?
“Bad priest, lousy people skills, not someone I would want officiating at any funeral for one of my loved ones.”
The Romans hold that a funeral mass is not for the comfort of the deceased’s loved ones on earth. But, rather, for the repose of deceased’s immortal soul. To beg God to have mercy on the
deceased.Kind of hard to beg God to have mercy when one is committing a grave sacrilege? But you have apparently abandoned the superstitious Roman faith of your childhood. So why do you care?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
-
Pure hyperbole, CLD.
Employer-provided medical coverage is part of the compensation package, not a benevolence. Whether it is taxed as income makes it no more or less compensation for services rendered, and no less subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The constitutionality of minimum wage laws would not be affected in the least if there had never been an income tax, or an IRS. You come close to insinuating that the authority to enforce a minimum wage law is derived from regulations of the Internal Revenue Service!
The First Amendment says NOTHING about an “exemption” for the free exercise of religion. Nothing. That was made up out of whole cloth or thin air, whichever phrase you prefer.
Courts have in certain circumstances found that the First Amendment denies congress the jurisdiction to require certain acts that violate an individual’s religious beliefs. Mostly these involve putting words in the person’s mouth, like putting people in prison for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, when they consider this an act of idolatry (as do I). There is no broad precedent that a law regulating an employer’s obligations to employee’s shall not lie if the employer has religious objections to the terms of compensation.
The Catholic Church can “weigh in” all it wants, in the public square, in the homilies of its priests, and (if it had the courage of its stated convictions) by excommunicating those who fall short. But it may not dictate the terms of compensation the law may require employers to provide to employees, even if those employers are Roman Catholic.
The first amendment has never been a grant of power to a religious body to dictate the terms of generally applicable law. Allowing that would in fact be a first step down the slippery slope to Establishment of Religion.
-
Mr. Siarlys Jenkins
“Employer-provided medical coverage is part of the compensation package, not a benevolence.”
Artificial contraception was, not too long ago, illegal in all 50-states and most nations.
“The First Amendment says NOTHING about an “exemption” for the free exercise of religion.”
It is kind of hard to figure out where the federal government gets its constitutional authority to demand that every Roman institution in the nation provide artificial contraception to its employees.
“The Catholic Church can “weigh in” all it wants”
That is nice of you to allow. Are you going to allow priests in sermons during Mass to advise their parishioners to vote against politicians who promote artificial contraception?
“But it may not dictate the terms of compensation the law may require employers to provide to employees, even if those employers are Roman Catholic”
The Romans have not as far as I can see attempted to dictate the terms of any laws. However the government appears to be dictating that the Romans violate their own religious beliefs.
“Allowing that would in fact be a first step down the slippery slope to Establishment of Religion.”
Well, some of the States have in the past established religions. The federal government by dictating to the Romans that they cooperate with what they (the Romans) believe to be an intrinsic evil, is in effect, creating a national religion that replaces God with government.
I do not know whether the federal Constitution allows that.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
.
-
Savia: Just like some others who may live in sexual immorality.
You are invited to expand on this if you wish. I see it with Occam’s Razor: The lesbian is, in the eyes of Catholic doctrine, an unrepentant sinner. Whatever other hairs they may wish to split in any given specific situation, however you may wish to caveat or qualify my assertion, it should be that simple. Ms. Johnson is not a Catholic, and has not been for at least the span of time she has been in the committed relationship described in the article.
-
Apparently Mr. Comerford, there is great deal you don’t know. In case I was not clear, no statement of mine about what the superstitious Romans (your term, not mine, albeit we all know it was meant sarcastically) may do, is founded upon my own authority. It is not my gift, merely my observation of the state of the law in our nation.
IF the federal government passed a law, or a regulation, that specifically imposed requirements on Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic institutions,or Roman Catholic belief, that law would be void on its face.
No regulation provides “Roman Catholic institutions will provide contraceptives.” A regulation provides that employer-paid medical coverage shall cover contraception. That may be good policy or bad policy, but it violates nobody’s free exercise of religion.
Some states have in the past established religions. New states entering the Union after 1787 consistently forbade that in their state constitutions, and, once the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted by two thirds of both houses of congress and ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures, states lost the jurisdiction to ever Establish a Religion again.
The claim of a “national religion” that replaces “God with government” is absurd. Perhaps you are confusing the Roman government (Curia, etc.) with the Roman faith. We Americans have indeed replaced rule by princes of the church with rule by the sovereign people. Most Popes contemporary with this experiment have expressed explicit disapproval, but we didn’t ask for their permission.
-
Jenkins,
European courts are already forcing pro-life doctors, nurses, to perform abortions. How long before this madness comes to America.?
Socialized medicine comes with string attached.
The federal govt, is trying to nationalize all health care, including private ones.
-
savia, what do European courts have to do with our unique set of constitutional law?
Have you forgotten that our nation was born in a revolution AGAINST European political forms and hierarchies? Yes, Europe has moved beyond monarchies by divine right, but they haven’t merged with us, politically or culturally, and certainly not in jurisprudence. A European court’s reasoning may be cited as “persuasive” by an American court, but it is never “mandatory,” and it can never over-rule our own constitution.
The churches of Europe clung to their official Establishment and financial dependence upon The State, and are now paying the price for that in empty pews. As de Toqueville pointed out in the early 19th century, churches flourished in the United States BECAUSE OF the separation of church and state. Every pastor he spoke with knew and acknowledged that. In Europe, rights are the gift of a benevolent state. They are not here.
Oh, I’m sure you can find a liberal commentator who will argue passionately that pro-life doctors and nurses SHOULD be required to perform abortions. But there is a significant legal obstacle to realizing that nightmare. It is called “Roe v. Wade.” The state has no power to do that under our constitution.
Socialized medicine does come with strings attached. There are worse ways to deliver medical care when so much expensive technology and complex financing is involved. I’m not sure there is a better one.
-
Franklin,
She has not been a committed Catholic, but I am not in a position to declare someone not Catholic, neither are you, unless they themselves choose to do so.
-
Andrea,
She received communion by an EM and received a lavish apology. I think this should be laid to rest.
-
Jenkins,
So religious employers have no conscience rights? Please note these are private and not government run organizations.
-
Mr. Siarlys Jenkins
“Apparently Mr. Comerford, there is great deal you don’t know”
Just like Sergeant Schultz. .
“merely my observation of the state of the law in our nation”
Is it possible, could it be, that your observation is, dare I say, wrong?
“IF the federal government passed a law, or a regulation, that specifically imposed requirements on Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic institutions,or Roman Catholic belief, that law would be void on its face.”
As the superstitious Romans are the last Christian Church in the USA (out of 40,000 – so says Time Magazine) to hold that artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil then any federal law or regulation bent on imposing artificial contraception on the superstitious Romans or anyone else for that matter is clearly aimed at the superstitious Romans. As they should be.
“but it violates nobody’s free exercise of religion.”
Certainly it does not violate the free exercise of religion of the other 39,999 Christian Churches in the USA. But it is the equivalent of the Romans demanding that Christians sacrifice or adore their divine Emperor. The most superstitious of the superstitious Romans simply will not worship our modern federal government. To the lions with them I say.
“once the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted by two thirds of both houses of congress and ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures, states lost the jurisdiction to ever Establish a Religion again”
Well that is all very nice. But normally the values of the Episcopal Church, as in the legalization of birth control, have ruled our law makers in the USA.
“The claim of a “national religion” that replaces “God with government” is absurd.”
I agree. The Episcopal Church embraced divorce, birth control, abortion and artificial contraception and our federal government embraced divorce, birth control, abortion and artificial contraception and our federal government. Absurd.
“Perhaps you are confusing the Roman government (Curia, etc.) with the Roman faith”
I hope not. Too many un-roman like Italians in the Curia.
“We Americans have indeed replaced rule by princes of the church with rule by the sovereign people.”
Thank goodness we do not have any princely political families. Otherwise our rulers would be a small, self selecting elite who periodically replace each other.
“Most Popes contemporary with this experiment have expressed explicit disapproval, but we didn’t ask for their permission.”
You mean those evil, papal anti-Christs who blather on and on about the intrinsic dignity of the individual, the importance of the family, the necessity of peace, the right of every person to live in dignity and the right to life? And it is all laid out in those encyclicals of theirs? Anti-democratic scum.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
-
Re: Tricky Popes
Although it is well known that the Popes of the superstitious Roman Church are anti-democratic, cleverly, not one of the anti-Christs has actually come out into the open and condemned democracy as evil.
In fact, as part of their smoke screen, the anti-Christ Popes, starting with Pope Pius XI have, as part of their charade. not only promoted democracy but condemned Catholic political groups such as Action Française which opposed democracy and the Jews.
Indeed tricky Pius XI went so far as to defend Dreyfus during the Dreyfus Affair!
Fortunately we have alert and clear thinking Americans to warn us of the anti-democratic predispositions of the superstitious Romans.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
-
“IF the federal government passed a law, or a regulation, that specifically imposed requirements on Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic institutions,or Roman Catholic belief, that law would be void on its face.”
The federal govt. is trying to impose this mandate on RC institutions and define their mission.
The argument is that religious activity is only confined to a church. Jesus would not qualify under Obamacare.
-
savia, I believe you nailed it. The ability to impose such mandates on religions is in effect the ability to control them and their agenda. It is no surprise that the federal government would wish to do this, as religions compete with religions for the loyalty of the people, thus the religions serve as a potential check on the power of government, unless the government subdues a religion to be an arm of the state. Such mandates may well turn religions into an arm of the states.
-
Jenkins,
I brought up Europe, because I understand socialist policies and what happens when they dictate private health care.
Rod, here and in the shortened CNN version, the sentence “Catholics (and Orthodox) these days have such misguided ideas about the Eucharist.” may IMHO misdirect people who don’t know your story and think you’re a Protestant. That is, it reads factual rather than ironic.