make us pay for them...
Posted on 02/29/2012 6:08:22 PM PST by Morgana
GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND, February 29, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A parish priest in Maryland, who denied communion to a woman who identified herself as a lesbian, has been publicly rebuked by the Archdiocese of Washington.
Barbara Johnson attended her mother’s funeral last Saturday and introduced her lesbian partner to the priest before Mass.
Fr. Marcel Guarnizo of St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, covered the Host as she approached and told her, “I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the Church, that is a sin.”
Afterwards, she wrote him a letter telling him, “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.”
Auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout wrote a formal letter of apology telling Johnson, “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.”
The Archdiocese of Washington issued a brief press release saying Fr. Guarnizo’s actions were inappropriate. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. 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.”
After receiving the letter of apology, Johnson said “I will not be satisfied” until Fr. Guarnizo is removed from the parish.
Monsignor Charles Pope, who blogs for the Archdiocese of Washington’s website, told LifeSiteNews.com, “One would presume a priest would have had more ongoing conversations with somebody of a private nature before one would publicly deny somebody communion.”
“There may be a time when a pastor has concerns about a parishioner and then speaks to them privately and advises them privately not to receive communion,” he said. “But we don’t have these confrontations at the altar rail.”
Canon 915 of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law admonishes priests to deny Holy Communion to those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
The New Commentary on Canon Law states: “Eucharistic Ministers are also to refuse holy communion when they are certain (1) that a person has committed a sin that is objectively grave, (2) that the sinner is obstinately persevering in this sinful state, and (3) that this sin is manifest,” or widely known to those present at the Mass.
The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops established “engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage” as such a sin in its 2006 publication “‘Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper’: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist.”
“Catholics who are conscious of committing any mortal sin must receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion,” they wrote.
Public denial of communion must also be preceded by a private warning not to come forward to communion.
The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, states, “before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave.”
“Most canonists, including pastors and priests, interpret that not just as not just a quick conversation but something of a more substantial nature,” Monsignor Pope told LifeSiteNews.
Dr. Ed Peters, a canon lawyer at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote “a few minutes conversation…would not suffice, in the face of numerous canons protecting the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments, to verify either the notoriety of the (objectively) sinful situation, or to verify the obstinacy of the would-be recipient.” However, Dr. Peters noted after a sufficient period of warning and instruction, a priest would be well within his rights to invoke Canon 915 and deny communion to an obstinate, sexually active homosexual.
“I don’t know that that can be determined by a brief interaction in a sacristy,” Msgr. Pope told LifeSiteNews.
Fr. Guarnizo may have been forcibly denied the opportunity to expand on his conversation. A commenter on Deacon Greg Kandra’s blog, who claimed to have been “in a meeting with Fr Marcel and heard the whole story,” wrote: “The woman in question brought her lesbian partner into the vesting sacristy just before the funeral Mass and made sure to introduce her partner to Fr. Marcel, introducing her as her ‘lover’. He told her then that she should not present herself for Communion.” A commenter claimed Barbara’s partner “blocked his way out of the sacristy when he attempted to speak with her further.”
The Catholic Church believes a faithful Christian has such an interest in receiving Holy Communion that it must only be denied only in extreme cases. “When in doubt, give it out,” Msgr. Pope said.
The popular blogger Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote no one should be surprised that questions persist about when to publicly deny someone communion.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf writes that “Many priests have received inadequate training in these matters of law and have been given even worse example by bishops who ought to be applying can. 915 is genuine cases of applicability,” he wrote.
Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, waded into a similar controversy in 2009 when he said he would not deny House Speaker Nancy Pelosi communion, claiming to do so would amount to “Communion wielded as a weapon.” When asked, he said, “there’s a question about whether this canon [915] was ever intended to be used.”
Fr. Zuhlsdorf described Fr. Guarnizo’s actions as “well-meaning” but “premature,” adding he could not find fault with his motivation.
“He should be thanked for taking his role seriously and for wanting to uphold the Church’s teaching,” he wrote.
Fr. Guarnizo did not return messages left by LifeSiteNews.
well, maybe they need to start talking it over in private with them, because a lot of us are sick and tired of open sinners pretending they are good Catholics.
Some bishops do have guts: Sibelius was blocked from receiving the Eucharist in Kansas after she vetoed a bill against partial birth abortion.
And it's not just in the USA: Good pro abortion catholics receive communion in the USA but here in the Philippines, they are being threatened with not receiving communion if they vote for mandatory birth control in public clinics...
But it's a problem when we see these rich politicians receiving communion when you know they accept Bribes,or buy votes or "off" their political rivals...
after one very violent election in our area, the bishop decided to hold a big prayer meeting during the next election and made all of the candidates sign a pledge against violence...the implicit threat was that they'd be barred from communion and their places of honor during the fiestas if they broke the pledge.
Bishop Wuerl makes me hurl. He knows darn right well that Pelosi should not only be denied communion but should be publicly excommunicated. This priest was not only courageous, but absolutely in the right to deny this woman communion. Just from the conversation, one can tell this was a setup. LGBT do this all the time. Had she come to me, I would have told her..DO NOT APPRAOCH THE ALTAR FOR COMMUNION. Her obstinance and NOT ignorance are at the heart of her grave sin.
I’ve had to deny communion in several situations. Always under charitable circumstances. I’ve never had this sort of confronation though.
Deacon Francis
This tells us what chances there are that the DC deathists from Pelosi down be ever ex-communicated by the Washington diocese.
Had she kept her homosexual activities private, so as to avoid public scandal, the priest should have given her Communion.
But why does she want to receive Communion?
&&
Precisely. This unclean savage used the occasion of her mother’s funeral to plan her confrontation. This is a direct assault on the Church and on God’s laws.
Pope is usually right, but he should have kept his mouth shut about this one until he had heard all of the facts.
And it sounds like we have yet another softie heading the DC archdiocese.
Reprimanded?! For preventing a person in a state of unrepentant sin from committing sacrilege??!!!
That bishop needs to be reprimanded.
Not just in the RCC. Scripture talks about different levels of sin ... deadly and not deadly. All Christians should be in line with this teaching.
Not that you really want an honest answer, but here goes anyway.
In the Catholic church, and, I suspect in many other faith traditions, there is a concept of some sins being more grievous than others. The Church classifies these as “mortal” and “venial”, with mortal sin being the more serious.
A person who has committed a mortal sin is not to receive Communion unless he has first received absolution during Penance. One who has committed a venial sin is not so restrained.
The Church does not consider it a sin for one to be attracted to members of his same sex, but it is considered sinful to follow up on that temptation.
IMO, the woman in this incident went way beyond even acting upon her desires; she actually got in the priest’s face and announced her state of sin just to provoke a confrontation. She was reveling in her sinfulness and mocking God.
As a non-Catholic who has attended numerous Masses I would never think of doing something that my kind hosts would not have me participate in. But to a queer these days, I guess nothing is sacred except perversion itself. No courtesy, nothing.
And to apologize for not accommodating someone so rude might be worse.
Decency, thou art fled to brutish beasts;
and I must pause 'til it come back to us.
ML/NJ
Most of these young 8th graders were of the opinion that the church needs to change its doctrine of 2000 years.
***
I’m sorry, but reading that brought tears to my eyes. Is it not sad to see how successful the left has been in normalizing perversion and sinful behavior?
I am astounded at how many otherwise right leaning people see nothing wrong in shacking up for heterosexuals or for homosexuals.
And, as to your other point, isn't rump-ranging the essential "marital act?" How else would Adam and Steve "consummate" their marriage?
Charles Marx
Class of 2012
PS 666
Dear Charles Marx
What will Obamacare do when Adam and Steve contract AIDS, MERSA, and Hepatitis B? How will Obamacare handle the costs of Adam and Steve when they can no longer work and are in a Hospice dying of these? How will the government pay for their funeral when they are dead at age 40 of these terminal diseases?
Sincerely,
John Q Public
make us pay for them...
The gummint will get the money out of wasteful spending on blood pressure medicine, insulin, kidney medications, and other medications used by those aging white folks who tend to vote REPUBLICAN!!!
Charles Marx
Actually, I really did want an honest explanation. I couldn’t wrap my head around the concept. Thanks!
IMHO It’s odd to pick and choose which sins to chastise someone for.
“I’m not a Catholic but I wish the church would grow some cojones. I was heartened by their attitude towards the nobamacare contraception debacle.”
This story indicates why Obama has nothing to fear from the “Catholic vote”; it is not a bloc, and the hierarchy was in bed with him until he publicly discredited them. Until their religious exemption was removed, they had no problem with their flock being mandated to buy insurance which in most cases included contraceptives (including abortifacients). The Catholic hierarchy (in the US) played a role in Obama’s election through their inaction; any messages from Rome were well watered down by the time they reached the people in the pews (where any message was sent at all).
Someday the Catholic Church will realize that their donation fall in proportion to increases in taxes paid to Caesar.
“Is Communion denied to all sinners, or just gay ones?”
If the priest has personal knowledge that my soul is not in a state to receive Communion, he should not administer it (if he believes the Church teaching that God is present in the Host). For most sinners the priest doesn’t have that knowledge; this deviant shared it with him. Maybe they need to keep some unconsecrated Hosts available, to give these people a feeling of inclusion.../s
The American Catholic hierarchy has indicated they no longer believe in the Divine Presence when they administer it to people who bring public scandal to the Church, be they politicians or out-of-the-closet perverts. The American Catholics have in turn stopped attending Mass, believing anything, etc.
This is not a Fed vs. Catholic issue. There are millions more of us who have the conviction against paying for other people's moral . . . or immoral, as the case may be . . . choices.
My wife and I made phone calls to our U.S. senators again, just prior to the failed Blunt amendment vote, and once again registered our objection to the purchase of these insurances on the grounds of our religious faith, and we are no where near being Catholic.
Ministers, by the way, who do so within two years of being ordained by their (any) church, may opt completely out of the Social Security system for the same religious convictions. This is PRECEDENT for opting out of "Obama Care."
Of course, we believe that ANY believer with the same convictions as their ministers (and, isn't THAT the idea behind the ministry ??? . . . leading their flock ???) should have the same exemption available, to opt completely out of the Social Security mess. It kind of lends a justification for "ordaining" all of the members of our church. Some ministers, in fact, who were not aware of the opt-out rule for ministers within the two years after ordination, get RE-ORDAINED so that they can opt out.
FOR this reason (that of objecting to paying for other people's moral or immoral choices), and many other reasons, we often remind our elected representatives of our conscientious objection of participation in Obama Care.
“This is not a Fed vs. Catholic issue.”
You’re right; this is a Catholic hierarchy vs. Catholic laiety issue. Why was it acceptable to our hierarchy that us little people would be forced into buying such insurance?
It’s odd to pick and choose which sins to chastise someone for.
&&&
The Almighty has laid out the rules.
Here is how I see it, applied to a COMPLETELY hypothetical example at our church (conservative, bible church):
Say there is a member named Bob (I just picked a name; I apologize to anyone at FR named “Bob”!). Say Bob is married. If Bob committed adultery, but was repentant, the church would forgive his sin, of course, as we all are sinners.
But if Bob was in a continuous process of committing adultery, openly displayed it at church, announced it and was proud of it, our church would have a big issue with Bob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.