[Practicing, Poorly Catechized] Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother's Funeral

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miserissima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are witnessing how the enemy of our faith, uses people to destroy those who want to stand up for the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church. This is going to make you sick when hear how Father Marcel is written about with words such as bigoted fangs, he is also the sole villainous Catholic in a story starring a great many Catholic heroes. shamelessly etc.

Barbara Johnson wants “Before we will feel resolution,” “my family wants a public apology from Father Marcel, and to see him removed from parish life. Our purpose is that he never be allowed to harm another family in this way again.” “Obviously, I don’t think being gay is a sin, all raised deeply Catholic” Huh?🤷:eek:

Read the whole blog if you can handle it at Huffington Post

So apparently the hierarchy in this case now supports homosexuality and receiving communion in a state of mortal sin which would damn her soul to hell? I’m confused. If our choice lies in offending God or the riled sensibilities of a someone mired in sin who rejects the teachings of the Church, I believe the choice is clear…apparently not!
 
:eek: She was a Catholic school teacher and she didn’t even **consider **that this would be a problem. :eek:

I am not sure if that is a worse indictment of her intellectual ability or the moral compass of the Catholic schools where she taught.
I agree. This woman must have known she shouldn’t go up for communion. The priest cared for her soul. Of course, it would have been better to have had the private visit prior but the responsibility is also on the shoulders of the daughter who knew full well having been a teacher in a Catholic Church the teachings of the Church. Sad to see this exploited in the news. Pray for our priests!!

mlz
 
:eek: She was a Catholic school teacher and she didn’t even **consider **that this would be a problem. :eek:

I am not sure if that is a worse indictment of her intellectual ability or the moral compass of the Catholic schools where she taught.
Well, the school where she taught was a pretty liberal school already. I had to sit through Morality class where we “discussed what could happen to the Church if there was ever a Vatican III”. I had to go against everything I believed in on an essay for a test and had to write about how married priests were a good thing, or lose a huge chunk and get in trouble. I wanted to give that teacher a piece of my mind.

Also, I noticed in the Buddhist Catholic Lesbian’s class, there were some girls who kept saying “I hate the Catholic Church” (the teacher did not incite this, just so you know). Gave them a few good points of my I dislike their precious, left-wing media.
 
After a few days of reading facts, psuedo-facts, and comments, I have this to say:
  1. Apparently, it is really hard to actually deny someone Holy Communion under Canon Law.
  2. People who are objectively living in a state of sin should not announce it to the priest and create an untenable situation for all involved.
  3. The hierarchy should gather all of the facts before they comment at all.
  4. The hierarchy should teach during moments such as this instead of fracturing the Body of Christ.
  5. The hierarchy, especially now, should never throw a priest under the bus.
I think the Catholic Bishops are totally disconnected from everyday life and are unable, in a public relations situation, to fully explain what we believe and why we believe it. I hope this does not run afoul of the comment policy, but the Archdiocese could have handled this in a positive way but chose, through cluelessness, to comment before they knew the facts and to not support their priest.

I am a faithful, confession-going, NFP-practicing orthodox Catholic, and I expect more.
 
I couldn’t find the thread at first, because I had posted on another thread which ended up getting merged with this one.

I’m up to speed now (last night did the homework and started reading from post # 1 all the way to the present). As the thread evolved, certain things came to light (and just as many seem to have faded back into obscurity) . Definitely lots of thought stimulation from some informative posts.

To date,I’ve only been able to read roughly half of the linked articles in each of the posts .Deacon Greg received an email which he thought was important enough to post. (It’s possible someone may have already posted it if you did and I missed it , I apologize] ) . It can be read here : I Wanted You to Know There is More to This Story . I think it’s worth a look.

When you read the Deacon’s blog make sure you click on the link at the bottom of his article (click on the word “here” in the article) :
As I noted here, Barbara Johnson is telling a different version to the press of how the priest found out about her.
That will bring you to some of the updates he is giving on the story . . . - one excerpt I find to be particularly poignant :
I happen to know “First hand” that Barbara went into the sacristy before the mass and introduced herself as a lesbian in an active lesbian relationship… introducing her partner as “her lover” (her words). She left the sacristy before Fr. could have the “private discussion” you talk about. Barbaras “Lover” blocked his way out of the sacristy when he attempted to speak with her further.
I’m glad we’re slowing down a little now, because there continues to be so much disinformation in the media while more information is coming out . Some of the posts (in my limited opinion) were coming very close to jumping on a priest whose only sin may well have been to be crucified by an angry activist mob . There is no question as to whether Father Guarnizo is presently being crucified in the media (if you can stomach reading some of the vicious attacks like the one referred to in the Huffington Post - there are plenty to go around, but I’m not giving any links to them) . The only question at the moment which seems plausible, is whether original initiation of the crucifixion was premeditated .

While some of us were handing out all this “counsel” at Father Guarnizo’s expense, can we be absolutely certain we might not have inadvertently handed out a hammer or two in the process ?

I have a problem with a few things in this story and the way even some of us here are treating them. I’ll see if I’m able to word them properly as the thread progresses.

So many conflicting interpretations… even regarding Canon Law , and what I see in the comments presented by the media against Father Guarnizo is not, by any stretch of the imagination ,atypical gay militant propaganda ; it’s textbook !

You have to love it when Angels speak, because with these Brothers of ours, there is no room for abridgement, reinterpretation, skewing and the like ; they speak only the words God asks them to speak to us. I am reminded of what the Angel of Fatima’s words were to the children over 90 years ago :

Excerpt taken from : Our Lady and the Eucharist; REAL PRESENCE EUCHARISTIC EDUCATION AND ADORATION ASSOCIATION LIINK HERE (highlight mine):
At Fatima it is a well-known fact that an Angel of Peace came first to Francisco, Jacinta and Lucia in 1916. He prepared the way for the later apparitions of Mary Immaculate. When he appeared the third time in dazzling beauty before the three seers, he held in his left hand a chalice, and in his right over the chalice, a host form which drops of blood could be seen falling into the chalice. Leaving the host and the chalice suspended in mid-air, he prostrated himself touching the ground with his forehead. Then he said the following prayer three times:
  • “Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I adore you profoundly. I offer you the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for all the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I pray for the conversion of poor sinners.”
The Angel then rose and took the chalice and host into his hands. He communicated the host to Lucy, the contents of the chalice he gave to Jacinta and Francisco, saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their sins and console your God.”
As miz pointed out in post 239 : Helping prevent someone from committing Eucharistic sacrilege is an act of charity - it demonstrates concern for the well-being of that person’s soul.
 
Posts 241 and 242, in addition to being well-thought-out and well-written, echo my own dismay about the condemnatory assumptions coming from those claiming to know what the priest in question does and does not know about Canon Law, did and did not do, thought and did not think – not to mention what his motivations were. :eek: A false “charity” has been extended to all parties except to the priest in this story. (I’m speaking strictly of his reported behavior while distributing communion, not the matter of the rest of the funeral/burial, which i.m.o. is a separate issue, and for which he might be subject to scrutiny/criticism, depending on what the facts truly were.)

Building off of the last portion of Needs’ Improvement’s post 242, folks should keep in mind that some of the great mystics had visions of Hell which featured sacrilege as a primary offense, and that other mystics who had encounters with Our Lord and Savior during their lifetimes similarly reported sacrilege as a horrifying offense which wounds the Sacred Heart.

Nah – not important. Only important to be as PC as possible, to keep up with the Must-Have opinions of the popular press, and at the risk of violations of charity against a priest who is a stranger to most people commenting about his actions. :rolleyes:
 
How do you presume to know the state of that woman’s soul? She may have gone to confession with another priest. Same with an adulterer. How does the priest know that a person hadn’t gone to confession? 😦
Because from what I have read about this, she and her significant other entered the Sacristy where this Priest was getting robed for Mass. (something they should not have been doing in the first place) They (or she) talked to him and told him their living arrangements, and demanded that she receive communion…at one point blocked the sacristy door so he couldn’t get out.

There is more and probably much more to this story that is not being told.
 
Because from what I have read about this, she and her significant other entered the Sacristy where this Priest was getting robed for Mass. (something they should not have been doing in the first place) They (or she) talked to him and told him their living arrangements, and demanded that she receive communion…at one point blocked the sacristy door so he couldn’t get out.

There is more and probably much more to this story that is not being told.
And probably much more told than actually happened.🤷 Just sayin…
 
Additional* disrespecting** of Church teaching!!*

Eulogies Not Permitted at Funerals
In 1989 the Vatican published the revised Order of Christian Funerals
(OCF) for the United States. The long-standing prohibition of eulogies at Catholic funerals was again upheld and restated. “A brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy.” [OCF # 141] In the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal promulgated by John Paul II in year 2000 (GIRM 2000), this prohibition of eulogies was again restated: "At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind."
http://www.bssky.org/?page=newsforward&name=bssky.org&article=1931
 
Because from what I have read about this, she and her significant other entered the Sacristy where this Priest was getting robed for Mass. (something they should not have been doing in the first place) They (or she) talked to him and told him their living arrangements, and demanded that she receive communion…at one point blocked the sacristy door so he couldn’t get out.

There is more and probably much more to this story that is not being told.
Wait, what? She demanded communion?

An ex-Catholic BUDDHIST demanded Communion?

(facepalm)

“Sorry, I’m going to shove my lifestyle in your face and try to destroy the image of the church that my mom was apart of.” (sighs)
 
Fr. Marcel is my parish priest; he is a VERY good and holy priest. He gives the best homilies that I have ever heard anywhere. Fr. Marcel advised this woman, before the Mass in the sacristy that she should not receive communion, however she decided to go up for communion anyways and had to be publicly denied. She introduced Fr. Marcel to her “lover” (actual word used by her) before the Mass and then expected to receive communion after Fr. Marcel told her in private not to receive. She left Fr. Marcel with no choice but to publicly deny her the Body of Christ. Then she ran off to the newspapers afterwards and gave her story to the press. I believe that she had this plan all along, why else would she introduce Fr. Marcel to her “lover,” why else would she go up to Communion after being advised not to by Fr. Marcel? Please pray for Fr. Marcel, he really needs it now, anyone that has been to one of his Masses will tell you that he is a GREAT priest.
God have mercy. I will pray for Fr. Marcel with all my heart. He did everything a decent priest should do. We really don’t have enough priests like him, bless him. I am baffled and horrified by the Archdiocese’s reaction.
 
What I found equally troubling was the fact that the priest could not bring himself to go to the cemetery with her mother’s body. I don’t know what a priest is supposed to do if he gets a migraine while laying someone to rest - but he shouldn’t have just bailed on the family.
Media reports that Fr. Guarnizo refused to be present during Johnson’s eulogy are inaccurate.
The truth, according to Stauffenberg, is that Fr. Guarnizo suffers from migraines which are triggered by stressful situations. He had a migraine during the funeral, and discreetly left after the first eulogy ended, looking for water to revive himself. When he returned to the sanctuary, Johnson was about five minutes into a eulogy that lasted around fifteen to twenty minutes.
After the Mass was over, he accompanied the body in procession down the aisle and out the door to the hearse, where he informed the funeral director that he would be unable to make the 11 mile drive from the Church to the cemetery on Aspen Hill. He personally arranged for the funeral director to contact another local priest, Fr. Paul Sweeney, who joined the family at the cemetery.
“Mrs. Johnson was given a Catholic funeral with all of the formality and all of the respect that the Catholic Church has to offer,” said Stauffenberg.
Most of the substantial details offered by Stauffenberg have been corroborated by another source who also contacted LifeSiteNews, but who wishes to remain anonymous. In addition, an email circulating in the Diocese which claims to have originated from a group of people who met with Father shortly after the incident says the following:
“Fr knew the lady was a practicing lesbian because she came into the sacristy and introduced her ‘lover’ to Fr just before the Mass. He quietly denied her communion (so quietly that the Euch minister next to him didn’t realize that he did), and the woman promptly went to the other line and received communion anyway! He left to use the restroom (he was getting a migraine) between the eulogies, but did finish the ceremony and escorted the casket out. He made arrangements for there to be another priest at the gravesite and there was. He felt that it was a matter of conscience to deny her communion since he had been informed that she was an active homosexual by her own admission.”
lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-inside-sources-provide-new-info-on-priest-censured-for-denying-le
 
Thanks for sharing that. My only original concern was why he did not accompany the family to the burial which that article addressed directly. I think all of us, and hopefully other reasonable people, should take a step back and give this priest the benefit of the doubt here. It would be nice if the archdiocese would allow him to make a statement though I doubt it will happen.

I cannot help but say that, unless alternative information comes out, I am disappointed by the manner in which the archdiocese has handled this situation, particularly initially. I am glad that they have issued a second statement and I hope that soon they will release one with the conclusions of any internal investigation they are doing and with a statement of support for Fr. Guarnizo.

This is not very charitable of me but I cannot help but wonder why they picked this particular parish to hold the funeral. If the family is Catholic, I would think they would want to have the funeral at their home parish. I cannot see them attending Fr. Guarnizo’s parish with his reputation of outspokenness on issues of sin.

ugh…
 
In the two posts that defend the priest in question there is a glaring discrepancy present.
One person who claims to have heard the story first hand from the priest claims Fr. did tell the woman prior to Mass to not come forward for communion.
Now there’s a post by someone who claims to have seen the incident and that the priest did not get a chance to discuss the issue with the woman.

So which is it?
 
Additional* disrespecting*** of Church teaching!!

Eulogies Not Permitted at Funerals
In 1989 the Vatican published the revised Order of Christian Funerals
(OCF) for the United States. The long-standing prohibition of eulogies at Catholic funerals was again upheld and restated. “A brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy.” [OCF # 141] In the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal promulgated by John Paul II in year 2000 (GIRM 2000), this prohibition of eulogies was again restated: "At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind."
http://www.bssky.org/?page=newsforward&name=bssky.org&article=1931
You’re incorrect in what you’re quoting. What you quote is the instruction that the homily is to be focused on the readings and the faith. However, the Ritual clearly states (#170) that following the prayer after communion someone may speak in remembrance of the deceased.

And if you want to blame someone for a perceived violation of Church procedure then don’t blame the people who were allowed to violate, blame the priest who allowed the violation.
 
In the two posts that defend the priest in question there is a glaring discrepancy present.
One person who claims to have heard the story first hand from the priest claims did tell the woman prior to Mass to not come forward for communion.
Now there’s a post by someone who claims to have seen the incident and that the priest did not get a chance to discuss the issue with the woman.

So which is it?
Agreed. This is why I am hopeful that the Archdiocese will conduct an internal investigation and release their conclusions. There are too many claims being made which cannot be true in light of other statements being made.
 
i have read some other posts on here about the situation and i think that father should have talked to her before hand or she should have talked to him or something to that degree…i think he was doing the right thing, and i can see his side and he should not be removed from his position because of that…and i can see why shes mad but if was catholic to begin with you would think that she would kind of know if she can receive or not…just my opinion…not saying either person is in the wrong but i think it should have been handled before hand but in the situation i think father did the right thing in the moment…
 
You’re incorrect in what you’re quoting. What you quote is the instruction that the homily is to be focused on the readings and the faith. However, the Ritual clearly states (#170) that following the prayer after communion someone may speak in remembrance of the deceased . . .
Although , there may be a technical flaw in the post being referred to above, I believe Catherine S’s post agrees in principle to what the Catholic Church intends for Christian funerals . These “words of remembrance” given at the conclusion of a funeral Mass are not to be drawn out . The best information we have on hand suggests the “words of remembrance” in question given by Barbara Johnson lasted roughly 25 minutes - that’s way too long. It can be difficult however, for the one giving these “words of remembrance” to maintain an accurate concept of the time transpiring at the given (pardon the oxymoron) moment .

Most Reverend Thomas J. Tobin , Bishop of Providence Rhode Island , in his article Let’s Bury The Eulogies uses wording similar to Catherine S’s when speaking of people not giving eulogies during a funeral Mass :
". . . The poor parish priest who prohibits eulogies is sometimes viewed as an uncaring, insensitive ogre, while really, all he’s trying to do is follow the law of the Church and provide for a dignified and prayerful funeral . . . "

. . . And if you want to blame someone for a perceived violation of Church procedure then don’t blame the people who were allowed to violate, blame the priest who allowed the violation.
Rather, how about not blaming the priest at all until we have something a little more substantial to go on in terms of the Truth ? And to be totally realistic, how many priests do you know personally or have you personally seen interrupt a (ahem) “eulogy” which has gone on too long ? Usually they are well aware of how delicate the situation is during that particular interval.

There is so much that can be gleaned from this story by reading between the lines - by seeing what is not present … what is not said.

For example , the media reports are trying to depict Father Guarnizo as an …:hmmm:🤷" insensitive ogre" concerning an active lesbian receiving Holy Communion, yet Barbara Johnson’s (ahem) “eulogy” , was allowed to go on for (according to the information on hand ) somewhere around 25 minutes . These two things don’t fit together if you’re trying to depict a priest as “insensitive”.
 
So since Fr. Marcel is my parish priest, and he is such a great priest it is very disheartening to me that he is being thrown under the bus by the Archdiocese. I have decided that if the Cardinal does not defend his priests when they do something that is correct then I do not want to be a part of that organization. If Fr. Marcel gets any sort of punishment, or if he has to move parishes because he followed the teachings of the Church then I am going to be exclusively an SSPX goer. I will only attend Mass at the SSPX affiliate chapel 30 mins away from me instead of St. John Neumann which is 2 mins away from me. I do not want to give one single dollar to the Archdiocese of Washington if they completely throw Fr. Marcel under the bus. I will support the SSPX because I know that they only preach sound Catholic doctrine. I know that the SSPX bishop would not throw his priest under the bus for doing something that was right just because it offended people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top