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

[PaulinVA]

I don’t get that impression from the letter whatsoever. There’s no indication anyone was aware she self-indentified as a Buddhist at some point in her life. That piece of information, AFAIK, only comes from a poster on this forum who claims to have had her as a teacher.

The Buddhist affiliation is also in an interview she gave to a blog a some point.

Is there a way of life/philosophy that you chose to live by that is behind all your decisions? If so what is it?
Oh…Easy response to that is Buddhism…um but I think even before Buddhism it was [paused to collect thoughts] honesty really, honesty and passion; I think with Buddhism and the effect it has had on me the idea of trying to help other people and the meaning in life. That the things that I do make the world a better place even in a small way

By the way, I notice your name now has the t in Priest. Congratulations!

 

[Khalid]

Thanks, Brenden.

While I am a little miffed with the woman for presenting herself for Communion and creating this situation, I am more upset with the Bishop for siding with the Buddhist married lesbian and throwing the good Father under the bus.

What kind of Buddhist is she? As far as I’ve ever known, all branches of Buddhism have essentially the same stances on fornication and homosexuality as do the Catholic Church.

In any case, being even a Protestant, one is not allowed to commune at a Catholic Church. By no means is anyone of any other religion entirely, no matter how moral, allowed to commune.

 

[VeiledPapist]

What kind of Buddhist is she? As far as I’ve ever known, all branches of Buddhism have essentially the same stances on fornication and homosexuality as do the Catholic Church.

In any case, being even a Protestant, one is not allowed to commune at a Catholic Church. By no means is anyone of any other religion entirely, no matter how moral, allowed to commune.

She told me and some others on two occasions. I don’t remember…sorry. D:

EDIT: I’m still not sure, but I think she’s a practicing Mahayana Buddhist. Saw the word and it rang a bell.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Well, he went to Franciscan University of Steubenville, how’s that. I checked his linked in page.

LOL, I went to a Catholic college too. I guess I’m an insider too…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The Buddhist affiliation is also in an interview she gave to a blog a some point.

Is there a way of life/philosophy that you chose to live by that is behind all your decisions? If so what is it?
Oh…Easy response to that is Buddhism…um but I think even before Buddhism it was [paused to collect thoughts] honesty really, honesty and passion; I think with Buddhism and the effect it has had on me the idea of trying to help other people and the meaning in life. That the things that I do make the world a better place even in a small way

I didn’t see that posted before, thanks for that. Is there a link for that?

However, I think my main point still stands, there is no evidence anyone in the archdiocese was aware that she self-identified as a buddhist.

 

[PaulinVA]

I didn’t see that posted before, thanks for that. However, I think my main point still stands, there is no evidence anyone in the archdiocese was aware that she self-identified as a buddhist.

No, I’m sure no one knew, but it does add to the absurdity of the situation.

If I was a priest, I would take from this that one can really never refuse communion to anyone.

 

[tollelege]

Right. That’s the way. Dump on the bishop. Call him a failure. Tell him how to do his job. Set yourself up as his judge and furthermore tell him what his seminarians are thinking (I’m sure you took a survey) and admonish him for “missing a teaching moment.”

Okay, I’ll try not to match the sarcasm and hyperbole, but look. Pretty much everything you said about giving Holy Communion to a non-Catholic lesbian woman who just introduced you to her lover could also be said about giving the same to a pro-abortion Catholic politician. In fact, both of these seem to be OK in the Archdiocese of Washington (ask V.P. Biden, who apparently ran to hug Sen Warren Rudman with tears of joy streaming down his face after Planned Parenthood v. Casey). You are basically saying that since I don’t have all the facts I shouldn’t question the bishop’s judgement in throwing his priest under the bus. (That is basically the line our Cardinal takes on Canon 915 too: Judge not.)

But grave scandal doesn’t occur only to people who know all the facts (which would be impossible without, as one poster noted, knowing the woman’s heart). Grave scandal compromises the Church’s stance on moral issues, like the abortifacient mandate, which was passed by Catholic legislators and implemented by a Catholic in the executive branch. Maybe the bishops should have dusted off the bell, book, and candle earlier.

 

[Netty1]

Apologies if this has already been posted (I had a quick skim through and could not see it)

*"Auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout, vicar general of the archdiocese, wrote a letter to Johnson apologizing for the “lack of pastoral sensitivity” shown to her.

However, Johnson said that she will “not be satisfied” until Fr. Guarnizo is removed from his ministry. She wrote a letter telling the priest that he would “pay dearly” for “judging” her. "*

catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-says-denial-of-communion-requires-discretion/

 

[mlz]

We all need to pray for our priests and bishops. We are living in challenging times. The evil one is trying hard to take the Church down. He won’t of course, but that doesn’t mean there could be causualties in this battle. Pray to our Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph to protect us all and remain true to the Church and her teachings.

mlz

If this woman is speaking vengence you can pretty much tell where that’s coming from…!

 

[VeiledPapist]

I have a question. This is more of a vague one, but it is sort of related to this topic.

I have a friend who is a strong, strong traditional, conservative Roman Catholic. He is also bisexual. He’s never committed the grave sin of a homosexual act. He struggles heavily with this, but believes that the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage is right. This guy has read much more into theology, Canon Law and eschatology than I have.
However, I notice one thing that some tend to disagree on. He’s read the Catechism numerous times, and somewhere in there, there is a passage that says that, “It is alright to be gay, since that is how God made you.” Is this really in the Catechism or supported by Canon law?

 

[domandcarols]

However, Johnson said that she will “not be satisfied” until Fr. Guarnizo is removed from his ministry. She wrote a letter telling the priest that he would “pay dearly” for “judging” her. "

catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-says-denial-of-communion-requires-discretion/

Wow! Who does she think she is???

 

[Corki]

I have a question. This is more of a vague one, but it is sort of related to this topic.

I have a friend who is a strong, strong traditional, conservative Roman Catholic. He is also bisexual. He’s never committed the grave sin of a homosexual act. He struggles heavily with this, but believes that the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage is right. This guy has read much more into theology, Canon Law and eschatology than I have.
However, I notice one thing that some tend to disagree on. He’s read the Catechism numerous times, and somewhere in there, there is a passage that says that, “It is alright to be gay, since that is how God made you.” Is this really in the Catechism or supported by Canon law?

It is not correct to say that the Church teaches that being “gay” is “alright”. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a disordered attraction and is a cross for those afflicted to bear. “Alright” implies that it is good. The Church teaching is that it is something wrong but not at all the person’s fault - unless he/she chooses to act on it.

Here’s the actual Catechism quote

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I have a question. This is more of a vague one, but it is sort of related to this topic.

I have a friend who is a strong, strong traditional, conservative Roman Catholic. He is also bisexual. He’s never committed the grave sin of a homosexual act. He struggles heavily with this, but believes that the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage is right. This guy has read much more into theology, Canon Law and eschatology than I have.
However, I notice one thing that some tend to disagree on. He’s read the Catechism numerous times, and somewhere in there, there is a passage that says that, “It is alright to be gay, since that is how God made you.” Is this really in the Catechism or supported by Canon law?

A lot of confusion can be avoided by taking the approach recommended by Father John Hardon, S.J. when you want to define gay or homosexuality . If you try and go by the definitions that particularl sophists demand or force you to use, it won’t be long before you are unable to speak freely . Differentiating between the three levels (tendency, attraction and activity ) instead, permits things to remain a lot more clear cut in those areas where moral judgements may need to be made. Here’s how Father Hardon puts it in his MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

HOMOSEXUALITY

In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

 

[Teelynn]

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.

Maybe different Diocese have different mandates, but in mine, in recent years anyway, we have always been told to give the Eulogy at the Wake Service at the Funeral Home. No more are we allowed to give it after Communion in Church. It used to be that family members could give a short Eulogy after Communion but it was stopped about 5 to 7 years ago. Now they are told to do all this before going to the Funeral Mass.

 

[VeiledPapist]

A lot of confusion can be avoided by taking the approach recommended by Father John Hardon, S.J. when you want to define gay or homosexuality . If you try and go by the definitions that particularl sophists demand or force you to use, it won’t be long before you are unable to speak freely . Differentiating between the three levels (tendency, attraction and activity ) instead, permits things to remain a lot more clear cut in those areas where moral judgements may need to be made. Here’s how Father Hardon puts it in his MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

Aaaah, okay. Thank you to you and to Corki. It’s clearer, now. He does feel attraction at times, but he’s condemning any activity that will result in grave sin.

 

[Elizium23]

I think that it is jumping to conclusions to say that the archdiocese threw the pastor under the bus. I believe in this case they did the right thing. A layperson was hurt by a misjudgement in a pastoral decision. The statement from the archdiocese just explained that the pastor did not follow the law in this case. That was the pastorally sensitive thing to do, in an attempt to save face for everyone involved. I think it is clear that the priest will not be disciplined for this kind of thing–no matter how much this woman or the mainstream media wants it. I think it’s also clear that this smells like a setup situation. These people probably judged that the priest would react this way and forced him into a corner. Priests are of course held to an incredibly high standard of knowledge and conduct when it comes to these matters. The priest should have known exactly what canon law said and exactly how to handle the situation, but he showed concern for the woman’s soul and reverence for the Eucharist in his decision to deny this woman the chance at desecration.

This woman made it a public issue by going to the media, and the archdiocese had no choice but to release a statement and to show their sensitivity to the layperson in this matter. However, I feel their statement is a far cry from “throwing him under the bus” and we should not allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated by the anti-Christian mainstream media in these matters.

 

[anp1215]

Aaaah, okay. Thank you to you and to Corki. It’s clearer, now. He does feel attraction at times, but he’s condemning any activity that will result in grave sin.

Your friend sounds like a strong and holy person. It’s such a heavy cross to bear and we need to always remember to be supportive.

 

[VeiledPapist]

Your friend sounds like a strong and holy person. It’s such a heavy cross to bear and we need to always remember to be supportive.

He may be enrolling in the seminary, but if he does change his mind, he’d become a lawyer. I wonder what would happen if he would become a Canon Lawyer. I hear that’s rare nowadays.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thankyou for supporting one of the points I was trying to make . You wished to point out an error in a member’s previous post. I was simply pointing out how easy that error can be to make when we (yourself and Bishop Tobin included) use the word eulogy interchangeably to describe both *what shouldn’t happen during the homily *and the *words of remembrance * which may be given on behalf of the deceased by a family member/friend. I said Bishop Tobin “uses wording similar to Catherine S’s” .

 

[NeedImprovement]

#170 says nothing about being “brief” nor does it give any guidelines. “Brief” in most quotes is in reference to the homily and not words of remembrance. Thus when the person speaks in remembrance their words are usually guided by what the priest has given them for guidelines . . .

I am aware of what Bishop Tobin meant when he used the word “brief” in his article. As far as I can tell, I don’t believe I was even inadvertently asking for anyone to interpret the document for me – it’s clear enough. I think you’ve possibly drawn an erroneous conclusion in the above. When I was stating that the words of remembrance “must not be drawn out” , I was stating the prevalent thought of the Church on the matter. My citing Bishop Tobin’s article was to point out what has already been clarified in my previous post regarding confusion with the word “eulogy” , and to inform some of us how “problematic” these words of remembrance can be.

If my intention had been to cite Bishop Tobin’s article to indicate that words of remembrance should be kept brief , I would have been more likely to use a quote from him such as [from the same article]

“Another time the eulogy rambled on and on, becoming almost as long as the rest of the funeral Mass.”

, thereby providing a more congruent inference.