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

[NeedImprovement]

One of the differences here, is that Rev. Fr. Marcel Guarnizo wasn’t really given any advance notice . There is a lot that has been left out in the linked story guys (I think LoyalViews already picked up on that) :

If I click on the OP’s link , then in that linked article click on the (blue) link entitled Johnson told news affiliate WJLA , then in that linked article, I click on the link entitled The Washington post reported … I end up at this Washington Post story entitled *D.C. Archdiocese: Denying Communion to lesbian at funeral was against ‘policy’ *.

Here are several excerpts :

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.
…

Active Catholics in the Greater Washington region said they could not recall another recent occasion when a priest had refused to administer the sacrament to a gay Catholic. Guarnizo’s refusal, they said, seemed at odds with the strong stand against denial of Communion to Catholics enunciated by the archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl . . .

uch:

 

[VeiledPapist]

:banghead:

So, she doesn’t consider herself a Catholic anymore yet she not only thinks she is “owed” Communion but also is (according to another account of the story) demanding that the priest be removed from the parish.

:banghead:

That’s about it, yes.

//headdesk

I’m so confused. SHE KNOWS the precepts of the Church, and yet she went and intentionally caused a big stink about it.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Following is a link to another discussion on the topic. Both threads are in “Catholic News,” so maybe they can be combined.

[Practicing, Poorly Catechized] Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother’s Funeral
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=650147

 

[Uggi]

God bless this priest for standing up for Church teachings. I have sympathy for this family during this difficult time and offer prayers for them. I wish more priests and bishops would have the courage this priest displayed and start with holding the sacraments from so alled Catholic politicians who make a mockery of their faith. They openly support abortion and most recently obama’s Health Care mandate which infringes on religious freedom.

 

[Serious]

There was a decent guy once… called Jesus, if I am not mistaken, he declared: “Let him, who is without sin cast the first stone”. He was not one of the “holier than thou” crowd. But I guess, following his spirit is out of fashion these days. I also heard that the Church is “a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints”. Looks like that some of watchdogs of this “hospital” prefer to chase away the patients, rather than helping them in their hour of need. Look into the mirror and see if you like what you see there…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

There was a decent guy once… called Jesus, if I am not mistaken, he declared: “Let him, who is without sin cast the first stone”. He was not one of the “holier than thou” crowd. But I guess, following his spirit is out of fashion these days. I also heard that the Church is “a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints”. Looks like that some of watchdogs of this “hospital” prefer to chase away the patients, rather than helping them in their hour of need. Look into the mirror and see if you like what you see there…

Jesus also threw the money-changers out of the temple. And chastised the Pharisees severely, calling them “white-washed tombs.” The time to minister to sinners is not at the Eucharistic sacrifice. We do care for sinners but we also out of concern for them, do not allow them to desecrate the Lord’s Body and Blood.

 

[Serious]

The word you should have been looking for is: “uncomfortable dilemma”. Of course, the holier than thou, self-righteous people will never admit that. Jesus forgave the adulteress unconditionally. He merely advised her: “Go forth and sin no more”. But, as I said, following Jesus is out of fashion these days. Fortunately most catholics are not like the people dominating these boards. (Maybe there is a God after all )

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The word you should have been looking for is: “uncomfortable dilemma”. Of course, the holier than thou, self-righteous people will never admit that. Jesus forgave the adulteress unconditionally. He merely advised her: “Go forth and sin no more”. But, as I said, following Jesus is out of fashion these days. Fortunately most catholics are not like the people dominating these boards. (Maybe there is a God after all )

You are presuming to know “most Catholics?”

:yawn:

 

[tollelege]

Dear Bishop Knestout,

That croxier you received from Archbishop Wuerl? It means that you are supposed to defend your Church and your priests.

Instead, you blame a priest for doing his job, so you can mollify an angry woman who should not have presented herself for Holy Communion in the first place. Whether through ignorance or an ulterior motive, she did, though, and the priest did exactly what he was supposed to do. You have placed political correctness above the sanctity of the Eucharist.

Please know that your seminarians are observing your response closely. How are holy men supposed to leave their old lives behind and follow you when they could get thrown under the bus at any convenient opportunity?

Seems to me like you missed another good teaching moment on the inviolability of religious conscience in the face of secular opposition.

The failure of our bishops to defend their priests, protect the sanctity of the Eucharist, and advance the teachings of the Church is surely one of the reasons for the vocation crisis, not to mention the marriage crisis.

– a parishioner of St. Matthew’s Cathedral, Archdiocese of Washington

 

[Catherine_S]

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.

!!
I have believed all along that Father would have had a very serious reason for refusing Holy Communion to this woman. I never doubted it would have made him* sick*** to see the Blessed Sacrament disrespected in this defiant way.
I too, believe it was a set up, and now that it has received so* much*** press, there will be more of the same.
Through this Thread, I have also learned that what Father did, according to Canon Law, was out of order, and I am deeply concerned by this teaching!!
I have been praying for Father since I first read this story and I will continue to do so. *
PS…if this women’s partner blocked Father’s way so he could not leave , I think she should be charged. How is it right or legal to enter a church and a private place of worhip and assult in this way** a priest, minister, pastor or any other person of authority in that place of public worship.*
Jesus Christ used a whip in the temple because of the buying and selling!
The indignity to His Father’s House was so distastful to Him!
From where does our sugar coating of these type of things come from?

 

[Catherine_S]

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.

!!
I have believed all along that Father would have had a very serious reason for refusing Holy Communion to this woman. I never doubted it would have made him* sick*** to see the Blessed Sacrament disrespected in this defiant way.
I too, believe it was a set up, and now that it has received so* much*** press, there will be more of the same.
Through this Thread, I have also learned that what Father did, according to Canon Law, was out of order, and I am deeply concerned by this teaching!!
I have been praying for Father since I first read this story and I will continue to do so. *
PS…if this women’s partner blocked Father’s way so he could not leave , I think she should be charged. How is it right or legal to enter a church and a private place of worhip and assult in this way** a priest, minister, pastor or any other person of authority in that place of public worship.*
Jesus Christ used a whip in the temple because of the buying and selling!
The indignity to His Father’s House was so distastful to Him!
From where does our sugar coating of these types of things come from?

 

[maryjk]

I am grateful that the priest refused her communion, but think there would be a less strident way of doing so.

At the time of a death in the family, typically, a family representative meets with the church, either the priest himself or a parish representative, to plan the liturgy and possibly the graveside commital service. Since the woman in question was also doing a eulogy (which is another question altogether) Father could have, at that time and place, informed her that she would not be permitted to receive communion because of her disordered living arrangement and, to avoid embarrassment, should not present herself for communion at the funeral Mass.

Of course there is not way to know exactly what happened. But it seems like the woman was told privately but insisted on going up to receive.

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.

Sounds like this woman had an agenda.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The title of this thread is actually rather misleading/inaccurate, although I’m sure not deliberately so.

The poster who mentioned the process of arranging for sacraments/ceremonies is correct, and by the way, anyone with more than a few days’ experience in the real world would use common sense/common courtesy to do the obvious: The lay person whose event it is, who has been given permission to organize the event, or who is the indicated ‘owner’ of that effort (baptism, funeral, wedding, special Mass, etc.) meets with the presiding priest ahead of time, to review what will be expected from both parties. This not only guarantees the rubric, but reminds the participants of what to expect from him and from them.

It is not uncommon for non-practicing Catholics (lapsed, for example) to seek a Catholic funeral/burial for a practicing Catholic relative. It is the obligation of any non-practicing representatives to have the charity, tolerance, and respect for the priest’s office, and respect for the guests both practicing and non-practicing, to cooperate in creating a dignified ceremony. That cooperation involves both active and passive behavior: to know what the representative should do and should refrain from doing.

People of all faiths who have class (manners) do this all the time – when attending events in some other person’s faith tradition: If they do not know what is expected of them as guests or event leaders, they try to determine that ahead of time. If they arrive to the event without full knowledge, they simply do not actively participate in any part of the event to which they have not been directly invited. Here, however, we have a situation in which Barbara, a Buddhist who had rejected her Catholic identity and who acknowledges living a sexually actively lesbian lifestyle, and who was equally responsible with the priest for ensuring a dignified funeral, did the opposite: With full knowledge, she disrupted the rubric and violated charity – against him and against her guests.

I’ve attended many Catholic Mass events at which some of the key figures are not, or are no longer, practicing Catholics. Those Catholics then do not participate in what they are forbidden to do – receive Eucharist. That holds true even for the chief lay representative (such as relative of deceased person at a funeral). The funeral, or the wedding (etc.) is not an exception to sacramental requirements. Having taught in a Catholic school, Barbara would have been fully aware of this. If she represented the opposite to the media, she was either being untruthful, or she somehow “hoped” that being the daughter of the deceased supposedly gave her, alone, special exemption from the requirements of the sacrament, at this one occasion. And if that were true, she would be deceiving herself, for which no blame could be assigned to the priest.

The reception of Holy Communion has become a self-determined “emotional” privilege for too many Catholics, both routinely on Sundays, and for such special occasions as above.

It is difficult for me to believe that the priest did not meet with Barbara ahead of time. It is not difficult for me to believe that she withheld from him the key information that although she is both living in aspostasy and is embracing a life of mortal sin, she nevertheless intended to present herself for Communion, disrespecting the sacrament for sentimental entitlement.

 

[bellasbane]

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.

[The Archdiocese later sent Ms. Johnson a letter of apology which stated:]

“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,” the statement said. “Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html?wprss=

Later in an interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, Ms. Johnson stated that the funeral home director was able to find a retired priest at the church, Fr. Peter Sweeney, who did meet the family at the cemetery and in her words, “did a beautiful job”.

msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/46582722#46582722

Direct link to the letter to Ms. Johnson from the Archdiocese:
washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/02/29/Local/Graphics/Letter%20to%20Barbara%20Johnson.%20BCK.%2002282012.pdf

God Bless Fr. Peter Sweeney!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So the fact that both a canon lawyer and a bishop have said this should not have happened mean nothing? How can the canons of the Church and a member of the Magisterium be irrelevant? And in 1 Cor 11 St. Paul is telling people to refrain from the Eucharist, he’s not making a threat to withhold it from them…

Just so.

"Canon lawyers, like theologians, seem to be a dime a dozen these days. The Magisterium and St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 are pretty clear on this and I’ll rely on infallibility rather than opinion. "

Self-appointed interpreters of Canon Law and the Scriptures also seem to be a dime a dozen these days as well.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Dear Bishop Knestout,

That croxier you received from Archbishop Wuerl? It means that you are supposed to defend your Church and your priests.

Instead, you blame a priest for doing his job, so you can mollify an angry woman who should not have presented herself for Holy Communion in the first place. Whether through ignorance or an ulterior motive, she did, though, and the priest did exactly what he was supposed to do. You have placed political correctness above the sanctity of the Eucharist.

Please know that your seminarians are observing your response closely. How are holy men supposed to leave their old lives behind and follow you when they could get thrown under the bus at any convenient opportunity?

Seems to me like you missed another good teaching moment on the inviolability of religious conscience in the face of secular opposition.

The failure of our bishops to defend their priests, protect the sanctity of the Eucharist, and advance the teachings of the Church is surely one of the reasons for the vocation crisis, not to mention the marriage crisis.

– a parishioner of St. Matthew’s Cathedral, Archdiocese of Washington

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.”

 

[LemonAndLime]

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.”

But he did NOT follow the correct procedure.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Self-appointed interpreters of Canon Law and the Scriptures also seem to be a dime a dozen these days as well.

Funny, I don’t see lay posters on this thread “interpreting Canon Law.” I see lay posters on this thread giving the priest in the story the charitable benefit of the doubt, in assuming that he does in fact know Canon Law, that he – not MSNBC or the -]populist/-] sensationalist media – knows what occurred before the public incident in question, and knows whether he did nor did not take the proper precautions in private with Barbara, before the incident.

For example (see my reply above), he might have logically assumed, based on experience with similar situations, that anyone who declared that she had a lesbian lover (or any heterosexual who declared proudly that he/she was cohabiting with an unmarried partner) would not present themselves for Communion, since Barbara’s mother was Catholic and Barbara seemed to be familiar with Catholicism. Extending charity to the priest (amazing how it’s not important for many posters to consider charity to the priest, only to everyone but him), it might have been that he was concerned, given sudden knowledge about her stated lifesteyle, that he would be formally cooperating in sacrilege if he were to give her Communion.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Funny, I don’t see lay posters on this thread “interpreting Canon Law.”

Post 128.

I’ll go with the bishop and the diocese any time.

 

[maryjk]

The title of this thread is actually rather misleading/inaccurate, although I’m sure not deliberately so.

The poster who mentioned the process of arranging for sacraments/ceremonies is correct, and by the way, anyone with more than a few days’ experience in the real world would use common sense/common courtesy to do the obvious: The lay person whose event it is, who has been given permission to organize the event, or who is the indicated ‘owner’ of that effort (baptism, funeral, wedding, special Mass, etc.) meets with the presiding priest ahead of time, to review what will be expected from both parties. This not only guarantees the rubric, but reminds the participants of what to expect from him and from them.

This is true. My family just planned two funerals. Both times Father came to our house and met with my sister and me. Both times he asked about Communion. I am a practicing Catholic married to a non-Catholic. My sister is not Catholic, nor is anyone in her family. Father knew that before the funeral began.

It is not uncommon for non-practicing Catholics (lapsed, for example) to seek a Catholic funeral/burial for a practicing Catholic relative. It is the obligation of any non-practicing representatives to have the charity, tolerance, and respect for the priest’s office, and respect for the guests both practicing and non-practicing, to cooperate in creating a dignified ceremony. That cooperation involves both active and passive behavior: to know what the representative should do and should refrain from doing.

During the funeral Mass, right before Communion, Father made an announcement. My sister and her family knew not to present themselves for Communion, but the announcement was made for those that were not family members but were attending the funeral.

People of all faiths who have class (manners) do this all the time – when attending events in some other person’s faith tradition: If they do not know what is expected of them as guests or event leaders, they try to determine that ahead of time. If they arrive to the event without full knowledge, they simply do not actively participate in any part of the event to which they have not been directly invited. Here, however, we have a situation in which Barbara, a Buddhist who had rejected her Catholic identity and who acknowledges living a sexually actively lesbian lifestyle, and who was equally responsible with the priest for ensuring a dignified funeral, did the opposite: With full knowledge, she disrupted the rubric and violated charity – against him and against her guests.

We had a pastor attend both funerals. Both times the pastor went up for a blessing from the priest. (Totally different topic, guys, don’t go into whether or not this is something the priest should have offered.) At no time did someone from our family that wasn’t Catholic present themselves for Communion. Everyone either kept their seats, like my sister, or went up for a blessing, like my husband.

I’ve attended many Catholic Mass events at which some of the key figures are not, or are no longer, practicing Catholics. Those Catholics then do not participate in what they are forbidden to do – receive Eucharist. That holds true even for the chief lay representative (such as relative of deceased person at a funeral). The funeral, or the wedding (etc.) is not an exception to sacramental requirements. Having taught in a Catholic school, Barbara would have been fully aware of this. If she represented the opposite to the media, she was either being untruthful, or she somehow “hoped” that being the daughter of the deceased supposedly gave her, alone, special exemption from the requirements of the sacrament, at this one occasion. And if that were true, she would be deceiving herself, for which no blame could be assigned to the priest.

The reception of Holy Communion has become a self-determined “emotional” privilege for too many Catholics, both routinely on Sundays, and for such special occasions as above.

It is difficult for me to believe that the priest did not meet with Barbara ahead of time. It is not difficult for me to believe that she withheld from him the key information that although she is both living in aspostasy and is embracing a life of mortal sin, she nevertheless intended to present herself for Communion, disrespecting the sacrament for sentimental entitlement.

It saddens me to think that there are people in the world like that. But there are.

It seems clear to me that Barbara had an agenda. I hope that the Bishop realizes that and acts accordingly.