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

[Khalid]

1. I am assuming that she is still living with her “partner”.
2. By your logic, no one could ever be denied Communion, as we “do not know the state of their soul”.

I don’t think there’s any case in which it is more possible to know the state of a soul, unless a man would present for communion with his mistress or while cursing Papists.

 

[seekerz]

I guess it depends on how and what the priest knew of her personal life. I know several women rumored to be in same-sex relationships but since they have never discussed their relationships with me, I could not assume they were unworthy to receive.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I made my First Communion in 1947, and back then and for decades, there’d be lines for Confession and not the entire church going up for Communion. Now, I sometimes deliberately don’t receive lest I be confused with the mob who go up every Sunday at every Mass. Are all those people such saints these days? I don’t understand it. It cheapens the Sacrament if it’s simply doled out like cookies.

Now who’s assuming the state of other’s souls?

Pot meet kettle.

 

[jediliz]

Jesus said “Take This and eat it all of you”

There were certainly sinners at that table. In fact everyone but Jesus Himself was a sinner. And yet Jesus didn’t deny them the Eucharist…

Food for thought

When Jesus ate with Sinners, he ENCOURAGED THEM TO REPENT, he did NOT ENCOURAGE them to KEEP SINNING.

 

[Khalid]

So Jesus must have been irresonsible in giving Judas communion at the Last Supper. Sheesh! The real problem is this absurd notioin that we have to protect God from sinners by denying them the sacraments.

No, we have to protect the sinners from God, and protect the sanctity of the sacraments, the Lord’s commandments, and the Law and Tradition of the Church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t think the priest should not be removed from his ministry, and think he made the right call, but I do not know if the canon law disagrees with me.

Can. 897
The most August sacrament is the Most Holy Eucharist in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered, and received and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated through the ages is the summit and source of all worship and Christian life, which signifies and effects the unity of the People of God and brings about the building up of the body of Christ. Indeed, the other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are closely connected with the Most Holy Eucharist and ordered to it.

Can. 898
The Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice, receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with the highest adoration. In explaining the doctrine about this sacrament, pastors of souls are to teach the faithful diligently about this obligation.

While it might be argued that the priest did not meet his teaching obligation in advance of the funeral Mass, the Communicant in this case also appears to have violated her obligation to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor.

The Eastern Church Canons are more direct:

Canon 712

Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist.

I’m certainly no expert, but it would seem that an Eastern Catholic priest offering the Holy Eucharist in these circumstances might well have violated that canon.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Now who’s assuming the state of other’s souls?

Pot meet kettle.

Of course I am wrong. There’s not a Catholic anywhere who receives the Host unworthily. The 99% of the congregation who receive every Sunday in modern days are all in the state of grace, and I have no reason to decide not to be part of that group.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No, we have to protect the sinners from God, and protect the sanctity of the sacraments, the Lord’s commandments, and the Law and Tradition of the Church.

I agree, while I have sympathy for Ms. Johnson’s loss, she was living with a female partner, nowhere has been eluded to that this was a celibate relationship.

It was 100% correct for Fr. Guarnizo to deny her Communion based on that. It probably would of been a better though for him to go up to her before Communion and tell her why he could let her take Communion.

But Barbara Johnson should of known that because of her relationship with her female partner, she was not in a state of grace to receive Communion and should not have presented herself for Communion. Maybe Fr. Guarnizo thought she would not present herself to take Communion and thus did not tell her before Communion why she could take Communion.

 

[seekerz]

I agree, while I have sympathy for Ms. Johnson’s loss, she was living with a female partner, nowhere has been eluded to that this was a celibate relationship.

It was 100% correct for Fr. Guarnizo to deny her Communion based on that. It probably would of been a better though for him to go up to her before Communion and tell her why he could let her take Communion.

But Barbara Johnson should of known that because of her relationship with her female partner, she was not in a state of grace to receive Communion and should not have presented herself for Communion. Maybe Fr. Guarnizo thought she would not present herself to take Communion and thus did not tell her before Communion why she could take Communion.

Is the onus on the person to prove a celibate relationship or on the priest to verify the nature? I don’t know if this person was openly gay; if she was she should have been familiar with Church doctrine before presenting herself fro Communion but I have a real question regarding what the priest knew. Since we are unlikely to be privy to that information, this is probably going to remain an incomplete story. I doubt the Archdiocese would have made a statement if the priest was completely not at fault, though.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So sin away and yet receive the Holy Eucharist?

For sake of clarity, I’m not saying that the way in which this was done (nor the moment) was right, but to send a signal that it is alright to expect to receive the Holy Eucharist while in a grave state of sin is also terribly irresponsible.

There are two wrongs here that do not make a right.

The originally posted statement quoted above ignores the obvious - that the Lord is always able in His great mercy to forgive sin. We as sinners, priests included, do not enjoy this power and privilege. That is reserved for the confessional, and it is initiated by a penitent. A priest has no power to absolve otherwise.

So Jesus must have been irresonsible in giving Judas communion at the Last Supper. Sheesh! The real problem is this absurd notioin that we have to protect God from sinners by denying them the sacraments.

Respectfully, that is not at all what I said. To have asserted so in order to make your own opinion known, as is your right, is rather unfair. You could have simply made your point without erroneous referral.

Also, when did the betrayal of Judas occur? before or after Christ offered the bread and wine as his consecrated Most Pure Body and Precious Blood? Knowing that Judas would betray Him is not the same as having had already been betrayed. Yet in great mercy …

 

[anp1215]

I agree, while I have sympathy for Ms. Johnson’s loss, she was living with a female partner, nowhere has been eluded to that this was a celibate relationship.

It was 100% correct for Fr. Guarnizo to deny her Communion based on that. It probably would of been a better though for him to go up to her before Communion and tell her why he could let her take Communion.

But Barbara Johnson should of known that because of her relationship with her female partner, she was not in a state of grace to receive Communion and should not have presented herself for Communion. Maybe Fr. Guarnizo thought she would not present herself to take Communion and thus did not tell her before Communion why she could take Communion.

In posts on the other thread, some posters have said that he did in fact tell her not to go to Communion beforehand.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It was 100% correct for Fr. Guarnizo to deny her Communion based on that. It probably would of been a better though for him to go up to her before Communion and tell her why he could let her take Communion.

Not 100% correct. He should have followed the requirements of Canon Law. If he were 100% in the right as so many here believe, I doubt that the Archdiocese would have issued an apology and an explanation. I think the Archdiocesan opinion overrules that of a parish priest.

 

[jwinch2]

So Jesus must have been irresonsible in giving Judas communion at the Last Supper. Sheesh! The real problem is this absurd notioin that we have to protect God from sinners by denying them the sacraments.

Jesus can forgive sins and any time. He Is God after all. A priest can only forgive sins through the power of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Secondly, Jesus knows the hearts and minds of all men and can tell if and when they are truly repentant. A priest who has a lesbian living in an open state of mortal come up to that him has no opportunity to discuss the situation or the level of repentance of the sinner.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In posts on the other thread, some posters have said that he did in fact tell her not to go to Communion beforehand.

… and if true, he would have “pastorally and privately” affirmed the teaching.

The apology from the Archdiocese would seem inconsistent, however. Was any proof offered?

 

[jwinch2]

Not 100% correct. He should have followed the requirements of Canon Law. If he were 100% in the right as so many here believe, I doubt that the Archdiocese would have issued an apology and an explanation. I think the Archdiocesan opinion overrules that of a parish priest.

stpeterslist.com/asides/flashback-why-cardinal-wuerl-will-not-deny-communion-to-nancy-pelosi-or-basically-anyone/

Cardinal Wuerl does not seem inclined to deny Holy Communion to anyone.

stpeterslist.com/2963/6-points-on-the-worthiness-to-receive-communion-by-cardinal-ratzinger/

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020402

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

MSNBC is not the one that said the priest was wrong. It was his archdiocese and an outside canon lawyer.

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.

That’s highly unlikely. All sorts of individuals present themselves for communion and its the never ending task of the clergy to try and appropriately sort through it all.

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.

There’s nothing in Church teaching or canon law that would place sacrilege upon the priest in this situation.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

No, that is incorrect. What the priest did, despite his best of intentions, is technically not in accordance with canon law. The canons exist for a reason and its the clergy’s job to try our best to follow them.

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?

The priest was hardly “thrown under the bus.” He was involved in a public incident where canon law was not properly followed. What’s the archdiocese supposed to do, declare rules don’t matter?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I would think it only would be a violation if the priest said—“this woman came to me in confession and did not repent of living with her lover” I am sure he didn’t say that but of course, before this is over that will be the story. You know how these things can take on a life of their own.

No, if she actually went to confession and told him she’s an active lesbian then the priest cannot use that information to deny her communion. That is a clear cut case of breaking the seal of the confessional.

 

[Corki]

No, that is incorrect. What the priest did, despite his best of intentions, is technically not in accordance with canon law. The canons exist for a reason and its the clergy’s job to try our best to follow them.

The priest was hardly “thrown under the bus.” He was involved in a public incident where canon law was not properly followed. What’s the archdiocese supposed to do, declare rules don’t matter?

With all due respect, I am not convinced he didn’t follow canon law properly. Even the statement from the diocese is very carefully worded. It doesn’t say Father was wrong to deny her Communion, only that he did not act with sufficient pastoral sensitivity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

MSNBC is not the one that said the priest was wrong. It was his archdiocese and an outside canon lawyer.

Um, it was MSNBC who also weighed in on this. There is another thread on this. And I do not believe that I said that MSNBC and the other sensationalistic media outlets were analyzing canon law. I said that all of the popular left-wing media outlets repeatedly argue that Catholic Church actions and proclamations which echo Catholic doctrine can be challenged by the media and by anyone claiming authentically or unauthentically to be Catholic, to have been raised Catholic, etc.

Please re-read my post to situate the context.

Thank you.