[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.
It seems obvious that if a priest were to go so far as to actually deny someone holy communion that they would do it as discreetly and respectfully as possible. I would think they would be very nervous and trying their hardest to avoid scandal. I think there could be a deeper issue here. This was quite an article: catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/722-the-real-story-canon-915-and-fr-guarnizos-denial-of-communion-to-lesbian-barbara-johnson

Does anyone else think there was an agenda here by activists?
 
So why is it that a Buddist, or a non-practicing Catholic in general, is seemingly protected under canon law from being denied the Holy Eucharist as has been reported and purported here and elsewhere? All other considerations and personal declarations aside, can anyone these days simply walk us and receive the Holy Eucharist with permission and without impunity, irrespective of circumstances?
 
I think what we have here is a story in the media driven by deadlines that was not researched at all. One person went crying to the press and no one thought to challenge the details. It is typical of the half-baked journalism that passes for news today.
 
pnewton said:
I think what we have here is a story in the media driven by deadlines that was not researched at all. One person went crying to the press and no one thought to challenge the details. It is typical of the half-baked journalism that passes for news today.
Click to expand...
Likely very true, but as with all violent storms, damage is done and remains to be cleaned up even as the sun shines clearly the next day.

In this case, a priest (a good one by virtually all accounts but say one) was chastized and now his ministry will likely be diminished. Likewise, the reputation of the Church suffers once again.

Again, I do not understand why it has been asserted many times in this matter that the priest violated canon law, as the person involved seems to be a self-professed non-practicing Catholic (a Buddist, in fact).

Is everyone entitled to receive the Holy Eucharist these days? What is it about the application of Canon 915 as cited that is applicable here?
 
Jason_Firestone said:
Didn’t Jesus give Judas communion ?
Click to expand...
Jesus also pardoned an adulteress. Should we also encourage adultery? Is the priest in hypostatic union with his own divinity and humanity? Is he permanently and from eternity’s beginnings consubstantial in spirit with the Father?

Should we sin more that grace may increase?

Far too many issues with what you’ve said to be taken seriously.
 
The lesbian in question went out of her way to confront Father with her lesbian orientation and introduced her lesbian partner to him just before her mother’s funeral service. What for?? She threw down her challenge and he responded to her disrespect as many people would have. Technically, it would have been more charitable for him to give her the Eucharist, but then I am sure she would have been disappointed and would have found another means to raise the issue of her lesbianism and cause a scene. A migraine headache can be extremely debilatating, causing dizziness, vomiting, and worse. My doctor explained to me that a migraine in many ways is similar to a stroke or a seizure. My sympathy is with Father Marcel.
 
Jason_Firestone said:
Hardly irrelevant. Judas, (and the Lord), knew exactly what he was going to do.
Click to expand...
But the Apostles didn’t. There are two sins being committed when a woman like Ms. Johnson presents herself for Communion. One is sacrilage. You might make the case that Judas qualified here but since it was Jesus Himself, he is the judge. The other is giving scandal. Giving the First Eucharist to Judas did not give scandal. If Father had given Ms. Johnson Communion, that would have given scandal.

It’s still irrelevant. We are not Jesus. The priest is not Jesus. He isn’t in persona Christi when he distributes Communion. As a Eucharistic Minister, his paramount concern should be to prevent sacrilage.
 
Jason_Firestone said:
Didn’t Jesus give Judas communion ?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that has actually ever been definitively established. Saints , as the rest of us, have had their strong opinions on the matter .There have also been a few threads here at CAF on that particular subject..

Then, we might further consider in the Jewish Passover Seder Liturgy proposed by Dr. Scott Hahn , there was more than one cup .

One of the most compelling arguments I have found for seating my own personal opinion on the matter, is contained in an exegesis written by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, entitled Did Judas Partake of Holy Communion? .

It’s concise, clear, convincing and simple. Here’s an excerpt:
FROM : Did Judas Partake of Holy Communion? ,By His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy
Click to expand...
“He to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it”:
Click to expand...
It is clear from the recount by Saint John (which corresponds to the narratives in the gospels according to Saints Matthew and Mark) that Christ the Lord spoke about the betrayal of Judas as they were eating the Jewish Passover. The evidence for this is that He dipped a piece of bread and gave it to Judas. This is different from taking the body and blood which He gave to each disciple individually. He did not dip the body in the blood. However, He said, “Take, eat; this is My body…Drink from it for this is My blood”. He gave them the blood in the cup saying “Drink from it, all of you…” (Mt 26:27). Christ never dipped the body in the blood.
Click to expand...
Saint John writes that Judas, after taking the Jewish Passover piece of bread, dipped it in the soup and then “…went out immediately…” (Jn 13:30). He did not wait until the institution of the Lord’s Supper. When Judas went out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified” (Jn 13:31). In other words, at this moment, Christ the Lord accepted death by His own will, since He acknowledged that Judas would go to those who were plotting to kill Him.
Click to expand...
In the footnotes accompanying Chapter 13 of the holy Gospel according to John, of the NAB online at vatican.va
, the definition given for the “morsel” is " probably the bitter herb dipped in salt water."

John 13: 26-30

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I hand the morsel 9 after I have dipped it.” So he dipped the morsel and (took it and) handed it to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot.

After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

(Now) none of those reclining at table realized why he said this to him.

Some thought that since Judas kept the money bag, Jesus had told him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or to give something to the poor.

So he took the morsel and left at once. And it was night.

… :hmmm:
 
**Guys … please note that the link in the post above to that article “Did Jesus Partake of Holy Communion” was a Microsoft Word document which has to be downloaded from the internet if you want to read it. Please don’t try downloading it since there can be a risk involved in downloading stuff from the internet. The article can be viewed at His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy 's website - AT THIS LINK

(Too late to edit the post above Sorry about that … see my username).
 
Corki said:
But the Apostles didn’t. There are two sins being committed when a woman like Ms. Johnson presents herself for Communion. One is sacrilage. You might make the case that Judas qualified here but since it was Jesus Himself, he is the judge. The other is giving scandal. Giving the First Eucharist to Judas did not give scandal. If Father had given Ms. Johnson Communion, that would have given scandal.

It’s still irrelevant. We are not Jesus. The priest is not Jesus. He isn’t in persona Christi when he distributes Communion. As a Eucharistic Minister, his paramount concern should be to prevent sacrilage.
Click to expand...
What the apostles knew or did not know IS irrelevant. And you make my point. That priest, and YOU, are NOT Jesus, and therefore are not more righteous than HE. Sacrilege, (BTW with an “e”, not an “a”), has nothing to do with this woman’s immortal soul. The MAIN paramount concern in, and about communion, is participation in communion with the Lord, and the Body of Christ, and not about"giving scandal". Time and time again, Jesus showed us in the gospels, that “giving scandal”, was unimportant to Him.
 
Corki said:
But the Apostles didn’t. There are two sins being committed when a woman like Ms. Johnson presents herself for Communion. One is sacrilage. You might make the case that Judas qualified here but since it was Jesus Himself, he is the judge. The other is giving scandal. Giving the First Eucharist to Judas did not give scandal. If Father had given Ms. Johnson Communion, that would have given scandal.

It’s still irrelevant. We are not Jesus. The priest is not Jesus. He isn’t in persona Christi when he distributes Communion. As a Eucharistic Minister, his paramount concern should be to prevent sacrilage.
Click to expand...
👍
The above examples show that it has been the* law*** and tradition of the Catholic Church to** protect** the Blessed Sacrament by refusing it to those who are public, obstinate sinners. Many U.S. bishops, through the sin of omission and the sin of** human respect**, are** now exposing** the Blessed Sacrament to** ill-treatment**, mockery and sacrilege. As the Vatican has stated, the widespread deformation of** conscience** makes it even “more necessary for** Pastors** to act, with as much** patience** as** firmness**, as** a protection** to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a** defense** of Christian morality, and for the** correct formation** of the** faithful**.”[24] Canon 1311 of the Code of Canon Law states that “the Church has its own inherent right to constrain with** penal sanctions Christ’s faithful who commit offenses**.”

Protecting the* Blessed Sacrament** from **sacrilege ***

The following are several examples of priests and bishops who prevented their unworthy Catholic parishioners from receiving sacrilegious Communion.
Abortion:
Homosexuality:
Divorced and remarried Catholics:
Masons:
Immodestly dressed women:
http://www.tldm.org/news6/sacrilege.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top