Priest in lesbian communion controversy no longer works with DC archdiocese

[Iaamiccwint]

Why don’t you trust evidence?

How?

By embracing philosophies that all relgions share such as doing good to others and loving one another.

Peace and blessings.

¡a Dios sea toda la Gloria!

 

[Dale_M]

Some additional information

Guarnizo, who grew up in Northern Virginia but became a priest in the archdiocese of Moscow, Russia, was placed on administrative leave in March by the Washington archdiocese, where he was assigned on a temporary basis. His pastor at St. John Neumann parish and archdiocese officials said at the time that he wasn’t being removed because of the communion controversy but because he engaged “in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.”

The archdiocese now confirms that Guarnizo is “no longer in ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington,” according to a spokeswoman.

Guarnizo is still formally part of the Moscow church, but apparently remains in this area and has become a popular speaker in some circles. The weekend before last Guarnizo gave the keynote “Religious Freedom and Democracy” at Patrick Henry College in Purcelville, Va.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/priest-in-lesbian-communion-denial-saga-out-at-the-washington-archdiocese/2012/07/09/gJQAShyMYW_blog.html

 

[daisybee]

By embracing philosophies that all relgions share such as doing good to others and loving one another.

We believe in the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded, which contains and teaches the fullness of the truth. There is not a need to look for a truth outside of the one true source. I think the word that is questionable is “embracing.” We don’t need to embrace anything from a different source, because we already have it in all its fullness. the word “recognizing” might work though. We can recognize that a different religion or denomination shares something in common with us, but there is no need to embrace it.

If someone is “embracing” teachings of a religion that are not part of Catholicism, practicing its rituals, or participating in that religion in some way, one shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion, because by that person’s actions and choices, s/he is demonstrating that his/her allegiance does not lie with the Catholic Church alone. (Married people don’t date, or, er, at least, they shouldn’t…)

No one should be rejected from receiving Holy Communion b/c s/he experiences same-sex attraction, that is true. The teaching has been clear on that. (See info about the Catholic ministries Courage and Encourage.) However, all people are called to chastity. Therefore, if someone has not been chaste, whether by acting on same-sex attraction or by inappropriate conduct in dating or by an extramarital affair or whatever, that person should not receive communion.

Apostasy and unchastity are the key issues here–either one is sufficiently grave matter that someone should not receive Holy Communion.

 

[iloveangels]

I tend to have a bi-partician approach to many things. I personally believe, all Christians regardless of sin or sexual orientation should recieve Holy Communion, no questions asked. I don’t trust the evidence that says she is a Buddhist. One can “embrace” the philosophy of Eastern Religion, but still be a good standing Christian. However, on the other hand, if you’re a Catholic you should know all the rules and regulations of the Church. If you’re going up to communion, you should know what the hell you’re doing and what the hell is going on. Don’t priests usually make a statement before distributing the Eucharist? I’m a Church volunteer and when I preside at funerals, I see people freeze in the communion line when they reach the priest. I also distribute communion, and when people come up to me, they don’t even know what to do. What needs to be done is to give more information and guidelines to both Catholics and non-Catholics. The problem here is misinformation. That’s my take.

Peace.

Church law says that a person has to be a baptized Catholic and be in a “state of grace” to receive Holy Communion. To be in a state of grace means that the person has been to Confession since their last mortal (serious) sin. Sex of all types outside marriage is a mortal sin. Apostacy is also a mortal sin.

There is only one part of your post with which I agree, Iaamiccwint. Right now, these things are not generally announced in Catholic Churches and they should be. They should put them on plaques on the pillars of the Church and at the entrance. These things should be announced just prior to the beginning every mass.

It would be a kindness, not an offense, to explain these things to well-meaning but ignorant never-been-catholic people at funerals. Mourners at funerals have enough to withstand without having to deal with the anxiety of suddenly finding themselves with an unexpected surprise they, being never-Catholics, don’t know how to deal with at the funeral.

HOWEVER, in this case of the Buddhist political thing of this last spring, this woman knew exactly what she was doing. She was an apostate. She set the priest up. She made a point of going to the sacristy and announcing what was about to happen. It was despicable,dirty, political and in bad faith. And very conveeeeniently, the news media heard about it immediately. Catholics should be upset and they should take precautions lest it happen again.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Some additional information

washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/priest-in-lesbian-communion-denial-saga-out-at-the-washington-archdiocese/2012/07/09/gJQAShyMYW_blog.html

Interesting. So if he grew up around here, I wonder how he ended up a priest in Moscow? It worries me that he is still here if he no longer has facilities in DC. That situation (being without facilities) has gotten more than one priest in trouble. I would be very suprised if Bishop Louverde would grant him facilities if Cardinal Wuerl has released him.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

We believe in the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded, which contains and teaches the fullness of the truth. There is not a need to look for a truth outside of the one true source. I think the word that is questionable is “embracing.” We don’t need to embrace anything from a different source, because we already have it in all its fullness. the word “recognizing” might work though. We can recognize that a different religion or denomination shares something in common with us, but there is no need to embrace it.

If someone is “embracing” teachings of a religion that are not part of Catholicism, practicing its rituals, or participating in that religion in some way, one shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion, because by that person’s actions and choices, s/he is demonstrating that his/her allegiance does not lie with the Catholic Church alone. (Married people don’t date, or, er, at least, they shouldn’t…)

No one should be rejected from receiving Holy Communion b/c s/he experiences same-sex attraction, that is true. The teaching has been clear on that. (See info about the Catholic ministries Courage and Encourage.) However, all people are called to chastity. Therefore, if someone has not been chaste, whether by acting on same-sex attraction or by inappropriate conduct in dating or by an extramarital affair or whatever, that person should not receive communion.

Apostasy and unchastity are the key issues here–either one is sufficiently grave matter that someone should not receive Holy Communion.

I truly respect what you just said. As you can imagine, I disagree.

All religions share many common things, such as love, charity, etc. All relgions have a mixture of other religions. No religion is “pure.” Just as there is not such thing as being racially “pure.”

There is nothing wrong with embracing other religions, because all paths lead to God and the supernatural. All religions lead to the Almighty. Religion is like a box of chocolates. All the different flavors and textures are all wonderfull. Jews are the caramel nuget, Christians are the peanut toffe, and the Muslims are the dark chocolate with coconut.

All cars lead to a certain point, no? So, a Toyota, Honda, Ford can all take you to the Bronx, NY. So a Cadillac [Catholics] and BMW [Protestants] can both take you the the Bronx, NY.

However, I do like the word “recognizing” in your argument.

While I think celibacy is a good thing, don’t get me wrong here. But, sex is a good thing as well. Celibacy and sexulaity are both equally good things.

That’s my take.

Peace and blessing,

a Dios sea toda la Gloria!

 

[daisybee]

Hmm…our belief is that Jesus Christ is God, and that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church. Therefore, there’s no reason to go car-shopping. It almost sounds like relativism, as if you’re saying each religion is equally good, all of them will get us to Him just fine, they all have the same qualities and helps necessary for salvation. If so, why be Catholic? Why choose any one over the other if they are all the same? We believe that they are not all the same.

Illicit sexual expression outside of marriage is not a good thing. It is a misuse of the gift of sexuality. Again, we believe Jesus Christ is God, He desires our good, and He has given us very adequate guidance in Scripture and Tradition regarding how to trod the narrow path to salvation, and what to avoid that will endanger our salvation.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

Hmm…our belief is that Jesus Christ is God, and that Jesus Christ Himself founded the Catholic Church. Therefore, there’s no reason to go car-shopping. It almost sounds like relativism, as if you’re saying each religion is equally good, all of them will get us to Him just fine, they all have the same qualities and helps necessary for salvation. If so, why be Catholic? Why choose any one over the other if they are all the same? We believe that they are not all the same.

Illicit sexual expression outside of marriage is not a good thing. It is a misuse of the gift of sexuality. Again, we believe Jesus Christ is God, He desires our good, and He has given us very adequate guidance in Scripture and Tradition regarding how to trod the narrow path to salvation, and what to avoid that will endanger our salvation.

Why be Catholic?! Hello? Because were Cadillacs silly goose! We Catholics are chocolate with the runny caramel and peanut butter inside with nice milk chocolate.

We Catholics [it’s okay if don’t consider me a Catholic] are just one of many yummy delicious chocolates.

What is relatavism? I don’t know whatt that means…

 

[The_Scott]

What is relatavism? I don’t know whatt that means…

Relativism means that morals and Truth is relative. It’s true to whoever believes it to be true. If someone thinks murder is morally acceptable, then it is indeed moral. If someone thinks infanticide is morally right, then just by the man’s believe in that makes it correct.

There’s obvious problems with relativism…

 

[sw85]

Since when are Buddhists worthy of reception of the Eucharist??? Would this not prevent her from receiving? Many seem to have overlooked that fact.

Yes, she should’ve refrained. The issue however is whether or not Fr. was right to withhold communion, which is a different issue. Canon law lays out some pretty specific guidelines about when this can be done, and they were not followed in this case.

All that said, it seems to me that Fr. (who is not a canon lawyer) did the best he could in the situation and acted out of good faith, and the archdiocese was probably too quick to seize on this obscure bit of canon law in order to appease the sensibilities of the church’s enemies. Much of this reeks of a setup and I am disappointed that the archdiocese rushed to complicity in it, throwing one of its own under the bus in the process. I hope it was actually handled better than how the media presented it to us.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

Relativism means that morals and Truth is relative. It’s true to whoever believes it to be true. If someone thinks murder is morally acceptable, then it is indeed moral. If someone thinks infanticide is morally right, then just by the man’s believe in that makes it correct.

There’s obvious problems with relativism…

Can you give a more elementary definition of relativism? Clearly I’m only a college student.

I have a hard time understading what this means.

Well, isn’t war in and of itself…“murder.”

Killing doesn’t mean murder in and of itself…

In order to be murder…there needs to be (1) An unlawful killing, (2) Of a human being [legally viable outside the womb], and (3) with malice aforethought.

So, wouldn’t you agree murder [through war] is acceptable if it means defending democracy and the USA?

Let’s get this straight, I’m not for murder…

I just don’t get this word…relatvism…

 

[mystagogia]

I read the priest’s statement, (given here), and it does not state that the woman, Barbara Johnson, announced herself as a Buddhist. However, he claims she did enter the sacristy where he was hearing confessions prior to the Mass with a woman she announced as her lover. On his behalf the priest claims his refusal of the Eucharist was neither curt nor encumbered with a lecture.

Ms. Johnson is or was a grad student at Kutztown University, however, where she has posted some papers online. One of them states, “As a Buddhist, my role model of an enlightened, highly realized, and happy human being is Gautama Buddha,” among other things (available here). Her study of Buddhism is also mentioned on her art studio’s website under her profile (www.artworksnow.org) while no mention of Catholicism is given.

So, those are some Intertubes “facts” I’ve manage to cobble up on this one.

 

[The_Scott]

Can you give a more elementary definition of relativism? Clearly I’m only a college student.

I have a hard time understading what this means.

Well, isn’t war in and of itself…“murder.”

Killing doesn’t mean murder in and of itself…

In order to be murder…there needs to be (1) An unlawful killing, (2) Of a human being [legally viable outside the womb], and (3) with malice aforethought.

So, wouldn’t you agree murder [through war] is acceptable if it means defending democracy and the USA?

Let’s get this straight, I’m not for murder…

I just don’t get this word…relatvism…

Relativism, in the simplest terms, means that if someone thinks something is correct, then it is right. If he thinks it is wrong, then it is wrong. For example, Hitler thought the extermination of all non-Germanic people was morally right. According to relativism, the killing of those people was allowed because Hitler believed it was the right thing to do.

If I think that raping women is morally acceptable, then relativists (those who follow relativism) must accept that I think it is acceptable.

 

[april32010]

Why be Catholic?! Hello? Because were Cadillacs silly goose! We Catholics are chocolate with the runny caramel and peanut butter inside with nice milk chocolate.

We Catholics [it’s okay if don’t consider me a Catholic] are just one of many yummy delicious chocolates.

What is relatavism? I don’t know whatt that means…

i’m sorry i don’t mean to be insulting,but in another post you state that you are a college student.is your first language english?

 

[Iaamiccwint]

I read the priest’s statement, (given here), and it does not state that the woman, Barbara Johnson, announced herself as a Buddhist. However, he claims she did enter the sacristy where he was hearing confessions prior to the Mass with a woman she announced as her lover. On his behalf the priest claims his refusal of the Eucharist was neither curt nor encumbered with a lecture.

Ms. Johnson is or was a grad student at Kutztown University, however, where she has posted some papers online. One of them states, “As a Buddhist, my role model of an enlightened, highly realized, and happy human being is Gautama Buddha,” among other things (available here). Her study of Buddhism is also mentioned on her art studio’s website under her profile (www.artworksnow.org) while no mention of Catholicism is given.

So, those are some Intertubes “facts” I’ve manage to cobble up on this one.

I have watched her interviews on the various media outlets. She says she is a Catholic during the interviews, and that’s good enough for me.

Studying a religion such as Islam doesn’t make you less of a Christian, you’re just studying it.

I don’t know what’s in her heart. If I was in a room with her, and she says she is a Christian, than that’s good enough with me. So…BOTH SIDES could of handled this more properly…

As I said before, there needs to be MORE information to both Catholics and non-Catholics.
If the priest “knew” they were lovers than he could of told her in the Sacristy that she can not recieve Holy Communion. He COULD of told her when he was made aware they were lovers, but he DID NOT. HE WAITED UP UNTILL SHE CAME UP FOR COMMUNION.

SO, BOTH sides could of handled this in a more proper way. This wouldn’t of happened if she knew more about her own Catholic Faith and the priest doing his own job at informing Catholics when they can not recieve Holy Communion.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

i’m sorry i don’t mean to be insulting,but in another post you state that you are college student.is your first language english?

English IS my first Language. I was born and raised here in the United States of America.
I just never heard of this type of philosophy before…(I did go to a public high school…)

 

[daisybee]

Sure, no problem studying different religions, but there is a problem if we start practicing aspects of another religion.

Here is a a decent overview of relativism (from the article “Truth Demands Charity–Not Mere Tolerance”): catholic.com/magazine/articles/truth-demands-charity%E2%80%94not-mere-tolerance

The difficulty arises when religion is put on the same list as language, skin pigmentation, gender, and the like. For religion and skin pigmentation are very different things. Whereas there is no such a thing as true or false skin color, every religion has a truth-claim, the claim that its fundamental beliefs are worthy of being believed. (If no such claim is made, we may question whether even to call it a religion.)

Because there are many religions and they espouse conflicting views, the word error inevitably arises. Consider: It is intrinsically impossible that monotheism and polytheism could be true simultaneously. Or: One cannot be an orthodox Jew and a Christian. These are fundamentally opposed beliefs. The problem with tolerance is that it too often calls for the sacrifice of truth.

May we tolerate error? The secularists have a ready-made answer to this troubling question: “There is no such thing as objective truth. All views are relative; all points of view are complementary and illustrate different approaches to the same problem. It is sheer arrogance to claim truth for one’s own views.” This is relativism, which contends that nothing can be in error because nothing is true.

If the priest “knew” they were lovers than he could of told her in the Sacristy that she can not recieve Holy Communion. He COULD of told her when he was made aware they were lovers, but he DID NOT

That’s not true according to the priest’s statement. (Check the link to the statement that mystagogia posted.) The priest stated that he did try to speak with the woman, but she made the announcement minutes before the service began, and when he tried to follow her (apparently to attempt to speak with her), her lover was blocking the door.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course you can’t control your sexual orientation. However, you can control whether or not you take a live-in lesbian lover. And you can certainly control whether or not you are a Buddhist.

Not to mention,

You can most certainly control whether you act on all of that and act on approaching the Eucharist.

The presiding priest didn’t “make” her do that. Her sexual orientation didn’t “make” her do that. Her dead mother didn’t “make” her do that. Catholic funeral rites didn’t “make” her do that. She, and she alone, made decisions to provoke, confront, offend, and trivialize the Sacrament.

 

[Elizium23]

In order to be murder…there needs to be (1) An unlawful killing, (2) Of a human being [legally viable outside the womb], and (3) with malice aforethought.

I beg your pardon but the human being to be murdered need not be legally viable outside the womb. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. There does not need to be malice aforethought to constitute murder. It only needs to be intentional. Please do not misrepresent Catholic Church teaching. Murder is a grave sin that should be avoided at all costs.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

I highly suggest that you, as a college student, purchase a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that you study it systematically, and that you evaluate your own beliefs in light of the infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church of which you claim to be a member.

 

[RobbyS]

Maybe I’m being too sympathetic towards the Gay community, but I’m glad this priest got removed from the Archdiocese. You can’t refute communion to someone just because of their sexual orientation. It is something they can’t control.

Community? Crowd or mob is more like it.