Priest who denied Holy Communion to lesbian placed on leave [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know what the “intimidating behavior” was the priest is supposed to have exhibited (that resulted in this discipline). THAT was kept private while his SUSPENSION seems quite public.

If it is “uncharitable” to deny communion to a person who is clearly still living publicly in a “mortal sin” - why is not “uncharitable” to discipline a priest who in HIS conscience does not want to participate in a sacrilege against the Eucharist?

I know it can be a tough call - or easier just to distribute the Eucharist (based on ‘the honor system’ - that is, perhaps (e.g.) the woman had gone to confession the night before and was no LONGER living in sin).

The emotional tag of “how could he do it to her at her mother’s funeral” might be JUST the perfect setup for “getting” a scrupulous priest in trouble too (on the other hand).

I am a Communion Service Leader (CSL) in Detention Ministry. We invite ALL to mass, but have an approved announcement just before communion that goes something like “If you are a baptized Catholic, have made your first communion, and are able to receive communion at this time, we invite you to come forward …”

Sometimes people present themselves without even knowing enough to say “Amen” to “Body of Christ”. I hesitate for a moment, and if they don’t say the “Amen” I quietly put the Eucharist back and ask them to see me after the service.

I WANT them to receive the Eucharist - but as I point out to the non-Catholics and those who haven’t received their first communion yet - Jesus walked with the apostles 3 years before he gave THEM communion. Our service instructs “the others” to pray quietly to Jesus and look forward to the time they CAN receive.

In the cases of those Catholic politicians (and non-Catholic politicians) who present themselves for communion while publicly supporting abortion - denying them communion
is absolutely appropriate (and giving them communion is a scandal EVEN when it “slips by” due to speed of communion lines (the aforementioned ‘honor system’ etc., etc.).

This story is unfortunate. I HATE suspecting Bishops of being wrong - but it’s the feeling I get when I see this.
 
hudson said:
Yeah just perfect timing is all. Of course all the news media is running the story as “Priest who denied communion to Lesbian is placed on leave” Guess what they won this battle. You can bet that now that they know it will work they will do it more and more. All of our most Orthodox Priests will be in their crosshairs. Now the Priest also know that Bishops may not stand with them and defend them when they make a tough decision. Really is sad in my opinion.
Click to expand...
*I think that priests should give Communion to all who present themselves. God gave us free will and we have to make the choice. It is our responsibility - the responsibility of each individual.

Of course if the person is wellknown like Obama for example - but even then they are responsible for their decisions.

It is a very tricky situation.

Cinette:)*
 
Church_Man said:
Do I believe that it is the Body of Blood of Christ? Absolutely.

But as much as I believe in the real presence, I also believe, to the core of my being, that Jesus is loving, compassionate, forgiving, merciful and welcoming. Why this priest didn’t meet with the family and be a pastoral presence to a grieving daughter before the funeral … I don’t know.

What I do know is that funerals can be a tremendous opportunity to welcome the hurting and sinners back into the loving arms of Jesus. I’m not sure that seconds before receiving Eucharist is the time to publicly humiliate a grieving daughter.

Evidently, Fr. G has come to realize this, because he has publicly apologized, as well as his bishop.

As Christians, we really need to learn how to be more compassionate.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Marauder said:
I would just like to comment on this one statement. This has a lot more layers then what you may understand. As someone that lives in the Baltimore/Washington area I follow this pretty close. The reason pro-abortion politicians in this area receive communion isn’t totally on the Cardinal. He is of the opinion that it is up to the bishop of the diocese of which the politician lives to instruct the person on whether they are supposed to receive communion or not. Since the politicians are technically transient he doesn’t feel they are fully under his responsibility. He does not want to step on the authority of the home bishop. Whether his understanding of the issues is correct or not is “above my pay grade”. Yes the Bishop must draw the attention of pro-choice politicians about receiving communion. However, at the end of the day, the responsibility is the politician’s - the sin is his - he has been warned!

His personal belief pertaining to people that are in his direct control seems to be that confrontation should not happen at the communion rail, except in obvious situations (i.e. rainbow sash movement) where someone is obviously using the communion rail as a political statement.

As Brother JR says we should let this process work the way it is supposed to. Unlike the sexual abuse situations this isn’t a matter of protecting children, so knowledge of the proceedings from the outside world isn’t really important. Similar to the Father Corapi situation I have a feeling if the priest himself talks to the press a lot, the diocese may come out with full disclosure of the situation.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Cinette said:
*I think that priests should give Communion to all who present themselves. *
Click to expand...
Do you at least recognize that this position is contrary to what the Church actually teaches?
  • God gave us free will and we have to make the choice. It is our responsibility - the responsibility of each individual.*
Click to expand...
The individual surely has the responsibility not to receive unworthily. Having said that, it is equally true that the minister of communion has the responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of the Eucharist and protect the community from scandal.

*The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. *(Ecclesia de Eucharistia #37)
It is a very tricky situation.
Click to expand...
No, it really is quite straightforward.

The* Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.* (Ibid)

And the reason for this is clear:

In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. (Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)

Ender
 
When will the liberal minority stop telling the moral majority how to pray,think, live and stop reinventing our 2012 year long religion? Or, is religion under attack and are the atheists now becoming the moral majority?🤷
 
Ender said:
Do you at least recognize that this position is contrary to what the Church actually teaches?
The individual surely has the responsibility not to receive unworthily. Having said that, it is equally true that the minister of communion has the responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of the Eucharist and protect the community from scandal.

*The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. *(Ecclesia de Eucharistia #37)
No, it really is quite straightforward.

The* Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted* to Eucharistic communion. (Ibid)

And the reason for this is clear:

In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. (Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)

Ender
Click to expand...
*I am very happy to receive your posting and thank you for it. I am in a hurry but will respond in a couple of days.

God bless
:)Cinette:)*
 
IntegrityCounts said:
When will the liberal minority stop telling the moral majority how to pray,think, live and stop reinventing our 2012 year long religion? Or, is religion under attack and are the atheists now becoming the moral majority?🤷
Click to expand...
*In today’s culture it appears that if the majority believes something then it is right!!! The Church must bend. That is the unfortunate reality. However, truth is truth is truth and Error, is error, error. You cannot change these things although we have a good number of people who are doing their best to redefine our truths and values.

:)*
 
I still can’t get over this excerpt quoted below - nobody was granting it a whole lot of credibility until Father Guarnizo confirmed it in the statement he released. It’s a totally different picture from the one that Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post decided to invent :

From CNS; Father Marcel Guarnizo: ‘I Did The Only Thing a Faithful Catholic Priest Could Do’ . [bolds mine]
. . . A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover." Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms. Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused .
Click to expand...
We could do the math here - it isn’t rocket science . Everybody simply needs to ask themselves , why Barbara Johnson’s lover physically impeded Father Guarnizo from following her ? Why ? Why did she do that ? …:hmmm:

I guess people who bring their gay tyranny right into the sacristy need our prayers more than we know .
 
Santo_Subito said:
Thorough Canonical Defense of Fr. Guarnizo by a Canon Lawyer Priest.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this - what a thorough analysis. This comment from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts regarding the meaning of the phrase “obstinate persistence” was especially relevant:

*"the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of “the situation in the Church.” *

One of the arguments against Fr. Guarnizo’s actions (and I think Ed Peters used it) was that since Ms. Johnson had not been counseled she did not meet the “obstinate persistence” criterion. According to the PCLT, however, “prior warning” is unnecessary. The standard is met by a “sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end.” That clearly was the case in this instance.

Beyond this, however, is the concern raised about the way the diocese handled the penalty handed out to Fr. Guarnizo.

*Where is the right of defense for Father Gaurnizo? Did the Ordinary initiate an administrative process or a judicial penal process with a decree of judicial weight? What about the libellus, the formal petition of accusation? Where is the promotor of justice to ensure that the proper juridical motions are taken at each step of the trial? Where is due process? *

I don’t wonder that the author of that article wished to remain anonymous … especially if he is a priest of that diocese.

Ender
 
I really don’t understand why he would be put on leave but I trust the wisdom of his Bishop.
 
“Set up”, “hit job”… whatever it takes to expose and get rid of the traditional dinosaurs who are killing the Catholic church by preventing it from moving out of the nineteenth century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top