Posted on 02/29/2012 10:07:57 AM PST by marshmallow
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.
“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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
All sex outside of marriage is a violation of the Sixth Commandment.
The woman had earlier made it a point to introduce her live-in "lover" to him.
Speaking of "stupid", I'm afraid that by taking the side of the avowed lesbian instead of a priest who has the courage to uphold his Church's teachings, you are revealing more than a little about yourself.
Well, that’s interesting. If he had already warned her, then that makes it a different matter.
Yes, I read what was in the article posted here. If you were so all-knowing, why didn’t you share your knowledge?
The one who told him was her partner.
This may be Catholic doctrine, but it is not what the scripture says.
From the moment Christ was crucified there were haters. We’ve survived them and will continue to survive.
Yes, it’s my opinion...based on the information I read. If you want to be really specific...only God knows what was in the heart and mind of the priest.
What is your opinion?
Did you see my posts upstream? I know this priest. I can tell you at least some of what was in his heart and mind because we discussed something similar in a seminar with other people several months ago. I can tell you also that hatred, cruelty, judgments, prejudice, and other ugliness are not in him. This conservative has been set up because he’s so strongly anti-abortion.
Apparently the lesbian wasn’t famous or wealthy.
You are right. i am a male heterosexual lesbian.
In other words, I like sex with women.
:)
I told my wife that a priest said living with a woman is a sin. She made me stay anyway.
No, I’m sorry. I didn’t see them. I’ve been in and out today.
In my original post I stated, “I am sure that the good priest intended to do the right thing.”
What Fr. Z said: “In this case, FROM THE WAY IT WAS REPORTED(my caps), the priest both didn’t have a clear knowledge that this woman’s lifestyle was manifest and that she was herself being obstinate. It seems to me that to apply can. 915 to that woman at that moment was an improper rush to judgment, well-meaning, but wrong, zealous for the Lord and Holy Church’s doctrine, but premature.”
Form the perspective of the Canon Lawyer: http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/note-on-the-lesbian-communion-case-3
It IS sad that the Bishop did not back up this priest more in his note to the disgruntled lesbian woman. Perhaps he was simply trying to avoid discussions with another type of lawyer. We must all pray for courage for our bishops.
Not being anti-RC in any way, but trying to follow the logic here.
I can understand how confession relieves one of the onus of sin, and therefore makes taking Communion “possible” and the argument could be made that living a lesbian life is planning to continue that sin, ergo it is not cleansed by confession because future sin is planned, but how does the 70+ % of Catholic women who practice birth control take communion, since they plan to take that pill again that evening, i.e., “planned future sin” all over again?
If it’s Ok to take Communion if you don’t take the pill between the time of Confession and Communion, why isn’t it Ok to take Communion after Confession, if you don’t engage in a lesbian act between Confession and Communion?
And isn’t an act that can kill a fetus, the morning after pill, much worse than a sexual act between two consenting adults, regardless of how “forbidden” that act is?
Again, please don’t anyone jump on me as anti-Catholic, because I am not. I’m just asking questions about something I do not understand.
The Catholic Church is what it is. People do not have a right to belong to it or any other religion. The ONLY legitimate application of politics is to deny 1st Amendment religious status to any organization which punishes anyone for not belonging to it or leaving it. Otherwise, politics has no say.
If the priest did not follow Catholic Canon law, then she has a civil case against the priest and Church. If Catholic Canon law was followed, then she needs to conform to it or find another religion.
THAT is true freedom of religion.
ON THE OTHER HAND -
There is a MASSIVE “American Catholic” liberal Democrat/Centrist base, and Santorum is fighting Romney, who is in turn backed by Hillary’s machine. It wouldn’t surprise me A BIT to find out this entire thing was staged to split American centrist/liberal Catholics against Santorum.
Do I actually mean that a lesbian used her own mother’s death to set up a priest that was previously determined to be likely to deny her communion, or even worse, that the priest was in on the act too, solely for political manipulation purposes against the opposition party to help nominate a Republican candidate guaranteed to lose to the Democrat?
You BET I do.
Believe me, this priest was not in on the set up. Believe me. I know him. Check him out on YouTube. This is a guy who stands up for Christ, for faith, the Church, the unborn, conservativism, capitalism, freedom, the Western Tradition—but never for liberalism.
Are you claim that the Scriptures do not unambiguously condemn all sexual relations outside of marriage? If so, you are gravely mistaken.
LOL!!
Maybe one of the experts can step up and give a better answer to your question.
There are priests who are attracted to men, but if they don’t act on it, I thought they were without sin. I don’t know how a priest can “hear” something and deny someone sacraments. Also, if the two women live together and don’t engage in sex ads, I thought they were not committing sin. But I’m not the go to guy on this.
I agree the Scriptures are clear all sex outside marriage is condemned.
I do not agree all forms of sex outside marriage constitute adultery. Adultery is by definition the violation of the marriage relationship. If neither partner is married, adultery cannot be committed.
If neither partner is married, each is sinning against themselves, against God and against their sexual partner. If either of them is married they both add sinning against the innocent marriage mate.
Which is why adultery is a more egregious sin than “simple” fornication.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.