Maryland Priest Denies Communion To Lesbian At Funeral

[tinytherese]

[u][color="#0066cc"]Maryland priest denies communion to lesbian at funeral — UPDATED[/color][/u]
Feb 28th, 2012 by [url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/author/deacon-greg-kandra/"]Deacon Greg Kandra[/url]

[b][url="http://wusa9.com/news/article/193305/373/Gaithersburg-Priest-Involved-In-Funeral-Controversy"]Details: [/url][/b][indent]
It’s been an extremely difficult week for Barbara Johnson — perhaps the most difficult week of her life.

It all started on Saturday at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, where friends and family had gathered to say goodbye to Barbara’s mother, who died last week after a brief illness.

Just a few minutes before the funeral began, Father Marcel Guarnizo, who was presiding over the service, apparently learned that Barbara was involved in a romantic relationship with another woman.

A lifelong Catholic and former Catholic school teacher, Barbara says she hadn’t even considered that her sexual orientation would be a problem with Father Marcel until she stepped forward to take communion.

“He said, ‘I can not give you communion because you live with a woman,” Barbara says.
Though shaken by Father Marcel’s actions, Barbara says she tried to compose herself to give her mother the dignified funeral she deserved. So a few minutes later, Barbara began her eulogy.

“At which time Father Marcel left the altar and didn’t return until I finished my eulogy,” Barbara says.

According to Barbara, things got even worse, because after first refusing to give her communion, and then walking off the altar when Barbara was giving her eulogy, Father Marcel refused to go with Barbara’s mother’s body to the cemetery in Aspen Hill. Barbara says she was told that Father Marcel had suddenly become ill.

In a written statement, the Archdiocese of Washington conceded that Father Marcel had acted improperly, saying, “Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”[/indent]
[b][url="http://wusa9.com/news/article/193305/373/Gaithersburg-Priest-Involved-In-Funeral-Controversy"]Read more.[/url][/b]
[b]UPDATE: [/b]The Washington Post has now picked up [b][url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html"]the story: [/url][/b][indent]
Messages left for [Father] Guarnizo were not immediately returned, and archdiocesan officials declined to answer questions about what actually happened.

“In matters of faith and morals, the Church has the responsibility of teaching and of bringing the light of the Gospel message to the circumstances of our day,” the archdiocese said in a statement. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

[Larry] Johnson [brother of the woman denied communion] said his parents were lifelong churchgoers, that the four children attended Catholic schools, that his sister taught at Catholic schools, and that neither he nor his sister see this as a reason to criticize the church more broadly.

“We agreed this is not a discussion about gay rights, or about the teachings of the Catholic Church,” he said. “We’re not in this to Catholic-bash. That’s the farthest thing from our minds. We just want the public square to have knowledge of what this priest did.”[/indent]
[b]UPDATE II:[/b] The[b] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story_1.html"]WaPo[/url][/b] has also interviewed the woman who was denied communion, who described how the priest learned the news:
[indent]
Johnson said that her partner of 20 years had been helping the family at the church earlier when the priest asked who she was. “And she said, ‘I’m her partner,’ ” Johnson recalled.
When Guarnizo covered the wine and wafers with his hand during Communion, Johnson stood there for a moment, thinking he would change his mind, she said. “I just stood there, in shock. I was grieving, crying,” she said. “My mother’s body was behind me, and all I wanted to do was provide for her, and the final thing was to make a beautiful funeral, and here I was letting her down because there was a scene.”[/indent]
That seems at odds with a commenter here who wrote:[indent]
I happen to know “First hand” that Barbara went into the sacristy before the mass and introduced herself as a lesbian in an active lesbian relationship… introducing her partner as “her lover” (her words). She left the sacristy before Fr. could have the “private discussion” you talk about. Barbaras “Lover” blocked his way out of the sacristy when he attempted to speak with her further.[/indent]
Stay tuned. I don’t think this story is over yet.

[b]UPDATE III:[/b] Canon lawyer Ed Peters — a frequent commenter on this post — has weighed in on [b][url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/note-on-the-lesbian-communion-case-3/"]his own blog: [/url][/b][indent]
This is what happens when bizarre events (like an admitted practicing lesbian presenting herself for holy Communion in the first place), happen on the watch of priests whose love for the Eucharist probably exceeds their knowledge of the law on reception of holy Communion (through no fault of their own, doubtless), before a well-wired-world that can broadcast misinformation and even flatly wrong interpretations of an event with nary a care for correcting itself later. No matter who gets hurt along the way. And plenty of people have been hurt in this one.

I have expended [url="http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm"]no little effort[/url] over many years ([url="http://www.canonlaw.info/a_denialofeucharist.htm"]like about 22[/url]) trying to get Canon 915 correctly understood and properly applied in ecclesiastical life. In the last few years, some signs of progress have appeared. Now, out of nowhere, Canon 915 is being invoked by some as justification for an action that, reading the facts as alleged in the light most favorable to the minister, would [i]not[/i] have justified his withholding holy Communion from the woman in question. Specifically, a few minutes conversation (if that’s what happened), mostly with a third party (if that’s what happened), would not suffice, in the face of numerous canons protecting the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments, to verify either the [b]notoriety[/b] of the (objectively) sinful situation, or to verify the [b]obstinacy[/b] of the would-be recipient, [i]both[/i] of which elements, among others in Canon 915, [i]must[/i]be demonstrated before withholding holy Communion.[/indent]
[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/02/maryland-priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral/"]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/02/maryland-priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral/[/url]



That's a tough situation for the priest to be in. Her "partner" is introduced and the funeral was soon to start. It isn't as if there was much time for her to be talked to. I agree that he could have handled it better with the disappearing act, but to be honest, if I were him, I would feel like doing the same thing.

[HopefulBride]

I would not want to be in his shoes.

[Byzantine]

I want some more information, like what actually happened. Do we have some sort of definite "this is what happened" thing?

[qfnol31]

I have a lot of good information surrounding the whole action. I'll just make a couple brief remarks:

1) We don't know anything about this priest's character now and should reserve judgment.

2) The woman has been quick to criticize the priest but has not criticized the Archdiocese. Trust the Archdiocese to act appropriately and according to Church teachings.

3) Watch out for news stories, even from Catholic blogs. Often they can be clouded by quick reactions.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote][color=#282828]“In matters of faith and morals, the Church has the responsibility of teaching and of bringing the light of the Gospel message to the circumstances of our day,” the archdiocese said in a statement. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”[/color][/quote]

I'm completely with the Archdiocese on this one.

[cmotherofpirl]

If the woman introduced herself and her lover as active lesbians then she has NO right to communion. She deliberately sought out the priest and thus sought a confrontation. She was out to get the priest.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1330740281' post='2395504']
If the woman introduced herself and her lover as active lesbians then she has NO right to communion. She deliberately sought out the priest and thus sought a confrontation. She was out to get the priest.
[/quote]


this seems a little tinfoil hat-ish to me.

[Lil Red]

are we concerned more with someone's feelings than with profanation of the Eucharist?

[cappie]

Pretty self explanatory From Ed Peters: [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/"]http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/[/url]

A thought exercise occasioned by the lesbian/Communion controversy

Perhaps this thought exercise might help folks to think through the lesbian/Communion controversy better. Imagine we’re looking at the line of those approaching for holy Communion one Sunday morning at Mass.

I see ten men approaching. One of them is dressed in Neo-Nazi gear. Quick, which one (in my view) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned him away?

I see ten people approaching. It’s Gay Pride Week and two of them are wearing Rainbow Sashes. Quick, which two (in my view) are ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned them away?

I see ten people approaching. One of them is Nancy Pelosi. Quick, which one (in my view) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? Would pretty much everyone there know why I turned her away (even if they disagreed with my decision)?

Okay, now, I see ten women approaching. One of them is a lesbian. Quick, which one (according to some) is ineligible for holy Communion per c. 915? And how would anyone there know why I turned her away?

See the problem? Everyone knows what Neo-Nazis, and Rainbow Sashers, and Nancy Pelosi look like, but what does a lesbian look like?
Canon 915 (unlike Canon 916!) is about public consequences for public behavior. But “public” must be taken here as understood by canon law, and not necessarily as assumed from casual parlance.

Some evil conduct is so open, protracted, and well-known in the community (whether locally or nationally) that consequences at Communion time should (in a well-ordered body ecclesiastic) come as no surprise to the faith community. But other conduct, even though it is gravely wrong (one element of Canon 915) is not so open, protracted, or well-known (another element of Canon 915) so as to allow the community in question to understand what is happening to the individual in question.

If Nancy Pelosi is turned away from Communion, no one is going to wonder whether it is because she is, say, carrying on a torrid affair against her husband; if Rainbow Sashers are turned away from Communion, no one is going to suspect that, I dunno, they’ve embezzled money from their employers; and if a Neo-Nazi is turned away from Communion, no one is really going to wonder why. But if a some normal-looking woman in line for holy Communion is tuned away from the Sacrament, even politely, how are people supposed to know why? Did she kill maybe someone? Is she a porno queen or a prostitute? Maybe she runs that abortion clinic. Is she cheating on her husband or taking bribes at work? What?

Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I’m assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion, that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated.

Now, sure, over time, and under certain circumstances, any of the behaviors described above can become so well-known in the community that those involved in such activities should be denied holy Communion, provided the other elements of c. 915—like, say, “obstinacy”— are also satisfied.

A few years ago, Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.

And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different. + + +

[cappie]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1330740895' post='2395509']
are we concerned more with someone's feelings than with profanation of the Eucharist?
[/quote]

I don't mean to be pedantic but receiving the Eucharistic unworthily is not canonically speaking profanation of the Eucharist. This is:

Can. 1367 One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

they do commit another sin though ....

[eagle_eye222001]

Can a policy of an archdiocese outweigh canon 915?

This is the question.

Cmom may have a point. And this point may be the flaw in why one should utilize canon 915 as appropriately.


What matters is if canon 915 was administered faithfully.


The worse thing the church can do is hold a contradicting stance on this issue.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1330741580' post='2395516']
I don't mean to be pedantic but receiving the Eucharistic unworthily is not canonically speaking profanation of the Eucharist. This is:

Can. 1367 One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

they do commit another sin though ....
[/quote]
thank you Father.

[cappie]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1330741736' post='2395517']
Can a policy of an archdiocese outweigh canon 915?

This is the question.

Cmom may have a point. And this point may be the flaw in why one should utilize canon 915 as appropriately.


What matters is if canon 915 was administered faithfully.


The worse thing the church can do is hold a contradicting stance on this issue.
[/quote]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]it is necessary to understand the Church's general attitude toward the reception of sacraments by the faithful. Briefly, Church law prizes and protects the right of Catholics to participate in its sacramental life. While recognizing the minister's obligation to prevent unworthy participation in the sacraments, the canons firmly foster the reception of the sacraments wherever possible.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="2"] Evidence for this conclusion is found as early as Book II of the 1983 Code, entitled "The People of God," which opens with a remarkable series of canons outlining the fundamental rights and duties of the faithful in general and of the laity in particular. Prominent among those provisions are Canon 213 which asserts the faithful's "right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the Word of God and the sacraments" and Canon 212 § 2 which recognizes the faithful's "right to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church."[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="2"] Even standing alone, these two canons are clear affirmations of the faithful's rights in regard to accessing the sacraments. But when these same provisions are read in the light of Canon 18 (which calls for the narrow interpretation of any Church rules restricting the faithful's exercise of their rights) it is easy to see that a significant presumption in favor of the faithful's rights to sacramental participation is being established very early in Church law.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="2"] Turning next to Book IV of the Code, where most of the canons specifically regulating sacramental issues are found, though still before discussing specific norms on particular sacraments, Church law restates that "sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (Canon 843 § 1). Once more, the obvious implication is that Church ministers are supposed to be at the service of the faithful seeking sacraments. Not at their beck-and-call, certainly, but at their service, surely.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="2"] Finally, it is important to realize that the supreme authority of the Church (i.e., Rome) reserves to itself the right to determine what is required for valid and licit celebration of the sacraments (see Canon 841, as well as Canons 837-838). This does not mean that there is no place for flexibility and local adaptation in sacramental matters. There most certainly is. But it does mean that[i] the fundamental rules on sacramental participation are determined by universal canon law and not by local diocesan or parish policy-makers, however wise or well-intentioned they might be.[/i][/size][/font]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1330742450' post='2395523']
[font=Arial][size=2]it is necessary to understand the Church's general attitude toward the reception of sacraments by the faithful. Briefly, Church law prizes and protects the right of Catholics to participate in its sacramental life. While recognizing the minister's obligation to prevent unworthy participation in the sacraments, the canons firmly foster the reception of the sacraments wherever possible.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=2] Evidence for this conclusion is found as early as Book II of the 1983 Code, entitled "The People of God," which opens with a remarkable series of canons outlining the fundamental rights and duties of the faithful in general and of the laity in particular. Prominent among those provisions are Canon 213 which asserts the faithful's "right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the Word of God and the sacraments" and Canon 212 § 2 which recognizes the faithful's "right to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church."[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=2] Even standing alone, these two canons are clear affirmations of the faithful's rights in regard to accessing the sacraments. But when these same provisions are read in the light of Canon 18 (which calls for the narrow interpretation of any Church rules restricting the faithful's exercise of their rights) it is easy to see that a significant presumption in favor of the faithful's rights to sacramental participation is being established very early in Church law.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=2] Turning next to Book IV of the Code, where most of the canons specifically regulating sacramental issues are found, though still before discussing specific norms on particular sacraments, Church law restates that "sacred ministers cannot refuse the sacraments to those who ask for them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (Canon 843 § 1). Once more, the obvious implication is that Church ministers are supposed to be at the service of the faithful seeking sacraments. Not at their beck-and-call, certainly, but at their service, surely.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial][size=2] Finally, it is important to realize that the supreme authority of the Church (i.e., Rome) reserves to itself the right to determine what is required for valid and licit celebration of the sacraments (see Canon 841, as well as Canons 837-838). This does not mean that there is no place for flexibility and local adaptation in sacramental matters. There most certainly is. But it does mean that[i] the fundamental rules on sacramental participation are determined by universal canon law and not by local diocesan or parish policy-makers, however wise or well-intentioned they might be.[/i][/size][/font]
[/quote]

Ok Father I am still confused.
I was going on the clarification in one of the above posts where the women went to the priest in the sacristy, identified themselves as active lesbians in a relationship immediately before the start of Mass and then presented themselves for Communion. Does not their actions then justify the behavior of the priest by the concept of proper disposition to receive the Sacrament?

[cappie]

From the blog cited above: A few years ago, Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was[b] a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.[/b]

And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different.