The Washington Post has a story that has left many deeply disturbed. Barbara Johnson was attending her mother’s funeral at the St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland when she went up to receive communion. Upon seeing her, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo refused to give her the host, saying that he was aware that she was a lesbian living with another woman and therefore a sinner. Later, when Johnson was giving the eulogy, Gaurnizo abruptly left the service — leaving no priest at the remainder of the service or attending the burial.
Rev. Guarnizo was informed of Johnson’s status before the ceremony by someone in the church. She said “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.’”
The confrontation has led to angry letters demanding the removal of Guarnizo. In response, Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, wrote an apology for the act of unkindness that “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.” He added: “I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity.” Hoping that “healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience,” Rev. Knestout offered to conduct a “Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”
There is now however a push back from other parishioners who cite Canon Law 915. This canon reads: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Yet, the Archdiocese has stated that “it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person” and that “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.”
This still leaves the issue of communion. If Rev. Guarnizo had raised it privately before the service, would the Archdiocese agree with him that Canon 915 bars the receipt of communion? Of course, there remains the sudden departure of the priest.
The issue of discrimination by religious organizations remains a difficult one. I have previously written against the application of discrimination laws in some circumstances to religious groups as a denial of the free exercise of religion. I think we can all agree that this priest’s conduct was inexcusable in how he handled the matter and he should be disciplined. However, what about the more general question of denying communion to Ms. Johnson. Which should control Canon 915 or non-discrimination laws? I have to ultimately (and reluctantly) support the Church’s right to exclusion. What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
MIlord:
“Rev. Guarnizo seems quite cruel and unfeeling, but that is an opinion from a humanistic position so I hesitate to judge him too harshly.”
******************************
I would then suppose that from an inhumane position,Rev. Guarnizo seems quite kind and sympathetic? Contrapositively speaking, of course.
mespo7272721, March 1, 2012 at 8:29 am
——————————————————–
Our Mission Statement
United in the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we commit ourselves as a welcoming Catholic Community: To worship God in Word and Sacrament;.. To learn, live and share our Faith;.. To serve the vulnerable and poor among us;.. And to reconcile ourselves with God and one another.
~
Ms. Johnson was attending her MOTHERs’ funeral.
…
Firstly, this is not a legal matter. No civil authority is competent to administer church law just as no clerical authority is competent to administer civil law.
Secondly, there is not nearly enough information in this short article upon which to base an informed opinion.
Rev. Guarnizo seems quite cruel and unfeeling, but that is an opinion from a humanistic position so I hesitate to judge him too harshly. I do not know if his actions were justified, I only know neither I, nor most of the respondents are qualified to make that determination. That is left to ecclisiastical adjudication.
Justice Holmes, you are incorrect in stating excommunication is required for Canon law 915. We do not know how familiar Rev. Guarnizo was with Ms. Johnson, but we do know he is obligated under Canon law to deny the sacrament to anyone he determines is not in a state of grace and that it is incumbent upon to him to make that determination.
I have great sympathy for Ms. Johnson and my prayers are with her, but it appears she acted inappropriately and should not expect a priest to violate his conscience with another inappropriate act; one that would be a grevious sin and imperil his own soul. By this account she violated church dogma and is therefore not in a state of grace, a requirement for administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Red W Blue
thanks, just go with my conviction that all organize charity with more than 200 contributors should be boycotted. All, religious or otherwise are just meant as “rake-off” machines who deliver little and primarily support themselves by burning off 80+ percent of gross contributions.
Let us see the figures and let us see to it that all are covered, not just your favorite victims.
The Church is a repressive, ultra-reactionary, miscogynistic, anti-science, anti-semitic, politically-powerful, wealthy institution with a history of torture, mass murder, and economic and sexual exploitation of women and children that goes back over a thousand years. This is a minor incident in their continuing fight to maintain their power and influence.
They have recently been using the tactic of discontinuing their “charitable services” (or threatening to) if they are required to serve people equitably. Let them go their way. We will all be better off.
So what. The Lord is flesh, and blood in that persecuted lesbian woman because she is flesh,and blood. The ones denying her that wafer, and drink are like a dead men walking without a living soul.
So what. The Lord is flesh, and blood in that persecuted lesbian woman because she is flesh,and blood. The ones denying her that wafer, and drink are like a dead men waling without a living soul.
The priest had had no personal knowledge of this woman’s living situation. Someone “informed” him of the woman’s status before the funeral–and that was reason enough for him to deny her Communion? So…someone in his parish tells him another person is a sinner and he needs no more proof than that. Good grief!
SwM,
How can you publish such a link to “friendly” churchs? Is it because the Bible says that Jesus spent a night (unclothed says the Bible) with a young man showing …….. forgot how it ends. but you know what I mean.
So they denied her communion yet I’ll bet they took her “contribution” for the funeral with no problem.
The Cannon law section citeD in support of the priest’s action requires the the individual who is excluded has been excommunicated . There is no evidence that such an action had ever been taken against the daughter. As to obstinanly persisting in “grave sin” there is little evidence that the priest involved was in a position to make that claim. Further, his decision to abruptly leave the service is clear evidence that he should be removed. Unfortunately the Church is more likely to make sure that he is never really confronted for his pastoral failure.
This is the same Church that has chosen to investigate Nuns and embrace very publically Newt and the allegedly devote Catholic who was us mistress for 6 years. Only the wealthy deserve compassion.
This is decidedly not a legal issue. It is, however, an issue of moral failure on the part of the Priest and exposes him as a rather stupid person. The RCC has eough problems on its hands to receive even more negative publicity. When you’ve elected a Pope who is a throwback to the middle ages though what can you expect. Pope John Roncalli was a wonderfully pious man, who died to early. Had he lived longer perhaps the RCC may have become the moral force it pretends to be.
You “relunctanctly” support the church’s right to exclude? Why? Prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing etc is one thing as these are “secular” rights. Receiving communion, becoming a Bar Mitzvah, etc are religious rites and what the requirements are for doing so is the prerogative of the particular creed, not the province of the secular law.
The priest was wrong in doing what he did because of the insensitivity of his actions, but I dont see how anyone could justify claiming that the woman has an enforceable “right” to receive communion. BTW I disagree with that London decision. Deciding who is a Jew or who is entitled to communion” cannot be properly adjudicated by the court
“The priest was correct to deny the sacrament to one the Church deems ineligible”
This is true, but it is not on a Priest to determine someone ineligible on the spot. This women is not excommunicated nor indicted and should have been allowed to take communion.
At worst the priest should have requested that she go through confession prior to the funeral so that she could approach communion free of sin.
Well, the distinction that they would point out is that she is an unrepentant sinner. As long as you ask for forgiveness (sincere or not) you can be forgiven for anything. To a level of absurdity that it makes your head spin.
That said, I believe as Frankly does that this is all hokum. I think the followers should all rebel and leave, and starve this ridiculous beast to death – finally. But alas the hokum has a strong hold on oh so many people.
OT… for those who don’t know… Andrew Breitbart is dead, according to an AOL report:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-blogger-dies_n_1312944.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D139709
Canon law allows adulterers like Newt to become Catholic and get married. Canon law allows for many other wealthy and/or famous people to get repeated divorces in the church, but this priest denies communion to a grieving daughter? This priest does not deserve to wear the robes.
According to its own mythology, all humankind are sinners, so where does this one priest get off in singling out one person who can’t receive Communion?
Canon Law or no Canon Law, cruelty to a bereaved daughter is an unforgivable sin in itself.
I’m with ya’ll.
Priests who have raped children serve communion. Priests who have covered up the crimes of other priests have served communion to the very criminal priests they have sheltered. Jesus was quite unkind to hypocrites. If these priests believed in the God they claim and the judgment that God promised, they would not be so bold in their own sin.