Communion-denial-for-lesbian controversy update
The story of Barbara Johnson continues to create a fairly huge stir — Johnson was denied communion at her mother’s funeral by a priest in the Archdiocese of Washington because he discovered she is a lesbian. Lisa Fullam posted on the heartening response to Johnson by others at the parish and archdiocesan authorities, who later removed Fr. Marcel Guarnizo from ministry. (That’s him in the photo; apparently he looks like “Neo” all the time, not just at “Matrix” parties.)
Fr. Guarnizo is not going quietly, and released a strong defense of his actions in a statement given to conservative Catholic websites. Guarnizo’s account differs in some details from that of Johnson’s (she says she never told him she was a lesbian, and he only found out when questioning her partner while Johnson accompanied her mother’s casket into the church).
He also says that a migraine attack caused him to leave the altar for a few minutes during mass, and that was the reason he did not accompany the family to the interment.
Guarnizo actually spends much of his time criticizing the archdiocese and its actions, which he insists were related to the communion incident rather than his “intimidating behavior toward parish staff,” as the archdiocese said. Writes Fr. Guarnizo:
Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.
I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld.
Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve the Catholic Church in Washington D.C.
He does add at one point, about Johnson:
If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbiter of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
Canon Ed Peters, no lily-livered liberal, I think, has been schooling Fr. Guarnizo and his many defenders throughout this saga, and he returns to the battlements with another lengthy demolition of Guarnizo’s actions and defense. Here is his kicker:
I, too, believe that this case is warning to the Church, a warning to make sure that ministers of the Eucharist understand and observe the Church’s sacramental law. The Church can best defend herself from a hateful world seeking her harm when she follows her own rules; but when she, or hers, fail to do so, the problems become legion.
Read the whole thing here.
It was a funeral, a final good-bye to her mother, for God’s sake. That’s not the time or place for an intervention of righteousness. It is the time and place for Judge Not, IMHO.
Grrrreat frogs on his coat.
“My sacristy” — need more be said…
Dr. Peters seems focused in on Canon 915, while Fr. Guarnizo readily admits his reasoning does not meet the threshhold of Canon 915. There’s a real disconnect in this discussion.
No there isn’t, Kathy. What Peters analyzed is that Guarnizo only had one canon to supposedly support his cause and even he admitted that that canon probably did not support his actions.
Mr. Gibson – would suggest that Wuerl needs to step up. This is his responsibility on a number of levels:
a) there is an allegation of “spiritual abuse” which needs to be investigated. Wuerl needs to implement a process that mirrors the process used with allegations of clerical sexual abuse……Guarnizo needs to have a forensic psychological battery of tests; experts need to develop a treatment plan (if applicable); it should be clear to Guarnizo that he must successfully complete any action plan developed before he is reinstated. My own opinion is that any rehab needs to include re-education (theology, pastoral/cultural awareness, canon law, psychology); he needs adult formation and a qualified mentor. Just as in sexual abuse, it should be clear that any public statements from him will result in suspension.
b) just as with sexual abusers, these plans need to be shared with his Moscow ordinary. Actually, my opinion is that he needs added formation and education and then should be returned to Moscow.
This is actually a growing problem that transcends this specific priest and event. Wuerl has a responsiblity to Guarnizo, to Ms. Johnson, and also the church. The worst result would be to do nothing and move him to another national assignment, diocese, etc. without informing privately the proper dicastery, his own ordinary, and the USCCB so that a “problem” is not just transferred (which happened so often with sexual abusers)
There are too many gaps in this specific case:
1) did Wuerl just accept Guarnizo at the word of his ordinary (which is standard practice). Why was there no cultural preparation; was there any psych testing before accepting him; etc. Was this his first assignment in the archdiocese? If not, what happened at an earlier assignment? Was this pastor supposed to be mentoring him? If not, why not?
2) these incidents with foreign priests are happening all the time; they just don’t make national headlines. Folks (just as with sexual abuse) do not broadcast when a foreign priest treats them poorly; restricts sacraments; turns them away from the church; etc.
3) Finally, Guarnizo falls into a growing segment of priests who wind up at an older age being sponsored by an ordinary who sends them to Rome for education. What happens is that the ordinay may change; the ordinay merely gets annual reports from Rome; the candidate is detached and separated from pastoral ministry and situations and from his own culture; Rome unwittingly reinforces an “ideal” picture of priesthood that is more “cultic” than “servant/pastoral”. You would find hundreds of stories about Rome educated and ordained priests who have difficulties when they return home. Unfortunately, Rome is the key to promotion – so, many of these guys wind up being promoted to key diocesan positions which separates them from ministry again. The older, Rome centered seminary education has been seen numerous times recently – Corapi, Pavone, Opus Dei candidates, Guarnizo, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, etc. No one seems to be talking about this growing situation – they appear to have been ordained to a career focused on some “ideal goal” rather than servant ministry to a diocese and the people of God.
The other term that seems to need more definition is “lover.” Unless everyone already knows what is meant by that word.
Atrocious pastoral sense defended by a canon law?
That’s one problem.
Issues raiused by Bill D. are another -which probably won’t be looked at(see several threads below, e.g. disintegrating hurch.)
Sorry that;s “diminishng church” -also “graying of the priesthood”.
Severe pastoral problems wil not be solved by canon law and its practitioners.
Peters has also said that Johnson erred in presenting herself from communion, and with all that’s known about her now, any priest would be canonically safe to deny her communion.
This is another case where the Catholic Church “selects” what doctrines to defend and communicate to the world as immoral.
The USCCB made clear their guidelines for the reception of the Eucharist. This includes contraception! Catholics are required to confess contraception as a sin, and receive absolution before receiving the Eucharist. Otherwise, it is a sacrilege. Yet, every priest knows that most Catholics don’t confess contraception as a sin, and stand in line each week to receive the Eucharist. The Church does not spend one penny of time in condemning the “silent pulpit”. In my 35 years of attending Mass, I never heard any priest make clear this requirement to parishioners. Nor have I ever read any weekly bulletin by a parish or bishop about this specific issue. All that one reads occasionally is a repeat of Humanae Vitae. Nothing is ever mentioned about sin, confession, and any requirements of receiving the Eucharist….nor, does no ever hear or read about the theology of conscience. Does the Church turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the reality of human exerience and known sociial and sexual behavior among Catholics? Of course they do. Is the Church guilty of a grave “act of omission”? Yes, who would deny this fact? Is there a contradiction between the word of doctrine, and the deed in pastoral practice? You bet there is.
Contraceptive couples are considered “habitual sinners” by the Church. They can get absolution if they confess this as a sin based on the principle of gradualness. Yet, other habitual sinners, like the divorced and remarried, and people with a same-sex attraction who are in a sexual and loving relationship, are denied the principle of gradualness and absolution. A contradiction in principle? You bet it is.
Is the Church guilty of “cafeteria theory of Catholicism”. You make the call.
If the Church wants to strenghten the authority of the Magisterium, they should take the plank out of their eye first, before they take the speak out of their neighbors eye.
Mark my word: this man means trouble.
(I think he looks like the vampire Lestat. Did someone say he’s from Transylvaia or some place like that? OK. OK, I”m just wondering what his background is.)
Ann: here is one person’s description of the priest in question (taken from a righty Catholic website):
“Fr Marcel Guarnizo has a most unusual biography. Born in Columbia, South America, raised in Arlington, Virginia, attended Bishop O’Connell High School there, seminary in Rome, Italy, ordained in Moscow ? priest of the archdiocese of Moscow? Shows up in a Maryland parish one year ago. How and why? Internet articles indicate that he is founder of organizations to reform all of Russia, “reclaim its patrimony” and reform all of Eastern Europe. Really. The same stories also indicate that he is not fully fluent in Russian language. Oh. In the US, he had many idiosyncrasies. He dressed in flowing clerical capes with ornate embroidery, extra flowing surpluses in demonstrations outside a local abortion clinic, used Latin quite alot (unusual for a man who was born about 14 years after Latin masses stopped being the US norm), although raised in the US, insisted on pronouncing the name of his parish very differently than the US pronunciation, publicly led exorcism prayers (on Youtube), and was viewed as more than eccentric by many. Now none of this is any reason to remove a priest, but he was certainly strange in many respects. Was he properly psychologically screened, trained, and ordained? Just how did he end up in the archdiocese of Washington to begin with, other than the priest shortage? I unfortunately think that he may have been unstable, although he had many good attributes.
http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/03/fr-guarnizos-fate.html
On another blog, someone said he looks like Keanu Reeves from the Matrix.
Ok, he looks like Keanu Reeves and he pronounces Neumann like Neumann himself did. Is there anything more substantial to be said here?
Yah. He calls the trip to the cemetery a “voyage”.
Does it sadden anyone besides me that he only met this woman a few minutes before he was to bury her mother? Unless he was a last-minute substitute, I’d like to think that basic good pastoral care involves a meeting to discuss the deceased, offer comfort the family, etc., in part so that the homily at the Mass won’t be “one size fits all” boilerplate.
Again, he could have been a last-minute sub. Doesn’t get him off the hook for being a jerk about Communion, though.
Neo? Maybe. But my first thought was Dr. Strangelove, and my second was KD Lang.
Needless to say, this picture is now my desktop image.
How does he know how Jan Nepomucký Neumann pronounced his name?
Jan went to school in České Budějovice. “(Czech pronunciation: [ˈtʃɛskɛː ˈbuɟɛjovɪtsɛ]; colloquially: Budějice or Budějce; German: Budweis or Böhmisch Budweis; often referred to as Budweis in English)”
He looks a little like Jan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Neumann
Conservatives look to discuss; liberals discuss looks.
Gerelyn,
Most impressive knowledge of languages, down to the proper script. Really. Your comment about the grrreat frogs on his coat, and then reading from Jimmy Mac’s post about flowing capes with ornate embroidery somehow seems relevant.
Bill deHaas, your experience as a formation director shines through. Your post is a great education in how it should be done, and how Wuerl most likely has and is mishandling things — otherwise the current modus operandi of Guarnizo would not be in evidence. Frankly, at this stage in G’s life, rehabilitation seems a terrible long shot.
I do call on my readings of case files about abusing foreign priests who come with a letter from a disconnected ordinary from who knows where, with disastrous results. Suspicious? Oh, yes.
Will Wuerl follow a treatment plan like Bill’s approach, which makes eminent sense? Let’s see if responsible leadership shows itself anywhere, for the priest’s sake as well as the faithful’s. Time for prayer and action.
Corapi, Pavone, Z, OD — God help us. Who is minding the store? Rome? God help us again.
“Conservatives look to discuss; liberals discuss looks.”
Holmes, are you really asking for us to enumerate all of the instances where conservative pundits/politicians have mocked the physical appearances of liberals (especially women?)
Just referencing comments made about Michelle Obama (or her daughters) would be enough.
Or, hell, how they even mock the appearances of conservative women?
It’s a miracle dung beetles don’t infest your keyboard if you type that sort of b.s.
Also, I’ve never voted liberal, and that priest looks like he came straight from central casting.
Mark –
If you think that how one chooses to dress and presents oneself does not reveal character, you have some elementary things to learn about human nature.
As they say on “Project Runway,” Fr. Guarnizo’s fashion choice is “fierce.”
People like this man can cause a lot of pain; maybe one way to draw a little bit of his venom is to show him up for the ridiculous figure he is.
He also conjures Ed Grimley; but I think KD Lang wins.
Looking to discuss….Ann, especially trying to raise teenagers, I know firsthand the truth behind your statement. But there are still shots of me, completely harmless enough, where I look like a goof. I can’t imagine I’m the only one. I hope people are not so intolerant and judgmental as to be assessing my character based on any one of them.
“If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion.”
I thought it was just this type of consistency that so many in here have been wanting from our clerics?
Perhaps Irene, Ann, Abe and others would like to send in action-shot polaroids of themselves for us all to analyze. Or perhaps we could all follow the golden rule.
Although personally I think Keanu Reeves is handsome.
In any case, it’s pretty obvious that this whole question relies not on canon 915 but on Canon 843 section 1, and on objective disposition. Dr. Peters admits that the commentatorial tradition allows for refusal on grounds of gravely immodest dress. Why is that? And why can’t the reasons for that be applicable here?
If Guarnizo had followed the Golden Rule, there would be no story here, of course, but you’re right, we should be better than that. My apologies.
Kathy – did you really read Peters statements esp. canon 843:
G: If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either.
In principle, intoxication would be a good example of not being properly “disposed” for the reception of the sacrament under Canon 843 § 1. Guarnizo does not, however, claim that Johnson was intoxicated or high on drugs, so, his implicit appeal to Canon 843 fails on the facts.
That said, what Guarnizo might have meant that his awareness that Johnson had a female “lover” sufficed for him to conclude that she was not properly “disposed” to receive holy Communion. If so, there are several problems with that claim.
Most traditional canonical and sacramental authors who discuss “disposition” for sacraments divide their analysis of “disposition” into ‘objective’ factors (such as being obviously drunk) and ‘subjective’ factors (such as being in the state of grace, or motivated by right intention, etc). Cappello, DE SACRAMENTIS (1945) I: 401-407, 444-450; Halligan, ADMINISTRATION (1963) 111-113.
Guarnizo alleges none of traditional ‘objective’ factors by which commentators could conclude for indisposition (e.g., eating food in the Communion line, or cursing at the minister, gravely immodest dress, having communicated twice that day, and so on), so, he can only be impugning Johnson’s ‘subjective’ state. That kind of discernment, however, is impossible for human ministers to make, and is another reason why Canon 916 (which operates in the realm of conscience) is distinct from Canon 915 (which operates only in the realm of verified conduct).
Conclusion – Guarnizo clearly can’t argue some extension of canon 843 to justify his errors because you would have to underline “subjective reasons” which he clearly can’t make an argument for. This answer also is connected to Lisa’s statement above in terms of what Guarnizo knew or assumed; the amount of time Guarnizo spent with the family – one meeting prior to funeral? Is that how he typically supports family funerals? Was another parish priest involved? Was the lack of involvement due to the Johnson family or to Guarnizo? Lots of gaps and unanswered questions.
Next phantom over-reach, Kathy?
Yes, Bill, I can read. Thanks for asking.
My question is whether a person who freely presents herself as living stably in a state of indisposition for the Eucharist (a man presenting a woman as his lover would be doing the same) before Mass is doing basically the same thing as a person eating a cheeseburger in the Communion line.
Kathy – the point is that there are many ways to handle this type of situation and Guarnizo did none of them. Instead, based upon appearances or his assumptions, he made a decision that is not supported by the tradition of the church; violated canon law; and was pastorally insensitive to a huge degree.
Guiding principle is just like the HIppocratic Oath: “the first priniciple of pastoral ministry is to do no harm!”
Finally, canon law is set up in a hierarchy – not ever numbered item has the same weight – you must start with the canon that lays out the principles and then move to the next level and then the next level, etc. Guarnizo doesn’t seem to understand that basic canon law sturcture nor do you. Canon law is merely a tool that exists to support pastoral ministry – not the other way around and not to be taken literally.
Guiding principle is just like the HIppocratic Oath: “the first priniciple of pastoral ministry is to do no harm!”
Actually, Bill, the salvation of souls is the supreme law.
Kathy, I respect your dissent, but another aspect of this is that Guarnizo acted in contravention of Cardinal Wuerl’s stated policy. So from his own framework of Catholic fidelity, he was doing the wrong thing in at least one respect. ISTM…
David, that is a very important point. But I wonder, hasn’t the Cardinal’s policy heretofore been about canon 915, and about those whose political activities are at odds with Church teaching? I don’t know much else about the sacramental discipline of the Archdiocese of Washington.
Ed Peters makes it clear that Guarnizo’s self-defense is completely inadequate, and that he not only misunderstands canon law, but also harbors serious confusion about the nature of the church:
Kathy, I believe Cardinal Wuerl’s policy is about the reception of communion in general — political issues being just one aspect of that. But he made it clear that it was a broader policy when the archdiocese said Guarnizo violated it. And Guarnizo continues to insist he is right and church authorities are wrong.
At least we all agree on this point. “The Church is the arbiter of how sacraments are to be dispensed, and she does so through her canon and liturgical law.” The court of public opinion does not have the final say on the Church’s sacramental life. Right- and left-wing bloggers do not arbitrate the Church’s sacramental discipline. The Washington Post is not the arbiter of how sacraments are dispensed. I think it’s great that we all agree on this point.
David,
I simply don’t have that information. You may be right. I don’t have any idea.
Kathy, the point is you were disputing that teaching. You did not agree on that point. Which you are free to do, of course.
Which teaching was I disputing, David? I took issue with Dr. Peter’s analysis, his focus on Canon 915. Whereas in the passage Grant quotes from Fr. Guarnizo states, “This has nothing to do with Canon 915.” There is an obvious disconnect.
Why don’t we pretend for a moment that this isn’t a witch hunt, and just discuss things like rational beings?
Who’s the witch, and who are the hunters? When a priest publicly challenges his ecclesiastical superiors and his lay inferiors, it’s hard to decide.
I don’t think Marcel’s supporters have a thing to worry about. Other dioceses (American and international) have probably reached out to him already. Given the tack the Barque is taking these days, there’s nothing but smooth sailing ahead for him.
I thought Marcel’s statement was very strange. Scary, even. Offering condolences three times? And the bit about the “lover” blocking the door? Eek.
Denying someone communion at their own mother’s funeral is the single stupidest liturgical action I have ever heard of by any priest anywhere. Whether there might be grounds to deny communion, if the point is at all debatable, in that particular situation especially, one should give the recipient the benefit of the doubt. Her mother isn’t going to die on a recurring basis. As I recall, the host isn’t supposed to be a trophy for good behavior and the person most injured by receiving it when not properly in a position to receive — is the recipient. Does anyone here think her welfare was foremost in Guarnizo’s mind?
Since this woman wasn’t having sex right in front of him, actually, he has no idea what the extent or nature of her relationship with her roommate was. That he never found such courage when it comes to denying communion to those who are “obviously” using contraception is a good reflection of the overall integrity of the institutional church. He hurt her because he could and because (so he thought) she couldn’t or wouldn’t fight back. In school, they would call such a person a bully.
Barbara,
She didn’t say “roommate.” She said “lover.”
He released a “statement”? That will not endear him to his ordinary.
The weird thing is, I’m completely disposed to believe that Father Guarnizo approach was sub-optimal, perhaps even unacceptable, but one reads the meanness of the attacks against him and any sense of fairness naturally leads one to defend the man. For example, take Grant’s quote of Canon Ed Peters:
“G: Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer [sic] of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
First, canon law does not require parish membership for admission to holy Communion in a parish;”
Father Guarnizo never said or implied otherwise. No one can honestly make the claim that Father Guanizo’s actions were motivated by the fact that the woman was not a member of his parish.
” second, it is very inappropriate to refer to any baptized Catholic as a “guest” in a parish church (cc. 1214, 1221);
Perhaps the word choice was unfortunate, but in using it Father was simply emphasizing that just because someone is baptized and presents themselves for Communion, that does not mean they are disposed to properly receive the Sacrament.
” and third, the Church is the arbiter of how sacraments are to be dispensed (c. 840), and she does so through her canon and liturgical law. Ministers of the sacraments are bound to observe those laws faithfully (cc. 838, 841, 846).
If Canon Peters wishes to argue that Father has not interpreted her canons and liturgical law correctly, he should do so.
Apropos, it bears repeating that this discussion essentially stipulates Fr. Guarnizo’s version of events, and argues the merits on his version of the story, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Even on that score he does not seem to fare well.
But it’s worth noting that Barbara Johnson herself says:
Can someone with formal training in canon law answer this question:
Who is actually qualified to speak on issues of canon law? It seems like such a specialized area of expertise, best left to canon lawyers. (As demonstrated by the blog spot linked to).
Is Guarizo himself qualified to speak on it?
She didn’t say “roommate.” She said “lover.”
———-
That’s Marcel’s claim. Barbara Johnson’s brother said the claim is an “outrageous lie”.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/16/10716566-i-would-have-done-the-same-to-a-drunk-says-priest-who-denied-communion-to-lesbian?pc=25&sp=75
(As to being a “guest” in a parish? Has anyone here ever regarded herself / himself as a guest in a Catholic Church?)
David, that’s a fair point. There are a lot of details in dispute. The blocking-of-the-door is a significant detail, for example.
I think that Bill de Haas 5:42pm is right. There is something wrong with this priest.
Why don’t we pretend for a moment that this isn’t a witch hunt, and just discuss things like rational beings?
Kathy,
The Archdiocese of Washington has said Fr. Guarnizo acted improperly in denying Barbara Johnson communion. Fr. Guarnizo is being put on administrative leave, and according to The Archdiocese of Washington, it is because of issues other than his refusal to give Barbara Johnson communion. Fr. Guarnizo accuses the Archdiocese and his parish priest of not telling the truth. As Sean Michael Winters says
Barbara Johnson may have acted with questionable motives, and she certainly strikes me as vindictive. (In her letter to Fr. Guarnizo, she said, “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.”)
It seems to me we have two people, Fr. Guarnizo and Barbara Johnson, who acted and continued to act in less than admirable ways. Both have their defenders and detractors. Under the circumstances, I don’t think “witch hunt” is at all the appropriate description of the situation. Indeed, I have read a number of comments on other blogs in which it is Cardinal Weurl who might more reasonably be described as the object of a “witch hunt” rather than Fr. Guarnizo.
David,
You make some very valuable points. No one looks very good after a publicly-fought canonical disagreement.
Meanwhile, Dr. Peters has posted yet another clarification of Canon 915.
Kathy, so what? If a comparable parishioner referred to her roommate as her boyfriend do you think the priest would have reacted in the same way? We can’t know can we, but we do know that lots of priests overlook all kinds of scandal lurking just below the surface in lots of situations and it seems like if there is a situation where that makes sense, it would be a funeral. They just seem a lot more disinclined to do this when the presumptive offender is gay, which leads people like me to believe that her real sin was being gay, not having out of wedlock sexual relations. To be honest, I don’t even know whether lesbian sex violates any catechetical injunction (unlike sexual relations between gay men, where seed is spilled, etc., etc.). It’s not like a female orgasm is always a wasted opportunity to generate a new creature.
He looks like Guido Sarducci without the funny hat.
Maybe this version will get a nihil obstat.
Barbara,
I wonder why you keep on tossing out incomparable terms. “Boyfriend” is not the same as “lover.” “Roommate” is not the same as “lover.”
Kathy – how ridiculous. Another phantom over-reach.
Today’s added clarification from Peters which addresses Kathy’s:
“Example: I keep saying that a would-be Communion recipient’s brief disclosure to a minister a few minutes before Mass that she has a female “lover” does not suffice to verify, among other things, that the sin apparently being admitted to is canonically manifest in the community; others say, c’mon, lesbian sexual activity is manifestly sinful. See? I’m talking about what Canon 915 actually says, while they are talking about what they think Canon 915 says.”
He ends by adding:
“Some folks seem to get the canonical distinction between public and private conduct but think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin. They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here. Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard. + + +”
Would like to highlight his sentence – “……though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here.”
Exactly, just like in criminal/civil law, anyone can find another lawyer to parse a different interpretation.
David Nickol – yes, my opinion is that this is now in Wuerl’s bailiwick and he needs to act responsibly. This is not a canon law discussion or debate. This is an issue of clerical formation (yes, it exists outside of the formal seminary phase and includes adult or priestly on-going formation). Again, would mirror the process for any allegations – sexual, financial, etc. This is a version of “spiritual abuse” and the archdiocese needs to implement its process for these types of allegations. First step was to remove him adminisstratively but, given his public stance, now they need to move to “suspension” and possible start of removal from public ministry if Guarnizo can not allow this process to be handled confidentially and privately with the archdiocese.
As some of you have already stated – the archdiocesan statement does not literally refer to the funeral incident but other inappropriate behaviors. So, implement your process.
The reason you start with a forensic battery of psych tests is to give the “alleged offender” every chance to explain his behavior – substance abuse; depression, anxiety disorder; anger management issues, or more complex psych causes. Then, in that context you have formation experts develop a plan that may “rehab” the situation and give Guarnizo the benefit of the doubt. It helps remove any doubts around: was this a one type event; was this marked up to inexperience; were there other complicating factors; etc., etc.
Find the canon law discussion to be off the point. The ordinary does not need canon law to take responsible action. Compare this to a priest who would have publically gotten up and declared that there would be a women’s ordination ceremony at the parish next week. Do you think we would be hearing from that priest right now?
Are those commenters making fun of Fr. Guarzino’s appearance equally disposed to hearing disparaging comments about Barbara Johnson’s?
Mark –
Has it occurred to you that maybe you *were* a goof in that get-up and maybe that’s what you *wanted* to be taken for at that point? Teen-agers try on a lot of persona. They’re trying to find an image they think reflect their inner selves. And, truth be told, adults do the same thing, except they’ve mainly settled on one image. (Of course, for some people image is camouflage. Hmmm.)
Uh, I was including recent photos of me.
Hmmm. Could it be that you aren’t who you think you are? What’s in that unconscious of your, Mark Proska, a closet liberal? Or a hippie? A bomb throwing Trotskyite? :-)
(A psychiatrist friend of mine says there are whole families of other people in us.)
Education time.
In LGBT circles, because of a lack of civil (forget religious) recognition of our partnerships, the term (depending on the age of the individuals involved) “lover” is interchangeable with partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, wife and husband.
Younger (under 40) folks probably don’t use “lover”. Older, such as I, have used lover, partner or spouse. I do not feel comfortable with husband – because I don’t have a wife. Besides, I find the terms husband wife way too identified with the negative parts of heterosexual marriage that I don’t buy into.
I just want to say that, aside from the hazari about appearances here -and snotty remarks about that – what continues to strike me as the real problem of making canon law the hall mark,”arbiter’ of scramental theology.
By the book rules thinking is a major divisive in the Church today I do picture the eagle9(censor) in the Muppets saying this is the”arbiter’.
There is a continuing lack of perspective not only here but in liturgy with the sacralization of the new text -an abomination in my opinion- and conflating rubrics with good liturgy.
No wonder there are people seeing spirituality elsewhere!
In non-LGBT circles, people can have “boyfriends” and “girlfriends” and “roommates” without sexual intimacy. I would think this is true in LGBT circles, but defer to others’ better knowledge. So the terms are ambiguous in a way that “lover” is not.
Kathy: I wonder why you think there is a universally acknowledged definition of “lover.” The priest acted against diocesan policy, and without canonical justification.
As David Gibson pointed out above, “lover” is part of Fr. Guarnizo’s narrative. Ms. Johnson says the word was “partner” and was not volunteered but given in response to his question.
We don’t have any way of knowing which was actually said, so I wouldn’t waste a lot of time building arguments based on the specific word alleged to have been used.
As to the question asked above on who is qualified to talk about Canon Law, Dr. Ed Peters is a Canon Lawyer and has a consulting role with the Apostolic Signatura, so I think his factual interpretations of the law are reliable.
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/
I think those of us who support a change in church attitudes to gayness have long exhausted the potential of this story. The priest’s self-defense is quite convincing, and reflects a situation that all priests will meet sooner or later. Examples: refusing a marriage ceremony to a couple who have not the requisite conditions for validity or who want to reassure their parents with a semblance (as in the case of ex-priests who ask their classmates to wed them in church); refusing communion to a non-baptized person; refusing absolution to a person with no intention of amendment. Priests must sometimes act as obnoxious religious cops — it is part of the job description.
Quite true, Fr. O’Leary. This is exactly what is at stake here, the quiet conversations in which a priest (or deacon, or DRE, or RCIA coordinator) helps a person to see that at this particular moment, s/he lacks the proper disposition to approach a sacrament. This needn’t be a permanent condition. The couple may be able, one day, to enter into a valid marriage, the non-baptized person can be baptized, the penitent may become contrite. At this particular moment, however, the proper dispositions are lacking.
I daresay everyone who has responsibility for preparing others for sacraments has to have a conversation like this at one time or another, awkward as it may be, particularly in times like ours when cultural moral norms are so adrift that invincible ignorance is a very real possiblity.
NIce try, Fr. O’Leary and Kathy – again, another phantom over-reach.
Your examples are standard situations that, as you say, many priests face and must work through in their ministry. In terms of the sacrament of matrimony, the regs, etc.and preparation steps are almost always clearly articulated and can be found in most church bulletins, etc. You are really stretching on the “classmates who are ex-priests” – to use Kathy’s usual MO, they aren’t ex-priests since ontologically they are priests forever; although their decisions may remove them from active ministry, etc.
Refusing communion to a non-baptized – you may want to peruse Peters points on that since it goes to the heart of public vs. private in terms of withholding communion. Refusing absolution – and how is that comparable to this situation since it is completely private and, per sacrament regs and enything you find in canon law, the responsibility of the confessor to determine whether the pentinent is serious, is motivated to change, etc. before giving absolution (would suggest that this is extremely rare; in fact, most things you read are about how most confessors too quickly or too easily give absolution such that it becomes “cheap grace.”
You cite “preparation” and yet you mix apples and oranges. Sacraments such as matrimony, baptism, first eucharist, first penance, ordination all require a period of preparation and in most cases must meet clearly defined and stated steps.
Sorry, you don’t have that same comparable situation with eucharist, penance, or sacrament of the sick. That is where pastoral ministry is called for.
Priests aren’t called to act as “obnoxious religious cops” – as Peters said well, Fr. O’Leary, he is stating what canon law says rather than what someone “thinks” it says.
And, Kathy, it appears from the many, alleged conversations in this woeful event, that Guarnizo didn’t take any time to have that “quiet conversation in which a priest helps a person to see that at this particular moment she lacks the proper disposition to approach a sacrament. What we know from Peters is that “proper disposition” is a subjective call that the church wants to make in very rare circumstances and only if public knowledge among the community is involved.
As, Grant has tried to repeatedly tell you, you don’t get it but you continue to repeat the same mistaken lines.
Where should conscience come into all of this? If Ms. Johnson truly believes that her relationship with her partner is morally right (even if the Church says she’s wrong), why should she be denied Communion if she gives no public scandal?
Further, on such an occasion as her mother’s funeral who would dare to guess just what her state of conscience was? Of course, in this age of the internet everyone seems to think they’re competent to judge what is going through the minds of everyone else Hence the name-calling.. Self-righteousness reigns.
Good point, Ann. Since this whole thing took off, it seemed to me that the affair is really a matter of conscience–on the part of both persons. Ms. Johnson, following her conscience, broke what she likely knew to be church law. And so did Fr. Guarnizo. So there in the communion line on that day, you had two “cafeteria Catholics” facing off.
Yes, Kathy, Grant has repeatedly told you to change your mind. What’s the hold up here?
Quiet conversation? No. Guarnizo claims Johnson volunteered that the woman with her was her lover. (Then he weirdly recounts a scene in which she blocked his way, without explaining what was said or how he got by. Presumably he found some way around the woman.) As John Hayes points out, Johnson says it didn’t happen that way. Of course, from a canonical point of view, pace Fr. O’Leary, that exchange was totally insufficient to determine whether Johnson was properly disposed to receive Communion. When it comes to the faithful exercising the sacramental rights, canon law emphasizes giving them the benefit of the doubt.
And Mark: If that’s all you have to say, stay mum.
Kathy and Joseph, if she were asking for marriage, or confirmation, or to be a godparent or even to sponsor another for confirmation or offer a baby for baptism — these are all things where one would expect a certain amount of scrutiny and education or even correction (although one would hope it would go beyond a snap judgment made on the basis of a 30 second conversation in the hour before a service, with someone who was in effect a stranger). In my own very humble opinion, funerals are one of the few opportunities the Church has to shine grace on people who wouldn’t otherwise be there, in an hour of need. My parents were church exiles, and I still remember the grace shown by the priest who nonetheless rose to the occasion to assist my mother when my father died. No one is going to remember Fr. Guarnizo that way.
Washington Post has a long background article on Fr, Guarnizo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/denying-communion-a-priest-and-a-lesbian-set-off-a-catholic-culture-clash/2012/03/15/gIQA9roNJS_story.html
The WashPost 3/17/12 story on Father G. offers a lot of detail on his background which invites the question of how and why did he end up in a parish in Gaithersburg. Gaithersburg can be looked at in two ways — a fairly small US town out in the sticks or just up the road from this nation’s capital. Considering his past experience as an international “mover and shaker”, was he assigned there by the Archdiocese of Washington deliberately to help or to hinder his career?
Grant, I thought the point of the door-blocking was to say he couldn’t get through the door, and so the private conversation went unhad. So the quandry remained. Why would you presume that he “found some way around the woman?”
Jimmy Mac can correct me on this, but unless I’m mistaken, “partner” and “lover” are both terms that imply, among other things, sexual involvement. According to all accounts, his, hers, and theirs, Fr. Guarnizo was told, by one of the women in the relationship, that they were in a sexual relationship.
No quandry remains except in your alternative universe. The he said = she said is typical and doesn’t change anything about this situation.
That also applies to your second paragraph – this has no relevance given canon law and pastoral ministry.
When Johnson’s father died,
She & her partner attended and she received communion without incident. So, it continues to add even more questions = if this family was known by the parish priests, why was Guarnizo doing the funeral? Did he know the family relationship and history with the parish? The story even suggests that the parish priests had been welcome guests at their house -so, you would assume that they might have known the story about their daughter. Again, this does happen a lot – clerical personnel change; parish families and relationships are lost; the mom may have been in poor health this last couple of years. Yet, doesn’t the parish have some contact with their own parishioners; why was Guarnizo the key parish priest in this?
My recollection is that Ms. Johnson said that the pastor (not Fr. G) had attended the wake on the night before the funeral and had been very kind to the family.
Interesting, the harsh judgments are reserved for Fr. G, not the woman who chose to use her own mother’s funeral as an appropriate opportunity to make a political statement. Nice.
Are you sure that’s what happened, Mark? I’m not. But it does concern me that this particular incident and especially the subsequent media storm could easily be used unscrupulously by those who want the Catholic Church to change its moral teaching. That’s why I’m so encouraged by Fr. O’Leary’s response here. As a priest, he has likely had to make judgment calls about sacramental discipline in difficult situations. It’s part of the job, and not one of the fun parts, I would think.
Kathy, I can’t see why she didn’t simply state the woman was her friend, knowing that saying she was her lover was telling the priest that she was willfully violating Church teaching. Could she have been caught THAT off guard by the question? Perhaps.
Mark, sorry to repeat, but Fr. G and Ms. Johnson tell conflicting stories. Ms. Johnson says she didn’t say anything to Fr. G. about her friend – that he asked her friend who she was and she replied that she was Ms Johnson’s partner.
David Nickol:
You wrote,
Can you say a bit more about why you see it this way, David?
My question is this: If she wants him removed from ministry so that he can’t harm other families, why is that necessarily a vindictive attitude? Interestingly, she’s not the only one who feels he should be removed.
On other occasions, I’ve made comparisons with the situation in El Salvador, where I live. I’ll do that again now. Before and during the civil war, many people here were victims of grave human rights violations. Some of them did everything in their power to get the offenders removed from the positions which made it possible for them to commit those violations. It has never struck me that this was vindictive on their part. They simply didn’t want others to suffer as they had.
I truly believe we can have this discussion without suspecting any of the parties of evil intent or of “grave human rights violations.” Honestly, Gene.
Also it would be helpful to have a definition of “phantom over-reach,” because in March, it sounds like a basketball maneuver.
It seems to me that we have a broad consensus here that the priest sometimes does have to intervene in others’ reception of the sacraments. It’s his duty, sometimes. The questions are about how and why and with what canonical authority.
I wonder if Christ would have denied Communion to Ms. Johnson.
My question is this: If she wants him removed from ministry so that he can’t harm other families, why is that necessarily a vindictive attitude?
gene palumbo,
It seems to me that removing a priest from ministry is equivalent to capital punishment. Based on the initial incident alone, Guarnizo could be considered someone who made one mistake or misjudgment and should be set straight. From a canon law point of view, apparently what he did was wrong, but in and of itself, it doesn’t seem like a capital offense to me. It does seem he is digging his own grave by making public statements claiming he is right and his superiors are not only wrong, but liars. But all of that is subsequent to the original incident and Barbara Johnson’s letter.
Of course, it would be nice in an ideal world if refusing communion to a lesbian were a gravely serious offense, but that is not the world we live in, and surely Barbara Johnson knows that. I know only what I read in this thread and a new article or two, but I understand that Tom Peters said she was wrong to present herself for communion and Guarnizo was wrong to refuse her. Because this all happened at Johnson’s mother’s funeral, Guarnizo’s behavior seems particularly insensitive, and I certainly sympathize with Johnson. But certainly she must know that the Catholic Church does not consider her (as a lesbian with a partner) to be in good standing to receive communion. I think she has a right to do what her conscience tells her to, but she doesn’t have a right to expect everyone to agree with her conscience.
It seems to me that we have a broad consensus here that the priest sometimes does have to intervene in others’ reception of the sacraments. It’s his duty, sometimes.
Kathy,
But apparently he was wrong this time. And instead of accepting correction from the archdiocese, he is accusing them of not telling the truth.
Kathy: Because he said the funeral Mass. I find Guarnizo’s account strangely incomplete. And of course, give that he’s willing to call everyone else’s account false, dubious.
Grant,
Yes, I’m sure he was eventually able to leave the sacristy. But perhaps not in time to have a private conversation, unobserved, unnoticed, in the very social moments that usually precede a funeral.
David,
I don’t know if he was wrong this time or not. That question is, as they say, above my pay grade. I do believe that no decision at all would have been necessary if the couple had kept their relationship private. Making it known to the priest immediately before Mass made for an awkward situation all around, instead of the beautiful funeral Mass that everyone probably would have preferred. I’m sure that both Cardinal Wuerl and Fr. Guarnizo are smarter than I, and so is the Apostolic Signatura or whoever it is who decides these things finally. (Hopefully I’ll never know, because it’s better that these things are worked out in private rather than in the newspapers or in blogdom.)
John H–Thanks for the reminder. I tend to find Father G’s version a bit more credible but even if we go with Ms. Johnson’s version, we all agree that one or both of the women told Fr. G, curiously, in my view, that they were involved, from the Church’s perspective, in an inappropriate relationship. Wonder why they would take the opportunity of a loved one’s funeral to divulge that information.
Kathy is, of course, correct that a much more fundamental issue is how a priest can best execute his obligation to ensure that everyone who presents themselves for the sacraments is properly disposed to receive them. But it’s hard to have a robust discussion of that when so many in here refuse to see Ms. Johnson as anything other than a victim, or Father G as anything other than the perp.
David H–I would venture to say, based on the parable of the virgins, that if Ms. Johnson came to the Last Supper, He would not have offered the bread to her if He, like Father G, had concluded that she was not yet properly disposed to receive Him. Of course, if he had been in Fr. G’s shoes, He might have decided discretion was the better part of valor and instead had a one-on-one with her following the funeral mass. Then again, I don’t think Jesus suffered from migraines.
But it’s hard to have a robust discussion of that when so many in here refuse to see Ms. Johnson as anything other than a victim, or Father G as anything other than the perp.
Mark Proska,
It seems to me there has been a good discussion here. Tom Peters and the Archdiocese of Washington say Fr. Guarnizo was in the wrong as a matter of canon law and the policy of the archdiocese. Rather remarkably, Father O Leary and Kathy have taken the same side. I have sympathy for Barbara Johnson in that she was upset (apparently needlessly according to Tom Peters and the Archdiocese of Washinton) at her mother’s funeral. However, I would have to say at best she seems oddly out of touch with the way the Church regards Catholic-Buddhist-Lesbian lovers. I regret the attitude of the Catholic Church toward gay people, but at best Barbara Johnson seems to have been bizarrely unaware of reality.
I don’t think there is any reason to complain about the discussion here. The “conservative” position has been well represented. You are not part of a persecuted minority.
Let’s keep in mind how bizarre such a “private conversation” before the funeral would need to have been to settle Fr. G’s qualms. The church has no teaching forbidding women from sharing housing. The church has no problems with women being lesbians. In fact, the church forbids unjust discrimination against gay and lesbian people. The church teaches against gay or lesbian sex acts. So Fr. G would have had to quiz this woman about the state of her sex life–”When is the last time the two of you, um, had sex?” Then he’d need to know whether she’d been to confession since then. I don’t think (check me on this, if I’m off-base here,) he could quiz her about whether she’d confessed lesbian sex then, since that would violate the seal of the confessional. It’s not binding on the penitent, but I don’t think you can force someone to reveal what they confessed. Even if she admitted to a vibrant and recent sex life, if she said that her conscience was clear on that recent sex act, Fr. G. would have to weigh whether she was a notorious enough lesbian that scandal would ensue. Plus, unless he was going to have parallel sex talks with every grieving family, (“Sorry about your loss. Have any of you masturbated recently?”) then quizzing Ms. Johnson would seem to be precisely the kind of unjust discrimination the Catechism forbids. So he was off-base morally as well as canon legally.
My main problem here is pastoral. Is this the best kind of conversation to have minutes before Ms. Johnson’s mother’s funeral, to investigate a grieving woman’s sex life? Remember, there’d been no actual conversation even about the deceased, so the funeral was going to be a “one-size-fits-all” generic deal anyway. If he had the chance to speak with her, shouldn’t that conversation been one of consolation, offering Christian hope, asking whether there’s anything about her mom he might bring into his homily, rather than an investigation into her sex life? Thinking of funerals as a time to be rigoristic about Church moral teaching is heartless. (Reminds me of another instance, when a woman was caught in adultery. In the very act! A capital crime under the law! And dragged to an itinerant rabbi for judgment…)
David H–I would venture to say, based on the parable of the virgins, that if Ms. Johnson came to the Last Supper, He would not have offered the bread to her if He . . .
Mark Proska,
I think we would know if, at the Last Supper, Jesus had not offered bread to Judas, who had already betrayed him, and Peter, who was about to deny him. I think we might at least look more kindly on Barbara Johnson than we do on Judas.
“Reminds me of another instance, when a woman was caught in adultery. In the very act! A capital crime under the law! And dragged to an itinerant rabbi for judgment…”
My understanding of the situation is that Fr. G did not ask anyone to throw stones. Rather, he implied that she should, “Go, and sin no more.” Hmmm, Who does that remind me of?
David N–
You are one of the few liberals who’ve commented on this thread that have actually considered both sides of the issue. For that I give you credit but, and I don’t mean to offend, that’s not sufficient for what I consider a robust discussion!
This goes on as if Barbara Johnson and Fr. G. were alone on an island. He is (or was) Parochial Vicar of St. John Neumann’s. One noted event there recently was the pastor’s speaking out on slavery and same-sex marriage as being in the same moral category. (The Maryland law on same-sex marriage was imminent.) His Feb 12 and 19 parish bulletins vigorously explained the problem with same-sex relations.
http://www.saintjohnneumann.org/Documents/PDLetter02122012.pdf
http://fataonline.com/bulletin/churchbulletin-831329497660.pdf
If Fr. G had read “From the Pastor’s Desk”, he would have been freshly sensitized to the seriousness of same-sex relations. In light of the political heat in the State of Maryland at the time over that subject, there was definitely political significance to his action at the funeral, intended or not.
@Mark: “Neither do I condemn you.” That’s what the rabbi said first. Fr. G, by contrast, leapt to judgment. Now you can call Jesus an antinomian rabble-rouser if you’d like–and you’d be right.
but I understand that Tom Peters said she was wrong to present herself for communion and Guarnizo was wrong to refuse her.
David Nickol, you’re probably thinking of Ed Peters, the Canon lawyer:
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/
Tom Peters is his son and has a blog named “The American Papist”
http://catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?show=papist
John Hayes,
Yes, thanks. I mixed the two up.
I just took a look at The American Papist, and I recommend it highly to Mark Proska. :P
Thanks, Jack – and from the parish website:
Saint John Neumann is located in Montgomery Village, Montgomery County, Maryland and has approximately 1,700 registered families. Although a large community, we believe, worship, and share our faith together. We are a friendly and compassionate Community, but also reverent and respectful of our Catholic faith and traditions.
We are a diverse community with members from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds including Hispanic, Southeast Asia and Africa. The Wall Mural that adorns our sanctuary depicts Christ as the Savior of ALL People. We believe diversity within our Community is a true reflection of Christ’s universal message.
Let’s highlight:
“…friendly and compassionate community” but that is in tension with “……reverent and respectful of catholic fiath/traditions”
“….depicts Christ as the savior of ALL peoples. believe in diversity within our community as a reflection of Christ’s universal message”
OTOH – the parish has a latin EF every Sunday.
Sorry, these bulleting pronouncements and Guarnizo’s actions don’t seem to actualize these parish mission statements?
Also, this is not just a “both” issue – there are many sides to this; it is complex and nuanced and you over simplify by trying to say conservative – liberal.
So, the pastor, LaHood, went out of his way to both telephone and then personally meet with Ms. Johnson to express his apologies for her treatment by Guarnizo. Other priests stepped forward to give communion at the funeral and then to travel to the cemetery. Does that mean that they “failed” because they did not “intervene to make judgment calls about others’ reception of the sacraments”?
Definition of “phantom over-reach”:
- your whole straw man argument after various “experts” have clearly shown that Guarnizo’s actions violated not only canon law but any concept of pastoral ministry (and yet you continue to reach for something)
- now you focus on the issue of “It seems to me that we have a broad consensus here that the priest sometimes does have to intervene in others’ reception of the sacraments. It’s his duty, sometimes. The questions are about how and why and with what canonical authority.” Where to begin – first, there is no “broad consensus” except in your mind; second, experts have again demonstrated that there is “no duty” to intervene and make judgments about others’ reception of the sacraments. To do so is a violation of canon law; violates pastoral ministry norms; and the rights of catholic faithful (wherever you may find them on your imagined continuum of judgment);
- your straw man ignores the difference between sacraments that require preparation and, in a sense, candidates must meet basic requirements and criteria (baptism for confirmation and marriage; some parishes require that the couple be registered for six months before a ceremony, etc. But, notice that these requirements are very different from the type of moral judgment you want to apply in Guarnizo’s case
- the original post was about Guarnizo’s decision, his subsequent statement, and canon law and yet you persist in making this a “failure” of Ms. Johnson (that may or may not be true but it is beside the point)
- your “broad consensus” cites Fr. O’Leary which is not surprising since his clerical career in many ways echoes Guarnizo – he currently teaches english at a university in Japan but was born, educated, and ordained in Ireland and whose bishop still resides there. It is a stretch to see how O’Leary is comparable to the typical US diocesan priest who was born, raised, educated, ordained, and serves in his home diocese and, in many cases, is responsible to the bishop who ordained him. O’Leary is comparable to a religious order that is missionary in nature (although they typically are involved in more direct church ministry – parishes, teaching theology in schools, catholic social agencies, etc. Guarnizo and O’Leary like some other recent famous examples – Corapi, Pavone, others appear to be “free agents” who have a very loose attachment to local diocesan structures and authority. And you want to make this about “canonical authority”?
Sorry – no basketball imagery here except to say that your straw man argument appears to be either, at worst, a flagrant foul or, at least, just a turnover.
The assumption in some comments seems to be that if Fr. G. knew that Ms. Johnson was not in a state of grace he was obliged to refuse her communion.
Not so. It was only if it was widely known by those present in the church
The 1917 Code of Canon Law was more explicit on the priest’s obligation not to refuse communion at a public occasion even if he knew the person was not in a state of grace.
occult sinners, if they ask secretly and the minister knows they are unrepentant, should be refused; but not, however, if they ask publicly and they cannot be passed over without scandal
In other words, if he knew from a conversation with her that she was not in the the state of grace and she went to the sacristy and asked him to give her the Eucharist privately there, he could have refused – but not if she presented herself publicly in the church unless the priest knew that the people who saw her refused already knew that she was an unrepentant sinner.
She had a right to have her reputation protected.
The current code uses “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” to convey the same idea about who can be publicly refused communion.
For the 1917 code section see: http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htmp
Sorry, try http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm
In response to Kathy. “partner” and “lover” are terms that have no static meaning. People who use those terms may indeed be involved in a sexual relationship. The intensity and even practice of sex can wax and wane over time – can, not must. I have been with the same man for 40 years and I am 71. Overt sexual practice is the fartherst from my mind these days.
If sleeping with a person of the same sex is consider to be a “sexual relationshiop,” color me lucky. But I’ll tell you this: don’t read into things that you WANT to see. As an examply of that, many people assume that all gay men practice “Greek” sex. Not true but any stretch of the imagination.
Enough of explicitness – this is only LGBT Sexuality 101. All of the titillation comes in 104 and above.
RIP
http://www.devolfuneralhome.com/index.asp?sid=6&formid=102&serviceid=2520
Regarding lover and partner, I have been introduced to many partners, but it has been years (probably decades) since I have been introduced to, or heard anyone mention, his or her “lover.” When I hear lover, I either think of Peggy Lee’s recording in the early 1950s, or this dialog in Love and Death:
-Any news of cousin Sonja?
-[In a thick Russian accent] Only that she and Voskovec are unhappy and she takes lovers.
- She takes uppers?
- Lovers.
I don’t understand Mark’s idea of “robust conversation”, if he assumes he knows the mind of the Lord.
Still think Bill D. has a great idea of an in depth of how non-diocesans are recruited to fill in and how well that works (I imagine there may be some broad variation, which in itself may be problematic.)
I don’t understand Mark’s idea of “robust conversation” . . .
It would be kind of like what Fox News means by “fair and balanced.” :P
Lisa–
And if Father G condemned the woman, I would agree with you that it was wrong for him to do so. As far as I know, he did not. The comparison to the adulteress who would be stoned is instructive though. A fair inference from the Gospel account is that the woman knew she did wrong, and was repentant. Can we agree that the parallel with Ms. Johnson breaks down, badly, there?
Mark,
Denying someone Communion is generally not seen as a mark of approval, is it? He did indeed judge her unworthy by what he inferred about her conduct. He didn’t actually even know that she’d fallen short of the Church’s moral teaching.
INterestingly, there is nothing in the actual pericope that tells us anything about the woman’s state of mind regarding her accusation. She is respectful to Jesus (“No one, sir,”) but Jesus doesn’t actually inquire. It’s another instance of Jesus’ sometimes startling unconcern about sin. Jesus in the gospels has bigger things on his mind that persecuting people for sexual sins. There’s that kingdom…
Lisa,
But Jesus did inquire after the Samaritan woman’s sins. He asked the disciples what they were arguing about along the way. He said, “Go, and from now on avoid this sin.” He gave the apostles power to forgive sins. He forgave sins. In the Gospels, sins are real problems that hurt people. Characterizing Jesus as an antinomian rabble-rouser misses the point of salvation entirely. He came to free the prisoners.
Denying someone the Eucharist is not a condemnation and there are situations in which it can be a loving activity. Our religion takes the long view. Americans–so many are closet Calvinists with their black and white thinking–can have so much trouble seeing this. Rebuke is not condemnation. Rebuke can be the beginning of the prodigal son’s return.
Jimmy Mac,
Thank you for the info. I agree, 101 is plenty! Thanks.
Lisa–
You insist on seeing Ms. Johnson as a helpless victim, and Fr. G as the perp. You’re doing neither of them any favors, but mostly, Ms. Johnson.
Kathy –
C’mon:
Merriam-Webster – rebuke — “to criticize sharply”
Oxford – “express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behaviour or actions”
There is a long tradition in the church and in sacramental theology that sees sacraments esp. eucharist as a communal action of forgiveness. All sacraments are based on the belief that it is God’s action; rather than the faithful “earning” the sacrament.
Your statements above come close to being Pelagian and echoing the Protestant reformers that so emphasized “earning” God’s salvation.
The reason folks such as Peters have clearly outlined canon law in this incident is that canon law, pastoral ministry, etc. does not expect a priest to be judge and jury in terms of the faithfuls’ dispositions. There are very few exceptions to this rule and those have to be public and glaring.
In addition, since Vatican II and the canon law revisions of 1983, the belief that “error has no rights” has been rejected and revised. Error (someone’s conscience even in error) has rights such as reception of the eucharist. Would suggest, again, that the church heavily leans to that side of this issue rather than reinforcing the role of a priest to intervene or make a public “scene”.
Would also suggest that treating Guarnizo and Johnson as equals in this incident is misleading, at best. Guarnizo was the “professional” at this funeral; Ms. Johnson (not saying she is a victim) was part of a grieving family. My experience at funerals is that all kinds of emotional, historical, family differences/memories come into play – you have folks who have promised mom or dad that they will have a church funeral – they become invested in this. They are not thinking or acting from the viewpoint that sacramental reception is a “test” and you must be able to pass the “test”….anyone who has presided over large numbers of funerals knows exactly what you get in terms of the people in the pews. It can be a key time to offer the church’s compassion; to “evangelize” (not educate); to listen to the stories of the family; etc.
Wiser and more experienced priests know the inherent difficulties with putting yourself in the place of judging folks; ascertaining who and who can not participate/receive; etc. That doesn’t mean that they just let anyone do anything but it does mean that you allow the mercy and compassion of Christ to be primary rather than your own concepts and “duties” to be the guiding light.
Ann, i’m not sure what you mean.
Kathy –
You say that “rebuke” implies no condemnation. Unless, you are giiving the word some uncommon meaning, the definitions from those to dictionaries show that a rebuke does imply a condemnation of some sort.
True, sometimes we do a person a favor by condemning his/her behavior, but that doesn’t stop it rom being a condemnation.
Ann,
Jesus sometimes rebuked people in the strongest possible terms. Yet He was not sent into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved. I believe that Jesus’ rebukes were meant to cause self-examination and conversion, to be a moment of grace.
And sometimes priests act outside of canon law and outside of the policies of their bishops. That seems to be what happened here.
Grant – you will enjoy Michael Sean Winters’ column today:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/anti-bishop-venom-right
Key phrase: “The first is an article in the American Spectator that calls out Cardinal Wuerl for his handling of the Guarnizo case and argues that the cardinal has been derelict in his duty. The author notes the stance of Cardinal Raymond Burke on the issue of denying communion, conveniently ignoring the fact that many conservative canonists agree that Guarnizo went too far. The author is clearly unaware of the role of a bishop in his own diocese when he writes: “Cardinal Burke has spoken; the case is closed.” Perhaps someone should inform the Pope that Cardinal Burke disapproves of the way he, and his predecessor Pope John Paul II, dealt with the issue of denying communion – they didn’t do it.”
For some commenters, it reminds me of the phrase: if the shoe fits……..
What the scolds like Fr. Guarnizo (and Rick Santorum) don’t seem to realize is that sinners do not necessarily turn wholly away from God when we sin. They don’t seem to appreciate the attractiveness of sin which so often leads to ambivalent feelings about both the temptation and even God Himself.
That’s why I think that the Church is right to err on the side of leniency in the matter of receiving Communion. God understands our weakneses and the pull of the good of evil. Aquinas was about evil: it has to be good in some way for us to want it. God, I’m convinced, wants us to get all the help we can to resist the evil.
Sin and virtue are most complex and particular. And that’s why great novelists and poets sometimes have more to teach us than great moralists do.
Oops — Should be: Aquinas was right about evil: it has to be good in some way for us to want it.
The subject of withholding Communion in the DC diocese came up in 2009 over the now more famous Kathleen Sebelius (D) before she had reached Washington. Cdls. Wuerl, Loverde, and Burke were reported to be not in conflict, and Cdl. Wuerl intended to follow the judgment of Archbp. Naumann of Kansas City.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032602185.html
Jack, regarding Secretary Sebelius – my understanding is that the bishop of her home diocese (Bishop Naumann?) has *asked* her to consider not receiving communion. He could, in theory, formally excommunicate her, or perhaps apply some other formal ecclesial penalty, that would *ban* her from receiving communion – but he hasn’t done that. I take it that Wuerl and Loverde are asking her to do the same thing while she is in Washington.
A valuable thing to be gleaned from Ed Peters’ analysis is that both church authorities (under Canon 915) and the communicant (under Canon 916) have obligations. I take Naumann’s admonition to Sebelius to be a reminder to her that she is obligated to be prepared to receive.
Regarding this situation: funerals typically don’t just happen. They are planned, in advance, via collaboration between the parish and the family. Awkward situations are not uncommon, e.g. when widower Dad, on his deathbed, obtains his no-longer-practicing-Catholic children’s promise that he will be buried from St. Patronius. There can/should be a more pastorally appropriate time than in the sacristy a few minutes before the mass begins, to address questions and concerns about communion. If that opportunity was missed … then it was missed. I can’t think of any set of circumstances, short of a tweet from the bishop, in which Guarnizo should have refused communion. I agree wholeheartedly with David Nickol’s conclusions in his 3/19 10:07 am comment: “I understand that Peters said she was wrong to present herself for communion and Guarnizo was wrong to refuse her. Because this all happened at Johnson’s mother’s funeral, Guarnizo’s behavior seems particularly insensitive, and I certainly sympathize with Johnson. But certainly she must know that the Catholic Church does not consider her (as a lesbian with a partner) to be in good standing to receive communion.”
Jim – the point of the original post was about Guarnizo and his actions/decision; not about Ms. Johnson.
As you say well, funerals can be ackward situations. The focus is on Guarnizo whose decision seems to have even been contrary to other priests present or who voluntarily covered for him at the cemetery.
Yes, your point about any catholic and their responsibility in regard to receiving communion stands but, as you well said above, there are innumerable situations in which catholics (in whatever state – active, inactive, lost, left, etc.) make snap decisions in emotional situations. And, then, there are catholics who have carefully considered and used their conscience and receive communion even though some may say that they are not in good standing. Eucharist is, again, not a time to count up and judge someone’s “good standing”. In fact, as Peters lays out – you have public vs. private; canon law also talks about situations in which a person does not create scandal (receiving communion where they are well known and in questionnable status) but then canon law also leaves that decision up to the person (not the minister) e.g. Sebelius and Naumann may be an extension of that.
What I don’t understand is how the Church can refuse someone Communion when that person acts in good conscience, that is, the person does what he/she thinks is right. Vatican II says we MUST follow our consciences, even if it is possibly wrong.
Actually, it seems to me that if Ms. Johnson is really a Budhist that, not her sexual practices which she seems to think are moral, is the main problem.
Ann,
According to a recent clarification from the Vatican, a person is considered a canonical Catholic until s/he repudiates Catholicism publicly. It’s not enough to be affiliated with another religion.
“What I don’t understand is how the Church can refuse someone Communion when that person acts in good conscience, that is, the person does what he/she thinks is right.”
Ann – in the vast majority of cases, the Church can’t refuse. The categories of Catholics whom it may refuse are very specific and limited. The criteria are listed in Canon 915:
“Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
So there seem to be two sets of Catholics who may be refused:
* Those under a canonical penalty (excommunication or interdiction)
* Those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin. Peters does a nice job of highlighting that every word here is active and must be accounted for: the sin must be serious; it must be manifest (publicly ascertainable); it must be something in which the communicant perseveres (not an isolated incident – there is a pattern of sinfulness) and does obstinately, i.e. in the face of paternal/fraternal correction. What’s more, it should be applied in light of the whole of canon law, which clearly gives the benefit of the doubt to the communicant.
Guarnizo clearly lacked the information to make this kind of a judgment. What’s more, I think that any communion minister would be well-advised to not make these kinds of judgments on their own. They should consult with the bishop and let him deem that a communicant fulfills all these requirements.
There are two sets of communicants in recent years who come to mind as fulfilling these requirements. One are specific individual politicians whom some bishops have identified as fulfilling these requirements. The other are “rainbow sash” protesters.
I see that Peters has written that Canon 915 may be applicable in cases to which it currently isn’t applied – although I haven’t followed the links to see which audiences he has in mind. But the wisdom of then-Cardinal Ratzinger should be kept in mind: this singling out of public sinners (as Lisa Fullam has pointed out) has the possibility of creating scandal in the opposite direction. Thus, when politicians are denied communion – they are, I believe without exception, Democrats – the impression is created that the bishops are playing partisan politics. When rainbow sash wearers are denied, it fuels the accusation that the church is homophobic.
There is more to Fr. G than local funerals and abortion protests, which may help explain his pastoral manner though not his presence as Parochial Vicar on a Saturday morning in Gaithersburg. Fr. Guarnizo was interviewed in Vienna by Zenit Dec 24/25, 2009. Part 1:
http://www.zenit.org/article-27944?l=english
He was described as founder and chairman of the Vienna-based organization Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe (EICEE), which aimed to rebuild the intellectual culture of many European nations in the post-Communist era. The organization has a web site http://www.eicee.org , which does not appear very active. It shows Institutes in 6 Eastern European countries and a US office in in Arlington, VA , not far from Gaithersburg. An annual report shows many programs and a distinguished board of advisors, including Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna in addition to those noted in the WashPo 3/17 article.
http://www.eicee.org/pdf/25344%20EICEE_BOOK%20LR.pdf
Earlier, in 1997 Guarnizo was a deacon at St. Catherine of Siena Parish in Great Falls, VA. He was reportedly then founder and president of Aid to the Church in Russia and expected to be the first American ordained for the Diocese of Moscow. (Coincidentally, St. Catherine’s was the parish of Robert Hanssen, the dedicated Catholic FBI agent who spied for Russia until 2001.)
http://www.catholicherald.com/stories/New-Catholic-Business-Network-of-Virginia-Plans-First-Breakfast,4998
A block away from Fr. G’s present parish of St. John Neumann is the charismatic Mother of God Community, which has a fairly rigorous, active Catholic and ecumenical program to live the “spirituality of Pentecost”. Considering his history and location, it would not be surprising to find Fr. G acting as he did to do what he saw as “the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do”.
Scalia, Thomas, Santorum, etc., etc., go to St. Catherine of Siena Church:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=st+catherine+of+siena+parish+supreme+court+opus+dei&oq=st+catherine+of+siena+parish+supreme+court+opus+dei&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=7507l8741l1l10846l9l9l0l0l0l0l323l1433l0.3.3.1l7l0&gs_l=hp.12…7507l8741l1l10846l9l9l0l0l0l0l323l1433l0j3j3j1l7l0.llsin.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=904452d66f9829db&biw=1187&bih=512
Jim and Kathy –
Thanks for the information. Happily Mother Church seems to be more lenient with sinners than I might be! But my understanding is that to sin you must believe that you ae sinning, and I think the problems arise not with people who know they are sinning, but with those who, disagreeing with the Church about one thing or another, do not think they are sinning and so are acting in good conscience.
I’m thinking of the politicians who, mistakenly perhaps, think it is best to vote for something that he/she disagrees with but which it is best in the circumstances for the society to tolerate. As Aquinas says, not all sins should be made illegal. Other cases of dissenters with good consciences are all those who think that contraception can be morally good. i think that the pastors wisely have not pushed the case against these well-intentioned people receiving Communion.
Yes, there should be limits, but where are they? I still think that intentions should rule in such cases.
“Canon Ed Peters, no lily-livered liberal”
As illustrations of David G’s quite apt description, Peters argues here that the same canons discussed in the Guarnizo/Johnson controversy should certainly bar Gov. Andrew Cuomo from communion …
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-canonical-consequences-might.html
… and here that Nancy Pelosi likewise easily clears the canonical hurdles that Guarnizo tripped over:
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/nancy-pelosi-deserves-to-be-taken-seriously-very-seriously/
This makes his takedown of Guarnizo all the more noteworthy.
Guarnizo carries on in his long-running role as a geopolitical activist, speaking out at the DC protest rally yesterday (3/23) against what he sees as the administration’s ultimate goal. “If you [the administration] attempt to nationalize 1/6 of our economy – the health care sector – you need to get rid of intermediate structures in society, the churches and other institutions stand as a buffer zone between the state and the citizen”. Considering his 3/14 statement to CNA and the WashPost report of 3/17, it would be interesting to know who he actually works for and with in his current activities.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/large-crowds-turn-out-to-protest-obama-mandate-in-150-rallies-across-u.s