 |
| The Last Communion of St Joseph Calasanctius by Francisco de Goya - in the public domain (source: Wikimedia Commons) |
Father Guarnizo is being vilified in a most virulent and unjust way on the comment threads at seemingly anti-Catholic sites such as The New Civil Rights Movement, Huffington Post, and Addicting Info (where the story originated).
Although the facts concerning what happened at this Requiem Mass last Saturday remain sketchy, and all we have to go on is what we've been told by Ann Werner in her apparently biased blog post at Addicting Info, it seems that the baying wolves amongst modernist Catholics and left-wing secularists have already pronounced Guarnizo guilty of some heinous crime.
The overreaction of left-wing commentators
"Something terrible happened this past weekend in Maryland..." announced the rather hysterical Werner, whose blog post - for some bizarre reason - began and ended with a rant against the rise of the political right in the US. This great injustice in Maryland, she goes one to explain, involved some kind of relation or friend of hers, called Barbara, who "was denied communion at her mother’s funeral." Ann Werner went on to allege that Father Marcel Guarnizo refused to administer holy communion to Barbara after telling her: "I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin according to the church [sic]."
I would hardly describe the act of refusing someone communion - especially someone who seems to be living in an openly irregular union - as: "Something terrible"! It is a priest's sacred duty (one we all share in) to protect the things of God from sacrilege, as well as to admonish sinners. Those who are in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, or who are publicly living a life contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, should not be admitted to the sacrament of holy communion. It doesn't matter what the circumstances may be - be it an ordinary Sunday Mass or the Requiem Mass of a family member.
As I'm not privy to what happened, I cannot really comment on the specifics of this event - although the self-righteous modernist and secularist readers of Huffington Post seem to have no qualms in doing so. I don't know anything about the circumstances surrounding the allegation in Ann Werner's blog post, except that it seems that a good and holy priest told someone - in quite a reasonable way - that because she is supposedly living a lifestyle contrary to the Church's teachings, he couldn't give her holy communion at her mother's Requiem Mass.
Seeing that the woman whose funeral it was happened to be a member of Father Guarnizo's parish, I am sure he may very well have been aware of her daughter's living arrangements. He may even be well acquainted with her himself. Who knows, the lesbian daughter may also have been trying to make a political point by going up for communion? Let's just say that it does seem odd that the whole story is now doing the rounds amongst left-wing blogs.
Eulogies at Requiem Masses - best to discourage such things
It also seems that Barbara decided to deliver an eulogy during the Mass, at which point "Fr Guarnizo left the altar". We do not know why he left the sanctuary, or what the content of this eulogy was - in fact, I was under the impression that eulogies were to be avoided during Catholic Requiem Masses? It seems, though, that the mother had supported her lesbian daughter's decision to live with another woman, and this inappropriate issue may have crept into Barbara's address. If so, she's fortunate that the priest only left the altar - someone like St Louis de Montfort may very well have actually physically ejected her from his church! But, as I say, we - unlike the left-wing mob - do not know the full facts surrounding this case.
Needless to say, many secularist commentators on Huffington Post and other left-wing blogs, having appointed themselves experts in the internal workings of the Church, are falsely accusing Father Marcel Guarnizo of being "hateful", "unchristian" and / or a "hypocrite". Some liberals within the Catholic Church have also waded in with comments such as "Jesus would never do this" and "everyone should be able to receive communion", etc. In response to this hysteria, the Catholic blogger at Les Femmes - The Truth has come to the priest's defence, saying: -
"One wonders whether the folks who are so quick to condemn Fr Guarnizo would expect him to be silent and do nothing if the lesbian had brought a can of black spray paint and started defacing all the statues in the Church. Such an act is NOTHING compared to the sacrilege of receiving Jesus, Body-Blood-Soul-Divinity, in the state of mortal sin. And since everybody in the Church apparently knew about this woman's lifestyle, the scandal would also have been mortally sinful and on the priest's head for allowing it. The Bible is crystal clear on the responsibility of the shepherds to blow the warning trumpet.""[Those] who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion" (CIC 915)
Priests must always try and ensure that the Blessed Sacrament is not abused. This is why they cannot give communion to those who openly and obstinately refuse to repent from a state of grave sin. This is required both to protect the sacred species as well as to save souls from further self-condemnation. By withholding communion to those who refuse to accept the Church's teaching, a priest may also be helping that person realise that their way of life is wrong, and is condemned by Christ and his Church. It is only by realising that we are sinners that we may then begin on the journey of repentance and salvation.
No-one has to go to holy communion when they are at Mass, and sometimes, especially if we are aware of grave unconfessed sins, it is better to make a spiritual communion than to physically present oneself at the altar rail. So often nowadays it seems that worshippers feel they have a right or a duty to go to communion - regardless of the state of their own souls. This attitude needs to be challenged, and Catholics should be reminded from time to time that holy communion realy is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ himself. We will not be condemned for not going to communion, but we may very well be "eating condemnation upon ourselves" if we do receive the Body of Christ in an unworthy manner (cf 1 Cor 11:29).
No-one has to receive holy communion, and sometimes it's best not to
I often find myself at Masses that also happen to be funerals. This is because I live in a parish in central London where the 10.30am weekday Mass is occasionally rescheduled and celebrated as a Requiem. It is interesting to note that at the funerals of the deceased whose families are not Catholic or whose relatives may have lapsed or are living lifestyles contrary to the Church's teachings, the vast majority of the mourners do not go up for communion. Last year, I remember attending one such occasion, when none of the family received the Body of Christ, although many of the ordinary Mass-goers filed past the coffin to make their daily communion.
I must say that, although wishing that these mourners had been able to go to confession and receive communion in the first place, I felt a lot of respect for those bereaved people who chose not to receive communion at that Mass. Just as I respect Catholics - lapsed or devout - who choose to make a spiritual communion or not to present themselves at the altar rail because they have not been absolved from a mortal sin. I also admire those who, because they deny a fundamental teaching of the Church, also refuse to go up for communion - even though they still consider themselves to be Catholic.
Holy communion is not a rite that everyone has an automatic right to receive. It is the most sacred thing that we human beings can encounter - it is the most intimate, physical and spiritual communion with the Lord himself. For that reason, I for one, wish to thank Father Marcel Guarnizo for his courage in denying communion to this woman who, it would seem, probably should not have presented herself at the altar rail in the first place. May the Church be filled with many more priests like him!
UPDATE 29/02/12: -
As suspected, there seems to be far more to this story than the left-leaning press first disclosed. It appears that the woman who was denied communion, whom we now know is called Barbara Johnston, is in fact in a relationship with another woman (she said so herself here). It was either she herself or her partner who informed Father Guarnizo of this fact a few minutes before the Requiem Mass was scheduled to begin. Some commentators on various news websites, who claim to have witnessed the incident, have also alleged that this event happened in the sacristy.
One person, who commented on a Catholic blog, even suggests that the lesbian partner may have physically stopped the priest from speaking with Johnston before the Requiem - possibly Father Guarnizo's attempt to remind her privately of the fact that one cannot both be in a homosexual (sexual) partnership and a state of grace, or to inform her that she should not present herself for holy communion. But this statement, is unreliable - as the person who wrote the comment did so under a pseudonym.
Barbara Johnston has been doing the rounds on the media. The Washington Post is now reporting that she is even "demanding" Father Guarnizo's removal from public ministry - that he be suspended, in other words. Let's just hope that the Archdiocese of Washington remembers to deal justly with this priest - so far, it seems that the Archdiocese has capitulated to the hysterical trial by media (by issuing a statement that appears to suggest that Father Guarnizo acted against "policy" - see Washington Post).
Let the facts come out - I am sure they will tell us a very different story to the one-sided one presented so far.
As a life-long Catholic and a former teacher in a Catholic school, Barbara Johnston should have known not to present herself for communion if she is indeed in a sexual relationship with another woman. In that sense, when she did present herself before Father Guarnizo, she placed him in a very, very difficult position.
18 comments:
Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!
Difficult call for me on this one, given the scant facts. One doesn't know whether the priest and the woman met to discuss the Requiem Mass arrangements as is usual. It's not clear whether the priest told her in advance not to present herself for Holy Communion and she ignored it, or whether he waited until the moment of reception.
I agree absolutely about the undesirability of a eulogy during Mass. It's such a loose cannon (no pun intended) as may have proved in this case. A eulogy is best kept for after the Mass. Unfortunately, many of the clergy seem to have gone along with the Requiem as celebration of life, rather than humble petition for God's mercy on the soul of the deceased.
I do think it's up to priests to explain clearly the rules beforehand rather than make a protest gesture at the time.
This is outrageous, In claiming to be upholding the Catechism, Fr Guarnizo is displaying woeful ignorance ot it, on at least three counts. (See http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/02/28/in-denying-communion-at-mothers-funeral-priest-contravened-the-catechism/ for an explanation)
If acting contrary to the Catechism is necessarily sinful, then by his own standards he is himself in sin. That is why he needs to apologize. The theory of confession states that not only must we repent and confess our sins – but also that for absolution, we must make reparation to those we have injured. The hurt in this case cannot be undone – the least that will suffice is a public apology.
Yes, I agree - it is a difficult one to comment on. Sadly, though, it seems that so many of the Church's internal and external enemies have already found fit to condemn the poor priest involved.
I don't understand what you mean by "in claiming to uphold the Catechism" - has the priest said that this is what he was doing?
As for your blog post and the three points you raised in it: -
a) Of course it is not sinful for two women to live together, if - that is - they are merely friends, flatmates, sisters, or whatever. If they are 'living together' as sexual partners, then not only is their lifestyle potentially gravely sinful, but is also (if one of them is a Catholic) quite possibly scandalous, too. If this woman was denied communion because she was living with a friend or disinterested party in a non-sexual way, then the priest's actions may very well be unjust (as well as properly lacking in compassion and pastoral care). Also, of course, it is important to emphasise that all those who are in irregular unions - including non-married or adulterous heterosexuals - should also not present themselves for holy communion.
b) As for following one's conscience. If one's conscience, possibly having been malformed through insufficient instruction in the faith, leads one to live a lifestyle that involves the committing of regular and habitual sin, then that person will have to answer for that before the Judgement Seat of God. As you point out and as the Catechism puts it, "we entrust such persons to the justice and mercy of God." But this is nothing to do with the reception of holy communion - where a person, who may not even be a Catholic - can (through the invoking of a bad conscience) judge him or herself worthy to receive the Body of Christ. In such instances, it is no longer a matter of "I can do what I want" (masked as "conscience") but rather one of Church discipline and the need to ensure that "that anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession, except for grave reason when the possibility of confession is lacking" (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 81). For this reason, "the Church has drawn up norms aimed both at fostering the frequent and fruitful access of the faithful to the Eucharistic table and at determining the objective conditions under which communion may not be given. The care shown in promoting the faithful observance of these norms becomes a practical means of showing love for the Eucharist and for the Church" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 42).
c) In your blog post, you also say quote (out of context, many would argue) the the New Catechism, when it teaches: "[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (CCC 2358). Of course, this is a fundamental teaching of the Church. The Catholic faith also teaches that all men and women, even the worst of criminals, should be accepted with the same compassion and sensitivity - this is what Our Lord did when he met those who suffer or who found themselves "outside the camp" so to speak. But this does not mean that those who are engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, especially if that involves being sexually partnered, is to be granted some kind of special absolution without having first sought sacramental confession or without showing signs of repentance. Showing compassion and sensitivity does not mean colluding with sin or appearing to approve of it by telling people that they can receive holy communion regardless of what state they find themselves in. Neither does it mean granting a "get out of jail card" to one small section of society. The priest may have shown this woman great compassion prior to the funeral, but would still have had the pastoral (and sensitive) duty to remind her that in order to receive communion in good conscience, she (if she is in a sexual partnership) would have had to repent and seek absolution first. Real compassion means not letting people condemn themselves as well as seeking their physical and eternal salvation.
Cont... (@ Terence Weldon)
I find your ability to judge this case without knowing the facts quite depressing - I am specifically referring to these sentences that you wrote: "'Respect, Compassion, Sensitivity'. Fr Guarnizo has displayed none of these." How do you know this? I also fear that the supposed reaction of the Archdiocese of Washington to the media witch-hunt against Father Guarnizo is frankly unjust. Every man has the right within canon law not to be deprived or censured without due process. Surely, we should remember these words of the Catechism, too: -
"Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbour; of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them; of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbour's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favourable way..." (CCC 2477 - 2478)
The blogs failed to mention that, other than being a lifelong Catholic, Barbara Johnson is a former Catholic school teacher. That being the case, she would be familiar with CIC 915.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/193305/373/Lesbian-Barbara-Johnson-Says-Father-Marcel-Guarnizo-Denied-Her-Communion-At-Her-Mothers-Funeral
God bless
Sonia
Well done Dylan. A superb post, finely balanced (as always).
I believe Mr Weldon is one of those campaigning for active sodomites to receive Communion. Isn't hos blog the 'Queering the Church' one?
Do those clamouring for "the right" to receive Communion do so because for them it is just "a wafer" and not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
It is hard enough for priests as it is, but Church law is straightforward on this. Any public sinner can be denied the Blessed Sacrament.
Our prayers should be with Fr Guarnizo so that he may be stengethened as faces the co-ordinated assault of those who teach error, heresy and outright hatred of Holy Mother Church.
As far as eulogies are concerned, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear:
The liturgy of the Word during funerals demands very careful preparation because the assembly present for the funeral may include some faithful who rarely attend the liturgy, and friends of the deceased who are not Christians. The homily in particular must "avoid the literary genre of funeral eulogy"189 and illumine the mystery of Christian death in the light of the risen Christ. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1688)
Thank you, Gareth. You're too kind.
Ezekiel 16:49
49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Thanks for this blog post.
I've been refused eucharist at a Catholic mass because I'm not a Roman Catholic. I probably would have received it if I hadn't explicitly asked; but I wanted to respect the priest and the community. I was happy that they took their rules regarding eucharist seriously, though I would also have been happy to partake with them if they thought otherwise. It was a great service and I was happy with the mutual respect and understanding we were able to show one another. It's important that persons have some kind of grasp of what it means to live in a religious community. And it's a pity when persons who don't understand this become irate due to bigotry and prejudice.
Jude 1:7-8
Thank you for the many anonymous comments in support of Father Guarnizo. Sadly, because they are anonymous, I won't be able to publish them. Please feel to repost, using some kind of name.
God bless Father Guarnizo for having the courage to stand up for the faith. It just shows how selfish those people are (LGBT and whatever else they call themselves). It's all about them, their wants, their needs and to hell with the rest of the world. However, I think they'll find out it's them who's going to hell.
I don't have a URL, so my 'Comment as' box will read 'Anonymous', but I'll put my name at the end of this post. As an Anglican, I am quite happy to support Father Guarnizo if the woman is living in a lesbian relationship. If people don't realize how serious it is to receive communion unworthily, e.g. as a practicing lesbian, their opinions, even outraged opinions, have no basis. --Douglas Lewis
There's an old saying "You can't have your cake and eat it". It seems to me that the woman in question has a choice: if she wants a sexual relationship which is contrary to the teachings of the Church, she must forgo receiving communion. If she is prepared to live in a chaste relationship, then she is not in mortal sin, and is therefore, ceteris paribus, able to receive communion. It's a no-brainer, isn't it?
"someone like St Louis de Montfort may very well have actually physically ejected her from his church".
So de Montfort would have judged her then? Some saint! Only God judges.
Post a Comment