In Denying Communion at Mother's Funeral, Priest Contravened the Catechism

A Catholic priest has refused communion to a lesbian, solely because she is a lesbian - at her mother's funeral. He said to her directly that he did so because she is living with a woman, and that is a sin, according to the church.

Communion Denied to Lesbian Woman at Her Mother’s Funeral « Bondings 2.0.

The blogosphere has been abuzz with the news that Rev. Marcel Guarnizo, a priest at St. John Neumann parish in Gaithersburg, Maryland (Archdiocese of Washington), recently denied communion to a lesbian woman at her mother’s funeral.  HuffingtonPost.com has posted a summary of various blog posts on the incident, including Ann Werner’s post on AddictingInfo.org, which broke the story.   Werner offers the details:

“My friend Barbara [Johnson], the daughter of the deceased woman, was denied communion at her mother’s funeral. She was the first in line and Fr. Guarnizo covered the bowl containing the host and said to her,  ‘I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin according to the church.’  To add insult to injury, Fr. Guarnizo left the altar when she delivered her eulogy to her mother. When the funeral was finished he informed the funeral director that he could not go to the gravesite to deliver the final blessing because he was sick.”

In claiming to be upholding the Catechism, Fr Guarnizo is displaying woeful ignorance ot it, on at least three counts. First, there is nothing at all in the Catechism against two women simply living together. There is only (alleged) sin if there are “genital acts”. He has not made any such claim to justify his action.

It would also be quite improper to assume that such acts occur, or even if they do, that they are subjectively sinful. We all have an obligation to follow conscience in these (and all other) matters. As the Catechism (1861) reminds us: “We must entrust judgement of persons the justice and mercy of God”

Third, there is an equally important part of Catechism teaching, which has been flagrantly ignored:

 "Respect, Compassion, Sensitivity". Fr Guarnizo has displayed none of these.

Bishops' Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom and Contraception.

A headline at the National Catholic Reporter, to an article on thecurrent contraception controversy, states unambiguously,  "Catholics unite in opposition to contraception mandate". This is patently untrue. The bishops may have united, and may have the backing of several Catholic agencies and health providers - but the evidence once again, is that ordinary Catholics disagree. The findings of two separate surveys this week show clearly that Catholics back Obama's proposals, and are more likely (not less) to vote for him as a result.

I have no intention of getting into the details of US health care, but the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience are important to us all, so I do want to share two pertinent observations by others, both Americans. The first is a short snippet, placed as a comment to a later NCR editorial on the subject:

Here in the San Antonio Archdiocese, insurance to cover contraceptives is available for an additional fee. This allows those who are not Catholic or for whatever reason need to obtain those services, to pay the additional coverage on their own. It is not denied, but neither is it supplied.

To me, the matter is simple: if in conscience you are opposed to contraception - don't use it. But that does not give you the right to impose your will on others whose conscience differs from yours. This archdiocese clearly recognizes that, making provision for such persons to obtain contraception coverage - for a fee. How does that differ, in moral terms, from providing coverage directly, for those who are not bound by the bishops' sense of conscience? What provision do bishops and Catholic health authorities make for the "religious freedom" of those in their employ? What, in particular, of those who believe that they are duty - bound to practice contraception for the sake of the planet? On what grounds can the bishops deny them the right to practice their own freedom of conscience?

More extensive is am analysis, also posted in response to the editorial  at NCR, which points to the repeated hypocrisy of Catholic bishops in their arguments from "religious freedom".

Now, the main analysis, posted by Richard C. Placone, which he has already sent to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, as head of the USCCB, and to his own bishop. It deserves to be widely disseminated:

Dr Jeffrey John to sue the Church of England for discrimination?

Dr Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans, has good reason to be unhappy with his treatment by the Church of England. Not once, but twice, he has been nominated as a bishop - and then passed over, in spite of widespread agreement that he is superbly well qualified, and the best man for the job. On both occasions, the sole reason was that he is gay, and partnered. On both occasions, the handling of the affair was grossly embarrassing and offensive.

Anglican rules on gay or lesbian clergy are a mess, confused and contradictory. Technically, all are welcome to the priesthood - but only if they are married, or celibate. The celibacy requirement though, is widely perceived to be a fig-leaf. Nobody believes it is widely observed for ordinary priests  - but is seen to be a major barrier to promotion. Adding to the complexity, two recent legal opinions have reached contradictory conclusions on the validity of the rules. Now, it seems that Dr John is about to test the rules, in court.

Gay priest 'considers suing Church of England for discrimination'

The Church of England's most senior openly gay cleric is understood to be considering suing his employers for discrimination unless he is made a bishop.

Dr Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans, was forced to stand down by the archbishop of Canterbury after being appointed suffragan bishop of Reading in 2003 following objections from conservative evangelicals.

Two years ago, John – a celibate priest who is in a longstanding civil partnership with another cleric – was prevented from becoming the bishop of Southwark after the archbishops of Canterbury and York stepped in.

Reports on Sunday suggested John had become so exasperated at his treatment that he had hired Alison Downie, an employment and discrimination law specialist and partner at the law firm Goodman Derrick, to fight his case under equality law. Four years ago, Downie successfully represented a gay youth worker who was found to have been discriminated against by the bishop of Hereford because of his sexuality.

It is thought John's case could hinge on a damning memorandum written by a former dean of Southwark Cathedral, which lays bare the divisions over sexuality at the very top of the church.

In the leaked memo, the late Very Rev Colin Slee described how both the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the archbishop of York, John Sentamu "behaved very badly" at a meeting to choose the bishop of Southwark in 2010, and "were intent on wrecking both Jeffrey John and [another candidate] Nick Holtam equally".

via  The Guardian.

Related articles

• The gay churchman and an unholy row (independent.co.uk)
• Gay priest 'considers suing Church of England for discrimination' (guardian.co.uk)

Philippine Idiocy, Continued

In the Philippines, where the Catholic bishops are engaged in a foolhardy, Quixotic fight against the government's plans to reform the national reproductive health system by easing access to contraception for low-income families, their latest salvo is a highly offensive attempt to justify their stance by invoking the memory of the church's historic role on the side of the poor and for justice,during the remarkable display of people power which unseated former President Marcos and his wife Imelda (and her famous shoes). The two issues are not comparable.