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.
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.
The Sunday after London Pride last year, our Soho Mass was briefly disturbed by an uninvited visitor, making an entirely unauthorized video recording of the proceedings. His recording of the bidding prayers has now surfaced on some conservative Catholic blogs.
In a Catholic Herald report, some of the bloggers and others opposed to the Masses have used these as supposed evidence that they exist primarily to challenge Church teaching. Fr Ray Blake, for instance, claims that
"What I find scandalous is that Mass is offered for a group of people who, as this video shows, obviously dissent from the teaching of the Church and gather primarily to challenge that teaching, rather than to worship."
This conclusion is patently ridiculous, and not supported by the texts of the bidding prayers themselves. These in particular, appear to be what they most object to:
.....that the various communities we represent, ethnicity, language, gender and sexual orientations, find means to celebrate this diversity, and strive for greater social justice for all people.
Are the opponents seriously suggesting that we should not be praying for social justice? Another prayer they objected to, was for
...lesbian and gay, bisexual and transgender organisations here and throughout the world, and especially those which gather to support people of faith, that they may reflect the rainbow covenant of justice and integrity which God establishes amongst us.
What is forbidden by Church teaching, is same-sex genital activity. There is nothing in the prayers that even remotely encourages this.
Watch, and decide for yourselves:
What these prayers do promote, is an obvious corollary to the other part of Catechism teaching - the importance of respect, compassion and sensitivity, which must lead to the acceptance of full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Church. So these bidding prayers are promoting, not contradicting, Church teaching - one of the parts that the objectors conveniently ignore. (The other part they ignore, is that none of us has the right to pass judgement on the state of another's soul).
Fr Blake is also totally wrong that the "purpose" of the Mass is not worship. Five years ago, when I and a group of others were discussing with diocesan representatives the parameters for our move into a Catholic parish church, it was clearly understood, and agreed by us, that the Masses were to be pastoral in nature, and not campaigning. As part of the organising team ever since, I can confirm that we have stood by that agreement scrupulously. The sole purpose of the Mass is to provide an opportunity for LGBT Catholics, their families and friends, to meet together for a corporate act of worship, in a setting where they know they will receive a particular welcome - together with other Catholics, and in a parish setting. It is true that I and some of the other organisers do disagree, strongly and publicly, with Vatican doctrine on sexual ethics, but that is kept strictly separate from the conduct of the Masses. (In the same way, it is likely that in any student chaplaincy, there will be a strong proportion of young people who disagree strongly with church teaching on sex before marriage, or on masturbation, but that does not imply that Masses for students are organised to promote dissent. A similar argument applies to family Masses and contraception.)
In his response to the objections, the CH quotes our chairman, Joe Stanley, who said that he did not think Fr Finigan's view of the Soho Masses was representative.
"Our experience of ordinary Catholics in the pew is very different from the comments in the blogosphere. The Masses keep getting represented as "gay Masses"," he said, emphasising that they are public Masses that extend a particular welcome to gay people and their parents, families and friends.
But the most important response is that of Archbishop Vincent Nichols of the diocese of Westminster, in which the parish falls. In a supportive statement, he reminds us that
As with every Catholic Mass, the bidding prayers celebrated at the parish of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory ask for the intercession of God in the lives of people who may be in need.
Bidding prayers for every Mass must reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church and this applies to the Mass held every fortnight where a particular welcome is extended to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered Catholics and their families.
There is no sacrilege in bringing together a group of Catholics for worship. The only sacrilege here is in making an unauthorized recording of that worship for the sole purpose of sowing dissension. There is no dissent expressed in praying that all may be included and treated with respect in the Catholic Church. The only dissent, is in opposing a considered, deliberate pastoral plan by the Archdiocese to put Catholic teaching on respect, compassion and sensitivity into practice.
"Last Saturday evening, I joined with others from London’s Soho Masses for a Christmas Carol Service at the Church of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, Warwick Street, followed by a great Christmas Party. The closing hymn, the always popular “Adeste Fideles” (which we sang, to my disappointment, in English) was particularly suitable for the occasion. It was written by John Wade, a choirmaster at that very church, where it was also first performed. As we sang, I began to reflect on just how appropriate it is that the regular Soho Masses for London’s LGBT Catholics take place in this particular church.
The history of the parish goes back to 1724, a time when Roman Catholics were unable to worship openly in England, but as a chapel of the Portuguese Embassy (and later the Bavarian Embassy), the church had diplomatic privilege, and offered a place of refuge from persecution for London’s Catholics. Later, the building was attacked and damaged in the anti-Catholic Gordon riots, but survived and was duly restored.
For LGBT London Catholics of today who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are prevented by their sexuality or gender identity from worshipping openly in other Catholic parishes, this church once again is a place of refuge. However, we continue to suffer “attack”, in the form of prayers levelled against us from across the street, by people opposed to our worship. Like the building itself, we will survive these attacks, and come through in the end, revitalized.
The name is also significant, combining two superficially unrelated patrons, both redolent of promise for those persecuted by the Church. “Saint Gregory” is the great papal reformer. As such, his name on the church where we meet may be taken as a symbol of the hope for reform of Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and pastoral approaches to sexual minorites which must surely come, and of which glimpses have been seen in recent years – not least, right here in the diocese of Westminster. Then there’s Our Lady of the Assumption, a particularly powerful symbol for me, as a South African.
I completely fail to see why a Catholic paper should object to the proclamation of God's love, but they and their readers were enraged by this. The immediate trigger was the fact that the publication also included the usual gay ads, like a prominent back page one for a gay hook-up site. Is anyone surprised that some gay men use dating sites? However, it was clear that the real anger was directed at the simple existence of a Mass catering primarily to an out queer community. I placed a comment - the first in the thread - and for my pains, had a response which suggested that I might be in league with some demon:
Terence Weldon appears on other sites as a rabid perverter of Holy Scripture. If he's in league with some demon, then it's a particularly depraved one.
(Relax, it's not true.) What I found remarkable about the rest of the comments was their complete and utter lack of any thought or understanding, a simple parroting of clichés about the sin of Sodom, and the Sin that Cries Out to Heaven and the like: confirming once again, my firm conviction that what draws a certain type of Catholic to the Church is a simple desire to avoid any need for hard thinking on ethical choices, merely depending on following a rule book and the formulaic repetition of fixed prayers for "Salvation", or for "favours" to be granted. This form of religion (it hardly counts as faith) is not that far removed from belief in magic.
Yesterday, a similar piece (but without any specific trigger) suddenly appeared in the Catholic Herald, lamenting "The Scandal of the Soho Masses ". Here too, the responses were sad, sharing much of the tone of those at CCD. This was my intitial response (I will place more later):
The Catholic Church equally teaches that contraception and cohabitation are grave sins. Why not write about the countless Catholics who ignore those rules? Or about the priests who as confessors or spiritual directors will privately approve those decisions, when taken in good conscience?
The simple facts are that nobody has any business judging the interior state of another's conscience, and that the history of the Masses has shown that they have drawn back to the Church many hundreds of people who had not seen the inside of a Catholic church in decades. Frequently, they come initially out of simple curiosity after hearing of us by word of mouth , or at London Gay Pride, but then return more regularly. Often, they then become more actively involved in a local parish closer to home as well.
One of the impressive features of the Masses is the depth of participation we have. I suspect that as a proportion of the total congregation, the numbers actively participating as special ministers, musicians, and in the increasing range of after-mass or outside activities is higher than in many conventional parishes. This is in spite of the very long distances some of us travel to attend, and the an often heavy involvement of some in home parishes. Discussion with our parishioners also demonstrates that the level of knowledge and interest in theology and church far exceeds what I have generally encountered in other parish settings.
The only scandal around these Masses is not that they exist, but that some bigots appear to believe they are doing the Lord's work by trying to prevent other Catholics attending Mass. I am proud to have been associated with these Masses for the past six years, and hope I will continue to be for many more,.
The Catholic Church equally teaches that contraception and cohabitation are grave sins. Why not write about the countless Catholics who ignore those rules? Or about the priests who as confessors or spiritual directors will privately approve those decisions, when taken in good conscience? The simple facts are that no body has any business judging the interior state of another's conscience, and that the history of the Masses has shown that they have drawn back to the Church many hundreds of people who had not seen the inside of a Catholic church in decades. Frequently, they come initially out of simple curiosity after hearing of us by word of mouth , or at London Gay Pride, but then return more regularly. Often, they then become more actively involved in a local parish closer to home as well. One of the impressive features of the Masses is the depth of participation we have. I suspect that as a proportion of the total congregation, the numbers actively participating as special ministers, musicians, and in the increasing range of after-mass or outside activities is higher than in many conventional parishes. This is in spite of the very long distances some of us travel to attend, and the an often heavy involvement of some in home parishes. Discussion with our parishioners also demonstrates that the level of knowledge and interest in theology and church far exceeds what I have generally encountered in other parish settings. The only scandal around these Masses is not that they exist, but that some bigots appear to believe they are doing the Lord's work by trying to prevent other Catholics attending Mass. I am proud to have been associated with these Masses for the past six years, and hope I will continue to be for many more.
Reflecting on this afterwards, I was struck by another feature of the comments thread: several people wrote of how they personally had been told directly by participants at the Masses that they were themselves sexually active. Huh? How did this come about? I hardly think that this is something that people would freely volunteer to a stranger at first meeting. In six years of attendance, I have never once had anybody volunteer information on their sexual relationships. The only way these people could have acquired this information, said to have been supplied by "several" people, is to have asked direct questions.
This is extraordinary. I would no more dream of questioning visitors to the Masses on their sexual views and activities than I would I would question married couples in suburban parishes on their use of contraception, or young unmarried couples if their relationships were sexual, or adolescent boys if they jerked off, or single men if they ever used porn.
Why, oh why, do these people think that their sexual practices are strictly private matters, but our lives as openly gay, lesbian or trans are open to public scrutiny and dissection?
As I have noted in comments at both these publications, the only scandal of these "gay masses" is not they exist, but that some Catholics seem to believe they are somehow doing the Lord's work by trying to prevent others from attending Mass. Now that really is a scandal that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
For a completely different, celebratory take on the importance of participating in gay worship, see these words of Rev Andy Braunston of the MCC , taken from "The Church" in "Religion Is a Queer Thing" edited by Elizabeth Stuart. (I carry a more extended extract in my companion post today, "Women-Church, Queer - Church, and House-Slaves.")
The sad thing is that queer people are leaving churches in their millions. We don't want to play by those rules any more. So what choices do we have? Many of us have adopted the ideas of Schussler Fiorenza and created our own religious communities: queer-church. These take on many forms, from the world wide queer denominations (the Metropolitan Community Church), through to support and campaigning groups like the LGCM in Britain, Dignity and Integrity ans so forth in the USA. There are also independent groups that function as churches in everything but name. The thing that unites us is the feeling that we are making the rules for ourselves.
We have many choices as queer Christians. we can see ourselves as house-slaves, who are just like any other Christians really, not wanting to cause a fuss or disturb anyone. This strategy might work for a time, but will, I fear lead to frustration, as these terms will never be affirming or life-enhancing. Or we can let ourselves go on the exodus that God calls many of us to. ..There are dangers with the exodus - we might lose our way, we might get tired and want to want to go back. There is a danger that whilst we have left Egypt, Egypt has not left us, and we might succeed only in creating carbon copies of what we have left behind - but the danger is worth it.
[ad#In post banner]
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
I spent last Saturday with a group of 20 LGBT Catholics on a pastoral planning workshop for the 'Soho Masses'. These Masses are now marking a double anniversary: this week is the 2nd anniversary of their formal recognition by the diocese, and a move into a Catholic church, while April will mark the 10th anniversary of their inception, on a much smaller scale. I thought this would be a good opportunity to tell you a little more about who we are, and why this journey has been important.
