Lesbian: 'Denied communion' at funeral

[Spartan117]

Lesbian: 'Denied communion' at funeral

CNN speaks to Barbara Johnson who says a priest denied her communion at her mom's funeral because she is a lesbian.

[Vort]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! [flood of tears warning]

[Jenamarie]

I'm surprised that she was surprised. I'm not and have never been Catholic, nor did I ever attend a Catholic school as this woman did, and even *I* know that her current lifestyle would have put her "out of communion" with the Catholic church! Could the Priest have handled it a bit more gently? Probably. But I'm amazed that she thinks that Catholic church ought to have adjusted their centuries old, well established belief for her.

[Vort]

I'm surprised that she was surprised. I'm not and have never been Catholic, nor did I ever attend a Catholic school as this woman did, and even *I* know that her current lifestyle would have put her "out of communion" with the Catholic church! Could the Priest have handled it a bit more gently? Probably. But I'm amazed that she thinks that Catholic church ought to have adjusted their centuries old, well established belief for her.

I'm not, not in the least. Such entitlement marks the attitude of 21st-century Americans.

[NeuroTypical]

In more discriminatory news, the LDS church also refused to ordain her as a High Priest. And even more unforgivable, the checkers club kicked her out because she demanded that everyone play chess.

[prisonchaplain]

Sorta like the Catholic University law student who felt it beneath her to apply to a less prestigious school, and yet could not understand why the religious institution did not supply her health insurance that included free contraceptives. BTW, she claimed that they will cost her $3000 over three years. That's $1000/year for "protection"...but hey, whatever happened to some compassion--isn't that what church is supposed to be all about???

Errr...uh...no!

[applepansy]

Sorta like the Catholic University law student who felt it beneath her to apply to a less prestigious school, and yet could not understand why the religious institution did not supply her health insurance that included free contraceptives. BTW, she claimed that they will cost her $3000 over three years. That's $1000/year for "protection"...but hey, whatever happened to some compassion--isn't that what church is supposed to be all about???

Errr...uh...no!

The funny thing about this is the BEST protection is free. LOL

[applepansy]

I'm not, not in the least. Such entitlement marks the attitude of 21st-century Americans.

Definitely entitlement issue but good grief. It surprises me that this made the news.

I'm continually amazed that people believe they can force the churches to accept sin. They keep trying. When they succeed will be a sad day.

[Blackmarch]

Definitely entitlement issue but good grief. It surprises me that this made the news.

I'm continually amazed that people believe they can force the churches to accept sin. They keep trying. When they succeed will be a sad day.

they have been succeeeding in some cases.

[bytor2112]

I'm not, not in the least. Such entitlement marks the attitude of 21st-century Americans.

Or certainly expresses the idea that God accepts me no matter what I do or am

[RipplecutBuddha]

Or certainly expresses the idea that God accepts me no matter what I do or am

The reality would be more accurately stated "God loves me no matter what, but will never accept sinful behavior."

I also find it fascinating that people get in their heads a belief in a God that must bend to their will, rather than recognize that as God, it is his will that must be obeyed. After all....he's God.

[marshac]

When we visit my mom's side of the family, we usually attend Catholic mass with them (it's a good leg workout- stand, sit, stand, etc), and I know that when communion rolls around, we are just supposed to stay put in the pews.... It's not like a hymn or something that is just a part of mass....

Here's what the Catholic church says about it-

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10).

Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin. The Didache witnesses to this practice of the early Church. "But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache 14).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement applies today. "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916).

The requirement for sacramental confession can be dispensed if four conditions are fulfilled: (1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for example, danger of death), (2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first, (3) the person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition, and (4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

Third, you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). Transubstantiation means more than the Real Presence. According to transubstantiation, the bread and wine are actually transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining. This is why, at the Last Supper, Jesus held what appeared to be bread and wine, yet said: "This is my body. . . . This is my blood" (Mark 14:22-24, cf. Luke 22:14-20). If Christ were merely present along side bread and wine, he would have said "This contains my body. . . . This contains my blood," which he did not say.

Fourth, you must observe the Eucharistic fast. Canon law states, "One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion" (CIC 919 §1). Elderly people, those who are ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast (CIC 191 §3). Priests and deacons may not dispense one obligated by the Eucharistic fast unless the bishop has expressly granted such power to them (cf. CIC 89).

Finally, one must not be under an ecclesiastical censure. Canon law mandates, "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915).

Provided they are in a state of grace and have met the above requirements, Catholics should receive the Eucharist frequently (cic 898).

[unixknight]

When I originally heard about this it was here in this article and there's definitely only one side of the story being told there.

I did a google search on this because I wanted to read it from other points of view. Ironically, it was a Huffington Post editorial that revealed some interesting details not found in the MSNBC article linked to above. We probably won't ever hear Fr. Guarnizo's side of the story right from him, but cross-referencing sources does reveal some details that allow us to look at this in a more informed way.

There's 3 items worth looking at more closely.

-The refusal to give Communion

-The "failure" to grant absolution before the service

-Leaving during the service

The Refusal of Communion

-------------------------

According to the MSNBC article:

I’ve been fortunate particularly in the last several years – I’ve received Communion every time I’ve gone to church, [barbara Johnson] said.

Interesting. The article tells us she'd been in this homosexual relationship for 20 years. How is it possible that she's been able to receive Communion until now? For the answer, we look at the HP article.

Fr. Marcel was made aware that Barbara is gay when she and her partner of 19 years met with him that morning well before the service began.

(emphasis mine)

Interesting.

So for those who aren't so familiar with the whole Catholic Communion thing, here's how it works: If you're not in a "state of Grace" you're not supposed to receive it. Being in a state of Grace means you have no major sins on your conscience, and theoretically if you got hit by a bus and died right that moment, you'd go to Heaven. If a Catholic has major sin on his/her conscience then they aren't even supposed to present themselves to receive the Eucharist (the bread). The Catholic Church holds homosexual behavior to be a mortal sin. That's the kind of sin that send you straight to Hell when you die if you don't repent of it. That's the kind of thing that is grounds for Excommunication. That's a BIG DEAL, folks. If Barbara was a practicing Catholic then she should have known better. Whether you agree or disagree with Catholic doctrine or procedure, that's how they do things, and she knew this. Father Guarnizo did exactly what he was supposed to do in refusing her the Communion. In fact, he was probably surprised she even came up to receive it.

This also reveals another subtle element to the story. If she just told him about her relationship that day, then that means that all these years she was coming up for Communion at Mass, she was doing so under a false pretense. How do you suppose Fr. Guarnizo felt at that moment? Apparently he's known the family for quite some time. He probably felt shocked and betrayed. I don't think I can expect him to be 100% on top of his game after a bomb like that got dropped in his lap.

The "failure" to grant absolution before the service

------------------------------------------------

From the HP article:

It was his ecclesiastic responsibility at that meeting offer to take Barbara's confession and then grant her absolution; this would have allowed him to then in good conscience offer her communion later. And Barbara would have certainly been pleased to do a confession with Fr. Guarnizo.

"Obviously, I don't think being gay is a sin," she told me. "But this wasn't about me. This was about about my wonderful mother having the beautiful funeral that she deserved. So yes, I would have let Father Marcel grant me absolution."

But Fr. Marcel failed to offer Barbara that rite.

Hold on. "He failed?" Again, for those unfamiliar with how Catholic penance works: When the confessor wants to receive absolution (forgiveness) for their sin, they meet privately with the priest. They confess their sins and admit their wrongs. They do this with an attitude of repentance. When the priest grants absolution, it's done for someone who has a sincere desire to change and to do their very best not to sin again. Now, with that in mind, please re-read the above quote.

Does Ms. Johnson sound repentant? Does she sound like she was ready to admit she was sinning against God and wanted to change?

No? Then why the *(%^@#%^ would she expect absolution? I'm really serious about this. Both of these articles play Ms. Johnson up to be a committed and genuine Catholic, and yet just from that little bit we see enough to cast some very serious doubts on her understanding of Catholic doctrine or her desire to be a sincere part of it. Not to mention she apparently figured Fr. Guarnizo should have been more than happy to slap some duct tape on her spiritual problems and roll. That ain't how it works, folks. His ecclesiastic responsibility was to counsel her to meet with him in private at some point and discuss the situation further. We don't know whether he did so or not.

Leaving during the service

-------------------------

I'll start by saying I don't know why he left, but I found an interesting little tidbit in the HP article.

Yes, Fr. Guarnizo denied Barbara communion. But almost immediately thereafter a layperson acting as the service's Eucharistic Minister did lovingly serve Barbara communion.

Take a second to let that sink in. Fr. Guarnizo was officiating this Mass. That means he was in charge. He made the judgment call to deny her Communion. Apparently, one of the Deacons in the Mass took it upon himself to override that call and give her Communion anyway.

Was this appropriate?

Could it be that Fr. Guarnizo left the Mass because of this? I don't know if he did or didn't, this is only speculation, but it seems to me that he may have felt angry at this. Now, I believe that when a priest is in a spiritual or emotional state that makes him unfit to conduct Mass, he is supposed to remove himself from that role. An angry priest, undermined by his fellow celebrant and probably still reeling from the shocking news he felt that morning may very well have decided he was emotionally unfit to finish officiating the Mass and left. Heck, the HP article tells us he left the moment Ms. Johnson started her eulogy (The MSNBC article says he left in the middle.) Maybe there was a moral conflict with someone in that state of sin speaking during Mass and his conscience was struggling with it. I don't know.

Again, not sure if that's what happened, but I find it to be plausible. Apparently he didn't go to the burial because he had a migraine. A lie? Maybe. Or maybe he really did have one. After the above incidents, I probably would.

Am I saying he was perfect? No. Admonishing her during Communion was probably not appropriate. That stuff is supposed to take place privately, but again, we're only getting one side of the story. Even the two articles we're using here don't quite agree on exactly what he said to her.

Either way, the Archdiocese issued an apology for Fr. Guarnizo's rudeness, which is probably more about P.R. than anything else, but what I find annoying is this (from the MSNBC article):

The Johnsons now want Guarnizo removed from his post, and are seeking an apology from him.

An apology and removing him. Is this an example of Ms. Johnson's loving forgiveness? We see this a lot... an apology so they can have their moral validation and then to destroy the person so they can have their pound of flesh.

This next part almost made me gag:

“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” Barbara Johnson wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “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.”

There's so many things wrong with that quote I'm not sure where to begin, so I leave it to you to decide.

[MorningStar]

This woman put the priest in a very difficult position and she knows it. This just looks like another example of bullying people into accepting homosexuality.

[RescueMom]

This makes me glad I am LDS.

And I think sinners are in the most need of the Sacrament and power of the Atonement it represents...call me crazy, but perfect people don't need either.

[prisonchaplain]

This makes me glad I am LDS.

And I think sinners are in the most need of the Sacrament and power of the Atonement it represents...call me crazy, but perfect people don't need either.

I may need further educating then...as an evangelical pastor, I do not "police" the communion table. However, I do offer the Apostle Paul's instruction that two types of people should not partake:

1. Those who do not consider themselves to be Christian--who have not repented of their sins, and asked Jesus to forgive them.

2. Those who may consider themselves Christian, but who have on-going, unrepented sin in their lives.

These two standards are what I perceive Paul means when he speaks of those who "partake in an unworthy manner."

What would have been different is that I would not have interviewed the woman, to discover that she was engaged in a long-term, unrepented sin. So, she would have received communion, and the sin would have been hers.

Certain churches (Catholic and Lutheran come to mind) do charge their pastors with protecting the sacrament. I can see it both ways.

So...Rescuemom....I are you saying that there are no restrictions for taking the LDS sacrament--either by policy or instruction? I know that I could visit a ward and take the sacrament, and no one would stop me. However, if it became known I was not baptized, and was an investigator, would I never here instruction that I would do better to wait until I'd fully converted?

Also, if an inactive member, who was engaged in a lesbian partnership relation were to visit a ward, say to see a niece get baptized, would she feel free to take the sacrament?

[rayhale]

The sacrament is offered to everyone in attendance, everyone. As a returned missionary, I can’t recall ever asking anyone if they took the sacrament unworthy, but I do know that a Bishop may require a person to not take the sacrament as part of repentance. A person that is not a member is not under those restrictions, but there was always the question of whether or not non-members should be allowed to take the sacrament. When investigators asked if it was okay for them to partake, it was embarrassing to say yes, no, and maybe, in the same answer.

[Vort]

I may need further educating then...as an evangelical pastor, I do not "police" the communion table. However, I do offer the Apostle Paul's instruction that two types of people should not partake:

1. Those who do not consider themselves to be Christian--who have not repented of their sins, and asked Jesus to forgive them.

2. Those who may consider themselves Christian, but who have on-going, unrepented sin in their lives.

These two standards are what I perceive Paul means when he speaks of those who "partake in an unworthy manner."

What would have been different is that I would not have interviewed the woman, to discover that she was engaged in a long-term, unrepented sin. So, she would have received communion, and the sin would have been hers.

Certain churches (Catholic and Lutheran come to mind) do charge their pastors with protecting the sacrament. I can see it both ways.

So...Rescuemom....I are you saying that there are no restrictions for taking the LDS sacrament--either by policy or instruction? I know that I could visit a ward and take the sacrament, and no one would stop me. However, if it became known I was not baptized, and was an investigator, would I never here instruction that I would do better to wait until I'd fully converted?

Also, if an inactive member, who was engaged in a lesbian partnership relation were to visit a ward, say to see a niece get baptized, would she feel free to take the sacrament?

There are indeed restrictions, based on the same Pauline injunction you mention. However, there is little policing that goes on. The sacrament is typically distributed by 12- and 13-year-old young men, who would certainly never be informed of Brother So-and-so's ongoing discipline or to avoid passing to Sister Whomoever. It is assumed that Church members under covenant are able to police themselves in such matters.

There are times when a bishop might "disfellowship" someone, which as I understand it removes from them the privilege of taking the sacrament. If someone in such a situation took the sacrament anyway, I am guessing the bishop would have a talk with him/her. Excommunicated members are likewise not to partake of the sacrament, but since by definition they aren't members of the Church, I don't know what the bishop would do.

[Guest]

This makes me glad I am LDS.

And I think sinners are in the most need of the Sacrament and power of the Atonement it represents...call me crazy, but perfect people don't need either.

There's nothing wrong with the Catholic stance on who receives Communion. There's not even much different between LDS and Catholic in this sense. So, to me, this is nothing but LDS posturing and is really sad to see in a thread that is intended to lend support to our Catholic friends.

[Spartan117]

a thread that is intended to lend support to our Catholic friends.

Indeed it is. Every single one of us knows exactly what it's like to see our church blasted in the media by groups critical of our most sacred beliefs. There is no other group, whether religious, political, or social, that is more publicly acceptable to bash than Mormons. It's okay to to bash a hateful cult of bigots. They don't even drink soda.

Right now the Catholics are headline news because the President of the United States told them that they must ignore, and violate their teaching on the sanctity of marital love and the use of contraception as a matter of law. Imagine if our church was ordered by the government to allow and perform same-sex temple sealings or face criminal prosecution?

The Catholics did get a little break from the spotlight when Rush Limbaugh jumped on that grenade for them and called that 30 year old law student a .... Then the Priest in Maryland denied an open and actively gay woman communion during her mothers funeral, which happened to be during the same week that gay marriage was signed into law in Maryland. It keeps getting circulated by the publications from the way-far left who write and report about us. They seem to give the Catholics the same level of respect that they give us. Here's some snippets:

I'm No Longer a Catholic. Why Are You?

-At its core, this debate is about control. And not just birth control. Either you are willing to support and participate in a culture in which men, refusing to accept women as fully human, use a perverted claim of divine right to control women and their bodies, or you don't.

-That's because the Catholic hierarchy, men for whom reproduction is as alien as menstruation -- another fully human process they have no part in, really believes that women's bodies are the living manifestation of their inferiority and the way in which God choses to punish them for their original sin.

-It goes without saying, even though I'm about to say it, that the church hierarchy's misogyny is the foundation of its homophobia and that its fixation on a twisted, fourth century understanding of sexuality is the root of its abuse of children.

-But seriously, how obviously violent do things have to get before we learn the lesson that powerful, all-male environments with perverted notions of sex, sexuality and gender have damaging and corrosive effects on the whole society?

This one's my favorite:

This isn't about freedom of religion; it's about freedom from religion.

So next time you see one of your Catholic friends, give them a hug and tell them that you know how they feel.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Spartan117

[Spartan117]

The other side of the story

I just wanted to let you know that there is a lot more to this story than has been published. I was in a meeting with Fr Marcel and heard the whole story. The woman in question brought her lesbian partner into the vesting sacristy just before the funeral Mass and made sure to introduce her partner to Fr Marcel, introducing her as her ‘lover’. He told her then that she should not present herself for Communion. I have been to many Masses said by Father Marcel and he is a good and holy priest. He speaks very softly when giving out Holy Communion, almost whispering “Corpus Christi” — and did not publicly denounce her but rather said in a whisper that he could not give her Holy Communion. He did feel sick at the end of Mass and made sure to have a replacement priest accompany the body and family to the cemetery.

Father Marcel has a very active role in the very public and weekly vigils at Carhart’s late term abortion clinic in Germantown. He has been a staunch and vociferous defender of life. It is my belief that this is a calculated attempt to discredit him. (Remember – same sex marriage will be signed into law this week in Maryland.) ‘Catholics for Equality’ and other gay groups are feeling pretty strong right now. Fr Marcel is their enemy because he speaks the truth and does not back down…

I am telling you all this because Fr Marcel cannot speak for himself right now. And because he at the very least deserves the benefit of the doubt from you and Ed Peters and others who do not know all the facts. Please use this information to bring some balance to the discussion. And please pray for our bishops who must defend their priests from these attacks!

Catholic Canon Lawyer Dr. Edward N. Peters: "The minister of holy Communion acted illicitly. Period."

The story of the lesbian being denied holy Communion at her mother’s funeral has several versions and layers to it (no reason to think any one of them is especially complete or accurate), but, based on what seems to have occurred, I’ll say this:

This is what happens when bizarre events (like an admitted practicing lesbian presenting herself for holy Communion in the first place), happen on the watch of priests whose love for the Eucharist probably exceeds their knowledge of the law on reception of holy Communion (through no fault of their own, doubtless), before a well-wired-world that can broadcast misinformation and even flatly wrong interpretations of an event with nary a care for correcting itself later. No matter who gets hurt along the way. And plenty of people have been hurt in this one.

I have expended no little effort over many years (like about 22) trying to get Canon 915 correctly understood and properly applied in ecclesiastical life. In the last few years, some signs of progress have appeared. Now, out of nowhere, Canon 915 is being invoked by some as justification for an action that, reading the facts as alleged in the light most favorable to the minister, would not have justified his withholding holy Communion from the woman in question. Specifically, a few minutes conversation (if that’s what happened), mostly with a third party (if that’s what happened), would not suffice, in the face of numerous canons protecting the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments, to verify either the notoriety of the (objectively) sinful situation, or to verify the obstinacy of the would-be recipient, both of which elements, among others in Canon 915, must be demonstrated before withholding holy Communion.

What else is there to say? I offer no opinions on the rest of this mess (e.g., did she perhaps approach for the Sacrament in part to make a point? is the archdiocesan letter of apology prudent?)

He's written 2 follow posts concerning this ...

A thought exercise occasioned by the lesbian/Communion controversy

if a some normal-looking woman in line for holy Communion is tuned away from the Sacrament, even politely, how are people supposed to know why? Did she kill maybe someone? Is she a porno queen or a prostitute? Maybe she runs that abortion clinic. Is she cheating on her husband or taking bribes at work? What?

Now, sure, over time, and under certain circumstances, any of the behaviors described above can become so well-known in the community that those involved in such activities should be denied holy Communion, provided the other elements of c. 915—like, say, “obstinacy”— are also satisfied.

A few years ago, Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.

And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different

and

Remarks on the ‘Catholic Standard’ editorial on the lesbian/Communion controvery

There is not, and never has been, the slightest doubt but that a Catholic woman living a lesbian lifestyle should not approach for holy Communion, per Canon 916. One so approaching risks receiving the Eucharist to her own condemnation. 1 Corinthians XI: 27. But, once any Catholic approaches for the public reception of holy Communion, a different norm controls the situation, namely, Canon 915. The only question in this case is, and has always been, whether the centuries-old criteria for withholding holy Communion from a member of the faithful were satisfied at the time this woman approached this minister. Unless all of those criteria were satisfied at that time, then, no matter what moral offense the woman might have committed by approaching for the Sacrament in her state (for which action she would be accountable before God), the minister of holy Communion acted illicitly. Period. End of paragraph.

[Soulsearcher]

As a homosexual and ex catholic i don't support this woman. She should never have approached for communion. For years after i lost my faith but still attended mass i didn't take communion, same as when i went to LDS services with my friends after i came out, i never took sacrament. Even though the doctrines didn't really mean much it was a matter of respect, i didn't want to make light of something so important.

[Spartan117]

Exclusive: Inside sources provide new info on priest censured for denying lesbian Communion

LifeSiteNews spoke today with Diego von Stauffenberg, a source who is close to the incident and who revealed detailed information about the nature of Fr. Guarnizo’s actions at the funeral. According to Stauffenberg the priest was confronted by Johnson for the first time moments before Mass began.

[HEthePrimate]

I'm surprised that she was surprised.

Exactly. I'm all for gay rights, so that they would be treated equally before the law of the land, but that does not mean that all private individuals and institutions would have to cater to their every whim. If a church thinks homosexual behavior is a sin, that's what the church thinks, and GLBT people are free to seek another church.

But as far as the state is concerned, there should be no discrimination against GLBT people, IMHO.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but this Barbara Johnson is an idiot.

First of all - every Catholic knows homosexuality is not a sin but engaging in homosexual relations is so she should not line up for Communion.

Second of all - not only was there one Eulogy but TWO Eulogies, at least one of which is 15 minutes long in a Catholic funeral mass? Barbara should know that eulogies are not allowed in Catholic funeral mass! Okay, a lot of times the family offers the "Remembrance" after communion before the completion of the funeral rites which can sometimes be called by those unfamiliar with Catholic practice as the Eulogy - but this is supposed to be short "remembrances", about 5 minutes long! The Eulogies are supposed to be said either at the wake, or after the casket is received by the priest before the funeral mass starts, or at the burial. The funeral mass concentrates on the Homily - the priest's words to the departed and the surviving family and friends. Poor priest! No wonder he got a migraine!

But, there is not one mention in any of the news stories at all about how ignorant of Catholic teaching this Barbara girl is. It's all about how the priest is wrong for denying her Communion!

I'm frankly sick and tired of this stupid news story.