Barbara Johnson was mourning the death of her mother as she stood in the line to receive Communion during the funeral at St. John Neumann Catholic Church. Ms. Johnson was attending the funeral with her lesbian partner. Just prior to the service, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo was informed of Ms. Johnson’s relationship. Therefore, in keeping with the teaching of the Church, the priest made it clear that she would not receive the sacramental bread and wine:
He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin.
She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry. Barbera Johnson would later write to Rev. Guarnizo:
“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she 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.”
The article caught my attention not so much for its implications for churches in dealing with the issue of sexuality, but the very notion of what is true and right vs. what a person feels to be true and right. Our culture has lost the ability to have courage precisely because we have hid the moral compass of God’s Word. And, even more, we have grown blind to the very moral imprint of the nature of humanity itself. Certainly, the situation could have been handled differently. For example, I would have went to Ms. Johnson and told her before the moment of communion. However, has anyone considered that what this priest did was actually an act of love!
By confronting Ms. Johnson and the notion that she could live as a lesbian and have confidence that God approves of her lifestyle would be an unloving thing for the priest to do because it is not true according to God’s Word. I applaud Rev. Guarnizo for displaying the courage and conviction to do the right thing. In short, to love Barbara Johnson.
Read the full article: Archdiocese Denying Communion To Lesbian Was Against Policy
You have got to be kidding me. You, some hick from Cummings, knows what God thinks? So tell me oh wise one: What about Muslims? Or Jewish people? Does God not like them either? How about people in remote areas who haven’t been exposed to Christianity but are otherwise good, kind people? Doomed to burn in hell?
Close mindedness is the equivalent of racism, and people who profess to be Christians should not be judging others.
“PB” In your reply you covered a lot of ground. Let me just address one issue that distinguishes your misunderstanding of my position. My agreeing with the action of the priest in this story is not rooted in my preference regarding how I feel nor is it an outcome of what I might have imagined the Bible to communicate. A person who desires to participate in communion is required to have repented of their sin and place their only hope of forgiveness in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This, in turn, will produce an aspiration to follow the explicit teaching of Jesus and the Bible. To allow a person who refuses the standard of marriage and/or a proper expression of sexuality as stated by God would not be wrong according to what I would like to believe but wrong according to what the Bible communicates.
For example, in Mark 10:6 Jesus is teaching regarding the framework of the marriage relationship: … from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Jesus explicitly confines the parameters of marriage and, therefore, the expression of sexuality within marriage to involve one man and one woman. Tragically, there are those who reject God’s authority in their lives. By Ms. Johnson’s own admission, she would be an example of a person who has rebelled against this standard of God by rejecting the man/woman relationship design. The outcome of this choice has and will incur disastrous results:
The Apostle Paul is outlining the progression of what refusing to obey God’s standard will result in. Notice that it is a twisting of the meaning of true worship and the rightful place of God in our lives leads to a slide into “dishonorable passions.” Why? When the issue of the authority of God is diminished in the life of an individual (expressed vividly in the worship of God for who He is), it necessarily leads to a disregarding of God’s standards in other areas of our lives. Given that sexuality is such a powerful drive, it is understandable that the expression of sexual desire is one of the first casualties for a person who has rejected the general authority of God. So, Ms. Johnson is offended by the church for not letting her participate in a ceremony that she is not fit to participate in given her rejection of God’s rule in her life. Therefore, the priest is actually protecting Ms. Johnson from incurring the judgment of God by participating. Would you have the priest allow her to participate knowing full well the spiritual condition of her life? Would he not be guilty of disregarding what the Bible says? Isn’t Ms. Johnson demanding that her feeling or “rights” should trump the teaching of the Bible and the vow that Rev. Guarnizo has taken as a priest? What gives her the right to demand this service from the church when she has chosen to reject the teaching of the church?
The Apostle Paul also takes up this theme in his writing to people who were struggling in the realm of sexual purity and how that could endanger them during the observation of communion:
Therefore, communion is for those who are clear about their relationship with Christ and want to further that relationship in sincerity. Recipients have experienced a rebirth on the inside and now they are about to celebrate that reality through recognizing the means of rebirth, namely the work of Christ, during the observation of communion. While the church in most of its meetings is very inclusive, communion by God’s definition is exclusive. Therefore, this issue is not about what you feel nor about what I feel, but what does God say about this issue. It would seem that you are not taking into consideration many of the facets involved in this issue and simply acquiescing to a person who is acting more like a spoiled child who is without regard to the lives of anyone else.
“PB” I would encourage you to consider what God says regarding this and life in general because if what the Bible says is true then we are all accountable to God in how we live. We would hope that you might consider us a resource in your own journey.
PB,
It’s interesting-you insultingly state that Mr. Miller can’t claim to ‘know what God thinks’, even though God has made clear ‘what He thinks’ in the only source document we have of what He thinks-the Bible. Yet you, using no apparent ground work of faith in anything but your opinion, have been able to discern truth-real truth, because it disagrees with you.
I encourage you to use the same text-the Bible to prove your point, PB. If God has other plans than what Mr. Miller and the priest have implied, it will be in His Word, right? If God is a livid about this whole situation as you seem to think He may be, He would have made His opinion (truth) known.
On the other hand, if you are sharing your opinion-based not on actual textual source of ‘what God thinks’ (the Bible) but on the influence and constructs of a debased society, consider that you may not know what God thinks.
In short, if you claim to know what God thinks (isn’t that what you are also doing by saying they are wrong?), prove it using His words.
A denial of communion is a tough situation, to be sure. However, I have a feeling this is more a reaction to the timing of the situation, not the truth in it. There may have been an entirely different outcome had this been handled before the funeral services began. I can’t imagine she was surprised to hear that the church (and more importantly, God) wouldn’t allow observing that particular sacrament. But maybe she was really in the dark? Maybe she really had know idea that God doesn’t approve of her life choice. But isn’t that part of knowing what we believe? Maybe this will cause her to run to Scriptures to prove her point and find that the priest was in the right after all. Let me rephrase that-if she goes to the Bible to look for exceptions to the rules on sacraments, she won’t find any. I pray that she does, and is convicted of how her days going forward can be even more honoring than her previous. I pray that for myself, too!
It’s not mean or unloving to draw hard lines in the sand. It’s easier when God has first drawn them and we just have to enforce them- first on ourselves, and as a leader in a church, to the congregation afterward. The priest was right-on to do what he did. He could have done it privately, in my opinion, but the basis for his decision was not in error. The message would have been the same, no matter what, and Ms. Johnson still would have been denied the sacrament, as she should have been. It would have saved her the apparent embarrassment, however, and that’s where I think her inflammatory comments are coming from.
And in case you aren’t familiar, there is no pride in taking communion. It is a reminder of our desperate need of forgiveness because of our tremendous sin, and at the same time, a beautiful reminder that as believers our hope is in Jesus Christ alone and we rest in Him for our salvation. It’s a humbling thing to be reminded how someone died in your place.
God’s grace to you, PB
There are about half a dozen direct references to what we today term homosexuality in the Tanach and NT, and a few others which are relevant but not direct. Two of the most negative passages are found in the book of Leviticus, alongside a mass of ancient Jewish food and incest taboos, purification rituals and medical protocols. In the New Testament, there are several instances in the Epistles where Paul disparages homosexuality. Notably, at no point in the Gospel narrative does Jesus condemn homosexuality.
Another point to note is that there was no word for homosexuality, in the sense that we now use the term, in ancient Hebrew or Greek. So the text of the Tanach and NT uses circumlocutions or eumphemisms in these passages. As such, any translation is not from God or Jesus, but someone intepreting to his or her liking.
As far as lesbianism goes, the Bible is silent. There is no explicit mention (or condemnation) of female homosexuality in the Tanach, and it turns up only once (very tangentially) in the NT. The King James Version
King James I, who commissioned the King James Version translation, was undoubtedly homosexual. It was whispered that “Elizabeth was King: Now James is Queen.”
So, you see, one cannot support your suggestion to refer to the bible, as it does not, literally, address the issue.
PB, Can you help me with a point of clarification? Are you inferring that because Jesus does not address the issue of female homosexuality (a.k.a. lesbianism) that Jesus, therefore, approved of this form of sexual expression?
BTW. I am not ducking your other points of argument, just trying to understand your rationale at this point.
PB, while I am waiting for your reply to my question, I will offer some evidence regarding how the Tanach and the New Testament do in fact address this issue more than your dismissal as simply being “circumlocutions or euphemisms.”
There are at least six passages of Scripture (Gen 19:1–11; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 1 Tim 1:8–10) appear to condemn the practice of homosexuality.
In the Tanach readings there may be novel interpretations, but not one that squares with the text or with other passages of Scripture that condemn homosexuality. If you disagree, I would be interested in knowing in what way and by what means of rationale instead of citing an abundant amount of research work not knowing your main thesis.
Regarding the implied point that homosexuality verges on being mythological due to there not being an corresponding word in the Bible, it is simply not accurate in regard to the presence of the meaning of homosexuality. I apologize for getting long-winded here, but your assertion demands proof to rebut.
PB, you claim that there is no Greek word that perfectly corresponds to the English word “homosexual.” It is only fair to note that there is some difference of opinion about the meaning of certain terms, but their meaning is not nearly as obtuse as you would want us to believe. Also, have you considered that a possible reason for an exact term for “homosexual” is due to the fact that most homosexuals in ancient Greek culture were married and therefore bisexual?
Regardless, let’s jump into your primary contention “that there was no word for homosexuality, in the sense that we now use the term, in ancient Hebrew or Greek.”
It is interesting that Paul uses two terms that actually describe the characteristics and acts of homosexuals.
(1. The word malakoi is the plural of a root that means “soft” (see, e. g., Matt 11:8; Luke 7:25). In moral contexts it is used of those who are loose, weak or lacking in self-control. In classical Greek, malakos is used of boys and men who allow themselves to be used homosexually and of those who play the part of the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. In Roman Antiquities, written about 7 B.C. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristodemus of Cumae is called malakos because he had been “effeminate” (thēludrias) as a child, having undergone things associated with women. Therefore, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover, this view is further supported by its use with arsenokoitēs, a term for the active member in such acts. As a matter of fact, when Aristotle in Problems has a lengthy discussion on the origins of homosexual passivity, and he uses the word malakos. So, while there is no exact “word for homosexuality” it is not as if there is no evidence for words being clearly associated with the concept or acts of homosexuals.
(2. The second of these terms, arsenokoitēs, is used by Paul in both 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. Notice that the term is found in a list of sexual sins, sexual immorality (pornos), adultery (which is referred to in the passage by referring to adulterers, moichoi), and effeminacy (malakos). Clearly, Arsenokoitēs is related to sexual sin. It is among sexual sins in Paul’s list, and supported by historians that it was most likely a euphemism for homosexuality. Additionally, the fact that both malakos and arsenokoitēs follow pornos in Paul’s vice lists. Pornos is a general term for sexual sin and is often, as in this listing of sexual sins, followed by specific examples.
So, while it is true that there is no word for homosexuality in the New Testament the way we might use it, it is not an informed position that the concept or act or idea of homosexuality is not present. One possible reason for this absence would be due to the Jewish moral ethic given the heritage of Judaism. In support of this view is the fact that as the Gospel spreads to non-Jewish cultures the listing of sexual deviance (of all sorts) becomes more prominent due to the general cultural acceptance of it. In further support of this view is the fact that “lesbianism” was almost unheard of in the Old Testament within Judaism.
It may be argued that “homosexual” is an appropriate equivalent for a “lesbian” given it simply means “same sex.” Therefore, it applies to women or men and could have been used for both. Today, our culture has predominately separated the term into two applications, one assigned to a male (“homosexual”) and the other to a female (“lesbian”). Therefore, your claim: “As far as lesbianism goes, the Bible is silent. There is no explicit mention (or condemnation) of female homosexuality in the Tanach, and it turns up only once (very tangentially) in the NT. The King James Version” is simply wrong. I would ask that you reconsider this point.
Furthermore, whenever the concept or act or idea of homosexuality or any sexual acts outside of the man/woman pattern spoken of in Scripture (generally or specifically), it is prohibited and condemned. The Bible is not responsible to name every possible sexual act, it simply invokes the rule of thumb that any expression of sexuality outside of the man/woman context is wrong and, therefore, against the will of God. It is impossible to escape this conclusion by playing word games. PB, I encourage you to consider that your position seems to actually escape the text’s meaning, not explain it.
Fact: Rush Limbaugh, a Methodist, takes Communion.
Limbaugh telling his talk show fans that a law student was a “slut” for her testimony to Congress about the need for birth control coverage.
The White House termed Limbaugh’s remarks “reprehensible,” and the criticism was echoed by Democratic members of Congress, women’s groups, and the administration and faculty at Georgetown University, the Roman Catholic school in Washington that Fluke attends.
Calls for Limbaugh’s sponsors to pull their ads from his show rocketed through cyberspace, and several companies, including Quicken Loans, LegalZoom online legal document service, and bedding retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, bowed to the pressure.
Fluke said that Georgetown does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan and that contraception can cost a woman more than $3,000 during law school. She spoke of a friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn’t cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of cysts.
On Wednesday, Limbaugh unleashed a lengthy and often savage verbal assault on Fluke.
“What does it say about the college coed … who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?” Limbaugh said. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”
He went on to suggest that Fluke distribute sex tapes of herself.
“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” he said. “We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
Rush Limbaugh’s obnoxiousness and his church failing to call him to repentance over it is irrelevant to this discussion. It certainly says something about Rush Limbaugh and perhaps even more about the church he attends but it has no bearing on the truth of scripture.
The issue here is the truth of scripture. Homosexuality is mentioned directly and specifically in Scripture and, as you point out, even lesbianism is mentioned in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-27). At no time does the Bible ever speak of homosexuality in a positive light, every time it is mentioned, it is condemned. The number of times this happens is irrelevant. How many times does the God of the universe have to say something for it to be true?
Jesus Himself, when commenting on marriage, limits it to a male and a female as modeled by the created order (Matthew 19:4). Jesus being the agent of creation (John 1:3) and God Himself would of course be in a position to ‘know what God thinks.’
If scripture is the word of God, we are accountable for adhering to what it teaches. If this woman believes all scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16) then she must take all of it to heart, even the part she finds offensive. If she doesn’t believe this about the scriptures, why would she want to take communion at all? The instructions regarding communion are in the same Bible which condemns homosexual behavior – so if it’s wrong about homosexuality, it could just as easily be wrong about the importance of communion. Again, it’s not a smorgasbord, you don’t get to pick only the parts you like and leave the rest.
No one is beyond repentance and the ability for God through Christ to change them. We’re all sinners in one way or another and in need of God’s grace. The trouble is too many people seek to change the scriptures rather than seek to be changed by them.
You have cast the first stone.
PB, are you offended that Rush Limbaugh called someone a name and should therefore not take communion? You did the same thing in your first sentence. You do not know Mr. Miller but called him a name anyway. Are you now going to give up communion?
If Jesus is who He claims to be (God) He would not contradict himself. There are examples in the NT about changes to OT laws of cleanliness (unclean food became clean, etc) that are there because of the new covenant through Jesus, but that did not remove God’s standards on marriage between a man and a woman, fornication, or any other number of things. It is not necessary for Jesus to repeat what God has already made clear. God set His design in motion in the old testament; if anything changed, Jesus addressed it. The fact that he was ‘silent’ just means there was no reason to address it because nothing was different.
About the ‘first stone’- Jesus brought the woman to a point of awareness of her sin. She she was caught in adultery and was under condemnation both morally and legally. Jesus showed her mercy, first because the people who set her up to be caught were the real focus of His attention, and second because He new she needed it. The purpose of her receiving pardon was to show the motives of the priests as selfish rather than legally motivated. Jesus was being tested by them and He was able to reveal to the priests that their motive was sinful in bringing the woman to Him. After all, if Jesus wanted a stone to be thrown in hate, He would be the one to fit the requirement of ‘without sin’. In the case of Ms. Johnson, no stone was thrown. God made a law that was broken and continued to be broken unrepentingly, therefore removing her eligibility to take communion at that time. These were her actions. She walked a path that led to that outcome. She doesn’t seem to be repentant of her actions-only that she was caught in them and was embarrassed at a horrible time in her life. The priest was not on error in keeping a Biblical standard.
Hello,
In the particularities of Roman Catholic theology and what they believe of the sacrament, the priest is actually acting as judge over Barbara, denying her the means of grace required for her to be right with God. I find this as repugnant as you, PB.
The hick from Cumming GA (and Protestantism in general) is not claiming we have special insight from God or that we are Judge over Barbara. What we believe is that God wants to reveal himself to us. God has made himself known and he has done this exclusively through the bible. God himself has come to Earth to endorse the bible as his word in the person of Jesus.
Further, what the bible teaches about all of us: homosexuals, liars, thieves, proud people, envious people, adulterers, people having sex who are not married, lascivious, everybody is under the Judgement of God. Because, these things we do are not simply injurious to ourselves and others; these things we do are actually insurgence to God who created us and sustain us. So, the fundamental principal is that God is just in sending all of us to Hell, to suffer separation from him forever, because he is good. Moreover we show we want that separation from God through these actions. Despite what we want, God has made a way out. By sending his own son to suffer and die on the cross, endure the punishment we deserve, those who have faith in him are changed to long for God instead of continuing in rebellion.
In sum, I hope you understand that we are not claiming to know the mind of God in any special way. We are claiming that God reveals what he wants us to know about him and our relationship to him in the Bible. The Bible teaches that all men are under the wrath of God, and each of us has to make a choice as to whether we want God, or we want to continue in our own little bit of pettiness that we think will make us happy.
I completely agree, O’Ryan. Unfortunately for Ms. Johnson, she has put herself under the authority of a church where the priest claims to hold the ultimate authority and decision of communion. Communion should be a private sacrament between God and a believer. No priest should have the authority to deny it to anyone-only to remind them of the requirements to take it. Again, the Catholic church has given the authority to their priests (which they don’t have the ultimate authority to give, anyway), so it’s of my understanding he was within his bounds. He was working within the guidelines of the system, it’s just a broken system.
There was a time when I denied myself communion for months because I know I held bitterness toward another person. It wasn’t a decision my church put on me, but a conviction I held. I don’t know if Ms Johnson would have denied herself communion or not, given the opportunity.
Having a priest ‘approve’ or ‘deny’ one’s communion gives them the authority to approve or deny one’s lifestyle, and given the standards of the Bible and the holdings of the church, he was acting in the authority he had been given by his church.
It just sounds like we are missing the greater Point. Yes we are all sinners and yes we are all able receive forgiveness of these sins by Christ’s perfect sacrifice but we honestly cannot believe that we can live life on our own terms in sin without a repentant heart and God will simply be ok with that.