My colleague J Christian Adams posted about the controversy over the priest in Washington DC who is said to have denied an area woman, Barbara Johnson, communion because she is a Buddhist.
The actual facts of the matter are rather different.
Barbara Johnson wasn’t denied Communion because she “was a Buddhist” but because she was an open and out lesbian. The story about her being a Buddhist and that being part of the issue came up days later, after Rod Dreher publicized a LifeSiteNews story on an academic paper in which she said she was a Buddhist. Even those stories, in their very first paragraphs, say:
(Dreher)The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has suspended the Rev. Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who declined to give an open lesbian communion at her mother’s funeral. In a letter read to parishioners yesterday, an archdiocesan official said that the suspension has nothing to do with the lesbian communion incident, but rather for “engaging in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.” The church’s pastor added that it had to do with unspecified things Fr. Guarnizo is supposed to have done over the last couple of weeks.
…and:
(LSN)Barbara Johnson created a national feeding frenzy after alerting the media that Fr. Marcel Guarnizo had refused to give her the Eucharist because she is a sexually active homosexual.
Emphasis mine, in both. Now, look back at the emphasized phrases: “declined to give an open lesbian communion”; “because she is a sexually active homosexual.”
See where it says “because she is a Buddhist”? No? That’s because it wasn’t about her being a Buddhist.
Now look: I am a Buddhist. I’ve never been a Catholic so my knowledge of these things largely comes from reading The Shoes of the Fisherman when I was about 14, and for that reason I haven’t the veriest clue about when it is or is not appropriate to deny Communion to anyone. (Frankly, to me it all seems like a lot of fuss over a piece of matzoh.) I suspect, however, that the Buddhist thing got picked up because the Legacy Media realizes that an awful lot of people would answer the statement “DC area lesbian denied Communion” with “Uh, yeah? And?”
I mean, my understanding is that het couples who are “living in sin” can be denied Communion too. Is it a surprise that a lesbian in an open partnership without marriage would be?
Does the name “Sandra Fluke” ring a bell? You know, the “Georgetown co-ed” who was “denied birth control by her Catholic university” and who turned out to be a thirty year old activist who was telling a fairly implausible and unsourced story about someone she knows who was denied a particular formulation of hormone pills to treat her ovarian cysts — but who turned a religious freedom question into a controversy over contraception?
The whole Buddhist thing is a media red herring, no doubt because it’s more sympathetic somehow to deny her Communion over her Buddhism than over her lesbianism.
Unfortunately, the conservative blogosphere has run baying after the red herring, not the hare.
At my church, the priest usually asks that those who are not Catholics, or who are not old enough to receive the sacrament, (and hence unable to receive eucharist) but would like to participate in the communion rite, approach the priest and cross their hands across chest, and receive a blessing.
It takes but a few moments for a priest to make this request, and helps ensure everyone that wants to participate in the communion rite can do so. It’s very inclusive.
My understanding of the reasoning for why non-Catholics are not allowed to receive the sacrament of eucharist (communion) is that it is generally understood to be a sign of acceptance of Catholic Church teaching. We all know that not every Catholic believes each and every dogmatic teaching as interpreted by the pope; I certainly don’t. But asking non-Catholics to not partake, and instead, accept a blessing by the priest, is not unreasonable or exclusionary per se. It’s up to the priest to detemine how strict or lax they want to be on the this rule (at my own wedding my rather liberal priest gave every Southern Baptist and Presbyterian on my wife’s side communion so they would feel included in the Mass) After all, no one walks around with a sign flashing over thier head saying “I’m a Buddhist”, how would anyone know?
Thanks for getting to the facts Charlie – this was partly a manufactured controversy by the woman in question, and a graceless way for a priest to handle a situation he should be very familar with…
OK, I see your point.
But it remains that the totalitarian media (aka “liberal media”) seem to be engaging in a crusade (pun intended)to overpower the Catholic Church. They want to dictate to the Church what it can or cannot do, this is the point.
Denying the Communion to a lesbian or to a Buddhist makes no difference, it is not the (expletive deleted) business of anyone what the Catholics do in their Churches in matters of religion.
All this is simply an attack to the most constitutionally protected Freedom.
And all this happens in an election year, when you would think that the totalitarians should keep a low profile. Instead they are attacking full force.
Just imagine what they would do in case of victory in November, knowing that they have 4 full years.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but here is
Guarnizo’s account:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/special-report-fr-marcel-guarnizo-defends-himself-against-accusers
Notice that he says it was her open lesbianism that was the issue as well.
You do have a dog in this fight.
The end of religious Freedom entails that the State will be able to do anything to you. Anything.
Sherab,
Yes, I have the dog that you speak of–I fully agree with your comment on religious freedom.
In the comments on Guarnizo’s post, there is a long, scholarly, and rather impenetrable post by a self-identified canon lawyer claiming that Guarnizo’s position is against canon law. I do not have a dog in THAT fight.
Oops. Above post mine.
Charlie – the Buddism thing isn’t a red herring. It’s a shark that devours the whole story. If this woman was a Buddhist, she shouldn’t have presented her self for communion, period, and she darn certain knew it growing up in the family she did. If this woman was a Bhuddist, the outcome was the correct one. And if this woman was a Bhuddist, the Washington Post story should have ended, and/or, mentioned that denial of communion was proper. It’s not a lot of fuss over a piece of matzoh; it is the central teaching of the theology. It is what separates Catholocism from numerous Protestant sects. This is a very big deal and as usual the Post missess the mark because of their ignorance about a particular religion.
Oh, Chris, nonsense. First of all, no one involved said that Buddhism was the issue. If Buddhism wasn’t the issue, then, well, Buddhism isn’t the issue.
No one said she was denied Communion over being a Buddhist until long after the fact, and the priest who actually denied the Communion specifically mentioned the lesbian relationship, not her Buddhism, as the issue.
I’m pretty sure that she wasn’t, as Walt says, wearing a sign saying “Oh, and I’m a Buddhist”. We generally don’t. She apparently was rather pushy about being a lesbian.
Charlie – I don’t care what the timeline is, who said what, when it was said. If this woman is a Buddist, it was good that she was denying communion, period, and who said what when was the real reason matters not a whit to me. But it should have to the Washington Post because the issue is central, core, to Catholic theology.
Charlie – I don’t care what the timeline is, who said what, when it was said. If this woman is a Buddist, it was good that she was denying communion, period, and who said what when was the real reason matters not a whit to me.
Um, what? That seems to come out to “Don’t bother me with the silly facts, I don’t care about the facts.”
It’s really two parts here. Now, as far as denying her Communion for being a Buddhist, as I say I’m not prepared to argue what the Catholic position ought to be. On the other hand, I can say as a Buddhist that the basics of Buddhism, the Apostle’s Creed if you will, comes down to four things: Life can be painful and frustrating; that pain and frustration arises because we have a fantasy of a world in which unpleasant things don’t happen, and pleasant things happen exclusively, and our fantasy keeps being thwarted by reality; that pain and frustration can be eased or avoided by learning not to dwell on that fantasy; and there is a way to learn how not to dwell on that fantasy.
Buddhism doesn’t necessarily mean believing in Gods, in a Heaven, in supernatural beings, you don’t even have to believe Buddha was a real person. (In fact, I think most sutra scholars believe that most of the sutras were at best vague recollections of talks this Siddhartha guy gave, and some, like the Prajnaparamitahridayasutra, seem to have been composed hundred of years after Siddhartha died.)
Just those four things, which are called “the Four Great (or Noble) Truths”.
Now, to me, those four things seem pretty much common sense; I doubt that even the most stringent priest would say agreement with them makes one apostate.
But the real point is this: we know why she was refused Communion. It was because she’s an open lesbian. All the original stories say so. The priest who did it says so. The only way he mentions Buddhism is to say he might refuse Communion to a Buddhist or a Quaker or a Lutheran, but that’s a separate issue. That’s not why he refused this person Communion.
So maybe, somehow, if you believe in the Four Great Truths and refer to the Guy Who Woke Up, you ought to be refused communion; as I say, I can’t judge. But in this case, claiming that she was refused Communion for being a Buddhist is simply not true. It’s wrong. It’s false. It’s not the case.
It didn’t happen.
Why are we letting ourselves get wound around the axle about something that didn’t actually happen?
“It’s really two parts here. Now, as far as denying her Communion for being a Buddhist, as I say I’m not prepared to argue what the Catholic position ought to be.”
I am. And that’s precisely why the Post blew it, as usual. The story should have ended with the fact she is a professed Buddhist. End of story. Full stop. She was properly refused communion. Game over.
“Buddhism doesn’t necessarily mean believing in Gods, in a Heaven, in supernatural beings, you don’t even have to believe Buddha was a real person.”
Therefore, if she was a buddhist as she professed, she should have been nowhere near communion in a Catholic mass and was properly refused, regardless of the reason that you, the Post or the priest says. And therefore, once the Post learned about this fact, it is a non story. Game over.
“But the real point is this: we know why she was refused Communion. It was because she’s an open lesbian.”
Fantastic. 10 bonus points. But that wasn’t the point of my original posting and never once did I contradict that “fact.” Indeed, I pointed out the the Post was creating a fury over the denial of communion to a self-professed Buddhist. Once it is known she is a buddhist, game over, non-story, she was properly denied communion regardless of the reason professed at the time. And if you take the Priest’s account as valid (Something wholly outside my original post; remember, I was talking about the Washington Post making a fury about a self professed buddhist being denied communion and putting it on the front page.
“But in this case, claiming that she was refused Communion for being a Buddhist is simply not true.”
Nor did this contributor in this contributors post. I looked at the issue with the 20-20 vison of hindsight and a the realization that this woman being denied communion was spot on the right thing to do.
(me:)“Buddhism doesn’t necessarily mean believing in Gods, in a Heaven, in supernatural beings, you don’t even have to believe Buddha was a real person.”
(chris:)Therefore, if she was a buddhist as she professed, she should have been nowhere near communion in a Catholic mass and was properly refused, regardless of the reason that you, the Post or the priest says. And therefore, once the Post learned about this fact, it is a non story. Game over.
Oh, Chris, you know better than that. Saying “Buddhism doesn’t require belief X” doesn’t mean “Buddhism requires disbelief in X”.
Compare saying “To be a Catholic doesn’t require believing in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics” doesn’t mean “to be a Catholic requires disbelieving in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.” Or insert any of “… the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment”, or “… the need for universal single-payer health care” or “… the supremacy of Duke Basketball” or “… the improbability of drawing to an inside straight.”
Some Buddhists believe in God — or Gods — some don’t. Siddhartha said the whole question wasn’t productive in dealing with that pain and frustration, and he refused to talk about it. But it simply is not the case that one cannot both believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and what Siddhartha taught. And on that one point, I think there is good authority: Dom Aelred graham wrote a book under imprimatur called Zen Catholicism about that very topic. Or see what Father Robert Kennedy — both a Jesuit priest and a Zen teacher — has to say.
“But it simply is not the case that one cannot both believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and what Siddhartha taught.”
Nonsense. And that is the heart of the matter why she was properly refused communion. Catholicism and Buddhism have mutually exclusive versions of heaven/nirvanna. They have mutually exclusive means to get there. They have mutually inconsistent versions of the afterlife. One is the erasure of self (and forgive my non-buddhist lack of precison because it won’t be the deciding factor) and the other lives in full communion with the transcendent preserving all of one’s divine and individual character while alive. I can go on and on.
Simply, one cannot be a buddhist and properly receive communion in a Cathollic church, period. This isn’t mushy magic; this is ironclad theology that is distinct and harbors no room for the teaching of buddhism within the Catholic theology, period. Any writers to the contrary aren’t conversant in Catholic theology. And once again, the writers of the Post were not, and the story was a non story the moment she admitted being a buddhist.
It doesn’t matter- both are valid reasons for denying Communion. Infidels and impenitent sinners are not to approach Communion, period. If the priest knows for a fact that the person approaching Communion is an infidel or a manifest public sinner, he is not to administer Communion. And furthermore, while Buddhists may claim that one can be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time, Christians do not agree. Why? Because Buddhism believes in reincarnation, while Christianity believes in the resurrection of the dead. These two doctrines are mutually exclusive. Neither is the Buddhist concept of Heaven compatible with Christianity, for Buddhists do not hope for a resurrection, but for escape from life, and they do not desire intimacy with God, but rather detachment.
I don’t disagree that she should have known better (I am sure she did).
I just think the priest could have handled it differently and not given her the fuel (and match) to light this fire.
A priest can not, in good conscience, administer the eucharist to someone he knows to be an impenitent sinner. That would be allowing the sinner to take communion in an unworthy manner, eating and drinking damnation upon herself – that’s fairly basic stuff.
No, he could not have handled it differently.
Your assuming he knows – and in most cases they do not. Since in this case the woman’s position relative to church teachings was known, you may be right. (the other posters below have weighed in on transubstantiation, level of belief, et al.) This was clearly something she did to provoke controversy, and she succeeded.
I’m just glad this guy wasn’t concelebrating when I was getting married. I was fortunate enough to have someone more ecumenically minded, and that gift, regardless of the rules, dogma, state of sin, etc., helped thaw some hard feelings on wife’s family side, and made her eventual conversion to Catholicism a lot easier on her family. (not a lot of Catholics in the NC mountains where they’re from)
No. This isn’t complicated. Communion is a sacrament. Nobody who hasn’t received the sacrament of communion is allowed to receive communion, period. You are no more allowed to receive communion without the sacrament of Communion than you are allowed to have sex without the sacrament of marriage, or hear confessions without the sacrament of ordination.
This is not at all complicated.
I’m not sure what Charlie’s point is. Receiving communion without the sacrament is like driving a car without a licence. It isn’t permitted. Period. Nothing to do with lesbianism, though being a Buddhist would make you at best a lapsed Catholic and void your right to receive communion.
So what’s the scandal?
Snork – “What’s the scandal?” This was precisely my limited point in the original posting I made. The Washington Post elevates this to front page status, but sees nothing wrong (apparently) with a Buddhist seeking communion in a Catholic church. That is the Alpha and Omega of the story. Or in the case of the Washington Post, it should have been the Omega of the story.
It was a B15 story, at best.
This post makes no sense. Communion is a sacrament. You have to have the sacrament in order to receive the sacrament?
Rather: participation in communion means an acceptance of and unity in doctrine (this is what “communion” means). Lutherans (LCMS, anyway) also practice closed communion; not to imply that visitors aren’t Christian, but because we wish to emphasize the communal acceptance of the teachings of the faith. There is also the Christian teaching that those who receive communion improperly (without repentance and acceptance of Christian teachings) do so to their damnation, and we would not wish to be party to this.
The actual issue here is the Post’s article and handling of the story. I don’t see this particular story covered there yet, but a good place to see the presses’ mishandling of stories having a religious element is at Get Religion.org (http://www.getreligion.org/). In general, reporters do not understand religion and are much too lazy to investigate stories in which it plays a substantial element properly.
The problem here is that the OP stumbled over words. The original post should read that anyone who hasn’t received the Sacrament of Reconciliation cannot receive Communion.
Snork, for something that is “not all that complicated,” you sure make a bang-up job of confusing the situation. “Nobody who hasn’t…” Huh? Double negative means what? “You are no more allowed to receive communion without the sacrament of Communion…” Huh? You don’t receive but you receive?
My children approach the communion rail and receive a blessing, but they have not received the Sacrament. The public face of communing is not just about receiving the Sacrement, but about your public profession that you believe the teachings of your church (for example, the presence of Christ’s Body & Blood during communion). That is why people should not commune in Churches of different faiths. If you receive communion at any and every church you want, what DO you really beleive in?
The other issue with communion is taking the Sacrament after you have repented of your sins. No one who is living in pride in their sinfulness should receive the Sacrament. Furthermore, if you are struggling with your faith, it would be better to stay away from communion until you do have a repentant heart and a mind at peace with the Grace and Mercy of God.
God is ulimately the judge of who is acceptable and not acceptable to receive the Sacrament, however I would be much happier with a minister that practiced from his heart rather than worrying about what people will think.
It was also another round fired at the Catholic church. Why the press and Democrats are trying to get an anti-Papist campaign going, I don’t know, but it’s making me very, very nervous.
Hi,
Seems to me the Post is reporting on a controversy within the Catholic church, not arguing that the priest had his theology wrong or right. This is what it should be doing, since it has neither authority or reason to make church rules about who is and who is not allowed communion. The priest was suspended. The Post did not do that, but just reported it.
While the Catholic church would not accept that someone could be a Buddhist and a Catholic at the same time, a Buddhist could certainly (publicly) affirm the transmutation of Christ’s blood and body into the Eucharist (Gobblemon) making it high integrity for a Buddhist Catholic to receive communion. To such a person who feels they could hold to being both a Catholic and a Buddhist, Jesus would be either a Boddhisattva or a Buddha capable of many miraculous feats for the benefit of living beings, particular given that all things are empty of their own intrinsic nature, and thus can be transformed into the blissful nectar of liberation (or for Catholics, the blood and the body).
Sherab Zangpo (oh Excellent Wisdom, display some please!), who is allowed or not allowed to take communion is something for the Catholic church to decide and no one other than the Catholic church is deciding it. Not the state, nor the Post, nor anyone else outside of the church is in a position to dictate what the priests are supposed to do (as long as they abide by U.S. law – no child molesting). However, the Archdiocese of Washington is certainly allowed to suspend its own priests, and your ranting against such a move as somehow infringing on the 1st amendment rights would be laughable if it were not so sad and slightly scary.
Not that I am in agreement or even sympathetic with your theological positions regarding the Eucharist, but even if I were, it seems fairly glaring to the general population that taking the opportunity of a mother’s funeral to publicly shame a parishioner (whether for being gay or a Buddhist) is a pretty low blow. I think the Post putting this story on the front page is more a reflection of that than anything else. My advice, take the high road.
Then those attending Mass (for a wedding, funeral or otherwise) need to avoid creating a situation where the priest has no choice but to publicly shame them. Had she stayed in her pew, there would be no issue. Had she crossed her arms over her chest, she would have received a blessing instead of a rebuke. Had she kept silent about being a homosexual and an apostate, her sacrilege would be on her alone. Instead, she declared herself to be an unrepentant sinner and insisted on presenting herself for Communion, leaving the priest no choice but to embarrass her by denying her Communion.
I see the author is ignorant of both religion and a good bit of intellectual history. In the age of Google the failure to understand the role of Holy Communion in Catholic worship is inexcusably for a public intellectual writing about the subject.
Catholics believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. That doctrine holds that when the priest says Jesus Christ’s words from the Last Supper “This is my body” and “This is my blood” the bread and wine before him becomes the actual flesh and blood of our Lord himself in substance but not in form. Hence the Catholic practices of Eucharistic Adoration and the Eucharistic Procession. The first being the act placing the consecrated host in an elaborate cross shaped display case on the altar for contemplation and prayer. The second being the act of carrying the consecrated host in that case at the head of a procession of worshipers singing hymns. Along with the Primacy of the the Pope and Justification by Faith alone, Transubstantiation was one of the key intellectual battlegrounds of the Protestant Reformation.
Thus Holy Communion for Catholics is not merely a symbolic gesture, diesting a bit of matzoh in the jejune phasing of the author. It is the act of actually becoming one with our Lord and Savior Because of this belief Catholics consider it deeply sacrilegious for anyone who does not share this belief or who is knowingly in a state of grave sin to seek and receive Holy Communion.
The Catholic Church is both universal and eternal but it is not inclusive nor are its tenets severable like some poorly worded clause in a hastily drafted piece of legislation. Thus if Ms. Johnson believes in Transubstantiation she also must believe that she is not in a fit state to receive His body and blood while in an active sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage. If she doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation because she adheres to an incompatible set of religious beliefs such as Buddhism, she is also in an unfit state to receive communion. Either way the priest did the right thing.
Many devout Catholics applaud the act of denying communion to someone with an openly sacrilegious attitude. Indeed, we feel that too many of our priests and bishops have been overly patient for far too long with cafeteria Catholics, puerile rabble rousers and pro abortion politicians who misrepresent our faith to lazy and gullible journalists.
NC Mountain Girl,
I assume you were speaking to me when you said the “author,” though your post is not a direct reply. In either case, I suppose I will take an opportunity to respond.
If one did not believe that being gay or being Buddhist was a sin (and it may be safe to assume that Barbara Johnson is of this disposition), then (according to that person) she would not be in sin when going through the ritual of communion. Thus, for her, it would be a high integrity act for her to take communion at her mother’s funeral to honor that connection and her connection to the divine. Now, please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this would be an act condoned by the Catholic church. I am saying this is a high integrity act given her own beliefs.
Honestly, I could not care less what the Catholic church decides in terms of denying or allowing communion. As a matter of principle, it seems it is usually best to not assume others are “living in grave sin.” Even if you have witnessed them “sinning,” how to do you know they have not been forgiven? That is something that happens, no? To me, it is just absurd to think that someone is going to hell either because they are gay or because they are a Buddhist. I do believe very much in the existence of Hell, by the way. When you say stuff like that, it makes you look crazy to me.
So, to sum up: my position was and is that the Church can decide who it wants to give communion to however it wants, though it may end up with less and less intelligent parishioners depending on how it makes that choice. And second, someone who defines as a Buddhist Catholic could take commmunion and be high integrity in their actions vis-a-vie his or her beliefs (which is not the position that therefore the Catholic church thinks it is A-OK). Got it?
First of all, Advocate, it was not a matter of wanting to “publicly shame a parishioner.” If you are an unrepentant sinner or are not in doctrinal fellowship with the Church (and this woman was, apparently, both) you don’t get to receive communion. Period. Communion is not simply some frivolous ceremony that Christians do on Sundays, it cuts to the core of what means to be Christian in the first place.
Secondly, your contentions about “high integrity” are meaningless. Buddhism may be nebulous enough that a practitioner can claim to be both Buddhist and Christian, Christianity is not. Faith is meaningless unless the object of the faith has reality and can deliver on the expectations. Modern society uses the term “faith” interchangeably with “magic” – it is the firmness of the will, the intensity of the hope that delivers. Christianity does not, it uses the term in the financial and legal sense: “good faith” means that we, like the bank, trust the object of the faith, in this case God, to deliver on the contract and pay the bills.
Likewise, personal “integrity” to a meaningless creed is itself meaningless. Sure, a Buddhist may believe that Christ is a Boddhisattva; but given the historical teachings of both the Church and Buddhism, even a cursory examination shows that this is meaningless – the two faiths are mutually contradictory and exclusive. Such a person would only show their ignorance. If such a person were to present themselves as a Christian for a Christian rite of such importance as communion it would certainly show either a lack of person integrity or a great deal of ignorance and foolishness.
Paul,
It is not a matter of Buddhism being “nebulous,” it is a matter of it being based on reason and not merely faith. Thus Bodhisattvas can and do exist in any culture, not just the ones with something called “Buddhism” in them. So, yes, it is not as simplistic a formulation as the Catholic doctrine, and thus leaves more room for reasoned interpretation. In the case of Jesus, his demonstrated compassion, healing abilities, and message of putting others before oneself, make it hard for someone who is a Buddhist and who finds those accounts credible, not to think of him as a Bodhisattva (awakened being). A Bodhisattva is someone who seeks the liberation of all beings from suffering, through taking suffering upon themselves, through learning ways of alleviating suffering through healing powers and other miraculous feats, and who (most importantly) teaches the path to liberation. By those standards, it is clear to see that Christ would likely qualify. Now, the Buddha himself sometimes taught provisional teachings for people who could not understand more advanced teachings, and so would allow the existence of the self and so on, so that the people listening would have faith in right and wrong, behave correctly (non-harm to others) and not go to Hell. A Buddhist could easily interpret Jesus’ teachings (but certainly not every doctrine of the Church) as an example of just such provisional teachings, because they advise people not to kill, steal, and so on, promote compassion, and encourage people to purify their sins through regret and so on. This allows people to avoid Hell, even though it does not get them to liberation or enlightenment in this life, and so is a valuable teaching even if it is not the final teaching.
In Buddhism, to be a Buddhist one needs to have faith in the 3 Jewels: the Buddha, his teachings, and the community of practitioners. In addition, one must accept the 4 seals, 1)all composite things are impermanent 2)all contaminated things are suffering 3) all phenomena are empty 4) nirvana is peace. These are the requirements for being a Buddhist. Since I described above how a Buddhist who has ties to the Catholic tradition could interpret Jesus as a Boddhisattva, that makes him at least in the community aspect of the 3 Jewels. There is nothing in the 4 seals that is contradicted by Christianity to such an extent that one could not accept those teachings, albeit as provisional teachings. Given such a circumstance, based on reason and not “nebulousity”, one could take communion as an act of unifying with the divine, which to this person would be synonymous with the omniscient compassionate awakened mind. This would not be an act that is likely to be sanctioned by the Catholic Church, but it would be one of spiritual integrity owing to a philosophical coherence of thought and action.
Faith is a good thing, when it “includes the doubt of itself” as in Paul Tillich’s formulation or when it allows for the support of reason. When it denies those, that strength of will is wielded by the blind, and history has seen the wreckage wrought.
Now, I am not saying necessarily that this person Barbara Johnson had this whole interpretation behind her when she went for communion. I do not know her, and I certainly do not know her thoughts.
It is also possible that she went for confession somewhere else and was thus forgiven her sins, making her available for the taking of communion. The denial of the priest presupposed that this was not so, publicly saying that she was a sinner and outside the fold or whatnot. Hence “public shaming at her mother’s funeral.”
Good luck.
I did not articulate myself as well as you. Simply laying hands on her and whispering a prayer could have accomplished the goal of extending her sympathy: denying her communion but not highlighting it (and maybe avoiding this mess). I wasn’t there but there seems to me that he had other options, but it appears i am in the minority on this one.
Sorry, you’re still demonstrating a lack of understanding of Christianity. Jesus is exclusive, and demands exclusivity. He said of Himself, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me.” Furthermore, Buddhism is at odds with the resurrection of the dead, a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. For Christ to be of any use, He must have risen from the dead, and if He is risen, so shall we either rise from the dead or pass into eternity without dying (depending on whether or not we live to see His return). Someone who denies that Jesus literally rose from the dead or that there will be a literal Second Coming and bodily resurrection of the dead simply is not a Christian, and we cannot admit them to Communion.
Do not misunderstand, Christianity does not only believe in the immortality of the soul, but also that the body was built for eternity. If we live to see Christ’s return, we shall be judged in our flesh. If we die before then, we shall be raised to life. The righteous shall be immortal and live with Christ forever on a perfected Earth. The wicked will be cast into Gehenna, where they shall be in a state of perpetual agony, burned but not consumed by the flames.
If one did not believe that being gay or being Buddhist was a sin (and it may be safe to assume that Barbara Johnson is of this disposition), then (according to that person) she would not be in sin when going through the ritual of communion.
If she is a Buddhist it is assumed that she does not believe in the Sacrament of Communion. If she is a Buddhist then why would she bother? She is not in Communion. And therefore has no right to receive it. Being a Baptist is not a sin, either, but a Baptist does not get to take Communion. It seems that she did this deliberately to put the priest on the spot.
Thus, for her, it would be a high integrity act for her to take communion at her mother’s funeral to honor that connection and her connection to the divine.
“Integrity” had nothing to do with her tactics. Furthermore, honoring a relative is not the purpose of Holy Communion. It’s definitely NOT a “high integrity” act to try and take Holy Communion when you don’t even believe in the sacrament itself. And if this was a political stunt then shame on her.
Wow, Advocate…
“If one did not believe that being gay or being Buddhist was a sin (and it may be safe to assume that Barbara Johnson is of this disposition), then (according to that person) she would not be in sin when going through the ritual of communion.” According to your sliderule, I could decide for myself what is sinful or not. That’s pretty convenient, because then we could all decide that none of us are sinners, we’re just disagreeing on something. Even if I could fall for such a belief, it seems to me that path leads to the person with the most money or biggest gun ending up on the top of the heap. There isn’t any hope in that.
“A Buddhist could easily interpret Jesus’ teachings (but certainly not every doctrine of the Church) as an example of just such provisional teachings” It’s mighty fine that a Buddhist could read the Holy Bible and pick up a few good words to live by. In fact, the Proverbs provide a lot of good sense teachings that everyone can benefit from… along with Aesop’s fables, the Brother’s Grimm fairy tales and any other nice story you can find. The problem for a Christian (which is why they couldn’t be a Buddhist) is that we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, true God and true Man. It is His death & resurrection that provide our only way to heaven. We’ve been given the Holy Bible by God so we don’t need to interpret anything – it’s spelled out in black and white.
“It is also possible that she went for confession somewhere else and was thus forgiven her sins, making her available for the taking of communion. The denial of the priest presupposed that this was not so, publicly saying that she was a sinner and outside the fold or whatnot. Hence “public shaming at her mother’s funeral.” We could sit here all day and make up ‘what if’ stories about how it could be right for this woman to take communion. The over-riding point is: It wasn’t right for her to take communion and as a (once) Catholic she knew better. By making this into a public spectle she is the one who shamed herself.
“When you say stuff like that, it makes you look crazy to me. ” That’s OK with us Christians, because to agree with your beliefs is to embrace something very foreign and strange. Good luck with that.
Gobblemon, you could decide what you believe is sinful and not, and you do every day (though you may use your trust in the church’s opinion as a proxy). That does not mean that you get to avoid the consequences if you are wrong (e.g. Hell). Same goes for everyone.
Yes, indeed one could take from many sources, such as fables and stories, even blockbuster movies may contain many interesting and helpful ideas. What I was saying with a hypothetical Buddhist inclusion of Jesus and his teaching was a bit more than that though. This is an interpretation of Jesus as a Bodhisattva doing the good work of liberating beings by teaching a path that leads to higher rebirth (if not final liberation). I am not suggesting that one could interpret Grimm as a bodhisattva because there are some lessons to be learned about the Big Bad Wolf. The description of Jesus fits with the specific (and not at all nebulous) definitions of who is and who is not a bodhisattva (working for others’ benefit, healing powers, leading others on a path to spiritual goals such as a better life after death).
You are a bigger fool than I thought if you think you can read the Bible without interpretation. A literal reading is itself an interpretation which implies a choice on the part of the reader (that’s you). Check here for some great consequences of such a reading, including an answer to “Why Can’t I own a Canadian?” http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
The point about the possibility of confession is that from the priest’s point of view, he was then presuming to know the state of her soul, which might be presumptuous.
Your looking not crazy to me is not equivalent to your agreeing with my beliefs, which is what your statement is implying: “That’s OK with us Christians, because to agree with your beliefs is to embrace something very foreign and strange.” Crazy is hard to talk with, because the conversation hits a wall of irreality, which it is why noncrazy people tend to explain their positions using something called reason.
Belief is not an argument.
Again, you miss the point. The point is that we cannot compromise on doctrine by saying that Christ is anything other than the ONLY Savior of mankind, and furthermore, that He is risen from the dead and that our future is resurrection/transformation, not reincarnation, nonexistence or an eternity as a spirit.
You can say this makes us sound crazy, but we don’t care. Indeed, we expect you to think we’re crazy if you don’t convert, because our Scripture states, “The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but to we who are being saved by it, it is the Power of God.”
That’s cool that you quote that scripture, and I have no problem with you not agreeing with my position here. Just to clarify, what is crazy is not necessarily your beliefs, but the way you hold them in open and defiant disregard to reality. That is not to say that your beliefs are necessarily wrong, but that if you knew they were false because you were confronted with the evidence of reason and sense, you would still believe them. That is crazy. If I am wrong in that characterization, I both apologize and rejoice!
I get it, you guys are really into the whole specialness thing: the ONLY savior and whatnot. “We are part of the good club and everyone else is screwed and going to hell, “perishing” if you will.” It just looks so petty, like a junior high mentality. Why would not God show himself in other cultures and other forms? Could it be that this narrow view of the Divine you espouse may be lacking to encompass His “mysterious ways”?
Again here I am reasoning with you, and perhaps reason is not something you are interested in.
The post I put above also responds to your critiques of my position on how someone could be a Buddhist and also believe in the Sacrament (bold or not) of Communion, so I will not post again. The timing meant that I was writing the above post while you were posting this.
As others have commented the author obviously has no knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Eucharist. It is considered sacrilege for anyone not baptized in the faith and a practicing Catholic to recieve Communion, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, straight, gay or indifferent. She could be a pantheist and believe Jesus Christ is one of her many gods, but that doesn’t make her a Catholic.
On second thought I wonder why she didn’t go to an Episcopal Church to recieve Communion? She and her partner would have been celebrated, and as a lesbian Buddhist she may have even become a Bishop some day! Not as newsworthy though, I guess.
A Buddhist Catholic?
Is that similar to:
Muslim Christian? Mormon Hindu? Amish Atheists? Satanic Buddhists?
Or, what about Satanic Muslim Catholic Protestant Hindu Buddhist Taoists?
Who needs drugs when PJ media has such wonderous blogposts
Maybe the Buddhists should limit their concern to Buddhism and leave Catholics alone in their faith, hmm? It does not matter one whit what this woman believes; since she is not a Catholic in good standing, she is not entitled to the sacrament.
Unless you think political theater by a Buddhist trumps the liberty of Catholics, of course.
look, by catholic doctrine, you are encountering the living god embodied in a piece of bread and some wine. We have the entire old testament talking about how dangerous it was to encounter said Living God in the flesh- priests wore a string tied to their ankle so that they could be pulled from the sanctuary if they were struck down. Animals would die if they touched the ark, where, the Living God said was his address on earth at the time. People did die if they touched the ark, even to steady it. It’s in the Bible. In Acts, when people lied in the presence of the Holy Spirit, they died. If you’re pagan-think of all the Greek myths.
It’s really not a safe procedure, all things considered. Greek Orthodox people do things like not eat or drink for twelve hours beforehand. They also don’t
Mr. Martin, I think the point Mr. Adams was raising was that had the Washington Post actually done its research as a legitimate newspaper should have, the reported story would have included the fact that she was Buddhist from the beginning. I personally do not think this was even a newsworthy story to begin with (the Catholic Church followed its own rules . . . and?), but if you’re going to report a story, get the facts first. You’re absolutely right that the stated reason was, until now, her being a lesbian, but her being a Buddhist adds another important dimension to the story (even if the priest denied her communion solely because she was a lesbian, he had a second, equally legitimate under Catholic law, reason he could have denied communion, without even knowing he had the reason).
But, again, I don’t think this was even a story worth reporting. It was only reported at all–let alone in the manner in which it was reported–to gin up opposition to the Catholic Church among the PC crowd.