Barbara Johnson was an exceptionally religious woman, age 51. She went to church, took the sacraments, went to confession–and loved another woman. This was her reality–a reality she did not hide from her family or anyone close.
When Barbara’s elderly mother was dying, Barbara Johnson lay next to her on the hospital bed, reciting the “Hail Mary.” It was a prayer both loved and had prayed over the decades together as well as alone.
Loetta Johnson, 85, had been a livelong devout Catholic. She raised her four children in the Roman Catholic Church and sending them to Roman Catholic schools. When Loetta died, a part of Barbara died.
At her mother’s funeral mass at the St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, a grieving Barbara Johnson was the first in line to receive communion. This was normal behavior for the devoutly Roman Catholic woman.
What happened next stunned her. The priest refused Johnson, who is gay, the sacramental bread and wine. As her brother, Larry Johnson told ABC News affiliate WJLA: “He covered the bowl with the Eucharist with his hand and looked at me, and said [']I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin in the eyes of the church['],” No it is not a sin. Sin is the product of one person going against the free will and consent of another; only with redactions of ancient writings do the gods of the Old Testament interfere–but weakly as they watch the struggle between mortals.
The greatest lesbian story in the Christian bible is the account of Naomi and Ruth.
Naomi and Ruth were, allegedly, two women living together (Ruth 1:1-19). There was no major age difference, as Renaissance and Early Modern artists have attempt to depict the two females, as both “had known” men and thus neither was a “virgin”–a word that had nothing to do with a hymen or sexuality, but a word that meant “a young girl” (usually under the age of 13). At best there was fifteen years difference between them, but more likely eight to ten.
Far from being a female of extraordinary purity and honest, it was Ruth who seduced Boaz (Ruth 2:1). Although acclaimed a king, he was known to be her “kinsman” coming from the family of Elimelech. Wasting little time after the gleaning and thrashing, Ruth slid beneath her “cousin’s” (a word commonly used for a close relative) beneath his cloak and committed an act of incest. While the Bible does condemn it (Leviticus 18:6), no one paid much attention to the “Law of Moses”. It was common in the days that the various writers began to pen the Old Testament (Genesis 20:12-13 for Abrahama and Sarah (Abram sells her no less than twice to kings/pharaohs to extort gold, flocks, cattle, and slaves; while Sarah allows two messengers, the number varies from one to three, to impregnate her as she declares “the lord[s] entered me” (el–אל, إل or إله –is a Northwest Semetic word for god, lord, husband and master that the latter-day Hebrews, mercenary soldiers for the Hittites and Akaddians, took over when defining their pantheon of gods: לוהִים; originally El was the husband of the more powerful Asherah as recorded in the clay tablets of Ugarit: (modern Rās Shamrā: رأس شمرا, Syria; the word “angel” is a mistranslation of the word “messenger”: מלאך the correct Greek translation would be ἀγγήλου and not the fabricated fourth century ἄγγελος) Nechor and Melcha in Genesis 11:26-29; Lot and his daughters in Genesis 19-30-36; Amram and aunt Jochabed in Exodus 6:19-20; Amnon and his sister Thamar who was still “a virgin” in 2 Kings 13:1-2; etc). most families were formed from it, as was the case when the two daughters of Lot made their father drank, had sex with him, and each of the young women became pregnant by their own father (Genesis 19:30-38) while he allegedly slept in a drunken stupor.
There is no difference in the pagan account of Ruth and Boaz than there is in the Akaddian account of Lot and his daughters. The sole difference being that Ruth “stole the seed” from Boaz so she could find support for herself and Naomi, while the daughters of Lot had incest “to carry on the family”.
This is a part of the mythology of Onan who “spilled his seed upon the ground” (coitus interruptus) so that he would not give a son to the name of his deceased brother Er (Genesis 38:8-10). For his action, Onan was executed by a very human god.
Marriage is not sacred in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament. Most of the time it was incestuous between brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter, uncles and nieces, nephews and aunts, and even between as was the great love affair between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1 f) more than women (2 Samuel 1:26), which is a plagiarism from the tryst and ultimate love affair of Achilles
love for Patroclus. In both cases, the two lovers help each other, in times of peace and war, in tending sheep as well as warding off criticism from an overlord.
According to the Bible that the priest is obviously unfamiliar with, the love affair between David and Jonathan lasted for fifteen years (cp. 1 Samuel 20:17). The fact that the essayists who wrote the books of Samuel would detail the length of time notes that there was no objection to same-sex love or living (in those days, two people who loved and lived together were considered married, as no where in the bible does it make the claim that marriage was between one man and one woman. It was common for most men to have more than one wife, as did all of the sons of Abraham, and his successors. Even the Jesus of the New Testament let “the one whom he loved” (John the Beloved) rest his head upon his chest.
This was not the only error in Biblical knowledge by the contemptible, depraved, despicable, iniquitous, loathsome, noxious, perverted, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, venal, vicious, vile, vulgar, wretched predatory priest Father Marcel Guarnizo, a Vicar at Saint John Neumann Catholic Church and a foreign agent against American values in Gaithersburg, Maryland who pays fond attention to pre-teen altar boys but refused Ms. Johnson communion—only learning that she is a lesbian before the service to bury her mother. This parasitic priest has no memory (and a base parochial education) on the injunction of Jesus in Matthew 7:1 that forbids all people from judging others—a rule ignored by vanity Christians.
Like his superior, Reverend Thomas G. LaHood (a man of little courage and ability to champion the weak), Guarnizo believes himself more powerful than his god who, according to Acts 10:24 does not make judgments on people. Guarnizao however speaks the insanity of ex cathedra (even John Henry cardinal Newman, a British subject who converted to the Roman Catholic religion rejected the absurdity of infallibility before the pontiff preachificated on it without biblical foundation; see Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, p. 120 arguing that the position needed to be minimized) although such authority was never given to any mortal (it is a misreading of Matthew 16:18 that was added centuries later; the original is written in Pashitta).
Marcel Guarnizo represents that worse in Roman Catholicism that he put on public display when he rapidly exited in the middle of the funeral, and falsely claimed he was too ill to go to the cemetery to deliver the final blessings. No priest in the performance of his duties is allowed to leave the altar unless he either dies or is pulled away against his will, as seen in the assassination/martyrdom of Thomas of Canterbury (“St. Thomas á Becket) who was slain before the altar because he did not run from Henry II’s mercenaries.
Barbara Johnson was repudiated by the very church she and her mother had grown up in and contributed to its coffers—money later used to buy silence of youths betrayed by the priests of the parish. Her older brother, Larry Johnson, couldn’t believe what he had seen. Her brother told ABC News, “I walked to the side of the church to console her, because she was clearly distraught”.
Larry Johnson said his sister, who has been in a committed gay relationship for 19 years, had given time, money, and energy to her church, and who had been among the most committed of Roman Catholics, composed herself enough to give her mother’s eulogy, but then he was shocked at what happened next. The priest left the altar, Johnson said, and didn’t return until his sister was nearly finished speaking. Guarnizo has a reputation equal to most of the male clergy in the Roman Catholic circles–indifference to suffering, hate, loathing and despising equal to or surpassing that of New York’s new cardinal Nolan, and other pathetic reprobates.
Family members added that Marcel Guarnizo, the judgmental priest who lectures on economics, philosophy and destroying democracy at the Conservative Economic Quarterly Lecture Series (CEQLS) held by the Conservative Institute of M. R. Štefánik in Bratislava, Slovakia. It is linked with the Koch Brothers of Kansas who own 50% of the Cato Institute and want to buy controlling interest to determine markets worldwide. The Cato Institute argues that the market will determine wages and prices on commodities and that there is to be no government interference even if the workers make marginal income and the owners or captains of industry make obscene profits, as with the Koch brothers. It is opposed to any labor regulatory laws, rejects laws mandating employee protection, and seeks a return to the nineteenth century concept of free enterprise. Cuarnizo is a favorite for this nefarious organization as he claims that the Jesus of the New Testament, as he interprets this illusive figure, was a free-market exponent and proponent and that true Christians will negotiate their wages even if the wages are not a living wage.
Many of those familiar with the fascism expounded by Cuarnizo claim that Cuarnizo would have condemned Jesus for associating with adulteresses and fornicators, eaten with tax collectors and Pharisees. Guarnizo is worse than the foul-mouthed self-flagellante Josemaria Escrivá. He is an equal to the Grand Inquisitor in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov; like the Grand Inquisitor, Marcel shows no love of god) in that Guarnizo failed to come to the grave site.
When Marcel walked off the ground and away from the burial ceremony as Judas left after kissing Jesus on the mouth, the burial was attended by a substitute priest found by the funeral director at the last moment. Barbara and her brother Larry Johnson were outraged at what occurred on “what would already have been the worst day of my life” Larry declared. Rightfully the Johnsons demanded that the priest be removed from the church.
The Johnson’s petition for the ouster of Marcel Guarnizo from dealings with parishioners. Guarnizo showed no empathy, sympathy, or understanding. Guarnizo was the ultimately indifferent cleric more interested in his private life and stature than the needs of his parishioners.
The Johnsons also believe that Guarnizo owes them an apology. As Larry Johnson put it, “This isn’t about gay rights and it isn’t about Catholic bashing, it is simply about the conduct of a reprehensible priest.” The priest has forgotten that all of the great love stories in his Bible focus on gay committed relationships, especially those of lesbians. Like all biblical illiterates, Guarnizo ignores that the word homosexual does not appear in any version of the Bible before the middle of the twentieth century. The word, homosexual, does not even appear in the lexicon of the English language until the last decade of the nineteenth century. The only sexual action condemned was that action used in a pagan worship or ceremony.
The head of DignityUSA, a group that focuses on gay and lesbian rights and the Catholic Church, sees the incident as part of a wider problem. Marianne Duddy-Burke commented, “The reality is, in some ways, it is very emblematic of the hierarchy’s approach to gay people, transgender people. There are little messages of rejection that happen all the time.” Guarnizo was overtly and contemptuously a bully and any one who would attack a grieving person should have paid a price: he should have pulled or pushed from the altar and suffered the justifiable wrath of those he bullied. Bullies are not human beings and deserve no mercy. His Superior is even worse, and deserves the full condemnation of all people for his milquetoast attitude and inability to control his clergy.
When various news organizations attempted to contact Guarnizo, following the example of Count Dracul, this mendacious minister assigned to the ceremony did not return an email nor a telephone call asking for a comment about the incident. The unctuous and unscrupulous sycophant sacerdotal saw himself above reproach and rejoiced in the support of those who intoned his superiority over that of another congregant. These partisan proponents noted that the priest was “a priest of god and spoke for god” in contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14:2.
Barbara Johnson had an appropriate response: “You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment [sic: Day of Judgment, originally the invention of the ancient Egyptian c. 3500 BCE] 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.” Guarnizo is a threat to the USA and to democracy in general, as perfidiously praetorian and execrable and flagitious as Josemaria Escrivá, where both seek a theocracy without compassion for anyone as he is an agent for the Slovakian Roman Catholic Church with the goal of overthrowing democracy in the world in the same manner as Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and others who want to transmogrify the nation.
Initially the Archdiocese of Washington had no public comment about the priest’s behavior. It later issued a statement that indicated Guarnizo should have taken up the matter of whether Johnson could receive communion in private. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion,” the statement said, “it is not the policy of the Archdiocese to Washington to publicly reprimand the person.” The archdiocese demurred, saying that it was looking into the incident and that it would handle it as a personnel issue.
Later Larry Johnson received a letter of apology late on Tuesday from Rev. Barry Christopher Knestout, a high-ranking archdiocese figure with the rank of bishop, who said he was “concerned” about the treatment Johnson and her family received. The archdiocese noted that it was against policy to deny anyone communion. Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”
Duddy-Burke of DignityUSA believes the response misses the point. “I would hope that it provides a wake-up call to church leaders to make them see where the extremes of their policy are leading,” telling the Washington Post. “My concern is they will just see this as an isolated incident and fail to see the context.”
Both Larry and Barbara Johnson have received letters from the archdiocese of Washington apologizing “that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life … was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity.” Larry Johnson appreciated the letters and the sentiment behind them.
In his letter to the archdiocese, Johnson noted that the Church’s teachings in relation to personal behavior are complex issues. Johnson wondered if the priest has any right to determine who is able to receive communion “without any discussion, insight or spiritual awareness” of the person presenting themselves before him.
Both Barbara and Larry Johnson “agreed this is not a discussion about gay rights, or about the teachings of the Catholic Church. We’re not in this to Catholic-bash. That’s the farthest thing from our minds. We just want the public square to have knowledge of what this priest did.” Some fellow Catholics have shared their distress about the incident, he said. He added, “What’s wrong with a church that at the most vulnerable time of someone’s life, someone decides to make a stand in a public way about the state of their soul, without any conversation or inquiry — how can that be consistent with teachings about Christianity?”