This one was called in by same-sex attracted Catholics, who felt left out of these gatherings, because they were chaste. You might want to see this.

http://protectthepope.com/?p=6250

Homosexuals are not completely barred from the priesthood. They are given a probationary period, to see if they can live the life.

You are right that spiritual fatherhood is important to the priesthood. In the sense that Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bride. The feminity of the church includes it’s male members as well.

We are all feminine in relation to God, regardless of biological sex.

This distinction between Christ and church, male and female, keeps the faith from slipping into dualism where opposites are the same or the infinite diversity of creation is reduced to bland sameness.

Fr. Guarnizo is actually incardinated to the archdiocese of Moscow, so there’s a limit to what Wuerl could do to him.

But Wuerl did suspend his faculties to provide the sacraments in the archdiocese of Washington, and so his time as a priest at his Gaithersburg parish came to an end.

I do agree with you here: it was an extraordinarily bizarre and messy affair.

Richard M,

To be fair to all sides, it was an extraordinarily bizarre and messy affair, and the woman who was denied communion in my opinion acted very badly and vindictively in the wake of the incident. But the priest who denied her communion was not acting in accordance with canon law, and he was not suspended.

I think it would cause a sensation if any American bishop issued a statement that any married Catholics in his diocese using contraceptives must refrain from communion and any planning to get married must not cohabit and must solemnly swear not to use contraceptives after they were married, or they could not be married in the Church.

That would be a laudable thing. Not that our bishops have been very courageous about speaking out sexual sins – of whatever sort – since 1968 (if indeed not before). It is not surprising that many Catholics contracept when no one in the Church ever bothers to teach about it, or provide the reasoning for the teaching.

In fact, I know couples who have been told by pastors that they may not marry in the Church until they cease cohabiting. And the pastors will insist on instruction on the Church’s teaching on sex within marriage. There are *some* in the Church who take this sort of thing seriously.

I think liberal Catholics might grumble if a bishop declared no one in his diocese in a same-sex relationship was eligible to receive communion.

We’ve just seen exactly how one major metropolitan ordinary deals with just this situation: When one of his priests denied communion to a woman who had presented herself and her lesbian lover, Cardinal Donald Wuerl disavowed the action and suspended his priest. And yes, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by liberals in the area. They couldn’t take it out on the cardinal, so they took it out on the priest (and, in a few cases, bashed the cardinal anyway, by association).

Of course, whether a priest should give communion to a communicant known to him as being in grave sin is distinct from whether they should receive in the first place. But the rule is clear on the latter, even if many bishops are too afraid to speak out on the subject, let alone proclaim the rule (or enforce it).

jason taylor,

I don’t see how this is a problem for the point I am making, which is that the Catholic Church explicitly endorses viewing gender as a fundamental part of one’s identity, and implicitly endorses viewing a heterosexual orientation as a fundamental part of one’s orientation. The vocation of most men is to be fathers and husbands, and the vocation of most women is to be wives and mothers. Sacramental marriage requires sexual intercourse. The Church doesn’t say, “Embrace your heterosexual orientation,” simply because it has not had a name for most of the Church’s history and even now is the norm and need not be spoken. Even priests are called “father” and required to be “spiritual fathers.” The Church constantly emphasizes how important gender and heterosexuality are for all of its members. It just doesn’t use the word heterosexuality.

My point is that it is foolish to say people should not define themselves by their gender and sexual orientation. Almost everyone does, and they are expected to. If I argued that because heterosexuals define themselves by their orientation, and consequently homosexuals should as well, there would of course be Catholic objections. But what people mean when they say it is wrong or misguided to define oneself by one’s sexual orientation is that is wrong for homosexuals. It is pretty much required of heterosexuals.

One gets the impression that married Catholics who quietly use contraception without anyone knowing are tacitly accepted as Catholics in good standing with the Church, in spite of the Church’s teachings against contraception. It is made very clear, however, that those living quietly in same-sex relationships are most definitely not, and can never be, accepted as Catholics in good standing.

I think it would cause a sensation if any American bishop issued a statement that any married Catholics in his diocese using contraceptives must refrain from communion and any planning to get married must not cohabit and must solemnly swear not to use contraceptives after they were married, or they could not be married in the Church. I think liberal Catholics might grumble if a bishop declared no one in his diocese in a same-sex relationship was eligible to receive communion.

Even conservative Catholics complain that the bishops do not speak out and that priests never preach sermons against contraception.

As I said, this is my impression. Am I really mistaken?

In the first place marriage is privileged in having the recognized right to have sex, just as police are privileged in having the recognized right to incarcerate, soldiers in having the recognized right to make war, and teachers in having the recognized right to unpaid child labor. These privileges come from the nature of their respective vocations; and just as police represent the regulation of law enforcement marriage represent the regulation of sex.

In the second place married people have sworn vows to each other in the Church.

Do you think it is a worse sin for a committed, loving, supportive same-sex couple to have a sexual relationship, or for a couple who married in the Catholic Church to use artificial contraception? I think a very strong case could be made (in Catholic thought) that two people who are fertile and deliberately render themselves or their acts infertile to have sex are doing a more “defiant” thing than two people who are infertile and choose to have sex anyway. The married couple is trashing a gift that they have been given. They are also, it seems to me, violating their wedding vows and committing sacrilege against the sacrament of matrimony.

It seems to me there is a double standard in the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception and homosexuality. Few if any Catholics really expect married people not to use contraception, and of course we know that most married Catholics do use contraception. This, for some reason, is tolerable. But the idea that two people of the same gender will have sex with each other is intolerable.

I really don’t understand this, but it seems that for many Catholics (even those surveyed who attend Mass weekly or more), the Church’s teachings on contraception may be disregarded, but the Church’s teachings on homosexuality may not be questioned. And yet Catholic teaching on sexuality is—or seems to me—all of a piece. It is very difficult to make Catholic arguments against homosexuality if Church teachings about contraception (and premarital sex) are to be left intact.

Jack Perry,

Imagine you were to wake up tomorrow morning, and by some miracle, you had a woman’s body and were physically attracted to men. Would you not feel that something absolutely fundamental had changed? I could do my job equally well as a woman. I could still live in my apartment and shop at Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. There are many things that could remain unchanged. But I can’t help but feel it would be absolutely devastating to my sense of self.

Defining yourself by gender or sexual orientation does not mean taking a stereotype and running rampant with it. in order to be a “real” heterosexual man, it is not necessary to hang pin-ups all over the place, be promiscuous, go hunting, watch as much football as possible, and never ask for directions when driving. I think I am on very solid ground with those who agree with the Catholic (and Christian) view that being male or female is absolutely fundamental to most people’s identity, and the same goes for heterosexuality.