Because of my previous blog entry, I have received suggestions from friends about people who should not take in the communion wafer:
1) Catholic priests who:
a) have had sexual liaisons with adults. (Note: some of us think we should allow Catholic priests to marry the man or woman of their choice, so it isn't the sex part per se but the hippocrisy.)
b) who are pedophiles (Note: while being permissive of many sexual/erotic expressions I draw the line at practices where consent is clearly absent or cannot be truly given: rape and sexual harassment, pedophilia, intercourse with animals.)
c) are sexual harassers, rapists, abusive.
d) suddenly remember their vow of celibacy when they decide to abandon their pregnant lovers
e) take their girlfriends for an abortion. (Trust me on this. The medical community knows. Our vow of confidentiality keeps us from telling.)
2) anyone using a modern contraceptive.
3) anyone who is divorced.
I hope this contributes to the efforts of the Catholic Church on this matter. I argue that all of these suggestions are consistent with Humanae Vitae and its views on the sacredness of life, except the notes on 1) a) and b). For the heathen out there, you should know that the threat of non-communion for politicians pushing for reproductive health bills, are in line with the previously mentioned papal pronouncement. The Church celebrates the 4o year anniversary of said document this June. Friends, let's all help the Church here. Please send in your suggestions as to whom we should add to the list. Read Humanae Vitae first, ok?
On the other hand, my irredeemable gay friends have informed me that some of their gay friends have reacted to the threat of denying communion to legislators advocating reproductive rights by saying, "I won't let that Bishop enter my beauty parlor either." Given the state of things, I expect priests will start wearing bad haircuts soon. As I am in helpful mode, this is a bit upsetting to me. But as this is looking like a man-on-man sort of thing (gays and Catholic bishops are men), I leave this to them. I am hoping that they can solve it within the parameters of brotherly love. (None of you get back to me to say, "Eiew". "Eiew" is uncalled for within the parameters of brotherly love.)
Finally, my friend Tom, whom I shall rely on to attend the above-mentioned dialogue, suggests that those who have gained the right to take in a few more calories by abstaining from the wafer, take this popular multivitamin that is marketed as an aphrodisiac instead.
The Supreme Court’s Punt on Cases Could Affect Immigrants’ Constitutional Rights - The cases, *Sessions v. Dimaya* and *Jennings v. Rodriguez*, both involve constitutional challenges to immigration enforcement laws that ultimately ask t...
13 hours ago