Homosexuals and celibacy

[twoangels]

Over and over I’ve seen Christians advocate that homosexuals are to take a neutral stance, and that they are called to celibacy. I agree with them to a certain extent. Homosexuality is a sin, no doubt in my mind there, and celibacy is better than indulgence. But why do people want them celibate and not all the way heterosexual?

Why don’t more people advocate that homosexuals just stop being what they claim to be? Why not advocate that they give heterosexuality a chance? Why does hardly anybody care about ‘converting’ homosexuals and only desire to neutralize them? I hardly ever see this stance anywhere.

Yeah, some will say it’s not a choice, and that their only choices are celibacy or sin. I find this kinda hard to swallow after seeing pride parades and talking to people openly gay, they don’t even seem to want to consider heterosexuality.

The question over whether homosexuals can change or not is not for the Church to solve. I have noticed that those who are striving to be chaste do tend to long to switch over to becoming heterosexual rather than just going the course of not sinning. It is not however a sin to have homosexual desires and not everyone is called to marriage. Certainly not everyone is expected to marry. As such, the point is that they are called to live chaste lives in whatever that entails.

 

[twoangels]

I’m not convinced that sexuality is carved in stone upon birth. It’s psychological, and like all other things psychological, it can be changed if one truly worked hard enough. It’s just that so few want to change, and some even take offense if you ask them to change.

And yes, this could hypothetically apply to heterosexual to homosexual transitions, it’s just that there’s no reason to do so.

Most heterosexual activities claim (whether true or not, I really don’t care) that they did try for years to date people of the opposite sex and to force an attraction that was not there. They see it as they finally gave into their true identity and thus get offended at the claim that they can change or that they should deny who they are.

But like I said, the one guy I met who had lived a homosexual lifestyle and was a part of the homosexual activist movement did want to change and was working on it. However he’d been working on it for several years. Ultimately its there choice if they want to try some form of therapy or not. But regardless the point is that they are called to live chastity according to their state in life, as we all are. In fact, I wouldn’t even say the Church calls them to celebacy. Celebacy is the vow never to marry. If they want to change and do change (if its possible), they may be free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Heterosexuals are called to chastity until marriage. A homosexual, who doesn’t change, will never end their call to chastity.

No, all people are called to live out chaste lives for their entire lives. Chastity is not abstainence. Those who are unmarried live out chastity through abstainence, but those who are married live chaste lives by respecting the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality and their conjugal rights. As such, the Church teaches that the use of contraceptives or the pursuit of substituting other sexual acts to replace intercourse are unchaste acts. Also viewing pornography or masturbating is always unchaste behavior regardless of if you’re married or not.

 

[Chris258]

Judging from morality, it seems like God did not intend people to be heterosexual. He intended them to be sexually attracted to exactly one person of the opposite sex and only after (or if) they were married to that person. Having a general propensity to be attracted to members of the opposite sex–note the plural construction here–is in clear contradiction to the ideal of marriage and therefore disordered.

I find this to be an interesting and odd notion I’ve never really encountered before. I’m not sure whether I agree with you, but I can certainly see how you might argue Genesis that way.

Things become more interesting when you throw in Jesus’ curious statement that there will no longer be marriage in the Kingdom of God. I wonder if that means there will no longer be sexuality in general. It may even mean there will no longer be gender differences, but I find that hard to believe given that Jesus, being fully human and in his glorified body, is still very much a male human.

Very interesting, though I generally agree with others that we certainly ought to be open to one’s disordered homosexuality being healed.

We certainly wouldn’t tell a blind man that he is committing a sin against faith in God’s healing power if he doesn’t really exert a significant portion of his life’s energies seeking a miraculous cure from God, but we might say he is in danger spiritually if he has totally closed his mind to that possibility. We don’t live in the fantasy world of “Prosperity Gospel” loonies who have absolutely no depth in their theology about suffering, but as Catholics, though we undoubtedly have very deep theology concerning suffering, we do certainly believe in the miraculous today.

Personally, I don’t really devote much of my heart and thought toward a miraculous cure for my disordered sexuality, but I also make it a point to avoid saying that I’m doomed to bear this my whole life. I realize it is likely that my condition won’t change, as the blind man does, but to cynically say that it simply isn’t going to happen would be a disrespect to the God who does indeed still work wonders among us.

 

[chrysostim83]

H Chris258

I can definitely see how the argument about heterosexuality being disordered might not be so convincing. It relies on enormously complicated concepts such as “propensity,” “attraction,” and “disorder,” so even though it appears straightforward, it conceals all sorts of philosophical premises. (To bring out the complications in just the first concept, consider that, since carpenters smash their thumbs with hammers more often than other people, you could say they have a propensity to smash their thumbs, but from a different angle, since they are also more skillful with hammers than other people, you could also say they don’t have a propensity to smash their thumbs with hammers. It seems to depend on the definition of “propensity,” and, to get back to the argument, it’s not at all clear which definition is the right one to use when you’re trying to identify a disorder.)

You raised a good point about miracles. I was just emphasizing that there are no known means for deliberately choosing one sexual orientation over another and that it would consequently be ridiculous to command someone to make such a choice. However, miracles in this department are certainly not unheard of: there’s an interesting case history of a man who went from gay to straight after suffering a stroke (see Altered Sexual Orientation Following Dominant Hemisphere Stroke).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

H Chris258

I can definitely see how the argument about heterosexuality being disordered might not be so convincing. It relies on enormously complicated concepts such as “propensity,” “attraction,” and “disorder,” so even though it appears straightforward, it conceals all sorts of philosophical premises. (To bring out the complications in just the first concept, consider that, since carpenters smash their thumbs with hammers more often than other people, you could say they have a propensity to smash their thumbs, but from a different angle, since they are also more skillful with hammers than other people, you could also say they don’t have a propensity to smash their thumbs with hammers. It seems to depend on the definition of “propensity,” and, to get back to the argument, it’s not at all clear which definition is the right one to use when you’re trying to identify a disorder.)

You raised a good point about miracles. I was just emphasizing that there are no known means for deliberately choosing one sexual orientation over another and that it would consequently be ridiculous to command someone to make such a choice. However, miracles in this department are certainly not unheard of: there’s an interesting case history of a man who went from gay to straight after suffering a stroke (see Altered Sexual Orientation Following Dominant Hemisphere Stroke).

I’m accursed with SSA and would love to eliminate this accursed condition, but I’m not sure that I’d like to take the chance of a stroke to get rid of it.

 

[Hadrianus]

Chrysostim83,

 You have intuited something correctly when talking about disorder.  All what we now call human sexuality is disordered as a result of the Fall.  In an unfallen world the passions would be under the control of reason, hence no lust, adultery, fornication etc.

It is always worth readimg St Thomas on human nature and the passions to get a correct idea of the truly Catholic perspective. Unfortunately, too many Catholcs are influenced by popular psychology and unaware of the Catholic Tradition.

 

[BigE]

I admit that I haven’t rad that part of the Catechism before. But even after reading it, my question still remains. Why the call to celibacy and not the call to heterosexuality?

Probably because every major medical organization has deemed that at its best it doesn’t work, and at its worst could be harmful.

**American Academy of Pediatrics (1993)
**“Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

American Psychological Association (1997)
“No scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any of the conversion therapies that try to change sexual orientation**.”** The association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1975.

American Psychiatric Association (1998)
“The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.” The APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973.

American Psychoanalytic Association (2000)
“Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to ‘convert’ or ‘repair’ an individual’s sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes.”

National Association of Social Workers (2000)
“NCLGB believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful."

**British Medical Association (2000):
**“Sexuality is such a fundamental part of who a person is, that attempts to change it just result in significant confusion, depression and even suicide. You can’t just wish away same-sex attraction no matter how inconvenient it might be.”

American Medical Association (2003)
“Our AMA opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

But BigE, it is also true that therapy indirectly resulitng in revealing the wounds that are the basis for the turn to homosexuality, is therapy that is promising. It is just that it is long and painful, as all comprehensive psychiatry is. There have been two or three good programs on this recently on Women of Grace. Such therapy is the kind that is very promising for the restoration of balance (and thus reorientation) in the individual.

 

[BigE]

But BigE, it is also true that therapy indirectly resulitng in revealing the wounds that are the basis for the turn to homosexuality, is therapy that is promising. It is just that it is long and painful, as all comprehensive psychiatry is. There have been two or three good programs on this recently on Women of Grace. Such therapy is the kind that is very promising for the restoration of balance (and thus reorientation) in the individual.

Certainly a possibilty and I am by no means an expert on treatments and therapy. I am just going with the consensus of the medical community.

My own personal opinion is that sexuality (or sexual orientation) is more of a continuum between homosexuality and heterosexuality and that therapy might be possible for those in the middle, but not on the extremes. But that is just a personal opinion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My own personal opinion is that sexuality (or sexual orientation) is more of a continuum between homosexuality and heterosexuality and that therapy might be possible for those in the middle, but not on the extremes. But that is just a personal opinion.

My opinion, too, based on a lot of reading.
However, I believe that the “extremes” are very, very tiny in percentage among the homosexual population, the reason being that, unlike for animals, our sexuality is essentially relational. (Which is one reason I noted earlier that cultures in which the male and the female are each validated for behavior out of the norm, have very low rates of homosexuality.)

 

[Cherry5]

Judging from morality, it seems like God did not intend people to be heterosexual. He intended them to be sexually attracted to exactly one person of the opposite sex and only after (or if) they were married to that person. Having a general propensity to be attracted to members of the opposite sex–note the plural construction here–is in clear contradiction to the ideal of marriage and therefore disordered.

Very interesting concept, it sure is humbling, makes a lot of sense - I like it.
If we take our cue from the Holy Family, Mary was not courted by Joseph before marriage - it was “arranged” as far as I know (I could be wrong).

So perhaps marriages should be “arranged”. There is no evidence that marriages as a result of a love affair are more successful than arranged marriages!

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Over and over I’ve seen Christians advocate that homosexuals are to take a neutral stance, and that they are called to celibacy. I agree with them to a certain extent. Homosexuality is a sin, no doubt in my mind there, and celibacy is better than indulgence. ** But why do people want them celibate and not all the way heterosexual?

Why don’t more people advocate that homosexuals just stop being what they claim to be? Why not advocate that they give heterosexuality a chance?** Why does hardly anybody care about ‘converting’ homosexuals and only desire to neutralize them? I hardly ever see this stance anywhere.

Yeah, some will say it’s not a choice, and that their only choices are celibacy or sin. I find this kinda hard to swallow after seeing pride parades and talking to people openly gay, they don’t even seem to want to consider heterosexuality.

I believe the LDS Church has been trying this for quite a while, and I’m not sure it’s worked too well for them.

It’s hard for me to imagine that it is a “choice” for the many homosexual people who are suffering greatly. Who have been disowned by their families, feel abandoned by their Churches, and whose lives are in turmoil. If they could just change it by force of will, I think they would.

I think it’s unfair to make assumptions about all homosexuals based on the vocal people involved in Gay Rights, etc. For all you or I know, there are many people we know who are dealing with their SSA in silence. You can’t paint them with the same brush.

And, it’s just my opinion, but I think that regardless of Gay Rights agendas and widening of the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles, in most parts of this country, it is still VERY difficult to be gay. Gay people face a lot of discrimination, hatred and violence in this country, so I’m not sure there are a whole lot of people who say to themselves, “Let’s see, I have a choice, so I’ll choose homosexuality.”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But BigE, it is also true that therapy indirectly resulitng in revealing the wounds that are the basis for the turn to homosexuality, is therapy that is promising.

Elizabeth, I agree that sexuality is determined by a confluence of factors both biological and environmental. But the movement from this affirmation to the assertion that a homosexual orientation is the result of damage reads a lot into the affirmation. For instance, we would not call left-handed people damaged for exhibiting a non-pathological minority variant on handedness. Or rather, we would call them damaged if we assumed a priori that handedness had a singular moral orientation.

Now, yes, of course, sexuality has a moral orientation. But experience and observation (with, believe it or not, some unlikely support from the catechism), suggests that that moral orientation is not towards a specific sexual object or category of objects, but towards relationship. Which is to say that the human relational faculty and human sexuality are intimately intwined if not identical. To call a homosexual orientation damaged is to say that homosexuals have a damaged relational capacity–which is to say that forming proper relationships with anyone or anything is impossible. The general drift of the catechism’s discussion of sexuality leads in this direction, though it is unwilling to arrive at the conclusion explicitly because the consequences of this logic are dire for homosexual men and women–if they cannot relate to people properly, how can they relate to God? Subsequent documents on homosexuals in the priesthood, though, are willing to go where the catechism fears to tread and speak of the impossibility of someone with “deep-seated” homosexual inclinations from being formed into a priest because he would be unable to form proper relationships with his parishioners. Which is to say that the soul of a homosexual is impervious to the grace and charism of the priesthood. Which is another way of saying that a homosexual’s humanity, and therefore their capacity to receive grace, is irreparably broken. None of which makes sense, by the way, in the light of the Gospel, but Roma locuta est.

I think we need to move from a conception of sexual morality largely based on the object of desire to one based on the quality of relationship desired.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Hadrianus]

Deo Volente,

               This is a very interesting assessment, and you are certainly right from the point  of view of the Catholic theology of grace.  I too find the statement from the Congregation for Catholic Education difficult to square with traditional Catholic theology, unless it is read in the light of the Catholic theology of grace, in which case as not implying a permanent state, but rather a condition which would have to be overcome. 
                The classic Catholic position sees temptations of the flesh as coming from the body and thus curable by grace which acts upon the soul, and the soul has the power, aided by grace, to ovecome sinful fallen nature. Whatever the case may be the opinions in the CCE document are not doctrinal except insofar as they are talking about moral conduct.

 

[Memorare777]

Pray for a cure for homosexuality.

This makes them sound like lepers. You’re a pig.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think we need to move from a conception of sexual morality largely based on the object of desire to one based on the quality of relationship desired.

Did you perhaps neglect to understand my post below, from page 2 of this very thread?

My opinion, too, based on a lot of reading.
However, I believe that the “extremes” are very, very tiny in percentage among the homosexual population, the reason being that, unlike for animals, our sexuality is essentially relational. (Which is one reason I noted earlier that cultures in which the male and the female are each validated for behavior out of the norm, have very low rates of homosexuality.)

Nothing that I posted anywhere on this thread (particulary the first long one) has indicated that relationality plays an absent or even minor role in the continuum. It is the defining dynamic. And why? Because of the evidence that boys whose characteristics are out of the “norm” or out of what’s “expected,” but are supported and approved by (especially) their own fathers, develop SSA much less so than boys who are rejected by significant males for that reason alone (or mainly). The Women of Grace programs I have mentioned also go into this. It’s often a compensation for a disappointment in primary relationships.

Personally, I do not see the contradiction in Catholic theology, regarding this.

Thanks for responding, Mark.

 

[Elizabeth502]

To call a homosexual orientation damaged is to say that homosexuals have a damaged relational capacity–which is to say that forming proper relationships with anyone or anything is impossible.

I don’t think you can make that logical leap – from damaged to impossible or incapable. Also, it’s damaged relative to the opposite sex, not necessarily the same sex, although it can be both in some cases. I have a relative who can be so described. His former partner of many years recently told the family that, although the partner himself identifies as having SSA, the relative in question does not (is not “gay” in that sense). The partner is convinced of this. He has said that the relative had chosen that relationship because same sex partnerships are easier, in his opinion. This relative does not have the emotional maturity or the strength to sustain struggle in a traditional opposite sex relationship, which by definition is more difficult due to contrasting modes of communication & perception. And that same relative was once engaged to a female.

I have actually heard that phenomenon among other “gay” couples as well, especially men, but not exclusively men.

OTOH, plenty of receptive, feeling, sensitive men – which are also characteristics of many men who identify as “gay” – are not impaired in their relationships with God. Many of them like to pray. Many of them can empathize with other people, including people they have not met, have barely met, etc. So I don’t see how you can weave through the catechism the conclusion that a compensating attraction to a man would impair that man from relating to God.

documents on homosexuals in the priesthood, though, are willing to go where the catechism fears to tread and speak of the impossibility of someone with “deep-seated” homosexual inclinations from being formed into a priest because he would be unable to form proper relationships with his parishioners.

No. Proper relationships with male and female parishioners, without inappropriate prejudice which violates charity and justice. The call to priesthood demands the “disinterested” (unattached, open, self-forgetful) love. It requires a universal dedication to serve all of God’s people, not inordinately or preferentially one gender.

Referring to the deep-seating tendencies part, I am stealing this quote from JREducation on a thread from last spring:

It is very important to understand that the Church is not speaking about people who simply have same-sex attractions. She’s speaking about those who have several serious impairments:

1. Actively gay

1. Embrace or support the gay lifestyle/culture

1. Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females. A person with same-sex attraction must be able to see himself as a whole person, not identify himself by his sexual attraction. Unless he can see himself as a whole person, he cannot relate to members of both genders in a healthy and appropriate way.

1. Those who struggle to remain chaste. If this is a struggle for the individual, he or she is not a good candidate for either the priesthood or the religious life. Everyone struggles with temptations. The Church is not saying that a priest or religious must be someone who never struggles with temptations. That would be unrealistic. The Church is speaking about the person for whom sexual temptation are a cross.

And from a different thread, JR’s comments:

A deep seated homosexual tendency is a little deeper, a lot deeper actually. The person identifies himself or herself in terms of their sexual attraction and organizes his mental constructs around them. Therefore, the person has difficulty establishing healthy relationships with both genders, but it alwasy drawn to be more attentive and intimate with one gender over the other. Even when the person is not actively havin sex, this difficulty establishing meaningful and respectful relationships with both genders makes him or her an unqualified candidate for the priesthood or religious life.

Though the Church has not written a formal declaration on the subject, we follow the same rule for the admission of heterosexuals to holy orders or to religious life. There are some heterosexual people who do lack a healthy affect. The best example that I can offer is the super macho. This is the man who has difficulties relating to women as equal partners in society and in the faith. Such a person may even tend to be homophobic. This person must also be disqualified from religious life or holy orders.

In essence, what we’re looking at when we study a candidate is for a well balanced personality capable of having meaningful relationships with both genders and capable of exercising discipline over his/her sexual responses to triggers. You cannot do away with the sexual triggers. That’s a given. But you must have the internal discipline to respond to them without a struggle. If these triggers create a struggle for the person, then the feelings can safely be deemed to be deep seated. In charity, we do not want to place anyone in a situation of greater struggle than what he already deals with in daily life.

 

[Hadrianus]

Elizabteth,
Thanks for posting JR's comments. I hadn't seen them before. They make perfect sense.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Did you perhaps neglect to understand my post below, from page 2 of this very thread?

Elizabeth, while we certainly agree that our sexuality has everything to do with our relational capacity, where we continue to disagree is in determining the difference between a sexual ethics based principally on choosing the right object of desire and a sexual ethics based principally on evaluating the quality of relationship desired. You see homosexuality as a mark of woundedness–essentially, a homosexual is a crippled or confused heterosexual. You come to this conclusion because you believe homosexuals desire wrongly, therefore their desire mechanism must be impaired. To you, the impairment is inevitably related to a lack of a certain quality of relationship in the homosexual’s formative years. Every relationship in which a homosexual engages will naturally be a frustrated attempt in the present to restore or recover something that was missing in a relationship in the past. These relationships are neccessarily inappropriate because they can never recapture what was lost, principally because they are going about it in the wrong way: they keep choosing the wrong sexual object. This is how I read your position.

And it probably comes as no surprise that I disagree with the fundamental premise–that homosexual desire, because it is aimed toward people of the same sex, is necessarily wounded or broken. I am clearly and openly in disagreement with the catechism over this given the conclusions that must inevitably drawn and which I’ve indicated in my post above. Moreover, if a homosexual is just a broken heterosexual, non-coercive conversion therapy should yield a demonstrably consistent high rate of success. It does not. Nor does the catechism recommend it, *which it should given its understanding of sexuality as naturally heterosexual and its understanding of homosexuality as naturally disordered. *Also, from a moral perspective, if a homosexual orientation were indeed intrinsically disordered (which is to say, completely broken), there should be evidence that all homosexual relationships are incapable of producing or fostering virtue. But this, too, is not the case and cannot be demonstrated. Again, we are left with having to construct a sexual ethics based not on the right-ness of the object of desire, but the quality of relationship desired–a standard by which both heterosexual and homosexual relationships may be measured, and a standard which, incidentally, upholds the pre-eminence of the marriage relationship without thereby detracting from the value of other kinds of relational intimacy (we can discuss why and how elsewhere).

Elizabeth:

I don’t think you can make that logical leap – from damaged to impossible or incapable.

And yet, Elizabeth, this is what the catechism does by describing both the act and the inclination as either intrinsically or objectively disordered–which is to say that no expression of it can yield virtue.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)
By the way, thank you for posting JRE’s text. But there are some assumptions made in it that are common and, I think, erroneous.

Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females.

This is a very strange argument which relies on a trick of language to attempt to make a moral point. If I say, “I am tired,” I do not thereby wish to indicate that I am the personification of fatigue. If I say, “I am a monarchist,” I do not thereby indicate that all of my energies are totally devoted to the support of monarchy. If I say, “I am German,” I do not say the German culture speaks through me, that I am its mouthpiece, incarnation, or acme. If I say, “I am caucasian,” I do not thereby indicate that I am a white supremacist. If I say, “I am a man,” I do not say that I embody all of my culture’s notions of maleness to the point that I cannot identify at all with women as human beings. This is all bascially understood when I say these things.

But if I say, “I am gay,” suddenly I have elided over my basic humanity by choosing to identify myself with my sexual orientation. The logic is frankly absurd–but then the logic at play has less to do with accuracy, and more to do with perpetuating an image of certain (gay) people which accords with some set, pre-determined notions of who they are. Clearly saying, “I am gay” is little more than annunciating a marker of identity or difference, not everything that makes me me or sets me apart from someone else. When mainstream culture predominantly and implicitly or explicitly celebrates the normativity of heterosexual desire, saying, “I am heterosexual” is basically redundant, but saying, “I am gay,” is basically a statement of, “I do not identify with the vocabulary of desire that passes as normative” (which is, in many ways, why the term queer is more appropriate–as it goes beyond homosexuality–but that’s a different conversation). It is not to say, “I completely buy into an identity defined principally if not solely by my understanding of my sexual identity.”

A person with same-sex attraction must be able to see himself as a whole person, not identify himself by his sexual attraction. Unless he can see himself as a whole person, he cannot relate to members of both genders in a healthy and appropriate way.

Most people who identify as gay do, in fact, see themselves as whole people. This should not be surprising. For the most part, however, these people are capable of seeing themselves as whole because they do not see heterosexuality as necessary for wholeness, and they do not define themselves by a clinical term of art (such as “SSA”) which speaks more to a culture of disease and shame than it does to an idea of wholeness.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!