Pope Francis meets with gay French ambassador nominee

[SAVINGRACE]

I am getting bored with this conversation, I have work to do.

Have a fabulous day.

 

[jtauke]

Well, as the article says, “For example, an ambassador to the Holy See cannot be a divorced and civilly remarried person” so the answer to your question is yes, the Vatican “inquires” into everyone the same way, and holds everyone to the same moral standards, exactly as it should be.

That wasn’t the question. It was, “Do they inquire about the sex lives of their other ambassadors”.

Answer. Probably not.

 

[McCall1981]

That wasn’t the question. It was, “Do they inquire about the sex lives of their other ambassadors”.

Answer. Probably not.

Yes it was the question, and yes they do inquire the same of everyone, and have the same requirements for everyone. They are inquiring with each person, as to whether the person has any situation that should prevent them from being an ambassador, just as they should.

With someone they don’t know anything about, the inquiry would be “here are the requirements, do any of these pertain to you?”. Same with this man. They apparently knew in advance that he’s openly homosexual, and it’s the same question, “here are the requirements, do any of these pertain to you?”.

 

[anthony022071]

I’m very suspicious of someone who identifies themself as openly “gay”. If the man had a particular attraction that he kept under control and lived a life of celibacy, would there really be a need to proclaim it to the world ? Instead he identifies as “gay”.

You are right to be suspicious. If someone identifies himself as homosexual that suggests he acts upon his perverse inclination or is content with it. Homosexuality is not simply about sexual attraction to people of the same sex but acting upon it or wanting to. If some one with that inclination does not act upon it and does not want to,then he is not actually homosexual.

 

[Tigg]

But he would be making more of a point in favour of Catholicism rather than a slap in the face for the Church.

Here is a self proclaimed devout Catholic who is single and also gay in sexual orientation.

So are you saying that his appointment should be accepted *because *of his sexual attractions?

That is a coup for the Church in my opinion, an example for Catholic gays and the gay community in general

So the gay community should be considered primary in this consideration?

 

[Murmurs]

You are right to be suspicious. If someone identifies himself as homosexual that suggests he acts upon his perverse inclination or is content with it. Homosexuality is not simply about sexual attraction to people of the same sex but acting upon it or wanting to. If some one with that inclination does not act upon it and does not want to,then he is not actually homosexual.

Well…not really…

I am a homosexual woman, which doesn’t mean that I act upon my “perverse inclination” any more than a single heterosexual man or woman, following what we are taught to be morally appropriate, acts upon their own inclinations. Being “out” or “open” doesn’t mean you act upon what you feel.

(Incidentally, a priest I know refers to homosexuality as a “blessed disorder” which seems to me to be a more positive way of considering the same thing).

Being content with one’s homosexuality is the only way that I’ve found to come to terms with what is and is not possible in light of my inclination. For purposes none of us can fathom, some people are simply born this way (some people, though far fewer, are born completely asexual, after all). I’m open about my own sexuality (if asked ) but I don’t think it’s the most important marker of my identity (being Roman Catholic and living in a way that is in accordance with what the church teaches, traditional implies and Christ has taught us, is way higher up the list )

I digress…Homosexuality IS the sexual attraction to people of the same sex as oneself, and nothing more. Heterosexuality is that same sexual attraction but to people of the opposite sex instead. Let’s rework that final sentence…

“If some one with a heterosexual inclination does not act upon that inclination and does not want to, then he is not actually heterosexual.”

I’m sure no one would agree that this makes a great deal of sense; it implies for instance that all members of the clergy and every nun is asexual, which simply isn’t the case (statistically or in reality).

Perhaps you meant to say "not actively homosexual?

Anyway, enough of semantics: more importantly I fully support Pope Francis’ right to accept or decline nominees for ambassadors to the state he rules, for any reason, just as any other head of state has that same right.

However I don’t know of other countries refusing to accredit an ambassador because of potential moral qualms about some aspect of their personal life which should’t really impact on their role as a facilitator of communication between two governments.

The most important question for an ambassador is does he represent his own country’s interests well, and (almost as important) does he have a good working relationship with the relevant members of the government to which he is a representative (in this case, the Vatican).

Could someone who knows perhaps explain…does a national ambassador to the Vatican just represent Catholics in that country, or like any other ambassador to another country, represent the government which dispatched him? If the former, than the Vatican is clearly right to “vet” nominees in this way because he/she couldn’t justifiably speak for the catholic faithful if he/she lives a gravely immoral life. On the other hand if it’s primarily a political appointment, albeit one usually given to a Catholic, then it seems to me to be a pretty unreasonable violation of diplomatic custom.

 

[anthony022071]

Well…not really…

I am a homosexual woman, which doesn’t mean that I act upon my “perverse inclination” any more than a single heterosexual man or woman, following what we are taught to be morally appropriate, acts upon their own inclinations. Being “out” or “open” doesn’t mean you act upon what you feel.

If you don’t act upon your sexual inclination in any way and don’t entertain sexual thoughts,then you are not homosexual,you are chaste.

(Incidentally, a priest I know refers to homosexuality as a “blessed disorder” which seems to me to be a more positive way of considering the same thing).

That’s a perverse way of thinking. Homosexuality is not blessed. It is not created by God,it is an effect of original sin.

Being content with one’s homosexuality is the only way that I’ve found to come to terms with what is and is not possible in light of my inclination. For purposes none of us can fathom, some people are simply born this way (some people, though far fewer, are born completely asexual, after all). I’m open about my own sexuality (if asked ) but I don’t think it’s the most important marker of my identity (being Roman Catholic and living in a way that is in accordance with what the church teaches, traditional implies and Christ has taught us, is way higher up the list )

No one is born homosexual. Our bodies are created for complimentarily between male and female,and our consciences are created with a sense of natural law. We should not be content with our disordered inclinations.

I digress…Homosexuality IS the sexual attraction to people of the same sex as oneself, and nothing more. Heterosexuality is that same sexual attraction but to people of the opposite sex instead. Let’s rework that final sentence…

Human sexuality is not just about involuntary attraction,it is also involves willed desire and behavior. So it is an error to think of homosexuality as simply a sexual attraction.

Homosexuality and the created order of human sexual attraction are not equivalent.

I’m sure no one would agree that this makes a great deal of sense; it implies for instance that all members of the clergy and every nun is asexual, which simply isn’t the case (statistically or in reality).

Perhaps you meant to say "not actively homosexual?

No,I meant what I said. If someone does not act upon sexual inclinations or play with sexual thoughts,then he is not actually sexual. He does not act sexually with his body or even will to think sexually.

Priests and nuns should be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,as Jesus said some people are (Matthew 19,12). I know that many are not,but they will be judged for their impurity.

Anyway, enough of semantics: more importantly I fully support Pope Francis’ right to accept or decline nominees for ambassadors to the state he rules, for any reason, just as any other head of state has that same right.

However I don’t know of other countries refusing to accredit an ambassador because of potential moral qualms about some aspect of their personal life which should’t really impact on their role as a facilitator of communication between two governments.

The most important question for an ambassador is does he represent his own country’s interests well, and (almost as important) does he have a good working relationship with the relevant members of the government to which he is a representative (in this case, the Vatican).

That is a utilitarian and pragmatic view,not a moral view. A persons’ moral character is always important,even if it does not seem to affect his performance of his duties. Persons who are candidates for authority should be judged not only for their professional competence,but for their moral character. People who are corrupt (and homosexuality is corruption) should not be put in positions of authority. To do so is to give permission to their corruption.

Could someone who knows perhaps explain…does a national ambassador to the Vatican just represent Catholics in that country, or like any other ambassador to another country, represent the government which dispatched him? If the former, than the Vatican is clearly right to “vet” nominees in this way because he/she couldn’t justifiably speak for the catholic faithful if he/she lives a gravely immoral life. On the other hand if it’s primarily a political appointment, albeit one usually given to a Catholic, then it seems to me to be a pretty unreasonable violation of diplomatic custom.

Ambassadors to the Vatican represent the governments that sent them. They don’t necessarily represent the interests of the Catholics of their nation. The bishops can do that.

The Holy See is not obliged to accept ambassadors regardless of their moral character. That is not a diplomatic custom.

 

[OraLabora]

I
Priests and nuns should be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,as Jesus said some people are (Matthew 19,12). I know that many are not,but they will be judged for their impurity.

I am sorry but this is absolute nonsense. I know many monks. They do not cease to be sexual. They do not cease to have a sexual drive. They do not become “eunuchs” in any sense of the term. They do not cease to be attracted to those they are normally attracted to.

What they learn to do is not to suppress their sexuality but rather to channel it into non-sexual creative endeavours. Being continent does not mean being asexual (and being chaste does not mean being sexually inactive; for a married couple, being chaste means engaging in procreative and unitive sex).

In the abbey I am familiar with, some monks channel their sex drive through their music, in particular the two organists. Others through exercise, others through their creative works (one for instance designs vestments and is responsible for the flower arrangements in the sanctuary). Some of the monks are men’s men, virile, others less so.

What they don’t do however, is make their sexuality the center of their identity, but they don’t deny that it is part of their identity.

Like any discipline, this is one that requires discipline and spiritual exercise.

 

[Murmurs]

I am sorry but this is absolute nonsense. I know many monks. They do not cease to be sexual. They do not cease to have a sexual drive. They do not become “eunuchs” in any sense of the term. They do not cease to be attracted to those they are normally attracted to.

What they learn to do is not to suppress their sexuality but rather to channel it into non-sexual creative endeavours. Being continent does not mean being asexual (and being chaste does not mean being sexually inactive; for a married couple, being chaste means engaging in procreative and unitive sex).

In the abbey I am familiar with, some monks channel their sex drive through their music, in particular the two organists. Others through exercise, others through their creative works (one for instance designs vestments and is responsible for the flower arrangements in the sanctuary). Some of the monks are men’s men, virile, others less so.

What they don’t do however, is make their sexuality the center of their identity, but they don’t deny that it is part of their identity.

Like any discipline, this is one that requires discipline and spiritual exercise.

(Especially over “what they dont do…is make their sexuality the center of their identity”)

If you don’t act upon your sexual inclination in any way and don’t entertain sexual thoughts,then you are not homosexual,you are chaste.

Not to further derail the thread, but… I have (as, presumably, do you and indeed the vast majority of people, whatever their state in life, around the world), sexual thoughts. So does almost everyone. Not to get into scandalous detail but the homosexual ones, is what tells me I am a homosexual.

I don’t deliberately entertain such thoughts but sometimes they arise anyway (as with anyone else). Not acting on those thoughts and doing ones level best to channel them, as OraLabora says, into more productive things, is what makes one chaste, in this kind of situation. I am still a homosexual, just as the monks Ora writes of are still sexual beings themselves (I wouldn’t draw a parallel further in terms of the holiness of lives lived, but it’s an equivalent way of considering a group of men called to continency because of what they have been called and made by God to be).

That’s a perverse way of thinking. Homosexuality is not blessed.

Well, I’d agree in lots of ways of course (though I hope I would not myself come across as perverse…) - what was more meant by that was - if one is able with discipline and excersise and guidance to “make peace” with ones homosexuality, then one is perhaps very much more able to live a productive and Christian life even if marriage (and in my case of course, the priesthood!) were to be out of the question. It’s something of a burden but I’ve actually found great benefit in learning how to live with it and in a way which is still pleasing to God.

It is not created by God,it is an effect of original sin.

This is just rubbish. While it’s (to quote the CCC) certainly disordered, there is no link between Original Sin and homosexuality. (Since we are all sinners, you would imply that everyone has at least the equal possibility to be homosexual).

No one is born homosexual. Our bodies are created for complimentarily between male and female,and our consciences are created with a sense of natural law.

People are born homosexual (similarly some people are born in the “wrong” sex - they have the body of a woman but feel and think much more like a man, and vice versa). If you have a glance and the relevent bits of the catechism you will see that even the CCC makes clear that we don’t understand the origin or purpose of homosexuality (though what is clear and I and you both accept is that to act upon those feelings would be immoral and sinful).

We should not be content with our disordered inclinations.

I find that a more productive use of my time is to work for the betterment of other people as best I can, rather than worry about a (frankly) less than significant aspect of my identity. Since my inclinations are not going to subside any more than any heterosexual’s “straight” inclinations will, surely the thing to do is “make the most of it” and live a life most in keeping with tradition and teaching and for the improvement of others.

OraLabora dealt with the “eunuch” part - I understand what you mean I think but it was maybe pushing the boat out a bit far.

A persons’ moral character is always important,even if it does not seem to affect his performance of his duties.

Couldn’t agree more though I hope none of us judges the character of someone for it, particularly when it’s an inherent affliction and not that person’s fault. (I also have (very early stange just now, praise be) relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis, which is also an inherent affliction. You wouldn’t of course judge me for that.

BEING homosexual is not itself immoral. (Acting upon homosexual desires is immoral, and arguably that much more immoral than other sexual acts undertaken outside of marriage).

Please keep your stones in your bag before you unintentionally hurt someone much less thick skinned than me.

God bless (and thanks for the factual stuff about ambassadors which cleared a bit up)

 

[anthony022071]

I am sorry but this is absolute nonsense. I know many monks. They do not cease to be sexual. They do not cease to have a sexual drive. They do not become “eunuchs” in any sense of the term. They do not cease to be attracted to those they are normally attracted to.

In what way are they “sexual”? What do they do that is sexual? Simply being a man and having sexual impulses is not the same as being “sexual” in behavior. And what do you mean by saying they have a sexual drive? Are they driven by sexual urges?

If they are not eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God then they are not chaste and not living up to their vocation.

What they learn to do is not to suppress their sexuality but rather to channel it into non-sexual creative endeavours. Being continent does not mean being asexual (and being chaste does not mean being sexually inactive; for a married couple, being chaste means engaging in procreative and unitive sex).

In the abbey I am familiar with, some monks channel their sex drive through their music, in particular the two organists. Others through exercise, others through their creative works (one for instance designs vestments and is responsible for the flower arrangements in the sanctuary). Some of the monks are men’s men, virile, others less so.

That is not “channeling” sexuality,it is turning your interest and energy to other things. Our sexual urges are not the source of our energy and creativity,and they do not have any outlet except sexual behavior. Like causes produce like effects. Sensual impulses can urge a musician to make music,but that is not the same as channeling sexuality.

What they don’t do however, is make their sexuality the center of their identity, but they don’t deny that it is part of their identity.

Like any discipline, this is one that requires discipline and spiritual exercise.

You practically made their sexuality their identity when you said “they don’t cease to be sexual”,and by saying that they channel their sexuality through creative activities and exercise.

If someone goes throughout his life thinking of himself as sexual and needing sexual expression,that is contemptible.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Being chaste does not mean you are not heterosexual or homosexual. It just means you are a chaste homosexual or a chaste heterosexual. Sexual orientation never changes.

Everyone at one time or another in their lives gets turned on by members of the sex you are attracted to or by images or random thoughts etc. (you’d be lying if you said you didn’t).

Not everyone acts on it. As long as you acknowledge it and confess with a repentant heart you’ll be okay.

 

[OraLabora]

In what way are they “sexual”? What do they do that is sexual? Simply being a man and having sexual impulses is not the same as being “sexual” in behavior. And what do you mean by saying they have a sexual drive? Are they driven by sexual urges?

We all are.

If they are not eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God then they are not chaste and not living up to their vocation.

You appear to have no understanding of what monastic life is about nor about human sexuality. A “eunuch” is someone who is physiologically castrated, either surgically, naturally (i.e. disease) or medicinally (i.e. chemical castration). Usually this is as a result medical reasons (examples: prostate or testicular cancer). In antiquity it was often done for the purpose of certain functions of the royal court, such as keeper of the harem or important state functions, or for preservation of a boy’s singing voice.

A monk, is in no sense of the term (medically, surgically or naturally) a “eunuch”. What they do, however, is renounce genital expression of their sexuality. But they still have a sexuality, sexual thoughts, etc. Monks, especially in their younger years, struggle greatly with surmounting their sexual urges. That’s normal. Hormonally, it is when young men are most virile. Don’t think for a minute that any notion of monastic perfection (sexual or otherwise), occurs instantly as one walks into the cloister for life. As any reading of the Rule of St. Benedict, and commentaries by monks on the Rule will show, “conversatio morum” (inner conversion), one of the three things Benedictine monks vow (the others are stability and obedience), is a life-long process. Yes, monks struggle with their attractions, they struggle with masturbation, just like the rest of us.

For most young men like myself, we channelled our virility into marriage and procreation. But a man is no less virile for being a monk (I’m speaking from the POV of a man; nuns may have a different view). Being virile means seeking to project one’s self, to make an impact. That’s how they can channel their sexual drive into a creative drive. Many monks have been superb musicians, I might add. Others have been scientists. Being a man is a package deal and sexuality is part of it, whether one likes it or not.

Becoming a “eunuch” to become a monk would defeat the whole purpose of monasticism, which is to overcome one’s passions to hand one’s self over to God. If there is no struggle, there is no oblation (offering) to God. When a monk offers himself to God, he is offering his entire self, not just a shadow of a man.

That is not “channeling” sexuality,it is turning your interest and energy to other things. Our sexual urges are not the source of our energy and creativity,and they do not have any outlet except sexual behavior. Like causes produce like effects. Sensual impulses can urge a musician to make music,but that is not the same as channeling sexuality.

Again, the experience of monastics would disprove what you say, as would the medical literature. Try taking away a man’s sex drive, and see what impact it has on his creativity, and his ability to focus. Go on Google, and read the stories of men who have been castrated surgically or medically to control their prostate cancer. It has a devastating effect on all aspects of manhood, not just sexuality. They lose the ability to focus and concentrate, they lose muscle mass, and they lose drive, that urge to create, make an impact, to project themselves into their environment. Read these sad testimonies of the ravages of this particular cancer treatment. Educate yourself.

You practically made their sexuality their identity when you said “they don’t cease to be sexual”,and by saying that they channel their sexuality through creative activities and exercise.

Their identity is being a man. Being a man implies having a sexuality. Sexual energy requires an outlet. For a married man, it can be expressed genitally in the procreative act. For a monk, it has to find other outlets. Erasing that part of a man’s identity (i.e. becoming a “eunuch”) makes him no longer fully a man.

If someone goes throughout his life thinking of himself as sexual and needing sexual expression,that is contemptible.

Not it its not contemptible. It is normal. There are healthy ways of channeling that expression dependent on one’s condition in life. To a young unmarried man who is not heading to a religious vocation, I would strongly recommend sports and vigorous exercise (cycling, running, competing). To a married man, that expression goes towards the procreative act, but also towards being a husband and father, with the duties that implies. Being a good husband and father also means teaching one’s family to use one’s sexuality responsibly. It’s part of being a man. A good father teaches his son to treat women with dignity and respect, not just as objects of his pleasure. It’s a responsibility of being a man.

You can’t carve sexuality out of a man (or a woman) and still call that person a “man” or “woman”.

 

[anthony022071]

We all are.

No,not everyone is driven by sexual urges.

Do you see everyone around you pursuing sexual gratification and being preoccupied by thoughts of sex?

You appear to have no understanding of what monastic life is about nor about human sexuality. A “eunuch” is someone who is physiologically castrated, either surgically, naturally (i.e. disease) or medicinally (i.e. chemical castration). Usually this is as a result medical reasons (examples: prostate or testicular cancer). In antiquity it was often done for the purpose of certain functions of the royal court, such as keeper of the harem or important state functions, or for preservation of a boy’s singing voice.

A monk, is in no sense of the term (medically, surgically or naturally) a “eunuch”. What they do, however, is renounce genital expression of their sexuality. But they still have a sexuality, sexual thoughts, etc.

I didn’t mean eunuch in the literal sense. That should have been obvious. I was referring to what Jesus said in Matthew 19,12,that some people are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

That Catechism says this:

<< 1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. 113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. 114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away. >.

Monks, especially in their younger years, struggle greatly with surmounting their sexual urges. That’s normal. Hormonally, it is when young men are most virile. Don’t think for a minute that any notion of monastic perfection (sexual or otherwise), occurs instantly as one walks into the cloister for life.

I don’t. But you should not think that all monks have a tendency to be bothered by sexual urges or that they cannot become chaste in their thoughts. Not everyone plays with sexual thoughts. Not everyone is interested in sex.

As any reading of the Rule of St. Benedict, and commentaries by monks on the Rule will show, “conversatio morum” (inner conversion), one of the three things Benedictine monks vow (the others are stability and obedience), is a life-long process. Yes, monks struggle with their attractions, they struggle with masturbation, just like the rest of us.

Not everyone is with sexual attractions and sinful habits. It depends on the individual person. Some people are not interested in sex to begin with. Some people overcome sexual urges and sinful habits.

For most young men like myself, we channelled our virility into marriage and procreation. But a man is no less virile for being a monk (I’m speaking from the POV of a man; nuns may have a different view). Being virile means seeking to project one’s self, to make an impact. That’s how they can channel their sexual drive into a creative drive. Many monks have been superb musicians, I might add. Others have been scientists. Being a man is a package deal and sexuality is part of it, whether one likes it or not.

What you are talking about is not a sexual drive. Sexual urges are not the source of artistic creativity. Some artists may feel that it is,but they are mistaken. Creativity comes from the mind,not from sexual urges.

Becoming a “eunuch” to become a monk would defeat the whole purpose of monasticism, which is to overcome one’s passions to hand one’s self over to God. If there is no struggle, there is no oblation (offering) to God. When a monk offers himself to God, he is offering his entire self, not just a shadow of a man.

The offering of one’s life does not consist of struggling with sexual urges. And passions are not limited to sexual urges.

Again, the experience of monastics would disprove what you say, as would the medical literature.

Which monastics? Do you think that all monks throughout history have been prone to sexual temptations?

 

[anthony022071]

Continued from the previous post.

Try taking away a man’s sex drive, and see what impact it has on his creativity, and his ability to focus.

I can testify to the fact that being free from sexual urges is good for creativity and the ability to focus. I am a musician and writer. The more a person is free from sexual urges the more his creativity is freed up and the more he can focus on work. He is less distracted and bothered and has a cleaner conscience.

Go on Google, and read the stories of men who have been castrated surgically or medically to control their prostate cancer. It has a devastating effect on all aspects of manhood, not just sexuality. They lose the ability to focus and concentrate, they lose muscle mass, and they lose drive, that urge to create, make an impact, to project themselves into their environment. Read these sad testimonies of the ravages of this particular cancer treatment. Educate yourself.

That has to do with the loss of testosterone and hormones,not with repression of sexual urges.

Their identity is being a man. Being a man implies having a sexuality. Sexual energy requires an outlet. For a married man, it can be expressed genitally in the procreative act. For a monk, it has to find other outlets. Erasing that part of a man’s identity (i.e. becoming a “eunuch”) makes him no longer fully a man.

Simply being male or female is not the same as sexual energy.

Not it its not contemptible. It is normal. There are healthy ways of channeling that expression dependent on one’s condition in life. To a young unmarried man who is not heading to a religious vocation, I would strongly recommend sports and vigorous exercise (cycling, running, competing).

That is not channeling sexuality. You are conflating energy and vigor with sexual expression.

To a married man, that expression goes towards the procreative act, but also towards being a husband and father, with the duties that implies. Being a good husband and father also means teaching one’s family to use one’s sexuality responsibly. It’s part of being a man. A good father teaches his son to treat women with dignity and respect, not just as objects of his pleasure. It’s a responsibility of being a man.

Providing for one’s family and teaching children are not expressions of sexuality.

You can’t carve sexuality out of a man (or a woman) and still call that person a “man” or “woman”.

It depends on what you mean by sexuality. It doesn’t always mean simply having a gender.
And it doesn’t apply to everything that people do.

Where did you get this sexualized view of human persons and activities? from Christopher West?

 

[Et_Cetera]

Good for Pope Francis. I hope they had a pleasant and productive meeting.

 

[OraLabora]

Where did you get this sexualized view of human persons and activities? from Christopher West?

I’m not about to continue discussing with someone making these kinds of condescending remarks.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

So are you saying that his appointment should be accepted *because *of his sexual attractions?

I was responding to someone else’s post. Read the post I responded to and all my posts, that will tell you exactly where I stand.