Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[opus101]

Keeping the above point in mind, and as part of the practice of rhetorics as a means of personal understanding, I questioned whether the identification by sexual orientation (outside of the sacrament of confession and support groups) may be a barrier to overcoming that cross, but also feed into the broader legitimisation of gay relationships, in much the same way portrayal of co-habitation in media, advertising etc inculturates this practice…

…

…iii/ Paragraph 16 comments on the notion of sexual orientation identity:
'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

The above quote from FiliDei (and the Vatican document that was provided) really highlights a few of the problems here.

As children of God, people should not refer to themselves or others in the reductionist manner of sexual orientation. The last paragraph in the above quote nails it.

A person may be a homosexual or heterosexual, but to introduce themselves to others in such a manner is disrespectful to the dignity of human beings made in the image and likeness of God. “Hi, I’m Jennifer and I’m a heterosexual celibate!” is not only ridiculous sounding, it reduces her humanity to only one aspect, and one that is shared with the lower animals!

“Hi, I’m Andy and I’m an artist” , however, reveals a human quality that is not shared with squirrels. “Hi, I’m a science teacher” does something similar…not many cows are science teachers…

But, “Hi, I’m a gay/heterosexual male/female” identifies more with the qualities of animals rather than humans.

 

[melekali]

One thing is for certain, this Pope is truly wise. I read an interview with him by an American reporter who was reportedly Catholic and he side-stepped every time bomb that was set for him. I love Pope Francis.

 

[clem456]

One should use discretion when discussing sexuality in public. You never know who might take offense.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

A person may be a homosexual or heterosexual, but to introduce themselves to others in such a manner is disrespectful to the dignity of human beings made in the image and likeness of God. “Hi, I’m Jennifer and I’m a heterosexual celibate!” is not only ridiculous sounding, it reduces her humanity to only one aspect, and one that is shared with the lower animals!

I agree with you.

I do believe, though, that the instances of self-disclosures like, “Hi, I’m Jennifer and I’m heterosexual or homosexual or whatever,” are quite rare.

Usually people disclose their sexual orientation when they believe that others are making untrue assumptions about it–that is, they self-disclose as a matter of honesty, not as a matter of public display. Anyone self-disclosing their sexuality as a matter of public display likely has boundary/discretion issues, especially if the context in which the display is made is not one in which such a display is socially acceptable (such as a singles bar in which one would probably do well to expect that others will be much more open about their sexuality or sexual expectations, particularly if they’re looking for a mate).

(Hi, InSearch. )

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Tigg]

Originally Posted by fili_dei View Post
Keeping the above point in mind, and as part of the practice of rhetorics as a means of personal understanding, I questioned whether the identification by sexual orientation (outside of the sacrament of confession and support groups) may be a barrier to overcoming that cross, but also feed into the broader legitimisation of gay relationships, in much the same way portrayal of co-habitation in media, advertising etc inculturates this practice…

What a great find, opus. I’ve read this before, and although I never referenced it, parts of it must have come to my memory in my previous post. Did fili_dei name the actual document?

It is only secular society and the politics of the gay lobby, driven by their specific agenda, which puts so much emphasis on sexual orientation. I would pray that gays find healing to the extent that they can afford themselves the same high status as they are given by the Church for she has clearly spoken. To do otherwise, and place too much importance on sexual issues would only diminish their human person.

 

[opus101]

What a great find, opus. I’ve read this before, and although I never referenced it, parts of it must have come to my memory in my previous post. Did fili_dei name the actual document?

It is only secular society and the politics of the gay lobby, driven by their specific agenda, which puts so much emphasis on sexual orientation. I would pray that gays find healing to the extent that they can afford themselves the same high status as they are given by the Church for she has clearly spoken. To do otherwise, and place too much importance on sexual issues would only diminish their human person.

Sorry I left out the source. fili dei gave a link to it, and it is from:

“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

Two points about this quotation:

1. The reductionism referred to appears to be the use of a noun “homosexual”, not the adjective “homosexual person”. After all, that very document refers to the relevant population as “homosexual persons”. So the Church doesn’t have a problem with using the word as an adjective. (And, in modern parlance, “gay” and “homosexual” mean exactly the same thing.)
2. Even if a gay person were to call themselves “a homosexual” or “a gay”, I don’t think the first level of concern in discipling them should be to challenge the usage of that term. We are supposed to be wise as a serpent, not clumsy as an oaf. The first thing to do is to show Christian love and acceptance, even to the point of naively assuming that the person is not sexually active. (Here’s where the “innocent as doves” part comes in). Of course, many gay people *aren’t *sexually active, so it’s not like we’re making some outrageously ignorant oversight.

You deal with a person’s sin when they confess it. Unless they are causing scandal by talking proudly about sin, I see no reason to challenge them otherwise, except in the way we challenge everyone: by affirming orthodoxy and preaching the gospel.

At some point, a pastor might meet with the person privately, and tell them the Church’s understanding about reductionistic uses of words like “gay”. But I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, unless we are close friends with the person.

 

[opus101]

Two points about this quotation:

1. The reductionism referred to appears to be the use of a noun “homosexual”, not the adjective “homosexual person”. After all, that very document refers to the relevant population as “homosexual persons”. So the Church doesn’t have a problem with using the word as an adjective. (And, in modern parlance, “gay” and “homosexual” mean exactly the same thing.)

You’re right, but it’s quite obvious that this is not what was being discussed.

1. Even if a gay person were to call themselves “a homosexual” or “a gay”, I don’t think the first level of concern in discipling them should be to challenge the usage of that term.

The first level of concern is that this be dealt with in the appropriate venues so amply provided.

When in other environments, the word can cause confusion (this thread is ample evidence for that, even though it is not an inappropriate venue), scandal and loss of innocence for anyone in earshot.

You deal with a person’s sin when they confess it. Unless they are causing scandal by talking proudly about sin, I see no reason to challenge them otherwise, except in the way we challenge everyone: by affirming orthodoxy and preaching the gospel.

Okay, here’s one of the problems: Exactly what kind of scenario is being talked about here? Many of the posts in this forum have expressed the wish that people who suffer this condition be able to approach other parishioners casually with the comment “I’m a gay celibate!” A number of posts have expressed disappointment that people who are attracted to the same sex are met with undesired responses when they bring the topic up in conversations.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding about the scenarios that are being put forth.

We know this much: the additional scenarios that are being spoken of do not have to do with discussions amongst close friends, nor do they have to do with prayer and support groups…these are already available, and those who are complaining are not referring to these environments, but to the general venues of parish life. They are not indicating whether or not this applies to children or teens being present, and are not taking into account the level of innocence and non-worldliness actually found in a number of our members, particularly among children and even elderly persons who were not brought up in the modern world. In addition, they are not taking into account the level of doctrinal ignorance of the average Catholic, who might misinterpret things and end up with a false view of the morality involved.

This is also a concern of the Church. In the letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, we learn that there are those who put forth a “spin” on the topic, promoting a false understanding of the truth about the condition. This false teaching is very similar, if not identical, to that put forth in a number of posts. In essence, it tries to portray the condition as “neutral”, as long as it is “not being acted on”. This results in the false understanding that, as long as immoral sexual temptations are not acted upon, heterosexuality and homosexuality are on the same plane. Whether or not this is the aim of some people is not the problem, the problem is that this is how most people perceive and understand it. It causes a false view that sees this condition as a viable, acceptable choice for living the Christian life, something that can be pursued and given into up to, but not beyond, a certain point. Any impression of this sort must be avoided in the presence of those who are still undergoing basic formation in the Christian life - and that’s a lot of people, especially in today’s catechetical confusion.
.

At some point, a pastor might meet with the person privately, and tell them the Church’s understanding about reductionistic uses of words like “gay”. But I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, unless we are close friends with the person.

So, it’s “not anyone else’s business” what a person might mean by the term “gay” , but it’s everyone else’s business that he “is” gay?

 

[opus101]

In keeping with the Holy Father’s comment that he is a “son of the Church”, and that his view is “that of the Church”, some salient points from the above mentioned Letter need to be brought out.

It tells us that discussions of this topic often advance arguments that are “inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church”. (section 1)

"Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth of the human person…but the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. (section 8)

It is the position of many commenters here, including myself, that the normalization of “conversing” with others in average public venues about their sexual orientation would
end up making both the inclinaton and the sin more acceptable, and blur the clear position of the Church . Here, I’m not talking about conversations with close friends, but about the scenarios indicated by some others on this forum.

An “overly benign”(section 3) interpretation has been given to the homosexual condition itself, “some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is more or less a strong tendency ordered toward an *intrinsic *moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (section 3)

Some posters have offered their “own” (?) exegesis of various Biblical passages that deal with this topic. The Letter above also refutes these arguments.

 

[opus101]

You’re right, but it’s quite obvious that this is not what was being discussed.

The first level of concern is that this be dealt with in the appropriate venues so amply provided.

When in other environments, the word can cause confusion (this thread is ample evidence for that, even though it is not an inappropriate venue), scandal and loss of innocence for anyone in earshot.

Okay, here’s one of the problems: Exactly what kind of scenario is being talked about here? Many of the posts in this forum have expressed the wish that people who suffer this condition be able to approach other parishioners casually with the comment “I’m a gay celibate!” A number of posts have expressed disappointment that people who are attracted to the same sex are met with undesired responses when they bring the topic up in conversations.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding about the scenarios that are being put forth.

We know this much: the additional scenarios that are being spoken of do not have to do with discussions amongst close friends, nor do they have to do with prayer and support groups…these are already available, and those who are complaining are not referring to these environments, but to the general venues of parish life. They are not indicating whether or not this applies to children or teens being present, and are not taking into account the level of innocence and non-worldliness actually found in a number of our members, particularly among children and even elderly persons who were not brought up in the modern world. In addition, they are not taking into account the level of doctrinal ignorance of the average Catholic, who might misinterpret things and end up with a false view of the issue at hand.

This is also a concern of the Church. In the letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, we learn that there are those who put forth a “spin” on the topic, promoting a false understanding of the truth about the condition. This false teaching is very similar, if not identical, to that put forth in a number of posts. In essence, it tries to portray the condition as “neutral”, as long as it is “not being acted on”. This results in the false understanding that, as long as immoral sexual temptations are not acted upon, heterosexuality and homosexuality are on the same plane. Whether or not this is the aim of some people is not the problem, the problem is that this is how most people perceive and understand it. It causes a false view that sees this condition as a viable, acceptable choice for living the Christian life, something that can be pursued and given into up to, but not beyond, a certain point. Any impression of this sort must be avoided in the presence of those who are still undergoing basic formation in the Christian life - and that’s a lot of people, especially in today’s catechetical confusion.
.


So, it’s “not anyone else’s business” what a person might mean by the term “gay” , but it’s everyone else’s business that he “is” gay?

Oops. Was trying to edit post and it was too late, so the above quote appeared. Sorry.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

In keeping with the Holy Father’s comment that he is a “son of the Church”, and that his view is “that of the Church”, some salient points from the above mentioned Letter need to be brought out.

It tells us that discussions of this topic often advance arguments that are “inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church”. (section 1)

"Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth of the human person…but the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. (section 8)

It is the position of many commenters here, including myself, that the normalization of “conversing” with others in average public venues about their sexual orientation would
end up making both the inclinaton and the sin more acceptable, and blur the clear position of the Church . Here, I’m not talking about conversations with close friends, but about the scenarios indicated by some others on this forum.

An “overly benign”(section 3) interpretation has been given to the homosexual condition itself, “some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is more or less a strong tendency ordered toward an *intrinsic *moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (section 3)

Some posters have offered their “own” (?) exegesis of various Biblical passages that deal with this topic. The Letter above also refutes these arguments.

Thank you for your exposition in the foregoing posts, opus.

Let me give a scenario which should give any observing Catholic pause at what’s happening around us. The homosexual orientation / tendency is being announced as a good, increasingly put on public display, without need for words actually. Not just in a singles or gay bar, as a member with whom I disagree has interjected in a post in this thread. It is being announced outside their meet-and-mingle sort of places, beyond the districts where they live, as well.

Elsewhere in California, the heat wave was punishing in those days before July 4th, except in good ol’ San Francisco. I was waiting for my bus connection to the train (BART was on strike then) in front of the Ferry Building. Enjoying the noon sun and glorious 70 degrees, cool breeze from the bay, I turned around and noticed a pair, a beefy middle aged guy walking, wide smile on his face, hand in hand with his sweetie, a slight Asian male who looked to be in his early 20’s, maybe younger, and can be described as more pretty than handsome. They walked towards the pier. Then a pair of young males of about the same age, late 20’s I would say, took their place in the line after me. Both had matching skinny black pants, same hair cut and, ahem, a little make up. One of them was holding a long stem red rose in one hand, a duffel bag in the other. They acted like a boyfriend seeing his girlfriend off. Upon boarding time, the other guy gave his partner a light goodbye kiss. See, both couples felt free to display their homosexual orientation to the world. What in the world, I thought to myself as I took my seat across the guy holding the rose. I was not in the Castro District, by the way. Then it dawned on me, of course, the Supreme Court ruled on DOMA and Prop 8 just a few days before.

Okay, that was not a gay pride parade of scantily clad men making lascivious gestures. But it’s in-your-face pronouncement to the rest of society being forced to deal with an insidious new world order, that homosexual relations are good. The message being conveyed is altogether clear.

It is not like a gay themed TV sitcom which the parent can filter or the parent can just choose to turn off the set so the children at home do not inadvertently watch the program. The point? Not only do parents have to decide what to do when the school curriculum includes the reading of “Heather Has Two Mommies” or “King and King” to their young children. An adult better be likewise prepared to explain to a questioning five year old child or grandchild who might be along with him or her in public, witnessing the scenes that I witnessed. Sure, the child will know sooner or later that some men like to be with men and women with women, but, honestly, what parent wants to have a discussion on non-traditional sexuality in front of the Ferry Buildling in San Francisco.

No words, no pronouncements that “I am gay” are necessary anymore. But the public display of supposedly something neutral and benign (it is not) is almost ubiquitous now, in the internet fora, in the printed word, on TV and films, and stepping out in public. Of course, there are those in our midst who say they are Catholic who would declare “don’t judge, lest ye be judged” as a blanket justification, using Scripture and Catholic teachings narrowly to fit a set agenda. Why, it would be asserted as has been known before, that it does not mean that just because same sex couples act like they are sweethearts in public, that they are committing sodomy in private! And even if true, how does it affect you!

We can’t help but wonder where would American culture be if we had a president and lawmakers (as in Russia now) who thought of curtailing homosexual propaganda after realizing where society is going after decriminalized sodomy.
,
ISoG

 

[LiberalPrincess]

For all of so-called Catholic’s obsession with homosexuality, they seem to forget that Christ himself was not quoted once anywhere in the Gospels speaking against homosexuality. Not once.

Didn’t seem to be a very high priority for Christ. Maybe it shouldn’t be such an obsession for Catholics.

 

[Elizabeth502]

For all of so-called Catholic’s obsession with homosexuality, they seem to forget that Christ himself was not quoted once anywhere in the Gospels speaking against homosexuality. Not once.

Didn’t seem to be a very high priority for Christ. Maybe it shouldn’t be such an obsession for Catholics.

It is inconceivable, according to all reputed scripture scholars of all faiths, that Jesus the Jew would have approved of homosexual behavior, or that if his earthly ministry were occurring in the 21st century instead of the 1st, he would have had radically different views than the religious tradition which He honored and repeatedly affirmed without ambiguity.

With regard to the implication that supposedly Jesus had nothing to say on the subject: Of course he didn’t. The Gospels were News, as in something different. It was kerygma. What was continued by Jesus (the core of the Law, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting kerygma, and no Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time.

 

[josh987654321]

For all of so-called Catholic’s obsession with homosexuality, they seem to forget that Christ himself was not quoted once anywhere in the Gospels speaking against homosexuality. Not once.

Didn’t seem to be a very high priority for Christ. Maybe it shouldn’t be such an obsession for Catholics.

Hi LiberalPrincess

I would just like to share with you what I have learnt about this issue and ask you what you think.

The Law of Moses say’s the following about homosexuality.

Leviticus:

**Leviticus 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. **

The Law of Moses also say’s this about Adultery

Leviticus:

**Leviticus 18:16

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

Leviticus 20:10

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. **

Jesus than say’s this in the New Testament -
Gospel of Matthew:

**Matthew 5:17-20

The Law of Moses

17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.

19 If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. 20 You must obey God’s commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don’t, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.**

Jesus then fulfills the Old Testament here -
Gospel of John:

**John 8:3-11

3 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses brought in a woman who had been caught in bed with a man who wasn’t her husband. They made her stand in the middle of the crowd. 4 Then they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught sleeping with a man who isn’t her husband. 5 The Law of Moses teaches that a woman like this should be stoned to death! What do you say?”

6 They asked Jesus this question, because they wanted to test him and bring some charge against him. But Jesus simply bent over and started writing on the ground with his finger.

7 They kept on asking Jesus about the woman. Finally, he stood up and said, “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” 8 Once again he bent over and began writing on the ground. 9 The people left one by one, beginning with the oldest. Finally, Jesus and the woman were there alone.

10 Jesus stood up and asked her, “Where is everyone? Isn’t there anyone left to accuse you?”

11 “No sir,” the woman answered.

Then Jesus told her, “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.” **

I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

This is what I believe Pope Francis is trying to focus on with his latest statements, in which I wholeheartedly agree with him.

I believe that not one person doesn’t suffer from an immoral desire and that our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.

“Telling us to obey our instincts (our desires) is like telling us to obey ‘people.’ People say different things; so do our instincts. Our instincts are at war … Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest.” - C.S. Lewis

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CatholicFireman]

 

[Lochias]

For all of so-called Catholic’s obsession with homosexuality, they seem to forget that Christ himself was not quoted once anywhere in the Gospels speaking against homosexuality. Not once.

Didn’t seem to be a very high priority for Christ. Maybe it shouldn’t be such an obsession for Catholics.

Christ didn’t directly speak about using nerve gas on innocent civilians, either (for example). Maybe it shouldn’t be such an obsession for people.

See how that logic works? Everything Christ did and was, taken in context, speaks to the truth of traditional marriage and the sinfulness of homosexual acts.

 

[JHow]

I have been a Catholic since 1995. I cannot recall ever hearing about homosexuality in a homily in all that time. In fact, in society at large, the only people I have met that are really interested and excited about homosexuality are homosexuals.

As such, I think Francis’ point is that the Church is perceived as being obsessed about homosexuality, fair or not. His proposal is for us to do a better job of communicating the gospel, which is the proper focus of the Church.

I don’t expect the press or the homosexual activists to be the first to acknowledge any of this, however.

 

[EIF5A]

Most “activists” will be disappointed that the Pope still abides by the moral teachings.

But perhaps there will be at least a few gays/lesbians/women who have obtained abortions who feel genuinely repentant and now, the words of the Holy Father have given them a gentle “push” to obtain mercy and grace.

 

[foolishmortal]

I still give The Pope the benefit of the doubt. Satan, through certain human influential people, want to divide us and we don’t want a civil war, but some have divided themselves and become one of those agitators. We must love and understand everyone, but, as in anime, except non-violently, stop their mischief. I wish Pope Francis has also told them to love their enemies for their soul’s well-being. Instead, they will see this as a victory (the fact is that will happen) benefitting noone.

 

[Mark121359]

It is inconceivable, according to all reputed scripture scholars of all faiths, that Jesus the Jew would have approved of homosexual behavior, or that if his earthly ministry were occurring in the 21st century instead of the 1st, he would have had radically different views than the religious tradition which He honored and repeatedly affirmed without ambiguity.

With regard to the implication that supposedly Jesus had nothing to say on the subject: Of course he didn’t. The Gospels were News, as in something different. It was kerygma. What was continued by Jesus (the core of the Law, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting kerygma, and no Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time.

Geesh!!! There you go again…introducing truth and logic into the discussion…how dare you!!! Excellent Elizabeth502!

Peace, Mark