Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[One_point]

Sigh.

It is uncharitable to disbelieve me, especially considering I’ve done it before for an entire relationship. You can argue theologically how it’s still immoral or whatever, but just blatantly disbelieving me is rude.

Rude? My foot! You get to attribute all sorts of unkind and demeaning motives to people or groups that disagree with you (they are evil, tricksters, have an irrational fear of homosexuals yadayada) but if someone expresses the slightest doubt at a truly implausible statement you make they are just so rude! double standards

 

[GaryTaylor]

Rude? My foot! You get to ascribe all sorts of unkind and demeaning motives to people or groups that disagree with you (they are evil, tricksters, have an irrational fear of homosexuals yadayada) but if someone expresses the slightest doubt at a truly implausible statement you make they are just so rude! double standards

You know what that is, a result of the presented documents which states charity toward SSA, that doesn’t apply to anyone but heterosexual. Its definitely the impression I get.

 

[SMGS127]

Rude? My foot! You get to attribute all sorts of unkind and demeaning motives to people or groups that disagree with you (they are evil, tricksters, have an irrational fear of homosexuals yadayada) but if someone expresses the slightest doubt at a truly implausible statement you make they are just so rude! double standards

It is not a double standard!

I have done it before for an entire relationship. You really think I’d engage my sex drive in a relationship I knew I couldn’t have sex in? I would’ve gone crazy. My point is that, on a forum, you can debate the theological issues as far as the issue goes. But to just simply sit back and say “I don’t think you made out for that reason” is a post without a point. It serves no purpose whatsoever. It concedes the theological issues, since the legitimacy of my statement would have no matter if theological issues forbade it. And again, it is just rude. If you came on the forums and said “you know what, I like rollerskating” and I said “no one can like rollerskating because I don’t like it, and therefore it is implausible for you to like it,” you wouldn’t consider that rude and unnecessary, let alone a pointless and logically ridiculous statement? Come on.

And I have never questioned a single thing about anyone’s motives. I have, however, mentioned how their behavior is very strikingly different for homosexuals than any other group of people. I judge behavior, not motives, not people.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

As living creatures we are subject to nature and as human beings we are subject to Gods will. By nature, outside any cultural or religious influence, living things are ordered to procreate. Males are attracted to females by chemistry. There is a process of courting or ritual seduction that excites the bodies by which nature takes over to bind together their hearts, their bodies and their fertile gifts (semen, ova). So by nature our inclinations are ordered towards this interplay. That interplay is objectively ordered.

If our inclinations are not towards this natural interplay but towards a fundamentally barren interplay of heart/body/fertile gift… this is objectively disordered. We are to avoid succumbing to that inclination reserved by nature and God for the driving force of procreation… and divert our passions with grace and prayer, to the spiritual life, preserving our human relationships as disinterested friendships.

Longing, it would be terrific for your interpretation if what you wrote is what the real-world catechism said. But as it is…

In terms of the challenge I gave you, you’ve not quite succeeded–i.e., you did not manage to consider the morality of an inclination absent an object. The trouble for you, though, is that the object you identify as the intrinsically disordered object here (“a fundamentally barren interplay of heart/body/fertile gift”) is not what the catechism identifies as the intrinsically disordered object when it comes to the homosexual inclination.

Just considering that phrase–“a fundamentally barren interplay of heart/body/fertile gift”–reveals a lot of problems for your interpretation, not least of which is that you assume that the hearts of same-sex attracted beloveds are not capable of any fertile interplay or exchange at all–i.e., that same-sex beloveds in relationship are incapable of human flourishing even on such a fundamental level as the level of the heart. The things you are suggesting about the hearts of same-sex attracted people are simply repugnant and are inconsistent with historical example, contemporary experience, or in fact any orthodox theology dealing with spiritual anthropology. Happily, the catechism does not say what you think it says in this regard.

I think you begin to go off the rails when you make this categorical assertion: “Males are attracted to females by chemistry.” Leaving aside that I suspect that your perception of sexual morality here is based more on chemistry than theology, not all males are attracted to females (and vice versa). That is simply a fact of life. That you begin your wishful-thinking version of the catechism with an act of fantasy is telling. Also, living beings may generally be inclined to procreate, but it cannot be said that any specific living being must procreate. Regardless of the biological sex of the person to whom you’re attracted, all genital sexual activity is ordered to procreation, but one cannot say that all people are ordered to procreation–otherwise things like celibacy, chastity, virginity would lose their virtue.

But all that’s beside the point–because your personal re-write of the catechism is not what the catechism says.

You’re missing the fundamentally revolutionary aspect of the Catholic teaching concerning sexuality: that it is about relationship, not primarily about attraction. Who cares what sex you’re attracted to? Who cares what the changing social customs are regarding the expressions of virtuous affection (such as courtship rituals, dating, etc.)–they’re certainly not eternal. The point is right relationship. Marriage is the exemplar par excellence of what right relationship in all its aspects looks like, but not all the virtues of marriage are exclusive to married people. Other forms of relationship, oriented to other purposes (that are not, for instance, procreative, but do tend to lead to human flourishing), can and do participate in many of the same virtues. It is not the heterosexual condition that is normative–it is relationship, the best exemplar of which is marriage.

Your interpretation of the catechism sees the perfect as the enemy of the good. I don’t know why that should be so.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[One_point]

It is not a double standard!

I have done it before for an entire relationship. You really think I’d engage my sex drive in a relationship I knew I couldn’t have sex in? I would’ve gone crazy. My point is that, on a forum, you can debate the theological issues as far as the issue goes. But to just simply sit back and say “I don’t think you made out for that reason” is a post without a point. It serves no purpose whatsoever. It concedes the theological issues, since the legitimacy of my statement would have no matter if theological issues forbade it. And again, it is just rude. If you came on the forums and said “you know what, I like rollerskating” and I said “no one can like rollerskating because I don’t like it, and therefore it is implausible for you to like it,” you wouldn’t consider that rude and unnecessary, let alone a pointless and logically ridiculous statement? Come on.

No. you come on what theological issues were you discussing when you decided you were an expert on the motivations of other posters. when you expect to get the benefit of the doubt while reserving the right to with-hold it from others, that’s a double standard:shrug:

motivations of others: other people have an irrational fear of homosexuals, one point in particular is laying spiritual traps like the Pharisees (and you are in the place of Christ in the story of course, just talking righteousness), people over at courage are evil.

 

[SMGS127]

No. you come on what theological issues were you discussing when you decided you were an expert on the motivations of other posters. when you expect to get the benefit of the doubt while reserving the right to with-hold it from others, that’s a double standard:shrug:

motivations of others: other people have an irrational fear of homosexuals, one point in particular is laying spiritual traps like the Pharisees (and you are in the place of Christ in the story of course, just talking righteousness), people over at courage are evil.

Actually what I said was:

People treat homosexuality as if they are uniquely prone to temptation. In this way, their behavior is constantly fearful of gays slipping up, and they try to forcibly hold the hands of gay people and lead them into the metaphorical white-walled rooms where they can’t do any harm ever. You will notice that I specifically and immediately qualified my statement specifically so as not to impugn motives on any single person.

As for the spiritual traps, what else can you call a question where a “yes” or “no” answer incriminates the individual? And if you’ll recall, the specific example I gave was of St. Joan of Arc, not Christ.

I also have never said that people at COURAGE are evil, and it is interesting that you read that deeply into my comments to think that. Perhaps you might want to self-reflect on why you’re overanalyzing my posts? What I actually said was that NARTH as an organization advocated for psychological torture, and thus, as an organization, committed evil, regardless of the intentions of those at NARTH. I also said that I disliked COURAGE because they were advocates of NARTH, and I said that I didn’t care at all what Ms. Arnold said about homosexuality because she is a huge advocate of NARTH. But that does not mean I think Ms. Arnold or the people at COURAGE (or even the people at NARTH!) are evil; they just advocate naively (with good intentions, I assume!) for an organization whose policies and political activity lead to great evil. This is similar to how no one assumes people at the Human Rights Campaign are evil, especially as they do lots of good (especially their wing that is entirely devoted to ending violence against gays), but they also commit acts of evil (supporting SSM) with good intentions in their heart.

On the other hand, I’ve had my motives consistently questioned for even bringing this up, and I’ve had my very experiences disbelieved rather than assumed for the sake of argumentation.

 

[One_point]

No offense, one point, but it now sounds like you’re trying to catch me in a spiritual trap, ala the Pharisees, than actually understand me. I’m not really up for that, sorry.

You compared me to the Pharisees. I suppose that gives you the priviledged place of Christ, then. You don’t compare me to people that embody the very notion of malice and evil motives in Christianity and then claim offence that I do not accept your incredible claims. its a speck mote kinda thing. And I don’t analyze your posts. you make your views very plain, smgs. I just note them when you say something that stands out, like “they are evil”. it is buried somewhere in these pages. it doesn’t matter if its courage or narth. the bottom line is you don’t know "them’ to claim they are evil, just as you do not know me. For the sake of not getting the thread closed, I will not continue on this discussion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

People treat homosexuality as if they are uniquely prone to temptation.

I don’t believe that personally. I do believe in the seven deadly sins and the Catholic theology behind them, I can vouch for their validity, there is no denial of my own past. That said I would venture to say that about makes you and me the same. But I also don’t assign a special place in hell for those who have issues as yourself. However in my mind we are speaking very carnal and not elevating to spiritual, we can’t be a slave to carnal desire period.

“It takes heroic virtue in most cases to overcome these. Most of us are afflicted greatly with at least one or two of these. And once you give in to one of these sins, the spirits of the other 6 will be only too glad to come into your soul also. All of these sins will lead you directly to hell.”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicbible101.com%2F7deadlysins.htm&ei=VmTAU5XLDsGBoQT2xYG4CA&usg=AFQjCNF-qQv5jqDFvD6imtaMWVBbfnEGpw

What I do believe is there’s much misunderstanding and still much condemnation for being simply who you are with SSA in general. But isn’t this historic also?

As far as the point of contention in the thread, I admit you have a plausible point which I also believe your wrong about. Not because its not plausible but because it leans on carnal thinking much to much as with french kissing and further the idea this involves chaste living. In my mind I see chaste as a state no different than virginity though this is choice differently in time. Which also isn’t absent of people or love…

To me its a trial and the Cross which I believe I have mentioned as have a few others. Perhaps its a matter of seeing this as a blessing.

 

[Abu]

An excellent appraisal of the contradictions in a homosexual lifestyle.

The “Inhumanity” of the Homosexual Lifestyle
June 26, 2014 By Fr. Paul Conner, O.P
Conclusion
By way of focusing on contradictions, this article has laid out what today’s Western culture, and especially the homosexual culture, would overlook or try to conceal: namely, some contradictions inherent in the homosexual lifestyle to the fullness of true love, human sexuality, and genuine marriage and family.

Contradictions are the crucial issue. Without the intellectual guidance they give us, almost everything in life—surely our sexual lives—would be chaotic. “Yes” could as well be “no;” “up” could as well be “down;” “harm” could mean “help;” a glass could be “empty” and “full” at the same time! Everything becomes relative and subjective. Clearly, contradiction is a self-evident principle of rational thought; to abandon it is to become irrational.

Readers troubled by same sex attraction now have the chance and, of course, the free choice, either to embrace knowingly the contradictions inherent in homosexual sex, or to free themselves of living such contradictions and, instead, pursue the opposite choices that fulfill, rather than frustrate, the deep longings of the human mind and heart. 21
hprweb.com/2014/06/the-inhumanity-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

 

[Rau]

An excellent appraisal of the contradictions in a homosexual lifestyle.

The “Inhumanity” of the Homosexual Lifestyle
June 26, 2014 By Fr. Paul Conner, O.P
Conclusion
By way of focusing on contradictions, this article has laid out what today’s Western culture, and especially the homosexual culture, would overlook or try to conceal: namely, some contradictions inherent in the homosexual lifestyle to the fullness of true love, human sexuality, and genuine marriage and family.

Contradictions are the crucial issue. Without the intellectual guidance they give us, almost everything in life—surely our sexual lives—would be chaotic. “Yes” could as well be “no;” “up” could as well be “down;” “harm” could mean “help;” a glass could be “empty” and “full” at the same time! Everything becomes relative and subjective. Clearly, contradiction is a self-evident principle of rational thought; to abandon it is to become irrational.

Readers troubled by same sex attraction now have the chance and, of course, the free choice, either to embrace knowingly the contradictions inherent in homosexual sex, or to free themselves of living such contradictions and, instead, pursue the opposite choices that fulfill, rather than frustrate, the deep longings of the human mind and heart. 21
hprweb.com/2014/06/the-inhumanity-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

FYI, this article focuses on the contradictions involved in homosexual genital relations, homosexual “marriage” and the acquiring of children by homosexual couples. At the end, the author makes a strong claim about the effectiveness of therapies to “re-orient” the attractions in people with SSA. NARTH was among the recommended organisations.

 

[CatholicSheila]

I know that homosexual apologist will bristle when I once again make the comparison between alcoholism and same-sex attraction but to me the similarities are so obvious. I have spent over a quarter of a century sitting in AA meetings where new members earnestly tell us how great their self control is and how their experiences are different and unique from ours. So when we tell them you can have even one drink and tell them is not a good idea to hang around with people who drink a lot or frequent establishments were vast amounts of liquor sold there are always quick to tell us that that is too much to ask for and they can get sober without giving all that up. And of course it never works-no more than trying to “chastely” only make out with a member of the same-sex while trying to put their homosexual lifestyle behind you does.

You are assuming the actions of the majority are true for everyone. I am an ex alcoholic who can have just one drink and stop there. Is this the norm? Probably not. I certainly know many alcoholics who can’t stop at one drink. Unusual doesn’t mean impossible. We shouldn’t assume that just because something is true for me (or you) that it is automatically true for everyone.

Onto the thread -

I have been watching this thread with a lot of interest. For two reasons - it’s the first thread I’ve read in a long time that actually shows respect for homosexuals. A rare thing indeed on this board.

I also find it an interesting idea that SMGS has. As someone who is struggling to decide whether or not to stay in the church, primarily because of the homosexuality issue, this gives me food for thought. Perhaps there is another option that I haven’t considered. If this is licit, it opens a door to the church that many would have previously considered closed.

Whilst I presently would not want to be in a relationship with a woman which didn’t include a sexual component (right now I’m in an all or nothing frame of mind - and nothing isn’t winning), it is something that I accept as been possible. In the right frame of mind, where there is no doubt that the church has authority in it’s teaching and with the right woman. It could be possible.

 

[Rau]

You are assuming the actions of the majority are true for everyone. I am an ex alcoholic who can have just one drink and stop there. Is this the norm? Probably not. I certainly know many alcoholics who can’t stop at one drink. Unusual doesn’t mean impossible. We shouldn’t assume that just because something is true for me (or you) that it is automatically true for everyone.

Onto the thread -

I have been watching this thread with a lot of interest. For two reasons - it’s the first thread I’ve read in a long time that actually shows respect for homosexuals. A rare thing indeed on this board.

I also find it an interesting idea that SMGS has. As someone who is struggling to decide whether or not to stay in the church, primarily because of the homosexuality issue, this gives me food for thought. Perhaps there is another option that I haven’t considered. If this is licit, it opens a door to the church that many would have previously considered closed.

Whilst I presently would not want to be in a relationship with a woman which didn’t include a sexual component (right now I’m in an all or nothing frame of mind - and nothing isn’t winning), it is something that I accept as been possible. In the right frame of mind, where there is no doubt that the church has authority in it’s teaching and with the right woman. It could be possible.

I am wondering how you would make the change to abandon a sexual relationship? SMGS, in the context of conversion to Catholicism I believe, accepts and defends the Church teaching regarding the unacceptability of sexual acts outside of marriage. You appear to be in a different place, and it seems to me that without entirely rejecting the idea of sexual relationships, you would always be at great risk of drifting into one again (eg. from an intimate friendship).

The second issue that strikes me as a bit odd is that you suggest you might forego sexual relationships and instead limit yourself to intimate friendships, IF you could be sure that the latter is licit. But, regardless of whether the latter is licit, would there not be merit in giving up sexual relationships, in favour of intimate relationships, which must surely be (even in the worst case) the lesser of 2 evils?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are assuming the actions of the majority are true for everyone. I am an ex alcoholic who can have just one drink and stop there. Is this the norm? Probably not. I certainly know many alcoholics who can’t stop at one drink. Unusual doesn’t mean impossible. We shouldn’t assume that just because something is true for me (or you) that it is automatically true for everyone.

And there are probably heterosexuals and homosexuals who could commit adultery once a year and stop also. I’m happy, happy, happy, you chose to be an “ex-addict” aside from a recovering addict. That means you are now better and they never will be. That said I take victory however I could get it. Really has nothing to do with the actual act, thats a symptom of the problem, not the problem. The problem is the processing of emotions and thought by thought. Either or is the same situation. So the truth is you or I are seeking understanding and more control.

I have been watching this thread with a lot of interest. For two reasons - it’s the first thread I’ve read in a long time that actually shows respect for homosexuals. A rare thing indeed on this board.

Its an exclusive club where ultimately its Christ mercy, so the goal is rather like minded. Be it as it may, angry people are everywhere. I seen a guy completely flip out in a restaurant over pancakes [blueberry] last night.

I also find it an interesting idea that SMGS has. As someone who is struggling to decide whether or not to stay in the church, primarily because of the homosexuality issue, this gives me food for thought. Perhaps there is another option that I haven’t considered. If this is licit, it opens a door to the church that many would have previously considered closed.

Life is full of hard choices and as I was saying earlier I have found some are blessing which appear to be curse. Lex orandi, lex credendi the first choice is Jesus Christ and always.and the grace to know this always… The path is one of practice not perfection though the practice should lead to the perfection be it one step forward and two back.

Whilst I presently would not want to be in a relationship with a woman which didn’t include a sexual component (right now I’m in an all or nothing frame of mind - and nothing isn’t winning), it is something that I accept as been possible. In the right frame of mind, where there is no doubt that the church has authority in it’s teaching and with the right woman. It could be possible.

Yea I couldn’t wrap my mind around the concept either, and I thought God abandoned my soul along the way. In fact I clearly remember one day a very long time ago in the middle of a blood bath, praying in mind. I was confused and angry like the pancake guy. I said to God you must be kidding, after all this I"m gonna die like this and here? I was angry and hurt because I wasn’t prepared. The salvation is keeping Christ first and regardless of your own doubts, inclinations, temptations and moment by moment sometimes. If it isn’t for Christ, I wouldn’t known to have come here to speak to you.

Its a dreadful deed to offend the Lord. Yet I still manage to do so as we all do. Sex is overrated and of this world. Love doesn’t require anything carnal. Had that been the case no-one could love the Lord. You can’t do anything without him, He is supplying the next breath your about to take.

Sacrifice is what the Lord indeed did, and I would venture to suggest its exactly what He expects of us.

Leaving the Church is non sequitur, there is no-where to run from the Kingdom Come.

Peace

 

[CatholicSheila]

I am wondering how you would make the change to abandon a sexual relationship? SMGS, in the context of conversion to Catholicism I believe, accepts and defends the Church teaching regarding the unacceptability of sexual acts outside of marriage. You appear to be in a different place, and it seems to me that without entirely rejecting the idea of sexual relationships, you would always be at great risk of drifting into one again (eg. from an intimate friendship)

That is why I said that I think it could work if both parties fully accept the teaching of the church re homosexual sex. Without that full acceptance, and motivation, then I think anyone would fail to achieve. There would simply be no reason to try.

It would not work for me, right now, because I am wavering. In the past I have always accepted church teaching just because it is what the church teaches. Frankly, I had bigger things to worry about than what the church taught on this matter and I assumed it would never be a big issue for me because it wasn’t then. I was wrong on that. Now that my health is back on track, I suddenly find I am no longer happy with simply accepting things because the Church says so.

For clarity, I wouldn’t be abandoning a sexual relationship. I’m not in one. I haven’t been in one since I joined the Church in 2009. I’m just not sure how much longer I want that to last. I’m already dissenting on SSM, and I’m just not sure that I want to continue in a Church where I do feel very unwelcome. Not so much because of the Church herself, but because I don’t think we can expect people to separate the Church from the Christians. They’re a package, and it isn’t a package I like.

The second issue that strikes me as a bit odd is that you suggest you might forego sexual relationships and instead limit yourself to intimate friendships, IF you could be sure that the latter is licit. But, regardless of whether the latter is licit, would there not be merit in giving up sexual relationships, in favour of intimate relationships, which must surely be (even in the worst case) the lesser of 2 evils?

I’m not sure if I’m following you here, so forgive me if I go on a completely irrelevant tangent.

I care if it is licit, because we’re talking about behaviour that is appropriate for Catholics. I understand why you would say that an illicit intimate friendship would be better than a sexual relationship, but I don’t agree. It might be the lesser of 2 evils, but it would still stand in the way of a relationship with Christ. It would still need to be confessed - and those in such a relationship would still be making an invalid confession. Either due to a failure to include it, or if it is included due to a lack of intent to change their ways. So any communion is taken unworthily.

My attitude now is that if I do stay with the Church, then I want to be able to partake of the sacraments. I need both confession and Holy Communion just as any sinner does. If an illicit friendship would deny me access to those, then I might as well go the full mile and commit sexual sin. Committing Sin x (illicit friendship) that prevents me accessing the sacraments so I don’t commit sin B (homosexual sex), which would also prevent me accessing the sacraments just seems… silly.

What is been suggested by SMGS would make it easier to accept what the Church teaches, so long as the requirements she lists are met. I do think meeting those requirements is possible for some people.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Leaving the Church is non sequitur, there is no-where to run from the Kingdom Come.

Yes, that is one problem I have. If I leave the Church, where do I go? No one else has a decent claim on authority, and that is what got me into the Church to start with.

 

[SMGS127]

That is why I said that I think it could work if both parties fully accept the teaching of the church re homosexual sex. Without that full acceptance, and motivation, then I think anyone would fail to achieve. There would simply be no reason to try.

It would not work for me, right now, because I am wavering. In the past I have always accepted church teaching just because it is what the church teaches. Frankly, I had bigger things to worry about than what the church taught on this matter and I assumed it would never be a big issue for me because it wasn’t then. I was wrong on that. Now that my health is back on track, I suddenly find I am no longer happy with simply accepting things because the Church says so.

For clarity, I wouldn’t be abandoning a sexual relationship. I’m not in one. I haven’t been in one since I joined the Church in 2009. I’m just not sure how much longer I want that to last. I’m already dissenting on SSM, and I’m just not sure that I want to continue in a Church where I do feel very unwelcome. Not so much because of the Church herself, but because I don’t think we can expect people to separate the Church from the Christians. They’re a package, and it isn’t a package I like.

I think this is what heterosexual Catholics just don’t get. Experiencing the Church from the point of view of a gay or lesbian person is so harsh and hard to deal with. As much as I love the Church, and as much as Christ gave me knowledge of the Truth of the Church when I first entered the Church, the way gays and lesbians are talked about in the Church is just…it makes me have so many doubts, all the time. I’ve kind of gravitated myself to this point of view where I accept Church teachings but want literally nothing to do with the people of the Church. I’m Catholic for life, but I want nothing to do with Catholics. And that’s a hard position to take. It’s still theologically consistent, but it can leave you questioning why you’re even still believing in the Church if you’re so frustrated with Her members, misinformation spread about the LGBT community, and the harsh tone of Her Cardinals. So I really do understand you. There have been days where I’ve been tempted to just jump train and stop caring, but…Christ always pulls me back in. But I’ve withheld the Sacraments from myself for awhile while I’ve been wavering.

What is been suggested by SMGS would make it easier to accept what the Church teaches, so long as the requirements she lists are met. I do think meeting those requirements is possible for some people.

I agree. I definitely think it is licit, provided people stay within their limits (though that is a responsibility each and every gay or lesbian person would know they had, going into this), and I think it would help solve the intimacy issue that plagues most gay and lesbian Catholics.

Yes, that is one problem I have. If I leave the Church, where do I go? No one else has a decent claim on authority, and that is what got me into the Church to start with.

This reminds me of Peter, when asked the same question by Christ. Where else is there to go? For me either the Church is real or there isn’t a God; those are the only two possibilities. So I’m either a practicing Catholic not having sex or I’m an atheist having sex. There’s no in-between for me. And, although it’s been a long time since He did reveal the Church to me, I still remember that He did. And so atheism just doesn’t make sense…

God Bless you Sheila. Please stay in the Faith, and I will be praying for you.

~ SMGS