What Will I Tell My Gay Friends? (An account of the dilemma a woman becoming Catholic faced)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was this from Jennifer F. in response to one of the commenters:

“What made me think of that was that I remembered that a couple years ago I talked to a guy who is attracted to men, but who married a woman. He loved her and was faithful to her and they had children. He talked about his kids ALL the time and just absolutely loved being a father. He truly dedicated himself to his family. I thought it was interesting. Obviously that doesn’t mean that that scenario would work for everyone, but that guy definitely did find a type of fulfillment in his life, even though it wasn’t fulfillment of sexual desires.”
 
There was this from Jennifer F. in response to one of the commenters:

“What made me think of that was that I remembered that a couple years ago I talked to a guy who is attracted to men, but who married a woman. He loved her and was faithful to her and they had children. He talked about his kids ALL the time and just absolutely loved being a father. He truly dedicated himself to his family. I thought it was interesting. Obviously that doesn’t mean that that scenario would work for everyone, but that guy definitely did find a type of fulfillment in his life, even though it wasn’t fulfillment of sexual desires.”
Sounds like a former New Jersey governor. LIED about his marriage vows, then decides to tell the wife and kids, “Oh, by the way, I don’t really like women. Sorry about that.” That’s not being faithful. That’s not being loving. Yes, obviously, that scenario would not work for everyone because, time and time again, we see how that story ends. I don’t see how that could ever be fulfilling for any of the parties involved: it’s a deck of cards that could fall apart at a moment’s notice.
 
Sounds like a former New Jersey governor. LIED about his marriage vows, then decides to tell the wife and kids, “Oh, by the way, I don’t really like women. Sorry about that.” That’s not being faithful. That’s not being loving. Yes, obviously, that scenario would not work for everyone because, time and time again, we see how that story ends. I don’t see how that could ever be fulfilling for any of the parties involved: it’s a deck of cards that could fall apart at a moment’s notice.
It isn’t at all clear from the context of what she wrote that her friend lied about his marriage vows. In fact, it seems that he meant them and kept them. She said he was attracted to men but married a woman. That he loved her and was faithful to her. That he loved being a father. That he truly dedicated himself to his family. It sounds rather that he may be putting his marriage vows above his feelings.
 
To be born homosexual is not a sin but if someone do homosexual things than this person is on the way into the hell. A good fiend does not want that his fiend goes to hell.
If you support homosexual sins than you send this people into the hell and so you are a “murderer” of this people.
 
No one leaves homosexuality. There is no “cure” for it. You are born that way and that’s it. Now some people have decided to become chaste, but that’s not leaving homosexuality. It’s not something that you can choose. It’s how God made you.
Most of your statement is incorrect. You are correct that a homosexual person canno’t be cured from this disorder, but they can overcome it through God’s grace. It is true that some maybe most (it’s up for debate) are born this way, but God does not make you this way. It is because of sin that corrupition has entered into the world, hence the homosexuality orgin is of sin and not of God.
 
I was told that having a homosexual orientation isn’t a sin but to act on it is. I’m actually going to go read the Catechism before bed (which I intended to do before I read this but now I think I’ll look this particular topic up). They are called to chastity and their attraction to the same sex without it being fulfilled is their cross to bear.

Having said that, we are all sinners. We all sin. I like to point this out to homosexuals and their sympathizers to “soften the blow”. It’s understandable that they may feel personally attacked when told what they are doing is a sin. I’m not homosexual but I do sin (I try to less and less - including sins of omission) so as far as I’m concerned I’m no better or worse off than any homosexual. And I consider myself a sympathizer for them because I try to be a sympathizer for all people in all situations under the sun - some are harder than others for me.

As far as sexual deviancy is concerned I’m far more shocked by pedophiles and rapers. I can’t stand the term “rapist” because it implies it is an art form. Such as artist, or pianist, or guitarist, or ventriloquist. So if God granted me the power to end one form of carnal sin I would choose to take the forcing of one onto another out of existance. When I see people carrying signs that say “God hates fags” I’m stunned. If that kind of energy and propaganda was spent on a “God hates molesters” crusade I would sleep better at night. But this is all beside the point.

The best thing to do for a homosexual is to explain to them that the sexual act is between a married man and woman, and it should be open to procreation (which is impossible between two men or two women), that who they think they are (or actually are, I’m completely on the fence as to whether it is nature or nurture) is not a sin but acting on it is, tell them they are called to chastity, and pray for them.
 
False. All Christians are called to live the VIRTUE of chastity according to their state in life. For priests and religious, that means celibacy. For marrieds that means sexual relations which are unitive and open to procreation. For singles, it means continence.

Celibacy is not a vocation, it is part of how priests and religious live out their vocation, which is to be a priest or religious. Married people have a vocation to family life. Single people have various vocations, but finding out what this is incredibly difficult to discern as it’s not priesthood or religious life and it’s not family life…what to do…what to do?
when the CCC says homosexuals are called to chastity, It means they are called to the leaving of the homosexual lifestyle/sodomy…the giving up of perverse sex acts and impurity…
 
This is false. The Church is very limited on what it says about homosexuality. You might want to brush up on it again?

I see homosexuality as one of the flaws that must be removed before one can enter heaven. One can work through their issues here in this life or in purgatory.
oh please, the Church is very obvious on the issue of homosexuality. And so is scripture, patristics, and the ECF.

Is this limited??

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment" (ibid., 8).

Tertullian

“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Novatian

Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).

“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Basil the Great

“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

"If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).

John Chrysostom

“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).

“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).

Augustine

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
 
Treat them with kindness and respect. They will probably be shocked when they hear you are Christian and actually respect them as human beings. Most of them are brainwashed by the media stereotypes of Christians going psycho when faced with a gay person. Be kind and compassionate, and share your views if they ask, for they will ask when they are ready and they are not ready before they ask.

Treat them the same way you would treat a smoker, for the gay lifestyle actually has worse health effects than smoking. The average gay person has 5-10 years shorter life span than the average smoker. Instead of lung cancer, gays get anal and other nasty forms of cancer that do not respond well to treatment. Like smoking, being gay is very addictive. Many people have left homosexuality, and many others never do. Do not shove your views down their throats, but be open if you’re asked your opinion.
Wow, great advice. I couldn’t have said it better myself! : )
 
when the CCC says homosexuals are called to chastity, It means they are called to the leaving of the homosexual lifestyle/sodomy…the giving up of perverse sex acts and impurity…
Yes, I understand that the Church says “NO” to homosexuality. As a person cursed with homosexuality, I have to ask, after chastity…THEN WHAT? One can’t build an entire life on chastity. It’s a virtue. So, THEN WHAT?

Can’t be a priest.
Can’t be a religous.
Can’t get married.

SO what does one DO?
 
oh please, the Church is very obvious on the issue of homosexuality. And so is scripture, patristics, and the ECF.

Is this limited??

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment" (ibid., 8).

Tertullian

“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Novatian

Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women" (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).

“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Basil the Great

“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

"If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).

John Chrysostom

“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).

“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).

Augustine

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
A bunch of clunky translations of stuff said hundreds of years ago is not what I was looking for.

The Church says “NO” to homoseuxality. I understand that. I agree with that. Do you understand that?

I want to know what the Church’s YES for a person like me could possibly be?

SEX: NO
MARRIAGE: NO
PRIESTHOOD: NO
RELIGIOUS LIFE: NO
CONSECRATED LIFE: NO

What kind of options does someone like me have? Chastity is NOT a vocation, it’s a virtue that everyone is called to. Being single is NOT a vocation, it is a state of life in which one lives their vocation (priesthood or consecrated religious life). As I see it, homosexual = impeded from vocations. Just live a third rate life as a third class citizen in the Church.
 
Treat them the same way you would treat a smoker, for the gay lifestyle actually has worse health effects than smoking. The average gay person has 5-10 years shorter life span than the average smoker. Instead of lung cancer, gays get anal and other nasty forms of cancer that do not respond well to treatment. Like smoking, being gay is very addictive. Many people have left homosexuality, and many others never do. Do not shove your views down their throats, but be open if you’re asked your opinion.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but if your’e really “educating yourself” you may want to do so properly, because I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but its a pile of rubbish.

You don’t tend to get “anal cancer” from sodomy. And smoking is much, MUCH worse then being gay when it comes to your health. Being gay doesn’t kill 50% of its users.
 
A bunch of clunky translations of stuff said hundreds of years ago is not what I was looking for.

The Church says “NO” to homoseuxality. I understand that. I agree with that. Do you understand that?

I want to know what the Church’s YES for a person like me could possibly be?

SEX: NO
MARRIAGE: NO
PRIESTHOOD: NO
RELIGIOUS LIFE: NO
CONSECRATED LIFE: NO

What kind of options does someone like me have? Chastity is NOT a vocation, it’s a virtue that everyone is called to. Being single is NOT a vocation, it is a state of life in which one lives their vocation (priesthood or consecrated religious life). As I see it, homosexual = impeded from vocations. Just live a third rate life as a third class citizen in the Church.
One of the things I love about the Catholic Church is she values the single life as a vocation. There is the married state, religious, and single.

Here are my vocational options:

Single State: YES 👍
Catholic, witnessing to the Faith: YES 👍

I’m a divorced Catholic. I do not consider myself as living a third rate life as a third class citizen. Some people continue to say to me, “You’ll find someone.” “You should find someone before you get too old.” :rolleyes:

Jesus love you. You’re #1 in his book. You’re not being called to any of the vocations you have listed above. It is what it is. God knows what’s best for you. Rely on him, put your trust in him.
 
A good number of Catholics struggle with the fact that they are single and with the same question about what they can be. There have been threads on Catholic Answers discussing this. One of them (which I hope may be helpful) is at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=453601
A bunch of clunky translations of stuff said hundreds of years ago is not what I was looking for.

The Church says “NO” to homoseuxality. I understand that. I agree with that. Do you understand that?

I want to know what the Church’s YES for a person like me could possibly be?

SEX: NO
MARRIAGE: NO
PRIESTHOOD: NO
RELIGIOUS LIFE: NO
CONSECRATED LIFE: NO

What kind of options does someone like me have? Chastity is NOT a vocation, it’s a virtue that everyone is called to. Being single is NOT a vocation, it is a state of life in which one lives their vocation (priesthood or consecrated religious life). As I see it, homosexual = impeded from vocations. Just live a third rate life as a third class citizen in the Church.
 
What kind of options does someone like me have? Chastity is NOT a vocation, it’s a virtue that everyone is called to. Being single is NOT a vocation, it is a state of life in which one lives their vocation (priesthood or consecrated religious life). As I see it, homosexual = impeded from vocations. Just live a third rate life as a third class citizen in the Church.
My oldest son died when he was three from a very severe birth defect. He lived in a persistent vegetative state his entire life.

Why? Because of the Fall. Because we are not as God intended. Some have huge crosses to bear because of this. Some have smaller crosses.

The answer to the “unfairness” in this life is to dust yourself off, hitch up your pants, thank God for your life, and make the best of it.

This does not imply that I am unsympathetic to your situation. I understand. Personally, I think that the priesthood is a very noble vocation for men with same sex attraction.
 
Yes, I understand that the Church says “NO” to homosexuality. As a person cursed with homosexuality, I have to ask, after chastity…THEN WHAT? One can’t build an entire life on chastity. It’s a virtue. So, THEN WHAT?

Can’t be a priest.
Can’t be a religous.
Can’t get married.

SO what does one DO?
I am in the same situation as you are. The only answer I have found is that I am to live a holy life as a single man. I will continue to pray for a vocation to marriage in the future and am going through therapy for that now, but I know that the most likely scenario is a single life. It is painful. It is a hard cross to bear. But I do not think that God has abandoned me. He has a plan for all of us, including you. It may be that His plan for you is to remain single, but even that can be seen in a positive light. It is like chastity - it will always fail if it is viewed only as a list of things that one cannot do, but when viewed as a positive opportunity for virtue and sacrifice and self-discipline and integrity and faithfulness to God and ultimately a means to attaining holiness, the cross becomes lighter. I try to see my life that way, that God has given me this opportunity to work toward my own salvation and also to be an example to others, for my friends see me as a man who is living a holy life faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Don’t underestimate the value in these things.
 
The above post is valuable. I would suggest that marriage sometimes is overrated. To some extent there’s a “grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” thing going on.

It causes me no end of consternation that with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on research over the past decade or so, there are very, very few genuinely scientific facts on homosexuality available. It’s a massively complex developmental phenomenon.
 
What kind of options does someone like me have?
Life. Rejoice in it!
One of the things I love about the Catholic Church is she values the single life as a vocation. There is the married state, religious, and single.

Here are my vocational options:

Single State: YES 👍
Catholic, witnessing to the Faith: YES 👍 …]

Jesus love you. You’re #1 in his book. You’re not being called to any of the vocations you have listed above. It is what it is. God knows what’s best for you. Rely on him, put your trust in him.
Exactly! I cannot agree enough. Love God; the rest follows.
 
I am in the same situation as you are. The only answer I have found is that I am to live a holy life as a single man. I will continue to pray for a vocation to marriage in the future and am going through therapy for that now, but I know that the most likely scenario is a single life. It is painful. It is a hard cross to bear. But I do not think that God has abandoned me. He has a plan for all of us, including you. ** It may be that His plan for you is to remain single, but even that can be seen in a positive light. It is like chastity - it will always fail if it is viewed only as a list of things that one cannot do, but when viewed as a positive opportunity for virtue and sacrifice and self-discipline and integrity and faithfulness to God and ultimately a means to attaining holiness, the cross becomes lighter. ** I try to see my life that way, that God has given me this opportunity to work toward my own salvation and also to be an example to others, for my friends see me as a man who is living a holy life faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Don’t underestimate the value in these things.
This heterosexual, never-married woman says: WELL PUT! 👍
 
Grace & Peace!

3 Doctors (and others), I think the difficulty that LCMS brings up is much more complex than you’re recognizing. Because of the language of the catechism (that states that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”), a homosexual’s desire for physical intimacy will always be an occasion of sin. By the catechism’s reasoning, there is no correctly ordered way that a homosexual may desire physical intimacy. And once he or she becomes conscious of the desire, he or she must also become conscious that it is a **disordered **desire, the gateway of sin. There is no way that his or her desire can be put to a good end, according to the catechism, because there is no goodness, in it, no part of it that can be correctly ordered–that’s what objectively disordered means. It is not sin. Granted. But it has all the hallmarks of a curse of Calvinistic proportions. Because contrary to Catholic teaching (which declares nature to be wounded, but not destroyed, and therefore capable of bearing and receiving grace), the homosexual’s capacity for desire is utterly and completely broken according to the catechism. It is not subject to disorder, it is not liable to impairment. It is objectively disordered and thus intrinsically broken.

This is not so with heterosexual desire. A heterosexual can desire intimacy and say, “One day, I’ll get married, and be able to share myself with another!” A heterosexual may experience desire for intimacy and say, “I sacrifice the expression of my good desire for the sake of chastity!” or “I recognize a call to celibacy, and therefore I choose to sacrifice the expression of my good desire for the sake of the church!” A homosexual can say none of these things. He or she cannot experience physical intimacy without sin, therefore it is their duty, not their choice, to refrain from physical intimacy. Moreover, in what way can a homosexual say, “I sacrifice the expression of my intrinsically disordered desire for the sake of chastity”? It’s analogous, given the catechism’s reasoning, to saying, “I sacrifice stabbing myself in the head with a steak knife for the sake of being able to think clearly.” There’s no real sacrifice involved, there. The same goes for the homosexual’s “choice” to be celibate, according the catechism’s logic.

What the homosexual is actually asked to sacrifice, however, is the expression of the fullness of their humanity. The catechism is clear that sexuality relates to our relational capacity and is an incredibly important part of what it means to be human. A heterosexual’s choice to be celibate can justifiably be called a good expression of their sexuality–the good of celibacy comes from the good of their sexuality. But a homosexual’s “choice” for the good of celibacy arises from no such good of sexuality, because their sexuality is objectively ungood!

In other words: for a heterosexual, celibacy represents the conditioning of the sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity) by the will so that it flourishes in a new and different way. The analogy here is pruning a tree. For a homosexual, celibacy is an* imposition* of the will to destroy or suppress sexuality (this fundamental aspect of their humanity). The analogy here is chopping the tree down. How can it be otherwise? The catechism is clear: good flourishing is impossible for something that is objectively disordered. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree. (Although, if good fruit *could *be observed–such as a flourishing of virtues [faith, hope, love, for instance] in a homosexual relationship–one would be bound to conclude that the tree is not intrinsically unsound, that homosexual desire is not objectively disordered…)

So we need to drop the pretence that Rome is calling homosexuals and heterosexuals to the same thing. Heterosexuals are called to flourishing. Homosexuals are called to an act of self-destruction. They are not the same calling. They cannot be called by the same names–it is willfully ignorant to do so. But because they cannot be called by the same names, because they are essentially different callings, I would argue that the catechism’s labelling of homosexual desire as objectively disordered is unjust and scandalous.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy!
Deo Gratias!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top