Archdiocese Of Boston Open Mass To Be Held

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1308615469' post='2256574']
I'm sorry, I still don't see where the hang-up is. I'm trying!

Grace re-orders the disorder, in all things. So, when it comes to disordered thoughts, yes, grace can re-order the thoughts ("work through temptation," as you say). The same can be said for sexual desires- homosexual or heterosexual.

There was a post a few months back (maybe even a year ago) by one of our phatmassers who struggles with same sex attraction, but remains faithful to the Church. He told of how, while the attraction still remained, grace helped control the attraction. I think we find the same thing regarding other sexual attractions and those who struggle with sexual sin. Think of masturbation and the power of grace in that matter. Or with someone who struggles with lust. Grace can and does reorient disordered attractions to ordered ones.

There are some disorders in the realm of nature that won't be completely put into order by grace until the end of time. Disease. Death. Deformity. Perhaps even SSA for some people.
[/quote]

Yes, grace perfects nature.

[Cam42]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1308615199' post='2256572']
Yeah man I gotcha. If you look up the page a bit we are discussing the inclination vs. desire thing. These things seem to deal with different realms of the person. Inclination seems more cerebral whereas desire and attraction seem more emotional. Inclination is the appropriate word as it umbrellas the issue. Just as a help to anyone interested here is the Oxford English Dictionary:

Inclination: [color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"]The condition of being mentally inclined or disposed to something, or an instance of such condition; a tendency or bent of the mind, will, or desires towards a particular object; disposition, propensity, leaning.[/font][/color]
[color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"]
[/font][/color]
[font="Georgia, Times,"][size="3"][color="#333333"]Desire: [/color][/size][/font][color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"]that feeling or emotion which is directed to the attainment or possession of some object from which pleasure or satisfaction is expected; longing, craving; a particular instance of this feeling, a wish.[/font][/color][color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"][size="2"][color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"]
[/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]
[color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"][size="2"]Attraction:[/size][/font][/color][color="#333333"][font="Georgia, Times,"]The action of drawing forth interest, affection, or sympathy; [/font][/color]


[/quote]

But it deals with the whole person. That is the point. The Church doesn't compartmentalize the person. She deals with the whole person as a whole person. Unforunately, right now you are not.

[Cam42]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1308613873' post='2256564']
I do read l'osservatore romano if that is what you mean but unfortunately the pope does not do a nightly news broadcast. and we have a load of great reporters and writers for ALL catholic publications and i go to them in light of Inter Mirifica and read and inform myself.
[/quote]


Try [url="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/vis_en.html"]VIS[/url], I essentially keep up with the Holy Father every day. It takes two minutes to scan and it is really like a daily broadcast.

[katholikkid]

I can't really articulate it. I'll try.

Grace does perfect nature and thoughts etc. But in logic when you create a binary ie ordered, disordered they juxtapose in all elements. Keeping in mind that I think the Church chose inclination on purpose rather than nature, desire, attraction etc. So heterosexual desire, attraction, or nature is ordered but it's actions can or cannot be. Homosexual desire, attraction, or nature is disordered so is its action. I am going to let go of the ontology of desire for now though it always has me thinking. So how does grace perfect desires, attraction, or nature that is already ordered to God? How then can we call a desire, nature, attraction disordered? Or is it the action of that ordered inclination that needs to be perfected by grace if it is disordered? This is where moral theology would enter and I don't want to get to into it but you see what I mean? This is why from my standpoint action is key here and why the church is very precise on it but as far as pre-action rests on inclination which as I said seems very cerebral almost in a 'i am contemplating this' type way rather than a natural attraction for someone. I am just over thinking it probably. Any thoughts? Ordered thoughts that is lol?

Edited June 21, 2011 by katholikkid

[Ice_nine]

I've read through most of the replies,and I think you peoples have most of the bases covered. I just want to throw some extra madness in hurr. As usual lots of it will be tangential and verbose and convoluted. FEEL FREE TO SKIP.

[b]In order to have this discussion we must clarify what exactly NATURE is.[/b]
@katholickid, you think your logic is sound, but it's almost if there are a few teeth missing from the gears. First I think it helps to define the word "natural." The Catholic understanding of nature carries with it more connotations than your standard dictionary definition. Perhaps someone could explain it better than me, but to put it simply "nature" is made by God, and thus it is inherently good. Some people may say genetic mutations, or sickness is "natural" and I guess that word would be appropriate if one meant "it's a (usually frequent) occurrence that happens beyond human control," but when looking at it from a Catholic point of view we wouldn't say sickness and deformities are natural, they are a result of the breakdown of the fallen world.

With this understanding it is simply illogical to claim that God (the creator of nature which is inherently good) would infuse a within a human person the desire and affinity towards evil acts (whatever they may be) and say the desires are themselves natural when their intended ends are gravely disordered. It would be contradictory to do so. Do you look at a gourmand and say "his/her desire to eat everything they can stuff into their faces, and that's just natural."? No, you would say they have taken a natural phenomenon (the desire to consume nutrients and sustain oneself) and perverted it by being indulgent and wasteful.

[b]The world's understanding of sexuality is WAY off in all areas[/b]
If you espouse Catholic doctrine, especially in terms of sexual morals, be prepared to get strange looks. You will be considered an archaic anomaly. The church teaches that masturbation is a grave evil, it takes the gift of SELFLESS marital love and turns it into something SELFISH, indulgent, and mortally dangerous. People will tell you the desire to masturbate is "natural" and "normal," but it's not. The sexual faculty was not made by God to be used to induce a temporary high, in fact I consider masturbation probably the most disordered of all. With homosexuality at least it's with another person but masturbation you're just trying to have sex with your hand or an object. It takes the GIFT of sexuality, which is supposed to be a beautiful expression of love between a man and a woman that mimics the trinity and invites a new soul that God Himself will love and cherish as one of his own . . . and turns it into the complete opposite.

Sexuality is a part of human nature that people should not be ashamed of, but that doesn't mean masturbation and "exploring" your sexuality is an appropriate outlet for said desires. Neither is sodomy, adultery, fornication, bestiality, pedophilia, prostitution or contraception. The desires to commit said acts are disordered and unnatural as the act itself. People will endorse and celebrate these things, including being GAY WOOHOO, and tell you that Catholicism is a repressive and guilt-ridden monstrosity. We are indeed living in strange time.

[b]With that said no one will EVER find "the gay gene."[/b] I'm willing not only to bet $100 dollars (because that's all my funds allow at the moment) that they will never find it during my life time, and he'll I'll even put in an account after I die and give peoples 100 more years to find it, after which it will be donated to a worthy cause, as stated in my will. Here's why:

1) Human behavior is VERY complex. Although we know a lot about (and have learned much with the advent of psychology and neurology) there is still MUCH, much more that we don't know. The conditions, variables, and stimuli that induce a person to act in a certain way cannot always be simplified, quantified, or reduced into components that we can identify much less understand. Genes are only one of MANY factors that influence a person's behavior and thoughts, and I would consider them to be less influential than all of the components that make up one's ENVIRONMENT.

2) Aside from that, there are SUPERNATURAL factors that influence a persons behavior that can't be confined to any of the aforementioned categories. To preclude supernatural motivators I guess one would have to be a materialistic determinist. Fr. Spitzer explains what that is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq7EX_vpJCc&feature=player_embedded .

3) Behaviors that are considered "homosexual" in one culture may not be identified as gay behavior in another. If something is truly a fixed part of a person's nature, it shouldn't change should his/her proximity change. No matter where you go in the world, your sex will not change, nor will your height (if fully-grown and excluding normal 1-2 inch fluctuations that happen every day) I'm sure you can think of other examples.

BUT what would you think if you saw to men walking down the street holding hands? They must be gay. Straight men don't do that right? Or what if you saw two guys meet at the street corner and give each other a little smooch on the cheek? Again, you'd probably think, definitely gay. Maybe not together, but definitely a little qwerty.

If you to to India you will see men and boys hold each other's hands all the time, and if you go to the Middle East men kiss each other all the time as well. I don't know about India but I'm pretty sure Indians and Arabs consider homosexual behavior is deeply sinful/disordered and in some places strict laws are put in place against it. Yet these displays of affection between men are perfectly acceptable.

These things lend credence to the idea that perhaps "sexual orientation" is more of a cultural construct than a fixed genetic disposition. I would liken it to race. Yes genes do dictate the pigmentation in one's skin, but the idea of "race" is purely an invention of society (so says the consensus of science and academics). Of course it took us about a century to figure out distinctions between Negroids, Mongoloids, and Nordics were merely fiction not science. I suspect it'll take us longer to pull our colllective head out of our arse on the concept of sexual orientation.

4) Deviant sexual behaviors are NOT new. For one example the ancient Greeks and Romans practiced pederasty and liked to have massive orgies and from what I know prostitution was common. Men had sex with other men frequently, and sex was sometimes (or often)No reasonable person denies this. What IS new however is the term "homosexual" and the very concept of someone having a sexual orientation. Maybe this is mostly Freud's fault idk, but before the late 1800's or so people who desired to engage in sodomy, and those who have given in to that temptation were not cast off as some separate race and therefore no subcultures formed around their particular struggles with sin. Within both secular society and the Church there was no concept of someone[i] being[/i] homosexual. Christians who struggled with desires to engage in sodomy, were not looked at different from any other sinner, nor were they outcasted or alienated as they are today. With the advent of psychology and Freud's theories (and most likely other causes) came the idea that sexual urges subconsciously motivate every interpersonal exchange, including familial relationships I kid you not (Oedipus complex). Which leads me to . . .

[b]The "love" argument[/b]
How can Christians think love between two committed people is bad? Aren't we always yappin' about love and such? The thing is that the Church does not condemn true love that exists between any people no matter how screwed up they are or what they struggle with. Virtuous love, in any context, is a beautiful God-given thing. However the Church declares that erotic love can only truly exist within a specific context. Although people think it's natural to express sexual love between to people of the same sex (Muslims and indigenous cultures likewise think eros is appropriate within polygamy) and they will tell you how hateful you are and how lacking you are in love and wahh wahh not even all straight couples love each other.

But the thing is, like us, [i]they don't believe sexual love is "ok" in every context either[/i]. I love my brother, but if I told you that my brother and I have sex 99% of people would find that absolutely abhorrent and disgusting. You certainly can and should love your siblings, even in an intense way, but it's NOT an ok place to express sexual love. Same with children. It's not wrong to really love and care for children, obviously having sex with them is NOT an appropriate to express that love. I could go on.

And I think it's a shame that intense love is automatically assumed to be sexual. If a brother and sister are too close some people will assume some backwoods incest must be the source of said bond. If two friends of the same sex are too close, they must be gay. If two friends of the oppsite sex love each other intensely, there must be a sexual motivation because passionate love CANNOT exist without sex! *eye roll* I think this post by Fr. cappie captures how I feel better than my own words http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=112826&view=findpost&p=2242232

[katholikkid]

@Ice nine

Thanks for the well-thought reply. I get the whole catholic nature definition completely that our nature is fallen thus things about us are fallen. I totally agree with you about the masturbation thing which I find completely deprived and devoid of any love whatsoever.

A few things: I don't think it is so much the desire for sodomy as you put it that drives homosexual behavior. Heterosexuals too engage in that act. I have been reading up all day on this as the conversation has grown and I was researching on the history of this with the church and came across a statistics from a 1992 CDC document that showed something like 30% of hetero's engaged in that act compared to something like 8% of gay couples interesting numbers but anyway I think it can be concluded that the desire is in makeup the same thing for a heterosexual for some reason the attraction is for a member of the opposite sex. I agree with your ending statement that people equate intense love and sex mistakenly.

2. Nature. I understand that nature is fallen. Desire is part of nature. We have a desire to know God. We have a desire to take aliment. We desire water when we thirst etc. I do not know that a desire, I like attraction better it describes more what i am talking about, I don't know that an attraction can be disordered or unnatural. I suppose if you look at attractions in general like a preferred taste in foods you ask how that came to be? Where does one's love for caviar come from? Attraction for hetero/homosexuals I would say are the same in element and makeup but different in outcome. For the same reason he likes caviar and she does not but likes watercress.

3 disorder. My issue with saying an attraction is disordered is that unless it causes us to act in a way that is not conducive to the greater glory of God it is then disordered. My example earlier I think poses a good question. How does grace perfect something that is already ordered to God's will? i.e. the misguided heterosexual desire OR is it the actions that need perfecting?

[Santa Cruz]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1308615010' post='2256570']
Here is the original article I read on the matter: [url="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/13/priest_says_all_are_welcome_in_his_church/"]Priest Says All Are Welcome[/url]

Here are the excerpts that I found troubling:



There are two different ways one can read this excerpt. The first is that this is a support of homosexuals [i]as identifying as homosexuals[/i]. Or as supporting brothers and sisters who are suffering from SSA. Perhaps the latter is meant... but what is the average American going to think when they read this? My bet is that they're going to think that it's support of homosexuals as identifying as homosexuals and that it's okay to be a practicing homosexual.



I agree- especially from what was quoted above, and frankly... the phrase 'All Are Welcome' tend to give that unintended impression. My work parish is one that uses that phrase as its motto... and unfortunately it DOES mean "everyone-is-welcome-here-because-we- don't-make-any-comment-on-controversial- teachings-and-we're-going-to-let-you-live- however-you-want-to-live-and-support-your- fight-for-equal-rights".



"Members and [b]supporters[/b]"... again, that word... "supporters". What does that mean? It's extremely ambiguous. If I say that I support LGBT community, what does that mean? Does it mean that I love those people who identify as LGBT and I want their good (which is authentic conversion)? Or does it mean that I am supportive of their lifestyle and the LGBT movement in our country? Most people, I'd think, would say the latter.

Now clearly there has been some rewording going on and the Archdiocese is now supporting the event. I think there is a HUGE difference, though, between a Mass that "celebrates" homosexuals, and a Mass that prays for homosexuals and their struggles.
[/quote]

Yikes! Well thanks be to God that the Archdiocese intervened and seems to have taken over the event. I will pray for the priest and all who are caught in this perversion of Truth, especially those caught in the sin of homosexual relations who are not being brought into the fullness of Truth. How sad. Thank you for posting this TB! There is much to pray for and much work to be done to bring Christ, the Incarnate Word into the culture of death, which has found its way into the Church.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308613418' post='2256561']
The middle way is usually the wrong way, from the Church's perspective. There's no such thing as moderate Truth. Truth must be radical. There are no half-measures.
[/quote]

I dunno what you were replying to Nihil, but I was just reading through and this got my attention, since I always thought the Church approached the world with a realist attitude/perspective. This is of course defined realism as in the euphemism of feet on the ground, but eyes up. And realism is the middle ground between two extremes, because Christianity is not a polarized faith.

Edited June 21, 2011 by ThePenciledOne

[Ice_nine]

[quote]A few things: I don't think it is so much the desire for sodomy as you put it that drives homosexual behavior. Heterosexuals too engage in that act. I have been reading up all day on this as the conversation has grown and I was researching on the history of this with the church and came across a statistics from a 1992 CDC document that showed something like 30% of hetero's engaged in that act compared to something like 8% of gay couples interesting numbers but anyway I think it can be concluded that the desire is in makeup the same thing for a heterosexual for some reason the attraction is for a member of the opposite sex.[/quote]

Well I used the term "sodomy" to attempt (and fail) at succinctness. There's a little bit of debate as to what falls under the umbrella of sodomy, and I don't like to delve into too many specifics cause I don't want to cause a near occasion of sin for anyone, but I believe that sodomy includes oral sex and possibly other deviant acts. I don't believe that particular study included those things.

I think what is often the case, especially among religiously-minded "gays,' homogenital acts are the result of licit feelings of love and affection misappropriated in a sexual context. These are the people I would call confused even though they would read into that term condescension on my part. Often times it's more dark and sinister and lust is the prime motivator. The Gay Pride movement takes pride (duh) in open displays against chastity as did the sexual revolution of the sixties. The validation of homogenital behavior is actually tied up in the evil of the sexual revolution. This is not a moral contention, moreso a historical one.
[quote]
2. Nature. I understand that nature is fallen. Desire is part of nature. We have a desire to know God. We have a desire to take aliment. We desire water when we thirst etc. I do not know that a desire, I like attraction better it describes more what i am talking about, I don't know that an attraction can be disordered or unnatural. I suppose if you look at attractions in general like a preferred taste in foods you ask how that came to be? Where does one's love for caviar come from? Attraction for hetero/homosexuals I would say are the same in element and makeup but different in outcome. For the same reason he likes caviar and she does not but likes watercress. [/quote]

This is convoluted I don't get what exactly your point is. But you bring up the word "attraction" which people throw around a lot as if we all mean the same thing, but I don't think everyone does. Is all attraction sexual? If not, when does attraction become sexual? And where is the line between licit sexual attraction and lust?

If you can clarify that would be gr8, but as it stands no one really has. They tell me sexual attraction is natural and that lust is selfishly using and objectifying a person for your own benefit. Great in theory, but leaves me clueless as to how that plays out in practical application.

I would like to extend your analogy though. Although taste in food is probably less affected by environment than social phenomena, there is nothing inherently wrong with preferring one food over another. Foods are intended to be eaten, they are objects, and there's nothing wrong with preferring one over the other. Antifreeze is not a food, but it's sweet-tasting and some people might enjoy the taste, but that is using antifreeze for an unintended purpose and because someone has a taste for it does not mean it will not cause harm.

Ugh, that's an awful attempt, sorry. I think if you could clarify what you mean by "attraction" and also calrify what you're asking here I might be able to do better.

[quote]3 disorder. My issue with saying an attraction is disordered is that unless it causes us to act in a way that is not conducive to the greater glory of God it is then disordered. My example earlier I think poses a good question. How does grace perfect something that is already ordered to God's will? i.e. the misguided heterosexual desire OR is it the actions that need perfecting?[/quote]

The actions cannot be perfected as the are inherently bad. And your definition of "disordered attraction" is incomplete. It doesn't have to "cause an act" in order to be disordered. Desire to have sex with someone of the same sex is disordered in itself, even if it doesn't manifest in an action, the desire to sin always precedes the actual sin itself. It is always the origin of sinful behavior, even though sinful behavior is not always of a result of a disordered passion.

Sometimes the homosexual desire ends at desire itself. But even should the desire not manifest itself in lust or homogenital acts, those things are the logical end to that desire. Nothing that springs forth from that desire can ever glorify or please God, that is why it is disordered, and not necessarily sinful.

Make sense?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1308623989' post='2256638']
Well I used the term "sodomy" to attempt (and fail) at succinctness. There's a little bit of debate as to what falls under the umbrella of sodomy, and I don't like to delve into too many specifics cause I don't want to cause a near occasion of sin for anyone, but I believe that sodomy includes oral sex and possibly other deviant acts.
[/quote]
I hate to even touch this at risk of being far too graphic, but I'm fairly certain that sodomy refers to only one specific act, which can be perpetrated by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Edited June 21, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308620409' post='2256621']
I dunno what you were replying to Nihil, but I was just reading through and this got my attention, since I always thought the Church approached the world with a realist attitude/perspective. This is of course defined realism as in the euphemism of feet on the ground, but eyes up. And realism is the middle ground between two extremes, because Christianity is not a polarized faith.
[/quote]
I have Dietrich von Hildebrand in mind when I say that. The inclination, especially in modern times, is to find the middle ground if there are two opposing ideas. However, sometimes the middle ground is wrong. In fact sometimes it's more wrong than the extreme. Von Hildebrand's argument, extremely condensed, is that choosing the middle ground is often quite wrong, and that instead we need to go 'up' so to speak, instead of left or right.
Look at it this way: you can't find a moderate amount of Truth. You either have Truth or you don't. You can't find a midway point with Justice. You can't have too much Justice. You can't have too much mercy. You can't have too much Grace.
Realism isn't the same as moderatism. I don't agree that realism is the middle ground; it's not. It's simply seeing the world for what it is. We do not compromise our faith in order to find a middle ground. We reject Satan radically, and we accept and worship God with equal extremism.

Interestingly, I read a political article saying similar things just today. Funny coincidence. I'll repost it here. You especially might like this one.
[url="http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/mullen-t4.1.1.html"]Extremism Is the New Race Card [/url]

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1308616885' post='2256587']
I can't really articulate it. I'll try.

Grace does perfect nature and thoughts etc. But in logic when you create a binary ie ordered, disordered they juxtapose in all elements. Keeping in mind that I think the Church chose inclination on purpose rather than nature, desire, attraction etc. So heterosexual desire, attraction, or nature is ordered but it's actions can or cannot be. Homosexual desire, attraction, or nature is disordered so is its action. I am going to let go of the ontology of desire for now though it always has me thinking. So how does grace perfect desires, attraction, or nature that is already ordered to God? How then can we call a desire, nature, attraction disordered? Or is it the action of that ordered inclination that needs to be perfected by grace if it is disordered? This is where moral theology would enter and I don't want to get to into it but you see what I mean? This is why from my standpoint action is key here and why the church is very precise on it but as far as pre-action rests on inclination which as I said seems very cerebral almost in a 'i am contemplating this' type way rather than a natural attraction for someone. I am just over thinking it probably. Any thoughts? Ordered thoughts that is lol?
[/quote]

Haha, grace perfecting nature is a [i]huge[/i] subject. Does grace perfect natural desires already ordered toward God? The answer to that is 'yes'. But I'm not going to go into all of that here. I will refer you to an excellent book on the subject called [i]Natura Pura[/i] by Steven Long.

That being said... I'm still confused as to where your confusion is. Sexual attraction to the same sex is a disordered desire. God did not intend man to be sexually attracted to man nor woman sexually attracted woman. That desire is disordered- it is a distortion of proper sexual desire. It must be perfect by grace, either here on Earth or in Heaven.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[url="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/20/mass_to_mark_gay_pride_month_is_rescheduled/?page=1"]Here's another article on the subject.[/url]

An excerpt:

[quote]“To single out a group for pastoral care is neither unusual not unorthodox,’’ Iandoli said, citing special services planned for inmates, invalids, and college students. “We do not want to homogenize or hide our differences.’’

Iandoli also defended gay and lesbian churchgoers against the controversy that the canceled Mass has sparked.

“We are not immature or sinful because we are gay or lesbian or transgender,’’ Iandoli said. “We are children of God, just like everyone else.’’[/quote]

Granted, this article is from a public newspaper.

But this is exactly what bothers me about this whole situation. It's true- it's not unusual to single out a group for pastoral care... but it is always ordered for the group's good. This seems to me more about "supporting" or reaffirming gay and lesbian identities as homosexual. Not ordered toward their true good- conversion of heart.

Worse: This causes scandal. After reading that article you're supposed to think that the Church is big and mean for not accepting homosexuals just as they are and that She's judgmental if she says anything against their sexual orientation and that this particular parish and ministry is finally getting with the times.

I think there are authentic ways, in conformity with the Church's teaching, free from risk of scandal, of ministering to homosexuals. Unfortunately, I'm still not sure this is the appropriate way to do so. It seems that the parish's view of the event and the Archdioceses' are not unified.

[Papist]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1308599088' post='2256396']
Personally, I find nothing un-doctrinal about having a mass that [/size][/font][b][font="Arial"][size="3"]celebrates gay and lesbian [/size][/font][/b][font="Arial"][size="3"]members of the flock.
[/quote]
[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="3"]Seriously? A Mass to celebrate gays and lesbians. Do you not see the conflict that has with Catholic teaching? [/size][/font][color="black"][font="Arial"][size="3"]Celebrat[/size][/font][/color][color="black"][font="Arial"][size="3"]ing[/size][/font][/color][color="black"][font="Arial"][size="3"] gays and lesbians is doing them a great disservice.[/size][/font][/color][font="Arial"] [/font][font="Arial"] [/font]

Edited June 21, 2011 by Papist

[MIKolbe]

where's the Mass celebrating my gluttony?