Abbey-Roads2

A friendly commenter posed this question on another post:

“Obviously, sexuality is a gift from God. How is a homosexual supposed to accept his sexuality, if not as part of their basic makeup?”

My answer:

Remember - this is only my personal opinion.  That said - yes, sexuality is a gift from God, “God made them male and female.”  He made us heterosexual, male and female.  At best, I believe homosexuality is really more a temptation for the heterosexual person, or an aberration of human sexuality.  Fundamentally, the person is always heterosexual.  The inclination to homosexuality is an objective disorder; Natural law, Tradition, the Church, psychology (up until recently) all agree on this.  God does not create disorder.  We can say the problem is the result of the fall of man - original sin - which is hotly contested in today’s world.  I’m convinced it is all basic anthropology, theology, and so on.  It just takes lots of humility and prayer and suffering to come to terms with that.

“Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth.” 

However, some people claim they were born this way.  Maybe so - just as some people are born blind, others mentally challenged, other’s without arms or legs, others conjoined, and so on.  These are all disorders in the natural order.  Oftentimes these people seem to have extraordinary gifts that seem to compensate for the disorder they were born with, others may find a cure, most learn to live with it, and develop their other gifts. 

“Some have been deliberately made so.”

Other people, perhaps under duress, may have been “made this way” from some outside cause, or they may have mistaken temptation for sexual identity.  In other words, homosexuality may have become a coping mechanism, an acquired behavior, an accommodation, or an adaptation of sorts.  Possibly, but not always,  due to trauma, same-sex peer rejection, feelings of inferiority,  lack of identity with a same sex parent or sibling, sexual molestation or shaming, or any number of reasons, the person might be said to have “chosen” or “accepted” the inclination; albeit without total freedom or even informed consent - merely as an unconscious “adaptation”.  Upon discovery of the homosexual culture, the person may have recognized it as a “safe place”, a state of being, or lifestyle supported by like-minded, non-threatening people.   In this way, one eventually begins to believe and say, “Yeah!  That is me.  I’ve always been this way - so I’m gay!  I found my niche!”  This goes along with my theory that many people are deceived, and for whatever reasons, want to be deceived.  It is just that however, my theory.

Yes, yes, I know that is all very simplistic and some people would have us believe homosexuals are like angels, each an unique species unto himself, in an unique lifestyle.  But the basic fact is, the homosexual’s real sexual identity is heterosexual - male or female, the temptation or inclination, indeed in some cases, the compulsion to act out with the same sex is disordered.  I’m convinced that people with this disorder are called to chastity - they can, and oftentimes do, share their life with a partner - who both agree to abstain from sexual relations with one another and others, for the love of God and the peace of conscience.  (BTW - that is what I always mean by chastity for single people - NO SEX - not even “self-cultivation”, no porn, no cruising, no fantasizing, no sex.)

“Some there are who have freely renounced sex  for the sake of God’s reign.”

Other people with these inclinations may live in religious communities - I can’t really speak to that however.  Others find support in programs such as Courage.  Many will find support in same-sex friendship - if the friendships are chaste and they permit themselves to relate this way.  Yet all will find support in prayer, the sacraments, a life of service and charity, and living in obedience to Catholic Church teaching.  As another friend said, “Holiness is the opposite of homosexuality.”

“Deny your very self, take up your cross and follow me.”

If one chooses to live a chaste and celibate life, that person thinks they have done a great deal - and indeed they have.  But I’m convinced there is one thing more a person can do to become a saint, as in the story of the rich young man:  “If you wish to be perfect, you must sell what you have and give to the poor, and then follow Christ.”  I interpret that to mean, if one really wants to be free, they need to renounce their very self that identifies as gay - since saying - “I’m same-sex attracted”, “I’m gay”, “I’m homosexual”, holds the person captive in that milieu or cultural mindset.  The soul is still attached and held by that little thread, imprisoned in that broken image of self.  It is one of the most difficult things for gay people to do, to renounce their attachment to their unique-ness as gay people.  Very often it means taking a very hard look into the painful past, in order to understand the cause of their disorientation.  But, “what is impossible for man, is possible for God”. 

“Not everyone can accept this teaching.” - Matthew 19:10-12

And no - I am not saying one no longer experiences homosexual inclinations, or that all people are to be totally healed, or they should suddenly want to marry a member of the opposite sex.  But by the grace of God, and often times long effort, they can experience detachment from homosexuality as their core identity,  and will to live as the new creation the Blood of Christ won for them.  And most especially, find strength to resist the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, all of which conspire to cause the fall of one resolved to live chastely.

I know people who have done this - I know people who have been freed from the yoke of slavery the sin of homosexuality becomes.  While the very conflict and struggle can be a means to great sanctity.    

Share This

Do most Catholics think homosexuality is okay?

“The majority of Catholics (55 percent) do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin. Only 39 percent of Catholics called it a sin.” - Source
 

But pedophilia is still a sin? 

I read a revealing blog post yesterday about a religious - from a good family (order) - who was arrested, tried and convicted of a crime he admitted to.  Yes, sexual contact, abuse, molestation, whatever.  The oldest boy/victim was fourteen.  Someone made an off the cuff observation that it is really mostly girls who get sexually molested, and I commented that is not true:  Men/boys who have been molested usually don’t tell because it is unmanly and too shameful for them to admit.  Someone else called the crime pedophilia… because the kids were young - the term amongst homosexuals used to be “chicken” for under age boys.  I suggested it would be more accurate to label the offender as a “gay-pedophile” - after all, it really was a gay thing - just like the Church abuse scandal was more a gay thing than classic pedophilia.  (Crime of opportunity, male on male action, arrested-development/sexual-immaturity of the perpetrator, and so on.)  Obviously, it is simply not PC to link the two.  (AND NO!  I am not suggesting all homosexuals are pedophiles, just as I would never suggest all heterosexual men are pedophiles.)

Aside from that, I asked these questions:

Who admitted the man to the order in the first place?

And did they ask him to live chastely for x-amount of time before admitting him to vows?

Can anyone else connect the dots here?

Share This

Question?

Would the United States ever grant political asylum to foreign nationals who would otherwise be prosecuted (read persecuted) with heavy fines and/or imprisonment because they speak out against immorality and the growing effort of certain anti-Christian groups and governments to forbid Christian teaching on faith and morals? 

Answer:

Not likely Hillary - it’s coming here too - but you knew that.

Did you see these stories?

Brazilian President Luiz Lula had the First National Conference of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals (GLBT), inaugurated by presidential decree, and called for “a time of reparation” in Brazil.

June 5 was a landmark day for the international homosexual movement.  For the first time in history, the president of a nation officially launched a conference with the sole purpose of promoting and defending the homosexual agenda.

After calling for a universal embrace of the homosexual movement, the president affirmed that “homophobia” is perhaps “the most perverse disease impregnated in the human head.” - Lifesite 

Aberta Pastor fined $7000 and ordered to publicly apologize and remain silent on homosexuality.

On Friday, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal’s November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper. 

Boissoin was first hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province’s educational system.

“Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights,” wrote Boissoin in the letter.

In an interview, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com that he’s under attack not only for his letter, but more significantly for his beliefs.

“The point I am trying to make here is what’s being attacked at the core is what I believe, according to my personal beliefs and my religious beliefs.” - Lifesite

Share This

Courage

Courage is related to the virtue of fortitude.  As Garrigou-Lagrange writes; “Fortitude is the moral virtue which strengthens the soul in the pursuit of the difficult good so that it does not allow itself to be shaken by the greatest obstacles.  It should dominate the fear of danger, fatigue, criticism, and all that would paralyze our efforts toward the good.  It prevents a man from capitulating in a cowardly manner when he should fight - it also moderates audacity and untimely exaltation which would drive him to temerity.”-  III Ages 

As one considers the meaning of these terms on a deeper spiritual level, keeping in mind that what is most important in life is our sanctification and the salvation of souls, a person may more easily put into perspective some of the moral struggles each of us face in our pilgrimage.  While recognizing the need for divine grace; through perseverance in prayer, penance, and above all, the sacraments.

“The principle act of fortitude is endurance…” - St. Thomas

“Fortitude has two principal acts: to undertake courageously and to endure difficult things.  The Christian should endure them for the love of God; it is more difficult to endure for a long time than, in  moments of enthusiasm (fervor), to undertake something difficult.” - III Ages

This is often the case when one is required to live chastely and celibately, especially if one is inclined to habits  of auto-eroticism, or temptations associated with same sex attraction, and/or fantasizes or acts out homosexually.  Such a battle can be long and difficult for the young, and requires patient endurance, even if in one’s first fervor one was initially confident he had overcome these tendencies.  Nevertheless, as the philosopher says, if a man is overcome in his battle(s), “he is to be pardoned if he struggles against them.”

“Fortitude is accompanied by patience to endure the sorrows of life without being disturbed and without murmuring (without self-pity), by longanimity which endures trials for a long time, and by constancy in good, which is opposed to obduracy in evil.”- III Ages 

The vice of effeminacy and perseverance.

It is very difficult for the effeminate to endure the long struggle against inordinate affection and avoid sins against chastity.  I believe the primary cause of failure can be attributed to the degree of attachment to the pleasures derived from sinful sexual and/or emotional gratification, as well as the lack of courage to persevere in the struggle against it.  I found the following from St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject:

“…Perseverance is deserving of praise because thereby a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance of difficulties and toils: and it is directly opposed to this, seemingly, for a man to be ready to forsake a good on account of difficulties which he cannot endure. This is what we understand by effeminacy, because a thing is said to be “soft” if it readily yields to the touch. Now a thing is not declared to be soft through yielding to a heavy blow, for walls yield to the battering-ram. Wherefore a man is not said to be effeminate if he yields to heavy blows. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that “it is no wonder, if a person is overcome by strong and overwhelming pleasures or sorrows; but he is to be pardoned if he struggles against them.” Now it is evident that fear of danger is more impelling than the desire of pleasure: wherefore Tully says (De Offic. i) under the heading “True magnanimity consists of two things: It is inconsistent for one who is not cast down by fear, to be defeated by lust, or who has proved himself unbeaten by toil, to yield to pleasure.” Moreover, pleasure itself is a stronger motive of attraction than sorrow, for the lack of pleasure is a motive of withdrawal, since lack of pleasure is a pure privation. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 7), properly speaking an effeminate man is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion. - St. Thomas  

“When you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials.” 

From this exposition, it seems to me we might more easily understand why a man would abandon the struggle and give into homosexual inclination, or even return to such a lifestyle.  Many do not realize the cost, much less the long duration the struggle sometimes requires, and they succumb to the erroneous belief it (gay life) is God’s will.  “Do not then surrender your confidence; it will have great reward.  You need patience to do God’s will and receive what he has promised.” - Hebrews 10:35-36 

(Please understand, I’m using the word effeminate in more philosophical/theological terms.  Effeminacy is a vice opposed to manliness, as cowardice is to courage.  Although I do reference it in connection with homosexuality, I do so only to show how it is opposed to the virtue of fortitude and magnanimity.  It is not to be confused with, or limited to, modern definitions associated with outward feminine mannerisms or behavior.)

Art:  St. Sebastian, Martyr.  If Sebastian is to be a patron for people who suffer homosexual tendencies - then he ought to represent the virtue of fortitude and perseverance needed to give testimony to a truth of faith and the grandeur of Christian virtue, lived in opposition to transitory worldly values. 

Share This

In the form of a question.

Several people have commented on a couple of my posts dealing with the Church’s regulations regarding the ordination of homosexuals, while some have emailed me asking questions such as these:

“Why would God call a gay man to the priesthood, only to be rejected by the Church who tells him no?”  Or, “What about gay men who are already ordained - how can they be priests if the Church says no?”

Very interesting. 

Of course the answers to these questions are way beyond my competence.  (I only have opinions.)  However, concerning the subject of the sacrament of Holy Orders as it applies to gay men, a friend sent me this:

Simply because a homosexual person is ordained, it doesn’t necessarily mean the“ordination is a guarantee of a Divine call. Ordination does not require some divine confirmation of a call before the Bishop can extend a laying on of hands, it requires only a male, and the correct form of the sacrament. Even if one is forbidden by law, ordination is one of those sacraments that works ex opere operato* (by the fact of it being worked), just like the Eucharist.  So, just because one is a priest does not mean he has been called.  Why are these gay men priests? I don’t know. Is it possible some with tendenceis that aren’t deeply rooted are in fact called? Sure. Is it absolutely the case? Certainly not.”  (Thanks Dr. Phil!)

Makes sense to me.  (And no sister - it doesn’t work for you because you are not a male.  Women are not admitted to the seminary nor can they be ordained priests.)

*1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation⁴⁹ that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.”⁵⁰ From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. - CCC  

Share This

And your ‘no’ mean ‘no’… - James 5

Today’s first reading at Mass reminded me of the Lord’s words from the Sermon on the Mount, “Say ‘Yes’ when you mean ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ when you mean ‘No.’  Anything beyond that is from the evil one.”  [Matthew 5:37]

Certainly these passages must give anyone pause when one considers the ongoing debate about admitting homosexuals to Holy Orders.  The Vatican just reiterated, indeed clarified Church policy regarding this issue.  All I can say is there must be a lot of homosexuals in the clergy and the episcopate to cause such an uproar over what the pronouncement means.

The Cardinal.

In fact Cardinal Rosales of Manila more or less contradicted  the Vatican’s prohibition shortly after it was made public:

Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales of Manila told reporters that homosexuals who do not “act out” can be good priests. His statement came immediately after the release of a letter in which Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (bio - news), the Vatican Secretary of State, confirmed that a Church policy barring homosexuals from priestly training applies to all the world’s seminaries.

Speaking on Radio Veritas in the Philippines, Cardinal Rosales said that the Vatican did not intend to ban chaste homosexuals from the seminaries. “A homosexual inclination is not bad but acting it out is an entirely different matter, and that is what is written in the sacred scriptures,” he said. - CWN 

So what does the Vatican really say?

“The Vatican policy on the question, explained in an Instruction that was released by the Congregation for Catholic Education in 2005, stipulates that a homosexual identity interferes with a man’s ability to achieve what the document termed “affective maturity and spiritual paternity,” even if the individual refrains from homosexual acts. The Instruction says that anyone who identifies himself as homosexual– whether or not he is sexually active– is not an appropriate candidate for priestly ministry.”- CWN

It was meant for other people. 

I’ve known a fair share of gay priests - how do I know, because they identify as such.  I don’t care if a person identifies as SSA, (same-sex-attracted), gay, queer, homosexual, homosexually attracted, what have you.  If a man identifies himself in this way, there is obviously something “deep-seated” going on.  But many do not believe the rules apply to themselves, or they may feel they are simply meant to placate the faithful.  (Dymphna  has a short post on how confusing this issue can become - it is related to the story of a Texas bishop’s assignment of a gay priest and that priest’s subsequent resignation.)

WDTPRS?  (What do the priests really say?)

Not every “SSA” priest admits his orientation outright, although there are other signs and signals to let another person know, if he wants him to know.  For those willing to discuss the issue, many say they have made peace with their orientation and have accepted it as a gift from God.  They claim to have arrived at a place in life wherein they can be faithful to their vocation, observing chaste celibacy.  So that is good, right?  Pretty much - if he kept himself pure…

Because…

For all of the challenges anyone faces when embracing a life of chastity - I think it is much easier for a gay priest to fall prey to temptation and satisfy the urges of nature, mainly because gay sex is easily had for the taking.  Just ask any married man, or gay man in a relationship, or one who just happens to like cruising and public sex.  (It isn’t always about self-hate when guys do this stuff.  When straight men go to a brothel or massage parlor is it because they hate their sexuality or something inside themselves, or do they just want a quickie, or happen to like dirty sex?) 

Then…

There is that “favored person status“, the “club” atmosphere.  All men hang out with the guys they like and share similar interests with.  Gay men hang out with gay people - and if they are hanging out with straight people, very often these people tend to be “gay” by association.   (J. McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual, 1976)  They’re pretty much open to the artistic, more spiritual and intellectual sensitivity of the SSA priest.  In addition, SSA priests know and cultivate friendships with like-minded priests.  When they become bishops, maybe even cardinals, they continue to cultivate and maintain these friendships and contacts.  The “old boys” - “old girls” club thing.

Cover ups.

The SSA priest understands the lonely isolation of gay men, the slips and falls, and frequent addictive behaviors they can become entangled in.  Therefore they more easily excuse and even cover up their brother priest’s  sin - sometimes assuring him that there was no sin.  It can be like “protective services” for errant priests.  You don’t have to agree with me on this, but you can believe me when I tell you I know what I’m talking about.

Circumventing the rules.

To me, it is a strange obedience when a priest or religious studies and disects a rule to discover all of its loopholes in order to legitimize one’s behaviour.  A priest once explained the loopholes of the Vatican ruling to me in this way:

I have had long discussions with folks in Rome on the three criteria published in the Instruction.  They were very carefully worded so as to respect the infinite variety of souls and of Our Lord’s work in them.  They were not intended to close the door absolutely.  They are principles; their application is entrusted to those who have the grace of state to do so.

.
The three criteria:  

1. those who practise homosexuality,
2. present deep-seated homosexual tendencies
3. or support the so-called “gay culture.”

Numbers 1 and 3 are self-explanatory.  Number 2 is more complex.  The deep-seated tendency is generally manifested in the individual for whom the SSA is very core of his identity.  All of his choices and all of his self-expression proceeds from what he perceives as being (ontologically) constitutional of who he is as a person.  Homosexuality as a state of being is a relatively new concept.  The traditional moral theology looks at one’s choices and behaviour: a question, not of being, but of doing, or saying, or acting out, or otherwise expressing what is an intrinsically disordered inclination. - Letter

Obedient dissent? 

Okay, perhaps SSA vocations can be reviewed on a case by case basis, thereby permitting a man with previous homosexual inclination to be ordained - that is a big risk to take though.  How can it be determined the man has resolved the issues of sexuality and the underlying psychological issues that affected the inclination in the first place?  What about a relapse?  It would definitely have to be an exception to obtain a dispensation to admit a “former homosexual” to a seminary or to ordination, and not the “rule” - as it seems to have been in the not too distant past.  That this is an issue for gay men already ordained suggests to me their personal issues have not at all been successfully resolved.

Or, Creative Fidelity?

Diogenes  has an interesting post on this same subject, he writes:

It’s no secret that the old line religious orders are the most fervid dissenters from the ban on homosexuals, and their superiors comprise a kind of Shadow Cabinet within the Church: hostile to the policy of the Holy See but outwardly deferential to its authority — and, most importantly, incubating in their ranks a parallel government and parallel apparat through which the “alternative” policies are discreetly advanced. The Shadow Cabinet’s own term for this genial subversion is Creative Fidelity, and any housewife whose husband protests he was “creatively faithful” to her during his Las Vegas business jaunt will be able to gauge the degree to which the Pope is reassured by the euphemism. - Ad dubiam. 

Yeah, so I don’t think that ”smoke of Satan” thing Pope Paul VI referred to was just about liturgical abuse either. 

Links:

David at Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex  has a couple of presentations which deal with these issues on a more anthropological, theological level, and are easier to understand. 

Nothing Extraordinary

The Vatican will ban gays from seminaries.

Share This

The patron saint of San Diego, California.

St. Didacus, A simple lay brother of the Alcantarine Franciscans.  He, like so many other saints, refused the sacrament of Holy Orders, claiming he was unworthy, just as our holy Father St. Francis refused ordination to the priesthood.  Yet men and women, who rebel against Church discipline, demand ordination for themselves, no matter if they are married men, gay (SSA) men, or women.  An obvious lack of humility, don’t you think?

Hoochimama!

Share This

Don’t jump on me ever again.

Homosexuals* should not be admitted to Holy Orders.  Okay?  Whenever I say that,  SSA men who want to be a priest, get pissed.  It’s the rules - I understand them, why can’t other people?  (Well, something is wrong with modern thinking, so what can I say?)

Anyway - Fr. Zuhlsdorf has the full story - and here is an excerpt:

In reference to the Document of the Congregation for Catholic Education, ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders‘, published by the aforementioned Dicastery on 4 November 2005, and in consequence of numerous requests for clarification which have reached the Apostolic See, it state precisely that the dispositions contained in said Instruction are in force for all the housesof formation for the priesthood, including those which [juridically] depend on the Dicasteries for Oriental Churches, for the Evangelization of Peoples, and for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.The Supreme Pontiff, on the 8th day of April of the year of the Lord of 2008 approved this clarification.  - WDTPRS

Thanks to Ray at Stella for the tip.

*[T]he Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders [1] those who practise homosexuality, [2] present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or [3] support the so-called “gay culture”. - Fr. Z.

Slice, dice, dissect all you want.  That’s it in a nut-cup - I mean, nutshell!

Link:

Vatican affirms prohibition. 

Share This

I did not want to expose Gerald to this.

(Actually, I’m pretty sure it isn’t my fault - but anyway…)  When he returned from Europe, he was surprised by all the negative email as regards his personal positions on gay people.  As a result, he is thinking of deleting his blog.  NO, no, no Amy Winehouse!  You keep going.

In a couple of previous posts here,  I pointed out the incongruity of Gerald’s “evolved” thought on gay people in order to demonstrate how easily our emotions, our friendships, even our marriages can affect our thinking.  In other words, how the gay agenda has infiltrated Catholic thought.  

We are all so immersed in the world that we easily become affected (infected) by worldly thought - which leads to compromise and permissiveness - even in the best of us.  This in no way implies Gerald is a bad Catholic - all of us can veer off track.  To demonize him is totally wrong.  If he holds views in opposition to Church teaching, then let him be admonished, but certainly not tarred and feathered.  People - we have bishops in office who are genuine heretics - keep a modicum of perspective.

I just can’t stand uber-Catholics dictating as if they are the new magisterium - which Gerald and other bloggers appeared to have done  many times - so when they derail, I may mention it here. 

Gerald is thinking of quitting the blog, so go tell him not to be such a puss.

Again, I doubt my posts had much to do with this controversy, RCblog  pretty much swept sweeps week with his rather intense expose (treatise) on the evils of CIC and everything queer.  Don’t ever tell me  ’me thinks she protests too much’, much less ask, ‘what’s with all the gay stuff?’ ever again.

So anyway - just because you disagree with a blogger, don’t demand their execution.  You realize blogs are simply the author’s (contributor’s ) opinion, right?  I mean, I never heard a Pope say, “Save this or that -  save the world” - yet some one with no real job or assignment repeats a similar mantra, and people think it is Church teaching.  Another guy tells you the Lord is telling him to do this or that on such and such day - fine - whatever - remember, a lot of these people do not have real jobs, they have nothing else to do!  (Just like me!  LOL!)  So remember what I always say - a blog is a blog is a blog - and Gertrude Stein was a dyke.

Share This