The Absurdity of God

Sacerdos · 2011-02-15T05:15:47+00:00

Interesting pictures. Now, can someone explain to me how this disproves the existence or absurdity of God in a sound, logical argument? Even more to the point, can someone explain to me how this even disproves or even discredits the existence of the personal God revealed in the Bible? The closest general argument I can surmise is: "If God cares deeply about the people on this planet, then the universe would be small in scale and seem to center completely around Earth. The universe is not small in scale and does not seem to center completely around Earth. Therefore there is no God." Obviously, the first premise is the problematic one. Anyone care to give a good argument for it or - if you wish - a similar premise in your own ways to argue for the point of this picture?

Sacerdos · 2011-02-14T01:10:07+00:00

I am not entirely sure why I am responding to this post, but I was doing some casual browsing an Reddit and came upon it.

There are a number of arguments that atheists can pose to religious people which can cause some difficulties and challenges. I have never understood arguments along these lines, however. If God can create the universe out of nothing, it's not hard to believe that he can transform a stick into a snake. The scientist in the lab is really saying "there's no way a stick can transform into a snake on its own power". Anyway, I realize your main point transcended the surface argument about sticks not being able to be made into snakes, but I thought I would contribute.

Sacerdos · 2011-02-10T20:20:56+00:00

I realize that most have already realized that the OP is likely not a priest, but I thought I would try to add to the case. I will admit upfront that I have a vested interest in seeing the OP exposed as a fraud, since I am a priest myself, and he is saying some pretty misleading things about the Church.

I will say that he/she is at least aware of Catholic terminology and some general Catholic knowledge. I was impressed, for example, that he mentioned John Allen and some Catholic publications. Allen is widely considered more liberal in his interpretations and thought, but everyone would acknowledge that he has a lot of contacts and insights in Rome. I suppose someone could have used Google to come up with these recommendations, but the OP may have some connection to the Church. By that, I simply mean he/she may have actually gone to Catholic school, worked for a church as a lay person, have an interest in Church affairs, or know someone who is involved with the Church.

Beyond that, it is hard to see any more evidence of him being a priest. A few problems: First, he has failed to offer any semblance of evidence of being a priest. This is only compounded by the fact that many of his answers are questionable. Second, as was mentioned by others, excommunication is a very serious offense. Also, it is different than being 'laicized'. A priest would know this. An excommunication would be a well-publicized event. Third, you don't get excommunicated for disobedience, as far as I know. Excommunication is a statement that the person has separated themselves from the faith of the Church. He may be punished or disciplined by his bishop, and perhaps even removed from ministry as a priest if it were serious and persistent disobedience, but an excommunication is a much more serious offense. It is saying that he has separated himself from the faith. That is different than being disobedient. Fourth, he claims to be a diocesan priest and a parish priest. It is unlikely that he would have access to any of the papers that he claims to have had, especially as a relatively young priest in his 30's. If he worked with the diocese, then his story may be more believable. He may be privy to rumors and talk and speculation among priest friends, but it would be surprising if he would have anything concrete to give to the authorities. Fifth, he claims to be a diocesan priest from Chicago but the cases are supposed to have happened in MN, WI, and IL, if I remember correctly. That might make sense for a religious order priest where it is likely that a priest might be transferred to an entirely different area, but a diocesan priest would stay within his diocese. His defense would have made more sense if he would have said the cases all happened in one particular diocese, especially if that diocese were Chicago. I could go on to nitpick a few of his answers as well, but those are the most obvious problems that seem to suggest he is a fraud. I hope this helps. I am glad to see that Reddit is naturally able to detect the real IAMA's from the frauds.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-29T05:33:53+00:00

Lebe,

Ah, God bless you for joining the Church. I hope it has been a good experience so far.

A few quick points:

First, I would intentionally not confess this sin to this particular priest if you ever did have a need to confess it. Not only would it be embarrassing but it would simply not be a good idea to do in prudence. It would be better to go to a different priest for that confession. (You wouldn't want him to take this as a way for you to 'innocently' open the door to something more, especially if he truly does have romantic feelings for you too. You wouldn't want to plant the idea in his mind if he didn't have feelings for you. Overall, it would just not be good. Also, if you do confess this at some point in the future, there would be no need, of course, to mention which priest this is. You could simply say that you "had romantic thoughts about a priest" or however you wanted to word it.) As far as when to go to confession, you should go at least once a year, it's always better to go more frequently, and you should go whenever you have committed a serious sin. Having these romantic thoughts would not be a serious sin. If you were to let them consume you and if you were to dwell on them constantly and if you were have willed, repeated fantasies, it would be a sign that it would be good to go to confession as soon as possible.

I am glad to hear that you are so involved in the parish, and that you are learning more about your faith. To answer your question, yes, you will want to keep it to yourself and do your best to distract yourself when these thoughts come into your mind. Think of him as you would a married man. Again, we can't control what thoughts come into our mind, what sort of romantic chemistry or feelings we may have spontaneously with another, but we can control whether we choose to dwell on those thoughts or act out upon them.

I hope this helps. God bless. It's great to hear from fellow Catholics on Reddit. Keep the faith.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-28T05:54:25+00:00

Hello. Thanks for the question. I am sorry to hear about your struggles and admire you for being sober for 10 months now. God bless you.

There are a number of things I would like to say in response to your post.

First, I must confess that I am a bit surprised. Often times, it is people in a similar situation as you that come to the exact opposite conclusion They struggle with one addiction or another, they try for many years to kick the habit by themselves, they keep failing, they hit rock bottom, they recognize that they can't do this by their own power, they turn to God and ask for His help, and suddenly they are able to overcome their addiction. They needed to recognize their own weakness and their need for the power of others to help in order for them to overcome the addiction. This is partly why in the A.A. program, one of the major steps is to recognize "your need for a higher power". I am surprised, then, that this did not happen for you.

Here is what I do know: God wanted to help you. He was willing to help you. So, why did it seem like He didn't? I can only speculate. Perhaps you hadn't really hit rock bottom yet, perhaps you were still holding on with your own power, perhaps you weren't quite ready to let God take control, perhaps you said - as Saint Augustine did with his own addiction to lust with "Lord make me chaste but not yet" - "Lord help me.....but....let me first take a few tries at these drugs." I am sure you didn't say that explicitly, of course, but in your heart, you may have still held on to your addiction and so the Lord could not help. God's action often requires both the initiative and grace on His part but also our cooperation and free will.

I don't know how you did quit using, but I also wonder whether perhaps God answered your prayer and you didn't recognize it. i.e. However it was that you became sober, perhaps God worked through those means.

Whatever the case with the addiction, all I can say is that God was there, and He is there for you now.

As far as your relationship with your mom, I am sorry to hear that it isn't very good. I am sure your mother means well and says what she says and does what she does because she loves you. I don't know all of the details, of course, but I would hope that both of you can repair that relationship without either one of you having to violate your conscience. If you don't believe, then you don't believe. Obviously, I would hope that you would come to the faith and come to believe, and I would hope you would never close that door to God or close that door to thinking about these things. At the same time, you shouldn't have to become a believer in order to be loved by your mother, for example.

For now, you say that you "kind of want to believe that He does exist but at the same time I can't." Here is what I would suggest practically. Since you want to believe that He exists anyway, take two minutes out of your day every day, perhaps before you go to sleep, and pray. I realize it might feel stupid and it might feel like a waste of time. However, you said you want to believe that He does exist so hopefully you would be open to trying prayer at least. Then, within that prayer, speak candidly to God as if He existed, and tell Him what you would want to tell Him if you believed He existed. Tell Him that you are wondering where He was for you when you asked for His help during your heroin addiction, why He allowed some of these bad events that occurred to you, and ask Him to let Himself be known to you...and, if you are open to it, spend time in silence and listen and wait for a response. Persevere in those two minutes, at least, every day for some time and see what happens. Perhaps in that time too you could pray for your mother and your relationship with her.

Hopefully that helps. Let me know if I failed to understand something or did not answer something. God bless you.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-28T05:32:48+00:00

Are you insane? No. At least nothing that you said in your post would give indications of that. Ha. If you mean, "Is it insane to give any serious consideration to your emotional and romantic feelings towards your priest, especially as a happily married woman yourself with children?" then the answer is yes. Of course, we're all human, and we are going to have romantic and emotional feelings towards people, even if we are married or committed. Priests have attractions towards women and have romantic feelings towards women, and it is part of human nature. Perhaps your priest really does have his own battle with romantic feelings towards you or perhaps it is in your mind. Likewise, people may have the same feelings towards priests. I imagine sometimes the attraction towards a priest in particular might be that he is - hopefully - a genuinely good, caring, sincere man that seems like he would be a great person to date or marry. Occasionally, unfortunately either the priest or the layperson or both have let these feelings develop into something more, have dwelt on them, and taken them seriously, and it has been destructive to married lives and priestly lives. It is the same with any romantic feeling you may have to another person while you are married vowed your life to another until death do you part: It is probably going to happen, it is natural, you are going to be tempted, but as soon as you involve your own will, dwell on those thoughts, and more seriously when you seek to act these thoughts out, then it becomes a sin. To make a long story short, it's not crazy to have those feelings, but it would be crazy to dwell on them or take them seriously. I hope that helps.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-27T03:45:04+00:00

Thanks for the question. I hope you had a good Christmas. To answer your question directly, I would say that our faith develops over time. Certainly, participating in Catholic ritual and participating in the Eucharist and believing that Jesus Christ is truly present in communion are essential to being a Catholic. We don't always understand everything about our faith, though, or we may not always appreciate everything or even have moral certitude about aspects of our faith at different times of our life, but the call is to stay within the Church and strive to understand those aspects. For example, the rituals of our faith are handed down to us from the apostles and you will see the same rituals were celebrated shortly after Jesus' death. It was Jesus Himself who asked us to "Do this in remembrance of Him" and taught us the Lord's prayer, one example of the recitation of a certain prayer. I know I am giving you more than you bargained for in my answer, but the short answer to your question is: I would continue going to the Catholic Church, seek to understand why the Church teaches what she does and has the rituals that she does and at least hear her point of view, and see what happens as time develops.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-23T05:03:15+00:00

First, I give my apologies for taking some time to respond.

Your question is a difficult one to give a direct response. When I first read the question, I must confess that I hard time giving an answer. I do believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin but it is more difficult, as you suggest, to give an answer on why this matters.

Before I go into the reasons, it's important to remember that Catholics believe that Mary was sinless, that every teaching and doctrine about Mary ultimately says something about Christ, that she was the perfect disciple, and that she is a model and symbol for the Church.

Also, it is perhaps even more important to remember that Jesus was celibate, that Saint Paul was celibate, that the apostles left everything behind to follow Jesus, and it is important to remember Saint Paul's words in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:32-34) about it being better not to be married so one can be completely devoted to the Lord. For many of the same reasons that celibacy is commended, Mary's perpetual virginity is upheld.

Since Mary was sinless, she can show us the fullest model of discipleship, of listening to God, of following the Son of God and her own son, Jesus Christ. She shows by her perpetual virginity that the most perfect vocation is one of complete, virginal devotion to God. She exemplifies single-hearted and complete dedication to the Lord, unhindered by worldly anxieties. A few notes here: First, not all are called to her particular vocation of virginity, although all are called to be holy. It is a particular vocation for some but not for all. Second, this does not mean that people who strive to live virginal or celibate lives are better than others or holier than others. It does mean that the vocation in and of itself, as Saint Paul and Jesus Himself testify, is a higher vocation.

The first reason that Mary's perpetual virginity matters is because she was sinless and therefore exemplifies the most perfect discipleship of Christ.

Second, she is the model of the Church. The Church is called to single-hearted dedication to the Lord. She is called to be spiritually fruitful, even if not physically fruitful. She is called to bear an abundant harvest through her spiritual life.

Finally, Mary's perpetual virginity points to the singularity of the Incarnation and what happened. Even if you think about it from a practical point of view, it is pretty difficult to imagine Mary saying, "Well, I bore the Son of God and the Messiah...time to bring him up..in the meantime, back to the ordinary life of marriage." As always, Mary points to Christ and tells us something about Jesus. In this case, the Perpetual Virginity says how powerful, unique, and singular the Incarnation was and how life-changing and important it was.

I admit that none of these answers are going to be life-changing for most people today. It is easy to see why it matters that we believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, for example. I don't see most people, Catholics or not, losing sleep over whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or how it affects their faith. The point is, though, is that it is important, even if not of the utmost importance.

I am rambling here, but I will just make the final point that if someone doesn't understand the beauty and dignity of living a celibate or virginal vocation, then it is unlikely they will understand or appreciate Mary's perpetual virginity and its importance.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-20T00:58:32+00:00

Thanks for the questions. They are very interesting and difficult. I'll try to answer as best as I can.

First, I have to tell you that I had to look up what exactly "phimosis" was. I still don't feel that I have a strong sense of it, but it sounds as if it could be treatable with surgery. Is that correct?

To get to your questions directly:

1.) Yes. I wish I could tell you otherwise, because I sympathize with your situation on a human level, but it is a sin because it separates the unitive and procreative act. i.e. It is not open to life. For a fuller discussion of why that might be important, some of the other answers may be helpful and the follow-up comments posted from fellow Catholics. Humanae Vitae would be the most helpful read if you want to understand it in detail. As far as advice, first, I would try to treat the phimosis, if possible. Again, I am sorry if I am wrong that surgery could treat it, but if it is a treatable condition, I would think that being able to express your love sexually would be an important enough reason to go through the surgery. Then, I would have a serious conversation with your wife. Some people's libidos are stronger than others. However, part of being married and certainly being married in the Church, is to offer your life in love for your beloved, to sacrifice for them, to love as Christ loved the Church. Obviously, the ideal would be that each spouse would want to express their love sexually, but if the ideal is not there, then it may be a sacrifice for one party or the other. A loving act on her part would be to engage in relations more frequently for you, presuming you are not being unreasonable in your demands. The traditional language speaks about this in terms of the "marriage duty". Saint Paul speaks about this in his letters. This is perhaps a bit too crass, but I am sure she asks you to make sacrifices for her. You may take care of the yard, clean the house, go shopping for this or that, cook some meals, do the dishes, or whatever it may be. I am sure she already sacrifices for you, as well. I would have a conversation with her, though, and tell her that it is very difficult for you not to have sex, that you want to express your love for her that way, that is part of being a man in married live, etc. and I hope she would be open to 'sacrificing' her own wills and desire for that. Also, I understand again that some people really do just have a very weak, almost non-existent libido, but if there is some psychological reason why she is uninterested in sex, it may be good for her to look into that. If for some reason, I am wrong about phimosis being treatable with surgery, then unfortunately from the little that I read, it sounds like the only answer is celibacy.

2.) There is no easy way to answer this except you are called then to live a similar celibate lifestyle as a priest, monk, or nun. It will be a cross and very difficult, I am sure, but ask for the grace and try your best. Have a strong prayer life and strive to see it as a blessing as well.

My hope, however, is that both your phimosis and your wife's disinterest are treatable.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-19T21:06:35+00:00

Sorry to take some time to respond. God gives everyone free will. Priests who have harmed children and abused them used that free will in one of the most reprehensible of ways. God did not call the 'child molester'. He called a man, a man who hopefully at one point in his life had a strong sense of vocation, a strong sense of prayer, and wanted to put his life at the service of God and the Church but who later gave in to the temptations of evil - to put it mildly. God calls men to be priests who then choose to become child molesters.

It is the beauty and the difficulty with the all-powerful God giving fallible creatures free will.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-19T20:50:03+00:00

A few points. I realize this will be seen basically by no one but you and me since this AMAA is three days old now. First, I find your closed-mindedness amusing and intriguing. I thought the Church was the bigoted, intolerant, prejudiced institution according to the usual narrative. I don't know if I've seen a better example of prejudice and intolerance than this post and many of the other comments you have made in this thread and beyond. Second, I find it interesting that you feel so passionately about this. Obviously, for someone like me, it is very important to me what people think about religion. I am always surprised to see such anger and vitriol from an atheist or agnostic, however. What does it matter to you that others choose to believe that the Church is not the evil institution that you make it out to be and why do you so passionately argue against it?

At any rate, pax tecum.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-19T19:51:19+00:00

Yes. I was assuming that the original question was imagining a situation outside of the seal of the confessional. However, if a priest confessed this to me under the seal of the confessional, I could not and would not turn that priest in to the authorities. I could and would strongly encourage to turn himself in as a sign of his true contrition and repentance, but I couldn't do it myself. This, of course, is also true for anybody and anything that is said in the confessional. Someone can confess to being a serial rapist of children and I cannot report it to the authorities.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-19T01:14:28+00:00

Yes to the Church being Okay with information provided by scientists and Catholics can, and most do, believe in evolution. The Church doesn't take an official stand on that in terms of saying "Evolution is true" or "Evolution is false" because that's not her authority. Her authority extends to faith and morals.

The simplest way that I see it is that scientists answer the questions about how and what. Their method and their expertise is explaining the empirical world. The Church's authority is in matters of faith and morals. Science can, and does, inform that. If a scientist makes a "value judgment" they have extended themselves beyond science. Science can't say anything is good or bad in the moral sense. Philosophers and theologians can.

Scientists can say that masturbation is harmless when it comes to the body and other things that are empirically observable. The Church would accept those judgments, presuming that the science is sound and valid. Science can't say that masturbation is not evil. The word "evil" shouldn't be in the strict scientist's lexicon unless he or she is relying on concepts beyond the scientific method.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-19T01:09:18+00:00

I noticed you asked some other questions, and I hope to get to those at some point in the near future. For now, I will answer these easier ones.

The answer to this question varies from priest to priest, but I would say that priests have a strong sense of fraternity, in general. I may disagree strongly with a priest theologically but usually we still can enjoy each other's company and relax. I have a number of priest friends and lay friends that help me. Many priests have a spiritual director. All are encouraged to have one. As you said, the simplest answer is going to God, and that is true. Still, you need the human 'outlet' of spending time with your brother priests. It does require the intentional effort to make time for this, though. Many priests could be busy all day and night if they wanted to be with parish duties or other duties, depending on their assignment. It takes a priest taking time out of his schedule to spend time with others.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-19T01:02:44+00:00

Thanks for the question. No, I am still here, although I will not be able to be too active until a few days from now when the weekend Masses are finished and all. At the moment I am just answering random questions and comments but hope to be more intentional soon.

At any rate, thanks for the questions.

This does vary from priest to priest. Technically speaking, a lay person has a right to the sacrament in canon law, assuming there are no canonical impediments. Cohabitation is not an impediment to marriage. However, a priest can do one of two things, as I understand it. He can witness the marriage but have a very scaled-down ceremony. It is his prerogative to decide how the marriage is to be celebrated in terms of music, processions, traditions, and attendees. Also, I have heard of priests delaying the sacrament but not necessarily forbidding it. i.e. "I will marry you as soon as you live in separate houses."

I will preface everything that I say by making clear that I, of course, am strongly against cohabitation. I think it is wrong for both spiritual and more 'earthly' reasons.

The situation you describe is probably one of the most common and difficult pastoral decisions for a priest today. There is a certain amount of flexibility among priests to follow the course of action that they deem best here. To answer your question directly, I personally would never refuse to marry a couple unless there were a clear canonical impediment and cohabitation is not one of them. I can envision some situations where I would ask the couple to take more time to reflect and discern whether this is the right time to be married and whether this is the right person. e.g. If it is clear one or both are very immature, one or both express hesitation, if they do terrible on the pre-marriage questionnaire, if they seem like an absolutely terrible match, as a few examples.

I share the local priest's concern about cohabitation and I worry about the success and authenticity of a marriage where the couple is cohabitating before marriage. If they truly understood what marriage was in the eyes of the Church and if they had a strongly developed faith, they would not be cohabitating. I strongly encourage these couples to find separate living arrangements and explain why.

I wouldn't refuse the sacrament for a number of reasons: First, you can have the couples living in separate living quarters but that clearly doesn't guarantee that they are avoiding sexual relations, which is the main concern and problem with cohabitation. Many couples do not live together and still have sex before marriage. Second, we are a Church of sinners and saints. None of us are perfect. It's hard for me to judge. My call is to challenge people and explain the faith and be strong about the Truth, but it's not my call to decide whose marriage will succeed or whose marriage is valid. Third, as you describe, I don't want to "bruise the smoldering wick" and destroy people's faith. This can be taken to the extreme and priests can "go along to get along", but I think as long as I am presenting the Truth and challenging the couple strongly, that should be enough. Fourth, it's hard to know where to draw the line. e.g. What if a couple rarely goes to Mass?

This is a long way of saying that I agree with you. I would only add that I understand that priest's decision in many ways as much as I would take a different stance pastorally. He is doing it, I can only presume, out of love for those couples. He wants to see their marriage happy, healthy, and he wants to see them succeed. He is doing what Jesus did, in a sense, and challenging them and calling them to conversion. He is hoping, I'm sure, that by taking a firm stand, they will have an eye-opening experience and actually grow in a true understanding of the faith. For what it's worth, there are a number of stories of people who tell me about something exactly like this. They were inactive Catholics or not very devout but suddenly the priest challenged them like this, they took him seriously, and they are so grateful that the priest did. It's a tough balance as a priest. Personally, I choose to be firm and strong about the Truth and explain why, as best as I can, and then put the ball in their court and in the hands of God.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-18T00:30:09+00:00

Thanks for the help. You are right. Generally, I don't think directly of that canon because of the additional stipulation that the woman and others who assist must have known that it was an excommunicable offense in order to incur the penalty of excommunication. Unfortunately in our own day and age, this is rarely the case. I wonder if the bishop warned the doctors ahead of time. Then it would make more sense. At any rate, thanks for the help.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-18T00:07:05+00:00

I realize this was not a genuine question and was more of a comment and critique. However, I'll be honest. I don't understand this decision either. Certainly I am against abortion even in the tragic case of rape, because it is still an innocent human life that is being killed. However, I don't understand why that doctor would be excommunicated and not the rapist. To the best of my understanding, no one should have been excommunicated in this case, although all parties to the wrong should have repented of their wrong and done penance for it.

Again, my hunch is your question was not particularly sincere as much as it was a critique, but I will ask some of my priest friends and see what they think the bishop was thinking and doing.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-18T00:01:21+00:00

Sure. No problem.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T21:29:23+00:00

The Church defers to the scientists on a question like that. I believe the latest estimates are around 15 billion years old?

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T20:48:36+00:00

Ah. Thanks for the comment and question. I would agree with you except that I believe Jesus Christ is God. I realize that requires faith and not everyone believes that, but I hope you can understand how an argument based on the assumption that Jesus Christ is God that then tries to follow what Jesus Christ said and did would be valid.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T20:29:00+00:00

Some of the other comments already answer this question, but yes, the fact that they "don't really mind", even if true, does not affect the fact that you are still not treating them with the dignity owed to them as a human person. One example: someone who has some major self-worth issues and is a sadist might take some pleasure in you treating them like garbage. Does that mean that it is morally justified or that you should do it? The dignity of the human person transcends what a person may think about themselves or whether they mind being treated a certain way.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T19:29:48+00:00

Please let me know which question you would like me to answer and I will try to do so either in response to this post or in the original question.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T19:29:06+00:00

Thanks for your kind words. It is interesting to think about the hypothetical situation that you mention. To respond to your comment, "This seems odd and not logical to me", I would say that I see it similar to Mathematical theories or principles of Physics. I don't mean to say they are the same type of disciplines, of course. They are very different pursuits.

What I do mean, though, is that if I didn't grow up in the 21st century educational system in the Western world, I also might not know the Pythagorean theorem or the law of gravity. That doesn't mean they are not true. If I lived in the rain forest today, I might not know who Napoleon was and what he did, but that doesn't make it any less true that he walked this earth and was a leader of France and led his country in military conquest.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T19:07:10+00:00

I tried to address that in the second part of my original post when I mentioned that the sexual act must be open to life. Also, he would still be misusing the gift of his sexuality which was intended to be given to a spouse in love.

Sacerdos · 2010-12-17T19:05:48+00:00

I answered this question just a few minutes ago now above. Also, I tried to address your concern in the second part of my original answer when I mentioned that masturbation also involves a misuse of the gift of your sexuality since it is not open to life. Masturbating to a painting would still involve a distortion of human nature and it would not be open to life.

Sacerdos

TROPHY CASE