The First United States Marian Shrine is Officially Recognized

Bishop Ricken has approved Marian apparitions at the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help at Champion, diocese of Green Bay, Wis. (December 8, 2010). This may seem to be a minor religious item in the constant flow of Church news. Yet, for us, this represents a major step as the Champion site is the first United States shrine officially recognized as a Marian apparition which dates back to over 150 years before.

Incessant prayer has gone up in this place based upon the word of a young Belgian immigrant woman of 28 years old, Adele Brise who, in October 1859, said that the Blessed Mother, a Lady clothed in dazzling white, had appeared to her on this site. The Lady was elevated slightly in a bright light and gave words of solace and comfort and a bold and challenging mission for the young immigrant woman. The Lady gave her a two-fold mission of prayer for the conversion of sinners and catechesis. “I am the Queen of Heaven who prays for the conversion of sinners, and I wish you to do the same. You received Holy Communion this morning and that is well. But you must do more. Make a general confession and offer Communion for the conversion of sinners… Gather the children in this wild country and teach them what they should know for salvation… Teach them their catechism, how to sign themselves with the sign of the Cross, and how to approach the sacraments; that is what I wish you to do. Go and fear nothing, I will help you.”

In our days of endemic acute visionitis and apparitionitis, a dangerous virus prevalent in our conservative but enclosed circles, it is worth our while getting into the question of apparitions and their connection with the Catholic hierarchy. There have always been souls endowed with the spirit of prophecy and receiving private revelations from God. Such revelations deal, perhaps with future events, but often—and here this is the case—with present problems which heaven is urging the seer to remedy. Such gifts of prophecy and revelations are given, not only for the benefit of the seer, but especially for that of others. As we are not dealing with the public or official revelation of God—sealed with the death of St. John—it follows that such divine manifestations cannot command or alter our faith. Each is free to accept or refuse them and no one will go to hell by rejecting them and this would apply even to one who, mysteriously but for some good reason, would deny the authenticity and efficacy of Fatima, for example. And yet, if heaven makes it a point of visiting the earth, there must be some urgency and it is most imprudent not to check this out with all diligence. The Apostle commands us: “Do not believe all spirits, but examine them.” This is what the Church, as always, needs to do in such cases: apply the rules for discerning the spirits. These can be quickly summed up thus: Reject any revelation opposed to the Catholic dogma and moral code: this applies particularly to the radical and uncatholic ecumenism of Medjugorje.

Reject any revelation of useless, curious or indecent things. As a rule, divine revelations are brief and discrete and are not made to satisfy our vain curiosity (against Medjugorje again).

Examine the character of the seer. One should be cautious of a soul naturally tormented, extenuated by austerities or infirmities, affected by nervous sickness, exalted and unbalanced, who divulges easily its revelation, not in good standing with the Church laws. This applies to the apparitions of New York (to Veronica Lueken in Bayside NY, USA) and Bolivia (to Catalina Rivas of Cochabamba).

Finally—and this is a main source of discernment—check the results of such apparitions in the seer and the people attending them: “the good tree cannot give evil fruit and the bad tree cannot give good fruit” (Mt. VII 18).

Now, this work of discernment of the revelation falls properly on the lap of the competent Church authority, namely the bishop of the place—in this instance, the bishop of Green Bay—although at the time of the apparitions, this Diocese may not have even existed. He and his diocesan tribunal for the case at hand are to judge the authenticity of the apparition. His judgment consists in affirming—or denying—with certitude the supernatural character of the apparitions and allowing—or preventing—the visitation of the shrine by the faithful. In this case, the judgment was positive and the document goes on explaining some of the reasons for this:
Many physical cures, unofficially attested to by the number of crutches, together with a constant tradition of Marian prayers around the shrine.

This holy place was preserved from the infamous Peshtigo fire of 1871 by the prayer of Adele to Our Lady.

Adele herself has fulfilled faithfully her difficult mission, regardless of endless opposition, to the benefit of many souls and even founded a Third Order of Franciscan sisters at the Shrine.

The accounts of the apparitions and locutions are judged to be free from doctrinal error and consistent with the Catholic faith.

This is obviously a serious work done by the proper authority and based on the safe and sound critical judgment, and totally in agreement with the Church’s tradition. Therefore, it can certainly be considered authentic and worthy of honor by our traditional faithful. The negative side of this is that the Shrine is using the Protestantized Mass and that the website sounds very emotional a la modernist to our more austere ears as if the advertising was simply to speak of making a new experience in love. See the shrine's website.

We could certainly draw a spiritual lesson, a call for zeal from the simple but demanding message of the Mother of God. However young you may be, God wishes to use your hidden talents to give your time to fulfill what is lacking to edify the Church, starting with those simple things every Catholic adult can do: make a general confession, pray for sinners and teach catechism. In other words, intensify your spiritual life by a regular prayer life; begin the work of conversion with yourself as we can hardly help others from shipwreck unless we are on safe grounds ourselves; teach the faith in season and out of season. Here, anyone who has had a tiny bit of teaching experience will readily acknowledge how demanding it is. No one can claim to teach others unless he firstly practices it, lives and loves it, especially when it touches our wholesome all-or-nothing faith. What Our Lady demanded of Adele was a serious program of life which, echoing in our own soul, makes similar demands. Blessed are those who listen to such counsel and put it into practice.

Our Lady of Good Help, pray for us!

Notre dame de Bon Secours, Priez per nous!

Thanks to Robert Banaugh a some time contributor.

Inspiring Speech of Charles II

God save the King,

Today's posting

The chances are I will be busy tomorrow so I have jumped the gun a bit and posted my memorial on the martyrdom of King Louis XVI today.


Site of the execution of Louis XVI

The picture at the left is the spot upon which the execution of the King occurred. To me it is nothing less that a shrine to the martyrdom of the slain King. Once it was called the Place Louis XV, then changed to Place de le Revolution now the spot is called the Place de la Concorde.

Unfortunately it is a obelisk, a freemasonic symbol. The Parisian masonic lodges claimed that they had brought down the ancient monarchy.

Dieu le Roy!

Execution of Louis XVI, from the memoires of Fr Henry Edgeworth

...when the axe of the guillotine was about to fall, consoled his beloved master with the noble words: "Son of St. Louis, ascend to heaven."

..."The King, finding himself seated in the carriage, where he could neither speak to me nor be spoken to without witness, kept a profound silence. I presented him with my breviary, the only book I had with me, and he seemed to accept it with pleasure: he appeared anxious that I should point out to him the psalms that were most suited to his situation, and he recited them attentively with me. The gendarmes, without speaking, seemed astonished and confounded at the tranquil piety of their monarch, to whom they doubtless never had before approached so near.

The procession lasted almost two hours; the streets were lined with citizens, all armed, some with pikes and some with guns, and the carriage was surrounded by a body of troops, formed of the most desperate people of Paris. As another precaution, they had placed before the horses a number of drums, intended to drown any noise or murmur in favour of the King; but how could they be heard? Nobody appeared either at the doors or windows, and in the street nothing was to be seen, but armed citizens - citizens, all rushing towards the commission of a crime, which perhaps they detested in their hearts.

The carriage proceeded thus in silence to the Place de Louis XV, and stopped in the middle of a large space that had been left round the scaffold: this space was surrounded with cannon, and beyond, an armed multitude extended as far as the eye could reach. As soon as the King perceived that the carriage stopped, he turned and whispered to me, 'We are arrived, if I mistake not.' My silence answered that we were. One of the guards came to open the carriage door, and the gendarmes would have jumped out, but the King stopped them, and leaning his arm on my knee, 'Gentlemen,' said he, with the tone of majesty, 'I recommend to you this good man; take care that after my death no insult be offered to him - I charge you to prevent it.'… As soon as the King had left the carriage, three guards surrounded him, and would have taken off his clothes, but he repulsed them with haughtiness- he undressed himself, untied his neckcloth, opened his shirt, and arranged it himself. The guards, whom the determined countenance of the King had for a moment disconcerted, seemed to recover their audacity. They surrounded him again, and would have seized his hands. 'What are you attempting?' said the King, drawing back his hands. 'To bind you,' answered the wretches. 'To bind me,' said the King, with an indignant air. 'No! I shall never consent to that: do what you have been ordered, but you shall never bind me. . .'

The path leading to the scaffold was extremely rough and difficult to pass; the King was obliged to lean on my arm, and from the slowness with which he proceeded, I feared for a moment that his courage might fail; but what was my astonishment, when arrived at the last step, I felt that he suddenly let go my arm, and I saw him cross with a firm foot the breadth of the whole scaffold; silence, by his look alone, fifteen or twenty drums that were placed opposite to me; and in a voice so loud, that it must have been heard it the Pont Tournant, I heard him pronounce distinctly these memorable words: 'I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge; I Pardon those who have occasioned my death; and I pray to God that the blood you are going to shed may never be visited on France.'

He was proceeding, when a man on horseback, in the national uniform, and with a ferocious cry, ordered the drums to beat. Many voices were at the same time heard encouraging the executioners. They seemed reanimated themselves, in seizing with violence the most virtuous of Kings, they dragged him under the axe of the guillotine, which with one stroke severed his head from his body. All this passed in a moment. The youngest of the guards, who seemed about eighteen, immediately seized the head, and showed it to the people as he walked round the scaffold; he accompanied this monstrous ceremony with the most atrocious and indecent gestures. At first an awful silence prevailed; at length some cries of 'Vive la Republique!' were heard. By degrees the voices multiplied and in less than ten minutes this cry, a thousand times repeated became the universal shout of the multitude, and every hat was in the air..."

Vive le Roy
Dieu le Roy,

21st of January 1793: execution of Louis XVI

A murder was commited today which was so heinous that it's effects are still being felt. And...as in any murder there is evedence and sometimes eyewitnesses, each of whom will have a different perspective on the crime. I offer this account via Versailles and More by Catherine Delors.

This narritive is so expressive and emotional as to bring tears to ones eyes.

"...He uttered that "adieu" in so expressive a manner that the sobs redoubled. Madame Royale fell fainting at the King's feet, which she clasped; I raised her and helped Madame Elisabeth to hold her. The King, wishing to put an end to this heart-breaking scene, gave them all a most tender embrace, and then had the strength to tear himself from their arms..."

"...Adieu–adieu," he said, and re-entered his chamber."

I enjoin you to read more here...

Thanks and a tip of the beret to Catherine Delors.

Dieu et le Roi!

La mort de Louis XVI ou le crime de la Nation...

La mort de Louis XVI ou le crime de la Nation contre la Souveraineté royale, par Joseph de Maistre...

Du Trône et d'Autel vient cet article très approprié aujourd'hui.

Un des plus grands crimes qu'on puisse commettre, c'est sans doute l'attentat contre la souveraineté, nul n'ayant des suites plus terribles. Si la souveraineté réside sur une tête, et que cette tête tombe victime de l'attentat, le crime augmente d'atrocité. Mais si ce Souverain n'a mérité son sort par aucun crime ; si ses vertus même ont armé contre lui la main des coupables, le crime n'a plus de nom. A ces traits on reconnaît la mort de Louis XVI ; mais ce qu'il est important de remarquer, c'est que jamais un plus grand crime n'eut plus de complices. La mort de Charles Ier en eut bien moins, et cependant il était possible de lui faire des reproches que Louis XVI ne mérita point. Cependant on lui donna des preuves de l'intérêt le plus tendre et le plus courageux ; le bourreau même, qui ne faisait qu'obéir, n'osa pas se faire connaître. En France, Louis XVI marcha à la mort au milieu de 60000 hommes armés, qui n'eurent pas un coup de fusil pour Santerre : pas une voix ne s'éleva pour l'infortuné monarque, et les provinces furent aussi muettes que la capitale. On se serait exposé, disait-on. Français ! si vous trouvez cette raison bonne, ne parlez pas tant de votre courage, ou convenez que vous l'employez bien mal. Encore! cliquez ici...

Merci Mickaelus.

Le martyr Louis XVI vit avec Dieu! Malheur à vous jacobins!

Vive le Roy Louis XX!

Louis XVI, is put on Trial for Treason

"...On the 11th of December, the sound of a drum, and the noise of the arrival of troops at the Temple, gave us a great deal of uneasiness. My father came down with my brother after breakfast. At eleven o'clock, Chambon and Chaumette, the mayor and attorney-general of the Commune, and Colombeau, the secretary, arrived. They announced to him a decree of the Convention, that he should be brought to its bar to be examined. They obliged him to send my brother to his mother's apartment; but, not having the decree of the Convention, they kept my father waiting two hours. He did not go till about one o'clock, when he went in the mayor's carriage with Chaumette and Colombeau. The carriage was escorted by municipal officers on foot. My father observing, as they went along, that Colombeau saluted a great number of persons, asked him if they were all friends of his; Colombeau answered, "They are brave citizens of the 10th of August, whom I never see but with the greatest pleasure..." Madame Royale, Duchess of Angoulême, Memoires

It was on this day in 1792 that his Majesty King Louis XVI was placed on trial for treason.

Since 13 August the King and his family, his wife Queen Marie-Antoinette, their oldest daughter Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, known as Madame Royale, and her brother Louis-Charles, the future King Louis XVII, Madame Elizabeth the King's sister had been kept in the Temple prison under guard by the orders of the National Assembly.

The National Assembly (Assemblée nationale.) was a transitional body between the Estates-General and the National Constituent Assembly, consisted by 1792 of mainly two groups, Girondins and Jacobins, but may also be broken down further into mini-factions with a more or less radical agenda.

The Girondins who were less radical than their compains the Jacobins believed in maintaining King Louis under arrest, as a hostage and a bargaining piece. Their background in the law made it difficult for a great number of them to accept an execution without due process of some sort no matter how contrived it may be, and it was voted that their king should be tried before the National Convention, the representatives of the so called "sovereign people". The Paris Commune and Parisian deputies who would soon be known as the Mountain(1) argued for Louis's immediate execution.

"...Louis cannot be judged, he has already been judged. He has been condemned, or else the republic is not blameless. To suggest putting Louis XVI on trial, in whatever way, is a step back towards royal and constitutional despotism; it is a counter-revolutionary idea; because it puts the Revolution itself in the dock. After all, if Louis can still be put on trial, Louis can be acquitted; he might be innocent. Or rather, he is presumed to be until found guilty. But if Louis is acquitted, if Louis can be presumed innocent, what becomes of the Revolution?..." Robespierre

On 11 December, among crowded and silent streets, the King was brought from the Temple to stand before the Convention and hear the indictment, an accusation of high treason and crimes(2) against the state. His trial, such as it was, continued from 11 to the 26 of December 1792. It was cold that winter and the only heat was provided by a small charcoal stove.

The problem of what to do with Louis XVI rested on the question of whether the King of France could be tried. The Constitution of 1791 protected the monarch from any penalty worse than dethronement, and no court in the land had legitimate jurisdiction over him. Yet Robespierre's argument (above) that a trial was unnecessary was generally rejected: Louis couldn't be condemned without a trial. So, with no other alternative before them, the Convention took on the role of a court. In most respects this was contrary to accepted judicial principles; but it was expedient, there seemed to be no other alternative.

Louis' defense was founded on his rights under the Constitution and on the illegality of the institution trying him. Constitutionally his case was well founded provided he could convince the deputies that he had honestly intended to become a constitutional monarch. The perception that he was evasive in many of his replies under cross examination did not inspire the confidence that he had so intended. By ordinary standards his trial was illegal, as the defense ably argued; but the Convention had usurped absolute power, and this therefore changed the terms of the trial. It was inconceivable to the Assembly that the King could be allowed to commit treason without being punished. If deputies found him guilty, the penalty was death. To allow Louis to live would undermine the principles of the revolution, but relieve the consciences of those who doubted the Convention's right to act as a court. In the end he would be found guilty.

On 26 December, his counsel, Raymond Desèze, delivered Louis's response to the charges, with the assistance of François Tronchet and Malesherbes. Jean-Paul Marat, (the epitome of démagogues of the sans-culottes), was favourably impressed, and declared: "Desèze read a long speech made with a great deal of art", small praise from a man who on his wall had written La Mort! (Death!).

"...I shall not say any thing of the conduct of my father at the bar of the Convention. All the world knows it: his firmness, his mildness, his goodness, his courage, in the midst of an assembly of murderers thirsting for his blood, can never be forgotten, and must be admired by the latest posterity..."
Madame Royale, Duchess of Angoulême (3) , Memoires

Dieu Sauve le Roy!
Dieu le Roy!

Further reading please see Ruin of a Princess...

(1) Their name derived from the seat location in the assembly; they sat above the Marais or Plein (Marsh or Plain) the majority of the members of the Assembly. The members of the Mountain, or the Montagnards, voted for the execution of Louis XVI. Later the positions would be shifted, so one party sat on the left and the other on the right. Today our notions of the left leaning party,(liberal) and the right leaning party (conservatives) is derived.
(2) "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of a country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. The punishments for nobility were stricter than that for a peasant. Hence cruel and unusual punishment would be one that gave the peasant the same punishment as a nobleman.
(3) Madame Royale became the Duchesse d'Angoulême upon her marriage to Louis-Antoine, Duc d'Angoulême, her cousin. The Kings sister, Princess Elizabeth, called Madame Elizabeth, had been the Duchesse d'Angoulême until her death by the mob.

Instument of Death

Here is pictured the instument of death, the blade of the guilotine used to martyr Marie-Antoinette.

Dieu Le Roy,

Anger as Russia Closes the Case of the Murdered Tsar

The aftermath of the Russian Investigative Committee's decision to close the case on the murder of the last tsar and his family has angered members of the Russian Imperial House and monarchists across Russia.

The Romanov dynasty met its unhappy end almost a century ago in a bunker in Yekaterinburg – but descendants of the last Tsar hope they can still exercise some political influence.

On Monday Russia’s investigative committee announced that it was closing the case on the murder of the royal family, who were shot in the Ural city amid fears it would fall to the Whites as the Civil War raged in 1918.

For many the news merited little more than a shrug: the fall of the Tsar feels like ancient history, and Russia’s cops have rather more pressing contemporary killings to investigate.

But the scions of the Romanov family are not convinced and have demanded the files be reopened.

Bones of contention

A major problem revolves around identifying the royal remains. During Soviet times they were officially hidden, but an amateur archaeologist uncovered them in 1979. Two years later the Orthodox church in exile recognized the imperial family as martyred saints.

After the fall of the USSR the Romanovs’ last resting place was confirmed as Ganina Yama, a woodland district about 20km from central Yekaterinburg.

A monastery was built on the site, and the relics were transferred to the Tsars’ mausoleum in St. Peter and Paul cathedral in St. Petersburg, where they were given a full state burial in 1998.

But the family – and the Russian Orthodox Church – is doubtful that the bones in Petersburg belong to the Romanovs.


“Until now the church has found no grounds to accept the Prosecutor General’s conclusion that the remains belong to members of the Tsar's family, canonized by the church,” Alexander Zakatovym, director of the office of the House of Romanov, told Komsomolskaya Pravda.

“If these are the true remains, they automatically become holy relics to the orthodox people, but while questions remain and there is no complete clarity, neither the church nor the Imperial family can make such a statement.

“The investigative committee wants to leave everything as it is, simply to agree with its version. That is not entirely correct, and indicates a certain contempt for the Church and to society.”


Investigators have already been ordered to re-open this case once before – last year Moscow’s Basmanny District Court overturned a previous bid to close the books.

And Zakatovym hopes that history will repeat itself in the likely event of an appeal launched by Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her lawyers.

Source: The Moscow News
18 January, 2011



Mary, Queen of Scotland's First Husband

One of blogs which I enjoy is Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation by Stephanie A. Mann.

Francois II, eldest son of Henri II and Catherine de' Medici, was born at the Royal Chateau of Fontainebleau on January 19, 1544. He was the Dauphin of France and his marriage to Mary of Scotland was arranged in 1548.

He and Mary came to the throne of France when Henri II died after an accident in a jousting match on June 30, 1559 at the Place des Vosges in Paris. Henri's eye was pierced by a lance and he died on July 10, 1559. When crowned and anointed King of France at Reims on September 21 that year, Francis was only 15 years old. His mother served as Regent, although the Guise family, Mary's uncles Francis and Charles probably held the most control.



A matter of faith, or the Bishop of Boston runs amuck

...But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh... Matthew 18: 7-8 Douay-Rheims Bible

From Life Site news,

BOSTON, January 14, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following directions from Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the Archdiocese of Boston has formulated a Catholic schools admission policy that prohibits “discrimination” against students who come from a homosexual household, a move that has won praise from dissident “Catholic” gay rights leaders. Last year Archbishop Chaput decided differently for Catholic schools in his diocese saying: “Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents.”

The new policy was sparked by the decision of Boston’s St. Paul’s elementary school last May to withdraw acceptance of a student after learning the child was guarded by two women in a lesbian relationship. The archdiocese subsequently distanced itself from the decision.

That decision occurred only weeks after a school within the Archdiocese of Denver also rejected the application of a student guarded by a lesbian couple. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput supported the school’s action. “The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are ‘bad,’ or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite,” he explained.

“But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society.”

In announcing the new Boston policy, Cardinal O’Malley said that the archdiocese has “never had categories of people who were excluded” and that “Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that.”

“While there are legitimate reasons that might lead to a decision not to admit a child, I believe all would agree that the good of the child must always be our primary concern,” wrote O’Malley on his blog.

Archbishop Chaput concluded that since Catholic schools owe Catholic students the full teaching of the truth and children being brought up by homosexual couples could be hurt by the teachings, allowing them into Catholic schools “isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community.”

Boston Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia Father Richard Erikson confirmed that, “We will not exclude any category of child from our schools and we expect pastors will be in conformity with the decision,” in remarks published by the Boston Pilot this week.

The new policy does not specify the meaning of a “category” of students. Secretary for Education Mary Grassa O’Neill declined to state how the policy would have affected last year’s case.

The dissident group Catholics for Equality hailed the new Boston archdiocesan policy on its Facebook page as “a good news story.” “Let’s work to implement similar policies in Catholic schools nationwide!” said the group, half of whose board members hold leading positions at the top homosexualist group Human Rights Campaign.

So we have here a conflict in docrine but also in belief. I wonder sometimes how some bishops were made. We as Catholics are not calling for the burning of homosexuals or the limiting of their rights, but for the right of Catholics to have the true doctrine of the true church taught and obeyed by the bishops created to lead their sheep. This Bishop in Boston, Sean O’Malley treads very closely to heresy in the formulation of this policy. By the implementation of this policy Bishop O'Malley discriminates against those in the faith leading a moral life.

What message does this send to the faithful. "here is an outline of our beliefs but if you don't want to pick and choose the ones you do and we will accept that. It is critical to the souls of those who claim membership in the Body of Christ not to be led astray either in thoughts or deeds by accepting that which we know to be evil. This policy is a great scandal, if fact it is the definition of scandal in the Church.

Just a Catechetical reminder...

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained...tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Bishop O'Mally's policy incorrectly acknowledges the union of homosexuals as being compatable to the natural law. Can he think otherwise? In doing so he is in a state of error.

2358 The number of men & women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.