Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Communion "Host" in Dallas Church Grew Fungi, Bacteria Naturally
Texas Catholic ^ | 3-24-06 | Marty Perry

Posted on 03/24/2006 6:06:40 AM PST by marshmallow

DALLAS. A “host” kept in a jar of water for four weeks grew fungus and bacterial colonies in a natural process, a laboratory report concluded about an incident in a local parish church that created public speculation.

A March 23 letter from Dallas Bishop Charles Grahmann to the pastor of St. James Parish relayed that what some were calling a ‘miracle’ of a host “contains nothing of a supernatural nature.”

The letter to Msgr. Mario Magbanua states: “At my request the object you submitted to me, around which there was heightened publicity, was presented to Dr. Marcy Brown Marsden, chairman and associate professor of biology, University of Dallas, and Dr. Frank Doe of the same department, for tentative identification and characterization of the object.”

The bishop said that after analysis was done he was provided with their conclusion.

They told the bishop: “We conclude that the object is a combination of fungal mycelia and bacterial colonies that have been incubated within the aquatic environment of the glass during the four-week period in which it was stored in the open air.”

The bishop further wrote: ““From this conclusion the phenomenon was of the natural order and contains nothing of a supernatural nature. Thus, you need to remove yourself from any further activity surrounding this matter and its exaggerated claims.”

The incident began about a month ago when a young boy received the Eucharist at Mass and then became sick in the restroom. Ushers who checked on him found the intact host in the bin.

The ushers reportedly summoned Msgr. Magbanua, who came to retrieve the host. He put the host in water to dissolve, where it remained unseen until March 19. Its appearance had changed, viewers said.

Within hours people were coming to the church to see the host, which is located in a low-income area and has approximately 2,000 registered parishioners.

Fueled by telephone and e-mail stories saying a miracle had occurred, as well as media reports, curious scores of the faithful hoping to see something extraordinary began to show up.

Among those was Shirley Vilfordi, a member of St. Rita Parish in Dallas. She was among those who suggested people should not be too quick to rush to conclusions, and thanked those who took quick action to discover the truth.

“We praise God for our beloved church who wants to investigate these things thoroughly rather than falsely mislead the faithful,” Vilfordi said as the investigation was ongoing.

There have been other cases in past years when a host received fungal and/or bacteria contamination when it was not properly consumed and/or disposed.

Church officials said the matter is now closed and called on faithful to end any further speculation.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholic; communion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-381 next last

1 posted on 03/24/2006 6:06:43 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

It's a miracle


2 posted on 03/24/2006 6:08:18 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Not in this particular case.

The Catholic Church carefully investigates such claims and makes the findings publicly known.

Not every plastic-haired, TV shyster is so diligent.

3 posted on 03/24/2006 6:18:27 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...


4 posted on 03/24/2006 6:35:16 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

That's kind of a relief. The story wasn't pretty...


5 posted on 03/24/2006 6:45:08 AM PST by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Who... What... Huh???

I'm confused.


6 posted on 03/24/2006 7:05:05 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; sure_fine

Liberal women can do that in 2 weeks, by not shaving their underarms. No biggie.


7 posted on 03/24/2006 7:06:54 AM PST by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Dallas bump


8 posted on 03/24/2006 7:10:27 AM PST by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
Who... What... Huh??? I'm confused.

The article seemed clear to me. Some people thought a Communion Host had exhibited signs of a miraculous nature (appearing to be blood and flesh). The Church had it tested and it was just mold. End of story.

SD

9 posted on 03/24/2006 7:18:18 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat

I am curious. What would be the proper way to dispose of the host in this instance. If there is mold on it does the mold have to be removed and then the host again put in water to dissolve it. Or would the mold mean the host is now regarded as unconsecrated and can be disposed of by ordinary means. Is there anything in Canon law that says if a vomited host is no longer considered consencrated?
Or maybe this situation has never happened before and no one knows.


10 posted on 03/24/2006 7:43:56 AM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
I am curious. What would be the proper way to dispose of the host in this instance. If there is mold on it does the mold have to be removed and then the host again put in water to dissolve it. Or would the mold mean the host is now regarded as unconsecrated and can be disposed of by ordinary means.

If the Host is still discernable as being a Host, it would need to be treated as sacred. Since the normal method of dissolving in water (followed by disposal of the water directly into the ground through a special sink) does not seem to have worked, burial would be proper.

Is there anything in Canon law that says if a vomited host is no longer considered consencrated?

No, or they wouldn't have gotten into this in the first place, would they have? Since it was spit up and still discernable (as opposed to being digested and indistingushable from normal stomach contents) was how they got into this in the first place.

Or maybe this situation has never happened before and no one knows.

The Church has been around a while. Hardly anything happens for the first time.

SD

11 posted on 03/24/2006 7:52:51 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

I'm certain that there have been cases like this where reddish mold has been mistaken for flesh. This just happened not too long ago somewhere else, (a molded Host anyway, not the rest of the story).

I think at this point they could just break it up and pour it into the Sacrarium, but I don't know the official procedure.

I am glad they announced the results of the tests so quickly.


12 posted on 03/24/2006 7:53:26 AM PST by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; PetroniusMaximus
"The incident began about a month ago when a young boy received the Eucharist at Mass..."

The article seemed clear to me. Some people thought a Communion Host had exhibited signs of a miraculous nature (appearing to be blood and flesh). The Church had it tested and it was just mold.

What a surprise - The wafer was consecrated, but transubstantiation didn't take place. It's still a wafer.

13 posted on 03/24/2006 7:56:13 AM PST by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
What a surprise - The wafer was consecrated, but transubstantiation didn't take place. It's still a wafer.

What do you think "transubstantiation" means? What does the doctrine teach us about the observable aspects (i.e. the apearances) of the communion elements?

SD

14 posted on 03/24/2006 8:00:21 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat; SoothingDave

Thanks for your answer. A few years ago I read a book about Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Cruz. I know that such miracles do happen, especially in times when people need to be drawn back to the faith. So considering the times we live in I was quite willing to accept such a miracle occuring in Dallas. But since we have a natural explanation I will pray that God use even this pseudo Miracle to proclaim the Truth of our Faith.


15 posted on 03/24/2006 8:02:41 AM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; Alex Murphy
What does the doctrine teach us about the observable aspects (i.e. the apearances) of the communion elements?

It teaches us that there are a lot of doctrines in the Catholic Church that are just... not... biblical.

I do find it interesting that so many Catholics are willing to accept the accidents and appearances as fact in regard to the communion, but when it comes to believing that the Earth was created in 6 days, they scoff at the creationist "whackjobs" who actually believe that "despite all appearances to the contrary" that God really did create the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

On the one hand they deny all natural observations to the contrary and insist that what they are consuming is the "literal" flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, yet they scoff at anyone who takes Genesis literally and actually believes that the earth is much younger than it appears.

If "accidents and appearances" can explain the eucharist, then why can't it explain the creation?

16 posted on 03/24/2006 8:09:24 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy
What does the doctrine teach us about the observable aspects (i.e. the apearances) of the communion elements?

It teaches us that there are a lot of doctrines in the Catholic Church that are just... not... biblical.

Yes, thank you for your comments, but I was particularly interested in Mr. Murphy's apparent confusion about what the doctrine states and what conclusions we can draw from it. If you have anything to add in this area, feel free.

SD

17 posted on 03/24/2006 8:11:51 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
It's a miracle

Naw, the miracle was Brother Dominic producing those 500 copies of illuminated manuscripts. (Hoo boy, I just told everyone how old I am.)

18 posted on 03/24/2006 8:13:45 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Tagline deleted at request of moderator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
This story is miraculous.

Everytime I read something about, I taste a little bit of what I had for breakfast again.

19 posted on 03/24/2006 8:15:58 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The wafer was consecrated, but transubstantiation didn't take place.

What exactly do you think transubstantiation is? What part of this story do you think tends to establish your claim that transubstatiation did not take place?

20 posted on 03/24/2006 8:20:55 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
It teaches us that there are a lot of doctrines in the Catholic Church that are just... not... biblical.

So says you.

21 posted on 03/24/2006 8:23:15 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

I love that ad. Classic.


22 posted on 03/24/2006 8:23:57 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Alex Murphy
What part of this story do you think tends to establish your claim that transubstatiation did not take place?

I would say that the "fact" that the consecrated host is now being surrounded by and eaten by mold and bacteria would tend to prove that it is not, "in fact", God.

Perhaps it is just the appearance of mold and bacteria? Or is it REALLY mold and bacteria that have overcome and are now consuming the host?

23 posted on 03/24/2006 8:25:43 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Good thing we Catholics don't follow Sola Scriptura then. That, of course, is not in the Bible either, ironically enough.


24 posted on 03/24/2006 8:28:38 AM PST by Romish_Papist (St. Jude, pray for my lost cause. St. Rita, pray for my impossible situation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I would say that you don't understand transubstantiation, though you're quite convinced that you do.


25 posted on 03/24/2006 8:29:04 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I would say that the "fact" that the consecrated host is now being surrounded by and eaten by mold and bacteria would tend to prove that it is not, "in fact", God.

How is airborne bacteria and its effect on the Host any different from the various fauna that attack the Host in our stomachs? Or, for that matter, your theory of attributing superpowers to the Host would make it indissolvable in normal water. But that's exactly the normal procedure for disposal that was being followed here.

Either you've discovered the Achille's heel of Catholic theology or your theory of the host being impervious to dissoution due to its divinity needs work.

What say you?

SD

26 posted on 03/24/2006 8:31:03 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

What I really remember about the 1977 Brother Dominic ad was that it was the first time in three years that I laughed without pain.

I lost 50% of my left lung to a bullet, thus ending my relatively brief career as a cop.

My left lung's name is Eric.

"Eric the lung?"

"No. 'E's a 'alf-lung. 'E 'ad an accident."


27 posted on 03/24/2006 8:33:06 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Tagline deleted at request of moderator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; Alex Murphy
What say you?

I say you are fooling yourself into believing that the wafer is physically anything other than a wafer.

I would normally say that this would be harmless in and of itself, but when you bow down before the wafer and worship it as God, then you have traversed the divide between true Christianity and idolatry.

28 posted on 03/24/2006 8:36:42 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; HarleyD; Frumanchu; irishtenor; ears_to_hear; Dr. Eckleburg; Forest Keeper; ...

**What a surprise - The wafer was consecrated, but transubstantiation didn't take place. It's still a wafer.**

So "Christ" became moldy? Is that what this means?


29 posted on 03/24/2006 8:38:17 AM PST by Gamecock (Iím so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it. (Machen on his deathbed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy
I say you are fooling yourself into believing that the wafer is physically anything other than a wafer.

That's you opinion. I am only interested in people understanding what it is that they reject.

Do you think, like Mr. Murphy, that a lab test can disprove transubstantiation?

SD

30 posted on 03/24/2006 8:40:49 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
So "Christ" became moldy? Is that what this means?

It means that The Body of Our Lord was treated rather poorly by this priest. Can you believe it? Surely God, Christ Our Lord, Second Person of the Holy Trinity would never allow His Own Body to be treated in such a way. /sarcasm

31 posted on 03/24/2006 8:53:37 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: murphE
See post 26.

SD

32 posted on 03/24/2006 9:00:01 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; Alex Murphy; Gamecock
I am only interested in people understanding what it is that they reject.

Is the wafer God?

Do you literally worship what by all appearances is a wafer?

33 posted on 03/24/2006 9:00:37 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I say you are fooling yourself into believing that the wafer is physically anything other than a wafer.

Christ would say, "This is MY BODY".

Hmmm, what you say, or what Christ says...what to choose...that's a toughie. Thanks for your opinion, but no thanks, I think I'll stick with the words of Our Lord.

but when you bow down before the wafer and worship it as God, then you have traversed the divide between true Christianity and idolatry.

But since Christ Himself has said it is His Body, those who do not adore will have a lot of "splaining" to do at judgment.

34 posted on 03/24/2006 9:02:30 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy
Do you think, like Mr. Murphy, that a lab test can disprove transubstantiation?

I asked you first.

SD

35 posted on 03/24/2006 9:04:10 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy; Gamecock
Is the wafer God? Do you literally worship what by all appearances is a wafer?

What's more astonishing is the people who immediately flocked to the church to see mold growing, thinking it's a miracle. I better not let them know about the back of my refrigerator.

36 posted on 03/24/2006 9:07:12 AM PST by HarleyD ("A man's steps are from the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Prov 20:24 (HNV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Yeah I know I heard all about "proper procedure" on This Thread, I still think the priest should have consumed the host and not plopped it in a glass of water only to forget about it for a month.
37 posted on 03/24/2006 9:07:51 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: murphE; Alex Murphy; Gamecock
Christ would say, "This is MY BODY".

He also said he was a door. Do you worship the door to your church?

He also said he was the true vine. Do you bow before grapes?

He also said that he was the good shepherd and that we are sheep. Does that mean that while we appear to be human, we have really been transubstantiated into sheep?

You Catholics seem to take only this one reference literally and you tend to allegorize nearly every other verse in the Bible -- especially those which contradict your peculiar unbliblical doctrines.

38 posted on 03/24/2006 9:13:31 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Do you literally worship what by all appearances is a wafer?

Yes.

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail,
Lo! oe'r ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail;
Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble senses fail.

To the everlasting Father,
And the Son Who reigns on high
With the Holy Spirit proceeding
Forth from each eternally,
Be salvation, honor blessing,
Might and endless majesty.
Amen.

It's better in Latin.

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

Genitori, Genitoque
Laus et iubilatio,
Salus, honor, virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio:
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.
Amen.


39 posted on 03/24/2006 9:16:15 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; HarleyD
Do you think, like Mr. Murphy, that a lab test can disprove transubstantiation? I asked you first.

I don't need a lab test to disprove transubstantiation. The taste test works well enough.

You tell me, what does it taste like? Human flesh or baked wheat?

40 posted on 03/24/2006 9:17:57 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: murphE; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; HarleyD
Yes.

That's pretty scary.

41 posted on 03/24/2006 9:19:22 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: murphE
Christ did say that this was his body... then they ate it. He was still sitting there, wasn't he? or did he disappear into their gastric tract?
42 posted on 03/24/2006 9:21:39 AM PST by irishtenor (At 270 pounds, I am twice the bike rider Lance is. Strike that, now at 266 and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
You Catholics seem to take only this one reference literally and you tend to allegorize nearly every other verse in the Bible -- especially those which contradict your peculiar unbliblical doctrines.

No, you Protestants, in order to protest Divinely revealed doctrine, call a "symbol" what you choose to, all the while claiming to go "by the bible" and you don't even agree about what are allegories and what should be taken literally amongst yourselves.

The bible is a Catholic book, yet you want to read apart from the Church and think you have the proper understanding. Big mistake.

43 posted on 03/24/2006 9:28:45 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: murphE

More or less says it all.


44 posted on 03/24/2006 9:30:08 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Christ did say that this was his body... then they ate it. He was still sitting there, wasn't he? or did he disappear into their gastric tract?

Oh you must be right, it's not like Our Lord can accomplish what seems impossible to our human understanding. /sarcasm

45 posted on 03/24/2006 9:31:12 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Perhaps the mold, and natural decay?
The psamlist stated that "the holy one would not suffer decay." Yet consistently this wafer that is the actual body and blood, decays. why is that?


46 posted on 03/24/2006 9:32:23 AM PST by Rhadaghast (Yeshua haMashiach hu Adonai Tsidkenu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; HarleyD
Christ did say that this was his body... then they ate it. He was still sitting there, wasn't he? or did he disappear into their gastric tract?

I have to wonder, if the bread was transubstantiated into Christ's literal body and then it was broken it into pieces at the last supper, then what did the Romans nail to the cross?

If Christ were truly incarnate before the crucifixion, then he could not have broken his body and passed it out among the disciples. That would have killed him as it would have killed you or me. Christ was killed on the cross. His body was intact at the time it was nailed to the cross. Nobody ate any of Jesus before his crucifixion. Hence, the statement was allegorical then and it is allegorical now.

47 posted on 03/24/2006 9:33:00 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Do you think, like Mr. Murphy

Ahem, that's Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Murphy is my husband.

48 posted on 03/24/2006 9:33:01 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I don't need a lab test to disprove transubstantiation. The taste test works well enough.

This statement indicates you really don't know what transubstantiation means. I suggest you read about it before you reject it. Unless you think you can get by with, "but nobody told me" when you face Our Lord at your judgment. You may not believe this, but I say this in all charity.

49 posted on 03/24/2006 9:38:15 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: murphE

Can you show any biblical referance of where the 'host' was worshipped? Was there even any worship of the litteral boby of Christ while it was dead?

Consistently the RCC will walk on its head to maintain its false idea that it is the only game in town. Then will not even have the guts to say what the council of Trent declared. That all protestents are beyond salvation in any way. What does anathama mean if not that.


50 posted on 03/24/2006 9:40:25 AM PST by Rhadaghast (Yeshua haMashiach hu Adonai Tsidkenu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-381 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson