Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Law: Skip gays' vows
The Boston Herald ^ | July 27, 2002 | Eric Convey

Posted on 07/27/2002 11:04:07 AM PDT by maryz

TORONTO - Catholics should boycott homosexual-union ceremonies because attending them would lend support to unnatural relationships, Bernard Cardinal Law said yesterday.

"For us to give public recognition of that in any way is to confirm a pattern of living that is not ordained by God," Law told about 500 Boston-area pilgrims at a catechism session associated with World Youth Day.

He addressed the topic in response to a question about how Catholics should abide by the church's guidance to love homosexuals while opposing same-sex relationships.

"The general principle is we are called to love and accept every human being," Law said, specifically criticizing those who would verbally or physically attack gay people.

But the bottom line, he said, is that married and single people are called to "live chaste lives." He said that means shunning sex other than that shared by a husband and wife. Anything else, he said, "is not in accord with the teaching of Jesus and the church."

"This is an area that clearly is very, very complex," he said. "But we need to pray through it, we need to think through it, and we need to be very clear."

The sweeping prohibition disappointed and angered critics of Law who said it would prevent gay couples from having Catholic friends and family members at major life events.

Charles Martel of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry said the Catholic Church is promoting a "culture of fear."

"(Church leaders) should be doing everything possible to encourage relationships," he said. "They are so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

Martel, a psychotherapist, said the effect of such remarks, especially on gay young people, could be "very damaging . . . how do they practice their faith when they get that message?" he added.

Chuck Provancher, president of Dignity/Boston, an organization of gay Catholics, called Law's remarks "unfortunate."

"It seems to me the Catholic church should be celebrating the love of two people," Provancher said. "Now the cardinal is saying that somehow that is wrong?"

Law's comments "hit home for me," Provancher said, since he and his partner held a union ceremony last year and many Catholic friends and relatives attended. "I would be very surprised if the cardinal ever attended such a ceremony, because if he had, he would not have been able to make the comment he did."

Law, who upon hearing the sexuality question joked that he should have stopped fielding queries earlier, warned the faithful that taking a stance against homosexual relationships would be unpopular.

"You know that we're counter-cultural on this," he said. "You know this is not what the rich and the powerful are saying - those who are in the news."

Controversial as they were, Law's remarks are in line with church teaching on sexual morality.

The catechism of the Catholic church - a lengthy teaching document that deals with issues of doctrine and conduct - states that gay men and women "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

But it also states that marriage was ordained by God and sexual relations are "morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established."

Law also found himself enmeshed in another controversial issue when he responded to a question from a young woman about the possibility of female priests by telling her not to waste her time.

He said that he could not envision such a thing because the priest must serve as a representative of Jesus, who is male.

"I know it can't change, I know it won't change, and to be thinking in those terms is to deceive oneself and waste one's energy," he said. The cardinal did, however, argue that women have equal status in the church, and listed the accomplishments of Mary, various other saints and Mother Teresa.

Law scoffed at those who expect reversals on issues such as women's ordination and divorce as soon as there's a new pope.

"It's not going to happen," he said. "Just rest comfortably in the faith."

While several pilgrims walked out of the catechism class, they were only upset that the Mass to follow was going to be open to the media.

Law, who received thunderous applause when he arrived for the catechism class, was also hugged by hundreds of young people as he exited the church after the Mass, many thanking him for making the trek to Toronto.

The cardinal made no mention of the sexual abuse scandal back in Boston, other than to offer what has become a routine prayer for victims during the Mass.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: cardinallaw; catholic; catholiclist; homosexuality

1 posted on 07/27/2002 11:04:07 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; livius; goldenstategirl; ...
I saw this in the print Herald this morning, and I would have typed it in if it hadn't been on the website.

One of my sisters gets the Herald too, and she asked if I didn't think Law's comments seemed awfully hypocritical in view of the current scandal. Personally, I rather hope he's just working up to cracking down some on sexually active priests -- whether homosexual or heterosexual -- or certainly pedophile.

I don't know Toronto, but I'm afraid saying something like this in the Boston-Cambridge area will draw an even worse reaction than those quoted -- in many quarters, likely a worse reaction than the abuse scandal. He may well figure, though, that, given his current reputation in Boston, he probably can't make himself more unpopular no matter what he says. So he might as well make himself unpopular defending and teaching Church doctrine. I for one am praying for him.

2 posted on 07/27/2002 11:16:17 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Catholics should boycott homosexual-union ceremonies because attending them would lend support to unnatural relationships, Bernard Cardinal Law said yesterday

Amazing statement! I can't believe he got something right!

3 posted on 07/27/2002 11:23:37 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
But it also states that marriage was ordained by God and sexual relations are "morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established."

BTTT!

4 posted on 07/27/2002 11:24:55 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maryz
It will be interesting to see if he tows this line with those who divorce and remarry outside the Church...will he say in public that Catholics shouldn't attend that ceremony either. I don't mind his cracking down as it is sorely needed. I just hope it is all done according the the CCC.
5 posted on 07/27/2002 11:26:33 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maryz
It's about time somebody in authority made these remarks. Catholics used to be enjoined by the same reasoning from attending weddings of divorced people, or Catholics who were being married "outside" the Church. Those sanctions seem to have fallen by the wayside too. Of course, if I had abided by those sanctions I could not have attended the wedding of my son who married a Baptist in a Baptist Church. But I felt that it is better to keep him as part of the family and hope and pray that he and his bride would come to accept the Catholic Church on their own.
6 posted on 07/27/2002 11:30:26 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I can't believe he got something right!

To be fair, he does get some things right -- apart from that one glaring exception. He did crack down on that nun who donned vestments and performed a baptism to the delectation of the media and got horrible press on it. He did refuse to permit (I think it was) a rice communion wafer for the gluten-intolerant little girl who was scheduled to make First Communion and got horrible press for it; he recommended that she be allowed to receive under the species of wine.

(In the latter case, of course, he had no authority to allow any such thing; anyway, no one seemed to point out that the little girl was going to feel different because she is different, and many children -- sadly -- are different in far more tragic ways. I wondered if when she's a bit older and her friends want to go out for pizza or burgers, her parents are going to insist that Papa Gino's and McDonald's provide rice-based alternatives! Sorry if that's off-topic -- I've wanted to point it out for a long time!)

7 posted on 07/27/2002 11:42:26 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
will he say in public that Catholics shouldn't attend that ceremony either

Even in the case of a granted annulment? Valid ceremony then, correct?

8 posted on 07/27/2002 11:43:09 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Valid ceremony then, correct?

Are you referring to the civil ceremony
or the sacrament of matrimony?
9 posted on 07/27/2002 12:04:24 PM PDT by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Yes. I wasn't referring to the annulment situation. There was a time when a Catholic leaving a spouse and remarrying outside the faith without annulment was cut off from fellow Catholics to a degree. Marriage was for life, no if ands or buts, unless the circumstances were so outrageous that annulment and all the hoops entailed by it were necessary. Sometimes a legal separation would be done but not a formal divorce. Individual Crosses were carried by many.

Now, we have easier annulments and that seems good in many regards for the families but it hasn't helped to slow down the divorce rate. And divorce has no negative connotation now either. I know a woman in my parish who has been married and divorced several times and she is a lector.
10 posted on 07/27/2002 12:14:29 PM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Charles Martel of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry said the Catholic Church is promoting a "culture of fear."

Actually, Chuck, it's a culture of truth.

"(Church leaders) should be doing everything possible to encourage relationships," he said. "They are so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

The Church encourages licit, moral relationships.

Martel, a psychotherapist, said the effect of such remarks, especially on gay young people, could be "very damaging . . . how do they practice their faith when they get that message?" he added.

Psychotherapist?! I knew that was coming. They should practice their faith the same way heterosexuals are supposed to. Avoid the occasion of sin and save sexual relations for a heterosexual marriage ordained by God. If they don't like it, they can leave and practice a faith that rejects Scripture. There are plenty of them out there, Chuck, just pick one.

Chuck Provancher, president of Dignity/Boston, an organization of gay Catholics, called Law's remarks "unfortunate."

Chuck considers the remarks unfortunate because he didn't get a green light to engage in sodomy, fisting, water sports, etc. all under the guise of "love."

"It seems to me the Catholic church should be celebrating the love of two people," Provancher said. "Now the cardinal is saying that somehow that is wrong?"

Somebody must be spiking your kool-aid, Chuck. You must have skipped that part of Scripture that talks about Sodom and Gomorrah.

11 posted on 07/27/2002 12:21:34 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
LOL -- I was hoping someone would do that!

One other thing I might have commented on, though:

"(Church leaders) should be doing everything possible to encourage relationships," he said. "They are so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

I have the impression that it's not the Church leaders who are "so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

12 posted on 07/27/2002 12:53:07 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
A civil ceremony is not valid in the eyes of the Church. I was referring to the Sacrament of Matrimony after a granted annulment. Would the ceremony/Sacrament be valid then?
13 posted on 07/27/2002 1:32:32 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
Has the lady applied for or received an annulment for both marriages. Sounds strange. But I don't know any details.
14 posted on 07/27/2002 1:36:24 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
I know a woman in my parish who has been married and divorced several times and she is a lector.

One of our parish leaders is a media celebrity who recently divorced her third husband. She said in the newspaper that she is now looking for Mr. Right #4, but she wants to be sure the gentleman is a practicing Catholic. (I think we have a lot more to worry about than predatory priests.)

15 posted on 07/27/2002 1:58:17 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maryz
I for one am praying for him.

Me too! It would seem that he fits that adage - damned if you, damned if you don't. Since he went out on a limb to support the church's stance on "gay unions" and "female priests", would that he had taken one more step towards the precipice and included a reminder of the church's stance on homosexual priests. I half expect that some of those already ordained were salivating last night as they watche the disrobment station.

16 posted on 07/27/2002 2:30:18 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
would that he had taken one more step towards the precipice and included a reminder of the church's stance on homosexual priests.

What's done is done and can't be undone -- but we can hope and pray he continues now he's started. This is the first time I know of that he has mentioned homosexuality publicly -- not that I follow him around to hear his every word, but I'm sure if he had preached this in Boston, it would have made the papers.

17 posted on 07/27/2002 3:12:27 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER; maryz
Too true, SMEDLYBUTLER!

I was surprised that Law said the things he did. Maybe he's actually made a decision in his life, as a result of the horrible things that have happened.

I lived in NY during much of Law's reign in Boston, and I must say that while he was technically conservative and aligned with Cardinal O'Connor, I never thought he was very enthusiastic about it. His pro-life statements were often a bit on the ambiguous side, for one thing.

However, both he and O'Connor seemed in many ways to skate away from some of the real problems in their dioceses , although O'Connor did attack the problem of gays in the seminary. O'Connor (who was a wonderful person, and probably a saint, I suspect) is now with Our Lord, but Law still has time to consider his episcopal performance. Perhaps he's seeing it all differently now?

I thought he should resign. But if he repents of his lapses and changes, that would be a thousand times more powerful.
18 posted on 07/27/2002 3:14:36 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: livius
His pro-life statements were often a bit on the ambiguous side, for one thing.

I never found them ambiguous exactly -- I think he just early on mastered "clergyspeak," that rather bland, smarmy drone that characterizes far too many clergy of all denominations. He seems to like mingling with the rich and powerful, and abortion is the one issue on which he has been willing to go against the liberal MA establishment. (Way too many of his pronouncements on other issues might have been drafted by the DNC!)

I feel very hopeful that he will decide "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as I said, he doesn't seem to have anything to lose now.

I would be even more hopeful if I were to read that he had cleaned out the Chancery personnel offices.

But I'm still praying.

19 posted on 07/27/2002 3:33:51 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Thanks for the ping and post, Mary. I do have a few thoughts on this, I'll post them later on when I have more time.
20 posted on 07/27/2002 3:37:51 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I know the lady has had one annulment.
21 posted on 07/27/2002 4:30:35 PM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Not that long ago, a Catholic could not ATTEND a wedding in a non-Catholic church, period. Not that long ago, a Catholic could not SING, READ, or otherwise actively participate in such a ceremony.

Seems to me that Cardinal Law is spot-on--why encourage such a "union?"

22 posted on 07/27/2002 5:39:19 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maryz
The sweeping prohibition disappointed and angered critics of Law who said it would prevent gay couples from having Catholic friends and family members at major life events.

Events like... well, I better not say it.

Charles Martel of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry said the Catholic Church is promoting a "culture of fear."

I guess that's not the Charles Martel.

And what's with that headline anyway? I saw it at Dunkin' Donuts this morning and it really bugged me. I couldn't figure out what the heck it was about.

23 posted on 07/27/2002 5:40:51 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
I know a woman in my parish who has been married and divorced several times and she is a lector.

If that's true, it is a SERIOUS violation of liturgical law.

SOmeone ought to take your pastor aside and tell him to get her OUT of the lectern.

24 posted on 07/27/2002 5:43:02 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Controversial as they were, Law's remarks are in line with church teaching on sexual morality.

This is news? HELLO!

25 posted on 07/27/2002 5:43:25 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
(In the latter case, of course, he had no authority to allow any such thing; anyway, no one seemed to point out that the little girl was going to feel different because she is different, and many children -- sadly -- are different in far more tragic ways.

It's funny. Since this brouhaha I've been diagnosed with the same disease (celiac disease). And you know what? I go up and receive under the species of wine. And you know what? I don't give a flying fig and neither does anyone else. Law should have said, "See you later, and don't let the door hit you on your way out." Sheesh.

26 posted on 07/27/2002 5:49:02 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: maryz
I never found them ambiguous exactly -- I think he just early on mastered "clergyspeak," that rather bland, smarmy drone that characterizes far too many clergy of all denominations.

Yech! You're sooooo right.

27 posted on 07/27/2002 5:52:44 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
This Pastor is aware...he moved the Tabernacle instead of dealing with that issue. He did make her stop teaching CCD.
28 posted on 07/27/2002 6:18:58 PM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"Not that long ago, a Catholic could not ATTEND a wedding in a non-Catholic church, period. Not that long ago, a Catholic could not SING, READ, or otherwise actively participate in such a ceremony."

For some of us, it's called earning a living. Their money in exchange for services rendered (musicianship) is the same as anyone else's. Going back to the old ways on this, for a whole lot of Catholics would mean giving up jobs. It's a dirty secret that a lot of section leaders in choirs are actually Catholics who sing the off Mass in their own parish.

Law, in this case, is absolutely right. I know and am related to a lot of homosexuals and love them for who they are, but their relationships don't constitute marriage.
29 posted on 07/27/2002 6:30:01 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Law should have said, "See you later, and don't let the door hit you on your way out." Sheesh.

He did in effect -- though perhaps couched in gentler terms. I believe the family now attends a Methodist church.

30 posted on 07/28/2002 4:50:21 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I guess that's not the Charles Martel.

I rather guess not!

And what's with that headline anyway?

If you know the Herald, you know they think nothing of sacrificing clarity for a snappy headline.

31 posted on 07/28/2002 4:52:52 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Charles Martel of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry said the Catholic Church is promoting a "culture of fear."

What a sad use of such a noble name...


32 posted on 07/28/2002 6:09:34 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
"(Church leaders) should be doing everything possible to encourage relationships," he said. "They are so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

Now if that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I suppose activist individuals with SSAD aren't focused on sex at all, eh?
33 posted on 07/28/2002 6:19:06 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Somebody must be spiking your kool-aid, Chuck. You must have skipped that part of Scripture that talks about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yes, but don't you know that liberal Catholics/Christians now interpret the "sin of Sodom" as a lack of hospitality of the Sodomites toward the angels visiting Lot? God thinks buggery is fine, don't you know!
34 posted on 07/28/2002 6:23:40 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: maryz
The sweeping prohibition disappointed and angered critics of Law who said it would prevent gay couples from having Catholic friends and family members at major life events.

Anyone who endorses the gravely disordered homosexual deathstyle by attending "major life events" like phony union ceremonies is not doing their friends afflicted with SSAD any favors. It's like giving an alcoholic a basket of cheer for the holidays...
35 posted on 07/28/2002 6:25:52 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Law also found himself enmeshed in another controversial issue when he responded to a question from a young woman about the possibility of female priests by telling her not to waste her time.

If only the Cardinal would continue to speak the truth so fearlessly and follow up his words with deeds - like making sure his seminary is cleaned out and that there are no active homosexual priests in his diocese. Maybe he's finally realized who the real enemy is?
36 posted on 07/28/2002 6:39:17 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz; american colleen; Siobhan; Polycarp
Here's some information on this Charles Martel character.

On this site, he signed a letter sent to legislators calling for the "freedom to marry". Note that his signature is followed by "Roman Catholic Lay Leader," a title he has no doubt given himself.

Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry Letter to Legislators

He is on the steering committee for "The Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry," a front group for the activist homosexual lobby.

Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry Steering Committee

And he's apparently the person the Boston media has started seeking out when they're trying to find a Catholic "leader" to speak in favor of gay marriage.

Massachusetts Clergy unite in call for same-sex marriage

He is also mentioned in connection with The Jesuit Urban Center in Boston, which in this article (appearing in "Bondings" -- some sort of gay Catholic periodical), is listed as a place where "Sunday Mass draws hundreds of gay Catholics."

Bondings: Volume 19:2

In short, the guy is a dangerous dissenter in that he is trying to appear to be a Catholic leader and speak as such. Perhaps we should write to the Cardinal about him?
37 posted on 07/28/2002 7:14:02 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
If only the Cardinal would continue to speak the truth so fearlessly and follow up his words with deeds - like making sure his seminary is cleaned out

It seems to me that around the time when the scandal first broke, the Herald reported that he had cleaned up a number of things starting when he came to Boston, including I think the seminary. It didn't go into any detail, though.

38 posted on 07/28/2002 7:51:36 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Perhaps we should write to the Cardinal about him?

Actually, I was thinking of writing to him (or to The Pilot) to praise him for his remarks in Canada. A little encouragement surely can't hurt.

39 posted on 07/28/2002 7:54:15 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Great picture -- thanks! (Sometimes I feel as if I want to ride into a noble battle just like that -- only I'd prefer a sword. Of course, I don't know how to use one, though it wouldn't make much difference since I never learned to ride, either. Oh, well, "They also serve who only stand and wait.")
40 posted on 07/28/2002 7:57:52 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Well, yeah--it's a living. I had the same capability for music and fortunately, the rules were relaxed at about the time I needed a few extra bucks.
41 posted on 07/28/2002 2:38:28 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I would wager that over the last 90 days the Cardinal has had time to connect some dots and draw a few conclusions about just exactly who ARE and who are NOT his friends.
42 posted on 07/28/2002 2:42:08 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
The Jesuit Urban Center

'Surprise, surprise, surprise,' said Gomer to Andy.

Is this another offshoot of Boston College?

43 posted on 07/28/2002 2:45:09 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: maryz
The NRA offers wonderful gun-handling courses for women. Check it out on their website (www.nra.org).

Sorry, they don't do swords.

44 posted on 07/28/2002 2:47:52 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Actually, I was thinking of writing to him (or to The Pilot) to praise him for his remarks in Canada. A little encouragement surely can't hurt.

Excellent idea. As long as Cardinal Law is going to stay on, we should make sure to praise and encourage him when he does well.
45 posted on 07/29/2002 11:13:02 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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