Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope: Priests Must Stay Celibate
AP via Yahoo via Drudge ^ | 4-20-2002 | NICOLE WINFIELD

Posted on 04/20/2002 4:14:07 PM PDT by Notwithstanding

In a strong message days before a summit of U.S. churchmen on a sex abuse scandal, Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II said Saturday that priests must live celibate lives and avoid scandalous behavior. Bishops, he said, must investigate such behavior and take action to end it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholic; homosexual; pope; repeatcondemnation; scandal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 next last
To: jimmyray

3. They forbid people to marry...

Either the Scripture is infallible or RC church doctrine is.

Nobody is forbidden to marry in the Catholic Church. One is free to choose to marry or not. People can choose alternatively to enter the priesthood or religious life. No one is forced to be a priest. They make a free choice and take a vow of chastity. This Scriptural reference speaks more to people like various Gnostic sects, or the Cathars, Albigensians or Shakers that actually forbid people to marry at all. The Church has always upheld the dignity of marriage, unlike the irrational super ascetic sects of antiquity.

51 posted on 04/20/2002 6:26:47 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
What is your real point?

My point is...... if man created the law, he can also undo it, if that seem to be required.

52 posted on 04/20/2002 6:49:33 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw;BlackElk;LadyDoc
No joke, you nailed it. I was praising the inner-strength of priests and admitting my weaknesses and got flamed for it. Whatever.

Sounds to me like SOMEBODY is rationalizing not taking care of their man at home and has a guilty conscience about it.

53 posted on 04/20/2002 6:50:56 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
I hope you will admit that it is quite Christian and very biblical to forbid many people to marry and still not violate the scripture you quote.

How is that so you might ask? Well, your own church likely forbids at least two of the following categories of people to marry: those too young to consent, those mentally incompetent and too feeble-minded to consent, those who are not free to consent because they are already married (prohibitions against bigamy, and against divorce and remarriage), and those who are not free to marry because they have taken a voluntary vow of life-long celibacy.

54 posted on 04/20/2002 6:55:54 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Great Dane
On this all Catholics agree - including the pope. Celibacy is a discipline that CAN be changed.

In today's hypersexed culture, celibacy is a true gift and a tremendous witness to all that the libido does not need to contol us. The Church is so very wise to require her leaders to bear such witness.

55 posted on 04/20/2002 6:58:55 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
May I too salute the strength of those who are committed to celibacy and acknowledge my own awe at such an undertaking.
56 posted on 04/20/2002 7:00:44 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Actually, St. Paul writes favorably in Acts of a life of dedicated celibacy as superior and then makes the concession trhat it is better to marry than to burn (in hell presumably), although celibacy, if superior, will not send you to hell.

As to the Catholic part, it is a discipline, a prudential judgment, applicable only to one rite, the Latin, of the Roman Catholic Church, reversible at will by any pope and please spare me the man-made rules response. He isn't telling you or your minister what to do. No Church document that I know of purports to tell you how to be a better Protestant.

With all due respect, you are so busy patting yourself on the back over your own imaginings of the meaning of Scripture, that you are missing the point. I am not insulting non-Catholics by saying that you ought not to criticize what you don't understand, but if you don't understand (and you don't), you don't understand.

I don't like fights between Christians in the presence of others (like on Free Republic). It gives aid and comfort to our mutual enemies. Can we give this a rest? Catholics are understandably a bit hair-trigger due to the relentless attacks by the usual gang of atheist media suspects. We don't need to hear what Jack Chick thinks while we are at it and I would not understand that if I heard it.

57 posted on 04/20/2002 7:01:27 PM PDT by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Actually, you could. You just have to be motivated. There were lots of men on the Green Bay Packers team during the Lombardi era who 'thought they couldn't' whatever. Lombardi simply motivated them, and they DID whatever...
58 posted on 04/20/2002 7:02:44 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Celibacy will never be optional with any of JPII's successors, either. Get used to it, Sinky.
59 posted on 04/20/2002 7:04:23 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Far be it from me to suggest how you and your spouse ought to conduct your intimate relations. Far be it from you to be doing likewise toward others. Is this post also not a criticism. If not, we are not talking the same language across the theological divide and this is one more reason for Christians of differing persuasions not to entertain our mutual enemies by flaing one another.
60 posted on 04/20/2002 7:04:55 PM PDT by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
That was, ofcourse, "flaming."
61 posted on 04/20/2002 7:05:27 PM PDT by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
There was nothing in LadyDoc's post indicating what you accuse her of. She was speaking of the realities of life. Your comments were crude.
62 posted on 04/20/2002 7:11:41 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
I once was talking with a psychotherapist friend of mine and mentioned that my husband and I haven't had sex for years. She said "that's not terribly uncommon". There are loads of different reasons why many people, even married people, don't have sex. Calling LadyDoc frigid because she pointed this out to you was childish and uncalledfor. LadyDoc is a very valued poster on FR.
63 posted on 04/20/2002 7:14:52 PM PDT by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
i thought you meant flaying!
64 posted on 04/20/2002 7:17:39 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
"They make a free choice and take a vow of chastity."

But when celibacy was instituted by Pope Gregory that wasn't the case though was it? In around 1,000 Pope Gregory edicted that priests be celibate that those priests who were married were in effect divorced from their wives before they were allowed to serve. Then there is the issue of divorce and how the Catholic interprets when its allowed. My Bible says in Matt 5 that only adultry is cause for divorce. Why would Pope Gregory go against the Bible?

65 posted on 04/20/2002 7:20:17 PM PDT by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
That's why conservatives are losers.

If LadyDoc couldn't take it then she should not have started down the "are you a pedophile/cheater/prostitute visitor" path. Sure his remarks were rude and crude and I wouldn't have made them....but then again he didn't fire off the first shot.
66 posted on 04/20/2002 7:26:15 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
I understand that priests may be married in the Eastern rite Catholic churches, but not in Latin rite Catholic churches. Except that the Vatican, according to news accounts, does not allow married Eastern rite priests in countries like the U.S. where the Latin rite predominates. What is the theological reason for this?

There was an informal agreement until a few years ago that Eastern Rite priests in the U.S. would be celibate as a general rule (obviously unenforceable for already-married immigrants). The Eastern Rite bishops then announced they would no longer accede to this expectation of the U.S. Latin Rite bishops.

As another poster has already noted, all Catholic bishops must be celibate, whether Eastern or Latin. Marriage remains optional for Eastern Rite clergy. Theologically, where the Church does not require celibacy for priests (Eastern Rite) the charism, or grace, of chaste celibacy may or may not be given and the call to the married or celibate state of life must be discerned by the candidate.

If they are going to marry, candidates for priesthood in the Eastern Rite must be married before receiving Major Orders (the diaconate and the priesthood). They may not marry after being ordained. (This also applies to Permanent Deacons in the Latin Rite. It seems a good rule; how awful to imagine a pastor eyeing his flock with wedding bells ringing in his ears....)

67 posted on 04/20/2002 7:26:51 PM PDT by De Fide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Irene Adler
Calling LadyDoc frigid because she pointed this out to you was childish and uncalledfor.

But its okay to question someone who is unable/unwilling to follow the path of a priest voluntarily (while still admiring their fortitude) as to their pedophile/prostitute visitor/cheater leanings? Here is a hint, don't unfavorably and unfairly classify others sex lives unless you expect to have yours unfavorably and unfairly classified in return and in spades. It happens sometimes.
68 posted on 04/20/2002 7:32:37 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Aye. She'll still be here in 3000, and past that. This problem we have with priests causing strife now is just a ripple, but nothing will ever bring down the Church. Our Lord founded His Church and He said that things will come to try to bring it down but will not be successful.
69 posted on 04/20/2002 7:32:53 PM PDT by roachie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Allowing Priests to marry does not solve the problem of gays invading our Seminaries or our Boy Scouts or any other young male institution that attracts homosexials.

They have to be classified as the DEVILS invading anything that affects our morals.

70 posted on 04/20/2002 7:42:09 PM PDT by joanofarc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
p.s. I discern another point you may be making: If the Church does not require priestly celibacy universally, then how can some priests (Latin Rite) receive the charism of celibacy, and others (some Eastern Rite) not?

The answer is, that special charisms of this sort are given for the benefit of the Church (the whole Church or part of it), not the individual -- just as being understood by foreigners of another tongue, or just as prophecy (private revelation) also may be. The charism does not depend upon the individual (except they be disposed to receive it) but the needs of the Church.

The Holy Spirit responds to the need of the Church for celibate priests by manifesting the Gift of Celibacy within individuals, so they may answer their vocation and live it faithfully, for the greater glory of God.

(Testosterone levels are irrelevant -- apropos a different poster.)

71 posted on 04/20/2002 7:42:14 PM PDT by De Fide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Aedammair
The sex drive like many other appetites (with the exception of eating) loses its pull on a person when they don't engage in it for a long period of time.

Speak for yourself.

72 posted on 04/20/2002 7:46:35 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: De Fide
The Pope's work on the Theology of the Body beautifully illuminates celibacy. Too bad it's not better known. Check it out here, then spread the word!
73 posted on 04/20/2002 7:49:54 PM PDT by qwertyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Scripture also deals with the issue of fornication which some of these cretins obviously don't know the definition of.
74 posted on 04/20/2002 8:00:50 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

To: auggy
No where in the Bible does it speak of celibacy. That is enough proof I need to say it isn't necessary.

You don't know the Bible very well. Tell me where it is written in Scripture that Scripture is all that is needed. Also tell me where one can find the words Trinity, Incarnation and Bible in the Bible. As for celibacy, see the following verses.

Matthew 19:12, 27-29

1 Corinthians 7:8, 32-33

These would be good for you to read, maybe for the first time, as well.

1 Corinthians 11:2

2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6

Since you're ignorant of where celibacy is written about in Scripture you're probably also ignorant of where fornication is written about in Scripture as well. You do know what fornication is, don't you?

76 posted on 04/20/2002 8:17:30 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
What? The bible does not mention the bible?
77 posted on 04/20/2002 8:19:55 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
More linguistic literalism. St. Paul is warning Timothy of the Gnostics, Marcionites, Encratites, Manicheans and other ancient heretics who absolutely condemned marriage. The Roman Catholic Church does not condemn marriage, but you already knew that, didn't you.
78 posted on 04/20/2002 8:30:00 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
There are many references to Scripture in the Bible, but the word 'Bible' appears nowhere in any book of the Bible.

The canon of the Bible was not fixed until the 2nd century.

It seems a little odd to suggest that Our Lord came not to found the Church to give us the Bible, but to give the Bible upon which the Church would be founded, when not a word of the New Testament had been written at the time of His Ascension.

79 posted on 04/20/2002 8:36:36 PM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: umgud
"I don't see the need for celibacy (I'm not Catholic), but even so, the current problem has more to do with inappropriate behavior (criminal also) than celibacy."

But I'm sure you realize the problem is more complicated than that. With the shortage of vocations over the last few decades, bishops feel a lot of presure to re-assign a priest who has engaged in inappropriate behavior, has serious addictions to alcohol or drugs, has other mental health problems, etc. That doesn't excuse anything. I, personally, think the bishops who coverup these criminal acts belong in jail.

80 posted on 04/20/2002 8:39:27 PM PDT by joathome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marajade
But when celibacy was instituted by Pope Gregory that wasn't the case though was it? In around 1,000 Pope Gregory edicted that priests be celibate that those priests who were married were in effect divorced from their wives before they were allowed to serve.

Celibacy was a discipline long before Pope Gregory VII, some members of the clergy agreed to lex continentiae and then ignored it; refer to Canons XXVII and XXXIII from the Council of Elvira, 295-302 AD. Peter and Jesus speak about those who have given up everything, including wives, to follow Christ. Melchisedech, Elias, John the Baptist, Paul and Jesus, to name just a few, were celibate.

Celibacy dates back to the Apostles

The Biblical Foundations of Priestly Celibacy

Celibacy - A Historical Perspective

81 posted on 04/20/2002 8:45:14 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Do you believe LadyDoc's position to be a "rigid female tirade" because you believe it's not possible for men to take such a responsible position?
82 posted on 04/20/2002 8:47:49 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Fornication....now there's a term folks hate to use, but one that needs to be brought back. In fact, though I am not Catholic, I wish the Pope would use it more often in reference to this scandal AND that of heterosexuals shacking up.
83 posted on 04/20/2002 8:53:12 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
The canon of the Bible was not fixed until the 2nd century.

The canon of the Bible was closed in 405 AD by Pope St. Innocent I.

84 posted on 04/20/2002 8:53:30 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: Notwithstanding
How many of these scholars do you think know who was reponsible for putting chapter divisions into the Bible?
86 posted on 04/20/2002 8:56:32 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
As are the requirements that a priest be able to read and write, speak the language of his diocese, and that he have arms. He must also wear clothes and bathe occasionally. None of those requirements are in the bible, but none of them contradict what is in the bible.

Doesn't celibacy contradict "A bishop should be the husband of one wife"? It's from one of the Epistles, I forget which.

87 posted on 04/20/2002 9:09:24 PM PDT by be131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
My error.

If anything, that fact strengthens the argument against sola scriptura .

88 posted on 04/20/2002 9:31:56 PM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Celibacy will never be optional with any of JPII's successors, either. Get used to it, Sinky.

It already is, in the Eastern Rite, and, if you're Episcopalian and thinking of converting, you can get married.

It's only a matter of time, niner.

89 posted on 04/20/2002 9:38:22 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I never did understand the whole Catholic celibacy thing. It has never caused anything but trouble. I am the son, grandson, and great-grandson of ministers of the gospel. No celibacy there. Never could find that verse in the Bible requiring those who guide the flock can't be married. Several of the apostles were married and Paul, though single, specifically mentions that it is fine to marry. The only requirement I see is that deacons should only have one wife. Of course, the Bible doesn't mention the Pope, monks, nuns, confession booths, purgatory, cardinals, the vicar of Christ, Mary's perpetual virginity (she had other children you know) or sinlessness (all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God), praying to the saints, or veneration of relic just to name a few things. Just my two bits.
90 posted on 04/20/2002 10:01:04 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Scholars! That explains a lot! Scholars!
91 posted on 04/20/2002 10:10:58 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Yet celibacy for priests wasn't always required by the Catholic Church, so by 3000 that may change. Because the only infallible doctrine is about Jesus bringing us salvation, not whether or not the clergy can be married and still serve their parishioners. Not that celibacy has much to do with the immoral and criminal pedophilia that some of the priests are committing.

I'm wondering why we're only hearing about American priests. It seems highly unlikely that priests in other countries aren't having similar problems. Ot is the screening process over here less strict?

92 posted on 04/20/2002 10:28:40 PM PDT by skr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
X42 remains "celibate", and 48% of the country lies for him. Even Billy Graham
93 posted on 04/20/2002 10:37:18 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: be131
Doesn't celibacy contradict "A bishop should be the husband of one wife"?

No it does not. One can be married and be celibate, re continent.

94 posted on 04/20/2002 10:58:11 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: FreedomeFighter1
I never did understand the whole Catholic celibacy thing. It has never caused anything but trouble. I am the son, grandson, and great-grandson of ministers of the gospel. No celibacy there. Never could find that verse in the Bible requiring those who guide the flock can't be married.

Celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine. Melchisedech, Elias, Paul, John the Baptist and Christ Himself, amongst others were celibate.

Several of the apostles were married and Paul, though single, specifically mentions that it is fine to marry. The only requirement I see is that deacons should only have one wife.

The Apostles gave up everything, including wives; Matthew 19:27-29, to follow Christ. By the way, besides mentioning Peters' mother-in-law where does Scripture mention the other Apostles' wives and where does it mention them engaging in sexual relations with their wives?

Of course, the Bible doesn't mention the Pope, monks, nuns, confession booths, purgatory, cardinals, the vicar of Christ, Mary's perpetual virginity (she had other children you know) or sinlessness (all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God), praying to the saints, or veneration of relic just to name a few things. Just my two bits.

Your two bits aren't worth a penny and shows how little you know of Scripture. The Bible doesn't contain the words Trinity, Incarnation or Bible, so why do you believe in them? The Bible doesn't tell us of the deaths of the Apostles, with the exception of the traitor Judas, or Joseph so obviously they are all still alive, right? Mary had no other children, Scripture does not describe Her and Joseph having any other children, Scripture does not tell us that Mary remarried and even Calvin, Zwingli and Luther wrote that She remained a virgin. To state that She did remarry or had other children is non-Scriptural. Christ never sinned, prior to the fall Adam and Eve didn't sin and no one but Mary is called "full of grace" in Scripture. Since every sin diminishes grace Mary could not have been full of grace if Her soul was touched by sin.

Seems you need to reread the Bible (which were it not for the Catholic Church would not exist as a book). In particular:

John 21:25

1 Corinthians 11:2

2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6

You might also read The Protoevangelium of James the Apostle, who actually knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you'd like the quotes from Calvin, Luther and Zwingli on the Blessed Virgin Mary, I'll be happy to provide them too.

95 posted on 04/20/2002 11:21:56 PM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The only way that I could do that is if somebody had me quick-frozen. I gotta hand it to anybody who does this and really sticks to the rules. There's no way I could.

It's a matter of character for single people (that includes priests-celibate means single), and for married people. Yes, married people, too. You have to be willing to abstain from sex, at least for periods of time, in order to be a faithful spouse (no, I'm not being sarcastic-this time). What if your work takes you away for a while. What if the woman has a hard pregnancy, and then there is that 6 weeks after the birth of a child. What if your spouse becomes ill? For a married person to say he can't go without sex is to say he can't remain faithful. Character.

96 posted on 04/21/2002 1:17:01 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding; Excuse_My_Bellicosity; umgud; Paul Atreides; breakem; sinkspur; uncbob...
Stuffy robes ruin marriage chances, say Greek priests
97 posted on 04/21/2002 1:27:50 AM PDT by Spar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joanofarc
"They have to be classified as the DEVILS invading anything that affects our morals."

You have to be careful with words here. While I do think there is some sort of diabolical agenda that has infiltrated some seminaries and sectors of the Priesthood, the individuals aren't devils but they might very well be manipulated by devils. They are deeply disordered and our society doesn't view homosexuality as a disorder right now(though this crisis could start a shift back in that direction.)

We do need to eradicate this disordered behavior from the Priesthood as quickly as possible. And we need to make the seminaries psychologically comfortable to men who are not disordered.
98 posted on 04/21/2002 3:02:12 AM PDT by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: joathome
With the shortage of vocations over the last few decades, . . .

Do read Goodbye, Good Men>, due out about now. Major seminaries have been turning away those who are orthodox in favor of the loony left. Those seminaries that have been turning away homosexuals and those weak in faith and accepting the orthodox and devout are flourishing.

Youth really are idealistic (and I say this as someone who doesn't much care for the young -- they're too exhausting); vocations (it seems to me) dropped when the Church stopped demanding everything -- do your own thing, have your own apartment, dress like everyone else. I think the Palestinian suicide bombers -- and/or those who recruit them -- have more sense (and I am staunchly pro-Israel; I think they're horribly wrong, but not necessarily lost -- remember C.S. Lewis in the Narnia series -- intention counts for a lot).

Ask everything of youth and you'll get it. Ask crap, and you'll get that.

99 posted on 04/21/2002 3:11:56 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
". . . your own church likely forbids at least two of the following categories of people to marry . . ."

You forgot degrees of consanguinity (i.e., brothers and sisters, first cousins, etc.).

100 posted on 04/21/2002 3:21:23 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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