42 board members voted unanimously that it was fine, but 4 bishops (and the puppeteer in Rome) obviouly know better than those misguided people. That's an essay in and of itself.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is hopeless out of touch on this issue. The fact that almost 20% of the board members (all devout Catholics) resigned over this speaks to that very much. Heavily Catholic Spain legalizing gay marriage despite the warnings and threats from the church speaks to it as well. The average catholic these days is not right wing, but the church hierarchy is slow to change and adapt.
Nope, totally believable. What do you expect from an institution that is run by sexually frustrated, middle-aged men? American Catholicism would be a lot different if the laity had more say in the policies and practices of the Church.
On the bright side, this means that the same people who're stoicly opposed to homosexuality will be raising a sparser next generation of people who're stoicly opposed to homosexuality.
Or maybe it has nothing to do with hate. Maybe it has to do with a genuine concern for the well-being of children .. even if you do not agree with what is best for children. Maybe it has to do with ideological integrity, with an unwillingness to compromise conviction in the face of public opinion.
Perhaps it would be better to be happy that we live in a country where there is still some freedom to refuse to participate when the state makes law what one believes is immoral.
You know what badsede, you are actually ABANDONING traditional Catholic morality for a position that more resembles, in its moral idiocy, fundamentalist Islam or Protestantism.
Sure, you can say, if you really WANT to--and against all the evidence that's now in--that two homosexuals raising children will "warp" the children, making them "confused" about that all-so-sacred "complementariness" that the foolish, romantic and anti-scientific "Theology of the Body" of John Paul II has turned into a fetish in modern Catholicism--a SUBSTITUTE for the charity of the Gospels. But what you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT get around--just as those faithful Catholic objectors who resigned cannot get around it--is that leaving children cold, hungry, un-affirmed and un-adopted--literally, perhaps, out in the cold of a Boston winter--is a FAR MORE SERIOUS MORAL EVIL, consisting in a wholly unacceptable level of cruelty.
But there you are, defending it, trying to pretend that Jesus Christ would have defended it. Your "Catholic Christian morality" is an offense in the nostrils of God and His Son!
you are actually ABANDONING traditional Catholic morality
When some of his disciples found his teaching, his moral teaching, too hard to accept, Jesus let them go rather than change it. I do not see how the refusal of a Catholic organization to participate in activities which Catholic teachings hold to be immoral can be a departure from this precedent.
and against all the evidence that's now in
Really? I haven't seen any such evidence, but I would be interested in seeing it. The only evidence that I have seen suggests the contrary .. does not prove, but only suggests, and that's the strongest I've seen.
romantic and anti-scientific "Theology of the Body" of John Paul II has turned into a fetish in modern Catholicism--a SUBSTITUTE for the charity of the Gospels.
Howso? You've made this claim many times, but I have never seen you explain it nor substantiate it. Have you read JPII's series of talks and books that make up the body of Theology of the Body?
As to the children, they are the true vicitms. The state has chosen the path of oppression, of stifling of religious freedom and personal conscience. It has decided to mandate morality, and in doing so has overstepped its bounds. It is shown itself incapable of providing for the parentless in its area, and is using the charitable drive of people as a means to force that morality upon them. The children are the vicitims, and the state is the perpetrator.
Would your stance change if this were a group of right-wing southern baptists refusing to allow catholics to adopt children based on similar religious objections?
No. I believe that they should have the right to act in accordance with their own morality and not be coerced into acceptance of a state-endorsed morality .. the fact that I may find that morality reprehensible does not matter. And I would still believe that the state should not be legislating morality.
Besides, it would be nothing new for Catholics in this country.
What proof suggests that two homosexual men will raise warped children?
Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state. understand you disagree with that. But this proof sounds suspicious.
What proof suggests that two homosexual men will raise warped children?
Warped is quite the strong word. But the reality is that the studies that have been put forth to support the idea that there is no developmental impact on children of homosexual couples have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, suffering from methodology deficiencies that would not be tolerated in the rest of the scientific world. But they are being used as justification for revising the standards for appropriate situations in which to place adopted children. The state may be right, but it doesn't have the basis for the position besides politics.
Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state.
You're right, I do disagree with that .. especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.
The Catholic Church Hates Gays… Posted by DAN SAVAGE at 12:09 PM
…more than it loves babies. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt…
The state’s four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church’s religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.
Here’s the really telling part: Catholic Charities 42-member board voted unanimously in December to consider gay households for adoptions. So it wasn’t lay Catholics who had a problem with gay couples adopting children, but the bishops—all conservatives, all appointed by Rome, all out of touch. And all hurting children.
When it comes to adoption, religious conservatives want us to believe that straight couples are clamoring to adopt children who are being adopted by gay couples. That’s a lie—there are more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples (or singles) willing to adopt them. Often gay couples are willing to adopt children that straight couples are not—older children, handicapped children, children with HIV, mixed-race children. So the choice isn’t between gay parents and straight parents, but between parents and no parents.
Or to put in terms the bishops can understand: if you don’t also allow gay couples to adopt children, you’re leaving a lot of kids in limbo.
And, finally, the ultimate irony: This is the Catholic Church in freaking Boston, epicenter of the sex-abuse scandal. The same bishops who refused to protect children from rampaging pedophile priests are now “protecting” children from qualified, screened, and thoroughly vetted adoptive parents who happen to be gay.
The decision by Boston's Catholic Charities to give up all adoption services because of being required by the Vatican to break state law and refuse any and all gay adopters is one of the saddest things I've heard about in a long time. A reader comments from a particular perspective:
"I was raised Catholic, but, incidentally, I'm also adopted from South Korea through none other than Catholic Charities. I would have grown up in an orphanage in Korea, as that used to be the solution to children like me who were born out of wedlock, except that my biological mother decided to put me up for adoption. Her one specific request, and I feel it's an important and notable one, given the circumstances, was that I was to be raised Catholic. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'd like to think it was because of how they treated her and their reputation, both of which are sterling in terms of adoption.
My Mom's Irish and my Dad's Italian-Lithuanian and a career military doctor, so I would have to say that I feel as American as anyone else and, for all the trouble I've had with my faith, especially in recent times with all of the Church's misguided decisions, pronouncements, and corruption, I still long to actually and truly believe. But, to hear this, even though I have not grown up in a homosexual family, tells me that clearly the Church's priorities are so skewed, if not outright bankrupt, that I almost feel inclined to pursue a different branch of Christianity. It seems inconceivable that this is their excuse to dismantle such an important part of Catholic Charities, and, for a student currently studying abroad like me, it is just another push in the long chain of events that give me great misgivings about the Church, especially in America, and about our treatment of homosexuals."
…I've said it before, but I'll say it again: one day the Church will apologize to gay people for the wounds it has inflicted on their souls and psyches. Not in my lifetime, perhaps. But one day. And now, they're punishing children to maintain their doctrinal purity. May God forgive them.
Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan. I asked for the proof that you claim exists and you give me politicos. All you have done is demonstrate that the state's policy is based on opinion.
I rather agree with you on this aspect. I think this was done with a fair amount of class. Myself being a lesbian parent, I do believe the Catholic Church's stance to be rather uninformed. But rather than throw stones and cause an uproar, they made their decision, advised the affected parties of the timeframe involved, and are making an organized withdrawal from the sphere where their rules do not mesh with the legal requirements involved.
I could argue the evils of the Catholic Church (as opposed to ideal Christianity, which is a durned good thing) all day long. But this was handled by them as well as it could have been, I think. Kudos to them.
"Myself being a lesbian parent, I do believe the Catholic Church's stance to be rather uninformed. But rather than throw stones and cause an uproar..."
Thanks for this.
I think a major problem with contextualizing disagreement as the other party being corrupt monsters is that it limits relations to the mutual opposition of force. Arguably, this has been the problem to begin with -- in almost any issue. When disagreement is contextualized as both parties having the capacity for sense and the desire for good, relations are not so limited, and communications of facts, ideas, arguments, and so on are possible.
With this in mind, it seems that, if people want others to change their position, they can either take the first route, become more powerful than the others, and force them to; or take the second route and not need to be more powerful or coercive. Of course, there are problems with the second route as well.
There is no evidence that queer parents are bad for children (as a matter of fact the American Academy of Pediatricians has concluded otherwise), so this is an action rooted not in "what is best for children," but in ideological narrowmindedness. Was this decision made after interviewing gay and lesbian parents and the children they have raised, or are raising? Somehow i doubt it... in fact i doubt that gay and lesbian voices matter at all to the Catholic Church.
So you define as hateful the act to refuse to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable?
The article you reference is about the effect of the lack of stability caused by parents lacking official recognition, not about the children of homosexual parents in general. But the studies of the sort to which the AAP referred have come under heavy fire as of late. For example, a study out of USC specifically looked at the body of research that had been done and found that the studies generally asked questions of their data that would lead to a specific conclusion, rather than allowing the data to lead to conclusions. But when different questions were asked of the same data - for example, not just about sexual orientation - the image that emerged was much different. Further, it was found that many of the studies were commissioned specifically for political reasons, and in that way are no different than those commissioned by fundamentalist Christians trying to manipulate science to prove their side. It doesn't prove that the conclusion is wrong, but it does prove that the it has not been proven that the conclusion is right, as has been touted by people engaging in the issue as a political rather than a developmental one.
No, i define as hateful the decision to stop doing good and necessary work because of the organization's intolerance towards a small segment of society (and therefore a small segment of the families applying for adoption). The organization is taking its toys and going home, thereby punishing families heterosexual and homosexual alike, and forcing the state to find other ways to link children who need homes to eager adoptive parents... this is an intensely immature reaction.
Why the absolute unwillingness on the part of the church to investigate it's own position and consider that maybe on this they're wrong? After all, the church requests reflection and re-consideration on the part of those with whom it disagrees.
You can try to couch it as "refus[ing] to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable" but in doing so you have to overlook the greater wrong that is being committed here.
Let me demonstrate my point from another angle. Suppose you are trying to toss food to sheep, but among the sheep there are a few goats who occasionally get the food instead. If you don't want the goats to get the food, are you going to stop tossing food out there altogether? Sure, you've succeeded in keeping goats from getting the food, but at the cost of starving the sheep too.
The fact that the government is gonna work to make religious organizations exempt from the law is an abomination. I think Catholic Charities should have their non-profit status pulled and be made to pay taxes just like any other money grubbing corporation.
Yes, maybe my attitude about this is all wrong. Maybe i should be applauding. I'd just as soon not see any of my money go towards religious charities. Christianity has become less and less about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and comforting the sick, and has become simply a way to push a message. And when that message is revealed as one of hatred, i'd rather see it die quickly than thrive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 06:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 07:07 pm (UTC)Perhaps it would be better to be happy that we live in a country where there is still some freedom to refuse to participate when the state makes law what one believes is immoral.
In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-11 08:34 pm (UTC)Sure, you can say, if you really WANT to--and against all the evidence that's now in--that two homosexuals raising children will "warp" the children, making them "confused" about that all-so-sacred "complementariness" that the foolish, romantic and anti-scientific "Theology of the Body" of John Paul II has turned into a fetish in modern Catholicism--a SUBSTITUTE for the charity of the Gospels. But what you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT get around--just as those faithful Catholic objectors who resigned cannot get around it--is that leaving children cold, hungry, un-affirmed and un-adopted--literally, perhaps, out in the cold of a Boston winter--is a FAR MORE SERIOUS MORAL EVIL, consisting in a wholly unacceptable level of cruelty.
But there you are, defending it, trying to pretend that Jesus Christ would have defended it. Your "Catholic Christian morality" is an offense in the nostrils of God and His Son!
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-11 10:27 pm (UTC)When some of his disciples found his teaching, his moral teaching, too hard to accept, Jesus let them go rather than change it. I do not see how the refusal of a Catholic organization to participate in activities which Catholic teachings hold to be immoral can be a departure from this precedent.
and against all the evidence that's now in
Really? I haven't seen any such evidence, but I would be interested in seeing it. The only evidence that I have seen suggests the contrary .. does not prove, but only suggests, and that's the strongest I've seen.
romantic and anti-scientific "Theology of the Body" of John Paul II has turned into a fetish in modern Catholicism--a SUBSTITUTE for the charity of the Gospels.
Howso? You've made this claim many times, but I have never seen you explain it nor substantiate it. Have you read JPII's series of talks and books that make up the body of Theology of the Body?
As to the children, they are the true vicitms. The state has chosen the path of oppression, of stifling of religious freedom and personal conscience. It has decided to mandate morality, and in doing so has overstepped its bounds. It is shown itself incapable of providing for the parentless in its area, and is using the charitable drive of people as a means to force that morality upon them. The children are the vicitims, and the state is the perpetrator.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-11 11:49 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 12:31 am (UTC)Besides, it would be nothing new for Catholics in this country.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 05:24 am (UTC)Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state. understand you disagree with that. But this proof sounds suspicious.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 05:46 am (UTC)Warped is quite the strong word. But the reality is that the studies that have been put forth to support the idea that there is no developmental impact on children of homosexual couples have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, suffering from methodology deficiencies that would not be tolerated in the rest of the scientific world. But they are being used as justification for revising the standards for appropriate situations in which to place adopted children. The state may be right, but it doesn't have the basis for the position besides politics.
Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state.
You're right, I do disagree with that .. especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:For Your Greater Edification...
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 06:52 pm (UTC)Posted by DAN SAVAGE at 12:09 PM
…more than it loves babies. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt…
The state’s four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church’s religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral.
Here’s the really telling part: Catholic Charities 42-member board voted unanimously in December to consider gay households for adoptions. So it wasn’t lay Catholics who had a problem with gay couples adopting children, but the bishops—all conservatives, all appointed by Rome, all out of touch.
And all hurting children.
When it comes to adoption, religious conservatives want us to believe that straight couples are clamoring to adopt children who are being adopted by gay couples. That’s a lie—there are more children waiting to be adopted than there are couples (or singles) willing to adopt them. Often gay couples are willing to adopt children that straight couples are not—older children, handicapped children, children with HIV, mixed-race children. So the choice isn’t between gay parents and straight parents, but between parents and no parents.
Or to put in terms the bishops can understand: if you don’t also allow gay couples to adopt children, you’re leaving a lot of kids in limbo.
And, finally, the ultimate irony: This is the Catholic Church in freaking Boston, epicenter of the sex-abuse scandal. The same bishops who refused to protect children from rampaging pedophile priests are now “protecting” children from qualified, screened, and thoroughly vetted adoptive parents who happen to be gay.
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/05-11.php#a004755
And so is Andrew Sullivan:
The decision by Boston's Catholic Charities to give up all adoption services because of being required by the Vatican to break state law and refuse any and all gay adopters is one of the saddest things I've heard about in a long time. A reader comments from a particular perspective:
"I was raised Catholic, but, incidentally, I'm also adopted from South Korea through none other than Catholic Charities. I would have grown up in an orphanage in Korea, as that used to be the solution to children like me who were born out of wedlock, except that my biological mother decided to put me up for adoption. Her one specific request, and I feel it's an important and notable one, given the circumstances, was that I was to be raised Catholic. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'd like to think it was because of how they treated her and their reputation, both of which are sterling in terms of adoption.
My Mom's Irish and my Dad's Italian-Lithuanian and a career military doctor, so I would have to say that I feel as American as anyone else and, for all the trouble I've had with my faith, especially in recent times with all of the Church's misguided decisions, pronouncements, and corruption, I still long to actually and truly believe. But, to hear this, even though I have not grown up in a homosexual family, tells me that clearly the Church's priorities are so skewed, if not outright bankrupt, that I almost feel inclined to pursue a different branch of Christianity. It seems inconceivable that this is their excuse to dismantle such an important part of Catholic Charities, and, for a student currently studying abroad like me, it is just another push in the long chain of events that give me great misgivings about the Church, especially in America, and about our treatment of homosexuals."
…I've said it before, but I'll say it again: one day the Church will apologize to gay people for the wounds it has inflicted on their souls and psyches. Not in my lifetime, perhaps. But one day. And now, they're punishing children to maintain their doctrinal purity. May God forgive them.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 09:04 pm (UTC)Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:58 pm (UTC)I could argue the evils of the Catholic Church (as opposed to ideal Christianity, which is a durned good thing) all day long. But this was handled by them as well as it could have been, I think. Kudos to them.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 12:33 am (UTC)Thanks for this.
I think a major problem with contextualizing disagreement as the other party being corrupt monsters is that it limits relations to the mutual opposition of force. Arguably, this has been the problem to begin with -- in almost any issue. When disagreement is contextualized as both parties having the capacity for sense and the desire for good, relations are not so limited, and communications of facts, ideas, arguments, and so on are possible.
With this in mind, it seems that, if people want others to change their position, they can either take the first route, become more powerful than the others, and force them to; or take the second route and not need to be more powerful or coercive. Of course, there are problems with the second route as well.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 02:24 am (UTC)There is no evidence that queer parents are bad for children (as a matter of fact the American Academy of Pediatricians has concluded otherwise), so this is an action rooted not in "what is best for children," but in ideological narrowmindedness. Was this decision made after interviewing gay and lesbian parents and the children they have raised, or are raising? Somehow i doubt it... in fact i doubt that gay and lesbian voices matter at all to the Catholic Church.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 02:58 am (UTC)The article you reference is about the effect of the lack of stability caused by parents lacking official recognition, not about the children of homosexual parents in general. But the studies of the sort to which the AAP referred have come under heavy fire as of late. For example, a study out of USC specifically looked at the body of research that had been done and found that the studies generally asked questions of their data that would lead to a specific conclusion, rather than allowing the data to lead to conclusions. But when different questions were asked of the same data - for example, not just about sexual orientation - the image that emerged was much different. Further, it was found that many of the studies were commissioned specifically for political reasons, and in that way are no different than those commissioned by fundamentalist Christians trying to manipulate science to prove their side. It doesn't prove that the conclusion is wrong, but it does prove that the it has not been proven that the conclusion is right, as has been touted by people engaging in the issue as a political rather than a developmental one.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 08:44 am (UTC)Why the absolute unwillingness on the part of the church to investigate it's own position and consider that maybe on this they're wrong? After all, the church requests reflection and re-consideration on the part of those with whom it disagrees.
You can try to couch it as "refus[ing] to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable" but in doing so you have to overlook the greater wrong that is being committed here.
Let me demonstrate my point from another angle. Suppose you are trying to toss food to sheep, but among the sheep there are a few goats who occasionally get the food instead. If you don't want the goats to get the food, are you going to stop tossing food out there altogether? Sure, you've succeeded in keeping goats from getting the food, but at the cost of starving the sheep too.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Bait and Switch, Bait and Switch...
From:Re: Bait and Switch, Bait and Switch...
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Amen, Sister!
From:no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-12 02:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 04:51 pm (UTC)