My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Rush Limbaugh Comments On Pope Benedict XVI's Address To Seminarians And Young People, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, New York, Saturday, April 19, 2008 | Main | Barack Obama Defends Opposition To Partial-Birth Abortion Ban In Interview »

Monday, April 28, 2008


Robin Conroy

Thank you so much for giving publicity to this very sensitive portrayal of gay youth. I thought you might be insensitive to their needs andthe work we do in assisting gay youth - especially gay Catholics. Your blog (able to be seen by our students in a Catholic high school) allows us to discuss a topic we were told we could not promote - but you promote this site as conservative and yet you show every part of the relationship. Again thank you - and remember we're queer, we're here, we're even in the Catholic Church (check out the Archdiocese of Chicago's Gay and Lesbian Outreach - sanctioned by Cardinal George) - so everyone - as we say - - GET USED TO IT! Again thank you

Patrick S

At first reading, it seems the first comment by Robin is tongue in cheek or sarcastic. If not, I guess my response is the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ, is not going to embrace any culture or sins of this world but does embrace the sinner (such as me)who is willing to become a living sacrifice, deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ. It's been doing this for nearly 2,000 years. I would think the world would GET USED TO IT by now as its not going to change no matter what opinion you hold. For my part, I will be contacting P&G.

Roger Dodger

Thanks for the fabulous links to the continuing saga of these two lovely people! I must add, however, that if this is what you consider an "explicit open-mouth homosexual" kiss, you've obviously never seen Six Feet Under.

Robin Conroy

After lengthy conversation with first period class - -they have a great comment - - As with many conservatives does the author of this blog "doth protest too much" - - Hmmmmm something to ponder. The class cited other "conservative - anti-gay authorities, writers, ordained and politicians" who publicly spoke about ant-gay sentiments and were then found in "compromising: situations. Let's just say"I can't wait for period three to be over"! BTW - Roger they agreed with you - they say what they watch (with parents) is far more fun!

Robin Conroy

Deny yourself of what??? Does Christ truly ask you to "suffer" with you gayness. If I believe I am made in the image and likeness of God then how can I must accept myself and never put down a the young person's sexual preference. I am responsible to pass on a Catholic moral compass with which these young people can live. a Please don't take us back to the age of Catholicism (i.e. the 1950"s) when our bodies were considered "dirty" or "sinful". Thank you to the church leaders who have led us into understanding our bodies are sacred - and OK! If still perplexed may I suggest re-reading the USCCB document "Always our Children" - as long as I am celibate but admit my sexuality I am OK - - does your reasoning also go for anyone "experimenting" sexually - heterosexual and homosexual alike. I truly believe Christ welcomes me as he welcomed so many of us - and don't try throwing at me Old Testament quotes - Christ came preaching a law of love. Please recognize that it is inevitable that the church will renew itself with pre-Vatican ritual but also admit that when that happens the cycle begins again of suppression of our sexuality leading us to yet another cycle of repressed Catholics who end up right back where we were in the 60's of "FREE LOVE" - I respect tradition, I respect a desire to reclaim reverence - but let's be very careful for what we wish for!


Be sure to share this post with your classes, as well:  You Decide: Has "The Cafeteria Is Closed" Blog Reopened The Cafeteria Over The Issue Of Legal Recognition For Homosexual Unions?

Also, I don't mind the "protest too much" comment. It's a very common pro-homosexual argument and extremely unimaginative. It's false logic, which reasons from the particular to the universal without sufficient evidence, and is primarily rooted in wishful thinking, as well as the tendency of homosexuals to assume others are like them, i.e, also homosexual. That tendency is probably due to the narcissistic self-absorption common to homosexuals who view their entire identity (and that of others) through the lens of their homosexual tendencies.



Robin Conroy


To end that pretentious rant with "pax" - -so smug! Sir -- it your conservative groups that gets itself in trouble - be it bathrooms, snorting coke with a male prostitute or admitting a long tern relationship with a person of the same sex after preaching from the pulpit about HOW WRONG HOMOSEXUALS ARE - get over yourself. I cannot speak for the entire GLBT community - but for my group of students and teachers - we don't WANT the mixed-up conservatives who preach that rhetoric to claim as being part of the GLBT community that strives for positive role models. And that we are "narcissistic self-absorption common to homosexuals" - I can tell you do not have close friends within the GLBT community- or if you do they may be afraid to tell you because of your rants. What you described us as - is a stereo-type! We are as narcissistic as any other young person today - society forces us to accept heterosexual looks - we just claim sometimes that we DO LOOK BETTER - sorry that was a cheap shot. I would love to have you come into our class and debate the issue - understanding of course we would have to have leaders of the USCCB with us - since they did write the original document accepting us - - oh btw - if you have ever kissed anyone - - and maybe you haven't - had that always led to SEX - - dude - maybe you can't express your emotions - that's why the "stiff - non-emotional Latin liturgy" is your preference. You are not asked to emote - - you are asked to be non-feeling - - oh and BTW - - read the gospels where Jesus emotes - - he didn't exactly have "NO -EMOTION!" - -

Thomistic - - help others to live in the REALITY of the world today - as I said in the first posting - we are here - GET USED TO IT!!!!!



I'm sorry you get so upset when people don't share your dissenting values.

Sometimes homosexuals, when demanding acceptance of their lifestyle choices by others, remind me of the old Twilight Zone episode titled, "It's A Good Life". (Look it up on YouTube and watch the episode.)

Homosexual activists like yourself, like the tyrannical little mind-reading boy at the center of that episode, demand that others love everything they do, no matter how disordered or alien to their human sensibilities, and like the little boy in the episode, they want to wish anyone who doesn't think good thoughts about them and tell them they are wonderful into the cornfield.

It's interesting that you keep alluding to Ted Haggard, who wasn't even Catholic. I'd never heard of him until his scandal. I'd never looked to him as any sort of religious leader and his downfall doesn't mean that any Catholic or Protestant who opposes homosexuality shares in his specific weaknesses. A good liberal like you who rages against stereotypes, as you have here, should practice what you preach and stop stereotyping Catholics and Protestants who have not joined in your rebellion against orthodoxy.

You resort to similar stereotypes in discussing the Traditional Mass, which you apparently don't respect (while demanding that others respect your preferences, liturgical, sexual, and otherwise). Can't you see your own hypocrisy? You might want to remove the beam from your own eye before continuing to lecture me about how rigid I am, but if you don't, that's your choice.

Finally, although I realize homosexuals tend to paint themselves as victims, largely as a means of marginalizing anyone who opposes them, they are very wrong to do so.

Catholic sexual morality is a consistent ethic. All sexual acts outside of those within a marriage between one man and one woman are seriously sinful, not just homosexual acts.

Moreover, homosexual sins aren't the only type of sin that will keep people out of heaven (or even the worst ones, though they are very bad and "acts of grave depravity", as the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes them, which you can see if you read through the post I linked in my comment above).

All of us are sinners, myself included. I admit that I am a sinner and may end up in hell if I die unrepentant of any serious sin done after sufficient reflection and full consent. I don't attempt to justify my sins or demand that others embrace and bless them. I also don't assume I am better than you. I realize God has been very good to me and given me the grace to know the truth of the Catholic Faith. I realize I will be accountable to God for what I know, perhaps more accountable than you will be.

I have flaws, weaknesses, and areas where I'm tempted. The difference is that I don't throw up my hands and claim God made me that way and demand the right to indulge in my weaknesses with impunity. Homosexual activists do exactly that.

What if alcoholics, bulimics, anorexics, pedophiles, and those with other disorders made the same arguments as homosexual activists and demanded the same sort of acceptance?

Your position is rooted in a denial of the objective moral law, while at the same time demanding the existence of such a law every time you make a claim about justice, fairness, truth, beauty, or goodness.

You cannot argue for the type of moral relativism you present as a counterfeit of authentic Christian teaching without essentially arguing that sexual morality should really allow anybody to do anything with anyone at any time, perhaps adding some vague guidelines about consent and/or not hurting anybody. Such guidelines are meaningless if the moral law is really as fluid as you pretend, since nothing really matters unless there are absolute moral laws, but you don't seem to care about any of that. You just seem to want what you want and seem willing to rationalize things to allow whatever you want and condemn whatever you don't without any rhyme or reason.

I'm confused about your repeated claim that you're "here" means that people must accept you. Charles Manson could say the same thing, I suppose, and probably does in one way or another. Does that make it so? Cancer is here too, as are any number of physical or moral evils. Alcoholics are "here" too. Should everyone just accept their lifestyles and "get used to it" as you say?

The bottom line is that, so far, there has been no real substance to your arguments. You have only repeated tired pro-homosexual rhetoric with laden emotional appeals and demagoguery,and peppered with glib slogans and puerile insults.

Still, I don't wish you any harm and hope that you and I will both submit to the Lord, saying, not my will be done, but Thine.




I didn't watch the videos, but aren't you appealing to pruient interests by posting them?



No, I'm not.

I'm exposing darkness by bringing it into the light. If these images tempt you, then I'm sorry. I really mean that.

Prurient means that something is marked by or ordered toward arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire.

I don't think most people will be tempted to engage in the homosexual acts depicted in the videos or become sexually aroused by watching them.

Although it's true that those with homosexual tendencies might find these videos to be a temptation, I'm guessing that most homosexuals would find what is depicted here tame in comparison to other things they've seen or experienced. One of them (or someone sympathetic to homosexual activity) said as much when comparing the videos to "Six Feet Under" (which I have never watched).



Atlanta Catholic

Procter and Gamble wants the public to purchase all of their home cleaning products such as Tide detergent.

Meanwhile, they filthy up the minds and consciences of their audiences by promoting sin. Read the label and don't buy Procter and Gamble. When the money goes, so will the dirt.


Please note that it is the CBS Corp. that produces "ATWT", not P&G. P&G is an advertiser and not the only one. I would argue that if you want to deride a corporation, CBS is the better choice. Ultimately, they are the ones responsible for producing the content. P&G, as well as other sponsors, are trying to sell their products because there is a demographic fit with the viewing audience. They probably have a contract that dates back years. Are you suggesting P&G asked for this story line, or that they aren't entitled to try to sell their legitimate products? I really feel like the ire is misplaced in this instance. I know, I know the advertisers pay for this ultimately, but good grief where do you draw the line?

Bill Meyer

Sorry, Gene, but you're wrong. The way to affect the outcome is though the advertisers, as they pay the bills. Also, they are swayed by relatively small but determined campaigns, because research shows that that small group represents many more consumers.

P&G is the right target. If they threaten to pull ads, the plot line changes. In a heartbeat.


Watch out in your own neighborhood high schools. Do they have a "Gay-Straight Alliance" student group advised by a taxpayer-salaried faculty person? If so, why not call your school board members and question them about it? How do they feel about the existence of such a group in a public school?

These are our teenagers who are being influenced by the very presence of such a group. And oh how there would be an outcry against a student group called the "Pan-European White Student Alliance," even if all they were doing was promoting education about and pride in the cultural history and heritage of western European nationalities--pride in the students simply for who they are by virtue of the genes they inherited from their forebears.


"And now, a word from our SPONSORS..." There was a time when a commercial break rightly indicated sponsorship.

Robin Conroy

I hate being the bearer of bad news. With the rise in sales of "TiVo" type devices marketing analyst show that commercials and money from commercials are on the decline. So I wold have to say - P&G can be called but you would have better luck contacting CBS itself. Also - demographic wise are you aware that the GLBT has the largest amount of disposable income? Notice that many clothing lines, (i.e. the two LEVI commercials - one straight - one gay) beverages, hotels, destination places and airlines cater to the GLBT community. Many airlines and travel sites have a division for GLBT travelers exclusively. We may all need the $600.00 stimulus package but trust me in saying GLBT communities are using their money to move the US economy. Check out Mayor Daley's speeches at the Gay Games in Chicago during the summer of 2006. The GLBT community brought in quite a lot of money - and also - - the gay community's Masses in Chicago (AGLO and DIGNITY) were full for the two Sundays - btw - if you ever want to hear a congregation sing WELL - -check out these Masses. Dignity is at 5PM in Chicago and AGLO is at 7PM. I guess you might call it full, active and conscious participation.


I understand that P&G may be the best group to call if you wish to voice your concern. Nevertheless, I think the title of this blog entry is misleading. I believe it should say "CBS promotes, etc..." Did someone at P&G write the script? I don't think so.

I think it is fine to call out this issue here. I really do. But there are so many messages that are offensive to the true spirit of the Gospel and Catholic social doctrine that the mass media promotes everyday. By calling this out it appears to be a selective witchhunt on homosexuality. But, as Thomistic rightly points out, all sexual activity outside of marriage is equally condemned by the Church. There are hundreds of such instances in the mass-media each day. How about the sin of idolatry, especially in the form of consumerism. The mass media lives on promoting consumerism and greed, which can easily become (and often are) real forms of idolatry. Isn't idolatry the most common sin that has always separated God's people from Himself? But where is the outrage toward that? I submit that because most of the people who read and post here do not struggle with the sin of homosexuality, it is easy to cast stones. But, I imagine we all struggle with various forms of consumerism.

I actually believe that watching TV is an activity that may border on "idol worship". I would define adoration as an activity by which we stare at and focus all of our attention intently on one thing. The degree to which we "worship" such a thing could possibly be measured by the amount of time we spend adoring it. Hmmm... Do you spend more time adoring the Lord in His Eucharistic presence or watching TV each week?

My advice? Turn off the TV and use that time to pray for God's mercy for yourself, your family and the whole world. "Be sure of this: that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5


Procter & Gamble owns and produces "As The World Turns". They are not just a sponsor. If you go to the show's home page, which is linked every time the words "Procter & Gamble" appear in the post, and click on the "About" section once, and then again click the "About" section of the "About" page, you will see the following:

"Produced by: Procter & Gamble Productions, Inc."

People who are suggesting contacting Procter & Gamble is a waste of time are either misinformed or trying to confuse people.

As for people with homosexual tendencies having lots of disposable income, I will quote the words of Our Lord:

For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? - Mark 8:36

"Dignity" is a dissenting organization. Those who support the principles and values promoted by "Dignity" are not in union with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Although Dignity calls itself a Catholic organization, it is no more Catholic than "Catholics For A Free Choice" (an organization that promotes legal, elective abortion and artificial contraception).

Any priest or bishop who is supportive of the agenda promoted by "Dignity" dissents from the teaching authority of the Church and leads souls into error when and if they recommend, affirm, endorse, or promote "Dignity".

Any Catholic who receives Holy Communion while conscious of having freely chosen to commit sins which are objectively serious after sufficient reflection commits the objectively serious sin of sacrilege. All sexual activity outside the context of a marriage between one man and one woman, which is per se not ordered toward procreation (at least potentially), is objectively serious matter (a serious sin, which is mortal if done with sufficient reflexion and full consent). If the marriage act is not potentially capable of procreation, but the lack of fecundity is not willed and the act performed, by nature, would be procreative were it not for the unwilled lack of potential fecundity, the marriage act is not sinful. The deliberate pursuit of sexual pleasure outside of the marriage act, whether alone or with others, therefore means that a person who has consented to such activity may not receive Holy Communion without first having been absolved in the sacrament of Confession.

Dissent from Church teaching on matters of faith and morals is also a serious sin. One may not receive Holy Communion if that person rejects the teaching authority of the Church and dissents on matters of faith and morals. Supporting an organization like "Dignity", which promotes the acceptance of homosexual activity, entails just such a rejection of Church authority and Magisterial teaching, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church plainly states that homosexual acts are depicted by Sacred Scripture as acts of grave depravity and are never to be tolerated under any circumstances.



Robin Conroy

Once again Thomistic you are right about Dignity - but here In Chicago the administrative board of the local "Dignity" chapter meets with Cardinal George to discuss things. It is noted thought that the Eucharistic Mass is recognized as a valid Catholic Liturgy - the sticking points of course are the issue of marriage and inclusive language.

BUT - that is why the Archdiocese of Chicago developed the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (also known as AGLO). The liturgy is held each Sunday evening at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Chicago. The presiders are chosen from priests in the Archdiocese. Cardinal George and the other bishops have and continue to schedule themselves as presides at liturgy with this group. So . . once again the Church has recognized the gay and lesbian populations and does NOT deny Eucharist to the over 300 members that celebrate each wee.

And of course - let us remember that each year the Los Angles Archdiocese celebrates its yearly Congress at the Anaheim Convention center.(very kind of of the Orange County diocese to welcome us). There is always an exhibit on ministry for Gays and Lesbians. Also, for many years there has been at least one workshop a weekend on gay and lesbian spirituality. These workshops have been very beneficial for ministers, lay leaders, friends and families of the GLBT community.

So are you stating that we should NOT follow the wishes and teachings of two of the country's most faithful cardinals - the leaders of two of the largest archdioceses in the United State? I guess what becomes frustrating is that you can;'t admit that the GLBT community is VERY welcome by the Catholic church and is welcome in celebrating- and if you study the personnel of many diocesan agencies in any diocese or parishes in the United States you will find that may lay leaders - ministers are openly gay.

I am sure you may consider us "sinful" and that is fine - but you NOR anyone else are supposed to point fingers like that - nor will I -I can accept that you are welcome to your views - and you too are welcome in the Church as I am - so hey - I'll hit you up next time I see you in Church

Truly - with peace - I would welcome you to any of these archdiocesan approved liturgies - and please invite me to ritual and liturgies you deem more suitable and let us look at these things as a "multi-cultural" experience.

Bill Meyer

The Catechism makes plain that homosexuality is a disordered state, and it has been made clear, repeatedly, that while we are to welcome all sinners, we are not to love the sin, and that homosexuals should abstain from sexual activity.

As to pointing fingers, I am sure Thomistic was doing nothing of the sort. Pointing to a group that advertises itself is hardly a matter of judging. And pointing out that sexually active members of such a group are in the wrong would not reflect badly on me, were I to do so.


Thomistic, I think Dan's concerns are valid. To show proof of what's going on is one thing, but often your videos dddwwwweeeeelllll on what we supposedly don't want to see. It's kind of hard to get angry at a television display of homosexual acts when they are shown over and over on a Catholic blog.
Just something to consider. I end up glancing at your videos, then covering my eyes and trying to turn the things off at the same time!

Atlanta Catholic


What is your point? Are you saying that these chaste 300 people who are in the state of grace received Holy Communion?
Well, then that is beautiful. You don't even need a Cardinal's approval to go to Mass and receive Communion if you are in the state of grace. That applies to everyone.

Are you implying that Cardinal George is giving a nod and a wink because these Catholics belong to the group Dignity? Why would you suggest that Thomistic may consider you sinful? In reading your post it sounds like you are saying that Cardinal George "approves" the sinful "lifestyle". Kind of a don't ask and we won't tell but we all know what we are really doing type of acceptance?

The only reason I am asking that is because of your own word descriptive adjective of sinful.


So faithful Catholics should be upset about a tv show that shows two men kissing, but not at the web blog that RESHOWS the offensive scene?!

Oh, but wait, our motives are contrary. Every crime has both an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty mind), but the distinction between the opprobrium due showing this on a soap opera and showing this on a purportedly Roman Catholic blog is blurry.


If looking at these videos here on Roman Catholic Blog upsets people, I hope knowing they are broadcast regularly in the afternoon on national, commercial television upsets them, as well. I would also hope they would use the same energy they used to complain here and express their displeasure over the issue of supporting homosexual activity to Procter & Gamble, which is the whole reason for the post.

The American Family Association used edited video footage of the same clip I used at the top of the post. Would you also accuse them of promoting what should not be shown?

I posted the clips because evidence is an essential component in any effort to convict someone accused of doing something wrong.

Loyolalaw98, when the prosecution shows jurors (and others in the courtroom) child pornography, in an effort to get a conviction, is the distinction between the "opprobrium" due to the prosecution for showing the child pornography as evidence and the opprobrium due to the actual child pornographers being prosecuted "blurry"? Does showing that child pornography demonstrate mens rea on the part of the prosecution? Would it mean the prosecution isn't Catholic (if they "purported" to be Catholic)?

How is my showing video clips as evidence of the program content Procter & Gamble has produced and broadcast on national, commercial television morally equivalent to Procter & Gamble's action of producing that content, as has been implied?

My post is a call for protest from readers directed at Procter & Gamble for producing such material in the way they are presenting it in the first place, not just a claim that there is something intrinsically wrong in showing it at all, as some have implied. (Which would be a straw man argument if those making these implications also openly claimed to oppose my position and were making the implication in an effort to argue against my position.)

Is it Catholic to imply that exposing these videos to an audience that will hopefully not treat them with indifference or applaud their production by posting them on this blog means that I might not be a Catholic and am certainly worthy of opprobrium?

What are the implications of a purportedly Catholic blogger who almost invariably snipes and gripes any time the issue of homosexuality comes up and does everything in his power to encourage others to believe homosexual activists with an agenda aren't a pervasive problem within our culture or the Church, or are at least not significant enough in terms of impact to warrant much attention?

What are the implications of a purportedly Catholic blogger who routinely suggests (despite objective evidence to the contrary) that those who express alarm over the issue of homosexual activism in the Culture and the Church seem to be concerned only about that issue and in a way that suggests they have an unhealthy fixation indicative of more than the concern expressed by those alleging the significant influence of homosexual activism in our culture and in the Church? (Incidentally, this tactic is also frequently used by homosexual activists, who commonly allege that anyone opposed to their values is a "homophobe" and strongly suggest that fear of latent homosexuality or a "closeted" homosexual is at the root of almost every incidence of "homophobia". It's a way of trying to silence any opposition by making those opposed to homosexual activism afraid they will be accused of the very thing they claim to oppose if they voice their opposition – in much the same way I have been accused of doing the same thing I claim to oppose by showing these clips, come to think of it.)

What is the implication of a purportedly Catholic blogger who has, here on Roman Catholic blog, and on other blogs, attacked Catholics repeating Catholic teaching against homosexual activity with a fervor that is demonstrably greater than any criticism they've ever mouthed against homosexual activity or activism in our culture or in the Church, whether by accusing those who repeat Church teaching against homosexual activity and activism of the sin of pride or by insinuating there is something wrong with the character of those repeating Catholic teaching against homosexual activity and the promotion of the same in an effort to lead others to the truth, motivated by genuine charity?

I posted the videos in an effort to expose a kind of darkness that is creeping its way into the fabric of our culture at an increasingly rapid pace, while hiding in plain sight.

I also showed them so that people can see for themselves that what I am saying about Procter & Gamble is true, not merely a baseless allegation rooted in rumor without the existence of factual evidence.

There are loads of homoerotic videos on YouTube, including ones depicting men kissing other men. Some of them apparently advertise pornography websites. I haven't shown any of them. Why not? Well, partly because most of them are much worse than what I've shown here in this post, but also because most of those videos are posted by individuals or groups of individuals who or which are largely unknown (and it's probably best to keep it that way) and who or which are not producers of common household products purchased by a wide segment of the population. The other clips I described above, but have never shown, are also not shown on freely accessible, national commercial television, as with the clips from "As The World Turns" I have shown here.

If the evidence of my Catholicism were as obscure as apparently purported by the implications of statements written by some purportedly Catholic bloggers, I probably would be showing clips like the ones I haven't shown regularly in addition to doing weekly updates with video clips on any homosexually themed on content on television and in the media (much the way does), as opposed to doing two posts, a little over nine months apart, which included video clips, on the subject of the homosexual plot on "As The World Turns"; namely the post above and one on August 16, 2007.

I can't recall doing any other posts with video clips like these. Perhaps others may recall me showing video clips I have forgotten, and if so, I apologize for not remembering and admitting to them.

The clips in the post above were tame enough, by worldly standards, that Procter & Gamble felt secure enough to produce them and broadcast them on freely accessible national commercial television and did not expect their involvement to have a significant impact on the sale of their products. I want Procter & Gamble to feel the heat. By showing what Procter & Gamble is doing to an audience beyond the one that will view these video images with indifference, I am helping people decide whether or not they want to continue giving money to Procter & Gamble by purchasing their products.




Pray for those with Same Sex Attraction. And the Sicko's who promote it as normal and good. They don't care about where their souls will end up for all eternity. All they care about is their passions and desires. and....make sure they STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic