Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Pope reflects on St. Alphonsus Maria of Liguori, bishop, Doctor of the Church | Main | A Short History of the "Left Behind" Theology »

Thursday, March 31, 2011


Richard M

The defenders of Anne Rice here are, in many instances...simply beyond reason. It's clear they didn't bother to read Carl's post. They were told: "Bad evil guy saying bad things about poor Anne and sticking up for evil Church abusers." And they parachute in and let fly on their keyboard. It must feel good.

Because the reality is - and you can see it in some of the posts here - the objections come in two forms. Some focus on the sex abuse and the coverups of the same. But others simply don't like the Church and what it teaches, period. And the former is ...too often a thin veil for the latter. Sadly, I think this is to some degree true of Anne Rice: Bad as the abuse scandals were, what gives extra bite to her sting is that the Church teaches that what her son espouses as a lifestyle is, well, gravely wrong. It teaches that abortion is always wrong, period, full stop. There is no getting around that. And I think it accounts for how any defense of the Church on the latter (its doctrines) is immediately conflated by critics with dismissing the gravity of the former (the sex crimes). "If you stick up for Church teaching, you must be enabling diddling of little boys." Or teen boys at any rate (which is what most of the victims were).

Having said all that, I will add one small point in Anne's favor, in a qualified way. The sex scandals we've seen unfold in Europe and America are actually two scandals: 1) the scandal of the abuse of children, most of them teen boys, in significant numbers, and 2) the coverup and enabling of the first scandal by certain bishops. These scandals are necessarily connected with each other, but they are also distinct. I do think the Church has a pretty good handle on the first scandal (very belatedly), and if anything has overreacted, to the point where priests have been stripped of almost all rights. But the second scandal has not been satisfactorily addressed, and it is the cause of much of the outrage. Some bishops abandoned their responsibility to lead by deferring to dubious advice from lawyers and psychologists; but some did more than that, knowingly aiding and abetting abusive priests, and even working to undercut victims and their families at every turn. These episcopal sins were so appalling that they caused Rod Dreher, who did so much reportage on them, to leave Rome (wrongly, in my view, however much I sympathize) for Orthodoxy. And too few of those bishops have really been forced to face the full dose of justice for those crimes, either by the Church or by the Civil authorities. It would have been nice to see more forcibly removed from their sees and stripped of their rank, for starters.

To the extent that the latter scandal remains unaddressed, it does give critics like Anne some ammunition for resentment of the institution of the Church. And it does not help when Catholic defenders of the Church lose sight of this a bit when they circle the wagons against irrational attacks. I certainly do not think Carl is guilty of that, by the way (folks here can easily enough search for his past commentary on this), but perhaps some of us combox warriors are.

Of course, it also has to be said that most of the egregious offender bishops have also been the most liberal, the most willing to tolerate dissent from Church doctrine and discipline (especially on sexual ethics) and even advocate weakening it or abandoning it altogether - let us think of Weakland, Daneels, Mahoney, Lynch, Favalora...the list goes on and on. Active liberal Catholics, like Margaret Steinfels, are sensitive to this point, and always temper their attacks on the Church handling of the scandals when it risks discrediting these very liberal prelates they esteem. But I wonder how may of Anne Rice's defenders are aware of this very deep irony?

Richard M

Hello Justin,

But I mean this respectfully, religions are not something that should override God.

With all due respect, you're setting up a false opposition between God and religion. Did God reveal certain principles to us or not? Does that include just the ones some of us happen to like at a given time?

Look, everyone realizes that times change. The Church has to adapt to that. But it can't just change its teachings as the wind blows. When Christ plainly stated that marriage was between one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4-7), the Church can hardly just toss that overboard when a certain segment of certain societies suddenly decide men ought to be able to marry men, or even that men ought to be able to marry many women, especially when (in the case of same-sex marriage) it pops up after nineteen centuries of universal belief to the contrary. Seriously: how is your position not a justification for simply changing a religious teaching to whatever passion strikes certain elites at a given time? How does this not reduce the Church to just a vehicle for therapeutic self-justification?

Frankly, I have to say I have more respect for atheists who dismiss the entire enterprise. Because they recognize that this kind of enterprise really is ... inventing your own God.

Beth Staley

You say that Anne Rice is illogical because of many of her statements. What about your statement that belonging to the Catholic church is necessary for salvation? Christ was the head of the Church, not Peter. Peter was given no special status above the other Apostles. Further, Christ did not start the Roman Catholic Church, and he made no mention of the necessity of popes. Your statement is an insult to the myriad of members of various Christian denominations. As to Pope
Benedict, he was responsible for at least one cover-up of a pedophile. And I believe it is the structure of the Church (the absolute power and the historical cult-like belief in the morality of priests). Absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely. If priests had been treated like men and not like God's perfect representatives on Earth, perhaps more parents would have believed their children when they tried to tell them that they were being abused. Not too many years ago, even the suggestion of abuse by a child only angered many parents; it was considered impossible that a priest would commit such acts. That is a direct result of the historically unquestioned authority of priests. Finally, celibacy is not a natural state for human beings. I don't expect that you will approve this to be printed but if your faith and church aren't strong enough for criticism, that's a strong statement in and of itself.

Espíritu de Harry

Anne Rice is wrong.


Wow. Anne Rice really has called forth her minions from the abyss. Amazing. The ignorance and sanctimony of this reptilian bunch are really fascinating. What a combination.

At any rate, it's clear that the winnowing is well under way. May these heretics, including those such as the insufferable Karen Armstrong, continue to root themselves out. Good riddance!


I personally believe Anne Rice speaks a great deal of truth and speaks for an increasing number of people in regards to the credibility and behavior of organized religion. The public policies and personal dialogues of christians across the spectrum seem to overwhelmingly exhibit an antagonistic and self righteous philosophy as well as involvement in all things politic which is not clearly in accordance with the ideas of spiritual knowledge or behavior, tolerance, or love & respect for fellow men and women (and more, that is not worth going to detail here) - this is unfortunate and seems to indicate that christianity is becoming an anachronism, operating more as traditional dogma than any inspirational model for human behavior. As such an example, it can hardly come as a surprise that Anne and others are not attracted to worship. If I recall my grandfathers sermons correctly, Jesus felt the same way re the priests in the temple, yes?


Wow, with this many minions, why don't Rice just make herself a church. With tenets like "homosexuality is in the bible," "all members of the church must be perfect and sinless," "Catholic Church ios of the devil."

To all Rice's minions: we don't buy her BS, much less your rah-rah to her.


@ truthjusticepeace - absolutely ridiculous.


@Subvet - you said it.. "If you're going to be a devout Catholic you need to grow a thick skin, learn to faithfully follow the most seemingly nonsensical orders...". Why not nurture a brain a heart, sensitivity and a conscience instead?


This "freethinking" herd of apostles for disorganized religion, or no religion, reminds me of the '60s flower children. They firmly believed that they held the moral high ground. They were thus exquisitely self-righteous. Pretending to spurn all authority, they appointed themselves as the authorities over us benighted souls who continued to adhere to organized religion and traditional morality. They were the self-appointed apostles of the coming Age of Aquarius, full of liberation, peace, and love, and they were to be its directors. The fruit of their enlightenment? The '70s, the darkest decade in the history of the country. And what we see now. Enslavement to passions and materialism. Rage. Violence. Decay. The legalized murder of pre-born infants, now to the tune of tens of millions upon tens of millions....

The list goes on and on. Yet we're expected to take instruction from these mandarins. Is somebody kidding?

Christopher Lake

Last year, I engaged in a lengthy dialogue with Anne on an Amazon discussion board. It is true that not everyone there was respectful to her. However, I could tell that she was in real pain, and I wanted to try to help her. As a Catholic, I told her that the abuse scandals were a source of deep pain to me too. I also told her that I am as committed as anyone to seeing that the guilty pay the appropriate legal penalties for their crimes. I was not there to bash Anne. I identified with her pain.

However, I also tried to provide balance to a view that, on her part, seemed to be becoming increasingly one-sided. I certainly wanted to know the full truth about the abuse scandals, and to that end, I was (and am) willing to read from a variety of sources, including the secular newspapers, channels, and websites which helped to break the news of the scandals to the world. To be fair though, I also wanted to read from Catholic newspapers and websites, to be sure that I wasn't hearing *another* version of "one side of the story"-- a version *hostile* (whether overtly or covertly) to the Catholic Church.

This is where part of the problem came in, insofar as my dialogue with Anne. She continually post links to sources which I had found to be repeatedly hostile to the Church, such as the New York Times and Der Spiegel. When I mentioned their obvious anti-Catholicism, in specific articles, she claimed not to see it (and perhaps she really didn't see it; I don't know).

In the end though, it seemed that if a news source was, even to a degree, defending the Church's *more recent* handling of the abuse crisis (as opposed to how abuse was handled decades ago-- very badly and wrongly, I must say), then that source simply had less credibility in Anne's eyes than a source which was reporting in a skewed way, openly bashing the Church, and/or calling for married priests in the Roman rite of the Church. Anne claimed to trust that Pope Benedict XVI could handle the crisis rightly, but when presented with sources which documented such, she simply continued to post from the NYT, while claiming to see no anti-Catholic bias there. I had no animosity toward her. I expressed none in our dialogue. Ultimately though, I found myself at a loss, because she seemed to only want to hear one side, and one version, of the story.

For the people here who have continued to say that the Church has "done nothing" to address the abuse, or worse, has continued to actively encourage it, please, look into the following resources on the abuse of minors in the Church:

Anne, I don't hate you. I do hate the evil which was committed against young people in the Church-- and I am willing to confront it, wherever and whenever I see it still occurring.

However, I do *not* believe that the willingness to confront evil in the Church must be synonymous with the decision to *leave* the Church-- and that if one is not willing to leave, then that logically means one does not care about stopping the evil. See St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of Siena, among many others, for examples of Catholics who stayed in the Church and fought corruption and evil, in various ways.

Christopher Lake

I'm sorry for any typos in my previous comment. Early morning typing...

Cecilia Zuniga

You write..."Very few Catholics care about the priestly sex scandals, except to defend accused priests".... but this not true. Many people do care, and many people like my self, we do not feel safe leaving children to be alone with priests, many of us still believe and go to church and pray, and pay taxes like we do in Sweden to the Catholic Church, but it's are very difficult to have faith that our children will be on Sunday school or in the choir or join any activity where you have to leave them unattended ... To many people told their stories for the authorities in many countries, to many priests have been accused in various places, we think of it, and we will not be a child alone with no priest.


It is amazing to me how many hysterical blogs and comments I have read from Catholics desperate to defend the abuses of the Catholic Church from even the mildest criticisms. There are many good people who have had this religion pounded into their heads from the time they were small children -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Of course it is going to cause psychological distress when someone equates this institution with the mafia. But, ask yourself, if you were so certain that what you were supporting was truly pure and good, would you get so upset by a novelist's viewpoints of your faith? The truth stings and obviously Rice has pushed a painful button. It is truly sad for all of us who were indoctrinated by the Church but Rice is just one of many who have pushed many of us to look at the situation objectively. As painful as that may be, it is actually easier than the constant defense of the indefensible.


While there are incidences of child sexual abuse within other faith traditions, the numbers are miniscule compared to the crimes committed by Catholic clergy. What is the difference? I think it is the requirement of celibacy. Married clergy are permitted to express themselves as the sexual human beings that they are. Catholic priests must deny their sexuality; an obvious recipe for disaster. It seems to me that it would make more sense to REQUIRE heterosexual marriage for aspiring Catholic priests.


Hello JChere, you wrote: "Why not nurture a brain a heart, sensitivity and a conscience instead?", among those "most seemingly nonsensical orders" is indeed part of that learning to nurture a brain, a heart, sensitivity and a conscience. It's all in the Catechism, and as such, a part of Church teaching. All of these things go together.


The Catholic Church is the largest, most well organized cult in the world.

Truth Justice Peace

@ Mark M You criticize me for doing what you then turn around and do yourself. Hypocrisy seems to be the norm among Ms. Rice's supporters because she is a living hypocrisy. She criticizes the Church while profiting from her book praising the Church and she criticizes her invented war on women while profiting from her books devoted to degrading and humiliating women. When she gives up the profits from those books she will be taken seriously by other than her hypocrite supporters. Until then all she is doing is about marketing her books.

When she manages to whip one of her vampire-admiring followers into a fit of hatred so they go in to a Catholic Church and pull a Jared Loughner think how much publicity she will get then.

Gregory Williams

Ooh! Another Anne Rice thread. I just wanted to add a comment in order to contribute to another record-setting blog comment thread.

Paul H

This post has certainly generated some interesting comments.

I especially like the one that criticizes Carl's grammar, while misspelling the word "grammar."

Another classic is the one that first refers to Carl and other Catholics here as "mentally challenged" "idiots" and "dillweeds," who are "spew[ing] . . . intellectual vomit." But then the same commenter kindly informs us that "mean people suck." I guess we wouldn't suck so much if only we could be kind and loving in our comments, like she is. :-)


You people are absolutely insane. The Catholic Church has been hiding pedophilia for much too long. And as a recovering addict (who is not so much addicted to drama as some of you), I will quote a 12 step phrase: You can't save your face and your ass at the same time.

Anne Rice

Is there a conflict of interest here on this blog?
Is anyone connected with this blog a friend or associate of notorious convicted sexual abuser, Jesuit Donald McGuire?

If this is the case, perhaps you can explain in detail.

Thank you for linking to my discussion on Amazon and to my Facebook Page.
No doubt this will bring more Catholics, former Catholics, and Catholic critics
to my efforts to urge rank and file Catholics to speak up for the victims of clergy abuse.

Paul H

For those who might not have seen it, one of the commenters on Fr. Longenecker's blog post on Anne Rice from a couple of months ago had an interesting take on Anne Rice's view of the Catholic Church. Click here for the comment.


@WSquared. There are those throughout the RC church and elsehwere who do nurture exactly that but i have found very often that a blind obedience to papal and priestly authority prevails over this. This authority is clearly not infallible as these abuses and the ensuing coverups demonstrate. I acknowledge these things happen elsehwere but the denial always seems to be frighteningly strong in the RC church.

The Maccabean

Facts about the scandal within the Catholic Church from an Anglican priest: The Maccabean

Theresa Etter

@BGDad: You are absolutely correct. Permitting (or requiring) priests to be married would go a long way toward solving the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church. Likewise, ordaining women as priests would all but eliminate this heinous problem. Absent some dramatic change like this, the problem most assuredly will continue forever, despite any and all of the current efforts on the part of the Vatican to stop it. As a matter of fact, I think that since the number of people commenting on this post has grown so large, it is probably statistically certain that at least one of you has a child who WILL be sexually abused by a priest if they haven't been already.

Paul Richard

all I have to say is that birds of the same feather flock together Thank God for Ann Rice


How many Catholic parishes have been closed since the (current) Catholic clergy child sexual abuse crisis began in Boston? How many dollars have been spent on settlements and legal costs? How much real estate has been sold to fund these costs? Catholics are leaving the Church in unprecedented numbers. And the response to this is: television commercials.


Cardinal Bernard Law was one of the original and most prolific participants in the cover-up and perpetuation of the priest sexual abuse pandemic. Because of his protection (transfer) of preditor priests, countless children were sexually assaulted who could (should) have been protected from these crimes. He was saved from the consequences of this by the Vatican with his appointment as “Archpriest” at Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, where he has essentially been in hiding from his previous flock and his countrymen since December of 2002.


The “widely debunked” link posted by “MP” (Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 07:03 PM) leads nowhere. This is because there's nothing to debunk--it’s all true. And besides, why would we choose to believe anything posted at a site called “”


Anne Rice asks, in one of her latest posts on that Amazon discussion board:

"Is there a sinister agenda behind the Ignatius blog's attack on me personally and their attack on this discussion? I honestly don't know.
I do know that I will go on speaking out."

Her courage knows no bounds.


Are you a Catholic having a crisis of conscience over the never-ending sexual abuse problem in your church? Here are your alternatives--check them out! The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:; The Episcopal Church:; The United Church of Christ:; and the Unitarian Universalists: There is hope.

David K. Monroe

Uh-oh. the Rice-bots are posting again. Can Catholicism survive?

Paul H
While there are incidences of child sexual abuse within other faith traditions, the numbers are miniscule compared to the crimes committed by Catholic clergy.

Where are you getting your numbers? Can you back up your claim? All of the data I have seen say otherwise.

Have you also compared the incidence of child abuse among public school teachers or among step-parents with the incidence of abuse among Catholic priests?

(Of course, none of this is meant to excuse abuse by Catholic priests. Even one single case of abuse, or the cover-up of abuse, is a horrible tragedy, for which there can be no valid excuse.)

Paul H
And besides, why would we choose to believe anything posted at a site called “” So essentially you seem to be saying "your side is wrong, and if you try to defend yourself, I won't listen, because people who are wrong aren't credible anyway."

That attitude works fine in a blog comment (assuming that you have no interest in engaging in conversation), but I don't think it will serve you well in many real-world situations.

Richard M

Hello Theresa Etter,

Permitting (or requiring) priests to be married would go a long way toward solving the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church. Likewise, ordaining women as priests would all but eliminate this heinous problem.

The celibacy requirement is a discipline, and as such is open to change in a way that the restriction of the priesthood to baptized males is not, to be sure. And there are already thousands of married Catholic priests - mostly in the eastern rites, but also a number ordained married men who converted from ministry in certain Protestant churches (mostly Anglicans). I would just caution that married clergy creates as many problems as it can solve, not least because the greatest share of child abuse happens within the home. It's not at all unknown in Protestant churches which do have married ministry. I have friends and in-laws in evangelical churches who have run into this first-hand, sadly. It's not as uncommon as I once thought.

But it's even less reasonable to think that ordaining women will "all but eliminate" the problem of abuse. You seem to assume that women just don't abuse children. That's simply untrue. Abuse rates may be lower for women than for men, but they are substantial, and they *do* seem to be no less true of women in religious life. SNAP (The Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests) has been met with utter frustration in their efforts to get the League of Catholic Women Religious and its member orders to cooperate on numerous abuse allegations against their sisters. See story here, over at Salon: Some of the stories detailed there (and by SNAP elsewhere) are shocking.

Child abuse is not a male-exclusive problem. It's a human problem, because we're all sinners - some of us, very egregiously so. There is no substitute - not even gender - for holiness and integrity in our religious leaders. And yes, transparent and accountable procedures.

Theresa Etter

This I believe: The Catholic Church in the United States should secede from the Roman Catholic Church and form a new organization called the "Congregational Catholic Church in America." The individual parishes should be incorporated as independent entities wholly owned by their members. Each parish should be governed under a system of congregational polity whereby the membership of the parish has the authority and responsibility to "call" their own clergy (as well as to fire them.) The independent parishes would be dues-paying association members of the Congregational Catholic Church in America which would provide support and guidance in the form of religious education curricula, consultation on church finance and management, fund-raising, membership growth and development, lay-leadership, etc. Upon completion of their seminary training, these clergy would be ordained BY THE INDEPENDENT PARISH, not by the Congregational Catholic Church in America (but under guidelines established by the CCCA.) Parishes would be free to call married and female clergy. Discuss.


Somewhere, a village is missing an idiot....or possibly two.


"Karen Armstrong eloquently explains..."

LOL. or Cry out loud, not sure which. Amstrong explains? Hardly. More like propagandizes. A least all cards are on deck. Armstrong is a Bill Moyers crony and a Jesus Seminar mainstay. IOW, she lost her faith to the claims of Modernity. It all MUST make sense. Which of course, immediately destroys the New Testament.

Much like Rice. It has to make sense by all her standards, or it won't fly. So like Rice, she essentially decides to deny basic Christian belief, and then explain how unChristian churches are? On what planet? Orthodox Catholics may fixate a bit too much on Rice, but that is nothing compared with the histronics of ex- and anti-Catholics.

"Soulless emulation," "Deluded citizenry,"... "But I mean this respectfully ...any religion ... is buffoonery." Check. Check. Check.

What is this now, NPR?!

Recap: FIrst non-Christians get to redefine Christianity, and now name-callers get to define boundaries for respect. Sorry, only buffoons, not believers, would agree to those terms. As for Karen Armstrong and Rice, may both find peace. And leave the doctrinaire sermionizing they find so offensive in others.


RecoveringC, regarding your listing of alternatives to the Catholic Church: Is this meant as some kind of joke? Those alternatives are thoroughly moribund, having long since totally conformed themselves to the world.


Theresa Etter, the absurd Americanism your propose has already been addressed by Pope Leo XIII. See:

Also see:

Along with:


Of course, in reading these, you'll have to overcome your chronological snobbery inculcated by the myth of progress you've swallowed (along with the rest of today's herd of "individuals"), but I think that with some effort you might be able to do it. Give it a shot.

Paul H

Theresa Etter,

Interesting idea, but don't we have plenty of Protestant churches to choose from already?

And how will turning the Catholic Church in the U.S. into a Protestant church solve anything, considering that some Protestant pastors have been guilty of child abuse as well?


Dear LInn H

Rhetorical artifice grows old fast. As does adolescent earnestness.

"So, I ask you, or other commenters, to please tell me what Religion you do represent..."

Jesus called people vipers, but that hardly seemed sympathetic either. Context matters. Considering this is a Catholic blog sponsored by the *Roman Catholic*-supporting Ignatius Press, you need to get a clue. If your comprehension skills really function at the level you suggest, you drove your poor teachers crazy. I am not being facetious: blogs and blog discussions operate on a plane of comprehension demanding more than Jr. High earnestness. Honestly.


The only thing I can think of to say is "Oy vey."


To my fellow Catholics commenting in this forum: the elderly in nursing homes, the sick in hospitals, the nameless people in need all around us are waiting. There is so much work to do in the world, never enough time to do it. Why are we arguing and insulting others online? I don't think God asks us to prove his point in arguments, but to spend our time on earth doing good in His name.


Molly, the refutation of error is doing good. Much good.

Mark M

@ Truth Justice Peace - If ever there was a more misinformed and deluded commentator on a blog I'd be surprised. Did you deliberately choose your name to be the exact opposite of every facet of your actual online personality? Now you can accuse me of the same actions as you, as I have just personally attacked you, instead of commentating on the actual discussion in you have failed to do throughout.


Why do you critics of the Church always go for the low hanging fruit? We've had one Pope who was murdered in the act of adultery, another who died whilst being willfully buggered, warrior Popes, Popes who stayed quiet while the innocent were tortured & burnt at the stake. The list goes on and this only covers our #1 cleric. Think of the gold mine waiting for anyone with ambition to take down Catholicism.

Could part of the answer regarding your target selection be that in focusing on the examples I cite you implicitly acknowledge the Church's longevity? That the longevity couldn't be experienced by any merely fallibly human based institution? That perhaps the Church, always a hospital for sinners INCLUDING the "nursing staff" may be exactly what Catholics claim; founded by Christ and to last until the end of time, even against all that Hell sends against it?

C'mon, this reiteration of recent scandal is SO boring. Go for the real dirt for a change.

But be prepared to explain how Catholicism has survived this long.

Dan Deeny

Wow, what a post! Good job. Did you notice Matthew Hopkins comment? Good job, Matthew! Some suggestions:
1. Let Anne Rice go. She isn't in your age group. Let Ron Hanson, Michael Connelly, and Cormac McCarthy deal with her. Read Connelly's book City of Bones; then read the rest in the Harry Bosch series.
2. Sinead O'Connor is a different matter. More important. She's in your age group and does music. Invite her to visit you for a week. Get Mrs. Olson's permission first. Include a weekend and take her to your Eastern Rite Catholic Church. I saw your pictures and they are fine, looks like an Orthodox Church. Ms. O'Connor will be impressed in spite of herself. She may not admit it, but in her heart of hearts she will like it and open up. Try not to be dogmatic. Discuss Calvinism. Note her reaction. I listened to bits of her CD I Do Not Want etc. and it might be very good. I read her essay on the Huffington Post. She's seems like a good girl trying to get out of the jail she and the Irish Church made for her. Try it.

Not a Catholic, just a generic Christian

To Anne Rice: shame, like charity, begins at home and you should be ashamed of many of the vile and bigoted comments from your supporters on your Facebook page. It speaks volumes that you're not.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad