Admitting children of same-sex couples to Catholic elementary schools

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaPatri4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GloriaPatri4

Guest
from
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Unions
  1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.** The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself**
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Click to expand...
from
Admitting children of same-sex couples to Catholic elementary schools:
thinking beyond the clichés

By Dr. Edward Peters
Click to expand...
Opinion / Analysis

As the moral fabric of Western society continues to unravel, novel problems such as those facing parents, teachers, and Church officials in the Diocese of Orange—namely, how Catholic schools should handle requests to admit children of same-sex couples—will continue to arise. Moreover, as the pace of social disintegration quickens, these new problems will be both more numerous and more complex. Just ten years ago, did parents paying for their children to attend a Catholic kindergarten really have to worry about explaining (assuming it is explainable) to their own youngsters why some of their classmates have two mommies or two daddies?

From the outset, let’s recognize that neither the opposition parents nor school officials wanted this conflict to arise. Who needs another fight these days? But arise it has, and it must be considered carefully. I do not know what the best response to this latest manifestation of social disorientation should be but, knowing of the situation only what the above article tells us, I doubt that the best answer has been hit upon yet by either side in this debate.

The solution proposed by the “anti-admission parents” (basically, that Catholic schools should admit only children from families that live in accord with Church teaching) is, at first glance certainly, too vague to be enforced and too severe if it could be enforced. The Church is full of sinners, and Fr. Gerald Horan is right to fear stepping onto such slippery slopes. But that does not mean that “pro-admission” voices like his and William Donohue’s are correct in their reasoning; indeed, I think some of their rhetoric introduces its own problems and makes slippery slope concessions that might be very difficult to take back in other cases.

Fr. Horan, for example, claims that barring children of homosexual parents from Catholic schools would lead to banning children whose parents are divorced, use birth control, or are married outside the Church. Oh, really?

Civil divorce is a bane built largely on sin, but divorced persons, as such, are not barred from any participation in Catholic life whatsoever. (Are there still Catholics in positions of influence who don’t know this?) Why, then, use the specter of expelling children whose parents are simply divorced as an example of frightful consequences, unless one has a taste for red herring?

Contraception, too, is a very serious matter, but it is addressed by moral and pastoral theology, not by canon law and ecclesiastical governance. Thus parental contraception, though objectively sinful, provides no basis for consequences upon children in the external forum. (I’m assuming that contracepting parents don’t drop their kids off at Catholic school in sports cars blazoned with bumpers stickers proclaiming “Contracepting and Proud!”). Ironically, the acceptance of contraception by large numbers of Catholic laity, to

Rear article in its entirety
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_samesex.htm
Click to expand...
 
Continued
from
Admitting children of same-sex couples to Catholic elementary schools:

thinking beyond the clichés

say nothing of overwhelming numbers of non-Catholics, is the tap root for the gross caricature of marriage that same-sex weddings represent. On that, read experts such as Pope Paul VI or Dr. Janet Smith.

But, as for admitting into Catholic schools the children of those who are married outside the Church (or, while we’re at it, of couples simply cohabiting), that’s a somewhat different matter. Maybe it is time to reconsider the practice of tacit tolerance that Catholic institutions have shown on this point over the years, at least where such tolerance is being used as a wedge to widen the sore gap between Catholic principles and Catholic life in the crucial context of Catholic education. Homosexual behavior is objectively more disordered than modernity’s version of concubinage, but decades of accommodating the latter have dulled our senses to its intrinsic gravity, leaving us in a weaker position to uphold marriage as Christ and His Church proclaim it.

Horan’s remarks are enlarged by Mr. Donohue. Leaving aside his prejudicial use of the word “retribution” (who wants to be in favor of that?), Donohue seems to have overlooked that the Church herself distinguishes between sinful actions, even grave ones, and sinful lifestyles. Sinful actions are usually treated in sacramental confession upon showing sorrow for the deed and exhibiting a firm purpose of amendment; sinful lifestyles, however, precisely because of their public nature and their persistent and defiant attitudes, can indeed provoke public consequences.

Moreover, surely Donohue acknowledges that Catholic schools are committed to a holistic educational approach, believing as they do that that the entire environment of a religious school contributes to the proper formation of the child.** Are we suddenly to hold that, when faced with this prong of the homosexual agenda, the Church’s interest in defending the free exercise of religion within her own schools falters outside the catechism class? Are Catholic institutions so powerless over their own governance policies that surely any restriction they might wish to establish in this matter will “make no sense”?** Donohue correctly points out that the children of homosexual couples have real rights, but then, do not also the children of families recognized by Christian (nay, every religious) tradition? How is it that the concerns of traditional parents are so obviously and completely wrong while those of same-sex couples are so obviously and completely right?

As for Donohue’s worry about what should be done with kids born out of wedlock, the answer is simple: nothing, if only because such a condition, of itself, says nothing about the lifestyle of the parents today. Donohue asks further, should we expel children whose parents are cohabiting? But, as I suggested above, while there might come a time when school practices on this point will need to be rethought, for now, the situation in Orange is more about admitting kids into elementary schools rather than expelling ones already enrolled. In other words, the problem before us is complex enough; let’s not complicate it prematurely.

Finally, Donohue’s baptism analogy is quite weak.** For starters, the “baptize-anybody-who-asks” days are drawing to a close. Deo gratias**. Such a practice is clearly at odds with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, requiring, as it does for the licit baptism of a child, a “founded hope” that the child will actually be raised Catholic (see 1983 CIC 868, and its predecessor 1917 CIC 750 suggesting the same point). Slothful clerical attitudes toward baptism and the demands of Christian living have simply enabled negligent pastors to pass along problems (invariably aggravated over time) to more conscientious persons, instead of dealing with them from the outset–and we all know where that sorry mindset has gotten us in other areas of Church life. In any case, it escapes me how Christ’s mandate to baptize all nations (Mt 28:19) and the unparalleled eschatological consequences of the sacrament of baptism are so easily parleyed into an admissions requirement for Catholic grade schools.

Read article in its entirety
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_samesex.htm
Click to expand...
 
all that verbage just to say “it’s not the kids’ fault”
 
“Children of same-sex couples” is actually an oxymoron. Same-sex couples, as such, do not, and cannot, have children.

If they do have children, it is in spite of their same-sex relationships, certainly not because of them. Either they were previously married to an opposite sex partner, and had children from that relationship, or perhaps because of laws that really do damage to children, they were allowed to adopt.

In any sane society, we would accept the children in school, but ensure them better living arrangements.

Those who are accepted into a truly Catholic school will inevitably learn during the course of their education that their parents are engaging in gravely disordered conduct, (as will the children of parents who are only shacking up.)

The sad part is that parents who try to place children in Catholic schools under these circumstances are not only abusing their children by means of their very living arrangements, but also using them as pawns to advance their societal agenda.
 
**

From Jimmy Akin’s website
[Protecting Children From A Different Threat – Jimmy Akin (Protecting Children From A Different Threat – Jimmy Akin)

Protecting Children From A Different Threat

(Jimmy Akin)

Yesterday Ed Peters, Mark Brumley, I, and another had an e-mail conversation about the situation of a Catholic school in Orange County, California that has admitted the children of two homosexual “fathers” to its kindergarten. This prompted outrage parents to demand that the situation be recitifed. The school has refused, and the parents are appealing to the Vatican. School officials, as well as William Donohue of the Catholic League have defended the school’s position, arguing that taking a different one would lead to not allowing children into the school whose parents are divorced or contracepting.

[GET THE STORY. (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200501\CUL20050105a.html)

[ED HAS NOW BLOGGED HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS ON THE SITUATION. (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_samesex.htm)

UPDATE: [MARK BRUMLEY HAS ALSO PUT UP HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS. (http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2005/01/admitting_child.html#comments)

Here are my thoughts (edited from our e-mail conversation):
  • Though I have been unable to verify this online, part of my memory is telling me that the school has allowed one of the “fathers” to have a role caring for the kindergarten class. I don’t know if that’s the case, but it’s a situation that may arise in some school, so let’s consider it for theoretical purposes.
  • As Ed points out, there seems to be a spectrum of progressively more disordered situations here. I would construct the spectrum along the following lines:
    • Children of normal parents living in accord with Church teaching.
    • Children of parents who formerly did not live according to Church teaching but who presently are.
    • Children of parents who are divorced and not remarried.
    • Children of parents who are secretly contracepting.
    • Children of parents who make no secret of the fact that they are contracepting or that they hold other opinions at variance with Church teaching.
    • Children of parents who are divorced and invalidly remarried.
    • Children of parents who are not married.
    • Children of parents who are divorced and now cohabiting with another.
    • Children of homosexual “parents.”
    • Children of homosexual “parents” whose “parents” take a public role in the life of the class.
    • The primary purpose of a Catholic school is to provide a quality Catholic education for all of its students collectively. This means that there would be rational grounds, even in the absence of a mandate from the Vatican, for the school to establish policies against anything that would substantially interfere with the ability of the school to fulfill its primary purpose.
    • A quality Catholic education will involve not only imparting information to students but also shielding them from certain realities of life until they are cognitively and morally prepared to come to terms with them. This includes preserving the sexual innocence of young children and shielding them from knowledge of same-sex unions.
    • Though in no case is the disordered situation of his parents the fault of the child, some of the situations on the spectrum above would clearly seem to pose a challenge to the school’s ability to provide a quality Catholic education for all its students. Somewhere between item #1 and item #10 on the spectrum, a line must be drawn.
    • Where this line is to be drawn, in the absence of a mandate from the Vatican, would seem to be a prudential decision best made by those in charge of the school (including the bishop, especially if it is a diocesan school) in consultation with the parents whose children will be affected by the impact of the decision.
    • It would seem that there are several places where the line could rationally be drawn:
    a) Since items #1-#3 do not involve situations in which parents are violating Church teaching, they seem to all be permissible situations in which to admit the children to the school.

    b) With item #4, an occult sin is introduced but, since it is occult, it would not seem to pose any impediment to the school being able to fulfill its mission.

    continued

    Read more
    [Protecting Children From A Different Threat – Jimmy Akin (Protecting Children From A Different Threat – Jimmy Akin)
    **
 
Continued
From Jimmy Akin’s website
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/01/protecting_chil.html

Protecting Children From A Different Threat
Continued

c) With item #5, a rational case could be made if a school wished to adopt a strict line to protect the children it serves, as the parents’ open dissent could pose an impediment to the school’s ability to fulfill its mission. However, prudence makes one wonder the extent to which the children of the school would even be aware of the parents’ dissent. Unless they are unusually obnoxious public activists, their dissent is more likely to be known to other parents but not to the children of the school.

d) Lines also could be drawn with even greater basis anywhere among items #6-#8, as each of these involves a more obviously disordered situation. However, the question must still be raised of the extent to which the children of the school–apart from the children of the parents in question–would be aware of the situation. The condition of the parents might not be sufficiently known among the student body to impeding the school in fulfillings its mission. Especially in schools with young students, parents in these conditions might be perceived by the children simply as the mommy and daddy of a student and presumed to be married in accord with Church teaching.

e) A line most emphatically could be drawn before item #9, as the introduction of a student who has “two mommies” or “two daddies” is almost certainly to come to the attention of the children and create a significant impediment to the school fulfilling its mission.

f) A line absolutely must be drawn before item #10. The introduction of one or both of the homosexual “parents” into the life of the class is certain to fixate the attention of the students on the situation and dramatically amplify the impediment to the school’s mission.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, if a Catholic school knowingly accepts for admission children of an active (practicing) homosexual couple that admits to being a couple, or have married and have adopted children together, but sees no problem with their relationship and have no intentions of repenting and following Christ then yes the school is condoning/approving homosexual unions.

On the other hand

If a separated homosexual couple tried to enroll their children into a Catholic school and confided in the administration (Pastor or Principal) that they have had a major conversion, have realized the sinfulness of their ways, are no longer a couple, are no longer co-habitating, are living chaste lives, and are enrolled in a Courage chapter then I would say the school should **consider **admitting the children of a former same-sex couple.

In either case the school should never tolerate a homosexual couple appearing as a couple on the school campus. I believe this would be a bad example leading to scandal and confusion for the school children and their families.
 
I voted for option 1 as that was closest to my position.I would say that a pair of homosexuals is not a couple at all and as such can never have any children belong to them. We shouldn’t speak of the “children of a homosexual couple” since the children in question do not belong to them, no matter what the govt says, and since the pair of homosexuals is not a couple, no matter what society says. The children are not their children and they are not a couple.
 
Gloria, how many more polls and/or threads of nearly an identical nature should we expect? I think we’re all clear about the situation in Orange County, CA and I think you’ve gotten quite a response from the Catholic Answers community already.

Does anyone else think that creating eight different threads on the same subject is pushing an agenda?

Or is it just exercising her obsession, like NightRider said?
Code: 
 	 		 		  Poll:  			[**Should active homosexuals be permitted to flaunt their lifestyle at a CatholicSchool?**](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=45176) 			 		
 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4

		 			Poll:  			[**Admitting children of same-sex couples to Catholic elementary schools**](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=51720) 			 		 	 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4

		 			 			Poll:  			[Would you permit your child to attend a party in a gay household ?](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=49693) 			( http://forum.catholic.com/images/misc/multipage.gif  [1](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=49693&page=1)   [2](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=49693&page=2)    ) 		 	 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4 			 		

		 			 			Poll:  			["Gay Friendly" Agenda Gaining Footholds in Catholic Schools Around The Country](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=43096) 			 		 	 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4

		 			 			Poll:  			[THE ELEPHANT IN THE CHURCH  a Catholic priest speaks out against homosexual priests](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40891) 			( http://forum.catholic.com/images/misc/multipage.gif  [1](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40891&page=1)   [2](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40891&page=2)   [3](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=40891&page=3)    ) 		 	 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4

		 			 			Poll:  			["Gay Days" at Santa Rosa High](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=38502) 			( http://forum.catholic.com/images/misc/multipage.gif  [1](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=38502&page=1)   [2](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=38502&page=2)    ) 		 	 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4
Should parents send their children to a party in a gay household? (Ask an Apologist) GloriaPatri4
Code: 
 	 		 		  			 				 				 				 			 			 			 			 			[Should active homosexuals be permitted to flaunt their lifestyle at a CatholicSchool? (Ask an Apologist)](http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=37304&highlight=homosexual) 			 		
 		  			 			 				GloriaPatri4
 
I appreciate Gloria’s threads and I don’t see them as all being nearly identical as they cover different things like schools, parties and the priesthood, etc. Also some of the threads were followups posted after having asked an apologist. I admire Gloria’s strong stance against homosexuality amid those who would countenance or minimize it.
 
I also support Gloria. She is waging a big battle at that school. She is standing up for what is right. This is all about moral relativism—the very thing that Pope Benedict XVI is warning us of.

I’m not trying to be confrontational with Princess Abby, but I think I read somewhere that she does not have children. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that does make a difference in how you would respond to this moral dilemma. Some people also have very painful personal situations that may make them see this situation in a different light.

To just stand by and let these men who are very involved in Gay Pride politics use this Catholic school to push their social agenda is definitely slipping down the slope towards moral relativism.

God Bless
Giannawannabe
 
GloriaPatri4, a voice crying in the wilderness for our kids.

Peace
 
No, Jesus said he is here mainly for the sick or poor (in spirit) not those who are well. If anything I would be happier if more children from same-sex couples where attending Catholic school. Just think of the subtle opportunities Jesus Christ has to enter the lives of the children and their guardians who are homosexual. History should prove that verbally or physically attacking people does not change their beliefs!
 
It does seem that Gloriapatri4 is pushing an agenda, now that PrincessAbbey pointed it out. Isn’t that against forum rules?

I lurk a lot on these boards but don’t post much. But I have to jump in about something Gianna said to PAbbey. I have twin girls, but I don’t think it is fair to imply, “Hey if you don’t have kids, your opinion doesn’t count.” OR to imply that unless you have a family member or personal relative/good friend dealing with homosexuality, you must not know what you’re talking about. All of our opinions are valid ones. What Gianna said is really condescending.

I will not be sending my girls to a Catholic school anyway, I’ll be homeschooling. Either way, I would still not treat any children of homosexuals the way you people seem to think is “charitable.” Nor will I isolate my children from the reality of the world we live in. I will instead affirm to them the teachings of Jesus Christ and embrace the sinner but not the sin. I can’t believe any of you think it’s “charitable” to deny children of homosexuals the ability to have a Catholic education.

I founded a non-profit that builds orphanages overseas. Within those orphanages are Catholic educational systems that I helped set up, run by layity as well as clergy. I have spent years working with children of parents afflicted with AIDS in Afrika. Many of these children’s parents and/or siblings aren’t married but are languishing in hospitals, dying in streets, secretly prostituting themselves out to make ends meet. Many of these children with AIDS have it because their parents with AIDS contracted it from having pre-marital or extra-marital sex. (The oprhanages aren’t just for orphans but for CINCS (children in need of care) too.) Should I have turned away these children due to them being from homes that do not carry out Catholic principles? And yes, other children in the orphanages are WELL aware of each other’s family situations, or lack there of. Gosh, how scandalous!

There is a big wide world out there. “Catholic” means universal.

Murph
 
40.png
Princess_Abby:
Gloria, how many more polls and/or threads of nearly an identical nature should we expect? I think we’re all clear about the situation in Orange County, CA and I think you’ve gotten quite a response from the Catholic Answers community already.

Does anyone else think that creating eight different threads on the same subject is pushing an agenda?

Or is it just exercising her obsession, like NightRider said?
Click to expand...
The “quite a response from the Catholic Answers community already” has been and continues to be varied and discordant, as evidenced by your post. Obviously this is a relevent topic for apologetics. I appreciate the passion that GloriaPatri4 has shown tobring a coherent and well founded response to those in need of the Gospel truth. Her threads have helped me to clarify my own charitable response to those I know living in a lifestyle contrary to Catholic teaching.

By attempting to cast a shadow of pathology over her as “exercising her obsession”, these posters are attempting to shut down and marginalize someone who does not agree with their opinion or approach. I believe the apropos questions for these posters are: What agenda are you serving? Why does her similiar thread presentations of clear Catholic sources evoke such an objectionable response to the point of slapping a pathological label on her?
 
40.png
bluezone7:
No, Jesus said he is here mainly for the sick or poor (in spirit) not those who are well. If anything I would be happier if more children from same-sex couples where attending Catholic school. Just think of the subtle opportunities Jesus Christ has to enter the lives of the children and their guardians who are homosexual. History should prove that verbally or physically attacking people does not change their beliefs!
Click to expand...
So are you saying that same-sex couples are not seriously sick in spirit? Why “subtle opportunities” to present the Gospel truth to a cohabitating homosexual couple making a clear and obvious statement against Catholic teaching when they know what the Church teaches? Who is abusing who here?
 
40.png
Murphster:
It does seem that Gloriapatri4 is pushing an agenda, now that PrincessAbbey pointed it out. Isn’t that against forum rules?

All of our opinions are valid ones.

Either way, I would still not treat any children of homosexuals the way you people seem to think is “charitable.” I will instead affirm to them the teachings of Jesus Christ and embrace the sinner but not the sin. I can’t believe any of you think it’s “charitable” to deny children of homosexuals the ability to have a Catholic education.

I founded a non-profit that builds orphanages overseas. Should I have turned away these children due to them being from homes that do not carry out Catholic principles? And yes, other children in the orphanages are WELL aware of each other’s family situations, or lack there of. Gosh, how scandalous!

There is a big wide world out there. “Catholic” means universal.

Murph
Click to expand...
The Moderators are the keepers of the forum rules.

I disagree with your statement that “All of our opinions are valid ones.” when participating in a Catholic forum. Those opinions which are founded on authentic Church teaching in matters of faith and morals are the only valid ones.

I believe that you are putting the egg before the chicken – to “embrace the sinner but not the sin”, in true Christian charity and compassion means addresing the root of the sin, i.e., addressing the “couple” who are living the public lie of a homosexual union and continuing to expose “their” children to this lie.

The charitable outreach of a Catholic orphanage is not a valid comparison to enrolment to a Catholic insitution of education
and character formation in Catholic values and beliefs.

True evangelization requires clear and compelling witness to the Gospel. To believe otherwise is to ignore the examples that Jesus Christ gave us in the Gospels. He never one ignored and minimized the sin of those claiming to be of the household of God.
 
40.png
Murphster:
I lurk a lot on these boards but don’t post much. But I have to jump in about something Gianna said to PAbbey. I have twin girls, but I don’t think it is fair to imply, “Hey if you don’t have kids, your opinion doesn’t count.” OR to imply that unless you have a family member or personal relative/good friend dealing with homosexuality, you must not know what you’re talking about. All of our opinions are valid ones. What Gianna said is really condescending.

I will not be sending my girls to a Catholic school anyway, I’ll be homeschooling.

Murph
Click to expand...
Murph, I’m sorry you think I was being condescending. I am not. I’m simply pointing out that it is difficult to fully comprehend the impact of this situation if you do not have children. In your case, you plan on homeschooling. You will not have to worry about these types of influences on a daily basis.
If you’ve read any of my other posts on this subject, you would know that my daughter has friends who have lesbian mothers/grandmothers and how I do not treat these children uncharitably, but I also limit my child’s exposure to the moms/grandmas lifestyle.
In Gloria’s case, these “dads” have become very involved at the school. There is no way to monitor or limit the situation. Her children are exposed to this lifestyle day in and day out. I think if the children were attending and the “dads” were not so blatant about their lifestyle, it may be a different story. The “dads” are very much into the Gay Pride movement (see other posts by Gloria). In this situation it is quite clear that they are pushing their agenda by trying to normalize their lifestyle.
As far as implying that one does not know what they are talking about unless they have a homosexual friend or family, that is absolutely not what I meant. What I meant is that I understand that some of the posters come from situations where they had gay parents and that they had a very difficult and painful childhood, so they are coming at the situation from a different point of view. I completely empathize with their pain and I include them and everyone on these threads in my prayers.
I feel strongly about this issue as does Gloria. She is not pushing an agenda, she is trying to make the Church’s teaching clear.

God Bless
Giannawannabe
 
40.png
felra:
The “quite a response from the Catholic Answers community already” has been and continues to be varied and discordant, as evidenced by your post. Obviously this is a relevent topic for apologetics. I appreciate the passion that GloriaPatri4 has shown tobring a coherent and well founded response to those in need of the Gospel truth. Her threads have helped me to clarify my own charitable response to those I know living in a lifestyle contrary to Catholic teaching.

By attempting to cast a shadow of pathology over her as “exercising her obsession”, these posters are attempting to shut down and marginalize someone who does not agree with their opinion or approach. I believe the apropos questions for these posters are: What agenda are you serving? Why does her similiar thread presentations of clear Catholic sources evoke such an objectionable response to the point of slapping a pathological label on her?
Click to expand...
I too appreciate the work that GloriaPatri4 is doing to shine the light on the situation at her children’s school and I too find it interesting that others are attempting to quiet her voice.

Continue your work, GloriaPatri4. Many are watching and most hope that you succeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top