Catholic leaders speak out against ne...

Catholic leaders speak out against new contraception regulations

There are 1216 comments on the The Wichita Eagle story from Feb 7, 2012, titled Catholic leaders speak out against new contraception regulations. In it, The Wichita Eagle reports that:

Lawmakers and politicians scrambled Monday to respond to a growing furor over the Obama administration's decision to require no-cost contraceptive insurance coverage - even in policies offered by religious employers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Wichita Eagle.

First Prev
of 61
Next Last
Tom

Kansas City, MO

#1 Feb 7, 2012
Many Catholics in this country use contraceptives of one type or another. Most of this complaining is coming from Catholic leadership whose authority is diminishing, mainly as a result of hiding pedophile priests. This is a handy distraction by those whose morality should be questioned regularly.
Dan

Menomonee Falls, WI

#2 Feb 7, 2012
Tom wrote:
Many Catholics in this country use contraceptives of one type or another. Most of this complaining is coming from Catholic leadership whose authority is diminishing, mainly as a result of hiding pedophile priests. This is a handy distraction by those whose morality should be questioned regularly.
Tom-

Are your constitutional protections contingent upon my say-so?

No.

Neither are the Church's subject to yours.
Tom

Kansas City, MO

#3 Feb 7, 2012
Dan I'm not arguing constitutionality, just saying who is really doing the whining and why.
Sick of Stupid

Ames, IA

#4 Feb 7, 2012
The constitution garuntees the people freedom of religion.
It does not garuntee religion freedom from law.
Dan

Milwaukee, WI

#5 Feb 7, 2012
Sick of Stupid wrote:
The constitution garuntees the people freedom of religion.
It does not garuntee religion freedom from law.
It actually protects the people from establishment of a state religion.
It "garuntees" freedom of religious expression. Obama seems to have skipped that in his voluminous law studeis.
earlpittsamurica n

Parsons, KS

#6 Feb 8, 2012
Sick of Stupid wrote:
The constitution garuntees the people freedom of religion.
It does not garuntee religion freedom from law.
Why should the government force anyone into a situation they feel is immoral? The government is not here to overrun us, but to assist us.
earlpittsamurica n

Parsons, KS

#7 Feb 8, 2012
Tom wrote:
Many Catholics in this country use contraceptives of one type or another. Most of this complaining is coming from Catholic leadership whose authority is diminishing, mainly as a result of hiding pedophile priests. This is a handy distraction by those whose morality should be questioned regularly.
You and your ilk are such huge bigots, I just can't believe it. Because of the couple percent that are problems, you label an entire faith as pedophiles. Then in the next breath you want to shove a law down their throats that goes against their teachings. You are the one wanting a distraction so you can move your bigoted ideals forward.
Sick of Stupid

Ames, IA

#8 Feb 8, 2012
earlpittsamurican wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your ilk are such huge bigots, I just can't believe it. Because of the couple percent that are problems, you label an entire faith as pedophiles. Then in the next breath you want to shove a law down their throats that goes against their teachings. You are the one wanting a distraction so you can move your bigoted ideals forward.
No one claimed all Catholics are pedaphiles. Only that catholic leadership has less than perfect morals, and has but their own interests far ahead of their parishioners, and allowed children to be victimized by their own.
The law does not force Catholics to use contraception only that their healthcare insurance plans are not compromised by a platform established by the hierarchy of the church, whose moral judgement has been far from impeccable.

Stop whining. If Catholics use contraception, there will still be many vulnerable children for the pervs of the catholic church to Take advantage of.
That is what this is really about. The church has no power over people who see they have choices in life.
earlpittsamurica n

Parsons, KS

#9 Feb 8, 2012
Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
No one claimed all Catholics are pedaphiles. Only that catholic leadership has less than perfect morals, and has but their own interests far ahead of their parishioners, and allowed children to be victimized by their own.
The law does not force Catholics to use contraception only that their healthcare insurance plans are not compromised by a platform established by the hierarchy of the church, whose moral judgement has been far from impeccable.
Stop whining. If Catholics use contraception, there will still be many vulnerable children for the pervs of the catholic church to Take advantage of.
That is what this is really about. The church has no power over people who see they have choices in life.
Catholic leaders, as well as all church leaders are human. Thinking they should be otherwise is just stupid. They will make mistakes. 98% of church leaders are above reproach. The only ones you hear about are the ones who are not. Yet, you rail against the whole Christian community because of a few. And you just did it again. Look at your third paragraph. "there will still be many vulnerable children for the pervs of the catholic church to Take advantage of." You are a bigot. Nevertheless, an insurance program that promotes what they don't want, whether used or not, violates their very basic freedoms. What would you do if you were forced into something you found objectionable and immoral? Would you fight it? Or would you just deal with it?
Sick of Stupid

Ames, IA

#10 Feb 8, 2012
earlpittsamurican wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholic leaders, as well as all church leaders are human. Thinking they should be otherwise is just stupid. They will make mistakes. 98% of church leaders are above reproach. The only ones you hear about are the ones who are not. Yet, you rail against the whole Christian community because of a few. And you just did it again. Look at your third paragraph. "there will still be many vulnerable children for the pervs of the catholic church to Take advantage of." You are a bigot. Nevertheless, an insurance program that promotes what they don't want, whether used or not, violates their very basic freedoms. What would you do if you were forced into something you found objectionable and immoral? Would you fight it? Or would you just deal with it?
Which is more objectionable
Making contraception w ailible to those who would use it.
Or
Limiting a person's right to choose for themselves.

Contraception is not immoral. Catholic morals are not mine.

The law only requires that it is part of their healthcare insurance options.
It does not require Catholics to take the pill, have an abortion, or use a vaginally inserted contraceptive.
It only demands these options are available in the plan. There are some people employed by the church who are not catholic.
I do not understand the big deal about it. The morals of Catholics are just fine. I hate no one based on their beliefs, race, creed, whatever.....
I only hate peope who dictate morality.

The constitution does not protect any religious organization from the rule of law. The church is free to leave the USA.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#11 Feb 8, 2012
earlpittsamurican wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your ilk are such huge bigots, I just can't believe it. Because of the couple percent that are problems, you label an entire faith as pedophiles. Then in the next breath you want to shove a law down their throats that goes against their teachings. You are the one wanting a distraction so you can move your bigoted ideals forward.
United States
Main article: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States

Archdiocese of Anchorage

See also: Sexual abuse scandal in the Society of Jesus

In 2007, the Society of Jesus made a $50 million payout to over 100 Inuits who alleged that they had been sexually abused. The settlement did not require them to admit molesting Inuit children, but accusations involved 13 or 14 priests who allegedly molested these children for 30 years.[56]

In 2008, the Diocese of Fairbanks, a co-defendant in the case, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, claiming inability to pay the 140 plaintiffs filing claims against the diocese for alleged sexual abuse by priests or church workers during this period.[57][58][59]

Archdiocese of Boston

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston

Allegations of sexual misconduct by priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, and following revelations of a cover-up by the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, became known in 2004, causing Roman Catholics in other dioceses of the United States to investigate similar situations. Cardinal Law's actions prompted public scrutiny of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the steps taken in response to past and current allegations of sexual misconduct by priests. The events in the Archdiocese of Boston became a national scandal.

Archdiocese of Chicago

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago

Daniel McCormack, a self-confessed sexually abusive priest was sentenced to five years in prison for abusing five boys (8–12 years) in 2001.[60]

Diocese of Crookston

Rev. Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul was charged with molesting two teenage girls at a Catholic church in Greenbush, Minnesota, a small rural town near the Canadian border. The abuse occurred in 2004, and charges were filed in 2006 and amended in 2007.[61] Without facing legal punishment, Jevapaul returned to his home diocese in Ootacamund, India, where today he works in the church’s diocesan office. A Roseau County, Minnesota attorney is seeking to extradite the priest from India in a criminal case involving one of the girls.[62] The Archbishop of Madras, India (Madras is now called “Chennai”) has asked Jeyapaul to return to the US to face the charges.[63] Jevapaul has said that he will not fight extradition if the US seeks it.[64]

Diocese of Davenport

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Davenport diocese

On October 10, 2006, the Diocese of Davenport filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.[65]

Archdiocese of Denver

In July 2008 the Archdiocese of Denver paid a settlement of $5.5 million dollars to 18 claims of alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by two clerics between the years of 1954 and 1981.[66]

Archdiocese of Dubuque

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Dubuque archdiocese

In 2006 the Archdiocese settled a number of claims of sexual abuse, and the Archbishop offered a personal apology.[67]

Diocese of Fall River

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Fall River diocese

Father James Porter was a Roman Catholic priest who was convicted of molesting 28 children;[68] He admitted sexually abusing at least 100 of both sexes over a period of 30 years, starting in the 1960s.[69] Bishop Sean O'Malley settled 101 abuse claims and initiated a zero-tolerance policy against sexual abuse. He also instituted one of the first comprehensive sexual abuse policies in the Roman Catholic Church.[70]
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#12 Feb 8, 2012
Diocese of Honolulu

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Honolulu diocese

Reverend Joseph Bukoski, III, SS.CC., Honolulu, Hawaii, a member of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary was canonically removed in 2003 as the pastor of Maria Lanakila Catholic Church in Lahaina by Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo for allegations relating to sexual improprieties some 30 years earlier. Fr. Bukoski issued a written public apology to his victim on November 12, 2005.

Reverend Mr. James "Ron" Gonsalves, Wailuku, Hawaii, Gonsalves the administrator of Saint Ann Roman Catholic Church in Waihee, Maui, pleaded guilty on May 17, 2006 to several counts of sexual assault on a 12-year-old male. Bishop Clarence Richard Silva has permanently withdrawn his faculties and has initiated laicization proceedings against Deacon Gonsalves with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Archdiocese of Los Angeles

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay out 60 million dollars to settle 45 lawsuits it still faces over 450 other pending cases. According to the Associated Press, 22 priests were involved in the settlement with cases going back as far as the 1930s.[71] 20 million dollars of this was paid by the insurers of the archdiocese. The main administrative office of the archdiocese is due to be sold to cover the cost of these and future law suits. The archdiocese will settle about 500 cases for about $600 million.[72]

Diocese of Memphis

The Diocese of Memphis reached a $2 million settlement with a man who was abused as a boy by Father Juan Carlos Duran, a priest with a history of sexual misconduct with juveniles in St. Louis, Panama, and Bolivia.[73]

Archdiocese of Miami

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese

Since 1966, the Archdiocese of Miami Insurance Programs have paid $26.1 million in settlement, legal, and counseling costs associated with sexual misconduct allegations made by minors involving priests, laity and religious brothers and sisters.[74]

Archdiocese of Milwaukee

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Catholic archdiocese of Milwaukee

A 2003 report on the sexual abuse of minors by clergy in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee revealed that allegations of sexually assaulting minors had been made against 58 ordained men.[citation needed] By early 2009, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee had spent approximately $26.5 million in attorney fees and settlements. Under Archbishop Timothy Dolan the archdiocese was able to avoid bankruptcy from lawsuits.[75]

A Wisconsin priest, the Rev. Lawrence C Murphy, who taught at the former St. John School for the Deaf in the Milwaukee suburb of St. Francis, Wisconsin from 1950 to 1974, allegedly molested more than 200 deaf boys. Several U.S. bishops warned the Vatican that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church. Murphy was moved by then Milwaukee Archbishop William E Cousins to Superior, Wisconsin, a small city near Lake Superior, where he spent his final 24 years working with children in parishes, schools and a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998. As of March 2010, there were four outstanding lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in the case.[76][77]
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#13 Feb 8, 2012
Diocese of Oakland

In 1981, the former Rev. Stephen Kiesle was convicted for tying up and molesting two boys in a California church rectory.[78] From 1981 to 1985, Bishop John Stephen Cummins, who oversaw Kiesle, contacted the Vatican about defrocking him. Then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, responded by letter that the case needed more time, as it was "necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church" and "the detriment that granting the dispensation" could provoke among the faithful. In 1987, the Vatican defrocked Kiesle. The letter was widely regarded as evidence of Ratzinger's role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests.[79][80] Vatican officials responded that that interpretation rested on a misreading of the letter, in which the issue was not whether Kiesle should be defrocked but whether he should be granted the dispensation he had requested from the obligation of chastity. By refusing to grant such a dispensation right away in the Kiesle case, Ratzinger was actually being tough with an abuser, not lax.[81][82]

Archdiocese of Omaha

During his tenure as the Bishop of Helena, Montana, Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss chose to reassign a priest who had been accused of pedophilia in 1959, later admitting that he had not properly examined the church's personnel file on the individual concerned. Curtiss faced similar criticism in 2001 in regard to a priest accused of accessing child pornography. Curtiss, it was alleged, had failed to bring the case to the attention of the authorities, and had chosen to send the priest for counseling and to reassign the priest, removing him from his high-school teaching position but reassigning him to a middle-school.[83]

Diocese of Orange, California

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Orange

On January 3, 2005 Bishop Tod Brown of the Diocese of Orange apologized to 87 alleged victims of sexual abuse and announced a settlement of $100 million following two years of mediation.

Diocese of Palm Beach

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Palm Beach

Joseph Keith Symons resigned as ordinary in 1998 after admitting he molested five boys while he was a pastor.[84]

Diocese of Peoria

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Peoria diocese

Coadjutor Bishop John J. Myers of Peoria was among the two-thirds of sitting bishops and acting diocese administrators that the Dallas Morning News found had allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to continue working.[85]

In 2005, Rev. Francis Engels pleaded guilty to molesting a Peoria altar boy on trips to Milwaukee in the early 1980s.[86]

Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia

According to a 2005 investigation, while serving as assistant vicar for administration in 1996, Bishop Cistone was involved with silencing a nun who tried to alert parishioners at St. Gabriel parish about abuse by a priest. According to the report, there were several other instances of priest sexual abuse that Cistone was complicit in covering up.[87] In February 2011, Monsignor William Lynn, former secretary of the clergy for the Philadelphia Archdiocese, was charged with child endangerment, marking the first time that a high-ranking official has been charged since the eruption of sex abuse scandals nearly ten years prior.[88] Lynn was found by a grand jury to have placed pedophiles in posts involving contact with children, which led directly to the sexual assault of two boys. Three priests and one teacher face rape charges.

Diocese of Phoenix

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Phoenix diocese

On November 21, 2005, Monsignor Dale Fushek of the Diocese of Phoenix was arrested and charged with 10 criminal misdemeanor counts related to alleged inappropriate sexual contact with teens and young adults.[89]
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#14 Feb 8, 2012
Archdiocese of Portland

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Portland archdiocese

The Archdiocese of Portland filed for Chapter 11 reorganization on July 6, 2004, hours before two abuse trials were set to begin.[citation needed] Portland became the first Catholic diocese to file for bankruptcy. An open letter to the archdiocese's parishioners explained the archbishop's motivation.

Archdiocese of San Antonio

John Salazar was sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a 18-year-old parishioner.[90]

Diocese of San Diego

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in San Diego diocese

On February 27, 2007, the Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 protection, hours before the first of about 150 lawsuits was due to be heard.[citation needed]

Diocese of Savannah

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Savannah

In October, 2009, the diocese of Savannah paid $4.24 million to settle a lawsuit which alleged that Lessard allowed a priest named Wayland Brown to work in the diocese when Lessard knew that Brown was a serial child molester who posed a danger to children.[91]

Diocese of Spokane

Under Bishop William S. Skylstad the Diocese of Spokane declared bankruptcy in December 2004. As part of its bankruptcy, the diocese has agreed to pay at least $48 million as compensation. This payout has to be agreed to by the victims and a judge before it will be made. According to federal bankruptcy judge, Gregg W. Zive, money for the settlement would come from insurance companies, the sale of church property, contributions from Catholic groups and from the diocese's parishes.[92]

Diocese of Stockton

Main article: Sexual abuse scandal in Stockton diocese

Fr. Oliver O'Grady molested multiple children in Stockton.[93] The 2006 documentary Deliver Us From Evil is based on accusations that Bishop Roger Mahony knew that Oliver O'Grady was an active pedophile.[94]

Diocese of Tucson

The Diocese of Tucson filed for bankruptcy in September, 2004. It reached an agreement with plaintiffs, which the bankruptcy judge approved on June 11, 2005, specifying terms that included allowing the diocese reorganization to continue in return for a $22.2 million settlement.[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_s...
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#15 Feb 8, 2012
earlpittsamurican wrote:
<quoted text>
You and your ilk are such huge bigots, I just can't believe it. Because of the couple percent that are problems, you label an entire faith as pedophiles. Then in the next breath you want to shove a law down their throats that goes against their teachings. You are the one wanting a distraction so you can move your bigoted ideals forward.
Yeah, Geez. We're only talking about hundreds of Catholic priests raping thousands of children, in an environment where everyone in control, including the current pope, aided and abetted the child rapists.

And people want to act like it's a big deal!! Yeesh. Compared to wanting the option of using birth control for consenting adults, the systemic rape of children, and subsequent denial by the Catholic Church for decades, is a non-issue.

Wise up, people!!!

(PS The examples I gave were for the US only. Would you like to see the cases in the rest of North America? Or Europe? Africa? Asian? South America? Australia? Just let me know).
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#16 Feb 8, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It actually protects the people from establishment of a state religion.
It "garuntees" freedom of religious expression. Obama seems to have skipped that in his voluminous law studeis.
Nothing in it compromises the Church's freedom of religious expression.

Churches are exempt. Period.

Institutions that employ thousands of non-Catholics-- like schools, hospitals, etc.-- are legally required to follow national labor laws. Healthcare reform is part of that.

Moreover, 26 states already have a similar law on the books-- so where has your outrage been?

Similarly, ITALY has the same law, and the Church doesn't seem to care about it there, at all.

This is nothing more than a weak political attack on Obama. There is no substance to this story, AT ALL.

I am a staunch supporter of separation of church and state, and freedom of religion.

But this ain't about that.
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#17 Feb 8, 2012
Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
No one claimed all Catholics are pedaphiles. Only that catholic leadership has less than perfect morals, and has but their own interests far ahead of their parishioners, and allowed children to be victimized by their own.
The law does not force Catholics to use contraception only that their healthcare insurance plans are not compromised by a platform established by the hierarchy of the church, whose moral judgement has been far from impeccable.
Stop whining. If Catholics use contraception, there will still be many vulnerable children for the pervs of the catholic church to Take advantage of.
That is what this is really about. The church has no power over people who see they have choices in life.
Of course not all Catholics are pedophiles.

Just a hugely disproportionate number of Catholic priests are pedophiles. And in fairness, as far as I can tell the Catholic Church ONLY defends and covers-up child rapists in the clergy. They don't defend or condone that behavior from parishioners.

So the ONLY ones who are allowed to rape children are the ones making the official moral pronouncements.

Which come directly from Jesus.
Dan

Menomonee Falls, WI

#18 Feb 8, 2012
Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is more objectionable
Making contraception w ailible to those who would use it.
Or
Limiting a person's right to choose for themselves.
Contraception is not immoral. Catholic morals are not mine.
The law only requires that it is part of their healthcare insurance options.
It does not require Catholics to take the pill, have an abortion, or use a vaginally inserted contraceptive.
It only demands these options are available in the plan. There are some people employed by the church who are not catholic.
I do not understand the big deal about it. The morals of Catholics are just fine. I hate no one based on their beliefs, race, creed, whatever.....
I only hate peope who dictate morality.
The constitution does not protect any religious organization from the rule of law. The church is free to leave the USA.
You must be "Sick of Yourself".

"The constitution does not protect any religious organization from the rule of law."

Actually, the Constitution IS part of the rule of law and it expressly provides for freedom of religious expression. This mandate violates the First Amendment.
Common Cents

Orlando, FL

#19 Feb 8, 2012
earlpittsamurican wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should the government force anyone into a situation they feel is immoral? The government is not here to overrun us, but to assist us.
"Catholic Helthcare" has become a "Big Business" and receives a lot of government money, that's how the Illegal Immigrants get "Free" (provided by US taxpayers money) healthcare:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social_Scott_Le...
Chicago Guy

Evanston, IL

#20 Feb 8, 2012
earlpittsamurican wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholic leaders, as well as all church leaders are human. Thinking they should be otherwise is just stupid. They will make mistakes. 98% of church leaders are above reproach. The only ones you hear about are the ones who are not. Yet, you rail against the whole Christian community because of a few. And you just did it again. Look at your third paragraph. "there will still be many vulnerable children for the pervs of the catholic church to Take advantage of." You are a bigot. Nevertheless, an insurance program that promotes what they don't want, whether used or not, violates their very basic freedoms. What would you do if you were forced into something you found objectionable and immoral? Would you fight it? Or would you just deal with it?
The Catholic Church can opt to stop providing medical insurance to their non-church employees.

They are not being legally obligated to do anything but follow the most basic laws regarding employee protections... but they can opt out.

But let me ask you this: what if it was a Catholic car wash? Or a dry cleaners? Or a restaurant? Should they be allowed to flout the existing laws regarding employees?

And what about the devout Catholic who runs the local hardware store? Are HIS rights being infringed when he's forced to follow the law? After all, he's still a Catholic, even at work, right?

Shouldn't he be able to live out his faith?

Why shouldn't Catholic Hospitals be allowed to bar women from management or executive positions, just as they do in their churches?

Why shouldn't Catholic Universities be allowed to bar homosexuals, because they don't "condone" the lifestyle?

If my personal faith tells me that the races shouldn't intermingle (I'm an OT type of Christian, after all)... isn't it religious discrimination if I'm forced to serve blacks at my lunch counter? And does the government have a right to FORCE me to engage in a business transaction with a black person?

I mean, I'm a Christian!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 61
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Roman Catholic Church Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min 2all 654,091
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 13 min Joel 253,949
Who is allowed to walk me down the isle at my R... 7 hr Bride to be 2
News NPR: Clinton Rape Claims Are Nasty 'Old News,' ... Fri K-DJ 2
News Remembering a Christian and a Jew who traced an... Aug 25 JesusWasNOTaJew G... 12
News Pope Francis wades into transgender debate, lam... Aug 24 South Knox Hombre 2
Greek God of astrology Aug 24 just asking 1
More from around the web