Poll: Does the pope's statement surpr...

Poll: Does the pope's statement surprise you?

There are 78 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 20, 2010, titled Poll: Does the pope's statement surprise you?. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that condoms can be justified for male prostitutes seeking to stop the spread of HIV, a stunning comment for a church criticized for its opposition to condoms and for a pontiff who has blamed them for making the AIDS crisis worse.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Tea Cup

Canada

#21 Nov 21, 2010
Jack Catholic wrote:
Hi, all,
I must admit, I did a double take when I read the report. But if you all look carefully, the pope was speaking of the judgement call of people in the immoral profession of male prostitution. He didn't say they are morally justified by Church reconning if they choose to use condomes, but that they could possible morally justify their use... The fact of the matter is that their profession is not morally just, nor is anything they do in their profession. Use of condomes does not add annything moral to what they are doing. No, the Pope did not O.K. the use of condomes in any way shape or form. The media is simply trying to rile people on both sides of the issue to get you all to tune in frequently throughout the day for the next month so they can count each of your visits as another hit on their sight,and thus demand more money from their advertisers for advertising on their web sight. We are all being duped by the media for $$$$. Nothing in the church has changed. I love that the Church doesn't change. It doesn't try to keep up with the times, as todays modern thought will one day be yesterday's historic outmoded thought. Anyone who disagrees with the teachings of Jesus and of the Church is doomed to the same anger and chaos that have existed for all societies and peoples throughout history which have believed and acted outside the Judeo-Christian belief system.
The Church's teachings given us by Jesus have not changed because they are timeless. Since becomming Catholic, I have ceased worrying about what truth is because I know what it is, what it has always been. And I live my life with peace no matter what is happening around me. And I am content knowing that I am loved no matter what people are doing and saying around me. If what I have experienced and continue to experience as a Catholic Christian born again in the love and peace of Jesus Christ causes you to pause, perhaps Jesus is calling you to himself. Call a Catholic Church near you to learn more about the beauty, love,and peace of the Catholic Christian life.
God Bless you all,
Jack Catholic
They got rid of Limbo & there is mixed marriages now!

Tell me when the Holy Spirit told the pope this?

“Can't Touch Dis!”

Since: Sep 10

Stroudsburg, PA

#22 Nov 21, 2010
Nulli Secundus wrote:
<quoted text>You don't really believe in THAT superstition, do you?
Of course I don't. But catholics truly believe the pope has the power to "bind, loose, in heaven." They bastardize that statement to a hideous degree.

“Can't Touch Dis!”

Since: Sep 10

Stroudsburg, PA

#23 Nov 21, 2010
Tea Cup wrote:
<quoted text>
They got rid of Limbo & there is mixed marriages now!
Tell me when the Holy Spirit told the pope this?
The pope seems to think he has more authority than the Holy Spirit.
NitaM

United States

#24 Nov 21, 2010
MsSheryl wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I don't. But catholics truly believe the pope has the power to "bind, loose, in heaven." They bastardize that statement to a hideous degree.
MsSheryl,

The pope

Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
•what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
•the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
•infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

&#9702;The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
&#9702;Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
&#9702;Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

&#9702;Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II...
NitaM

United States

#25 Nov 21, 2010
MsSheryl wrote:
<quoted text>
The pope seems to think he has more authority than the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic Church MsSheryl is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit in Faith and Morals:

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

Proof of papal infallibility from Holy Scripture
From Holy Scripture, as already stated, the special proof of the pope's infallibility is, if anything, stronger and clearer than the general proof of the infallibility of the Church as a whole, just as the proof of his primacy is stronger and clearer than any proof that can be advanced independently for the Apostolic authority of the episcopate.

Matthew 16:18
"Thou art Peter (Kepha)", said Christ, "and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Various attempts have been made by opponents of the papal claims to get rid of the only obvious and natural meaning of these words, according to which Peter is to be the rock-foundation of the Church, and the source of its indefectibility against the gates of hell. It has been suggested, for example, that "this rock" is Christ Himself or that it is Peter's faith (typifying the faith of future believers), not his person and office, on which the Church is to be built. But these and similar interpretations simply destroy the logical coherency of Christ's statement and are excluded by the Greek and Latin texts, in which a kind of play upon the words Petros (Petrus) and petra is clearly intended, and still more forcibly by the original Aramaic which Christ spoke, and in which the same word Kêpha must have been used in both clauses. And granting, as the best modern non-Catholic commentators grant, that this text of St. Matthew contains the promise that St. Peter was to be the rock-foundation of the Church, it is impossible to deny that Peter's successors in the primacy are heirs to this promise — unless, indeed, one is willing to admit the principle, which would be altogether subversive of the hierarchial system, that the authority bestowed by Christ on the Apostles was not intended to be transmitted to their successors, and to abide in the Church permanently. Peter's headship was as much emphasized by Christ Himself, and was as clearly recognized in the infant Church, as was the enduring authority of the episcopal body; and it is a puzzle which the Catholic finds it hard to solve, how those who deny that the supreme authority of Peter's successor is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church can consistently maintain the Divine authority of the episcopate. Now, as we have already seen, doctrinal indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal infallibility; so that if Christ's promise means anything — if Peter's successor is in any true sense the foundation and source of the Church's indefectibility — he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical infallibility. The metaphor used clearly implies that it was the rock-foundation which was to give stability to the superstructure, not the superstructure to the rock.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II...

“Purple girl in a purple world”

Since: Apr 08

Plum, Purplonia

#27 Nov 21, 2010
It is better to not be so weak as to have to stick it in someone to begin with.

“Can't Touch Dis!”

Since: Sep 10

Stroudsburg, PA

#28 Nov 21, 2010
NitaM wrote:
<quoted text>
MsSheryl,
The pope
Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
•what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
•the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
•infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
&#9702;The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
&#9702;Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
&#9702;Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
&#9702;Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II...
Plain "Sheryl" is okay. To change my avatar, I had to get another addy; Tre has told me how but I'm a computer dinosaur and can't remember.

Anyway, I know perfectly well what ex cathedra means. I don't care how anyone sugarcoats it - the pope does NOT receive "divine inspiration" or whatever you want to call it. Nor do I believe any divinity speaks to the Magisterium.(sp?) That's a catholic belief, and I stress BELIEF.

I don't care what any ancient paperwork says either. ALL religions contain some old paperwork.

Also - the pope is VOTED in. Does this sound like it's divinely inspired? Do the cardinals who vote yes receive their guidance from the Holy Spirit, and the cardinals who vote no do not? Ludicrous! Sorry, running out of space.

“Can't Touch Dis!”

Since: Sep 10

Stroudsburg, PA

#29 Nov 21, 2010
NitaM wrote:
<quoted text>
MsSheryl,
The pope
Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
•what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
•the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
•infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
&#9702;The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
&#9702;Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
&#9702;Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
&#9702;Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II...
I responded to one of your posts but it seems to have gotten lost. I'd started with I know perfectly well what ex cathedra means. In short, I'm not interested. If you're happy with what you believe then I'm the first to say stay right where you are. But don't think that everyone falls for that stuff.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#30 Nov 21, 2010
Jack Catholic wrote:
Dear I can read,
If you read what I posted, much of it cut and pasted from an authoritative source including medical and statistical data, you will see that the church does not support genocide, but indeed is the only force for an effective solution. The Catholic solution has never changed in 2000 years, and the data shows both in the US as well as in Africa that it is the only effective solution. If you don't agree with the Catholic Church on the disuse of condoms, than you are promoting a solution that has agravate the epidemic for over 20 years. That makes you the guilty one.
If you don't like the feeling of guilt, then perhaps you are beginning to realize the truth, which points to the love and life of Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church has been established by Jesus Christ to preserve and share His truth. Call a Catholic Church near you to learn more about the love and life that Jesus is calling you to.
God Bless,
Jack Catholic
I did read the quotes you posted, they were in another thread. I showed how they were

A) From a completely biased source
B) Deliberatly misleading
C) Utterly irrelevant to the point at hand

If you wish to continue to wrongly believe condoms dont help stop the spread of AIDS due to your indoctrination into catholic dogma even when shown how deeply misleading it is, I can't really help you.
Homophobe

Modesto, CA

#31 Nov 21, 2010
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read the quotes you posted, they were in another thread. I showed how they were
A) From a completely biased source
B) Deliberatly misleading
C) Utterly irrelevant to the point at hand
If you wish to continue to wrongly believe condoms dont help stop the spread of AIDS due to your indoctrination into catholic dogma even when shown how deeply misleading it is, I can't really help you.
Dear "I can read,"

I've read all of your posts on this and another thread. Correction -- you TRIED to show how the quotes were:
"A) From a completely biased source"

Just saying it is so doesn't make it so. The data came from some very legitimate sources. They happen to be anti Catholic, like you. I'm afraid you failed to make your case.

Further you TRIED to show how the quotes were:
"B) Deliberatly misleading"

Yes, you chewed on the data, surmizing quite a bit, then drew your own conclusions. Notice in the websight you refused to read that the experts from governments, international service organizations, and condom manufacturers do not share your conclusions. Rather, the conclusions I reported are directly from them.

Finally, you TRIED to show how the quotes were:
"C) Utterly irrelevant to the point at hand"

You have repeatedly asserted that the Catholic Church is responsible for genocide in Africa and for killing many thousands each year. Your very words to another poster named Mary: "You support genocide in Africa and an organisation responsible for killing many thousands every single year." Using other words, you claimed that the Pope is, "heading an organisation that promotes the spread of AIDS in Africa..." In another post, you said that the Catholic Church is, "deliberately teaching impressionable and poorly educated people in Africa that condoms won't help prevent the spread of AIDS and thus being responsible for tens of thousands of easily avoided deaths every year."

You haven't shown any evidence that the Catholic Church or any of its positions have caused ANY of the deaths in Africa. You only say that this is the case. Can you not see that saying something is so doesn't make it so? Why have you failed to respond to the example of Uganda, the only country to redesign its health plan to reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the only country to show drastic reductions in the incidence of aids from all levels of society. The example of Uganda also flies in the face of your surmises about the statistics I presented from South Africa, Botswana, Camaroon, and Zimbabwe. Your surmizings are just that, YOUR surmizings. They have no basis in any of the evidence. Yet you continue to believe them, to use them to try to redirect others on a public forum away from the truth, and away from the only plan PROVEN statistically and medically to work. Do you feel any guilt, "I can read," about your failure to thoroughly read (investigate) the data, be open to the truth, or even be effective in helping to end the AIDS epidemic in Africa? I am confident in my position. Can you say the same about yourself and yours?

Confidence lies only in the truth, and Jesus Christ is the Truth. Let Him lead you to the Church He Himself established to preserve His truth and promote it throughout the earth.

God Bless,

Jack Catholic

PopeBennieDick

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#32 Nov 21, 2010
Hey guys, you're asking if my statements suprise you?

Hell, what I say don't even suprise me!

Domino Nabisco Baby!

“Beauty on four legs”

Since: Sep 06

Location hidden

#33 Nov 21, 2010
Purple Gurl wrote:
It is better to not be so weak as to have to stick it in someone to begin with.
Aww, you don't get much lovin', do you?

“Can't Touch Dis!”

Since: Sep 10

Stroudsburg, PA

#34 Nov 21, 2010
pbfa wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww, you don't get much lovin', do you?
Sounds like Purple Girl endorses virginity. Paul/Saul of Tarsus advised marriage ONLY if a person wanted sex. His philosophy was jacksh*t. If we all did what he preferred, i.e., remained virgins the entire human race would cease to exist. Paul/Saul sounds like he was certifiable.
Card Carry Zionist

Los Angeles, CA

#35 Nov 21, 2010
MsSheryl wrote:
...Also - the pope is VOTED in. Does this sound like it's divinely inspired? Do the cardinals who vote yes receive their guidance from the Holy Spirit, and the cardinals who vote no do not? Ludicrous! Sorry, running out of space.
I'm Jewish, not Catholic, but I don't see any reason why the papal electoral process would disqualify it from being a "divine" choice. If one believed that the College of Cardinals were legitimate successors to the Apostles, then their choice could be within the divine will. It wouldn't be a popularity contest per se, nor a certain percenatge equaling spiritual guidance. One could, however, argue that the process of consensus that the cardinals go through is inspired. In some ways (SOME WAYS, I emphasize) this has similarities to the process of halakhic decision-making in Judaism. We, of course, don't claim to have an infallible teaching office, and our process is more prolonged, often multi-generational.
Card Carry Zionist

Los Angeles, CA

#36 Nov 21, 2010
NitaM wrote:
And from your avatar, let me take a wild guess you certainly aren't either. So your point is...
My point is that if you have such strong disagreements with areligion, then don't practice that religion. You have freedom of expression, of course, so I won't write something like "shut up" but I don't really see what's to be accomplished by going on and on about what you don't like about another religion.
Card Carry Zionist

Los Angeles, CA

#37 Nov 21, 2010
NitaM wrote:
...The early Christians, by definition, were in union with the Chair of Peter. St. Jerome, for example, declared "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter (Against the Luciferians 23 [383 A.D.]). This Chair of Peter has continued for almost 2,000 years, with Pope Benedict XVI being the current occupant of the Chair. Protestants cut themselves off from communion with this Chair in the 16th century...
In all that time, has the chair ever been refinished?:-)

“Can't Touch Dis!”

Since: Sep 10

Stroudsburg, PA

#38 Nov 21, 2010
Card Carry Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm Jewish, not Catholic, but I don't see any reason why the papal electoral process would disqualify it from being a "divine" choice. If one believed that the College of Cardinals were legitimate successors to the Apostles, then their choice could be within the divine will. It wouldn't be a popularity contest per se, nor a certain percenatge equaling spiritual guidance. One could, however, argue that the process of consensus that the cardinals go through is inspired. In some ways (SOME WAYS, I emphasize) this has similarities to the process of halakhic decision-making in Judaism. We, of course, don't claim to have an infallible teaching office, and our process is more prolonged, often multi-generational.
Your post is very fair! I've been interested in Reform Judaism off and on for years, but I won't commit to any religion as having been Catholic at one time, I've had my fill of organized religion. I'm not against religions at all, I just don't care to be religiously active in any faith at this time.

Nice meeting you.
NO OBOZO

Mcallen, TX

#39 Nov 21, 2010
Only stupid people listen to a stupid poop. Now that he has given his approval for male prostitues to cover their yang yang so they won't spread diseases, how about telling all men to use condoms to prevent breeding litters they can't afford?

Since: Aug 09

Philadelphia, PA

#40 Nov 21, 2010
Mary wrote:
The blatant lies the media propagates are just that, lies. They have miscontrued the Pope's personal comments.
I repeat: This is not anofficial change in Church Doctrine. This was a comment made in an interview not revision of catholic teachings.
The media has taken this and once again misunderstood and taken it out of context.
Pope Nosferatu is worthy of mockery whether it was a change in RCC-cult teaching, a demand a boytoy made of him, a drunken remark or an interview.

Why only male prostitutes?

Why not female prostitutes?

Why not those of us who are uncompensated amateurs?

The Hitler Youth Pope is apparently in tertiary syphilis, not making any sense.(Even so, I would like to know the Pope's thought on tipping male prostitutes...I know about how much for hair stylists, building supers and pet care people....)

Since: Aug 09

Philadelphia, PA

#41 Nov 21, 2010
Purple Gurl wrote:
It is better to not be so weak as to have to stick it in someone to begin with.
Then get your bigoted nose out of everyone else's business, you mentally ill cretin. Amen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min kent 690,462
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 19 hr Married in 10,657
News John Paul I Closer to Sainthood as Book Debunks... Nov 12 South Knox Hombre 1
News Vatican backs Obama as Nobel Peace Prize Winner (Oct '09) Nov 8 Feeling Abandoned 37
News Pope Francis to stop off in Cuba on way to Unit... (Apr '15) Nov 2 whirlignmerc 11
News War, religion and tolerance Oct 30 The Bible Student 1
News Pope Francis Denounces Gender Confirmation Surg... Oct '17 TerriB1 1
More from around the web