Pope Benedict hit by new Church child abuse allegations

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I was being taught that Jesus believed in equality.. yet I was also taught to kneel or bow at the feet of priests and clergy.. some people even kissed his ring (finger).

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]


I have seen none of what you describe, especially today. Certainly some people look up to clergy but so too they look up to doctors and teachers in much the same way.

In my parish for instance, the only bowing that ever takes place in to the Eucharist. No one bows to the Priest. In fact, our pastor makes it a point to make certain that anyone involved in Eucharistic Ministry understand that they bow to no one unless that person is holding the Eucharist.

Again, I understand that it is a narrow frame of reference. But I also cannot recall my parents ever making us bow to a member of the clergy or told us to treat them with any more respect that we were expected to treat any other person.

My point to you was that it is not in the Catechism. That is the document in which the churches official teachings are to be found. Individuals within the clergy may feel they are holier than the rest of us, I don't doubt that but that is the misguided teaching of a flawed human being not an official view.

I also must confess though, that I feel so strongly that a priest is nothing more than a fellow human being, I might not notice if others feel differently. I have seen parishoners in my church fawn over the Pastor and try to get into his, "inner circle," but as I stated earlier, I have seen similar behavior when it comes to others in positions of seeming prominence.




posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Avamarguy
 


No probs my friend!

Rant over LOL!

This topic understandably causes a lot of anger, so it's okay mate.

All the best, kiwi



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by riley
I was being taught that Jesus believed in equality.. yet I was also taught to kneel or bow at the feet of priests and clergy.. some people even kissed his ring (finger).

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]


I have seen none of what you describe, especially today. Certainly some people look up to clergy but so too they look up to doctors and teachers in much the same way.

That is not true. I have never bowed to a doctor or teacher or called them father or mother. There is a big difference between trusting a doctor and revering a priest.

Never has the church (or even most Christians) said "seek a second opinion" when a priest says something you don't really agree with.


In my parish for instance, the only bowing that ever takes place in to the Eucharist. No one bows to the Priest. In fact, our pastor makes it a point to make certain that anyone involved in Eucharistic Ministry understand that they bow to no one unless that person is holding the Eucharist.

They do not bow.. yet they bow their heads, kneel or lower themselves yes? If not I would say the chuches you are taking about are the exception to the rule. Most alters are elevated above the congregation for a reason. Often we would miss church and go to other parishes for a later time. There were four or five different church's we used to attend (some would be those of relatives) and they ALL required kneeling before priests or at least bowing the head when doing the sign of the cross when taking the host.

The very fact that one must cup their hand in an oliver twist style asking for food is a grand gesture of submission. Not only is thanking god before meals expected but the church actually trains it's followers to line up and beg for it. You look at cults they use the same type of psychological conditioning. The reason the church is against the gospel of saint thomas is because it would take their "spirituality authority" away.


Again, I understand that it is a narrow frame of reference. But I also cannot recall my parents ever making us bow to a member of the clergy or told us to treat them with any more respect that we were expected to treat any other person.

Bowing the head to priests while taking is standard during taking of the Eucharist. It is a public display of submission. Sunday mass aside.. dressing little girls as brides and then getting them to kneel at the priests they call father is.. well kinda sick now that I think about it. Not to mention dressing alter boys as "mini mes" of priests.. they carry his things and serve him during mass. Following orders is expected.. I mean I remember alter boys making sure his gown was "just so".. like they are there to preen him..


My point to you was that it is not in the Catechism. That is the document in which the churches official teachings are to be found. Individuals within the clergy may feel they are holier than the rest of us, I don't doubt that but that is the misguided teaching of a flawed human being not an official view.

The pope wheres the robes of a monarch and dresses accordingly. That is an official teaching and he is meant to be god's representative on earth. Sorry but that alone implies that he is "more important" than the rest of us.

Oh and Catholics calling him "your holiness" proves they have been taught to revere him. He is not holy to me.. I see an evil man with a dangerous amount of power.


I also must confess though, that I feel so strongly that a priest is nothing more than a fellow human being, I might not notice if others feel differently. I have seen parishoners in my church fawn over the Pastor and try to get into his, "inner circle," but as I stated earlier, I have seen similar behavior when it comes to others in positions of seeming prominence.

This we can agree on. I remember one priest being very down to earth.. he is a one off. He had a motorbike and swore and was not priest-like at all but when an ex nun teacher assaulted my brother with a ruler leaving metal splinters in his hands the priest tore shreds off her and she was forced to apologize. He was certainly a moral teacher and he meant it and took it seriously. The next priest spoke in a high soft laboured voice like Michael Jackson and was creepy. I am now hoping he was just gay and hiding in the church but things I saw were "odd". I didn't know about sex so I didn't think on it further. In fact I was actually annoyed that girls couldn't be alter boys as there seemed to be a special club with the priests and the boys. That priest didn't stamp his feet demanding worship but every time he's walk down the aisle he would glide down acting like he was a bride on her wedding day so he certainly wanted to be revered. He really wanted to be beautiful I think and was proud to wear his fine robes. I am honestly not sure if he was a pedo or not.. he may have just wanted friends but he was a bit too motherly around them.

He and the alter boys used to get changes in the same room as well. I'm pretty sure that happened in most churches so to a pedo that would be the ideal hunting ground.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Never has the church (or even most Christians) said "seek a second opinion" when a priest says something you don't really agree with.
You shouldn't be so sure about things we cannot know. I know more than one case in which a priest said exactly that, if the person still had doubts about some faith-related subject he/she should ask other priests or even contact the bishop.


They do not bow.. yet they bow their heads, kneel or lower themselves yes? If not I would say the chuches you are taking about are the exception to the rule. Most alters are elevated above the congregation for a reason. Often we would miss church and go to other parishes for a later time. There were four or five different church's we used to attend (some would be those of relatives) and they ALL required kneeling before priests or at least bowing the head when doing the sign of the cross when taking the host.
The bowing is not to the priest, it's to the host, the priest is just the means to present the host. I have seen on several occasions that when there are too many people taking the host a deacon (according to my sister and a quick Internet search
) may help in giving the host to the people. In those circumstances, the people also bow, not to the deacon but to the host.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by riley
Never has the church (or even most Christians) said "seek a second opinion" when a priest says something you don't really agree with.
You shouldn't be so sure about things we cannot know. I know more than one case in which a priest said exactly that, if the person still had doubts about some faith-related subject he/she should ask other priests or even contact the bishop.

They do not say ask a rival religion. A second opinion means asking someone who might not give the same answers. A bishop would only elaborate on what a priest says. They may not be best mates but they are on the same team.


The bowing is not to the priest, it's to the host, the priest is just the means to present the host. I have seen on several occasions that when there are too many people taking the host a deacon (according to my sister and a quick Internet search
) may help in giving the host to the people. In those circumstances, the people also bow, not to the deacon but to the host.

The rituals reinforce perceptions of authority. They do not exactly tell followers not to worship them and I'm sure they do not mind accepting the worship.

Besides which the host represents the body of Christ.. the martre. The one who sacrifices himself for all our future sins? That there is self depreciation and presumes we are morally lower than clergy. I find the idea of killing someone "just in case" the world goes to hell morally offensive (and contradictory.. evil begets evil) and I do not believe in the concept of original sin. It was only just a few years ago unbaptized babies were allowed out of purgatory.

So who then decided that unbaptized babies could go to heaven? It certainly was not god. After 30 billions years of creation the Pope suddenly decides my children do not have to spend eternity in limbo?

So is he just human or not? That sounds alot like a deity to me.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
They do not say ask a rival religion.
The doctors do not (usually) say "ask a medicine-man" either, do they?



The rituals reinforce perceptions of authority. They do not exactly tell followers not to worship them and I'm sure they do not mind accepting the worship.
They don't need to tell the followers not to worship them, what they say clearly shows that the men are not to be worshipped. The fact that some people love to have a personification of something they worship and use that personification as a target of their worship doesn't mean that's the Church's opinion.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Just posted this to another thread but thought it might be of some interest her.

The case for arresting the pope on his visit to the UK

trueslant.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by riley
They do not say ask a rival religion.
The doctors do not (usually) say "ask a medicine-man" either, do they?

You misunderstand. They are still competing for business where as priests and bishops all have the same boss. What is in that collection plate goes to the same place. I already answered that question btw.


The rituals reinforce perceptions of authority. They do not exactly tell followers not to worship them and I'm sure they do not mind accepting the worship.

They don't need to tell the followers not to worship them,

The crusades and inquisitions and other "policies" created a culture where they just "knew" thats what they were suppose to do.

what they say clearly shows that the men are not to be worshipped.

It does not clearly show that anywhere. When they do their sermons they either read from the bible or give a lecture like they are the headmaster and the congregation are naughty children. They do not need to say "I am your superior" that message has already been communicated loud and clear.

They don't need to tell the followers not to worship them, what they say clearly shows that the men are not to be worshipped.

Sorry I cannot agree with that.. it is not up to you to decide who works for god and who does not. Ironically you making that judgment is doing what they are doing: Claiming to know best in regards to god. Either all human beings do not have a clue or some are "closer to god" than others. Are you closer to god than those ego driven priests I spoke of?

As far as I'm concerned the pope is an evil man.. if I were still a believer I would say he does not speak for god yet many Catholics would say he does. One man's trash is another man's treasure. You defend him in this thread yet on the other hand claim that immoral men do not speak for god. You cannot have it both ways.

Unless people are assuming that he is innocent is based on him being pope?

The fact that some people love to have a personification of something they worship and use that personification as a target of their worship doesn't mean that's the Church's opinion.

The Vatican is made out of marble and gold and it's very design was made to represent it's power. It is it's own City so yes it does hold that opinion. I said this earlier yet I am repeating myself.. I'm not sure why the wealth of the church is continually dismissed as having nothing to do with it's demand for reverence. Of course it does.

Expecting reverence is another reason why the pope thought he could instruct his aids carrying followers to not wear condoms. I said this before .. it was a massive abuse of power and a dangerous thing to say but he did it anyway and quite probably killed many people. That is abusing his god like power he has over some of his followers.

I am repeating myself a bit here so could people please just read my other posts and not ask me rephrased questions.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
You misunderstand.
Probably, that happens a lot.


What is in that collection plate goes to the same place.
And what place is that?



It does not clearly show that anywhere. When they do their sermons they either read from the bible or give a lecture like they are the headmaster and the congregation are naughty children. They do not need to say "I am your superior" that message has already been communicated loud and clear.
I guess Portuguese priests (or at least those from where I live) are different, I have never seen a sermon in which the priest or even the bishop talks like he his the headmaster and the congregation naughty children. It's even relatively common for priests to talk about unemployment and other social problems, with some priests even being accused of having communist ideas.



Sorry I cannot agree with that.. it is not up to you to decide who works for god and who does not. Ironically you making that judgment is doing what they are doing: Claiming to know best in regards to god. Either all human beings do not have a clue or some are "closer to god" than others. Are you closer to god than those ego driven priests I spoke of?
I don't understand what may have given you that idea.

What I meant is that I have never heard any member of the church talk in a way that made me think that he was implying that priests are closer to god, I was not claiming anything, only talking about what I have seen.

And if I am closer to god than other people then it must be a joke by god him/her/itself, considering that I am an atheist.



As far as I'm concerned the pope is an evil man.. if I were still a believer I would say he does not speak for god yet many Catholics would say he does. One man's trash is another man's treasure. You defend him in this thread yet on the other hand claim that immoral men do not speak for god. You cannot have it both ways.
I don't know if the pope is an evil man, I don't know him, but it's true that the Catholics should think of him as god's "ambassador" on Earth. I defend him (if what I have done can be considered as defending him) because I think that the fact that there are paedophile priests is not something he could control before being pope or even as a pope, in the same way that there will always be paedophile doctors, professors, carpenters, etc.


Unless people are assuming that he is innocent is based on him being pope?
Not me, but I think that some people think he is guilty because he is the pope, regardless of what he may or may not know.


The Vatican is made out of marble and gold and it's very design was made to represent it's power. It is it's own City so yes it does hold that opinion. I said this earlier yet I am repeating myself.. I'm not sure why the wealth of the church is continually dismissed as having nothing to do with it's demand for reverence. Of course it does.
I don't think any of those things represent demand for reverence, they just show that some people like to do that.


Expecting reverence is another reason why the pope thought he could instruct his aids carrying followers to not wear condoms. I said this before .. it was a massive abuse of power and a dangerous thing to say but he did it anyway and quite probably killed many people. That is abusing his god like power he has over some of his followers.
I disagree, because the power he (and other popes before him) used was the power people want to give him, not all Catholics accept what he says in the same way, he has no real power, there isn't any Church police enforcing the pope's word.


I am repeating myself a bit here so could people please just read my other posts and not ask me rephrased questions.
It looks like we have a little communication problem here; I didn't really asked any question and you talk about things that I didn't mentioned (or at least this was how I interpreted your posts).

PS: Sorry if I am not understanding what you're saying, sometimes I have some problems understanding what other people mean, I am not that good at understanding the English language.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Bravo in your work in this thread

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To address the subject matter at hand:

First off, the Catholic Church, for a very long time has been misunderstood and, at least since the Protestant Reformation, been seen as some kind of wicked and corrupt, anti-scientific institution. I contend that these are blatant generalizations and stereotypes.

First, are there bad people in the Church? Yes. I don't deny that. Is it relevant? No. There are bad people in every institution.

Second, is the institution itself fundamentally misguided? No. If you look at the core doctrine of the faith, you see something pure and healthy that guides people in a way that helps them.

Third, and most contentious, is the current interpretation of doctrine flawed?

I contend that it is not. Some, on both sides of the spectrum claim that the Church has become rotten and corrupt. However, there will always be fringe groups looking to convert people to their way of thinking... or else.

The Pope has taken numerous steps since his election to reconcile the Church to its members and seek healing and forgiveness. He has personally undertaken to root out the perpetrators of crimes and hand them over to justice.

As Archbishop and, subsequently, as Cardinal, he was not a magistrate. He did not have the power to throw someone in jail. The best he could do to protect the innocent was to get rid of priests, which it is clear he undertook to do. There can be no doubt as to the Pope's holiness and sincerity in his entire career.

As to the typical slanders against Catholicism (celibacy, transubstantiation, infallibility, etc) I direct interested parties to Wikipedia to at least sound mildly educated in the discussion. Polemics only make your arguments weaker.

For those of you interested in the abuse rate among priests as compared to other professions, this article may be of some interest: Article . I posted that in another thread with a similar topic. I realize that the author is certainly saying things I agree with, but the information is still credible.

Please note, I do not condone the actions of the rogue priests who used their power and religious stature to corrupt the youth, but it is both factually incorrect and completely ridiculous to make a blanket generalization about the Church.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Well said, Iago. I sometimes wonder where all of the Anti-Catholic hate speech originates on these forums.

I view Pope Benedict as a very holy man. To see him disgraced by these rabid attacks in the media just mystifies me. Most of the media reports are clearly one-sided and distorted, and are clearly taken out of context.

Most of the abuse cases are decades old - typically 30-40 years or more. Many of the priests are deceased, and are not alive to defend themselves against false accusations.

Around 4% of all clergy are involved in child sexual abuse - regardless of religious denomination. This is an issue every church, mosque, or synagogue faces. The Catholic Church, unfortunately, gets the brunt of the criticism.

The Church in recent years has been very proactive in addressing this issue with their clergymen. In today's Church, priests are now given risk assessment and psychological tests, criminal background checks, and must undergo training on sexuality, impulse control, and maintaining professional boundaries. Medical science knows a lot more about child sexual abuse than they did 40 years ago, and it is improper to apply today's thinking in 2010 to medical standards from the 1960's and 1970's. Back then, medical science thought that child sex abuse could be cured by psychotherapy and that abusers could be rehabilitated. We know now that is untrue - and a tragic mistake.

The media portrays this issue as priests preying on small children. In fact, teenagers were the most likely victims, not small children. Any abuse at any age is immoral - agreed.

I would strongly encourage any of the anti-Catholics on this forum to read the following article, "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse", by Dr. Thomas Plante. The article addresses many of the myths, stereotypes, and hysteria surrounding the child abuse issue within the Church. Go here:

www.psychwww.com...

Even former NYC Mayor, Ed Koch, a Conservative Jew who disagrees with many of the Church's teachings, recently came to the defense of the Pope. An excellent article here:

www.lifesitenews.com...

In short, for all the good works of the Church, all you hear in the media these days are these vicious attacks against the Church. People should really put things in perspective. The Church does more to help the poor, oppressed, downtrodden, etc. than any other organization on the planet.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iago18
For those of you interested in the abuse rate among priests as compared to other professions, this article may be of some interest: Article . I posted that in another thread with a similar topic. I realize that the author is certainly saying things I agree with, but the information is still credible.

On Saturday I found an article in which it was written that the companies specialised in insurances religious organisations, specially against law suits presented against them, said that the Catholic church does not pay more for their insurances, so it means that the insurance companies do not see them as having a bigger risk of being sued than any other.

I will try to find it again.

PS: thanks for the kind words.

 

Edit: here is that article.

[edit on 12/4/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by riley
You misunderstand.
Probably, that happens a lot.


What is in that collection plate goes to the same place.
And what place is that?

The Catholic church.. just like alot of the big charities only a fraction goes to the needy.


]I guess Portuguese priests (or at least those from where I live) are different, I have never seen a sermon in which the priest or even the bishop talks like he his the headmaster and the congregation naughty children. It's even relatively common for priests to talk about unemployment and other social problems, with some priests even being accused of having communist ideas.

In Australia Clergy are very straight laced and self righteous. If a priests even hinted at communism he wouldn't last but stealing aboriginal parents to raise them as "christian" was considered okay.

Did you not have corporal punishment? It was only stopped 20/25 years ago here. Obviously hitting children was reinforcing authority.. that may have been part of an old system but it really was not that long ago.

What I meant is that I have never heard any member of the church talk in a way that made me think that he was implying that priests are closer to god, I was not claiming anything, only talking about what I have seen.

Okay- there seem to be quite a distinct cultural different. Portugal already had it's own culture and values where as Australia introduced christian values as an entirety. Aboriginal culture was easily pushed aside. Being so far away and isolated meant they could run things how they wished.


And if I am closer to god than other people then it must be a joke by god him/her/itself, considering that I am an atheist.

My bad.. you just kept asking me to explain why I thought clergy taught I thought you must be a believer as you seem very passionate about defending the church and keep asking me to explain myself.


I don't know if the pope is an evil man, I don't know him, but it's true that the Catholics should think of him as god's "ambassador" on Earth.

Meaning he is "closer" to god and therefore assumed to be incapable my many Catholics as being immoral. His innocence is confirmed to some by his just being pope.

I defend him (if what I have done can be considered as defending him) because I think that the fact that there are paedophile priests is not something he could control before being pope or even as a pope, in the same way that there will always be paedophile doctors, professors, carpenters, etc.

Before he was pope he was in charge of handling sexual abuse cases.

Not me, but I think that some people think he is guilty because he is the pope, regardless of what he may or may not know.

I have based my views on facts.. I even thought I'd ignore the Nazi youth thing as that wasn't his fault but the choices he has made as an adult and religious figure are his own. There is some evidence the last pope may have known but I think he was already suffering from dementia at that stage. He also cannot defend himself yet this pope's defense has been calling allegations "petty gossip" which to me is calling rape victim liars.


The Vatican is made out of marble and gold and it's very design was made to represent it's power. It is it's own City so yes it does hold that opinion. I said this earlier yet I am repeating myself.. I'm not sure why the wealth of the church is continually dismissed as having nothing to do with it's demand for reverence. Of course it does.
I don't think any of those things represent demand for reverence, they just show that some people like to do that.

You do not see why wealth and ranking are connected? Being born into royalty has always been considered an ordination by god and thus the wealth deserved.. and with the church that is more so. This is it's own subject but you need only look through history to see it. I mean the poor were considered furthest from god so were denied the right to education. Thats just one example.

I disagree, because the power he (and other popes before him) used was the power people want to give him, not all Catholics accept what he says in the same way, he has no real power, there isn't any Church police enforcing the pope's word.

So shall we just ignore the inquisitions and crusades? Force was how they became so powerful.. many people were born into a religion their families were forced into. This may not have occurred in your ancestors but it certainly did to mine.

It looks like we have a little communication problem here; I didn't really asked any question and you talk about things that I didn't mentioned (or at least this was how I interpreted your posts).

Sorry it wasn't you. I was just getting frustrated as I've been going over the same ground and others had already said the same things in this thread.

PS: Sorry if I am not understanding what you're saying, sometimes I have some problems understanding what other people mean, I am not that good at understanding the English language.

You seem to be doing okay to me. The upside of arguing in a second language is that you actually get better at arguing in a second language.. however I just get better at arguing!


[edit on 12-4-2010 by riley]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
The Catholic church.. just like alot of the big charities only a fraction goes to the needy.
It depends, I think the priest is the one who decides how to use the money.


In Australia Clergy are very straight laced and self righteous. If a priests even hinted at communism he wouldn't last but stealing aboriginal parents to raise them as "christian" was considered okay.

Did you not have corporal punishment? It was only stopped 20/25 years ago here. Obviously hitting children was reinforcing authority.. that may have been part of an old system but it really was not that long ago.
After some time things get "natural", so I forgot that the last 80 years in Portugal shaped people's mentalities in every area.

During 48 years we had a fascist dictatorship, and during that time the Catholic church officially supported the regime, with the cardinal-patriarch of Lisbon saying that the people should learn only enough to sign their names, they had no need to learn how to read a newspaper.

But as the parishes enjoy some freedom of action, some priests acted more in the way of protecting people than in following what they could see was not the best way to treat people, so while we had some priests highly supportive of any regime action we also had some priests that worked in factories or in the fields to better help the faithful.

After the Carnation Revolution (36 years ago) we saw some of those worker priests rise in visibility and they became an influence for some of the newer priests.


Before he was pope he was in charge of handling sexual abuse cases.
He was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it doesn't mean he was the direct responsible for handling sexual abuse cases.


You do not see why wealth and ranking are connected? Being born into royalty has always been considered an ordination by god and thus the wealth deserved.. and with the church that is more so. This is it's own subject but you need only look through history to see it. I mean the poor were considered furthest from god so were denied the right to education. Thats just one example.
I don't think that the poor were considered furthest from god by the church itself, only by some of the people with high positions in the church. To me that's not the same thing.


So shall we just ignore the inquisitions and crusades? Force was how they became so powerful.. many people were born into a religion their families were forced into. This may not have occurred in your ancestors but it certainly did to mine.
I knew that you were going to talk about the inquisition, but something that ended some centuries ago cannot be used as a way of enforcing the pope's word today, and we are talking about how things are today, right?

And yes, the inquisition probably affected my ancestors, specially knowing that one of my family names is one of those used by converted Jews.

Some months ago I saw the official presentation of the digitised documents from the Inquisition of Lisbon (not the whole archive, yet), one of the most active (one of the reasons being that it was the one that was responsible for the ultramarine cases, including Brazil). It's available on the Internet, but it's in Portuguese.


Sorry it wasn't you. I was just getting frustrated as I've been going over the same ground and others had already said the same things in this thread.
No problem.



You seem to be doing okay to me. The upside of arguing in a second language is that you actually get better at arguing in a second language.. however I just get better at arguing!
That's one of the good things of not being perfect, we can get better at something.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join