Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Conservatives and Progressives: A Reader Responds

By Michael Scaperlanda

I think we have indvertently stumbled across a great conversation topic for our 5th anniversary.  See posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

MOJ reader Stephen Braunlich responds with these thought provoking comments:

"Prof. Shiffrin seems to be less concerned about drawing in progressives than he is more heterodox Catholics.  His concern is not about getting more Catholics who think within the Magisterium in progressive ways, but about more Catholics who dissent from the Magisterium.  These are, of course, two very different things; depending on the mission of MOJ the former ought to be more welcome than the latter.


If MOJ is attempting to develop Catholic legal theory -- and by that I mean a legal theory informed by the teachings of the Catholic Church -- it makes little sense to intentionally develop dissent around those teachings: you would be carving away at the very foundation you're trying to build upon.  I cannot agree with Prof. Shiffrin that doing this would add anything to the richness of the site, either; the site is already a rich vein of thought.  I love to watch the tension within orthodoxy that plays out between the (political) conservatives and progressives.  Prof. Uelman's posts, for example, which are informed by the Focolare movement (which is aligned with the Magisterium), are fascinating, orthodox, and something that I don't find elsewhere. 

Nor do I think that changing the definition from Catholic to something unmoored from the Magisterium would lend any richness to the idea of Catholic legal theory.  In looking around, one can find sacramental theology, liturgical styles, and intellectual depth in a variety of different faiths.  What sets Catholicism apart from them, though, is the authority claimed and coupled with all of the above.  Indeed, it is also what makes it so applicable to developing a legal theory informed by it. 

I do hope that MOJ does not make a concerted effort to attract more Catholics who disagree with the Church.  I fear the result would lessen the Catholic identity of the blog, it's mission of developing a legal theory informed by the Church, and bog it down in dissent of doctrine rather than the development of its application."

Parish Priest Recounts Tragedy of Gaza

By Michael Scaperlanda

From Zenit

From God's church in Gaza to the beloved saints in Palestine and the rest of
the world,

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of
the Holy Spirit be with you all.

From the valley of tears, from blood-drenched Gaza, whose one and a half
million residents have been robbed of the joy they once had in their hearts,
I send you these words of faith and hope. As for love, that's a word that
even we Christians no longer dare utter, not even to ourselves. Today, the
priests of the church are raising the banner of hope. May God have mercy and
pity on us and leave a remnant in Gaza. May he not put out the light of
Christ, which was spread by the deacon Philip at the time of the early
church. May the compassion of Christ be what reawakens our love for God,
which is currently like a patient in a hospital's intensive care unit. As a
priest and a father, I bear the sad news of the death of a beloved girl who
was a tenth grader at the Holy Family School and the first Christian to die
in this war:

Christine Wadi' Al-Turk


Christine passed away on the morning of Saturday, January 2, 2009, due to
fear and cold. The windows of her house were open to protect the children
from being hit by flying glass fragments, and as missiles passed over her
house and her neighbors fell victim to Israeli attacks, her entire body
would shake with fear. When she could not longer bear it, she cried on her
Creator's shoulder and asked Him for a home and shelter with no crying,
shouting, or wailing but joy and happiness.

My brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, what you see and hear on your
television screens is not the complete painful truth about what our people
in Gaza are going through. Their suffering is so widespread over our land
that no television or radio could report the whole truth about it. The
brutal siege on Gaza is a storm that escalates by the hour; it is not only a
war crime but a crime against humanity. Today, the suffering people of Gaza
are appealing to the conscience of every human being with goodwill, but it
will soon be our just God who decides the case.

The children of Gaza have been sleeping with their families in the hallways
of their homes (if they have them) or in bathrooms, for protection. They
tremble with fear at every sound, every movement, and every violent F-16
attack. While it is true that so far the F-16 jets have for the most part
targeted the headquarters of the government and Hamas, they are located in
residential areas no more than six meters away from people's homes, the
minimum distance required by construction law. That's why people's houses
are severely affected by the violence, and it leads to the death of many
children. Our children are suffering from trauma, anxiety, undernourishment,
malnutrition, poverty, and lack of heating.

The situation in hospitals is unspeakably deplorable. Our hospitals were not
properly equipped before the war, and now there are thousands of injured and
ill patients streaming in, to the point that operations are being done in
the hospital hallways, and many patients are being sent to Egypt via the
Rafah Border Crossing. Some of them never return because they die on the
way. The conditions in the hospitals are horrifying, heartbreaking, and
hysteria-inducing.

I would like to tell you a short story about something that happened in a
hospital to the Abdul-Latif family. One of the children disappeared during
the first attack, and his parents spent the first two days of the war
looking for him but did not find him. On the third day, as the family was
walking around a hospital, they found some people from the Jarada family
gathered around a disfigured and injured boy whose leg had been cut off. His
face was distorted not because of the F-16 attacks he had suffered but
because of the glass that had fallen onto his face when part of the hospital
was attacked. The Adul-Latifs approached the Jaradas to console them. When
they reached the injured boy, Mr. Abdul-Latif realized that it was his son
and not the Jaradas'. The families argued with each other over the issue and
waited for the boy to wake up and tell them who he was so that he could be
taken by the Abdul-Latifs.

I will keep my letter brief. I lift our suffering up to God just as I have
presented it to you. Our people in Gaza are being treated like animals in a
zoo; they don't get enough to eat, and they cry but nobody wipes their tears
away. Instead of water, electricity, and food, there is fear and terror and
restriction. Yesterday, the baker refused to give me bread, because he did
not want to let me eat something made from flour not suitable for human
consumption -- which he had begun using when he ran out of good flour -- so
as not to insult my priesthood. I vowed not to eat any bread for the
remainder of the war.

We want you to pray to God fervently and continually and to mention the
suffering in Gaza before God in every mass or service that you hold. I send
short letters with Scripture to the Christian community here to bring hope
to their hearts. We have all agreed to say the following prayer every hour
on the hour: "O God of peace, shower us with peace. O God of peace, bring
peace to our land. Have mercy on your people, O Lord, and do not be angry
with us forever." I ask you to stand up now and say the same prayer. Your
prayers with us will stir the world, showing it that any type of love that
is not extended to your brothers and sisters in Gaza is not the love of
Christ and His church, which does not let religious and social obstacles or
even wars stand in its way. When your love is extended to us here in Gaza,
it makes us feel that we are an indispensable part of Christ's one universal
church. The Moslems among us are our brothers and sisters. We share with
them their joys and their sufferings. We are one people, the people of
Palestine.

Despite all that is going on, our people in Gaza reject war as a way to
achieve peace and insist that the road to peace is peace itself. We in Gaza
are patient and have decided that we have no choice other than bondage or
death for our country. We want to live so we can praise God in Palestine and
to witness for Christ -- we want to live for Palestine, not to die for her
-- but if we must die, then we will die honorably and bravely.

Let us all pray together for the true peace that Christ gives. May wolves
and lambs one day live together, and bulls and cubs graze together, and
children be able to put their hands in the mouths of snakes without being
harmed.

And may the peace of Christ, "into which you were also called in one body,"
be with you all and protect you. Amen.

Your brother,

Father Manuel Musallam
Holy Family Priest
Gaza
January 3rd

HT;  Charles Miller

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Civility, “Progressives,” “Conservatives,” and MOJ: Part II

By Michael Scaperlanda

For Part I, click here.

In one post Steve S. says “that the differences on this site are too raw…”  In another post, he argues that more “progressives” be added as MOJ authors in order to “sustain discussions of what Catholic progressives should think about various issues.”  In response, I offer some comments and observations.

First, too much in our world is politicized and polarized with divisions drawn between left and right, liberal and conservative, progressive and traditionalist.  One of my hopes (perhaps a pipe dream) is that MOJ can back away from these labels, allowing us to dialogue, debate, and fight without this peculiar partisan baggage that weighs us down and makes us suspicious of each other.  After all, even though we each have idea-ologies, our primary commitments no matter how strained in individual cases and our source of blog unity lies in a set of relationships and not in ideas:  “for God so loved the world that he sent his only son…” (John 3:16) and “you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18).  We have much to fight and argue about without being weighed down by labels that tend to obscure our primary commitments and source of unity.

Second, I agree with Steve S. that some of “the differences on this site are raw” and that over the years this rawness has been displayed by MOJ authors (including me) from multiple perspectives.  I would suggest that this rawness is a sign (in me at least) of a lack of faith, a lack of hope, and a lack of charity.  Although we fight, dialogue, and debate about important things on this site, we (I) need to remember constantly that we are arguing primarily about penultimate matters at most.  When I am graced (and it is a grace) with faith, hope, and charity, all rawness disappears even when arguing over highly sensitive and contentious matters, so I pray that God grace us with faith, hope, and charity as we pursue this common project.

Third, a question for Steve.  Steve would like more “progressives” added as MOJ authors to help “sustain discussions of what Catholic progressives should think about various issues.”  What do you mean by this?  Do you mean more discussion of topics important to “progressives”?  Would you like to see more blogging on immigration, poverty, or the environment for instance?  Or, do you mean what you literally say a discussion of “what Catholic progressives should think.”  The latter is, I think, a dangerous entanglement of ideology and religion.  At OU, I meet, as you might expect, a number of people who label themselves “conservative Christians.”  When the circumstances are right, I’ll challenge them asking them why they want to intertwine their ideological commitment with their ultimate commitment.  Some of us will be more conservative and others more liberal for various reasons, but these are, as I suggested above, at most penultimate and contingent commitments.  For me, the question is what should Catholics think about various issues?  Thinking about it this way – from my ultimate commitments - causes me discomfort at times because it forces me out of my ideological comfort zone.

Fourth, and finally, MOJ balance.  Of the 18 people Steve cites as having blogged on MOJ in the last quarter of 2008, I count between 9 and 11 who either did vote for President Obama or who would have seriously considered it but for his extreme position on abortion.  Is this the type of balance you are looking for Steve?  If so, I think we have it.  If not, would you clarify.  

Civility, “Progressives,” “Conservatives,” and MOJ: Part I

By Michael Scaperlanda

Along with Fr. Araujo (here), I’d like to thank John Breen (here) and Steve Shriffrin (here and here) for exposing wounds that have been festering below the surface for a long time.  As the Fifth Anniversary of MOJ approaches, it seems to me that this projects long term viability and flourishing – at least in the manner it has been conceived – depends on healing these wounds. 

Like John, I have long been frustrated by an MOJ author who often posts the work of others with no commentary or personal engagement with the material.  I too am left wondering what inferences to draw from the material and why it was posted.  Was the post merely informational or was the MOJ author attempting to communicate something by the post?  Steve S. seems to take the later view:  “[I]n my view most of the contributors to this site take a different view from the positions implicated by [X's] posts.”  What are the views implicated in X’s posts?  Why are they important to our project?  IMHO, genuine dialogue on these matters would greatly enhance our undertaking. 

Unlike Steve, I don’t see an uncivil personal attack in the criticism of X’s “posting practices.”  It seems to me such comments fall squarely within the legitimate realm of professional criticism – the type of criticism one might make in responding to an article, reviewing an article or book for a peer reviewed journal or press, or reviewing someone’s scholarship for tenure purposes.  In this forum, such constructive criticism takes places much more quickly and publicly, but that is the nature of the blog enterprise.  One downside to the blogging world is that one may post in haste and when frustrated.  Errors in tone and civility are bound to happen in such instances, but I encourage us to trust each other and engage in dialogue both publicly and privately.  Rather than making Rick and Mark play policemen, I propose that the one who feels hurt by a post email or call the author and that the two of them work it out.  After discussion, the author might revise the post, apologize publicly, apologize privately, or decide to leave things as they were.  In the past when someone has been offended by something in my post, I have heard about it through a third person and not directly, and, therefore, I could only guess as to what was bothering the offended, why, and what response would be appropriate.  Direct communication and the assumption that we are all acting in good faith will go a long way I suspect.

Come Holy Spirit and heal these wounds!

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

A Christian Nation?: A Reader Responds

By Michael Scaperlanda

A reader responds to my post "A Christian Nation?"

"First, I have no problem if X president wants to have Y prayer at the Inauguration.  I agree with your earlier point:  if Lieberman wants to have a rabbi, so be it.

For those who have a problem with a Christian prayer (non-believers; believers of a different stripe), I don't think your Leviticus sentiment mollifies. 

Don't get me wrong; it's a nice sentiment.  The problem comes from who is calling who an alien, and who gets to decide that.

The non-believer/person-who-is-upset would say, I imagine, the following:  "Who the hell are you calling me an alien?  This is MY country.  This is MY country's celebration of the installation of its new leader.  I'm not an alien here; quit praying on me, over me, about me and making me feel like I'm an alien, like I'm somehow different.  Quit saying I am somehow less than fully American b/c I do not grow out of your western/Chritian tradition you claim undergirds the whole gov't/enterprise."

The public invocation of God -- it just doesn't do much for me.  I'm Catholic, attend Mass nearly daily.  I see the public invocation sometimes just as lip-service, it seems.  I could do without any prayer, any "God Bless America", at our public events.  That's just me. 

But if folks want to have it, that's no big deal to me, either. 

But to those who are upset, they are going to stay upset -- just their perspective.  And calling them an alien in our midst at their own country's celebration -- well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

A Christian Nation?

By Michael Scaperlanda

Our dialogue over prayer at the inauguration (here, here, and here) has been subconsciously playing in my mind.  Is a prayer in the name of Christ at the inauguration a sign of the President’s faith, the nation’s faith, or both?  And, what difference does it make?  To fellow believers?  To those outside the faith?

 

In an earlier post, I said that a prayer in the name of Christ expressed the President’s faith.  Rob responded:  “[A] lot of Americans cherish the Christian prayer and oath-taking at the Inauguration not as an expression of the President's personal faith, but as a collective expression of our nation's faith.”  Steve Shiffrin concludes that in either event such prayers are “inherently discriminatory.”

 

My thinking on the subject has developed over the last week.  I now agree with Rob that in addition to expressing the President’s personal faith a Christian prayer also expresses (and possibly is meant to express) the nation’s faith.  I do not, however, find this expression of faith in and of itself problematic or “inherently discriminatory.”  Here are some preliminary thoughts.

 

First, we must keep separate the concepts of “state” and “nation.”  We have a “secular state,” but that state must govern with values developed elsewhere.  Where the government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” these values will or ought to come from the people.  Second, are we a “nation”?  Do we have some semblance of a common culture?  Common values?  If the answer to that is “yes,” I suspect that the commonality is rooted in western and Christian values.  It is in this sense that we are a Christian nation.  Third, if we are in some sense a Christian nation, what is our responsibility as such?   Should we pretend that Christ teaches nothing of relevance in how to govern or live communally together?  Or, should we privately and publicly acknowledge this relationship with Christ and embrace fully His light and love as we humbly discern what this means for the nation? Fourth, and this gets to the crux of Rob and Steve’s posts, how do we treat those who are “outsiders” in the sense that even if citizens they do not share a common foundation with the majority? Do we gloss over the differences pretending that they are unimportant?  Do we acknowledge openly and honestly the differences?  For me, the answer might come from Leviticus where God instructs the Israelites:  “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”  I have referenced this passage many times in my immigration work, but this morning it dawned on me that this passage could also apply to those who live among us with alien beliefs and values.

What do you think?

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Christianity and a Richly Textured Pluralism

By Michael Scaperlanda

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:1 & 14). 

On this night of nights, we re-member this fact, this event - the pivotal point in all of history. What difference does (and should) this fact make in the formation of our communal life together as a nation, especially since not everyone recognizes or sees this reality?  Isn't this question at the heart of our MOJ project?

Merry Christmas!  May you and your families experience the peace that passes all understanding during the comming year.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Prayer at the Inauguration

By Michael Scaperlanda

Steve Shiffrin writes that "non-Christians will be alienated – as they should be" by prayers at the inauguration offered in the name of Jesus Christ.  I agree wholeheartedly with Steve S. that some will, like Steve, read the offereing of such a prayer as divisive, laced with an implicit message that non-Christians are in some sense outsiders.  But, my questions are why and how.  Why is this divisive?  How does it send an implicit message to non-Christians that they are outsiders?  Under this logic, isn't having a prayer at all alienating to the atheist? 

In this post, I am trying to think through what it means to live in a pluralistic society, especially when that society stages public pageants like the inauguaration of a president.  Perhaps Steve and others can help me think through this question.

In one form of pluralism, what we might call thin pluralism, the public square and especially public ceremony must be cleansed of anything that divides us so as to avoid offense.  I witnessed this (or at least I think I did) last week when I went to a public elementary school pre-"winter" break production.  When I was a kid in public school, we'd sing Christmas carols, including "Go Tell on the Mountain," etc. on these occasions.  But, in 2008 at this particular school, the production was K-5th graders performing "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."  A society embracing thin pluralism like this would not risk alienating anyone by offering a prayer in Christ's name.  Thin pluralism would, in fact, probably counsel in favor of skipping the inauguraton prayer altogether.

Another form of pluralism, what we might call thick pluralism, would more fully embrace our diversity, inviting people to bring themselves as whole and integrated persons into the public square.  This sort of pluralism would acknowledge a) that the majority of Americans profess faith in Christ and b) that that fact matters.  The faiths of others ought to be respected, but so should the majority faith.  Since religion is not a purely private matter, faith will have (and should have) some public expression.

In a society embracing thick pluralism, a Christian president ought to be allowed to take the oath of office on a Christian Bible and ought to be able to invite Christian ministers to pray publicly in the name of Christ for him and the country he is called to lead.  If Joe Lieberman had been elected president, I would have hoped that he would take the oath on a Jewish Bible and invite rabbis to offer public prayer for him and the nation.  And, if we ever elect a Muslim president, I would hope and expect him to take the oath on the Qur'an (if that is allowed by Islamic faith?) and that the prayers offered would be offered to Allah.  In each of these cases, the President is, I hope, bringing himself fully and publicly before God and placing himself under the authority of God as he understands God, and that ought to bring the rest of us some comfort.

What do you think?

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Review of Sr. Margaret Farley's "Just Love"

By Michael Scaperlanda

We have discussed Sr. Margaret Farley’s book, Just Love:  A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, before here, here, and here.  And, Amy Uelmen, Michael Perry, and I will be hosting an MOJ online symposium/discussion of the book at the end of the Spring Semester.

 

William May, professor emeritus at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America and senior fellow at the Culture of Life Foundation, recently reviewed the book in the Winter 2008 volume of the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.  This excellent review is available here.  Scroll down to pages 793-797. 

 

Here is a short taste:  “Farley understands love as ‘simultaneously an affective response, an affective way of being in union, and an affective affirmation of what is loved’ (168) and declares that ‘only a sexuality formed and shaped with love has the possibility for integration into the whole of the human personality’ (173). Nowhere, however, does she consider love as the gift of self, its key meaning in Christian thought as Vatican II and John Paul II have insisted. This is a major inadequacy in her understanding. Farley’s analyses of love are superficial. One ought to contrast them with those offered by Karol Wojtyla in chapter 2 of Love and Responsibility, particularly her evaluations of emotional love, romantic love, and pleasurable (erotic or sensual) love with Wojtyla’s magnificent analyses of sensuality and affectivity (sentiment, intimacy) as ‘raw materials of love’ that need to be integrated into the person in order to be love.”

 

After an extensive analysis of the book, May concludes:  “Farley’s work is clearly incompatible both with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and sexual ethics, and with sound philosophical ethics.”

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Following Christ in the Church: A Response to a Law Student

By Michael Scaperlanda

My daughter Anamaria writes:

 

"Professor Perry posted a letter by a law student addressing the issue of same-sex marriages within the Catholic Church.  The student says, "For all of the good done by the Church, and for the strength and beauty of its tradition, I have a hard time imagining myself returning to weekly mass if the Church does not address what I feel is its immoral treatment of many people within and without its sanctuaries."  He misses the point.  I don't go to mass because of "the good done by the Church" but because God became man and walked among us, founded this Church, and is physically present within the Eucharist.  With that starting point, two things follow: 1. I have to go to weekly mass, even if the Church is participating in something that I see as wrong and 2. I have to approach what she is saying with great humility and a great openness, with an idea that perhaps the Church is right and I am wrong. 

 

"How do we follow the Church when we disagree with her?  First, we have to ask, why do we want to follow the Church in the first place (assuming, of course, that we do)?  I can't answer this question for the rest of you, but only for myself.  I follow the Church because this is where I have met Christ and where, despite the faults of people in the Church, I have seen Christ most evident in my life.  Christ has been evident through the Eucharist; through the Church's teachings and the way they make sense of my life; and through my friends.  I follow the Church because it is the most reasonable thing for me to do.  I follow Christ, and through my experience I know that the Church is one of the primary ways that Christ remains present in the world.  So I follow that. 
 
"The Church is, of course, a diverse organization/institution/people.  We are the Church in a very concrete and real way.  So, who do I follow when I say that I follow the Church?  Honestly, on a daily basis I follow my friends because they are the way that the Church is most present to me.  I have benefitted invaluably when they can explain my life to me better than I can explain it myself.  Through the encounter with my friends, I am continually drawn back to the reality that is in front of me with a new perspective and a greater understanding.  In following my friends, I do so with great humility due to firm belief that the “other” has something to offer.  I may argue and point out areas in which the “other” seems mistaken, and I might not change, but my starting point must be a great openness to change and humility. 
 
"I also follow the Church in a different sense.  I follow her traditions, the Sacraments, that nebulous thing of "the Catholic Intellectual Tradition," and doctrine.  I follow this in much the same way that I follow my friends: with great humility and openness and a belief that the Other has something to offer.  My humility in regards to this aspect of the Church is even greater because it has been around for so long and has hashed out many of the same issues I sit around talking about (virtually or physically) with my friends.  It has worked through many of these issues and questions over its two thousand year history with the aid of many contributing scholars and thinkers.  In addition, I do think the Church is lead by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit, despite its leadership by us fallen humans. 

 

"In short, I trust the Church.  This doesn't mean I don't question or debate, but my starting point is and, I think, must be a trust that the Church knows more than me.  Sometimes I follow like Peter and the others in John 6.  Jesus says, "Eat my body, drink my blood, and you will not die," and almost everyone says, "This guy is nuts, this guy is crazy, I'm outta here" and they leave.  But Peter and the others, they've been following Jesus for longer, so they stay.  Probably many of them are wondering if they should stay, but they stay, and Jesus asks if they want to leave.  Peter answers for all of them, "Where would we go?"  He doesn't understand what Jesus says any more than those who left, but he has to keep following.  He's seen the evidence.  He can't do anything else, go anywhere else.  It would be unreasonable after all he's seen.  For me, too, it would be unreasonable after all I've seen, so I continue to follow.  Sometimes, like Peter and the others, I don't understand, but I keep following.  For me, this means two things:  Questioning and obeying simultaneously.  I question because I have to, because I want to understand, and I obey, too, because I have to and I want to understand.  I have to keep following Christ and the way that Christ is evident in my life (through the Church), so I obey what the Church says.  Sometimes, I think, only in obeying am I able to understand.  I'm not sure how well I can explain this, but just think about things you only understood abstractly, and then when you start doing them you understand them all the better. 
 
"So, then, back to my original question: how do I follow when I disagree with the Church?  I start with a great humility and ask for openness that I will be able to see what is true.  I talk to those I trust within the Church and "dialogue" with those who have come before me by reading explanations for the Church's position.  Since the Church’s unfolding doctrine has been developed over 2000 years, I think I can give the Church at least a year of trying to understand its position and praying for openness before I really decide I disagree.  Probably, though, this period should last even longer than a year.  If, after all of this, I do disagree, I would come to more concrete dialogue with those people in the Church and, again, ask why and very humbly begin to criticize.  Then, perhaps, I would criticize more loudly and, yes, call for change from within.  But this, too, must always be done with humility and respect, holding myself open to the possibility that I am mistaken."

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive