Katie van Schaijik

Continuing the TOB discussion (2)

Nov. 9, 2009, at 11:16am

The 2nd part of the comment thread from the previous post can be found under this post.

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 9, 2009 - 6:30 pm

Steve, please don’t worry about annoying me!  The whole raison d’etre of the Linde is lively, forthright discussion.  And I fully feel your truth-focus and kind intentions.

While the doctor’s assistant is standing there watching the sailors munch down their fruit (how about if we go with oranges instead?), and while he has a captive audience right in front of him, why wouldn’t he want explain to them in at least a cursory manner the “bigger picture” of the need for good nutrition for the health of the human body?

In such a case, when what von Hildebrand calls “the theme of the moment” is saving lives in an emergency, a lecture on general nutrition would be worse than out of place, IMO. 

Just as the doctor’s concentration on citrus fruit would only be problematic, as I see it, if he were to tell the sailors at the same moment, “All you ever need in life is citrus fruit,”  I see nothing wrong and nothing untoward in CW being focused on his given theme, which he fully realizes is only a part of the whole (though, like other central mysteries of our Faith, it mysteriously contains and implies the whole too). 

His mission, as he understands it, is to “popularize” TOB.  His way of doing it is bearing incredible fruit.  What right do we have to tell him he should be doing it another way—a way we would prefer?  What right does anyone other than his board of directors or his bishop or spiritual director have to do that?

Steve B • Nov 11, 2009 - 8:59 am

Hi Katie,

You said:

“His mission, as he understands it, is to ‘popularize’ TOB.  His way of doing it is bearing incredible fruit.  What right do we have to tell him he should be doing it another way—a way we would prefer?  What right does anyone other than his board of directors or his bishop or spiritual director have to do that?”

Are you saying that I, nor others who have been critical of CW’s TOB teaching content & methods (Fr. Angelo, Dr. AvH, Dr. David Schindler, etc.), have the “right” to do so?

I cannot convey emphatically enough that the myriad of objections we have posed wrt CW’s TOB teaching & promotional methods are NOT matters of mere personal preference nor taste.

What I think is at the core of these many objections we have raised is that we see that CW sometimes promotes heterodox ideas (e.g. the inappropriate “unveiling” of the human body, the “dispensation” of unnatural sex acts in foreplay, etc.), and at other times he uses inappropriate depictions and language which are completely unbecoming to the reverence that discussions of the human body rightfully deserve.

I believe CW’s “mistakes” fall into two general categories: ones of commission, and ones of omission.  CW’s promotion of heterodox ideas falls into the former; my assertions about his lack of explicitly promoting personal prayer (at the very least, at an introductory and cursory level) fall into the latter.

Far too many of us have forgotten that our “mission” as baptized Catholics and/or Christians is to work for the “salvation of souls”, and not merely to promote the methods of doing so.  Straying from clear, sound, and traditionally orthodox teaching, and omitting to convey HOW to go about following Christ, both run the serious risk of undermining that mission.

We, here on earth, the Catholic Church has traditionally called the Church Militant - i.e. “soldiers of Christ”.  As part of our baptism, we are called to be prophets - part of our mission as His “soldiers”.  All that I believe the critics of some of CW’s TOB methods and content are trying to do is to each exercise our own prophetic mission - by pointing out his fundamental mistakes and deficiencies in the spreading of the Gospel message via his TOB ministry.

Those of us who so strongly object to the litany of issues which we believe have either endangered or partially undermined the TOB message, or which shortchange its ultimate effectiveness, do so NOT AT ALL to be critical of CW the person, nor his mission.  It is in this that CW’s many advocates may fail to comprehend our true intentions….

We are being critical only in light of Proverbs 27:17 - “As iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens his fellow man.” - to challenge him to seriously consider making the kinds of changes to his TOB presentation style and content which we believe necessary, so as to make the his evangelization efforts all the MORE fruitful - instead of him acquiring 25 bushels/acre via his current TOB methods & content, we believe that these changes will help increase his “harvest” for Christ and His Church to 50 bushels/acre, or more!!!

Enough for now.  The grindstone awaits my day….

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 11, 2009 - 10:33 am

Are you saying that I, nor others who have been critical of CW’s TOB teaching content & methods (Fr. Angelo, Dr. AvH, Dr. David Schindler, etc.), have the “right” to do so?

No, that isn’t what I mean to say.  I’m glad you asked, so I can clarify.  I am all in favor of thoughtful criticism.  I wish there were lots more of it among Christians.
I referred in that comment rather to a particular kind of criticism, which I think illegitimate.  A kind that is something like Monday morning quarterbacking, but not exactly that.  Maybe it’s more like this.  You come across someone drowning in a lake.  You jump in without hesitating and pull him to shore.  A passing stranger (one who had sat on shore not knowing what to do perhaps, because he himself is not a strong swimmer), begins to explain to you that the way you did that was no good.  You should have FIRST searched for a long branch or something so you could have pulled him out without risking your own life.  You should have removed your shoes.  Whatever. 
Wouldn’t you be justifiably annoyed?  Wouldn’t you want to say, “I did what I thought I had to do and it worked.  Now leave me alone”?  Wouldn’t that be all the more the case if you were a professional lifeguard, who had saved countless people from drowning?

CW is trying to help liberate people who are enslaved by eroticism.  He is doing the way he knows best and that he has found very effective. 

If anyone thinks particular ideas or practices of his are heterodox, he should by all means make the case.  But no one but those in a position of authority over him has a right to dictate the content of his presentation.  In other words, we have no right to accuse him of an “omission” because he does not thematize personal prayer.  If he denied that we need a personal prayer life to live our Catholic lives properly, that would be a different case, definitely calling for criticism and correction by all and sundry.

Steve B • Nov 11, 2009 - 12:24 pm

Hi Katie,

Thanks for the clarifications.

All of us who have expressed our criticisms of CW’s TOB content & style DO realize that he needs to submit only to those in direct authority over him - I can speak only for myself, but I don’t think I am demanding (and I fully realize that I am not in a position to demand) anything wrt his promotion of personal prayer in his TOB ministry.

However, let me build upon your most recent word picture of the drowning swimmer….

Let’s say that instead of me merely criticizing the lifeguard of his rescue methods after he just saved someone from drowning, instead I URGE him to tell each person this:

HOW the saved person can live in a radically changed way, which will not only allow them to avoid drowning the next time they are in the water, but to HELP them to become excellent swimmers too?  That is, to explicitly point them in the right direction for the future….

Why would it be unreasonable to EXPECT this (not demand, as you suggest I am doing)???

My perspective in strongly advocating (not demanding) at least a cursory introduction in TOB to personal prayer taps into the old adage - “Give a man a fish, and he is fed for a day.  Teach him HOW to fish, and he will be able to feed himself for a lifetime”.  Leaving out a brief presentation of the need for each person to have a personal prayer life might well prevent some TOB listeners from figuring out HOW to feed themselves spiritually. 

I went through 12 years of Catholic religious education in parochial schools, and I didn’t figure this out until I was 26 years old.  Surely, there are others out there who haven’t either!  Explicitly pointing out the basic need for personal prayer will go MILES toward correcting the utterly deficient catechesis that the vast majority of Catholics have had both before and after Vatican II….

I agree with you that CW is helping IMMENSELY to liberate those who are enslaved by eroticism. 

But, at the same time, I do also heartily agree with Fr. Angelo that CW makes a VERY strong impression in his TOB presentations that he is advocating a “baptism of sex-obsession”.

Maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree on many of these matters?  But, what we are disagreeing about is NOT merely “Monday morning quarterbacking” nor personal preferences, but rather fundamental and serious shortcomings & deficiencies in CW’s TOB presentation approach, at least as we critics see them. 

For assertions to be made that we are “accusing” CW personally is not at all our intent, as you seem to be so strongly suggesting.  We are focusing upon his TOB message, not his person.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Lauretta • Nov 11, 2009 - 1:53 pm


I just wanted to jump in here, that as a person who has listened to and read a lot of CW’s work, he does all that you have said in his more in depth talks.  The short talks he gives, I believe, are just to get people to see that, because of Original Sin and our culture, they very probably have a distorted understanding of sexuality, the body and male/female relationships.  He usually also then gives a summary of what a healthy understanding of the body and sexuality is as well.

In his more lengthy talks he explains, from his own personal experience, about taking these disordered understandings and actions to God in prayer and asking to be able to see the truth behind the lies.  Of course he has been criticized for telling people to take their pornographic thoughts to Christ in adoration—that is inappropriate, you know. 

He talks about getting on the Cross—actually puts his body in the cruciform shape—and staying on the Cross until you experience freedom from the control of lust and how beautiful it is to be free from that dominion.  Of course then he gets criticized for minimizing the power of concupiscence.

He talks about the importance of constantly examining yourself, your thoughts and actions, for their intentions to make sure that you do not slip back into making people an object of use.  He talks about the fact that if he is uncertain about his motives, he will abstain from marital intimacy for a period of time to be sure that he is loving his wife as he should and not unconsciously beginning to use her.

AS far as sex obsession, I dealt with some of that perception in a reply to Fr. Angelo earlier.  I was also thinking about in the past when my husband and I first began to understand TOB a little.  We reminded me of our grandson who is just learning how to read well enough to find it fun.  He is looking everywhere for words that he can read, on signs, on TV, everywhere.  Every once in a while he will see something that is somewhat unclear but kind of looks like writing and he will ask me what it says.  Well, sometimes it is just squiggles and doesn’t really say anything but he is so excited that he wants to try to read everything!

We were the same way about TOB.  When we first began to understand TOB, we heard things in scripture that we had never heard before, we saw TOB in the catechism that we did not see before, we saw analogies in the liturgy that we had never noticed before.  It seemed to be everywhere!  If you immerse yourself in TOB, you begin to see almost everything in a different way.  Granted, once in a while you may try to make sense out of something that is just a squiggle, but that doesn’t mean that you should stop trying to read.

One more quick comment about something you mentioned.  I believe that if you asked CW why he said what he did about unnatural acts as foreplay, he will tell you that he got that understanding from someone in the Church who is an expert on sexual morality in marriage.  I do not think that Janet Smith is lying when she said that priests are taught that they are to give that permission to married couples.

I know what you mean about not learning things in your Catholic education.  We had one couple that told us they learned more about their Catholic faith in the eight weeks that we taught them TOB for marriage prep than they had learned in sixteen years of Catholic schooling.  And guess what, they were some of the people that signed up regularly for the middle of the night hours for Eucharistic adoration.  Guess they got the idea that they needed to pray from their TOB education!

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 11, 2009 - 3:42 pm

Okay.  Let me try to do a better job of making my point about criticism.
CW’s work, along with the work of every other person in the public sphere, can and ought to be subjected to criticism.  But some ways of criticizing are good and valid, others not. 

I personally think we have no more right to fault CW for not discussing prayer in every talk he gives than we have to go into someone’s home and tell them that their walls are the wrong color (even if we think their house would be more attractive if they were re-painted.) Or to tell an artist he should have chosen a different angle on his composition.  Or to tell a parent that she needs to home school her children.  Or to tell a doctor that he shouldn’t give a presentation on brain surgery without starting off with some remarks on general nutrition.  Or to advise a professional athlete on the proper way to warm up for a game.

In all these cases we would be presumptuously obtruding ourselves and our own judgement into a realm of another person’s responsibility and free choice.

If we think CW misrepresents the teaching of the Church or mistreats a vital subject, we should feel free to challenge him on the point in question (taking care to have solid evidence to back up our points).  But for comparative side-liners like us to be lecturing him on how to be more effective strikes me as unfitting and out of bounds.  As Mike Healy put it in earlier thread, shouldn’t we all rather be taking lessons from him about how to reach a suffering world with a saving message?

Steve B • Nov 11, 2009 - 7:05 pm

Hi Katie & Lauretta,

It looks like I need to clarify some things about what I said wrt personal prayer in CW’s talks.

1st of all, I am quite certain I never said that CW needs to discuss prayer in every talk that he gives.  I’m also quite certain that I never even implied that he needed to do so in every talk.  If you can pin-point where you think I said or implied otherwise, I will fess up and admit my error.

2nd, I found online via Google books excerpts from CW’s book “Theology of the Body Explained”, and it does show 18 references in it when doing a Google book search for the word “prayer”.  Scanning the list of these 18 references, it appears very likely that CW does indeed elaborate upon personal prayer in his “official” TOB writings and teachings (at the least, this very book) as Lauretta expounded upon earlier today, which would make my complaints on this matter somewhat moot.

BTW, Lauretta, my local library doesn’t carry a copy of this book by CW, but I did apply to borrow it via Interlibrary Loan.  So, I should be able to read it myself within the next month or so…. 

Lauretta, could you do me a favor though?  While I am waiting to find out whether or not I can get CW’s book via Interlibrary Loan, would it be possible for you to get me the text from pages 182 & 183 of this book?  My Google books search for the word “prayer” shows one listing indicating that “prayer, importance in marriage” is covered on these two pages.  Unfortunately, however, those two pages are not included in the Google books excerpts of the book.  If you would be so kind to scan or type out the text on those two pages and send it to me via e-mail (just click on my Steve B link at the top of one of my posts), I would be immensely greatful to be able to read for myself what CW said on this vitally important subject.

Lastly, I want to convey that I still emphatically insist that personal prayer is a non-negotiable wrt enabling any teaching of the faith to bear good, consistent, and abundant fruit.  I don’t see this matter is as one of mere personal taste at all.  If, with all of the Catholic catechesis I had, it still took me 26 years to get the message, I am certain there are quite a few more out there - likely, even amongst those who take a keen interest in hearing CW speak.  Again, as I recently related, I believe that our “official” teachers of the faith should assume as little as possible about what their listeners may or may not already embrace/understand about the faith - IMO, that happens FAR too often as it is.

I see personal prayer as absolutely essential for everyone to have a sound and growing faith, as I am sure you’d both agree.  But, as you Lauretta said yourself in one of your prior posts, prayer in-and-of-itself is not always sufficient to ensure that we are headed in the right direction with how we live our life - i.e. good instruction/catechesis on matters of faith is vitally important for that too, which you have told me CW conveys so well in his “official” TOB teachings.  I will look forward to reading at length his teachings myself….

Sometimes we DO need “a hit over the head with the holy 2X4”, though, as some of my long-time friends from Chicago often say - only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  Pointing out the need for personal prayer can never be a bad idea in just about any talk regarding the faith, even for those of us who do make it a regular part of our lives.

On the “comparative side-liners” concept - you and Dr. Healy are quite correct in many respects, Katie.  However, sometimes we non-professional folks can bring a fresh perspective to the discussion too.  Isn’t that also part of what you’re hoping occurs in discussions on The Linde?  I just hope that I have done that without getting to be too much of an irritant….

Well, anyway, I’ve done more than my fair share of beating this dead horse long and hard over the past several days.  My humblest apologies, if I ruffled anyone’s feathers with what I felt compelled to relate in these CW discussions.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Lauretta • Nov 11, 2009 - 11:50 pm

I will be sure to send that to you asap.  However, I didn’t find anything on the pages you mentioned, but the index in my book had the same listing for two different pages.  I will copy those pages since they do talk of prayer.

Lauretta • Nov 12, 2009 - 12:04 pm


I am so excited that you are going to read TOB Explained.  My husband and I found it very helpful in understanding TOB.  I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussions and hope that we can continue to have more.

This section of TOB is talking about Humanae Vitae, so Christopher is expounding on that encyclical.  I hope this is the part you were looking for since it is the only one listed in the index.  Text follows:

B.  Infallible Means of Marital Spirituality

  The encyclical also marks the road spouses must travel in living this spirituality.  Paul VI admits that spouses must pass through the “narrow gate” and travel along the “hard way”.  But this, for all Christians, is the way that leads to eternal life.  John Paul adds that even if the gagte is narrow, awareness of the future life opens up a “broad horizon of power” to guide spouses along their way.  Humanae Vitae “points out how the married couple must implore the essential ‘power’ and every other ‘divine help’ through prayer; how they must draw grace and love from the ever living fountain of the Eucharist.”  Furthermore, spouses “must overcome ‘with humble perseverance’ their deficiencies and sins in the Sacrament of Penance”.  Prayer and the sacraments—especially the Eucharist and Penance:  These are the “infallible and indispensable” means, John Paul stresses, “for forming the Christian spirituality of married life and family life.  With these, that essential and spiritual creative ‘powerp of love reaches human hearts and, at the same time, human bodies in their subjective masculinit and femininity”.  As quoted previously:  “The sacraments inject sanctity into the plan of man’s humanity:  they penetrate the soul and body, the femininity and masculinity of the personal subject, with the power of sanctity.”

The sacramental life is the place where we work out the restoration of God’s original plan for our humanity.  In the final analysis, me and women have two choices—holiness or the betrayal of their humanity.  Spouses, too, must choose between holiness in their conjugal union or the betrayal of their marriage.

There is more but it is mainly talking about marriage as a sacrament.  Please let me know if you think I can help in any way.

I didn’t have any luck emailing so I decided to post on this site.  Hope that is OK.

Steve B • Nov 14, 2009 - 12:43 pm

Hi Lauretta,

This is perfect!

Thanks SO very much for making the effort to both find this excerpt, as well as to type it up and make it available for all to read.

I will be awaiting word from my local library to hear if/when they will be able to get this book for me.  If this excerpt is indicative of the entire book, then I can hardly wait to read it in its entirety!

Thanks again for your efforts on my behalf!

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 13, 2009 - 11:19 am

Lastly, I want to convey that I still emphatically insist that personal prayer is a non-negotiable wrt enabling any teaching of the faith to bear good, consistent, and abundant fruit.  I don’t see this matter is as one of mere personal taste at all.

Of course prayer is essential to the Christian life in all its dimensions.  Who has suggested otherwise?  Christopher West, for one, begins all his presentations with a prayer.  As Lauretta has shown, he has often spoken and written about the importance of prayer.  And his work has consistently borne abundant fruit.
My point is that we have no right to find fault with CW—to accuse him of omission, as you did—because he sometimes chooses to talk about TOB without talking about the importance of prayer.  That’s is a question left to prudential judgment (something more morally substantial than “personal preference.”) 
Here is an example.  Alice von Hildebrand taught philosophy for 30-some years at a secular university where almost all her students and colleagues were hostile to her faith.  I’ve heard her say many times, “You know what you do in such a situation?  You pray.”  She prayed constantly.  But she never prayed out loud.  She never discussed God or prayer in her classroom.  It would have been unfitting in a non-religious university.  And it would have cost her her job.
The question of whether and when to pray openly and/or discuss prayer is one of prudence.  None of us can make it for anyone else.  Nor do we have a right to judge another person as acting wrongly if he doesn’t do what we might do in his circumstances.  It’s a question that’s up to him, not us.  (This is a central theme in personalism, BTW, which is why I press the point.  We must learn to stay out of the zone of others’ freedom and responsibility.)
But I’ll said again, if CW were to deny (either explicitly or implicitly) that prayer is essential, the case would be very different.

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 9, 2009 - 6:32 pm

I beg your patience, all, while Jules is trying to figure out what happened to the “nesting” function of the comments boxes.

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 9, 2009 - 6:44 pm

Certainly, TPP can (and I think you already are) promoting its philosophical principals based upon underlying Christian theological principals.

As I understand it, it is rather the philosophical principles that underly and undergird theology.  Theology depends upon sound and true reasoning and clear conceptual distinctions.  Consider for example the all-important philosophical distinction between “person” and “nature” for the Christological debates of the early Church.

But if, in how you “officially” promote Personalism, there is little if no overlap between its philosophical and the theological dimensions, how effective can TPP ultimately be in working for the “salvation of souls”?

I don’t say there is no overlap, I say rather that they (i.e. philosophy and theology) are two different sciences with different modes, methods and purposes.

The Personalist Project’s direct aim is not the salvation of souls, but the study and dissemination of philosophical truth (the truth about the nature and dignity of persons), which, as JP II laid out so compellingly in Fides et Ratio, has a universal appeal and prepares hearts and minds to receive supernatural truth.

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 9, 2009 - 6:54 pm

Very interesting article, Lauretta!  I’m heartened by it.  While I have sympathy with the critics of CW who think he goes to far in graphic imagery, on the whole, I have been convinced by him that there is more residual puritanism among at least American Catholics than we commonly realize and that this is interfering with
1) Our ability to live our sexuality and marriages with due freedom
2) Our ability to engage with and influence our culture.

Lauretta • Nov 9, 2009 - 8:37 pm

Katie, I remember several years ago, Cardinal George making the comment that we in the US all think like Protestants—even us Catholics.  When reading Catholic authors like Graham Greene and Flannery O’Connor, I could really see that.  And again, the literature of the Middle Ages—it is quite earthy compared to anything that we have today, it seems to me.

While I’m on the topic, of Protestantism, that is, I am going to make a bold statement that one of the major things TOB does is refute the errors of the heresy of Protestantism.  It has seemed to me for quite some time that the main errors of Protestantism centered around the nature of man more than that of God.

Back to the article, yes, it was quite topical, wasn’t it?  I find it sad that the Church had all of this understanding in the past and we seem to have buried it under…I’m not sure what.  And, so sadly, we thought we were being fully Catholic by having these distorted ideas of holiness and purity and modesty.

Steve B • Nov 9, 2009 - 7:09 pm

Hi Katie,

OK.  What you say makes good sense.  Thanks very much for the clarification!

But, what I am scratching my head about is our CW TOB discussions - they seem to me to be almost entirely about theology, and very little about philosophy. 

So, I’m beginning to wonder if The Linde is the improper venue for me to be presenting my views, given what you just explained as the primary objective of TPP….

Gosh.  I wish I had had more interest in taking introductory courses in philosophy and theology during my college days.  Sadly, way back then I had no interest at all in the liberal arts, and was definitely an engineering “geek”!  ;-)  It just took me a while to discover how “philosophical” my Catholic faith was after all. 

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 9, 2009 - 7:28 pm

Steve, you are just the sort of person TPP wants to serve.  Someone thoughtful and engaged, but not a professional academic. 

You are right that CW is popularizing theology.  This is exactly one of those areas where there is some overlap.  He gave a lecture for us because it happened that the controversy surrounding his work broke out at a moment when we had scheduled a talk on von Hildebrand’s philosophy of sexuality.  And there is much “common ground” between TOB and JP II philosophical personalism, so that those who have made a life of studying the latter have something to offer the discussion.

But the way we discuss it here will generally be philosophical rather than theological.  We appeal (for instance) in our discussion to moral experience and right reasoning as opposed to authoritative texts and documents.

But, as you pointed out, there is some overlap.

Lauretta • Nov 9, 2009 - 8:26 pm

This discussion is making me want to go eat an orange LOL!

frangelo • Nov 10, 2009 - 9:47 am

Hi everyone,

I come to the fray late, but I just wanted to say, that on the point of “holy bashfulness” or whatever better name you are able to come up with, the idea is consistent with the tradition and, on the other hand, the idea that modesty is only for those who are not yet perfectly redeemed is the invention of Christopher West. John Paul does not teach this.  In fact what he teaches is consistent with DvH:

The essence of shame goes beyond such fear.  It can only be understood if we heavily emphasize the truth that the existence of the person is an interior one, i.e. that the person possesses an interior peculiarly its own, and that from this arises the need to conceal (that is, to retain internally) certain experiences or values, or else withdraw with them into itself (Love and Responsibility 175).

Also, since when is modesty purely a matter of the heart?  When has the Church taught this, ever?  To say that circumstances may differ, within certain limits, according to time, place and culture, is not the same as saying it is all relative and subjective.  On the contrary, it is saying that it is a matter of prudence, something which those who claim that fully redeemed man will not need modesty, do not grant.

Imagine, sanctity is measured now by one’s commitment to see nakedness without shame.

Finally, naked natives proves nothing, especially, since no data has been supplied to show that relative changes in this matter between pagans, new Christians and multi-generational Christians.  Remember that the Aids statistics for Africa do not suggest a high standard of chastity in general.  Could nakedness possibly be a contributing factor?

Katie van Schaijik • Nov 10, 2009 - 8:56 pm

Dear Father, it’s good to see you here again!  You will hardly credit my saying it, since I’ve been saying it to you for so long without results, but I AM at work on a post on modesty, which I hope to be able to put up before too long.  There is much I agree with in what you say, though I continue to think you are rather unduly hard on CW.  But such a statement needs to be backed up, I realize.

frangelo • Nov 11, 2009 - 11:11 pm

Thanks, Katie.

I still look forward to your post on modesty.

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: A Divorce and Two Weddings
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Redesigned website
  • By: Jules van Schaijik
  • Re: Redesigned website
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Nancy Restuccia
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Nancy Restuccia
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Nancy Restuccia
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Was the Pope mocking large families?
  • By: Nancy Restuccia

Latest active posts

Reading circles