NATION

PASSWORD

Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Czechanada
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14851
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Czechanada » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:35 am

Raeyh wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:At least the Aztecs didn't rape children...


I'm sure there were just as many Aztec child molesters as any other culture has.


Well, considering that the Aztec religion was no way near as repressive of sexuality as Christianity is.
"You know what I was. You see what I am. Change me, change me!" - Randall Jarrell.

User avatar
Raeyh
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6275
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Raeyh » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:38 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
I'm sure there were just as many Aztec child molesters as any other culture has.


Their priests weren't sexually repressed and around children all day. so maybe not.


Has there been any proven link between pedophilia and lack of sexual activity or is it just conjecture? I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Pedophiles tend to avoid having sex since having sex with children is illegal, not that avoiding having sex makes you a pedophile.

User avatar
West Angola
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1455
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby West Angola » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:36 am

Transhuman Proteus wrote:Very good, so the claim the confession would be invalid was incorrect? And that the person doing the confession may as well not bothered not correct either?


I believe so, but with the disclaimer that I am not a canon lawyer.

Transhuman Proteus wrote:So the priest being guilty of a mortal sin - that means they must repent and confess to that, correct? And having done so would be saved again? Other than the Church choosing not to allow it.


If they are truly sorry for their sin, they may be granted absolution if they confess it. However, there still may be penalties involved, the priest may be defrocked or be punished in other ways.

Transhuman Proteus wrote:Which part of the Bible talks about the confession needing to be a complete secret? Reading more on it, it seems to be a man made seal, with man made penalties given by the Catholic Church.


The Roman Catholic faith is not 100% from the Bible. Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition go hand in hand in forming our faith. Apostolic tradition would be things like Mary's perpetual virginity, or the Nicene Creed, or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
Fourth Place: Cup of Harmony 59; Runner-Up: Cup of Harmony 55; Champion: Cup of Harmony 57

User avatar
Central Slavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8451
Founded: Nov 05, 2009
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Central Slavia » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:51 am

Raeyh wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Their priests weren't sexually repressed and around children all day. so maybe not.


Has there been any proven link between pedophilia and lack of sexual activity or is it just conjecture? I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Pedophiles tend to avoid having sex since having sex with children is illegal, not that avoiding having sex makes you a pedophile.

The problem is that as priests can't be sexually active, a disproportionate number of sexual deviants (who are already restricted from fulfilling their urges) are choosing to become priests.
Hence, the disproportionate representation of them among priesthood.
Kosovo is Serbia!
Embassy Anthem Store Facts

Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.

Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions

Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]

User avatar
Saint Jade IV
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6441
Founded: Jul 02, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saint Jade IV » Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:26 pm

West Angola wrote:
Transhuman Proteus wrote:So the priest being guilty of a mortal sin - that means they must repent and confess to that, correct? And having done so would be saved again? Other than the Church choosing not to allow it.


If they are truly sorry for their sin, they may be granted absolution if they confess it. However, there still may be penalties involved, the priest may be defrocked or be punished in other ways.


Then that proves that the Church is more interested in protecting child molestors than in protecting children.



West Angola wrote:The Roman Catholic faith is not 100% from the Bible. Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition go hand in hand in forming our faith. Apostolic tradition would be things like Mary's perpetual virginity, or the Nicene Creed, or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.


None of which should be relevant in determining exceptions to secular law in a secular country. The Church's belief system does not form a basis for law or legal behaviour in a pluralistic nation.
When you grow up, your heart dies.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of a b*tch or another.
RIP Dyakovo...we are all poorer for your loss.

User avatar
Transhuman Proteus
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Mar 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Transhuman Proteus » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:50 pm

Saint Jade IV wrote:
West Angola wrote:The Roman Catholic faith is not 100% from the Bible. Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition go hand in hand in forming our faith. Apostolic tradition would be things like Mary's perpetual virginity, or the Nicene Creed, or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.


None of which should be relevant in determining exceptions to secular law in a secular country. The Church's belief system does not form a basis for law or legal behaviour in a pluralistic nation.


You're right, though he was answering my question.

I was getting a feel for the strong reactions against such things - why a man made seal is so sacred when it isn't derived from the Bible or a directive from God/Jesus whoever. What makes it so "set in stone".

I have got the sense as well, in a broader setting, that there is some self interest concern as well. While it only deals with a specific offense, pedophilia, there seems to be some belief if that can be reported flood gates could open and priests could be spilling their confessions to everyone. Then of course people wont confess and people will be going to hell etc I wish I knew what it was about our species that makes us so susceptible to coming up with, and believing in, slippery slopes.
Last edited by Transhuman Proteus on Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Elwher
Minister
 
Posts: 3341
Founded: May 24, 2012
Anarchy

Postby Elwher » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:37 pm

Transhuman Proteus wrote:
Saint Jade IV wrote:
None of which should be relevant in determining exceptions to secular law in a secular country. The Church's belief system does not form a basis for law or legal behaviour in a pluralistic nation.


You're right, though he was answering my question.

I was getting a feel for the strong reactions against such things - why a man made seal is so sacred when it isn't derived from the Bible or a directive from God/Jesus whoever. What makes it so "set in stone".

I have got the sense as well, in a broader setting, that there is some self interest concern as well. While it only deals with a specific offense, pedophilia, there seems to be some belief if that can be reported flood gates could open and priests could be spilling their confessions to everyone. Then of course people wont confess and people will be going to hell etc I wish I knew what it was about our species that makes us so susceptible to coming up with, and believing in, slippery slopes.


As to your last question/point, it is the ability of politicians to use one small specific point as the camel's nose, until we have an entire dromedary in the tent with us, that makes us come up with and believe in slippery slopes. In other words, slippery slopes exist far too often for us to ignore them.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Elwher
Minister
 
Posts: 3341
Founded: May 24, 2012
Anarchy

Postby Elwher » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:46 pm

After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Wisconsin9
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35753
Founded: May 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wisconsin9 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:47 pm

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: bug the confessionals.
~~~~~~~~
We are currently 33% through the Trump administration.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
Elwher
Minister
 
Posts: 3341
Founded: May 24, 2012
Anarchy

Postby Elwher » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:55 pm

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: bug the confessionals.

I don't know Australian law, but here in the US the recording would be thrown out of court due to lack of either a warrant or consent of at least one of the parties being recorded....therefore still a useless law.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Saint Jade IV
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6441
Founded: Jul 02, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saint Jade IV » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:57 pm

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.


Consider the actual real life scenarios which have created the requirement for this law:

Father A confesses to Father B that he has been molesting children in his private chambers. Father B recommends that Father A be moved from this parish to a Catholic Children's home, without explaining why he needs him out of the parish. Or does Father B does not block a requested move, despite his knowledge that Father A has been raping children. It is later uncovered that Father A has abused several hundred children during his 40 year tenure at the children's home.

So if this law was in place, and the same situation occurred, investigation would be conducted as to why the priest was moved. The priest he confessed to would then be charged with failure to report and child endangerment. As he well should be.

Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered. Fact is, they instead chose to endanger children. These priests knew, as a direct result of the Confessional that these priests had, and were likely to again, molest children. They could have ensured that they were not in a position to do so without breaching the seal. They chose not to. They lose the privilege.
Last edited by Saint Jade IV on Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When you grow up, your heart dies.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of a b*tch or another.
RIP Dyakovo...we are all poorer for your loss.

User avatar
Transhuman Proteus
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Mar 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Transhuman Proteus » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:07 pm

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.


How is it we know today that priests have confessed to their criminal ways to other priests in the past? Because the accused reveals as much during the investigation. Or because the investigation into cover ups etc reveals as much, a priest lets slip during questioning they knew more about it than they were letting on etc - finding things out people want to keep secret. It is one of those things police do.

If the police call Fr Silenzo in and say "we have father Hawk, we have evidence of his actions, what do you know?" I guess God wont mind if Fr Silenzo lies to the police or gives a non-answer in the name of confessional secrecy.. Yes, do nothing concrete to deal with an active pedophile, and lie to the police - moral do you think?

User avatar
Elwher
Minister
 
Posts: 3341
Founded: May 24, 2012
Anarchy

Postby Elwher » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:16 pm

Saint Jade IV wrote:
Consider the actual real life scenarios which have created the requirement for this law:

Father A confesses to Father B that he has been molesting children in his private chambers. Father B recommends that Father A be moved from this parish to a Catholic Children's home, without explaining why he needs him out of the parish. Or does Father B does not block a requested move, despite his knowledge that Father A has been raping children. It is later uncovered that Father A has abused several hundred children during his 40 year tenure at the children's home.

So if this law was in place, and the same situation occurred, investigation would be conducted as to why the priest was moved. The priest he confessed to would then be charged with failure to report and child endangerment. As he well should be.

Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered. Fact is, they instead chose to endanger children. These priests knew, as a direct result of the Confessional that these priests had, and were likely to again, molest children. They could have ensured that they were not in a position to do so without breaching the seal. They chose not to. They lose the privilege.


First, I agree completely with the major point you made in the last paragraph. The Church, in many countries around the world, failed miserably in its duty to protect its members and any bishop who knowingly transferred a pedophile priest rather than ensuring his treatment or non-contact with the public should be prosecuted.

As to this law, I admit ignorance to Australian law, but under US rules of evidence the fact that Father B was the confessor of Father A and failed to block his transfer would be insufficient grounds for conviction. If he requested the transfer, a jury might be allowed to consider that as evidence but a good defense attorney could probably get it thrown out on the basis that there is no direct evidence as to what was confessed. Perhaps that is not the case in Australia; if so then I withdraw my objection to the usefulness of the law under these particular circumstances.
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce

User avatar
Emile Zola
Diplomat
 
Posts: 673
Founded: Dec 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Emile Zola » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:18 pm

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

By the way no law is passing this is a suggestion by the Australian Government about how to make the Catholic Church accountable in the future. There is going to be a Royal Commission into the abuse of children and by the end of it the Church is going to be in the proverbial. To see the denial and defense of child abuse in this forum shows how sick the Catholic Church has become. If the Church can't self regulate we will do it for them.

User avatar
Saint Jade IV
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6441
Founded: Jul 02, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saint Jade IV » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:43 pm

Elwher wrote:
Saint Jade IV wrote:
Consider the actual real life scenarios which have created the requirement for this law:

Father A confesses to Father B that he has been molesting children in his private chambers. Father B recommends that Father A be moved from this parish to a Catholic Children's home, without explaining why he needs him out of the parish. Or does Father B does not block a requested move, despite his knowledge that Father A has been raping children. It is later uncovered that Father A has abused several hundred children during his 40 year tenure at the children's home.

So if this law was in place, and the same situation occurred, investigation would be conducted as to why the priest was moved. The priest he confessed to would then be charged with failure to report and child endangerment. As he well should be.

Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered. Fact is, they instead chose to endanger children. These priests knew, as a direct result of the Confessional that these priests had, and were likely to again, molest children. They could have ensured that they were not in a position to do so without breaching the seal. They chose not to. They lose the privilege.


First, I agree completely with the major point you made in the last paragraph. The Church, in many countries around the world, failed miserably in its duty to protect its members and any bishop who knowingly transferred a pedophile priest rather than ensuring his treatment or non-contact with the public should be prosecuted.

As to this law, I admit ignorance to Australian law, but under US rules of evidence the fact that Father B was the confessor of Father A and failed to block his transfer would be insufficient grounds for conviction. If he requested the transfer, a jury might be allowed to consider that as evidence but a good defense attorney could probably get it thrown out on the basis that there is no direct evidence as to what was confessed. Perhaps that is not the case in Australia; if so then I withdraw my objection to the usefulness of the law under these particular circumstances.


Yeah well, thank God we are not in the US.

There were well-documented cases where priests knew, as a result of confessions, that other priests were abusing children. Not only did they not report these priests to the authorities, but they actually made it easier for the priests to abuse more children. This is the problem.The Church has shown itself manifestly incapable of managing this responsibility. Since they refuse to protect children, we will remove the privileges that they have used to endanger children.

The Church, and those defending the Church are failing to understand that their personal views on the Confessional Seal do not outweigh the right of children to be protected from harm. Since the privileging of the Confessional Seal have actually been shown to place children in harm, a secular society should rightly remove this protection.

Especially when we are talking about a religious privilege that has resulted in the violation of people who do not share that religion.

Why should children who are not Catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected by a religion they do not share?
When you grow up, your heart dies.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of a b*tch or another.
RIP Dyakovo...we are all poorer for your loss.

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:20 pm

Saint Jade IV wrote:Why should children who are not Catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected by a religion they do not share?

And why should children who are catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected...
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Saint Jade IV
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6441
Founded: Jul 02, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saint Jade IV » Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Dyakovo wrote:
Saint Jade IV wrote:Why should children who are not Catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected by a religion they do not share?

And why should children who are catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected...


Well they shouldn't. But one may argue that the victims may hold to the belief of the Confessional Seal's inviolability as well, and therefore, it's infringing on their religious freedom.

Besides, I don't believe children are any religion anyway. It's projection by their parents, accepted by society.
When you grow up, your heart dies.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of a b*tch or another.
RIP Dyakovo...we are all poorer for your loss.

User avatar
Ganos Lao
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13905
Founded: Feb 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Ganos Lao » Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:24 pm

Saint Jade IV wrote:Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered.


Exactly. This is what I've been saying.

We shouldn't be at this point. We shouldn't have to force the Catholic Church to do what it should've been doing anyway.



This nation is controlled by the player who was once Neo-Ixania on the Jolt Forums! It is also undergoing reconstruction.

User avatar
Srboslavija
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1636
Founded: Feb 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Srboslavija » Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:48 pm

Hard to defend my Catholic bros here.

It's one thing for the abuse to take place but to actively cover it up and protect the abusers is a whole different beast.
Pro: #FreeCrimea, justice, peace, LGBTIQ rights, love, choice, YOLO, God, separation of church and state, hugs, equal rights, most NSG moderators
Anti: war, hypocrisy, imperialism, homophobia, guns, inequality, racism, sexism

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alterld Sha, Cappuccina, Dazchan, Empire of Asgadr, Fartsniffage, Gravlen, Ifreann, Ironsatan, Kowani, Mettaton-EX, Nakena, Nitaruyete, Old Garcy, Orange-Transvaal, Platypus Bureaucracy, Plebciclastan, Proctopeo, Republic of Altos and Stratis, Sebenica, Souseiseki, Stellar Colonies, Telconi, The Grand Duchy of Muscovy, The Spelling Nazi, Valrifell

Advertisement

Remove ads