Blog | Iona Institute NI | Page 5

- What about the children?
  
  Posted at 1:46 pm by ionainstituteni
  
  Sep 13th
  
  The campaign for same sex marriage in N.I. and other countries is loud, persistent, and extremely well funded. It is supported by an ever increasing array of public representatives, businesses and corporations. This is hardly surprising considering it is always framed in terms of ‘marriage equality’ ‘positive social change’ and even ‘human rights’. Those that are against ‘marriage equality’ are portrayed as religious fundamentalists, homophobic, or both. This frame perpetuated unquestioningly by our media only serves to create an us and them mentality. Imagine what it feels like to be gay and to be repeatedly told that those who oppose gay marriage despise you and want to deny you equality! Homophobia like sectarianism, racism, and other hate filled attitudes, exists and it is indeed possible that some people who are opposed to SSM fall into this category. It is however incredibly misleading and insulting to portray those opposed to redefining marriage as anti-equality and homophobic (otherwise in France alone for example, the over one million brought out by Le Manif pour Tous would every one of them have to be deemed homophobic: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/may-15th-2015/the-french-counter-revolution/).
  
  Considering how the debate is currently framed by the media, it is actually surprising that only 25 out of 195 countries worldwide have so far legalised same sex marriage.
  
  Any discussion surrounding redefining marriage by the state therefore should have at its core three simple questions: What is marriage? Why unlike every other human relationship is it regulated by the state and has the status of an institution? Who does this institution benefit and why?
  
  Marriage has always been understood to be a sexual (conjugal) union involving one man and one woman naturally ordered to be procreative. Unlike all other human relationships this sexual union is one which brings new life into the world. We know through anthropological study that before the creation of church or state marriage existed in some primitive form and had some form of regulation by those in authority. The main reason for this is obvious but increasingly needs to be pointed out in today’s culture and that is children! The state has a vested interest in the wellbeing of the next generation and it was seen as an unquestionable good for children to be raised by their own biological parents where at all possible. The development of marriage and its status in countries worldwide as an institution, making it the recipient of certain rights and benefits, was society’s way of acknowledging that mothers and father matter especially to children.
  
  Does this mean that children who are and always have been reared in all types of different situations either by single parents, grandparents, or same sex couples, are less than any other child? Of course not! But we can all agree that every child ever conceived has a mum or dad and when circumstances such as death, separation, poor mental health, etc, prevent that child from being raised by that parent, this is usually understood as being a loss to the child.
  
  Marriage is the institution in society that encourages the natural ties between children and their parents. The desire to know our identity is rooted in each one of us. In the Irish language the terms ‘Mac’ and ‘Ní’, ‘son of’ and ‘daughter of’ reflect this reality. What has happened in countries like Ireland and the UK following the legalisation of gay marriage should be of concern to anyone genuinely interested in the wellbeing of children. When marriage is redefined children’s rights are redefined. Two men cannot make a baby and neither can two women. Following the legalisation of gay marriage there is an increased demand by same sex couples for egg or sperm donation. These are generally sourced from European sperm banks. In the UK two parents of the same sex can now legally appear on a child’s birth certificate and the Republic of Ireland seems set to follow suit. Children can now be deliberately deprived of even knowing the identity of their biological parents. How is this progressive or in the interests of children?
  
  Modern marriage of course is not only about children. It is about love, commitment, and wanting to have your love publicly recognised. Some couples cannot have or choose not to have children. But the fact remains that the vast majority of couples who marry will have at least one child together and children are the main reason that marriage ever became regulated by the state in the first place. If marriage is simply to become a romantic relationship with no relation to children, why should the state bother to regulate for it at all? And why should those in romantic or sexual unions have special status as opposed to two siblings living together or two friends? In Columbia, less than a year after gay marriage was legalised, the state legally recognised a three man union (throuple). In the United states there is currently a movement underway to legalise polygamy. In the Republic of Ireland to men married to avoid inheritance tax. Marriage is being redefined out of existence.
  
  The reality is that we live in a pluralist society where people can live whatever way they want. Retaining marriage as it is in law and practice does not in any way prevent same sex couples from living together and rearing children together. Civil partnership laws grant couples in this position all necessary rights, given that in the UK there are no substantive legal differences between civil partnerships and marriages. By retaining marriage law as it is states are recognising the huge (and well documented) benefits for children in being raised by their own parents. In giving marriage special recognition within the law, the state encourages its citizens to recognise and take responsibility for rearing their own biological children where possible. Surely this can only be a really good thing.
  
  Tracy Harkin
  
  Posted in Blog | Tagged Children, homophobia, Same sex marriage
- Breaking the Seal of Confession
  
  Posted at 10:08 am by ionainstituteni
  
  Sep 13th
  
  The Issue
  
  The seal of confession is one of the most cherished and important aspects of sacramental practice in the Catholic Church. Given the seal of confession, a penitent can approach the confessional and be forthright and honest with his sins knowing that the priest cannot without repercussion betray the penitent by revealing his sins. Effectively the seal of confession permits the sinner to come face to face with God in the confessional, so that the revelation of his sins is a genuine revelation to himself of what he has done wrong and a bringing of these to God (Who already knows the sins in question) in an act of confession whereby the penitent makes himself vulnerable and asks for forgiveness. The confessional is a humbling place because the penitent reflects on himself and discerns within himself his own weaknesses, realises what they are, and determines that he does not want to remain in his sins. As such the confessional is a vulnerable place where everything is laid bare before God, and this vulnerability is one of the reasons why the Church looks upon violations of the seal of confession with the utmost seriousness.
  
  However, the seal of confession raises an issue. Evidently all sorts of things will be revealed in the confessional that will be uncomfortable. These can range from the perfectly legal yet sinful, to the illegal and sinful. In all of this the priest is bound by the seal of confession, and the challenge is precisely whether or not that seal is appropriate when illegal matters, especially abuse, are confessed. Catholic teaching is that the seal remains in place when illegal matters are confessed, so that the priest cannot break the seal when pressurised by the secular authorities to do so. This leaves one with an uneasy feeling that the priest in adhering to the seal enables the practitioner of illegalities to remain in practice. This is the challenge now placed before the seal of confession in light of revelations of abuse within the Catholic Church.
  
  A Practical Consideration
  
  The first thing to reflect upon here is something practical. Confessions are now often held in a confessional box. This box has a screen between the penitent and the priest, and the screen can range from a metal grill to a curtain. Such an arrangement preserves the anonymity of the confessional so as to make it practically impossible to violate the seal even if the priest wanted to do so. With such an arrangement, the value of any evidence gathered from the confessional where the penitent is practically anonymous would be negligible (Jeremy Bentham makes a similar point in a passage quoted below, though not for the same reasons).
  
  Nevertheless, confession does not have to be so anonymous, and confession can be had face to face. In those cases, evidence collected from the confessional would likely not be negligible, and so the argument is made that in those cases the seal should be broken so as to facilitate investigation of criminal activity.
  
  Some Precedents
  
  We do not have to look too far in the secular world to observe something akin to the confessional seal; this is found in both journalism and in the legal profession, though of course to a different extent and with different conditions than that of confession. Nevertheless, in both journalism and the legal profession there is recognised the principle that there obtains a certain relationship wherein disclosures can be made which disclosures cannot be used to prejudice the person at some later date.
  
  This principle is more controversial and less embedded in the world of journalism than it is in the legal profession. Journalists, especially investigative ones, tend to maintain the confidentiality of their sources, and this precisely so that their sources can feel confident in approaching the journalist with information. Whilst this is a practice in journalism, it is not as well embedded as the same principle is in the legal profession.
  
  There exists a long-standing legal practice in common law known as professional privilege. The principle behind professional privilege is that a client can make disclosures to his lawyer without fear that these disclosures will prejudice him in the future. Whilst there are certain circumstances in which privilege does not apply, the idea behind it is that if it were not in place and a client could not reveal something in confidence to his counsel, then it would be impossible to have a justice system with a professional class of legal men and women, since nobody could trust such people with their disclosures. As Lord Brougham put it in Greenough v Gaskell (1833): ‘…[I]t is out of regard to the interests of justice, which cannot be upholden, and to the administration of justice, which cannot go on without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at all, everyone would be thrown upon his own legal resources, deprived of professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult any skilful person, or would only dare tell his counsellor half his case’.
  
  The Confessional Seal
  
  Turning to confession then, and in a similar vein to journalism and the legal profession, if there were no seal of confession, an individual would be unable to bring his sins before God in the sacrament without fear that the priest would reveal his sins to others. People would gradually cease to confess their sins, and their souls would be lost. As Jeremy Bentham (not exactly a friend to Catholicism) put it: ‘The advantage gained by the coercion, gained in the shape of assistance to justice, would be casual, and even rare: the mischief produced by it, constant and all-extensive…The advantages of a temporal nature, which, in the countries in which this religious practice is in use, flow from it at present, would in a great degree be lost: the loss of them would be as extensive as the good effects of the coercion in the character of an aid to justice. To form any comparative estimate of the bad and good effects flowing from this institution, belongs not, even in a point of view purely temporal, to the design of this work. The basis of the inquiry is that this institution is an essential feature of the Catholic religion, and that the Catholic religion is not to be suppressed by force.’
  
  What is being enabled is not the ability of those breaking the law to continue breaking it (for obviously the advice and admonition of the priest, as well as legal professionals and journalists, would be not to break the law); rather, what is being enabled is a special relationship whereby one can reveal to another one’s mistakes without fear of prejudice. Such a relationship is somewhat necessary in the legal profession and in investigative journalism, but it is also necessary in the spiritual life so that the sinner may confidently come before God and make himself vulnerable; otherwise sinners will not trust the confessional and will not likely confess their sins. This lack of confidence in and falling away from confession will not only apply to those committing abuse or other illegal activities, but also to those not breaking the law but still caught up in sin and seeking reconciliation. It is the normal everyday individual who abides by the law but finds himself sinning who will cease to approach the confessional if the seal is broken. Hence the need for the seal to remain in place.
  
  Posted in Blog | Tagged Abuse, Confession, Religion
- The Splendour of Truth
  
  Posted at 6:00 am by ionainstituteni
  
  Aug 31st
  
  Pope St John Paul II was a significant figure in the latter part of the 20^th Century. This is not simply due to the fact that he was the leader of a significant world religion or that he tirelessly travelled the globe evangelising Catholics and non-Catholics alike. John Paul II was also a consummate thinker and philosopher; and it has been rightly remarked that he could easily have held a chair in academic philosophy (phenomenological philosophy in particular) in any European university. His numerous writings as pope attest to the profundity of his thinking, and his philosophical publications (including Love and Responsibilty and The Acting Person) can sit on the shelves of any academic philosopher’s library. Hence when John Paul II addressed philosophical issues, he did so not as a run of the mill affair – something relevant to Catholicism but not to him as an individual Catholic; John Paul II was personally invested in his treatment of philosophical matters as pope.
  
  This year marks the 25^th anniversary of Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II’s encyclical treating of moral theology and philosophy. What is significant about this encyclical is that John Paul II does not limit himself to addressing a particular moral issue such as contraception or abortion; rather he treats of the whole field of moral theology and how a genuinely Catholic moral theology can be worked out. This encyclical is valuable precisely because it not only speaks to Catholics in the determination of Catholic teaching, but it also addresses important issues in philosophy more generally, moral philosophy in particular.
  
  Truth
  
  The first feature of the document that is worth reflecting on is the prominence it gives to truth. Truth is the agreement or conformity of the intellect with thing, so that if my thinking is about some object and the nature of that thought is in agreement with the nature of the object, then we have truth. Hence, truth is the measurement of the intellect and signifies a proper relationship the intellect has to its object. In moral matters then, truth is the agreement of the moral agent with what is good, such that the actions that he or she undertakes are good actions.
  
  The focus on truth sets the tone for the entire encyclical, and it is important that it do so. This is because the pope is keen to stress that in matters of truth, man is not the measure of things, the objective facts are. Hence, it is not the intellect which is the measure of the facts, but the facts which are the measure of the intellect. Should the intellect not measure up to the facts, then the intellect is not functioning as it ought. The same goes then for the moral agent; there is a good which is the measure of the agent which is captured in the natural law, and should the moral agent not measure up to this good he or she is failing as a moral agent.
  
  Freedom in action
  
  A moral action is one that is freely undertaken, since if one is forced into performing an action, one does not bear responsibility for that action. Hence, freedom is essential to the performance of a moral action, and this stands to reason since we as rational agents are able to consider what the good is and choose to implement it or not – this is what is involved in morally evaluable activity.
  
  So far so good, but there is a conception of freedom that the pope is keen is dispel, and this is the notion that treats of freedom as so utterly free that there can be no constraint on it. On this account then, any moral law which seeks to curtail free activity is fundamentally at odds with freedom and thereby at odds with the truth about the human person. The natural law cannot be the measure of free human activity on this view.
  
  But this is a flawed account of freedom. Freedom is a feature of human nature because human beings are rational beings; we can envisage possibilities and opt for them. However, not all these possibilities are consistent with freedom, since many of them can undermine our freedom. Hence, freedom is only genuine when exercised in those actions consistent with it. So in chess, there are lots of moves that one is free to make, and these moves are consistent with playing chess. Once one starts breaking all the rules, one is of course exercising one’s freedom to do that, but one is no longer playing chess, and the game has ended; with the end of the game, one is no longer free to play chess. The same applies to the use of human freedom and the moral law. Any action which undermines human nature is clearly an action inconsistent with freedom; for freedom is an essential feature of human nature, so to undermine that nature is to undermine freedom (just as freely breaking all the rules of chess entails that one is no longer free to play chess). The natural law encapsulates the principles of action which principles are in agreement with the truth about human nature, in which case the exercise of freedom in agreement with the natural law (like the moves within the chess game), far from destroying freedom, fulfils it.
  
  The Human Person
  
  What is by far the most significant theme of the encyclical and of John Paul II’s thinking more generally is the significance of the human person. Thus far we have been considering issues relevant to the human person, but we have not focused on the human person itself. It is the person that pursues truth, it is the person that is free, and it is the person who engages in moral activity. The person then is the locus of moral action and it is the perfection of the person towards which the natural law works.
  
  Now the human person is a rational substance, and as a rational substance the human person is capable of knowing and willing the good. It follows then that the human person has an intrinsic dignity, and this because the person can will ends for himself. This means that using a person as a means to an end is to subvert his or her personhood and take away something that is essentially theirs, i.e. their ability to will the end. Hence, the only legitimate activity in relation to the person is to treat him or her as an end in himself or herself, and never a means. And this means that the only relation one ought to have to a person is one of love.
  
  The Splendour of Truth
  
  We return then to the issue of truth, and this is because it is neglect of the fact that reality is the measure of us that leads to problems in moral thinking.
  
  Often too much of a stress is put on the exercise of freedom such that it is assumed that so long as an action is free it is morally legitimate. Hence even free action against truth is seen as morally good. But freedom is not enough for moral goodness precisely because there are some actions inconsistent with human nature which only serve to undermine the very freedom that is lauded in opting for them. Accordingly, freedom must be exercised in conformity with truth, and not in contradiction to it.
  
  Relatedly, it is sometimes thought that devising moral principles informing action, such as the natural law, is problematic because different situations call for different responses; situations are diverse and there cannot be a one size fits all approach. In a rather benign sense, all moral principles are somewhat abstract and they have to be internalised and implemented in every individual situation. Thus, just as there is a rule for moving the knight in chess, but many different circumstances in which the knight will be moved in the game, so too there is a moral law (the natural law) and different situations in which it is implemented. This is unproblematic and does not amount to a relativism of moral principles because just as in the chess game the moves are uniform but realised in different situations so too in moral action the principles of right acting are uniform (the natural law) but realised in different situations. A non-benign relativism creeps in when it is argued that there are some situations in which the only reasonable course of action is one inconsistent with the natural law. This would be like having a rule stipulating the right move for knights but then modifying it if the knight is in a tricky situation. It is problematic to change and modify the principles of the natural law because it is the moral outlook which permits one to live in accord with one’s human nature as a rational substance. Any activity inconsistent with the natural law is at odds with human nature and hence at odds with reason. Thus, activity inconsistent with the natural law is manifestly unreasonable. As John Paul II writes at 51.3: ‘…[T]he natural law expresses the dignity of the human person and lays the foundation for his fundamental rights and duties, it is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all mankind. This universality does not ignore the individuality of human beings, nor is it opposed to the absolute uniqueness of each person. On the contrary, it embraces at its root each of the person’s free acts, which are meant to bear witness to the universality of the true good’.
  
  This reasoning further militates against a kind of consequentialism in moral matters. Consequentialism is the view that the moral worth of an action should be judged on the basis of its consequences; and depending on how one measures the outcome of an action, one will measure the act accordingly. On the contrary, by giving the conditions for good action the natural law allows us to live in accord with our natures as rational substances. But we are able to live in accord with our natures by considering that nature of itself, and not the consequences of our actions when we perform them. Thus, the moral worth of our actions is determined by the kind of action itself that is performed rather than what the action brings about.
  
  Veritatis Splendor is a lengthy document full of fine grained reasoning from a pope who specialised in philosophy. I have teased out some of the central themes of the document, but for those who either agree or disagree with its outlook, it is hoped that they will engage with its reasoning themselves and come to terms with the argumentation.
  
  Dr Gaven Kerr
  
  Posted in Blog | Tagged John Paul II, Morality, Philosophy, Theology, Truth
- Report on the World Meeting of Families
  
  Posted at 12:59 pm by ionainstituteni
  
  Aug 30th
  
  Tracy Harkin of Iona Institute NI gives her first hand experience of the World Meeting of Families:
  
  Last week’s World Meeting of Families in Dublin will go down in history as an important milestone for the Irish church. From the ‘pope in Ireland’ signs along the motorway, to the hive of activity around the RDS it was clear that Dublin was a city preparing for something on a very large scale. I was privileged to be there throughout the week reporting every day from Dublin with the EWTN international team, interviewing participants, and providing live coverage of the full papal visit with Father John Paul Mary from the Franciscan missionaries of the eternal word.
  
  The negative reporting by Irish media and the release of the Pennsylvania report in the run up to the week cast a large question mark for many people over just how successful the congress and the papal visit would be. However, from the very first day of the congress it became clear that the media reporting of the event and the actual experience of the thousands of participants and pilgrims were as different as night and day. From the opening ceremonies right across Dublin there was a palpable energy and enthusiasm in the air. A remarkable 38,000 attendees from 116 countries participated in the packed programme of talks, workshops, daily mass, and entertainment over the three days of the congress; all of this included families with children, teenagers, babes in arms mingling with archbishops, cardinals, priests, and religious. This was the universal church at its best. Walking around the RDS exhibition centre the hundreds of booths operated by ordinary Catholics, both ordained and lay, displaying apostolates, evangelization resources, and outreach programmes were all very impressive.
  
  A key question that was asked by many journalists was: how has Ireland changed since the last visit by Pope John Paul II in 1979? As a small child I remember being taken by my parents to Drogheda for this historic visit. A third of the entire country had turned out. The numbers back then were impressive to be sure. The wave of secularism had not yet reached Irish shores, the horror of clerical child abuse was not yet exposed, and the conflict north of the border was still raging. It was however a highly clericalised church wherein the many priests and religious were trusted to get on with ‘God’s work’ and the role of the laity was minimal. As practising Irish Catholics today we may be smaller in number but the level of understanding and engagement in our faith and our desire to evangelise is extraordinary. What was common among many of the attendees I spoke to was the ‘personal encounter’ they had with Christ at some significant time in their lives. Through a pilgrimage, a retreat, a prayer or study group etc, this personal encounter is what led them back to the sacraments of the church, confession, the Eucharist. The enthusiasm of these families for their Catholic faith was impressive.
  
  As Archbishop Eamon Martin said in his keynote speech: ‘The gospel of the family is joy for the church and joy for the world’. This joy was tangible throughout the week and especially so when Pope Francis himself arrived on Irish shores for the very first time. His meeting with civil society including the Irish president and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was cordial but didn’t mask the very real differences between Church and state on the right to life of the unborn and the unique meaning of marriage and conjugal love. Leo Varadkar promised a ‘new era’ in Ireland between church and state saying the Church still has a place. Let’s hold him to that.
  
  The Holy Father’s visit to the homeless centre in Dublin run by Capuchin brothers was very moving. He commended the brothers and the many volunteers for ‘helping without asking questions’. The festival of families in Croke park was a highlight for many, with the entertainment impressive and the testimonies of families very moving. Who can forget the three simple words the pope invited the 70,000 strong crowd to repeat three times ‘please’, ‘thank you’ and ‘sorry’. Who would have also guessed than some 300,000 people would walk 3 km in the pouring rain to Phoenix park for the final mass on Sunday despite all the negative predictions. Pope Francis was applauded enthusiastically by the pilgrims when at the beginning of the mass he begged forgiveness for the pain caused in Ireland by clerical, religious, and institutional abuse and called for acts of public penance.
  
  Overall Dublin has seen nothing like this week since the visit of pope Saint John Paul II. It was an incredibly successful, joyful, and grace filled week for the Irish faithful. Personally, my favourite moment was seeing Pope Francis pray in the beautiful apparition chapel in Knock shrine Co. Mayo where some 40, 000 people came to greet him. Seeing the depiction of that meek little lamb victorious on the altar while angels ascend and descend should give us all hope that the future of our Church no matter how fragile it may seem is, ultimately, always in God’s hands.
  
  Tracy Harkin
  
  Posted in Blog, News
- Michael D Higgins to address Civil Rights Commemoration in Derry
  
  Posted at 6:00 am by ionainstituteni
  
  Aug 20th
  
  Irish President Michael D Higgins is to deliver the keynote address to a civil rights festival in Derry to mark 50 years since the 1968 civil rights March of October 5^th (https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/08/14/news/president-to-address-derry-civil-rights-commemoration-1406531/). It was at this March, broadcast on television for the world to see, that public opinion was focussed on civil rights issues in NI, and so it is right and just that it will be commemorated.
  
  The anniversary serves to focus our attention on the wider context of civil rights; that wider context is the natural law. The natural law is a moral outlook which can be known independently of God and revelation (https://ionainstituteni.org/2018/07/17/morality-religion-and-the-natural-law/). It is so known through a consideration of the nature of the human person and the ends specific to the human person precisely as human. Indeed, the natural law position is the only philosophical outlook capable of providing a reasonable justification for the various rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on the same. Other outlooks that diverge from the natural law either dismiss the notion of a human right entirely (e.g. utilitarianism whose founding father Jeremy Bentham described such rights as nonsense on stilts) or think primarily in terms of duties that the moral agent has, not rights that a person possesses (e.g. Kantian deontology the primary focus of which is to conform the will to the categorical imperative). The idea promulgated by the natural law tradition on morality is that reflection on the nature of a person will reveal a moral dimension to the person wherein the rights that we have are found.
  
  We may go even further than that in favour of the natural law. Given that the natural law defends the position that there are natural rights, there is thereby a natural justice which honours those rights, and in turn an injustice that dishonours them, i.e. fails to uphold them. This distinction is key to many of the modern civil rights movements, since those movements typically object to various laws in a state which violate the natural justice required to uphold natural rights. Accordingly, positive law, i.e. the law enacted by the state, is only just when it squares with the natural law; otherwise we have a situation whereby there is a positive law which is positively unjust. And we have numerous examples in the 20^th Century where states have enacted laws that are unjust and the common feeling of humanity has rebelled against them precisely because they are unjust. It was this distinction that illuminated Martin Luther King’s own position in his letter from Birmingham jail, and it was also this distinction which animated the proceedings of the Nuremburg trials: something is not right just because it is law, a law cannot be right unless it is in accord with the natural law. Thus, the natural law tradition gives us a reasonable justification for the criticism of unjust laws.
  
  The natural law tradition in morality forms the backbone of civil rights thinking for it justifies natural rights and the outrage felt at unjust laws. So any supporter of civil rights who bristles at the natural law or rejects the natural law entirely is not actually a supporter of civil rights at all but a counterfeit double appropriating the good name of civil rights and its ideals for himself or herself for whatever end. As Irish president, Michael D Higgins has the opportunity to speak on civil rights in Derry at this anniversary event, let us hope that he speaks on behalf of the natural law and does not undermine it.
  
  Dr Gaven Kerr
  
  Posted in Blog | Tagged Civil Rights, Ireland, Michael Higgins, Natural law
- Sign up for our eNewsletter!
  Please follow this link to sign up to receive our regular eNewsletter.
- Be Social
  - Facebook
  - X
  - Email
- Follow Blog via Email
  
  Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
  
  Email Address:
- Search for:
- Recent Posts