LCWR: Vatican's assessment source of 'scandal and pain'

The LCWR has responded to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Assessment of their group.  In this initial statement, the LCWR expresses its clear and, I would say strong, disagreement with both the Vatican's accusations and the way that the assessment was conducted.  The statement reads in part: "The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared.  Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization."  The full statement is available on the group's website here.

The use of the word "scandal" is, to my mind, noteworthy, since it is an especially strong charge, and is also the precise word used by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in its Doctrinal Assessment.  Specifically, the Vatican charged that some of the addresses given at some of the LCWR's assemblies were a "serious source of scandal."  The LCWR today charges that the CDF's report has itself caused both "scandal and pain."  Both the Vatican and the LCWR are saying that the other's actions are, literally, a "stumbling block" to the faith of others.  

In Greek, a skandalon was a stumbling block, and the word occurs several times in the New Testament.  It is a word Jesus reserves for some of his harshest critiques.  In Matthew 16, he uses the word to castigate Peter: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." And later, in Matthew 18: "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!"

This initial response, it should be noted, is only a first step, as the LCWR's leadership will travel to Rome to meet with Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the CDF; and with Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, the apostolic delegate charged with overseeing the LCWR's reform.  The LCWR will also gather its members in regional meetings and will convene as a body, in August, to reply more fully to the Vatican's statement.  (See also Archbishop Sartain's new article, just released on America's website, on the LCWR; and the response by Christine Firer Hinze, professor of Christian ethics at Fordham, available here.)

KEVIN MANNARA
4 years 12 months ago
I have found it interesting that this Vatican investigation and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Assessmen has occasioned an outpouring of support for religious sisters from the Church, that is, the People of God. It seems everywhere I turn people are offering words of gratitude and support to the sisters who have taught us, taken care of us when we were sick, addressed our pastoral needs and stood alongside us at every step of life, often at great cost to themselves. This may not be what the investigation and assessment intended, but the voice of the Church has spoken loudly in favor of the work that the sisters do for us.
Robert Dean
4 years 12 months ago
You know, dumb as it sounds, what I'm feeling as I read this? Daddy has come home drunk and aggressive and is berating Mama, the only one who's been there for me all these years.

Childish, I know.

(Odd:  When I first went to type "berating," I missed the "r," and it came out "beating.")
Bill Freeman
4 years 12 months ago
I can't for the life of me imagine a more poorly run organization.  Leave for the Episcopal Church.
Michael Barberi
4 years 12 months ago
I agree with Winifred Hollaway's assessment. The verdict is in and we are awaiting the complete and formal response of the LCWR and the Vatican's response to that. Sounds to me that when the smoke clears, there will be three outcomes:

1. The LCWR will refuse to abide by the verdict and way forward proposed by the CDF and Benedict XVI; and the pope will excommunicate the LCWR or impose some type of harsh condemnation-punishment (IMO, a likely outcome)
2. The LCWR and CDF will agree to a much modified verdict and way forward (IMO, possible but not likely), or
3. The LCWR will agree with the verdict and way forward proposed by the CDF and Benedict XVI (IMO, very unlikely).
Alfred Chavez
4 years 12 months ago
I have to admit, I see very little substance in the LCWR's response.  Absp. Sartain repeats the "lacunae" - the doctrinal issues the Vatican has with the LCWR, but their response is essentially to attack the Vatican's methods and say that the Vatican has not allowed for different theologies on sexuality, or room for prophecy from the faithful. That response is fair enough as far as it goes.  But why the silence on the specific issues the Vatican has raised on areas like liurgical centrality, abortion, and homsexuality?   That these positions on the part of some sisters are complex is certainly understandable, but surely not unexplainable....are they?  
Tim O'Leary
4 years 12 months ago
Excellent posts from both Bishop Peter Sartain & Dr. Christine Firer Hinze, at least in clarifying the issues. I too hope that the LCWR and the CDF get back to the ideal of Mother Esperanza of Veracruz “being in the church, with the church and for the church'' (quoted by Bishop Sartain).

What seems to have been missed by many observing this story is that the CDF concerns were not about the work of the good sisters in the field, out serving the people, as it were, but with some heterodox speeches and speakers at the LCWR General Assemblies. The next Assembly is in St. Louis in August (see LCWR website). The keynote speaker will be non-Christian Barbara Marx Hubbard who has some strange (kooky) ideas about how the world works. (see her website). They have also announced that they will be honoring Sr. Sandra Schneiders with this year’s “Outstanding Leadership Award,” (who wrote Beyond Patching: Faith and Feminism in the Catholic Church.)

The CDF also raised a concern that the LCWR didn’t give enough attention to the civil rights abuses going on in the abortion mills around the country. Of course, I am sure many in the LCWR leadership are strong pro-life advocates. So, I have a suggestion to help the Communio process. Drop the keynote speaker (Hubbard) from the agenda or at least add a second keynote speaker to talk about the crime of sex-selection abortion, particularly topical since yesterday’s defeat in the House of Representatives of a bill that would have penalized abortionists who knowingly performed abortion for the sole reason that the fetus was a girl (161 Democrats and 7 Republicans voted against the bill. Shame on all of them). Or, invite a speaker to talk about the importance of religious liberty in this time when it is being challenged.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 12 months ago
Michael #14
I don't think most topics on your long list would help the relationship between the LCWR and the CDF. I thought the topic I proposed would be particularly apt, in that it would combine a clearly feminist concern for lethal sex discrimination (the ultimate War on Women) with the Church's long-standing teaching (see for example the Didache from the 1st century). 

If they decide to become a think-tank for sticking holes in orthodox teaching, as you suggest, I think it not an unreasonable option for the LCWR to become un-moored from the bark of Peter and leave the canonical representation to a new leadership organization.  
Tim Huegerich
4 years 12 months ago
Vince, what would they lose? I should confess I don't know the details of what canonical status means, but my sense is that they would lose their concrete connection with the teaching authority of the Church, with the rock. Sidney Callahan asks the pope to "help the center hold" and I believe maintaining formal affiliation with the Church plays a role - other Catholic organizations polarize and become reflective of the divisions in society rather than the unity that Christ prayed for.

Michael, as you must know, the issue is not that they have some speakers on such topics at their conferences, but that the *keynote* speakers are focused on such topics (which are obviously not Vatican-prohibited and are routinely discussed in outlets such as America). It seems (in my very limited knowledge) to reflect an organization preoccupied with such things rather than focused on formation in the Gospel. In this, it may be the mirror image of a heirarchical Church also often preoccupied with such controversies. But I believe Pope Benedict is attempting to chart a new path.
David Pasinski
4 years 12 months ago
One astute, very caring, effective in ministry nun who works at a large parish with a ratrehr coservative pastor who is backing the Vatican said, "If we do go non-canonical, who will hire us?" And that seems to be afair question... That would put the questions back to individual bishops and clergy... and faithful... Back to a possible tipping point prognostication...  
ed gleason
4 years 12 months ago
Here is how the laity will see this going down. 'They'  [Rome] are seen as pushing the Sisters out while sneaking the SSPX and Legionaries back in. And 'they' have that clumsy PR team to try to spin this ....and no superpac to finance ads. Reminds me of the local ads on cable where the owner/CEO does the awkward pitch and no one has the guts to tell him to stay off camera.
Wait till the Sisters ask the laity to rally.. accompanied by the mens' religious orders..
film @11 
Tim O'Leary
4 years 12 months ago

Vince #13 and DaveP #17
If the LCWR became independent, they would lose the right to represent the Religious Orders in any juridical sense, under Canon 709. They are just an umbrella organization. The nuns in the Orders would lose nothing as they would just have new representation for their interactions with the rest of the Church. The LCWR would just drop the ''L'' and become the CWR.

 
Michael #18
I don't know how much you have read of either Popes JP II or BXVI but you completely misunderstand and underestimate their philosophy, in a very simplistic way. To say they don't understand or  distrust Western democracies because of ''too much freedom'' is a gross distortion of their thought.  This is not the place to refute this but it begins with a false understanding of freedom as the right to decide what is true and good (in a positivist way) as opposed to the freedom to discover the Truth and the Good, as revealed through Reason and Revelation. It goes way beyond sexual freedom.

It is rather naive of you to think a few years of study could permit you to dismiss the extraordinary depth of these two intellectual giants in such a facile way. I have been reading them for over 20 years (not five) and am still just touching the surface. They are the most intellectual Popes of the last 500 years and they will impact the next 500, both because of sheer creativity in their thought (within and enhancing the Tradition), in the official documents they have promulgated over the 35+years as leading the Magisterium, and in their appointments within the Church hierarchy.

Ed #19
I bet your predictive powers will not match your vindictiveness. 
Michael Barberi
4 years 12 months ago
Tim:

I base my understanding on many facts and solid references and study of history, but I agree that a blog is not a place to debate the issues I have raised. However, you fail to accept anything negative about JP II or Benedict XVI, regardless of fact and reasonable argument.

I am not naive or idealogical minded to believe that I possess the complete moral truth. Far from it. However, I can hold my own in any debate and I am in constant mentoring from two prominent moral theologans representing both sides of this debate. There are many facts and historical evidence that many theologians don't know about or have sufficient knowledge of. When I write an essay, I usually ask 5 independent theologians to review my work, not including my mentors. There is always room to argue about different interpretations of facts and the judgments that are formed from them. 

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about, and I don't agree with either your reasoning or base of knowledge. If you would like to read an essay I am finishing, I would be happy to share it with you personally offline and welcome your input. In this way, you will gain a better appreciation for my opinions.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 12 months ago
Michael #22
Do you have anything published? If so, I will look it up. In the meantime, here is a summary of the impact and output of Pope John Paul II that you so easily dismiss as intellectually your equal (or inferior, since you believe he simply misunderstood the theology of the body) or think was unable to understand the suffering or trials of the average Westerner  (since he lived under totalitarian regimes or lost his parents early in life, or was shot, or suffered late in life). 

3rd longest Papacy (after St. Peter and Pius IX), created 232 Cardinals (all but 3 of 117 in subsequent conclave), 3500/4200 bishops, presided over 15 synods, 104 visits outside Italy, over 20 million attended his audiences/masses. A Catechism for the world (1st since Council of Trent), new Canon Law since 1917. 16 Books, 7 plays, 14 Encyclicals, 80 apostolic letters/constitutions/exhortations/moto proprio. Decisive impact on ending Communism, adjudicating doctrinal disputes and settling interpretation of Vatican II. Will likely be declared a Saint, Doctor of the Church, and the 4th ''the Great'' (after Leo, Gregory and Nicholas).
http://nccbuscc.org/pope/writings.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/apr/05040403

I can similarly go through the current Pope's bibliography (includes 3 encyclicals, over 30 books, countless scholarly articles). My point is not to cow you into submission but to suggest you should be a little humbler in dismissing these saintly geniuses as dimwits who couldn't understand what has become obvious to you after only a few years' investigation.

Michael Barberi
4 years 11 months ago
Tim:

Not only are you blinded by your own sense of certitude, but you constantly misread my writings. I never said that JP II did not do good work, or that I believed he was my intellectual equal or subordinate. As Jeanne L correctly states he was brilliant in the theater of world view (the result of majoring in Polish literature and theater in colllege and participating in many plays). In reality he ruled with a stubborn determinism and misunderstandings about women equality-modern feminism, human sexuality, love and marriage. He never had any girlfriends, ever, by choice. His view of women, in one breath declaring they were equal to men, but in anothe breath assserting that they were best suited for other roles such as motherhodd and caregivers. He never understood Western women and they never undedstood his philosophy either. His view of human sexuality was largely based on the controversial judgments of  Dr. Wanda Poltawska , a survivor and victim of the Ravenbruck concentration camp medical experiments. Her views were never substantiated but were refuted as "harmful misinformation" by Western experts. I could go on, but you should control your obvious rhetoric for another place.

I base what I write upon facts and historical documentation (noted books and published articles). I am not easy to leap to erroneous conclusions and try not to insert "opinion" for facts that have solid references.  

 
Sara Damewood
4 years 12 months ago
Great article!   I think we need more meta-communication in the Church, communication about how we communicate.    Speaking up assertively and respectfully is important, and so is listening to understand.   Polarization really is a stumbling block for faith and for loving Christian relationships.
Chris NUNEZ
4 years 12 months ago
Big thanks for sharing this Fr. Jim.The blessing coming out of this is that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious are giving us all a lesson in how we engage injustice, claim our right to be treated justly and fight for what is right in a civil manner. We all need to see how it's done. Grand "huzzahs!" for the LCWR.
Joon H
4 years 12 months ago
Thank you, Father, for your updates and comments. I appreciate how you gave us the background information about the words "scandal" and "stumbling block". Both the LCWR and CDF are writing after deep thought and are taking a stand. (In my opinion, it's admirable that the LCWR are not backing down from the Vatican. They believe in their work and will not be intimidated!) Thank you for noting that this is only the first step by the LCWR to respond because then it's noted that the LCWR are not just making a public announcement and not refusing to work this out directly with the Vatican. God's speed, Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)! We support you!!!! Be not afraid! I pray that this can bring about a change that will positively change us all and bring us closer to our Loving God!
David Pasinski
4 years 12 months ago
I particularly appreciate the process of the LCWR. This statemetn is strong and clear, but in the "weaving" which seems more typical of religious communities and women's approach to issues and problem-solving (that's a compliment, not a critique!), there are layers and deliberations yet to unfold -in Rome and with meetings late this summer.  These LCWR are probably more patient than many of us to let these initial reactions- both critical and supportive == to resolve a bit aover the summer and hav ea larger consensus of thought later. Smart!
Winifred Holloway
4 years 12 months ago
I have wondered for some time about Vatican investigations.  The LCWR called the process "flawed."  By the time we Catholic bystanders read about an investigation, I am thinking that the verdict has  been decided and the investigation is about finding some evidence to back up conclusions that have already been made.  Sister Elizabeth Johnson comes to mind.   Does any Vatican investigation find its target not guilty?  That's not a rhetorical question.  I would like to know.  And who instigates an investigation?  Is it begun because a guardian of orthodoxy at a church-sponsored meeting finds a random pamphlet left on a chair by some unknown person, an overheard remark perhaps at a cocktail party, or a wealthy, "concerned" Catholic with access to a Cardinal?  Puzzling.  There does appear to be a bit of the old Kremlin in Rome.  Unsettling for us western democratic types.
Tim Huegerich
4 years 12 months ago
I am confused by the response and surprised to not have seen comparisons with the papal intervention with the Jesuits in 1981 (http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/30th-october-1981/1/jesuits-upset-by-papal-aide-stop-gap ). I don't know much about what happened back then, but it seems there was lots of criticism, some of it public. But there was no discussion of the Society of Jesus removing its formal affiliation with the Church, its canonical status. What does it say about the LCWR that they are holding that open as an option now? (http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/lcwr-president-speaks-pain-and-process ) Does that not confirm the validity of the concerns of the CDF?


Vince Killoran
4 years 12 months ago
Tim asks "What does it say about the LCWR that they are holding that open as an option now?  Does that not confirm the validity of the concerns of the CDF?"

I don't see how it "confrim[s] the validity of the concerns of the CDF" at all but perhaps you could explain further.  In any case, the LCWR is not a religious order; rather, it's a conference, an umbrella organization for congregations. What would they lose by terminating their canonical status?
Michael Barberi
4 years 12 months ago
Tim: 

If I may have some liberty, you seem to be suggesting that the LCWR should ensure that at their conferences they should band people who want to speak on the following Vatican-prohibited topics:

1. "Kooky" ideas,
2.  Gender equality and hierarchial roles for women 
3.  Abortion to save the life of a young mother threated by a fetus that cannot survive under any circumstances,
4. Sterilization to safeguard a young mother whose life if threatened by another pregnancy (instead of celibacy),
5. Voluntary celibacy for priests,
6. Reconciliation and Eucharistic reception for the divorced and remarried,
7. In vitro fertiization between spouses who are seriously handicapped by infertility problems, 
8. Salvation for people born with a same-sex orientation and who don't want (cannot) to live a life of celibacy,
9. Contraception for married couples who have children and don't want more for good reasons, and
10. Conscience and Non-Reception
Michael Barberi
4 years 12 months ago
Tim:

If you study Ratzinger-Benedict XVI's writings, a new course will never be chartered in this papacy. What we have seen to date is a move back to pre-conciliar orthodoxy.

Ratzinger-Benedict VI has the same misunderstandings as JP II had: a significant distrust of Western democracies, where to them there was too much freedom, liberalism, feminism, pluarlism and consumerism. What Benedict VI and JP II never understood is the everwhelming good that democratic, pluralistic societies have generated. Modernity has indeed become more promiscious, but the Vatican has turned it into a war between extreme and exaggerated orthodoxy and the Western secular world without remainder. Modern culture and individualism is being blamed as the reason why the majority of Catholics and many clergy cannot understand and embrace the 'truth' that the magisterim asserts as Divine law.

This is like saying evil is winninng the war for the souls of humankind, and Rome cannot produce a moral theory and reasoning that is intelligible and convincing to most Catholics, especially on the topic of sexual ethics, gender equality and many other issues. I don't think we are all that naive. This does not mean, as a society, there is no evil or more evil. Most Catholics strive to understand the truth, transcend culture and do good and avoid evil as best they can. 

Perhaps, and hopefully, we will see a new way forward in the next papacy.

ed gleason
4 years 12 months ago
O'Leary
"will not match your vindictiveness'
Seeing vindictiveness where there is none  is a tell?????
reading your posts is another tell.
Jeanne Linconnue
4 years 12 months ago
Listing a lot of numbers as ''evidence'' of either genuine brilliance or meaningful, positive  accomplishment during a 33 year period where an individual could exercise almost absolute power within the ecclesial realm ''proves'' nothing at all.  Most people don't confuse quantity with quality. Nor do they confuse superficial public charisma with genuine character. Being a clerical rock star is evidence of nothing more than a talent for theatre. Look at Joel Osteen. Nor do most confuse longevity in office (an office that is totally secure - an absolute dictator who cannot be removed either by vote or by a corporate board) with genuine accomplishment. Many are not impressed with academic theorizing that is not supported by lived experience but meant to force one's individual personal agenda on millions of people. Becoming a ''saint'' in the modern Catholic church is evidence of little more than successful political maneuvering at this point, on the part of the one to be ''sainted'' or those who will benefit in some way from it, but, especially on the part of those riding the coattails of the one who may eventually go down in history as ''not really so great after all''.  

During a 30 year period,  the man smiled for the photographers and cheering crowds of ''fans'', playing the starring role with relish while behind the scenes the church was being returned to its triumphalist, imperial mode, the ''Roman empire'' model as opposed to the Jesus of Nazareth model of church. Is it surprising at all that the exodus of educated Catholics from the western church, especially in Europe and the US, became a flood after 1978? Now Latin America is beginning to hemorrhage too. He presided over what is probably the biggest exodus of Catholics from the church since the Reformation. And it continues.

You may be impressed. But there are many who have looked behind that curtain in Rome's version of the Emerald City and are no longer fooled.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 11 months ago

Michael #25
It's hopeless. The best you can say (3rd sentence) is he was a great actor.  Then you give 4 sentences restating why he misunderstands things you grasp, yet say you are not denigrating his intellect. I'm still waiting for the reference to something you had published.


Jeanne #24
Without quantitative data, there is only opinion, but your opinion of the Pope is unhinged from reality. Am I to suppose you have read and understood the opus of JPII to denigrate the quality, or is that just a feeling? Even worse, you denigrate his sanctity with ease and without evidence.


And it is even less credible to make numerical claims without the burden of providing data.  The so-called exodus of educated Catholics is grossly exaggerated, in that the vast majority of ''educated'' (in what?) people in the consumerist West leave the Church to be free of sexual moral constraints. Smart people can be clever at coming up with rationalizations for their decisions, to dress their motives up in supposedly ''honest'' doctrinal disputes. 
Jeanne Linconnue
4 years 11 months ago
Mr. O'Leary, you can pretend all you want, scoff at the exodus (which is very, very real), make judgments without foundation, equate quantity of publication with quality of thought, no matter how wrong that is, and it doesn't change the reality.  Perhaps someday the blinders will come off.  And perhaps they won't. Everyone is entitled to their personal ''heroes'' - even if those ''heroes'' actually have clay feet.  
Michael Barberi
4 years 11 months ago
Tim:

This will be my last blog comment because our dialogue is not fruitfull. I find your style of debate far from professional because it is full of rhetoric.

As for my references and sources of Wojtyla's misunderstanding (the many I mentioned), read Ted Lipien, Wojtyla's Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church. This book published in 2008 is more than 600 pages of some of the best writing and research on this subject you can find.

I am writing an essay for publication as we speak. It has been a 2 year effort. It will be jointly authored by myself and a prominent theologian with more than 30 years of teaching experience, a past chairperson of the department of moral theology at a major Catholic University, and editor of a prestigious theological journal. During this 2 year period of 24/7 research and writing, I have received input from many theologians who have encouraged me to publish it because they believe it is contributory. This does not ensure it will be published, but I am hopeful that this year it will be.

You give me the impression that you are a closed minded person who only believes in the magisterim without remainder. You are quick to throw out unsubtantiated critical remarks and assert your own beliefs with certitude. Frankly, I wonder if you can think for yourself. You seem to blindly accept church teachings and defend it with mindless abondonment, because you believe it is your faith to do so. I condemn no one, including yourself for your beliefs. However, you offer no convincing evidence or refutation of any of my comments. 

Jeanne L offered you some of the best insights on this blog, not to mention the many others who have also done so. She is far more intelligent than I and an eloquent writer. However, all you offer in return is absurd remarks like "the vast majority of Catholics who leave the Chruch want to be free of sexual moral restraints, and smart people can rationalize their decisons and motives in 'supposedly' honest doctrinal disputes." Obviously, you have no idea or knowlege about the real reasons and motivations of responsible and faithful Catholics who strive to love God and neighbor and are saddened by a Curia that does not listen, and some teachings that are in profound tension with their informed consciences and legitiimate philosophical and theological arguments.

We live in a divided church and in a crisis of truth. To resolve this problem, we need intelligent and open-minded people who can talk to each other, not pass each other, based on facts and respectful dialogue.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 11 months ago
Michael#28
I will look for your article when it is published. But you must know that one article here or there does not compare to the depth of thought in Pope JPII's theology of the body or in the vast tradition of the Church and Holy Scripture. But, it seems you are set in your ways and your heart is hardened, like so many on this blog.

I love the Church and listen to its teaching on the natural law and human life. But I follow it and defend it because it has convinced my intellect, and touched my heart, never in a slavish manner, but in a loving manner, with an open heart and open mind. It is not easy at all but I am willing to accept something that I cannot always live by, because it is greater than me. I think humility is the key to seeing the Truth and I hope someday you will see it again. 

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Greg Hicks as "Richard III" (photo: Alex Brenner)
It would be fascinating were the producers able to arrange a quick transfer to a venue somewhere near the White House.
David StewartMay 26, 2017
In the hyper-curated, beautiful world that Dev lives in, a scene that conveys the touching, ugly stubbornness of marriage seems totally impossible.
Eloise BlondiauMay 26, 2017
This image released by the Minya governorate media office shows bodies of victims killed when gunmen stormed a bus in Minya, Egypt, Friday, May 26, 2017 (Minya Governorate Media office via AP).
The attack in central Egypt today killed at least 26 people, including children aged 2 to 4, and wounded 25 others.
Gerard O'ConnellMay 26, 2017
The data and facts are clear: If you care about working families and sound economic policy, SNAP is the program for you.
Meghan J. ClarkMay 26, 2017