Marco Ansaldo was the replacement at the militantly anti-Church, anti-Pope La Repubblica when their star Vaticanista Marco Politi, and fierce purveyor of the editorial line, retired in November this year. To the credit nonetheless of Repubblica, Ansaldo and his colleague, veteran Vaticanista Orazio La Rocca, have been allowed to publish their objective news reports and even-handed commentary on Vatican and Church affairs, even if not entirely free of MSM reflexes - as the title of this article indicates (which was very likely imposed by the desk editor, not the writer himself).
In a review of the new Tornielli-Rodari book examining the media storms around Benedict XVI since his Pontificate began, Ansaldo focuses on the authors' inevitable critique of the Vatican's highly inadequate communications set-up. But the headline misses the more important and painfully obvious point they make: that there is no home 'team' behind the Pope, that the Curia, starting with Benedict XVI's own most trusted collaborator, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, have been hiding behind him, rather than shielding him from the media siege; that the Holy Father has been left alone on the ramparts to ward off the legions of Hell.
Too many attacks against the Pope:
The Vatican needs a 'spin doctor'
by Marco Ansaldo
Translated from
Aug. 23, 2010
When the Pope is travelling abroad, there is a very important time of day - central, in fact, for the media - which takes place virtually at dawn: In the hotel room occupied by Victor van Brantegem, veteran Press Office aide during papal trips, journalists are given the printed texts of all the Papal discourses for the day.
So it was on the morning of September 12, 2006, in Regensburg, during Joseph Ratzinger's first trip back to Bavaria as Benedict XVI. Later, however, something important happened.
As soon as the Pope had delivered his academic lecture at the University of Regensburg, the news agencies reported on it focusing on a citation made by Benedict XVI from the 15th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologue, from which it was deduced that the Catholic Pope believes Islam is a violent religion dedicated to holy war. A quotation extrapolated from its ample and well-articulated text - 12 dense pages in all - profoundly outraged the Muslim world which racted with indignation on the even of Benedict's next apostolic visit, which would be to Muslim Turkey..
[I don't know if, in their book, Tornielli and Rodari make the fallacious claim I underscored above, but Ansaldo himself is reporting his impression (and the general impression) about the Regensburg episode, rather than fact. Later, I will attempt a brief overview at the initial reports about the Regensburg lecture, because it is one of those episodes that immediately became subjected to instant historical revisionism, and it is the revisionist view that now persists!]
And yet, eight hours before the text was delivered, newsmwn who were reading it over breakfast immediately understood that that single sentence could lead to dangerous misunderstandings and was potentially explosive. They immediately warned the Vatican's press officers but the text was not changed.
And
very promptly [if 'promptly' means 48 hours later], an international storm that was violent and lasting came down on the Vatican, with demands for apologies from every ranking Muslim leader, a crisis that was not to ease until Benedict XVI's genius instinct to stand in prayer at the Blue Mosque of Istanbul alongside the Mufti of Istanbul.
[The actual 'storm' lasted two weeks, exactly, as I had occasion to note with some surprise at the time, so obvious was the fact that the omnibus and relentless media focus on 'the Regensburg blunder' ebbed almost overnight - even if it would remain a constant touchstone for all those who obsess about this Pope's 'unmediatic' personality!]
But how is it possible that in Regensburg, none of the Papal staff had the foresight to warn Benedict XVI of the risk he was taking?
[First of all, Fr. Lombardi, who was already Vatican press officer at the time, probably read the lecture and saw the Manuel II quotation in context, as most sensible persons would (and did for about two days in 2006 before the media storm erupted). But after he was warned by the more experienced Vaticanistas of the media risk, do we really think he would have had the initiative to point it out to the Pope? The only major reproach I have about Fr. Lombardi is his unwarranted timorousness in asking for a few minutes of the Pope's time to get his guidance when he has to! In Regensburg, he could at least have pointed out the media 'warning' to his immediate boss, Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano, who was serving out his last days then, but Sodano immediately said after hell broke loose that he was never consulted about the lecture and he had no idea what it was about until he was listening to the Pope deliver it!
Second and more importantly, I remain firmly convinced Benedict XVI himself was aware of the risk he was taking but chose to use the passage nonetheless. Not that he subscribes to its sentiments literally, but that it was a most effective way to underscore the irrationality - or determined mission of conquest - of militant Islam or any religion, including the Catholic faith, seeking to justify violence in the name of God.]
The center photo shows a 48-page booklet published by religion sociologist Massimo Introvigne in 2007 in response to the poisonously fallacious BBC documentary on sex abuses by priests in Ireland, in which Cardinal Ratzinger is directly accused of ordering bishops to cover up for priest offenders.
An illuminating new book by two of the most qualified of Vatican correspondents, Paolo Rodari and Andrea Tornielli, deals not just with a reconstruction of the Regensburg episode, but a whole series of resounding media 'crises' in which the Vatican has found itself entangled, especially this year which has been particularly difficult for the German Pope.
[Benedict XVI has already given his best response - which is to see in these ordeals an occasion for the Church and its members to renew themselves through self-purification and appropriate penance and justice.]
In fact, Regensburg could be seen as the prototype of such media crises, followed by so many - the nomination of the Polish bishop Wielgus to be Archbishop of Warsaw, who was then revealed to have worked as a spy for the Communist regime; the lifting of the Lefebvrian bishops' excommunication, in which one of the four bishops happens to be a Holocaust denier; the statement about AIDS and condoms; management of the 'sex abuse scandal' in general; and even the unprecedented confrontation before the Pope of Cardinals Schoenborn and Sodano.
The two authors maintain that all these unfortunate episodes - which tend to gravely damage the image of the Church and its leaders - could easily have been cushioned and minimized with wise management from the Vatican.
[All of that is painfully obvious, of course, but I think the real value of these books - two others along the same lines coming out in Italy this month - is, above all, to document the emblematic news reports and commentaries that created and sustained each 'crisis'. Sure, much of it would reflect communications ineptitude at the Vatican - and the much more serious quesition of why the Pope's closest collaborators have been unable and/or unwilling to be proactive in all this, instead of leaving the Pope to do all the heavy lifting himself- but it would also show the active role that media has played in fomenting and fostering such crises.]
All it takes is to carefully think out measures to pre-empt or minimize any potential crises, as Rodari and Tornielli show in the cases they analyze one by one in their many complex facets and their brutal consequences. Their deconstruction reveals the lack of a true communications strategy in the Vatican more than the failings of the hierarchy.
[I disagree. A 'strategy' is only possible if the hierarchy itself is clear and united about what it must do - and they have not been, certainly not at the level of the Curia. My greatest concern, IMHO, is that Cardinal Bertone, who is supposed to integrate the disparate activities of the Curia and of bishops around the world, has not taken a single initiative all this time, not even in words, to make an appreciable change at all in the Vatican culture of insensibility to the media. An emblematic example: L'Osservatore Romano, which is directly under him, chooses not to say a word to show why the Pope rejected the resignations sumitted by two Irish bishops, a move that fanned new flames from the embers of the 'sex abuse scandal' that raged in the spring - and yet, the OR never fails to publish every address and homily that Bertone makes, and finds all the space in the world to eulogize the Beatles, Elvis Presley and other pop icons in the past half century. That is not merely poor editorial judgment, but an abdication of the OR's primary communications responsibility - which is to propagate the message of the Pope and the Church as clearly, promptly and unequivocally as it can!]
The Vatican does not have an overview media strategy. It has been limited to trying to plug the holes, stamp out fires, and neutralize bombs that have already exploded.
The task entrusted to the current Vatican press director, Fr. Federico Lombardi - a man of great qualification, preparedness and self-abnegation - and his very access to the Pope appear very different from those of his predecessor, Joaquin Navarro Valls, who was not only an adviser to John Paul II but also acted as a true and proper spin doctor.
{Of course, I disagree with the use of the term 'spin doctor' for anyone who speaks for the Pope, because 'spin' is a derogatory term for cosmetic dissimulation of fact. Nothing that the Pope says needs dissimulation! It must simply be presented right. And you do so by providing the right context and background information for every major item of Church news - the Church has its own highly specialized rules and a very specific history, but they are not known to everyone, not even to some Vaticanistas and the chatterati who routinely report and comment from an uninformed or disinformed point of view.]
This is a matter to which the Holy See should pay great attention.
[What? having a spin doctor?] As an authoritative source in teh Vatican told Tornielli and Rodari:
Attacks against the Pope are multiplying. attacks of every kind. That he expresses himself badly, that he does not know how to communicate, that there is no coordination among his Curial officials, that many of them are, in fact, incompetent.
Personally, I think that there is no 'team' that provides him with the adequate support, that can anticipate potential problems, that can reflect on how best to prevent or minimize such problems. Nor is there anyone who seems capable of reinforcing the Pope's messages, which are often distorted or trivialized.
And so the favorite question among themselves seems to be, "When and what will the next crisis be?"
[Do you suppose the Secretariat of State people who prepare the daily news summaries for the Pope would ever include an item like this in the folder they send him to read? Someone should do a special daily clipping service that puts together a representative sampling of the negative things written about him. He has never been thin-skinned about criticism and he knows he attracts all the poisonous gadflies. His underlings are not doing him a favor by seeking to screen him from negative stories - they would instead be providing him with a welcome occasion for self-mortification... All I can think of is that things might be very different if his Secretary of State were someone more militant (but wisely so) like Cardinal Ruini or Cardinal Bagnasco, who have proven themselves in media wars.]
REGENSBURG REVISITED
Like all black myths in the media, it only takes the constant repetition of a lie to 'establish' it as 'fact' that will live on in the history books, unfortunately. Regensburg is one of these myths, and has become almost a shortcut code for some in the media to refer to 'a monumental media blunder' by Pope Benedict XVI.
Almost four years since that day, it is worth looking back on how the crisis was manufactured and then blown out of all proportion.
Initial reports about the Regensburg lecture were rather routine, almost 'ho-hum', and did not, in fact, focus on the controversial quotation that would become a bone of contention - it was not until more than 24 hours later, when the Pope was back in Rome, that it came into raging focus.
A review of the posts about the visit to Bavaria in the APOSTOLIC VISIT TO BAVARIA thread on the PRF -
which kept abreast of the coverage in real time and therefore has reliability with respect to the chronology of events - shows that the Regensburg lecture was first reported Sept. 12 soon after it was delivered, on Page 5 of the thread.
But the first rumblings of the media rampage about it did not come until Sept. 14 on Page 7, some
two days and 40 posts later: after the Pope had celebrated Vespers in the Regensburg Cathedral, visited his old home and his parents' graves in Pentling, proceeded to Freising for a most beautiful Mass and homily in the cathedral where he was ordained a priest, and returned to Rome.
Initial reports by the news agencies did not even consider it as significant as his homily in Munich two days earlier, widely criticized even by the likes of Vittorio Messori and Magdi Allam in
Corriere della Sera on the day of the Regensburg lecture, because Benedict XVI had said that “the peoples of Asia and Africa... see a threat not in the Christian faith itself, but instead, in the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred as a civil right”. [Sadly, all those other beautiful discourses the Pope made in Bavaria have been consigned to obscurity because of the titanic prominence that the Regensburg lecture came to acquire.]
On the day of the Regensburg lecture and the day after, the Italian papers were full of commentary on the
Munich homily, with Marcello Pera, Giuliano Ferrara and Davide Rondoni (Avvenire) placing it all in the right context.
On Sept. 13, the AP's Victor Simpson, who would later paint himself as having been instantly incensed upon reading the pre-distributed text of the Regensburg lecture - and having marched off to confront Fr. Lombardi about it right away - wrote
a warm and fuzzy retrospective of the Pope's Bavarian trip on Sept. 13, entitled "Pope sheds image of dour theologian" in which he describes the Pope's activities in Regensburg but
does not even mention the lecture!
On the other hand, Ian Fisher of the
New York Times, was probably the only major correspondent who reported the lecture with some measure of due diligence at the time, though I did not post his report in the BAVARIA thread (I felt it was just a distraction from the full text itself, which was so stunningly unexpected and was very clearly a work of genius that I was in a state of babbling wonder about it).
Pope calls West divorced from faith,
adding a blunt footnote on jihad
By IAN FISHER
Published: September 13, 2006
REGENSBURG, Germany, Sept. 12 — Pope Benedict XVI weighed in Tuesday on the delicate issue of rapport between Islam and the West: He said that violence, embodied in the Muslim idea of jihad, or holy war, is contrary to reason and God’s plan, while the West was so beholden to reason that Islam could not understand it.
Nonetheless, in a complex treatise delivered at the university here where he once taught, he suggested reason as a common ground for a “genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”
In all, the speech seemed to reflect the Vatican’s struggle over how to confront Islam and terrorism, as the 79-year-old Pope pursues what is often considered a more provocative, hard-nosed and skeptical approach to Islam than his predecessor, John Paul II.
As such, it distilled many of Benedict’s longstanding concerns, about the crisis of faith among Christians and about Islam and its relationship to violence.
And he used language open to interpretations that could inflame Muslims, at a time of high tension among religions and three months before he makes a trip to Turkey.
He began his speech, which ran over half an hour, by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in a conversation with a “learned Persian” on Christianity and Islam — “and the truth of both.”
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread the sword by the faith he preached,” the Pope quoted the emperor, in a speech to 1,500 students and faculty.
He went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus “contrary to God’s nature.”
But the section on Islam made up just three paragraphs of the speech, and he devoted the rest to a long examination of how Western science and philosophy had divorced themselves from faith — leading to the secularization of European society that is at the heart of Benedict’s worries.
This, he said, has closed off the West from a full understanding of reality, making it also impossible to talk with cultures for whom faith is fundamental.
“The world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion from the divine, from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions,” he said. “A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.”
Several experts on the Catholic Church and Islam agreed that the speech — in which Benedict made clear he was quoting other sources on Islam — did not appear to be a major statement on, or condemnation of, Islam. The chief concern, they said, was the West’s exclusion of religion from the realm of reason.
Still, they said that the strong words he used in describing Islam, even that of the 14th century, ran the risk of offense...
The full article can be found on
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/europe/13pope.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq='benedict%20xvi%20regensburg%20lecture'&st=cse
And this is how Reuters, which is not less dogged than its fellow British institution, the BBC, in its militant anti-Popery, reported the Regensubrg lecture initially:
Pope invites Muslims to dialogue
By Philip Pullella and Madeline Chambers
REGENSBURG, Germany, Sept. 13 (Reuters) - Pope Benedict invited Muslims on Tuesday to join a dialogue of cultures that agrees the concept of Islamic "holy war" is unreasonable and against God's nature.
In a major lecture at Regensburg University, where he taught theology between 1969 to 1977, Benedict said Christianity was tightly linked to reason and contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword.
The 79-year-old Pontiff avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern atheism.
In his lecture, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who wrote in a dialogue with a Persian that Mohammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul"...
The rest of the story describes the Pope's other activities in Bavaria.
The first post in the BAVARIA thread that had any hint of 'controversy' about the Regensburg lecture was AFP's wrap-up story on Sept. 14:
Pope wraps up sentimental
tour of homeland
by Guy Jackson
MUNICH, Germany, Sept. 14 (AFP) - Pope Benedict XVI winds up his nostalgic visit to his native Bavaria with a visit to the cathedral in the city of Freising where he was ordained to the priesthood in 1951.
The Pope, who also taught in the city's seminary, will address priests and deacons before travelling the short distance to Munich airport, where he will make his farewell address before returning to Rome.
Benedict has courted controversy during the trip with thinly veiled criticism of the Islamic concept of "Jihad" or holy war.
But the visit is more likely to be remembered as a sentimental stroll down memory lane [Did the writer ever reflect afterwards how wrong he was not to have seen the Regensburg lecture for the epochal statement that it was, even if it had never generated the controversy it did?] in what the 79-year-old Pope himself admitted may be his final major visit to his homeland.
After describing all the nostalgia bits about the trip, the story ends with these paragraphs, which also incidentally cites the first Muslim criticism of the lecture I ever came across:
On Tuesday Benedict had hit the only political note of his visit, during which his addresses have been almost entirely spiritual, when he fleetingly criticised the Islamic concept of "Jihad".
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," the Pope had said in a complex treatise on reason and faith.
His comments drew criticism on Wednesday from a leading Muslim figure in Italy. Ejaz Ahmad, a member of an Italian governmental consultative committee on Islam, called on him to retract them.
"The Muslim world is currently undergoing a deep crisis and any attack from the West can aggravate this crisis," Ahmad was quoted as saying by Italy's ANSA news agency.
"In his speech the Pope overlooks the fact that Islam was the cradle of science and that Muslims were the first to translate Greek philosophers before they became part of European history," he said. [Which, of course, has nothing to do with the use of reason in articulating and promoting Islam as a religion!]
I would dearly love to go back and see how Marco Politi first reported the Regensburg lecture in
La Repubblica. In
Corriere della Sera and in
Avvenire on Sept. 14, Vittorio Messori and Giuliano Ferrara wrote their first commentaries on the Regensburg lecture
as a whole, not singling out the Manuel II quotation at all, even if Messori remarked incidentally that the Pope might well earn a fatwa for the things he said.]
On Sept. 14, AP's wrap-up story after the Pope had left Bavaria for Rome, also treated the Regensiburg lecture almost as a triviality, mentioning it almost dismissively, as below:
...The trip included many personal moments — but he made it more than a simple exercise in nostalgia by warning that modern societies — like his secular, socially liberal homeland — must not let faith in reason and technology alone cut them off from God.
Celebrating Mass before 250,000 in Munich on Saturday, he warned Western countries that faith in reason and science alone had made them "deaf" to God's message.
While cautioning against reason without faith, he also said that faith needs reason, alluding to ancient Christian concerns about Islam and violence.
The trip also showed the warmer side of Benedict, who can sometimes seem stiff and shy in public. He visited the house of his birth in Marktl am Inn, prayed at the graves of his parents, and visited the University of Regensburg, where he once taught and served as vice president. He repeatedly delighted his fellow Bavarians by taking time to shake hands and kiss babies.
On the same day, Sept. 14, Sandro Magister, wrote a brief piece in
www.chiesa entitled 'Munich, Altoetting, Regensburg: Diary of a Pilgrimage of Faith', subtitled 'The homilies and speeches delivered by Benedict XVI during his trip to Bavaria'.
Magister gives a brief summary of the homilies in those three cities, but his only mention of the Regensburg lecture comes in this sentence: "The evening of that same day,
after the lecture at the University of Regensburg, the Pope celebrated vespers together with the Orthodox and Protestants..." But then he had posted the text of the lecture separately on the day that it was delivered.
However, in this later article, he writes in his concluding paragraph in words that were oddly prophetic:
But the words of Benedict XVI do not lend themselves to easy interpretation in short summaries. Understanding them requires the patience to read them in their entirety. One must put oneself in the place of the persons to whom the pope was speaking at that moment – as if one were hearing him live and in person.
AFP's first round-up of the Muslim reaction came on Sept. 14, but it did not strike me as inflammatory at all.
Sharp reactions from Muslims
to Pope's Regensburg lecture
PARIS, Sept. 14 (AFP) - Pope Benedict XVI was facing sharp reactions to a lecture in which he linked Islam with violence, with Muslim leaders in several countries demanding he apologise.
"We hope that the Church will very quickly... clarify its position so that it does not confuse Islam, which is a revealed religion, with Islamism, which is not a religion but a political ideology," the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, told AFP Thursday.
Benedict provoked the outcry with comments on Tuesday in a theological lecture to staff and students at the University of Regensburg, in the most political part of a largely personal visit to his native Bavaria in southern Germany.
Couching his criticism in a historical reference to a 14th century Byzantine emperor, the Pope implicitly denounced connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or "holy war".
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,'" Benedict said, quoting the Byzantine source on the Prophet Mohammed, founder of the Muslim faith.
The comments provoked an outcry among Muslims in several countries.
Turkey's top Muslim religious leader described the pontiff's remarks as hateful, prejudiced and biased.
"It is a statement full of enmity and grudge," said Ali Bardakoglu, the head of Turkey's state-run religious affairs directorate. He also expressed opposition to the pope's planned visit to Turkey in November.
Senior Islamic officials in Kuwait demanded an immediate apology from the pope to the Muslim world.
Haken al-Mutairi, secretary general of the Umma (Islamic Nation) party, urged him to apologise for "calumnies against the Prophet Mohammed and Islam". Sayed Baqer al-Mohri, head of the assembly of Shiite ulemas, or theologians, echoed the call.
The speech at Regensburg University explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," Benedict said.
Justo Balda Lacunza, a Vatican-based priest specialising in Islamic affairs, said the speech was not intended to look unfavourably on Islam, but was an "examination" of this relationship.
His reaction followed that of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, who said earlier that he did not believe the Pope's words were meant as a severe criticism of Islam.
"He certainly doesn't want to give... an interpretation of Islam as violent," he said.
But in Morocco, the daily Aujourd'hui warned of the possible damage done by Benedict's words. It called on him to "prove that his ambition is not to spark a war of religions by pointlessly upsetting almost a billion faithful".
The president of Germany's Central Council of Muslims, Aiman Mazyek, responded to Benedict's comments by recalling violent chapters in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported on Thursday.
"After the bloodstained conversions in South America, the crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the Church by Hitler's regime, and even the coining of the phrase 'holy war' by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions," he said.
Benedict had also drawn criticism on Wednesday from a leading Muslim figure in Italy. Ejaz Ahmad, a member of a governmental consultative committee on Islam, called on him to retract his comments.
"The Muslim world is currently undergoing a deep crisis," Ahmad was quoted as saying by the ANSA news agency. "Any attack from the West can aggravate this crisis."
On the same day, Sept. 14, AP filed a long story from Istanbul quoting at length the reaction from Turkey's Religious Affairs Minister...
and the media's deadly games began.
The AP's own Victor Simpson and the
New York Times's Ian Fisher led the charge with aggressively slanted and suddenly emboldened articles that were far from their original 'innocuous' reports! (Just as AP and the
New York Times led the charge last spring in trying to slander the person of Joseph Ratzinger over the sex abuse issue.)... Because the headline for Ian Fisher's next article for the NYT was
"Pope Benedict, in inflammatory speech, attacks everything: secularism, jihad, Islam and the prophet Mohammed"... Journalistic amnesia, instantly invoked and summoned when expedient, is one of the most dishonest of afflictions.
My little exercise here does not pretend to be exhaustive in any way about how Regensburg became the 'crisis' it became, but I think I have cited enough concrete examples to show that the breast-beating panjandrums of MSM certainly did not see it as a crisis until people like the Turkish Religion Minister weighed in - and suddenly, every MSM reporter took on an omniscient 'I told you so' smirk belying the record of their own earlier reports! And gloatingly went on to feed the flames, hardly hiding their Schadenfreude over the 'uprising' against Benedict XVI : "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-yah! Now you're public enemy No. 1!"
P.S. On the last page of the BAVARIA thread in the PRF,
http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354945&p=9
I also posted Der Spiegel's 'reconstruction' of the Regensburg episode, in 2006, but it is written from the false premise that the media found it a 'too hot to handle' story from the get-go! And the Italian magazine
Radici Cristiane has its own brief account.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/08/2010 23:50]