|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 5, 2012 12:42:43 GMT
There is one point in which Supertradmum's blog is bang on the button, and that is the dangerous complacency of many Irish Catholics and pro-lifers about the extent to which "we have kept abortion out of Ireland" and "we are the people". Youth Defence and its offshoot groups seem particularly prone to this sort of mindset for some reason. I attribute this partly to the "bubble effect" of living among like-minded activists and assuming they represent the whole nation, partly, as Supertradmum does, to a tribal mindset which equates Irishness with Catholicism and assumes that the people will rally automatically if the trumpet is blown loudly enough. This mindset does lead to complacency about how desperate the situation has become, and this complacency is I fear about to be brutally exposed - the bulwark may look solid but it has been hollowed out from within and the collapse is imminent.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 5, 2012 14:25:33 GMT
Hibernicus is correct there re the complacency, but it seems to have passed Supertradmum by that we have several pro-life organisations; we have several bodies seeking the traditional Latin Mass; we have a number of publications in the area. Did she come to Ireland expecting each of these to be leaping out at her from every corner? If so, it is no wonder she was disappointed.
In last Wednesday's Irish Times, Vincent Brown convincingly argued why Labour were anything but a socialist party, but it escapes me that Supertradmum would equate laissez-faire economics with Catholicism and denounce everything else as socialism. Hibernicus is correct about the historic role of Christian Democratic parties in Europe, most of which were inspired by Catholic social teaching. Indeed as right of centre parties go, the US Republicans and British Conservatives are out on their own limb.
What is more disturbing is the apparent desire of American trad Catholics to identify with a 'Brideshead Revisited' type Catholicism. How many nations did this evangelise? How many local churches did this build up. The fact that there is a Church in the US owes much more to the Tammany Hall Democrats than to these; the Church in the various parts of Britain owes more to Irish navvies (who tended to vote Labour if anything) than these; ditto in Australia, New Zealand and Anglo-Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 5, 2012 14:33:51 GMT
Shane, I would agree with the Thirsty Gargoyle's take on American influence.
Hibernicus, in terms of self-consciously orthodox universities, are you talking about places like Thomas Aquinas College/Stuebenville/Christendom College/Ave Maria University?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 6, 2012 21:50:43 GMT
YEs, Alasdair- Belmont Abbey in North Carolina would be another example. But even the older historically Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Boston College etc at least offer some opportunities to discuss Catholicism and participate in a Catholic subculture; there are of course worse things on offer and the student may go to the bad, but will at least have found it harder to assume that Catholicism is not intellectually serious. In Irish universities it's all too easy to make that assumption
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 6, 2012 22:06:13 GMT
To be fair to the English Catholic aristocracy (and their wealthy American equivalents) they did pay for quite a few churches in their time. Pugin's patron the Earl of Shrewsbury bankrolled quite a lot of Gothic churches for the Irish immigrant poor, while at the same time regarding said poor as a pack of savages misled by subversives - some of his exchanges with O'Connell and Archbishop John MacHale really have to be seen to be believed. Without some sort of Catholic upper or middle class to provide leadership, a peasant or ghetto Catholicism will eventually be eroded and absorbed by the society around it (especially if the state aggressively evangelises for its own worldview, be that Protestant, secular or whatever). You are correct, though, in pointing out just how dangerous the Brideshead Revisited fantasy is. Just as the liberal version of Catholicism tends to reduce itself to a series of committee-meetings while neglecting evangelisation on the grounds that everyone is an "anonymous Christian" anyway and doesn't need it, traditionalism can easily degenerate into a sort of gnosticism whose members pride themselves on being an elite in a degenerate world and don't bother with evangelisation as they think the vulgar masses beneath contempt. (I might note that the vicious hatred of some self-professed US conservative Catholics for Mexican and Hispanic immigrants, who bear a remarkable resemblance to the ancestors of said conservative Catholics a few generations back, is quite horrific to behold. The novelist Walker Percy remarked that one of the greatest indictments of white Christianity in the US South was that it was to a considerable extent left to professed nonbelievers among whites to take up the struggle for racial justice - to the considerable bemusement of many blacks who took Christianity for granted. The so-called conservative Catholics who rant that the Mexicans tend to be co-opted by liberal Catholics - who are of course often the only ones who have done anything for them - or to fall away from the faith altogether, are setting themselves up for the same judgement that befell those oh-so-Christian Dixie whites. BTW the attempt to equate Catholicism with nativism is not purely an American phenomenon. European far-right parties often try to present Christianity as an European tribal religion, and Justin Barrett tried to combine his version of national Catholicism with anti-immigrant agitation, fortunately without success.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 7, 2012 0:41:58 GMT
I notice from her blog that Supertradmum is of Czech descent and spent some time as an Ukrainian Rite Catholic. The Czech and Ukrainian experience with communism may contribute to her tendency to see socialism/communism everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 7, 2012 10:10:32 GMT
There is a tendency in Eastern Europe to see 'reds' everywhere, so that is noted. Within the US, there is a 'Cold War' mentality live among trads which is similar - certain aspects of the Fatima Message reinforce this.
But let me get to a 'baby with the bathwater' argument. For all my criticisms of conservative and traditional Catholicism in the US, it has a lot going for it. There is a huge positive attitude and a willingness to do hard work. Something about it reminds me of a maxim imparted on us by a traditional National School teacher in a rural school - that a wrong answer is better than no answer at all. And the US trad/con approach is right about more things than they're wrong. Anyhow, there is no 'one size fits all' approach in this game, and what works in the US, Canada, the Antipodes, Britain or Continental Europe may or may not work here.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 9, 2012 19:58:23 GMT
Yes, indeed - one reason why Supertradmum is so shocked at the weakness of the trad and pro-life movements is that she is comparing them with America, which is to a great extent the exception - we're much closer to the norm, alas. Similarly, when she complains about Irish pro-lifers not getting involved in politics she doesn't realise that Irish political parties are much more tightly controlled from the centre than their US equivalents, and that the smaller scale and much more centralised Irish political system make it difficult to build an independent political base at local level as the US federal system (and the choice of candidates by primary elections) allows. What is disturbing about her economic views is that she doesn't advocate laissez-faire as the best thing to do under present circumstances (and a case can certainly be made that the interventionism associated with post-war Christian Democracy as well as Social Democracy has run into difficulties and needs trimming) but as the only permissible approach, all others being self-evidently wrong. THAT is difficult to reconcile with almost any form of Catholic social teaching.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 17, 2012 22:14:15 GMT
I will post more fully later on about the current IRISH CATHOLIC (17 May) but one feature calls for attention. Fr Andrew Nugent OSB of Glenstal Abbey has a piece on Cardinal Brady's current predicament which includes the following passage: EXTRACT One of the reasons for which Cardinal Brady should not resign is that every vote will count at the next papal election, if we are not to be landed with a right-wing candidate who has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. That is what is in preparation. MAke no mistake. The signs are everywhere: in the most recent nomination of new cardinal-electors [THIS WOULD BE THE SAME NEW CARDINALS RORATE CAELI AND SIMILAR SOURCES HAVE BEEN DENOUNCING AS DANGEROUS LIBERALS?], in the campaign against American nuns [BECAUSE OF SERIOUS DOCTRINAL ABUSES], in the deplorable tirades of most American bishops against President Barack Obama, and in our own country - I don't need to elaborate!... END OF EXTRACT What is really startling about Fr Nugent's "deplorable tirade" is that he does not explain to his readers what it is that the US bishops have been complaining about in relation to President Obama, or why he thinks this is a bad thing. Anyone who knows the extent to which many American bishops (and, even more importantly, their bureaucratic staff who shape their responses to a considerable extent) naturally sympathise with the Democrats on social justice grounds even when said Democrats are militant secularists will realise that it takes something really remarkable to make them line up almost unanimously in criticising a Democrat administration. What the US bishops have been protesting about is the deliberate decision of the Obama administration to virtually eliminate conscience-protection measures in their healthcare legislation, so that Catholic institutions/employers must pay for contraception for their employees (and it is arguable that this could be expanded to enforce payment for surgical sterilisation and abortion). This will force many/most Catholic institutions to secularise or shut down. President Obama has also repeatedly and publicly stated that keeping abortion legal is a matter of fundamental constitutional rights for women, and his administration has tended both at home and abroad to reduce the concept of "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship" (i.e. so long as you are allowed go to Church you have nothing to complain about if your views are excluded from the public sphere and your ability to form religious associations is restricted). Now, I can see how someone might argue that in spite of these things Obama is still a better option than the Republicans (they might cite Mitt Romney's shameful record of opportunism on life issues and his venture capital fund's role in alleged asset-stripping). But Fr Nugent seems to treat any criticism of Obama as self-evidently wrong and illegitimate. The most charitable supposition is that he is ignorant of what Obama has actually done, and has drunk the Kool-Aid assumption propagated by the mass media to the effect that all Obama does is good and his critics are wrong by definition - but he is still sinning against charity when he makes these rash sneers against the US bishops without inquiring why they have acted in this way. For more on how Obama works to suffocate religious freedom, see the link below: www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/05/toldja-so-3.htmlEXTRACT This is the hubristic tyrant who, just this past December, tried to decree to the Lutherans who they could and could not ordain and got smashed flat by a 9-0 decision by SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States - HIB]. The arrogance of this Administration is boundless. Anybody who thinks they don’t mean to punish orthodox Christians for incorrect thought simply doesn’t grasp the Left’s bottomless capacity for self-righteousness. Any fool that votes for him is voting for this, as well as for indefinite detention and murder by a lawless tyrant. END OF EXTRACT While Mr Shea is eccentric in many ways, a right-wing shill for the Republicans he is not (he has been attacking them for years and intends to vote third-party rather than support them) - indeed, as the reference to "indefinite detention and murder [by drone strikes] will indicate, he is criticising Obama in part for continuing security policies begun by the Republicans. Does Fr Nugent never even wonder WHY someone like this is so hostile to Obama?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 31, 2012 11:08:21 GMT
An interesting article by George Weigel on the controversy over Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of "Americanism" in which he argues that many present-day liberal Catholics are showing exactly the tendencies condemned by LEo XIII. The piece is also very revealing about Weigel, because, having shown how the features of "Americanism" have turned up in the modern-day US Church, he then asserts that those earlier historians who maintained that the "Americanism" condemned by Leo was a phantom heresy, a projection of the fears of bishops and theologians conditioned to support the European ancien regime, were in fact correct. But if Americanism didn't exist then, how did its enemies identify the characteristics which it so clearly displays now? The fact is, Weigel does not want to address the possibility that his view that the American ideal is not merely compatible with Catholicism but fulfils it may be problematic, and that the harmful developments within American Catholicism are not just down to the blindness and betrayal of individual liberal Catholics but reflect significant features of American culture. (Admittedly anyone who has seen the malevolent ravings of Bishop Williamson, E. Michael Jones and others about America as the work of the Devil - which often cite the Americanist controversy to support their views - will understand why one might wish to avoid this question.) BTW some of the views attributed to "Americanists" will sound quite familiar, for there are parallels between the Americanist and Modernist controversies and the argument that modernism was a "phantom heresy" projected by its opponents' fears rather than a coherent movement was also often advanced by sympathetic historians in mid-century www.nationalreview.com/articles/301342/catholic-americanism-george-weigel
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 1, 2012 18:51:49 GMT
Here we see a former member of Democrats for Life explaining why he switched his party registration to Independent after finding out just how inhospitable the Democrats are towards orthodox Catholics. the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/31/obama-working-willfully-to-undermine-hierarchical-catholic-church/EXTRACT Obama Working Willfully To Undermine Hierarchical Catholic Church Published Thursday, May 31, 2012 A.D. | By Tim Shipe A few years ago I would have thought the title of my piece was too extreme- I bought into the charisma of Barack Obama- never publicly supported him- but I thought he was someone who could bridge some of the serious difficulties that pro-life Democrats faced within my political party. I read his books, I thought he respected the Catholic Church as much as a secular political liberal could be expected to. Around that time I was trying to work from the inside of the Democratic party- running for Florida State House as a pro-life Democrat, and later serving as Vice President for the Florida Democats for Life organization. This was also the time period where I was invited to become part of a national Catholic Democrats listserve which included such notaries as : Vicki Kennedy [SENATOR TED KENNEDY'S SECOND WIFE RECENTLY IN THE NEWS BECAUSE A BISHOP GOT A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY TO WITHDRAW HER INVITATION AS COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER BECAUSE SHE PUBLICLY DISSENTS ON ABORTION AND OTHER DOCTRINAL ISSUES], Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College, Rev. William D’Antonio and Rev. Anthony Pogorel of the Catholic University of America, Peggy Steinfels of Fordham University [LONG ASSOCIATION WITH COMMONWEAL MAGAZINE], Rev. Thomas Reese of Georgetown, Vincent Miller of Georgetown/U. of Dayton, Dan Maguire of Marquette [WELL-KNOWN PRO-ABORTION THEOLOGIAN; EX-PRIEST], Doug Kmeic of Pepperdine [FORMER ADVISER TO OBAMA ON CATHOLIC ISSUES, RELATIVELY ORTHODOX SO CAUSED QUITE A STIR BY SUPPORTING THE BIG O IN 2008], Suzanne Morse of NCR, Chris Korzen of Catholics United, Alexia Kelly of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good ["SOCIAL JUSTICE' CATHOLIC LOBBYING GROUP], Steve Callahan of the AFL-CIO [TRADE UNION FEDERATION], and others (Eric LeCompte, Nicholas Carfardi, James Salt, Morna Murray, Fred Rotondaro, Kari Lundgren). I never agreed to keep all that passed before my eyes confidential, but I never publicly revealed the basic content until now. My reason for going public now is due to the recent event where the Worcester Bishop Robert McManus weighed in to prevent Vicki Kennedy from speaking at the Anna Maria College commencement. The press I read portrayed the Bishop as being overly vindictive and Kennedy milked the rejection, playing innocent, as though she is doing nothing to try to upend the Catholic Church as we know it- as a Hierarchical Institution. It was my experience on the Catholic Dem listserve that Vicki Kennedy was essentially my nemesis. I defended the Church as a Hierarchy, and the official teachings on abortion et al, and she took me to task almost every time I wrote pro-orthodox Catholic commentary- with plenty of Amens from her fellow travelers on the listserve. I did receive a few positive private emails from some on the listserve, but on the whole it was a very discouraging experience trying to defend the Church as a convert, who would be at a total loss if the Catholic Church put no stock in the teaching authority of the Pope and the Bishops, and taught that contraceptives, legal abortion, and gay marriage were just fine and dandy things. So Soon after posting this on the listserve- “It is deeply troubling to me that this Catholic Democrats listserve membership seems more intent on finding reasons to pull some kind of palace coup against the Catholic Church Magisterium and Hierarchy in general, than to address specific issues related to the Catholic interests in American politics. I am a convert to Catholicism, I knew what I was signing up for in becoming a Catholic, I accepted the teachings and authority lines as prescribed by the latest Catechism. I simply cannot understand why those who seem to relish openly trashing the Apostolic successors retain membership in the Church- that is something that I can only address as an appeal to someone else’s good conscience. Most of my family is of the Protestant variety, I understand that thinking and worldview but reject it, but they are acting in good conscience- they don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches about her role, so they don’t invest in the Catholic narrative and authority line. Maybe what I’m finding here at Catholic Democrats are many good protestants but not orthodox Catholics as I understand things? You can remove me from your rolls if it displeases many here that I don’t conform to the groupthink on display here, otherwise I will continue to offer my two bits to challenge the establishment views of liberal, anti-Catholic Hierarchical voices which parallel the hard Catholic Right- in their wrongheadedness- in my humble opinion anyway. One is certainly free to criticize the clerical/Hierarchical handling of sexual abuse cases over the years- but how this all fits in with being a Democratic Party member is something I can’t fathom. Tim Shipe” My offer to leave was accepted after Vicki Kennedy wrote a smack-down on me; and shortly thereafter I severed my own Democratic party membership and ended my leadership role with Florida Dems for Life- I took Archbishop Chaput route of becoming a political Independent and remain such today. To come up to speed- back a couple of years ago- I knew that the most powerful and connected Catholic Democrats in our country were interested in more than just getting more traction on Catholic social justice issues in our American political system- I would describe the agenda/mind-set of Vicki Kennedy et al for the most part as the following: 1. Obama embodies the Catholic social tradition- he’s a better guide than the out-of-touch Pope/Bishops 2. Democrats for Life leaders were not welcome – despite my own inclusion for a time- Kennedy seemingly successfully squashed the idea of Kristen Day being invited to be part of the listserve 3. The Bishops who were outspoken for advocating the primacy of the right to life for the unborn were demonized, mocked, ridiculed, and at times the idea of trying to bring on an IRS investigation on these type of Bishops was being encouraged by some ( especially if they dared to consider withholding Communion from Pro-choice Dem leaders)[INCOME TAX INVESTIGATIONS IN THE US ARE NOTORIOUSLY COMPLEX AND TIME-CONSUMING AND INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE EVEN IF YOU'RE CLEARED] 4. Bishops were described as “self-designated custodians of ‘the tradition’”. 5. Catholic Dems could aptly be self-described for the most part as “intra-Catholic warriors” 6. The Clergy Scandals were to be used to help bring the end of the Bishops line of authority- teaching and otherwise 7. This authority should pass to those who know best- the secular-minded Catholic professors and their liberal political activist friends- since there really can’t be such a thing as a Holy Spirit-guided Catholic Church with Popes and Bishops playing a key role- I suppose they could still hold onto ceremonial roles like the Kings in Europe. I can see clearly now that President Obama has been very conscious of this war for control within the Church- and his choice of Vice President and HHS Secretary- Biden and Sebelius, respectively, was a conspicuous power move to set in place the acceptability of dissenting Catholic leaders and thought into the mainstream of American societal structures and popular imaginations. The fact that Obama “evolved” on Gay Marriage with help from his Catholic buddy Joe Biden, and his determination to mandate contraception as a must-have “medicine” through the offices of Catholic Kathleen Sebelius- all of this plays right into the larger goals of the Catholic Democratic party elite. There has been no such evolution in his comprehension and compassion for the thousands of unborn humans killed every day in abortions, and the threat to religious liberties is finely focused on the authority of Catholic Bishops and the official teachings of the Catholic Magisterium. I believe the Catholic Dems elite would like to re-make American Catholic Bishops in the image of the Anglican church in England- with Obama playing a kind of King Henry VIII role in forcing power transfers ( counting on public/Catholic lay apathy). My conclusion is this- I am not in disagreement with the Catholic Dems elite on an across-the-board basis- I am not a conservative ideologue any more than I am a liberal one. There are political issues where I go left and others where I go right or down the middle- I make the honest effort to stay as close to the official social doctrine teachings of principles, and even the prudential judgment application of those principles as the Bishops and Vatican officials advise. I find that the same powers-that-be that are given Holy Spirit assistance to teach firm principles, are also pretty darn good at putting forth ideas for applying those principles into the real world of political legislation and the like- but I acknowledge it’s not an exact science with one formula fits all simplicities, however. That’s how I would describe my own efforts in being a wanna-be orthodox, faithful Catholic on matters of social doctrine. Others may disagree- I have no doubt that the Catholic Dem elites I list above are well-intentioned- but I believe they are threatening great harm to many souls and to the future of our Catholic Church as the Hierarchical Institution – founded by Jesus Christ. Reforms should be taken up in a spirit that respects the obedience of Faith. I don’t abide by clergy abuses and incompetent administrative decisions made by Catholic bishops- but you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater- just as you don’t kill babies in the womb to solve the problems of women and their mates. END GO to the original post and read the comments - they're very interesting. Any comparisons with the Irish situation? One difference is that our bishops seem much more cowed than theirs
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 10, 2012 8:25:06 GMT
An example of the legal arguments used by that nice Mr Obama and his minions to argue that religious freedom only exists while you're actually at worship and evaporates the minute you set foot outside the church door. BTW the writer has a long association with the consumer advocate Ralph Nader, so while he generally supports social-conservative Republicans he's not just a party hack. www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/obama-looks-to-strip-entrepreneurs-of-religious-liberty
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 24, 2012 22:30:04 GMT
Here is an article by an Obama supporter discussing why Obama is going on the offensive on "culture wars" issues (especially abortion - by all accounts the Democrat Convention is going to be a Moloch Eulogy Fest). TO summarise: the usual perception is that "culture wars" issues hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans because while social conservatives may be a minority they are more likely to vote on those issues. (This is one reason why it is generally believed that most republican leaders are cynical on abortion - they take a pro-life position because it gets them social conservative votes, but they don't want Roe v. Wade overturned because if it was it would mobilise numerous social liberals who now assume they can rely on the Supreme Court and needn't make the effort.) This means the Republicans normally pay more attention to culture wars than Democrats. The commentator argues that this stems from two things: (a) Obama is copying the strategy of George W Bush in 2004; he knows there is a lot of hostility to him but he believes that by mobilising his base he can get out enough voters to give him a narrow victory, so he is aiming to stir up his own supporters rather than appeal to the centre (b) He is able to do this because he has solidified the Democrats' normal support among blacks and Hispanics. Bush was actually able to detach significant numbers of blacks and Hispanics because of his social conservative appeal (and because he took a relatively liberal line on immigration) - not enough to give him any chance of a majority in those groups, but enough to make the difference between defeat and victory in some close-run states. As the first black president Obama has an appeal to blacks (and to Hispanics, who have also been antagonised by the current Republican hard line on immigration) which is much stronger than the usual Democrat candidates - therefore he has less fear of the Republicans using social conservatism as a "wedge issue" to split away parts of his base, and is instead trying to use social liberalism as a wedge to split away some liberal Republican voters (especially socially liberal white middle-class and upper-class women whose economic interests might incline them towards the Republicans but who are pro-abortion). I have a nasty feeling that this is going to work - Romney is a profoundly uninspiring candidate, especially for the blue-collar voters the Republicans need to win the election. Nevertheless, if I were an American I would support him because of the alternative. Obama is the most aggressively pro-abortion US president ever, and the first one to be elected by a majority of voters since 1976 (Ford was pro-abortion but never elected; Carter was ambiguous enough that some pro-lifers supported him in 1976; Clinton never got over 50%). What might Obama do in a second term, with no need to worry about re-election and with what he can present as a strong pro-abortion/social liberal mandate? www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/106004/obama-culture-warrior
|
|
|
Post by shane on Sept 8, 2012 21:43:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 9, 2012 12:00:43 GMT
That is extremely interesting Shane. Towards the end of the article Waugh says that Catholics, aware of their primary loyalty to the Faith as against the State, tend to be ostentatiously loyal to the State where they can be so with a clear conscience. I was in Richmond, Virginia on or around the Fourth of July for the last two years, and on both of the Sundays before the Fourth, "God Bless America" was played as the recessional hymn. The national flag was also hanging in the Church.
I was quite startled by the very different approach to religion in America. In the supermarket, I saw a stall devoted to inspirational tracts which were nearly all Christian (or ostensibly so). There are churches everywhere, at least in Richmond-- every denomination imaginable. They are often huge, warehouse-like buildings.
What struck me perhaps the most was the realisation that the Reformation is still a live issue in America. There is still a certain tension between Protestant and Catholic which in Europe probably only exists in Northern Ireland, where it is mostly tribal and not doctrinal. I went to a "Theology on Tap" session-- these are theological addresses held in bars, aimed at young people-- in which a young man described his journey from Calvinism to Catholicism, and it was obvious that this was a highly controversial topic. I met a young Catholic lady who worked for a Christian website and who told me she was bullied by her Protestant colleagues.
I think it is worth remembering that, where the God Delusion sold over two million copies, the Left Behind series-- which (as I'm sure you all know) is an American set of novels about the Rapture-- have sold over 65 million copies.
|
|