Following two materials published on Habitus Network site, we conclude today analyzing the implications of revealing the colaborators with the Communist regime in Romania with a material speaking of past, present and future of the Church, of the country and of its people. Radu Preda, the author, is a professor at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Cluj-Napoca and a keen observer of religious and political realities.

The direct approach of the last taboo chapter in recent Romanian history created a strong feeling of confusion. The confusion was enhanced by the reaction of those involved, by the contradictory messages and by the twists and turns the situation presented every hour. Awaken from a two decades imposed amnesia, the public witnesses a show in which real actors are mixed among talking phantoms of the past in a display of light and shadow, sounds and whispered words, direct and undeclared meanings, with lots of over imposed shots and unexpected scenographic solutions.

Even if a vast majority of the content made known today was already known or at least supposed, the effect resulted is an undissimulated surprise. Still, we didn’t expect Securitate to be so well infiltrated: starting with political figures and continuing with those in the cultural-academic environment, from sport performers to athletes of the faith and from journalists to lawyers. The perplexity is all the more greater when we realize that after 1989 we shared the same space with people who seemed to be different. Or maybe not. Revealing Securitate alternates with a series of confirmations as disappointing as revealing the evil. The will to clean up our memory risks to come to a halt when we see everything is an enormous butaphoria, a battle for power, a last demonstration of force in which we are shown the ways in which Securitate and those who inherited its means work.

In spite of all this, what is happening right now is of great importance to us. For Romania, it is vital to know the mechanism of state sustained terror and the people who made it work. One cannot built a free, democratic and transparent society without one knowing how it is to fall into dependence, terror and fear. One cannot wait the change in mentality, the moral freshening and the unity around a major national project without one reveling the faults of the past, the agents of corruption and the enemies of the common good. In the end, one cannot start a new chapter of history if the pages of the ancient one are badly written or misguiding. In short: without being assumed, the communist experience brings the danger of failing to learn anything from it. Eventually, it can only confirm the banality of the evil spreading through people who, considered separately and given the right circumstances, prove to be of good will and inoffensive.

Because the criteria are mixed and with them also the hidden real terror spreaders, hiding behind their collaborators and victims and responsibilities are given away randomly, these days we feel more powerfully the need to clear things up, not only the need to reveal. With the risk of repeating what has been already said and conscientious of the complexity of situations, without claiming to judge before understanding, we want to approach directly the situation and, as much as an article allows it, to resume the facts of revealing the political police of the communist regime in Romania by dealing with the dilemma from a complementary perspective of the political space, of the civil society and of the Church.

Before this, an assignation: the current process of revealing does not give to anyone the right to judge more harshly than it’s needed, nor the right to be more indulgent than it’s needed. Regardless of the objective facts of communism, we are dealing especially these days with the system’s human faces, with the persons and biographies it touched. But this very dimension, cleverly brought to the front by those who wish to avoid this way dealing with the hard essence of criminal domination, compels us to distinguish the nuances. A thing valid especially for my generation. Put in a simple fashion, none of us can say how we would have dealt with the pressures developed during the communist regime. We don’t know and we cannot find out. We must thank God we were born late enough in order not to show our quality in those times. In other words, our biography alone does not give us a moral upper hand. Thus, not the things that had happened during communism, a long period interpreted now in an abstract way by the young and very young people, is the base of our critical interpretation, but especially what has happened and is still happening before our eyes after 1989. The accusation of being a forced or enthusiastic collaboration with Securitate is replaced by another, more serious one: these people were not sincere collaborators of freedom. Through their silence, through the fact that they were susceptible of blackmail, Securitate collaborators, together with their secret masters, prolonged the shadow. Unfortunately, in Romania the communist day has had 25 hours.

I. The political space

From a political point of view, the main reproach to be sustained against the way of the revealing is taking place is the confusing relation, intended or not, between means and goals. In fact, observing this state of things does not question the need to open the archive of the defunct political police. Au contraire. Convinced of the obligatory character of an complete analysis, as long as this is still a human enterprise, of the last half of century in Romanian history, we would like this thing not to be vitiated or hijacked. To this moment, we feel in the air the feeling of a political command ordered in the name of a truth that should be above any momentary interests. Moreover, in this moment few have before them a complete image over the phenomenon, a situation that brings up a serious paradox: revealing Securitate is taking place using Securitate methods, meaning is taking place at the edge between transparency and occult interests, between blackmail and half-truths. It is more likely we are witnessing a pay-back time, not a time to buy back inequities.
Because we are trying to mention the insecurities of revealing Securitate, we should mention the status of NCSSA (National Council for Studying Securitate Archives). Being in the same time in the position of administrator and of judge, between the role of objective court – based on the work of searching the files, a work still not finalized and lacking all the documents needed – and the political decision accomplished through the vote of the Council’s members, people with a political background, the institution looked a few months ago to be assassinated by the lack of activity, but it’s not killed by the sudden affluence of files. Moreover, in the past weeks tremendous pressures, NCSSA becoming the oracle of public survival for the former collaborators with Securitate. All these people expect good grades for their behavior. But the conclusions can be changed by new pages in the files or by new interventions, the same person could be exonerated or abusively accused. Wanting to be a moral filter between the state and the public apparatus, NCSSA clearly lacks the distance, the independence and the freedom to close univoquely and convincingly the files it opens.

Secondly, it isn’t very clear the goal intended by exposing the files of Securitate. This intention precedes the moment, long awaited by many, of condemning communism as a perverse ideology that lead to the instauration, in Romania and in other countries, of a criminal regime. Thus, uncovering the those obliged to be allies of communism as a regime is not preceded by the written and public proclamation of the malephic character of communism. Let’s not forget also this important detail: the proposition of condemning communism at a European level did not come from those countries which experienced it. Such a lack of interest, explicable through the rule detained by the same people in post-communist times , makes possible the fact that, instead of being interested in uncovering the communist leaders, we are acting to condemn those who made it stronger out of interest of fear. The confusion between cause and effect, expressed by the lack of difference between victim and executioner, between active members of the system and „collateral” members of it, encourages the appearance of a moral relativism, bereaving the example given by those who resisted in dungeons or in freedom of any civic message. In the absence of a real process of communism, we are content with a media process, where are exposed because of a fault is not less evident, but who were a part in a system still not known in its human dimension: with names and surnames. The result is hallucinatory: former active actors of communism are completely driven out of the equation. Meaning they are left to administrate the economic domination and to prepare the sons and nephews for the European Parliament. The public is forced to be content with the moral execution of a few victims, their disappearance from the public stage being seen as a break with the past. The scapegoat theory could not be better illustrated.

At a third level, the effects of exposing Securitate are legally (almost) null. They do not have the automatic effects, like loosing the public office by the one exposed. In the absence of a lustration law, the parties rush into the media logic of resignation and present a pathetic show of condemning those already exposed by commissions formed by still unexposed people or by people sure their file is well hidden. The needed freshening of the political class is reduced to the difference between two sides: the exposed and the unexposed. But even this difference is not functional: Dan Voiculescu (leader of the Conservator Party) remains a political ally for the government, but in the same time Mona Musca is rejected without plea. Collaborating with Securitate is measured in two ways. But what do we do with those who, without being a second into Securitate’s eye, because of their age or the lack of profile in the pre-communist times, ended up in the Parliament or in other offices through intellectual fraud, through the power of money or though other actions, all having as a result the total disbelief of Romanians into their own political class? Transformed into bullets in a war between sides, „the file war” does not contribute to the rehabilitation of the prestige of the political space. The risk is still high: deepening the politicians authority crisis and emphasizing the lack of interest and the absenteeism, the cancer of democracy.

Further, in a fourth sense, at the height of this local political earthquake, we forget we are not unique. In the larger context of post-communist Europe, the moment of breaking the seal of silence left on the communist archives was almost all the time convulsive. This explains the reasons, from country to country, for the postponement or the formula of dealing with this moment in a gradual way. After reuniting, Germany gave access to those involved or to historians the STASI archives applying a strategy of attentive research, done case by case and times to times. They intended a confrontation with the communist past lacking the explosive character and doubled by effective cleaning of public structures of compromised characters. In spite of those measures meant to prevent partisan politicizing and discriminations in the name of justice, the scandals and shocks were not absent. The same thing happened during exposing the secret police in countries like Slovenia, Hungary and recently, Poland. Bulgaria is still in the beginning, but, in spite of the delay, making it resembling Romania, Bulgaria chose the formula in which blackmail, speculations and calumny are still possible. Thus, the law recently issued by the Bulgarian Parliament stipulates from the beginning the publication of all the lists with officers, agents, collaborators and informants of ex political police.

In the end, we are left with the question many of us express, without receiving a convincing answer: why this process of exposing was not wanted until not, and why it is wanted now? What is the reason of the delay and what is the reason for this rush? Was Romania in need for a president like Traian Basescu or the right time has come? Was somebody or rather something at the origin of this decision made in a summer that will prove to be the hottest and the coldest for many? The diversity of those exposed, covering practically all today’s political specter, cannot hold the theory of a political plot. The reason must be found in another place. In the horizon of a few months to the moment of European integration, at the peak of a war against corruption left without results, a thing demonstrated by the permissively manifested by the official structures of the state in the case of Omar Hayssam (a terrorist that ordered the abduction of three Romanian journalists in Irak in 2005), captives in a public system dominated by old alliances and mentalities, incapable of coherence in formulating our future, it appears that extracting the roots of evil, meaning exactly the operation that needed to be done in the years after 1989, cannot be delayed. This is the final proof for Romania’s commitment and will to be a part of a family functioning after other kind of rules. It is also the final argument in the face of a subtle anti-Romanian lobby based on facts hard to argue against. To put it another way, the time of the original character of post-communist democracy, of the replacing the idea of renewing with the idea of recycling, has implacably passed. And with it, a certain way of making politics. Or at least it should have passed.

II. The civil society

The silence of known representatives of self-named Romanian civil society is surprising. In the days following the beginning of the process of revealing former collaborators with former Securitate, we didn’t witness the regular declarations, round tables, press conferences and other thing. With a few exceptions, the civil society left the impression it was outside the debate. The preamble of the „file war”, exposing journalists, which had as effect a milder tone for those who were seen as public moral archangels, intended to make weary all those who knew they were on the positive list of Securitate. This fact confirms the suspicion that between the customers of amnesia felt during Iliescu’s regime, there were opponents of the same regime. With disappointment, we become aware of the fact that pro-democracy leaders are not also anti-communist leaders, that in their biographies two totally opposing worlds meet.

This attitude makes us understand why we didn’t have a consistent anti-communist resistance in our elite. In fact, the anti-communist elite was a different elite: the warriors in the mountains, the unseen monks of a monastery, the Holy Fathers translators, the priests conducting services under the siege of scientific materialism, the shepherd welcoming a fugitive, the village’s vet or the teacher, the widow, the deported, the peasant thrown in prison for fighting collectivization, the student with right wing ideas sent to work in the Canal (between Danube and Black Sea), the professor at the University dismissed from his office, the Academy member banished from the scientific community, the artist forced to take the exile road.

It well known that the intellectuals, who formerly assumed for themselves the role of representatives for civil society, are a social class in danger during terror times. Treason, ideological accommodation, zeal excess, intellectual prostitution for a better payment and an apartment in the center town, collaboration with Securitate for the sake of having a passport and giving-away names of colleagues who were better than them „ all these and other small dirty things were a regular thing during communism. Like in the political space, the fact that former suck-ups of yesterday are today’s leaders of opinion and former cowards are today’s fighters for justice offers a testimony on the enormous potential of adaptability of people who, working too much with ideas, do not need also principles. That’s why former civil militian ideologists are today’s mercenaries, this continuity explaining in a profound way why the heavily cited civil society in Romania is reduced to a small number of media characters lacking a real decisive impact. For those, civil society exists only in peace times, in the state of law or becoming states of law. This is the reason they do not see the anti-communist resistance of the past the expression of today’s civil society. In their eye, Bohoeffer or the Scholl brothers are not the representatives of German civil society during nazi regime, as well as Sandu Tudor and „The burning bush” group in Antim Monastery in Bucharest are not the representatives of Romanian civil society during communist regime.
For the thinking of this intellectual, the civic project begins in Romania only with when coming back from the stock market. That’s why the essential flaw in Romanian society: the absence of organicity. The civil crusade consumed not in the name of national values anterior to communism (with obligatory refining and redimensioning), meaning they didn’t have or do not have a restauratory and reparatory character, but in the name of a catalogue of standards and principles translated ah hoc, usually in a clumsy way. Instead of starting from the Romanian realities, good or bad, this ideology came up with a meta-narration, trying in vain to make it real. Such a gap is better seen in the fact that the agendas of concernments, protests, seminaries, congresses, press releases and indignations organized by the civil society did not correspond with those wanted by Romanians. Instead of contributing to moral drainage, the majority of civil society leaders were playing the moral card. Consistent with this logic, deaf and dumb to the Romanian reality, incapable to communicate and to be constructive, the civil society left the deep concerns of the Romanian public, deeply traumatized and wanting to have role-models, to the mercy of Vadim Tudor and Gigi Becali (extremists).

This human and ideological context, accompanied by recent exposures of cultural models considered until now intellectual and moral cardinal points, makes possible the absence of self-named civil society from a debate that really concerns the future image of tomorrow’s Romania. Now it becomes even more evident the lack of relevance of those who had a monopole on civism for over 20 years. In the end, we see this was only a personal alibi. As with any other case when we deal with a crisis of great proportions, we still have something to gain: it is clear foe anyone that we cannot speak of Romanian civil society using the same terms as yesterday. We cannot tolerate the narrow definition of civism which excluded systematically other categories and communitarian structures like unions or the Church. At last, our civil society must define itself, to position itself and to assume its public role, in order to minimize the lack of organicity’s dimensions. If all these would take place, it will mean that „the files war” has had a good impact and the human misery show has finally got a direction to go to.

III. The Church

The generic collaboration of the Church with Securitate occupied the center of media attention. Unfortunately, media’s way of reflecting an extremely delicate process, like the one of purifying memory, was virused by the rush to judge the entire communitarian organism of the Church. The insulting declarations of the Minister of Culture and Cults encouraged anti-ecclesial and anti-clerical voices. Some of those tried to parallel the history of the Romanian Orthodox Church with the history of different other Churches and confessions, forgetting that, while there is no monopole on suffering, there is no monopole on treason. All religious organizations in Romania have to write a chapter on their own history under communism, about those strong and those weak, about martyrs and opportunists.

Before seeing what are the possible coordinates of the Orthodox chapter during communism in Romania, let’s remind an essential fact: the well-known atheist character of communism sheds a different kind of light on the institutional survival problem of the Churches, confessions and religious faiths. While the political adversaries of communism were forced to choose either exile or an interior resistance without deadline because of the impossibility to address their public, the religious leaders had to deal with a terrible dilemma: to be among their people and, in the same time, to be accepted by those who, by their program, were keen to eliminate the religious dimension from the new communist society. In other words, surviving communism and staying faithful to God were the two ends of the road. It is understandable that on this road lasting for 50 years regrettable events had happened, treasons had consumed, lives had been ruined and ideals had been shattered, as well as this oad was also witness to heroic moments, confessions of faith and gestures in accord with the Gospel. That is why the risk of a superficial reading of the files belonging to ex political police deals exactly with ignoring those nuances and with the ambiguity of the spiritual signification of an essay, more or less inspired, to stay inside history without loosing the access to heavens.

The theme is not new. We can even say it is constitutive to the Church, as a human-divine institution. From Peter the Apostle to renegade Peter, from Saul to Paul, from Christian to apostate and back to faith (the problem of the fallen), from robber to the first citizen of the Kingdom, from sinner to penitent and from slave of the passions to free man in the truth of Christ – the ecclesial experience is dominated by the tension between faith’s demands and the weaknesses of the faithful. The Church as a whole is a laboratory of Resurrection because it is a place for permanent conversion from darkness to light, from sin to virtue and from hate to love. This alternance – personally illustrated in the succession of penitent acts and in the dialogue with the priest during confession – does not justify the double measure, nor the permissively, but it is the appropriate way of reading through which we can understand the presence of evil in a community of good. Seen in this way, the Church is the realist space in which human kind is accepted as it is and it is helped by and through Christ in order to become what it was before the fall. In fact, it is the good news, the Gospel.

In this theological perspective, the experience of our Church in communism, side by side with other Churches living in the communist block, cannot be reduced to the single question regarding the way in which people knew or not to oppose or to be obedient to the atheist regime. In the social context, we would be phariseistic to ask the communitarian body of the Church what the national community didn’t achieve. The problem of resistance or adaptation is formulated in other terms. First, there is the personal dimension: the gestures of obedience or disobedience were carried out in a personal manner. That’s why the results of these acts are also received at a personal level. Moreover: the lesson we can learn from communism consists in the way in which we behave in post-communism. We learn from falls when we get up, we hate sins when, through confession, we are free from it. We love Christ more only after we have had the experience of being far from him. Without being mandatory for all, the example offered by the prodigal son is encouraging for those who want to come back home and to cherish normality.

All these are not rhetoric of excuse. They help us in the effort to read the signs of the time and to decrypt the pedagogy of God. Consistent with this situation inside the community of faith, let us ask ourselves what are the elements that characterizes the communist lesson for the Church. At the first level, the personal one, it is well-known we have had inflexible confessors of faith and in the same time versatile collaborators with the regime. „The file war” of today is taking us somehow by surprise because we didn’t have, until recently, no systematic preoccupation to gather all the ecclesial confessions related to the years 1948/1949. With the exception of a few volumes with a memorialistic character, the theological literature of this kind is almost absent. In other words, the historiography and theological working of our Church’s experience during communism did not represent a priority for the hierarchy and for the school theology altogether. Patriarch Justinian’s figure is often cited as providential, and with good cause. In critical moments the cases thousands of monks, nouns, theology teachers and laics thrown in prison after 1948 were mentioned with great aplomb. The pastoral letter of January 1990, in which the Synod asked for forgiveness, has gone unseen, and the spirit of forgiveness was thus lost. Out of the context and never really assumed, those gestures were used especially as an excuse and did not illustrate the concernment for the historical lesson of communism. Only for some years now these subjects are touched in master and doctoral studies. The small number of laic authors, passionate and competent in studying the theme, are not encouraged by the ecclesial authorities. A large number of the ecclesial archives are still inaccessible and intentions of collecting the oral history were boycotted. This reserve has a price of its own: our lack of courage gave others the opportunity to state the dates and the criteria for a revising the ecclesial memory. Instead of explaining the diabolical mechanisms put to action by the former regime inside the faith community, for now we are content to excuse ourselves or just to shut up. As aggressive as it is this campaign against the Church, as awry is our way of reacting.

To stay at the personal level, obviously it is hard to believe people living more than half their live in communism are ready for a critical and self-criticizing reading of communism. The ecclesial hierarchy, subjected by the NCSSA files, is not different than the political oligarchy or the self-proclaimed leaders of the civil society. In opposition with the rest of the Romanian society, we have seen after 1989 three types of personal collaboration with Securitate, done by the superior clerics

The first type is also the most problematic, because it starts in the first years after communism arrived. Such a collaboration lasted for almost 4 decades, was paid and resulted in 2000 pages of file. Written with patience and regularity, the informative notes are a insidious game of playing God: depending on their subject, some advanced, while others disappeared from the game of ecclesial power, some were presented as enemies of the political power, others as inoffensive. The shepherd transformed in wolf was honoring his episcopal role in a strictly etymological way: he observed with great attention what is happening around him. And reported everything. Like any other character in a volkoffian novel, nobody knew anymore who’s running the diocese: a bishop transformed in a securistor a securist anointed bishop? The moral and canonical seriousness of this exercise practiced for decades cannot be diminished today by the gesture of public acknowledgement while this gesture has no consequences. Remaining in office only succeeds in incarnating the absolute oxymoron of a penitent without penitence. What would have had in any other laic system degradation or temporary abdication from a high office, did not happen in the Church. Metanoia was reduced to an image exercise.

The second type is the one of the cleric subject of pressures to collaborate. After becoming hierarch, after the fall of communism this person is susceptible of blackmail. His behavior his way of choosing his collaborators or to not send some away, the public displays – all indicate this reality. Even if he didn’t act as an instrument for the political police, the churchman is not feeling free. The press reminds him of his file anytime it feels there’s a need for this. Wanting to bring light, the hierarch publishes his file. Mass media does not indicate the voluntary gesture and continues to maintain the sensational tone. Conclusion: no matter how small of benign, the weight of the past is always great enough in order to question a person.

The third type is the one of the lay theologian who signs the engagement with Securitate, but does not act on it or does not have a written relation with the „organs”. After becoming hierarch after 1989, he’s asked about the file and, to everybody’s surprise, he’s proud of this gesture and considers the act of collaborating with Securitate as a vow of fidelity to country and nation. From here, the availability of this hierarch to sign another similar engagement!. Should we thus be surprised that the hierarch was willing to manifest his patriotism by obeying the ecclesial matters to the interests of the governing party? If such a hierarch does not make the critical distinction between God’s side and Caesar’s side, should we be surprised that he gives to the Caesar what belongs only to God?

Even if we speak about active collaboration, forced collaboration or the intention to collaborate, the three personal typologies are examples of biographies implacably touched by the evil of communism. Without judging the persons in questions, it is good to know their past because this past may determine, in a human way, the future of the Church. Of course, not all physical abutment is a collaboration. The prior of a monastery, obliged to serve meat to securists during fasting periods, the hierarch stopped by the responsible from consecrating a person, the protopope threatened with a penal file for minor reasons and forced to collaborate, the priest threatened with the exclusion of his kids from faculties and his wife from her workplace and forced to give notes about the people in his village – from man to man, the collaboration has a million forms. Among these, only a few are real and serious. The fact that they want to be lost among the others must raise an eyebrow on the face of the historian and the critic sense of the theologian. Confusing them would only give arguments to those who speak about the entire Romanian Orthodox Church as a collaborator with Securitate.

At the intersection of the personal dimension with the collective one we can find an excuse worth clearing up: collaborating with Securitate was in the interest of the Church. Formulated in a radical manner, collaborationism „saved” the Church. No more, no less. No matter how true may be the fact that in a certain moment and in a very concrete situation, a good word and the bowed head were of real use to the community, it isn’t less true that the logic of iconomy cannot be applied generally and used as an excuse for anyone, anything and anytime. In other words, it is impossible to identify with precision the limit between the compromise for the sake of the survival of an institution or the compromise for the sake of personal ambitions. The moral dilemma resulted from superposing the two moments can be solved only at the level of each person’s conscience. With all the consequences.

At last, in community, there are at least two motifs revealing Securitate does good to our Church. The first: the detailed knowledge of the atheist totalitarian mechanisms applied through Church’s people can encourage us to avoid prolonging inside our relations the spirit of domination and thus recover the spiritual and human dimension of the dialogue between priest and faithful, between hierarchs and priests. In a theological sense, hierarchy is oligarchy. The second motif: revealing the collaboration of clergy and laymen with the political police is a decisive step towards eliminating, as it is possible, the occult element in the life of the Church. Meaning? The collaboration in the past or in the present with parallel structures, legitimate or not, is taking one outside the fidelity one owes only to Christ. Using the words of the of the Gospel, you serve two lords or, using another image from the New Testament, you are in between. The seriousness is even greater when you use the models learnt in other places than the ecclesial one, but are used inside the Church. The diabolic game of insinuation and calumny. blackmail and moral assassinate cannot become ecclesial mechanisms. Not matter how great is the stake of a carrier of the height of a chair. In other words, if the political and civic goal of revealing Securitate is to reinforce democracy and the transparent public exercise, for the Church the same demarche would result in recuperating freedom and, through this, the prophetic vocation. This means the uncomfortable role of reminding that being inside the history is not a goal in itself. No matter how convincing or attracting are the momentary advantages.

IV. An open conclusion

It is too early to draw definitive conclusions. Lacking elements and being inside a process of revealing, the only constructive attitude is the tempered realism, We must overcome the depression that, without being intended, besieged us when confronted with the proofs of smallness of humankind. Of course we are entitled to be sad, disappointed or even despaired. But there’s no use in lamenting about the lack of heroes. It is more likely the case to be weary that, through the our lives’ example, future Romania to have more equilibrated people, with common sense. The communist lesson may serve among other things to strengthen the conscience that, in evil times, but not only, the middle line is different than compromise, that one’s own survival cannot be achieved through someone else’s disappearance, that this suffering of the strong cannot be a camouflage for the weak and insidious, that the good can be achieved at least in as many ways as the bad. Without the rush to judge, at the same time we must resist the invitation to forget. Revealing Securitate, in spite of all its insecurities, is necessary not only to deal with the past, but especially to build a future delivered of shame.

(Published in "Adevarul literar si artistic", 30 sept. 2006, translated by Lucian Dragos)

Also on this issue:
Ghosthunting or Hunting for Truth?
Addenda: Ghosthunting
The Need for Moral Clarity

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.